JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on August 08, 2025, 12:09:57 AM
-
"Later that night, about 11:30, Lee came in; white, covered with sweat, looking quite wild in the eyes. And he said 'I shot Walker'." -- Priscilla Johnson McMillan (Frontline - "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?", 1993)
Obviously McMillan is referring to Marina Oswald's description of that night, April 10, 1963.
The important part is that Lee Oswald told Marina that he had shot General Walker.
It doesn't matter that Marina would not have been allowed to testify against Lee, had there been a trial. We are not in a court of law. In the "court of wanting to know the historical truth", Lee admitted that he shot at Walker.
-
"Later that night, about 11:30, Lee came in; white, covered with sweat, looking quite wild in the eyes. And he said 'I shot Walker'." -- Priscilla Johnson McMillan (Frontline - "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?", 1993)
Obviously McMillan is referring to Marina Oswald's description of that night, April 10, 1963.
The important part is that Lee Oswald told Marina that he had shot General Walker.
It doesn't matter that Marina would not have been allowed to testify against Lee, had there been a trial. We are not in a court of law. In the "court of wanting to know the historical truth", Lee admitted that he shot at Walker.
But after shooting Kennedy, and Tippit he was cool as a cucumber. ::)
-
But after shooting Kennedy, and Tippit he was cool as a cucumber. ::)
Familiarity breeds contempt!
Why would you expect a similar reaction months later to the same actions and especially to two completely different audiences, one of which was a direct route to the electric chair?
Nazi soldiers later recalled that killing their first Jew was extremely harrowing then thereafter, the act of murdering was just like taking another breath.
JohnM
-
Marina said the same thing, about Oswald telling her, "I shot Walker", in both her WC and HSCA testimonies.
As to his post-assassination emotional state:
Johnny Brewer: "He [Oswald] just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny."
Mary Bledsoe (on the bus Oswald got on): "And, after we got past Akard, at Murphy---I figured it out. Let's see. I don't know for sure. Oswald got on. He looks like a maniac.... That is---I was just---he looked so bad in his face, and his face was so distorted..."
As Norman Mailer pointed out in his book about Oswald: "We have seen him become hysterical on one occasion and, on another, be the coolest man in the room. If we have come through the turnings of this book without comprehending that the distance between his best and worst performance is enacted over a wide spectrum, then we have not gained much."
-
I have a hard time even following the logic of the CTers on this issue (surprise, surprise).
When Ruth reports finding the Walker note, Oswald is dead and there is a plethora of evidence tying him to JFK and Tippit. The note does not specifically allude to Walker, which seems rather odd if it's supposed to be plant. Is Ruth supposed to have fabricated it on her own initiative (why?) or at the direction of her CIA handlers (why?)? The agents who interview Marina on 12-3-63 do so because they suspect the note might have something to do with the JFKA, not because they are connecting it to Walker. Marina surprises them with the Walker account (why?). CE 1785, https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1785.pdf. She repeats her account at the WC, at a press conference after the WC, at the HSCA, to Priscilla Johnson McMillan and God knows where else. Despite coming under the influence of CTers like Walt Brown and expressing doubt about Oswald's guilt in the JFKA, she never disavows the Walker incident.
What's it all about from the CT perspective? The "bad guys" go through all these hoops with Ruth, the note and Marina for ... what? To show Oswald's propensity for violence? But he was already dead, his propensity for violence was already pretty well established by JFK and Tippit, and there was never going to be a trial. What does a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the Walker attempt add to the equation that makes it worth all the risks associated with Ruth, Marina and the note? Who needs the questions raised by an attempt on Walker, who was not exactly JFK's ideological twin? As always, WHAT SENSE DOES THIS MAKE?
I see that Bill started the same thread at the Ed Forum. There are absolutely no rational responses. "You gonna believe that lying Marina?" yada yada yada. One LBJ-did-it guy offers, "That never happened. A terrified Marina Oswald was lying about her murdered husband to protect herself and her children [what? how did that protect her and the children?] Marina fabricated that story [why?]. Or was given that story and told to tell it [why?]." This is all easy to say, but HOW WOULD THAT HAVE WORKED and WHAT SENSE WOULD THAT HAVE MADE?
-
"Later that night, about 11:30, Lee came in; white, covered with sweat, looking quite wild in the eyes. And he said 'I shot Walker'." -- Priscilla Johnson McMillan (Frontline - "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?", 1993)
Obviously McMillan is referring to Marina Oswald's description of that night, April 10, 1963.
The important part is that Lee Oswald told Marina that he had shot General Walker.
It doesn't matter that Marina would not have been allowed to testify against Lee, had there been a trial. We are not in a court of law. In the "court of wanting to know the historical truth", Lee admitted that he shot at Walker.
This is dubious hearsay given by Marina when she was being held in a hotel room and threatened by the Secret Service and the FBI and was scared to death of being deported. Marina also said she saw Oswald cleaning the Carcano rifle early in January 1963, but the rifle was not sent to the "Hidell" post office box until the end of March.
There are numerous problems with the case against Oswald in the Walker shooting, starting with the fact that Walker himself said the bullet looked nothing like an WCC FMJ bullet and that not one of the fingerprints on Oswald's alleged goodbye note to Marina matched his or Marina's fingerprints. Two of the three HSCA handwriting experts said the note was not written in Oswald's handwriting. I should add that the note did not surface until two months after the assassination and came from--guess who?--Ruth Paine.
And why in the world would someone who tried to kill the fanatically right-wing General Walker turn around and shoot JFK? That makes no sense whatsoever.
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance
http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-oswald-shoot-general-edwin-walker
-
I should add that the note did not surface until two months after the assassination and came from--guess who?--Ruth Paine.
Do you care ANYTHING about the facts? The note was found by Ruth about a week after the assassination. The agents questioned Marina about it on December 3, 1963 (CE 1785). They questioned her at the Martins' residence.
Rather odd that "Ruth" in fabricating the note didn't date it or make the slightest reference that would tie it to the Walker shooting. Maybe Ruth and her handlers were in Three Stooges mode that day?
You seem to a veritable fount of "facts" that aren't facts.
-
Do you care ANYTHING about the facts? The note was found by Ruth about a week after the assassination. The agents questioned Marina about it on December 3, 1963 (CE 1785). They questioned her at the Martins' residence.
Rather odd that "Ruth" in fabricating the note didn't date it or make the slightest reference that would tie it to the Walker shooting. Maybe Ruth and her handlers were in Three Stooges mode that day?
You seem to a veritable fount of "facts" that aren't facts.
First off, I notice you ignored the fact that Walker himself said the bullet was not a WCC 6.5 FMJ Carcano bullet, that neither Oswald's nor Marina's fingerprints were found on the note, and that two of the three HSCA handwriting experts concluded the note was not in Oswald's handwriting. I should add that the one eyewitness, Walker Coleman, saw two men hurry into cars and leave, and that Coleman said neither man looked like Oswald.
Now, as for when the note was discovered, I meant to say two weeks, not two months. Ruth Paine went to the Irving Police Department on 12/2/63, to turn over some of Marina's belongings. Included was a Russian book called Book of Useful Advice. When the book was inspected by the Secret Service later that day, they found the alleged goodbye note.
-
Do you care ANYTHING about the facts? The note was found by Ruth about a week after the assassination. The agents questioned Marina about it on December 3, 1963 (CE 1785). They questioned her at the Martins' residence.
Rather odd that "Ruth" in fabricating the note didn't date it or make the slightest reference that would tie it to the Walker shooting. Maybe Ruth and her handlers were in Three Stooges mode that day?
You seem to a veritable fount of "facts" that aren't facts.
One correction: Ruth didn't find the note. It had been placed in a cookbook that belonged to Marina that she, Ruth, returned after the assassination. The Secret Service searched the book before giving it to Marina and found the note and asked her about it. The note, of course, was determined to be in Oswald's hand writing. And included details that, as far as I can tell, only *he* would know about.
As to Marina's statement: She told the WC that Oswald told her he shot Walker - and told the HSCA; and told the Shaw jury; and told the Orleans Grand Jury; and she repeated it in the "Marina and Lee" book. Was she pressured to make the statements all of those times too?
When did conspiracists start rejecting hearsay? This is a new one.
Remember, Mr. Griffith says Sirhan was hypno programmed to shoot RFK. And that we can't reject the possibility that Babushka Lady shot JFK with a camera gun. Or gun camera. And that all of this, the assassination of JFK et cetera, was done by 25 to 30 people.
-
One correction: Ruth didn't find the note. It was placed in a cookbook that she returned to/belonged to Marina after the assassination. The Secret Service searched the book before returning it to Marina and found the note and asked her about it. The note, of course, was determined to be in Oswald's hand writing. And included details that, as far as I can tell, only *he* would know about.
As to Marina's statement: She told the WC that Oswald told her he shot Walker; and the HSCA; and the Shaw jury; and the Orleans Grand Jury; and she repeated it in the "Marina and Lee" book. Was she pressured to make the statements all of those times too?
When did conspiracists start rejecting hearsay? This is a new one.
Remember, Mr. Griffith says Sirhan was hypno programmed to shoot RFK. And that we can't reject the possibility that Babushka Lady shot JFK with a camera gun. And that all of this, the assassination of JFK et cetera, was done by 25 to 30 people.
Thanks, I was about to make the correction that she didn't actually find the note itself. She told the WC she was "astounded" when SS agents showed up at her house with the note, and she made no connection to Walker until she later saw the story reported in the Houston Chronicle.
CIA operative Ruth was also in Three Stooges mode at the WC: She said that Oswald, upon returning from a meeting of the right-wing National Indignation Committee, had made a passing remark suggesting he "didn't give much credit" to Walker, but this was not a strong remark at all and certainly not suggestive of violence. And Oswald never said anything at all about JFK. What a missed opportunity on the part of Ruth and her CIA handlers!
-
Two of the three HSCA handwriting experts said the note was not written in Oswald's handwriting.
To put this as charitably and statesmanlike as possible, you are a BS BS: artist of the first magnitude. I don't know why anyone would trust ANYTHING you say. Worse yet, the above factoid - which is pure BS: - is repeated throughout the conspiracy literature.
This is not a difficult research project, folks. The report of the HSCA handwriting panel is here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=227.
Three documents were related because they were mostly or entirely in Russian. The panel designated them Items 23, 56 and 57, to wit:
Item 23: Russian script on lined paper from Alek to Marina and June dated 2-20-1962.
Item 56: Undated ten-line note in Russian signed Alek.
Item 57: The Walker note.
Here is what the three examiners actually said:
Joseph P. McNally
The Russian language on items 23, 56 and 57 is by the same person.
The portions in Latin conform to all the other Oswald-signed documents.
David J. Purtell
With regard to the Russian portions of items 23, 56 and 57, “this examiner is not familiar with this language and the characteristics of the various writing systems used.”
He thus was unable to render a definite opinion but noted there were similarities between the writing in items 23, 56 and 57 and the other (Oswald-signed) items.
Charles C. Scott
Did not examine items 23, 56 and 57 at all.
"Two of the three HSCA handwriting experts said the note was not written in Oswald's handwriting."
Really?
Only in Factoid City.
Only in Conspiracy World.
Only in Michael's BS BS: posts.
-
To put this as charitably and statesmanlike as possible, you are a BS BS: artist of the first magnitude. I don't know why anyone would trust ANYTHING you say. Worse yet, the above factoid - which is pure BS: - is repeated throughout the conspiracy literature.
This is not a difficult research project, folks. The report of the HSCA handwriting panel is here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=227.
Three documents were related because they were mostly or entirely in Russian. The panel designated them Items 23, 56 and 57, to wit:
Item 23: Russian script on lined paper from Alek to Marina and June dated 2-20-1962.
Item 56: Undated ten-line note in Russian signed Alek.
Item 57: The Walker note.
Here is what the three examiners actually said:
Joseph P. McNally
The Russian language on items 23, 56 and 57 is by the same person.
The portions in Latin conform to all the other Oswald-signed documents.
David J. Purtell
With regard to the Russian portions of items 23, 56 and 57, “this examiner is not familiar with this language and the characteristics of the various writing systems used.”
He thus was unable to render a definite opinion but noted there were similarities between the writing in items 23, 56 and 57 and the other (Oswald-signed) items.
Charles C. Scott
Did not examine items 23, 56 and 57 at all.
"Two of the three HSCA handwriting experts said the note was not written in Oswald's handwriting."
Really?
Only in Factoid City.
Only in Conspiracy World.
Only in Michael's BS BS: posts.
Yes absolutely, Griffith's lies are becoming legendary, or he will ignore a dozen scholarly experts and rely on one outliar outlier "expert" who is only vaguely familiar with the topic.
Using this HSCA Russian Handwriting an example where at least Jon Banks doesn't completely lie but he kinda bends the truth, anyway at the time I thought this was a little odd so I actually read the HSCA report and the answer isn't what we've been told!
The Walker note was in Russian and Oswald's hand writing.
Allegedly. Not all handwriting experts agreed with that conclusion. And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.
Although the FBI’s handwriting expert considered that the note was in Oswald’s handwriting (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.437), only one of the three experts who were consulted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations considered the note to be authentic (HSCA Report, appendix vol.8, pp.232–246).
For a start you are wrong and the quote that you acquired from some Conspiracy book or web site is right but carefully worded to lead people like you astray and it worked. EDIT And it looks like Martin took the same bait!
The three Russian writings that were examined 23, 56 and 57
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxFGfrgh/hsca-23-alek-to-marina-and-june.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYSPR5Xj/hsca-56-57-russian.jpg)
McNally says that the writing corresponds with the writing of Oswald
(https://i.postimg.cc/6QBLDQsb/hsca-mcnally.jpg)
Purtell is unable to give a definitive opinion because he is not familiar with this language but says there are similarities with a large section of Oswald's writing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sfLmvyS1/hsca-purtell-opinion.jpg)
Scott didn't even examine 23, 56 or 57
(https://i.postimg.cc/90sYStVy/hsca-scott-not-examine-23-56-57.jpg)
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0114b.htm
JohnM
-
Officer Norvell discovered the Walker bullet.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell us what 573 is?
Mr. DAY. This slug was gotten from the home of former General Edwin Walker, 4011 Turtle Creek, April 10, 1963, by Detective B.G. Brown, one of the officers under my supervision. He brought this in and released it to me.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sfwCtj8j/identifiable-marks-on-Walker-bullet.jpg)
Some of the Evidence in the Walker case.
• Found in Oswald's possessions, a photo of Walkers house. Also accompanying is written instructions for Marina which according to specific details can be correspondingly dated at the same time as the Walker assassination attempt, also of note is Oswald saying "if I'm alive and taken prisoner" means he wasn't planning on tiptoeing through the Tulips.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8PVRQxJ0/Oswald-and-Walker.jpg)
• Found in Oswald's possessions, a map with Walkers house location marked with a cross
(https://i.postimg.cc/7605KYVY/ce-1013-map-walker.jpg)
• Found in Oswald's possessions, a photo taken with the same photo that took Oswald family snaps, of a laneway next to Walkers house, taken just before the assassination attempt and the time frame of when the photo was taken was determined by partially finished construction.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8Pxw6ThT/Shaneyfelt-exhibit-23.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/P5Zyb04Y/HSCA-backyard-family-baby-photo.jpg)
• And a decade and a half after the WC, when Marina Porter(previously known as Marina Oswald) had no reason to fear being deported she still recalls Oswald telling her about the Walker assassination attempt.
Mr. McDONALD. Directing your attention to that day, April 10, 1963, would you tell us what happened?
Mrs. PORTER. Well, I cannot remember the timing all the very vivid details of day. I just can state it that that particular night he did not come home until very late, and when he did not come home at regular time, I was worried about him. So I found a note addressed to me what to do in case if he did not come home. Of course I was petrified. Nobody I can turn to. But then later that night when he came home, I asked him to explain. He was out of breath and he was pale, and asked him to explain this note, and he said that "I just shot General Walker." So I was very upset and enraged about that, and we had an argument over it.
BTW Oswald received his rifle a mere month before he attempted the Walker assassination attempt, strongly suggesting that the reason for the rifle purchase was to kill Walker. Oswald meticulously planned the Walker shooting with photos, a map and a note for Marina so she could navigate the immediate aftermath of Oswald's murderous actions.
JohnM
-
There are numerous problems with the case against Oswald in the Walker shooting, starting with the fact that Walker himself said the bullet looked nothing like an WCC FMJ bullet....
"Read the second paragraph s-l-o-w-l-y, Walker says that his bullet was "completely mutilated" and resembled a "hunk of lead" which funnily enough perfectly describes CE 573, then Walker goes on to say that the bullet he remembers bared "no resemblance to an unfired bullet in shape of form" and now think hard, what famous bullet in this case(and more likely to be shown on TV) resembles an unfired bullet??"
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dz1C0yV/Edwin-Walker-letter-to-Attorney-General-re-Bullet.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8C0fcmJc/CE-573-Walker-bullet-reverse.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpGdq2GV/CE-399.jpg)
JohnM
-
The following extract is from the WCR and details how the WC came to their conclusion in the Walker attempted assassination.
PRIOR ATTEMPT TO KILL
The Attempt on the Life of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker
At approximately 9 p.m., on April 10, 1963, in Dallas, Tex., Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, an active and controversial figure on the American political scene since his resignation from the U.S. Army in 1961, narrowly escaped death when a rifle bullet fired from outside his home passed near his head as he was seated at his desk.700 There were no eyewitnesses, although a 14-year-old boy in a neighboring house claimed that immediately after the shooting he saw two men, in separate cars, drive out of a church parking lot adjacent to Walker's home.701 A friend of Walker's testified that two nights before the shooting he saw "two men around the house peeking in windows." 702 General Walker gave this information to the police before the shooting, but it did not help solve the crime. Although the bullet was recovered from Walker's house (see app. X, p. 562), in the absence of a weapon it was of little investigatory value. General Walker hired two investigators to determine whether a former employee might have been involved in the shooting.708 Their results were negative. Until December 3, 1963, the Walker shooting remained unsolved.
The Commission evaluated the following evidence in considering whether Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot which almost killed General Walker: (1) A note which Oswald left for his wife on the evening of the shooting, (2) photographs found among Oswald's possessions after the assassination of President Kennedy, (3) firearm identification of the bullet found in Walker's home, and (4) admissions and other statements made to Marina Oswald by Oswald concerning the shooting.
Note left by Oswald.--On December 2, 1963, Mrs. Ruth Paine turned over to the police some of the Oswalds' belongings, including a Russian volume entitled "Book of Useful Advice." 704, In this book was an undated note written in Russian. In translation, the note read as follows:
This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main post office in the city on Ervay Street. This is the same street where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located. You will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4 blocks from the drugstore on that street. I paid for the box last month so don't worry about it.
Page 184
Send the information as to what has happened to me to the Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything about me in the newspapers). I believe that the Embassy will come quickly to your assistance on learning everything.
I paid the house rent on the 2d so don't worry about it.
Recently I also paid for water and gas.
The money from work will possibly be coming. The money will be sent to our post office box. Go to the bank and cash the check.
You can either throw out or give my clothing, etc. away. Do not keep these. However, I prefer that you hold on to my personal papers (military, civil, etc.).
Certain of my documents are in the small blue valise.
The address book can be found on my table in the study should need same.
We have friends here. The Red Cross also will help you. (Red Cross in English). [sic]
I left you as much money as I could, $60 on the second of the month. You and the baby [apparently] can live for another 2 months using $10 per week.
If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing the bridge).705
James C. Cadigan, FBI handwriting expert, testified that this note was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.706
Prior to the Walker shooting on April 10, Oswald had been attending typing classes on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday evenings. He had quit these classes at least a week before the shooting, which occurred on a Wednesday night.707 According to Marina Oswald's testimony, on the night of the Walker shooting, her husband left their apartment on Neely Street shortly after dinner. She thought he was attending a class or was on his own business." 708 When he failed to return by 10 or 10:30 p.m., Marina Oswald went to his room and discovered the note. She testified: "When he came back I asked him what had happened. He was very pale. I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me not to ask him any questions. He only told me he had shot at General Walker." 709 Oswald told his wife that he did not know whether he had hit Walker; according to Marina Oswald when he learned on the radio and in the newspapers the next. day that he had missed, he said that he "was very sorry that he had not hit him." 710 Marina Oswald's testimony was fully supported by the note itself which appeared to be the work of a man expecting to be killed, or imprisoned, or to disappear. The last paragraph directed her to the jail and the other paragraphs instructed her on the disposal of Oswald's personal effects and the management of her affairs if he should not return.
It is clear that the note was written while the Oswalds were living in Dallas before they moved to New Orleans in the spring of 1963.
Page 185
The references to house rent and payments for water and gas indicated that the note was written when they were living in a rented apartment; therefore it could not have been written while Marina Oswald was living with the Paines. Moreover, the reference in paragraph 3 to paying "the house rent on the 2d" would be consistent with the period when the Oswalds were living on Neely Street since the apartment was rented on March 3, 1963. Oswald had paid the first month's rent in advance on March 2, 1963, and the second month's rent was paid on either April 2 or April 3.711 The main post office "on Ervay Street" refers to the post office where Oswald rented box 2915 from October 9, 1962, to May 14, 1963.712 Another statement which limits the time when it could have been written is the reference "you and the baby," which would indicate that it was probably written before the birth of Oswald's second child on October 20, 1963.
Oswald had apparently mistaken the county jail for the city jail. From Neely Street the Oswalds would have traveled downtown on the Beckley bus, across the Commerce Street viaduct and into downtown Dallas through the Triple Underpass.713 Either the viaduct or the underpass might have been the "bridge" mentioned in the last paragraph of the note. The county jail is at the corner of Houston and Main Streets "right in the beginning of the city" after one travels through the underpass.
Photographs.--In her testimony before the Commission in February 1964, Marina Oswald stated that when Oswald returned home on the night of the Walker shooting, he told her that he had been planning the attempt for 2 months. He showed her a notebook 3 days later containing photographs of General Walker's home and a map of the area where the house was located.714 Although Oswald destroyed the notebook,715 three photographs found among Oswald's possessions after the assassination were identified by Marina Oswald as photographs of General Walker's house.716 Two of these photographs were taken from the rear of Walker's house.717 The Commission confirmed, by comparison with other photographs, that these were, indeed, photographs of the rear of Walker's house.718 An examination of the window at the rear of the house, the wall through which the bullet passed, and the fence behind the house indicated that the bullet was fired from a position near the point where one of the photographs was taken.719
The third photograph identified by Marina Oswald depicts the entrance to General Walker's driveway from a back alley.720 Also seen in the picture is the fence on which Walker's assailant apparently rested the rifle.721 An examination of certain construction work appearing in the background of this photograph revealed that the picture was taken between March 8 and 12, 1963, and most probably on either March 9 or March 10.722 Oswald purchased the money order for the rifle on March 12, the rifle was shipped on March 20,728 and the shooting occurred on April 10. A photography expert with the FBI was able to determine that, this picture was taken with the Imperial Reflex camera owned by Lee Harvey Oswald.724 (See app. X, p. 596.)
Page 186
A fourth photograph, showing a stretch of railroad tracks, was also identified by Marina Oswald as having been taken by her husband, presumably in connection with the Walker shooting.725 Investigation determined that this photograph was taken approximately seven-tenths of a mile from Walker's house.726 Another photograph of railroad tracks found among Oswald's possessions was not identified by his wife, but investigation revealed that it was taken from a point slightly less than half a mile from General Walker's house.727 Marina Oswald stated that- when she asked her husband what be had done with the rifle, he replied that he had buried it in the ground or hidden it in some bushes and that he also mentioned a railroad track in this connection. She testified that several days later Oswald recovered his rifle and brought it back to their apartment.728
Firearms identification.--In the room beyond the one in which General Walker was sitting on the night of the shooting the Dallas police recovered a badly mutilated bullet which had come to rest on a stack of paper.729 The Dallas City-County Investigation Laboratory tried to determine the type of weapon which fired the bullet. The oral report was negative because of the battered condition of the bullet.730 On November 30, 1963, the FBI requested the bullet for ballistics examination; the Dallas Police Department forwarded it on December 2, 1963.731
Robert A. Frazier, an FBI ballistics identification expert, testified that he was "unable to reach a conclusion" as to whether or not the bullet recovered from Walker's house had been fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He concluded that "the general rifling characteristics of the rifle ... are of the same type as those found on the bullet ... and, further, on this basis ... the bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove impressions." 732 Frazier testified further that the FBI avoids the category of "probable" identification. Unless the missile or cartridge case can be identified as coming from a particular weapon to the exclusion of all others, the FBI refuses to draw any conclusion as to probability.733 Frazier testified, however, that he found no microscopic characteristics or other evidence which would indicate that the bullet was not fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. It was a 6.5-millimeter bullet and, according to Frazier, "relatively few" types of rifles could produce the characteristics found on the bullet.734
Joseph D. Nicol, superintendent of the Illinois Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, conducted an independent examination of this bullet and concluded "that there is a fair probability" that the bullet was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy.735 In explaining the difference between his policy and that of the FBI on the matter of probable identification, Nicol said:
I am aware of their position. This is not, I am sure, arrived at without careful consideration. However, to say that because one does not find sufficient marks for identification that it is a negative,
Page 187
I think is going overboard in the other direction. And for purposes of probative value, for whatever it might be worth, in the absence of very definite negative evidence, I think it is permissible to say that in an exhibit such as 573 there is enough on it to say that it could have come, and even perhaps a little stronger, to say that it probably came from this, without going so far as to say to the exclusion of all other guns. This I could not do. 736
Although the Commission recognizes that neither expert was able to state that the bullet which missed General Walker was fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all others, this testimony was considered probative when combined with the other testimony linking Oswald to the shooting.
Additional corroborative evidence.--The admissions made to Marina Oswald by her husband are an important element in the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot at General Walker. As shown above, the note and the photographs of Walker's house and of the nearby railroad tracks provide important corroboration for her account of the incident. Other details described by Marina Oswald coincide with facts developed independently of her statements. She testified that her husband had postponed his attempt to kill Walker until that Wednesday because he had heard that there was to be a gathering at the church next door to Walker's house on that evening. He indicated that he wanted more people in the vicinity at the time of the attempt so that his arrival and departure would not attract great attention.737 An official of this church told FBI agents that services are held every Wednesday at the church except during the month of August.738 Marina Oswald also testified that her husband had used a bus to return home.739 A study of the bus routes indicates that Oswald could have taken any one of several different buses to Walker's house or to a point near the railroad tracks where he may have concealed the rifle.740 It would have been possible for him to take different routes in approaching and leaving the scene of the shooting.
Conclusion.--Based on (1) the contents of the note which Oswald left for his wife on April 10, 1963, (2) the photographs found among Oswald's possessions, (3) the testimony of firearms identification experts, and (4) the testimony of Marina Oswald, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to take the life of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army) on April 10, 1963. The finding that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to murder a public figure in April 1963 was considered of probative value in this investigation, although the Commission's conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin was based on evidence independent of the finding that Oswald attempted to kill General Walker.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#walker
JohnM
-
And why in the world would someone who tried to kill the fanatically right-wing General Walker turn around and shoot JFK? That makes no sense whatsoever.
You're applying the wrong political criteria, we know that in the Dallas Times Herald just days before the assassination that Kennedy wanted to oust Fidell and we also know that it's most likely that Oswald's alias Hidell" was based on "Fidel"
I think that Oswald's(Hidell) main motivation was his wanting to be accepted as a Marxist and any political leader that spoke ill of Fidel Castro was put on Oswald's hit list, CT's claim that the left Kennedy and the extreme right Walker had no connection but I believe that in Oswald's eyes, what connected Kennedy and Walker was their dislike of the Cuban regime.
Fritz was the one of the last people to spend considerable time with Oswald.
Mr. DULLES. Have you any views of your own as to motive from your talks with him? Did you get any clues as to possible motive in assassinating the President?
Mr. FRITZ. I can only tell you what little I know now. I am sure that we have people in Washington here that can tell far more than I can.
Mr. DULLES. Well, you saw the man and the others didn't see the man.
Mr. FRITZ. I got the impression, I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.
(At this point the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)
Mr. FRITZ. I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing. I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, I think he had--he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that.
Oswald in New Orleans handing out "Hands off Cuba" leaflets
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREIgle_n5Ym3Lqvxrwg9MsOnZBFGg2wBDjTVE5nFQA6LF8x8Q&s)
(https://neworleanshistorical.org/files/fullsize/9838d4cff8e68d9b73e4a4bcf9b9d07a.jpg)
Oswald's "Fair play for Cuba" membership card where he was also the Chapter President.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vByVsPVC/oswald-fair-play-for-cuba-member.jpg)
Three days before Oswald killed Kennedy, there was this newspaper article in the Dallas Times Herald of Kennedy saying that it would be a happy day if the Castro government was ousted.
(https://i.postimg.cc/V6JFJZ6v/WH-Vol26-0053a.gif)
Oswald's personal possessions had a number of positive pieces of Castro literature.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MK5mMHNL/oswald-literature.jpg)
A week after the Dallas Herald Times reported that Walker wanted to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba" Oswald ordered his rifle and not long after Oswald took surveillance photos of General Walkers house and a little later Oswald tried to kill General Walker.
In February 1963, Walker joined Billy Hargis on an anti-communist tour named "Operation Midnight Ride".[24] In a speech Walker made on March 5, reported in the Dallas Times Herald, he called on the United States military to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba."[25] Seven days later, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a Carcano rifle by mail, using the alias "A. Hidell".[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQ822SnJYZCpzMys89HFCy5YUyGSz8wNb3-gg&usqp=CAU)
JohnM
-
Damn. Michael Griffith is taking a serious beating from Lance Payette and John Mytton. I almost feel sorry for him.
-
This is dubious hearsay given by Marina when she was being held in a hotel room and threatened by the Secret Service and the FBI and was scared to death of being deported. Marina also said she saw Oswald cleaning the Carcano rifle early in January 1963, but the rifle was not sent to the "Hidell" post office box until the end of March.
There are numerous problems with the case against Oswald in the Walker shooting, starting with the fact that Walker himself said the bullet looked nothing like an WCC FMJ bullet and that not one of the fingerprints on Oswald's alleged goodbye note to Marina matched his or Marina's fingerprints. Two of the three HSCA handwriting experts said the note was not written in Oswald's handwriting. I should add that the note did not surface until two months after the assassination and came from--guess who?--Ruth Paine.
And why in the world would someone who tried to kill the fanatically right-wing General Walker turn around and shoot JFK? That makes no sense whatsoever.
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance
http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-oswald-shoot-general-edwin-walker
This is dubious hearsay given by Marina when she was being held in a hotel room and threatened by the Secret Service and the FBI and was scared to death of being deported.
According to James Hosty in his book “Assignment Oswald” an Immigration and Naturalization Service attorney told Marina Oswald, just before his first post assassination interview with Marina on Wednesday 11/27/63, that she definitely was not going to be deported. Here is a snippet from Hosty’s book page 120:
After just a few minutes the INS attorney and Gopadze came out of the room. The INS attorney, acting jittery and nervous, headed straight for the door and quickly left. Brown and I huddled with Gopadze and asked him what that was all about. Shaking his head in disgust, Gopadze told us that the INS man had just informed Marina that the INS was most definitely not going to deport her, but that they still wanted her to cooperate with the FBI.
And if one reads further on about Hosty’s interview, it turns out that Robert Oswald was present and was trying to be sure Marina was treated properly.
-
Damn. Michael Griffith is taking a serious beating from Lance Payette and John Mytton. I almost feel sorry for him.
This is typically when they simply disappear for a while without a response. Then after a long pause they show back up and continue with the same old arguments as if no one had even tried to counter them.
-
To put this as charitably and statesmanlike as possible, you are a BS BS: artist of the first magnitude. I don't know why anyone would trust ANYTHING you say. Worse yet, the above factoid - which is pure BS: - is repeated throughout the conspiracy literature.
This is not a difficult research project, folks. The report of the HSCA handwriting panel is here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=227.
Three documents were related because they were mostly or entirely in Russian. The panel designated them Items 23, 56 and 57, to wit:
Item 23: Russian script on lined paper from Alek to Marina and June dated 2-20-1962.
Item 56: Undated ten-line note in Russian signed Alek.
Item 57: The Walker note.
Here is what the three examiners actually said:
Joseph P. McNally
The Russian language on items 23, 56 and 57 is by the same person.
The portions in Latin conform to all the other Oswald-signed documents.
David J. Purtell
With regard to the Russian portions of items 23, 56 and 57, “this examiner is not familiar with this language and the characteristics of the various writing systems used.”
He thus was unable to render a definite opinion but noted there were similarities between the writing in items 23, 56 and 57 and the other (Oswald-signed) items.
Charles C. Scott
Did not examine items 23, 56 and 57 at all.
"Two of the three HSCA handwriting experts said the note was not written in Oswald's handwriting."
Really?
Only in Factoid City.
Only in Conspiracy World.
Only in Michael's BS BS: posts.
First off, yes, I stand corrected about the conclusions of the HSCA handwriting experts on the note's handwriting. I got that claim from the usually reliable 22november1963.org.uk website. I should have gone back and double-checked the handwriting experts' report, which the 22november1963 folks actually cite with a link. Clearly, they either misread the report or chose to misrepresent it.
And, oh yes, I see, not surprisingly, that a bunch of WC apologists are hooting and posturing over my mistake, labeling it as proof of my many supposed "lies," etc., etc. Unlike you folks, when I make a mistake, I admit it. You guys have made many egregious errors that I have documented for you, but you have never once acknowledged any of them.
Two, I note that you once again failed to address the fact (1) that the one eyewitness saw two men hurriedly leave and said neither man resembled Oswald, and (2) that none of the several fingerprints on the note were Oswald's or Marina's prints. In all your excitement over being able to pounce on one of my rare errors, perhaps you just forgot about these two key facts. So let me discuss them again:
The one eyewitness, Walter Coleman, said he saw two men hurriedly leave the church parking lot next to Walker's house and that neither man looked like Oswald. Coleman said he had seen numerous pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, and he was shown a photograph of Oswald among several other photographs. He said that neither of the men he saw resembled Oswald, and that he had never seen anyone in or around the Walker residence before or after the night of the shooting who resembled Oswald.
I should add that Robert Surrey reported that days before the Walker shooting he saw two men sitting in a car near Walker's house and that the men later seemed to be inspecting the windows and area surrounding the Walker home. Surrey said that neither of these men resembled Oswald (https://www.tpaak.com/walker-allegations).
And, not one of the several fingerprints on the goodbye note belonged to Oswald or Marina. Seven fingerprints were found on the note, but none of them belonged to Oswald or his wife. How do you write a note and not leave a single fingerprint on it? How did Marina read the note without leaving a single print on it?
Three, yes, Walker said the bullet was mangled, but he also made it clear that the bullet was not a WCC Carcano FMJ bullet. He was adamant on this point:
During the HSCA investigation in the 1970’s, General Walker himself said that
the bullet in evidence was not the same bullet that was found in his house on 10th
April 1963. He wrote to the Attorney General in February 1979 and said that it was
“a ridiculous substitute.” He went on to state that “I saw the hunk of lead, picked up
by a policeman in my house, and I took it from him and I inspected it carefully.
There is no mistake. There has been a substitution for the bullet fired by Oswald and
taken out of my house.”
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance)
Also, the first police description of the bullet said it "was a steel jacket bullet," and the supposed Walker bullet in evidence, CE 573, does not contain Lt. Day's chain-of-evidence mark. Cole and Gram discuss some of the evidence that CE 573 is not the Walker bullet:
The original and official DPD reports described a relatively rare “steel jacketed”
slug found in the Walker home, on April 10, 1963, the night of the shooting.
The bullet was handled and initialed through inscribing by four DPD officers.
But CE 573—the WC’s purported Walker Bullet—is obviously copper-jacketed.
The extremely thin Warren Commission questioning of FBI agent Frazier, as to
how and why the Walker Bullet could ever be described as “steel jacketed” by
DPD detectives. Frazier answered that “some individuals refer to all rifle bullets
as steel jacketed,” a novel and unique observation. There is nothing in police or
FBI literature to suggest police detectives or FBI special agents anywhere ever
described “all rifle bullets” as steel jacketed—especially when copper-jacketed
rifle bullets were and are the norm.
Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department, stating unequivocally to the FBI and
then to the WC that he had carved the true Walker slug with his name “DAY” and a
cross. No such markings can be seen on CE 573, even under a microscope.
The lack of same-day April 10, 1963, or indeed any Dallas Police Department
photographs of the true Walker Bullet. The true Walker Bullet was never
photographed or, if it was, the photographs have disappeared. Moreover, there
are no surviving written DPD lab reports on the Walker Bullet that describe the
slug as steel- or copper-jacketed.
The weak chain of evidence confirmation by the FBI-WC on the provenance
of CE 573. The FBI in 1964 showed a slug purported to be the Walker Bullet
only to Norvell, the DPD patrolman, who at best handled the slug briefly 14
months earlier. The FBI did not show the purported Walker Bullet to detectives
McElroy or Van Cleave.
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/1408 (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/1408))
Four, I see that Mytton is once again trotting out the backyard rifle photos as supposed proof of Oswald's guilt in both the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting. Those photos are as phony as a three-dollar bill. See
The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view
Are you guys ever, ever, ever going to deal with the parallax measurements showing the impossibly microscopic differences in distances between objects in the backgrounds of the photos? There is no way on this planet that photos taken with a cheap handheld camera that was supposedly handed back and forth to advance the film would have such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between the objects in the backgrounds in the photos. This is not to mention that the variant shadows in the photos have never been duplicated, among other problems with the photos.
Five, apparently it has not occurred to any of you to wonder how your supposed skilled "sharpshooter" assassin managed to miss Walker from less than 120 feet away while having all the time in the world to aim and fire. Yet, you claim this is the same guy who performed a shooting feat against JFK that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's shooting simulation, using the alleged murder weapon, did not even come close to duplicating, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at a stationary target boards, and took as much time as they wanted for their first shot.
Six, the attempts to explain why Oswald would try to shoot the rabid right-winger Walker and then turn around and shoot the man whom Walker had publicly condemned, i.e., JFK, border on incoherent.
Seven, the NAA testing that supposedly linked the Walker bullet to Oswald's rifle was discredited nearly 20 years ago.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18709539
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/900118
-
[...]
Griffith,
Are you a Russian troll?
You sound like a Russian troll.
Everything you incessantly carp about has been proved true, but with you it's "in one ear and out the other," as though you've either been thoroughly zombified by sixty-two years of KGB JFKA disinfo or you're actually a KGB agent.
Why can't you accept the possibility that Oswald didn't see the wooden cross-piece in the window frame due to a bright light inside Walker's room?
Do you really think only 20-30 bad guys were needed to pull off and cover up the JFKA the way you envision it?
-
Thanks, I was about to make the correction that she didn't actually find the note itself. She told the WC she was "astounded" when SS agents showed up at her house with the note, and she made no connection to Walker until she later saw the story reported in the Houston Chronicle.
CIA operative Ruth was also in Three Stooges mode at the WC: She said that Oswald, upon returning from a meeting of the right-wing National Indignation Committee, had made a passing remark suggesting he "didn't give much credit" to Walker, but this was not a strong remark at all and certainly not suggestive of violence. And Oswald never said anything at all about JFK. What a missed opportunity on the part of Ruth and her CIA handlers!
I have to admit I was more definitive about the handwriting analysis then it was. Your post cleared that up.
Re the note: The very smart Jean Davison showed that note to some graduate Russian language students for their judgment. The consensus was that it was poorly written, with all sorts of grammatical and spelling mistakes.
One point (hijacking this a bit) about Oswald's views about JFK: This is one mystery that I can't figure out. Reportedly he said positive things about JFK especially on civil rights. Michael Paine said Oswald told him that JFK was the best president of his lifetime. How to explain this? If he was pretending to be a Marxist, if it was a cover story, he was pulling a Herbert Philbrick act, wouldn't he condemn JFK? That would be part of the act. If he was a Marxist (as he understood it) and a Castro supporter, wouldn't he also condemn JFK for his Cuba policies?
But there's little there and what little there is is positive.
On the other hand, he wrote that there wasn't any difference between non-Marxists, that whether they were liberal or conservative or Christian Democrats or anything else, it didn't matter. They were on the wrong side of history. That's always been the Marxist interpretation of history. So in this view there's no difference between JFK and Walker.
And Fritz said that Oswald said this about JFK's death.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask him what he thought of President Kennedy or his family?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him what he thought of the President.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. What he thought about the family--he said he didn't have any particular comment to make about the President.
He said he had a nice family, that he admired his family, something to that effect. At one time, I don't have this in my report, but at one time I told him, I said, "You know you have killed the President, and this is a very serious charge."
He denied it and said he hadn't killed the President.
I said he had been killed. He said people will forget that within a few days and there would be another President."
-
Remember, Mr. Griffith says Sirhan was hypno programmed to shoot RFK.
You say this like it's some wild idea. Just FYI, one of the world's leading experts on hypnosis, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard University, interviewed and tested Sirhan for years, and concluded that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to fire at RFK, and that this was why Sirhan had no memory of shooting RFK and why he could not remember several key periods of time leading up to the assassination. Dr. Brown provided a detailed report on his findings in his sworn statement for Sirhan's 2011 appeal. Dr. Brown discusses his findings in this video titled The Real Manchurian Candidate, available on YouTube.
You sound like someone who lapsed into a coma in the 1950s, who has awoken, and who is reacting with disbelief when a friend tells you that the U.S. landed several men on the Moon in the 1970s.
I'm guessing you are unaware of all the evidence that has surfaced about CIA and military mind-control programs in the 1950s and 1960s, right? You might dare yourself to read historian Stephen Kinzer's award-winning 2019 book Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control, published by the respected publishing house Henry Holt and Company. As you may know, Kinzer has authored two other best-selling books, All the Shah's Men and The Brothers.
Kinzer's book on the CIA's mind-control program received favorable reviews from the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times Review of Books, the San Francisco Review of Books, the London Review of Books, among other sources.
This is a perfect, prime example of the fact that you lone-gunman theorists are often blissfully unaware of scholarly, acclaimed research because your echo-chamber world has ignored that research and you then summarily dismiss credible claims that are based on that research.
When you're done with Kinzer's book, you might break down and read Lisa Pease's book A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, which draws on numerous scholarly sources regarding disclosures on mind-control programs.
And that we can't reject the possibility that Babushka Lady shot JFK with a camera gun. Or gun camera.
Here, too, you act like this is some kind of crazy idea because you haven't done your homework. You apparently don't know that when the OAS tried to assassinate De Gaulle, one of their weapons was a gun camera, i.e., a gun disguised as a camera. Let me guess: This is all news to you, right? Have you read any of Jeff Sundberg's research on gun cameras in the intelligence world? Have you read Mary Haverstick's book A Woman I Know?, which includes a lengthy discussion on the evidence regarding the Babushka Lady's actions before, during, and after the shooting?
And that all of this, the assassination of JFK et cetera, was done by 25 to 30 people.
This misstates my position. Are you just assuming that no one will go back and read what I've said on this matter? Or, perhaps you only skimmed over my statements on this issue and misunderstood them.
Let me try to explain my view as plainly as I can--again: Obviously, many more than 25 or 30 people would have had to play a role in the assassination and in the ensuing cover-up. However, only a few dozen people initiated the plot, managed the operation, understood the big picture, and drove the cover-up. Similarly, hundreds of people were involved in the Iran-Contra conspiracy, but only one or two dozen people initiated the conspiracy, managed the operation, knew the big picture, and drove the attempted cover-up. In both cases, most of those involved did not realize they were aiding a conspiracy and did not understand how their actions fit into the big picture.
-
You say this like it's some wild idea. Just FYI, one of the world's leading experts on hypnosis, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard University, interviewed and tested Sirhan for years, and concluded that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to fire at RFK, and that this was why Sirhan had no memory of shooting RFK and why he could not remember several key periods of time leading up to the assassination. Dr. Brown provided a detailed report on his findings in his sworn statement for Sirhan's 2011 appeal. Dr. Brown discusses his findings in this video titled The Real Manchurian Candidate, available on YouTube.
You sound like someone who lapsed into a coma in the 1950s, who has awoken, and who is reacting with disbelief when a friend tells you that the U.S. landed several men on the Moon in the 1970s.
I'm guessing you are unaware of all the evidence that has surfaced about CIA and military mind-control programs in the 1950s and 1960s, right? You might dare yourself to read historian Stephen Kinzer's award-winning 2019 book Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control, published by the respected publishing house Henry Holt and Company. As you may know, Kinzer has authored two other best-selling books, All the Shah's Men and The Brothers.
Kinzer's book on the CIA's mind-control program received favorable reviews from the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times Review of Books, the San Francisco Review of Books, the London Review of Books, among other sources.
This is a perfect, prime example of the fact that you lone-gunman theorists are often blissfully unaware of scholarly, acclaimed research because your echo-chamber world has ignored that research and you then summarily dismiss credible claims that are based on that research.
When you're done with Kinzer's book, you might break down and read Lisa Pease's book A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, which draws on numerous scholarly sources regarding disclosures on mind-control programs.
Here, too, you act like this is some kind of crazy idea because you haven't done your homework. You apparently don't know that when the OAS tried to assassinate De Gaulle, one of their weapons was a gun camera, i.e., a gun disguised as a camera. Let me guess: This is all news to you, right? Have you read any of Jeff Sundberg's research on gun cameras in the intelligence world? Have you read Mary Haverstick's book A Woman I Know?, which includes a lengthy discussion on the evidence regarding the Babushka Lady's actions before, during, and after the shooting?
This misstates my position. Are you just assuming that no one will go back and read what I've said on this matter? Or, perhaps you only skimmed over my statements on this issue and misunderstood them.
Let me try to explain my view as plainly as I can--again: Obviously, many more than 25 or 30 people would have had to play a role in the assassination and in the ensuing cover-up. However, only a few dozen people initiated the plot, managed the operation, understood the big picture, and drove the cover-up. Similarly, hundreds of people were involved in the Iran-Contra conspiracy, but only one or two dozen people initiated the conspiracy, managed the operation, knew the big picture, and drove the attempted cover-up. In both cases, most of those involved did not realize they were aiding a conspiracy and did not understand how their actions fit into the big picture.
Sirhan, when interviewed in 1988 by David Frost, admitted that he killed Bobby Kennedy and even explained his motive for doing so in complete detail.
-
I have to admit I was more definitive about the handwriting analysis then it was. Your post cleared that up.
Re the note: The very smart Jean Davison showed that note to some graduate Russian language students for their judgment. The consensus was that it was poorly written, with all sorts of grammatical and spelling mistakes.
One point (hijacking this a bit) about Oswald's views about JFK: This is one mystery that I can't figure out. Reportedly he said positive things about JFK especially on civil rights. Michael Paine said Oswald told him that JFK was the best president of his lifetime. How to explain this? If he was pretending to be a Marxist, if it was a cover story, he was pulling a Herbert Philbrick act, wouldn't he condemn JFK? That would be part of the act. If he was a Marxist (as he understood it) and a Castro supporter, wouldn't he also condemn JFK for his Cuba policies?
But there's little there and what little there is is positive.
On the other hand, he wrote that there wasn't any difference between non-Marxists, that whether they were liberal or conservative or Christian Democrats or anything else, it didn't matter. They were on the wrong side of history. That's always been the Marxist interpretation of history. So in this view there's no difference between JFK and Walker.
And Fritz said that Oswald said this about JFK's death.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask him what he thought of President Kennedy or his family?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him what he thought of the President.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. What he thought about the family--he said he didn't have any particular comment to make about the President.
He said he had a nice family, that he admired his family, something to that effect. At one time, I don't have this in my report, but at one time I told him, I said, "You know you have killed the President, and this is a very serious charge."
He denied it and said he hadn't killed the President.
I said he had been killed. He said people will forget that within a few days and there would be another President."
I have shown all of Oswald's writings to my wife, a native Russian speaker for 70 years. Her reaction has been the same - not absurdly bad, but also not someone with any real command of the language. She says he often uses a word that is Russian and technically correct, but not a word that anyone who really knew Russian would ever use. I recall her laughing at something where he meant to say he was going duck hunting, but the word he used was "baby duckling." I just happened to have read an interview the other day with Paul Gregory, and his assessment of Oswald's Russian was the same.
My thinking on JFK is that Oswald was genuinely focused on Cuba and a possible role for him there, Castro's warnings about American assassination attempts had been recently published, "something" happened in Mexico City, and by 11-22 Oswald had convinced himself that the assassination was a pro-Castro act that would establish him as a true Marxist and friend of Cuba even if he didn't survive - and if he did, it would surely be his ticket to glory in Cuba. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.
Any one who doesn't think CTers are loons really needs to visit the counterpart to this thread at the Ed Forum. Good Lord, what an inane bunch of responses from some pretty prominent folks.
-
Sirhan, when interviewed in 1988 by David Frost, admitted that he killed Bobby Kennedy and even explained his motive for doing so in complete detail.
Griffith actually thinks the CIA developed mind control capability. The MK-Ultra program was a complete failure. They gave people drugs and lost control of them. Not only does he think the CIA could control people he thinks Sirhan was *possibly* one of them. He says we can't rule it out. And the evidence for this is they tried to do so, had programs that they looked into, and Sirhan (actually his defense lawyer) said that *after* the shooting he had no memory of what he did. In Michael Griffith's world that's evidence that he possibly was.
Here is Sirhan in the Frost interview: "I sincerely regret my actions [in shooting RFK] for that I was young I was you know immature I was wild...I really didn't have the ability to sit back and reflect on it as just one speech one perhaps one pandering speech to a you know a potential bloc of voters whom he was appealing to and now of course I realized that and then and I wish that I could reverse all my actions concerning Robert Kennedy....."
The speech he is referring to was the one where RFK supported sending military aid/fighter aircraft to Israel in the 1968 war.
Sirhan is under control here, has agency, knew what he did was wrong and admitted it. Nothing here at all indicating any mind control or lack of memory as to what happened.
-
First off, yes, I stand corrected about the conclusions of the HSCA handwriting experts on the note's handwriting. I got that claim from the usually reliable 22november1963.org.uk website. I should have gone back and double-checked the handwriting experts' report, which the 22november1963 folks actually cite with a link. Clearly, they either misread the report or chose to misrepresent it.
And, oh yes, I see, not surprisingly, that a bunch of WC apologists are hooting and posturing over my mistake, labeling it as proof of my many supposed "lies," etc., etc. Unlike you folks, when I make a mistake, I admit it. You guys have made many egregious errors that I have documented for you, but you have never once acknowledged any of them.
Two, I note that you once again failed to address the fact (1) that the one eyewitness saw two men hurriedly leave and said neither man resembled Oswald, and (2) that none of the several fingerprints on the note were Oswald's or Marina's prints. In all your excitement over being able to pounce on one of my rare errors, perhaps you just forgot about these two key facts. So let me discuss them again:
The one eyewitness, Walter Coleman, said he saw two men hurriedly leave the church parking lot next to Walker's house and that neither man looked like Oswald. Coleman said he had seen numerous pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, and he was shown a photograph of Oswald among several other photographs. He said that neither of the men he saw resembled Oswald, and that he had never seen anyone in or around the Walker residence before or after the night of the shooting who resembled Oswald.
I should add that Robert Surrey reported that days before the Walker shooting he saw two men sitting in a car near Walker's house and that the men later seemed to be inspecting the windows and area surrounding the Walker home. Surrey said that neither of these men resembled Oswald (https://www.tpaak.com/walker-allegations).
And, not one of the several fingerprints on the goodbye note belonged to Oswald or Marina. Seven fingerprints were found on the note, but none of them belonged to Oswald or his wife. How do you write a note and not leave a single fingerprint on it? How did Marina read the note without leaving a single print on it?
Three, yes, Walker said the bullet was mangled, but he also made it clear that the bullet was not a WCC Carcano FMJ bullet. He was adamant on this point:
During the HSCA investigation in the 1970’s, General Walker himself said that
the bullet in evidence was not the same bullet that was found in his house on 10th
April 1963. He wrote to the Attorney General in February 1979 and said that it was
“a ridiculous substitute.” He went on to state that “I saw the hunk of lead, picked up
by a policeman in my house, and I took it from him and I inspected it carefully.
There is no mistake. There has been a substitution for the bullet fired by Oswald and
taken out of my house.”
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance)
Also, the first police description of the bullet said it "was a steel jacket bullet," and the supposed Walker bullet in evidence, CE 573, does not contain Lt. Day's chain-of-evidence mark. Cole and Gram discuss some of the evidence that CE 573 is not the Walker bullet:
The original and official DPD reports described a relatively rare “steel jacketed”
slug found in the Walker home, on April 10, 1963, the night of the shooting.
The bullet was handled and initialed through inscribing by four DPD officers.
But CE 573—the WC’s purported Walker Bullet—is obviously copper-jacketed.
The extremely thin Warren Commission questioning of FBI agent Frazier, as to
how and why the Walker Bullet could ever be described as “steel jacketed” by
DPD detectives. Frazier answered that “some individuals refer to all rifle bullets
as steel jacketed,” a novel and unique observation. There is nothing in police or
FBI literature to suggest police detectives or FBI special agents anywhere ever
described “all rifle bullets” as steel jacketed—especially when copper-jacketed
rifle bullets were and are the norm.
Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department, stating unequivocally to the FBI and
then to the WC that he had carved the true Walker slug with his name “DAY” and a
cross. No such markings can be seen on CE 573, even under a microscope.
The lack of same-day April 10, 1963, or indeed any Dallas Police Department
photographs of the true Walker Bullet. The true Walker Bullet was never
photographed or, if it was, the photographs have disappeared. Moreover, there
are no surviving written DPD lab reports on the Walker Bullet that describe the
slug as steel- or copper-jacketed.
The weak chain of evidence confirmation by the FBI-WC on the provenance
of CE 573. The FBI in 1964 showed a slug purported to be the Walker Bullet
only to Norvell, the DPD patrolman, who at best handled the slug briefly 14
months earlier. The FBI did not show the purported Walker Bullet to detectives
McElroy or Van Cleave.
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/1408 (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/1408))
Four, I see that Mytton is once again trotting out the backyard rifle photos as supposed proof of Oswald's guilt in both the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting. Those photos are as phony as a three-dollar bill. See
The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view
Are you guys ever, ever, ever going to deal with the parallax measurements showing the impossibly microscopic differences in distances between objects in the backgrounds of the photos? There is no way on this planet that photos taken with a cheap handheld camera that was supposedly handed back and forth to advance the film would have such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between the objects in the backgrounds in the photos. This is not to mention that the variant shadows in the photos have never been duplicated, among other problems with the photos.
Five, apparently it has not occurred to any of you to wonder how your supposed skilled "sharpshooter" assassin managed to miss Walker from less than 120 feet away while having all the time in the world to aim and fire. Yet, you claim this is the same guy who performed a shooting feat against JFK that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's shooting simulation, using the alleged murder weapon, did not even come close to duplicating, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at a stationary target boards, and took as much time as they wanted for their first shot.
Six, the attempts to explain why Oswald would try to shoot the rabid right-winger Walker and then turn around and shoot the man whom Walker had publicly condemned, i.e., JFK, border on incoherent.
Seven, the NAA testing that supposedly linked the Walker bullet to Oswald's rifle was discredited nearly 20 years ago.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18709539
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/900118
Two, I note that you once again failed to address the fact (1) that the one eyewitness saw two men hurriedly leave and said neither man resembled Oswald, and (2) that none of the several fingerprints on the note were Oswald's or Marina's prints. In all your excitement over being able to pounce on one of my rare errors, perhaps you just forgot about these two key facts. So let me discuss them again:
The one eyewitness, Walter Coleman, said he saw two men hurriedly leave the church parking lot next to Walker's house and that neither man looked like Oswald. Coleman said he had seen numerous pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, and he was shown a photograph of Oswald among several other photographs. He said that neither of the men he saw resembled Oswald, and that he had never seen anyone in or around the Walker residence before or after the night of the shooting who resembled Oswald.
I should add that Robert Surrey reported that days before the Walker shooting he saw two men sitting in a car near Walker's house and that the men later seemed to be inspecting the windows and area surrounding the Walker home. Surrey said that neither of these men resembled Oswald (https://www.tpaak.com/walker-allegations).
Real interesting but where to start?
My quick notes based on the Police and FBI reports
Kirk Coleman on the day after tells Police the only description was the man who got in the 1949 or 1950 Ford was middle sized with long black hair, Kirk tells the FBI almost a full year later(with a sudden photographic like recollection) that the white man was real skinny, dark bushy hair, a thin face, with a large nose, about 5'10 19 years old and about 130 pounds wearing Khaki pants and a sports shirt, gets into a 1950 white or beige Ford and drives away in a hurry. Later tells FBI that car drives off at normal rate of speed.
The other man 6'1 200 pounds, no age, long sleeve shirt with dark pants, Tells Police the man in the other car doesn't seem to be in a hurry, the only description of the car is black with a white stripe and later tells the FBI the 2nd man is leaning into the back seat of an open door, 2 door black over white 1958 Chevrolet sedan, Kirk doesn't see 2nd man leave.
Coleman initially tells the Police that the lights in the car park were not on and later tells the FBI that he was able to observe this even though it was night time because the car park was lit by a flood light.
Besides two men occupying the same car park on a church meeting night, who at one point were about ten yards apart of each other, I can not find any meaningful connection?
Robert Surrey on the night of the 8th( two days before) says the men were in their 30's and between 5'10 and 6 foot and one was 160 and the other 190 pounds.
They were well dressed in suits, dress shirts and ties.
They got out of a 1963 4 door Ford dark brown or maroon. They walk up alley to the Walker house and look through the windows and Leave about half an hour later, Surrey gets into car and checks glovebox for ID? (a new 1963 car was left unlocked?)
Tells FBI he was not certain if he could identify either man again, but was of the opinion that neither man was identical to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Links
Police report for Kirk Coleman
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338185/m1/15/?q=General%20Edwin%20Walker
FBI report for both Surrey and Coleman.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60410#relPageId=117&search=%22Robert_Surrey%22
And, not one of the several fingerprints on the goodbye note belonged to Oswald or Marina. Seven fingerprints were found on the note, but none of them belonged to Oswald or his wife. How do you write a note and not leave a single fingerprint on it? How did Marina read the note without leaving a single print on it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7c6XdYd/1-pair-gloves-Beckley-oswald-possessions.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NfqVwFYV/gloves-holster-1026-Beckley-osw-ald-possessions-2.jpg)
And secondly, real life isn't like TV's CSI, legible fingerprints from crime scenes can be difficult to recover from non-porous surfaces and especially difficult from porous surfaces like paper. For instance from Oswald's rifle bag, only two relatively small prints were recovered.
From Google AI
Recovering fingerprints at crime scenes can be challenging due to various factors, including the surface type, environmental conditions, and the age and quality of the fingerprint itself. While some surfaces like glass are relatively easy to process, others like textured or curved surfaces, or those exposed to heat or harsh conditions, present significant difficulties.
Factors Affecting Fingerprint Recovery:
Surface Type:
Porous surfaces (like paper) absorb fingerprint residue, making it harder to lift. Non-porous surfaces (like glass or metal) are generally easier to work with, but even these can be problematic if textured or contaminated.
Environmental Conditions:
Heat, humidity, and exposure to the elements can degrade or destroy fingerprints, especially if they are exposed for extended periods.
Age of the Print:
The longer a fingerprint has been exposed, the more likely it is to be degraded or obscured by dust, dirt, or other contaminants.
Quality of the Print:
Partial prints, smudged prints, or prints with poor ridge detail are difficult to process and analyze.
Nature of the Crime:
Fingerprints on items like fired ammunition casings, knives, or bomb fragments may be difficult to recover due to heat and potential damage.
Challenges in Fingerprint Recovery:
Difficult Surfaces:
Textured surfaces (like fabrics or rough metals) and curved surfaces (like bottles) present challenges in applying and lifting fingerprint powder or other enhancement techniques.
Contamination:
Fingerprints can be contaminated by other substances, making them difficult to visualize and lift.
Heat and Damage:
Fingerprints on items exposed to high temperatures (like fired bullet casings) may be damaged or destroyed.
Partial Prints:
Partial fingerprints may not contain enough detail for reliable identification.
Complex Backgrounds:
Fingerprints on complex backgrounds (like patterned surfaces or cluttered areas) can be difficult to distinguish.
Latona the FBI's fingerprint expert says that prints tested on the sniper's nest boxes have a relatively short life, and how long was it before Marina and/or Oswald handled the note? In my research some prints from some types of paper can be recovered after what appears to be years but as noted above and below, many factors must be considered.
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be the outermost limit that you can testify concerning?
Mr. LATONA. We have, run some tests, and usually a minimum of 24 hours on a material of this kind, depending upon how heavy the sweat was, to try to say within a 24-hour period would be a guess on my part.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure I understand your reference to a minimum of 24 hours.
Mr. LATONA. We have conducted tests with various types of materials as to how long it could be before we would not develop a latent print.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. LATONA. Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that is a maximum of 24 hours?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
But at the end of the day, Experts did in fact positively linked Oswald's writing to the Walker note. Sorry bout that.
And besides, wouldn't conspirators clearly spell out the Walker connection with Walker's name, a clear date and more incriminating evidence?
Are you guys ever, ever, ever going to deal with the parallax measurements showing the impossibly microscopic differences in distances between objects in the backgrounds of the photos? There is no way on this planet that photos taken with a cheap handheld camera that was supposedly handed back and forth to advance the film would have such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between the objects in the backgrounds in the photos. This is not to mention that the variant shadows in the photos have never been duplicated, among other problems with the photos.
Griffith get a grip, you have fake photos, films, x-rays, autopsy photos, forged documents, the list is endless and quite pathetic. Anyway, I have dealt with the vast differences in parallax caused by Marina's changing POV, which conclusively show that the photos were NOT taken on a tripod and that there was more than a solitary backdrop. Marina stood in 1 position and took at least three photos. Do the experiment yourself before you make yourself look the Fool yet again!
Look closely at the relative movement between background objects, like the shutters, stairs, roof behind and ETC, and there is massive amounts of parallax happening right before your eyes.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kgtdvzJ3/osw-aldbackyardabfor-Ray.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/jd2TLCBj/osw-aldbackyardba3.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/RhszgzJ9/osw-aldbackyardbc2.gif)
And not the shadows again(yawn), this has been recreated at the scene and by advanced CGI.
(https://i.postimg.cc/50M3RPZR/backyard-photo-recreation-cbstvnews.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0fQVPFg/Backyard-photo-shadows-cgi.jpg)
George de Mohrenschildt's backyard photo signed by Oswald.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SRf2Y0d/George-de-Mohrenschildt-backyard-photo-signed-by-Oswald.jpg)
And to top it off, a photographic negative exists which came directly from Oswald's camera which is definitive proof of the authenticity of the photo. As they say in the classics, That's All Folks!!
(https://i.postimg.cc/8kL5GZxb/ce749negative-zpscde592e8.jpg)
JohnM
-
And here's more.
Check out the relative parallax movement of the roof next door.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8CRVfYDp/heresparallax-Ray-zpss9ji1caz.gif)
The electricity wires cast a shadow onto the stair post which shows a passage of time
(https://i.postimg.cc/0jWv2Jv7/climbingshadows.gif)
Oswald's square chin is simply a result of overhead lighting, Hollywood has used this technique to make their stars more masculine. Notice the similar shadows below the eyebrows and nose.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WzkB84ZL/chin-oswald-backyard-arrest.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BQxW1Xs2/Oswald-vs-Arnold.jpg)
The grain structure of the negative shows a consistent distribution of film grain across the entire photo therefore it shows no sign of being a composite because this merging would require a photo of Oswald's head to be taken with the exact same type of film, the same camera and from the exact same distance as the original. And then there is the problem of matching the overhead lighting which would require dragging Oswald out into a sunlit day and position him at the same angle and at the same time. And anyway this would all be for nought because by definition at the very least a composite requires a doubling up of film and this additional film grain would stick out like a LNer at a Kook convention.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CxHftLN0/Backyard-photo-grain-structure.jpg)
Here's an interesting comparison between the DP backyard cut-out photo and Oswald's backyard photo and the bush to Oswald's left has shown considerable growth meaning that the cut-out photo wasn't a template for the backyard photos. And this is proof that the Oswald backyard photo was taken many months before, so either the backyard photos were some type of long term plan or someone had the psychic ability to take a photo of Oswald's backyard in anticipation of Oswald being a patsy.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HnvgZNZX/oswald-backyard-bush-grow.gif)
JohnM
-
Real interesting but where to start? My quick notes based on the Police and FBI reports
Kirk Coleman on the day after tells Police the only description was the man who got in the 1949 or 1950 Ford was middle sized with long black hair, Kirk tells the FBI almost a full year later(with a sudden photographic like recollection) that the white man was real skinny, dark bushy hair, a thin face, with a large nose, about 5'10 19 years old and about 130 pounds wearing Khaki pants and a sports shirt, gets into a 1950 white or beige Ford and drives away in a hurry.
But, of course, you see nothing suspicious here. Coleman ran to the fence to look at the parking lot right after he heard the shot. He saw a man near a car, saw the man look at him, saw the man get into the car, and saw the man speed off out of the parking lot. Just one big whopping coincidence, right?
Later tells FBI that car drives off at normal rate of speed.
I'm guessing you don't know that we have dozens of examples of FBI agents misrepresenting what witneses told them. You choose to dismiss the account Coleman gave right after the event and to rely on the FBI's version of what he allegedly said to them later.
I'll take his first account, since it was given much sooner after the event occurred.
The other man 6'1 200 pounds, no age, long sleeve shirt with dark pants, Tells Police the man in the other car doesn't seem to be in a hurry, the only description of the car is black with a white stripe and later tells the FBI the 2nd man is leaning into the back seat of an open door, 2 door black over white 1958 Chevrolet sedan, Kirk doesn't see 2nd man leave.
Coleman initially tells the Police that the lights in the car park were not on and later tells the FBI that he was able to observe this even though it was night time because the car park was lit by a flood light.
Besides two men occupying the same car park on a church meeting night, who at one point were about ten yards apart of each other, I can not find any meaningful connection?
Humm, so it's just a coincidence that Surrey saw two men, driving a car with no license plate, walking around Walker's house and looking into his windows, right? Of course.
Robert Surrey on the night of the 8th( two days before) says the men were in their 30's and between 5'10 and 6 foot and one was 160 and the other 190 pounds.
They were well dressed in suits, dress shirts and ties.
They got out of a 1963 4 door Ford dark brown or maroon. They walk up alley to the Walker house and look through the windows and Leave about half an hour later, Surrey gets into car and checks glovebox for ID? (a new 1963 car was left unlocked?)
Tells FBI he was not certain if he could identify either man again, but was of the opinion that neither man was identical to Lee Harvey Oswald.
You know that you've omitted some key information. You didn't mention that Surrey said the men's car had no license plate. You also didn't mention that Surrey said the two men did not return to their car for about half an hour. But, nothing suspicious here, right?
And secondly, real life isn't like TV's CSI, legible fingerprints from crime scenes can be difficult to recover from non-porous surfaces and especially difficult from porous surfaces like paper. For instance from Oswald's rifle bag, only two relatively small prints were recovered.
It wasn't his rifle bag. The bag was a phony piece of evidence. Are you not aware of any of the glaring problems with the "rifle bag"?
From Google AI
Recovering fingerprints at crime scenes can be challenging due to various factors, including the surface type, environmental conditions, and the age and quality of the fingerprint itself. While some surfaces like glass are relatively easy to process, others like textured or curved surfaces, or those exposed to heat or harsh conditions, present significant difficulties. [SNIP]
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be the outermost limit that you can testify concerning?
Mr. LATONA. We have, run some tests, and usually a minimum of 24 hours on a material of this kind, depending upon how heavy the sweat was, to try to say within a 24-hour period would be a guess on my part.
So the seven fingerprints that were found on the note were all put on the note within 24 hours of its being examined by the FBI?!
Fingerprints have been recovered from paper years after being touched. In some cases, fingerprints can stay on paper for decades.
But at the end of the day, Experts did in fact positively linked Oswald's writing to the Walker note. Sorry bout that.
Yeah, and he wrote the note without leaving a single fingerprint on it. And Marina read the note without leaving a single fingerprint on it. Sounds totally plausible.
Do you have any idea how carefully and convincingly someone's handwriting can be forged by people who are trained in handwriting forgery?
And besides, wouldn't conspirators clearly spell out the Walker connection with Walker's name, a clear date and more incriminating evidence?
If they had done this, you would be citing the note as ironclad proof of Oswald's guilt. As some researchers have suggested, Oswald could have written the note for a reason that had nothing to do with the Walker shooting, and when the authorities found the note they decided to use it to pin the Walker shooting on Oswald. But,l the note could have been forged, which would explain why Oswald's prints were not found on it.
Griffith get a grip, you have fake photos, films, x-rays, autopsy photos, forged documents, the list is endless and quite pathetic.
No, it's not "endless." How many documents were fabricated/altered and how much evidence was planted in the cases of the Birmingham Six and the LAPD Rampart scandal? How many phony documents were created to conceal illegal transactions in the Iran-Contra conspiracy? How many hundreds of documents did Oliver North and crew shred after the arms-for-hostages story broke and before federal agents arrived? How many fake photos and documents did the KGB produce during the Cold War?
You guys act like people engaged in illegal activity have never planted, altered, or destroyed evidence.
Anyway, I have dealt with the vast differences in parallax caused by Marina's changing POV,
HUH??? The "vast differences in parallax"??? You don't even know what in the world you're talking about. There are no "vast differences in parallax" between the background objects in the backyard photos. Rather, there are incredibly tiny, microscopic differences that had to be measured in millimeters: 0.1 mm, 0.8 mm, 0.5 mm, etc. Do you know what 0.5 mm is in inches? It's 0.019685 inches. 0.019685 inches is less than 1/50th of an inch.
which conclusively show that the photos were NOT taken on a tripod and that there was more than a solitary backdrop. Marina stood in 1 position and took at least three photos. Do the experiment yourself before you make yourself look the Fool yet again!
This is just gibberish. Again, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even understand the basics of the science and mechanics involved here.
Oswald and Marina both would have had to move for Oswald to allegedly take the camera from her, forward the film, and hand the camera back to her. Three photos taken in this manner would have produced enormous differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos, especially since the camera's trigger was a lever that had to be pushed down while holding the camera at waist level. Yet, the backyard rifle photos contain only microscopic differences in distances between the background objects, an effect that would be difficult to achieve even using a modern camera with a soft-touch digital trigger button.
Look closely at the relative movement between background objects, like the shutters, stairs, roof behind and ETC, and there is massive amounts of parallax happening right before your eyes.
Just shaking my head. Again, we're not talking about "massive amounts of parallax." We're talking about extremely tiny, virtually microscopic amounts of parallax. Again, the differences were in millimeters/tiny fractions of inches. For example, the HSCA PEP found that the "gate bolt to screen" difference in distance between 133-A and 133-B, adjusted for scaling distance, is 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B). 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches, i.e., 1/168th of an inch.
Your graphics are downright goofy and show that you don't understand the basics of the problem.
George de Mohrenschildt's backyard photo signed by Oswald.
You bet. Just like the Hunt note, right? You guys swear up and down that the Hunt note, written and signed by Oswald, in which Oswald asks about his next "assignment," is a forgery. The HSCA's handwriting experts said they could not reach a firm conclusion because the note is a xerox of the original, but they noted that the "the writing pattern or the overall letter designs are consistent with those as written on the other [Oswald] documents" and that the handwriting "does agree basically with the overall writing characteristics of the previous Oswald writings." Moreover, three renowned handwriting experts examined the note for the Dallas Morning News and concluded it was written by Oswald.
In short, you guys are entirely willing to argue that the Hunt note was forged, but you refuse to allow that Oswald's signature could have been forged.
And to top it off, a photographic negative exists which came directly from Oswald's camera which is definitive proof of the authenticity of the photo. As they say in the classics, That's All Folks!!
Again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. The negative is a big problem for your side. You didn't bother to read my article "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos," did you? I discuss the negative in the article.
Here's one question for you regarding the negative: How could the DeM photo have been produced from the 133-A negative when the DeM photo is considerably clearer than 133-A? How could both photos have been produced from the same negative, especially if they were both printed with the regular photo printing machines commonly used at drugstores, etc.? The DeM photo was clearly not taken with the cheap, inferior IR camera, but with an expensive, high-quality camera.
Revealingly, the HSCA PEP acknowledged that the DeM photo was “probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens” because of its higher resolution (6 HSCA 148). This clearly indicates it was not processed at the same place the two original prints, 133-A and 133-B, were processed.
And, the fact remains, as I discuss in my article, that the impossible variant shadows in the backyard rifle photos have never been duplicated. The HSCA PEP tried very hard to do so, but failed.
-
I think Bill's point was the critical one: Marina immediately coming forth with the Walker account upon being shown the note on 12-3-63, and holding to that story for decades, pretty much seals the deal. The note and Marina really cannot be explained away.
All the focus in the counterpart thread at the Ed Forum seems to be on Marina supposedly being under great duress, fearful of being deported, and telling the Walker tale to protect herself and her children. I have yet to see one word as to WHAT SENSE this makes. The discussion seems to take for granted that it DOES makes sense (which I fear it somehow does in the minds of rabid CTers).
Did "they" (whoever you think "they" are) fabricate and plant the Walker note within a week of the JFKA and twist Marina's arm to play along with the Walker story under threat of deportation? WHY? What would be gained by tying the dead Oswald to the Walker attempt? Can someone explain to me why on earth "they" would be thinking in these terms a week after the JFKA? Marina's account as documented in the SS and FBI memos on 12-3 was detailed and specific - was that all concocted in advance by "them"? And why was Ruth's testimony at the WC so benign when "they" could have so easily prepared her to slip in a few zingers about Oswald's hatred for Walker?
Or is the theory that Marina came up with this on her own? Why would she have done that? Doesn't it raise all kinds of questions about why she didn't tell someone at the time (as indeed it actually did)?
Is it somehow impolite, or against the rules of the Conspiracy Game, to ask WHAT SENSE any of this makes? There are never any answers from the CTers. Would someone like to take a stab at how this all supposedly worked and WHAT SENSE it would have made? Pretend you're Agatha Christie or Arthur Conan Doyle and stun us with a scenario that leaves us slapping our foreheads and exclaiming "Well, by God, it DOES make sense! Wow, that was clever of those crafty conspirators!"
I find it kind of dismaying how these threads always devolve into a "did not, did too" debate over details, which seems to me to be playing the Conspiracy Game on the CTers' turf. I simply challenge them to tell me WHAT SENSE their theory that the note was fabricated and Marina was coerced makes in the context of the JFKA. Is that too much to ask?
-
This is dubious hearsay given by Marina when she was being held in a hotel room and threatened by the Secret Service and the FBI and was scared to death of being deported.
According to James Hosty in his book “Assignment Oswald” an Immigration and Naturalization Service attorney told Marina Oswald, just before his first post assassination interview with Marina on Wednesday 11/27/63, that she definitely was not going to be deported. Here is a snippet from Hosty’s book page 120:
After just a few minutes the INS attorney and Gopadze came out of the room. The INS attorney, acting jittery and nervous, headed straight for the door and quickly left. Brown and I huddled with Gopadze and asked him what that was all about. Shaking his head in disgust, Gopadze told us that the INS man had just informed Marina that the INS was most definitely not going to deport her, but that they still wanted her to cooperate with the FBI.
And if one reads further on about Hosty’s interview, it turns out that Robert Oswald was present and was trying to be sure Marina was treated properly.
This is another prime example of the disconnect between lone-gunman theorists and the facts. Marina Oswald repeatedly said she was threatened with deportation if she did not "cooperate." But, you take the word of James Hosty, of all people, and claim that Marina was assured she would not be deported.
It takes a minute to think of a more unreliable, discredited source than James Hosty.
Also, I note that no one is dealing with the evidence that CE 573 is not the Walker bullet and with the fact that Walker himself, an experienced military officer, insisted that CE 573 was not the bullet that was fired at him.
Griffith,
Why can't you accept the possibility that Oswald didn't see the wooden cross-piece in the window frame due to a bright light inside Walker's room?
Because it's totally ridiculous. Did Walker have a giant flood light in his dining room?! Moreover, since it was late at night (9:00 PM), even a very bright light inside the dining room would not have made the window frame invisible but rather would have made the frame contrast even more with the window glass. There is no way that anyone using either the iron sights or the scope could not have seen the window frame, bright light or no bright light, at night.
This is yet another example of the absurd assumptions you guys have to make to believe in the lone-gunman theory.
Two more points:
One, no, Sirhan has never "admitted" that he killed RFK. He has never ceased to say that he has no memory of even being in the pantry that night, much less of shooting RFK. For a time, he took the word of others and assumed that he shot RFK, but he changed his mind after he became aware of the evidence that he could not have shot RFK.
Two, no, contrary to Steve Galbraith's erroneous claim, the CIA's mind-control program was not a "complete failure." Galbraith made this claim in a reply he wrote barely 24 hours after my response, so I suspect he didn't bother to read Kinzer's book on the subject. I also recommend Hank Albarelli's historic 2009 book A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments.
Dr. Herbert Spiegel, a New York psychiatrist and world-renowned expert on hypnosis who teaches at Columbia University, has concluded that "Sirhan was probably programmed through hypnosis to fire a gun in the presence of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy without knowing what he was doing and without being able to recall either the events or the process of being programmed" (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-feb-05-le-textbooks5.3-story.html)
I again recommend the video The Real Manchurian Candidate, which is available on YouTube. In the video, another leading expert on hypnosis, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard University, explains his years-long examination of Sirhan and his conclusion that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to shoot RFK and not to remember doing so and being programmed to do so.
-
Just shaking my head. Again, we're not talking about "massive amounts of parallax." We're talking about extremely tiny, virtually microscopic amounts of parallax. Again, the differences were in millimeters/tiny fractions of inches. For example, the HSCA PEP found that the "gate bolt to screen" difference in distance between 133-A and 133-B, adjusted for scaling distance, is 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B). 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches, i.e., 1/168th of an inch.
Your graphics are downright goofy and show that you don't understand the basics of the problem.
Like your many Zapruder failures, here again, you haven't got a clue!
Here's the HSCA's methodology and you simply have a complete misunderstanding of the numbers. It really is so basic that a child could understand, the HSCA measurements were based on tiny photos and therefore your conclusion of "microscopic amounts of parallax" is beyond laughable.
(https://i.ibb.co/4wBzyKr8/Vertical-parallax-gate-bolt-to-screen-HSCA-2.jpg)
Here in another of my "goofy" educational aids and as I previously schooled you, the HSCA Photographic Panel demonstrated massive amounts of relative parallax movements between the objects in each backyard photo.
And in your HSCA example of "gate bolt to screen", as can be seen in my "goofy" graphic, the vertical parallax movement is hardly "microscopic" and in fact is quite consistent with how Marina took the photos.
I have highlighted and stabilized the gate bolt, and the screen behind can be seen clearly moving more than a "tiny fraction of an inch"! Hahaha!
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs6x3DQx/Parallax-HSCA-gate-latch-to-screen-door.gif)
BTW on your Backyard photo fraud page you seem to rely on Jack White who believes in Moon Landing and 9/11 fakery, which goes a long way to explain your belief system.
JohnM
-
One, no, Sirhan has never "admitted" that he killed RFK.
In the Sirhan interview with Frost that I mentioned, in the video posted by Steve Galbraith, right at the one minute mark Sirhan said he sincerely regrets his actions. What do you think he was talking about, i.e. what actions do you think Sirhan is saying that he regrets?
-
Breaking news: Prepare yourself, people. The Walker incident has been solved. Greg Doudna has a new book coming out (yes, we NEED another book) CONCLUSIVELY proving that the Walker shooting was a publicity stunt in which Walker himself participated. Greg says "conclusively" twice in his post at the Ed Forum, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31685-frontlinepbs-jfka-witness-interviews-access-issue/page/2/#comments, so you know it's the real deal. Curiously, his bombshell post was ignored by the rest of the participants.
In any event, there were three participants in addition to Walker himself - two Walker aides and, yep, Oswald. One aide was in the parking lot in a car with the engine running and the headlights on in order to blind any observer. He gave a signal to Walker and two men in the alley (another aide and Oswald), whereupon Walker hit the floor and the shot was fired harmlessly by the other aide. The aide handed the rifle to Oswald, who ran like a rabbit. Walker waited until the aides were safely home before phoning the police. You'll want to read Greg's post for yourself, which seems to me to eliminate any need to buy the book.
Yes, you're right, Greg is nuttier than the proverbial fruitcake. He is one of those JFKA researchers who actually has academic credentials (he has expertise in the Dead Sea Scrolls, another of my interests) but is, alas, nuttier than a fruitcake insofar as the JFKA is concerned. He is absolutely hellbent to break new ground in the JFKA with massive 75-page off-the-wall "analyses" to which few pay serious attention. He must be very, very bored (as am I, admittedly, but I'll get over it when I have this damn Achilles surgery tomorrow and am back in action in a few months).
You will notice that Greg's latest, like so many CT narratives, suffers from two familiar fatal flaws:
1. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In the unlikely event Walker wanted to drum up sympathy for himself, he scarcely would have needed a scenario as absurdly elaborate and risk filled as the one Greg posits. Regardless of his political views and sexual proclivities, Walker was a major military figure who presumably had more planning ability than Curly, Larry and Moe.
2. It simply inserts a cardboard Oswald, the Most Interesting Man in the World, into a scenario in which the actual Oswald simply doesn't fit. What does Oswald's participation add to the scenario Greg posits? How would Walker and his aides have known anything about Oswald or have recruited him? Wouldn't the inclusion of Oswald have increased the risks by a factor of, oh, 1000 or so? What would have been Oswald's interest in participating in this nonsense? Why was it necessary for Oswald to write the note to Marina, tell Marina anything at all, or leave the other incriminating evidence? What did Oswald do with the rifle used to fire the shot? Honestly, WHAT THE HELL?
It's all totally ad hoc and very typical of Greg: Can I craft a new and innovative scenario that includes Oswald - because he pretty clearly was involved - but that nevertheless exonerates him or at least makes him just a cog in someone else's elaborate conspiracy? Well, yes, you can - but at the expense of logic, rationality and believability.
-
In the Sirhan interview with Frost that I mentioned, in the video posted by Steve Galbraith, right at the one minute mark Sirhan said he sincerely regrets his actions. What do you think he was talking about, i.e. what actions do you think Sirhan is saying that he regrets?
Sirhan admitted in his trial that he shot JFK RFK. He claimed "diminished capacity." He also admitted to the police that he shot JFK RFK. And he admitted in a parole hearing that he shot JFK RFK. He said he remembered firing the first shot but not any other shots.
How much more do we have to have? Was he hypno programmed to make these confessions too? As we know, you cannot reason with unreasonable conspiracy believers (there are some reasonable ones remaining). Michael Griffith is a textbook example of it.
You can read about the case here (this is the appellate court decision not the trial; but it cites details of the trial): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1826802.html
Note this part in particular: "At the trial it was undisputed that defendant fired the shot that killed Senator Kennedy. The evidence also established conclusively that he shot the victims of the assault counts. The principal defense relied upon by defendant was that of diminished capacity."
-
Sirhan admitted in his trial that he shot JFK. He claimed "diminished capacity." He also admitted to the police that he shot JFK. And he admitted in a parole hearing that he shot JFK. He said he remembered firing the first shot but after that he couldn't.
As we know, you cannot reason with unreasonable conspiracy believers. It simply won't work.
You can read about his case here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1826802.html
Dear Steve M.,
*RFK, not JFK.
-- Tom
PS Angleton's "Byetkov(?)" (whom he talked about in his Church Committee testimony and whom you asked me about a few years ago at a JFKA Google Group) was Igor Obyedkov, a Kremlin-loyal triple agent at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City whom the CIA mistakenly believed it had successfully recruited and who "volunteered" the Department 13-radioactive name "Kostikov" (made radioactive by Kremlin-loyal FEDORA at the FBI's NYC field office a year earlier) to Oswald or "Oswald" over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phoneline on 10/1/63.