JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jon Banks on November 22, 2018, 01:56:04 PM
-
55 years since 11/22/63 and we still don?t know all that much about the events that led to the assassination of President Kennedy.
-
55 years since 11/22/63 and we still don?t know all that much about the events that led to the assassination of President Kennedy.
Oh yes we do know, all about the event that led to his death,, racist bigot, protestants killed him because he was catholic and wanted to bring about change with civil rights for African Americans etc etc etc
-
Michael O'Brian,
JFK was not a huge advocate for civil rights, I know it is hard to believe now, but the Kennedy's needed to carry southern democrats, who were not at all in favour of civil rights. Nixon had a better record on civil rights then JFK, up to the election.
-
Michael O'Brian,
JFK was not a huge advocate for civil rights, I know it is hard to believe now, but the Kennedy's needed to carry southern democrats, who were not at all in favour of civil rights. Nixon had a better record on civil rights then JFK, up to the election.
Fair point but you have to acknowledge that in 1963 he began to become more outspoken on Civil Rights.
Also, the Civil Rights Act was being worked on by Kennedy?s aids before he was killed. Johnson got it passed but the planning began under Kennedy.
-
I just wanted to make it clear that being catholic had nothing mush to do with civil rights support, if you look at the record on the actual voting record of civil rights, there was a greater percentage support from Republicans then Democrats but it has more to do that the Democrats were much more supported in the south...
By party voting on
The record of the roll call vote kept by the House Clerk on final passage of the bill
The original House version:[22]
Democratic Party: 152?96 (61?39%)
Republican Party: 138?34 (80?20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[23]
Democratic Party: 44?23 (66?34%)
Republican Party: 27?6 (82?18%)
The Senate version:[22]
Democratic Party: 46?21 (69?31%)
Republican Party: 27?6 (82?18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[22]
Democratic Party: 153?91 (63?37%)
Republican Party: 136?35 (80?20%)
-
?There may have been a conspiracy to kill JFK but I can?t prove it nor can anybody else?.
Gary Mack.
55 years later and the conspiracy crowd, as demonstrated by this threads comments still revel in speculation, conjecture and pure BS.
-
55 years since 11/22/63 and we still don?t know all that much about the events that led to the assassination of President Kennedy.
Thanks to the internet, I think we know an awful lot about what was going on. Kennedy may have seen the corruption of his own father. Maybe he was actually trying to clean house and restore the constitutional requirement that requires government to be accountable to the people that elect them? Something that hasn't been seen in many many years.
The firing of Allan Dulles and his promise to destroy the CIA was not a good starting point! He said he would end corruption and restore the constitution to its original intent of hold government elected officials accountable to those people that elected them. The Constitution stated that currency in no circumstance should be based on only gold or silver like instructed - certainly not paper that is exploding at an alarming rate as debt ceilings get raised yearly!
Organizations in the government that won't answer to the elected representatives are sometimes referred to as shadow governments or the deep state. These organizations operate above the law and operate alongside of the elected houses. Like Kennedy, President Trump is facing an unwinnable battle now. Kennedy was a warning shot by those in power who felt uncomfortable with him at the helm. Do not rock the boat or face the consequence!
Study a little bit of history and there is a list of events that can fit the pieces together - understand why 80% of people don't trust the MSM now and what has been going on for a very long long time. Journalists, not news reporters that report facts are the norm now.
Operation Mongoose:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project)
Operation Northwoods:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
Operation Mockingbird: (see what happened to Nixon!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)
There was many reasons why an LNer just happened to be at the right place and the right time, ending up dead as well. Dead men tell no lies!
-
Wow. Talk about speculation and conjecture. You?ve repeated the same mantra heard repeatedly over the past 55 years. Unfortunately, not one piece, not one piece of hard nor credible evidence to support one thing you?ve repeated. It?s never ending isn?t it?
-
55 years since 11/22/63 and we still don?t know all that much about the events that led to the assassination of President Kennedy.
55 years later... or to look at it another way 20,090 days since the assassination and still there's no proof of a conspiracy. 20,090 days without any solid evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that anyone other than LHO participated in the deaths of JFK and officer Tippit. 20,090 days to look up every drain pipe, down every gutter, through every trash can yet there's been no solid evidence of conspiracy. Still the only reasonable conclusion is that Oswald acted alone in both killings.
It's unlikely that most of us will be around when another 20,090 days have passed but I think I can safely predict that come that day there will still be only one reasonable conclusion and that is that Oswald acted alone in both killings.
-
Still the only reasonable conclusion is that Oswald acted alone in both killings.
It's a reasonable assumption but the Kennedy assassination remains inconclusive for many due to the huge holes in the evidence...
-
I fail to see how you will ever find evidence if you are in control of it from the beginning! Any incriminating evidence would be shredded - like JFK's brain, never to be seen again.
There were thousands of autopsy photographs taken of JFK, the only ones left behind were the ones that you were meant to see. There were likely more photographs released of LHO than of him!
If you conduct an investigation of yourself (which is what happened), are you going to leave a trail of evidence that is going to convict you? Absolutely not! You are innocent. The only evidence you have is circumstantial. The car and JFK body removed quickly and dealt with in a very controlled environment in another state and city. The laws were circumvented and the reports released vetted. Even LHO is not shown to have worked for the government. Where are his tax returns? The concern was investigating how he bought the carcano instead. The more significant facts to uncover are on whose payroll was he on. He took trips to Russia, Cuba and Mexico and obviously he was not a rich man who could afford these excursions on his own. Rejection of his passport by himself and reinstatement by the state must have been allowed and known about in order to have him end up at the right place and the right time. His story unravels as a sinister spy plot/mole novel who was placed in Russia in a covert operation!
One thing that I would infer is that he never knew that he was going to be framed for JFK's murder and end up dead in the plot that he was involved in. Circumstantial evidence points to the fact that he was involved or tailor made for the plot he was involved in.
1) The facts are that he was given a job at the TSBD by someone months earlier. After all his international escapades, he decided that shelving books was a great job after a sensational international career!
2) It was also too good to be true to have the motorcade pass by chance his new place of employment within months!
3) We know that he was found in a theater as if waiting to meet someone - not hiding there. There are much better ways to get out of town after committing a murder. This is not an Abraham Lincoln era story! He even went home to change clothes? I guess he wanted to change his identity for some unknown reason. They were sweated up? Did he already know that there was an APB (all points bulletin) out for his arrest?
4) He killed a policeman on his way to the theater as well and had 2 different handguns.
5) We know that he proclaimed his innocence.
6) We know that he was never allowed to make a statement or at least that any were released.
7) We know he never had legal consultation provided when he asked for it.
8) We know that a good patriot named Jack Ruby did the country a favor and killed him.
9) We know that soon after Jack Ruby ended up dead before he could tell his story.
Too good to be true? Naw, just a coincidence all around! Those dumb conspiracists at it again! The Kennedys had a long history of being bootleggers, mafia players and womanizers, deserved what happened to them!
-
I fail to see how you will ever find evidence if you are in control of it from the beginning! Any incriminating evidence would be shredded - like JFK's brain, never to be seen again.
There were thousands of autopsy photographs taken of JFK, the only ones left behind were the ones that you were meant to see. There were likely more photographs released of LHO than of him!
If you conduct an investigation of yourself (which is what happened), are you going to leave a trail of evidence that is going to convict you? Absolutely not! You are innocent. The only evidence you have is circumstantial. The car and JFK body removed quickly and dealt with in a very controlled environment in another state and city. The laws were circumvented and the reports released vetted. Even LHO is not shown to have worked for the government. Where are his tax returns? The concern was investigating how he bought the carcano instead. The more significant facts to uncover are on whose payroll was he on. He took trips to Russia, Cuba and Mexico and obviously he was not a rich man who could afford these excursions on his own. Rejection of his passport by himself and reinstatement by the state must have been allowed and known about in order to have him end up at the right place and the right time. His story unravels as a sinister spy plot/mole novel who was placed in Russia in a covert operation!
One thing that I would infer is that he never knew that he was going to be framed for JFK's murder and end up dead in the plot that he was involved in. Circumstantial evidence points to the fact that he was involved or tailor made for the plot he was involved in.
1) The facts are that he was given a job at the TSBD by someone months earlier. After all his international escapades, he decided that shelving books was a great job after a sensational international career!
2) It was also too good to be true to have the motorcade pass by chance his new place of employment within months!
3) We know that he was found in a theater as if waiting to meet someone - not hiding there. There are much better ways to get out of town after committing a murder. This is not an Abraham Lincoln era story! He even went home to change clothes? I guess he wanted to change his identity for some unknown reason. They were sweated up? Did he already know that there was an APB (all points bulletin) out for his arrest?
4) He killed a policeman on his way to the theater as well and had 2 different handguns.
5) We know that he proclaimed his innocence.
6) We know that he was never allowed to make a statement or at least that any were released.
7) We know he never had legal consultation provided when he asked for it.
8) We know that a good patriot named Jack Ruby did the country a favor and killed him.
9) We know that soon after Jack Ruby ended up dead before he could tell his story.
Too good to be true? Naw, just a coincidence all around! Those dumb conspiracists at it again! The Kennedys had a long history of being bootleggers, mafia players and womanizers, deserved what happened to them!
1) The facts are that he was given a job at the TSBD by someone months earlier. After all his international escapades, he decided that shelving books was a great job after a sensational international career!
Yeah, wow! Working at a factory in Minsk placed Oswald at the center of Cold War espionage. The circumstances that led to Oswald obtaining the job at the TSBD has been clearly accounted for by the Warren Commission. I would like to know how you believe Oswald got the job. Please be specific.
-
So too, he must have got his job at the Minsk factory because he had internet correspondence with his future wife Maria and she said it was a great place to work! Many pieces of evidence where interjected in order to make the whole charade plausible and feasible to get him to be at the right place and the right time. The only thing you need to make evidence is someone willing to corroborate it. Dead men (like LHO) can tell no lies. Evidence can be speculation and conjecture.
Another example. If someone said they saw a hole in the limousine windshield and that shots came from the grassy knoll, some evidence would be and was presented to refute that as required. At the least introduce enough witnesses to make sure that all the stories are different. That is why it was a WC (a Commission) and not an independent investigative process culminating with a presentation of evidence and a grand jury indictment of LHO! Where were the preliminary hearings? It was all by-passed! There was a very controlled investigation and atmoshpere by those involved to make the "LN" crime fit their facts! The conclusion was sure from the beginning and its outcome written up long before the report was finished.
They never allowed for any other possible solution, something which Hoover was adamant about maintaining. Otherwise great suspicion would be cast on a democratic sociey and a coup d'etat accusation would have resulted if there was in fact more than one gun present at the scene. That would then be a conspiracy and it would have to be investigated. One shooter can be explained away as a mentally deranged nutcase.
-
So too, he must have got his job at the Minsk factory because he had internet correspondence with his future wife Maria and she said it was a great place to work! Many pieces of evidence where interjected in order to make the whole charade plausible and feasible to get him to be at the right place and the right time. The only thing you need to make evidence is someone willing to corroborate it. Dead men (like LHO) can tell no lies. Evidence can be speculation and conjecture.
Another example. If someone said they saw a hole in the limousine windshield and that shots came from the grassy knoll, some evidence would be and was presented to refute that as required. At the least introduce enough witnesses to make sure that all the stories are different. That is why it was a WC (a Commission) and not an independent investigative process culminating with a presentation of evidence and a grand jury indictment of LHO! Where were the preliminary hearings? It was all by-passed! There was a very controlled investigation and atmoshpere by those involved to make the "LN" crime fit their facts! The conclusion was sure from the beginning and its outcome written up long before the report was finished.
They never allowed for any other possible solution, something which Hoover was adamant about maintaining. Otherwise great suspicion would be cast on a democratic sociey and a coup d'etat accusation would have resulted if there was in fact more than one gun present at the scene. That would then be a conspiracy and it would have to be investigated. One shooter can be explained away as a mentally deranged nutcase.
Yeah, internet communication back in 1959. How old was Al Gore then? He must have been a child prodigy. I noticed there was nothing on how you believe Oswald got the job at the TSBD. Could we try it one more time?
-
3) We know that he was found in a theater as if waiting to meet someone - not hiding there.
What makes you think he wasn't hiding?
-
3) We know that he was found in a theater as if waiting to meet someone - not hiding there.
What makes you think he wasn't hiding?
It gets in the way of a good conspiracy story, Nicholas.
-
55 years since 11/22/63 and we still don?t know all that much about the events that led to the assassination of President Kennedy.
A mentally deranged ex Marine poked a rifle out the window, scoring a twofer and a kill shot.
Probably.
-
I fail to see how you will ever find evidence if you are in control of it from the beginning! Any incriminating evidence would be shredded - like JFK's brain, never to be seen again.
There were thousands of autopsy photographs taken of JFK, the only ones left behind were the ones that you were meant to see.
How many thousand?
-
We will never know as the only ones that were not destroyed were the ones you get to see now! ;)
-
A mentally deranged ex Marine poked a rifle out the window, scoring a twofer and a kill shot.
Probably.
Plausible based on circumstantial evidence
-
So how can you say that thousands were taken?
-
Well, we can't be sure how many, I did exagerrate. However, the whole event was well orchestrated. The man was dead. Did you really need SS present in the room at the time of the autopsy? Shouldn't they be present outside the room and let the fully capable doctors do their job and make an independent examination?
Why was the event so controlled by them?
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html)
Responding to published reports that photo negatives were seized by the FBI and that the FBI took its own photographs, Humes is incredulous. He says, ''Yes, there were FBI and Secret Service people milling about the room. And, at one point, there was an unauthorized Navy corpsman taking photos in the morgue and the FBI quite properly seized and destroyed that film, since the photographer did not have credentials. However, the official photos taken by John Stringer were never touched, and no one from the FBI even had a camera, let alone the intention to take autopsy photos. These reports are an incredible lie.''
Looking at the above statement released from the ChicagoTribune, how did an unauthorized Navy Corpsman (unnamed nonetheless), get into the room in the first place, take a bunch of pictures and then have them destroyed. Their statements lack credibility and don't make sense. The Chicago Tribune is muddying the waters - why was that?
Why were there this many SS agents and FBI agents "milling about the room" at the autopsy? What, they were guarding a dead President now? Surely you wouldn't expect that. Is this a routine? Shouldn't you just wait for the doctors to present the evidence of what they have found. I could understand waiting outside the door and making sure no one disturbed the process! Look at the 2 major ones, Greer and Kellerman who seemed to be in charge of the whole event - not even being investigated! They were part of the crime scene, then they were part of the autopsy scenes as well. Would they investigate themselves and find themselves guilty of anything? Were they to be totally trusted????
When someone gets killed, don't you try and isolate all parties and investigate all venues? The investigation is a total and adulterated sham in JFK's case. Assassinations of VIP people (government leaders especially), often are led and orchestrated by those operating close to them - but loyal to someone else!
These eyewitnesses to the event where totally trusted and not treated as suspects or possible accomplices of the murder. Total BS in the investigation of anyone's death, especially that of the POTUS where you may have a coup d'etat taking place, trying to determine the facts! These people were not only present at the crime scene, emergency room but at the Washington autopsy - maybe Parkland Hospital, as well. Oh yes! They needed to be present in the room at every opportunity - they could not wait for any report to be issued, they were part of it and they made sure they were part of the reporting process!
John J. O'Leary: Secret Service agent.
William Greer: Secret Service agent.
Roy Kellerman: Secret Service agent.
Francis X. O'Neill: FBI special agent
James "Jim" Sibert: FBI special agent, assisting Francis O'Neill
-
Well, we can't be sure how many, I did exagerrate. However, the whole event was well orchestrated. The man was dead. Did you really need SS present in the room at the time of the autopsy. Shouldn't they be present outside the room and let the fully capable doctors do their job?
Why was the event so controlled by them?
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html)
Responding to published reports that photo negatives were seized by the FBI and that the FBI took its own photographs, Humes is incredulous. He says, ''Yes, there were FBI and Secret Service people milling about the room. And, at one point, there was an unauthorized Navy corpsman taking photos in the morgue and the FBI quite properly seized and destroyed that film, since the photographer did not have credentials. However, the official photos taken by John Stringer were never touched, and no one from the FBI even had a camera, let alone the intention to take autopsy photos. These reports are an incredible lie.''
Looking at the above statement released from the ChicagoTribune, how did an unauthorized Navy Corpsman (unnamed nonetheless), get into the room in the first place, take a bunch of pictures and then have them removed. Their statements lack credibility and don't make sense.
Why were there this many SS agents and FBI agents "milling about the room" at the autopsy? What, they were guarding a dead President now? Surely you wouldn't expect that. Is this a routine? Shouldn't you just wait for the doctors to present the evidence of what they have found. I could understand waiting outside the door and making sure no one disturbed the process! Look at the 2 major ones, Greer and Kellerman who seemed to be in charge of the whole event, not even being investigated! They were part of the crime scene and then they were investigating themselves! When someone gets killed, don't you try and isolate all parties and investigate all venues? The investigation is a total and adulterated sham.
Eyewitnesses to the event where also trusted and not treated as suspects or possible accomplices. Total BS in the investigation of anyone's death. These people were present at the Washington autopsy!!!!!!! Oh yes. They needed to be present in the room - could wait for any report!
John J. O'Leary: Secret Service agent.
William Greer: Secret Service agent.
Roy Kellerman: Secret Service agent.
Francis X. O'Neill: FBI special agent
James "Jim" Sibert: FBI special agent, assisting Francis O'Neill
I have a question. How old are you?
-
Well, we can't be sure how many, I did exagerrate. However, the whole event was well orchestrated. The man was dead. Did you really need SS present in the room at the time of the autopsy. Shouldn't they be present outside the room and let the fully capable doctors do their job?
Why was the event so controlled by them?
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html)
Responding to published reports that photo negatives were seized by the FBI and that the FBI took its own photographs, Humes is incredulous. He says, ''Yes, there were FBI and Secret Service people milling about the room. And, at one point, there was an unauthorized Navy corpsman taking photos in the morgue and the FBI quite properly seized and destroyed that film, since the photographer did not have credentials. However, the official photos taken by John Stringer were never touched, and no one from the FBI even had a camera, let alone the intention to take autopsy photos. These reports are an incredible lie.''
Looking at the above statement released from the ChicagoTribune, how did an unauthorized Navy Corpsman (unnamed nonetheless), get into the room in the first place, take a bunch of pictures and then have them removed. Their statements lack credibility and don't make sense.
Why were there this many SS agents and FBI agents "milling about the room" at the autopsy? What, they were guarding a dead President now? Surely you wouldn't expect that. Is this a routine? Shouldn't you just wait for the doctors to present the evidence of what they have found. I could understand waiting outside the door and making sure no one disturbed the process! Look at the 2 major ones, Greer and Kellerman who seemed to be in charge of the whole event, not even being investigated! They were part of the crime scene and then they were investigating themselves! When someone gets killed, don't you try and isolate all parties and investigate all venues? The investigation is a total and adulterated sham.
Eyewitnesses to the event where also trusted and not treated as suspects or possible accomplices. Total BS in the investigation of anyone's death. These people were present at the Washington autopsy!!!!!!! Oh yes. They needed to be present in the room - could wait for any report!
John J. O'Leary: Secret Service agent.
William Greer: Secret Service agent.
Roy Kellerman: Secret Service agent.
Francis X. O'Neill: FBI special agent
James "Jim" Sibert: FBI special agent, assisting Francis O'Neill
In the meantime, if you have evidence revealing that anybody but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.
-
In the meantime, if you have evidence revealing that anybody but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.
He cites the (rather) large number of people in the autopsy room as evidence of a conspiracy. Imagine what he would think if the room had been cleared?
It seems obvious (to me) that if you're faking the autopsy then you wouldn't want people like the SS and the local morgue and other unknowns watching you conduct the fraudulent procedure.
This is a classic example of how if you want to believe in a conspiracy then no matter what the situation is - lots of people, few people and anything in between - is evidence of the act.
-
Bill, that is a circular argument of sorts! A dog chasing it's tail never catches it!
In the meantime, if you have evidence revealing that anybody but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.
Don't sidetrack. Answer my question!! How can you conduct a proper investigation of any event if you are in charge of it, part of it and are investigating yourself even though you were part of the crime scene? Think about it. If you are in charge of the entire investigation (of yourself nonetheless), how is the process not biased?
A proper investigation would have involved an independent inquiry into his death, something which was circumvented by those SS players involved. By removing the body, vehicle etc. out of the hands of the Texas jurisdiction, you are bypassing protocol and the rule of law! That is what happened in this case! Why not let a standard lawful investigation run its course. If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear by the process. However, if you are guilty, I guess you don't want that investigation to take place!
The conspiracy comes in from the fact that you allow Greer and Kellerman to be part of the investigation team. These are possible suspects. These were people at the very crime scene! Post independent agents instead. How did the "Navy Corpsman" get in there with a camera and then have his rolls of film destroyed? Who was controlling this scene? We know who was controlling the crime scene and it certainly wasn't the President!
-
Allan, simply ridiculous reasoning. How can you not see that? Regardless of who investigated, the conspiracy mentality doesn?t change. As an example, a group of independent photo experts, the best America had at the time authenticated the autopsy photos as Real. REAL. Yet, 55 years later your side is STILL arguing against that FACT. This demonstrates the absurdity of conspiracy theory. I don?t recall who made the following statement yet it rings so true. I apologize up front if it?s not verbatim but it?s close:
The most amusing part of the Kennedy event for me is the sheer number of people who attempt to speak authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. The ballistics is just one example.
-
Allan, simply ridiculous reasoning. How can you not see that? Regardless of who investigated, the conspiracy mentality doesn?t change. As an example, a group of independent photo experts, the best America had at the time authenticated the autopsy photos as Real. REAL. Yet, 55 years later your side is STILL arguing against that FACT. This demonstrates the absurdity of conspiracy theory. I don?t recall who made the following statement yet it rings so true. I apologize up front if it?s not verbatim but it?s close:
The most amusing part of the Kennedy event for me is the sheer number of people who attempt to speak authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. The ballistics is just one example.
It doesn?t help that until recently at least, experts and Prosecutors have been dishonest about the reliability of Forensic Science. It?s highly subjective (junk science in some cases) and only in the past decade or so have many of the problems with Forensic Science been brought to light.
https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/the-flaws-in-forensic-science/
-
Nothing in your comment was specific. Might you clear that up?
-
Nothing in your comment was specific. Might you clear that up?
My point is that experts have been proven wrong or not credible. Even in JFK assassination investigations.
-
It doesn?t help that until recently at least, experts and Prosecutors have been dishonest about the reliability of Forensic Science. It?s highly subjective (junk science in some cases) and only in the past decade or so have many of the problems with Forensic Science been brought to light.
https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/the-flaws-in-forensic-science/
From the "about the author" blurb for that article:
"Lauren J. Young is Science Friday?s digital producer. When she?s not shelving books as a library assistant, she?s adding to her impressive Pez dispenser collection."
That resume' doesn't exactly inspire a great deal of confidence in her expertise on the subject matter.
A number of previously-accepted forensic techniques have been discarded as being poorly- or un-supported science-- bite mark and blood spatter analyses come to mind. Other techniques have been oversold and/or misused as unique indicators (eg, fiber analysis and CBLA) though they still likely maintain some usefulness. All of that put together still doesn't invalidate the other methods in use. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
-
My point is that experts have been proven wrong or not credible. Even in JFK assassination investigations.
First and foremost among them is probably Robert Groden, whose assertions didn't survive first contact with the HSCA photography panel. His self-immolation on the stand at the OJ trial was a simply icing on the cake.
-
From the "about the author" blurb for that article:
"Lauren J. Young is Science Friday?s digital producer. When she?s not shelving books as a library assistant, she?s adding to her impressive Pez dispenser collection."
That resume' doesn't exactly inspire a great deal of confidence in her expertise on the subject matter.
He?s not alone though. There?s a whole movement among scientists to expose the flaws in Forensic ?Science?.
Law Enforcement and Prosecutors over-sell the reliability of most methods in Forensics.
All of that put together still doesn't invalidate the other methods in use. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree but there are a few things we can throw out with regards to the Kennedy assassination investigations like the NAA Lead Analysis and the Hair and Fiber Analysis.
-
Bill, that is a circular argument of sorts! A dog chasing it's tail never catches it!
In the meantime, if you have evidence revealing that anybody but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.
Don't sidetrack. Answer my question!! How can you conduct a proper investigation of any event if you are in charge of it, part of it and are investigating yourself even though you were part of the crime scene? Think about it. If you are in charge of the entire investigation (of yourself nonetheless), how is the process not biased?
A proper investigation would have involved an independent inquiry into his death, something which was circumvented by those SS players involved. By removing the body, vehicle etc. out of the hands of the Texas jurisdiction, you are bypassing protocol and the rule of law! That is what happened in this case! Why not let a standard lawful investigation run its course. If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear by the process. However, if you are guilty, I guess you don't want that investigation to take place!
The conspiracy comes in from the fact that you allow Greer and Kellerman to be part of the investigation team. These are possible suspects. These were people at the very crime scene! Post independent agents instead. How did the "Navy Corpsman" get in there with a camera and then have his rolls of film destroyed? Who was controlling this scene? We know who was controlling the crime scene and it certainly wasn't the President!
I would argue that you and your ilk are the ones coming up with distractions: The simple fact is that no one can show that anyone but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
You may claim that my point is off topic but in reality it underscores every topic on every JFK forum whether you lot like it or not.
-
I would argue that you and your ilk are the ones coming up with distractions: The simple fact is that no one can show that anyone but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
There are unconfirmed claims of people expressing knowledge of an attempt on Kennedy's life being imminent in the days and weeks prior to 11/22/63.
Some or all of those claims may lack credibility but I'm not confident enough to say that Oswald is the only one who knew Kennedy would be shot that day.
Hell, we don't even have enough evidence to prove Oswald knew prior to 11/22/63 that Kennedy's parade route would pass TSBD :
Mr. JARMAN: Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.
-
There are unconfirmed claims of people expressing knowledge of an attempt on Kennedy's life being imminent in the days and weeks prior to 11/22/63.
Some or all of those claims may lack credibility but I'm not confident enough to say that Oswald is the only one who knew Kennedy would be shot that day.
Hell, we don't even have enough evidence to prove Oswald knew prior to 11/22/63 that Kennedy's parade route would pass TSBD :
Mr. JARMAN: Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.
We also know that Oswald was a confirmed liar and manipulator so his comment to Junior must be taken with a grain of salt the size of Manhattan Island.
-
Allan, in reply #13 I asked if you could provide this august forum with your opinion on how Oswald got the job at the book depository. It's just a simple question that deserves to be the subject for discussion and debate, particularly since, IMHO, you brought it up with the implied purpose of it having sinister motives. I would appreciate a reply addressing this subject only.
-
We also know that Oswald was a confirmed liar and manipulator so his comment to Junior must be taken with a grain of salt the size of Manhattan Island.
I don?t think one incident alone exonerates Oswald but why did he give the impression that he was unaware of the event planned for that day? I?ve never seen a satisfactory answer...
-
I don?t think one incident alone exonerates Oswald but why did he give the impression that he was unaware of the event planned for that day? I?ve never seen a satisfactory answer...
I just provided the answer. Oswald was a manipulator and likely made that comment to Junior to sow the seeds of doubts.
-
I just provided the answer. Oswald was a manipulator and likely made that comment to Junior to sow the seeds of doubts.
But why choose Jarman? Why not Roy Truly or Wesley Frazier who would more likely have been expected to be witnesses?
If Lee was such a smart criminal that he was manufacturing Doubt before committing the crime, why did he allegedly do dumb stuff like walk around with an Identification Card that linked him to the purchase of the rifle?
It seems that some try to have it both ways with Oswald. One minute, he?s a deranged and irrational guy who is unable to hide his animosity towards Gen Edwin Walker from his family and friends. The next minute, he?s a manipulative and clever criminal who deliberately avoided giving any hints that he disliked JFK or wanted to harm the President.
-
But why choose Jarman? Why not Roy Truly or Wesley Frazier who would more likely have been expected to be witnesses?
If Lee was such a smart criminal that he was manufacturing Doubt before committing the crime, why did he allegedly do dumb stuff like walk around with an Identification Card that linked him to the purchase of the rifle?
It seems that some try to have it both ways with Oswald. One minute, he?s a deranged and irrational guy who is unable to hide his animosity towards Gen Edwin Walker from his family and friends. The next minute, he?s a manipulative and clever criminal who deliberately avoided giving any hints that he disliked JFK or wanted to harm the President.
I don't know why Oswald chose Jarman. Maybe because he was there. Choosing Frazier would have been taking too much of a chance, IMO. Frazier was the guy who you wouldn't want to raise the level of curiosity that just might put two and two together. Hmmmm.., long parcel, changing normal routine, President motorcade passing just in front of the building.
I believe Oswald was a desperate, but not necessarily an intelligent, criminal. When Oswald asked Junior about the commotion outside to pretend he was unaware of the Presidential motorcade passing in front of the TSBD it's possible he was trying to dissuade suspicions about his whereabouts when he took aim and fired at JFK.
I don't believe Oswald told anybody that he planned to shot Walker. It was only after the deed was done that he told Marina and months later went with Michael Paine to a meeting of some kind were Walker was discussed. As to Oswald deciding to shoot JFK I believe Oswald's fight with Marina about signing O. H. Lee in the rooming house and her rejection to his offer to move back together drove him over the cliff.
-
I don't know why Oswald chose Jarman. Maybe because he was there. Choosing Frazier would have been taking too much of a chance, IMO. Frazier was the guy who you wouldn't want to raise the level of curiosity that just might put two and two together. Hmmmm.., long parcel, changing normal routine, President motorcade passing just in front of the building.
I believe Oswald was a desperate, but not necessarily an intelligent, criminal. When Oswald asked Junior about the commotion outside to pretend he was unaware of the Presidential motorcade passing in front of the TSBD it's possible he was trying to dissuade suspicions about his whereabouts when he took aim and fired at JFK.
It?s fine to admit we don?t know why Oswald did certain things. Most of the speculation I?ve seen around his conversation with Jarman seems insufficient as explainations.
I don't believe Oswald told anybody that he planned to shot Walker. It was only after the deed was done that he told Marina and months later went with Michael Paine to a meeting of some kind were Walker was discussed. As to Oswald deciding to shoot JFK I believe Oswald's fight with Marina about signing O. H. Lee in the rooming house and her rejection to his offer to move back together drove him over the cliff.
Oswald?s animus towards Walker was expressed to his friends and in his writing. Hence why DeMorenschildt suspected Oswald was involved with the Walker shooting attempt.
In stark contrast, Oswald only signaled to his friends and Marina that he liked JFK and approved of his job as President.
-
Thanks to the internet, I think we know an awful lot about what was going on. Kennedy may have seen the corruption of his own father. Maybe he was actually trying to clean house and restore the constitutional requirement that requires government to be accountable to the people that elect them? Something that hasn't been seen in many many years.
The firing of Allan Dulles and his promise to destroy the CIA was not a good starting point! He said he would end corruption and restore the constitution to its original intent of hold government elected officials accountable to those people that elected them. The Constitution stated that currency in no circumstance should be based on only gold or silver like instructed - certainly not paper that is exploding at an alarming rate as debt ceilings get raised yearly!
Organizations in the government that won't answer to the elected representatives are sometimes referred to as shadow governments or the deep state. These organizations operate above the law and operate alongside of the elected houses. Like Kennedy, President Trump is facing an unwinnable battle now. Kennedy was a warning shot by those in power who felt uncomfortable with him at the helm. Do not rock the boat or face the consequence!
Study a little bit of history and there is a list of events that can fit the pieces together - understand why 80% of people don't trust the MSM now and what has been going on for a very long long time. Journalists, not news reporters that report facts are the norm now.
Operation Mongoose:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project)
Operation Northwoods:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)
Operation Mockingbird: (see what happened to Nixon!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)
There was many reasons why an LNer just happened to be at the right place and the right time, ending up dead as well. Dead men tell no lies!
While all of the factors mentioned in response to the OP are valid ... I believe the coup d e'tat would not have succeeded if the tag team of LBJ and J.Edgar Hoover were not in control.
-
Are you stating the group that authenticated on behalf of the HSCA were all wrong?
-
First and foremost among them is probably Robert Groden, whose assertions didn't survive first contact with the HSCA photography panel. His self-immolation on the stand at the OJ trial was a simply icing on the cake.
Name the experts for LHO who viewed the autopsy photographs and X-rays.
-
I would argue that you and your ilk are the ones coming up with distractions: The simple fact is that no one can show that anyone but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
You may claim that my point is off topic but in reality it underscores every topic on every JFK forum whether you lot like it or not.
When was it shown that LHO knew that there was going to be a shooting that day?
-
I just provided the answer. Oswald was a manipulator and likely made that comment to Junior to sow the seeds of doubts.
So you have no supporting evidence showing that LHO knew that there was going to be a shooting that day. Got it.
-
You should google James C Jenkins. A navy medical,attendant that was in the room,when they did the autopsy. I am sure you will be surprised. He states,the shot from the TSBD,was not a fatal shot. And there was a frontal shot to the right temple.
-
These people were NOT experts for LHO. They were experts in the photographic sciences. You don?t understand the difference?
Harry C. Andrews, Ph.D., Image Proecessing Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif.
David B. Eisendrath, B.A. consultant in technical and scientific Photography, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Richard J. Blackwell, B.S.M.S. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
Ronald Francis, Ph. D. School of Photographic Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Thomas N. Canning, B.S.M.S., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Moffett Field, Calif.
Robert Chiralo, B.S., M.S. the Aerospace Corp., Los Angeles, Calif.
William K. Hartmann. B.S. M.S., Ph.D., senior scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Ariz.
-
Are you stating the group that authenticated on behalf of the HSCA were all wrong?
Paul,
How exactly did they authenticate the autopsy photos?
-
Martin, that?s no different than asking me how brain surgery is performed. I don?t have the technical expertise/language to give a layman?s response. Nor would I try to do so. Way above my pay grade.
-
Martin, that?s no different than asking me how brain surgery is performed. I don?t have the technical expertise/language to give a layman?s response. Nor would I try to do so. Way above my pay grade.
Fair enough, I guess, but since you claimed they authenticated the autopsy pictures, shouldn't you at least have some idea what it is that they authenticated?
When I read what you wrote, the first thought that came in my mind was; how in the world can you authenticate a photograph as genuine without being able to compare it to the original (in this case the President's body) that was photographed?
-
Hell, we don't even have enough evidence to prove Oswald knew prior to 11/22/63 that Kennedy's parade route would pass TSBD :
Mr. JARMAN: Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.
We also know that Oswald was a confirmed liar and manipulator so his comment to Junior must be taken with a grain of salt the size of Manhattan Island.
In my opinion, in that brief conversation with Jarman, it is obvious that Oswald was feigning ignorance.
-
I made no such claim. The HSCA did. How this was accomplished, I have no idea nor will I attempt to guess. I?ve not seen over the years any photo experts disputing their claims. If you know of any, provide their names and resume?s.
-
I made no such claim. The HSCA did. How this was accomplished, I have no idea nor will I attempt to guess. I?ve not seen over the years any photo experts disputing their claims. If you know of any, provide their names and resume?s.
I made no such claim.
Didn't you? Then who wrote this;
As an example, a group of independent photo experts, the best America had at the time authenticated the autopsy photos as Real. REAL.
The HSCA did. How this was accomplished, I have no idea nor will I attempt to guess.
So, you just accepted the HSCA's word for it, without ever wondering what exactly was authenticated and how it was done?
It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you can only authenticate a photograph as real when you are able to compare it with the original of whatever is shown in the picture. And, btw, what about the lady (forgot her name) who developed the autopsy pictures and later, when shown the pictures now in the National Archives, denied those were the pictures she had developed.
How is it possible to authenticate photos as being real when the person who developed them denies their authenticity?
-
Shaneyfelt analyzed CE-133A and CE-133B, along with the original negative of CE-133B... and the Imperial Reflex duo lens camera (Marina testified that she used that cameras to take the photos).
When a photo is taken, the camera leaves unique markings on the margins of the negative. Shaneyfelt stated that these markings left on the negative of CE-133B were identical with markings left on the margins of the negative of a test photo which he took using that camera.
The negative of CE-133A was not available.
Shaneyfelt also examined both photos under magnification and found no signs of retouching.
There were variations of CE-133A and CE-133B that appeared in Life magazine (among others). Shaneyfelt testified that when the photos appeared in Life magazine, they had been retouched, which is a common process used on photos when reproducing before publishing.
-
Allan, in reply #13 I asked if you could provide this august forum with your opinion on how Oswald got the job at the book depository. It's just a simple question that deserves to be the subject for discussion and debate, particularly since, IMHO, you brought it up with the implied purpose of it having sinister motives. I would appreciate a reply addressing this subject only.
So....you want to base it on the mcadams post of 1996?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leejob2.txt (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leejob2.txt)
"Lee made a favorable impression upon Roy Truly and got the job:
He seemed quiet and well mannered. ... [he filled out an
application] And he told me - I asked him about
experience that he had had, or where he had worked, and
he said he had just served his term in the Marine Corps
and had received an honorable discharge, and he listed
some things of an office nature that he had learned
to do in the Marines.
I questioned him about any past activities. I asked him
if he had ever had any trouble with the police, and he
said no. So thinking that he was just out of the Marines,
I didn't check any further back. I didn't have anything
of a permanent nature in mind for him. He looked like
a nice young fellow to me - he was quiet and well mannered.
He used the word "sir", you know, which a lot of them
don't do at this time.
So I told him if he would come to work on the morning
of the 16th, it was the beginning of a new pay period.
(3H214-214)
Young Lee helped himself by lying about his past, during the interview
with Truly and on the job application."
It seems that this should have been a VERY VERY important piece of information that should not have been too hard to produce at the time of the assassination, fill out a job application with lies on it but can't produce it for the investigation 5 weeks later?
This certainly should have been one of the most important pieces of the evidence puzzle that an investigator would have looked at in a real investigation at the time and found that in Truly's filing cabinet. Or was it something he read and shredded it - not keeping it? Just as important would be to have looked at LHO bank accounts and tax returns to determine how he was funding trips to Russia and so on and whose payroll he was on. The money trail could have told you alot about his activities and when and where he withdrew money. Who cares about ordering a Carcano rifle out of the "Klein's mail order service" under the name of J. Hidell! 33 years after the fact, we have Mcadams digging around and not producing a job application by LHO that would have been about 5 weeks old at the time of the assassination. I wonder how he signed that one -HOL?!
Find that job application please, Mr. Navarro, authenticate please and we will discuss whether it was more than rhetoric. That document is more important than his mail order for a gun 5 months before and would have been kept on file in Mr. Truly's office surely! They can find all sorts of paper trails on the Carcano! That is a very important factual piece of evidence to uncover as well. The mail order document was easily found - alias name or not! Why not the job application form? We need more than a "she said he said report", typed up and presented as the evidence. Wouldn't an investigative team want to know all that or do you just keep on following the trail by have someone drop carrots along the way to guide the herd of rabbits, (sometimes known as a warren!)?
-
You?re playing the same old games once again. I repeated the findings of the HSCA. I personally did not initiate that finding. Experts in the photographic sciences did. You of course know this. Yet, you again ask me the same question, which as I previously stated, I do not have the educational expertise to respond to how they achieved their findings. Am I curious how they concluded what they did? Not in the least. Hence, my follow up question which you conviently ignored. If there are experts who dispute the findings of the HSCA photographic panel, who are they and what are their qualifications?
-
The HSCA Photographic Panel studied CE-133A, CE-133B, the negative of CE-133B and Oswald's camera (among many other items related to the photos, such as first generation prints of CE-133C).
The panel first performed a visual inspection of the photos, by use magnifiers and microscopes. During this inspection, the panel made enlargements of the photos using various exposures and ranges of contrast. These enlargements produced prints which ranged from very light to very dark. In the darkest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the lighter prints. In the lightest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the darker prints. The panel felt this was the best opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere in the pictures.
The panel also used digital image processing to determine if there were any unnatural edge lines or differences in grain structure or contrast.
Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D. This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.
When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis. Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane. Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.
One final method the panel used to examine the photos was photogrammetrically.
Using all of these methods, the HSCA Photographic Panel detected no signs of forgery.
-
Thanks for that Bill. Martin, a layman?s response.
-
The HSCA Photographic Panel studied CE-133A, CE-133B, the negative of CE-133B and Oswald's camera (among many other items related to the photos, such as first generation prints of CE-133C).
The panel first performed a visual inspection of the photos, by use magnifiers and microscopes. During this inspection, the panel made enlargements of the photos using various exposures and ranges of contrast. These enlargements produced prints which ranged from very light to very dark. In the darkest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the lighter prints. In the lightest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the darker prints. The panel felt this was the best opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere in the pictures.
The panel also used digital image processing to determine if there were any unnatural edge lines or differences in grain structure or contrast.
Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D. This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.
When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis. Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane. Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.
One final method the panel used to examine the photos was photogrammetrically.
Using all of these methods, the HSCA Photographic Panel detected no signs of forgery.
So they confirmed that the photos weren?t altered but they could not confirm that the photos weren?t staged or JFK?s corpse altered. Correct?
I?m agnostic on the body alteration theories. I accept the expert opinions that the photos haven?t been altered but also think people who were present at the autopsy who cast doubt on the photos shouldn?t be ignored.
-
Shouldn?t be ignored? Medical and ballistic evidence trumps witnesses every time. What do you suggest be done with them?
-
Shoot. I think I wasn't paying close enough attention. I was referring to the study on the backyard photos, not the autopsy photos.
-
Same result Bill.
-
As for the autopsy photos and X-rays, in 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.
-
Shouldn?t be ignored? Medical and ballistic evidence trumps witnesses every time. What do you suggest be done with them?
The Medical evidence in the Kennedy assassination is a mess.
What Ballistics evidence are you referring to?
-
Take your pick. The ordering of the weapon. Possession of the weapon as determined by b/y photos. That M/C to the exclusion of any other weapon fired the bullets. Oswald?s finger print on the trigger housing. No evidence of other weapons bullets hit Kennedy. LHO shirt fibers found in the butt plate. If this weapon didn?t kill JFK, then JFK is still alive.
-
The HSCA's Photographic Panel studied the autopsy photos and X-rays.
From the Kennedy Library in Massachusetts, the panel gathered X-rays of the President which were made when he was alive.
In examining these X-rays, they studied unique anatomic characteristics (of the turcica, cranial sutures, vascular grooves, air cells of the mastoid bone). A difference in any of these anatomic characteristics among the autopsy X-rays would show that the two sets of X-rays were NOT of the same person. Similarities of these anatomical features among the autopsy X-rays led the panel to conclude that the autopsy X-rays were of same individual as the X-rays that came from the Kennedy Library (again, made when Kennedy was alive).
Dr. Lowell Levine, a forensic odontologist and an expert in dental comparison, testified before the HSCA in 1978. He was experienced in the dental identification of people who died of some sort of unnatural death (such as airplane crashes, etc.). Levine compared the X-rays from the Kennedy Library with the autopsy X-rays. He concluded that the three autopsy skull X-rays are identifiable as being of the same person as the dental X-rays of President Kennedy.
-
Stereophotographic views.
Like the backyard photos, the autopsy photos were examined using stereoscopic viewing (3-D). The autopsy photographer had taken two or more photos of the same scene many times throughout the autopsy process. The panel found several "stereo pairs" of autopsy photos which they used for stereoscopic viewing. Stereo pairs added depth to the autopsy photos. Unless both of the photos of a stereo pair are altered in the exact same manner (virtually impossible to do), any alterations in either of the photos would be easily detected.
There were enough stereo pairs of the back of the head, the top of the head, the large skull defect, the head viewed from the front right, the back wound and the neck wound. Using stereoscopic viewing (3-D), the panel concluded that the photos (at least the photos used for the stereoscopic viewing process) were authentic. They found no indication (or evidence) that any of the photos were altered.
-
He?s not alone though. There?s a whole movement among scientists to expose the flaws in Forensic ?Science?.
She. Read the blurb again. At any rate, there isn't "a whole movement among scientists." There was a 20-year period starting about 1990 when the forensic science crowd began to systematically look carefully at the validity of existing methods, but that seems to have collected all the scalps its going to. Right now, it's the science side that's having issues, most notably in what is known as the "reproducability crisis."
Law Enforcement and Prosecutors over-sell the reliability of most methods in Forensics.
There definitely have been people who oversold or misused the value of certain forensic methods. The DNA in the Kercher murder case is a good example of it. But that doesn't invalidate the methods themselves.
I agree but there are a few things we can throw out with regards to the Kennedy assassination investigations like the NAA Lead Analysis and the Hair and Fiber Analysis.
We can safely disregard any claims of matching-to-uniqueness based on fiber analysis or NAA. But both still prevent claims that the paper and cloth (for instance) fibers taken from CE139 cannot be from the 6th floor bag or the blanket from the Paines' garage. Similarly, the NAA doesn't rule out that the Connally wrist fragments were from CE399 or that the fragments plucked from the underside of JFK's frontal lobes were from the same bullet that produced the limo fragments.
There are two other forensic methods seen in the assassination that are essentially novel to the case. The first is the so-called "jiggle analysis." The second is the acoustic analysis performed for the HSCA. The latter (or at least the Weiss and Aschkenazi version) is fatally flawed. It assumes that the only alternative explanation for the putative shots is some burst of noise; however, the Decker crosstalk overlies the "shots" and needs to be accounted for as a/the possible source. As for the jiggly bit, I would suggest looking at what Hartman at EG&G did with CBS's help in the '60s, and forgoing Alvarez as anything more than an introduction to the problem. EG&G was able to get control footage taken by someone trying to hold cameras while someone else was shooting a rifle nearby. That enabled Hartman to figure out exactly what to look for in the Z film. His solution looks different than what's normally presented on the subject.
-
That M/C to the exclusion of any other weapon fired the bullets.
Debunked
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html
No evidence of other weapons bullets hit Kennedy.
Inconclusive
LHO shirt fibers found in the butt plate.
Debunked
http://jfkfacts.org/new-fbi-study-hair-analysis-warren-commission/
-
Debunked
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html
Inconclusive
Debunked
http://jfkfacts.org/new-fbi-study-hair-analysis-warren-commission/
Here is the opening paragraph of Tobin's paper. In it near the bottom is the quote about the 2nd assassin. Hard to say what was the ultimate goal of this research. Maybe just to show the rest of us how smart they really are. A second shooter armed with a carcano.....very smart. The premise and conclusion are basically not worth repeating.
CHEMICAL AND FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF JFK ASSASSINATION
BULLET LOTS: IS A SECOND SHOOTER POSSIBLE?
BY CLIFF SPIEGELMAN, WILLIAM A. TOBIN, WILLIAM D. JAMES,
SIMON J. SHEATHER, STUART WEXLER AND D. MAX ROUNDHILL
Texas A&M University, Forensic Engineering International,
Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University,
Hightstown High School and Chem Consulting
The assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) traumatized
the nation. In this paper we show that evidence used to rule out a second
assassin is fundamentally flawed. This paper discusses new compositional
analyses of bullets reportedly to have been derived from the same batch
as those used in the assassination. The new analyses show that the bullet
fragments involved in the assassination are not nearly as rare as previously
reported. In particular, the new test results are compared to key bullet composition
testimony presented before the House Select Committee on Assassinations
(HSCA). Matches of bullets within the same box of bullets are shown
to be much more likely than indicated in the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
testimony. Additionally, we show that one of the ten test bullets
is considered a match to one or more assassination fragments. This finding
means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have
come from three or more separate bullets. Finally, this paper presents a case
for reanalyzing the assassination bullet fragments and conducting the necessary
supporting scientific studies. These analyses will shed light on whether
the five bullet fragments constitute three or more separate bullets. If the assassination
fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then
a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not easily be attributable
to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald, under widely accepted shooting
scenarios [see Posner (1993), Case Closed, Bantam, New York].
Obviously, Tobin and the rest of the forensic dream team never understood its ramifications. In their zest and zeal to prove Guinn wrong and the existence of a conspiracy, these scientists fail to understand what their analysis of the results of their tests indicated. Essentially, all the tests were performed on 6.5mm Carcano bullets from the same batches as LHO's and from these tests determined that there was a possibility the bullet fragments recovered in the JFK assassination came from more than two bullets. Thus somehow proving to themselves that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza. Apparently they don't realize what they are really saying is that there wasn't just one shooter in Dealey Plaza armed with a 6.5mm Carcano but two shooters both armed with 6.5mm Carcanos. Most people don't even want to believe there was one person there with a Carcano let alone two.
One additional brilliant finding from the paper: Way to go out on limb.
"Dr. Guinn may have been correct or incorrect about the number of bullets originating
from the JFK fragments; the state of knowledge even today, but definitely about 30 years ago, remains too uncertain".
-
In my opinion, in that brief conversation with Jarman, it is obvious that Oswald was feigning ignorance.
You're not alone, Bill.
-
So....you want to base it on the mcadams post of 1996?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leejob2.txt (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leejob2.txt)
"Lee made a favorable impression upon Roy Truly and got the job:
He seemed quiet and well mannered. ... [he filled out an
application] And he told me - I asked him about
experience that he had had, or where he had worked, and
he said he had just served his term in the Marine Corps
and had received an honorable discharge, and he listed
some things of an office nature that he had learned
to do in the Marines.
I questioned him about any past activities. I asked him
if he had ever had any trouble with the police, and he
said no. So thinking that he was just out of the Marines,
I didn't check any further back. I didn't have anything
of a permanent nature in mind for him. He looked like
a nice young fellow to me - he was quiet and well mannered.
He used the word "sir", you know, which a lot of them
don't do at this time.
So I told him if he would come to work on the morning
of the 16th, it was the beginning of a new pay period.
(3H214-214)
Young Lee helped himself by lying about his past, during the interview
with Truly and on the job application."
It seems that this should have been a VERY VERY important piece of information that should not have been too hard to produce at the time of the assassination, fill out a job application with lies on it but can't produce it for the investigation 5 weeks later?
This certainly should have been one of the most important pieces of the evidence puzzle that an investigator would have looked at in a real investigation at the time and found that in Truly's filing cabinet. Or was it something he read and shredded it - not keeping it? Just as important would be to have looked at LHO bank accounts and tax returns to determine how he was funding trips to Russia and so on and whose payroll he was on. The money trail could have told you alot about his activities and when and where he withdrew money. Who cares about ordering a Carcano rifle out of the "Klein's mail order service" under the name of J. Hidell! 33 years after the fact, we have Mcadams digging around and not producing a job application by LHO that would have been about 5 weeks old at the time of the assassination. I wonder how he signed that one -HOL?!
Find that job application please, Mr. Navarro, authenticate please and we will discuss whether it was more than rhetoric. That document is more important than his mail order for a gun 5 months before and would have been kept on file in Mr. Truly's office surely! They can find all sorts of paper trails on the Carcano! That is a very important factual piece of evidence to uncover as well. The mail order document was easily found - alias name or not! Why not the job application form? We need more than a "she said he said report", typed up and presented as the evidence. Wouldn't an investigative team want to know all that or do you just keep on following the trail by have someone drop carrots along the way to guide the herd of rabbits, (sometimes known as a warren!)?
I was looking more for a timeline. Oswald had several jobs from the time he settled in Dallas after he came back from the USSR in 1962, while in New Orleans in 1963, and then his last job at the TSBD upon returning from Mexico in early October, 1963. You bring up the missing job application at the TSBD as being of the upmost importance but don't address how it came to be that Oswald got that job interview in the first place. Don't you think that is of the upmost importance? I'll ask a few more questions that go in the general direction of were I believe your theory goes.
1) Do you believe Roy Truly was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
2) Do you believe Ruth Paine was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
3) Do you believe that Robert Stovall of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
4) Do you believe that Ted Gangel of Padgett Printing Cpy. was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
5)Do you believe that Linnie Mae Randle was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
-
In my opinion, in that brief conversation with Jarman, it is obvious that Oswald was feigning ignorance.
Your opinion is duly noted, but this isn't evidence that LHO knew a shooting was going to happen.
-
Shaneyfelt analyzed CE-133A and CE-133B, along with the original negative of CE-133B... and the Imperial Reflex duo lens camera (Marina testified that she used that cameras to take the photos).
When a photo is taken, the camera leaves unique markings on the margins of the negative. Shaneyfelt stated that these markings left on the negative of CE-133B were identical with markings left on the margins of the negative of a test photo which he took using that camera.
The negative of CE-133A was not available.
Shaneyfelt also examined both photos under magnification and found no signs of retouching.
There were variations of CE-133A and CE-133B that appeared in Life magazine (among others). Shaneyfelt testified that when the photos appeared in Life magazine, they had been retouched, which is a common process used on photos when reproducing before publishing.
This issue was covered in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series. Decide for yourself.
*****************************************
We have seen FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt said he could NOT positively ID the rifle in the Backyard Pictures (BYP?s) as being the same as CE-139 (the alleged murder weapon of John F. Kennedy (JFK)). He was also asked about some other key issues in this case.
Let?s look a little deeper at this testimony.
*****************************************
He would be asked about Captain Fritz?s comment regarding Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) statement that his head was superimposed on someone else?s body in the BYP?s.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police has stated that in his interrogations, Oswald--Lee Harvey Oswald--stated, in effect, that while the face in Exhibit 133A was his face, the rest of the picture was not of him--this is, that it was a composite of some.
Have you examined 133A and 133B to determine whether either or both are composite pictures?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. And have you--can you give us your conclusion on that question?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite. I have examined many composite photographs, and there is always an inconsistency, either in lighting of the portion that is added, or the configuration indicating a different lens used for the part that was added to the original photograph, things many times that you can't point to and say this is a characteristic, or that is a characteristic, but they have definite variations that are not consistent throughout the picture. I found no such characteristics in this.
In addition, with a composite it is always necessary to make a print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste the face in, and rephotograph it and then retouch out the area where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would be printed.
Normally, this retouching can be seen under magnification in the resulting composite--points can be seen where the edge of the head had been added and it hadn't been entirely retouched.
This can nearly always be detected under magnification. I found no such characteristics in these pictures.
Representative FORD. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
A few things need to be mentioned regarding this comment by Shaneyfelt. He said he could NOT rule out ?extremely expert composites? and this is a good possibility in this case. I doubt they would have any old person do these composites. Also, I doubt you would need to magnify very much to see the line going across the face below the lips and above the chin. They will NOT discuss this at all.
Furthermore, LHO was very explicit in who he said did the composites, but the Warren Commission (WC) of course did NOT mention it.
IF we go to their Report on page 625 we will see this statement by LHO:
Quote on
Captain J.W. Fritz exhibited to Lee Harvey Oswald a photograph which had been obtained by the Dallas Police Department in a search, by a search warrant, of the garage of the residence of Mrs. Ruth Paine, located at Irving, Texas, which photograph reflects Oswald holding a rifle and wearing a holstered pistol?He stated that the head of the individual in the photograph could be his but that it was entirely possible that the POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD SUPERIMPOSED THIS PART OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OVER THE BODY OF SOMEONE ELSE. He pointed out that numerous news media had snapped his photograph during the day and the possibility existed that the POLICE DOCTORED up this photograph. (emphasis mine)
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325a.htm
This statement is key for several reasons. Firstly, notice how LHO is saying the picture was in all likelihood ?doctored?, and secondly, that the Dallas Police Department (DPD) did the doctoring! Two witnesses would say in their testimony pretty much the same thing.
Mr. STERN - It was at this interview, was it not, that Oswald was shown photographs of himself holding a rifle and wearing a pistol in a holster?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct.
Mr. STERN - What was his comment about the photograph?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - His comment, as I recall, he was asked if this was his Photograph, and his comment was that the head of the photograph was his, but that it could have been superimposed over the body of someone else. He Pointed out that he had been apparently photographed by news media numerous times in proceeding from the homicide and robbery bureau to the lineup and back, and that is how they probably got the photograph of his face, and he went into a long discussion of how much he knew about photography, and knew that this--his face could be superimposed over somebody else's body holding the gun and pistol and so forth.
Now unless Bookhout means the media doctored the photo the ONLY other group who could benefit from these photographs would be the DPD (or FBI, CIA, ONI, DIA, etc?). On page 628 of the WC Report we see the same comment from Inspector Thomas Kelly of the Secret Service (SS):
Quote on
Found among the effects were two different poses in snapshot type photographs taken of Oswald holding a rifle in one hand and holding up a copy of a paper called the ?Militant? and ?The Worker? in the other hand. Oswald was wearing a revolver in a holster on the right side. This photograph was enlarged by the DALLAS POLICE LABORATORIES and was used as a basis of additional questioning of Oswald at approximately 6:00 P.M. that same evening..
This interview was conducted with Oswald for the purpose of displaying to him the blow-ups of photographs showing him holding a rifle and a pistol which were found as a result of a the search warrant for the garage of Mrs. Ruth Paine?When the photographs were presented to Oswald he scoured at them saying they were fake photographs; that he had been photographed a number of times the day before by the POLICE and apparently after they photographed him THEY SUPERIMPOSED on this photograph a rifle and put a gun in his pocket(?). (WCR, p. 628) (Emphasis mine)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0326b.htm
Quote off
The above is very hard to read as the ink is very light in the copy found on numerous sites, but the gist is clear?LHO was blaming the DPD for making this photograph(s) he was shown.
Now back to Shaneyfelt. The WC defenders who claim it was shown LHO?s camera was used to take the photographs should read this comment.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you attempt to determine whether 133A had been photographed through the camera, Commission Exhibit 750?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not, because in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph is made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133A does not show that shadowgraph
Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the shadowgraph area show on 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it does not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why does it not show on either 133 A or B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Because they are printed in a normal processing procedure, where this area is normally blocked out to give a nice white border and make the picture a little more artistic. In the printing process, masks are placed over the area, or the shadowgraph, in order to cover it up, and the resulting print is a photograph with a nice white border.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that you have to have the negative to make the kind of identification you have made for us earlier?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
WC defenders can?t say the Imperal Reflex camera was used to take these photographs. End of story.
The single posting of a BYP that made LHO look the most guilty was the photograph that appeared on the cover of the February 21, 1964, edition of LIFE magazine. IT allegedly shows LHO holding the alleged murder weapon and cemented his guilt to many Americans. This photograph was denoted with CE-754. Here is what Shanyefelt said about it.
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0277a.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you the cover of Life magazine for February 21, 1964, which consists of a photograph quite similar to Exhibit 133A, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this photographic cover?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you compared Exhibit 754 with Commission Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion on the basis of that comparison?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it is the same picture reproduced on the front of Life magazine, which is Commission Exhibit 754.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does Commission Exhibit 754 appear to have been retouched in any significant way?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it does.
This is important as it shows the photograph has been changed from the original form. IT does NOT matter why or whether it is irrelevant to the main theme as expressed either.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the Commission that retouching?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I could. I might state that it has been my experience in the field of reproduction of photographs for publication, in which a halftone screen is made from which the photograph is then printed, it is normal procedure, and was at the time I worked for a newspaper, to retouch the photograph to intensify highlights, take out undesirable shadows, generally enhance the picture by retouching the photograph so that when it is then made into a halftone strip pattern for reproduction by printing, this retouching, if it is done well, does not show as retouching but appears to be a part of the original.
This retouching is done either by brush or by airbrush, which is a device for spraying gray or shades of gray or black, onto the photograph. I point to the area between the legs of the individual on Life magazine.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that and mark it A on Exhibit 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Suppose I use arrows.
Mr. EISENBERG. Oh, sure.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On Exhibit 746B, there is a shadow between the individual's legs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you mark that A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I will mark that A. In that same area of the photograph on Exhibit 754, that dark shadow has been removed in this area, I will mark that A.
So a body shadow has been REMOVED.
Mr. EISENBERG. It appears there is a continuous fence slat there, where none appears----
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the shadow has been removed. Lower down in that same area of the legs, near the calf of the leg, again, and I will mark that B, the shadow----
The body shadow was removed and replaced with a non-existent ?fence slat.?
Mr. EISENBERG. B on 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 754; has been softened but not entirely eliminated. That same area is marked B on Commission Exhibit 746B.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has the weapon been retouched?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The weapon has been retouched by placing a highlight along the stock almost up to the end of the bolt. The highlight is brushed right across the top of the highlight that we have previously discussed at the nob or the curvature of the stock where it goes down and then back up to the curve.
The rifle has been retouched in the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at the photograph, at the weapon, the stock appears to be straight, which does not correspond to the Exhibit 139. As I understand your testimony, this is simply a retouching; this effect of a straight stock is simply achieved by retouching the photograph or doctoring it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is my opinion. I would refer to it as retouching rather than doctoring, because what has been done has been retouched, and doctoring infers an attempt to disguise.
I agree, ?doctoring? would apply to the adding of LHO?s head onto the body!
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you draw an arrow marking that E? Would it have been possible to retouch the photograph so that the telescopic sight does not appear?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Oh, yes; that is possible. With a halftone process--it is possible to retouch, and then the halftone process destroys the retouching characteristics and makes it appear as a normal photograph rather than a retouched photograph.
Shaneyfelt is admitting you can retouch photographs and LEAVE NO TRACE to the vast majority of us.
Mr. EISENBERG. And again, based upon your newspaper experience and your experience as a photographer generally, could you state the possible purpose of such retouching?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The purpose of the retouching in reproduction work is merely to enhance the detail so that it will not be lost in the engraving process.
They didn?t just ?enhance the detail? though, did they? NO, they changed the rifle and removed a shadow so far.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "enhance the detail," why would a stock be retouched so as not only to enhance the detail, but actually to change the apparent configuration? Could you conceive of any reason for that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I think the reason that the stock was retouched straight in the photograph on Life magazine, and my interpretation would be that the individual retouching it does not have a familiarity with rifles and did not realize there was curvature there, and in doing it just made a straight-line highlight without even considering whether that curved or not. There was curvature in that area which is not readily apparent--it is quite indistinct--and I think it was just made without realizing that there was curvature there.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the individual might have thought he was actually enhancing detail rather than putting in detail which was not present in the original?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything else you would like to point out in this photograph, Exhibit 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. There is other retouching at the shoulder, to the left of the photograph as we view it; that area has had some retouching of the highlights. Along the barrel of the gun, or the stock of the gun above the hand, there is retouching, a little highlight enhancement there. These are all generally consistent with the type of retouching that we have previously discussed and I have previously pointed out.
Now we see retouching for the area left of the shoulder too. He can say this is normal, but the above statement regarding the shadow is NOT.
Why NOT call the person who worked on the photo for LIFE instead of asking Shaneyfelt why they would do this?
Also, if it is so normal why did even the WC lawyer try and correct him?
Mr. EISENBERG. When you said a highlight "along the rifle stock," you actually meant on top, above the rifle stock?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The upper edge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it the upper edge, or is it a place that does not correspond to the rifle stock?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is an edge along the rifle stock that corresponds. I am speaking now of the highlight above the hand.
Mr. EISENBERG. No; you said before, in describing the highlight which you can see, you said they drew a highlight "along" the rifle the rifle stock. Actually it was drawn, as I understand it, considerably above the edge of the actual rifle stock?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is true.
What was the purpose of this? Why did they do it? Was it just for more detail as claimed or for some other reason? What about the telescopic scope? Remember, LHO allegedly used one to shoot JFK with.
Mr. EISENBERG. Without specific reference to 754, might an individual without experience in rifles have thought that the detail corresponding to the telescopic sight was extraneous detail, and blocked it out?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it could be done.
Why was the WC asking him to guess what someone else might or might not do? Or why they would do it? Again, why NOT call the person that actually did the retouching at LIFE? The only thing we have to rely on is in the twenty-six volumes. It is a letter from LIFE to Mr. Rankin of the WC. It can be found in Shaneyfelt Ex. 12.
Quote on
?The prints you received were indeed the PRISTINE versions of the ones we used; they came from the same copy negative (I assume the Commission has the original negative). I thought you could compare them with the published cover and figure out how much retouching was done.
But here is the retouched print. You can take out the retouching (which we put in simply to make it more reproduceable because the original was not exactly the acme of photographic perfection) with a piece of cotton soaked in water or a finger moistened with saliva and have the original as we received it. I note, on close examination, that the retoucher was a little careless in making the rifle stock straight instead of a with a slight dip. There is a little more retouching around the bolt but a comparison with the original will convince you, I?m sure that nothing ESSENTIAL has been changed. (emphasis mine)
It was signed by Edward K. Thompson, Editor of LIFE magazine.
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0239a.htm
Quote off
First of all, if the copy that LIFE received was ?pristine? why did they need so much retouching? IF they were from a copy and NOT that good, why did the WC just NOT provide the ORIGINAL negative to LIFE to fix this issue? IF they couldn?t release it, then why NOT wait on the cover. Why was there a RUSH to have this photo published SEVEN MONTHS before the WC would reach their conclusion?
Secondly, who decided what was ESSENTIAL to the message of the photograph? Thompson said ?nothing essential has been changed?, but what does this mean? We saw the shape of the rifle was changed, the scope was eliminated, and the body shadow between the legs was removed. What else possibly was messed with that we don?t know about? Remember, Shaneyfelt said, ?With a halftone process--it is possible to retouch, and then the halftone process destroys the retouching characteristics and makes it appear as a normal photograph rather than a retouched photograph.?
Newsweek also would send a letter to Mr. Rankin about this photograph (which appeared in their March 2, 1964 issue) and what they did with it and this is in Shaneyfelt Ex. 16.
Quote on
Since the question of retouching of this photograph in various publications has been raised as an issue by CRITICS of the investigation, I believe that your inquiry warrants a somewhat more detailed response than you have invited.
I am informed by our editors that the photograph that they received was so poor in quality that, as a matter of routine procedure, it was retouched to improve it for reproduction. We are unaware that it was published anywhere WITHOUT RETOUCHING OF SOME KIND.
In retouching at Newsweek, the technician inadvertently brushed out the telescopic sight which?as we have since had an occasion to note?is visible only so barely in the original photograph that it might well escape any but the closest attention. There was, of course, no intention to alter the substance of the photograph. (emphasis mine)
It was signed by Gibson McCabe?President of Newsweek.
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0241a.htm
Quote off
Notice the jab at CRITICS in his letter! I guess if you are searching for the truth and question whether a photograph has been retouched or not you are critic! How could the average person be a ?critic? of the investigation in June 1964 anyway? The final report did not come out for three more months and the WC was acting in a CLOSED DOOR FASHION! I just find it funny a president of leading magazine, that is out for the truth supposedly regarding the things they covered, thought searching for the truth made you a critic!
Next, notice the ADMISSION that the photograph was retouched by EVERYONE! Again, if the copy negative they all received was so poor in quality, why was there such a rush to publish it then? What was the urgency of putting this on the cover or in their publications in February and March of 1964?
Newsweek, like LIFE, also brushed out the scope on the rifle supposedly. (Perhaps there was NO scope to brush out?) Notice the comment that it was so hard to see that ?only the closest attention? would have spotted it. Well, excuse me, but when you are retouching photographs and planning on PUBLISHING THEM IN YOUR MAGAZINE SHOULD NOT THE CLOSEST ATTENTION be paid? I would think so, but obviously NOT at Newsweek. Then we are just suppose to take his word for it that ?no intention to alter the substance of the photograph? occurred.
Shaneyfelt Ex. 17 is a letter from the N.Y. Times to Mr. Rankin.
Quote on
The New York Times did NOT retouch photograph in any way that would change the facts of the photograph?that is to say, it did NOT alter any essential feature of the photograph. I have our copy in front of us, and the ONLY retouching that has been done is to outline Lee Harvey Oswald?s head and right shoulder, to highlight the stock of the gun HE is holding, to put a CREASE in his trousers and tone DOWN somewhat the SHADOW CAST BY HIS FIGURE.
It was signed by Clifton Daniel?Asst. Managing Editor
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0241b.htm
Quote off
Again, we see the use of the term ?essential feature? and again, we have to ask, who decides what is essential? Notice how they had no curiosity regarding the line above the person?s chin though. He flatly states it is LHO when it was never shown the photos were genuine, and certainly NOT by the time of the letter (June 1964). What was the need for a CREASE in his pants? Was that essential? Also, notice how they had to ?tone down somewhat the shadow cast by his figure? as well! What was it about this shadow that caused so much concern? Could it be that it did NOT MATCH THE TIME SHOWN BY THE NOSE SHADOW? What other reason could there be to either eliminate it (LIFE) or tone it down somewhat (N.Y. Times)?
The fact retouching took place on this alleged photo of LHO holding the alleged murder weapons is troubling. The fact it took repeated letters by Mr. Rankin to get even these replies is even more troubling. What was the rush to publish these photos if the copy negatives they received were so poor? We should know that answer by now. They wanted to rush this picture before the American people to prepare them for the preconceived outcome that would come in September 1964.
Given the many questions and disturbing issues with these photos (BYP) there should NEVER have been a rush to publish them UNTIL they were worked out, but as we have seen that would mean they would NEVER have been published as nearly FIFTY YEARS LATER none of the questions or issue have been resolved from the WC?s point of view.
The comments by Shaneyfelt and the men of the some of the most important publishing assets of this country sink the conclusion of the WC as their issues were NEVER properly addressed and resolved. In fact, this outline shows us there was a RUSH TO JUDGMENT and the man they had chosen ahead of time would be found guilty NO matter what they found to the contrary.
-
She. Read the blurb again. At any rate, there isn't "a whole movement among scientists." There was a 20-year period starting about 1990 when the forensic science crowd began to systematically look carefully at the validity of existing methods, but that seems to have collected all the scalps its going to. Right now, it's the science side that's having issues, most notably in what is known as the "reproducability crisis."
Reproducibility is what separates Facts and Laws from Theories.
-
Here is the opening paragraph of Tobin's paper. In it near the bottom is the quote about the 2nd assassin. Hard to say what was the ultimate goal of this research. Maybe just to show the rest of us how smart they really are. A second shooter armed with a carcano.....very smart. The premise and conclusion are basically not worth repeating.
CHEMICAL AND FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF JFK ASSASSINATION
BULLET LOTS: IS A SECOND SHOOTER POSSIBLE?
BY CLIFF SPIEGELMAN, WILLIAM A. TOBIN, WILLIAM D. JAMES,
SIMON J. SHEATHER, STUART WEXLER AND D. MAX ROUNDHILL
Texas A&M University, Forensic Engineering International,
Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University,
Hightstown High School and Chem Consulting
The assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) traumatized
the nation. In this paper we show that evidence used to rule out a second
assassin is fundamentally flawed. This paper discusses new compositional
analyses of bullets reportedly to have been derived from the same batch
as those used in the assassination. The new analyses show that the bullet
fragments involved in the assassination are not nearly as rare as previously
reported. In particular, the new test results are compared to key bullet composition
testimony presented before the House Select Committee on Assassinations
(HSCA). Matches of bullets within the same box of bullets are shown
to be much more likely than indicated in the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
testimony. Additionally, we show that one of the ten test bullets
is considered a match to one or more assassination fragments. This finding
means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have
come from three or more separate bullets. Finally, this paper presents a case
for reanalyzing the assassination bullet fragments and conducting the necessary
supporting scientific studies. These analyses will shed light on whether
the five bullet fragments constitute three or more separate bullets. If the assassination
fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then
a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not easily be attributable
to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald, under widely accepted shooting
scenarios [see Posner (1993), Case Closed, Bantam, New York].
Obviously, Tobin and the rest of the forensic dream team never understood its ramifications. In their zest and zeal to prove Guinn wrong and the existence of a conspiracy, these scientists fail to understand what their analysis of the results of their tests indicated. Essentially, all the tests were performed on 6.5mm Carcano bullets from the same batches as LHO's and from these tests determined that there was a possibility the bullet fragments recovered in the JFK assassination came from more than two bullets. Thus somehow proving to themselves that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza. Apparently they don't realize what they are really saying is that there wasn't just one shooter in Dealey Plaza armed with a 6.5mm Carcano but two shooters both armed with 6.5mm Carcanos. Most people don't even want to believe there was one person there with a Carcano let alone two.
One additional brilliant finding from the paper: Way to go out on limb.
"Dr. Guinn may have been correct or incorrect about the number of bullets originating
from the JFK fragments; the state of knowledge even today, but definitely about 30 years ago, remains too uncertain".
The scientists didn?t set out to prove that there was a Conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. What they proved was, the method Guinn used to rule out multiple rifles was deeply flawed.
A British team of scientists (Randich and Grant) reached a similar conclusion.
The Lead composition of the JFK assassination bullets and fragments doesn?t rule out the possibility of multiple shooters...
-
As for the autopsy photos and X-rays, in 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.
Under political pressure, yes, many witnesses changed their descriptions of the events or evidence.
But it doesn't change the fact that several dozen witnesses who saw Kennedy's wounds in Texas and Bethesda described something different than what would later show up in the photos and x-rays.
-
I was looking more for a timeline. Oswald had several jobs from the time he settled in Dallas after he came back from the USSR in 1962, while in New Orleans in 1963, and then his last job at the TSBD upon returning from Mexico in early October, 1963. You bring up the missing job application at the TSBD as being of the upmost importance but don't address how it came to be that Oswald got that job interview in the first place. Don't you think that is of the upmost importance? I'll ask a few more questions that go in the general direction of were I believe your theory goes.
1) Do you believe Roy Truly was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
2) Do you believe Ruth Paine was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
3) Do you believe that Robert Stovall of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
4) Do you believe that Ted Gangel of Padgett Printing Cpy. was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
5)Do you believe that Linnie Mae Randle was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
There were many innocent people involved and it doesn't mean they were in on any conspiracy! Your argument is that they had to know the truth and therefore guilty of the crime. The same sort of argument that you would say a prosecutor should face in the wrongful conviction of an innocent person after he has been found guilty of using only select pieces to gain a conviction in his case and not all that he has.
The reality is, there were very few people that needed to know the truth. The rest was building a case to convict a LNer. The less people you have that know that, the easier it is to keep a secret. A few people working with evidence, eye witness accounts and statements can do wonders to point a case to have a deliberate outcome. Sad but true.
A modern day example of this improper use of selected evidence brought into the light is DNA testing. There have been so many cases where the DNA is the only thing that saved a man after being already convicted for a crime he didn't commit. All the circumstantial evidence presented by the DA was compelling and yet one little DNA test later on, proved he was an innocent man. Sometimes a little extra evidence was planted just to make sure because they knew he was guilty. If you have convinced yourself of this ahead of time, then you seek to add to make the case watertight. In these cases, they don't throw the prosecutors in jail for these things. The prosecutors are very good at picking and choosing evidence to get their desired end result and ignoring those facts that don't lead to a non-conviction!
So to, you must have an open mind with LHO. He was killed and wasn't there to defend himself. Eye witness accounts and statements can be easily obtained and signed off. In fact the more you can get, the more conflicting it all is, the less reliable they become and the more easy it becomes to mislead and develop your own argument in the case. So, lets not get into those 5 questions you are itching to have me answer. Look at what hasn't been provide with it to solidify it and make it into a watertight case! It is really more important to establish via job application, pay stubs, bank accounts and so on, the exact time he started working at the TBSD. The traceable phone calls made from his home, collect calls and to who. The paper would be unquestionable proof, not based on eyewitness or sworn testimony and act as independent evidence.
There have been many cases where a just man has been tried and found guilty for a crime that he didn't do. It would be fairly easy to do in a case where the man (LHO) is dead already and can't even be questioned or provide statements. As a witness, if you are told by the DA or a rep, that a suspect was already guilty and we ask for "just a little extra help to clean up a few loose ends and make the case stick", you might think you are doing the country a favor and saving the taxpayer money too. "I may even let you in on a little secret in the process to help get the statement from you that I need." Here is a go at it, let your imagination run wild for a small paragraph!
These people can offer an argument which makes sense. "Can you imagine what utter chaos the country will be thrown into if you can't help us out a little bit? We so need to keep riots and civil unrest from occurring. The simple solution is to have a lone gunman responsible if at all possible. Heaven forbid that you could have a coup d'etat take place with more than one gunman present. You certainly wouldn't want LBJ to be accused of a sinister plot to wrench the power out of JFK's hands now would you - that is treason man! Can you imagine having a rumor like that going around? Can you imagine then how the Russians would drop nukes on us as we would appear to be leaderless? They would come attack us at night while we weren't ready in the middle of our unrest and Communism would take over! The stock market would crash - our liberty and freedom would be gone forever and you my friend would be held responsible if that were to occur. You wouldn't want that to happen, now would you?"
Surely you can see my argument? Strike a little fear in the people's hearts and see what can happen. Now back to reality!
IMHO, there is a need for documentation. The obvious document to look at would be the TBSD job application as example. It was discussed in Truly's statement. Wouldn't that be perfect evidence if LHO lied and signed it? It would establish without doubt when he started. LHO's tax documents and bank account statements, telephone calls etc. would also show you exactly if he acted alone and who had paid him and establish the timeline. Would you mind opening your filing cabinet? I know if he was only hired 5 weeks earlier, you wouldn't have thrown them out or have someone shred them already? He is a new employee. IF you want to fire him and he lied to you, that is an important document!!! This was not investigated or brough forward? Why not? These rabbit trails are the critical ones if you want to know if he acted alone or as part of a larger group or sinister plot.
What was so important to follow the purchase path of the rifle itself other than to make it a direct path from the store to him and not via someone else. This again ties in with the "lonenut" narrative, acting alone. What about all the various ammunition he used, is there a trail for that? Why so many types, hard nose, frangible, various casings all mixed in his clip we are led to believe. Even casing from pistol, some coming from an ammo belt. Two different pistols. Close examination of this combination of the various evidence is not very convincing when you try to find commanality among it and a coherent argument.
It is little wonder there is conspiracy theories? A proper and independent investigation was not done! Take it one step further:
Can you substantiate a motive as to why he hated a President so much that he felt he was called upon to take it upon himself to shoot him? He loved Communism so much? He felt his idol Fidol Castro was going to be assassinated by JFK and his gang? The simple fact is, his being at the TBSD building began after JFK and Connally had decided in September on the Fund Raiser trip for JFK to Dallas! Those are the real questions of the day!
Furthermore, what do we know about his character? Do we even know if he had a driver's license? Was it customary for someone like him to be driven around - even to work - chauffeured - a man with wife and kids living the American dream? At the same time, he was a marksman. It seems strange even in the 60s that he wouldn't drive an automobile or be a normal sort of man - unless he was brainwashed into thinking he was part of some spy novel, was living the part and mentally deranged! Maria didn't mention that! In a few of the interviews she had later, the newsman all but put words into her mouth for her.
None of these things are questioned - all were deemed unimportant. We only know that he proclaimed his innocence and that he wanted legal counsel - none provided! Dying rather quickly without a story was a perfect ending - a perfect crime!
-
The scientists didn?t set out to prove that there was a Conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. What they proved was, the method Guinn used to rule out multiple rifles was deeply flawed.
A British team of scientists (Randich and Grant) reached a similar conclusion.
The Lead composition of the JFK assassination bullets and fragments doesn?t rule out the possibility of multiple shooters...
Rahn and Sturdivan confirmed Guinn's analysis of there only having been two bullets.
Rahn and Sturdivan also disputed the findings of Randich and Grant and explain why the assumptions used by Randich and Grant in their analysis was faulty.
www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/Review_of_RG/Review.html
The only bullets analyzed by Tobin and Spiegelman were from different lots of Carcano cartridges. No matter how you look at it they are stating there had to be two snipers both armed with Carcano's. Tobin's goal was to prove there was more than two bullets by reanalyzing Guinn's findings and in the process used his own set of assumptions.
Based on Posner's book, Case Closed, Tobin assumed the shooting sequence proposed by Posner was the basis for his determination that if there was three bullets then there had to be two shooters. In the end they still could not prove Guinn wrong about there only being two bullets and that fact was stated in the conclusion.
-
There were many innocent people involved and it doesn't mean they were in on any conspiracy! Your argument is that they had to know the truth and therefore guilty of the crime. The same sort of argument that you would say a prosecutor should face in the wrongful conviction of an innocent person after he has been found guilty of using only select pieces to gain a conviction in his case and not all that he has.
The reality is, there were very few people that needed to know the truth. The rest was building a case to convict a LNer. The less people you have that know that, the easier it is to keep a secret. A few people working with evidence, eye witness accounts and statements can do wonders to point a case to have a deliberate outcome. Sad but true.
A modern day example of this improper use of selected evidence brought into the light is DNA testing. There have been so many cases where the DNA is the only thing that saved a man after being already convicted for a crime he didn't commit. All the circumstantial evidence presented by the DA was compelling and yet one little DNA test later on, proved he was an innocent man. Sometimes a little extra evidence was planted just to make sure because they knew he was guilty. If you have convinced yourself of this ahead of time, then you seek to add to make the case watertight. In these cases, they don't throw the prosecutors in jail for these things. The prosecutors are very good at picking and choosing evidence to get their desired end result and ignoring those facts that don't lead to a non-conviction!
So to, you must have an open mind with LHO. He was killed and wasn't there to defend himself. Eye witness accounts and statements can be easily obtained and signed off. In fact the more you can get, the more conflicting it all is, the less reliable they become and the more easy it becomes to mislead and develop your own argument in the case. So, lets not get into those 5 questions you are itching to have me answer. Look at what hasn't been provide with it to solidify it and make it into a watertight case! It is really more important to establish via job application, pay stubs, bank accounts and so on, the exact time he started working at the TBSD. The traceable phone calls made from his home, collect calls and to who. The paper would be unquestionable proof, not based on eyewitness or sworn testimony and act as independent evidence.
There have been many cases where a just man has been tried and found guilty for a crime that he didn't do. It would be fairly easy to do in a case where the man (LHO) is dead already and can't even be questioned or provide statements. As a witness, if you are told by the DA or a rep, that a suspect was already guilty and we ask for "just a little extra help to clean up a few loose ends and make the case stick", you might think you are doing the country a favor and saving the taxpayer money too. "I may even let you in on a little secret in the process to help get the statement from you that I need." Here is a go at it, let your imagination run wild for a small paragraph!
These people can offer an argument which makes sense. "Can you imagine what utter chaos the country will be thrown into if you can't help us out a little bit? We so need to keep riots and civil unrest from occurring. The simple solution is to have a lone gunman responsible if at all possible. Heaven forbid that you could have a coup d'etat take place with more than one gunman present. You certainly wouldn't want LBJ to be accused of a sinister plot to wrench the power out of JFK's hands now would you - that is treason man! Can you imagine having a rumor like that going around? Can you imagine then how the Russians would drop nukes on us as we would appear to be leaderless? They would come attack us at night while we weren't ready in the middle of our unrest and Communism would take over! The stock market would crash - our liberty and freedom would be gone forever and you my friend would be held responsible if that were to occur. You wouldn't want that to happen, now would you?"
Surely you can see my argument? Strike a little fear in the people's hearts and see what can happen. Now back to reality!
IMHO, there is a need for documentation. The obvious document to look at would be the TBSD job application as example. It was discussed in Truly's statement. Wouldn't that be perfect evidence if LHO lied and signed it? It would establish without doubt when he started. LHO's tax documents and bank account statements, telephone calls etc. would also show you exactly if he acted alone and who had paid him and establish the timeline. Would you mind opening your filing cabinet? I know if he was only hired 5 weeks earlier, you wouldn't have thrown them out or have someone shred them already? He is a new employee. IF you want to fire him and he lied to you, that is an important document!!! This was not investigated or brough forward? Why not? These rabbit trails are the critical ones if you want to know if he acted alone or as part of a larger group or sinister plot.
What was so important to follow the purchase path of the rifle itself other than to make it a direct path from the store to him and not via someone else. This again ties in with the "lonenut" narrative, acting alone. What about all the various ammunition he used, is there a trail for that? Why so many types, hard nose, frangible, various casings all mixed in his clip we are led to believe. Even casing from pistol, some coming from an ammo belt. Two different pistols. Close examination of this combination of the various evidence is not very convincing when you try to find commanality among it and a coherent argument.
It is little wonder there is conspiracy theories? A proper and independent investigation was not done! Take it one step further:
Can you substantiate a motive as to why he hated a President so much that he felt he was called upon to take it upon himself to shoot him? He loved Communism so much? He felt his idol Fidol Castro was going to be assassinated by JFK and his gang? The simple fact is, his being at the TBSD building began after JFK and Connally had decided in September on the Fund Raiser trip for JFK to Dallas! Those are the real questions of the day!
Furthermore, what do we know about his character? Do we even know if he had a driver's license? Was it customary for someone like him to be driven around - even to work - chauffeured - a man with wife and kids living the American dream? At the same time, he was a marksman. It seems strange even in the 60s that he wouldn't drive an automobile or be a normal sort of man - unless he was brainwashed into thinking he was part of some spy novel, was living the part and mentally deranged! Maria didn't mention that! In a few of the interviews she had later, the newsman all but put words into her mouth for her.
None of these things are questioned - all were deemed unimportant. We only know that he proclaimed his innocence and that he wanted legal counsel - none provided! Dying rather quickly without a story was a perfect ending - a perfect crime!
There were many innocent people involved and it doesn't mean they were in on any conspiracy! Your argument is that they had to know the truth and therefore guilty of the crime. The same sort of argument that you would say a prosecutor should face in the wrongful conviction of an innocent person after he has been found guilty of using only select pieces to gain a conviction in his case and not all that he has.
But if there was a conspiracy at least one of the persons named had to be involved. There's no way to get around that fact becuase that's the only way Oswald could have gotten the job at the TSBD.
The reality is, there were very few people that needed to know the truth. The rest was building a case to convict a LNer. The less people you have that know that, the easier it is to keep a secret. A few people working with evidence, eye witness accounts and statements can do wonders to point a case to have a deliberate outcome. Sad but true.
You're basing something as real and true on nothing more than conjecture. There's nothing, not a scrap of evidence that can lead anyone to assume what you're saying. IMHO.
So to, you must have an open mind with LHO. He was killed and wasn't there to defend himself. Eye witness accounts and statements can be easily obtained and signed off. In fact the more you can get, the more conflicting it all is, the less reliable they become and the more easy it becomes to mislead and develop your own argument in the case. So, lets not get into those 5 questions you are itching to have me answer. Look at what hasn't been provide with it to solidify it and make it into a watertight case! It is really more important to establish via job application, pay stubs, bank accounts and so on, the exact time he started working at the TBSD. The traceable phone calls made from his home, collect calls and to who. The paper would be unquestionable proof, not based on eyewitness or sworn testimony and act as independent evidence.
The evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt is overwhelming so why should I have to try to look at the possibilities that he was innocent? Why don't you try to look at this case from the historical perspective instead of as a defense of Oswald? It's really very convenient to refuse to answer my questions because it would place the burden on you of proving how and why any of those persons were involved in a conspiracy. It's much easier to say well, we can't rely on dozens of witness statements that Oswald worked at the TSBD, not even Oswalds own statement in front of the camera that he indeed worked at the TSBD. Since Oswald is innocent until proven guilty even his own statement must not be allowed as evidence. It's really mindboggling. BTW, here is the face sheet of Oswald's job application for the TSBD https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=357&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=357&tab=page)
Surely you can see my argument? Strike a little fear in the people's hearts and see what can happen. Now back to reality!
Yes, please.
What about all the various ammunition he used, is there a trail for that? Why so many types, hard nose, frangible, various casings all mixed in his clip we are led to believe. Even casing from pistol, some coming from an ammo belt. Two different pistols. Close examination of this combination of the various evidence is not very convincing when you try to find commanality among it and a coherent argument.
What! There were only tow types of ammo used. WC 6.5 mm copper plated used in the Carcano and Winchester-Western/Remington-Peters .38 cal bullets used in the S&W .38 Special.
It is little wonder there is conspiracy theories? A proper and independent investigation was not done! Take it one step further:
There are conspiracy theories. Many, many, conspiracy theories involving dozens if not over a hundred different characters and entities. And they all began with Marguerite Oswald, IMO.
Can you substantiate a motive as to why he hated a President so much that he felt he was called upon to take it upon himself to shoot him? He loved Communism so much? He felt his idol Fidol Castro was going to be assassinated by JFK and his gang? The simple fact is, his being at the TBSD building began after JFK and Connally had decided in September on the Fund Raiser trip for JFK to Dallas! Those are the real questions of the day!
A motive can only be arrived at by conjecture. I'm not going to go there although a plausible motive could be arrived at by looking at the evidence, Oswald's affinity for violence, his attraction to a political cause, and the current confrontational relations between the JFK administration and both Cuba and the USSR.
What you claim as a simple fact is all conjecture. If the questions brought up by me were answered a simple timeline and narrative would explain how it came to be that Oswald ended up employed at the TSBD.
Furthermore, what do we know about his character? Do we even know if he had a driver's license? Was it customary for someone like him to be driven around - even to work - chauffeured - a man with wife and kids living the American dream? At the same time, he was a marksman. It seems strange even in the 60s that he wouldn't drive an automobile or be a normal sort of man - unless he was brainwashed into thinking he was part of some spy novel, was living the part and mentally deranged! Maria didn't mention that! In a few of the interviews she had later, the newsman all but put words into her mouth for her.
We know a lot about his character. There's the testimony of his brother Robert, his wife Marina, Ruth Paine, George D, people of the Russian emigre community who dealt with him and Marina, co-workers, bosses, Oswald's diary...etc. No drivers license was found in his possession or in his belongins and Ruth Paine said that even though his driving had improved the one time they went to get a drivers license the place was closed.
None of these things are questioned - all were deemed unimportant. We only know that he proclaimed his innocence and that he wanted legal counsel - none provided! Dying rather quickly without a story was a perfect ending - a perfect crime!
A lot of things were questioned and investigated by the WC and the HSCA and they happened to come to the same conclusion except for the HSCA erroneous conclusion there had been a shooter at the Grassy Knoll who missed and, therefore, there was a conspiracy. The HSCA could not arrive at any conclusion as to who or what organization or government was involved in a conspiracy though. Yes, it's true that Oswald say he was innocent but he was provided with an opportunity for counsel and rejected it. He wanted a certian lawyer named Abt and attempts were made to get him to no avail.
-
Rahn and Sturdivan confirmed Guinn's analysis of there only having been two bullets.
Rahn and Sturdivan also disputed the findings of Randich and Grant and explain why the assumptions used by Randich and Grant in their analysis was faulty.
www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/Review_of_RG/Review.html
The only bullets analyzed by Tobin and Spiegelman were from different lots of Carcano cartridges. No matter how you look at it they are stating there had to be two snipers both armed with Carcano's. Tobin's goal was to prove there was more than two bullets by reanalyzing Guinn's findings and in the process used his own set of assumptions.
Based on Posner's book, Case Closed, Tobin assumed the shooting sequence proposed by Posner was the basis for his determination that if there was three bullets then there had to be two shooters. In the end they still could not prove Guinn wrong about there only being two bullets and that fact was stated in the conclusion.
Jack, Guinn used junk science. His claims are no longer viewed as credible.
Those statements are confirmed by the fact that Law Enforcement no longer uses the same methods for Lead Analysis as they did 40 years ago. Guinn may have been Right but the methods he used to reach his conclusions were wrong...
?????????????
Tobin was the FBI lab's chief metallurgy expert for more than two decades. He analyzed metal evidence in major cases that included the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island.
After retiring, he attracted national attention by questioning the FBI science used in prosecutions for decades to match bullets to crime suspects through their lead content. The questions he and others raised prompted a National Academy of Sciences review that in 2003 concluded that the FBI's bullet lead analysis was flawed. The FBI agreed and generally ended the use of that type of analysis.
Using new guidelines set forth by the National Academy of Sciences for proper bullet analysis, Tobin and his colleagues at Texas A&M re-analyzed the bullet evidence provided to the 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations to support the conclusion that only one shooter, Oswald, fired the shots that killed Kennedy.
Tobin, Spiegelman and James said they bought the same brand and lot of bullets used by Oswald and analyzed their lead using the new standards. The bullets from that batch are still on the market as collectors' items.
They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html