JFK Assassination Forum

  Hackerott saw that the National Geographic film snippet proved him wrong. It's clear that is a getaway car that was deserted there on the corner. It's obvious that it was gonna make a quick (R) turn onto Elm St ASAP and then be gone. The question remaining is if those 2 guys that have been debated as being Shelley and Lovelady are actually the 2 guys that vacated that getaway car.

Dear Comrade Storing,

How do you know there were two guys in that car?

-- Tom

Yes, we (led by me) got side-tracked to the Belarus/KGB files and whether Oswald was used as a KGB asset. I thought that the Hunt letter was shown to be a forgery about 20-30 years ago? Or dismissed as not reliable? Seems the conspiracy crowd ignored it and they have very low standards when it comes to evidence. At least evidence they like. In any case, this should close the question. That Paese Sera disinformation about Shaw can be the next nonsense to be tossed into the garbage.

One last (hah) post about Oswald and the KGB: We've had numerous sources - defections and reports - supporting the conclusion that the KGB didn't use Oswald, that they viewed him as too risky and unreliable (Q: Has Marina been lying all of these decades? She was a KGB "swallow"?). And that Nosenko for all of his problems *was* truthful when he said this. He may or may not have been a legitimate defector (I think the evidence at this point is he was); but he was truthful when he said the KGB didn't use Oswald.

Oleg Nechiporenko, one of the KGB officers who Oswald talked to in Mexico City, said he reviewed Oswald's file in Moscow and it showed that the KGB had no interest in using Oswald. Too unreliable. He also quoted in his book "Passport to Assassination" from a report that the then head of the KGB, Vladimir Semichastny, sent to the Politburo after the assassination saying the same thing: the KGB didn't recruit Oswald. Oleg Kalugin, the head of KGB counterintelligence, said Nosenko was legitimate (he was seen as a drunken, womanizing buffoon but he was indeed an agent) and the KGB didn't use Oswald. Vitaly Yurchenko, the agent who defected and then changed his mind, said the same thing. Et cetera, et cetera.

Quotes from Semichastny's memo are here: https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12897371455/Key2b656lhgowhe/nechiporenko%20and%20semichastny.JPG

If you want to believe they all lied - Semichastny lied to Khrushchev? - and that all of the files were whitewashed and everything was faked by the "inner" KGB as part of a "Monster Plot" then, well, there's nowhere to go. Whatever evidence that is produced that shows the KGB didn't use Oswald will be viewed as evidence that they did use him. This is the "CIA killed JFK" view where everything showing they didn't kill JFK is evidence they did. Since it's all faked.

Up is down and down is up and we'll just go in circles.

Dear Steve M.,

You're naive if you believe Yuri Nosenko was a true defector-in-place in Geneva in June1962 and a true physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964, that Aleksei Kulak (FEDORA) really did spy for the FBI, that Igor Kochnov really did collude with the CIA and the FBI, and that Vitaliy Yurchenko was a true "but homesick" defector in 1985, etc., etc.

When are you going to get around to reading Bagley's book, "Spy Wars," his 35-page follow-up article, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and the parts about Nosenko in John M. Newman's book, "Uncovering Popov's Mole" (which he dedicated to Bagley)?

Here's my Wikipedia article on Bagley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennent_H._Bagley


-- Tom

If you want to believe they all lied - Semichastny lied to Khrushchev? - and that all of the files were whitewashed and everything was faked by the "inner" KGB as part of a "Monster Plot" then, well, there's nowhere to go. Whatever evidence that is produced that shows the KGB didn't use Oswald will be viewed as evidence that they did use him. This is the "CIA killed JFK" view where everything showing they didn't kill JFK is evidence they did. Since it's all faked.

Up is down and down is up and we'll just go in circles.

Excellent point, Steve. I have rarely, if ever, met a JFK conspiracy theorist who is willing to admit when they're wrong and that the evidence does not support their claims. This is another example of how an entire line of thinking could easily be tossed in the trash forever, but the nutjobs at the JFK Education Forum will spin it backwards in a way they think proves their nutty beliefs.

The reason Connally turns his head so far to his right starting around Z-165 (and keeps turning it farther to his right) is because he's consciously trying to catch a glimpse of JFK over his right shoulder to see if he's okay.

Connally's "startle reaction" to the sounds of the first shot had already occurred by Z-139.

In other words, Connaly snaps his head to his right twice:

1) before Z-139 ("startle reaction")

2) around Z-165 (conscious effort to see if JFK's okay).

I disagree. Zapruder's film blurs at Z158-Z160 plus Jackie and Nellie Connally both turn to the right after the shot that occurred at Z-155.

Please cite any evidence of the radio transmission by Foster you claim he made.

Also, here is a snippet from “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi, page 3600-3601:


Walther’s Warren Commission testimony and later statements were corroborated by what Dallas patrolman J. W. Foster told the Warren Commission in 1964. Asked, “Did you recover any bullet?” Foster replied, “No, sir. It ricocheted on out” (6 H 252; see also Sneed, No More Silence, pp.212–213). In fact, it was Foster who provided the most lucid account of what happened, in a 1987 interview with interviewer Larry Sneed. “The plaza had been freshly mowed the day before,” Foster said, “thus I noticed this clump of sod that was laying there and was trying to find out what caused that clump of grass to be there. That’s when I found where the bullet had struck the concrete skirt by the manhole cover and knocked that clump of grass up. Buddy Walthers, one of the sheriff’s deputies, came up and talked to me about it, and we discussed the direction from which the bullet had come. It struck the skirt near the manhole cover and then hit this person [a reference to eyewitness James Tague] who had stood by the column over on Commerce Street. He came by and had a cut on his face where the bullet had struck the column. You could see about where the bullet had come from by checking the angle where it scraped across the concrete and the column where it struck the pedestrian. It appeared to have come from the northeast, approximately from the book store area, but we were never able to find the slug . . . I contacted my sergeant, C.F. Williams. He told me to remain there until they got down there and had some pictures taken, which they did.” (Sneed, No More Silence, pp.212–213)


Plus some of the photos clearly show the direction of the bullet’s trajectory.

This whole story is just a continuing fiction on JW Foster’s part.

Buddy Walters never mentioned this story in his testimonies or statements. Tague himself stated he was not cut. Buddy Walters believed the shot came directly from the TSBD and traveled high over the car based on the angel of the mark on top of the curb. No mention at all of a mark on a manhole cover. It if left a mark where is the analysis of the mark or even mention of one.

 It struck the skirt near the manhole cover and then hit this person [a reference to eyewitness James Tague] who had stood by the column over on Commerce Street. He came by and had a cut on his face where the bullet had struck the column. You could see about where the bullet had come from by checking the angle where it scraped across the concrete and the column where it struck the pedestrian. 

Column?

 JW Foster did not even get that right. Tague was all about a curb by his feet, not a column he was standing next to.

Buddy Walters did not think enough of it to even mention it to the WC. Instead, he believed like so many other witnesses the first two shots hit the motorcade and a bullet was some kind of miss that struck the curb by Tague.

 --------

Buddy Walter

Buddy Walters..... I found where a bullet had splattered on the top edge of the curb on Main Street which would place the direction firing high and behind the position the President's car was in when he was shot. Due to the fact that the projectile struck so near the underpass, it was, in my opinion, probably the last shot that was fired and had aparently went high and above the President's car.   

Mr. WALTHERS. That's right--in this lane here and his car was just partially sticking out parked there and he came up to me and asked me, he said, "Are you looking to see where some bullets may have struck?" And I said, "Yes." He says, "I was standing over by the bank here, right there where my car is parked when those shots happened," and he said, "I don't know where they came from, or if they were shots, but something struck me on the face," and he said, "It didn't make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting," and so I had him show me right where he was standing and I started to search in that immediate area and found a place on the curb there in the Main Street lane there close to the underpass where a projectile had struck that curb.

Mr. WALTHERS. Well, at the time I wasn't interested in whether he was cut or what, I just said, "Where were you standing?" In an effort to prove there was some shots fired, and after seeing the way it struck the curb at an angle---which it came down on the curb---it was almost obvious that it either came from this building or this building [indicating] the angle it struck the curb at.

Mr. WALTHERS. Evidently this shot must have went way high over that car--- the last shot, as they were fixing to go to the underpass---it must have been awful high to hit where it did.

There is no mention of Foster or even a strike on a manhole cover by Buddy Walters.