Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
That's my story and I am sticking with it.

1) Who cares?

2) Why do you think a Kremlin-loyal triple agent (Ivan Obyedkov) "volunteered" to a "forgetful" Oswald or Oswald impersonator the Department 13 radioactive name "Kostikov" over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line seven weeks before the assassination, which name "Kostikov" had been made Department 13 radioactive a year earlier by another Kremlin-loyal triple agent, Aleksei Kulak -- J. Edgar Hoover's shielded-from-CIA FEDORA at the FBI's NYC field office?

3) And why did "The Blond Oswald In Mexico City" -- KGB Colonel Nikolai Leonov -- tell the National Enquirer on 11/22/93 that he had met with a weeping and pistol-brandishing Oswald at the Soviet Embassy (not the Consulate) on Sunday, 9/29/63?
2
John Simkin rehashed the standard old-guard lefty (and MAGA-Moscow-Putin) line that the CIA/MIC did it, as they wanted to have wars, not global peace as pursued by JFK. A globalist cabal of commercial bigwigs likely helped too in the JFKA.

Simkin's views stem from his doctrinaire socialist-leftist woke ideologies, which results in an agenda, and that writes his  narrative.

Simkin (and Jeff Morley more so) make a big deal out of the fact the US intel agencies occasionally monitored LHO. Given that he defected to Russia, and made a show of Marxist leanings...that is to be expected.

LHO may have been impersonated in MC, although maybe by Russians. Valerie Kostikov, who may or may not have been Dept. 13, said he met with the real LHO, and was filmed and recorded by Gus Russo in that statement. 

I am trying to follow up on some old stuff by Gus Russo to the effect G-2 monitored or did something more with LHO in New Orleans.

My take remains if there was a JFKAC, it was very small, just two guys and LHO.

No one has ever come up with a shred of evidence, or believable confession, of a larger JFKAC. You can say the Mafia, or KGB, or CIA, Mormons or Mossad perped the JFKA. Why not?

People are so obsessed with the acronym "CIA," that (even from a lefty viewpoint) overlooked there is some evidence of an Army Intel-Alpha 66 connection to LHO. There is a lone eyewitness of LHO at the Alpha 66 house on Harlandale, a group so fanatic the CIA washed their hands of it in 1963, but they were picked up by Army intel.

My take is Alpha 66 guys had been involved in kinetic terror for a while, were incorrigible, often at odds with US overseers. A couple of nuts from Alpha 66 would not need permission from anyone to perp the JFKA.

That's my story and I am sticking with it.





3
Is British far-leftist John Simkin correct in saying at his so-called "JFK Assassination Debate - Education Forum" that CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton "monitored Oswald’s private life and political activities for four years before JFK was killed," or is he thinking of father-figure-requiring Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior, probable KGB "mole" Bruce Leonard Solie, who kept his own Security Office "Black Hole" file on LHO and whom John M. Newman believes sent (or duped Angleton into sending) Oswald to Moscow in October 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a (unbeknownst to Angleton and Oswald) planned-to-fail hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA?

Simkin posted a list of CIA documents that Comrade Jefferson Morley wanted in January of this year to be released. The following is one which has been released since then -- the unredacted transcript of Angleton's testimony to the Church Committee on 19 June 1975.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=238702#relPageId=63

It's interesting to note that the very first word on page 63 is "Byetkov," the transcriptionist's misspelling of "Obyedkov," as in Ivan Obyedkov, the KGB officer and Embassy security officer who "volunteered" to Oswald or an Oswald impersonator over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line on Tuesday, 1 October 1963, the Department 13-radioactive name "Kostikov," and that Angleton goes on, either in this testimony or the testimony he gave to the Church Committee on 6 February 1976 (I'm going from memory here), to say that the CIA realized later that Obyedkov was a Kremlin-loyal triple agent, i.e., it mistakenly believed it had successfully recruited him.

Also mentioned by Angleton on 19 June 1975 (and by inference on 6 February 1976) is surname of Sylvia Duran's, Alfredo Mirabal's and Eusebio Azcue's "Blond Oswald in Mexico City" -- KGB Colonel / Soviet "Diplomat" Nikolai Leonov (whose name is butchered every-which-way by Angleton and/or by the transcriptionist).

Enjoy!

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1434#relPageId=1&search=Angleton


PS The Church Committee's Chief Counsel, Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., really screws up on the previous page (page 62) when he alleges that a photo of Leonov was found in Oswald's pocket when he was arrested in Mexico.

It's no wonder that Angleton's reply was, "There is an allegation."

Factoid: It wasn't a photo of Leonov, but one of his "calling cards," and it wasn't found in Oswald's pocket when he "was arrested in Mexico" (Oswald was never arrested in Mexico), but in the notebook of none other than Fidel Castro when he was arrested in Mexico City with Che And Da Boys in 1956.

Scroll down to see a photo of Leonov and Fidel and Raul Castro that was taken several years later:
https://www.escambray.cu/2022/muere-en-moscu-nikolai-leonov-gran-amigo-de-cuba/

 
4
You again showcase your ability to misread and misrepresent. I made several points in the OP, only one of which was incorrect.

In the OP I pointed out that Mytton makes the utterly bogus claim that the incidents of parallax in the photos are "massive" and "vast," when in fact they were so small that they could only be detected with the aid of computers and microscopes and were found to be matter of millimeters, sometimes 0.1 mm.

In the OP, I discussed Mytton's claim that the backyard photos are "tiny," when in fact 133-C Dees is an 8 x 10 first-generation print and 133-A Stovall is a first-generation 5 x 8 print. The PEP was able to make high-quality enlargements from 133-A DeM that could be displayed on a large-screen viewer because 133-A DeM was “probably made in a high-quality enlarger with a high-quality lens” (6 H 148).

In addition, in the OP I repeated one of the central points about the backyard photos as revealed by the PEP's parallax measurements, i.e., that the differences in the distances between the background objects would be far greater if the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story, that there is no way that a cheap top-viewfinder handheld camera that was handed back and forth between exposures would produce photos that contain differences in background-object distances that are so small they could only be detected with photogrammetric measurements done with the aid of computers and microscopes.

Did you just "forget" about these points that I made in the OP?

So you're doubling down on Mytton's ludicrous claim that the background-distance differences are "very visible" to the naked eye. Why, then, was the PEP only able to detect them with photogrammetric measurements done with the aid of computers and microscopes?

Your comparisons of dimes and human hair are patently ridiculous. First off, a dime is 1.35 mm thick, not just "a little over 1 mm thick." Second, simply discerning the existence of ridges on the side of a dime or being able to see a human hair has nothing to do with detecting the kinds of differences in the distances between background objects that the PEP found in the backyard photos.

Tell me, what do you think would happen if someone produced a dime with ridges that were 0.08 mm apart instead of the usual 0.18 mm apart, and if you showed the altered dime and a regular dime to 10 people and asked them if they noticed any differences in the two dimes' ridges, without the aid of any magnification? Huh? How many people do you think would detect the difference in the spacing of the ridges without any kind of magnification and without holding the dimes very close to their eyes but holding them no closer than 12 inches to their eyes? And if any of those 10 people said they thought the ridges were closer together on one of the dimes, how many of them do you think would be able to tell you that the amount of difference was 0.1 mm? Huh?

Similarly, of course, if a human hair is held close enough to you, you will be able to see/discern it, but that has nothing to do with the parallax measurements discussion. Take a deep breath and think about this: If you took two photos, say 8 x 10 in size, and moved an object in the background of one of the photos by 0.075 mm, are you seriously suggesting that people would be able to detect the 0.075 mm difference in the distance between the two objects without any magnification? Really?

A 0.1 mm difference in the distance between two background objects in two photos is indeed microscopic, which is why the PEP had to use computers and microscopes to do their photogrammetric measurements.

Oh, come on. You can't really believe that the PEP would have said nothing if they had found evidence that the camera's movement was not just "slight" and "very small" but was much larger.

Mytton's whole argument about camera movement "in the real world," as if the PEP was talking about some other world, is nonsensical and further evidence of his utter incompetence. The PEP was talking about the camera's movement "in the real world." What other world does Mytton think the PEP was referencing when they said the camera moved to the left only "slightly" and that the change in its vertical position was "very small"? Mars? Venus? Some unseen parallel world?

Nonsense. They needed to show that the amount of parallax was reasonable and plausible in light of how the photos were allegedly made, but instead they found that the differences between the background objects were only tiny fractions of an inch and had to be measured with the aid of computers and microscopes.

Furthermore, they didn't even measure 133-C for parallax, a fact that you blithely and incredibly dismiss as meaningless.

One, the PEP experts knew full well that fake photos can also be viewed stereoscopically as long as they show two different perspectives, even if the perspectives are only slightly different.

Two, I have repeatedly said that the identical-background argument is not necessary to prove the photos are fake, and that the main point about the backgrounds is that the microscopic differences in the distances between their objects could not have been produced by a handheld camera that was handed back and forth between exposures but indicate that a tripod was used and that Marina was not the photographer.

Again, in her later years, Marina said in a record interview that she did not take the backyard photos in evidence. When she was pressured and manipulated into going along with the official story, she said that she held the camera up to her eye to take the photos (a physical impossibility with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera), that she only took one or two photos, that she had never seen the white sling, and that she had not seen a telescopic sight on the rifle.

This is your idea of "basic logic"?! How do you know that 133-C's background is not identical to 133-A's or 133-B's? You don't, because the PEP, incredibly, failed to do parallax measurements on the photo (or, if they did, the never mentioned them). If 133-C's background were identical to 133-A's background, that would be a huge problem for your side. Or, if 133-C's background were identical to 133-B's background, that would also be a huge problem for your side.

You mean basic nonsense. Let me give you some genuine basic logic: If you're claiming to prove that the backgrounds in three photos are not identical, you cannot establish this claim by only doing parallax measurements on two of the photos. Or, if you're claiming that the floor plans for three houses are not identical, you cannot establish this claim by only examining the floor plans of two of the houses.

UH-HUH. We both know that any such reenactment would prove the backyard photos to be fraudulent.

Physicist Philip Stahl, who has written books on physics and astronomy, did a pixel analysis of the backyard rifle photos and found that they must have been tampered with:

"Given some original values dx1, dy1, the mapping will yield diffused dimensions that are within about 30% of the original.  However,  +30%  shows that there clearly had to have been tampering such that the images are not the same." (http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html)

Stahl decided to conduct the analysis after reading Hany Farid’s study, which supposedly proved that the backyard photos are authentic. Stahl reviewed Farid’s study and concluded it was severely flawed, as he discusses in the above-mentioned article and in his article “Hany Farid’s Pixelated Illusions”:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html

Former professor of mathematics Richard Charnin has studied the backyard rifle photos and has likewise concluded they have been faked. If anyone is wondering about Charnin’s credentials, in 1965, he earned a BA in mathematics from Queens College. In 1969, he earned an MS in applied mathematics from Adelphi University, and in 1973, he earned an MS in operations research from the Polytechnic Institute of New York. Here is Charnin’s article “Mathematical Proof that the Oswald Backyard Photos Were Faked”:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/jfk-mathematical-proof-that-the-oswald-backyard-photos-were-faked/

I would recommend Charnin’s 2014 book Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy.


You again showcase your ability to misread and misrepresent. I made several points in the OP, only one of which was incorrect.

In the OP I pointed out that Mytton makes the utterly bogus claim that the incidents of parallax in the photos are "massive" and "vast," when in fact they were so small that they could only be detected with the aid of computers and microscopes and were found to be matter of millimeters, sometimes 0.1 mm.

In the OP, I discussed Mytton's claim that the backyard photos are "tiny," when in fact 133-C Dees is an 8 x 10 first-generation print and 133-A Stovall is a first-generation 5 x 8 print. The PEP was able to make high-quality enlargements from 133-A DeM that could be displayed on a large-screen viewer because 133-A DeM was “probably made in a high-quality enlarger with a high-quality lens” (6 H 148).

In addition, in the OP I repeated one of the central points about the backyard photos as revealed by the PEP's parallax measurements, i.e., that the differences in the distances between the background objects would be far greater if the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story, that there is no way that a cheap top-viewfinder handheld camera that was handed back and forth between exposures would produce photos that contain differences in background-object distances that are so small they could only be detected with photogrammetric measurements done with the aid of computers and microscopes.

Did you just "forget" about these points that I made in the OP?

So you're doubling down on Mytton's ludicrous claim that the background-distance differences are "very visible" to the naked eye. Why, then, was the PEP only able to detect them with photogrammetric measurements done with the aid of computers and microscopes?

Your comparisons of dimes and human hair are patently ridiculous. First off, a dime is 1.35 mm thick, not just "a little over 1 mm thick." Second, simply discerning the existence of ridges on the side of a dime or being able to see a human hair has nothing to do with detecting the kinds of differences in the distances between background objects that the PEP found in the backyard photos.

Tell me, what do you think would happen if someone produced a dime with ridges that were 0.08 mm apart instead of the usual 0.18 mm apart, and if you showed the altered dime and a regular dime to 10 people and asked them if they noticed any differences in the two dimes' ridges, without the aid of any magnification? Huh? How many people do you think would detect the difference in the spacing of the ridges without any kind of magnification and without holding the dimes very close to their eyes but holding them no closer than 12 inches to their eyes? And if any of those 10 people said they thought the ridges were closer together on one of the dimes, how many of them do you think would be able to tell you that the amount of difference was 0.1 mm? Huh?

Similarly, of course, if a human hair is held close enough to you, you will be able to see/discern it, but that has nothing to do with the parallax measurements discussion. Take a deep breath and think about this: If you took two photos, say 8 x 10 in size, and moved an object in the background of one of the photos by 0.075 mm, are you seriously suggesting that people would be able to detect the 0.075 mm difference in the distance between the two objects without any magnification? Really?

A 0.1 mm difference in the distance between two background objects in two photos is indeed microscopic, which is why the PEP had to use computers and microscopes to do their photogrammetric measurements.

Oh, come on. You can't really believe that the PEP would have said nothing if they had found evidence that the camera's movement was not just "slight" and "very small" but was much larger.

Mytton's whole argument about camera movement "in the real world," as if the PEP was talking about some other world, is nonsensical and further evidence of his utter incompetence. The PEP was talking about the camera's movement "in the real world." What other world does Mytton think the PEP was referencing when they said the camera moved to the left only "slightly" and that the change in its vertical position was "very small"? Mars? Venus? Some unseen parallel world?

Nonsense. They needed to show that the amount of parallax was reasonable and plausible in light of how the photos were allegedly made, but instead they found that the differences between the background objects were only tiny fractions of an inch and had to be measured with the aid of computers and microscopes.

Furthermore, they didn't even measure 133-C for parallax, a fact that you blithely and incredibly dismiss as meaningless.

One, the PEP experts knew full well that fake photos can also be viewed stereoscopically as long as they show two different perspectives, even if the perspectives are only slightly different.

Two, I have repeatedly said that the identical-background argument is not necessary to prove the photos are fake, and that the main point about the backgrounds is that the microscopic differences in the distances between their objects could not have been produced by a handheld camera that was handed back and forth between exposures but indicate that a tripod was used and that Marina was not the photographer.

Again, in her later years, Marina said in a record interview that she did not take the backyard photos in evidence. When she was pressured and manipulated into going along with the official story, she said that she held the camera up to her eye to take the photos (a physical impossibility with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera), that she only took one or two photos, that she had never seen the white sling, and that she had not seen a telescopic sight on the rifle.

This is your idea of "basic logic"?! How do you know that 133-C's background is not identical to 133-A's or 133-B's? You don't, because the PEP, incredibly, failed to do parallax measurements on the photo (or, if they did, the never mentioned them). If 133-C's background were identical to 133-A's background, that would be a huge problem for your side. Or, if 133-C's background were identical to 133-B's background, that would also be a huge problem for your side.

You mean basic nonsense. Let me give you some genuine basic logic: If you're claiming to prove that the backgrounds in three photos are not identical, you cannot establish this claim by only doing parallax measurements on two of the photos. Or, if you're claiming that the floor plans for three houses are not identical, you cannot establish this claim by only examining the floor plans of two of the houses.

UH-HUH. We both know that any such reenactment would prove the backyard photos to be fraudulent.

Physicist Philip Stahl, who has written books on physics and astronomy, did a pixel analysis of the backyard rifle photos and found that they must have been tampered with:

"Given some original values dx1, dy1, the mapping will yield diffused dimensions that are within about 30% of the original.  However,  +30%  shows that there clearly had to have been tampering such that the images are not the same." (http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html)

Stahl decided to conduct the analysis after reading Hany Farid’s study, which supposedly proved that the backyard photos are authentic. Stahl reviewed Farid’s study and concluded it was severely flawed, as he discusses in the above-mentioned article and in his article “Hany Farid’s Pixelated Illusions”:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html

Former professor of mathematics Richard Charnin has studied the backyard rifle photos and has likewise concluded they have been faked. If anyone is wondering about Charnin’s credentials, in 1965, he earned a BA in mathematics from Queens College. In 1969, he earned an MS in applied mathematics from Adelphi University, and in 1973, he earned an MS in operations research from the Polytechnic Institute of New York. Here is Charnin’s article “Mathematical Proof that the Oswald Backyard Photos Were Faked”:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/jfk-mathematical-proof-that-the-oswald-backyard-photos-were-faked/

I would recommend Charnin’s 2014 book Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy.
MG: So you're doubling down on Mytton's ludicrous claim

I haven't said anything about Mytton's claim one way or the other.


MG: You again showcase your ability to misread and misrepresent. I made several points in the OP, only one of which was incorrect.

I've misread nor misrepresented nothing. Your OP was centered on the calculation that you got so, so. so wrong. This mistake then ripples all the way through the rest of the points you try to make in your post. In addition, there is the larger point I keep making in this thread: your mistake doesn't only show that you need some remedial mathematics, but betrays that you do not (still!) understand what the PEP was doing, why they were doing it, and how they did it. So you keep running your 101-key mouth off about something that you clearly don't understand, over and over again. At least it's entertaining. Sort of.


MG: .... I repeated one of the central points about the backyard photos as revealed by the PEP's parallax measurements, i.e., that the differences in the distances between the background objects would be far greater if the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story, that there is no way that a cheap top-viewfinder handheld camera that was handed back and forth between exposures would produce photos that contain differences in background-object distances that are so small they could only be detected with photogrammetric measurements done with the aid of computers and microscopes.

This claim of yours is simply an unsupported assertion, something you are prone to doing. As such, it is beneath everyone else's consideration. As another poster might say, "LOL"


MG: In the OP I pointed out that Mytton makes the utterly bogus claim that the incidents of parallax in the photos are "massive" and "vast," when in fact they were so small that they could only be detected with the aid of computers and microscopes and were found to be matter of millimeters, sometimes 0.1 mm.

Where did the PEP claim that they used microsopes or computers to perform the parallax measurements? I looked, and came up with bupkis.



MG: This is your idea of "basic logic"?! How do you know that 133-C's background is not identical to 133-A's or 133-B's? You don't, because the PEP, incredibly, failed to do parallax measurements on the photo (or, if they did, the never mentioned them). If 133-C's background were identical to 133-A's background, that would be a huge problem for your side. Or, if 133-C's background were identical to 133-B's background, that would also be a huge problem for your side.

If you say "A, B, and C are identical" then you are also saying that "A is identical to B and B is identical to C and C is identical to A." These two statements are equivalent. If someone else can show that "A is not identical to B" or "B is not identical to C" or "C is not identical to A," then the original assertion is falisified. The logic here is simple and strightforward, and I'm not surprised at all that it goes completely over your head.
 

MG: Your comparisons of dimes and human hair are patently ridiculous. First off, a dime is 1.35 mm thick, not just "a little over 1 mm thick." Second, simply discerning the existence of ridges on the side of a dime or being able to see a human hair has nothing to do with detecting the kinds of differences in the distances between background objects that the PEP found in the backyard photos.

Tell me, what do you think would happen if someone produced a dime with ridges that were 0.08 mm apart instead of the usual 0.18 mm apart, and if you showed the altered dime and a regular dime to 10 people and asked them if they noticed any differences in the two dimes' ridges, without the aid of any magnification? Huh? How many people do you think would detect the difference in the spacing of the ridges without any kind of magnification and without holding the dimes very close to their eyes but holding them no closer than 12 inches to their eyes? And if any of those 10 people said they thought the ridges were closer together on one of the dimes, how many of them do you think would be able to tell you that the amount of difference was 0.1 mm? Huh?

Similarly, of course, if a human hair is held close enough to you, you will be able to see/discern it, but that has nothing to do with the parallax measurements discussion. Take a deep breath and think about this: If you took two photos, say 8 x 10 in size, and moved an object in the background of one of the photos by 0.075 mm, are you seriously suggesting that people would be able to detect the 0.075 mm difference in the distance between the two objects without any magnification? Really?

A 0.1 mm difference in the distance between two background objects in two photos is indeed microscopic, which is why the PEP had to use computers and microscopes to do their photogrammetric measurements


You are the only person I've ever run into who would say that 1.35mm is not "a little bit over 1mm" :-D

Anyway, I chose the dime's thickness, the dime's reed's pitch, and the hair's breadth to straddle the measurements you presented as "microscopic." All of those things are easily and commonly seen with an unaided eye. Since "microscopic" refers to something that is too small for the unaided eye to see, none of the things in question should be considered "microscopic." The rest of your reply is nothing more than a bagfull of hot air.


MG: One, the PEP experts knew full well that fake photos can also be viewed stereoscopically as long as they show two different perspectives, even if the perspectives are only slightly different.

Parallax is an effect caused by viewing something from two different perspectives. By definition. A stereoscopic view is an effect caused by viewing images taken frm two different perspectives.  In a pair of stereo images, your brian uses the differences in the perspectives --that is, the parallax-- to determine depth. Parallax and stereo viewing are tied together at a fundamental level: a stereo pair will exhibit parallax, and two images with parallax will form a stereo pair.  You really, really, really have no idea what you're talking about here, do you?


MG: Mytton's whole argument about camera movement "in the real world," as if the PEP was talking about some other world, is nonsensical and further evidence of his utter incompetence. The PEP was talking about the camera's movement "in the real world." What other world does Mytton think the PEP was referencing when they said the camera moved to the left only "slightly" and that the change in its vertical position was "very small"? Mars? Venus? Some unseen parallel world?

The PEP only had the measurements from an enlarged photograph to go by. The enlargement was about 14" across, but the scene in the photo is an area at least an order of magnitude larger, so any parallax measurement would correspond to something around 10x larger in the actual scene. The other thing to remember is that the amount of parallax is not directly related to the change in position of the camera, so there's no way to determine exactly how far the camera moves between images. But I've already pointed this out. BTW, exactly how far is "slightly?" And "very small" is small compared to what, exactly?


MG: They needed to show that the amount of parallax was reasonable and plausible in light of how the photos were allegedly made, but instead they found that the differences between the background objects were only tiny fractions of an inch and had to be measured with the aid of computers and microscopes.

To prove their point, all the PEP had to do was demonstrate parallax, no matter how small. Period. And I still have no idea where you got the idea that they were using computers and microscopes to perform the parallax measurements.


MG: I have repeatedly said that the identical-background argument is not necessary to prove the photos are fake

So you keep on arguing about it....  and do so very, very poorly at that.


MG: UH-HUH. We both know that any such reenactment would prove the backyard photos to be fraudulent.

No, we don't. You'd like to believe that, but it's simply not true. And you haven't given us one iota of a reason to believe so, either.


MG: Physicist Philip Stahl, who has written books on physics and astronomy, did a pixel analysis of the backyard rifle photos and found that they must have been tampered with...

Stahl's analysis was based on "the reasonable assumption that any transformation from specular dots on silver iodide based (1963) photo emulsions will undergo some drift over time." Is that really a correct assumption. He presents no argument that it is, nor any source, authoirtative or otherwise, to support the assumption. It's also based on his assumptions for a set of weights given to the various parameters. What are those based on, and are they valid?


MG: Former professor of mathematics Richard Charnin has studied the backyard rifle photos and has likewise concluded they have been faked

Charnin doesn't present any original analysis of the photos. He does point to Stahl's analysis, and also an analysis promulgated by the famous and highly-esteemed photographic expert Judyth Baker. If he thinks Baker is a source worth studying, he's probably not worth reading much into.

He does also present us with the opinion of  one "Canadian Defense Dept. photographic specialist Major General John Pickard." Pickard "noted that each photo was taken from a slightly different angle. When one photo was laid atop another in succession, it is found that nothing matches exactly." That is, he says that the backgrounds are not identical. Do you actually bother to read your sources?

5
It is a fact that Bonnie Ray's lunch remains were initially discovered on the top of the stack of boxes that formed the back wall of the Sniper's Nest.
You need to ask yourself this question - What is the significance of this discovery?

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

What do you think the significance of that great discovery is?

That Bonnie Ray Williams sat inside the Sniper's Nest while drinking his Dr. Pepper and eating his Fritos and his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich?

If so, do you think that when he was finished, Bonnie Ray took his empty Dr. Pepper bottle around to the other side of the "side wall" and left it on the floor, there, or do you think he tossed it over said "side wall" from inside the Sniper's Nest and it just happened to land upright?

Do you find it highly, highly implausible that that Bonnie Ray didn't notice Oswald, hiding in the far corner of the Sniper's Nest, when he left his bag (with the chicken bones and the empty Fritos bag) on top of the Sniper's Nest back "wall"?

Do you really think that Bonnie Ray perjured himself in front of the Warren Commission, that evil, evil Allen Dulles and/or evil, evil Gerald Ford altered his testimony, and that that pesky Dr. Pepper bottle was planted there by the evil, evil, CIA, the evil, evil FBI, or the evil, evil [fill in the blank]?

It seems to me that Bonnie Ray probably ate his lunch where he testified he did -- near or actually sitting on the "two wheeler" by the third and fourth windows, but that's not very exciting, is it. (British dialect.)


Regardless, keep up the good work, danny old BOY.

Vladimir Putin is counting on you!


-- Tom
6
Hickey, Ready and Landis are specifically reporting on their responses to the first shot, which Hickey describes as an "explosion".
This is just a tiny part of the mountain of evidence that obliterates the notion of a first shot as early as you are suggesting.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

Photographic evidence trumps eyewitness / earwitness testimony every time, especially the eyewitness / earwitness testimony of these startled-and-traumatized, sleep-deprived and possibly hungover Secret Service agents regarding what they may or may not have seen and heard in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

The fact remains that Brian Roselle and Kenneth Scearce have shown that Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot occurred half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133, and their conclusion is corroborated by: 1) the fact that, as Max Holland has pointed out (see above), three of the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car -- Jack Ready, George Hickey and Glen Bennett -- can be seen in Z-153 to have consciously reacted to said early shot, and 2) the observation by others that Rosemary Willis isn't looking at JFK and Jackie in front of her in Z-145, but back towards the TSBD.

-- Tom

PS Knock yourself out with your litany of virtually worthless eyewitness / earwitness "testimony" regarding what oodles and gobs of startled and traumatized people allegedly saw and heard in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza sixty-two years ago today.
7
Further evidence (as if it were needed) that the first shot did not miss and was, in fact, the one that caused JFK's extreme reaction, elbows up, clenched fists near his neck, slumping over.
The following is taken from Pat Speer's website and his invaluable study of the witness statements regarding the shots. Along with many of the arguments presented in this thread, there can be no doubt the first shot hit JFK:

Remote Viewers--those noting the impact of the shots from buildings looking down on Dealey Plaza (all listed witnesses heard three shots unless otherwise noted):

James Jarman  (11-24-63 FBI report, CD5 p334-335) “He said that he heard a shot and then saw President Kennedy move his right hand up to his head."

Ruth Smith (12-21-63 FBI interview, CD206 p.9) “She looked back toward President Kennedy’s car after the first shot and thinks he raised his hands to his face.”

Lillian Mooneyham (1-10-64 FBI report, 24H531) “Mrs. Mooneyham heard a gunshot and observed President Kennedy slump to the left of the seat of his car."

Cecil Ault (1-10-64 FBI report, 24H534) “Mr. Ault heard three loud reports…Following the first shot Mr. Ault noted that President Kennedy appeared to raise up in his seat in the Presidential automobile and after the second shot the president slumped into his seat."

Dr. Samuel Paternostro (1-20-64 FBI report, 24H536) “He said he estimated several seconds, possibly four or five more, elapsed between the first report and the second and third reports. He said he observed President John F. Kennedy when he appeared to grab his head and thought at the time he is “well-trained;” then, when the other reports followed in quick succession, he realized that the President had been shot.”

Harold Norman (3-24-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 3H186-198) "I can’t remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard a shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something."

So, we're just beginning and the score is already 6-0. All these witnesses heard three shots and all of them believed Kennedy responded to the first shot.

Eastsiders--those noting the impact of the shots from a location in the Plaza to the east of the limousine at the time of the first shot:

Pierce Allman (11-22-63 eyewitness report on WFAA radio, between 1:45 and 2:00 PM CST)  “Right after Mr. Kennedy passed in front of me I heard one big explosion and my immediate thought like most of the people standing around me was “this is firecrackers, but it’s in pretty poor taste”. I looked and saw the president, I thought, duck. Evidently, he was slumping at the time."

Jean Newman (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H489, 24H218) "The motorcade had just passed me when I heard something that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down, and I thought at the time that it probably scared him too, just like it did me, because he flinched like he jumped. I saw him put his elbows like this, with his hands on his chest." (Only heard two shots.)

June Dishong (Letter written on 11-22-63, as read by her daughter on CNN, 11-21-2003, and featured on the Sixth Floor Museum website) “here come the president and his wife…His arm in the air waving…He drops his arm as they go by, possibly 20 feet. Suddenly--a sound.  Gun shots? So hard to tell above the clamor of the crowd. The president bent forward into his wife’s lap as his arm slipped off the side of the car."

Mary Woodward (11-23-63 newspaper article Witness From the News Describes Assassination written by Woodward for the Dallas Morning News) "After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that as a joke someone had backfired their car...I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun." (Kennedy, of course, does not turn and look around after frame 160, but resumes waving. What Woodward called "turning" then is almost certainly a reaction to the first shot's impact.)

Patricia Lawrence (11-24-63 FBI Report, 22H841): “When the motorcade passed she stated she was looking at Mrs. Kennedy who was looking to the other side of the car. The President was looking in her direction and she had waved. She heard the shot fired as the president was waving." (The president was not waving at frame 160 of the Zapruder film--the moment of the purported first shot miss--but was waving by frame 180, a second or so later. Still, as Lawrence does not specifically say the president stopped waving after the shot, it's difficult to say for sure that she is describing a first shot hit.) 

Mrs. Ruby Henderson (12-6-63 FBI report, 24H524) “at the time the motorcade passed where she was standing, she heard what she initially thought was a firecracker, and saw what she thought was paper fly out of the Presidential car. She said she now realized it was a shot she heard and what she thought was paper was probably flesh." (If so, she thought the first of the four shots she heard was the head shot. This seems highly unlikely, in light of all the other statements. It seems probable then that she was mistaken on this point.)

TE Moore (1-10-64 FBI report, 24H534) “By the time President Kennedy had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a shot was fired and Mr. Moore observed the President slump forward in the Presidential car."

Phil Willis (7-22-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H492-497) "When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less faced the other side of the street and slumped forward.”

Linda Willis (7-22-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H498-499) (When asked if she heard shots) “Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward."

Welcome Eugene Barnett (7-23-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H539-544) “I was looking at the President when the first shot was fired, and I thought I saw him slump down, but I am not sure, and I didn’t look any more then.  I thought he was ducking down."

Mary Sue Dickerson (Article by Beverly Shay in the 11-01-11 online edition of Now Magazine) “As she was making eye contact with the president of the United States, several things occurred at once. She heard what she thought were firecrackers, which initially seemed so celebratory, but then he slumped forward."

Karen Westbrook (11-28-17 Living History interview with the Sixth Floor Museum) "When I heard the shot fired... I thought it was  a car backfiring... Everything seemed to go into slow motion in my mind. After the first shot was fired I saw the President's hands gradually come up..."

While we can't rightly count Mrs. Henderson, Ms. Lawrence or Ms. Newman as first shot hit witnesses, the statements of the other 9 witnesses definitely support that Kennedy was hit by the first shot. This makes the score 15-0. Unfortunately, things get a little more confusing when we move on to discuss the statements of those on the west end of the plaza.

Westsiders--those noting the impact of the shots from a location in the plaza to the west of the limousine at the time of the last shot:

Abraham Zapruder (2:10 PM 11-22-63 interview on WFAA) “as I was shooting, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn, it was about a half-way down there, I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting.” (Only heard two definite shots, but felt certain Kennedy was hit by the first one.)

Emmett Hudson (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H481) “At the same time the President’s car was directly in front of us, I heard a shot and I saw the President fall over in the seat." (First shot head shot.)

S.M. Holland (11-22-63 statement to Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 19H480, 24H212) “the President’s car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over...After the first shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up." (Once again...first shot, head shot.)

Malcolm Summers (11-23-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H500) “The President’s car had just come up in front of me when I heard a shot and saw the President slump down in the car and heard Mrs. Kennedy say, “Oh, no,” then a second shot and then I hit the ground as I realized these were shots." (Only recalled hearing two shots, with the first one most probably the head shot.)

Jack Franzen (11-24-63 FBI report, 22H840) “He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President’s car and noticed small fragments flying inside the car and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile." (Once again, the first shot he describes is the head shot.)

Mrs. Jack Franzen  (11-25-63 FBI report, 24H525) “She advised shortly after the President’s automobile passed by on Elm Street near where she and her family were standing, she heard a noise which sounded to her to as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile.  She advised at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile." (Her statement mimics her husband's. Once again, the first shot is the head shot.)

Dallas County Sheriff Bill Decker (Undated 1963-1964 statement included with Decker Exhibit 5323, 19H458) “I distinctly remember hearing 2 shots. As I heard the first retort, I looked back over my shoulder and saw what appeared to be a spray of water come out of the rear seat of the President’s car." (Only heard two shots, the first of which can be presumed to be the head shot.)

J.W. Foster (3-26-64 FBI report, CD897 p.20-21) “Just as the vehicle in which President Kennedy was riding reached a point on Elm Street just east of the underpass, Patrolman Foster heard a noise that sounded like a large firecracker…he realized something was wrong because of the movement of the President. Another report was heard by Patrolman Foster and about the same time the report was heard, he observed the President’s head appear to explode, and immediately thereafter, he heard a third report which he knew was a shot.” (As President Kennedy's movements between Zapruder frame 160 and 190 would not have convinced Foster that something was wrong, it follows that the first shot was heard after 190, and that this shot hit Kennedy.)

Marilyn Sitzman (11-29-66 interview with Josiah Thompson) “There was nothing unusual until the first sound, which I thought was a firecracker, mainly because of the reaction of President Kennedy. He put his hands up to guard his face and leaned to the left." (Only heard two shots.)

Stavis Ellis (HSCA Vol. XII, p.23) “On August 5, 1978...Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of Elm Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy’s car and saw debris come up from the ground at a nearby curb. Ellis thought it was a fragment grenade. Ellis also said that President Kennedy turned around and looked over his shoulder." (Even though Ellis believed the first shot missed, his description of Kennedy's actions by no means matches the behavior of Kennedy observed between frames 160 and 190 of the Zapruder film, and instead suggests the first shot hit. The "fragment grenade" observed by Ellis was most logically a piece of Kennedy's skull, which would suggest the first shot heard by Ellis was the head shot. It also seems possible Ellis heard less than three shots.)

Well, this is a surprise. Here, we have ten witnesses from the west end of the plaza--and all of them recalling at least two shots--and seven of them describing the events observed in the Zapruder film at the time of the head shot as the events they observed at the time of the FIRST shot. Now, this is curious, and suggests that (as Kennedy was obviously hit at least once before the head shot) not only did the first shot not miss, but that the second shot was the head shot. Huh. It follows then that it was the THIRD shot that missed. Now, as far as the other three witnesses--the ones who thought the first shot was other than the head shot--well, they all saw Kennedy react to the first shot. So, yeah, all ten indicated Kennedy was hit by the first shot. (Now we can call it 25-0 or count Foster and disregard the others, whereby it rests at 16-0. You decide.)

Centrists--those standing to the west of Kennedy at the time of the first shot, and to the east of Kennedy at the time of the last shot.

William Newman (11-22-63 interview on WFAA)  “we were at the edge of the curb, getting ready to wave at the President when we heard the first shot and the President.....I don't know who was hit first but the President jumped up in his seat, and I thought it scared him, I thought it was a firecracker, cause he looked....you know, fear." (Only heard two shots.)

Frances Gayle Newman (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 24H218)  “When President Kennedy’s car was about ten feet from us, I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker going off. President Kennedy kind of jumped like he was startled and then covered his head with his hands and then raised up."

Mary Moorman (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H487, 24H217) “As President Kennedy was opposite me, I took a picture of him.  As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over." (Moorman's photo depicts the head shot. In other words, she thought the first shot was the head shot.)

Jean Hill (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H479, 24H212) “Just as Mary Moorman started to take a picture we were looking at the President and Jackie in the back seat…Just as the President looked up toward us two shots rang out and I saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackie’s lap." (Once again...first shot--or burst--head shot.)

Charles Brehm (11-22-63 NBC television interview first broadcast around 3:15 CST, as shown in Rush to Judgment) “He was coming down the Street and my five-year old boy and myself were by ourselves on the grass there on Commerce Street. And I asked Joe to wave to him and Joe waved and I waved (breaks up)…as he was waving back, the shot rang out and he slumped down in his seat."

John Chism (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H471) "When I saw the motorcade round the corner, the President was standing and waving to the crowd.  And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved to the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him “The President,” sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side." (Only heard two shots.)

Marvin Faye Chism (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H472) “As the President was coming through, I heard this first shot, and the President fell to his left." (Only heard two shots.)

Well, this is also interesting. Why did so few of those in the middle of the plaza hear three shots? The thought occurs that one of the shots was harder to hear than the others. The score, when one includes those hearing but two shots is now 32-0. Should one limit the count to those initially claiming to have heard three shots, moreover, the score is still 18-0.

The Motorcade Witnesses:

James Chaney (11-22-63 interview on WFAA, as shown on Youtube) “We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder." (By saying the President turned to his left after the first shot--a movement that only happens after Kennedy has obviously been hit--Chaney suggests Kennedy was hit by the first shot.)

Bobby W. Hargis (11-22-63 article in Dallas Times-Herald) “About halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first shot.  It sounded like a real loud firecracker.  When I heard the sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the President with a real surprised look on his face…The President bent over to hear what the Governor had to say." (Only heard two shots, but he saw the President respond to the first one.)

Glen Bennett (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head." (While the precise meaning of Bennett's words are open to debate, they do on first glance suggest that he felt the first shot missed. Since he did not see Kennedy's reaction to the first shot, but only saw him at the "exact time" he received the second shot, it seems possible the blood seen by Bennett came from the first shot. But we'll call this one a first shot miss.)

Sam Kinney (11-22-63 report, 18H732) “The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass…it appeared that he (the President) had been shot because he slumped to the left."

George Hickey (11-22-63 report, 18H765) “As 100-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance, I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car."

Roy Kellerman (12-10-63 FBI report, CD7 p.3-11) (11-22-63 FBI interview) “he advised he heard a shot and immediately turned around, looking past Governor Connally…to the President.  He observed the President slump forward."

Paul Landis (11-27-63 report, 18H758-759) “At this moment, I heard what sounded like the report of a high powered rifle behind me. My first glance was at the President, as my eyes were almost straight ahead at that time. I did not realize that the President was hit at that point.  I saw him moving and thought he was turning in the direction of the sound." (Only heard two shots, but saw Kennedy react to the first sound.)

Emory Roberts (11-29-63 report, 18H733-738) “12:30 PM: First of three shots fired, at which time I saw the President lean toward Mrs. Kennedy."

First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy (11-29-63 interview with Theodore White, notes released 5-26-95) “They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that; I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arm and saying no no nononono, with his fist beating—then Jack turned and I turned." (Only heard two shots, but thought Connally reacted to the first one.)

Clint Hill (11-30-63 report, 18H740-745) “The noise came from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left." (Only heard two shots, but saw the President react to the first one.)

First Lady of Texas Nellie Connally (Notes written on 12-2-63, as reprinted in her book From Love Field, 2003) “then I heard a loud, terrifying noise…I turned and looked toward the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and see him sink down in his seat."

B.J. Martin (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H289-293) “one of the agents got off of the car after the first shot…I looked to my right (after the first shot)…I looked at the President after I heard the (first) shot and he was leaning forward—I could see the left side of his face."

David Powers (5-18-64 affidavit, 7H472-474) “the first shot went off and it sounded to me as if it were a firecracker. I noticed then that the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme right hand side where he had been sitting."

So...a final tally. When one performs even a cursory review of the statements regarding the movements within the limousine at the time of the first shot, one finds that 44 of these indicated Kennedy had a reaction to the first shot. Not one indicated he just sat there waving, or looked around and resumed waving.
8

They probably thought ...


Dear Pinko,

You don't get to decide what a group of witnesses "probably thought".

Hickey, Ready and Landis are specifically reporting on their responses to the first shot, which Hickey describes as an "explosion".
This is just a tiny part of the mountain of evidence that obliterates the notion of a first shot as early as you are suggesting.
Do some research.
Stop spreading your ignorance.

9
Dear danny BOY o'meara,

Your poorly written last post implied that the three hulls were close together.

D'oh!

Regardless, please tell us:

Did Bonnie Ray Williams commit perjury, or did the Warren Commission, corrupted by evil, evil, evil Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford, alter his testimony as to where he sat while drinking his bottle of Dr. Pepper and eating his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich and bag of Fritos?

-- Tom

Dear Pinko,

your ignorance regarding the evidence in this case is profound.
If the Warren Commission didn't spoon feed it to you, you don't have the first clue about it.
It is a fact that Bonnie Ray's lunch remains were initially discovered ON TOP OF THE STACK OF BOXES THAT FORMED THE BACK WALL OF THE SNIPER'S NEST.

You are clearly unaware of this fact.
Rather than spread your ignorance, you should do some actual research.
Study the testimonies/statements of Mooney, Hill, McCurley, Weatherford, Brewer and Haygood regarding what they saw when they first went over to the southeast corner of the 6th floor, where the Sniper's Nest was located.
Once you've familiarised yourself with this evidence, you need to ask yourself this question - What is the significance of this discovery?

Do some research.
10
Even accepting the pedantic contrarian interpretation of Marina's testimony about the rifle, it proves the following:

1) LHO owned a rifle in the months leading up to the assassination.
2) He kept that rifle in Paine's garage.
3) It was missing on 11.22.63 when the police showed up and Marina directed them to the location that she expected them to find it.
4) There is no accounting for that rifle as any other than the one found in the TSBD.

What else do we know?

1) That if Oswald owned a rifle, he lied about such ownership when questioned about it by the police.
2) He ordered and was sent a rifle with a specific serial number.
3) A rifle with that same serial number was found in the TSBD.  Oswald's place of employment.
4) Oswald's prints were on that rifle.
5) There is zero evidence that any person other than Oswald owned or possessed the rifle found in the TSBD in the months leading up to the assassination.
6) There is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle than the one left in the TSBD.
7) Oswald was pictured with the rifle left at the TSBD.

All of this overwhelmingly links Oswald to a specific rifle and that rifle to the crime.


1) LHO owned a rifle in the months leading up to the assassination.

How exactly does it prove that?

2) He kept that rifle in Paine's garage.

How does it prove that?

3) It was missing on 11.22.63 when the police showed up and Marina directed them to the location that she expected them to find it.

What was missing on 11.22.63? The rifle that you can't prove was ever there or the rifle that was later found at the TSDB, which you also can not prove?

4) There is no accounting for that rifle as any other than the one found in the TSBD.

Accounting for what rifle? Since when does "it must be the same rifle" become proof of anything?


What else do we know?

1) That if Oswald owned a rifle, he lied about such ownership when questioned about it by the police.


And how exactly do we know "Oswald owned a rifle"?

2) He ordered and was sent a rifle with a specific serial number.

Really? Are you sure about that? Got any actual evidence to back up that claim?

3) A rifle with that same serial number was found in the TSBD.  Oswald's place of employment.

What same serial number? Do you have any credible evidence that Oswald ever owned a rifle with the serial number of the one found at the TSBD?

4) Oswald's prints were on that rifle.

Really? How could that be when the FBI couldn't find any prints on the rifle when they examined it only hours after the assassination?

5) There is zero evidence that any person other than Oswald owned or possessed the rifle found in the TSBD in the months leading up to the assassination.
6) There is zero evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle than the one left in the TSBD.


Absence of evidence isn't evidence.

7) Oswald was pictured with the rifle left at the TSBD.

Really? Can you show me the serial number of the rifle in one of the BY photos? Or is it, just like everything else, merely your own pathetic opinion?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10