JFK Assassination Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Luna committee is bogus ...

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 02:34:10 PM »

Quote from: Mark A. Oblazney on Today at 04:03:38 AM

We must save Judyth !

She MUST testify !!!

I have a great idea, Karl. Let’s start a ‘GoFu**Me’ fundraising page for our dear Ozzie’s paramour (snicker), to make sure she can see well enough to testify before the great tribunal of truth chaired by the chief Lunatic. Save Judy & Tosh AND Brittney !!

Hey, Oliver believes her, why don’t you? where’s mssr. x ?

I find it mind boggling that there are still people who find JVB to be the least bit credible. It's also hilarious.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 02:29:31 PM »

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Today at 01:26:52 PM

I have to chuckle at Corbett's claim that I've been given two "two plausible reasons for these cars to show up in the parking lot," yet he said nothing -- not one word -- about my demolition of those two implausible reasons. As usual, he simply ignored counter-arguments and contrary facts and repeated his talking point.

As for Corbett's complaint that some of my replies are "massive," some of them are indeed long because, as the famous saying goes, "it takes one minute to tell a lie, and an hour to refute it."

I think a more appropriate saying would be, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with

Quote

For example, the only way to show the vacuous and misleading nature of Mitch Todd's portrayal of Bowers' account is to quote Bowers' statements at length, and the only way to refute Mitch Todd's sweeping erroneous claims about the acoustical evidence is to provide detailed, documented information that disproves those claims.

You don't quote Bowers. You give second and third hand hearsay accounts of what Bower's supposedly said and you expect us to give that more weight than what Bowers said for himself on the record and under oath.

Why is it that the things witnesses have supposedly said off the record always seem to conflict with what they have said on the record. Could it be they never actually said the things other people have attributed to them?

Quote

The fact that Mitch Todd would pretend to have a solid grasp of the acoustical evidence and then, in the same reply, repeat the embarrassingly bogus argument that some amateurs on the Internet have made against the dictabelt's N-waves, an argument that even the NRC/NAS panel knew better than to float, and an argument that the Queens College acoustical scientists completely destroyed, shows he is not to be taken seriously on the subject.

Here is where MTG pretends to be an expert in all technical fields related to the investigation of the JFKA. It goes back to the saying, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance,.........".

Quote

Oh, really? Well now, either you haven't actually read Thompson's book, or you somehow think I haven't, or you were hoping no one would bother to check your claim. Thompson specifically says that the reports of two of Bowers' coworkers should be taken seriously and that they "suggest that Bowers saw more than he revealed when questioned by Joe Ball and Mark Lane" (Last Second in Dallas, 2021, p. 128).

Let's read more of what Thompson says on the subject in his book, shall we? Here you go:

Also not to be taken seriously are reports from people who knew Bowers that he claimed to have seen one of the men he described put a rifle in the trunk of a car. These reports surfaced in the 1990s when various TV producers were in search of a story. The same cannot be said of the reports of two individuals who, like Bowers, worked for the Union Terminal Railroad.

Both suggest that Bowers saw more than he revealed when questioned by Joe Ball and Mark Lane.

MTG thinks Tink Thompson is an empirical source. Too funny.

Quote

The first is Olan DeGaugh. As yardmaster, he was several levels above Bowers in the railroad company hierarchy. In an oral history interview in 2002, he described Bowers as “a good person, a good worker, a good man. . . . . He was. . . . one of my best friends.” When asked if he had talked to Bowers about the Kennedy assassination, he replied, “Several times. I don’t know how many times. Not a real long conversation.” When asked if Bowers ever varied his story about what happened that day, DeGaugh said, “I don’t think he ever changed it.”

And what did Bowers tell DeGaugh about the assassination?

DeGaugh said, “Well, the day Kennedy was assassinated, he [Bowers] was looking out the window and there was a car parked next to the board fence out here barely where the street ends and he saw someone holding the trunk of a car put something in it and drive off. And it had been assumed that it had been Oswald. It may have been Oswald.” DeGaugh said the car “was a coupe of some kind . . . an old car.”

More second hand hearsay accounts that conflict with Bowers' sworn testimony. Real compelling stuff.

Time for me to check out again. I could easily spend another two hours refuting the rest of MTG's

, but this is just a hobby to me, not my job so I budget the amount of time I spend on it.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence

« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 01:26:52 PM »

I have to chuckle at Corbett's claim that I've been given two "two plausible reasons for these cars to show up in the parking lot," yet he said nothing -- not one word -- about my demolition of those two implausible reasons. As usual, he simply ignored counter-arguments and contrary facts and repeated his talking point.

As for Corbett's complaint that some of my replies are "massive," some of them are indeed long because, as the famous saying goes, "it takes one minute to tell a lie, and an hour to refute it."

The fact that Mitch Todd would pretend to have a solid grasp of the acoustical evidence and then, in the same reply, repeat the same embarrassing bogus argument that some amateurs on the Internet have made against the dictabelt's N-waves, an argument that even the NRC/NAS panel knew better than to float, an argument that the Queens College acoustical scientists completely destroyed, shows he is not to be taken seriously on the subject.

Quote from: Mitch Todd on Yesterday at 12:58:08 AM

And (again!) if you've read Thompson's books, you know he gives short shrift to Bowers' "friends."

Oh, really? Well now, either you haven't actually read Thompson's book, or you somehow think I haven't, or you were hoping no one would bother to check your claim. Thompson specifically says that the reports of two of Bowers' coworkers should be taken seriously and that they "suggest that Bowers saw more than he revealed when questioned by Joe Ball and Mark Lane" (Last Second in Dallas, 2021, p. 128).

Let's read more of what Thompson says on the subject in his book, shall we? Here you go:

Also not to be taken seriously are reports from people who knew Bowers that he claimed to have seen one of the men he described put a rifle in the trunk of a car. These reports surfaced in the 1990s when various TV producers were in search of a story. The same cannot be said of the reports of two individuals who, like Bowers, worked for the Union Terminal Railroad.

Both suggest that Bowers saw more than he revealed when questioned by Joe Ball and Mark Lane.

The first is Olan DeGaugh. As yardmaster, he was several levels above Bowers in the railroad company hierarchy. In an oral history interview in 2002, he described Bowers as “a good person, a good worker, a good man. . . . . He was. . . . one of my best friends.” When asked if he had talked to Bowers about the Kennedy assassination, he replied, “Several times. I don’t know how many times. Not a real long conversation.” When asked if Bowers ever varied his story about what happened that day, DeGaugh said, “I don’t think he ever changed it.”

And what did Bowers tell DeGaugh about the assassination?

DeGaugh said, “Well, the day Kennedy was assassinated, he [Bowers] was looking out the window and there was a car parked next to the board fence out here barely where the street ends and he saw someone holding the trunk of a car put something in it and drive off. And it had been assumed that it had been Oswald. It may have been Oswald.” DeGaugh said the car “was a coupe of some kind . . . an old car.”

The second is Barney Mozley, the switchman who relieved Bowers by taking the “second trick” in the tower that Friday afternoon. Also in 2002, Mozley gave an oral history interview. After explaining his difficulty in getting through police lines to relieve Bowers, Mozley pointed out that from the tower, “you can’t see the assassination. I mean, when there was actually shooting. You could hear it, but you couldn’t see it. That was the way it was.” He did talk to Bowers about the assassination within days of November 22.

QUESTION: Did he ever talk to you about the assassination at all ever?

ANSWER: Yeah, he did, but he didn’t want it to be repeated. And I never did say anything about him, but I can say something about him now. He was a . . . yeah, he would do that and tell you, “Now, don’t go around talking about it because,” he said, “It’s dangerous.” But he never said dangerous from whom.

QUESTION: How long after the assassination did he tell you that?

ANSWER: Oh, it was just a few days. (Last Second in Dallas, pp. 128-129)

And while we're at it, let's read some of what Thompson said about Bowers' account in his famous 1967 book Six Seconds in Dallas:

From his perch 14 feet above the ground Bowers controlled eleven tracks in the Union Station and two additional freight sidings. He also had a grandstand seat for observing some unusual happenings in the area of the stockade fence and the parking lot behind.

Traffic into the parking area was cut off at 10:00 A.M. (6 H 285). The lot was already jammed with the cars of people who had come to downtown Dallas to watch the presidential motorcade. Bowers recalled that nothing unusual happened until shortly before noon. His affidavit filed on November 22 tells the story:

At about 11:55 am I saw a dirty 1959 Oldsmobile station wagon come down the street toward my building. This street dead ends in the railroad. This car had out of state license plates with white background and black numbers, no letters. It also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker in the rear window. This car just drove around slowly and left the area. It was occupied by a middle-aged white man partly grey hair.

At about 12:15 pm another car came in the area with a white man about 25 to 35 years old driving. This car was a 1957 Ford, Black, 2 doors with Texas license. This man appeared to have a mike or telephone in the car.

Just a few minutes after this car left at 12:20 pm another car pulled in. This car was a 1961 Chevrolet, Impala, 4 door, am not sure that this was a 4-door, color white and dirty up to the windows. This car also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker. This car was driven by a white male about 25 to 35 years old with long blond hair. He stayed in the area longer than the others. This car also had the same type license plates as the 1959 Oldsmobile. He left the area about 12:25 pm. About 8 or 10 minutes after he left I heard at least 3 shots very close together. Just after the shots the area became crowded with people coming from Elm Street and the slope just north of Elm (24 H 201).

Notice that in this 11/22/63 affidavit, the earliest statement that he made, he said he heard "at least" three shots.

Four months later Bowers was asked by the Commission how he knew the man in the black Ford was operating a radio. He replied:

He was holding something up to his mouth with one hand and he was driving with the other and gave that appearance. He was very close to the tower. I could see him as he proceeded around the area (6 H 286).

Apparently Lee Bowers was not the only person watching the parking lot and stockade fence to the north of Elm Street. About half a minute before the motorcade passed the corner of Elm and Houston Streets, Bob Edwards and Ronald Fischer noticed a young man standing at a sixth-floor, southeast-corner window of the Depository looking in the same direction. Fischer testified:

Bob punched me and said, "Look at that guy there in that window." And he made some remark—said, "He looks like he's uncomfortable" — or something. And I looked up and watched the man for, oh, I'd say, 10 or 15 seconds . . . This man held my attention for 10 or 15 seconds, because he appeared uncomfortable for one, and secondly, he wasn't watching—uh—he didn't look like he was watching for the parade. He looked like he was looking down toward the Trinity River and the triple underpass down at the end—toward the end of Elm Street. And—uh—all the time I watched him, he never moved his head, he never moved anything. Just was there transfixed (6 H 193).

It is, of course, impossible to know for certain why the sniper on the sixth floor of the Depository was more interested in the area to the north of Elm Street than in the motorcade approaching him. A possible clue is furnished by Lee Bowers.

Bowers had worked in the North Tower for over ten years and hence knew by sight the railroad employees who worked in the yards. On that Friday morning he noticed two men he had never seen before standing behind the stockade fence. "They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other," Bowers told the Commission, "and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew. They were facing and looking towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down" (6 H 287).

Bowers watched the motorcade turn right on Houston Street. Then it disappeared, to emerge a moment later on Elm Street. Just as the presidential car disappeared behind the concrete colonnade to the north of Elm Street, the shots rang out. At precisely this instant Bowers noted some "commotion" near the stockade fence (6 H 288). Asked by Commission Counsel Joseph A. Ball to be more explicit about what attracted his attention, he replied:

I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify. (6 H 288)

Much later Bowers was asked by Mark Lane to amplify his answer. In a tape-recorded interview Bowers remarked:

At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned, something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what this was, I could not state at that time and at the time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence—a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.

This "unusual occurrence—a flash of light or smoke or something" was observed by other witnesses who reported it to law-enforcement officers on the scene. Deputy Sheriffs L. C. Smith, Seymour Weitzman, A. D. McCurley, and J. L. Oxford all later spoke of witnesses who called their attention to the stockade fence. Smith reported that as he ran toward the knoll "I heard a woman unknown to me say the President was shot in the head and the shots came from the fence on the north side of Elm Street" (19 H 516). Weitzman recalled that:

As he came to the fence at the top of the grassy slope, some bystander mentioned that the firecracker or shot had come from the other side of the fence, and he requested a bystander to bend over and he used the bystander's back as a step and vaulted over the fence (Archives, CD 5).

McCurley and Oxford independently reported being told by a witness or witnesses that smoke had been seen near the corner of the stockade fence. McCurley recalled:

I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a stockade fence which surrounds the park area (19 H 514).

Oxford gave a similar account:

We jumped the picket fence which was along Elm Street and ran over into the railroad yards. When we got there, there was a man who told us that he had seen smoke up in the corner of the fence (19 H 530).

The "railroad worker" mentioned by McCurley and the "man" noted by Oxford may in fact be the same person. And this might possibly be S. M. Holland, who, only hours after the shooting, signed an affidavit which reads in part:

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 firecracker and he slumped over and I looked over towards the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw . . . the puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees (20 H 163).

So Holland was not only certain he saw a puff of smoke come from behind the fence, but he heard four shots -- one shot that sounded like a firecracker and then then "three more shots after the first shot."

Four and one-half months later Holland reiterated his contention concerning the puff of smoke to Assistant Counsel Stern:

There was a shot, a report . . . and a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots (6 H 244).

Counsel Stern pressed Holland on whether he had indeed heard four shots. Holland replied:

I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either (6 H 244).

When we interviewed Holland in Dallas we asked him to point out on a photograph exactly where he had seen the puff of smoke. He told us:

Right under these trees, right at that exact spot, about ten or fifteen feet from this corner, the corner of the fence here, back this way, right under this clump of trees, right under this tree, particular tree. It's that exact spot, right there . . . That's where it was . . . just like somebody had thrown a firecracker and left a little puff of smoke there; it was just laying there. It was a white smoke; it wasn't a black smoke or like a black powder. It was like a puff of a cigarette, but it was about nine feet off the ground. It would be just about in line with, or maybe just a little bit higher than that fence, but by the time it got out underneath the tree, well, it would be about eight or nine feet . . . [the ground slopes off sharply in front of the fence] "Right under these trees . . . it was (Taped interview, Nov. 30, 1966).

Holland was not the only witness to see the puff of smoke. Richard Dodd, who had stood next to Holland on the overpass, later reported that "the shot . . . the smoke came from behind the hedge on the north side of the Plaza." Austin Miller swore out an affidavit on November 22 in which he declared: "I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the railroad tracks" (24 H 217). When interviewed by the FBI in March, 1964, James Simmons reported seeing "fumes of smoke near the embankment in front of the TSBD [Depository]" (22 H 833), while Clemon Johnson stated that "white smoke was observed near the pavilion" (22 H 836). In addition, both Walter Winbom and Thomas Murphy told an independent investigator that they had observed smoke in the trees along the knoll. In all, at least seven people standing on the overpass saw smoke in the area of the parking lot and the stockade fence.

Dodd, Simmons, and Holland were so sure a shot had come from the corner of the fence that (as soon as the President's car disappeared beneath them) they ran to their left off the overpass and into the parking lot adjoining the fence. They had to leap a steam pipe and then make their way across the tangle of cars in the lot. Jumping over bumpers and crawling over hoods, they arrived near the corner of the fence a minute or two later. . . . Dodd recalled that "there were tracks . . . where someone had been standing on the bumper looking over the fence." Seymour Weitzman joined the railroad workers at about this time and later reported noticing "numerous kinds of footprints that did not make sense because they were going different directions" (7 H 107). Holland gave a similar description of these strange footprints to the Warren Commission (6 H 245-246). During our interview we asked Holland about these footprints and he told us:

And I got over to the spot where 1 saw the smoke come from and heard the shot; I was looking for empty shells or some indication that there was a rifleman or someone over there. Well, you know it'd been raining that morning and behind the station wagon from one end of the bumper to the other, I expect you could've counted four or five-hundred footprints down there. And on the bumper, oh about twelve or eighteen inches apart, it looked like someone had raked their shoes off; there were muddy spots up there, like someone had been standing up there (Taped interview, Nov. 30, 1966).

Later on in the interview Holland told us that the marks were men's footprints and that he was puzzled by their narrow grouping. "That was the mystery to me," Holland exclaimed, "that they didn't extend further than from one end of the bumper to the other. That's as far as they would go. It looked like a lion pacing a cage."

BTW, the location with the odd footprints that Holland and others saw, the location from which they also saw smoke emitted and from which they were certain they heard gunfire -- this location was just a few feet from the location of the grassy knoll gunfire identified by the HSCA's acoustical analysis. Just an incredible, cosmic coincidence, right?!

It is possible that these footprints bear some relation to the sixth-floor sniper's interest in this area. It is also possible that the prints belonged to one of the two strangers spotted behind the fence by Lee Bowers.

But if we suppose that someone was standing here (some 10 to 15 feet down from the fence corner) at the time of the shooting, then what happened to this individual? How did he disappear in that 1- or 2-minute interval between the last shot and when Dodd, Simmons, Holland, and Weitzman arrived on the scene? Holland himself has provided a plausible suggestion:

Just to the west of the station wagon [Holland told us], there were two sets of footprints that left . . . I noticed these two footprints leaving; now they could have stepped out between the second and third cars on the gravel or they could've got in the trunk compartment of this car and pulled the lid down, which would have been very, very easy (Taped interview, Nov. 30, 1966).

On this theory, so Holland suggests, since the trunk compartments of cars in the lot were not searched, a confederate may have returned to the area sometime later and driven away the car in question. (Six Seconds in Dallas, 1967, pp. 115-123)

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Does it really matter who killed JFK?

« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on Today at 04:45:21 AM »

Quote from: Karl Kinaski on July 14, 2026, 01:36:09 PM

Which Oswald? Harvey or Lee? The Bolton Ford Oswald, or the Lincoln Mercury Oswald? The Oswald who was with Marita Lorenz on a Caravan to Dallas, or the Oswald who worked with Judyth Baker to kill Castro with cancer? The Oswald Thornley knew, or the Oswald Titovets knew? Or the Oswald who took Russia-lessons given to him in Minsk by the late head of state of Belarus Stanislav Stanislavovich Shushkevich? Choose.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: At this point, does it really matter who killed JFK?

« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on Today at 04:43:32 AM »

OMG, Karl……….. this is much deeper than i thot! why don’t you explain further?

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Luna committee is bogus ...

« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on Today at 04:03:38 AM »

We must save Judyth !

She MUST testify !!!

I have a great idea, Karl. Let’s start a ‘GoFu**Me’ fundraising page for our dear Ozzie’s paramour (snicker), to make sure she can see well enough to testify before the great tribunal of truth chaired by the chief Lunatic. Save Judy & Tosh AND Brittney !!

Hey, Oliver believes her, why don’t you? where’s mssr. x ?

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Lee Bowers on the Timing of Shots on 11.22

« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 03:07:44 AM »

A muzzle-loading rifle does not issue fire slugs at supersonic speeds.

Who knows what you were hearing.

What you heard from a muzzle-loading rifle has no bearing on what Bowers heard during the JFKA.

Bowers testimony is rather clear.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Andrew Iler Cannot Clean Up Education Forum

« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 02:41:42 AM »

SMG--

Thanks for posting. BTW, there are clips of RFK in 1967 backing US actions in SV, which by them were much enlarged.

JFK was an ardent and global anti-communist. So was RFK.

The idea that some group would assassinate JFK for his unclear plans on Vietnam in 1963 is very weak. LBJ was also unclear on what to do in 1964.

There was a great deal of animosity in the Cuban exile crowd towards JFK, and, of course, Castro had been the target of multiple assassinations attempts during the JFK years.

President LBJ put the kibosh on following any leads from LHO back to Havana or Moscow.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Luna committee is bogus ...

« Last post by Karl Kinaski on Today at 02:07:04 AM »

Judyth Baker on "X" : (today)
Judyth Vary Baker
@Judyth
·Quote
7h
in June- July 1963 Lee Oswald was involved in a CIA rifle smuggling operation involving a Delta Line cargo /cruise ship that brought over 500 rifles to New Orleans from the port associated with Caracas, Venezuela. In 2017/2018 the CIA released evidence of other smuggling ops of rifles from Caracas.
I contend that CIA released these files under the JFK Act because Lee was involved in at leat one incident of smuggling rifles from Caracas. How did I know about this? I was personally involved.
I believe these files were released because they were related to JFK and Lee Oswald records.
I first reported the Caracas smuggling operation in which I knew Lee was involved in 1999, long before any such files were known to the public.
But neither I nor 60 Minutes were able to find any supporting files for my testimony on rifle smuggling in the National Archives in 2000, when I was sent to search for them,along with 60 Minutes.' ressearcher Dr. Howard Platzman.
It would be 7 years before the files below were released, unredacted, buried among 1000's of untitled releases. I found these 3, then more later. Lee's address book - see below -mentions the shipment of 'guns' in a code with "Caracas."
Lee was not involved in CIA gun smuggling in Clinton, despite James Files' claims. Lee's true activities in Clinton are fully laid out in my books ME and LEE [2010] and in LEE HARVEY Oswald AND ME [2022].
THE TRUTH IS THERE. All of it. Lee Oswald was working in anti-Castro activities for the CIA and FBI in New Orleans from April 26 1963 to Sept 26, 1963.
Go through my posts about Lee. Go back for months. I have the receipts. But I am not allowed to speak to Rep Luna's committee. I know too much. =jvb= Close quote

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

« Last post by Tim Nickerson on Today at 12:14:25 AM »

Quote from: Zeon Mason on Yesterday at 05:52:43 PM

But those 7 people tested positive , so That kind of makes Oswald’s negative result an anomaly . So I’m trying to suggest the possibility Oswald having washed his face at the theater 65 minutes after the shooting and how probable the trace amount of nitrates could be removed from his face by washing with water and soap. If it is improbable , then the anomaly persists.

Those 7 people never fired Oswald's rifle.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10