JFK Assassination Forum

WC defenders do not want to acknowledge that someone planted a fake "Oswald" wallet, complete with a fake Hidell ID card, at the Tippit murder scene. They reject this scenario even though former FBI Special Agent Robert Barrett insisted that an Oswald wallet with both Oswald ID and fake Hidell ID was found at the Tippit scene, and even though Barrett clearly recalled that he was asked if he knew who Oswald or Hidell was by the policeman who was examining the wallet. Exactly how would Barrett be "mistaken" about these things?

In addition, former FBI Special Agent James Hosty confirmed that Barrett told him about the finding of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene. Let me guess: Hosty was "mistaken" too!

Furthermore, there is news footage of policemen examining a wallet right next to Tippit's patrol car.

Dale Myers says that although the wallet in the news footage resembles Oswald's arrest wallet in a number of features, "photographs show that the Oswald arrest wallet is not the same billfold" that's seen in the news footage. Umm, no, photos show no such thing.

Myers argues that the metal band on the arrest wallet's leather flap is not quite the same as the band on the news film wallet's flap, and that the arrest wallet's leather flap is shaped slightly differently than the leather flap of the wallet in the news film. On their face, these are mighty thin reeds on which to base an argument.

The photos in question by no means clearly establish either of these claims. It is hard to make out the exact length and shape of the metal band on the flap of the news film wallet. Allowing for a modest amount of sun reflection and the somewhat grainy nature of the news film, the news footage wallet's metal band might very well be identical to the arrest wallet's metal band.

As for the argument about the length of the bands, Myers fails to consider the fact that in the photo of the arrest wallet the flap is lying down flat and is apparently snapped shut, whereas in the news film the wallet's flap is unsnapped and partially up. Also, the top left edge of the news film wallet's flap is somewhat obscured by a plastic photo sleeve beneath it, and it is hard to determine the exact shape of the other edge of the flap because of the grainy nature of the news film, because of the camera angle, and because the flap is up and not lying flat. The two flaps look to me like they could very well be identical. For that matter, the wallets look identical in size and in all of their essential features. Just a whopping coincidence, I'm sure.

The fact remains that former Special Agent Barrett insisted an Oswald wallet with both Oswald ID and fake Hidell ID was found at the Tippit scene, and that Barrett clearly recalled that he was asked if he knew who Oswald or Hidell was by the policeman who was examining the wallet.

The fact also remains that Special Agent Hosty confirmed that Barrett told him about the finding of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene.

The fact further remains that there is news film footage of policemen examining a wallet right next to Tippit's patrol car. Are we supposed to believe that it's just a remarkable coincidence that a wallet was found next to Tippit's car?

The Dallas police said they found Oswald's "real" wallet on his person while they were driving him to the police station. Huh? Really? How would that have worked? Think about how weird and awkward it would have been for a policeman to be reaching his hands under Oswald's butt to feel if he had anything in his rear pockets or to be sticking his hands in Oswald's front pockets. Surely the police searched Oswald when they arrested him at the theater and most certainly would have found the wallet on his person if he'd had it with him.

Quote from: Lance Payette on June 15, 2026, 05:33:40 PM
As with Bart Kamp, I can appreciate the thoroughness and value of Pat's work without agreeing with everything he says (and I am inclined to agree with his placement of the head wound entry).

Do you understand that if you agree that the rear head entry wound was 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP, as the autopsy report says, then you must acknowledge that the autopsy brain photos cannot be photos of JFK's brain? The HSCA FPP proved this beyond any rational doubt. No bullet entering the head at the EOP site could have missed tearing through the rear part of the right occipital lobe, yet the brain photos show no damage whatsoever in that area. An EOP-site bullet may have been able to barely miss the cerebellum, but it could not have missed the rear part of the right occipital lobe.

Furthermore, even if we assume that the EOP-site bullet barely missed the cerebellum, it should have at least caused some visible bleeding in the cerebellum, as FPP member Dr. George Loquvam pointed out to Finck during Finck's testimony, and Finck had no answer. In fact, let's read Loquvam's exchange with Finck on this key point:

Dr. Loquvam. If a missile had entered at this point, would it have entered the posterior cranial vault and produced subarachnoid hemorrhage in the cerebellar hemisphere?

I have pointed to color picture No. 43 at the point of entrance that Dr. Finck is saying the entrance is and I am referring to the four color photographs of the brain in which I see no subarachnoid hemorrhage other than postmortem.

My question is, if this is the point of entrance, isn't that at the level of the posterior cranial vault where the cerebellar hemispheres lie and would we not see subarachnoid hemorrhage if a slug had torn through there?

Dr. Finck. Not necessarily because you have wounds without subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Dr. Loquvam. You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?

Dr. Finck. I don't know. I cannot answer your question. ("Testimony of Pierre A. Finck," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 97)

Another member of the FPP, Dr. Charles Petty, pointed out the conflict between the EOP site and the undamaged condition of the rear part of both occipital lobes. In addition to noting the "intact" condition of the cerebellum, he pointed out to Humes and Boswell that the brain photos show no damage to the occipital lobes, i.e., the part of the lobes directly behind the EOP. Let's read Dr. Petty's very politely phrased observation about this huge contradiction:

Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain, and if this wound were way low, we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes. (7 HSCA 259)

Even a layman can look at diagrams of the brain and the skull and see that the EOP lies directly over the rear part of the right and left occipital lobes. There is just no way on this planet that a bullet entering at the EOP site at a downward and rightward angle could have missed tearing through the rear section of the right occipital lobe.

So, pick your poison: Either admit that the brain photos are fraudulent or repudiate the EOP site. You can't accept the EOP site and still believe the brain photos are authentic.

I explain this fact in more detail in my ongoing thread on the subject:

Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4609.0.html

    YOU claimed the Pristine Bullet was traveling "BACKWARD". And now you are trying to run away from that. I'm holding you to what YOU said.

Yes it was traveling backwards after it had tumbled 180 degrees. IOW, the base was out front and the nose of the bullet was trailing. I guess it's my fault for not dumbing down the explanation enough so you could understand but Stephen Galbrath tried to help you out with a picture of a tumbling bullet but even that doesn't seem to have sunk in. I don't know what else we can do to help you out.

I doubt that. They would be taking out sites holy to Islam and would kill many fellow muslims. When the US accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner during the tanker escort operation in the 1980s, Iran dod not retaliate via terrorism. They agreed to international mediation and agreed to compensation.

Iranian nukes would likely be used as a deterrent to Israeli aggression as well as aggression from Sunni Arab states. At least they enrich their own uranium, rather than stealing it from the US and leaving a toxic mess that US taxpayers are still paying to clean up.

If Iran was the big boogyman, why did Israel sell them F-14 parts when Iran held our embassy hostage. Why did Israel agree to provide weapons to Iran during Iran-Contra?

Israel sold weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war when the Shah ruled Iran. When the Ayatollah took over, he broke off relations with Israel.

Israel had more animosity toward Iraq at the time. They viewed them as a bigger threat than Iran. In 1981, the Israelis destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor just before it became operational for much the same reason we launched Midnight Hammer against Iran. They weren't going to let Iraq have the capability of developing a nuclear weapon.

EF-JFKA participant James Wilkinson defines William Niedernut's role as moderator at the forum thusly:

If this is indeed The Current State of the JFK Education Forum, then perhaps it is for the best if it can’t be continued. Provided a way is figured out to preserve its decades of rich, insightful discussions, of course.

If I were an intel agent tasked with disrupting this board’s ability to collaborate on new leads and other developments, I wouldn’t waste my resources on lone-nut defenders, not when there are plenty of them who do so out of good faith.

No, I’d direct my asset to fixate on 9/11 Truther narratives to the exclusion of any other topic, including the one purportedly at hand, sowing redundant rounds of division and name-calling at the slightest prompt. I’d want them to otherwise toe the line when it comes to popular JFK conspiracy theories so they’d amass enough credibility to angle for a moderator role.

Because with the authority to ban contributors while deleting their allegedly offending posts, that asset could then also ban anyone who criticizes their Stalinesque abuses of authority.

By the time they’re ever sidelined as moderator, the damage will have already been done.

Now I don’t really think William is an asset tasked with chaos and disruption on this Forum. That’s not the point.

The point is that if I were in the position to run such an operative, that hypothetical asset couldn’t have done a better job than what William’s actually managed here in real life. If one’s behavior is indistinguishable from that of a hypothetical saboteur, after all, then isn’t the distinction between those alternatives one that’s without a meaningful difference?

Say what one will about a witting saboteur, but at least they actually accomplish what they aim to do, because at least they know what they’re doing.

He continues to defend Holocaust denier Ron Unz from that description in the face of well-supported evidence—now by insinuating that there’s some sort of cryptic significance to the use of the 6-million-Jews figure before the war.

And hardly anyone but myself bothers to challenge this odiousness. When we’re reduced to arguing over the definition of Holocaust denialism, the denialists have already won the debate.

It’s a fitting end, really, to what was for so long an extraordinary project. But everything has its own lifecycle. Once any message board drifts into tolerance of Holocaust denial, it’s usually a sure symptom of the inevitable.

It’s all the more ironic that the most disruptive elements dedicate their time and efforts toward this end unwittingly, free of charge. At least it could be argued that they’re saving the taxpayers some money, I suppose.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Indeed.

---30---

On target.

The question is, why did EF-JFKA founder John Simkin sit on his hands for months and months as Niedernut (in addition to other defects, Niedernut a WWII holocaust-denier) destroyed the EF-JFKA?

The latest word is that the legal owner, or legal operator (I can't tell which), of the EF-JFKA, named James Gordon, has been located. Evidently, the EF-JFKA had plenty of money in a Go Fund Me till, but was not paying the site's host. No one seems to know where the money is now, or how to pay the site's web-host.

Steps have been taken to preserve the EF-JFKA's content for heritage. I guess that includes the demented rantings of William Niedernut. There is endless bickering and sniping even yet among EF-JFKA participants.

My advice to JFK Assassination Forum participants: Don't go down the sniping road. Be collegial. Don't insult. If you have a different point of views, respectfully express them. Confine your present-day political rants to the "U.S. And International Politics" thread.

Among the many mistakes Simkin made was starting numerous threads on present-day topics, evidently as he wanted a sounding board for his views. This led to un-ending gangbang-juvenalia on Trump. But anyone can read anti-Trump blabber anywhere on the 'net in profusion. So why did the EF-JFKA exist?