JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Lewis C]

There is a key difference - you refer to it as "the government" as if it was a monolithic single entity. The government is composed of multiple organizations, many of which are rivals. Many of these organization are composed of factions, which are rivals to each other. And those are composed of individuals, each with their own goals.

I'm not asking anyone to support anything because the government, or any section of government says it's true. Neither should we reject something just because the government says it.

We need to look at the facts. I'll look at just one example - the prints. There are two possibilities - either they were left there by Oswald, or the Dallas Police, the FBI, multiple government investigations, and multiple independent experts over the course of decades were all part of a criminal plot to kill JFK.

Yes, and one example of the non-monolithic nature of the government is in the assassination investigation. There isn't a single government explanation of what happened. The Warren Commission concluded Oswald acted alone, but the House Committee that investigated it concluded that there was more than one shooter. So those of of us who believe Oswald acted alone are rejecting the latter government explanation.

[Lewis C]

A very insular view of Johnson's presidency. Many in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos would disagree.

JFK escalated US involvement in Vietnam, and LBJ continued to escalate it. If there are people in SE Asia (and the US for that matter) who don't know that, that doesn't change the fact that it's true.

[Fiver]

A very insular view of Johnson's presidency. Many in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos would disagree.

JFK and LBJ both supported the containment strategy against the USSR. If JFK had still been alive when the Gulf of Tonkin Incident happened, he would have escalated as well. That policy only changed when Nixon pulled out of Vietnam, and who obviously was not assassinated for doing so.

[Fiver]

I previously raised the issue of conspiracy regarding Oswald being impersonated in a telephone call in Mexico City, a very odd incident since Oswald was portrayed as an inadequate, lone nutter by the WC. So why would anyone bother to do that? J Edgar Hoover seemed stumped as well. I can't remember receiving a response.

I've seen plenty of claims that Oswald was impersonated. But we have plenty of evidence that Oswald did go to Mexico and a Conspiracy would have no motive and no need to impersonate him.

[Fiver]

Dulles certainly did since he had been sacked as CIA chief after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Dullles gained nothing from JFK's assassination.

. AS a WC appointee, McCloy was initially sceptical about the Lone Gunman theory but after meeting Dulles saw the light.

McCloy gained nothing from JFK's assassination.

And feel free to present evidence that McCloy was initially skeptical about the Lone Gunman theory.

[cobalt]

Dullles gained nothing from JFK's assassination.

He had been side lined by JFK who was intent on breaking up his beloved CIA. After the assassination the CIA could act with impunity.

McCloy gained nothing from JFK's assassination.

He was free to destabilise various governments thereafter and further enrich himself. The murky dealings both he and Dulles had enjoyed with the Third Reich remained in the shadows.

And feel free to present evidence that McCloy was initially skeptical about the Lone Gunman theory.

Feel free to use the browser device on your internet connection. Not that McCloy's conversion should be much of a problem for WC disciples. Better a sinner who repents after all.

But we have plenty of evidence that Oswald did go to Mexico and a Conspiracy would have no motive and no need to impersonate him.

Your understanding of how a conspiracy works may not be comprehensive. The impersonation of Oswald was a bit more than an unfortunate student prank. The point of the bogus call was establish a link between Oswald and the KGB, specifically an officer called Kostikov from memory, who was allegedly head of an assassination unit. The fact this 'prank' call took place around two months before the JFK assassination speaks for itself. It also suggests the fake caller was aware that US intelligence intercepted and recorded calls made to foreign embassies in Mexico City. This indicates inside knowledge by the conspirators.

If JFK had still been alive when the Gulf of Tonkin Incident happened, he would have escalated as well.

You obviously do not know that. It might be better to consider whether the Gulf of Tonkin incident- a clear provocation by US military- would have occurred in the first place under a JFK administration. And even if it had, there is no guarantee JFK would have swallowed the Navy Intelligence false flag narrative.

That policy only changed when Nixon pulled out of Vietnam, and who obviously was not assassinated for doing so.

JFK never had the opportunity to make the change. He had come into office outbidding Nixon on anti-soviet rhetoric but then horrified his backers when, in light of events in Cuba, he reached out for rapprochement with Khrushchev. That was seen as betrayal and not just by anti-Castro Cubans.
JFK was an impediment to the expanding US Empire and, since he was likely to be re-elected, had to be removed. Nixon pulled out of Vietnam same as Trump is pulling out of Ukraine and for similar reasons. The game is up, it's a losing fight, it's costing the US money and the US Empire can better direct its power elsewhere. Trump, like Nixon, is fairly safe since he is committed to the project of the US Empire.

[Fiver]

Why was one bullet pristine and one completely fragmented? Because it hit bone? Like a rib or a wrist? Two explanations for the same bullet type? Bone does not equal bone.

This has been covered before.

One bullet struck the skull. Beveling in the skull shows the bullet entered from the rear. The skull shattered in a way that also shows entry from the rear. Two major and several minor fragments were found. Neutron activation testing matched these fragments. One of the major fragments had rifling that proved that the bullet was fired from Oswald's gun.

One bullet struck JFK's upper back. Forensic examination of the wound and JFK's clothing show that the back wound was an entry wound. The bullet then exited JFK's throat, passing through flesh not bone. Testing with ballistic gelatin proves a Carcano bullet fired through ballistic gelatin, which simulates flesh, will cause the bullet to begin to tumble end over end. Connally's clothing and his back wound show he was struck i the back by a tumbling bullet. The stretcher bullet, which is not pristine, is significantly flattened, constant with a tumbling bullet striking Connally's rib and then his wrist side on while tumbling. Neutron activation testing matched the bullet fragments in Connally's wrist to the stretcher bullet. Rifling on the stretcher bullet proved it was fired from Oswald's gun.

[Fiver]

Oliver Stone and some others appeared before Congress yesterday and testified that the CIA has it's hands all over this case and they believe they can prove Oswald was innocent.

Nobody needs to discredit Oliver Stone. Stone discredits himself with his repeated lies in JFK.

Zack Snyder's 300 looks like a documentary in comparison with Stone's JFK.

[Fiver]

I really have no idea, I have no experience whatsoever with guns/rifles and am no ballistic expert.

Neither am I, but Michael Haag and Luke Haag are.

NOVA has a good documentary.

[Fiver]

Knott used the 360 3D Digital Scanner not the P20.

Knott also used frame 225 of the Zapruder film, even though JFK was clearly hit some time before frame 224. Who cares how good their equipment is when they're ignoring the actual evidence.

[FISHY1118]

The Dallas Police executed a search warrant on Saturday, November 23, 1963 at the home of Ruth Paine. During that search, police claimed to have found pictures of Oswald with a rifle and handgun in a holster on his hip. ( Stovall Exhibit D ) But the itemized list of things they recovered during that search ( Stovall Exhibit B ) does not include the photographs or negatives, or an ad from Klein's they recovered showing the alleged murder weapon. Why not ?



Not only are they missing from the evidence list, photographs of the evidence recovered show no "backyard photographs" or ads for Klein's. Why not ?













So are we to believe that they had this rock solid evidence linking Oswald to the rifle and the handgun, both murder weapons, and they didn't even put them on the evidence list and didn't even photograph them with the rest of the evidence they confiscated ?

Whos running this Warren Commission nonsense MOE , LARRY ,AND CURLY ??????

[FISHY1118]

---

The Rifle Tests "The various tests showed that the Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing." ( Report, pg. 195 )

Both of the above points are lies. The Mannlicher-Carcano was NOT an accurate weapon and the scope did NOT enhance its speed or accuracy. For any test designed to recreate performance to be valid, all of the conditions that existed in the original performance must exist in the test.
Otherwise, you're measuring apples against oranges.

Three tests were done for speed and accuracy, two by the FBI and one by the Army. All three tests showed that the rifle was unable to perform at the level of speed and accuracy attributed to it by the Warren Commission.

The FBI tests
"It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired showed that". ( FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier's testimony in 3 H 411 )

The targets, however, proved that that was a lie. The first FBI test was done on November 27, 1963. It tested the rifle at distances 15 and 25 yards because, according to testimony from one of its firearms experts, Robert Frazier, the facility to test rifle at long range was not available.
The tests were conducted for speed and accuracy. ( 3 H 402 )

Three FBI experts fired the rifle at 15 yards. Charles Killion fired three rounds in 9 seconds and Cortlandt Cunningham did it in 7 seconds. Frazier completed the sequence in 6 seconds.

Killion's 3 hits were 2 1/2 inches high and 1 inch to the right. Cunningham's 3 shots were 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right. Frazier's 3 shots were the same as Cunningham's, 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right. ( 3 H 403 - 404 )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl...t-15-yards.jpg

Frazier was the only participant in the test at 25 yards. In this test, Frazier fired two sets of three shots.
In his first set, he fired three rounds in 4.8 seconds, but his shots were 4 inches high and 1 to 2 inches to the right, same as it was at 15 yards. ( 3 H 404 )

In his second set, he fired three rounds in 4.6 seconds, but 1 shot was an inch high and the other two were 4-5 inches high. ( ibid. )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl...246-ce-550.jpg

The short distance tests showed that, even with the scope, the rifle missed the aiming point by almost a half of a foot.

It wasn't until almost 4 months later, on March 16, 1964, that the FBI was able to test the rifle at long range. This test was conducted with a target at 100 yards and the only shooter once again was Robert Frazier.

I refer to this test as the second FBI test because it wasn't done at the same time and date as the short distance test.

In this test, Frazier fired four sets of 3 shots.

In his first set, he fired the three shots in 5.9 seconds, but was 5 inches too high.
In the second set, he fired the shots in 6.2 seconds, but was 4 inches high and 3-4 inches to the right.
In his third set, he fired the shots in 5.6 seconds, but he was 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right.
In his final set, he fired the three rounds in 6.5 seconds, but was 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right. ( 3 H 405 )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl...-100-yards.jpg

The long distance test conducted by the FBI proved that the further the target, the more a shooter missed what he was aiming at. What was a 2 1/2 to 4 inch miss at 15 yards, was a 4-5 inch miss at 100 yards.

In total, 3 FBI agents fired 27 rounds from the CE 139 rifle and not one round hit where they were aiming at.

The results of these tests proved that the rifle was NOT accurate and that Frazier lied under oath when he testified that it was.

Undaunted by the results of the FBI's tests, the Commission did what it usually did when the FBI's evidence did not give it the results it desired: it turned to a second opinion.
In this case, it turned to the US Army.

The Army tests

Because the FBI's tests had proven that the CE 139 rifle was inaccurate weapon, the Commission needed results proving otherwise. For that it turned to the US Army's weapons testing facility at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The man who supervised the testing was Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.

For the sake of being brief, I'll refer to these as the "army tests".

The Army's testing of the CE 139 rifle was done on March 27, 1964, eleven days after the FBI tests showed that the rifle could not have committed the crime.
The first test they did was a dispersion test. This is a test to measure the distance between or the "spread" of bullets fired at a target.
To minimize the dispersion or "spread" of the bullets, the testers used a "machine rest". ( 3 H 443 )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl...chine-rest.jpg

It was under these conditions, firing the rifle in a machine rest, that Simmons called the CE 139 rifle, "quite accurate" ( ibid. ), something the Commission quoted in its Report ( pg. 194 ), but failed to reveal under what circumstances the comment was made.

It's hard to image any rifle not being accurate when set up in a rig like that.

In fact, when comparing the accuracy of the rifle in a machine rest with its accuracy in the hands of a master rifleman, the rifle was anything but accurate.
The dispersion of the bullets on the targets of 240 and 270 ft show a wide spread. ( grey circle , below )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl.../09/spread.jpg

Not only was the dispersion wide on the second and third targets , almost half of those shots missed the target.
But having the rifle in a machine rest wasn't the only advantage the Army shooters had that a shooter from the sixth floor did not have.

Advantage # 1: Skill level

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl.../09/master.jpg

For its test, the Commission used three riflemen rated as Master ( the highest rating ) by the National Rifle Association. These were not men who grab a rifle and take pictures in their backyard, making believe they're something they're not. These guys were the real deal.

Two were civilians employed by the US Army as gunners and the third was on active duty. ( 3 H 445 )
And their skill level was far superior to Oswald's. In addition to being rated as Master riflemen, all three had experience in national shooting match competitions sponsored by the NRA. ( 3 H 450 )

In comparison, they were major league and Oswald was bush league.

On May 6, 1959 Oswald participated in a his final qualification test. In that test, he qualified "marksman" with a low reading of 191. The bare minimum to qualify was 190. ( red boxes below )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl.../poor_shot.jpg

Lt. Col. A.G. Folsom Jr. Head of the Records Bureau of the Marine Corps., reported to the Commission that, "a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor shot".
Lt. Col. Folsom's understanding of Oswald's rating was verified by Sgt. Nelson Delgado, Oswald's Sergeant, who described how poor a shot Oswald really was.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl...on-Delgado.mp4

Skill advantage: riflemen.


Advantage # 2: Firing at stationary targets

Another advantage the Commission's shooters had was that they were firing at stationary targets placed at 175, 240 and 270 ft. rather than at a moving target.
Simmons told the Commission that in his opinion, the moving of the target would have no effect on the accuracy of fire because Kennedy was moving away from the rifle and was "exposed to the rifleman at all times". ( ibid.)

But this is not true. Anyone who has fired a rifle before knows that shooting at a moving target requires establishing a "lead". You must keep the gun moving with the target, in the same direction but in front of it, maintaining your "lead" as the target moves and then pull the trigger while you're continuing to move the gun.
This is called follow-through and it's necessary to hitting a moving target. If you stop the gun and lose that lead, you will miss.
This is a special skill that you can't learn from shooting at stationary targets in competitive events.

A target moving away from you would normally require a "lead" above it, not below it. A rifle firing as much as 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right would have required the shooter using it to aim his crosshairs just above Kennedy's left shoulder in order to hit his head.
We will never know what skills these riflemen had at shooting at moving targets. How much time it would have taken to fire three shots and how accurate those three shots would have been will remain one of those mysteries of the case.

The fact remains that shooting at a stationary target gives a shooter an advantage in speed by not having to reacquire the target and the "lead" between shots.

Speed advantage: riflemen


Advantage # 3: Time of first shot

The Commission concluded that because of the leaves on the tree outside the TSBD, the gunman's view from the sixth floor was obstructed until Zapruder frame 210. ( Report, pg. 105 ) Kennedy's reaction is apparent at Z225, some 15 frames or 0.8 seconds after he emerges from behind the tree.

This means that a gunman firing from the sixth floor had only .8 seconds to aim, lead the target and fire the first shot.
But the riflemen in the Commission's test were allowed to take as much time as they pleased aiming at the first target. ( 3 H 445 )
This advantage would be for accuracy. The shooter takes his time aiming for the first shot, when it's fired he can see where it hits and make an adjustment in his aim for the subsequent shots.
And the first shot will always be the most accurate.

Accuracy advantage: riflemen

Advantage # 4: Number of attempts

Three riflemen were given two attempts each with the CE 139 rifle. In total, 6 attempts were made and 18 shots were fired. In addition, the shooters were allowed 2-3 minutes each to work the stiff bolt back and forth before firing. There is no evidence that Oswald fired the rifle before November 22, 1963 and on that date, he allegedly only got one attempt of 3 shots.

Familiarity advantage: riflemen

Advantage # 5: Height
While a shooter firing from the sixth floor would have been firing from a height of 60 feet, the Commission's shooters fired from a height of only 30 feet.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl..._260-tower.jpg

Lowering the height from which the rifleman fires lowers the distance the bullet has to travel to the target. Using this calculator, where a is the height of the 6th floor in feet ( 60 ) and b is the distance of the head shot ( 240 ) we get a distance of 247.39 feet the shot has to travel.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hypotenuse&oq=&aqs=chrome.0.69i59i450l8.1 463681633j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But at a height of 30 feet, that distance comes down to 241.87. Not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless. And any shortage in distance is an advantage in time.

Timing advantage: riflemen


The test results

In spite of all the advantages the shooters had in this test, riflemen Staley and Hendrix were unable to complete the three-shot sequence in less than 6.45 seconds. Staley's best was 6.45, Hendrix's was 7 seconds flat. ( 3 H 446 )
Since their times were not anywhere near the 5.6 seconds the Warren Commission concluded was the firing sequence, I'll avoid critiquing their accuracy. Suffice it to say that they could not duplicate Oswald's alleged performance.
However, the third rifleman, Miller, was able to fire three shots within the Commission's 5.6 timeframe, albeit his accuracy was way off.
In his first attempt, Miller was able to fire three rounds in 4.6 seconds and his second attempt, 5.15. But he missed the second shot on both attempts. This is what his scorecard looked like:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl...h-attempts.jpg

Miller was the best for speed, but he missed the "target" twice and nearly missed it on his last shot.
As a result, Miller's performance, while as fast as or faster than that of the Commission's lone gunman, it could not match his alleged accuracy.
And for accuracy, we need to look no further than the scope.


The defective scope

When the FBI fired the rifle in November of 1963, it found that the shots were all high and to the right from the aiming point. But because the shots were so closely grouped together, it never occurred to the FBI experts to try to sight the rifle in.
When they did the long distance test at Quantico, they DID try to sight the rifle in and found that adjusting the windage ( horizontal adjustment ) turret on the side of the scope moved the elevation ( vertical ) adjustment as well. ( 3 H 405 )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl...djustments.png

This made the scope impossible to sight in and the FBI was left with sighting in the rifle "approximately". They test fired the rifle and found that "the shots were not landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact". ( 3 H 405 )
Frazier was unable to tell the Commission exactly when this defect occurred but the fact that the rifle was firing high and to the right when the Bureau fired it for the first time indicates it was damaged prior to the November 27th testing.

Frazier testified that this defect could be compensated for by merely aiming the crosshairs low and to the left ( 3 H 407 ), meaning that a shooter wishing to shoot Kennedy in the head would have to aim just over his left shoulder.

When Ronald Simmons testified before the Warren Commission, he made no mention that the windage adjustment was interferring with the elevation adjustment. He admitted that his people could not sight the rifle in and introduced two shims, one for the elevation and one for the azimuth ( windage ). ( 3 H 443 )
As it turned out, the shims were not an advantage, especially after 58.3 yards ( 175 ft ). The shims appeared to make the shots miss low and to the left.
The second and third targets ( 240 and 270 ft, respectively ) showed a wide dispersion and 5 of the 12 shots missed the target completely.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl...-12-missed.jpg

Conclusion


One of those flunkies the Commission called on was Marine Master Sergeant James Zahm, who told the Commission that Oswald's training and the equipment he used made him capable of committing the crime. ( 11 H 309 )
But Zahm was neither an expert on Oswald, the scope or the rifle. He had never spent time on a firing range with Oswald. He had never test fired the rifle or tried to sight in the scope.

His opinions were based on the use of a scope that was NOT defective and he was never shown the targets that were shot at.

How anybody could consider that this rifle, with this scope was an accurate weapon is beyond me. The targets presented as evidence indicates that the Commission's experts were XXXXX or had no idea.

The FBI targets in particular show where the shooters were aiming at and where the bullets hit. Frazier's own testimony was that even at 15 yards, the rifle fired 2 1/2 to 4 inches high from where they aimed it. ( 3 H 404 ) At 25 yards, it was 4-5 inches high. At 100 yards, it was 2 1/2 to 5 inches high.

An accurate weapon, sighted in correctly, hits where you aim it.

The Army installed shims to try to sight the rifle in. They used unmarked targets displaying shoulder and head only and gave no direction to their shooters where to aim. ( 3 H 445 )
How does one measure accuracy and omit having a common aiming point ? How does one measure how far off the bullet was without a reference point ?
Were they aiming for the head ? Center mass ? Were they all aiming at the same spot or someplace else ?
The Commission never asked. And it never heard from the Army shooters who participated in the test.

The Commission used riflemen with superior skills firing at stationary targets.
They were able to take as long as they wanted for the first shot, even though a shooter from the sixth floor would have only .8 seconds to fire the first shot.
They got more attempts and more shots ( the FBI's Frazier got 7 attempts and 21 shots ) than was attributed to Oswald. And they fired from a tower that was lower than the sixth floor, shortening the distance the bullet had to travel to the target.

In spite of all of these advantages, advantages that Oswald did not have, six gunmen took 15 attempts and fired 45 shots from the CE 139 rifle and failed in every attempt to hit what they aimed at.

And there is no evidence that Oswald was any more proficient in the operation of this weapon than they were.

In fact, there's no evidence that Oswald fired as many or more shots through this weapon than Robert Frazier did.
And Frazier never hit what he aimed at.

Which brings us to the defective scope. The evidence indicates that the scope was defective on November 27, when the FBI first tested the rifle and it fired high and to the right.
No evidence exists to show that the scope was damaged after the assassination or while in the possession of the Dallas Police.
Absent that evidence, we must assume that the condition of the scope when received by the FBI was the same condition it was in at the time of the assassination.

The scope was defective as it would not allow you to sight the rifle in. The FBI couldn't sight it in and the Army couldn't sight it in.

Six expert riflemen took 15 attempts and fired 45 shots from the CE 139 rifle and failed in every attempt to hit what they aimed at.
But Oswald hit two out of three.

This rifle, with this scope, was not accurate enough to kill President Kennedy. The rifle tests proved that.



WHO RAN THE PHONEY WARREN COMMISSION RIFLE TEST ? ..... MOE , LARRY CURLY ??

[FISHY1118]

Let's see... strap attachment moves from the side to the bottom, rifle changes length from catalog to shipment, rifle changes from 7.65 Mauser to 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano, misaligned scope becomes accurate, Oswald's palmprints appear only after his death, worn strap becomes new again...

No wonder they call CE 399 the Magic Bullet. It came from a magic rifle.


A white jacket that becomes tan.

.38 auto shells that become .38 specials.

An automatic pistol that becomes a revolver.


More nonsense from the MOE , LARRY , CURLY COMMISSION ?

[FISHY1118]

The Case for a Mauser --- Conclusion [actual evidence in red links ]

A Question of Credibility

For many years now, Warren Commission apologists and many researchers alike have questioned the credibility of the officers who found the rifle on the sixth floor.

Their solution to the credibility issue is simple: in anything Boone and Weitzman saw or heard, they were mistaken. Craig was a xxxx.

But the real credibility problem may lie with the man who brought the two rifles into the building two days before the motorcade.



The conflicting accounts of Warren Caster

On December 5, 1963, Warren Caster was interviewed by the FBI. He told them that the rifle he purchased was an American-made 30.06, that he showed it to Mr. Truly in Truly's office on the second floor and that he did not show the two rifles to anyone else.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/CD-206-pg.-102-caster-lies.png

But Truly's office was on the first floor and Truly testified that they examined the rifle on the counter near the front door on the first floor. ( 7 H 382 ) William Shelley also testified that he picked up and handled the .22 rifle. ( 7 H 390 )

In his short deposition, Caster completely reversed what he told the FBI on December 5th and admitted that Shelley was present when he showed the rifle to Truly and that "there were workers there at the time." ( 7 H 388 )


He also gave conflicting accounts of when exactly the rifles left the building. He told the FBI that he took the rifles and put them in the trunk of his car at "approximately 4:30 pm" on the 20th.

He told the Warren Commission he left for the day "around 4 o'clock". ( ibid. )

In addition, there's no witness to support his claim that he removed the rifles from the building when he left for the day.



He told the FBI that his rifle was an American-made rifle manufactured by Kodiak Arms of North Haven Connecticut.

But William Shelley examined the rifle and said it was a "foreign make" converted to a 30.06. ( 7 H 390 )

On March 19, 1964, Caster provided the FBI with an alibi for the first time, which it never looked into, that he was having lunch with Professor Vernon V. Payne at North Texas State University in Denton when the President was assassinated.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/22-H-641-Caster.png

Professor Payne was head of the Business School at NTSU and one wonders if his wife happened to be another "Mrs. Payne" who owned a station wagon.

North Texas State University was a hotbed of right-wing extremism and its political groups were aligned with General Walker and his anti-Kennedy stand.



A hot potato

The Warren Commission did everything it could to avoid the issue of rifles in the building until May 14, 1964, when it deposed Warren Caster.

And when they finally deposed him, they did so with the utmost dispatch. His testimony covered a whole two pages. Just two pages for a man who brought two rifles into the Texas School Book Depository two days before the assassination.

In comparison, they published over 18 pages of testimony from William Crowe, the emcee of Jack Ruby's club.



An upper floor encounter

In his original affidavit, Dallas Officer Marrion Baker said that in their climb up rear stairwell, he and Roy Truly encountered a man on "the third or fourth floor" who was "walking away from the stairway" and who Truly vouched for. This man, Baker said was wearing "a light brown jacket".

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Marrion-Baker-Affidavit.gif

I suggest that this was NOT the second floor Oswald-in-the-lunchroom-vestibule encounter. He didn't even match Oswald's description. This was a second, separate encounter with a man who was coming down the rear stairwell, heard the commotion on the second floor and tried to duck out on the floor he was on.

That's why Baker saw him walking away from the stairway.

Who was this man ? Was it Truly's pal Warren Caster ? Is that who Truly vouched for ?

Only Truly would know and he was never asked.



The FBI fails ---- again

Caster's conflicting accounts should have been a red flag for the FBI to look further into him.
They should have examined his rifle to see if it had a scope and the sales records of its purchase.

They should have checked his alibi.

They should have looked at the cars Professor Payne owned.

They should have included his picture in a picture lineup and shown that lineup to witnesses who claimed to have seen the man with the rifle on the sixth floor, if for no other reason, than to eliminate him as a suspect.

The FBI's interviews of 72 witnesses who worked in the building centered on their having seen a stranger in the building on the day of the assassination. But not one was asked if they had seen Warren Caster in the building on that day.

They should have looked into both Caster and Prof. Payne to ascertain if they had any connection to the anti-Castro Cubans or the Young Republican Club at NTSU that was planning to "rub Kennedy's dick in the ground" when he came to Dallas. ( 17 H 539 )

A man who brings two rifles into the building two days before the motorcade is to pass by, warrants IMO, a longer deposition than two pages. This guy should have been pressured to prove everything he said. Everything.

That's what they should have and would have done in a normal criminal investigation.

Instead they just took his word and let it die.

That was because this was not a normal investigation.

This was an investigation to gather evidence against Oswald and Oswald alone.


The Katzenbach Memo laid out the foundation for the coverup: "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the sole assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large, and the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial".

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/katzenbach-memo-full.png

And with that goal in mind, evidence to the contrary was ignored, suppressed or simply vanished into thin air.

Just like the Mauser did.


Anything that didn't fit the official story of LHO acting alone was suppressed and/or replaced. It wasn't ever intended to be an honest investigation. It was intended to pin the blame on one patsy. There's testimony that a Mauser was in the building two days before. It was reported that they discovered a Mauser on the 22nd. Yet people on this forum look at replacing a Mauser with a Mannlicher Carcano as if it was some kind of incredible, impossible feat. An inconvenient piece of evidence was substituted as the cover story evolved in the first 24 hours. It's no mean trick, but to hear some of the people on this forum go on about it, you'd think they turned lead to gold.


THE MOE ,LARRY , AND CURLY WARREN COMMISSION SHOW CONTINUES.

[FISHY1118]

SO I GUESS WHEN SOME POSTERS SAY ''WITNESSES SAW OSWALD SHOOT TIPPIT'' WE CAN SAFELY SAY, THAT IS NOT A ''FACT ''.




The Tippit Witnesses: A "Positive Identification" ?


What a lot of people don't realize is how important clothing is to the "positive identification" of a suspect. Unless you can prove that the suspect changed clothes AFTER committing the crime, the identification of a suspect's clothes is secondary only to facial recognition in a witness' identification of a suspect.

So how did the Tippit witnesses fare in identifying Oswald's clothing as those worn by the killer

( A note for the newbies: Keep in mind that Oswald's tan jacket is Commission Exhibit 162, his blue jacket is Commission Exhibit 163 and the shirt he was arrested in is Commission Exhibit 150. )


The Jacket

Helen Louise Markham

Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before ?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No I did not. ( 3 H 312 )



Barbara Jeanette Davis

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn ?

Mrs. DAVIS. No sir. ( 3 H 347 )



Virginia Davis testified that the killer wore a "light brown tan jacket" ( 6 H 457 ) but she was never shown CE 162 and asked to identify it.

Domingo Benavides identified Oswald's BLUE jacket ( CE 163 ) as the one the killer wore. ( 6 H 453 )

William Scoggins testified that CE 162 was too light and the killer's jacket was darker. ( 3 H 328 )

When shown the CE 162 jacket, Ted Callaway testified that he thought the killer's jacket "had a little more tan to it". ( 3 H 356 )

William Arthur Smith remembered that the killer wore "..a sport coat of some kind...." ( 7 H 85 )


The Commission failed to mention in its Report that witnesses had described the Tippit killer's jacket as a sport jacket, dark in color and of a rough fabric, all descriptions that did not match the jacket in evidence.

The Commission also failed to report that this same group of witnesses failed to identify Oswald's shirt ( CE 150 ) as the one the killer wore.


The Shirt

Mr. BALL. I show a shirt here, which is Exhibit 150. Did you ever see a shirt the color of this ?

Mrs. MARKHAM. The shirt that this man had, it was a lighter looking shirt than that. ( 3 H 312 )



Mr. BALL. I show you a shirt, which is Commission Exhibit 150. Was that---does that shirt look like something he had on, that the man had on who went across your lawn ?

Mrs. DAVIS. I thought that the shirt he had on was lighter than that. ( 3 H 347 )



Benavides testified that Tippit's killer wore a dark shirt but he didn't know what color. He was never asked to identify CE 150 as the shirt he saw.

Callaway, Virginia Davis and Scoggins could not identify the CE 150 shirt as the shirt Tippit's killer was wearing because they all claimed to have not been able to see the shirt.

So these seven witnesses ( including William Smith ), who the Commission counted among those who made a "positive identification" of Oswald as the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit, never made a positive identifcation of his clothing.

In addition, three Jefferson Ave. witnesses who saw the gunman as he fled the Tippit murder, L.J. Lewis, B.M. Patterson and Harold Russell, were never called to testify.

A fourth Jefferson Ave. witness, Warren Reynolds did testify and in spite of his alleged observance and following of the man with the gun, he was never shown the shirt and jacket and asked to identify them.

That's eleven witnesses who saw the man who executed Tippit and did not identify Oswald's jacket and shirt as those worn by the killer.

And as I said before, if you can't positively identify the suspect's clothing, you can't positively identify the suspect.

Unless you can prove that he changed his clothes after the murder, which he didn't.

The FBI was careful which witnesses it selected to appear before the Commission and Commission Counsel was careful not to ask certain questions of witnesses.

And under those circumstances, the evidence indicates that Tippit's killer was not Oswald.

158 of 928. 770 PAGES OF ACTUAL EVIDENCE TO GO .