REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

Redfern,

didn't the JD commission its own study after the HSCA wound up which negated the findings produced for the HSCA? Maybe I'm confusing issues, or talking at cross-purposes...

Acoustic tests aside, seems the shots coming from the TSBD was a late arrival, guesses by some, and perhaps suggested at by others, influenced by whispers in the crowd.
You would think Lem Johns would have taken out the shooter.
He jumped fromthe car behind LBJ.
He ran forward, directly in front of Knoll (or so he says) towards VP car with LBJ.
Was left by speeding away cars in the street.
Hears third shot.
Gets a ride to Parkland.... WTH? Some great work by the invisible man. Although some newsmen say he ran to the knoll too. 

Thomas Johns's Original Report

(Johns was in the Vice Presidential follow up car)

The motorcade had passed through the downtown section of Dallas, and at approximately 12:35 p.m., CST, I heard two "shots," not knowing whether they were firecrackers, backfire, or gun shots. These two shots were approximately two or three seconds apart, and at this time we were on a slight downhill curve to the right. On the right-hand side of the motorcade from the street, a grassy area sloped upward to a small 2 or 3-foot concrete wall with sidewalk area. When the shots sounded, I was looking to the right and saw a man standing and then being thrown or hit to the ground, and this together with the shots made the situation appear dangerous to me. I estimate that the motorcade was going approximately 12 to 14 miles per hour at this time, and I jumped from the security car and started running for the Vice President's car. I felt that if there was danger due to the slow speed of the motorcade, I would be of more assistance and in a more proper location with the Vice President's car. Before I reached the Vice President's car a third shot had sounded and the entire motorcade then picked up speed and I was left on the street at this point. I obtained a ride with White House movie men and joined the Vice President and ASAIC Youngblood at the Parkland Hospital

I have spent the time to go over and add to, my comments could be in any column, and thereby correct McAdams
and this spreadsheet of witnesses.

I have only one credible witness left on that list for a TSBD shooter.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ia0cn1jm85dmlrf/tsbdWitness.docx?dl=0


No not Allman as he seems to be piling on...

"Allman looked up at the book depository. He thought he could see a rifle barrel protruding from a window. He headed for the grassy knoll and then changed his mind, thinking, "I've got to get to a phone."

He ran up the book depository steps, passing a man at the entrance. The stranger was thin, with dark hair and circles under his eyes. Allman asked where he could find a phone.

The man jerked his thumb back toward the building as he left and said, "In there."

Later, Allman learned the stranger's name: Lee Harvey Oswald."

Allman has Bob Jackson'itis and thinks he has seen a rifle barrel out the TSBD window.

Allman, 79, owner of a marketing and real estate firm, wonders sometimes: If he had looked up sooner and seen Oswald in the sixth floor window, would he later have recognized the assassin in the doorway of the book depository? Might that have helped police catch Oswald before he fled to Oak Cliff and fatally shot Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit?

And every so often, the dreams come.

In them, he meets the thin stranger in the doorway again. When he wakes, he knows the man was Oswald. In the dream he has a suspicion but can't place the man's face. And, always, before he can remember, the thin stranger disappears.

Much like the thin rifle story your peddling disappears under scrutiny huh Pierce
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/33/3378-001.gif

or

"I will never forget that first look," said Pierce Allman.

On that fateful day in Dallas, Allman, a young newsman, came to a corner of Elm Street directly across from the Texas School Book Depository, to see the young first couple.

“They turned the corner and (closes his eyes) boom!” he recalled.

Allman looked up at the red brick building.

“There were three guys in the fifth floor window,” he said. “And they were literally hanging out of the window and looking up and pointing up. And I thought, 'I need to get to a phone and call.' So I ran down the sidewalk and up the steps and into the doorway of the depository building.”

It was there he had a chance encounter.

“There was a guy standing in the doorway,” remembered Allman, “and I said, ‘Where's the phone?’ And he jerked his thumb and said, ‘In there!' And I said, ‘Thank you.’”

Seriously Allman needs to reign it in a bit but okey dokey what ev Pierce. Wait where was the rifle Pierce??? 

If anything we should question Pierce's consensus that shots had been fired from the TSBD, and then that was the logical place shots came from, of course after he first foolishly ran up the knoll to look behind the fence. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsR8PGx2ZE     
(video also has the DPD saying it was Japanese rifle, see 'jap rilfe traded')

Pierce says FROM WHICH UPPER WINDOW IS NOT KNOWN as he is on the phone and says two witnesses are being brought in the TSBD. later we see Euins and Brennan get into Sawyers car...

Geez PIerce shouldn't you say which window YOU say YOU saw a rifle???


Terry Ford actually backs up PM being LHO. note which side the man whom Allman asked was on...

"...running back toward the Texas School Book Depository. He followed Allman into

the building, walking on his right side. Remembers Allman turning to his

left to ask a white male the location of a telephone."


Wow I didn't know Bob Jackson was fooled too?!?!?!?!
Pierce Allman: "..And Bob Jackson from the Times-Herald was running behind me. And why we went up there, I don't know, except there was just sort of a movement up there."

Too funny, perhaps they exchanged rifle stories behind the fence!!!! Hey Bob what window did you see that rifle in???

If anything we should question Pierce's consensus that shots had been fired from the TSBD, and then that was the logical place shots came from, of course after he first foolishly ran up the knoll to look behind the fence. 

This is analogous to driving down the road, seeing smoke billow out from under the hood of your car, pulling over, then checking your trunk first.

This is analogous to driving down the road, seeing smoke billow out from under the hood of your car, pulling over, then checking your trunk first.

You do know Stan you are quite Brilliant.

Absolutely perfect analogy, in fact they ran to the trunk with a fire extinguisher.

Martin was my last hope for a solid witness.

Although he ran towards the knoll area with everyone he first said it seemed like the TSBD was the general location shots came from.
He ran though to the knoll area and spoke with a man he thinks was Secret Service, that man told him the shots came from the TSBD thus putting into Martin's mind that was the source....another one down. I have no one left to claim with authority that the TSBD is where shots originated.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11293#relPageId=79
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11293#relPageId=80&tab=page

Martin may have actually seen LHO in a cab, that or Crafard.

Somehow LIFE magazine knew Martin was in Dealey Plaza and taking films, as they called before he could get home...erie
The UPI guy must have taken his name down and 'reported' him

Gary:

And did you have any idea where the shooting was coming from?

Buell:

The… the sound to me at that time, it sounded like it was

coming… coming from above.

Gary:

And… so, in other words, in the building?

Buell:

Well, I was standing on the steps. It was somewhere… it sounded

like it was coming from a building very… above. The one in which I was standing on the Here he nearly gives us a clue like he did in his first day statements that the shots sounded as if they came from across the street, ie. the Dal-tex or County Records Building (CRB)

steps because if you go to that intersection there at Houston and Elm, there’s buildings of

a certain height in every… and… on three corners. And I don’t… I do not know if the

same effect of buildings like that present kind of like an echo effect. The… the only

thing I can say was that I realized that it… that it was gunfire, but to be specific of which Here he is saying he did not think it was from his building but one of the others at the intersection as that is how it sounded.

building it was coming from other than it sounded like it come from above where I was

standing, I can’t… I can’t be more specific than that. And… and it sounded like it come

from above of where we were… we were standing. Again he says Above. not in the building or from the building which he was standing in the entryway of...simply above him.

In a court of law BWF had this to say,

Q: Mr. Frazier, did you make any determination at that time from the noises that you have just reported as to what location they came from?

A: They appeared to me to come from down towards the triple underpass.

Funny how a threat of jail time changes a persons memory.

Greg at August 16, 2015 at 3:40 PM

Redfern,

didn't the JD commission its own study after the HSCA wound up which negated the findings produced for the HSCA? Maybe I'm confusing issues, or talking at cross-purposes...

Greg,

'Claim to have negated' is nearer the mark. The NRC (National Research Council) group argued that the presence of certain 'simulcasts' (that is, dialogue and sounds contained on both Channels 1 and 2 of DPD radio transmissions) indicated that the gunfire sounds occurred too late to have represented the assassination. Down the years, these arguments have persisted.

Don Thomas has had a tough battle insisting that other dialogue on the tape shows that the gunfire occurred precisely during the interval that would be expected. The situation is complicated by the fact that we cannot be absolutely sure of the provenance of the tapes being used and exactly why the 'simulcasts' occurred when they did (the technology at the time was relatively crude).

If the sounds on the tape were not gunfire but spurious 'noise' signals we'd expect the relevant proof to follow very quickly. Yet there has been no satisfactory critique of the work carried out by the HSCA groups that would show this. We are asked to believe that the close similarities between the waveforms on the tape, those found in Dealey Plaza by experiment and computer acoustical simulations is purely coincidental.

Yet, the microphones picking up the gunfire sounds corresponded to those that would be obtained by a vehicle travelling along the dogleg turn from Houston to Elm Street on Dealey Plaza at 11mph. The sounds themselves correspond very closely with the timing and reactions we see on the Zapruder film and the shooting sequence described by many bystanders (including the two later shots spaced very close together). The odds against these factors alone occurring purely by chance are extremely long. So confident was one of the initial groups in its results that it was prepared to identify the calibre of weapon used in the 'grassy knoll' shot.

I am convinced they nailed it.

At one point I entertained the possibility that shots came from a window other than the 'sniper's nest' - maybe even one on the 5th. However, the Weiss and Aschekenasy study was so accurate it seems to have pinned down the location.

Just came across this while researching about Richard E Sprague at the HSCA and the time he was there with Richard A. Sprague and just before Blakey waltzed in, it kind of jumps out 

One day in November 1976, Bob Cutler, Chris Sharrett and I put on an all day presentation of the photographic evidence for the entire staff. Follow up presentations were made in July 1977 shortly before Blakey's arrival to the JFK sub-committee of the HSCA and for various staff people working for the committee members plus invited observers from the House and Senate. Emphasis was placed on the hard, solid evidence of the sixth floor window photographs that prove no one fired any shots from that point on November 22, 1963. All JFK staff people seemed convinced that Oswald fired no shots and was set up as a patsy. They seemed to believe that an inelligence-style conspiracy had existed and that the CIA and FBI may have been involved in the murder, and certainly were involved in the coverup.

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/18th_Issue/blakey.html

From Howard Roffman's Presumed Guilty

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp7.html

Howard Brennan was the Commission's star witness among those present in the plaza during the assassination. His testimony is cited in many instances, including passages to establish the source of the shots and the identity of the "assassin." Brennan was the only person other than Euins who claimed to have seen a gun fired from the Depository window (R63). Yet, in spite of Brennan's testimony that he saw the sixth-floor gunman take aim and fire a last shot, there is reason to believe that the man Brennan saw never discharged a firearm. Brennan was asked the vital questions that Euins was spared.

Mr. McCloy: Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?

Mr. Brennan: No.

Mr. McCloy: Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?

Mr. Brennan: No . . .

Mr. McCloy: Yes. But you saw him aim?

Mr. Brennan: Yes.

Mr. McCloy: Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash?

Mr. Brennan: No.

Mr. McCloy: But you heard the last shot?

Mr. Brennan: The report; yes, sir. (3H154)

If Brennan looked up at the window as he said, his testimony would strongly indicate that he saw a man aim a gun without firing it. When the Carcano is fired, it emits a small amount of smoke (26H811) and manifests a recoil (3H451), as do most rifles. That Brennan failed to see such things upon observing the rifle and hearing a shot is cogent evidence that the rifle Brennan saw did not fire the shot.

Thus, the Commission's evidence -- taken at face value -- indicates only that a gunman was present at the sixth-floor window, not an assassin. This distinction is an important one. A mere gunman (one armed with a gun) cannot be accused of murder; an assassin is one who has committed murder. A gunman present at the sixth-floor window could have served as a decoy to divert attention from real shooters at other vantage points.[8] While we cannot know surely just what the man in the sixth-floor window was doing, it is vital to note that evidence is entirely lacking that this gunman was, in fact, an assassin.

To the Commission, the gunman was the assassin, no questions asked. The limitations of the evidence could not be respected when the conclusions were prefabricated. By arbitrarily calling a gunman the "assassin," the Commission, in effect, made the charge of murder through circumstances, without substantiation.

As was discussed in chapter 1, the Commission had no witness identification of the "assassin" worthy of credence. Of the few who observed the gunman, only Brennan made any sort of identification, saying both that Lee Harvey Oswald was the gunman and that he merely resembled the gunman. The Commission rejected Brennan's "positive identification" of Oswald, expressed its confidence that the man Brennan saw at least looked like Oswald, and evaluated Brennan as an "accurate observer" (R145).

Many critics have challenged the Report's evaluation of Brennan as "accurate."[9] Evidence that I have recently discovered indicates that Brennan was not even an "observer," let alone an accurate one.

One of the main indications of Brennan's inaccuracy is his description of the gunman's position. Brennan contended that in the six-to-eight-minute-period prior to the motorcade's arrival, he saw a man "leave and return to the window `a couple of times.'" After hearing the first shot, he glanced up at this Depository window and saw this man taking deliberate aim with a rifle (R144). The Report immediately begins apologizing for Brennan:

Although Brennan testified that the man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was either sitting or kneeling. . . . It is understandable, however, for Brennan to have believed that the man with the rifle was standing. . . . Since the window ledges in the Depository building are lower than in most buildings [one foot high], a person squatting or kneeling exposes more of his body than would normally be the case. From the street, this creates the impression that the person is standing. (R144-45)

The Report's explanation is vitiated by the fact that Brennan claimed to have seen the gunman standing and sitting. "At one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill," swore Brennan. "That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up" (3H144). Thus, Brennan should have known the difference between a man standing and sitting at the window, despite the low window sill. Had the gunman been standing, he would have been aiming his rifle through a double thickness of glass, only his legs visible to witness Brennan. Had he assumed a sitting position -- on the sill or on nearby boxes -- he would have had to bend his head down below his knees to fire the rifle out the window (see photographs taken from inside the window, at 22H484-85).

From November 22 until the time of his Commission testimony, Brennan said he was looking at the sixth floor at the time of the last shot. His November 22 affidavit states this explicitly (24H203) and it can be inferred from his later interviews. In observing the Depository, Brennan contended that he stopped looking at the President's car immediately after the first shot (3H143-44). Obviously, then, he could not have seen the impact of the fatal bullet on the President's head, which came late, probably last, in the sequence of shots. However, Brennan's observations were suddenly augmented when he was interviewed by CBS News in August 1964 for a coast-to-coast broadcast. As was aired on September 27, 1964, Brennan told CBS "The President's head just exploded."[10] Unless Brennan lied to either CBS or the federal and local authorities, it must now be believed that he saw the sixth-floor gunman fire the last shot, then turned his head faster than the speeding bullet to have seen the impact of that bullet on the President's head, then turned back toward the window with equal alacrity so as to have seen the gunman slowly withdraw his weapon and marvel at his apparent success. Unless, of course, Brennan had eyes in the back of his head -- which is far more credible than any aspect of his "witness account."

Brennan's identification of Oswald as the man he saw (or said he saw?) in the sixth-floor window weighed heavily in the Commission's "evaluation" of the "evidence." As was discussed in chapter 1, the Commission first rejected Brennan's positive identification in discussing the evidence, and subsequently accepted it in drawing the conclusion that Oswald was at the window. Without Brennan, there would have been not even the slightest suggestion in any of the evidence that Oswald was at the window during the shots. No one else even made a pretense of being able to identify the sixth-floor gunman.

On November 22, 1963, Brennan was unable to identify Oswald as the man he saw in the window, but picked Oswald as the person in a police line-up who bore the closest resemblance to the gunman. Months later, when he appeared before the Commission, Brennan said he could have made a positive identification at the November 22 lineup,

but did not do so because he felt that the assassination was "a Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one eyewitness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe." (R145)

The Report continued that, because Brennan had originally failed to make a positive identification, the Commission did "not base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan's subsequent certain identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he saw fire the rifle." Through the Report, the Commission expressed its confidence that "Brennan saw a man in the window who closely resembled Lee Harvey Oswald, and that Brennan believes the man he saw was in fact . . . Oswald" (R146).

The Commission accepted Brennan's observations and assurances without question. However, the excuse Brennan offered for not originally making a positive identification was falsely and deliberately contrived, as the evidence reveals. As Brennan is quoted, he felt that he had been the only eyewitness and feared for his family's security should his identity become known. Contrary to this sworn statement, Brennan immediately knew of at least one other witness who had seen the sixth-floor gunman. Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels spoke with Brennan in Dealey Plaza within twenty minutes after the shooting, at which time he asked Brennan "if he had seen anyone else, and he pointed to a young colored boy there, by the name of Euins" (7H349). Sorrels testified that Brennan also expressed his willingness to identify the gunman. On the afternoon of the assassination, before he attended the line-up, Brennan filed an affidavit with the police (3H145; 7H349) in which he again made it known that he could identify the man if he were to see him once more (24H203). This contradicts Brennan's testimony that he could have identified Oswald on November 22 but declined to do so for fear of its becoming known.

Thus, Brennan originally indicated a willingness to identify the gunman, saw Oswald in a line-up and declined to make a positive identification, and subsequently admitted lying to the police by saying that he could have made the identification but was afraid to.

However, even Brennan's identification of Oswald as the man who most closely resembled the gunman is invalid, since prior to the line-up, Brennan twice viewed Oswald's picture on television (3H148). Brennan again contradicted himself in speaking of the effect that seeing Oswald's picture had on his later identification of Oswald.

On December 17, 1963, Brennan spoke with an FBI Agent to whom he confided "that he can now say that he is sure that LEE HARVEY OSWALD was the person he saw in the window." At this time, Brennan began offering his many excuses for not having originally made a positive identification. One of these

was that prior to appearing at the police line-up on November 22, 1963, he had observed a picture of OSWALD on his television set at home when his daughter asked him to watch it. He said he felt that since he had seen OSWALD on television before picking OSWALD out of the line-up at the police station that it tended to "cloud" any identification of OSWALD at that time. (CD5:15)

On January 7, 1964, Brennan's "clouded identification" was further lessened, for he told another FBI Agent that seeing Oswald's picture on television "of course, did not help him retain the original impression of the man in the window with the rifle" (24H406). Finally, on March 24, Brennan could no longer tell just what seeing Oswald prior to the line-up had done. On this date, Brennan testified before the Commission:

Mr. Belin: What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the other?

Mr. Brennan: That is something I do not know. (3H148)

As his earlier interviews demonstrate, Brennan "knew" but was not saying. It seems obvious that seeing Oswald's picture on television prior to the line-up not only would have "clouded" and "not helped" the identification, but would also have prejudiced it.

The best that can be said of Howard Brennan is that he provided a dishonest account that warrants not the slightest credence. He contradicted himself on many crucial points to such a degree that it is hard to believe that his untruths were unintentional. He was warmly welcomed by the unquestioning Commission as he constantly changed his story in support of the theory that Oswald was guilty. This man, so fearful of exposure as to "lie" to the police and possibly hinder justice, consented to talk with CBS News for a coast-to-coast broadcast before the Warren Report was released,[11] and allowed himself to be photographed for the October 2, 1964, issue of Life magazine, where he was called by Commissioner Ford "the most important witness to appear before the Warren Commission."[12] His identification of Oswald, incredible as it was through each of his different versions of it, was worthless, if for no other reason than that he saw Oswald on television prior to the police line-up.

Through twenty pages of repetitious testimony, Howard Brennan rambled on about the man he saw and who he looked like, interjecting apologies, and inaccurately marking various pictures. The Commission could not get enough of Brennan's words, for he spoke the official language: "Oswald did it." Yet, when Brennan offered one meaningful and determinative fact, he was suddenly shown the door. Commission Counsel David Belin had been showing Brennan some of Oswald's clothing when Brennan interjected:

Mr. Brennan: And that was another thing that I called their [the police's] attention to at the lineup.

Mr. Belin: What do you mean by that?

Mr. Brennan: That he [Oswald] was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.

Mr. Belin: You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?

Mr. Brennan: Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the same clothes on.

Mr. Belin: All right.

Mr. Brennan: I don't know whether you have that in the record or not. I am sure you do.

Mr. Dulles: Any further questions? I guess there are no more questions, Mr. Belin.

Mr. Belin: Well, sir, we want to thank you for your cooperation with the Commission.

Mr. Dulles: Thank you very much for coming here. (3H161)

The Commission had no witness-identification-by-appearance that placed Oswald in the window at the time of the shots. No one, including Brennan, could identify the sixth-floor gunman. However, Brennan's statement that the gunman wore clothes different from those that Oswald wore on that day might indicate the presence of someone other than Oswald in the window.

If there is anything consistent in the testimonies of those who observed a man on the sixth floor, it is the clothing descriptions. Rowland recalled that the man wore "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue . . . open at the collar . . . unbuttoned about halfway" with a "regular T-shirt, a polo shirt" underneath (2H171). Brennan described light-colored, possibly khaki clothes (3H145). Ronald Fisher and Bob Edwards described an "open-neck . . . sport shirt or a T-shirt . . . light in color; probably white" (6H194), and a "light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck" (6H203), respectively. Mrs. Carolyn Walther saw a gunman "wearing a white shirt" (24H522).

In each case, these witnesses have described a shirt completely different from that worn by Oswald on November 22. That day Oswald wore a long-sleeved rust-brown shirt open at the neck with a polo shirt underneath. At least two witnesses described such attire on Oswald before he went to his rooming house within a half hour after the shots (see 2H250; 3H257), and a third provided a similar but less-complete description (R159). From the time of his arrest until sometime after midnight that Friday, Oswald was still wearing this shirt, as is shown in many widely printed photographs.[13] Although it seems likely that he wore the same shirt all day long, Oswald told police he changed his shirt during a stop at his rooming house at 1:00 P.M. that afternoon, having originally been wearing a red long-sleeved buttondown (see R605, 613, 622, 626). However, Oswald did not possess a shirt of this description (see CEs 150-64).

The Commission never sought to determine if Oswald had worn the same shirt continually that day or if he had changed prior to his arrest. Apparently it was not going to risk the implications of Brennan's testimony that the clothing worn by Oswald in the line-up (Oswald wore the rust-brown shirt during the line-ups on November 22 [7H127-29, 169-70]) differed from that of the sixth-floor gunman. Indeed, when shown the shirt in question, CE 150, Brennan said the gunman's shirt was lighter (3H161).

The testimony of Marrion Baker, a police officer who encountered Oswald right after the shots, is somewhat illuminating on this point. When Baker later saw Oswald in the homicide office at police headquarters, "he looked like he did not have the same [clothes] on" (3H263). However, the reason for Baker's confusion (and Baker was not nearly so positive about the disparity as was Brennan) was that the shirt Oswald wore when seen in the Depository was "a little bit darker" than the one he had on at the police station (3H257; emphasis added).

The crux of the matter is whether Oswald was wearing his rust-brown shirt all day November 22, or if he changed into it subsequent to the assassination. While there is testimony indicating that he wore the same shirt all along, the nature of the existing evidence does not permit a positive determination. Had Oswald been wearing CE 150 at the time of the shots, it would seem that he was not the sixth-floor gunman, who wore a white or very light shirt, probably short sleeved. While it can be argued that Oswald may have appeared at the window in only his white polo shirt, he was seen within 90 seconds after the shots wearing the brown shirt.[14] As will be discussed in the next chapter, there was not enough time, had Oswald been at the window, for him to have put on his shirt within the 90-second limit.

The Commission had no evidence in any form that Oswald was at the sixth-floor window during the shots; its only reliable evidence placed Oswald on the first floor shortly before this time. The Commission concluded that Oswald was at this window because it wanted, indeed needed, to have him there. To do this, it put false meaning into the meaningless -- the fingerprint evidence and Givens's story -- and believed the incredible -- Brennan's testimony. Through its General Counsel, it suppressed the exculpatory evidence, and claimed to know of no evidence placing Oswald in a location other than the sixth floor when its only evidence did exactly that. The conclusion that Oswald was at the window is simply without foundation. It demands only the presumption of Oswald's guilt for acceptance. It cannot stand under the weight of the evidence.

Jake at August 14, 2015 at 1:05 PM

Mick Purdy at August 14, 2015 at 12:43 PM

 I follow the logic Jake, and I can certainly understand what you're saying. But I'm not convinced the framers of Lee cared less about an abort plan. If that means things were left there I don't think it mattered. 

You could be right and I'll leave it at that. I'll end up going around in those circles again, not with you mind you, just chasing my own scenarios from one to the next. That's why I like PM. It's a picture. It's him or it isn't. (I think it is).

Redfern has brought up a salient point.
And Jake has just answered.
With this thread it was easy for anyone to show or see through another medium, pictures and films, the evidence for what I said with text and their own words.
As Mick said embellished eyewitnesses.
If the acoustics could be backed up by another medium I would be its biggest geek.
Lee is basically saying like radio carbon dating, its only good to a point.
If the acoustic science would Reopen The Kennedy Case again I'd be its biggest geek.
Perhaps you Redfern are the acoustical einstein that will prove us wrong. I welcome new evidence being rubbed in my mug.
Although I often use it against said rubber.   Nothing hostile towards you my friend your not the enemy.

Listen we just smashed all the public liars and arsenholers whom have press badges and piled on Lee Harvey Oswald by claiming they saw only a rifle (no man) so they could inject themselves and get promoted, etc.
This thread demolished the whole notion that shots were fired from the Sixth Floor Museums shrine.
We trashed the thought that Oswald was there firing a weapon out that window.

I pity Bob Jackson and the whole lot of reporters whom have gained my mistrust.
Forget the government, Never trust the government but when the folks you turn to for the facts and honest reporting do this...pity pity pity

Thank you ROKCers!

Bakers WC testimony. Seems he might not have been so certain of where those shots came from.

Of course with some prompting from Belin he quickly decides it must have been the TSBD.

Mr. BELIN - All right. When you heard the first shot or the first noise, what did you do and what did you see?

Mr. BAKER - Well, to me, it sounded high and I immediately kind of looked up, and I had a feeling that it came from the building, either right in front of me or of the one across to the right of it.

Mr. BELIN - What would the building right in front of you be?

Mr. BAKER - It would be this Book Depository Building.

Mr. BELIN - That would be the building located on what corner of Houston and Elm?

Mr. BAKER - That would be the northwest corner.

Mr. BELIN - All right. And you thought it was either from that building or the building located where?

Mr. BAKER - On the northeast corner.

Now did Baker have his gun drawn as he approached the steps out front or did that happen inside the building?

Redfern, I give you a couple of cheers from my peanut gallery. I think the acoustical evidence you have outlined is fascinating stuff, too.

But, I just gotta put it out there that when you mention the Zapruder film, my heart sinks.

The Zapruder film has, at best, been severly tampered with. Quite likely, a composite rendering of footage from a number of cameras. You don't have to be an expert to see it. I won't jump on my Zapruder box, but after having studied the matter at some length, I put it down and then some time ago I saw a good treatment of the received Nix film (of course, also tampered with) and the limo stop or "California roll" is just glaring at you. Of course, that just gets the laundry list of all the problems with the Zapruder film running back through my mind. So anytime I hear or read "Zapruder" in connection with substantive research...well, my prob. Good Luck. I say keep running with it and I hope some members around here with expertise can help you out.

Redfern, I want you to know I hear what you are saying and you are not the enemy. You may well be the person to help all of us understand the acoustical evidence used in this case. My issue is not so much with the science behind the conclusions but that it is disputed by way of secondary findings. I'm with Ed and some of the others, I just don't like accepting this as given when part of the original finings have been somewhat "negated" I would love someone to revisit the study and using todays technology have another crack at it.....who knows.

I think your post to Greg, is appropriate and is in line as to why the acoustical evidence hasn't crashed through as it might have. And I'm sure this has been helped along with a healthy dose of LNer propaganda too.

Greg at August 17, 2015 at 5:40 AM

Redfern,

didn't the JD commission its own study after the HSCA wound up which negated the findings produced for the HSCA? Maybe I'm confusing issues, or talking at cross-purposes...

Greg,

'Claim to have negated' is nearer the mark. The NRC (National Research Council) group argued that the presence of certain 'simulcasts' (that is, dialogue and sounds contained on both Channels 1 and 2 of DPD radio transmissions) indicated that the gunfire sounds occurred too late to have represented the assassination. Down the years, these arguments have persisted.

Don Thomas has had a tough battle insisting that other dialogue on the tape shows that the gunfire occurred precisely during the interval that would be expected. The situation is complicated by the fact that we cannot be absolutely sure of the provenance of the tapes being used and exactly why the 'simulcasts' occurred when they did (the technology at the time was relatively crude).

HAVE WE IGNORED THE KEY WITNESS TO THE

DEPOSITORY SHOT OR SHOTS?

By Frank A. Cellura

March, 2000

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cellura%20Frank/Item%2002.pdf

He is wrong about the shells tho, there were 3. That photograph on blowing up shows that.

RevPink89 at August 24, 2015 at 10:27 AM

Redfern, I give you a couple of cheers from my peanut gallery. I think the acoustical evidence you have outlined is fascinating stuff, too.

But, I just gotta put it out there that when you mention the Zapruder film, my heart sinks.

The Zapruder film has, at best, been severly tampered with. Quite likely, a composite rendering of footage from a number of cameras. You don't have to be an expert to see it. I won't jump on my Zapruder box, but after having studied the matter at some length, I put it down and then some time ago I saw a good treatment of the received Nix film (of course, also tampered with) and the limo stop or "California roll" is just glaring at you. Of course, that just gets the laundry list of all the problems with the Zapruder film running back through my mind. So anytime I hear or read "Zapruder" in connection with substantive research...well, my prob. Good Luck. I say keep running with it and I hope some members around here with expertise can help you out.

I've never really followed the logic behind the claims that the Zapruder film was altered.

If it had been, we'd have to assume it was with the aim of showing a shooting sequence along the lines claimed by Warren. However, the reaction of most who see it is that it shows that the fatal shot came from the front-right. Even to lay people, the damage caused does not seem consistent with what they'd expect from standard military ammunition.

Closer inspection of the film contradicts the SBT too, since Connally clearly suffers his major wound several seconds after Kennedy is seen to react. The 'lapel flip' does not coincide with where the bullet struck and Connally shows no signs of trauma at this stage. 

The only possibility I'd entertain was that the wound in the rear of Kennedy's head was blacked out, but even this seems very dubious - it can arguably be discerned later in the film.

If it was genuinely thought that the film would disprove allegations of a conspiracy, surely it would have been publicly released in some format long before 1975.

Viewed closely, the Nix film displays the so-called 'blow-out' at the rear of Kennedy's skull.

Casting my mind back, the broadcast of the Zapruder film by Geraldo Rivera was arguably the key factor in hardening opinion in the US against the Warren verdict. 

Meanwhile WB Barmett to Jesse Curry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6w5MtDqRs

Two news photographers in the motorcade, Bob Jackson and Malcolm Couch, saw a rifle barrel being withdrawn from a window on an upper floor of the TSBD. At the time of the shooting, their vehicle was on Houston Street, about halfway between Main Street and Elm Street, with the TSBD directly in front of them.

Bob Jackson and the barrel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9anAfGft6U