Thursday, 27 September 2012

Has the Zapruder film been altered?

One of the ongoing debates amongst JFK conspiracy advocates is the question of whether or not the famous Abraham Zapruder film has been altered. To be honest, it’s an issue I try to keep away from. On the one hand, we have Jim Fetzer and his ilk vehemently arguing that beyond a doubt, the Zapruder film has been altered. On the other hand, we have Josiah Thompson and Robert Groden insisting the film hasn’t been altered. But what’s the point of arguing about it? If the Zapruder can be conclusively proven to have been altered, it will only demonstrate yet again that there was a conspiracy/cover- up behind the assassination. With a mountain of evidence already proving that to be the case, why waste time with the issue of Zapruder film alteration?
Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not completely opposed to the idea of alteration - although I do find the notion that the entire film is a fake to be totally absurd. If the film can be conclusively proven to have been altered, then that’s fine by me. However, if it cannot be proven, I for one won’t be losing any sleep over it. Fetzer is well known for referring to fellow conspiracy advocates, who don’t support Zapruder film alteration, as being some sort of disinformation agent. Such behaviour is not only completely ridiculous, but extremely arrogant in my opinion, and it only reflects poorly on Fetzer’s character. 
Although I don’t involve myself in Zapruder film alteration, there is one issue I do want to address. In the extant Zapruder film, we can all see the violent manner in which President Kennedy’s upper body and head is violently thrust backwards and slightly to the left, immediately following the head shot(s). Alteration advocates, such as Dr David Mantik, have been arguing this reaction was (if you can believe it) added into the film! Frankly, this has to be one of the silliest and most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. Just think, the idea of altering the film is to obviously hide any evidence of conspiracy. Yet, whilst altering the film, the conspirators supposedly added the backwards head snap (indicating a shot from the front) into the film? I’m sorry, but WTF!
It actually pains me to say this, because I have a great deal of respect for Dr Mantik. I don’t agree with him that the autopsy photos and X-rays have been altered/faked, but I do admire the enormous amount of time and effort he has spent studying the assassination materials. Dr Mantik’s reviews of Don Thomas’s and John McAdams's books (on the website), were also very informative and impressive. See here, and here.
The claim that the backwards head snap/reaction was added in, is based on the alleged notion that no witness in Dealey Plaza recalled seeing it. To put it mildly, this is simply not true. At least four of the closet witnesses to the assassination, did recall seeing it! These witnesses include Secret service agents, Samuel Kinney and George Hickey (riding inside the secret service follow-up car), motorcycle officer, Bobby Hargis (riding to the left rear of President Kennedy’s limousine), and bystander, William Newman.
Below are the relevant excerpts from their statements/testimony:

Special agent Samuel Kinney:

Secret service report:

“The first shot was fired, I glanced from the taillight of SS 100-X, at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again. At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head. With this, simultaneously with the President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were those that hit the President”

Special agent George Hickey:

Initial secret service report:

“Just prior to the shooting I was seated in the rear of SS-679-X on the left side. As 100-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President's car. The President was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.”

Second Secret service report:

“After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.”

Motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis:

Article in the New York Sunday news, date: 24/11/63.

“When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look. The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him. As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood”

Testimony before the Warren commission:

“I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that (indicating) the shot that killed him hit him. I don't know whether it was the second or the third shot. Everything happened so fast.”

Witness William Newman:

Testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw, in 1969:

"The only reaction that I can recall -- I don't recall whether his head went back or forward, but I do recall when the impact hit him that he just stiffened and he went to the left, real hard to the left and into her lap, and... He went away from me”

Interview with Jim Marrs:

"As he was coming straight toward us there was a boom, boom, real close together. I thought someone was throwing firecrackers. He got this bewildered look on his face and was sort of slowing moving back and forth. Then he got nearer to us, and, bam, a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say 'Oh, my God, no, they shot Jack!' He was knocked violently back against the seat, almost as if he had been hit by a baseball bat. At that time, I was looking right at the President and I thought the shots were coming from directly behind us. I said, "That's it! Get on the ground!"

As we can see, all four witnesses indicated the President’s body moved backwards as he was struck in the head. I mean, how else can “sat-up again”, “get up”, “straightening up”, and “straightened back-up” be interpreted, if not referring to the backwards head snap. Bill Newman did claim during his Shaw trial testimony, that he couldn’t recall whether the President’s head went forward or backwards. However, he did claim the President “stiffened”, which is exactly what we see with the backwards head snap in the Zapruder film.

Whilst there certainly were only a few witnesses who recalled the backwards reaction, it’s hardly surprising. Think about it. With the shock of seeing the President’s head explode from the impact of the bullet(s), would witnesses be paying much attention to how he immediately reacted? Not likely. Let’s also bear in mind, that with the speed of the backwards head snap (and the fact that President Kennedy was not leaning significantly forwards when struck in the head), it’s no surprise that many of the closet witnesses to the President, failed to recall the backwards reaction.
However, if we are to believe that Dr Mantik is correct, then we have to take the word of CBS news anchor, Dan rather, who claimed he saw President Kennedy’s head snap forward’s. But why should we? Rather has been a shameless cheer leader for the lone gunman myth from day one. We know of course that the media had already declared Oswald was the lone assassin - within hours of the assassination. So I’m certainly not going to take Rather’s word (or any other newsman’s word) on what the Zapruder film depicted. Let’s also remember the hideous lie Walter Cronkite told about Oswald’s paraffin cast from his right cheek testing positive for nitrates – when it was in fact negative 
In his review of Don Thomas’s book, Dr Mantik cites the claim by Cartha DeLoach, who was at one time J. Edgar Hoover’s loyal right hand man. DeLoach wrote in his book that he too had seen the Zapruder film, depicting a forward’s head snap. Honest to god, why should anybody take the word of a man who was loyal to a corrupt and racist scumbag, such as Hoover? It just defies belief.
As I said previously, I am not totally opposed to the notion that the Zapruder film was altered. Although, with the backwards head snap left unedited, I honestly don’t know what the conspirators concealed. The overwhelming majority of conspiracy theorists believe the right rear of President Kennedy’s head was blown out from a shot fired from behind the picket fence. However, as Pat Speer explains here, there is good reason to believe this was not the case.
After reading through Speer’s work, I have become convinced the back of President Kennedy’s head was intact. To be perfectly honest, at first I was adamantly opposed to Speer’s assertion. However, as I read through all the eye witness statements he cited, I no longer support the theory that the back of the head was blown out. Now if this is true, then it is a devastating blow to the theory that the Zapruder film was altered to conceal the hole at the back of the head.
As far as the conflicting eye witness reports on whether or not President Kennedy’s limousine came to a complete stop are concerned, I will leave that up to others to debate. I also have no intention of discussing any of the alleged photographic anomalies in the Zapruder film, as I frankly don’t have the required skills or knowledge to provide an opinion.
However, the garbage about the backwards head snap being added into the Zapruder film should stop, as it makes conspiracy advocates look incredibly foolish, in my opinion.

Tuesday, 18 September 2012

Was Lee Harvey Oswald guilty? - Part 2

A continuation of our look into whether or not Oswald was guilty

The clothing fibres on the rifle

In my previous post, I discussed the authenticity of the palm print which DPD Lt. Carl Day claimed he lifted off the barrel of the rifle. Given all the serious problems with this piece of evidence, the logical conclusion is that Oswald never left a print on the rifle. If we accept that as a fact, then we have to accept that the so-called lift of the palm print was actually a print obtained from Oswald as the DPD finger printed him.  

I will now discuss the provenance of the fibres which were “found” near the butt end of the rifle. Examination of these fibres was undertaken by the FBI’s hair and fibre expert, Paul M. Stombaugh. Stombaugh compared the fibres on the rifle, to the fibres from the dark brown shirt Oswald was arrested wearing. According to Stombaugh, the fibres from the rifle and the shirt were a match. But if we accept that the DPD faked the palm print, then we can also accept that the DPD planted the fibres on the rifle to implicate Oswald. Bear in mind, that this was one of the easiest pieces of evidence to plant. All the DPD had to do was remove the fibres from Oswald’s shirt, and neatly place it near the butt of the rifle.

However, before discussing whether the fibres were a plant or not, let’s take a look at what the Warren report had to say concerning the comparison by Stombaugh. Excerpt from page 124:

“In a crevice between the butt plate of the rifle and the wooden stock was a tuft of several cotton fibres of dark blue, gray-black, and orange-yellow shades. On November 23, 1963, these fibres were examined by Paul M. Stombaugh, a special agent assigned to the Hair and Fibre Unit of the FBI Laboratory. He compared them with the fibres found in the shirt which Oswald was wearing when arrested in the Texas Theatre. This shirt was also composed of dark blue, gray- black and orange-yellow cotton fibres. Stombaugh testified that the colors, shades, and twist of the fibres found in the tuft on the rifle matched those in Oswald's shirt… Stombaugh explained in his testimony that in fibre analysis, as distinct from fingerprint or firearms identification, it is not possible to state with scientific certainty that a particular small group of fibres come from a certain piece of clothing to the exclusion of all others because there are not enough microscopic characteristics present in fibres. Judgments as to probability will depend on the number and types of matches. He concluded, "There is no doubt in my mind that these fibres could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibres having come from another identical shirt."

Whilst Stombaugh claimed he obtained a match between the fibres from the rifle and the shirt, he also explained that there can be no certainty that the fibres were from the shirt - as they are not unique. Hence, we certainly shouldn’t consider this to be a solid piece of evidence. Not surprisingly, the Warren commission concluded that the fibres from the rifle were most likely from the shirt Oswald was arrested wearing. Excerpt from page 124 of the Warren report:

“Having considered the probabilities as explained in Stombaugh's testimony, the Commission has concluded that the fibres in the tuft on the rifle most probably came from the shirt worn by Oswald when he was arrested, and that this was the same shirt which Oswald wore on the morning of the assassination. Marina Oswald testified that she thought her husband wore this shirt to work on that day. The testimony of those who saw him after the assassination was inconclusive about the color of Oswald's shirt, but Mary Bledsoe, a former landlady of Oswald, saw him on a bus approximately 10 minutes after the assassination and identified the shirt as being the one worn by Oswald primarily because of a distinctive hole in the shirt's right elbow.

In order to make the claim that Oswald left the fibres near the butt of the rifle during the assassination, the Warren commission had to have him wearing the dark brown shirt. Their star witness to this was Mary Bledsoe, allegedly one of Oswald’s former land ladies. Bledsoe claimed she was on Cecil McWatter’s bus with Oswald, as he was “escaping” the TSBD. Without a doubt, Bledsoe is one of the very worst Warren commission witnesses to testify. For those of you who are interested in high comedy, I highly recommend you read through Bledsoe’s testimony. The woman has absolutely no idea what she’s talking about! I don’t wish to into all the problems with Bledsoe or Oswald’s alleged presence on the bus at this point in time. I will save that for a future post.

Now even if Oswald had been wearing the dark brown shirt to work on the day of the assassination, there is no way to be certain exactly when the fibres were “caught” on the butt of the rifle. From page 125 of the Warren report:

“In light of these findings the Commission evaluated the additional testimony of Stombaugh that the fibres were caught in the crevice of the rifle's butt plate "in the recent past." Although Stombaugh was unable to estimate the period of time the fibres were on the rifle he said that the fibres "were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up." The relative freshness of the fibres is strong evidence that they were caught on the rifle on the morning of the assassination or during the preceding evening. For 10 days prior to the eve of the assassination Oswald had not been present at Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Tex, where the rifle was kept.”

As we can see, Stombaugh could not estimate the amount of time the fibres were left on the rifle, although he did claim they were fresh, and could have been caught on the rifle on the day of the assassination or the previous day. However, further from the Warren report, we have the following information:

“On the other hand Stombaugh pointed out that fibres might retain their freshness if the rifle had been "put aside" after catching the fibres. The rifle used in the assassination probably had been wrapped in a blanket for about 8 weeks prior to November 22. Because the relative freshness of these fibres might be explained by the continuous storage of the rifle in the blanket, the Commission was unable to reach any firm conclusion as to when the fibres were caught in the rifle. The Commission was able to conclude, however, that the fibres most probably came from Oswald's shirt. This adds to the conviction of the Commission that Oswald owned and handled the weapon used in the assassination.”

So here we have Stombaugh testifying that the freshness of the fibres from Oswald’s shirt could also be explained by continuous storage. The problem is (as discussed previously), the work by John Armstrong and Gil Jesus has proven that Oswald didn’t own the MC rifle in evidence. Furthermore, the evidence that the rifle was stored inside the blanket found in the garage of the Paine’s household was also inconclusive.

It’s important to note that both Ruth and Michael Paine have long been suspected of being involved in framing Oswald for the assassination. As researchers such as John Armstrong and Jim DiEugenio have demonstrated, both of their families were involved with the CIA! In fact, one of the most curious discoveries amongst the Paine’s possessions was a list of the names of communist sympathisers. Marina Oswald also informed Jim Garrison during the trial of Clay Shaw, that the secret service had told her to keep away from Ruth Paine because she was working for the CIA! Oh, and let’s not forget all the evidence which Ruth Paine “discovered” against Oswald for the failed assassination attempt against General Edwin Walker – miraculously 8 months following the day of the failed attempt! Now this should cause people to shake their heads in disbelief, but not Warren commission zealots.

So now let’s take a look at whether or not the fibres were planted. Pat Speer discussed this issue extensively on his website, here. Speer first challenged whether or not Oswald was wearing the dark brown shirt to work. According to the notes taken by DPD Captain, Will Fritz, Oswald claimed he changed his clothes when he arrived at his rooming house, at 1026 North Beckley. As Speer demonstrated, only Marina Oswald, Charles Givens and Mary Bledsoe claimed Oswald was wearing the dark brown shirt to work that day – and all three of these witnesses have serious credibility issues.

Now the important thing to note is that none of the witnesses who observed the 6th floor sniper, described him as wearing a dark brown shirt. This is obviously a serious problem for the legitimacy of the fibre evidence. Speer also explained how Stombaugh discovered latent finger print powder on the butt of the rifle, where the fibres were located. He then made the succinct observation that the dusting of the butt of the rifle would have left finger print powder on the fibres. The problem is: Stombaugh found no such powder on the fibres when he examined them. The only explanation for this is that the fibres were placed on the butt of the rifle after the fingerprint powder was applied.

Now, the lack of fingerprint powder on the fibres doesn’t necessarily prove that they were planted. But then we have to consider how the fibres got caught on the butt end of the rifle. I mean, did Oswald deliberately rub the butt of the rifle against the shirt? It simple makes no sense. Speer ultimately reaches the conclusion that the fibres were indeed planted - which I agree with.

Speer also discusses the credibility of Stombaugh’s comparison of the fibres from the shirt to the fibres on the rifle. As previously stated, Stombaugh discovered that both of the fibres had “dark blue, gray-black, and orange-yellow shades”. Now this was a dark brown shirt, and as Speer asked: “Since when is there no brown in brown?” Great question! Perhaps Warren commission zealots can provide us with an answer. To further add injury to Stombaugh’s credibility, he discusses Stombaugh’s performance during the 1978 trial of Jeffery McDonald, for the murder of his wife. It is a must read to see just why Stombaugh is not credible.
Also, be sure to check out this online article on the reliability of fibre evidence in general.

The “gun sack”

One of the weakest pieces of evidence against Oswald is the brown paper bag he allegedly used to smuggle the MC rifle into the TSBD. Lone gunman kooks love to constantly quote the observation by Oswald’s co-worker, Buell Wesley Frazier, who gave Oswald a lift to work on the day of the assassination. Frazier claimed to see Oswald carrying a package with him as they rode to work. His claim was corroborated by his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, who allegedly saw Oswald place a “long package” into the back seat of Frazier’s car.

The problems with the so-called gun sack allegedly used by Oswald to smuggle the rifle into the TSBD are numerous. Let’s start with Wesley Frazier’s observations. On the day of the assassination, Frazier signed a sworn affidavit, where he described the “sack” Oswald was carrying as being about 2 feet (61 cm) long. Frazier was always consistent on this point. During his subsequent interviews, he also explained Oswald held the package between his right hand and shoulder. When the FBI’s ballistics examiner, Robert Frazier, testified before the Warren commission, he explained that even with the rifle disassembled, the stock of the rifle measured 34.8 inches (88.4 cm).

Now this is very problematic for lone gunman theorists. In the first place, Frazier described the package as being shorter than it could have been, had Oswald carried the MC rifle inside of it. Of course, Frazier could have been wrong about the length of the package. But how the heck could Oswald have carried it between his arm and shoulder? Oswald’s arm would have to be at least 88.4 cm long. Completely ridiculous!

Frazier makes it clear during his testimony that the package he allegedly observed Oswald carrying was held between his right armpit and right hand. See below.

Mr. BALL  

You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?


Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL  

You mean one end of it under the armpit?


Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.

Mr. BALL  

And he had the lower part—


The other part with his right hand.


Right hand?




He carried it then parallel to his body?


Right, straight up and down.

Representative FORD  

Under his right arm?


Yes, sir.

What’s equally problematic is Frazier’s description of the appearance of Oswald’s package. From Frazier’s Warren commission testimony:

Mr. BALL  

What did the package look like?


Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.

Mr. BALL  

It was, what part of the back seat was it in?


 It was in his side over on his side in the far back.

Mr. BALL  

How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?


 I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat.

Mr. BALL  

From the side of the seat over to the centre, is that the way you would measure it?


If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the centre, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.

Mr. BALL  

How wide was the package?


Well, I would say the package was about that wide.

Mr. BALL  

How wide would you say that would be?


Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't—

Mr. BALL  

The paper, was the color of the paper, that you would get in a grocery store, is that it, a bag in a grocery store?


Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.

Frazier’s description of the package does not match the appearance of the sack allegedly used to smuggle the rifle into the TSBD. He also described the package as being 5 or 6 inches wides, whereas the “gun sack” is 8.5 inches wide. Below is a photograph of the sack (designated Ce142) in evidence.

According to the testimony of James Cadigan, the FBI’s expert examiner of questioned documents, the “gun sack” was made from paper and tape from the TSBD. The implication is that Oswald made the sack using material he stole from the TSBD. Researcher Gil Jesus wrote extensively about this issue on his website (here), and has proven that the sack was never made by Oswald. I also discuss this issue below.

Now if the package didn’t contain the rifle, then what did it contain? Researchers such as Jim DiEugenio believe there never was a package, and that the entire claim was concocted by Frazier. Others such as Greg Parker believe the package contained Oswald’s lunch. Richard Gilbride has made a very convincing case that Frazier was responsible for cutting the power to the elevators immediately following the assassination, to enable the conspirators to escape through the elevator shaft. These issues were discussed at length on both Greg Parker’s website, and on John Simkin’s Spartacus education forum.

If Frazier did cut the power to the elevator, and lied about the Oswald carrying a package, then he is obviously a co-conspirator, and was involved in framing Oswald. But then why would he claim the package was only 2 feet long - and not longer to incriminate Oswald? Well, perhaps he was an unwitting participant in the assassination, and had a guilty conscience. The conspirators could have threatened to kill his mother, sister, and nieces to guarantee his co-operation. My own personal belief is that the 2 foot long package contained Oswald’s lunch. As for the “observation” by Frazier’s sister, Linnie Mae Randle, Sylvia Meagher undermined her credibility in her sterling book, Accessories after the fact.

Most of us are aware of the story, which Oswald allegedly told Frazier, about the package containing curtain rods. Since it makes no sense that Oswald would say this to Frazier, given the fact that his rooming house already contained curtain rods, this story was almost certainly a lie by Frazier.

Let’s now take a look at the testimony of Jack Dougherty - the man who saw Oswald enter the TSBD on the morning of the assassination. Dougherty informed the Warren commission that he observed Oswald walk into the building empty handed! When Warren commission counsel, Joseph Ball, questioned him on his observation, Dougherty responded as follows:


Do you recall him having anything in his hand?


Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.


Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?


Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.

Mr. BALL –

In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?


Yes, sir.


In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?


I would say that---yes, sir.

Mr. BALL –

Or, are you guessing?


I don't think so.

As we can see, Dougherty was certain that he saw Oswald enter with nothing in his hands. This is an absolute disaster for lone gunman kooks! Although Dougherty claimed during his testimony that Bill Shelley (Oswald’s supervisor) recalled seeing Oswald carrying “a good sized package”, there is no mention of this made in Shelley’s Warren commission testimony, or sworn affidavits. Dougherty’s claim was therefore most likely an excuse to cover-up his own failure to see Oswald carrying a package with him.

If Dougherty’s failure to see Oswald with a package isn’t bad enough, just consider the fact that nobody inside the TSBD recalled seeing him with a package! Bear in mind, that according to Wesley Frazier’s testimony, he arrived with Oswald at approximately 8:00 am. The President of course was shot at 12:30. So are we to believe that with dozens of TSBD workers walking around the building, not one person ever saw the “gun sack” during that period of time, which had to be at least 88.4 cm long? Completely ridiculous! I mean where the heck did Oswald supposedly hide the sack, where nobody could see it? Lone gunman kooks have never given us an explanation.

Now the fact that neither Dougherty, nor any of the other workers ever observed Oswald with a package, doesn’t necessarily make a liar out of Frazier or his sister. Oswald could easily have discarded it just prior to entering the building – after removing his apple and cheese sandwich from it.

There’s also the pertinent issue of whether or not Oswald made the so-called gun sack, using the wrapping paper and tape from the TSBD. The wrapping paper was used by TSBD employee, Troy Eugene West, for wrapping mail. According to the Warren commission, Oswald took the paper and tape to make the sack. The problem is that neither West nor any other employee ever reported seeing Oswald with any paper or tape. From West’s Warren commission testimony:


Did Lee Harvey Oswald ever help you wrap mail?

Mr. WEST  

No, sir; he never did.


Do you know whether or not he ever borrowed or used any wrapping paper for himself?

Mr. WEST  

No, sir; I don't.


You don't know?

Mr. WEST  

No; I don't.


Did you ever see him around these wrapper rolls or wrapper roll machines, or not?

Mr. WEST  

No, sir; I never noticed him being around.

Furthermore, Buell Wesley Frazier never saw Oswald with any paper or tape when he drove him home from the TSBD. Also, no pieces or scraps of paper or any tape was discovered at either Ruth Paine's home, or at Oswald's rooming house! The only pieces of evidence linking Oswald to the “gun sack”, was the single palm print, and single fingerprint which the FBI’s latent fingerprint examiner, Sebastian Latona, claimed belonged to Oswald. Now, are we to believe that after spending all that time cutting the paper and using the tape, Oswald only left one palm print and one fingerprint?

If that’s not difficult to believe, then just consider this: When Lt Carl Day of the DPD dusted the bag for prints, he discovered that there were no legible prints! From Day’s testimony:


Did you find anything, any print of any kind, in connection with the processing of this?

Mr. DAY.

No legible prints were found with the powder, no.


Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any other means or any other place?

Mr. DAY.

There is a legible print on it now. They were on there when it was returned to me from the FBI on November 24.

So here we have Day claiming that he had discovered no legible prints, yet when Latona examines it, he discovers only one palm print and one fingerprint. I’m sorry, but this is simply freakin unbelievable! I should note, that the palm print was that of Oswald’s right hand, and the fingerprint was that of Oswald left index finger. There are some lone gunman theorists who have claimed that Oswald stole an already manufactured bag from the TSBD. However, there is no proof to support this claim.

Pat Speer has performed a photographic analysis where he has demonstrated that the bag removed from the TSBD, and the sack which is at the national archives, are of different widths. The photo below shows DPD detective, L.D Montgomery, holding the bag outside the TSBD.

The width of the “gun sack” at the archives measures 8.5 inches. However, according to Speer’s analysis, the bag in the above photo is approximately 10.75 inches wide. Please click here to see Speer’s analysis. Now if the width of the bag and the sack are different, then the sack at the archives was not made by Oswald, but by either the DPD or the FBI to implicate him. This of course would explain how Carl Day didn’t find a legible print on the sack, but somehow Sebastian Latona found a palm print and a fingerprint.

Now let’s consider the chain of custody of the “gun sack”. The official story is that the “gun sack” was found near the spent shell casings - between the boxes and the wall. The red oval in the photo below (designated Ce729), illustrates the location of the sack where it was allegedly discovered.

Please note: I said allegedly discovered, because no photograph of the sack was taken where we are told it was discovered! This is in spite of the fact that Carl Day and his assistant, detective Robert L. Studebaker, had taken photographs of the boxes, the rifle, and the spent shell casings. miraculously, they had neglected to take a single photo of the sack in- situ. It reminds of Day’s failure to take a photo of the palm print he claimed to have discovered on the barrel of the rifle. Kind of makes you wonder about his competence and honesty, doesn't it?

Without any photographs of the sack in-situ, there is simply no proof that it was discovered in the location depicted in the above photo. To make matters worse, consider the fact that Luke Mooney, the Dallas Sheriff’s deputy who discovered the spent shell casings, did not recall seeing the sack. Neither did Gerald Hill (allegedly the first DPD officer on the 6th floor). If you want further evidence that the so -called gun sack wasn’t found on the 6th floor, then consider the fact that neither DPD captain Will Fritz, DPD detective Elmer Boyd, Dallas deputy sheriffs Roger Craig, A.D McCurley, Ralph Waters, and Jack Faulkner, recall seeing the sack by the Southeast corner of the 6th floor.

For more information on why the sack was not found next to the boxes, please see both Gil Jesus’s website and Pat Speer’s website.

Now aside from linking the sack to Oswald, it was imperative to link the MC rifle to the sack. Despite the fact that the rifle was well oiled, there were no traces of oil found on the inside of the sack. There were also abrasions of any kind found inside the bag which could link it to the rifle – as per James Cadigan’s testimony. Let’s also bear in mind that no gun oil was ever discovered amongst Oswald’s possessions. Lone gunman kooks have tried to weasel their way out of these findings, by claiming a cloth was wrapped around the rifle. The problem is that no such cloth was ever discovered. So it’s just speculation on their part.

However, there were light green cotton fibres, and a single brown Viscose fibre found inside the sack. When Paul Stombaugh examined the fibres, he claimed the fibres could have come from the blanket in the Paine’s garage - where the rifle was allegedly stored. The important point to note however, is that he was unable to positively connect the fibres to the blanket. Also bear in mind the lack of his credibility. Now if the DPD planted the fibres from Oswald’s dark brown shirt (for which we have every reason to believe they did), then it’s a very safe bet that they also planted the fibres from the blanket into the sack.

The bottom line is: There is no positive proof the rifle was ever inside the so - called gun sack”!

As we can see, there is absolutely no reason to believe Oswald ever carried the rifle into the TSBD! If we are to believe that he was indeed the 6th floor shooter, then he had to have an accomplice(s) who brought the rifle into the TSBD for him – and that the assassination was certainly a conspiracy!

Howard Leslie Brennan:

Howard Brennan is undoubtedly a favourite witness amongst the lone gunman advocates. Brennan informed the Warren commission, that the man he observed shoot President Kennedy from the 6th floor sniper’s nest window, was Lee Harvey Oswald.

On the day of the assassination, Brennan was taken to the Dallas Sheriff’s office to give a sworn affidavit of what he had observed. Brennan described the sniper as follows:

“He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light coloured clothing but definitely not a suit.”

Brennan described the shooter as being in his early 30’s, and weighing 165 to 175 pounds. This description does not match Oswald. He also described the shooter as wearing light coloured clothing, yet Oswald was supposedly wearing a dark brown shirt. So how could Brennan have missed this, whilst being able to positively identify Oswald’s facial features?

When considering whether or not Brennan could have made out Oswald’s facial features, let’s take into account the fact that (as photographs show) the sniper’s nest window was dirty. Let’s also consider the fact that during the assassination, the sun was shining towards the window. Hence, there would have been a considerable amount of sun glare.

Adding to Brennan’s credibility problems is the fact that he described the shooter as standing. However, it was impossible for the shooter to be standing, because the bullets would have been fired through the partial open window! Of course he could have been mistaken about this, but it only undermines his credibility. Furthermore, as authors such as Rodger Remington and Ian Griggs have pointed out, there is no evidence that Brennan ever attended a line-up. Even though he told the Warren commission that he did.

Furthermore, Brennan claimed he didn’t initially identify Oswald as the assassin, because he had feared for the safety of his family - as he believed the assassination was a communist conspiracy. However, as many astute researchers have pointed out, he had been talking to reporters about the assassination, despite his alleged fears. Also, are we really to believe that Brennan thought there was only one communist (Oswald) in the communist conspiracy and with Oswald now dead, there was nothing to fear? The entire story is totally absurd!

Now, why would Brennan lie about the shooter being Oswald? Well, Oswald was dead. So it wasn’t as if Brennan would have been helping the authorities put an innocent man into Prison, right? However, lone gunman kooks, such as David Von Pein, will have none of this. They insist Brennan was not lying. Unfortunately for them, we only have Brennan’s word that Oswald was the sniper. Bear in mind, the first time Brennan made this claim, was to the Warren commission 7 months following the assassination.

Despite lone gunman kooks constantly using Brennan as their star witness against Oswald, they avoid at all costs the fact that three TSBD workers, Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles, and Jack Dougherty, would have seen Oswald coming down the stairs – had he really been the assassin! Dougherty was standing near the elevator next to the stairwell, and would have seen Oswald pass by him if he was racing down the stairs to reach the lunchroom, where he was allegedly encountered by DPD officer Marrion Baker, and the building superintendent, Roy Truly.

As far as Adams and Styles are concerned, they were descending the stairwell from the 4th floor of the TSBD, 15 to 30 seconds following the last shot. By the time Oswald would have reached the stairs, and started descending, they would have heard and seen him. However, they didn’t!

In hindsight, It truly amazes me how lone gunman kooks take the word of one man with serious credibility problems, over that of three witnesses who would have seen Oswald descending the stairs, but didn’t! Yet, they have the arrogance to constantly insult conspiracy theorists. Truly amazing!
Aside from the aforementioned three witnesses, lone gunman kooks constantly avoid the observations by Arnold Rowland, Carolyn Walther, and Lillian Mooneyham. Rowland informed the authorities, that he observed two men standing on the 6th floor of the TSBD. According to Rowland, one of them was a white man holding a “high powered rifle”. The second man appeared to be an elderly Negro. Many researchers, such as Greg Parker and Richard Gilbride, have argued that the elderly Negro man was the TSBD janitor, Eddie Piper. Be sure to check out this thread on John Simkin’s Spartacus education forum.

Carolyn Walther, viewing the motorcade near the intersection of Elm and Houston streets, also claimed to see two men together, with one of them holding a rifle pointing down. Walther’s credibility on this issue has been attacked, since she claimed to see the men on the 4th floor of the TSBD.  However, she most likely just misrembered the floor the men were on.

Lillian Mooneyham, a deputy Court Clerk, was viewing the motorcade from the court house along Houston Street. She informed the FBI that approximately 4 to 5 minutes following the assassination, she observed the figure of man with trousers, standing behind the card- board boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD. However, we were told Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom, 90 seconds following the assassination.

Greg Parker has provided information that on the day of the assassination, Roy Truly had informed DPD Captain Will Fritz that Officer Baker encountered Oswald in the first floor storage room. The story was overheard by reporter, Kent Biffle. Truly’s claim was confirmed by Occhus Campbell, the Vice President of the TSBD (see here). We also know that in Baker’s first day affidavit, there was no mention of an encounter inside the 2nd floor lunchroom. Instead, Baker claimed to stop a man walking away from the stairwell on the 3rd or 4th floor. Baker described the man as: “A white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.” Clearly, this man is not Oswald!
The implications of the above information are quite obvious: Oswald was not the 6th floor sniper!
The Tippit murder

The murder of Dallas policeman, JD Tippit, is often referred to as the “Rosetta stone” of the case against Oswald by lone gunman theorists. The logic of lone gunman theorists is that since Oswald shot Tippit, then he must have been the assassin of President Kennedy. Quite frankly, I don’t think anything demonstrates the narrow – mindedness of lone gunman theorists more than the above. Let’s see, what exactly does Oswald shooting Tippit actually prove? Does it prove he actually shot the President? Of course not. Only in the mind of diehard lone gunman zealots could this be true. It certainly does not in any shape or form; prove that he was the lone assassin – even if he was the TSBD 6th floor sniper.

So let’s see what reasons Oswald could have had for shooting Tippit. Please note: I don’t actually believe Oswald shot Tippit!

1.      Oswald was part of a conspiracy with multiple shooters - with him as the 6th floor sniper. He could have shot Tippit whilst escaping.

2.      Oswald was part of the conspiracy, but wasn’t the 6th floor sniper. His only job may have been to allow the real sniper(s) to enter the TSBD unobserved. He could have shot Tippit whilst escaping.

3.      After being confronted by Officer Marrion Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom (which I highly doubt), he could have become paranoid of policeman confronting him. When confronted by Tippit, Oswald could have shot him out of fear.

4.      Oswald could have been on his way to visit Jack Ruby, whose apartment was near the Tippit murder scene. Perhaps Oswald had come to realise that he had been set-up to take the blame for the assassination. When confronted by Tippit who may have been trying to arrest him, Oswald shot him in self- defence.

5.      Tippit himself may have been part of the conspiracy (although I doubt it). Perhaps his job was to kill Oswald. When Oswald observed Tippit draw his revolver, he shot him in self-defence.

So there you have it. Five alternative reasons for why Oswald could have shot Tippit. But do lone gunman zealots consider of the above possibilities, of course not. They’re too fixated on Oswald as the “lone deranged” gunman.

Although there are many conspiracy theorists who believe Oswald was indeed Tippit’s shooter, I do not. The main reasons are the timing of the shooting, the discrepancies in the ballistics evidence, the lack of Oswald’s fingerprints on the passenger door of Tippit’s patrol car, the white jacket the killer discarded, and most of all, the wallet at the murder scene containing ID for both Oswald and Hidell. Let’ also bear in mind that the DPD had curiously sent only one of the four bullets from Tippit’s body to the FBI for analysis. They also hid the shells found at the murder scene for six days!

I hope to discuss the Tippit murder in detail in a future post. However, concerning the fingerprints on Tippit’s patrol car, let me just say that witness Helen Markham observed the killer place his hands on the door as he bent over to chat with Tippit. The fact that the prints didn’t match Oswald’s, exonerates him for the shooting.

Now despite all the raving and ranting by lone gunman zealots that Oswald was guilty, they never explain why Oswald would be at 10th and Patton (the Tippit murder scene). Just think, what kind of a Presidential assassin goes for a walk after murdering the President of the United States, instead of trying to get the hell out of Dallas? We should remember of course that Oswald’s house keeper, Earlene Roberts, claimed Oswald was waiting to catch a bus heading back towards Dealey Plaza. So why would Oswald then decide to walk in the opposite direction? It simply defies belief.


Despite all the bullshit about Oswald being the 6th floor sniper, the evidence does not support this. The observations by Jack Dougherty, Victoria Adams, Sandra styles, and Lillian Mooneyham, positively exonerate him as the 6th floor shooter. The Neutron activation tests on Oswald’s paraffin cheek casts, also exonerate him as the shooter. This issue has been discussed extensively by researchers such as Harold Weisberg, Larry Hancock, and Pat Speer. It is a must read.

Lone gunman zealots of course have never been able to attribute a viable motive for Oswald. However, we do know that members of the CIA, mafia, ant- Castro Cubans etc. all had perfectly good reasons to assassinate the President. In fact, my own belief is that rogue CIA officers and the anti - Castro Cubans, were the perpetrators of the assassination.

Let me just finish by commenting that with the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination fast approaching, it never ceases to astonish me how individuals such as David Von Pein, John McAdams, and Vincent Bugliosi continue to uphold the conclusions of the Warren commission.

(Please note: I should also add that the HSCA’s photographic panel came to the conclusion that someone had moved the boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD - two minutes following the assassination. However, Oswald was already on the 1st/2nd floor by that time, so obviously someone else moved the boxes around).