the assassination in dot points

• JFK killed as a result of a plot by internal enemies, including some in his own party
  

• Oswald was a designated patsy - there were others.
  

• Oswald's background is a reliable path to some involved
  

• There were at least three points along the motorcade route where the assassination may have occurred. First on Main St by pistol, second in Dealey Plaza and third at the luncheon by poison. Main St was aborted for good reason and the luncheon plan was not needed
  

• Had Main St gone ahead, the pistol ordered by Hidell would have been the alleged murder weapon, Hidell would have been linked to a different patsy and the BYP would look different, if they bothered making them at all in this scenario)
  

• Oswald was on the steps during the shooting
  

• The police did nothing out of character in framing him. Standard techniques, amateurish and done on the fly. Other agencies joined in on the frame for their own reasons, as did the new government
  

• Oswald was not killed out of fear he would "talk". He knew nothing. He was killed out of fear of a trial in front of a far less gullible European press.
  

• Oswald had a relationship with potentially all three of ONI, CIA and FBI. Possibly Red Cross and YMCA, too as cut-outs. How witting he was in these relationships is not clear
  

• Coercive persuasion techniques were used on Ruby to secure his services as "hitman". Drugs, sleep deprivation, propaganda, threats, inducements, an alibi and a typical cop-supplied (Reid) excuse to make it somehow seem like a heroic act
  

• Ruby was a police groupie. He wanted to be a detective. He thought he could solve the case and get out of his assignment. It is bullshit that he carried out the hit for the "mob". Though it was mob-related unionists that he turned to next to help extricate him - and when that failed, he turned to phoning through  threats to try and get security on Oswald tightened. He did not want to shoot someone he thought looked like Paul Newman for chrissakes 
  

• The Odio incident was not related to the assassination. It was most likely an operation aimed at JURE - hated by the CIA and FBI and by the other anti-Castro forces
  

• Mexico City was unrelated to the assassination. Oswald's name and background were used in a separate operation regarding locating double-agents - or creating them. Again, their was a scramble to backstop Oswald's travel and hotel accommodation post-assassination. It could not be admitted he was not there as that would expose the op that did take place. If MC had been all about the assassination from the get-go, they would have used someone with a passing resemblance and similar language capacity. They did not do that because it was not needed for the operation in place. His name and background were all they needed. 
  

• There was a lot of backstopping to provide post hoc evidence supporting various claims beyond just Mexico City
  

• The era in which the assassination occurred is endlessly fascinating, layered, misrepresented, and  occasionally out-of-kilter (in very particular ways in some instances). But as with MC and Odio, not everything that looks suspicious, was connected to a massive plot re JFK
  

• Roy Truly was the inside man at the TSBD. Oswald was number one patsy, but if he had to be ruled out, there was no shortage of other potential patsies in that building
  

• If Dealey Plaza was aborted, JFK's steak was going to be poisoned by someone in the Secret Service. This would be blamed on the person serving the meal - and that would have been Mrs. Joe Molina or one of her church friends. Joe Molina would then have been tied to the plot To my mind, it is suspicious that the Secret Service made arrangements to protect JFK from poisoning by having one of their own select the steak for him, on the face of it, leaving the server as the only possible poisoner
  

• The only other security measures taken by the Secret Service and DPD involved ensuring that protesters and those carrying signs would be watched closely. Why? Because they did not want to be embarrassed by another incident similar to when Stevenson was hit on the head with a sign.  In short, the security on the route was geared toward protecting themselves from an embarrassing scene with protesters, and not on protecting JFK from an assassins bullet
  

• We know a lot more about the psychology of witnesses now. In fact, I would guess little of any study was done back then on the issue. As a general rule, witnesses are unreliable and the further in time you get from the event, the less reliable they become. But in recognizing that as only a general rule, you have to have ways to test each and every witness to determine those most accurate. Then you have the ones who come forward after the event - sometimes well after. They have to be tested even more as to why they did not come forward straight away. Then you have false witnesses and false sightings resulting from everything from a desire to help, psychological need to be part of history, other psychological or psychiatric issues, and honest mistaken identification
  

• The witnesses, faulty investigations, dodgy science, compliant media, recalcitrant agencies and governments, protection of other operations and informants, and the growth and popularity of "conspiracy theories" have all contributed to what we call here a "dog's breakfast" of a case (it's all over the place and in a big mess)
  

orangebicycle wrote:Greg, I have to admit that had me stumped for a while. I mean, why would you choose a 'midget' for an Oswald stand-in? The answer has to be in the way the composite was put together. Photograph the back yard - probably done shortly after the Oswalds left, when both apartments were vacant. Take shots of a 'man in black' (my guess, a Dallas cop in on the 'plot') somewhere entirely different, holding papers, rifle, etc. Get a head shot (no pun intended) of Oswald, paste the elements together, then re-photograph, just as Oswald himself suggested it was done. Where it falls down, and reveals some amateurishness on the part of the fakers, is that the 'man in black' paste-in is slightly out of whack with the other elements. So could be the fakers didn't realise this, or they were under pressure and had no time to fix it.

JeremyBojczuk wrote:Interesting point, Mr or Ms Bicycle. I don't have access to a high resolution copy, and my Photoshop skills are limited (I use GIMP, the cheapskate's version of Photoshop), but I may run an experiment at some point.

One thing that makes me wary of claims that the photos were altered is the lack of agreement about what's supposed to be wrong with them: Oswald's chin is cropped, or the shadows don't match up, or the figure is genuine but the face is pasted in, or the face is genuine but the figure isn't, and so on. It reminds me of the numerous claims about what's wrong with the Zapruder film. I mean, the Bad Guys in the CIA's film-alteration laboratory must have been working around the clock, altering every element of the Zapruder film several times over. And of course there's the Jack White connection, which doesn't inspire much confidence.

Having said that, I'm certainly open to the possibility that the backyard photos are not genuine. Unlike the Zapruder film and Altgens 6, there don't seem to be any practical reasons why they couldn't have been altered, and there are plausible reasons why they might have been. I'll wait to see what the proof turns out to be.

Mick_Purdy wrote:OB wrote:


But why, and however, and by whomever it was done, and however ridiculous the idea of pasting all those various elements together to create the composite might seem, we can't get away from that one unalterable 11-inch fact. It's there. And it establishes 100% that backyard Oswald is at the very least 7 inches too short.


I wish it was that easy. It ain't. I hear you loud and clear - but trust me when I say it's not that simple.

Mick_Purdy wrote:Greg wrote:
I agree, Mick. But OB is right. That newspaper dimension is key. No matter what variables may affect accuracy, ain't no way no how they total 7" worth.


I agree. 
In my opinion and I know you feel the same the scale measurement discrepancies in the BYP's need to be confirmed somehow scientifically or otherwise in my opinion it's just another theory. IMHO the rifle in the photo could be used as well to assist in those calculations.


We've discussed Marina as a possible candidate for the body of the Oswald figure in the BYP's before now and whilst It's possible I absolutely believe that the cut-out of the original face occurs somewhere around or near the chin area. Does this preclude Marina from having taken part in the BYP's? - I'm uncertain.


The following HSCA disclosure should be taken seriously.






Mick, what do you think of the source of the head on the BYP as identified by ute driving 'roo hunter, Tony Krome at the ed forum? I think he may be on to something, but I would defer to your expertise.



Could you point me to the link to that Greg. Many thanks.

Mick_Purdy wrote:
This is a screen shot of the GIF. Notice the superimposed BYP chin is there in this frame before the transition to the actual Backyard photo itself. It creates the illusion that the footage of Oswald's face in the hallway while in custody is a match to the BYP's. The footage is also not played back in it's appropriate frame rate if my eyes don't deceive me and there is an unacceptable amount of motion blur on just about every frame of the footage which would create abnormal shapes, anomalies etc every time someone moved in the footage. I can't see how anyone could have used this material to create the BYP's - my opinion only of course.

greg_parker wrote:

orangebicycle wrote:Greg, I have to admit that had me stumped for a while. I mean, why would you choose a 'midget' for an Oswald stand-in? The answer has to be in the way the composite was put together. Photograph the back yard - probably done shortly after the Oswalds left, when both apartments were vacant. Take shots of a 'man in black' (my guess, a Dallas cop in on the 'plot') somewhere entirely different, holding papers, rifle, etc. Get a head shot (no pun intended) of Oswald, paste the elements together, then re-photograph, just as Oswald himself suggested it was done. Where it falls down, and reveals some amateurishness on the part of the fakers, is that the 'man in black' paste-in is slightly out of whack with the other elements. So could be the fakers didn't realise this, or they were under pressure and had no time to fix it.

Just to make sure I'm following, since there were no 5' cops on the force,  are you saying the person was not 5' tall -he was just compressed in putting the elements together? If so, wouldn't that also contort the rifle and newspapers?  

Try this if you can. Instead of using the newspapers as the measuring stick, use the rifle - once assuming it was 36" and a second time assuming it was 40" and report back on what you get. 

Using 36", you should get Oswald at approx 5' and the newspapers as approx 11".

Using 40" you should get Oswald as approx 5' 9" and the newspapers as something a bit over 13".

If you get the measurements I believe you will, what is your take on them?

Because Oswald is leaning back relative to the plane of the photo, he will appear somewhat shorter. I used the newspaper as a ruler and get the length of the rifle as about 39” and Oswald several inches shorter than 5’9”. But my measurements were undoubtedly crude. But to account for the apparent shortness of Oswald, he would have to be leaning back 25-30 degrees.