Lee Harvey Oswald feasibly had no consistent Rifle Practice

First topic message reminder :

Despite supporting suppressed evidence and a feasibly small conspiracy, I do not support that most official evidence is tainted. However, key moments and official assertions are deficient in my view. Namely, the assertion by the Commission that Lee Harvey Oswald regularly practiced with his Carcano rifle. i. This idea while supported by many critics of conspiracy is not as reliable as some imagine.

In 1956, Lee Harvey Oswald achieved the rank of Sharpshooter once; officials consider this "a rather good shot". Yet in 1959, Oswald once qualified for the rank of Marksman, and this is considered "a fairly poor shot". ii. This would infer with increased practice and Marine instruction Oswald was able to hone his abilities. Yet it also reveals that without the regular practice or instruction, Oswald feasibly would revert to his prior "poor shot" status. Years pass with little evidence Oswald ever attempted to regain his former proficiency. Officials note Oswald hunting with his brother only three times before he leaves for Russia. iii.    

After his arriving in Russia Oswald did join a hunting club according to Marina, but never went the practice meetings. iv. During his stay in Russia, Oswald hunts "about six times." v. Oswald went on a single hunting trip with Marina; he did not want to take the rifle along. Mariana asserts he took the rifle because "...one of my friends was laughing at him and said," You have a gun hanging here and you never use it. Why don't you bring it along and see if you can use it." vi.

Marina later asserts he sold the hunting rifle upon his return to America. Oswald goes hunting a final time with his brother Robert using a borrowed rifle. During his years since leaving the Marines, he has actually fired a rifle on less than a dozen occasions. This does not resemble the highly proficient status critics attribute to Oswald.   

The Commission states distributor Crescent Firearms shipped the Carcano to Klein's Sporting Goods to have a scope mounted. It was a surplus military rifle, yet it did undergo a refurbishment and was test fired and found to be in working order and priced at 19.95. According to the Commission, the Carcano is shipped to A. Hidell. The rifle is sent to Texas on March 20, 1963. vii. Additionally, considering 2-7 days for delivery, Oswald received the weapon no earlier than March 22. On September 24, the Carcano was stored in Paine's garage wrapped in a blanket. viii. Thus, Oswald only had 6 months in which to practice.

Officials state Oswald fired at General Walker on April 10, 1963. This would imply Oswald had less than 18 days to prepare. He according to the Commission made the attempt and failed. He allegedly made a single missed shot upon the stationary Walker with time to aim. Marina further states Oswald buried and left the rifle multiple times before and after the Walker attack. These burials remove additional time.

Marina stated during testimony to the Commission that Oswald and she had a domestic incident about "10 to 12 days" after the Walker shooting. It occurs three days before they left for New Orleans. ix. Marina does not observe him with the weapon again until the summer of 1963. x. The Oswald family moves to New Orleans. Excluding the move time, Oswald now has just about 5 months left.

In New Orleans, many of his well-documented activities include, handing out fliers for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, yet Oswald never attended a meeting. Federal Bureau of Investigations files reveal the group held all meetings in New York, no chapter existed in New Orleans, and Oswald was not a member. xi. He allegedly went to political meetings, possibly staged a public brawl, and faces arrest. Oswald requests and subsequently was interviewed by an agent of the FBI. No witness observes him firing a rifle in New Orleans.

The Commission states, "It appears from Mariana's testimony that Oswald may have sat on a screened in porch at night practicing with a telescopic sight and operating the bolt." xii. However, the infrequent dry firing that "may have" occurred is not practice. If Oswald dry fired on a consistent basis weekly it would offer advantages. Yet according to the only witness and the Commission's evidence, he did not. According to Marina Oswald when Bureau agents originally ask her in December if she observed Lee "practice" anywhere beyond the porch, Marina answered "in the negative". xiii.

Oswald and his family then return to Dallas, it is now September; Oswald has less than 24 days left to consistently practice. Marina states "Lee didn't tell me when he was going out to practice. I only remember one time distinctly that he went out because he took the bus." xiv. Subsequently Marina testifies, "I don't know where he practiced. I just think the bus goes to, went to Love Field." Commission Lead Counsel Rankin states "So the record will be clear on this...investigation has shown there is one place in the immediate neighborhood where there is gun practice carried on." However, if this is the case, it is merely a single occasion, not regular practice. xv.

Indeed Marina did testify that Oswald stated he was practicing with the rifle. Yet the evidence for this is not present. Consider that Oswald denied his guilt and ownership of the Carcano. Oswald also claimed to be a patsy, thus his many contending statements do infer he is not a credible witness in my view. Reasonably, we cannot value his word over the consistent evidence.

The statement of George De Mohrenschildt similar to Marina relies on Oswald's credibility. xvi We largely have Oswald's word he practiced, and that is not sufficient evidence. The Carcano is stored within a blanket according to Mr. Paine and Marina Oswald. Oswald travels to and from Mexico City and is out of time for practice. 

An FBI interview claimed Oswald was "observed" practicing at a local Dallas rifle range repeatedly in November. However the Commission would later dispel these claims, “...there was other evidence which prevented the Commission from reaching the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald the person these witnesses saw." xvii Oswald takes the concealed rifle and the morning of the assassination feasibly opens the blanket. Fibers noted on the Carcano found by investigators match the shirt Oswald is wearing on November 22, 1963. These fibers are clean and infer recent material transfer. xviii This forensic evidence supports the rifle has remained covered.

Despite the prior refurbishment Commission officials questioned, "Was the firing pin of the rifle replaced? Does the FBI know the availability of spare parts?" J. Edgar Hoover advises, "The assassination rifle has been examined and nothing was found to indicate that the firing pin had been replaced." Hoover also noted "the firing pin has been used extensively as shown by wear on the nose...further, the presence of rust...this rust would have been disturbed had the firing pin been changed subsequent to the formation of rust...the firing pin and spring are well oiled and the rust present necessarily must have formed prior to the oiling of these parts." xix

The residue and use the Commission attributes to Oswald was also from prior use. Evidence and testimony agree Oswald cleaned the weapon far more than he used it. Commission evidence demonstrates Oswald did not regularly use or practice with the Carcano. This inconsistency supports Oswald is a deficient sniper.  

 Sincerely,

C.  A. A. Savastano

i. Report of the President's Commission, Chapter IV, the Assassin, Oswald's Rifle Capability, p. 195


ii. Report of the President's Commission, Chapter IV, the Assassin, Oswald's Marine Training, p. 191


iii. Report of the Pres. Com., Chapter IV, Oswald's Rifle Practice Outside the Marines, p. 192


iv. Hearings of the President's Commission, Volume V, Testimony of Mrs. Lee Oswald, p. 405


v.  Report of the Pres. Com, Chapter IV, p.192


vi. Hearings of the Pres. Com., Vol. V, p. 406


vii. Report of the Pres. Com., Chapter IV, p.121


viii. Ibid, p. 128


ix. Hearings of the Pres. Com., Volume V, p.392


x. Report of the Pres. Com., Chapter IV, p.128


xi. Department of the Treasury Document, Secret Service Phone Report of ASAIC George Jukes, November 25, 1963, p. 0369 


xii. Report of the Pres. Com., Chapter IV, p.128


xiii. Hearings of the President's Commission, Volume XXIII, Commission Ex. No. 1789, 1790, pp. 402,403


xiv. Hearings of the Pres. Com., Volume V,   p. 397


xv. Ibid, p. 398


xvi. Report of the Pres. Com., Chapter IV, p. 192


xvii. Report of the Pres. Com., Chapter VI, Investigation of Other Activities, pp. 318-320 


xviii. Report of the Pres. Com., IV, p.124-125


xix. Hearings of the President's Commission, Volume XXVI, Commission Exhibit 2974, p. 455

Paul Klein wrote:

nonsqtr wrote:

Paul Klein wrote:

capone81 wrote:I believe some members of the mob, the CIA, and the Cuban Exile community conspired against Kennedy(and Oswald). 

The Mob's role was the logistics of hiring the assassins and getting them into and out of Dallas. 

The rogue CIA agents and Cuban Exiles worked on Oswald(Fair Play For Cuba, Mexico City, Silvia Odio, etc)...

I think it more likely it was a local domestic job. I have little doubt that some at the TSBD and DPD were involved not only in the covering it up, but in aiding and abetting the crime.
I don't believe the mafia were involved other than play their part of the usual suspects.
That is not to say that others didn't know what was just about to go down. They just didn't do anything about it before or after. They helped let it happen, maybe. Oswald was then simply left hung out to dry.

Motive!

Who wanted Kennedy dead? Who benefits from Kennedy's death?

See, this is the interesting thing about the "Carlos Marcello did it" theory. Carlos had two things going on - first, he had a desire to get the mob casinos back (the ones in Havana). That was a 2 billion dollar a year revenue stream for the Mafia (in 1960 dollars), which they lost because of Castro. And the second thing was of course Marcello's personal hatred for Bobby Kennedy (which by all reports was just about at the level of a vendetta - a matter of honor and pride).

BUT - in the month immediately preceding the assassination, Kennedy was about ready to start talking with Castro - and if you were a mobster interested in reclaiming your casinos that had to be a GOOD thing - and Carlos Marcello would have known about that 'cause he knew about everything! Whereas, it was widely known that Johnson didn't give a patootie about Cuba and wasn't going to treat it as a priority - and Carlos Marcello would have known that too (you don't get to be a Carlos type without knowing stuff like that).

If you were Carlos and you became aware of some of the back-channel discussions taking place, you'd try to INSERT into them, right? You'd do your best to get someone in place on the ground who would follow your orders and obey your instructions and be your eyes and ears. The last thing in the WORLD you'd want is to see all that go away, because it's your best possibility for reclaiming your casinos and the related income stream.

Who wanted Kennedy dead? Who benefits from Kennedy's death?


I think too much is made from the repercussions of Kennedy's assassination. Many of them would not directly relate to why it happened. They are a natural consequence and perhaps best understood that way.
It is detrimental, in my view, to get too far ahead with motives and benefits when talking about this case. His death, any way it happens, is going to provide a seismic shift of order, power and influence. And not just political.
My only personal concern with this case is to extract the truth from the lies that have covered it and continue to do so. I don't even admire Kennedy or agree with his legacy. I find political leadership in any governing form offensive. But what I find even more reprehensible is being lied to for 50 years on top of it all.

Agreed! Broadly speaking, we could fit the Kennedy assassination into one of four categories:

1. It was a completely random event. Some lone nut got pissed off one day and decided to shoot someone.
2. It was a hate crime. Someone hated Kennedy "enough" to shoot him.
3. It was a political crime, with political motives. "Palace intrigue", as it were - coup and counter-coup, all that.
4. It was a business thing. It had mostly to do with profits and international business arrangements.

These four areas are not mutually exclusive, (except for #1 related to the other three, perhaps - and even then scenarios could be constructed in which #1 takes place in parallel with any or all of the other three).

So far, most of the lone wolves are down in the 1-2 range, whereas most of the conspiracy theorists are up in the 3-4 range. (The "small right-wing extremist conspiracy" theory straddles the 2-3 border, probably).

But um... there are still other possibilities, yes? Right at the moment I'm enamored with the concept of a "pot", a "kitty", a "pile of money" from which the Kennedy assassination sprang. There are patterns to the money - for instance the idea that amounts of "7000 dollars" seem to be consistently appearing in different places for no obvious reason - that's what Jack Ruby had on him when he was standing in line at the bank, and that's also what David Ferrie used to open his gas station. (and btw, while I'm thinking about it - has anyone analyzed Jack Lawrence's bank accounts?) 7000 dollars doesn't just appear in Jack Ruby's hands for no reason, there has to be an explanation, and if it's blood money there has to be a paymsster someplace. It definitely definitely didn't come from his business, that much is clear. It came from "somewhere else", so either Jack had something going on his own, or he was being paid by someone.

I agree that this whole thing is politically offensive.

HIGHLY offensive in fact - leaves a terrible taste in one's mouth.

Our government RIGHT NOW is paying a full time person to hide the truth. Those are taxpayer funds. They're using our tax money today to hide the truth about an event that happened 50 years ago.

That's jost a horrible, miserable thing for a government to do. Do they not understand the raised eyebrows and the resentment that accompanies such a thing? That reinforces the perception that our government was directly responsible for the event and still trying to cover its sorry butt on the topic. And if, after another fifty years, that turns out to be true, then the wave of unhappiness that would be release could conceivably even be terminal for that system of government. To engage in a continuing cover-up at this point seems highly counter-productive, and the only reason I can think of why such a thing would be useful is if

a. our government is guilty as hell, and
b. some of the principals are still alive

nonsqtr wrote:

Paul Klein wrote:

nonsqtr wrote:

Paul Klein wrote:

capone81 wrote:I believe some members of the mob, the CIA, and the Cuban Exile community conspired against Kennedy(and Oswald). 

The Mob's role was the logistics of hiring the assassins and getting them into and out of Dallas. 

The rogue CIA agents and Cuban Exiles worked on Oswald(Fair Play For Cuba, Mexico City, Silvia Odio, etc)...

I think it more likely it was a local domestic job. I have little doubt that some at the TSBD and DPD were involved not only in the covering it up, but in aiding and abetting the crime.
I don't believe the mafia were involved other than play their part of the usual suspects.
That is not to say that others didn't know what was just about to go down. They just didn't do anything about it before or after. They helped let it happen, maybe. Oswald was then simply left hung out to dry.

Motive!

Who wanted Kennedy dead? Who benefits from Kennedy's death?

See, this is the interesting thing about the "Carlos Marcello did it" theory. Carlos had two things going on - first, he had a desire to get the mob casinos back (the ones in Havana). That was a 2 billion dollar a year revenue stream for the Mafia (in 1960 dollars), which they lost because of Castro. And the second thing was of course Marcello's personal hatred for Bobby Kennedy (which by all reports was just about at the level of a vendetta - a matter of honor and pride).

BUT - in the month immediately preceding the assassination, Kennedy was about ready to start talking with Castro - and if you were a mobster interested in reclaiming your casinos that had to be a GOOD thing - and Carlos Marcello would have known about that 'cause he knew about everything! Whereas, it was widely known that Johnson didn't give a patootie about Cuba and wasn't going to treat it as a priority - and Carlos Marcello would have known that too (you don't get to be a Carlos type without knowing stuff like that).

If you were Carlos and you became aware of some of the back-channel discussions taking place, you'd try to INSERT into them, right? You'd do your best to get someone in place on the ground who would follow your orders and obey your instructions and be your eyes and ears. The last thing in the WORLD you'd want is to see all that go away, because it's your best possibility for reclaiming your casinos and the related income stream.

Who wanted Kennedy dead? Who benefits from Kennedy's death?


I think too much is made from the repercussions of Kennedy's assassination. Many of them would not directly relate to why it happened. They are a natural consequence and perhaps best understood that way.
It is detrimental, in my view, to get too far ahead with motives and benefits when talking about this case. His death, any way it happens, is going to provide a seismic shift of order, power and influence. And not just political.
My only personal concern with this case is to extract the truth from the lies that have covered it and continue to do so. I don't even admire Kennedy or agree with his legacy. I find political leadership in any governing form offensive. But what I find even more reprehensible is being lied to for 50 years on top of it all.

Agreed! Broadly speaking, we could fit the Kennedy assassination into one of four categories:

1. It was a completely random event. Some lone nut got pissed off one day and decided to shoot someone.
2. It was a hate crime. Someone hated Kennedy "enough" to shoot him.
3. It was a political crime, with political motives. "Palace intrigue", as it were - coup and counter-coup, all that.
4. It was a business thing. It had mostly to do with profits and international business arrangements.

These four areas are not mutually exclusive, (except for #1 related to the other three, perhaps - and even then scenarios could be constructed in which #1 takes place in parallel with any or all of the other three).

So far, most of the lone wolves are down in the 1-2 range, whereas most of the conspiracy theorists are up in the 3-4 range. (The "small right-wing extremist conspiracy" theory straddles the 2-3 border, probably).

But um... there are still other possibilities, yes? Right at the moment I'm enamored with the concept of a "pot", a "kitty", a "pile of money" from which the Kennedy assassination sprang. There are patterns to the money - for instance the idea that amounts of "7000 dollars" seem to be consistently appearing in different places for no obvious reason - that's what Jack Ruby had on him when he was standing in line at the bank, and that's also what David Ferrie used to open his gas station. (and btw, while I'm thinking about it - has anyone analyzed Jack Lawrence's bank accounts?) 7000 dollars doesn't just appear in Jack Ruby's hands for no reason, there has to be an explanation, and if it's blood money there has to be a paymsster someplace. It definitely definitely didn't come from his business, that much is clear. It came from "somewhere else", so either Jack had something going on his own, or he was being paid by someone.

I agree that this whole thing is politically offensive.

HIGHLY offensive in fact - leaves a terrible taste in one's mouth.

Our government RIGHT NOW is paying a full time person to hide the truth. Those are taxpayer funds. They're using our tax money today to hide the truth about an event that happened 50 years ago.

That's jost a horrible, miserable thing for a government to do. Do they not understand the raised eyebrows and the resentment that accompanies such a thing? That reinforces the perception that our government was directly responsible for the event and still trying to cover its sorry butt on the topic. And if, after another fifty years, that turns out to be true, then the wave of unhappiness that would be release could conceivably even be terminal for that system of government. To engage in a continuing cover-up at this point seems highly counter-productive, and the only reason I can think of why such a thing would be useful is if

a. our government is guilty as hell, and
b. some of the principals are still alive

They've invested too much political privilege in his death, Brian. 50 years worth. Paying a person full time wages to keep an eye on the lid to make sure it doesn't slide off is a pittance.

nonsqtr wrote:To engage in a continuing cover-up at this point seems highly counter-productive, and the only reason I can think of why such a thing would be useful is if

a. our government is guilty as hell, and
b. some of the principals are still alive

That is the usual take on the matter but there could be a slightly different reason.

The recent Snowden episode shows us a whistleblower outs the NSA eavesdropping operation and becomes public enemy number one. This fascinated me because Snowden's scoop was a little late. Russell Tice in 2006, Binney & Drake in 2010, among others, all had the same scoop. Snowden's made him public enemy Number One because he showed HOW it was done.

Methods and techniques used by the secret organization are like corporate secrets. It is not nice to let others know what you are doing but it is very very bad to let them know how.

Perhaps the CIA is sitting on the data for the same reason: it shows how the operation was running at the time and they still use that model today. It may not seem like much but if it is a workable technique that has not yet been uncovered, why not keep it under wraps?

Of course, this does not necessarily mean the CIA was involved in the assassination. It could be that they had an operation going on that was interrupted by the bloodletting in Dallas. Perhaps an operation in a certain building or maybe using a certain person that got tangled up in the affair in Dealey. There were other happenings in the universe of Dallas in November 1963 that did not involve Kennedy, believe it or not.

And there were plenty of different plots against Kennedy at the time. On paper, anyway, or in someone's head. Just because someone wanted to kill Kennedy and had the opportunity (and money) does not mean they DID. Not all the plotters turned up in Dealey with weapons. Some of them were probably still plotting.

I saw a lot of this in the Lincoln assassination as well.

Terry,

           I agree that deception does not mean complicity. It would require suppression not just for nefarious possibilities, but illegal ones that would implicate some living or dead figures so entrenched in the government their exposure would have disastrous political or legal effects. There are multiple feasible possibilities. Yet I would contend only so many have substantial evidence to support them.

Is there any consideration that Lee had some, albeit very brief, weapon practice while with the Bannister crowd?... Didn't both Wendell Roache And Robert Tanenbaum alledge to see film footage of Ferrie, Oswald, Veciana and Phillips in training at Ponchatrain?  Wouldn't some further training help his bona fides, for whatever they had in store for him?... just some thoughts.

casenagell wrote:Is there any consideration that Lee had some, albeit very brief, weapon practice while with the Bannister crowd?... Didn't both Wendell Roache And Robert Tanenbaum alledge to see film footage of Ferrie, Oswald, Veciana and Phillips in training at Ponchatrain?  Wouldn't some further training help his bona fides, for whatever they had in store for him?... just some thoughts.

Well... you're certainly right on the connection with Bannister, and it's entirely conceivable (even "likely") that weapons training was a part of that.

However, my question is, "would weapons training have helped a guy like Oswald?"

And, the answer I always arrive at, is "probably not". I think the guy could have practiced till he was blue in the face, and he could have reached a point maybe, but there's no way Oswald was ever going to be an "expert marksman".

But this, this... "rifle capability", is only a small tiny little piece of the overwhelming circumstancial evidence against Oswald being at all even "competent" with a weapon on a day-to-day basis.

The guy had no ammo whatsoever, and there is no record of him ever having purchased any. He had no cleaning kit, and a guy who buries a rifle three times and digs it up semi-regularly has to have some kind of a kit, he's just a bloody f'in idiot if he doesn't right? Y'know... the thought that a guy like Oswald could hit a moving target with a 12 dollar rusted out military surplus piece-o-junk rifle is just ludicrous, I can't even wrap my mind around such a possibility. Even if he got exceedingly lucky and made the second shot, there's no way on God's green earth he could have fired off another one inside of two seconds. There's just.... no way. That's my take, based on my own limited experience with dirt-cheap mail order rifles.... yuk.

Then, in the Tippit shooting, we've got a guy firing from the hip, hitting three shots "perfectly" in the gut and chest, I mean.... that's not Oswald. And the "coup de grace"? That's not Oswald either. Oswald just isn't that kind of guy. He's more of a "propaganda" guy than a "weapons" guy, isn't he? Oswald is the one who says, "look at me, I'm a Marxist but not a Communist". I mean... Jeez... after a statement like that on a right-wing radio show, "Oswald" had to be the best-known name in the universe for a little while. Can you imagine a guy like Milteer hearing something like that? "WTF? Marxist but not Communist? Who is this guy? Let's see what we can find out about him." Right? Wouldn't that be your first thought if your were a for-real right-wing extremist and you heard some nut trying to finesse the commie bit?

That Oswald fired three shots from where they said he did with the results they said he had is just not credible. He had no particularly notable shooting skills—to extrapolate anything he did in the Marine Corps to the assassination is grasping at straws. My son qualified at the top Expert level as a Marine and he just shakes his head at what they say Oswald did. Lee Oswald didn't do it. It's that simple.

PS: If CD were here he would chide me for my imprecise language.

My upbraiding is deserved and I accept it like a man.

casenagell wrote:Is there any consideration that Lee had some, albeit very brief, weapon practice while with the Bannister crowd?... Didn't both Wendell Roache And Robert Tanenbaum alledge to see film footage of Ferrie, Oswald, Veciana and Phillips in training at Ponchatrain?  Wouldn't some further training help his bona fides, for whatever they had in store for him?... just some thoughts.

  Casenagell,

              Indeed it is possible that Oswald could have had training from any of these related groups. However the evidence to support this is not yet forthcoming. Additionally while we can link Bannister to Ferry and Marcello, only Bannister's address links him to Oswald publicly. So while that does imply a connection existed it is not proven conclusively Oswald knew or associated with Bannister. 

However, Oswald's association with Ferry, Bringuier (Funded Agency asset in the DRE), and others does support the possibility. However, in my view the evidence does not support he practiced or received consistent training since the Marines. Yet I remain willing to refine my views based on new evidence.

Stan Dane wrote:My upbraiding is deserved and I accept it like a man.

Yes, you take it like a man but one can only wonder what sort of man gets involved in braiding straw to begin with.

Weaving is more the manly art.

So they tell me at the home (where I construct baskets, of course) to which I was taken after hooking horns with CD.

But we do not weave that Parasisal straw here... we're men, not para-sissies.

terlin wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:My upbraiding is deserved and I accept it like a man.

Yes, you take it like a man but one can only wonder what sort of man gets involved in braiding straw to begin with.

Weaving is more the manly art.

So they tell me at the home (where I construct baskets, of course) to which I was taken after hooking horns with CD.

But we do not weave that Parasisal straw here... we're men, not para-sissies.

Weaving manliness, one straw at a time—that's the new paradigm.

One of the things I've always wondered about is when and where LHO zeroed in the Carcano. One report has him zeroing it in at the Sports Drome range on Saturday, September 28, 1963. 

But this would have been long after the Walker attempt and it happened while he was supposedly in Mexico City. It was one day after his 27 September, 1963 visit to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City. 

There are witnesses who testified to Liebeler someone identifying himself as Oswald was also at the range on November 10th (while LHO was at the Paine's residence) and November 17th. 

Some have tried to discredit the rifle range witnesses. But that raises at least two questions - If it wasn't LHO, who the Hell was it? And when and where exactly did LHO ever zero the weapon and practice with it? 

The Walker assassination attempt on LHO has never made sense to me. It makes less sense to try it with a rifle that had not been sighted in properly.

Greg,

          I agree. If the Commission had the evidence to put the rifle in his hands for practice they would have, this would not be the first allusion without adequate substantiation. 


M. Ellis,

        Many did claim that Oswald was at the firing range, yet the evidence again does not support these claims based on the varying descriptions. As for who it feasible was, your guess is as good as mine. Indeed the Walker attempt in my view significant. If Oswald cannot hit a nearly stationary target in a chair with all the time in the world, it supports he was unlikely the man who made the shots in Dealey Plaza in my view. Then we can consider the contending evidence of the Walker attempt, if this also was not Oswald it may infer someone had a purpose for assigning blame to Oswald. 

The scope may have been misaligned in the two reported times Oswald buried the Carcano before and after the Walker attempt.

I'm undecided on whether or not Oswald shot at Walker. The most convincing evidence for me is the photos of Walker's home found among Oswald's belongings. But that evidence by itself doesn't prove that Oswald did it. 

It's not clear how Oswald, without assistance from someone else or a driver, would've transported a rifle from his home to the scene of the Walker shooting without being noticed. Are we to assume he took the rifle on a public bus to the Walker home? 

And on the original topic, while a great deal of time gets spent debating Oswald's shooting performance while in the Marines, two major things get overlooked: 

1 - Oswald used much better quality rifles while in the Marines

2 - Oswald spent very little time practicing shooting a rifle during the four years after he left the Marines and had almost no known practice with the Carcano rifle in 1963

Carmine Savastano wrote:

casenagell wrote:Is there any consideration that Lee had some, albeit very brief, weapon practice while with the Bannister crowd?... Didn't both Wendell Roache And Robert Tanenbaum alledge to see film footage of Ferrie, Oswald, Veciana and Phillips in training at Ponchatrain?  Wouldn't some further training help his bona fides, for whatever they had in store for him?... just some thoughts.

  Casenagell,

              Indeed it is possible that Oswald could have had training from any of these related groups. However the evidence to support this is not yet forthcoming. Additionally while we can link Bannister to Ferry and Marcello, only Bannister's address links him to Oswald publicly. So while that does imply a connection existed it is not proven conclusively Oswald knew or associated with Bannister. 

However, Oswald's association with Ferry, Bringuier (Funded Agency asset in the DRE), and others does support the possibility. However, in my view the evidence does not support he practiced or received consistent training since the Marines. Yet I remain willing to refine my views based on new evidence.

IMO, trying to prove LHO knew Banister is unnecessary. I'm just a student in all this. But it was 544 Camp Street that really got me interested. Anthony Summers called it an 'evidentiary time bomb'. It is that and more. That's why it's important - and dangerous to the official story. It helps to define who LHO was NOT. 


For the reasons I list below, 544 Camp Street basically shows LHO could NOT have been a sincere FPCC advocate and pro-Castro leftist. So if LHO wasn't that - what was he doing? 

The facts everyone-even the WC agree upon are: 

1. LHO himself stamped that 544 Camp Street on FPCC (Fair Play for Cuba) leaflets. 

2. LHO never rented space in that building. 

3. Guy Banister and the CRC, Cuban Revolutionary Council had offices in that building. 
(*Note - the CRC moved out some months earlier after an occupancy of approximately six months.)

So even IF we disregard the eyewitness testimony about Banister and LHO knowing each other - 
the address 544 Camp Street discredits the leftist lone-nut official story by itself. And it does so four months before JFK was assassinated.  


Why? A truly committed advocate would not knowingly use a bogus address on behalf of his or her organization. 

A. What would happen if potential FPCC recruits visited or wrote to that address?

(i) Would someone else be there to greet them? 

(ii) Would their letters be returned unopened via post? OR perhaps: 

(iii) Someone in the Newman Building was there and ready to respond. 

(iv) If the answer to (iii) is yes, we know LHO wasn't there. So what person in that building would be interested in FPCC mail or potential members*? 

(a) It's worth remembering *Guy Banister kept a file database on suspected communists in Louisiana. 

So the circumstantial evidence arising from that address is overwhelming. McAdams' explanation for LHO using that address - written by Reitz - is basically that Oswald just screwed up. Maybe it was a practical joke on Bringuer? 


If that's the case then it must follow that LHO was not a serious Castro or FPCC advocate as alleged. But they are asking the wrong question. 


They ask if the use of that address proves a conspiracy to kill the President? The question the WC, Reitz & McAdams, et al should have asked, is why would LHO use that address if he was a serious advocate for FPCC? 

Posner falls back on the old, There is simply no credible evidence (a) Oswald had an office there or, much less, that (b) he knew Guy Banister. 

It is not necessary to establish either proposition. Rather, the burden is on them to show why would a sincere leftist and Castro supporter pass out recruiting leaflets stamped with a bogus address, much less an address occupied by anti-Castro activists? 

So if we ignore witness evidence and just use our logic to consider the circumstantial evidence, at the very least we can conclude LHO was not sincere about his advocacy work for the FPCC. That being the case, why was he doing it? 

544 Camp Street is dangerous because any way you view it because it destroys the idea of LHO as a committed Castro supporter. 

M. Ellis,

         I agree with much of your view. Oswald indeed had many contending actions that clearly would not denote he was not a committed Marxist or Communist. Additionally he was never a member of the FPCC , nor was there a New Orleans branch, nor was he a member of the Communist party based on the official evidence. So I think the inference that he was not a Communist is sound. One particular instance I find interesting is Bringuier's assessment of Oswald as either a Communist or an FBI informant. 

We can add that Oswald had avid interest in Herbert Phillbrick, a FBI double agent in the Communist Party who convinced his family and friends he was a Communist for years. That Oswald joined the National Socialist Party in his youth and the Civil Air Patrol.  These seemingly may be Oswald cobbling together false associations or it was amateur practice to feasibly infiltrate opposing groups in my view. Then he joins the Marines and defects to Russia, his repeated contrary actions are notable. 

This was also considered in the Warren Commission Executive Sessions but never publicly discussed. I would contend that certain authorities never wanted a Commission in the first place to possibly suppress this among many other considerations. However, it would in my view be only a few or less officials necessary to get the job done. Most officials would act to hide all impropriety whether connected or not with the assassination.

Indeed it rests upon the accusers to prove such a thing in normal circumstances. Unfortunately with Oswald's death the legal bar was lowered, and thus the President's Commission.

M.Ellis wrote:

Carmine Savastano wrote:

casenagell wrote:Is there any consideration that Lee had some, albeit very brief, weapon practice while with the Bannister crowd?... Didn't both Wendell Roache And Robert Tanenbaum alledge to see film footage of Ferrie, Oswald, Veciana and Phillips in training at Ponchatrain?  Wouldn't some further training help his bona fides, for whatever they had in store for him?... just some thoughts.

  Casenagell,

              Indeed it is possible that Oswald could have had training from any of these related groups. However the evidence to support this is not yet forthcoming. Additionally while we can link Bannister to Ferry and Marcello, only Bannister's address links him to Oswald publicly. So while that does imply a connection existed it is not proven conclusively Oswald knew or associated with Bannister. 

However, Oswald's association with Ferry, Bringuier (Funded Agency asset in the DRE), and others does support the possibility. However, in my view the evidence does not support he practiced or received consistent training since the Marines. Yet I remain willing to refine my views based on new evidence.

IMO, trying to prove LHO knew Banister is unnecessary. I'm just a student in all this. But it was 544 Camp Street that really got me interested. Anthony Summers called it an 'evidentiary time bomb'. It is that and more. That's why it's important - and dangerous to the official story. It helps to define who LHO was NOT. 


For the reasons I list below, 544 Camp Street basically shows LHO could NOT have been a sincere FPCC advocate and pro-Castro leftist. So if LHO wasn't that - what was he doing? 

The facts everyone-even the WC agree upon are: 

1. LHO himself stamped that 544 Camp Street on FPCC (Fair Play for Cuba) leaflets. 

2. LHO never rented space in that building. 

3. Guy Banister and the CRC, Cuban Revolutionary Council had offices in that building. 
(*Note - the CRC moved out some months earlier after an occupancy of approximately six months.)

So even IF we disregard the eyewitness testimony about Banister and LHO knowing each other - 
the address 544 Camp Street discredits the leftist lone-nut official story by itself. And it does so four months before JFK was assassinated.  


Why? A truly committed advocate would not knowingly use a bogus address on behalf of his or her organization. 

A. What would happen if potential FPCC recruits visited or wrote to that address?

(i) Would someone else be there to greet them? 

(ii) Would their letters be returned unopened via post? OR perhaps: 

(iii) Someone in the Newman Building was there and ready to respond. 

(iv) If the answer to (iii) is yes, we know LHO wasn't there. So what person in that building would be interested in FPCC mail or potential members*? 

(a) It's worth remembering *Guy Banister kept a file database on suspected communists in Louisiana. 

So the circumstantial evidence arising from that address is overwhelming. McAdams' explanation for LHO using that address - written by Reitz - is basically that Oswald just screwed up. Maybe it was a practical joke on Bringuer? 


If that's the case then it must follow that LHO was not a serious Castro or FPCC advocate as alleged. But they are asking the wrong question. 


They ask if the use of that address proves a conspiracy to kill the President? The question the WC, Reitz & McAdams, et al should have asked, is why would LHO use that address if he was a serious advocate for FPCC? 

Posner falls back on the old, There is simply no credible evidence (a) Oswald had an office there or, much less, that (b) he knew Guy Banister. 

It is not necessary to establish either proposition. Rather, the burden is on them to show why would a sincere leftist and Castro supporter pass out recruiting leaflets stamped with a bogus address, much less an address occupied by anti-Castro activists? 

So if we ignore witness evidence and just use our logic to consider the circumstantial evidence, at the very least we can conclude LHO was not sincere about his advocacy work for the FPCC. That being the case, why was he doing it? 

544 Camp Street is dangerous because any way you view it because it destroys the idea of LHO as a committed Castro supporter. 

Hi M.Ellis, welcome to the fray. GP Hemming claims that Guy Bannister offered him a contract to kill Kennedy, and he turned it down. IF one believes Mr. Hemming in this case, one is then led to conclude that if Bannister offered a contract to Hemming, then he likely offered it to other people too. And, if word of these "offers" somehow got to Carlos Marcello, it occurs to me that this may have been the beginning of a marriage made in heaven.

Seems to me (as a n00b myself), that a "sophisticated level of coordination" is necessary to explain everything that we know happened, in terms of setup. If you just think about the geographical colocation of Oswald and the shots, if Oswald was being used as a patsy then the only thing that really would have been necessary would have been to have him in the same place at the same time. There was no need to have him fire a rifle, simply "being there" would have been enough.

On the other hand, when Oswald was hired into the TSBD Roy Truly explains that he had a choice of placing the new employee at one of two facilities (he needed people for both, so he could have put Oswald in the other warehouse instead, but he didn't - and the way Truly describes that decision, he seems to indicate he made it on the spur of the moment).

However, if I've learned one thing in reading thus far, it is this: everyone is lying in this story. Everyone. Without exception. Wesley Frazier is lying, and Roy Truly is probably lying too.

And Oswald turned down a better-paying job to be at the Book Depository, so he's probably lying too!

The words you chose are very interesting - "committed Castro supporter". LHO declared himself to be a "Marxist but not a Communist", and at the time the only thing close to that was the Trotskyist view, and I'm a post-McCarthy baby but my best understanding is that most of the paranoid right-wing crowd wouldn't know Trotsky from a hole in the ground. And more importantly, if they were to hear someone like Oswald on the radio trying to finesse the commie bit, it would cause them fear, and at the very least it would pique the xenophobia.

If Oswald were an assassin then getting on the radio and proclaiming himself a Marxist would be the world's stupidest move. On the other hand, as an agent-provocateur it's brilliant, suddenly we have a "Marxist who's not a communist" who spent time in Russia but apparently didn't like it well enough to stay there... which pretty much puts him squarely into the "leftist" portion of the anti-Castro bracket, correct?

In other words, of all the anti-Castro organizations out there at the time, which were the most leftist?

FPCC was apparently a front to begin with, but the one legitimate answer that leaps out at me is: JURE.

Sylvia Odio's crowd.

I don't know. Banister offering contracts? Maybe. But I can't get there from where I am now. I'm not far enough along perhaps. It doesn't make sense based on what I know. But there is a lot I don't know.  


FPCC a front? I don't know. From what I've read, the NY office seemed wary of Oswald's efforts in New Orleans. I would be too. Oswald lied to them more than once. And New Orleans was not a promising area for them to go recruiting.  


I think I'm not qualified to answer those questions yet.
----


An important issue I don't think anyone has explored in detail, is Banister's relation with J. Edgar Hoover. Banister was promoted to OIC of the nation's second-largest city. That was an important post. Hoover had to have a high opinion of Banister at that time. Did he still have a high opinion of him in 1963? How often were they in touch?
----
I DO know the logic is inescapable about Oswald, the FPCC and 544 Camp Street. LHO could NOT have been a serious advocate for that organization and use that address. 


No matter how one views it - it does not add up. The defenses raised by the WC, Posner, Reitz, et al, about whether LHO knew Banister and the 531 Lafayette* entrance are both red herrings.


LHO stamped that address on those leaflets. If we accept the LN defenses at face value, it leads inevitably to the conclusion Oswald could not have been seriously recruiting for the FPCC. Sincere advocates and political organizers do not knowingly give potential recruits bogus addresses, especially addresses occupied by their political opponents. 


That's why the whole 544 Camp Street thing is important. It's a logical cul de sac, a black hole that sucks up the official story a few months before there was a need for an official story. 
---


*Today there is a large Federal building on that address. It houses the US Attorney, Bankruptcy courts and a Federal District court-house. On the other side of Lafayette Street is the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That building was there when the Newman building was still standing. Lafayette Street on that stretch has become a pedestrian walkway between the two court-houses. Across (EDIT) Camp (not Magazine) Street, Lafayette Square is still there as it was. An older Federal building there has an IRS office and small post office. At least it did before Katrina hit, as of 2005.

**Note I got Camp and Magazine Street mixed up in my earlier post. Lafayette connects the two streets. Magazine Street is a north-south street, one block closer to the Mississippi River. Camp Street is the next north/south street west. It is one block farther away from the river. Lafayette runs east/west between the two streets.

The other guy who had the office with Banister, is interesting too. Hugh Ward. He died in Mexico in 1964 when he crashed a plane he was piloting for New Orleans Mayor De Lesseps Morrison. De Lesseps Morrison apparently introduced Clay Shaw to President Kennedy on an airplane in 1963. Both Banister and Ward were supposedly Minutemen, and Banister published an "extremist" right-wing newsletter (Louisiana Intelligence Digest) that would surely have captured DHS interest in today's world. Seems Banister was of the opinion that racial integration was a communist plot sponsored by Josef Stalin. As part of his investigative work he reported to the Louisiana Un-American Activities Committee.

Another odd thing is that Banister was hanging around with some wacked-out people, considering his supposed conservatism. For instance, there were a number of "bishops" of various underground churches hanging around with Banister at the 544 Camp St address (and some of them were even his investigators). The American Orthodox Catholic Church may represent a tie between Banister and Hoover, it's an oddball story but... how can I say this... I just recently found out that Oswald was pal-ing around with Kerry Thornley during late summer of '63 (Kerry Thornley is the guy from the Discordian Society, another oddball underground pseudo-religion) - so like, I don't know what to make of this, it's just odd that so much underground religion should be swirling around these characters, the "right wing extremists" of the world just don't seem like the types to be hanging around that milieu.

But the most significant piece of Banister is that he was employed by G Wray Gill. Gill was "attempting to stop Carlos Marcello's deportation"... so... why would he need the services of the Guy Banister Detective Agency for that purpose? Apparently Mr. Marcello was quite grateful after his exoneration, for instance he supposedly gave David Ferrie 7000 dollars with which he opened a gas station... on the other hand, Guy Banister at the time of his death apparently hadn't paid the rent on his office since September of '63.

nonsqtr wrote:The other guy who had the office with Banister, is interesting too. Hugh Ward. He died in Mexico in 1964 when he crashed a plane he was piloting for New Orleans Mayor De Lesseps Morrison. De Lesseps Morrison apparently introduced Clay Shaw to President Kennedy on an airplane in 1963. Both Banister and Ward were supposedly Minutemen, and Banister published an "extremist" right-wing newsletter (Louisiana Intelligence Digest) that would surely have captured DHS interest in today's world. Seems Banister was of the opinion that racial integration was a communist plot sponsored by Josef Stalin. As part of his investigative work he reported to the Louisiana Un-American Activities Committee.

Another odd thing is that Banister was hanging around with some wacked-out people, considering his supposed conservatism. For instance, there were a number of "bishops" of various underground churches hanging around with Banister at the 544 Camp St address (and some of them were even his investigators). The American Orthodox Catholic Church may represent a tie between Banister and Hoover, it's an oddball story but... how can I say this... I just recently found out that Oswald was pal-ing around with Kerry Thornley during late summer of '63 (Kerry Thornley is the guy from the Discordian Society, another oddball underground pseudo-religion) - so like, I don't know what to make of this, it's just odd that so much underground religion should be swirling around these characters, the "right wing extremists" of the world just don't seem like the types to be hanging around that milieu.

But the most significant piece of Banister is that he was employed by G Wray Gill. Gill was "attempting to stop Carlos Marcello's deportation"... so... why would he need the services of the Guy Banister Detective Agency for that purpose? Apparently Mr. Marcello was quite grateful after his exoneration, for instance he supposedly gave David Ferrie 7000 dollars with which he opened a gas station... on the other hand, Guy Banister at the time of his death apparently hadn't paid the rent on his office since September of '63.

I knew about Thornley and Gill. I did not know Banister was behind on his rent. That's really interesting. 

Gill probably wanted Banister's agency - perhaps for opposition research for witnesses against Marcello. OR just as likely-for Banister's connections to the Justice Department. 

In those days, Immigration was under the US DOJ. The FBI was under DOJ as well, I believe. The intervention of someone Banister knew at any of those agencies DOJ, INS or FBI- or perhaps, the access to files that would help prove Marcello's case could be very valuable. 

Unfortunately, on April 4, 1961, Bobby Kennedy basically had Marcello abducted and flown to Guatemala in lieu of a formal deportation hearing. So if Banister was paid to work his contacts for Marcello - it didn't work out well - at least as of April 4, 1961 it didn't work out. Marcello was back in a few weeks, fighting his deportation. Ferrie may have been his pilot on several occasions. 

That was no way to treat a mob boss. Abducting him, throwing him on a plane and flying him to Guatemala without a hearing. Marcello hated RFK's guts. I've always kept that in mind.

Well, Marcello is one possibility. (In that case though, it probably wouldn't be "just" Marcello). On the other hand, there are aspects of this case that point in a different direction. One that covers turf like LBJ and military intelligence.

In the interest of being blunt (to save time), let's say "of course there was a conspiracy, duh", because in addition to the shooter on the knoll we have multiple people up on the 6th floor TSBD.

Approximately the same time Mrs. Ruby Henderson saw two men with a rifle on the sixth floor, one with a dark complexion. [119] Seconds before the motorcade entered the plaza, Mrs.Carolyn Walther, standing on the east side of Houston Street, about 50 or 60 feet south of the south curb of Elm Street, noticed two men on an upper floor of the Depository, one of the men was holding a rifle in his hands. She described the rifle as having a short barrel. Neither Mrs. Henderson or Walther were called to testify before the Warren Commission. [120] Both Walters and Richard Carr said they saw a man in a brown or tan coat in one of the upper floors of the Depository just seconds before the shooting. A man matching this description was seen by two witnesses quickly walking out the back door of the Depository just after the shooting. Witnesses with another view of the sixth floor were inmates of the county jail. John Powell saw two men on the sixth floor "fooling with a scope" on a rifle. He noticed that one of the men on the sixth floor had a darker complexion than the other, and said that other inmates saw the same thing and believed that the men were security agents. Powell's story was not known in 1963; he was not interviewed by the Warren Commission. [121]

Arnold Rowland, a bystander in the Plaza, asks his wife if she would like to see a Secret Service agent. He points to a window on the sixth floor where he has noticed “a man back from the window -- he was standing and holding a rifle ... we thought momentarily that maybe we should tell someone, but then the thought came to us that it is a security agent.”
The man Rowland sees in NOT stationed in the now famous sixth floor window, but in the far left-hand window. Rowland also spots a second figure at the famous right-hand window. This second man is dark complexioned, and Rowland thinks he is a Negro.

Mrs. R. E. (Carolyn) Arnold, secretary to the vice-president of the Book Depository, goes into the lunchroom on the second floor and sees Oswald sitting in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room. He is alone and appears to be having lunch. The motorcade will pass the building in just fifteen minutes. The FBI will alter Arnold’s report to say that she merely glimpsed LHO in the hallway. If Carolyn Arnold is correct, LHO is obviously not the man holding a rifle in the sixth floor window - seen at precisely this same time by Arnold Rowland.

John Powell, one of many inmates housed on the sixth floor of the Dallas County Jail, watches two men with a gun in the sixth floor window of the Book Depository Building. He claims he can see them so clearly that he even recalls them “fooling with the scope” on the gun. Powell says, “Quite a few of us saw ‘em. Everybody was trying to watch the parade and all that. We were looking across the street because it was directly straight across. The first thing I thought is, it was security guards ... I remember the guys.”
 
Mrs. Carolyn Walther notices two men with a gun in an open window at the extreme right-hand end of the Depository on the fifth floor. One of the men is wearing a brown suit coat. “It startled me, then I thought, ‘Well, they probably have guards, possibly in all the buildings,’ so I didn’t say anything.”
 
Ruby Henderson sees two men standing back from a window on one of the upper floors of the Book Depository. She particularly notices that one of the men “had dark hair ... a darker complexion than the other.”

Tom Dillard, the chief news photographer of the Dallas Morning News, sees two men in the arched windows (6th floor) of the TSBD as the car he is riding in turns the corner from Main onto Houston.

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/11th_Issue/guns_dp.html

http://derosaworld.typepad.com/derosaworld/2009/11/30-days-of-jfk-assassination-facts-windows-and-witnesses.html

This story is corroborated by a dozen eyewitness who were viewing from different angles

I think it's really interesting if Banister was having financial problems. That leads to a few questions and maybe to a few answers.
 
Personally, I've never seen Banister as having much to do with Dallas. I could be wrong. But I suspect he was a facilitator, to deliver LHO over to someone else. 

Banister's thing was to spy on Louisiana leftists and civil rights people. He may also have helped steal a lot of weapons from the Louisiana National Guard. That seems really strange for a retired FBI supervisor. It may have been a done deal.  

But IMO, killing a President in another state was out of Banister's league. That's why I've wondered about J. Edgar's opinion of the latter-day Banister. We don't know very much about Hoover's relations with Banister. We do know that at one time, Hoover thought highly enough of him to give him one of the most important jobs in the FBI - Chicago OIC. We also know that Banister died very convenently - less than a year after the assassination. If he was in financial trouble too, that adds to the picture. 

M.Ellis wrote:I think it's really interesting if Banister was having financial problems. That leads to a few questions and maybe to a few answers.
 
Personally, I've never seen Banister as having much to do with Dallas. I could be wrong. But I suspect he was a facilitator, to deliver LHO over to someone else. 

Banister's thing was to spy on Louisiana leftists and civil rights people. He may also have helped steal a lot of weapons from the Louisiana National Guard. That seems really strange for a retired FBI supervisor. It may have been a done deal.  

But IMO, killing a President in another state was out of Banister's league. That's why I've wondered about J. Edgar's opinion of the latter-day Banister. We don't know very much about Hoover's relations with Banister. We do know that at one time, Hoover thought highly enough of him to give him one of the most important jobs in the FBI - Chicago OIC. We also know that Banister died very convenently - less than a year after the assassination. If he was in financial trouble too, that adds to the picture. 

Well, Banister was apparently quite the genuine nut case towards the end of his life. By 1963 he'd already gone off the deep end, by most reports. He was a rainwater and grain alcohol type, paranoid, convinced that integration was a communist plot. (Seriously!) When someone asked him whether it wasn't wrong to be doing some of the stuff that he was doing, he allegedly replied, "there are principles at stake, our way of life is being threatened". And etc etc... nutty.

There were a lot of people who died conveniently... during Garrison, during the HSCA, ... the link I would bring to your attention, is that Johnny Roselli was wearing a military uniform, and the day before the assassination he was transported to Dallas in a military aircraft. And the job of the CIA is to support the military.

I agree, Banister was a bit player. He was used just like everyone else. Whoever did this thing was very sophisticated, in fact there's only two people I can wrap my head around doing this, and that's the mob and the military. The CIA would have been incapable of doing something like this, first of all they were porous as hell and secondly they were mostly incompetent, and thirdly killing 80-ish people one at a time is simply not their style, they don't have the resources and the dedication for something like that.

Only the mob has a reach like that, clout like that, logistic capability of the kind that would be needed to pull off multiple simultaneous activities in geographically disparate locations. Look at the reports of the people who supposedly knew "in advance" - they're all over the place! California, Indiana, Florida, ... Louisiana... and most of those people end up dead, unless they're so nutty they're considered "not a threat".

You've got the military running this autopsy, just 12 hours later, where it seems they're "already prepared", they already know what the cover story is going to be and how they're going to play it. Even a spymaster would have trouble planning an operation like that on 12 hours' notice. Just look at all the stuff they had going on there, the decoy hearse, the whole secret service bit, y'know... SOMEONE was running that show, and it wasn't the secret service, and it wasn't the FBI (both of them got kicked out of the room, right?), and the CIA was nowhere to be seen at that point. So... who's left?

I'm of the n00b opinion that this was some very sophisticated plotting. Right now it seems to me the generals were in it up to their eyeballs (although which ones specifically I can't tell you yet), but it does fit, this is the same time they were coming up with all these looney-tunes false flag plans like Operation Northwoods and the rest. (You know, "we don't mind losing an American citizen or two, for the greater good" - and of course they end up being the ones who define the greater good).

And, right around this time period, you have many instances of CIA people taking orders "directly" from the military instead of going through the chain of command (some of them even got fired for it). But CIA is only "support", the military are the ones doing all the planning, identifying the targets, assigning values, ... it doesn't ring true that the CIA would be engaged in all this stuff on its own. If you look at what was happening down there in Cuba there was plenty of military support, someone always seemed to be coordinating with the DoD in some way.

Well, we're two n00bs having a discussion, I enjoy loose thinking after midnight (especially after ten thousand evidence records) - the thing is, I'm firmly convinced we have more evidence than we think we have. There are plenty of connections in this evidence, I've been looking at it all week, including all of Mary Ferrell's chronologies and the whole nine yards, it's a substantial body of evidence, there's a lot there. The most difficult part, so far, has been weeding out the part that's NOT evidence, so like, people come up with these conjectures which are "conclusions" (not actual evidence) - and when you go back and read the primary testimony the witness doesn't actually say what she's been claimed to say.