Friday, November 6, 2009
Above is a "backyard photo" -- a high resolution rendition (in pixels, because it's digitally created from a scan, then conducted over the Internet) of one of the photos of Lee Oswald that is supposed to show him holding the "killer rifle" and "The Worker" and "The Militant" --newspapers of opposing Communist/Socialist/Marxist persuasions. The original photo is an emulsion printed on photo paper, of course, with no pixels. Nevertheless, it's surprisingly fuzzy, because the lens and camera taking the photos were both sub-standard.
There are some surprises in the photos, however, and they are unsettling to those with open minds.
The fingers holding the newspapers are too fat and stubby to be Oswald's. The index finger appears, too, to be the same length as other fingers. The chin, despite recent protests that Oswald's chin could 'look' squarish under certain shadow conditions, is too 'square' to be seriously considered as Oswald's. And Lee Oswald himself said his head had been pasted onto the body of whoever posed for the photos, two of which he was shown by Dallas police.
Researchers independent of the government have concluded almost unanimously that the backyard photos were faked, for numerous additional reasons, most of which are listed in this article. The newspapers (size known) are too big for the supposed height of Oswald (height known); see the correct sizes superimposed on the backyard photo here:
Note that the index finger and ring finger are stub-cut to the same length: somebody was a little careless with an Xacto blade, or airbrush, it seems. Oswald had normal fingers.
Difficulties in the photos such as this are not addressed by Professor Hany Farid. Therefore, his statement that the photos are genuine because his computer program found no 'alterations' in the photo itself is subject to criticism.
Other problems also exist: the rifle in the photos has a different kind of sling mount than the rifle in the National Archives (on exhibit as the original killer rifle). You can find both rifles on YouTube --and see for yourself the different slings. Researcher Gil Jesus makes the point: "..the bottom sling mount, so clearly visible in the backyard photos, does not exist on the rifle removed from the Texas School Book Depository...it is not the same rifle that is currently in the National Archives." Go to YouTube and see for yourself:
There's more. Fingernails are missing from the strangely stubby fingers, too, as if the newspapers were slipped in under a cutout set of fingers--cut out with a sharp little Exacto knife, as all photographers used to use to 'insert' extra things into photos, before computers came along.
Significant, too, is Marina Oswald's testimony regarding the backyard photos. She said she looked "into" the camera's viewfinder to take the photos, but in fact, the camera had to be held at the waist, as it did not have a viewfinder. She later also stated that she took photos from a different direction. Also, deceased Dallas police officer Roscoe White's possessions included an Oswald backyard photo that nobody had ever seen, and the Dallas police had a strange additional 'backyard photo' that shows a figure cut out. Oswald was shown two photos --it's on record-- before the photos were officially 'found' at the Paine garage in Irving. These photos were blow-ups from the original 3" x 3" format--showing that the originals had already been copied in a photo lab somewhere and then given to the police. Why wasn't Oswald shown the originals? It was only one day after the assassination, and already, these photographs, said to be of Oswald, had been copied and enlarged in photo labs.
The camera itself would not be found for another month and a half. It was discovered in the Paine's garage(the Paine residence is where Oswald's wife was living -- Oswald lived separately from her). However, that garage had been scoured for Oswald's possessions by the police three times by then. Lee Oswald's brother, Robert, "found" this camera, soon after he was caught in a compromising situation with his brother's widow (Mellon's 2007 book, Mrs. Paine's Garage, which is opinionated against Lee Oswald, revealed that a sexual liason occurred). Robert Oswald soon after went with others to the Paine garage, where he 'found' the camera(how convenient!). He said he knew it was Lee Oswald's camera, because Lee had given it to him before going to Russia. Then, after returning to the US, at some point, Lee asked for it back. It was a cheap, inferior camera (an Imperial Reflex, made in the USA). Yet Oswald owned some advanced, expensive cameras and even called himself a professional photographer, describing himself as such on employment forms, etc. He even had equipment to make 3-D photos. In other words, it is unlikely that he would have asked for the cheap camera to be returned, and it would be even more unlikely that he would use the camera for any photos, which would be inferior to what his other cameras (Kodak, Minox, etc.)could do. And how would he have even thought of the cheap camera at all, after three years away, when he, himself, owned several fine cameras?
In an official Dallas police photo of possessions belonging to Oswald, there is no Imperial Reflex camera. Nor is the flash attachment seen in this photo associated with that camera. The camera only showed up much later, when people started wondering where it was. Note the fine camera equipment, in this photo, that belonged to Oswald:
We have a recurring pattern: a cheap camera --a cheap rifle -- a cheap handgun -- owned by a man with expensive cameras who insisted he never ordered the cheap rifle or the cheap revolver, either.
The HSCA later displayed a photo supposedly made by Oswald of his toddler daughter, June Lee, standing in the front yard of his New Orleans residence (Ref: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0083b.htm HSCA Appendix to Hearings - Volume VI, p. 160). The photograph was used to help prove that the camera that took the backyard photos had been used by Oswald previously to take photos of his family. Here's the photo:
This exhibit is a photo of the photo, and there are problems with it.
The Imperial Reflex had a fixed focus. You couldn't take a close-up photo with it and expect it to be in focus. The original "backyard photos" are famous for showing quite a bit of detail --and the originals are in focus. But this photo is not in focus--nor are the fringes of the other two visible on the roll of "family photos" in this exhibit. If a photo OF a photo were taken by the Imperial Reflex, even if the original had been blown up, it would still be difficult to photograph at a distance sufficient to allow it to be in focus. The fuzzy result, however, taken by the Imperial Reflex, could be used to 'prove' Oswald had the camera, and used it for other photos. Is this why this "family photo" is so amazingly out of focus?
Because the Dallas police "found" these photos, and others, we will take a look at one "backyard photo" the Dallas police finally were compelled to admit that they themselves made (after it was found much later) -- featuring a cutout where Oswald's figure could be placed. We will also look at a similar photo found among deceased Dallas Police officer Roscoe White's possessions, where the figure of Oswald is in place, because the two photos look quite similar in pose, as if one had been inspired by the other, though found years and miles apart.
But first, we need to look closer at the more familiar photos, one of which graced the cover of Life Magazine. (Life editors eventually admitted they modified and altered portions of the rifle on that photo. Why?
Researcher Ralph Thomas (EXAMPLES OF DIGITAL
EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION: BACKYARD PHOTOS EVIDENCE OR FAKERY? www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html) tells us:
"The photographs were found at 2515 West Fifth Street in Irving, Texas, the home of the Paines. On two searches on the day of the assassination of this address, the Dallas police did not locate the photographs. However, another search was made the following day and it was this third search in which the Dallas police say they found the photos. But the two photos were never listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions. Neither was the black shirt and the black pants that Oswald had on in the photographs ever located. Officially, two photographs but only one negative were found. Yet, Dallas police Gus Rose says that there were also two negatives. Until 1967, these photos were the only ones known...of the backyard pose."
Thomas adds that "The Warren Commission said that the photos were taken by Marina Oswald, Oswald's wife, on March 31st, 1963 at the 214 W Neely address. The photos show a bright sunny day. But, a check on weather reports in the area that day reveal that it was cloudy and rainy all day."
But then, more photos were found: again, we quote from Ralph Thomas;
"In 1976 the Senate Intelligence Committee located a third photograph of Oswald with the backyard pose that was slightly different. The photo was found among the belongings of the widow of Dallas police officer Roscoe White. In the early 1990's Rosco White's son claimed that Rosco White was one of three gunmen that fired at the President...
In 1967 after he returned from Haiti, George DeMorenschildt found a fourth photo of the backyard photograph...[it was]a slightly different pose...On the back of this photograph is written: HUNTER OF FASCISTS, HA HA HA.
The inscription was first written in pencil and then gone over in ink. Handwriting experts have revealed that the writing was not the handwriting of Oswald, his wife, DeMorenschildt or his wife... In 1970, Dallas news reporter Jim Marrs was looking into the backyard photographs when he interviewed Robert and Patricia Hester. The Hesters worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas. They said they were very busy processing photographic material for both the FBI and the Secret Service the night of the assassination. In 1970, the Hesters told Marrs that the FBI had color transparencies of the backyard photographs the night of the assassination and had one color transparency that had nobody in the picture. Not only is this highly suspicious, this was the night before the photographs were supposed to have been found in the first place."
The researcher then makes a list of the problems that photo expert Jack White found with the backyard photos:
1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concludes that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position.
2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other.
3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again.
4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm were Oswald is holding the rifle. This pose had been attempted to be duplicated but could not.
5) HANDS AND FINGERS: On the photographs the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand looks stubby.
6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested.
7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to its proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short.
8) SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be.
9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a flat chin but Oswald had a cleft chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where the cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph.
10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B and adjusted and overlayed them, nothing matched up, which isn't supposed to happen with two slightly different poses. However, the faces on the two photographs did.
11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt.
[Look at this graphic example:]
12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow to this angle.
13) COLLAR SIZE: The collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a size 14 1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15 inch range.
14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off which made the photos appear like they had been taken at slightly different locations. However, except for small fractions, everything lines up on both photographs when the two were compared. That is, the camera did not change position and the only way to do this would be with a tripod which was not used.
15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds but they were not off much. After looking at the photographs some more, he determined that on the background of one, the camera appears to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment...
[16)FEET:] During the 1991 JFK Assassination Symposium held in Dallas,Texas of November of that year, computer image processing expert Tom Wilson corroborated all of the White analysis and added that he inspected the feet on the man in the backyard photograph as to light refraction and compared this to official records of the day concerning the position of the sun. Wilson stated that the photograph was taken at 9:12 A.M. if it was taken on the day it was alleged to have been taken. But Marina Oswald's testimony stated that the photographs were taken in the early afternoon which is completely inconsistent with the Wilson study."
Other scientists who had not previously been associated with Warren Commission critics also have questioned the authenticity of the photos. For example, Malcolm Thompson, a British forensic photography expert, questioned the authenticity of the photographs in a 1978 BBC television documentary.
Marina Oswald herself not only gave two different versions as to where the backyard pictures were taken, she also gave different versions of the number of photos taken. At first, she testified she had taken just one photo, but later changed it to two. Finally, she said she took the photos from a different direction. In addition, Marguerite Oswald testified that soon after the assassination, Marina showed her a third photo, which she had hidden in her shoe. In that photo, Oswald was shown holding the rifle over his head with both hands. This is the same pose that can be seen in the Roscoe White photograph.
But since Marina did not know how to use the camera, at first admitted to taking only one photo, then said two -- then changed the very direction in which she said she was taking photos -- as with so many other things Marina said under duress and fear of deportation, her testimony in this matter is as difficult to reconcile with reality as her testimony that Lee Oswald planned to shoot former Vice President Richard Nixon -- a story even the Warren Commission didn't believe. It seems Marina had to say whatever she had to. Nobody can blame her for quailing under pressure.
The issue with Marguerite Oswald, however, is more serious. The photo could have been planted, and Marina could have snatched it up, afraid the police would see it. Perhaps she will someday explain how she had it on her person, for the photo is not the kind one keeps handy while living in the home of a Quaker (Ruth Paine) who was by religion supposedly extremely anti-weapon/anti-war/anti-violence.
The photo offered by George DeMohrenschildt has its problems, too: it seems to have been created as a "first generation print" straight from one of the originals, as determined by the HSCA (HSCA 381-382, Figures IV-20, IV021). How did DeMohrenschildt get it? And who wrote "Ha ha ha!" on the back? George would later be found with a shotgun shoved into his mouth a few hours before the HSCA's intrepid investigator, Gaeton Fonzi, could question him about that photo -- or anything else. Though ruled a suicide, as so many 'mysterious deaths' in the case have been, researchers have noted that in the room where DeMohrenschildt was found with his head blown to pieces, in the background of a tape recording that was being made at the time, one can hear the security alarm beeping: an intruder had entered about a minute before the shotgun's blast was heard. Here is the photo the poor fellow "found":
Our Dartmouth professor does not consider any of these provenance difficulties. He supposedly answers all questions and problems for all time with his one dummy head, his computer program, and counting pixels (pixels that did not exist in 1963).
The provenance and deliberate creation of these photos has, in other words, been a problem to consider from the very beginning, and the professor's pixel-counting isn't going to make it go away. That won't halt continuing efforts to find yet another way to 'prove' the backyard photos weren't faked, as so much other evidence was faked.
Our professor used a digitalized computer program (but none of the problems we've mentioned were mentioned by him -- just the concern as to whether the photo was authentic). His method also leaves much to be desired. His computer works with pixels, and the originals are emulsions, no pixels involved. Any photo made with pixels of the originals would not show tampering unless the pixel photos had been tampered with. Of course that didn't happen. That leaves us with the outside study materials, of which, apparently, photos were taken-- materials that excluded, it seems, the whole body length that showed shadows extending in a different direction from shadows on the dummy face set up for the 'outdoor shot.' Flawed, flawed!
Our Dartmouth professor nevertheless concluded for all time that the backyard photos were not faked, based on his computer program's result. In the YouTube video, the Dartmouth professor (who inaccurately calls Oswald a "communist") presents the computerized dummy's head showing shadows that he states are the same as in the backyard photos. The 3-D game dummy on the screen, he says, provides digitalized evidence that the photos are not faked. But what part of 'faked' are we talking about, here?
We are not told much about how the result was created. Of concern is the fact that apparently only a 3-D head was used, not an entire 3-D body, plus "portions of the backyard scene." What portions? How did he choose the portions? As we know, shadows can seem to be going in various directions, according to how leaves, etc. are positioned. What 'portions' were selected? This cherry-picking kind of data selection has been done before. But let's read the article, below, and then look at examples, below the article, of some disturbing anomalies that the good professor failed to address: (Bold face = my emphasis).
"Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, digitally analyzed an iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard setting holding a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other. Oswald and others claimed that the incriminating photo was a fake, noting the seemingly inconsistent lighting and shadows. After analyzing the photo with modern-day forensic tools, Farid says the photo almost certainly was not altered.
“If we had found evidence of photo tampering, then it would have suggested a broader plot to kill JFK,” said Farid, who is also the director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at Dartmouth. “Those who believe that there was a broader conspiracy can no longer point to this photo as possible evidence.” Farid added that federal officials long ago said that this image had not been tampered with, but a surprising number of skeptics still assert that there was a conspiracy.
The study will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Perception.
Farid and his team have developed a number of digital forensic tools used to determine whether digital photos have been manipulated, and his research is often used by law enforcement officials and in legal proceedings. The tools can measure statistical inconsistencies in the underlying image pixels, improbable lighting and shadow, physically impossible perspective distortion, and other artifacts introduced by photo manipulators. The play of light and shadow was fundamental in the Oswald photo analysis."
Note that the computer works with digitalized photos. The original photos, of course, were not digitalized. Reproductions of such photos, using pixels, of course will show no manipulation unless they have been additionally doctored. To continue:
“The human brain, while remarkable in many aspects, also has its weaknesses,” says Farid. “The visual system can be quite inept at making judgments regarding 3-D geometry, lighting, and shadows.”
At a casual glance, the lighting and shadows in the Oswald photo appear to many to be incongruous with the outdoor lighting. To determine if this was the case, Farid constructed a 3-D model of Oswald’s head and portions of the backyard scene, from which he was able to determine that a single light source, the sun, could explain all of the shadows in the photo.
“It is highly improbable that anyone could have created such a perfect forgery with the technology available in 1963,” said Farid. With no evidence of tampering, he concluded that the incriminating photo was authentic.
”As our digital forensic tools become more sophisticated, we increasingly have the ability to apply them to historic photos in an attempt to resolve some long-standing mysteries,” said Farid."
Prof. Farid tells us that we can be fooled by what we see. Indeed we can. Note that "as our digital forensic tools become more sophisticated, we increasingly have the ability to apply them to historic photos..." --- HOW they are applied depends upon the person running the program: the program can be tweaked to produce what is desired. Because there are computer programs available that can come to such a conclusion does not mean that the data used was good. Once again, it seems that ONLY the head was used--not the body, with its attendant shadows. Why?
The ONLY acceptable procedure would be to analyze the shadows along the entire body and the head, as well as shadow advances between photos along the ground, as these obviously (and unaccuntably) differ. Once again, no such stringent set of factors necessary for a truly comprehensive analysis was conducted. Though portions of the backyard photo may have been selected that were compatible with the shadows on the head itself, we were not told what other portions of the photo were selected to set up for 3-D analysis. Nor are we told why only portions, instead of everything in the photograph, were analyzed. Surely the professor had the time and equipment to use a full-sized dummy, didn't he? So why didn't he?
The only truly scientific methods now available are two: (1) analyze the entire scene in full 3-D, and then analyze the digital photo taken of the scene in all calculated angles as in the originals -- not just selected portions -- using the digital analysis program involved here, and then see if the results can be duplicated elsewhere. The results should come out the same for everyone. The program used should be able to handle a variety of photographs made of such 3-D scenes the same way, with the same results for all. Monitoring the method of analysis would have to include knowing how the computer program was set up, and it should be tested immediately before and after use in the project, on standardized photos with known parameters, concerning shadows, to ascertain that the program has not been manipulated.
Of importance is that the analysis is able to be reproduced by others using the same methodology in every aspect. Unfortunately, we have evidence abounding that computer data can be manipulated. Just to remind you once more: look at the Dallas police cutout photo, and the one found in former Dallas Police Officer Roscoe White's belongings:
What is this photo about? I used to work for Steck-Vaughn Publishers in Austin, Texas. we would cut out an area and place dark red cellophane in that spot. Then we could slip a different photo in the cut-out area. The cut-out is created to place a different photo in the space. Why did the Dallas police have such a cutout in their possession? They said they were just testing to see if a cutout was possible. Of course, the answer is "yes."
(2) By far the easiest and most trustworthy method to determine the authenticity of these photos is to use a method where data cannot be manipulated. Method (obvious, but not pursued by government invesigators): use an Oswald lookalike (or lifesized dummy with the same features as Oswald) of the same height, dressed similarly, etc. leaning so awkwardly at precisely the same angles (if possible -- researchers have reported great difficulty keeping their balance posing at the calculated angle of presentation)-- with the TRUE size papers and rifle, and with all objects held at the exact angle as in the originals (tests have shown that an elbow seems to be missing in one backyard photo -- that the rifle cannot be held, as shown, without the elbow showing--but it is, nevertheless, missing). Finally, the light source must be solely the natural sun, at the proper angle, with the same weather conditions and time of year to create the long shadows as shown. The fence, plants, etc. are easily put into the proper places, using simple geometrical measurements. Then take the photos. This simple experiment was nevertheless apparently impossible for either the Warren Commission or the HSCA to properly conduct.
---Using only the head ---or only the body--- is not a new idea---
Warren Commission exhibit 748, below, shows the 'model' (not leaning enough) --with no head --a graphic example of the difficulty the FBI experienced trying to create the same shadow effect. Rather than show the "wrong" shadows on the face, we must conclude that the Warren Commission/FBI decided to avoid the problem by blocking out the head.
Next, we have an attempt by the HSCA to show how the head shadows are possible--but no body is shown. Note that they do not show any light on the (our) right side of the neck, as is shown in actual Oswald backyard photos in question. One must ask why.
Note the dummy head only is shown (because the light on the whole body would never have created shadows stretching out behind it?). Now look at an Oswald backyard photo:
Note the angle of the sunlight on (our) right side of neck:compare to HSCA photos showing no light at that angle (would the nose shadow have changed?).
So should you trust the computerized results offered by the Dartmouth professor who says Oswald was a communist? Remember, we didn't see an actual photo reproduced by the professor. We didn't see what parts of the backyard photo(s) he selected to match up with the dummy head and its computerized shadows. We only saw a computerized 3-D game dummy model reproduced on a screen, with nothing behind it. Below is a common shadow processing program assignment for computer students, where shadows can be manipulated any which way on a dummy replica:
"This assignment investigated, and implemented common approaches used in creating real-time shadow effects within a 3D game environment under the DirectX API. The assignment consisted of a written investigative report and two demonstrations of real-time shadow rendering using the planer shadows and shadow mapping techniques."
Planer Shadow Volumes: computer programs allow you to adjust shadows just as you please:
Why would an ignorant (as to details of the case, e.g. that Oswald was a 'communist') Dartmouth professor go out of his way to create the YouTube video and get his name in the papers this month of November ($$$$$$?). Computerized results can be manipulated. I'm not saying that's what happened. But as far as I am aware, the Oswald photos' shadows have not been, have never been, and cannot be duplicated under natural conditions with the sun as the sole light source, as shown, in those damning photos that Oswald told us from the beginning were fakes. Out there has to be one honest scientist who will conduct a serious study using a real person, the real sun, and an accurate representation of time, place, background details, and true solar position. It hasn't been done: government-sponsored investigators danced all around the problem. Is the professor's story yet another dance, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?
Friday, October 23, 2009
THE MAGIC BULLET: LIES THE FBI TOLD TO THE PEOPLE!
Look at the bold face portions of the article below for a quick review, then read it and weep: Lee Harvey Oswald was framed. AN INNOCENT MAN TOO THE BLAME. Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, we learn once again, and was framed -- we learn once again. Anyone who tells you there is no evidence available that refutes the accusation that Oswald killed Kennedy doesn't read, is stupid, or is being paid, as was V. Bugliosi (a million dollars) to write fancy stuff and create elaborate documentaries to perpetrate the old lies.
IF OSWALD IS INNOCENT, THAT MEANS OUR GOVERNMENT WAS NOT! THERE WAS A COUP.
EVERYBODY IN EUROPE SEEMS TO KNOW THIS. THEY GOT UNFILTERED NEWS. THEY GOT MORE OF THE TRUTH. THEY WONDER HOW WE CAN BE SO BLIND. THEY'RE USED TO COVER-UPS ON COUPS. AMERICANS TRUSTED THE NEW PRESIDENT NOT TO LIE TO THEM. WHAT A MISTAKE! LBJ WAS THE SAME FELLOW WHO LIFTED BEAGLES BY THEIR EARS AND HUMILIATED HIS WIFE REGULARLY IN PUBLIC. LBJ'S MISTRESS, MADELEINE BROWN, CAN BE SEEN ON YOUTUBE TELLING YOU ALL ABOUT THAT WONDERFUL MAN WHO LED US INTO THE VIETNAM WAR AND MADE HIS TEXAS OIL FRIENDS AND CONSTRUCTION FRIENDS RICH. TEXAS BASICALLY RAN ALL OUR WARS EVER SINCE.
NOW PLEASE READ THE TRUTH ABOUT "THE MAGIC BULLET" -- AND ASK YOURSELF IF THE SAME BULLET SHOWN SO PRISTINE AND SCARCELY HARMED COULD HAVE CREATED ALL THOSE WOUNDS AND BROKEN BONES. THE PHOTO SHOWS THE 'PRUSTINE' BLLET WITH OTHE R'PRISTINE ' BULLETS THAT WERE SHOT THROUGH COTTON. THE MASHED BULLET HIT 'ONE' BONE. NOT SEVERAL, AS IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION.
WHY ARE 'CONSPIRACY THEORISTS' CONSISTENTLY PUT DOWN, WHILE THOSE WHO PUSH THE GOVERNMENT'S OFFICIAL VERDICT ARE SUPPORTED IN THE MEDIA? WHY DO I HAVE TO LIVE IN EXILE?
GET THE BOOK "ME & LEE: HOW I CAME TO KNOW, LOVE AND LOSE LEE HARVEY OSWALD" BY JUDYTH VARY BAKER, THE BOOK "DR. MARY'S MONKEY" BY EDWARD T. HASLAM, AND THE BOOK "CROSSFIRE-- THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY" AND YOU DON;T NEED ANY OTHER BOOKS TO SETTLE THE QUESTIONS ONCE AND FOR ALL ABOUT OSWALD'S INNOCENCE AND THE GOVERNMENT'S GUILT. GO TO TRINE DAY: HTTP://WWW.TRINEDAY.COM TO SEE OTHER BOOKS ABOUT WHO'S RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. LET'S GET OUR COUNTRY BACK! JVB
===THE MAGIC BULLET LIES: THE ARTICLE THAT PROVES OSWALD WAS FRAMED=====
This is part of an article written by Gary L. Aguilar and Josiah Thompson. The full article, with illustrations, can be found here:
Among the myriad JFK assassination controversies, none more cleanly divides Warren Commission supporter from skeptic than the “Single Bullet Theory.” The brainchild of a former Warren Commission lawyer, Mr. Arlen Specter, now the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the theory is the sine qua non of the Warren Commission’s case that with but three shots, including one that missed, Lee Harvey Oswald had single handedly altered the course of history.
Mr. Specter’s hypothesis was not one that immediately leapt to mind from the original evidence and the circumstances of the shooting. It was, rather, born of necessity, if one sees as a necessity the keeping of Oswald standing alone in the dock. The theory had to contend with the considerable evidence there was suggesting that more than one shooter was involved.
For example, because the two victims in Dealey Plaza, President Kennedy and Governor John Connally, had suffered so many wounds – eight in all, it had originally seemed as if more than two slugs from the supposed “sniper’s nest” would have been necessary to explain all the damage. In addition, a home movie taken by a bystander, Abraham Zapruder, showed that too little time had elapsed between the apparent shots that hit both men in the back for Oswald to have fired, reacquired his target, and fired again. The Single Bullet Theory neatly solved both problems. It posited that a single, nearly whole bullet that was later recovered had caused all seven of the non-fatal wounds sustained by both men. 
But the bullet that was recovered had one strikingly peculiar feature: it had survived all the damage it had apparently caused virtually unscathed itself. The shell’s near-pristine appearance, which prompted some to call it the “magic bullet,” left many skeptics wondering whether the bullet in evidence had really done what the Commission had said it had done. Additional skepticism was generated by the fact the bullet was not found in or around either victim. It was found instead on a stretcher at the hospital where the victims were treated.
Mr. Specter’s idea was that, after passing completely through JFK and Governor Connally, the bullet had fallen out of the Governor’s clothes and onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. But it was never unequivocally established that either victim had ever lain on the stretcher where the bullet was discovered.  Nevertheless, studies done at the FBI Laboratory seemed to unquestionably link the missile to Oswald’s rifle, and the FBI sent the Warren Commission a memo on July 7, 1964 detailing how it had run down the bullet’s chain of possession, which looked pretty solid. According to the FBI, the two hospital employees who discovered the bullet originally identified it as the same bullet six months later in an FBI interview
That a bullet, fired from Oswald’s weapon and later identified by hospital witnesses, had immediately turned up on a stretcher in the hospital where the victims were treated struck some as perhaps a little too convenient. Suspicions it had been planted ensued. But apart from its peculiar provenance, there was little reason in 1964 to doubt the bullet’s bona fides. But then in 1967, one of the authors reported that one of the two hospital employees who had found the bullet, Parkland personnel director O.P. Wright, had told him that the bullet he saw and held on the day of the assassination did not look like the bullet that later turned up in FBI evidence. That claim was in direct conflict with an FBI memo of July 7, 1964, which said that Wright had told an FBI agent that the bullet did look like the shell he’d held on the day of the murder.
For thirty years, the conflict lay undisturbed and unresolved. Finally, in the mid 1990s, the authors brought this conflict to the attention of the Assassinations Records Review Board, a federal body charged with opening the abundant, still-secret files concerning the Kennedy assassination. A search through newly declassified files led to the discovery of new information on this question. It turns out that the FBI’s own, once-secret files tend to undermine the position the FBI took publicly in its July, 1964 memo to the Warren Commission, and they tend to support co-author Josiah Thompson. Thompson got a further boost when a retired FBI agent, in a recorded telephone interview and in a face-to-face meeting, flatly denied what the FBI had written about him to the Warren Commission in 1964.
The story begins in a ground floor elevator lobby at the Dallas hospital where JFK and John Connelly were taken immediately after being shot. According to the Warren Commission, Parkland Hospital senior engineer, Mr. Darrell C. Tomlinson, was moving some wheeled stretchers when he bumped a stretcher “against the wall and a bullet rolled out.”  He called for help and was joined by Mr. O.P. Wright, Parkland’s personnel director. After examining the bullet together, Mr. Wright passed it along to one of the U.S. Secret Service agents who were prowling the hospital, Special Agent Richard Johnsen. 
Johnsen then carried the bullet back to Washington, D. C. and handed it to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service. Rowley, in turn, gave the bullet to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd,  who carried it to agent Robert Frazier in the FBI’s Crime Lab.  Without exploring the fact that the HSCA discovered that there may have been another witness who was apparently with Tomlinson when the bullet was found, what concerns us here is whether the bullet currently in evidence, Commission Exhibit #399, is the same bullet Tomlinson found originally.
The early history of the bullet, Commission Exhibit #399, is laid out in Warren Commission Exhibit #2011. This exhibit consists of a 3-page, July 7, 1964 FBI letterhead memorandum that was written to the Warren Commission in response to a Commission request that the Bureau trace “various items of physical evidence,” among them #399. #2011 relates that, in chasing down the bullet’s chain of possession, FBI agent Bardwell Odum took #399 to Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright on June 12, 1964. The memo asserts that both men told Agent Odum that the bullet “appears to be the same one” they found on the day of the assassination, but that neither could “positively identify” it.
Positive identification” of a piece of evidence by a witness means that the witness is certain that an object later presented in evidence is the same one that was originally found. The most common way to establish positive identification is for a witness to place his initials on a piece of evidence upon first finding it. The presence of such initials is of great help later when investigators try to prove a link through an unbroken chain of possession between the object in evidence and a crime.
Understandably, neither Tomlinson nor Wright inscribed his initials on the stretcher bullet. But that both witnesses told FBI Agent Odum, so soon after the murder, that CE 399 looked like the bullet they had found on a stretcher was compelling reason to suppose that it was indeed the same one.
However, CE #2011 included other information that raised questions about the bullet. As first noted by author Ray Marcus,  it also states that on June 24, 1964, FBI agent Todd, who received the bullet from Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, returned with presumably the same bullet to get Secret Service agents Johnsen and Rowley to identify it. #2011 reports that both Johnsen and Rowley advised Todd that they “could not identify this bullet as the one” they saw on the day of the assassination. # 2011 contains no comment about the failure being merely one of not “positively identifying” the shell that, otherwise, “appeared to be the same” bullet they had originally handled.
Thus, in #2011 the FBI reported that both Tomlinson and Wright said #399 resembled the Parkland bullet, but that neither of the Secret Service Agents could identify it. FBI Agent Todd originally received the bullet from Rowley on 11/22/63 and it was he who then returned on 6/24/64 with supposedly the same bullet for Rowley and Johnsen to identify. Given the importance of this case, one imagines that by the time Todd returned, they would have had at least a passing acquaintance. Had it truly been the same bullet, one might have expected one or both agents to tell Todd it looked like the same bullet, even if neither could “positively identify” it by an inscribed initial. After all, neither Tomlinson nor Wright had inscribed their initials on the bullet, and yet #2011 says that they said they saw a resemblance.
And there the conflicted story sat, until one of the current authors published a book in 1967.Two Different Accounts from One Witness
Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any description of #399, Wright said: “That bullet had a pointed tip.”
“Pointed tip?” Thompson asked.“Yeah, I’ll show you. It was like this one here,” he said, reaching into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six Seconds.”
As Thompson described it in 1967, “I then showed him photographs of CE’s 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald’s rifle) (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these as resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.”
Thus in 1964 the Warren Commission, or rather the FBI, claimed that Wright believed the original bullet resembled #399. In 1967, Wright denied there was a resemblance. Recent FBI releases prompted by the JFK Review Board support author Thompson’s 1967 report.
A declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas (“SAC, Dallas” – i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “For information WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet … .” Whereas the FBI had claimed in CE #2011 that Tomlinson and Wright had told Agent Odum on June 12, 1964 that CE #399 “appears to be the same” bullet they found on the day of the assassination, nowhere in this previously classified memo, which was written before CE #2011, is there any corroboration that either of the Parkland employees saw a resemblance. Nor is FBI agent Odum’s name mentioned anywhere in the once-secret file, whether in connection with #399, or with Tomlinson or with Wright.
A declassified record, however, offers some corroboration for what CE 2011 reported about Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley. A memo from the FBI’s Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, “ON JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF … ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO INDENTIFY RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had logged in as #399, was called “C ONE”), BY INSPECTION (capitals in original).
Convinced that we had overlooked some relevant files, we cast about for additional corroboration of what was in CE # 2011. There should, for example, have been some original “302s ” – the raw FBI field reports from the Agent Odum’s interviews with Tomlinson and Wright on June 12, 1964. There should also have been one from Agent Todd’s interviews with Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley on June 24, 1964. Perhaps somewhere in those, we thought, we would find Agent Odum reporting that Wright had detected a resemblance between the bullets. And perhaps we’d also find out whether Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or Rowley had supplied the Bureau with any additional descriptive details about the bullet.
In early 1998, we asked a research associate, Ms. Cathy Cunningham, to scour the National Archives for any additional files that might shed light on this story. She looked but found none. We contacted the JFK Review Board’s T. Jeremy Gunn for help. [Fig. 7] On May 18, 1998, the Review Board’s Eileen Sullivan, writing on Gunn’s behalf, answered, saying: “[W]e have attempted, unsuccessfully, to find any additional records that would account for the problem you suggest.” [Fig. 8] Undaunted, one of us wrote the FBI directly, and was referred to the National Archives, and so then wrote Mr. Steve Tilley at the National Archives.
On Mr. Tilley’s behalf, Mr. Stuart Culy, an archivist at the National Archives, made a search. On July 16, 1999, Mr. Culy wrote that he searched for the FBI records within the HSCA files as well as in the FBI records, all without success. He was able to determine, however, that the serial numbers on the FBI documents ran “concurrently, with no gaps, which indicated that no material is missing from these files.” [Fig. 10] In other words, the earliest and apparently the only FBI report said nothing about either Tomlinson or Wright seeing a similarity between the bullet found at the hospital and the bullet later in evidence, CE #399. Nor did agent Bardwell Odum’s name show up in any of the files.[editor's note: Dr. Aguilar followed up in 2005 with the National Archives, asking them in letters dated March 2 and March 7 to search for any FBI "302" reports that would have been generated from CE399 being shown to those who handled it. On March 17, 2005 David Mengel of NARA wrote back reporting that additional searches had not uncovered any such reports.]
Stymied, author Aguilar turned to his co-author. “What does Odum have to say about it?” Thompson asked.
“Odum? How the hell do I know? Is he still alive?”
“I’ll find out,” he promised.
Less than an hour later, Thompson had located Mr. Bardwell Odum’s home address and phone number. Aguilar phoned him on September 12, 2002. He was still alive and well and living in a suburb of Dallas. The 82-year old was alert and quick-witted on the phone and he regaled Aguilar with fond memories of his service in the Bureau. Finally, the Kennedy case came up and Odum agreed to help interpret some of the conflicts in the records. Two weeks after mailing Odum the relevant files – CE # 2011, the three-page FBI memo dated July 7, 1964, and the “FBI AIRTEL” memo dated June 12, 1964, Aguilar called him back.
Mr. Odum told Aguilar, “I didn’t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn’t have any bullet … I don’t think I ever saw it even.” [Fig. 11] Unwilling to leave it at that, both authors paid Mr. Odum a visit in his Dallas home on November 21, 2002. The same alert, friendly man on the phone greeted us warmly and led us to a comfortable family room. To ensure no misunderstanding, we laid out before Mr. Odum all the relevant documents and read aloud from them.
Again, Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the Kennedy assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI’s investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence. But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he said he would certainly have turned in a “302” report covering something that important. Odum’s sensible comment had the ring of truth. For not only was Odum’s name absent from the FBI’s once secret files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for him to besmirch the reputation of the agency he had worked for and admired.
Thus, the July 1964 FBI memo that became Commission Exhibit #2011 claims that Tomlinson and Wright said they saw a resemblance between #399 and the bullet they picked up on the day JFK died. However, the FBI agent who is supposed to have gotten that admission, Bardwell Odum, and the Bureau’s own once-secret records, don’t back up #2011. Those records say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question, a comment that leaves the impression they saw no resemblance. That impression is strengthened by the fact that Wright told one of the authors in 1966 the bullets were dissimilar. Thus, Thompson’s surprising discovery about Wright, which might have been dismissed in favor of the earlier FBI evidence in #2011, now finds at least some support in an even earlier, suppressed FBI memo, and the living memory of a key, former FBI agent provides further, indirect corroboration.
But the newly declassified FBI memos from June 1964 lead to another unexplained mystery. Neither are the 302 reports that would have been written by the agents who investigated #399’s chain of possession in both Dallas and Washington. The authors were tempted to wonder if the June memos were but expedient fabrications, with absolutely no 302s whatsoever backing them up.
But a declassified routing slip turned up by John Hunt seems to prove that the FBI did in fact act on the Commission’s formal request, as outlined in # 2011, to run down #399s chain of possession. The routing slip discloses that the bullet was sent from Washington to Dallas on 6/2/64 and returned to Washington on 6/22/64. Then on 6/24/64, it was checked out to FBI Agent Todd. What transpired during these episodes? If the Bureau went to these lengths, it seems quite likely that Bardwell Odum, or some other agent in Dallas, would have submitted one or more 302s on what was found, and so would Agent Elmer Todd in Washington. But there are none in the files. The trail ends here with an unexplained, and perhaps important, gap left in the record.
Besides this unexplained gap, another interesting question remains: If the FBI did in fact adjust Tomlinson and Wright’s testimonies with a bogus claim of bullet similarity, why didn’t it also adjust Johnsen and Rowley’s? While it is unlikely a certain answer to this question will ever be found, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the FBI authors of #2011 would have been more reluctant to embroider the official statements of the head of the Secret Service in Washington than they would the comments of a couple of hospital employees in Dallas.
In a memo to the Warren Commission [C. E. #2011] concerning its investigation of the chain of possession of C.E. #399, the FBI reported that two Parkland Hospital eyewitnesses, Darrell Tomlinson and O. P. Wright, said C.E. #399 resembled the bullet they discovered on the day JFK died. But the FBI agent who is supposed to have interviewed both men and the Bureau’s own suppressed records contradict the FBI’s public memo. Agent Odum denied his role, and the FBI’s earliest, suppressed files say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question. This suppressed file implies the hospital witnesses saw no resemblance, which is precisely what Wright told one of the authors in 1967.
What we are left with is the FBI having reported a solid chain of possession for #399 to the Warren Commission. But the links in the FBI’s chain appear to be anything but solid. Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up. Inexplicably, the chain also lacks other important links: FBI 302s, reports from the agents in the field who, there is ample reason to suppose, did actually trace #399 in Dallas and in Washington. Suppressed FBI records and recent investigations thus suggest that not only is the FBI’s file incomplete, but also that one of the authors may have been right when he reported in 1967 that the bullet found in Dallas did not look like a bullet that could have come from Oswald’s rifle.
 The eighth wound, JFK’s head wound, accounted for one of the bullets. And evidence from the scene and from a home movie taken of the murder by a bystander, Abraham Zapruder, suggests that a third bullet had missed entirely.
 Josiah Thompson. Six Seconds in Dallas. Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 161 – 164.
 The President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy – Report. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1964, p. 81. See also 6H130 – 131.
 18H800. See also: Thompson, J. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York: Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 155.
 3H428; 24H412.
 See Ray Marcus monograph, The Bastard Bullet.
 Text of email message from Josiah Thompson to Aguilar, 12/10/99.
 Thompson, Josiah. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York: Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 175.
 5/11/98 email message from Eileen Sullivan re: “Your letter to Jeremy Gunn, April 4, 1998.”
 Personal letter from Stuart Culy, archivist, National Archives, July 16, 1999.
FOURTEEN WITNESSES WHO WERE DOCTORS AND NURSES AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL SHOWED THAT A BULLET HIT KENNEDY FROM THE FRONT, NOT BACK, AS CLAIMED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION--AND EXITED IN THE BACK OF KENNEDY'S HEAD, CREATING A GAPING WOUND. EACH WITNESS POINTED TO WHERE THEY SAID THE SKULL WAS BLOWN OUT. NONE OF THE WITNESSES AT PARKLAND WERE INTERVIEWED. ONLY GOVERNMENT DOCTORS WHERE THE AUTOPSY (REDESIGNING OF THE WOUNDS) WAS CONDUCTED WERE INTERVIEWED. THE AUTOPSY DRAWINGS AND FAKED AUTOPSY PHOTOS SHOW A SMALL HOLE IN THE BACK OF KENNEDY'S HEAD, TO INDICATE OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY. GO TO http://www.JFKMURDERSOLVED.COM AND CLICK ON "JFK II" TO SEE MORE SHOCKING INFORMATION. THANKS FOR VISITING MY WEBSITE http://www.JUDYTHVARYBAKER.COM. Also check out http://www.judyth.freehomepage.com to see my works of art.
"FOURTEEN WITNESSES WHO WERE DOCTORS AND NURSES AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL SHOW THAT A BULLET HIT KENNEDY FROM THE FRONT, NOT BACK (AS HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION)--AND THAT BULLET EXITED IN THE BACK OF KENNEDY'S HEAD, CREATING A GAPING WOUND. EACH WITNESS POINTS TO WHERE THEY SAY THE SKULL WAS BLOWN OUT. NONE OF THESE WITNESSES AT PARKLAND WERE INTERVIEWED. ONLY GOVERNMENT DOCTORS, WHERE THE AUTOPSY (REDESIGNING OF THE WOUNDS) WAS CONDUCTED, WERE INTERVIEWED. THE AUTOPSY DRAWINGS AND FAKED AUTOPSY PHOTOS SHOW A SMALL HOLE IN THE BACK OF KENNEDY'S HEAD, TO INDICATE OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY. GO TO HTTP://WWW.JFKMURDERSOLVED.COM AND CLICK ON "JFK II" TO SEE MORE SHOCKING INFORMATION. THANKS FOR VISITING MY WEBSITE HTTP://WWW.JUDYTHVARYBAKER.COM. BE SURE TO VISIT HTTP://WWW.DOCTORMARYSMONKEY, TOO.