Peter was then asked how he explains the dichotomy between the large majority who believe in conspiracy and the vigorous defense of lone assassin theory from the main street media. In 1964 Earl Warren told us that Johnson used the threat of World War III in order to bully a lot of people including Warren into accepting the lone assassin alternative. "In my book "Deep Politcs I talk about the phase one `Oswald is a trained KGB assassin' story. Now I don't believe that's true but I do believe that evidence to support that crazy theory had already been planted in intelligence files and that a number of people knew this including the conspirators. And so you got an appearance which is both false and also extremely dangerous, extremely pernicous. And then you have the phase two theory which is equally false `Oswald is the lone assassin', but it is not as pernicious, it is not as dangerous. And that explains what people like Warren were talking about, and Johnson himself were talking about when they were said we must avoid a third world war in which I think Johnson used the figure 39 million casualties. That explains 1964 but it doesn't work for Gerald Posner.

"Here I am getting more speculative, I mean there is real support for what I said about 1964, so why this in 1994? I think because an entire generation of leaders have invested their credibility in the lone assassin hypotheses, starting with Dan Rather. How easy it is for Dan Rather to say, "you know when I saw the Zapruder film in 1964 and I said you can see the President's head being jerked violently forward, I was lying.' Is he likely to do that I don't think so. Is the New York Times likely to say, "Well we convicted Oswald in our headlines because the White House asked us to.' Are they likely to fess up and do that? I don't think so. That's why I think what we are doing here is so important. Well, with the CIA, we know we have the documents, when the first critical books against the Warren Commission began to come out the CIA was everywhere with what they themselves call a propaganda effort to neutralize these books. The CIA invested its so called objectivity in a campaign to stop the people who were criticizing the Warren Commission. So, this first position analysis became what you might call the creed. In Britain they have the 39 articles to the church of England, there was a time when you had to swear you believe them in order to be able to go to Oxford or Cambridge. No one actually believed them but you had to swear that you believed them. And I think that the Oswald as lone assassin is the American equivalent of the 39 articles. No one believes it but there are a lot of people who have to swear they believe it. And that is a hypothesis. I don't have any documents for that one. But it seems to me that it follows entirely logically from the what happened in 1964 to where I have a really third position analysis, you know, I'm glad that if we were going to be treated to lies about the case I would much rather have Earl Warren's lies that Julian .G. Sourwine's or Thomas Dodd's. I think that is just the blunt reality of it.

Prof. Scott was then asked what would it take to convince William Buckley and Noam Chomsky that there was a conspiracy. I said, "A sharp blow to the head," which got a lot of laughs. Professor Scott replied, "Here I take refuge as I do in my book from what Thomas Coon says about paradigm shifts, that if somebody all his life believed something passionately and you come up with a new theory and your theory prevails it doesn't prevail because you convert the leading exponents of the old paradigm it prevails because you persuade a new generation of people and slowly but surely the old generation dies off.

"I have tried very, very hard to move Noam Chomsky a couple of millimeters on the subject of Kennedy and Vietnam and the result of my trying to bring him in my direction is he goes and writes a book in the opposite direction. So I don't think you will ever really convert Noam Chomsky."

Peter was asked in the American University had any bearing on the assassination. He said he could never link the two but he thinks it is worth studying the Kennedy initiatives towards Russia at the time. The speech was a question on the Cold War. Now Nixon signed an arms limitation treaty, the SALT treaty in Moscow in May of 1972, and in June of `72 a few burglars break into the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate and a few years later Nixon is forced to resign, clearing the way for President Reagan and the last chapter of the Cold War. Kennedy questioned the Cold War.

Monti Evans asked Peter about the role Issac Irving Davidson may have played in the assassination. Davidson was a Washington lobbyist. Peter told the HSCA to look at him. Peter was interested in him because, "Senator Fulbright in the fall of 1963 thought it was time to look at foreign lobbyists spending foreign money and the kind of influence they were peddling in Washington and in the name of American nationalism fostering a lot of positions and policies which did not represent American interests but those of the foreign governments who were secretly paying them to do this and one of the people who was summoned by Senator Fulbright, who worked quite closely with the White House and with the Justice Department, that is to say Bobby Kennedy, in these things, Senator Fulbright looked into what was left of the China lobby, and he learned some amazing things and he looked into a firm called Salvage and Lee (sic?) which had a number of ex-CIA agents and it turned out quite a lot of Portugese money was being fed to racist movements in the Southern states because Portugal had a vested interest in preventing America from desegregating because Portugal was running the most segregated empire in existence so they had a natural desire to strengthen the voice of racists in Washington, and the third man they looked at very extensively was I. Irving Davidson. He was called to these hearings. And because his activities were so complex, I won't try to give a list of all the governments he represented but it interested me that he represented the government of Nicaragua

and that he spent a lot of Samoza's money paying for journalists at the two party conventions in 1960. And I can name names here. A journalist, a name familiar to everyone who studies this case, had his hotel bill paid for for one of the two conventions, the one in Los Angeles, the Democratic one, by I. Irving Davidson, which is to say by Samoza. And the reason why I am not naming the journalist is because I don't know if the journalist knew it was Samoza's money. But I know that the Kennedy's were worried about this and they should be. There are at least, I tried to make a list coming here on the plane, because it is a very important topic, at least a dozen foreign governments that have thrown significant amounts of money around Washington since World War II and because its illegal money it isn't reported and is even more influential than legal money which is reported.

"Some of you may know the example of `Motorgate', South African money, they bought a whole bunch of newspapers in this country, we are talking MONEY in order to subsidize that right-wing kind of opinion which said, `We should not be aligning ourselves with Black African we should be aligning ourselves with White African.' I could go on and on. This is a very important theme and I will just try to bring it back to what we are talking about, first, second and third position analysis.

I think that the fundamental fiction that is taught in universities in political science courses, and I know because I taught political science courses, I taught these fictions myself, the idea that you start with a sovereign state, and that is where all this structuralism comes from. You have a state apparatus, well, listen, if you go to Washington, there isn't a structure, there isn't an apparatus, there are hundreds of competing cabals. And in the course of the last forty years some of them have been quite extensively subsidized by money from outside of this country. If this is the center of power for the world, and not just America, then every country that has a stake in the future of the world has a stake in influencing opinion in Washington. And it is interesting that we were just beginning to look at this extremely important phenomenon of which I. Irving Davidson is a very key example and then BANG!, the President is shot and they terminate the hearings. And there were a lot of other hearings terminated. The hearings into the the TFX scandal, Senator McClelland on Wednesday November 20, says, `We will adjourn and meet in this room at the same time a week from today.', that would have been November 27, 1963. Those of you who read my research may know that that Committee reconvened in January, 1969. It was the TFX scandal which directly impacted Ft. Worth, the Convair factory where Max Clark was; with a very low CIA 201 number; was the director of security, and the first person, perhaps, that Oswald looked up when he came to Ft. Worth.

"The Bobby Baker hearings couldn't possibly have be called off. That would have been too obvious. Because Bobby Baker was much too close to Lyndon Johnson. But they were defanged. The things that were going to happen in the Bobby Baker hearings. The link up through Fred Korth between the Bobby Baker scandal and the TFX scandal was never brought to bear although someone has written a biography of Johnson saying that it came up in executive session on the morning of Friday November 22, it never came up.

"A lot of Congressional inquiry into the root corruption in Washington was terminated, on, as a result, well, you can't prove it but chronologically terminated at the time of the assassination.

Ian Griggs pointed out that he knew of only two countries that did not send their proper respects to America on the death of President Kennedy, one was Red China and the other was Portugal and until five minutes ago he never knew why.

Someone from the floor said North Vietnam as well. I thought there were a number of Communist countries that did not send their proper respects.

Someone from the floor offered that in Giancanna's book "Double Cross" Richard Cain is named as one of the shooters. Peter pointed out that the book came out long after Richard Cain was dead so he couldn't sue for libel. Peter feels the authors "cripped" from one of his books which is why he didn't buy it at first. Peter does not think that Richard Cain was a shooter and that the book "Double Cross" could help to explain the periphery of the case but not the center.

Peter spoke of a very senior DEA informant that said that the same people who killed Jimmy Hoffa were the ones who killed John F. Kennedy. Sam Giancana's daughter said roughly the same thing. Peter thinks that the more we explore the convergence the more we will see not a CIA-Mexico connection but a Mexico City-Chicago connection. Richard Cain was certainly a top level informant for the FBI on Chicago. Someone from the floor said he was also a hitman which Peter agreed to. Peter explained that the man Cain reported to was the Chicago FBI man, William Rommer (sic?) who told Gerald Posner that Ruby had nothing to do with the mob.

"Richard Cain and William Rommer were extremely close, and I am not suggesting that William Rommer was mob corrupted, in the sense that he was on the take or anything, he got a lot of information about the mob from Richard Cain and the price he paid to get the information was to protect Richard Cain's people. You cannot deduce from that that Ruby was one of those people but you can see the trouble that you get into. This is what I call "Deep Politics", you see?"

Peter talked of how the case gets corrupted with an anecdote from the HSCA days. Peter was invited to a critics conference in 1977 and Peter wanted the HSCA to investigate Frank Sturgis and everything Sturgis was ever involved in, particularly where he was and what he was doing in the fall of `63. Well, Blakey never got to hear it because on the second day of this conference he was called out on an emergency because someone came forward with a hot lead about Frank Sturgis driving to Dallas in a car and meeting Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby. Peter didn't want to get sued so he didn't name this person but he did say it was a person who claimed to be very angry with Frank Sturgis but was through most of this person's life very close to Frank Sturgis. That is how this case is run.

The last question from the audience referred to he fact that after all this time we still don't know what really happened and if the cause was to continue the Cold War and have Vietnam by getting rid of Kennedy didn't they win?

Peter responded that these are questions he asks himself. Yes, they did get another 30 years of the Cold War, they got Vietnam.

Peter said that for whether we are winning or losing he feels that he is on the right side of the people, with this conference, with this weekend and that that is becoming increasingly true. He did not feel that that was the case in the beginning. Peter feels that he is nourished by an exchange with Jerry Rose and other people in the room. He said he doesn't know and cannot promise that we will ever know who the killers were. He does think that we will understand the case better even if that understanding remains a partial one. Peter said he felt comfortable in that room in Fredonia and inspired by those people of the past who also questioned their government. Peter said we are in the tradition of Socrates, "A cause that is delayed a generation, or two, or three, or four, you know I may frightening some people away from this by saying this but in this sort of thing, if you have the patience, and you must have the patience, then your experience will be that what you are doing is worthwhile and people come, and I an very moved, somebody in this room said they came from Cincinnati to hear me, I don't get that kind of compliment from my colleagues in the English Department, (laughter), they wouldn't cross the corridor to listen to me read one of my poems, and so I have met a whole new kind of friend, and it is so American, every walk of life, amazing people, people who sleep in their cars at night so they can do research, and do research, and tell me things that I would not have been able to hear from anyone else."

George Michael closed the presentation quoting a philosopher "As the area of our knowledge increases so we become more free", and he didn't know anyone better to attribute that to than Peter Dale Scott.

On the last day there was a presentation panel consisting of Ian Griggs, Daryll Weatherly, and Milicent Cranor. The theme was manipulated evidence

The first presenter was Daryll Weatherly who talked about the Zapruder film as a propaganda weapon. He stated that manipulative evidence can mean different things, evidence that is the product of manipulation in order to fool people, evidence that is used in a manipulative way. He said the whole point of manipulating evidence is to manipulate people.

Daryll gave a brief history of the film, it was bought by TIME Inc. the owner's of LIFE magazine. TIME Inc. owned it for 12 or 13 years then sold it back to Mr. Abraham Zapruder's heirs. Daryll said, quite correctly, that beneath that is a very tangled story, especially in exactly how TIME Inc. acquired the film and what happened to the film immediately after the assassination. There is an article by Phillip Melanson called "Hidden Exposure" in the The Third Decade, also Richard Trask in his book "Pictures of the Pain" gives some mention of the Zapruder's history.

TIME Inc. was very possessive of the Zapruder film. Daryll mentioned Josiah Thompson's book "Six Second's in Dallas" and the ensuing lawsuit that came from that. A lawsuit that TIME Inc. lost. In his paper published by Dr. Rose Daryll wrote, "It would appear that TIME Inc., allowed the production of the charcoal drawings so that Thompson's book could visually convey the idea of the film's importance without the use of the frames themselves. Time's lawsuit could equally be seen as an attempt to increase the film's appeal by giving it the status of "forbidden evidence".

"At the same time that LIFE was working with Thompson it was also working with a lesser known researcher, B.K. Jones of the UCLA physics department. Jones was also allowed to extensively study slide reproductions of Zapruder film frames. He was allowed to make extensive measurements of people's movements based on those slides. And then as with Thompson, at a critical point in the research, LIFE magazine cut off all cooperation and as a result Jones work is little known."

A moment of explanation is needed here. It is precisely because Josiah Thompson was doing his research that the defenders got B.K. Jones the access needed to the Zapruder film. He was to be used and is used to refute any pro-conspiracy claims. Jones whole purpose was to explain away the headsnap as a "neurological reaction". At the Los Angeles hearing of the ARRB (which should give you a time frame as to when I writing this part of my Fredonia review) Leibeler brought this forth and donated the manuscript to the ARRB. David Lifton, bless him, told the ARRB that we already had this from the Rockefeller Commission. Daryll said he was only aware of it as this was a HSCA document, once again proving we, the research community, already have this.

Daryll referenced that these two researchers came to diametrically opposite conclusions but without seeing why. He did reference that Thompson correctly identified when Governor Connally is hit in the chest He does point out the obvious that neither one was allowed to visually document their beliefs with actual Zapruder film frames.

During the time of these events bootleg copies of the Zapruder film began to appear. TIME Inc., made little effort to stop it. I would suggest it was beyond their ability to control at this point. Daryll describes the bootleg industry as a tree with two branches. Many botleg copies came from Garrison's acquisition of the film which led to sequential degredation of the film the further one got from the original. Daryll called the second branch of the bootleg tree was from the high quality 35mm copy.

He believes that this copy came from either government or TIME Inc., someone in authority to someone, who he thinks of as a "deep throat" type character. However, this "deep throat" character went to the public. These people began to rise in the research community and were eclipsed in their work by the high quality of this different copy of the Zapruder film.

In Daryll's papers he speculates that Moses Weitzman did not take it upon himself to distribute the film by giving it to his own employee who would surely be connected to him and rather was authorized to do what he is said to have done.

Daryll's paper was more interesting than his presentation. In his paper he mentions that LHM, the company that represents the Zapruder film and the Zapruder heirs has the following provision when renting slides,

"Borrower shall be prohibited from using or authorizing the use of the name of TIME Inc., or any trademark of TIME, Inc., in the work or in the promotional or advertising material...including but not limited to, any reference in said material that the Zapruder film was ever owned by TIME Inc., or that TIME Inc., ever published any frames from the Zapruder film in any publication of TIME Inc. It is further agreed that TIME Inc., may undertake such proceedings as TIME Inc., may desire, legal or equitable, or both to prevent references which are prohibited by this paragraph..."

Daryll took this to mean that the Zapruder film never really left TIME Inc.'s control.

Next was Milicent Cranor. Milicent spoke on the possibility that Ruby shot Oswald more than once. She showed a variety of films from different sources. She claims that there are versions where you hear more than one shot. The CBS show "Top Cops" fraudulently added three shots onto the film sequence. This was pointed out by me at a researcher conference at Albany Law School where Mark Zaid hosted Walt Brown, George Michael Evica and Dick Russell. I taped two shows the week of or the week prior to the conference where CBS showed the shooting of Oswald highlighting Dallas Police officer McDonald who Oswald punched when arrested in the Texas theatre. The poor, fat officer's face is shown in the Warren Commission volumes. NBC on a show "Eyewitness Video" showed NBC's archival live footage. Much of which was not previously aired.

Milicent's paper does not detail where the film sources she used came from. One was from a Nostradomous documentary which had a Orson Wells' narration.

Pressed by the audience Milicent agreed that Ruby shot only once but stressed that someone purposefully added fake additional shots to later versions and to live versions of the shooting.

Ian Griggs spoke about "The Paper Bag That Never Was". This is the infamous photograph CE 1302. The official history has Lee Harvey Oswald concealing his rifle in this bag, entering his place of work, the Texas School Book Depository Building, and concealing himself behind a stack of boxes, reassembling his rifle and assassinating President Kennedy as he drove past in his open limousine. The big problem with CE 1302 is it does not actually show the paper bag at all. It gives you a dotted line where this paper bag allegedly was. Normally, evidence in a criminal investigation, especially murder, and one would hope the murder of the President of the United States, would be photographed where it was discovered. Yet, this is not the case for a paper bag. Could it be that this bag was never there?

Ian pointed out that without this bag, Lee can't get the rifle in the building and the whole case falls apart. Ian to his amazement found no testimony in the Warren Commission volumes by anyone saying they discovered the bag. The Report states on p. 135, "At the time the bag was found, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police wrote on it, `Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun.'" As Ian said that's a hell of a statement. In 17 words Day has re-enacted the crime for you. Not stated is when the bag was found or by whom.

Lt. Day in his Warren Commission testimony is shown a photograph of the interior of the Depository building and he is asked if that photograph was taken before or after anything had been removed. And he said simply, "the sack had been removed."

Ian quoted from p. 79 of the Warren report, "Around 1 p.m. Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney noticed a pile of cartons in front of the window in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. Searching that area he found at approximately 1:12 p.m. three empty cartridge cases on the floor near the window. When he was notified of Mooney's discovery, Capt. J. W. Fritz, chief of the homicide bureau of the Dallas Police Department issued instructions that nothing be moved or touched until technicians from the police crime laboratory could take photographs and check for fingerprints. Mooney stood guard to see that nothing was disturbed. A few minutes later, Lt. J. C. Day of the Dallas Police Department arrived and took photographs of the cartridge cases before anything had been moved."

Where is the mention of the paper bag? Why isn't it photographed? Did someone move it? Or was it never there?

There is some confusion as there is supposed to be a paper bag that contained the rifle and another paper bag that contained an employee's lunch, that being fried chicken. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Roger Dean Craig was questioned by David Belin. Craig testified to seeing, "the kind of paper bag that you carry your lunch in" but, despite a leading question from Belin, no long sack. Sgt. Gerald Hill likewise only saw the lunch bag. Detective John B. Hicks, a member of Lt. Day's Crime Scene Search Section, never saw a paper bag in the items taken from the depository. Detective Richard M Sims of the Homicide and Robbery bureau told Warren Commission counselor Ball that Det. Studebaker actually took the photographs. Sims testified to "going back and forth from the wrapper to the hulls" implying, as Sylvia Meagher noted, that there was a distance between them of, perhaps, several feet!

Sims mentioned two other detectives, Marvin Johnson and L.D. Montgomery. It is from Johnson's testimony that the official legend of the paper sag comes from. "We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag." Johnson continued, "... my partner picked it up and we unfolded it and it appeared to be about the same shape as a rifle case would be. In other words, we made the remark that that is what he probably brought it in. That is why, the reason we saved it." This is interesting for it will later be claimed that Oswald's fingerprints were found on the bag.

What did Montgomery say? Montgomery became confused as to the two sacks, and said neither he nor Johnson actually picked it up but maybe Studebaker did. "We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints." But they didn't leave it right there so they could photograph it.

Ian noticed an interesting photograph in "Pictures of the Pain" p. 552 showing Dets. Johnson and Montgomery removing the paper bag and a Dr. Pepper pop bottle from the book depository. One of them is holding the paper bag vertically via something inside the bag.

Detective Robert Lee Studebaker was a member of the Auto Theft Bureau, part of the Criminal Investigation Division. This man had by his own admission, "about two months" work in police photography. He went to work for the crime lab on October 1, 1963. He was just a trainee in the Crime Scene Search Section. Ian added, "This is a man who was so good with a camera he managed to get his own knees in one of the photographs of the alleged murder weapon." It is still unknown which one of them, Studebaker, or Day, took which photograph but one thing is certain neither took a photograph of the bag. This is odd as Studebaker claims to have seen it. It was Studebaker who drew the dotted line in a photograph of the 6th floor southeast corner window for an unknown FBI man to approximate the location of the paper bag.

There are only two people who claim to have seen this paper bag in Lee Oswald's possession, Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle. Now the official story is that Buell drove Lee, after work, to Irving on Thursday. On Friday Lee had a long paper bag with him, according to Frazier. When Buell asked Lee what it was Lee allegedly said "curtain rods". Frazier is the only one who allegedly heard Oswald say "curtain rods". The words "curtain rods" appear in other people's testimony but they refer back to Frazier.

Ian noticed that Frazier had to travel to Washington to give his testimony. Most of the Dallas based people were deposed in Dallas. Frazier was deposed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, two members of the Commission,Senator John Sherman and Rep. Ford, General Counsel Rankin, five assistant counsels, Ball, Belin, Jenner, Leibeler and Redlich, and two observers, Charles Murray and Lewis E. Powell. Ian referred to the preamble of Frazier's testimony given by Mr. Ball wherein in front of Frazier are two paper bags, one a replica, CE 364, and the replica contained a manlicher-carcano rifle, and the other, CE 142, the alleged original paper bag. Ian remarked, "that despite these stage props Frazier could not remember his lines." The best example of this is when Frazier refers to the package as being two feet long and not longer. The minimum length the bag had to be to hold the disassembled rifle was 34.8 inches. That is nearly 50% longer than Frazier's recollection of the bag's length.

Frazier testified that Oswald did not take his lunch in with him that day but did carry the curtain rod package cupped in his right hand, parallel to his body with the other end under his armpit. A two foot long package carried in this manner is no problem, a package the size necessary to conceal the disassembled rifle is.

Mr. Jack Edwin Dougherty, a fellow TSBD employee saw Oswald arrive at work. He testified to the Commission that he did not see Oswald carry anything in. Dougherty after being asked repeatedly about whether Oswald carried anything into the building, and saying repeatedly no, said another employee William Shelly may have seen this.

Shelly testified that Oswald was already at work when he got there so he did not see Oswald arrive. Actually, no employee saw Oswald arrive carrying the alleged rifle concealing bag, except Frazier.

Ian demonstrated that when you disassemble the rifle you only save about 6 inches if you are trying to conceal it in this "curtain rod" paper bag. It is not really worth it. Ian also demonstrated that disassembled the wood of the rifle would get scratched rather badly and the bag would most likely get ripped at some point. Ian has concluded that the rifle was never transported in a disassembled state in the manner described.

FBI Special Agent James C. Cadigan examined the bag and concluded that the paper and the tape Q10 were found to have the same observable physical characteristics as the known brown wrapping paper and tape K2. K2 was the replica. CE 364 was the replica, and Cadigan explained that the original was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment thus a replica was created on December 1, 1963 to show potential witnesses because of the damage to the original.

Another valuable TSBD employee was Troy Eugene West, the only full time mail wrapper in the building. He worked on the first floor and all the materials he needed were kept on a table for his use. He testified that the tape came through a special machine which automatically moistened the tape as it came through. There was only one way to obtain unmoistened tape and that was if the bag was made elsewhere. Cadigan's testimony revealed that the tape had markings particular to the machine at West's desk. West never saw Oswald around his table and was not aware of Oswald ever borrowing any wrapping paper. He said Oswald never helped him mail a package.

Ian had 10 conclusions,

1.) The bag was not photographed at the scene because it did not then exist.

2.) The bag was made up (in both senses) by law enforcement investigating agencies.

3.) It was given two separate exhibit numbers CE 142 and CE 626 to confuse the issue.

4.) A replica was added for additional confusion.

5.) The original bag contained no evidence of ever have carried a well oiled rifle.

6.) The disassembled rifle would have shown markings of being in a disassembled state.

7.) Lee Harvey Oswald did not create the paper bag.

8.) Lee Harvey Oswald did not carry a long paper bag from the Paine house to the Frazier/Randle house, place it in Frazier's car and carry it from the parking lot to the book depository.

9.) Lee Oswald did not utter the words curtain rods.

10.) Given the above, Lee Oswald did not fire a rifle on November 22, 1963.

Vince Palamara sent in a paper and it is reproduced in the proceedings but unfortunately he did not speak.

The discussant was Tom De Vries. He was surprised that Ian did not mention the 18 inch paper bag found in the Irving Post Office dead letter section in December 1963 as mentioned in Sylvia Meagher's "Accessories after the Fact". pps 63-64. De Vries disagreed with Ian that Frazier did not hear Oswald say "curtain rods". De Vries wished that Ian spent some time discussing that Frazier was brought in and questioned, released, then brought back and given a lie detector test. De Vries thinks that Frazier is an incredibly honest guy who has a tough time telling a lie.

De Vries was confused by Daryll's paper as to who is using the Zapruder film as a propaganda weapon, the government or the research community. De Vries wanted more specific information than "show over substance" and general phrases Daryll used. Tom had to ask are we better off without the Zapruder film, hell no, we're much better off with it. Did Daryll really mean to suggest that if you got a high quality 35mm copy of the Zapruder film you were a disinformation specialist for the government?

Last to speak was John Armstrong.

"For years researchers have speculated that the FBI played a part in covering up certain areas of the Kennedy assassination. The existence of this (he showed a slide) November 17th memo sent to FBI field offices warning of an attempted Presidential assassination was denied by Hoover. Agent Hosty's contacts with Oswald prior to the assassination were first denied and later played down. It seemed like the more the FBI tried to deny their involvement and knowledge of Oswald the more examples of their involvement surfaced. This fueled speculations of a coverup but specific examples were difficult to prove. Recently, documents and witnesses have been located that pinpoint a direct and intentional coverup. They show how some of Oswald's possessions were altered and others disappeared while in custody of the FBI.

"Shortly after Oswald's arrest on Friday afternoon, Dallas Police Captain Fritz sent detectives to Ruth Paine's house and 1026 North Beckley to conduct searches.

"Early Saturday morning two FBI agents were sent to W.C. Stripling Junior High in Ft. Worth to pick up Oswald's school attendance records. Why the urgency to pick up junior high school records? Well, we learned that yesterday, because Oswald attended Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans. He was never supposed to have attended Junior High in Ft. Worth.

"On Saturday at 12:35 p.m. Capt Fritz showed Oswald an 8 x 10 photograph of himself holding a rifle. His comment to Capt. Fritz was, `one has taken my picture and that is my face and put a different body on it. That is a picture someone else has made. I never saw that picture in my life.' This backyard photograph of Oswald was not officially found by the Dallas Police until 2 hours later at Ruth Paine's house. And they found a 3 inch by 3 inch snapshot not an 8 x 10 enlargement. The source of that 8 x 10 photo and its appearance at Police headquarters have never been explained. A clue to the photo's origin may be found with Mr and Mrs. Hester, owners of the National Photo Labs in Dallas. They processed the backyard photos the evening before the assassination, the day before Fritz showed the 8 x 10 photo to Oswald. Mr and Mrs. Hester remembered making those prints from a transparency furnished by the FBI.

"Later that Saturday afternoon the Police again searched the Paine residence. among the items found was a Minox camera - - duly noted on the Police inventory sheet. A number of the items found at the Paine's house were later photographed on the floor of the Dallas Police Department. One of those items was a Minox camera. Four days later the Minox was listed as one of 9 items comprising inventory item #375 of the FBI and Dallas Police inventory list.

"From these searches, three searches, the police obtained and photographed 451 items of evidence belonging to Oswald. They used five rolls of film and a Recordak Camera. rusty Livingstone said that camera had the best lens he had ever seen.

"On November 26, 1963 J. Edgar Hoover had a talk with Nicholas Katzenbach, who had been talking to the White House relative to the report the FBI was to render in the Oswald case. This memo states, `The report is to settle the dust, in so far as Oswald and his activities are concerned, both from the standpoint that he is the man who assassinated the President, and relative to Oswald himself and his activities and background.' the powers in Washington had decided Oswald was the lone assassin.

"FBI officials were working on plans to deal with the assassination. Mr. Belmont advised Mr. Sullivan that `Division 6 will handle the portion of the report dealing with the assassination attempt and the evidence gathered to show that Oswald is responsible. This means that we will have to carefully check the evidence and Oswald's possessions.' They clearly understood the importance that Oswald's possessions would have in their investigation.

"On November 26, the FBI took over the investigation. Agent Warren DeBrueys picked up the 451 items of evidence and five rolls of undeveloped film from the Dallas Police. The Dallas Police requested the FBI develop their film and return 3 photographs of each item. DeBrueys took the film and physical evidence to Washington the following day.

"When the evidence reached Washington, FBI headquarters, they realized they had a problem. Some of his possessions could not be made public--for example, what is a poor common laborer doing with an expensive Minox spy camera?

"This is not the type of camera normally owned by a poor laborer like Oswald. It is an expensive camera today and it was an expensive camera in 1963.

"Other items were found that did not fit their lone assassin theory. Some of these items needed to be altered or changed. But, there was a problem. The Dallas police, who had photographed these items wanted their photos developed and returned. The Secret Service was also asking for copies of the photos.

"FBI Agent James Bookout acknowledged the Dallas police request to "process and make 3 prints of each exposure and return all to Dallas Office" in this memo.

(John showed a slide.)

"But the FBI realized they could not return photos of Oswald's possessions to Dallas if some of those possessions needed to be altered or changed. A solution was needed.

"A conversation took place on the afternoon of November 29, between Mr. Brannigan, from the FBI headquarters in Washington and Gordon Shanklin, head of the Dallas FBI office. Brannigan, "pointed out that the original material, the 451 items of evidence, had been re-photographed here at the Bureau in Washington, D.C. He inquired as to whether the Dallas office still desired to have the Bureau expose the Dallas police film according to their request. Shanklin stated that the Dallas police still needed their three copies of the photographs of Oswald's possessions although `it did not matter whether these photographs were made from the exposed film submitted by Dallas or the photographs were made at the seat of government.'

"Shanklin's comment is worth re-reading `it did not matter whether these photographs were made from the exposed film submitted by Dallas or the photographs were made at the seat of government.' This statement was the solution. They didn't need to send the original Dallas Police photographs back to Dallas. Questionable items they did not want the public to see could be replaced with acceptable substitutes. They could re-photograph the substituted items and then return the new photographs to the Dallas police. who would know the difference?

"But searching through, altering and re-photographing Oswald's possessions would take a lot of time and the Dallas police wanted their photographs as soon as possible.

"So on December 2, the FBI returned some film to Dallas. The Dallas police had photographed 451 items using 5 rolls of film but the FBI returned only 2 rolls that contained photographs of 241 items--photographs of 210 items were missing.

" "Which items were missing? Well, all you need to do is compare the original inventory sheet, 451 items of evidence, that is CE 2113, the joint Dallas Police/FBI inventory sheet of November 26, with these. These were the two rolls of film returned to the Dallas police. You can get copies of them from the Dallas police archives, they're about $30 dollars. The first roll of film begins with 10 feet of blank film followed by photographs of items #1 thru # 163. 10 photographs are missing, and they are interspersed in the film. At the end of this reel someone has spliced on CLEAR film. The clear film is different than the rest of the roll. This roll is 60 feet long, yet contains only 45 feet of photographs. It ends with item # 163, out of 451.

"Missing entirely are photographs # 164-360.

"The second roll of film begins with 7 feet of blank film and it is followed by photographs of items # 361-451. There is only three photographs missing from this roll. This reel is 35 feet long, yet contains only 16 feet of photographs. At the end of the reel there is 12 feet of blank film. It ends with item # 451.

"Do you see what has happened here? The FBI received 5 rolls of film from the Dallas Police. They found photographs of items they did not want the Dallas Police or the public to see. So they cut out the photographs they wanted to hide. They spliced the remaining film together into 2 rolls, copied those two rolls and returned them to the Dallas police.

"On December 2, 1963 Dallas Police Chief Curry was advised of the missing photographs. He immediately wrote Dallas FBI agent Shanklin this letter informing him that "items # 164 thru # 360 did not record". Now Curry did not know why they did not record he just knew he did not have his photographs. Curry requested the FBI "to photograph these missing items and forward them to the Dallas Police Department. Shanklin forwarded Curry's request to FBI headquarters in Washington.

"How did the FBI account for the missing photographs? They didn't. They tried to blame the Dallas police. This FBI memo states, `items # 164 through 360 were not photographically produced because of faulty technique'.

"On December 15, 1963, Shanklin made a 2nd request for the missing photographs. That afternoon Washington replied and said, `you will receive as complete a set of photographs as can be made by the Bureau.' But they did not send the missing photographs. They were still sorting through and dealing with Oswald's questionable possessions.

There were rumors a Minox camera had been found in Oswald's possessions. And FBI agent was dispatched immediately to Dallas Police headquarters. On several occasions, the Dallas police were instructed to change their property inventory form from a Minox camera to a Minox light meter. Dallas Police officer Hill first refused and wrote this memo for his file concerning this FBI coercion. The FBI was not deterred by the Dallas Police. They changed item # 375 from a Minox camera to a Minox light meter anyway. The Dallas Police photograph of item # 375

from a Minox camera was taken on November 25. It contained 9 items including the Minox camera. This photograph was returned to Dallas on December 2. Everything but the pedometer had disappeared. Now how do you suppose that happened? How could you take a photograph of 9 items and have one turn out clear and the other 8 unrecognizable? It is the only photograph in these two rolls that looks like that. The photograph had been tampered with--clearly while in custody of the FBI. They even made a new inventory list showing the Minox camera changed to a light meter.

"But they still had a problem. Inventory item # 377 specifically listed four rolls of Minox film. Where you have Minox film you should have a Minox camera. The FBI had to come up with a Minox camera. They found one. On January 31, 1964 they picked up a Minox camera from Ruth Paine. This is the camera.

"Since they had changed their inventory form from a Minox camera to a Minox light meter, they needed to identify the ownership of the light meter. In February, 1964, Ruth Paine identified a Minox light meter as belonging to either her or her husband Michael Paine. In March 1964, Michael Paine identified a 15 power telescope as belonging to him. Again, from item # 375. The Paines were shown a photograph of item # 375 and they identified those items from the photograph. Now, that's the photograph that the Dallas police were given for item #375. Obviously, the Paines didn't identify the light meter or the telescope from this photograph. There had to be another photograph. In other words, the FBI re-photographed those items contained in item # 375 and showed the Paines their new photograph in order for the Paines to identify those items

"They never did explain what happened to the Minox camera they picked up from the Dallas Police (cause now they have two of them)--the one photographed on the floor of the Dallas police Department with other possessions of Oswald.

"Another item they had to deal with was Oswald's W-2 form from the Pfisterer Dental Laboratories, item # 168. This is the first item missing from the Dallas Police film, the first single item. Palmer McBride had worked with Oswald at Pfisterers in 1957 and 1958. But at this time Oswald was supposed to be in the Marines in Japan. They could not explain how Oswald could be in Japan and New Orleans at the same time, so they did what they had to--they lied. They fabricated a story that Oswald worked at Pfisterers before he entered the Marines. And they created this 1956 W-2 form for the historical record. Fortunately, for us, someone screwed up. Prior to creating this fake 1956 form they asked the Internal Revenue Service to issue a new tax ID number. The number issued was 72-0444599. The number was issued by the IRS in January, 1964, and appears on the 1956 Pfisterer W-2 form.

"At the top is a letter from the IRS to the President of Pfisterer Dental Laboratories confirming that the employer identification number shown on this 1956 W-2 form was not issued by the IRS until January, 1964. This W-2 form is an obvious fake. for those interested, photographs of this document (the W-2 form) can be found in the Dallas Police Archives and the National Archives in College Park, Maryland.

"But this W-2 form was not the only one created in January 1964. There were two others. According to the Warren Report Oswald was also employed by Dolly Shoe and Tujague's prior to joining the Marines in October, 1956. Dolly Shoe was founded in January 1955 and discontinued business in October, 1957. At the bottom of this slide is Oswald's 1955 Dolly Shoe W-2 form. At the top is a letter from the IRS to former Dolly Shoe company owner, MR. Maury Goodman. According to the IRS letter the tax ID number appearing on the Dolly shoe form was issued in January, 1964--seven years after the company went out of business.

"The tax ID number appearing on the Tujague W-2 forms for 1955 and 1956 was also issued by the IRS in January, 1964. All three W-2 forms are for companies Oswald worked for prior to joining the Marines in October 1956. They are all fakes

all created in January 1964, while in the custody of the FBI. After these tax forms were created, they were photographed by the FBI, included among the missing 210 photographs, and returned to Dallas in February, 1964.

"Why would anyone want to create fake W-2 forms for three different companies? The answer is simple. To create a false background for Lee Oswald. The FBI, through it's manipulation of Oswald's possessions helped coverup the real story of Oswald's life. What really happened in Oswald's early life is another story altogether.

"By the end of January 1964 the FBI had completed it's manipulation of Oswald's possessions. Some items had been altered, some changed, some even disappeared. On January 31, 1964 FBI director Hoover sent this memo to Shanklin in Dallas. `The Bureau has re-photographed all of the material in possession of the bureau and will send a complete set of these photographs to you by separate mail.'

"On February 4, 1964 Shanklin informed Hoover that `to date the set of photographs has not been received.' Shortly thereafter Shanklin received the photographs he had been requesting for the pst two months. Along with the photographs Hoover sent a newly revised inventory list. Hoover writes, `the inventory list submitted by your office November 26, 1963 has been superseded by the list furnished to your office by the FBI laboratory dated February 1, 1964. The November 26, 1963 list submitted by your office is incomplete and is not completely accurate.

"A new inventory list was needed in order to coverup the tampering done to Oswald's possessions. Hoover was attempting to blame the Dallas police and his own agents in order to justify the need for his new inventory list. In reality, employees of the FBI were engaged in a criminal conspiracy that involved tampering and withholding of evidence as well as obstruction of justice. By rephotographing altered or manufactured evidence and providing a new inventory list they were `building a case against the lone assassin' and creating a false background for Lee Oswald.

"In mid February a set of the missing photographs requested by Dallas Police Chief Curry on December 2nd, 1963 arrived at Dallas Police headquarters. However, the Dallas Police had no idea the photographs they received were not of Oswald's original possessions.

"The Warren Commission also received a set of photos from the FBI. This FBI memo states, `...8 x 10 enlargements have been prepared. An Identical set was furnished to the President's commission and to the Dallas office. This list and the photographs are for the completion of the bureau file in this case'. The Warren Commission had received a set of re-photographed items.

"The manipulation of Oswald's possessions barely escaped the attention of the Warren Commission. On March 29, 1964 FBI Section Chief Brannigan spoke with Shanklin about the contents of a report filed by Robert Gemberling. He noticed that pages 45 and 46 contained a listing of evidentiary materials and that items 232 through 248 were marked deleted. Mr. Belmont asked `Why were they deleted?' He was concerned that the Warren Commission would believe that the FBI was holding something back from the Commission. He writes in this memo, `The Bureau does not desire that the Commission ask any questions about this and Dallas should either furnish amended pages 45 and 46 and re-number the exhibits so that all exhibits are accounted for, or else we should explain why some of the exhibits are missing. They re-numbered the exhibits and explained nothing.

"Six months later on August 7, 1964 a few weeks before the Warren Report was issued, this internal FBI memo summarized the FBI's position as to photographs of Oswald's possessions. It states `these photos and list of items has been superseded by photos and inventory list furnished by Bureau February 1, 1964, covering items 1 through 455.' These were given to the Warren Commission and eventually the National Archives, Dallas Police, Secret Service and researchers.

"Today only those photographs continued in these two rolls of film that were returned to the Dallas Police on December 2 can be considered original photographs. Copies of these rolls are available for inspection and purchase at the Dallas City Archives.

"What about the remaining items, the items re-photographed by the FBI. How do we know which of these are not the original photographs of Oswald's possessions? Unfortunately, until each of these items are closely scrutinized, we don't. Keep in mind items # 164 through # 360, if you run into photographs of those possessions, question them. The few items I have looked at closely have been altered.

"Let me summarize what happened to Oswald's possessions.

"451 items were inventoried by FBI Agents and Dallas police officers on November 26, now Warren commission exhibit # 2113. These possessions and 5 rolls of film were taken to Washington by Warren DeBrueys. Original photographs of 241 items were returned to Dallas within a week. The original film of the remaining 210 items, taken by the Dallas police disappeared after being turned over to the FBI. They blamed the Dallas police for the blank film saying they, the Dallas Police, used `faulty technique' when photographing those items. During December and January they altered and changed some of Oswald's possessions. We know about the disappearance and alteration of the identity of the Minox camera. We know about the creation of 3 separate 1955 and 1956 W-2 forms. We know they re-photographed all of Oswald's possessions at FBI headquarters and made up a new inventory list. We know Hoover justified the new inventory list by blaming his Agent in Charge of the Dallas FBI office. He said Shanklin had sent him an inaccurate and incomplete list of Oswald's possessions. We know the FBI took 2 and 1/2 months to return the missing photographs to the Dallas Police.

"What we don't know is what happened to the original 5 rolls of film of Oswald's possessions. The National Archives advises, `we were unable to locate any documents that describe what happened to the film.' If this film had survived it would be easy to compare the Dallas Police film with the FBI film and see the changes. However, this Dallas Police film is probably gone forever.

"This manipulation of evidence cannot be understated. Had Oswald's possessions been presented to the public in their original, unaltered condition they would have raised a lot of questions. So many questions that the attention and curiosity of the public would have been focused on Lee Oswald. But in 1964 neither the FBI nor the Warren Commission wanted the public to focus their attention on Oswald. The FBI found no conspiracy. They investigated and the Warren Commission reported what is now the official version of Oswald's life. Priscilla Johnson wrote a book about Lee Oswald. Robert Oswald, Marguerite Oswald, Gerald Ford and others wrote books about Lee Oswald. These dubious people helped create and promote the now familiar image of Lee Oswald, that of a person from a broken home, a misunderstood defector, a promoter of Communism, the lone assassin of the President. So much was written about Oswald by so many people that the stage was set for the critics and researchers to investigate everything but Lee Harvey Oswald. In reality the investigation should have been focused on Oswald, his family, and his background from the beginning. This was true in 1963 and it is just as true today.

"What can be done at this late date? Lee and Marguerite's federal income tax returns should be released. All files relating to Marguerite Oswald should be released. The FBI should explain what happened to the 5 rolls of Dallas Police film.

They should explain how 1956 W-2 forms could have IRS tax ID numbers issued in January 1964, at the precise time when those forms were in the custody of the FBI. The FBI should explain what happened to Oswald's Stripling Junior High School records, given to them the day after the assassination. they should explain how they were able to take possession of a Minox camera and have it evolve into a light meter. These items of evidence were deliberately manipulated in order to hide the true background of Lee Oswald. Had the original items and documents been made public they would have allowed us to delve into and learn the real story of Lee Oswald. The story that has been kept from us for over 30 years. Understand Lee Harvey Oswald and you will begin to understand the forces behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

Return to Main Page

* * *