Oswald in the Doorway: An Opinion Survey

[richard...@comcast.net]

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/jfk-20-questions-on-oswald-in-the-doorway-it-is-not-a-test-its-an-opinion-survey/

Is there anyone here who will take this survey and answer YES or NO to 20
questions? Let's see what you really think.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Great comments by Zach there, Richard. Thank you for posting it, hadn't
read that.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Pretty amusing to see you are a Z film alterationist AND believe that the
backyard photos are fakes.

Shows about how worthwhile your book would be...

Astounded Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where SENIOR OIC member Mark Lane lied!

Stop the LIES! Oswald INSIDE!! Disband the OIC!!!

[Ralph Cinque]

Richard has been clamoring for people to answer his 20 questions, so I
just did.

oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/05/richard-charnins-20-questions-1.html

[bigdog]

Why would anyone take a survey of 20 questions with false pretenses?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

You write:

"Oswald told Will Fritz that he was OUT FRONT WITH BILL SHELLEY at 12:30."

Fritz's notes do not say that.

Fritz's notes list Oswald's movements in sentence frsgments. They reflect
that Oswald told Fritz he went down to the first floor to have his lunch.
They then relate on another line "out with Bill Shelley in front". Based
upon Fritz's report, this reflects that Oswald said he left the building
through the front door and saw Bill Shelley. It is only through a merging
of the two sentence fragments that one can believe otherwise.

Think of it this way. Suppose the notes in JFK's day planner reflect
"Lunch with mom" and that on the next line he writes "out on the terrace".
While this might appear to be a claim he'd had lunch with his mom on the
terrace, his actual diary from the day says he had lunch with his mom and
THEN went out on the terrace. So which should we believe? That he had
lunch with his mom and then went out on the terrace.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html

[donald willis]

Ah, so I'm not the only one he's "astounded" by....

[richard...@comcast.net]

On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 2:08:37 PM UTC-4, richard...@comcast.net wrote:

Answer the 20 questions. Or will avoid straight YES or No answers like Mr.
X? What are you afraid of?

[Ralph Cinque]

PJ, you are rationalizing. And you interpreting it according to YOUR
vision, not his. The notes are cryptic, and they are not in chronological
order. In fact, he drew an arrow with the designation "1st" and it's not
pointing to the thing on top.

"Out with Bill Shelley in front" could only mean DURING the assassination
and not after because SHELLEY WASN'T OUT THERE AFTER. Shelley left
immediately with Lovelady for the railroad tracks before Baker even
reached the entrance, which they saw from a distance. And they never
returned to the front. They went around to the back, and when they went
inside, they were preoccupied until it was time to go to the PD. There is
NO CHANCE that Shelley was out in front when Oswald departed for home.

It's 2015, and I shouldn't be having to explain this to anyone.

[Mark Florio]

My that's an adult survey. Was Oswald in the doorway? That would be a
big fat NO. He was high. Mark Florio

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

Fritz's notes list Oswald's movements in sentence fragments. They reflect

that Oswald told Fritz he went down to the first floor to have his lunch.
They then relate on another line "out with Bill Shelley in front". Based
upon Fritz's report, this reflects that Oswald said he left the building
through the front door and saw Bill Shelley. It is only through a merging
of the two sentence fragments that one can believe otherwise.

Think of it this way. Suppose the notes in JFK's day planner reflect
"Lunch with mom" and that on the next line he writes "out on the terrace".
While this might appear to be a claim he'd had lunch with his mom on the
terrace, his actual diary from the day says he had lunch with his mom and
THEN went out on the terrace. So which should we believe? That he had
lunch with his mom and then went out on the terrace.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's a good hypothetical example, Pat.

I agree. Thanks.

Another hypothetical example we could use might be this one (if Oswald had
confessed and Fritz was hurriedly writing down notes)....

FIRED SHOTS AT PRESIDENT...

SECOND FLOOR...

SAW POLICEMAN...

Could someone interpret the above choppy notes as an indication that
Oswald told Fritz he had fired the shots from the second floor? Could be.
But the fragmentary nature of Captain Fritz' notes makes it difficult to
piece them together into any kind of provable "narrative" form.

Many conspiracy theorists, however, seem to think they CAN piece together
the notes into rock-solid proof that Oswald told Fritz that he (Oswald)
was "out with Bill Shelley in front" at the exact time of the
assassination. But I don't think those notes prove any such thing.

But even if Oswald DID say to Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in
front" at 12:30, we can be pretty confident that such a statement would
have been just one of the many lies he told the police after his arrest.

So, IMO, the CTers are dead in the water on this topic any way you slice
it.

[Jason Burke]

No one is afraid of anything except the foolishness of the CT crowd.
After 51+ years y'all have nothing.
Because, Richard, there is, uh, nothing on your side.

[Jason Burke]

Uh, Ralph.
Perhaps "out with Bill Shelly in front" was the response to the question
"So, where were most people during the assassination."

Ever think of that, Ralph?

I think we all know your response to that, don't we, Ralph?

[richard...@comcast.net]

David, David, David..always some scheme or another.
JUST ANSWER THE 20 QUESTIONS! NO BLOVIATION!

[richard...@comcast.net]

RALPH, YOU TOOK THE LIBERTY OF REPHRASING THE QUESTIONS. I SPECIFICALLY
ASKED FOR YES OR NO ANSWERS FOR A REASON: TO REVEAL THE LOOPS IN COMMON
SENSE/LOGIC THAT DENIERS OF LHO IN THE DOORWAY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
YOU SHOULD HAVE JUST ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS AS INDICATED WITH A YES OR NO.
YOU CAN STILL DO IT. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANYONE HERE WILL TAKE THE
PLUNGE. I THINK I KNOW WHY. BUT MAYBE SOME LONE NUTTER WILL SURPRISE ME.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 6:29:13 PM UTC-7, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> PJ, you are rationalizing. And you interpreting it according to YOUR
> vision, not his.

His? Whose? Oswald's? Well, how do you know what Oswald said? Did you hold
a seance recently?

If by "his" you mean Fritz's, moreover, we're in the same bind. How do you
know what Fritz meant? The most reasonable way to decipher hieroglyphic
notes is to match them up with subsequent statements. Neither Fritz nor
anyone else to speak to Oswald after the shooting (including his wife,
mother, and brother) ever said anything to anybody about Oswald claiming
to have been outside during the shooting. So why "interpret" a
hieroglyphic statement in a manner at odds with the record?

Because it points to a conspiracy? I've found dozens of reasons to suspect
a conspiracy without piecing together sentence fragments to suggest
someone wrote something down that he never related elsewhere.

I mean, if Lyndon Johnson wrote a note to himself on 11-22-63, that said
"I did it" would it be more logical to assume he meant "I did it" (I
killed Kennedy) or "I did it" (I finally became president). I would say
the latter. It's the kind of thing Johnson might commit to paper, and it's
in keeping with his subsequent statements. The same goes with Fritz. If he
was one of a cabal to pretend Oswald wasn't outside at the time of the
shooting, and never said he'd been outside at the time of the shooting,
why oh why would Fritz hold onto his notes stating the opposite? Was Will
Fritz--a legendary detective, who solved hundreds of murders--an idiot?

[Ralph Cinque]

"Out with Bill Shelley in front" could only have referred to DURING the
motorcade because Shelley left immediately after the motorcade, and there
is NO CHANCE that Oswald encountered Shelley out front when he went home.

But, how about a dose of maturity? What would Fritz have been most
interested in? What would have been Question Numero Uno? It would have
been: WHERE WERE YOU AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING? And, you don't have to
be Lieutenant Columbo to realize that that is the key question. So,
surely, that is what Fritz wanted to know, first and foremost.

No one was accusing Oswald of committing any crimes earlier that morning,
and no one was accusing him of committing any crimes upon leaving. So,
what did it matter who he saw at those times? He didn't need an alibi for
those times. He needed an alibi for the time that Kennedy was being
slaughtered. And his alibi was that he was out with Bill Shelley in
front.

And remember that Bill Shelley was, in fact, out there. How would Oswald
even know that unless he saw him there? Isn't the fact that he cited
someone who was in the doorway proof that he was there? You could argue
that he saw Shelley through the glass, but even that places him at the
doorway. If he was that close, don't you think he would step out? Why not?
Who wouldn't?

[Jason Burke]

Dang, Charnin.
You're just as transparent as ol' Harris.

[Jason Burke]

Uh, Ralph. The answers were supposed to be "Yes" or "No".

You remind me of My Cousin Vinny. Though it turns out Gambini won in the
end. Unlike what's happening with you and your little game.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/3/2015 8:30 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> Fritz's notes list Oswald's movements in sentence fragments. They reflect
> that Oswald told Fritz he went down to the first floor to have his lunch.
> They then relate on another line "out with Bill Shelley in front". Based
> upon Fritz's report, this reflects that Oswald said he left the building
> through the front door and saw Bill Shelley. It is only through a merging
> of the two sentence fragments that one can believe otherwise.
>

Ever study English? "out with" does not mean he WENT out.
And it doesn't mean he then SAW Shelley. That is just your frame Oswald
spin.

> Think of it this way. Suppose the notes in JFK's day planner reflect
> "Lunch with mom" and that on the next line he writes "out on the terrace".

How about on the line above or on the next page talking about another day?

> While this might appear to be a claim he'd had lunch with his mom on the
> terrace, his actual diary from the day says he had lunch with his mom and
> THEN went out on the terrace. So which should we believe? That he had
> lunch with his mom and then went out on the terrace.
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> That's a good hypothetical example, Pat.
>
> I agree. Thanks.
>
> Another hypothetical example we could use might be this one (if Oswald had
> confessed and Fritz was hurriedly writing down notes)....
>

Fritz did not hurridly write down his notes during the interrogations.
he wrote them days later from his memory.

> FIRED SHOTS AT PRESIDENT...
>
> SECOND FLOOR...
>
> SAW POLICEMAN...
>
> Could someone interpret the above choppy notes as an indication that
> Oswald told Fritz he had fired the shots from the second floor? Could be.

I like that theory. Can you show me the open window and diagram the
trajectory?

> But the fragmentary nature of Captain Fritz' notes makes it difficult to
> piece them together into any kind of provable "narrative" form.
>
> Many conspiracy theorists, however, seem to think they CAN piece together
> the notes into rock-solid proof that Oswald told Fritz that he (Oswald)
> was "out with Bill Shelley in front" at the exact time of the
> assassination. But I don't think those notes prove any such thing.
>

Many WC defenders cite them as absolute proof of Oswald lying.

> But even if Oswald DID say to Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in
> front" at 12:30, we can be pretty confident that such a statement would
> have been just one of the many lies he told the police after his arrest.
>

Or one of the many lies that WC defenders tell about the evidence?

[Anthony Marsh]

Have you stopped beating your dog yet?
Answer yes or no.

[Jason Burke]

On 5/4/2015 9:48 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> "Out with Bill Shelley in front" could only have referred to DURING the
> motorcade because Shelley left immediately after the motorcade, and there
> is NO CHANCE that Oswald encountered Shelley out front when he went home.
>
> But, how about a dose of maturity? What would Fritz have been most
> interested in? What would have been Question Numero Uno? It would have
> been: WHERE WERE YOU AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING? And, you don't have to
> be Lieutenant Columbo to realize that that is the key question. So,
> surely, that is what Fritz wanted to know, first and foremost.
>

Which is why "out will Bill Shelly in front" was in caps on the top left
of the page, underlined, and circled.

Oh, wait...

[Anthony Marsh]

He himself is a false pretense.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

HOW DARE YOU REPHRASE RICHARD'S QUESTIONS, RAFF ? YOU MUST APOLOGIZE
IMMEDIATELY.......... in all caps, pleez. YES ????? NO ?????? MAYBE
?????

[BT George]

Now there you go Pat trying to inject some logic and reason into a
discussion with Ralph about Oswald in the Doorway. Here's a helpful hint.
He isn't interested.

BT George

[Ralph Cinque]

I tell you, what I like about this process is that Oswald in the doorway
is getting more air time than ever before. Even as they try to mock it,
detractors are calling attention to it, reminding the world that Oswald in
the doorway is back with a vengeance. It's rattling people. If they really
thought it was nothing, they would ignore it. The fact that they are
fighting it so hard is due to the fact that they know what a threat it is.
And all the while, with each passing day, we keep gaining new supporters.
And we never lose any. There isn't one person who has said, "You know, for
a while I was convinced it was Oswald in the doorway, but the pendulum
swung back for me, and now I again think it was Lovelady." There is nobody
like that. Not one person. I like this game. Let's keep playing it.

[Jason Burke]

As long as it keep you from hurting yourself, Ralph. I know I'm enjoying
the giggles at your expense.

(See, Ralph? This is an example of what we like to call "quoting".)

[Anthony Marsh]

If you shout loud enough someone will hear you.
But no one will believe you.
What's really funny is that you have to call Lee a liar to get your
theory to work. He said that he was inside the TSBD at the time of the
shooting, in the Domino Room. He did not go outside until AFTER the
shooting. All this was known in 1963, but I guess you didn't get the memo.

[donald willis]

On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 2:51:06 PM UTC-7, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 11:08:37 AM UTC-7, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
> > https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/jfk-20-questions-on-oswald-in-the-doorway-it-is-not-a-test-its-an-opinion-survey/
> >
> > Is there anyone here who will take this survey and answer YES or NO to 20
> > questions? Let's see what you really think.
>
> You write:
>
> "Oswald told Will Fritz that he was OUT FRONT WITH BILL SHELLEY at 12:30."
>
> Fritz's notes do not say that.
>
> Fritz's notes list Oswald's movements in sentence frsgments. They reflect
> that Oswald told Fritz he went down to the first floor to have his lunch.
> They then relate on another line "out with Bill Shelley in front". Based
> upon Fritz's report, this reflects that Oswald said he left the building
> through the front door and saw Bill Shelley. It is only through a merging
> of the two sentence fragments that one can believe otherwise.

Hey! I know Cinque's response before he has even responded. He'll note
that "1st" note, at the top, and the arrow he says points to the "Bill
Shelley" phrase. However, it seems much more likely that this note+arrow
means that the notations in the second *column* were made before the
notations in Fritz's first column. For proof, check pages 2 to 3 of
Fritz's report made from these notes! Your turn, Ralph....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

How come you didn't post that in ALL CAPS? Are you just too lazy or is
your CAPS LOCK button broken?

[Anthony Marsh]

They are not in perfect chronological order.

[bigdog]

It appears the conspiracy hobbyists are forming one of their circular
firing squads.

[richard...@comcast.net]

On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 2:08:37 PM UTC-4, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
> https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/jfk-20-questions-on-oswald-in-the-doorway-it-is-not-a-test-its-an-opinion-survey/
>
> Is there anyone here who will take this survey and answer YES or NO to 20
> questions? Let's see what you really think.

Well, we have quite a few posts, but none answer the questions. Once
again, you are not on trial. It is an opinion survey only. Although most
of you do not believe that Oswald was in the Doorway, you won't answer the
questions to establish the rationale for your belief. Why is that? Are you
guys just lazy? Do you really feel that the survey serves no useful
purpose?

It's just 20 questions. You can do it. Just a YES or NO. Show us why you
feel the way you do about LHO not being in the doorway. Of course if you
believe LHO was on the 6th floor shooting, then obviously as a Lone Nutter
your answers would reflect that. On the other hand, if you believe LHO was
somewhere else in the TSBD, your answers would reflect that as well.

One-line responses and personal attacks are not worthy of experienced,
truth-seeking JFK researchers. And that's what we all want, right?

After all, getting to the truth is the bottom line for all of us, isn't
it?

[donald willis]

Would that the status quo hobbyists would do this once in a while and weed
out some of their more outre claims, e.g., the hulls on the 6th floor were
photographed as they were (originally) found....

dcw

[bigdog]

It's already been explained to you the questions are based on false
pretenses. You have 20 loaded questions. Why would anyone waste their time
on such a silly survey. To answer these questions would be to give them
credence that they don't deserve.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

I believe Dr. Cinque has covered all this before in his prodigious blog.
You should start from the latest entry and kind of work your way
backwards. Get two other people to alternately read them aloud, and you,
too, shall understand everything, uh.......

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh please. Serious researchers don't have to tolerate the kooks.
Only the WC defenders do that.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
===== THE SHELLS WERE FILMED IN THEIR ORIGINAL POSITION BY TOM ALYEA ! ! !
! SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/alyea_replies_to_tomnln.htm
===========================================================================
==

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[donald willis]

Problem is, the pic is so dark you CAN'T SEE 'EM!!!
DCW

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe YOU can't. Maybe humans can.

[donald willis]

Oh, you love to be snippy, Anthony M! Well, Mr Sees All Knows All, I'll
say what you often say--cite me the place where there's a clear Alyea
photo of she shells in situ....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

I never said "in situ." You always change the question after you've lost
the argument. You are not a researcher. You've never read Alyea's
narrative. He MAY have taken film of the shells before Fritz the Kltuz got
his hand on them, but that film was destroyed by WFAA. Again, Alyea did
not take still photos. You have seen the still photos by others, but Fritz
had already handled them by then.

> dcw
>

[donald willis]

Snippy -- I've read two or three versions of Alyea's story, and I
corresponded with him some years back. You're alsway ASSuming....

He MAY have taken film of the shells before Fritz the Kltuz got
> his hand on them, but that film was destroyed by WFAA.

That's speculation, not research, Snippy. More likely if film was
destroyed, it was destroyed by the authorities....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

No, when I say MAY that it not speculation. I am just saying that I can't
prove that what Alyea said is the absolute truth. It's not speculation
that WFAA destroyed some of the filmstock. We don't know what was on that
filmstock that they destroyed. Since you want to be wiseguy and try to
play hardball with me instead of doing your homework, I''ll have to play
bardball and show everyone what you refuse to read:

http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html

Tom Alyea, "Facts and Photos"

From Connie Kritzberg's Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window, pp. 39-46



I was the first newsman into the building and the only newsman
to accompany the search team as they went from floor to floor searching
for the person who fired the shots. At this time, we did not know the
president had been hit. I rushed in with a group of plain clothesmen and
a few uniformed officers. . . .

I [followed] the search team that was on its way to the rear
elevator, to start the floor by floor search. We searched every floor,
all the way to the roof. The gunman could have still been in the
building. Finding nothing, they started back down. After approximately
18 minutes, they were joined by Captain Fritz, who had first gone to
Parkland Hospital.

The barricade on the sixth floor ran parallel to the windows,
extending in an "L" shape that ended against the front wall between the
first and second twin windows. The height of the stack of boxes was a
minimum of 5 ft. I looked over the barricade and saw three shell casings
laying on the floor in front of the second window in the two window
casement. They were scattered in an area that could be covered by a
bushel basket. They were located about half way between the inside of
the barricade. I set my lens focus at the estimated distance from the
camera to the floor and held the camera over the top of the barricade
and filmed them before anybody went into the enclosure. I could not
position my eye to the camera's view finder to get the shot. After
filming the casings with my wide angle lens, from a height of 5 ft., I
asked Captain Fritz, who was standing at my side, if I could go behind
the barricade and get a close-up shot of the casings. He told me that it
would be better if I got my shots from outside the barricade. He then
rounded the pile of boxes and entered the enclosure. This was the first
time anybody walked between the barricade and the windows.

Fritz then walked to the casings, picked them up and held them
in his hand over the top of the boxes for me to get a close-up shot of
the evidence. I filmed about eight seconds of a close-up shot of the
shell casings in Captain Fritz's hand. I stopped filming, and thanked
him. I do not recall if he placed them in his pocket or returned them
back to the floor, because I was preoccupied with recording other views
of the crime scene. I have been asked many times if I thought it was
peculiar that the Captain of Homicide picked up evidence with his hands.
Actually, that was the first thought that came to me when he did it, but
I rationalized that he was the homicide expert and no prints could be
taken from spent shell casings. Therefore, any photograph of shell
casings taken after this, is staged and not correct. It is highly
doubtful that the shell casings that appear in Dallas police photos of
the crime scene are the same casings that were found originally. The
originals by this time were probably in a plastic bag at police
headquarters. Why? Probably this was a missing link in the report the
police department had to send to the FBI and they had to stage it and
the barricade box placement to complete their report and photo records.

The position of the barricade, while difficult to follow for
one who was not there, is important because of the difference in
photographs seen today.

There are four different box positions.

1) There was one box in the barricade stack that was
considerably higher than the others. This box is the one that can be
seen in the photos taken from outside the window by Tom Dillard, because
it was high enough to catch the sunlight and still be seen from the
ground below. It is not to be confused with the second box set at an
angle in the window sill, that was used as a brace for the assassin's rifle.

2) A portion of this box can also be seen in these same photos
taken by Tom Dillard. It shows up in the lower right hand corner of the
picture.

3) Two boxes were stacked on the floor, inside the window, to
give arm support to the assassin. The top box was one of the two boxes
from which the crime lab lifted palm prints.

4) The fourth box of importance was on the floor behind the
sniper location. Officers also lifted palm prints from this box. It is
suspected that the sniper sat on this box while he waited for the
motorcade to pass.

The positioning of boxes 2, 3, and 4 were recorded by the
police crime lab. They are the only boxes involved in the crime scene.

The actual positioning of the barricade was never photographed
by the police. It s actual positioning is only on my movie footage,
which was taken before the police started dismantling the arrangement.

We all looked over the barricade to see if the half open window
with three boxes piled to form a shooting rest for a gunman. One box was
actually on the window sill, tilted at an angle. There was a reason for
this that I cover in my JFK Facts newsletter. The shooting location
consists of two windows set together to form one single window. (The
police photo showing the shell casings laying next to the brick wall was
staged later by crime lab people who did not see the original
positioning because they were not called upon the scene until after the
rifle was found nearly an hour later.) . . .

Only recently I saw a picture of Lt. Day with a news still
cameraman on the 6th floor. Day was shown pointing to the location where
the rifle was found. This was nearly 3:30 or after. It was my
understanding that Day and Studebaker had taken the prints, rifle and
homemade sack back to police headquarters. I personally would like to
know what they were doing back at the scene unless it was to reconstruct
shots they had failed to take during the primary investigation. But this
evidence had been destroyed and they were forced to create their own
version. The photo I have seen of the barricade wasn't even close. I
have also seen recently a police photo of the assassin's lair taken from
a high angle which indicates that it was shot before the barricade box
arrangement was destroyed, but it did not show the barricade itself.
This has no bearing on the case other than the public has never seen the
original placement. . . .

Police officers who claim they were on the 6th floor when the
assassin's window was found have reported that they saw chicken bones at
or near the site. One officer reported that he saw chicken bones on the
floor near the location. Another said he saw chicken bones on the
barricade boxes, while another reported that he saw chicken bones on the
box which was laying across the window sill. Some of these officers have
given testimony as to the location of the shell casings. Their testimony
differs and none of it is true. I have no idea why they are clinging to
these statements. They must have a reason. Perhaps it is because they
put it in a report and they must stick to it.

One officer stated that he found the assassin's location at the
6th floor window. He went on to say that as he and his fellow officers
were leaving the building, he passed Captain Fritz coming in. He said he
stopped briefly to tell Captain Fritz that he had found the assassin's
lair at the 6th floor window. This seems highly unlikely because Captain
Fritz joined us on the 5th floor and aided in the search. The chances
are great that this, or these officers heard the report, that stemmed
from WFAA-TV's incorrect announcement that the chicken bones were found
on the 6th floor. This officer or officers perhaps used this information
to formulate their presence at the scene. There were no chicken bones
found on the 6th floor. We covered every inch of it and I filmed
everything that could possibly be suspected as evidence. There
definitely were no chicken bones were no chicken bones on or near the
barricade or boxes at the window. I shot close-up shots of the entire
area. The most outstanding puzzle as to why these officers are sticking
to this story is the fact they claim to have found the sniper's
location, then left the building, as they said to join the investigators
at the Tippit shooting location. I have never seen a report that
indicates they attempted to use any telephone in the building in an
attempt to notify other investigators. They just left the scene to check
another assignment, and by chance ran into Capt. Fritz coming in the
front door. They claim to have placed a detective at the location but
they did not relay their finding to any other officer before they left
the building. I presume that the alleged detective they allegedly left
at the scene was instructed to stand there until someone else stumbled
upon the scene, or they found time to report it after investigating the
Tippit scene. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

I do however know that Officer Mooney was present when the
rifle was found because I took film of him at the scene. He is shown
talking to another detective, but this was nearly an hour after the
sniper's location was found at the window. I have no idea when he
arrived. We ended up with more men than when we started. As they joined
us during the search the latecomers would bring us the latest news of
the president's condition. When Captain Fritz arrived 18 minutes after
we started, he brought news that both Governor Connally and the
president had been hit but by the time he left, the seriousness of their
wounds was unknown. Fritz left the hospital almost immediately when he
was notified that a search was underway in the Texas School Book
Depository for the sniper. We in the search team had no phones, radios
or TV sets. As I recall, we learned that the president was dead about
the time we found the rifle. I don't know who brought us this word.
Several officers arrived while we were waiting for Lt. Day. One of them
was Roger Craig, who is responsible for giving much misinformation to
the press. None of us were prepared to hear that the president's wound
was a fatal one. We thought perhaps it was a minor thing or possibly a
flesh wound. It was a stunning shock, and our attitude [towards] the
rifle had suddenly changed. We stared at the small portion of the butt
as it lay under the overhang boxes while we waited for Lt. Day to arrive
and recover the weapon that killed our president. . . .

We finished combing the 6th floor, looking for the assassin or
any other evidence. Finding nothing more at this time Captain Fritz
ordered all of us to the elevator and we started searching the 7th floor
and from there we went to the roof.

Nothing in the way of evidence was found so we retraced our
search back down, floor by floor. Shortly after we arrived back on the
6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle almost
completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed
it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing
within the enclosure next to the rifle. He knew then that the
possibility of a fire fight with the sniper had greatly diminished. He
dispatched one of his men to go down and call for the crime lab. About
fifteen minutes later, Lt. Day and Studebaker arrived. Still pictures
were taken of the positioning of the rifle, then Lt. Day slid it out
from its hiding place and held it up for all of us to see. The world has
seen my shot of this many times. Lt. Day immediately turned toward the
window behind him and started dusting the weapon for fingerprints. Day
was still within the enclosure formed by the surrounding boxes. I filmed
him lifting prints from the rifle. He lifted them off with scotch tape
and placed them on little white cards. When he had finished, he handed
the rifle to Captain Fritz. Fritz pulled the bolt back and a live round
ejected and landed on the boxes below. Fritz put the cartridge in his
pocket. I did not see Fritz pick up anything other than the live round.
. . .

I filmed Captain Fritz talking with associates in this
dismantled area [the "sniper's nest"], along with Studebaker, who was
dusting the Dr. Pepper bottle which had been brought up to him from the
5th floor. This is all recorded on my film. I never learned if prints
were lifted from the pop bottle. I'm not sure if anybody ever asked.

I took the film from my camera, placed it back into its metal
can, wrapped the tape around it, and tossed it to our News Editor, A. J.
L'Hoste, who was waiting outside with the other newsmen who were not
allowed in the building. A. J. raced it to the television station which
was about three blocks away. About fifteen minutes later the world saw
the murder weapon, where it was found and pictures of the crime lab
people dusting it for fingerprints, and the shell casings that once
housed those bullets. They also saw how the assassin prepared for his
ambush and the view he had of the killing zone.



Addendum #1

A correspondent asked Tom Alyea about the accuracy of the above
material and forwarded Alyea's response:

Thanks for sending me the material from Connie Kritzberg's
"Secrets from The Sixth Floor." I never read the book. Many years ago
she interviewed me about what I saw during the search. I gave her some
pictures to use in her story. This is the first time I have seen the
story. I regret to say that there are some inaccuracies, which is to be
expected in an interview. You must remember that she was not on the
sixth floor. She was at her desk in the city room at the Dallas Times
Herald newspaper. It is disjointed and out of sequence, which makes it
difficult to follow. This is often the case when the interviewer asks
the questions and was not at the scene. Connie is a friend of mine, and
a good reporter, but I did not see the final draft before it went to
press. There is always the possibility that I failed to make my answers
clear, and she derived a different meaning. Please remember that these
short statements contained little detail and circumstances behind the
situation.

I shall make a few corrections that I feel are necessary to
maintain accuracy:

Corrections:

The average height of the barricade (Barricade #1) was four and
a half feet. I don't know how high this would be in the Metric scale.

My shot of the shell casings in Capt. Fritz's hand was between
three and four seconds.

(Important correction:) Take out the sentence that starts with,
"It is highly doubtful?"

My statement was that after Capt. Fritz held the casing over
the barricade for me to film, he turned to examine the shooting support
boxes on the windowsill. I couldn't see the captain put the casings in
his coat pocket because his coat pocket was below the top of the
barricade. He did not return them to the floor and he did not have them
in his hand when he was examining the shooting support boxes. Over
thirty minutes later, after the rifle was discovered and the crime lab
arrived, Capt. Fritz reached into his pocket and handed the casings to
Det. Studebaker to include in the photographs he would take of the
sniper's nest crime scene. We stayed at the rifle site to watch Lt. Day
dust the rifle. You have seen my footage of this. Studebaker never saw
the original placement of the casings so he tossed them on the floor and
photographed them. Det. Studebaker was alone at this site until after
Lt. Day left the building with the rifle. We in the search team went to
the sniper's site. Studebaker had already photographed the casings on
the floor and was busy dusting the pop bottle when we arrived. The
casings were no longer on the floor. I never saw them again. The
barricade had been completely dismantled and the boxes from the West
side of the barricade had been removed and placed in various locations
around the site. We did not realize at the time that Studebaker had not
recorded on film the original placement of the boxes in the barricade.
He also had removed the shooting support boxes on the window ledge and
stacked them one on top of the other on the floor inside. He took a
picture of this reconstructed arrangement. This is the view researchers
have of the shooting support boxes that were originally on the brick
window ledge. The corner of the outside box was positioned over the
lower window channel that tilted the box at an angle.

(Important correction)?Take out the sentence that starts with,
"I have also seen recently?"

This high angle photograph was taken after the crime lab
returned to the sixth floor three days later 'Monday, November,
twenty-five. Capt. Fritz had seen the photographs and had directed the
crime lab to correct the shots of the window boxes and the casings on
the floor. He had seen the original placement and ordered the crime lab
to correct it. Neither Lt. Day nor Det. Studebaker had seen the original
placement, so they procured my film from the TV station to get it right.
The high angle shot (shots) were made to show the original placement.
Their reconstruction was close, but not exact. However, they did not
bring the casings with them so they did not make the correction of the
original placement of the shell casings.

(Important correction) Take out the sentence that starts with
:" I do however know that Officer Mooney?"

Mooney was a Sheriff's Deputy, not a police officer. He did not
arrive on the sixth floor until after the rifle was found and the search
was over.

(Important correction) Take out the sentence that starts with,
"He dispatched one of his men?"

Capt. Fritz did this after the shooting site was discovered,
with the instructions to have the crime lab men wait on the first floor
when they arrived. We were still looking for an armed gunman. We had
only found his shooting location. After the rifle was found, Capt. Fritz
sent one of his detectives down in the elevator to bring up the crime
lab, because it was obvious that the sniper had escaped and the threat
of a firefight was unlikely. The crime lab is never called to a scene
that has not been secured. I hope you researcher friends will realize
this when the read the police testimonies where they place Lt. Day at
the shooting site crime scene while we in the search team were still
searching for an armed sniper on the same floor. They had a noble reason
for giving this false testimony. They wanted to protect their boss,
Capt. Fritz from possible censure for picking up the casings before the
crime lab arrived and processed them. The easiest way was to place Lt.
Day at the scene before Capt. Fritz arrived. All this is detailed in my
report.



Addendum #2

From: Dale Myers (dmy...@rust.net)
Subject: Re: Tom Alyea on the sixth floor evidence
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Date: 1999/07/04

As we all know, time alters recollections. Case in point:
compare Tom Alyea's more recent statements (posted by Dave Reitzes) with
his statement from December 19, 1963:

------------------------------[quote on]

"...I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other
units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun
fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other
units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic
search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious
that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I
filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the
assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding
of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed
quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on
it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints.
The fingerprints were not Oswald's. You know how he piled the boxes up?
The gun was found across the length of the room from where he fired. It
was stashed between boxes. I had difficulty in filming. They did not
want me closeto the window or to the gun. I asked permission to go to
the window to film. A Secret Service man said, 'You are close enough.' I
asked the Secret Service man to take pictures of the stashed gun. I set
the camera but he wiggled the camera. I got a picture of them taking the
gun from the hiding place and dusting it for fingerprints. After this
the Crime Lab man, Captain Will Fritz - and I have footage of this -
pulled the bolt back and a live round came out. They dusted the gun for
fingerprints. This was my third camera. They wouldn't let me out of the
building and they wouldn't let anyone else in. I never saw my film on
the air because I had to get the film to someone outside. This was the
first film from there. We had Mal Couch's film of the crowd but not of
the President being hit. [How did you get the film out?] There's a story
for you. I actually handed it out through the door but it had been
publicized over the air and established everywhere that I had thrown it
out of the building through a window. I hesitate to tell you the real
story. I started to throw it out of the building but being so close and
knowing that we had the other film, I wanted our station to be the first
to show a film of the assassination. A A.J. L'Hoste was under the
window. I yelled out to him. In actuality I tossed the film out the
front door to Ron Reiland who had gotten back from covering the
apprehension of Oswald at the Texas Theater. This was another ABC
exclusive. There were 2 policemen at the Depository door. They were not
sure that I should get things outside. Ron was outside and I was inside.
One of the policemen there called a Lieutenant and while they were
calling him, I threw the film out....."

------------------------------[quote off]

http://www.jfk-assassinat.com/index.php?module=pages&type=user&func=display&pageid=170

Questions to Tom alyea (the first newsman on the sixth floor)

Cr?? par pierre.nau le 10 Nov 2013
Derni?re modification faite par le 14 Mai 2015
Cat?gories: Meetings and Interviews



Tom Alyea was a newsman at the time of the assassination in Dealey Plaza
on November 22, 1963. Very little time after the shots, he joined with
the police officers who invested the Texas School Book Depository and
together they inspected each floor of the building . With his 16 mm
camera , he filmed all these particularly important moments.

Thus he took sevreral shots of the rifle discovered by the Sheriff's
Deputy Boone on the 6th floor. Incredible but true, he never was
interviewed by the Warren Commission. It seems that the official inquiry
did not consider to be convenient to ask some questions to such an
interesting witness who could be useful for it in its searching for the
truth investigation. Both curious and regrettable ...

A part of his report can be read at this address:
http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html

After having contacted him and asked questions about this important
moment in the Dallas drama, he provided me the following answers
published here by permission. As it can be noticed, his remarks are
interesting and debunk some facts and ideas often reported by people who
were not on the spot.

Q - If I have well understood, the discovering of the weapon took place
after you and the other people present at the time had made a first
inspection on the sixth floor. After that, you reached the upper floor
and returning to the sixth floor a few minutes later, Ltt Boone
discovered the weapon. My question is : how was possible that a lone man
discovered what several people were unable to do previously? In addition
I have often heard about Seymour Weitzmann as the man who found the
weapon. Can you give me some precisions regarding this remark insofar as
you do not mention in your report the presence of this Police officer?

Boone was not a Lt. (Lieutenant). He was a Sheriff's deputy and was at
the Sheriff's Office during our search that took us to the roof. Capt.
Fritz then ordered us to continue our search back down again. At that
time a Sheriff's Deputy who was in our search party went back to the
Sheriff's Office to get some flashlights so we could see into the dark
recesses inside the stacks of towering book cartons. Boone helped carry
some of the flashlight back to the TSBD and met us as we were searching
the 6th floor for the second time. We were looking for a sniper, not a
rifle. With the aid of his flashlight, Boone said he found the rifle. It
had previously been missed because it was under some overhanging boxes
in the darkened enclosure.

I do not refer to Weitzman because I have strong doubts that he was
there, although he made this claim in his testimony. When the officer
called out to Capt. Fritz concerning his find, Capt. Fritz and I were
only a few feet away, possibly about four meters. There was no officer
near him. Other officers had fanned-out over the floor, still searching
for the Sniper. There was no officer near the man who called to Capt.
Fritz. Weitzman's testimony regarding the location and positioning of
the rifle is so highly inaccurate that I am convinced that he was not at
the scene or he has a very bad memory. He invented things that were not
there and omitted things that were extremely important.

Dept. Constable Weitzman was not with the police or Sheriff's
department. He was with a company called Robie Love. It is possible that
this company had some connection with a Dallas County department. His
testimony revealed that it would be nearly impossible for him to be at
the rifle site when it was found, regardless of his testimony. But on
the strength of this, his testimony was accepted by others who had never
heard of him nor saw him on the floor. I took movie footage of the
officers in our search group and officers surrounding both the window
shooting location and the rifle site, and Weitzman does not appear in
any of my shots. Also, In Weitzman's testimony, he said that he thought
the rifle looked like a Mauser, but this was a guess on his part. I was
at the scene recording the small portion of the rifle butt that was
exposed beyond the overhanging boxes. I also included the torso of Capt.
Fritz within the small enclosure. Only about four or five inches of the
butt end of the rifle cold be seen. The scope and bolt were not visible.
There is no way anybody could determine the make of the rifle.

Q - Was the weapon identified at first as a Mauser or not? This fact is
of importance because it had led to many speculations or assumptions for
decades. If true, can you tell me how this weapon became an Italian
Mannlicher Carcano shortly after? Without to be involved in controversy,
this brutal changing discredited at the time the people in charge of the
inquiery.

No, the rifle was not first identified as a Mauser. I was only about two
meters away and I heard no reference to a Mauser. Capt. Fritz testified
that he heard no reference to the rifle being a Mauser. It was never
touched. I, along with Capt. Fritz and other officers in our search team
stayed at this location until the Crime Lab arrived and Lt. Day pulled
the rifle from under the overhanging boxes. A few seconds after Lt. Day
started dusting the rifle, he read the inscription on the rifle and
announced that it was made in Italy. He did not refer to it as a
Mannlicher Carcano. The name Mannlicher Carcano did not appear on the
rifle. I think this was established later at police headquarters. The
inscription Made in Italy and the caliber of the rifle was stamped on
it. It is obvious that the relentless pursuit to establish the original
rifle as a Mauser is one of the many false claims promoted by the
conspiracy book authors.

Q - Was it possible for the lone Oswald to build the barricade in a very
short time and without being noticed by the people gathered on Elm
street? If Brennan and others had noticed the gunman at the window it
seems to me very unlikely those people did not see a man moving boxes
indiscreetly?

It must be remembered that there were three barricades. However, the one
near the assassin's window, referred to as "the" barricade, and part of
the "Sniper's Nest was already there. Oswald did not construct it. If it
had been, he would have completed it to totally conceal his shooting
position. It is apparent however, that he hurriedly constructed a second
barricade to the North that would complete his concealment from possible
unwanted eyes that might wander to mid floor or further east. I refer to
this barricade as Barricade #2. This was probably done long before the
president's motorcade arrived, and Oswald he could have not been seen
from outside the building.

After the shots were fired, Oswald did not move any boxes. I do not see
the reasoning in the Buffs promoting this. What would be the point in
taking time to move boxes from the barricade and leave his shooting
support boxes on the window ledge and the casings on the floor?

Q - Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly, if we
considered that he was interviewed by Baker and Truly less than 1 minute
after the last shot. According to you and with your perfect knowledge of
the building, was that possible?

Yes, Oswald had time to hide his rifle. The location was in front of the
stairway that Oswald took to leave the floor. It was obviously pre
constructed so he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he
entered the down stairway, only about five feet away. It would have not
taken him over two seconds. No boxes had to be moved. The rifle did not
touch any of the three overhanging boxes, and there were no boxes
touching the rifle. When Lt. Day retrieved it, he pulled it effortlessly
from under the overhanging boxes. This was the first time any of us saw
the scope, bolt and trigger housing.

One minute would be calling it a bit close, however, if I recall
correctly, Officer Baker said he encountered Oswald 90 seconds after he
entered the building. We are playing with time estimates from an officer
who provided a rough calculation. He could be correct, but 90 seconds is
well within the time it would take for Oswald to get from the sniper's
window to the second floor. Oswald was accustomed to handling heavy
boxes and the race downstairs would certainly not leave him breathless.
It is my understanding that this trip was duplicated by the FBI and
found to be possible. Do you recall if Officer Baker indexed the time
from when he entered the building or when the president was shot?

Q - Can you confirm me wether the Warren Commission questionned you or
not? I did not your name among the people listed on the Warren
Commission Hearings? If it did not ask you to report what you saw that
is very regrettable and incomprehensible.

No, the Warren Commission did not question me or ask for my deposition.
Yes, if they had questioned me, it would definitely have affected their
report.
Return


(c) Pierre NAU (2000 - 2013)


http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/JFK%20Assassination%20Photos%20Book/Pages%20007-050.pdf


B. Background Information on the Photographers
7
M
=
MB
=
MC
=
TV
=
motion picture
P
= still photograph
motion picture black & white
PB
= still photograph black & white
motion picture color
PC
= still photograph color
television film
(A)
Alexander. Steven L.:
TV: Cameraman for KTAL-TV of N.B.C. of Shreveport, Louisiana.
Arrival shortly after the assassination around 3:00 p.m. He was present
with a camera during
the transfer and shooting of Oswald. No information in government
documents concerning any
aspects of the film.
Allen. Richard:
M:
Amateur's edited film was incorporated into President Kennedy's Final
Hour.
Allen. William:
PB: Dallas Times Herald photographer who snapped 73 exposures of Dealey
Plaza. The series includes the inside of the TSBD: witnesses and the
three tramps taken into
custody for questioning.
Altgens. James:
PB: Associated Press photographer who snapped 30 photographs, eight at
the time of the critical moment. One photograph taken shows Kennedy
grasping his throat with a figure, believed to be Oswald, on the footsteps
of the TSBD. This photograph was a subject of intense discussion among
researchers and government officials. The Warren Commission never used a
complete photograph of Altgens' frame #6 for an exhibit. The camera used
was a Nikkorex 35 mm camera with a 105 mm telephoto lens loaded with Tri-X
film. Alyea. Thomas:
TV: WFAA-TV photographer of A.B.C. who was one of the two photographers
inside the TSBD 6th floor following the assassination. Footage includes
the Plaza/knoll area from Houston on Main Street, the outside of the TSBD,
the police searching for the murder weapon, discovery of the weapon, and
Lt. Day dusting a live shell for fingerprints. Also, footage looking
outside from the inside of the TSBD. Footage was edited by Alyea, with
footage of the sixth floor sliced out due to sprocket damage.


> dcw
>