Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[HSienzant]

Um, dude, don't you think anything Truly says should be taken with a grain of salt?

Instead of asking me what I think, why don't you make a counter argument? Just asking a question Is not a counter-argument.

He's not the most consistent witness, with himself or others.

Who is the most consistent witness then? Your claim implies a continuum, with Truly placed on it exactly where? Can you provide a listing from least consistent to most consistent, and tell us what methodology you used to rank them? Or are you blowing more smoke, and just making this stuff up as you go along?

And can you recconcile your Truly quote with the information posted above?

What info are you asking me to reconcile with what Truly quote, specifically?

The role-call thing sounds like an exaggerated tale based on a fragment of time.

I already pointed out 'roll call' is a misnomer concerning what happened and why, but there's not a whole lot of better words available in the English language to describe what happened, and invited your input into a better word. You have yet to provide it. Truly said he saw the police taking the names of other employees, realized Oswald wasn't there, thought the police might want to talk to Oswald as well, and got Oswald's address where they could reach him (it was actually Mrs. Paine's home, not the rooming house on North Beckley, that Oswald provided to the TBSD when he filled out the employment form).

That's pretty much what the evidence shows happened. That's pretty mundane. If you've got a point to make, make it. If you've got something specific to quibble about concerning this incident, let's hear the specifics. Did Truly invent the whole thing after the fact? What exactly do you think happened, and please cite the evidence to support your claim.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The whole, partially torn dollar bill would be there to rip it completely and give the other half to somebody else. This is speculation based on an anomalous aspect of the case. This speculation is warranted because a mundane explanation is highly unlikely.

Might want to think about how your use of the word mundane contradicts your point.

Good point.

Definition of mundane
1 :* of, relating to, or characteristic of the world
2 :* characterized by the practical, transitory, and ordinary :* commonplace the mundane concerns of day-to-day life

A mundane explanation, by definition, is commonplace and therefore highly likely. I've asked before if English is MicahJava's native language, with him avoiding the point each time. It's these kind of mistakes that make me question that.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

What would be the default "mundane explanation"?

1. Oswald was given three $1 bills at some point in time.

2. All three $1 bills have three-digit notations on them signifying that they were once on top of a grouped stack of currency.

3. Two of the $1 become so worn that the other half tears off, with their corresponding halves missing. Oswald keeps these useless items around his home.

4. One of the $1 bills becomes so worn that it partially tears. Oswald decides to keep this one in his wallet, along with $13 of other comparatively mundane currency, on the day of 11/22/1963.

?

The mundane default: much like other fantasists, LHO may have carried with him objects or materials that in his mind constituted involvement in his fantasy world - just watch the videos on YT exposing individuals posing as military veterans or active duty service members.

Many times there is absolutely -0- rational explanation for their behaviors or motivations. The only possible answer is that because of some personality disorder they are compelled to portray themselves to the outside world as something they aren't

LHO just carried it a few steps farther - he actually murdered POTUS and a LEO.

 

[HSienzant]

What would be the default "mundane explanation"?

1. Oswald was given three $1 bills at some point in time.

What three $1 bills? Oswald had one dollar in his wallet with the notation '300' on it. That's the only bill you can connect to Oswald. You are simply assuming these other bills are somehow connected to Oswald, but you haven't shown that. You haven't even attempted to show that. I have, in fact, pointed out to you at least FIVE TIMES the fact that you're assuming what you need to prove, and you just keep on asserting the unproven statement as if it's fact. That doesn't make your claim true. It means you apparently don't care what the truth is.

2. All three $1 bills have three-digit notations on them signifying that they were once on top of a grouped stack of currency.

Two of those are not connected to Oswald in any way. Two of them were not found in Oswald's wallet after his arrest, and those two are only half bills, not a whole bill with a slight tear in it. These two bills were never found, only a notation on a sheet of paper that alleges their existence, and it was found decades after the fact in the Dallas archives. There is zero -- 0 -- evidence that it's a legit piece of evidence. We're still waiting for you to show this piece of paper is legit, and it has some connection to Oswald. Based on the evidence, you have ONE whole $1 bill with the notation 300 and a slight tear belonging to Oswald and that's it. Make your case on the evidence that is, not on what you wish the evidence was.

3. Two of the $1 become so worn that the other half tears off, with their corresponding halves missing. Oswald keeps these useless items around his home.

Straw argument. Nobody has suggested anything of the sort. You're just making up arguments to rebut them now, because you have no evidence connecting these two half $1 bills to Oswald. And you appear to not know that half-bills are NOT worthless. They can be redeemed for a mint $1 bill if the other half (with the same serial number) has not yet been redeemed. Who says they are useless items? Who says they were kept around his home? You're reduced to making up stuff the evidence does not indicate.

4. One of the $1 bills becomes so worn that it partially tears. Oswald decides to keep this one in his wallet, along with $13 of other comparatively mundane currency, on the day of 11/22/1963.

Already pointed out the lifespan of the average $1 bill in circulation is only three years, which is why the Treasury keeps trying to get the U.S. citizenry to accept a $1 coin (which lasts a lot longer) with little success. A minor tear in one bill isn't anything worth attempting to build a conspiracy theory around. But I guess you beg to differ on that point. It still goes nowhere.


Here's my mundane explanation (try rebutting this one for a change): Oswald buys something, somewhere, early in that day or earlier in that week and receives that $1 dollar bill with the partial tear and the '300' notation on it in change. He has, on the morning of the assassination, a minimum of $144 dollars and some change in his possession. He chooses to leave $130 with Marina and keeps $14 and change for himself that day (as an aside -- this is the first time he choose to leave Marina any substantial sum of money, normally he doled out small amounts as needed).

During the day, he purchases a bus fare and pays for a cab ride -- giving the cab driver exactly one dollar bill for the 95 cents cab ride. He could have used the torn dollar bill to pay for the cab ride. He didn't. He could have just as easily left $129 with Marina and keep $15 for himself, in which case the partially torn $1 bill would not be in his possession upon his arrest in any case - it would be with Marina. If he bought breakfast or lunch for himself from a food truck outside the Depository that morning is unknown. If he did buy breakfast or lunch, he could have received that partially torn $1 bill (and two or three others in change) for a $5 bill he started the day with.

You just don't know when he came into possession of this $1 bill and whether it has any significance whatsover -- you are assuming it.

You don't know the significance of the '300' notation -- you are assuming it.

You don't know the significance of the slight tear -- you are assuming it.

You don't know anything about the significance of the other two supposed half dollar bills -- your are simply assuming everything you need to prove.

You have nothing. Good luck with that.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

I guess I should have introduced myself properly, explained my level of knowledge and where I stand as far as what I believe happened.

1. I believe Oswald shot Kennedy and was the only active shooter
2. I don't believe Oswald was recruited or paid by any organization to do the deed
3. I think Oswald may have received encouragement to do the deed while in Mexico
4. This encouragement may have been coordinated or just happenstance
5. I think there may have been foreknowledge of the assassination by people connected to the CIA

I find the language used in JFK assassination discussions deplorable. Kooks, idiots, morons. We traditionally would have researchers discussing different possibilities, not this sort of football match. Maybe it's a symptom of the internet. But I don't want anything to do with this brand of discourse and that's why I won't be engaging Hank any more.

Imhotep, you might want to rethink your belief in the single-shooter theory. A kind of "rosetta stone" for understanding that there is something seriously wrong with the official shooting scenario is the EOP wound.

The autopsy report, the three lead autopsy doctors (Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck), five additional autopsy witnesses (John Stringer, Roy Kellerman, Francis X. O'Neil, Richard Lipsey, Charles Boyers), and the face sheet diagram marked by Boswell and signed by Kennedy's personal physician George Burkley all indicate that Kennedy had an entry wound near his external occipital protuberance, in the autopsy report's words "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance". Cyril Wecht also identified a possible bullet fragment in the upper neck on one of the X-rays, near the EOP.

The surviving autopsy photographs and X-rays are ambiguous as to showing this wound, and later the Clark Panel and the HSCA's panel of forensic experts theorized that the entry wound was actually four or more inches above where the autopsy doctors placed it, in the parietal bone instead of the occipital bone.

The HSCA theorized that the confusing close-up photographs of Kennedy's empty skull showed both this parietal entry wound and a frontal exit wound. The problem with that? That only leaves a five-inch wide skull cavity to remove the entire brain from the cranium. This interpretation of the open-cranium photographs cannot be true unless previously-separated portions of skull bone were pieced back together for the taking of those pictures, contrary to all statements of the autopsy participants.

The same problem applies to the repeated, consistent statements of autopsy doctor and forensic pathologist Dr. Finck, who arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed, and always said that he examined the beveled entry hole within the intact, empty cranium. Again, this would be after the large head wound had been further enlarged to facilitate removal of the brain. With the original lower placement of the entry wound, it makes sense that there would be enough space on the top of the head to fit the entire brain through and still keep the beveled entry hole intact. But the revised placement of the entry wound, in the "cowlick" area, cannot be compatible with this important observation of Dr. Finck. To make a large enough skull cavity to remove the brain, the "cowlick" area of the skull would have had to be among the portions of skull bone separated. A typical brain removal procedure requires the entire top of the skull to be removed.

Also consider that the repeated, consistent statements of Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell indicate that the area of the skull around the large head wound was so badly fractured that portions of the skull would just separate in their hands upon examination. They said that virtually no sawing of the skull was necessary to create a large enough skull cavity to remove the brain.

What's wrong with having 'the' entry wound on the base of the head instead of the top of the head? 1. The trajectory between the original EOP wound location and the top-right side of the head, at Zapruder frame 312-313, would require a sharp upwards deflection of the bullet, 2. The pattern of fragments on the head X-rays are entirely on the top of the head, besides the one possible minute fragment in the upper neck. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top of the head would probably leave bullet fragments in the occipital-cerebellar are, 3. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top-right side of the head would severely damage the cerebellum. The official brain photographs show only a slightly disrupted cerebellum.

One can see why the upper "cowlick" entry wound is now basically considered canon to the official story.

Can a missile entry in the original EOP location be compatible with the official evidence, without anything being faked? Unless you want to invoke obscure high-tech ammunition that can not show up on X-rays, the closest likely option would be that the missile that entered the EOP subsequently exited the throat, creating the throat wound. This impedes on the single-bullet theory. Otherwise you would probably have to invoke X-ray or film alteration, or some kind of bizarre body alteration. For the EOP entry wound to be compatible with the official evidence, the large head wound would have to be created by a separate missile. More than one gunshot to the head.

 

[MicahJava]

The mundane default: much like other fantasists, LHO may have carried with him objects or materials that in his mind constituted involvement in his fantasy world - just watch the videos on YT exposing individuals posing as military veterans or active duty service members.

Many times there is absolutely -0- rational explanation for their behaviors or motivations. The only possible answer is that because of some personality disorder they are compelled to portray themselves to the outside world as something they aren't

LHO just carried it a few steps farther - he actually murdered POTUS and a LEO.

So your prevailing theory on the dollar bills is that Oswald just had those because he liked pretending to be James Bond?

 

[MicahJava]

HSienzant, it would not help the official story if the two half-portions of $1 bills belonged to somebody other than Oswald.

 

[Elagabalus]

So your prevailing theory on the dollar bills is that Oswald just had those because he liked pretending to be James Bond?

Why not? That way it would fit your theory, such as it is, that Oswald was a spy who wasn't a spy.


But seriously, I think the point is the condition of the money in LHO wallet is irrelevant. Any chance you could give us your theory of what happened that day? Not just nit-picks here and there but where did everyone go after the motorcade sped away.

 

[BStrong]

So your prevailing theory on the dollar bills is that Oswald just had those because he liked pretending to be James Bond?

That's pretty much been established. Wasn't his favorite TV shoe "I led three lives" ?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045397/

But to give Elagabalus credit, they're correct, the issue of the bills is immaterial.

 

[HSienzant]

HSienzant, it would not help the official story if the two half-portions of $1 bills belonged to somebody other than Oswald.

I never said it does. That's a straw man logical fallacy you advance.

But remember it doesn't hurt the official story a whit if we have a piece of paper with some notations on it discovered how many decades after the assassination? With no indication it has anything to do with the assassination or Oswald?

So what?

But it pretty much removes the entire basis for your speculation about Oswald planning to meet up with someone in the theatre who had the matching half. Because if neither half dollar belonged to Oswald - and we know they don't because we know precisely what bills he was arrested with - then there was no half for Oswald to match up with anyone.

So it kills - dead - your speculation entirely. Minus those half bills - which you can't connect to Oswald whatsoever - your speculation about the partially torn bill in Oswald's wallet has no basis in fact. It could have been torn by happenstance by somebody who possessed the bill prior to Oswald. You don't know. You're simply assuming everything you need to prove. Oswald didn't need a partially torn bill with the notation '300' on it to be a spy or use it in the manner you suggest in any case. He could have taken a MINT $1 bill and torn that in half when he needed it -- dollar bills don't exactly need a starter tear to be easier to tear. They are pretty easy to tear exactly as they come off the press. So what's the point of this partial 'starter' tear?

It must be happenstance, because it serves no purpose if the goal is to tear it in half and retain half and give the other half to someone else so you can meet up later. You can tear a mint bill in half as readily as one with a partial tear in it. And the mint one doesn't scream to CTs "I'm a spy using spy techniques!" So why do it that way?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What's wrong with having 'the' entry wound on the base of the head instead of the top of the head? 1. The trajectory between the original EOP wound location and the top-right side of the head, at Zapruder frame 312-313, would require a sharp upwards deflection of the bullet, 2. The pattern of fragments on the head X-rays are entirely on the top of the head, besides the one possible minute fragment in the upper neck. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top of the head would probably leave bullet fragments in the occipital-cerebellar are, 3. A trajectory from the original EOP location to the top-right side of the head would severely damage the cerebellum. The official brain photographs show only a slightly disrupted cerebellum.

One can see why the upper "cowlick" entry wound is now basically considered canon to the official story.

Thank you for telling us exactly why your theory about the low shot is untenable. I find the above a succinct and well-written summation of some of the arguments against your EOP location head shot.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Imhotep, you might want to rethink your belief in the single-shooter theory. A kind of "rosetta stone" for understanding that there is something seriously wrong with the official shooting scenario is the EOP wound.

I don't think he can lower his IQ that far. The bullets struck right where they say they did, and it's all on film.

The surviving autopsy photographs and X-rays are ambiguous as to showing this wound, and later the Clark Panel and the HSCA's panel of forensic experts theorized that the entry wound was actually four or more inches above where the autopsy doctors placed it, in the parietal bone instead of the occipital bone.

You have not seen the autopsy photographs in their entirety. The ones available to the public are lower resolution B-roll, and not the 35mm color. So you begin a statement based on a lie, and go down hill from there.

Four or more inches above the actual entry point would mean the shooter fired straight down, presumable while defying gravity, which is a new one.
The problem is that the entry wound is visible on the Zapruder film, and it lines up with the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The same problem applies to the repeated, consistent statements of autopsy doctor and forensic pathologist Dr. Finck, who arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed, and always said that he examined the beveled entry hole within the intact, empty cranium. snip - blah, blah/I]
To make a large enough skull cavity to remove the brain, the "cowlick" area of the skull would have had to be among the portions of skull bone separated. A typical brain removal procedure requires the entire top of the skull to be removed.

This is where you talk in circles, and make assumptions based on your poor ability to grasp the obvious.

Also consider that the repeated, consistent statements of Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell indicate that the area of the skull around the large head wound was so badly fractured that portions of the skull would just separate in their hands upon examination. They said that virtually no sawing of the skull was necessary to create a large enough skull cavity to remove the brain.

This is a lie.

We have provided multiple links to both Humes and Finck, and they both say the skull cap was sawed open. You have even posted photos where the skin on the forehead is visibly rolled down indicating that the skull was sawed.

What's wrong with having 'the' entry wound on the base of the head instead of the top of the head? 1. The trajectory between the original EOP wound location and the top-right side of the head, at Zapruder frame 312-313, would require a sharp upwards deflection of the bullet, 2.

The grown-ups call it cavitation, and it caused the damage we see in the Zapruder film. This is where your ignorance about ballistics and all things bang-bang start to grate.

The official brain photographs show only a slightly disrupted cerebellum.

You've never seen the official photos so how do you know what they show?

One can see why the upper "cowlick" entry wound is now basically considered canon to the official story.

One can also see the entry wound in the Zapruder Film, so you're stuck with it.

Can a missile entry in the original EOP location be compatible with the official evidence, without anything being faked?

Yes, it's called a 6.5x52mm round, and it's more than capapble - it's exclusive to the wounds of the President and the governor.

Unless you want to invoke obscure high-tech ammunition that can not show up on X-rays,

Which would be dumb since there is no such thing.

the closest likely option would be that the missile that entered the EOP subsequently exited the throat, creating the throat wound.

Likely option in what universe? In this one we have gravity, and laws of physics that tell us that for that to be possible the shot would have have to come from at least the 20th floor...you might see the flaw in this option.

This impedes on the single-bullet theory.

No, not when the single bullet is a 6.5x52mm fired from less than 300 feet away.

Otherwise you would probably have to invoke X-ray or film alteration, or some kind of bizarre body alteration.

Which didn't happen.

For the EOP entry wound to be compatible with the official evidence, the large head wound would have to be created by a separate missile. More than one gunshot to the head.

Nope. Just a 6.5x52mm round that was still accelerating when it struck the back of the skull.

Man this is hilarious.

 

[cmikes]

Thank you for telling us exactly why your theory about the low shot is untenable. I find the above a succinct and well-written summation of some of the arguments against your EOP location head shot.

Hank

It's amazing how often conspiracy theorists prove what they're attempting to refute.

 

[MicahJava]

That's pretty much been established. Wasn't his favorite TV shoe "I led three lives" ?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045397/

But to give Elagabalus credit, they're correct, the issue of the bills is immaterial.

I Led Three Lives did not exist as a television show before Robert Oswald joined the military in 1952, when he claimed he saw little Lee watching it. That show began in 1953. I think the only other source for that is Judyth Baker. Maybe he was referring to the 1951 feature film & 1952-1953 radio drama I Was A Communist For The FBI, but then that would mean Judyth Baker was probably lying and repeating Robert Oswald's claims. Still, though. It's kind of funny that you would have to resort to speculating that maybe he was just carrying half $1 bills because he liked pretending to be secretly contacting people.

 

[MicahJava]

Thank you for telling us exactly why your theory about the low shot is untenable. I find the above a succinct and well-written summation of some of the arguments against your EOP location head shot.

Hank

Only if you want to say the EOP wound and the large head wound were created by one bullet.

 

[MicahJava]

I never said it does. That's a straw man logical fallacy you advance.

But remember it doesn't hurt the official story a whit if we have a piece of paper with some notations on it discovered how many decades after the assassination? With no indication it has anything to do with the assassination or Oswald?

So what?

I saw that the Dallas Police Department "half bill" note is in the JFK Assassination Collection, right where evidence relating to Oswald and the crime scenes are catalogued, so I presumed it must have something to do with the assassination. Silly me.

But it pretty much removes the entire basis for your speculation about Oswald planning to meet up with someone in the theatre who had the matching half. Because if neither half dollar belonged to Oswald - and we know they don't because we know precisely what bills he was arrested with - then there was no half for Oswald to match up with anyone.

...Or if he wanted to completely tear off the other half and give it to another person, as I've been suggesting.

So it kills - dead - your speculation entirely. Minus those half bills - which you can't connect to Oswald whatsoever - your speculation about the partially torn bill in Oswald's wallet has no basis in fact. It could have been torn by happenstance by somebody who possessed the bill prior to Oswald. You don't know. You're simply assuming everything you need to prove. Oswald didn't need a partially torn bill with the notation '300' on it to be a spy or use it in the manner you suggest in any case. He could have taken a MINT $1 bill and torn that in half when he needed it -- dollar bills don't exactly need a starter tear to be easier to tear. They are pretty easy to tear exactly as they come off the press. So what's the point of this partial 'starter' tear?

It must be happenstance, because it serves no purpose if the goal is to tear it in half and retain half and give the other half to someone else so you can meet up later. You can tear a mint bill in half as readily as one with a partial tear in it. And the mint one doesn't scream to CTs "I'm a spy using spy techniques!" So why do it that way?

Hank

The "starter tear" would be so that the special $1 bill doesn't get mixed in with the other boring $1 bills.

 

[Elagabalus]

...The "starter tear" would be so that the special $1 bill doesn't get mixed in with the other boring $1 bills.

That makes no sense. What makes the special $1 bill so special? Because it has a tear in it? So he could have used any dollar bill and tore it to make it "special". What is the reason LHO is doing this again? Are we acknowledging that LHO was some how involved?

 

[MicahJava]

That makes no sense. What makes the special $1 bill so special? Because it has a tear in it? So he could have used any dollar bill and tore it to make it "special". What is the reason LHO is doing this again? Are we acknowledging that LHO was some how involved?

Above bears pencil notation "300" - bill torn

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=209&tab=page

The $1 bill in Oswald's wallet was not only unique in the fact that it was torn, but that it had "300" written on it.

Just like the "180" and "221" notation written on the DPD "half bill" note: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/22/2288-001.gif

We do not know where these "half bills" were found, or who found them. Maybe somebody could compare the handwriting to the handwriting of other relevant DPD officers?

If these three-digit numbers were part of a hypothetical system for secretly contacting people, then you would want it to already be written on the $1 bills before meeting your contact, otherwise you would be wasting time. Would you expect Oswald to remember to bring along a pencil write "300" on his designated $1 bill when meeting a contact? That wastes time. Secrets need to be exchanged fast.

All this would indicate is that maybe Oswald knew that something important was to occur on 11/22/1963. It doesn't approach evidence of guilt in the actual murder.

 

[BStrong]

I Led Three Lives did not exist as a television show before Robert Oswald joined the military in 1952, when he claimed he saw little Lee watching it. That show began in 1953. I think the only other source for that is Judyth Baker. Maybe he was referring to the 1951 feature film & 1952-1953 radio drama I Was A Communist For The FBI, but then that would mean Judyth Baker was probably lying and repeating Robert Oswald's claims. Still, though. It's kind of funny that you would have to resort to speculating that maybe he was just carrying half $1 bills because he liked pretending to be secretly contacting people.

Is there some restriction on service members communicating with family members while serving that I'm not aware of? I never had any difficulty communicating with friends and family while I was in, and we even talked about popular entertainment too, so if you'd like to provide evidence that RO had no contact with the family during his service dates now would be the time to cite it.

Speculating? you're very much partial to that investigative methodology and at least LHO as fantasist is better evidenced by the facts than LHO as trained intelligence operative. No matter how far down that speculative path you wish to travel it comes down to the fact that LHO had nothing to offer either US agencies or Soviet agencies as an asset - he was a perfect example of a wanna-be under achiever. I'm not sure he would even rise to the level of the "useful idiot" cited by Lenin.

 

[HSienzant]

I saw that the Dallas Police Department "half bill" note is in the JFK Assassination Collection, right where evidence relating to Oswald and the crime scenes are catalogued, so I presumed it must have something to do with the assassination. Silly me.

here's the source: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box7.htm

It comes from Box 7, Folder 10:

Here's the description: 26. Note - handwritten, by an unknown author.* Handwritten note, (Photocopy), date unknown. 00002288* 1 page* 07* 10* 026* 2288-001.gif

Here's the document: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/22/2288-001.gif

I see nothing on the document or the description that says this is a possession of Oswald's or related to the assassination in any way. I see nothing that notes there is writing on either dollar bill.

But you keep insisting it is. Why? You keep presuming it is what you want it to be, but presuming isn't evidence. Nor is it proof of anything.

In fact, there is a separate listing of all the possessions of Oswald seized by the DPD that weekend. It's item 59 in the same box and folder. It's 29 pages long. You see any notation in those pages for two half dollar bills?

59. Property Clerk=s Invoice or Receipt, by H. W. Hill.* Property belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald, (Photocopy), 11/26/63. 00002363*** 29* pages* 07* 10* 059* 2363-001.gif* 2363-002.gif* 2363-003.gif* 2363-004.gif* 2363-005.gif* 2363-006.gif* 2363-007.gif* 2363-008.gif* 2363-009.gif* 2363-010.gif* 2363-011.gif* 2363-012.gif* 2363-013.gif* 2363-014.gif* 2363-015.gif* 2363-016.gif* 2363-017.gif* 2363-018.gif* 2363-019.gif* 2363-020.gif* 2363-021.gif* 2363-022.gif* 2363-023.gif* 2363-024.gif* 2363-025.gif* 2363-026.gif* 2363-027.gif* 2363-028.gif* 2363-029.gif
Here's the first to get you started: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/23/2363-001.gif

...Or if he wanted to completely tear off the other half and give it to another person, as I've been suggesting.

He didn't need one already partially torn in his wallet to do that. He could have torn any bill in half as needed. You're presuming what you need to prove.

The "starter tear" would be so that the special $1 bill doesn't get mixed in with the other boring $1 bills.

Hilarious. You're presuming what you need to prove, that there is something special about this bill. Any bill could have been torn by Oswald and it would suffice. Your argument makes no sense and is entirely built from the ground up on speculation.

Hank