JFK Assassination Forum 
Logo
Home Support The Forum The Robin Unger JFK Assassination GalleryYoutube JFK Assassination Video ChannelSearchNotepadLoginRegister

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2017, 06:55:48 PM
News: Posts and threads containing swear words, personal insults or crudities, content considered by Admin to be spamming, when reported or observed, may be edited or deleted.
The perpetrator of any offense may receive a posting suspension of a period to be determined by Admin in relation to the considered severity of the offense.
Questions relating to deletions or edits will not be answered by Admin via any communication method here or elsewhere.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 23
Statements That Sink The WCís Conclusions -- #433  (Read 7740 times)
Super Member
*****

Posts: 10453


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not sure, but probably not a "report." By the time the FBI conducted their investigation and wrote up the report on Oswald mentioning Hidell, it was October 31, 1963.

See As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login. This is a lengthy report, so you want to skip to page 7, or maybe not.

While I was about to post a short reply showing CE826, I came across the obvious issue of FBI document forgery, fakery, and disparity. I don't claim to follow it all, but the venerable Harold Weisberg looked at the problems of the New Orleans report... in 1969! So I will defer to his judgment in some of this. Weisberg notes the seemingly ignorant and short-sighted Kaack report and the ridiculous "interviewed [...] at his request" by SA Quigley. The circumstances of Oswald being interviewed by the FBI is left to our imagination.

So when Oswald knowingly lies to the interviewee (John Quigley), we see someone who doesn't step in to the investigation narrative to reveal the lies. (Oswald's wife's origin, his employment history, and the fake people who were in the Cuba committee.) Was Quigley duped? That seems impossible. I haven't read everything in the files from New Orleans, but there were letters flying back and forth between Dallas and NO about Lee's address... in July, August, and September 1963. [My SOURCE: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login ] Surely, the Oswald was well-known to the FBI, even if none of the informants knew him.

Weisberg states it more ominously (sorry, OCR not perfect):

**********WEISBERG ON******************
Examination o! the report at so late a date perhaps illuminates it more end discloses significant omissions th.at cannot be accidental, omissions
th~t amount to deliberate ralsifioation, end strange juggling witb.in  the FBI Hew Orleans office, at the Tery least. I think t~ie ere not inconsistent With LEO having been en informant tor the FBI, of which I have no proof.

[...]

Page 5 is the first poge or the 8/15/63 Quigley report. It is an unlikely account, beginning w1 th the statement Oswald "waa interviewed at his request, 111.th no indication of why or the unusualness. It gives the termination date of0s"8ld's Reily anployment as 1'11317, casting further doubt on the later offiicial story. In tbe second paragreph 1 t gives a fictitious account of Oswald's :post-Marine career thet the FBI knew to be false and about which Quigley is without comment) and that Oswald had every reason to believe the FBI would know to be false. There is no reason to believe it is what Oswald said, ea there is no proof it is not. However, it cen b, assumed Oswald did know his a wife's maiden name, which tbi !! re'P')Jrt does not reflect { "Pro sea"). Tha re is no suggestion Oswald l8 d been a defecter who also had threatened to give away real military secrets, none of his being asked about it. Now, if it can be argued that at the time he intarviewed Oswald
[...]

Page 6 has a deadpan presentat1on of what was attributed to Oswald, that he was a member ot the .N.o. FPCC, held meetings of it at his home, a!ld didn't know the names or any of the members.
[...]

Page 7 is more of the same improbabilities.

*****************WEISBERG OFF******************

See As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login for the Weisberg notes!

So did I prove that Hidell was known to the FBI in August? Or that the FBI was too busy cranking out ridiculous reports to chase down Hidell?

My question is whether the FBI folks in New Orleans were utter incompetents, pencil pushers masquerading as agents, or whether the hot summer of 1963 just slowed the progress. These guys act too dumb to fabricate a Hidell story on November 23... or... maybe like Weisberg thought... the FBI is playing dumb with the Hidell fake name business. For all we know, Hidell was the FBI's creation for Oswald to use.

Did Oswald really volunteer all this information to the FBI, only to be mad a few months later when Hosty in Dallas wanted to talk to his whom he married in "Fort Worth" with the name of Marina "Prossa"? I am sorry for presenting all of this evidence and then saying that it seems to be fishy. Something about it stinks. Maybe passing out Cuban literature... on Canal Street... in the name of Oswald Hidell... has something to do with it. Or maybe flashing a fake card with Hidell on it, to the FBI, in a voluntary interview, is just your routine quirky, loony Oswald.

For all we know, Hidell was the FBI's creation for Oswald to use.

An astute deduction,  Mr Carr.....

We know the FBI contacted Lee a couple of months after he returned from Russia.....  It doesn't take a genius to deduce that Hoover would have wanted to enlist Lee  in spying and gathering information on the Russian community in Dallas.....  Because Lee was an ideal candidate, in the facts that he; Spoke Russian fluently, was married to a Russian girl,  and had just returned from the USSR.    Since Hoover was determined to get the commies out of the hemisphere and over throw Fidel Castro you can bet he would have tried to enlist Lee Oswald in that effort......


-------------------------
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 06:44:43 PM by Walt Cakebread »

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 3217


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Walt -- who cares?  The WC called it a Selective Service card so that is what I go by. The point is that the card was fake and it was used to try and link LHO to the alleged murder weapons. But there is NO evidence showing that LHO ever had this card on him on November 22 as claimed.

When a lunatic like Caprio indicates there is "no evidence" of something what he actually means is that he rejects the overwhelming evidence of such because it contradicts his paranoid fairy tale.  Oswald is linked to the Hidell alias through a number of means.  He included it on his New Orleans post office box application, the name he used to order the rifle (confirmed to be in Oswald's handwritting), and the card found in his possession upon arrest.  It would almost be impossible to have any more evidence than we do have to link Oswald to that alias.  To suggest there is "no evidence" of such is to be a fringe loon and liar.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 21661


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When a lunatic like Caprio indicates there is "no evidence" of something what he actually means is that he rejects the overwhelming evidence of such because it contradicts his paranoid fairy tale.  Oswald is linked to the Hidell alias through a number of means.  He included it on his New Orleans post office box application, the name he used to order the rifle (confirmed to be in Oswald's handwritting), and the card found in his possession upon arrest.  It would almost be impossible to have any more evidence than we do have to link Oswald to that alias.  To suggest there is "no evidence" of such is to be a fringe loon and liar.

This was actually said by someone who hasn't cited one piece of evidence. Not one. So how can I be "denying" anything? Richard said the truth before when he said that the time on the arrest report was the time of the arrest, but the problem with that is he was not arrested at 1:40 p.m. as the report states.

Letís thank Richard for stating the truth and confirming that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Bravo Richard.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 3217


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This was actually said by someone who hasn't cited one piece of evidence. Not one. So how can I be "denying" anything? Richard said the truth before when he said that the time on the arrest report was the time of the arrest, but the problem with that is he was not arrested at 1:40 p.m. as the report states.

Letís thank Richard for stating the truth and confirming that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Bravo Richard.

You are really losing it.  What I confirmed is that you are a dishonest imbecile at best and an outright lunatic at worst.  Something that is obvious to just about every person who frequents this board including your fellow CTers.  I have no idea what you are babbling about here.  You appear to have mixed up several issues in which you have should be embarrassed had you a functioning brain.  For example, claiming that an arrest report with a time notation for the arrest at  "1:40" indicates that it must have been written at 1:40 even though it contains information that occurred days later.   Or that there is "no evidence" that Oswald used the Hidell alias even though there is an order form for the rifle in that name in his handwritting, that name is listed on Oswald's NO post office box form, and the SS card with that name was in his pocket when he was arrested.  That is what people with a functioning brain refer to as evidence and what lunatics ignore to maintain their paranoid fantasies.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 7906


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It might be useful to identify when, how (A. or A.J.) and by whom A.J. Hidell is first claimed to be linked with Oswald.
CE813 a form 731 vaccination certificate dated 8 June, 1963, displays A.J. Hi dell playing the role of doctor.
It is alleged a forgery presented by Oswald in the course of obtaining a passport issued on 25 June.

Actually the vaccination card says "Hideel".


-------------------------
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 11:52:30 PM by John Iacoletti »

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 7906


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Or that there is "no evidence" that Oswald used the Hidell alias even though there is an order form for the rifle in that name in his handwritting, that name is listed on Oswald's NO post office box form, and the SS card with that name was in his pocket when he was arrested. 

None of this actually shows that Oswald used the Hidell name as an alias, besides the SS card which we don't actually know was in his pocket when he was arrested.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 10453


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
None of this actually shows that Oswald used the Hidell name as an alias, besides the SS card which we don't actually know was in his pocket when he was arrested.

None of this actually shows that Oswald used the Hidell name as an alias,

Exactly Right!.....    There's nothing to prove that Lee ever actually presented himself as AJ Hidell......


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 21661


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are really losing it.  What I confirmed is that you are a dishonest imbecile at best and an outright lunatic at worst.  Something that is obvious to just about every person who frequents this board including your fellow CTers.  I have no idea what you are babbling about here.  You appear to have mixed up several issues in which you have should be embarrassed had you a functioning brain.  For example, claiming that an arrest report with a time notation for the arrest at  "1:40" indicates that it must have been written at 1:40 even though it contains information that occurred days later.   Or that there is "no evidence" that Oswald used the Hidell alias even though there is an order form for the rifle in that name in his handwritting, that name is listed on Oswald's NO post office box form, and the SS card with that name was in his pocket when he was arrested.  That is what people with a functioning brain refer to as evidence and what lunatics ignore to maintain their paranoid fantasies.

You can personal attack all you want. In fact, that is all that you can do since you have NO supporting evidence for your claims. LHO was NOT arrested at 1:40 p.m.  That is simply a fact. And yet, the arrest report claims that he was.

This tells us that LHO was the designated patsy as he claimed. Thanks for your honesty and for confirming that a conspiracy killed JFK.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 23


Jump to:  

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963

JFK Assassination Photographs Gallery

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines