BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[John Mytton]

Don?t we? What do you conclude from CE1952?

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm


Cropped close-ups:

Thanks Colin, it looks like one of Alan's theories needs some major reconstruction. "funny emoticon"



JohnM

[Alan Ford]

Thanks Colin, it looks like one of Alan's theories needs some major reconstruction. "funny emoticon"



JohnM

 

Mr Mytton against demonstrates the dangers of not reading the thread before jumping in with a clueless contribution...

-----------I pointed out these anomalies between the two forms back on March 6!

 

[Colin Crow]

I think the least we can conclude is that Day was not adverse to altering documentation. Knock me over with a feather.

I can now think of a reason to fingerprint the rods in the Paine garage. If the rods were originally stored in a bag and Oswald?s prints were on rods 275 and/or 276 it might suggest he used that bag (and possibly other rods if there were originally more than 2).

[John Mytton]

Mr Mytton against demonstrates the dangers of not reading the thread before jumping in with a clueless contribution...

-----------I pointed out these anomalies between the two forms back on March 6!

 

Geez Alan, why is every one of your posts overloaded with sarcasm and/or insults, could it be because you yourself know that your "theory" requires supporting evidence that you don't have? From a wrong date you've extrapolated an entire industry! Btw Denis has already thoroughly embarrassed you by revealing some of your prior posts and now you suggest that somewhere within your history we will find all the answers?, talk about delusions of grandeur!

As I said in my first post, I don't believe that the document was written in real time from top to bottom.
Colin was right in saying that the document was written about the time of when he had to give his WC testimony, so in essence Lt Day had his normal day to day activities, on top of his JFK investigation and then he had to prepare for court.

What I see is for whatever reason Day simply wrote when he received the curtain rods from Howlett, early the next day the 24th at 7:50 AM, in the wrong place. Then at some later stage Day filled the rest in red and just went by memory or some scrambled notes and picked a date before the 24th, how could Day know that some one like Alan would come along and place so much importance on some insignificant date when clearly all Day was worried about is the actual evidence.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

I think the least we can conclude is that Day was not adverse to altering documentation.

Sure the date was altered but why would he remove his signature just to sign it again?



JohnM

[Tim Nickerson]

Don?t we? What do you conclude from CE1952?

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm


Cropped close-ups:

I conclude that CE1952 is a very poor photocopy of a document that was copied before John Howlett signed it a second time. It's similar to the following:

[Denis Pointing]

Look at the difference between Day's signature on the photographed copy and the photocopied one.

Yep, just about to point out the same thing Tim, the 'DAY' signature is written more to the right than on the photographed copy. Also, the 7.50a timestamp is written slightly different.