Is the amount of effort to link Oswald to Hidell believable?

[John Iacoletti]

Prove to who? YOU? You can't be serious!

Prove to anybody

In the past, I have naively asked, "beyond the literal mountain of evidence that already exists that links Oswald to the rifle order what more evidence should be presented to prove Oswald purchased and possessed the rifle and I was told, when the evidence is presented they will let me know. I should have known better than to ask an unreasonable CT for a reasonable answer.

“Mountain”. LOL.

What exactly “links Oswald” personally to that rifle order?

- unscientific and biased handwriting analysis of two block-written letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon for a similar but not identical rifle. From microfilm that is now “missing”.

. . .

And that’s it, other than your penchant for storytelling and wishful thinking.

[John Iacoletti]

Great post.  And why go through all this as part of any plan to frame Oswald?  Why not just use his real name on all the documents linking him to the guns?  It would have served the same purpose from the conspirator's perspective to link Oswald to specific weapons.  There is no need to manufacturer an alias to accomplish that purpose.

The usual “conspirators I just made up in my head would never do that, therefore there was no conspiracy, therefore Oswald did it” argument that “Richard” is so fond of.

In contrast, if Oswald ordered these guns in contemplation of using them for a crime (as we know he did), he had every incentive to use an alias as a means to muddy the connection.

We don’t “know” anything of the kind.

The contrarians stupidly equate these two very different situations as though they are the same.  As a part of a plan to frame Oswald via establishing a connection to the name used to order the weapons, an alias is unnecessary, risky and complicated.  As part of Oswald's own effort to conceal his connection to the guns, it useful, not risky and easy to accomplish.  Was it perfect?  No.  In part because Oswald stupidly kept the Hidell ID and he had to have a way to obtain the guns when they were shipped to him.  So he had to use an address that was associated with himself.  But he had nothing to lose by using an alias.   Contrarians can't accept the logic of the obvious when it comes to any situation that lends itself to Oswald's guilt.

Cool story, bro. Unfortunately, your vivid imagination doesn’t constitute “logic of the obvious”.

[Charles Collins]

From “Assignment Oswald” by James Hosty, page 106:

Suddenly, DeBrueys exclaimed, “Thank God!” I walked over to his side of the desk and looked over his shoulder at the document he was reading. It was a letter that Lee Oswald had written to the national office for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York City. In the letter, Oswald acknowledged that he was the only member of the New Orleans branch of this committee, and that he used A. J. Hidell as one of his aliases. DeBrueys said that he had only deduced, not definitively concluded, that Oswald was the only member of the committee in New Orleans and used Hidell as an alias. This letter, in Oswald’s own handwriting, completely validated DeBrueys’s deductions. He was visibly relieved, because he knew that the rifle trace had largely depended on his deductions.

Is this letter from LHO to the FPCC in the record for us to see?

[Richard Smith]

It is amazing that our resident contrarians will go round and round down the rabbit hole on every subject.  Here the objective of any conspirators to frame Oswald is to link him to the rifle as definitively as possible.  Why use an alias in that scenario to obscure the purchase?  The planners are not attempting to hide Oswald's purchase of the weapons, but to the contrary link him to the weapon.  No need for any alias in that context.  In contrast, if Oswald intends to use the rifle to commit a crime, then he has every incentive to put as much distance between himself and the purchase of that weapon as he can.  So he has every incentive to obscure the trail as much as possible.  The use of an alias in that context is understandable.  This is not rocket science unless someone is playing defense attorney in which it matters less what the truth is than to create doubt by any means.

This line of logic that the use of an alias is consistent with Oswald's desire to distance himself from the rifle and inconsistent with a desire to link him to the rifle doesn't prove Oswald purchased the rifle (the evidence does that) but it lends support to the LNer narrative and undercuts the conspiracy narrative.  Contrarians just ignore this.  This is all just assumptions in a contrarian world in which no fact that they don't want to accept can ever be proven.  Most amusing in their Alice-in-Wonderland approach is that they refuse to even entertain the actual implications of their own counternarrative having any validity.  Much less address it.  The game begins and ends by attempting to create any false doubt of Oswald's guilt.  The absurdity of the counternarrative that must result as a direct consequence to explain events if the evidence against Oswald has been fabricated is never a consideration in reaching any conclusion about underlying events.  For example, if there is debate that Scenario A has occurred by claiming instead that Scenario B occurred, and we know that this alternative scenario that event C and D must have happened as consequence of B having validity, then we can look to whether C and D actually happened or make any sense given the avowed purpose to access the validity of alternative B.  Contrarians never reach this step.  They focus solely on Scenario A.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

From “Assignment Oswald” by James Hosty, page 106:

Suddenly, DeBrueys exclaimed, “Thank God!” I walked over to his side of the desk and looked over his shoulder at the document he was reading. It was a letter that Lee Oswald had written to the national office for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York City. In the letter, Oswald acknowledged that he was the only member of the New Orleans branch of this committee, and that he used A. J. Hidell as one of his aliases. DeBrueys said that he had only deduced, not definitively concluded, that Oswald was the only member of the committee in New Orleans and used Hidell as an alias. This letter, in Oswald’s own handwriting, completely validated DeBrueys’s deductions. He was visibly relieved, because he knew that the rifle trace had largely depended on his deductions.

Is this letter from LHO to the FPCC in the record for us to see?

Charles: Several of Oswald's handwritten letters to the FPCC can be read here:  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=957#relPageId=325&search=JFK_Exhibit%20F-497

These were in the HSCA files. They are hard to read, some more than others, and the one I thought would be a letter mentioning the alias - F-497 - doesn't mention it. On second thought I don't think he would mention the Hidell alias in the first letter, the one asking about forming a chapter. Maybe in a followup one? The next letter, F-498, is impossible to make out. It may be in there but I can't find it. In any case, I think this is the best place to find them.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald's followup letter (typed version/copy) is here:  https://ncisahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/OSWALD-Lee-H-His-Letter-to-Fair-Play-for-Cuba-Committee-Undated.pdf

No mention of the Hidell alias.

[Charles Collins]

Charles: Several of Oswald's handwritten letters to the FPCC can be read here:  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=957#relPageId=325&search=JFK_Exhibit%20F-497

These were in the HSCA files. They are hard to read, some more than others, and the one I thought would be a letter mentioning the alias - F-497 - doesn't mention it. On second thought I don't think he would mention the Hidell alias in the first letter, the one asking about forming a chapter. Maybe in a followup one? The next letter, F-498, is impossible to make out. It may be in there but I can't find it. In any case, I think this is the best place to find them.

Oswald's followup letter (typed version/copy) is here:  https://ncisahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/OSWALD-Lee-H-His-Letter-to-Fair-Play-for-Cuba-Committee-Undated.pdf

No mention of the Hidell alias.

Thanks Steve!