JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on June 22, 2023, 01:00:29 AM
-
As I have been saying for some time, only Oswald would order his rifle through an alias because setting up Oswald through his real name is far far easier and much more logical, because why on Earth invent an extra step which leads away from your Patsy?
Way back in March63 when Oswald ordered and was photographed with his rifle, Oswald was planning on using the rifle to assassinate General Walker a month later.
In the weeks between his purchase and the attempt, Oswald took surveillance photos of the side of the Walker residence where the attempt took place, a photo of a fence where Oswald was going to steady his rifle, had a map where X marks the spot, and besides the attempt itself Oswald told Marina specific details like the night of church gatherings. Oswald thought of himself as some sort of clandestine spy on a mission, yet still Oswald was clearly thinking this through up to the point where he pulled the trigger, and he even wrote a note for Marina where he guides her through the immediate aftermath and he says "If I am alive and captured..." indicating that he expected a shoot out with the Cops, similarly in the Texas Theatre Oswald put this "suicide by cop" into action when he pulled the trigger of his revolver.
Anyway, the point of this thread is to show you dear reader that the amount of effort and planning to link the alias Hidell with the person Oswald was an effort of enormous magnitude and required forgery, planting evidence in obscure places and a stack of lies. This sequence of inconceivable events I doubt would even be contemplated by a fiction author like Ian Fleming or Robert Ludlum, because of the absurd unbelievability, yet almost 60 years later the mind of an ever increasingly desperate conspiracy theorist who believes anything and I mean anything is possible, just take it all in their stride. -sigh-
It was either Oswald or;
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kliens coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kliens microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell name on on the Kleins Coupon found by Waldman on the night following the assassination was forgotten?
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
Looking at this mountain of evidence that links Hidell with Oswald and I ask even the most sceptical to consider that each step needs to be either planned, forged, planted and then lied about, and then take the time to contemplate if this mass co-ordination of deception is even possible in our Real World?
I rest my case!
JohnM
-
A classic example of overthinking.
Most of what's in the list didn't have to happen that way at all. It has been clear from the start, at least to me, that if there has been a conspiracy before the event, Oswald would have had to be part of it somehow, as it's simply impossible to set up a complete outsider.
I'm not saying it happened (I simply do not know) but it can not be ruled out that Oswald was manipulated into doing things like using the Hidell alias in some ways that may well have looked harmless to him at the time, such as putting the name on the New Orleans P.O. box, using it for his Fair play for Cuba activities, using it for job applications and/or making the fake ID. It is possible that Oswald simply wouldn't have understood what the consequences could be when this evidence is placed in another context.
The main question is was he being manipulated or not? The answer of course is that we will never know, either way. That's the problem with a highly circumstantial case where the only physical evidence is a rifle and some shells found at the TSBD. Everything gets subjected to spin.
The bottom line is a simple one; all these claims made about the Hidell alias do not, in any way, lead to the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy. It's mere window dressing to put Oswald in the most negative light so that it might be easier to conclude that he did in fact kill Kennedy. Perhaps that was the main purpose from the beginning.
That's why you call it "a mountain of evidence" when in fact it's just a bunch of assumptions and silly questions which could only have been answered by Oswald.
-
A classic example of overthinking.
Most of what's in the list didn't have to happen that way at all. It has been clear from the start, at least to me, that if there has been a conspiracy before the event, Oswald would have had to be part of it somehow, as it's simply impossible to set up a complete outsider.
I'm not saying it happened (I simply do not know) but it is very well possible that Oswald was manipulated into doing things like using the Hidell alias in some ways that may well have looked harmless to him at the time, such as putting the name on the New Orleans P.O. box, using it for his Fair play for Cuba activities, using it for job applications and/or making the fake ID. It is possible that Oswald simply wouldn't have understood what the consequences could be when this evidence is placed in another context.
The main question is was he being manipulated or not? The answer of course is that we will never know, either way. That's the problem with a highly circumstantial case where the only physical evidence is a rifle and some shells found at the TSBD. Everything gets subjected to spin.
The bottom line is a simple one; all these claims made about the Hidell alias do not, in any way, lead to the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy. It's mere window dressing to put Oswald in the most negative light so that it might be easier to conclude that he did in fact kill Kennedy. Perhaps that was the main purpose from the beginning.
That's why you call it "a mountain of evidence" when in fact it's just a bunch of assumptions and silly questions which could only have been answered by Oswald.
A classic example of overthinking.
I'm just presenting the facts, wouldn't a more appropriate usage of overthinking be creating excuses for this evidence, like for instance Oswald being manipulated by unknown entities?
It has been clear from the start, at least to me, that if there has been a conspiracy before the event, Oswald would have had to be part of it somehow, as it's simply impossible to set up a complete outsider.
A stack of that evidence occurred way back in March, it's highly unlikely Oswald was being set up for the Kennedy assassination so far in advance, isn't it far more likely it was simply Oswald himself? Because without a shred of evidence to the contrary there's no reason to consider a fantasy scenario? Facts convince Juries and me and presumably you!
I'm not saying it happened (I simply do not know) but it is very well possible that Oswald was manipulated into doing things like using the Hidell alias in some ways that may well have looked harmless to him at the time, such as putting the name on the New Orleans P.O. box, using it for his Fair play for Cuba activities, using it for job applications and/or making the fake ID.
Do you honestly believe that the same Oswald who after being denied entry into Russia, (hacked into his own wrist creating a 2 inch wound requiring stitches, while also causing a loss of a lot of blood and the end result giving him exactly what he wanted, and thus proving that Russia wasn't going to push him around and out of the country), could be manipulated so easily?
It is possible that Oswald simply wouldn't have understood what the consequences could be when this evidence is placed in another context.
The Oswald we know from the many testimonies show that he wasn't a man to be pushed around or manipulated. While in New Orleans he in fact tried to manipulate the anti-Castro's proving that Oswald was quite shrewd.
The main question is was he being manipulated or not? The answer of course is that we will never know, either way.
Manipulated by who and why because without any supported evidence of manipulation we can only rely on the facts
That's the problem with a highly circumstantial case where the only physical evidence is a rifle and some shells found at the TSBD.
The rifle that killed the President, that Oswald purchased, was photographed with and the same rifle Oswald bought was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace was discovered with his fingerprints and matching shirt fibers is the most important evidence in this case.
The bottom line is a simple one; all these claims made about the Hidell alias do not, in any way, lead to the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy.
The basic impossibility of anyone else manufacturing all this evidence is powerful evidence that Oswald wasn't set up.
It's mere window dressing to put Oswald in the most negative light so that it might be easier to conclude that he did in fact kill Kennedy.
??
All this evidence directly attributed in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald would have an equal effect, if not more so.
Perhaps that was the main purpose from the beginning.
What, starting way back in March? And then carrying out all of the above?
That's why you call it "a mountain of evidence"
Because it is a mountain of evidence.
when in fact it's just a bunch of assumptions and silly questions
The irony is that CT's have attempted to distance Oswald from the rifle by using unsupported assumptions. Go figure.
which could only have been answered by Oswald.
The reason Oswald killed the President and Officer Tippit could only be answered by Oswald but the fact that he did is supported by the evidence, CT's are constantly presenting their own ideas on why this or that piece of evidence is fraudulent but where is their proof?
JohnM
-
I'm just presenting the facts, wouldn't a more appropriate usage of overthinking be creating excuses for this evidence, like for instance Oswald being manipulated by unknown entities?
A stack of that evidence occurred way back in March, it's highly unlikely Oswald was being set up for the Kennedy assassination so far in advance, isn't it far more likely it was simply Oswald himself? Because without a shred of evidence to the contrary there's no reason to consider a fantasy scenario? Facts convince Juries and me and presumably you!
Do you honestly believe that the same Oswald who after being denied entry into Russia, (hacked into his own wrist creating a 2 inch wound requiring stitches, while also causing a loss of a lot of blood and the end result giving him exactly what he wanted, and thus proving that Russia wasn't going to push him around and out of the country), could be manipulated so easily?
The Oswald we know from the many testimonies show that he wasn't a man to be pushed around or manipulated. While in New Orleans he in fact tried to manipulate the anti-Castro's proving that Oswald was quite shrewd.
Manipulated by who and why because without any supported evidence of manipulation we can only rely on the facts
The rifle that killed the President, that Oswald purchased, was photographed with and the same rifle Oswald bought was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace was discovered with his fingerprints and matching shirt fibers is the most important evidence in this case.
The basic impossibility of anyone else manufacturing all this evidence is powerful evidence that Oswald wasn't set up.
??
All this evidence directly attributed in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald would have an equal effect, if not more so.
What, starting way back in March? And then carrying out all of the above?
Because it is a mountain of evidence.
The irony is that CT's have attempted to distance Oswald from the rifle by using unsupported assumptions. Go figure.
The reason Oswald killed the President and Officer Tippit could only be answered by Oswald but the fact that he did is supported by the evidence, CT's are constantly presenting their own ideas on why this or that piece of evidence is fraudulent but where is their proof?
JohnM
I'm just presenting the facts,
No, you are presenting what you believe to be "facts. There is a difference.
A stack of that evidence occurred way back in March, it's highly unlikely Oswald was being set up for the Kennedy assassination so far in advance
I agree that's unlikely. But a fireman isn't trained for a particular fire either and a soldier isn't trained for a particular war. With all the anti-Cuba stuff going on, the alias could easily have been created for that and then, with all the "evidence" in place, was used for something else.
isn't it far more likely it was simply Oswald himself?
It's possible, but for what purpose? It couldn't have been the Kennedy murder because he was using the Hidell alias months before he could have known that Kennedy would come to Dallas... You see, that's why this stuff doesn't make sense at all. You present the Hidell alias as evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy, but at the same time you agree that it's unlikely the alias was created so far in advance. You can't have it both ways!
Do you honestly believe that the same Oswald who after being denied entry into Russia, (hacked into his own wrist creating a 2 inch wound requiring stitches, while also causing a loss of a lot of blood and the end result giving him exactly what he wanted, and thus proving that Russia wasn't going to push him around and out of the country), could be manipulated so easily?
I never knew the man, which means I would have to come to a conclusion about his personality based solely on what I have been told about him and that's at best contradictory.
The Oswald we know from the many testimonies show that he wasn't a man to be pushed around or manipulated. While in New Orleans he in fact tried to manipulate the anti-Castro's proving that Oswald was quite shrewd.
That's your opinion, based on what you have been told. Buell Wesley Frazier did know Oswald personally and he described him as good with kids and a man who he did not believe was capable of killing anybody.
Manipulated by who and why
I already told you, we many never know.
because without any supported evidence of manipulation we can only rely on the facts
How does one obtain evidence of manipulation? And what you rely on is what you believe to be "facts" when for the most part they are opinions.
The rifle that killed the President, that Oswald purchased, was photographed with and the same rifle Oswald bought was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace was discovered with his fingerprints and matching shirt fibers is the most important evidence in this case.
It's not the most important evidence, it's the only evidence and most of it are just conclusions and assumptions. You keep repeating over and over again (as if that will make it true) that Oswald purchased a rifle [from Kleins'] when in fact there is no conclusive evidence that he did. The claim that he was photographed with "the same file" is just something you believe for which there is no evidence. And there most certainly isn't conclusive proof that a rifle Oswald bought was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. The claim that Oswald's fingerprints were on the rifle found at the TSBD is disproved by the FBI who examined the rifle within 24 hours after the murder and found no prints or even evidence of a print having been lifted on the rifle. And you have already been told over and over again that the so-called "matching shirt fibers" claim is highly speculative and no expert has ever found a match, for one simple reason; all experts agree that you can not make a positive match with fibers.
What are facts is that Jessie Curry admitted that they were never able to place Oswald on the 6th floor at the time the shots were fired and that no evidence can place him there.
The basic impossibility of anyone else manufacturing all this evidence is powerful evidence that Oswald wasn't set up.
No it isn't. You are giving your opinion and that's never evidence. Besides it wasn't a response to my comment that all the claims made about the Hidell alias do not lead to the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy. Earlier on we've already established that Oswald was using the Hildell alias long before it was known that Kennedy would visit Dallas. In other words; as the Hidell alias clearly wasn't created for the purpose of killing Kennedy, the existence of that alias can never be the basis for the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy.
??
All this evidence directly attributed in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald would have an equal effect, if not more so.
That was exactly the point I was making. Let's put Oswald in the most negative light (by using all this Hidell stuff) and people might more easily believe that he killed Kennedy.
It's the classic prosecutorial game played in a circumstantial case.
What, starting way back in March? And then carrying out all of the above?
Well, I said "perhaps", but you are right of course. It would be silly to assume that whatever was going on with the Hidell alias in March 1963 could have had anything to do with the killing of Kennedy in November 1963.
And yet, the WC tried their as hard as they could to connect the Hidell alias with Kennedy's murder. Go figure.
Because it is a mountain of evidence.
Only in your opinion. Too bad most people don't see it that way, because if they did they would have believed the official narrative.
The irony is that CT's have attempted to distance Oswald from the rifle by using unsupported assumptions. Go figure.
Really? Have they? But just to be clear when you say "from the rifle" do you mean the rifle ordered at Kleins' or the rifle Oswald was photographed with, or the rifle found at the TSBD?
I know you normally throw them all three together into it being one rifle, but there is no real evidence for that and your assumptions aren't evidence either.
The reason Oswald killed the President and Officer Tippit could only be answered by Oswald but the fact that he did is supported by the evidence,
If that were true, this board wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having a debate that's now lasted over 60 years.
CT's are constantly presenting their own ideas on why this or that piece of evidence is fraudulent but where is their proof?
I'm not a CT, so I wouldn't know. Ask them.
-
I'm just presenting the facts,
No, you are presenting what you believe to be "facts. There is a difference.
A stack of that evidence occurred way back in March, it's highly unlikely Oswald was being set up for the Kennedy assassination so far in advance
I agree that's unlikely. But a fireman isn't trained for a particular fire either and a soldier isn't trained for a particular war. With all the anti-Cuba stuff going on, the alias could easily have been created for that and then, with all the "evidence" in place, was used for something else.
isn't it far more likely it was simply Oswald himself?
It's possible, but for what purpose? It couldn't have been the Kennedy murder because he was using the Hidell alias months before he could have known that Kennedy would come to Dallas... You see, that's why this stuff doesn't make sense at all. You present the Hidell alias as evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy, but at the same time you agree that it's unlikely the alias was created so far in advance. You can't have it both ways!
Do you honestly believe that the same Oswald who after being denied entry into Russia, (hacked into his own wrist creating a 2 inch wound requiring stitches, while also causing a loss of a lot of blood and the end result giving him exactly what he wanted, and thus proving that Russia wasn't going to push him around and out of the country), could be manipulated so easily?
I never knew the man, which means I would have to come to a conclusion about his personality based solely on what I have been told about him and that's at best contradictory.
The Oswald we know from the many testimonies show that he wasn't a man to be pushed around or manipulated. While in New Orleans he in fact tried to manipulate the anti-Castro's proving that Oswald was quite shrewd.
That's your opinion, based on what you have been told. Buell Wesley Frazier did know Oswald personally and he described him as good with kids and a man who he did not believe was capable of killing anybody.
Manipulated by who and why
I already told you, we many never know.
because without any supported evidence of manipulation we can only rely on the facts
How does one obtain evidence of manipulation? And what you rely on is what you believe to be "facts" when for the most part they are opinions.
The rifle that killed the President, that Oswald purchased, was photographed with and the same rifle Oswald bought was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace was discovered with his fingerprints and matching shirt fibers is the most important evidence in this case.
It's not the most important evidence, it's the only evidence and most of it are just conclusions and assumptions. You keep repeating over and over again (as if that will make it true) that Oswald purchased a rifle [from Kleins'] when in fact there is no conclusive evidence that he did. The claim that he was photographed with "the same file" is just something you believe for which there is no evidence. And there most certainly isn't conclusive proof that a rifle Oswald bought was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. The claim that Oswald's fingerprints were on the rifle found at the TSBD is disproved by the FBI who examined the rifle within 24 hours after the murder and found no prints or even evidence of a print having been lifted on the rifle. And you have already been told over and over again that the so-called "matching shirt fibers" claim is highly speculative and no expert has ever found a match, for one simple reason; all experts agree that you can not make a positive match with fibers.
What are facts is that Jessie Curry admitted that they were never able to place Oswald on the 6th floor at the time the shots were fired and that no evidence can place him there.
The basic impossibility of anyone else manufacturing all this evidence is powerful evidence that Oswald wasn't set up.
No it isn't. You are giving your opinion and that's never evidence. Besides it wasn't a response to my comment that all the claims made about the Hidell alias do not lead to the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy. Earlier on we've already established that Oswald was using the Hildell alias long before it was known that Kennedy would visit Dallas. In other words; as the Hidell alias clearly wasn't created for the purpose of killing Kennedy, the existence of that alias can never be the basis for the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy.
??
All this evidence directly attributed in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald would have an equal effect, if not more so.
That was exactly the point I was making. Let's put Oswald in the most negative light (by using all this Hidell stuff) and people might more easily believe that he killed Kennedy.
It's the classic prosecutorial game played in a circumstantial case.
What, starting way back in March? And then carrying out all of the above?
Well, I said "perhaps", but you are right of course. It would be silly to assume that whatever was going on with the Hidell alias in March 1963 could have had anything to do with the killing of Kennedy in November 1963.
And yet, the WC tried their as hard as they could to connect the Hidell alias with Kennedy's murder. Go figure.
Because it is a mountain of evidence.
Only in your opinion. Too bad most people don't see it that way, because if they did they would have believed the official narrative.
The irony is that CT's have attempted to distance Oswald from the rifle by using unsupported assumptions. Go figure.
Really? Have they? But just to be clear when you say "from the rifle" do you mean the rifle ordered at Kleins' or the rifle Oswald was photographed with, or the rifle found at the TSBD?
I know you normally throw them all three together into it being one rifle, but there is no real evidence for that and your assumptions aren't evidence either.
The reason Oswald killed the President and Officer Tippit could only be answered by Oswald but the fact that he did is supported by the evidence,
If that were true, this board wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having a debate that's now lasted over 60 years.
CT's are constantly presenting their own ideas on why this or that piece of evidence is fraudulent but where is their proof?
I'm not a CT, so I wouldn't know. Ask them.
And you have already been told over and over again that the so-called "matching shirt fibers" claim is highly speculative and no expert has ever found a match, for one simple reason; all experts agree that you can not make a positive match with fibers.
I know you're passionate but why do you misrepresent what I say? Read my reply on this subject to Iacoletti, where I present an expert who found not 1 but three different matching fibers from the rifle and Oswald's shirt and I have never said that anyone can make a "positive match", it's the prohibitive probability that it's highly unlikely that someone else would randomly come into contact with Oswald's rifle. And I also quote an official FBI document which equally says that finding finding random matching fibers is remote.
Btw fiber evidence has helped solve many cases.
That's true, no one ever denied that someone else who was wearing clothes including pants, socks, underwear or even a handy rag, made up of Oswald's shirt fibres could have come into contact with C2766, hence the usage of "probability".
But, and this is very important, the probability of a random contact is as Bugliosi tells us, is prohibitive.
At the end of the day, some random piece of material which contains not one but the same three threads with the same twists, same colour, same dye batch, same amount of fading, etc etc touched C2766
The FBI agrees
"Put another way, the chance of finding known fibers from a randomly selected suspect source that match the questioned fibers is remote"
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/april1999/houckch1.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/C5ZrbCd0/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
The reason Oswald killed the President and Officer Tippit could only be answered by Oswald but the fact that he did is supported by the evidence,
If that were true, this board wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having a debate that's now lasted over 60 years.
The Moon landings are supported by indisputable evidence but "passionate" dissenters still argue that the moon landings were faked.
9/11 was carried out by terrorists but "passionate" dissenters still debate that it was an inside job
"David Icke: Conspiracy of the Lizard Illuminati (Part 1/2)" on YouTube has over 8 million views, just read the comments and see "passionate" supporters.
So obviously till the end of time, there will always be "passionate" dissenters/supporters that will perpetuate any number of Kooky ideas and there will always be intelligent logical educated people that will argue in support of the truth.
I'm not a CT, so I wouldn't know. Ask them.
I deliberately worded the question because I know that you say that you aren't a conspiracy theorist but I do thank you for reminding me once again.
JohnM
-
I know you're passionate but why do you misrepresent what I say? Read my reply on this subject to Iacoletti, where I present an expert who found not 1 but three different matching fibers from the rifle and Oswald's shirt and I have never said that anyone can make a "positive match", it's the prohibitive probability that it's highly unlikely that someone else would randomly come into contact with Oswald's rifle. And I also quote an official FBI document which equally says that finding finding random matching fibers is remote.
Btw fiber evidence has helped solve many cases.
I did not misrepresent what you said. There is no such thing as a positive match when it comes to fibers. You, nevertheless, tried to explain reasons why you can still call it "matching fibers" after all.
That's disingenuous. "prohibitive probabillity" is an estimation and thus, at best, an opinion. The same goes for the FBI document (btw are there also unofficial FBI documents?). Opinions, no matter how likely correct they might seem to be are not evidence.
There's either a demonstrable positive match or there isn't. Trying to twist and turn it into a positive match based on speculative opinions is misrepresenting the evidence.
The Moon landings are supported by indisputable evidence but "passionate" dissenters still argue that the moon landings were faked.
9/11 was carried out by terrorists but "passionate" dissenters still debate that it was an inside job
"David Icke: Conspiracy of the Lizard Illuminati (Part 1/2)" on YouTube has over 8 million views, just read the comments and see "passionate" supporters.
So obviously till the end of time, there will always be "passionate" dissenters/supporters that will perpetuate any number of Kooky ideas and there will always be intelligent logical educated people that will argue in support of the truth.
Well, I'm sure glad that I don't argue the moon landings were faked or that 9/11 was an inside job and that I don't know David Icke, because I would not like to deal with people who call themselves "intelligent logical educated" but forget that even the biggest fool on this planet still considers himself to be a "intelligent logical educated" person.
I deliberately worded the question because I know that you say that you aren't a conspiracy theorist but I do thank you for reminding me once again.
JohnM
So, what's left of this Hidell alias connection with the Kennedy murder? Suddenly, you're very silent on that. Why is that?
-
So, what's left of this Hidell alias connection with the Kennedy murder? Suddenly, you're very silent on that. Why is that?
Stop with the bullying!
You edited my post when you replied to me, here's my answer in full
A stack of that evidence occurred way back in March, it's highly unlikely Oswald was being set up for the Kennedy assassination so far in advance, isn't it far more likely it was simply Oswald himself? Because without a shred of evidence to the contrary there's no reason to consider a fantasy scenario? Facts convince Juries and me and presumably you!
JohnM
-
Stop with the bullying!
You edited my post when you replied to me, here's my answer in full
A stack of that evidence occurred way back in March, it's highly unlikely Oswald was being set up for the Kennedy assassination so far in advance, isn't it far more likely it was simply Oswald himself? Because without a shred of evidence to the contrary there's no reason to consider a fantasy scenario? Facts convince Juries and me and presumably you!
JohnM
Stop with the bullying!
Asking you a question, you don't seem to like, is now bullying? Really? Touchy, touchy.....
You edited my post when you replied to me
I did not edit your post. I merely highlighted in bold the two parts of your reply I was responding to.
The fact remains that when you argue that it's highly unlikely that Oswald was set up for the Kennedy murder so far in advance, you also have to say that it's also unlikely that Oswald (or anybody else) created the Hidell alias so far in advance for the Kennedy murder, eight months later. Ergo, you can not use the Hidell alias as evidence for Oswald's guilt in the Kennedy assassination, when in fact it may not have had anything to do with that. Or is that too logical for you?
-
Researcher Greg Parker has an interesting theory and that is that Oswald had no knowledge of the upcoming murder. In other words he was completely innocent and the reason why he was murdered was not to shut him up about what he knew about the plot, but just to shut him up. I've thought about this and I agree with this now.
I also believe he WAS being manipulated but unknowingly about the murder itself. I believe he was a [very] low-level agent doing "intelligence" about Communists. Thus, the handing out of the leaflets in NO, getting on TV later about it and looking proudly as he explains who he is, and so on. Doing this allowed him to be photographed where his head could later be put onto the BYP. His alias was also a ruse. Doing this showed him to be a rabid Marxist and so on.
This all started, too, the moment he did the fake defection, then returned. There are others out there who we've never heard from again who also did this kind of thing. Robert Webster was another of them.
He asks a co-worker what the commotion was. When he was told the President is coming, he says "oh." He later says in front of TV cameras that the only reason why he was arrested was because he lived in Russia, then went on to say he was a patsy.
He stated the BYP were fake, with his head pasted. He said he'd be able to show how that could be done [because after all, he worked at a photo place].
He supposedly kills the president but has no grand getaway plan. He supposedly sticks around the building, is dismissed from work, walks over to catch a cab home, gives it up for a lady, takes the bus home, changes his clothes, then takes this long roundabout walk where he supposedly is confronted by Tippit, where he guns him down. Then he goes to the theater. The "6 foot 160 lb" description goes out within 15 minutes of the murder. How do they know this so soon? And it's not even accurate, far from it.
-
Researcher Greg Parker has an interesting theory and that is that Oswald had no knowledge of the upcoming murder. In other words he was completely innocent and the reason why he was murdered was not to shut him up about what he knew about the plot, but just to shut him up. I've thought about this and I agree with this now.
I also believe he WAS being manipulated but unknowingly about the murder itself. I believe he was a [very] low-level agent doing "intelligence" about Communists. Thus, the handing out of the leaflets in NO, getting on TV later about it and looking proudly as he explains who he is, and so on. Doing this allowed him to be photographed where his head could later be put onto the BYP. His alias was also a ruse. Doing this showed him to be a rabid Marxist and so on.
This all started, too, the moment he did the fake defection, then returned. There are others out there who we've never heard from again who also did this kind of thing. Robert Webster was another of them.
He asks a co-worker what the commotion was. When he was told the President is coming, he says "oh." He later says in front of TV cameras that the only reason why he was arrested was because he lived in Russia, then went on to say he was a patsy.
He stated the BYP were fake, with his head pasted. He said he'd be able to show how that could be done [because after all, he worked at a photo place].
He supposedly kills the president but has no grand getaway plan. He supposedly sticks around the building, is dismissed from work, walks over to catch a cab home, gives it up for a lady, takes the bus home, changes his clothes, then takes this long roundabout walk where he supposedly is confronted by Tippit, where he guns him down. Then he goes to the theater. The "6 foot 160 lb" description goes out within 15 minutes of the murder. How do they know this so soon? And it's not even accurate, far from it.
I can't agree with everything you've said, simply because of a lack of knowledge or evidence, but I most certainly agree there something just not right about the official narrative's version of what happened between Kennedy being shot and Tippit being murdered.
Oswald seems to have done everything he could possibly do to draw maximum attention to himself, if the official narrative is to be believed. Leaving behind a rifle, with allegedly his prints on it (although the FBI couldn't find them), leaving the building without asking permission or notifying anybody. Hopping on a bus that would bring him straight back to the crime scene and then ask for a transfer. Getting in a taxi only to offer it to a woman who asked for one. Instead of trying to get out of town as quickly as possible (what you would expect an assassin to do), he then takes a walk to a residential area (where he can hardly get there in time, if at all) and for no obvious reason shoots a police man, who stopped him ... for what exactly? He then makes sure that he is noticed by a shoe salesman and again draws attention to himself by entering the Texas Theater without buying a ticket..... None of that adds up or makes any sense.
And then there is the strange story of Oswald, having just spend an entire morning in a dusty warehouse, going back to his roominghouse where he changes his clothes (he told his interrogators he changed them all) but somehow not his shirt and low and behold Bledsoe "recognizes" that shirt because it has a hole it one of the arms and fibers allegedly similar to those of that shirt are found on the rifle found at the TSBD. And as if that isn't enough, he's is also allegedly carrying a fake Hidell ID in his wallet that provides a connecting to the ordering of the rifle, 8 months earlier.
I wonder what more could Oswald possibly have done to draw attention to himself and provide law enforcement officers with the evidence they needed? Put up a billboard sign, perhaps?
-
Didn't you already post this rot in a different thread?
Anyway, the point of this thread is to show you dear reader that the amount of effort and planning to link the alias Hidell with the person Oswald was an effort of enormous magnitude and required forgery, planting evidence in obscure places and a stack of lies. This sequence of inconceivable events I doubt would even be contemplated by a fiction author like Ian Fleming or Robert Ludlum, because of the absurd unbelievability, yet almost 60 years later the mind of an ever increasingly desperate conspiracy theorist who believes anything and I mean anything is possible, just take it all in their stride. -sigh-
This is the usual fallacious “my unsubstantiated claims about the evidence are true or else you must prove that a giant conspiracy faked and planted everything” argument.
Nope. Strawman and false dichotomy.
It was either Oswald or;
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kliens coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kliens microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell name on on the Kleins Coupon found by Waldman on the night following the assassination was forgotten?
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
Nope, sorry. Regardless of any outcome of any of these ridiculous rhetorical false dichotomies, you still cannot demonstrate that Oswald ever used Hidell as an alias for himself. And even if you could, it still would tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy or Tippit.
-
The rifle that killed the President, that Oswald purchased, was photographed with and the same rifle Oswald bought was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace was discovered with his fingerprints and matching shirt fibers is the most important evidence in this case.
Claims about the evidence are not evidence.
-
I know you're passionate but why do you misrepresent what I say? Read my reply on this subject to Iacoletti, where I present an expert who found not 1 but three different matching fibers from the rifle and Oswald's shirt and I have never said that anyone can make a "positive match", it's the prohibitive probability that it's highly unlikely that someone else would randomly come into contact with Oswald's rifle.
That's Bugliosi rhetoric. He doesn't know what the probability is.
P.S. "Oswald's rifle". LOL.
-
Stop with the bullying!
You edited my post when you replied to me, here's my answer in full
A stack of that evidence occurred way back in March, it's highly unlikely Oswald was being set up for the Kennedy assassination so far in advance, isn't it far more likely it was simply Oswald himself? Because without a shred of evidence to the contrary there's no reason to consider a fantasy scenario? Facts convince Juries and me and presumably you!
"far more likely it was simply Oswald himself" is also a fantasy scenario.
-
Didn't you already post this rot in a different thread?
Why yes, yes I did.
After all you were the one who inspired me to write this piece in the first place.
And even after I posted a stack of examples which all required mass fakery, letter perfect forgery, planting evidence in non connected locations and a multitude of lies, you still nonsensically ask "you still cannot demonstrate that Oswald ever used Hidell as an alias for himself", geez John, you're absolutely wedded to the concept of conspiracy yet like Martin you claim you aren't one.
But if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's probably just an unbiased fence sitter! ;)
JohnM
-
Researcher Greg Parker has an interesting theory and that is that Oswald had no knowledge of the upcoming murder. In other words he was completely innocent and the reason why he was murdered was not to shut him up about what he knew about the plot, but just to shut him up. I've thought about this and I agree with this now.
I also believe he WAS being manipulated but unknowingly about the murder itself. I believe he was a [very] low-level agent doing "intelligence" about Communists. Thus, the handing out of the leaflets in NO, getting on TV later about it and looking proudly as he explains who he is, and so on. Doing this allowed him to be photographed where his head could later be put onto the BYP. His alias was also a ruse. Doing this showed him to be a rabid Marxist and so on.
This all started, too, the moment he did the fake defection, then returned. There are others out there who we've never heard from again who also did this kind of thing. Robert Webster was another of them.
He asks a co-worker what the commotion was. When he was told the President is coming, he says "oh." He later says in front of TV cameras that the only reason why he was arrested was because he lived in Russia, then went on to say he was a patsy.
He stated the BYP were fake, with his head pasted. He said he'd be able to show how that could be done [because after all, he worked at a photo place].
He supposedly kills the president but has no grand getaway plan. He supposedly sticks around the building, is dismissed from work, walks over to catch a cab home, gives it up for a lady, takes the bus home, changes his clothes, then takes this long roundabout walk where he supposedly is confronted by Tippit, where he guns him down. Then he goes to the theater. The "6 foot 160 lb" description goes out within 15 minutes of the murder. How do they know this so soon? And it's not even accurate, far from it.
Researcher Greg Parker has an interesting theory and that is that Oswald had no knowledge of the upcoming murder.
I think that's kinda right, Oswald had no knowledge of the upcoming murder right up until the 19th when the parade route was put on the front page of the Dallas Times Herald, and only then did Oswald start thinking about his plan and even up until the night before, I believe there was still a chance that he could pull out, but after being rejected by Marina and, well, the rest is history.
(https://www.jfk.org/wp-content/uploads/1997.056.0104-DTH-Motorcade-Map-400x355.jpg)
"Mr. RANKIN. And how did he show that he was upset?
Mrs. OSWALD. He was upset over the fact that I would not answer him. He tried to start a conversation with me several times, but I would not answer. And he said that he didn't want me to be angry at him because this upsets him.
On that day, he suggested that we rent an apartment in Dallas. He said that
he was tired of living alone and perhaps the reason for my being so angry was the fact that we were not living together. That if I want to he would rent an apartment in Dallas tomorrow--that he didn't want me to remain with Ruth any longer, but wanted me to live with him in Dallas.
He repeated this not once but several times, but I refused. And he said that once again I was preferring my friends to him, and that I didn't need him."
Thus, the handing out of the leaflets in NO, getting on TV later about it and looking proudly as he explains who he is, and so on.
Imo he was proud because his dream was potentially(to him) becoming a reality, he was starting to be someone, perhaps one day a great famous leader!
Doing this allowed him to be photographed where his head could later be put onto the BYP.
I have attempted many composites and it's not easy finding suitable matching body parts with the right lighting, right film stock, right film grain, etc etc, or just look at the awful examples where famous faces are composited, or look at the obviously fake Ruby and Nixon photo.
This all started, too, the moment he did the fake defection, then returned.
I reckon Oswald sincerely believed that being a communist was a better way of life, read the "Oswald historic diaries" which shows over time his increasing disillusionment.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_24.pdf
A brief excerpt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d0bbfJHP/oswald-historic-diary-suicide-insanity-ward.jpg)
He stated the BYP were fake, with his head pasted. He said he'd be able to show how that could be done [because after all, he worked at a photo place].
As I stated above, it ain't easy creating a composite photo and besides a backyard photo negative exists and a tell tale indication of fakery is grain irregularity and the film grain is consistent across the entire image.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZncCw7L3/100graink.jpg)
The "6 foot 160 lb" description goes out within 15 minutes of the murder.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BbdwwpQS/Oswald-description.jpg)
JohnM
-
Researcher Greg Parker has an interesting theory and that is that Oswald had no knowledge of the upcoming murder. In other words he was completely innocent and the reason why he was murdered was not to shut him up about what he knew about the plot, but just to shut him up. I've thought about this and I agree with this now.
What are your thoughts on Jack Ruby?
-
And even after I posted a stack of examples which all required mass fakery, letter perfect forgery, planting evidence in non connected locations and a multitude of lies, you still nonsensically ask "you still cannot demonstrate that Oswald ever used Hidell as an alias for himself", geez John, you're absolutely wedded to the concept of conspiracy yet like Martin you claim you aren't one.
And therein lies your fatal flaw. None of your false dichotomies “require” anything of the kind. You can either prove your claims or you cannot. And you cannot.
-
I think that's kinda right, Oswald had no knowledge of the upcoming murder right up until the 19th when the parade route was put on the front page of the Dallas Times Herald, and only then did Oswald start thinking about his plan and even up until the night before, I believe there was still a chance that he could pull out, but after being rejected by Marina and, well, the rest is history.
Cool fantasy story, bro.
-
And therein lies your fatal flaw. None of your false dichotomies “require” anything of the kind. You can either prove your claims or you cannot. And you cannot.
You can either prove your claims
Prove to who? YOU? You can't be serious!
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.
JohnM
-
As I have been saying for some time, only Oswald would order his rifle through an alias because setting up Oswald through his real name is far far easier and much more logical, because why on Earth invent an extra step which leads away from your Patsy?
Way back in March63 when Oswald ordered and was photographed with his rifle, Oswald was planning on using the rifle to assassinate General Walker a month later.
In the weeks between his purchase and the attempt, Oswald took surveillance photos of the side of the Walker residence where the attempt took place, a photo of a fence where Oswald was going to steady his rifle, had a map where X marks the spot, and besides the attempt itself Oswald told Marina specific details like the night of church gatherings. Oswald thought of himself as some sort of clandestine spy on a mission, yet still Oswald was clearly thinking this through up to the point where he pulled the trigger, and he even wrote a note for Marina where he guides her through the immediate aftermath and he says "If I am alive and captured..." indicating that he expected a shoot out with the Cops, similarly in the Texas Theatre Oswald put this "suicide by cop" into action when he pulled the trigger of his revolver.
Anyway, the point of this thread is to show you dear reader that the amount of effort and planning to link the alias Hidell with the person Oswald was an effort of enormous magnitude and required forgery, planting evidence in obscure places and a stack of lies. This sequence of inconceivable events I doubt would even be contemplated by a fiction author like Ian Fleming or Robert Ludlum, because of the absurd unbelievability, yet almost 60 years later the mind of an ever increasingly desperate conspiracy theorist who believes anything and I mean anything is possible, just take it all in their stride. -sigh-
It was either Oswald or;
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kliens coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kliens microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell name on on the Kleins Coupon found by Waldman on the night following the assassination was forgotten?
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
Looking at this mountain of evidence that links Hidell with Oswald and I ask even the most sceptical to consider that each step needs to be either planned, forged, planted and then lied about, and then take the time to contemplate if this mass co-ordination of deception is even possible in our Real World?
I rest my case!
JohnM
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. 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. 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.
-
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.
-
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”.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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: 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!
-
Thanks Steve!
All six letters he wrote to the FPCC can be read here. I don't see any reference to Hidell although letters two and four are difficult to read.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_1.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_2.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_4.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_5.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_6.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_7.pdf
-
All six letters he wrote to the FPCC can be read here. I don't see any reference to Hidell although letters two and four are difficult to read.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_1.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_2.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_4.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_5.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_6.pdf
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_LeeVincent_Ex_7.pdf
Thanks again Steve. These links are better copies and easier on my tired old eyes. I went back to Hosty’s book “Assignment Oswald” and have found the proper context for the previous quote from that book. Here is another snip that indicates that Hosty and DeBrueys were looking through evidence collected by the Dallas Police. And that this was just a few days after the assassination. So it appears to me that this letter was in LHO’s personal papers. Perhaps it was never sent to the FPCC or was lost or misplaced? Anyway, it sure seems to me that if the authorities had this letter, it should have been presented to the WC as evidence. Here is the snip (from page 100):
An officer showed DeBrueys and me to Lieutenant Potts’s office, which was next to Captain Fritz’s. Stacked in Potts’s office was all the evidence. Two of our FBI agents, Ural Horton and Ron Brinkley, were already there reviewing it, and it looked as if they had been there for some time. When we told them we had been assigned to relieve them, Horton and Brinkley gave sighs of relief. They were criminal agents, with no expertise in counter-intelligence work, and were having a hell of a time making heads or tails of any of the evidence. They quickly grabbed their suit coats, bid us adios and good luck, and left. DeBrueys and I surveyed the room. The evidence seemed to consist mostly of the personal papers of Lee and Marina Oswald. Nothing was organized; in fact, things were a mess. DeBrueys and I looked at each other, not knowing whether to laugh or cry. We decided it was best to divide the room in half and begin what was clearly going to be a tedious job.
-
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.
What a really long-winded way of saying “my claims are automatically correct unless you can prove a different thing happened”.
-
Prove to anybody
Well John, 12 anybody's(Dallas Citizens) had a chance to review the evidence in the closest thing to a real trial that Oswald ever had, with actual real eyewitnesses, forensic experts, medical experts, a real Texas Judge and etc. Oswald was defended by one of the finest trial attorney's in America's history Gerry Spence, who gave an excellent defence but the evidence against Oswald was just too overwhelming and those 12 civilians convicted Oswald!
Sorry about that Bro, but the evidence was in fact proved to 12 anybody's and thus you Lose. Next!
(https://i.postimg.cc/DwfvzMXY/Oswald-trial-jury.jpg)
Part 1
25 links to videos of the Oswald TV Docu-Trial Trial.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0O5WNzrZqIOubam491Q_OKBOBzfH7RDi
And many thanks to David Von Pein who posted these excellent videos.
JohnM
-
Well John, 12 anybodies(Dallas Citizens) had a chance to review the evidence in the closest thing to a real trial that Oswald ever had, with actual real eyewitnesses, forensic experts, medical experts, a real Texas Judge and etc. Oswald was defended by one of the finest trial attorney's in America's history Gerry Spence, who gave an excellent defence but the evidence against Oswald was just too overwhelming and those 12 civilians convicted Oswald! Sorry about that Bro, but you Lose. Next!
(https://i.postimg.cc/DwfvzMXY/Oswald-trial-jury.jpg)
Part 1
25 links to videos of the Oswald TV Docu-Trial Trial.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0O5WNzrZqIOubam491Q_OKBOBzfH7RDi
And many thanks to David Von Pein who posted these excellent videos.
JohnM
Sorry about that Bro, but you Lose.
So, you can't prove your own claims and thus simply rely on a mock-trial which may have looked like the real thing but in so many ways wasn't and doesn't prove your claims at all. Got it.
-
Sorry about that Bro, but you Lose.
So, you can't prove your own claims and thus simply rely on a mock-trial which may have looked like the real thing but in so many ways wasn't and doesn't prove your claims at all. Got it.
Listen closely Martin, the most important evidence that I present here was presented to a Jury of our peers and they convicted Oswald, and the "claim" that it wasn't Oswald was soundly rejected.
JohnM
-
Well John, 12 anybody's(Dallas Citizens) had a chance to review the evidence in the closest thing to a real trial that Oswald ever had,
LOL, TV show ego trial for Bugliosi.
And speaking of moving the goalposts. I don’t recall Vince’s show trial discussing the Hidell alias at all, or what it is supposed to prove.
But again, nice try.
-
Here is some of what Hosty wrote in his book “Assignment Oswald,” page 107-110, about how the evidence was transferred to the FBI:
Tuesday, November 26, 1963 TIME: 8:30 A.M. By the time DeBrueys and I arrived back at the police station to resume our work the next day, Henry Wade, the Dallas district attorney, had convinced the police that they should release all the evidence to the FBI. Because the transport of all the evidence was going to take a lot of work, Ken Howe came over to Lieutenant Potts’s office to help us. The police mandated several conditions for the release of all the evidence. They wanted two of their property men to accompany us to our FBI office to assure the chain of custody. They also wanted us to catalog and photograph everything, then provide them copies. That’s mighty big of them, I thought, seeing they’d had the past four days to do that themselves. With practically no help from the police, DeBrueys, Howe, and I boxed up everything and began lugging the boxes downstairs to the police garage and my car. About 90 minutes later, we packed the last box into the backseat. With the trunk and backseat crammed full of evidence, Howe and DeBrueys climbed into the front seat, and I climbed in behind the wheel. The two property officers got into their car, and with them following, I drove out of the garage. I guess word traveled fast that the FBI was taking away the evidence from the assassination, because as my car reached the top of the garage exit ramp we were met by a dozen television cameramen and photographers. With bulbs flashing rapid-fire and television reporters solemnly announcing that the FBI was driving off with the evidence, I maneuvered our way out of there. TIME: 11:00 A.M. After unloading the evidence, we took the boxes up to the seventh floor, where we found a couple of long tables and set up shop. DeBrueys grabbed a Minox camera and propped it up on a kind of tripod so that it was about 12 inches above the table, its lens pointed straight down. While the two property officers looked on, I started feeding, one at a time, each of the items that had been seized. DeBrueys focused and snapped each item as they were fed through. When each item was photographed, we had to catalog and mark it. To say this process was time-consuming would be an understatement. It was particularly tiresome because of the sheer volume of personal papers belonging to Lee and Marina Oswald. With short breaks for lunch and dinner, DeBrueys and I worked long into the night. TIME: 12:45 A.M. DeBrueys and I were just about finished when Vince Drain, one of our liaisons to the Dallas police, came into the room. The two police property officers stirred just a little in their chairs, cocking their heads to listen. “Hey, the police still have some more evidence they forgot to give you,” Drain said. “Captain Fritz has in his desk Oswald’s wallet, one shell casing from the rifle on the sixth floor of the depository, and Oswald’s notebook. Fritz said to run over to his office and he’ll give this stuff to us. Hosty, Malley and Shanklin want you to go over there yourself and get it.” “Sure. I’ll head over there right now,” I said. DeBrueys continued to work, feeding the items in one at a time, photographing them, cataloging them. I put on my suit jacket and left. I had heard that Fritz was single and that he had an apartment just across the street from the police station. When I got down to the station about 1:00 A.M., Fritz was already there. He greeted me cordially, not the least upset that he had been roused from bed to hand over evidence. He walked me up to his office. It was quite a contrast to see his office and hallway at this hour: it was so empty and quiet compared to Friday afternoon’s chaotic scene. He unlocked his door, hit the light switch, and went over to his desk. He opened one of the drawers and pulled out the address book, wallet, and shell. I got out a piece of paper and wrote up a receipt of evidence: Received from Capt. Will Fritz at approximately 1:00 A.M. on 11/27/63: Billfold and 16 cards and pictures taken from Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63. One notebook recovered from room of Lee Harvey Oswald at 1026 No. Beckley on 11/22/63 with names and addresses. One 6.5-mm rifle hull recovered at Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. James P. Hosty, Jr., Special Agent, FBI I signed the receipt and gave it to Fritz. Then I picked up the evidence and thanked the captain.
I underlined the part about how many cards and photographs were taken from LHO on 11/22/63. For me, this appears to be further evidence that the (less than 16) cards included with the wallet in the photograph (posted elsewhere recently) taken in 2013 of the assassination evidence exhibit do not represent a complete inventory of the items.
Also, it appears to me that the letter from LHO to the FPCC that Hosty writes that DeBrueys found should have been photographed and catalogued during the transfer process.
-
Listen closely Martin, the most important evidence that I present here was presented to a Jury of our peers and they convicted Oswald, and the "claim" that it wasn't Oswald was soundly rejected.
I see you’re still confused about how burden of proof works. Nobody has to prove that “it wasn’t Oswald”.
-
LOL, TV show ego trial for Bugliosi.
And speaking of moving the goalposts. I don’t recall Vince’s show trial discussing the Hidell alias at all, or what it is supposed to prove.
But again, nice try.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qFNhB6M/Hidell-kleins.jpg)
JohnM
-
The two police property officers stirred just a little in their chairs, cocking their heads to listen. “Hey, the police still have some more evidence they forgot to give you,” Drain said. “Captain Fritz has in his desk Oswald’s wallet, one shell casing from the rifle on the sixth floor of the depository, and Oswald’s notebook.
Pity they didn’t include or mention the partial palmprint lift that Day supposedly had that night.
I got out a piece of paper and wrote up a receipt of evidence: Received from Capt. Will Fritz at approximately 1:00 A.M. on 11/27/63: Billfold and 16 cards and pictures taken from Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63.
Is this receipt in the extant evidence? I ask since Hosty apparently got the details of the FPCC letters wrong.
But he doesn’t actually say that the “16 cards and pictures” were all inside the billfold — at that time or ever. Not that he would have any firsthand knowledge either way.
-
I see you’re still confused about how burden of proof works. Nobody has to prove that “it wasn’t Oswald”.
Talk about delusions of Grandeur, you seem to get off in your fantasy about being Oswald's defence lawyer, but this isn't court, it's just a discussion Forum.
At times we can use the evidence court standards but let me repeat, this isn't court, it's just a discussion Forum! LOLOLOLOL!
JohnM
-
Listen closely Martin, the most important evidence that I present here was presented to a Jury of our peers and they convicted Oswald, and the "claim" that it wasn't Oswald was soundly rejected.
JohnM
the most important evidence that I present here was presented to a Jury of our peers
If you say so. In just about the most compressed manner possible they selected parts of the evidence they considered important. No discovery, no appeal possible, just a handful of witnesses and many subjects completely ignored or just assumed to be fact.
In a real murder trial witnesses can be on the stand for several days. Here only for a couple of minutes with only superficial follow up questions being asked.
Btw, the mere fact that this jury agreed with you on Oswald's guilt, doesn't mean that opinion is correct? It is nothing more than another appeal to authority.
-
Talk about delusions of Grandeur, you seem to get off in your fantasy about being Oswald's defence lawyer, but this isn't court, it's just a discussion Forum.
At times we can use the evidence court standards but let me repeat, this isn't court, it's just a discussion Forum! LOLOLOLOL!
JohnM
And therefore you just happened to use a mock-trial to "support" your claims? .....
But what are you really saying here? Is it that the burden of proof doesn't exist on this forum? If so, then why are you constantly asking for proof from other members? Or is it that you feel the burden of proof doesn't apply to you but it does apply to other members?
-
Pity they didn’t include or mention the partial palmprint lift that Day supposedly had that night.
Is this receipt in the extant evidence. I ask since Hosty apparently got the details of the FPCC letters wrong.
But he doesn’t actually say that the “16 cards and pictures” were all inside the billfold — at that time or ever. Not that he would have any firsthand knowledge either way.
Is this receipt in the extant evidence.
I don’t know. I am just reporting what Hosty wrote in his book. If I remember correctly, he states that he took notes when these things were happening. And that he used them to help him with his book.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qFNhB6M/Hidell-kleins.jpg)
a) there is nothing in this video that discusses Oswald’s alleged use of the Hidell alias or any evidence that Oswald was carrying an ID card at the time of his arrest.
b) Shaneyfelt gave no WC testimony whatsoever about handwriting. He testified about photographs. By the way, that’s the same Shaneyfelt who said the rifle in the backyard photos is not identifiable. It’s not at all clear when he examined these things for the show trial or exactly what he examined.
But again, nice try.
-
Talk about delusions of Grandeur, you seem to get off in your fantasy about being Oswald's defence lawyer, but this isn't court, it's just a discussion Forum.
At times we can use the evidence court standards but let me repeat, this isn't court, it's just a discussion Forum! LOLOLOLOL!
I agree. Which makes your appeal to Bugliosi’s show trial especially laughable.
By the way, you seem to get off of your hero worship of Bugliosi.
-
Thanks again Steve. These links are better copies and easier on my tired old eyes. I went back to Hosty’s book “Assignment Oswald” and have found the proper context for the previous quote from that book. Here is another snip that indicates that Hosty and DeBrueys were looking through evidence collected by the Dallas Police. And that this was just a few days after the assassination. So it appears to me that this letter was in LHO’s personal papers. Perhaps it was never sent to the FPCC or was lost or misplaced? Anyway, it sure seems to me that if the authorities had this letter, it should have been presented to the WC as evidence. Here is the snip (from page 100):
An officer showed DeBrueys and me to Lieutenant Potts’s office, which was next to Captain Fritz’s. Stacked in Potts’s office was all the evidence. Two of our FBI agents, Ural Horton and Ron Brinkley, were already there reviewing it, and it looked as if they had been there for some time. When we told them we had been assigned to relieve them, Horton and Brinkley gave sighs of relief. They were criminal agents, with no expertise in counter-intelligence work, and were having a hell of a time making heads or tails of any of the evidence. They quickly grabbed their suit coats, bid us adios and good luck, and left. DeBrueys and I surveyed the room. The evidence seemed to consist mostly of the personal papers of Lee and Marina Oswald. Nothing was organized; in fact, things were a mess. DeBrueys and I looked at each other, not knowing whether to laugh or cry. We decided it was best to divide the room in half and begin what was clearly going to be a tedious job.
Charles: Yes, I read that Hosty account and that's probably what they were reading. I don't think the FBI at that early stage would have had the letters (or copies) he sent to the FPCC. The FPCC gave those original letters to the FBI later and that's how they got them (story here: https://tinyurl.com/y9ktvrbv). Did the FBI intercept them and make copies? But that doesn't seem to be what Hosty and DeBrueys are looking at.
So they were looking at a draft or notes, some letter/writings that he didn't send. But what happened to them? Or Hosty has his account all wrong/mixed up with something else.
-
It’s the lack of fingerprints that imo, seems to defy probability.
Examples:
1. The 35” length paper bag that is presented as evidence of Oswald having made such bag using paper and tape from the TSBD, and then having carried the 40” MC rifle (disassembled).
If Oswald carried the bag as described by BW Frazier and his sister Linnie May Randle, then there should be a palm print at the BOTTOM of the bag and another palm and fingers print at the TOP of the bag. This because of the pressure that would be exerted on the bag to hold the 8 lb rifle by the barrel with just one hand gripping at the top and the weight of 8lbs of rifle being compressed into the palm of just one hand at the bottom.
2. The bus transfer ticket handled by Mcwatters and then handled by Oswald multiple times having removed it from one shirt pocket to another shirt he changed into ( a curiosity in Itself as the ticket had expired by 1:00pm) . Then such ticket having been removed by some DPD from the pocket of the shirt?
No fingerprints of ANYONE on the ticket?
3. The MC rifle found at 1:22 pm on the 6th floor TSBD had no fingerprints and the Lt.Day “palm print” is dubious because of lack of verification by FBI examining the rifle and FBI agent Drain denying ever having been informed a print existed when he took possession of the rifle from Lt. Day.
4. There were no fingerprints from Walleys taxi cab apparently from Oswald.
5. There were no fingerprints of Oswald on the side of Tippets police car, where Markam described Oswald leaning and placing his hands on the car.
6. Apparently no prints left by Oswald at Brewers store entrance door.
7. Apparently no prints of Oswald found on the entrance door of the Texas theater.
8. None of the shells tossed by the Tippet shooter had Oswald’s prints or any others prints
9. None of the shells at the 6th floor SN window had Oswald’s prints .
9.b - The clip had no prints either
10. No prints of Oswald taken from his boarding room entrance door or his bedroom.
11. No prints of Oswald found on any coke bottle nor on a Dr. Pepper bottle or on a paper bag with chicken remains found on the 6th floor.
12. No signs of any Oswald footprints on the floor or on the staircases along the entire trek of “The Escape” from 6th floor SN window to 2nd floor lunchroom.
No handprints on the hand rails (apparently Oswald able to fly down the staircase skipping 2-3 steps at a time without need to balance himself using hand rails).
13. No fingerprints from the coke machine 2nd floor lunchroom matched to Oswald.
14. No fingerprints of Oswald on the swinging doors of the vestibule door or the lunchroom door.
14b. No fingerprints of Oswald on the rear door to the 2nd floor office nor on the front door he supposedly exited ( seen allegedly by Mrs Reid)
15. The spy camera and the camera supposedly used by Marina to photo Oswald =no prints of Oswald or Marina apparently found)
16. The SN window had to have been lowered to the 15.5 “ height from having been fully half open earlier at approx 12:15 (as per Arnold Rowlands observing a black man “leaning out” that window 12:15) . No fingerprints of Oswald found on the window?
Conclusion? It just seems like more fingerprints ( and at least a couple of footprints) should been found and in some cases such as the paperbag, a LOT more prints given how many times that bag must have been touched by Oswald’s bare hand just in taking it to BW Fraziers car then lifting it out and then carrying it, let alone the process of constructing the bag with tape.
-
It’s the lack of fingerprints that imo, seems to defy probability.
Examples:
1. The 35” length paper bag that is presented as evidence of Oswald having made such bag using paper and tape from the TSBD, and then having carried the 40” MC rifle (disassembled).
If Oswald carried the bag as described by BW Frazier and his sister Linnie May Randle, then there should be a palm print at the BOTTOM of the bag and another palm and fingers print at the TOP of the bag. This because of the pressure that would be exerted on the bag to hold the 8 lb rifle by the barrel with just one hand gripping at the top and the weight of 8lbs of rifle being compressed into the palm of just one hand at the bottom.
2. The bus transfer ticket handled by Mcwatters and then handled by Oswald multiple times having removed it from one shirt pocket to another shirt he changed into ( a curiosity in Itself as the ticket had expired by 1:00pm) . Then such ticket having been removed by some DPD from the pocket of the shirt?
No fingerprints of ANYONE on the ticket?
3. The MC rifle found at 1:22 pm on the 6th floor TSBD had no fingerprints and the Lt.Day “palm print” is dubious because of lack of verification by FBI examining the rifle and FBI agent Drain denying ever having been informed a print existed when he took possession of the rifle from Lt. Day.
4. There were no fingerprints from Walleys taxi cab apparently from Oswald.
5. There were no fingerprints of Oswald on the side of Tippets police car, where Markam described Oswald leaning and placing his hands on the car.
6. Apparently no prints left by Oswald at Brewers store entrance door.
7. Apparently no prints of Oswald found on the entrance door of the Texas theater.
8. None of the shells tossed by the Tippet shooter had Oswald’s prints or any others prints
9. None of the shells at the 6th floor SN window had Oswald’s prints .
9.b - The clip had no prints either
10. No prints of Oswald taken from his boarding room entrance door or his bedroom.
11. No prints of Oswald found on any coke bottle nor on a Dr. Pepper bottle or on a paper bag with chicken remains found on the 6th floor.
12. No signs of any Oswald footprints on the floor or on the staircases along the entire trek of “The Escape” from 6th floor SN window to 2nd floor lunchroom.
No handprints on the hand rails (apparently Oswald able to fly down the staircase skipping 2-3 steps at a time without need to balance himself using hand rails).
13. No fingerprints from the coke machine 2nd floor lunchroom matched to Oswald.
14. No fingerprints of Oswald on the swinging doors of the vestibule door or the lunchroom door.
14b. No fingerprints of Oswald on the rear door to the 2nd floor office nor on the front door he supposedly exited ( seen allegedly by Mrs Reid)
15. The spy camera and the camera supposedly used by Marina to photo Oswald =no prints of Oswald or Marina apparently found)
16. The SN window had to have been lowered to the 15.5 “ height from having been fully half open earlier at approx 12:15 (as per Arnold Rowlands observing a black man “leaning out” that window 12:15) . No fingerprints of Oswald found on the window?
Conclusion? It just seems like more fingerprints ( and at least a couple of footprints) should been found and in some cases such as the paperbag, a LOT more prints given how many times that bag must have been touched by Oswald’s bare hand just in taking it to BW Fraziers car then lifting it out and then carrying it, let alone the process of constructing the bag with tape.
As seen in the following photo, some items can be handled but only leave a solitary readable print.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xj4QMN72/WH-Vol17-0160b1.jpg)
Other items like Oswald's rifle trigger guard had three prints which were consistent but initially not enough to make the required points for a match but luckily multiple photos were found later and were taken at different exposures and Vincent Scalice made a positive identification.
A lot of your examples were not necessary. And also consider smudging and simply not enough points for a positive Identification.
1. The 35” length paper bag that is presented as evidence of Oswald having made such bag using paper and tape from the TSBD, and then having carried the 40” MC rifle (disassembled).
If Oswald carried the bag as described by BW Frazier and his sister Linnie May Randle, then there should be a palm print at the BOTTOM of the bag and another palm and fingers print at the TOP of the bag. This because of the pressure that would be exerted on the bag to hold the 8 lb rifle by the barrel with just one hand gripping at the top and the weight of 8lbs of rifle being compressed into the palm of just one hand at the bottom.
The FBI needed to use silver nitrate to remove any legible prints.
2. The bus transfer ticket handled by Mcwatters and then handled by Oswald multiple times having removed it from one shirt pocket to another shirt he changed into ( a curiosity in Itself as the ticket had expired by 1:00pm) . Then such ticket having been removed by some DPD from the pocket of the shirt?
No fingerprints of ANYONE on the ticket?
Again it's paper and Oswald admitted to catching a bus, the transfer was found on Oswald and McWatters punch proves it came from him.
3. The MC rifle found at 1:22 pm on the 6th floor TSBD had no fingerprints and the Lt.Day “palm print” is dubious because of lack of verification by FBI examining the rifle and FBI agent Drain denying ever having been informed a print existed when he took possession of the rifle from Lt. Day.
See above.
4. There were no fingerprints from Walleys taxi cab apparently from Oswald.
Whaley positively ID'd Oswald and Oswald admitted catching a cab.
5. There were no fingerprints of Oswald on the side of Tippets police car, where Markam described Oswald leaning and placing his hands on the car.
They tried but the prints found were someone else, the DP could have planted prints and it would be a slam dunk but they were too honest.
6. Apparently no prints left by Oswald at Brewers store entrance door.
Oswald was found just up the road, and what would it prove?
7. Apparently no prints of Oswald found on the entrance door of the Texas theater.
He was found in the Theatre??
8. None of the shells tossed by the Tippet Tippit shooter had Oswald’s prints or any others prints
Do you think a positive ID could come from such a small area?
9. None of the shells at the 6th floor SN window had Oswald’s prints .
9.b - The clip had no prints either
iirc Expended shells don't have prints. The clip could be a possibility?
10. No prints of Oswald taken from his boarding room entrance door or his bedroom.
He was confirmed to live there.
11. No prints of Oswald found on any coke bottle nor on a Dr. Pepper bottle or on a paper bag with chicken remains found on the 6th floor.
Where did Oswald leave his coke bottle. Was that Oswald's lunch?
12. No signs of any Oswald footprints on the floor or on the staircases along the entire trek of “The Escape” from 6th floor SN window to 2nd floor lunchroom.
No handprints on the hand rails (apparently Oswald able to fly down the staircase skipping 2-3 steps at a time without need to balance himself using hand rails).
They were high traffic areas and unlike the fresh prints in the snipers nest, what would they prove?
13. No fingerprints from the coke machine 2nd floor lunchroom matched to Oswald.
Oswald was observed holding a coke bottle.
14. No fingerprints of Oswald on the swinging doors of the vestibule door or the lunchroom door.
Oswald was seen in the lunchroom.
14b. No fingerprints of Oswald on the rear door to the 2nd floor office nor on the front door he supposedly exited ( seen allegedly by Mrs Reid)
Mrs Reid saw Oswald pass through this area
15. The spy camera and the camera supposedly used by Marina to photo Oswald =no prints of Oswald or Marina apparently found)
What photos were taken with the spy camera?
16. The SN window had to have been lowered to the 15.5 “ height from having been fully half open earlier at approx 12:15 (as per Arnold Rowlands observing a black man “leaning out” that window 12:15) . No fingerprints of Oswald found on the window?
There were multiple fresh prints found in the sniper's nest.
"Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure I understand your reference to a minimum of 24 hours.
Mr. LATONA. We have conducted tests with various types of materials as to how long it could be before we would not develop a latent print.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. LATONA. Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that is a maximum of 24 hours?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. You would not care, you say, though----
Mr. LATONA. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. To employ that here, but your experiments produced a maximum time of 24 hours.
Mr. LATONA. Bear that out; yes. Like I say, undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did.
Mr. EISENBERG. You identified that, I believe, as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. LATONA. That is right."
JohnM
-
“Luckily multiple photos were found later” LOL.
And there’s nothing “honest” about police ignoring someone else’s prints on the police car.
-
I think this is relevant to the title of this thread because the name of the “doctor” has some similarities to the fake identification name of A.J. Hidell. Also, the post office box number only have the last two digits transposed.
From page 222 of “November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury” by David Belin:
In Oswald’s personal effects found in his room at 1026 North Beckley Avenue in Dallas was a purported international certificate of vaccination signed by “Dr. A.J. Hideel,” Post Office Box 30016, New Orleans. It certified that Lee Harvey Oswald had been vaccinated for smallpox on June 8, 1963. This, too, was a forgery. The signature of “A.J. Hideel” was in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no “Dr. Hideel” licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana. There is no post office box 30016 in the New Orleans Post Office but Oswald [when he move to New Orleans] had rented post office box 30061 in New Orleans on June 3, 1963, listing Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell as additional persons entitled to receive mail in the box. The New Orleans po9stal authorities had not discarded the portion of the application listing the names of those, other than the owner of the box, entitled to receive mail through the box. [Warren Commission Report, pp. 121-122.]
-
Another snip from page 223 of “November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury” by David Belin:
When seeking employment in New Orleans, Oswald listed a “Sgt. Robt. Hidell” as a reference on one job application and “George Hidell” as a reference on another. Both names were found to be fictitious. Moreover, the use of “Alek” as a first name for Hidell is a further link to Oswald because “Alek” was Oswald’s nickname in Russia. Letters received by Marina Oswald from her husband signed “Alek” were given to the Commission. [Warren Commission Report, p. 122]
-
What a surprise, here we are 7 pages later and there is still no reasonable explanation for the massive amount of effort that must have been invested in artificially creating the Hidell alias.
JohnM
-
..and still no proof that Oswald ever used it for himself.
-
..and still no proof that Oswald ever used it for himself.
So as defined in my opening thread, you're sticking with the mass conspiracy theory, interesting.
JohnM
-
So as defined in my opening thread, you're sticking with the mass conspiracy theory, interesting.
No, that false dichotomy was dispensed with early on.
-
"..and still no proof that Oswald ever used it for himself."
No, that false dichotomy was dispensed with early on.
Yes, either Oswald associated himself with the name Hidell or there was a massive conspiracy to do so!
JohnM
-
Yes, either Oswald associated himself with the name Hidell or there was a massive conspiracy to do so!
JohnM
In your humble opinion, right?
-
In your humble opinion, right?
Based on the evidence in the OP, I'll happily consider your alternate opinion?
JohnM
-
Yes, either Oswald associated himself with the name Hidell or there was a massive conspiracy to do so!
JohnM
To paraphrase Inspector Clouseau, in the contrarian world everyone is a suspect, and no one is a suspect. These contrarians go on and on and on attacking the evidence against Oswald as fabricated or manipulated but then refuse to acknowledge that they are implying a conspiracy. How or why all the evidence is suspect is left unaddressed. They won't say. They have "no burden of proof." It is just theoretically not impossible, and no one can disprove it to their subjective satisfaction because the time machine has not been invented. In contrast, every conceivable counter explanation to Oswald's guilt is entertained even if there is not a scintilla of support and the narrative makes no sense. Round and round it goes down the rabbit hole.
Martin repeatedly tells us that "anyone" could have circled the "PP" notation on the Klein's form confirming that the ordered rifle was sent by parcel post to Oswald's PO Box. ANYONE. LOL. How many people would have access to this form? It was taken from Klein's own records. Did everyone have access to the form? Why would this someone go around circling "PP" on the Klein's forms? He refuses to say he is implying a conspiracy to frame Oswald by making this argument. Is Martin suggesting that some loon broke into the Klein's records just to circle "PP" on forms? He refuses to accept that the form proves that Oswald was sent a rifle. He lives in the defense attorney world where nothing can be known or proven. The point seems to be to just extend the discussion. Only a mental health expert could say exactly why. Most of the general public expresses a belief in ghosts, UFO, Bigfoot and JFK conspiracies because that is more fun than the alternative. Many of them don't actually believe it. The loons who frequent this forum, however, are either paranoid true believers or the have deep held insecurities and are trying to draw attention to themselves and prove to the world how smart they are by taking a contrarian position to the established facts. Ironically very similar to Oswald himself.
-
Based on the evidence in the OP, I'll happily consider your alternate opinion?
JohnM
Why are you so desperate to learn my "alternate opinion" when I have already told you what I think about that so-called "evidence" in the OP?
-
Why are you so desperate to learn my "alternate opinion" when I have already told you what I think about that so-called "evidence" in the OP?
so-called "evidence"
Thanks, you have inadvertently given me your "alternate opinion". Thumb1:
JohnM
-
To paraphrase Inspector Clouseau, in the contrarian world everyone is a suspect, and no one is a suspect. These contrarians go on and on and on attacking the evidence against Oswald as fabricated or manipulated but then refuse to acknowledge that they are implying a conspiracy. How or why all the evidence is suspect is left unaddressed. They won't say. They have "no burden of proof." It is just theoretically not impossible, and no one can disprove it to their subjective satisfaction because the time machine has not been invented. In contrast, every conceivable counter explanation to Oswald's guilt is entertained even if there is not a scintilla of support and the narrative makes no sense. Round and round it goes down the rabbit hole.
Martin repeatedly tells us that "anyone" could have circled the "PP" notation on the Klein's form confirming that the ordered rifle was sent by parcel post to Oswald's PO Box. ANYONE. LOL. How many people would have access to this form? It was taken from Klein's own records. Did everyone have access to the form? Why would this someone go around circling "PP" on the Klein's forms? He refuses to say he is implying a conspiracy to frame Oswald by making this argument. Is Martin suggesting that some loon broke into the Klein's records just to circle "PP" on forms? He refuses to accept that the form proves that Oswald was sent a rifle. He lives in the defense attorney world where nothing can be known or proven. The point seems to be to just extend the discussion. Only a mental health expert could say exactly why. Most of the general public expresses a belief in ghosts, UFO, Bigfoot and JFK conspiracies because that is more fun than the alternative. Many of them don't actually believe it. The loons who frequent this forum, however, are either paranoid true believers or the have deep held insecurities and are trying to draw attention to themselves and prove to the world how smart they are by taking a contrarian position to the established facts. Ironically very similar to Oswald himself.
Wow, what an amazing load of BS.
It's very very simple; the person who relies on evidence (as you are doing) needs to authenticate that evidence. You constantly keep asking people like me to accept your "evidence" on faith, just because you can't defend and/or authenticate it and you most certainly can't image any other scenario than the official narrative. It is a massive display of just how little confidence you have in the flawed and questionable evidence you desperately rely on.
Martin repeatedly tells us that "anyone" could have circled the "PP" notation on the Klein's form confirming that the ordered rifle was sent by parcel post to Oswald's PO Box. ANYONE. LOL. How many people would have access to this form? It was taken from Klein's own records. Did everyone have access to the form? Why would this someone go around circling "PP" on the Klein's forms?
I don't know how many people had access to the Klein's form and/or microfilm and neither do you. You don't even know where the microfilm was between the moment the FBI took it from Klein's on 11/23/63 and the moment it was handed over to the WC and shown to Waldman. According to you - and this is where the faith comes in - the form must be authentic because you can't believe that anybody else could have manipulated the evidence. There was an easy way for the WC to authenticate Waldman 7, by simply asking Westra to confirm his handwriting on that form. The fact that they did not do so, should tell you something, but it probably won't.
I don't care what you think is possible or likely or not. The evidence needs to speak for itself and for that it needs to be authenticated. Instead of that we get your commentary about why the document, in your opinion, is credible even without authentication. It's pathetic.
-
Thanks, you have inadvertently given me your "alternate opinion". Thumb1:
JohnM
Really? You figure? You've known all along that I disagreed with most, if not all, of the BS you wrote in the opening post.
I told you so in the first reply of this thread. Did it really take all this time to figure out what I told you from the beginning?
Wow!
-
Really? You figure? You've known all along that I disagreed with most, if not all, of the BS you wrote in the opening post.
I told you so in the first reply of this thread. Did it really take all this time to figure out what I told you from the beginning?
Wow!
You've known all along that I disagreed with most, if not all, of the BS you wrote in the opening post.
So by disagreeing with most if not all of the evidence in my OP, then your alternate theory is there was a conspiracy which by definition makes you a Conspiracy Theorist! Thanks for playing!
JohnM
-
So by disagreeing with most if not all of the evidence in my OP, then your alternate theory is there was a conspiracy which by definition makes you a Conspiracy Theorist! Thanks for playing!
JohnM
Again, in your humble opinion, right?
And, of course no surprise, as I have known your pathetic (if you're not with me, you are against me and thus a CT) load of BS for a long time by now, I was expecting it. It's easy to predict what a one trick poney will do next....
Also, as usual you are trying to put words in my mouth, which I never said, just like you did with John Iacoletti in the "Tippit" thread earlier today.
Thanks for playing!
You just keep playing... it's about the only thing you do here. :D
You will never understand that your opinion isn't the default that needs to be proven wrong. That's how stupid you are.
-
Again, in your humble opinion, right?
And, of course no surprise, as I have known your pathetic (if you're not with me, you are against me and thus a CT) load of BS for a long time by now, I was expecting it. It's easy to predict what a one trick poney will do next....
Also, as usual you are trying to put words in my mouth, which I never said, just like you did with John Iacoletti in the "Tippit" thread earlier today.
Thanks for playing!
You just keep playing... it's about the only thing you do here. :D
You will never understand that your opinion isn't the default that needs to be proven wrong. That's how stupid you are.
Again, in your humble opinion, right?
No, there's a clear distinction between fact and opinion.
And, of course no surprise, as I have known your pathetic (if you're not with me, you are against me and thus a CT) load of BS for a long time by now, I was expecting it. It's easy to predict what a one trick poney will do next....
Again No, your alternate theory is that most if not all of the evidence in the OP is BS and thus a conspiracy, therefore you are a Conspiracy Theorist. Live with it! Thumb1:
it's about the only thing you do here. :D
An exaggeration fallacy.
You will never understand that your opinion isn't the default that needs to be proven wrong.
Yet you respond to a lot of my posts attempting to do just that.
That's how stupid you are.
Ad hominem fallacy.
JohnM
-
No, there's a clear distinction between fact and opinion.
Again No, your alternate theory is that most if not all of the evidence in the OP is BS and thus a conspiracy, therefore you are a Conspiracy Theorist. Live with it! Thumb1:
An exaggeration fallacy.
Yet you respond to a lot of my posts attempting to do just that.
Ad hominem fallacy.
JohnM
No, there's a clear distinction between fact and opinion.
Yes, there is. And that means that your opinions are not facts Thumb1:
Again No, your alternate theory is that most if not all of the evidence in the OP is BS and thus a conspiracy, therefore you are a Conspiracy Theorist.
If you say so.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your opinions are not the default that needs to be proven wrong. I can disagree with them without having a conspiracy theory. But thank you for exposing your ignorance so clearly.
An exaggeration fallacy.
Not really. All you do is trying to provoke discussions about anything but the case.
Yet you respond to a lot of my posts attempting to do just that.
Ah, there is the delusion of grandeur again....
Ad hominem fallacy.
Are fallacies your new hobby? You are throwing them around left, right and center.... very often applied completely wrong, but that's something you may still need to learn.
I've wasted enough time on this BS for now. You can have the last word, as per usual, and make some idiotic remarks to stroke that fragile ego of yours. (btw this is not a fallacy!)
-
I've wasted enough time on this BS for now.
(https://media.tenor.com/LIzk3MiGIq8AAAAM/im-out-goodbye.gif)
JohnM
-
How or why all the evidence is suspect is left unaddressed. They won't say.
Wrong again, “Richard”. The provenance issues with the evidence are discussed all the time. Your response to them is to ignore them and just parrot the same claims again and again.
-
No, there's a clear distinction between fact and opinion.
Then why do you state your opinions as facts?
Again No, your alternate theory is that most if not all of the evidence in the OP is BS and thus a conspiracy, therefore you are a Conspiracy Theorist. Live with it! Thumb1:
No this is your false dichotomy, and the usual impotent attempt to shift the burden to try to salvage a failed argument.
-
and the usual impotent attempt to shift the burden to try to salvage a failed argument.
No, the thread in which you have decided to participate is asking a clear concise question "Is the amount of effort to link Oswald to Hidell believable?" and instead of answering my innocent question it is you who is "shifting the burden" away from any reasonable reply. But keep running and thus positively reinforce my basic premise that linking Oswald's usage of the Hidell ID required an unrealistic mountain of forgery, planting evidence in obscure places and a stack of lies.
JohnM
-
No, the thread in which you have decided to participate is asking a clear concise question "Is the amount of effort to link Oswald to Hidell believable?" and instead of answering my innocent question it is you who is "shifting the burden" away from any reasonable reply.
It’s one of your usual loaded questions. As I pointed out ages ago, you have failed to show that Oswald ever used Hidell as an alias for himself. You just assumed that he did, and then invented a massive conspiracy as the only alternative. The only “effort” required is for somebody like you to write up a paragraph containing a fallacious argument.
-
It’s one of your usual loaded questions. As I pointed out ages ago, you have failed to show that Oswald ever used Hidell as an alias for himself. You just assumed that he did, and then invented a massive conspiracy as the only alternative. The only “effort” required is for somebody like you to write up a paragraph containing a fallacious argument.
and then invented a massive conspiracy as the only alternative.
Thanks John, that's it in a nutshell. I asked for you and any other member, to essentially provide an alternative to a conspiracy and so far you and team conspiracy are failing miserably.
JohnM
-
“Failing” defined as not fitting your false dichotomy?
The alternative is that Hidell was not Lee Oswald. No massive conspiracy necessary. Particularly when there is very little reason to assume that Hidell was Lee Oswald.
-
The alternative is that Hidell was not Lee Oswald. No massive conspiracy necessary. Particularly when there is very little reason to assume that Hidell was Lee Oswald.
Oh, so there was another "Hidell" who wrote with the same style and structure as Oswald and had his mail directed to Oswald's PO BOX?
And also ordered rifles to Oswald's PO Box
And also ordered revolvers to Oswald's PO Box
And also had Identification made up with Oswald's photo
And also made Oswald carry the Hidell ID
And also stored the negatives that created the Hidell ID in the Paine garage
And also made Law enforcement lie to say Oswald admitted carrying the Hidell ID
And logically by extension, since nothing needed altering or planting, this means that the Hidell rifle order for C2766 was legitimate and was sent to Oswald's PO Box! Thumb1:
(https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1553876427-id.JPG)
(https://i.postimg.cc/JnZV0HMD/WCReport-0072b.jpg)
Btw I can now understand why you kept this fanciful revelation safely hidden away. HILARIOUS!
JohnhM
-
Oh, so there was another "Hidell" who wrote with the same style and structure as Oswald and had his mail directed to Oswald's PO BOX?
And also ordered rifles to Oswald's PO Box
And also ordered revolvers to Oswald's PO Box
And also had Identification made up with Oswald's photo
And also made Oswald carry the Hidell ID
And also stored the negatives that created the Hidell ID in the Paine garage
And also made Law enforcement lie to say Oswald admitted carrying the Hidell ID
Yawn, another strawman.
Stop this desperate shifting the burden act. You can either prove Oswald used Hidell as an alias for himself or you cannot. And you cannot. Nobody has to prove your silly made-up vast conspiracy in order for you to be wrong.
And logically by extension, since nothing needed altering or planting, this means that the Hidell rifle order for C2766 was legitimate and was sent to Oswald's PO Box! Thumb1:
You wouldn’t know “logic” if it bit you in the azz. And you still have no evidence that C2766 or any other rifle was “sent to Oswald’s PO box”.
-
Stop this desperate shifting the burden act.
Sorry John, but you not me made the following poorly thought out claim and now after I pointed out the massive flaws in your logic, you are back pedalling real fast.
The alternative is that Hidell was not Lee Oswald.
Any more bright ideas? LOL!!!
JohnM
-
Sorry John, but you not me made the following poorly thought out claim and now after I pointed out the massive flaws in your logic, you are back pedalling real fast.
That’s not a “claim”. You insisted that there was no other alternative. That’s an alternative. You’re so desperate to shift the burden that you can’t tell the difference.
You didn’t point out any “massive flaws” — you just rattled off your usual list of unsubstantiated claims.
What makes you think your “alternative” is any “brighter”?
-
Sorry John, but you not me made the following poorly thought out claim and now after I pointed out the massive flaws in your logic, you are back pedalling real fast.
Any more bright ideas? LOL!!!
JohnM
Imagine the coincidence that someone using the same name that Oswald used as an alias ordering a rifle to be delivered to his PO Box without that being part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald! And that rifle having the same serial number as the one left at the TSBD. Comedy gold. LOL. No one can believe that is what these contrarians loons are peddling. They recognize the absurdity of the conspiracy narrative. So they don't want to acknowledge or defend it but they are clearly implying a massive conspiracy to assassinate JFK, frame Oswald for the crime using fabricated evidence that derives from numerous different sources over a period of years, and then also implicate him in the Walker attempt and Tippit murders.
-
Imagine the coincidence that someone using the same name that Oswald used as an alias ordering a rifle to be delivered to his PO Box without that being part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald!
Except you forgot to actually demonstrate that Oswald ever used Hidell as an alias for himself.
And that rifle having the same serial number as the one left at the TSBD.
Imagine how hard it is for anybody to handwrite a number on a piece of paper. So hard that it must require a massive conspiracy. Therefore Oswald killed Kennedy.
Speaking of comedy gold…
-
Imagine the coincidence that someone using the same name that Oswald used as an alias ordering a rifle to be delivered to his PO Box without that being part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald! And that rifle having the same serial number as the one left at the TSBD. Comedy gold. LOL. No one can believe that is what these contrarians loons are peddling. They recognize the absurdity of the conspiracy narrative. So they don't want to acknowledge or defend it but they are clearly implying a massive conspiracy to assassinate JFK, frame Oswald for the crime using fabricated evidence that derives from numerous different sources over a period of years, and then also implicate him in the Walker attempt and Tippit murders.
At first studying the the ins and outs of the assassination was what was most interesting but now that pales next to the crazy mental gymnastics on display from these contrarians, and watching them make the most outrageous suggestions and conclusions is as you say "comedy gold".
JohnM
-
Imagine how hard it is for anybody to handwrite a number on a piece of paper. So hard that it must require a massive conspiracy.
Finally we're getting somewhere, so it wasn't a massive conspiracy but a handwritten number on a piece of paper? LOL
Btw what number on what piece of paper, then we discuss the further ramifications of where a handwritten number on a piece of paper goes? K?
JohnM
-
Finally we're getting somewhere, so it wasn't a massive conspiracy but a handwritten number on a piece of paper? LOL
Is this your way of admitting that this “massive conspiracy” thing is just a strawman?
LOL.
Don’t try to shift the burden again. What’s your evidence that CE139 went through the postal service, was delivered to Dallas, and was signed for and picked up by Oswald? And try to answer without lying about the actual evidence or making up false dichotomies. You can either prove it or you cannot.
-
Is this your way of admitting that this “massive conspiracy” thing is just a strawman?
LOL.
Don’t try to shift the burden again. What’s your evidence that CE139 went through the postal service, was delivered to Dallas, and was signed for and picked up by Oswald? And try to answer without lying about the actual evidence or making up false dichotomies. You can either prove it or you cannot.
Stop running John, I asked you a simple question, "what number on what piece of paper, then we discuss the further ramifications of where a handwritten number on a piece of paper goes?"
JohnM
-
Nope, not playing your game.
“Richard” claimed that a rifle having the same serial number as the one found in the Depository was delivered to Oswald’s PO Box, and if it wasn’t then a massive conspiracy was required.
There is in fact no evidence for either claim. If you’re going to go down another rabbit-hole of speculation you can do it without my help.
-
At first studying the the ins and outs of the assassination was what was most interesting but now that pales next to the crazy mental gymnastics on display from these contrarians, and watching them make the most outrageous suggestions and conclusions is as you say "comedy gold".
JohnM
It is truly amazing that the contrarian brothers can attack the evidence of Oswald's guilt on the one hand as the potential product of fabrication, and then turn around without missing a beat to contend that they are not suggesting a conspiracy. If "PP" is circled on Klein's form indicating that they shipped a rifle via parcel post to Oswald's PO Box, the contrarians argue this doesn't prove they shipped the rifle. We are told that "anyone" could have circled PP or wrote the serial number of the rifle on the form. Who and why these mysterious people are doing this if not part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald? We will never know because that is where the contrarians go down the endless circular rabbit hole of lunacy. We are told they aren't claiming anything and have no burden of proof. Why? Because they recognize the absurdity of these alternative explanations having any validity. They don't want to defend them because they make no sense, lack even a scintilla of support, and are otherwise entirely baseless. It is defense attorney nonsense.
-
It is truly amazing that the contrarian brothers can attack the evidence of Oswald's guilt on the one hand as the potential product of fabrication, and then turn around without missing a beat to contend that they are not suggesting a conspiracy. If "PP" is circled on Klein's form indicating that they shipped a rifle via parcel post to Oswald's PO Box, the contrarians argue this doesn't prove they shipped the rifle. We are told that "anyone" could have circled PP or wrote the serial number of the rifle on the form. Who and why these mysterious people are doing this if not part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald? We will never know because that is where the contrarians go down the endless circular rabbit hole of lunacy. We are told they aren't claiming anything and have no burden of proof. Why? Because they recognize the absurdity of these alternative explanations having any validity. They don't want to defend them because they make no sense, lack even a scintilla of support, and are otherwise entirely baseless. It is defense attorney nonsense.
Says the pseudo prosecutor who simply can not demonstrate that Waldman 7 is an authentic document.
It is truly amazing that the contrarian brothers can attack the evidence of Oswald's guilt on the one hand as the potential product of fabrication,
Asking for authentication of the evidence is, in an LN mind, "attacking the evidence"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
It is truly amazing that the contrarian brothers can attack the evidence of Oswald's guilt on the one hand as the potential product of fabrication, and then turn around without missing a beat to contend that they are not suggesting a conspiracy. If "PP" is circled on Klein's form indicating that they shipped a rifle via parcel post to Oswald's PO Box, the contrarians argue this doesn't prove they shipped the rifle. We are told that "anyone" could have circled PP or wrote the serial number of the rifle on the form. Who and why these mysterious people are doing this if not part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald? We will never know because that is where the contrarians go down the endless circular rabbit hole of lunacy. We are told they aren't claiming anything and have no burden of proof. Why? Because they recognize the absurdity of these alternative explanations having any validity. They don't want to defend them because they make no sense, lack even a scintilla of support, and are otherwise entirely baseless. It is defense attorney nonsense.
This evidence or material or information or data (whatever term one wants to use) exists. How did it come to be? How was it created? Who made it? It's either the creation of the company or, more accurately, people working for it or it was the creation of someone else. Some thing or some body made it. It's not in a quantum world of existing and not existing (although who knows, that may be their next idea).
So who made it? We say it was Kleins. They say? They won't answer. They can't answer, as you point out, because an alternate answer exposes the absurdity of their claims that it's not authentic, of their attempts to make it disappear. It exists. It's either authentic or faked. If it's not authentic then it's faked. By who? The honest conspiracists give us an answer: "the government". The not so honest conspiracists give us silence.
-
This evidence or material or information or data (whatever term one wants to use) exists. How did it come to be? How was it created? Who made it? It's either the creation of the company or, more accurately, people working for it or it was the creation of someone else. Some thing or some body made it. It's not in a quantum world of existing and not existing (although who knows, that may be their next idea).
So who made it? We say it was Kleins. They say? They won't answer. They can't answer, as you point out, because an alternate answer exposes the absurdity of their claims that it's not authentic, of their attempts to make it disappear. It exists. It's either authentic or faked. If it's not authentic then it's faked. By who? The honest conspiracists give us an answer: "the government". The not so honest conspiracists give us silence.
And there's another one who thinks you can assume evidence is authentic unless it's proven not to be. It's just one more variation of the "I am right, unless you prove me wrong" mantra.
It's either authentic or faked. If it's not authentic then it's faked.
Indeed.... and now it's up to you to prove it's authentic. Go ahead....
-
It is truly amazing that the contrarian brothers can attack the evidence of Oswald's guilt on the one hand as the potential product of fabrication, and then turn around without missing a beat to contend that they are not suggesting a conspiracy.
Typical “Richard” BS. You haven’t provided any “evidence of Oswald’s guilt” — just a bunch of false or unsubstantiated claims. And even if Klein’s did ship C2766 to PO Box 2915 (which you certainly have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt), it doesn’t just follow that Oswald used it to kill Kennedy.
If "PP" is circled on Klein's form indicating that they shipped a rifle via parcel post to Oswald's PO Box, the contrarians argue this doesn't prove they shipped the rifle. We are told that "anyone" could have circled PP or wrote the serial number of the rifle on the form. Who and why these mysterious people are doing this if not part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald?
All we’re saying is that a circled “PP” on a copy of a piece of paper with undemonstrable provenance does not prove that something was shipped through the postal service. The rest of this conspiracy rabbit hole is all yours. You can’t provide any evidence for your claim so you try to divert by shifting. It’s prosecuting attorney nonsense.
We will never know because that is where the contrarians go down the endless circular rabbit hole of lunacy. We are told they aren't claiming anything and have no burden of proof. Why? Because they recognize the absurdity of these alternative explanations having any validity.
What’s so “absurd” about recognizing that evidence needs to be authenticated to be valid and reliable? You can’t do it, so you blame the messenger.
-
This evidence or material or information or data (whatever term one wants to use) exists. How did it come to be? How was it created? Who made it? It's either the creation of the company or, more accurately, people working for it or it was the creation of someone else. Some thing or some body made it. It's not in a quantum world of existing and not existing (although who knows, that may be their next idea).
So who made it? We say it was Kleins. They say? They won't answer. They can't answer, as you point out, because an alternate answer exposes the absurdity of their claims that it's not authentic, of their attempts to make it disappear. It exists. It's either authentic or faked. If it's not authentic then it's faked. By who? The honest conspiracists give us an answer: "the government". The not so honest conspiracists give us silence.
If you want to claim that Klein’s made it and it means what you want it to mean, then the burden is on you.
There is nothing dishonest about saying “I don’t know” when you don’t actually know. Just assuming the thing you want to believe is true is less honest.
So that’s the answer. I don’t know how Waldman 7 came to be, or what it means. And neither do you.
-
This evidence or material or information or data (whatever term one wants to use) exists. How did it come to be? How was it created? Who made it? It's either the creation of the company or, more accurately, people working for it or it was the creation of someone else. Some thing or some body made it. It's not in a quantum world of existing and not existing (although who knows, that may be their next idea).
So who made it? We say it was Kleins. They say? They won't answer. They can't answer, as you point out, because an alternate answer exposes the absurdity of their claims that it's not authentic, of their attempts to make it disappear. It exists. It's either authentic or faked. If it's not authentic then it's faked. By who? The honest conspiracists give us an answer: "the government". The not so honest conspiracists give us silence.
Exactly. There is proof that Klein's shipped the rifle. They produced a business record that indicates how and when they did so. Any real or imagined burden of proof is satisfied by that document. It is evidence of the event. It exists as you noted. No time machine is necessary to prove such events even in a criminal trial. That is not a reasonable standard. This is corroborated by the additional evidence in the case including that Oswald received a rifle in this timeframe, he is pictured holding the rifle, the rifle left at the crime scene (his place of employment) has the same serial number as the one Klein's indicates was sent to his PO Box, the DPD indicate that Oswald's prints were found on that rifle. No other rifle has ever been associated with Oswald in this timeframe. There is no accounting for Oswald's rifle except as the one left at the TSBD. The contrarian brothers just say it ain't so. By implication they must believe that there is some alternative explanation for this evidence to explain these circumstances. The burden of proof is now on them to explain away this evidence. But they won't even articulate an explanation much less provide any support for that conclusion. It is complete lunacy.
-
Exactly. There is proof that Klein's shipped the rifle. They produced a business record that indicates how and when they did so.
What is your evidence that Klein’s produced the existing Waldman 7 picture?
This is corroborated by the additional evidence in the case including that Oswald received a rifle in this timeframe,
What is your evidence that Oswald received a rifle in this timeframe (whatever that means)?
he is pictured holding the rifle,
No, he is pictured holding a rifle that cannot be uniquely identified.
the rifle left at the crime scene (his place of employment)
You don’t know when it was “left”. Or by whom.
the DPD indicate that Oswald's prints were found on that rifle.
What “prints”? A single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.
No other rifle has ever been associated with Oswald in this timeframe.
Nor can this rifle be “associated with Oswald”.
There is no accounting for Oswald's rifle except as the one left at the TSBD.
“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL.
The contrarian brothers just say it ain't so.
Wrong again “Richard”. You just haven’t proven it to be so. Claims aren’t proof.
By implication they must believe that there is some alternative explanation for this evidence to explain these circumstances. The burden of proof is now on them to explain away this evidence.
Wrong again, “Richard”. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim, not on anybody to “explain away” the claimant’s biased mischaracterization of the evidence or to prove whatever the claimant decides is implied by the dispute.
But they won't even articulate an explanation much less provide any support for that conclusion. It is complete lunacy.
“I’m automatically right unless you can prove me wrong”, take 99999.
-
Nope, not playing your game.
Sorry John, but you don't make the rules.
Btw, why is it that you guys who always say that there doesn't have to be a "massive conspiracy" refuse to explore where your constant denials lead?
JohnM
-
Sorry John, but you don't make the rules.
Of course I get to decide what and who I engage with. Deal with it.
Btw, why is it that you guys who always say that there doesn't have to be a "massive conspiracy" refuse to explore where your constant denials lead?
Pointing out the flaws in your arguments is not “denial”, and “where things lead” is nothing but more “Mytton” made-up stories masquerading as “where things lead”. We saw that with your garbage Hidell ID strawman. Anything other than your faith-based conclusions leads to massive conspiracy, by definition, because you won’t admit that your so-called “evidence” leads nowhere.
You’re not Socrates. Just make your point.