JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Della Cross on November 30, 2023, 11:11:25 PM
-
Would LHO have planned to shoot the president, without also planning an escape? Or did he see something happen on Elm Street that caused him to abandon his escape plan and flee the SBD in panic?
After the shooting, LHO behaved in a confused manner. Walking, bus and taxi took him home, where he grabbed a jacket and pistol, which he could easily have taken to work that morning. He had no disguise prepared, but went back out on the street anyway, leading to his tragic encounter with Officer Tippit, and to his later arrest. If LHO was cool and coldhearted enough to murder a president, why did he fall apart afterwards?
The Mortal Error theory -- that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally fired his AR-15 rifle and hit JFK in the head -- may provide an answer.
As the presidential limo continued down Elm Street, LHO was watching thru his telescopic sight. His first shot missed, his second shot hit JFK in the upper back, and, as he was lining up his third shot, he would have seen JFK's skull explode from Hickey's AR-15 shot(s). Instantly, LHO would have known there was another shooter, and that suddenly he was part of something that looked like someone else's assassination plan. He might have felt like a "patsy." The shock of that belief might have sent him into a panic. Thinking he now needed a pistol to defend himself, did he abandon whatever plan he might have prepared, and run helter-skelter for his life?
-
Would LHO have planned to shoot the president, without also planning an escape? Or did he see something happen on Elm Street that caused him to abandon his escape plan and flee the SBD in panic?
After the shooting, LHO behaved in a confused manner. Walking, bus and taxi took him home, where he grabbed a jacket and pistol, which he could easily have taken to work that morning. He had no disguise prepared, but went back out on the street anyway, leading to his tragic encounter with Officer Tippit, and to his later arrest. If LHO was cool and coldhearted enough to murder a president, why did he fall apart afterwards?
The Mortal Error theory -- that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally fired his AR-15 rifle and hit JFK in the head -- may provide an answer.
As the presidential limo continued down Elm Street, LHO was watching thru his telescopic sight. His first shot missed, his second shot hit JFK in the upper back, and, as he was lining up his third shot, he would have seen JFK's skull explode from Hickey's AR-15 shot(s). Instantly, LHO would have known there was another shooter, and that suddenly he was part of something that looked like someone else's assassination plan. He might have felt like a "patsy." The shock of that belief might have sent him into a panic. Thinking he now needed a pistol to defend himself, did he abandon whatever plan he might have prepared, and run helter-skelter for his life?
Oswald was smart enough to know there was no escape plan after shooting the president in broad daylight in the presence of law enforcement. He knew that death or arrest was part of the equation to commit this act which is why he left most of his money and wedding ring with his wife. If you believe the crazy Mortal Error theory that Hickey fired the fatal shot, why would that cause Oswald any shock since he was still the assassin? He would have been shocked to see JFK killed even though he was trying to do exactly that? How is Oswald a "patsy" when he is firing shoots at JFK in that theory? I can understand how a bystander would be shocked, but the guy pulling the trigger? Not so much.
-
Oswald was smart enough to know there was no escape plan after shooting the president in broad daylight in the presence of law enforcement. He knew that death or arrest was part of the equation to commit this act which is why he left most of his money and wedding ring with his wife. If you believe the crazy Mortal Error theory that Hickey fired the fatal shot, why would that cause Oswald any shock since he was still the assassin? He would have been shocked to see JFK killed even though he was trying to do exactly that? How is Oswald a "patsy" when he is firing shoots at JFK in that theory? I can understand how a bystander would be shocked, but the guy pulling the trigger? Not so much.
Why do you keep on spewing this nonsense as if you actually know this guy and what he thought?
-
Would LHO have planned to shoot the president, without also planning an escape? Or did he see something happen on Elm Street that caused him to abandon his escape plan and flee the SBD in panic?
After the shooting, LHO behaved in a confused manner. Walking, bus and taxi took him home, where he grabbed a jacket and pistol, which he could easily have taken to work that morning. He had no disguise prepared, but went back out on the street anyway, leading to his tragic encounter with Officer Tippit, and to his later arrest. If LHO was cool and coldhearted enough to murder a president, why did he fall apart afterwards?
The Mortal Error theory -- that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally fired his AR-15 rifle and hit JFK in the head -- may provide an answer.
As the presidential limo continued down Elm Street, LHO was watching thru his telescopic sight. His first shot missed, his second shot hit JFK in the upper back, and, as he was lining up his third shot, he would have seen JFK's skull explode from Hickey's AR-15 shot(s). Instantly, LHO would have known there was another shooter, and that suddenly he was part of something that looked like someone else's assassination plan. He might have felt like a "patsy." The shock of that belief might have sent him into a panic. Thinking he now needed a pistol to defend himself, did he abandon whatever plan he might have prepared, and run helter-skelter for his life?
Oswald stood up & backed away from the window immediately after his shot-2 at Z218. Even tho he had one shot left.
We know that, from Brennan's testimony.
And Oswald knew that Oswald had hit jfk, in the back, at Z218.
And Oswald then saw Hickey blow jfk's head open at Z313.
So, Oswald knew that Hickey had killed jfk.
But, Oswald could not be sure that Oswald had also, or already, killed jfk, ie Oswald could not be sure that his shot-2 would have killed jfk anyhow.
If Oswald thort that his shot-2 was not fatal or potentially non-fatal then Oswald's later actions dont make sense.
If Oswald thort that his shot-2 was non-fatal then why would Oswald shoot Tippit?
If Tippit arrested Oswald then Oswald would be facing say a max of 20 years (for the attempted killing of a president out of season without a permit), out in say 15, & would be making millions from a book in say 1978, aged 39.
But he killed Tippit, guaranteeing the electric chair if caught.
Oswald must have had a very good escape plan (worth risking the chair)(compared to risking 20 years), probly the safe house plan, but how good was that?
I think the safe house was not a good plan.
Clearly it was an afterthort.
If it was a proper plan then he would have found some way of placing his junk in the safe house before the shooting, instead of leaving his junk at his boarding house.
It duznt make much sense.
If Oswald stood trial then Hickey would have faced a few years jail for negligent homicide. Out in a year or two. And Hickey then makes millions from his own book.
Oswald was one of only two witnesses who saw Hickey shoot.
No, the second witness was not Holland. Holland saw Hickey stand up & fall with a machine gun in his hands, & praps he saw Hickey shoot, but i dont think that Holland was a witness that could say that Hickey shot jfk in the head.
Oswald was a witness that could say that Hickey shot jfk in the head.
-
Richard Smith wrote: "Oswald was smart enough to know there was no escape plan after shooting the president in broad daylight in the presence of law enforcement. He knew that death or arrest was part of the equation to commit this act which is why he left most of his money and wedding ring with his wife. If you believe the crazy Mortal Error theory that Hickey fired the fatal shot, why would that cause Oswald any shock since he was still the assassin...?"
Hi, Richard. Thanks for your reply. If LHO knew "there was no escape," then why did he try so desperately to escape? His escape from the SBD showed all the signs of a panicked criminal, who was even willing to kill a cop to get away. Therefore, I disagree with you in this regard. LHO was clearly and frantically trying to escape. As for the Mortal Error theory, you may disagree with it, as many do, but if you've read the book you know it's not a "crazy" idea. It's a ballistics-based theory with no axe to grind, an idea that is clearly and logically presented. And, if there was no accidental shot(s) from a Secret Service agent, why did the Secret Service work so hard and viciously to erase evidence? While JFK was still in Parkland, a Secret Service agent removed blood spatter from the presidential limo. Altering a crime scene is something that law enforcement agencies never do. A SS agent threatened a doctor at Parkland to keep his mouth shut. At the autopsy in Washington, SS agents confiscated the president's brain. An x-ray technician in Washington was ordered by the SS to fake evidence by taping Mannlicher bullet fragments to bones. Dino Brugioni, who worked at the NPIC lab in Washington, was shown the original Z film on Saturday evening, Nov. 23. by two SS agents. He said this original film showed the head shot causing a fragment of JFK's skull to fly into the air, frames that do not appear on subsequent versions of the film. These, and numerous other SS actions, were clearly aimed at covering something up. If not the accidental shot by George Hickey, then what is the SS concealing? The sight of that explosive head shot hitting JFK must have been traumatic and shocking to LHO, as it is to everyone who sees it. Whatever LHO's frame of mind before, that shot caused shock. Suddenly panicked, LHO thought that he had gotten himself into something that went far beyond the schemes of his own murderous mind. And he ran for his life.
-
Funny how Oswald's co-conspirator on the Knoll had help to escape but Oswald had to make it up on the fly with buses and cabs.
-
The evidence suggests that LHO was capable of planning an escape. And that, in the relatively little time he had to plan an escape, he planned to at least attempt one. Hiding the rifle near the stairwell was not an action that someone in a blind panic would likely do. Trying to act normal and blending in with other people was his best hope of getting away from the scene. Changing his appearance to make it more difficult to track him was another part of his escape plan. It appears to me that he was seen firing a rifle while wearing his white t-shirt. When Baker and Truly saw him on the second floor just seconds after the shooting he appeared to be in a “jacket”, which I think was just his shirt with the tail hanging out. Then only seconds later, he was seen wearing a white t-shirt. Putting on a light colored jacket as he left the rooming house and shedding it during the run from the Tippit murder scene is apparently another one of his changing his appearance acts. David Belin’s theory of where LHO was headed when he left the rooming house (southbound bus) with the bus transfer makes the most sense of any of the various theories to me. I read the book “Mortal Error.” I think it is one of the most ridiculous theories that I have read about.
-
Would LHO have planned to shoot the president, without also planning an escape? Or did he see something happen on Elm Street that caused him to abandon his escape plan and flee the SBD in panic?
After the shooting, LHO behaved in a confused manner. Walking, bus and taxi took him home, where he grabbed a jacket and pistol, which he could easily have taken to work that morning. He had no disguise prepared, but went back out on the street anyway, leading to his tragic encounter with Officer Tippit, and to his later arrest. If LHO was cool and coldhearted enough to murder a president, why did he fall apart afterwards?
The Mortal Error theory -- that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally fired his AR-15 rifle and hit JFK in the head -- may provide an answer.
As the presidential limo continued down Elm Street, LHO was watching thru his telescopic sight. His first shot missed, his second shot hit JFK in the upper back, and, as he was lining up his third shot, he would have seen JFK's skull explode from Hickey's AR-15 shot(s). Instantly, LHO would have known there was another shooter, and that suddenly he was part of something that looked like someone else's assassination plan. He might have felt like a "patsy." The shock of that belief might have sent him into a panic. Thinking he now needed a pistol to defend himself, did he abandon whatever plan he might have prepared, and run helter-skelter for his life?
firstly before we assert as a given and fact that a person committed a crime we need to have proof that they did commit that crime . certainly their is circumstantial evidence against oswald ,so in that sense i could understand people seeing this or being told about it and having an opinion based on it . but a lot of that circumstantial evidence can be questioned , disputed or disproven . everyone is entitled to their opinion on this case , however entitlement to an opinion is one thing , no one has any entitlement to be right .
as for the hickey theory people are entitled to their opinion on it , my opinion ? is that its a nonsense .
-
Oswald was smart enough to know there was no escape plan after shooting the president in broad daylight in the presence of law enforcement. He knew that death or arrest was part of the equation to commit this act which is why he left most of his money and wedding ring with his wife. If you believe the crazy Mortal Error theory that Hickey fired the fatal shot, why would that cause Oswald any shock since he was still the assassin? He would have been shocked to see JFK killed even though he was trying to do exactly that? How is Oswald a "patsy" when he is firing shoots at JFK in that theory? I can understand how a bystander would be shocked, but the guy pulling the trigger? Not so much.
the oswald leaving all his money behind for marina stuff is a nonsense . for those unaware lone nut advocates have been saying FALSELY a long time now that oswald left all his money the morning of that tragic day for marina because he knew he would never return . bugliosi made such a claim . and its not true .firstly oswald had i believe from memory 13 dollars on his person when arrested . that was a tidy sum in 1963 . that was a good days salary back then .
as regard money found at the paines . that money was not left there by oswald on the friday morning november 22 1963 . it is money that lee and marina were saving . oswald put money in an old wallet every time he could , and had done so from a time before they ever lived at the paines . marina her self said so .
that only leaves oswalds ring which in terms of this case proves nothing . in fact oswalds fellow employees (not frazier as they knew each other better ) did not realize he was married . oswald apparently didnt wear his wedding ring during work time because it would snag on things . i can vouch for such a thing happening . i mean in that my ring also snagged and bent and i had to stop wearing it . oswald may have thought (given marinas demeanor thursday night ) that he could not convince her to talk and give him a chance to make things right , so in that sense he may have decided to remove his ring thinking his marriage was over or he may have done it simply in frustration . on the morning of the assassination he woke up late and quickly left and walked to fraziers house . it has been said that oswald strangely turned up before frazier was ready , but wes has stated that he was running late and had not realized until he saw lee outside . so in his rush having woke up late its not impossible that he forgot his ring something most of us will have done atleast once .but yes we also must allow that he left it there to say to marina that he knew his marriage was over . but that in no way proves he shot jfk .
-
The evidence suggests that LHO was capable of planning an escape. And that, in the relatively little time he had to plan an escape, he planned to at least attempt one. Hiding the rifle near the stairwell was not an action that someone in a blind panic would likely do. Trying to act normal and blending in with other people was his best hope of getting away from the scene. Changing his appearance to make it more difficult to track him was another part of his escape plan. It appears to me that he was seen firing a rifle while wearing his white t-shirt. When Baker and Truly saw him on the second floor just seconds after the shooting he appeared to be in a “jacket”, which I think was just his shirt with the tail hanging out. Then only seconds later, he was seen wearing a white t-shirt. Putting on a light colored jacket as he left the rooming house and shedding it during the run from the Tippit murder scene is apparently another one of his changing his appearance acts. David Belin’s theory of where LHO was headed when he left the rooming house (southbound bus) with the bus transfer makes the most sense of any of the various theories to me. I read the book “Mortal Error.” I think it is one of the most ridiculous theories that I have read about.
Ok, then ridicule the hickey theory in one of the hickey threads. I will see u there.
-
firstly before we assert as a given and fact that a person committed a crime we need to have proof that they did commit that crime . certainly their is circumstantial evidence against oswald ,so in that sense i could understand people seeing this or being told about it and having an opinion based on it . but a lot of that circumstantial evidence can be questioned , disputed or disproven . everyone is entitled to their opinion on this case , however entitlement to an opinion is one thing , no one has any entitlement to be right .
as for the hickey theory people are entitled to their opinion on it , my opinion ? is that its a nonsense .
Ok, if u think that the hickey theory is nonsense then tell me how so in one of the hickey threads. I will meet u there.
-
"His escape from the SBD showed all the signs of a panicked criminal " della
he was so panicked why when according to whalley (if we can accept that whalley really did have oswald in his taxi ) did he oswald motion when in whalleys taxi to get out to give an old lady the taxi ? . is that really the action of a panicked , hurried , fleeing man who has killed the president and is trying to evade arrest ? . even when in custody as seen on film while oswald showed frustration at finding the charges against him he still remained pretty clam considering the great pressure he must have felt .
-
Ok, if u think that the hickey theory is nonsense then tell me how so in one of the hickey threads. I will meet u there.
with the greatest respect . how many of the witnesses who were what 15 feet from the limo on either side of it such as newman , brehm , moormon etc said they saw hickey fire his weapon ? . that i am aware of not a one of them . i am aware that skinny holland saw an agent apparently fall backwards , which i believe is part of the hickey did it theory . he slipped and accidentally fired off a shot .but then we clearly have the same man (holland ) along with simmons and dodd on film very clearly saying they saw smoke under the bushes at the knoll and that they believed a shot came from that area .how does that tally with the hickey did it theory ? .
atleast 3 law suits were filed in regard this theory , one by hickey him self . all three were settled OUT OF COURT . now if the books author and publisher really felt they could prove what they claimed why then did they not take that proof to a court room ? why instead pay out monies in three lawsuits ? . i can see one reason for it , if the theory was taken to court and thrashed it would destroy book sales and loose them a fortune . paying out was a way to ensure their theory still stands . hickey died thinking he had gotten rid of this , they simply waited until after he died and brought it back in video format in a program called the smoking gun , not to be confused with TMWKK the smoking guns .a program that by the way has howard donahue conducting a very disengenuous investigation and stating in essence if memory serves me that the commission was right and oswald did it . while he at the same time was in some regard behind pushing the hickey did it theory . playing both sides of the field if you will .
i have seen this theory a lot and discussed it quite a bit and i see no merit in it or discussing it further . i reply here only to topics of interest to both me and to the jfk assassination case . what oswald did or did not do pre or post shooting is of great importance and interest . that is my interest here not the hickey did it theory . as i have said everyone is entitled to an opinion , i wont try to dissuade you from yours , it is your right to have / hold any opinion .
-
with the greatest respect . how many of the witnesses who were what 15 feet from the limo on either side of it such as newman , brehm , moormon etc said they saw hickey fire his weapon ? . that i am aware of not a one of them .
i am aware that skinny holland saw an agent apparently fall backwards , which i believe is part of the hickey did it theory . he slipped and accidentally fired off a shot .but then we clearly have the same man (holland ) along with simmons and dodd on film very clearly saying they saw smoke under the bushes at the knoll and that they believed a shot came from that area .how does that tally with the hickey did it theory ? .
atleast 3 law suits were filed in regard this theory , one by hickey him self . all three were settled OUT OF COURT . now if the books author and publisher really felt they could prove what they claimed why then did they not take that proof to a court room ? why instead pay out monies in three lawsuits ? . i can see one reason for it , if the theory was taken to court and thrashed it would destroy book sales and loose them a fortune . paying out was a way to ensure their theory still stands . hickey died thinking he had gotten rid of this , they simply waited until after he died and brought it back in video format in a program called the smoking gun , not to be confused with TMWKK the smoking guns .a program that by the way has howard donahue conducting a very disengenuous investigation and stating in essence if memory serves me that the commission was right and oswald did it . while he at the same time was in some regard behind pushing the hickey did it theory . playing both sides of the field if you will .
i have seen this theory a lot and discussed it quite a bit and i see no merit in it or discussing it further . i reply here only to topics of interest to both me and to the jfk assassination case . what oswald did or did not do pre or post shooting is of great importance and interest . that is my interest here not the hickey did it theory . as i have said everyone is entitled to an opinion , i wont try to dissuade you from yours , it is your right to have / hold any opinion .
1. Go to any of my threads re Hickey, & show where any of my conclusions are wrong.
2. Dwell for a moment, re the fact, that not one CTer or LNer etc have ever changed their opinion on this forum, not ever following my brilliant genius revelations, & not re any other revelations.
3. Add yourself to this list.
4. There are say 10 witnesses to Hickey firing his weapon.
5. Yes Holland's wordage that supports Hickey firing is at odds with his wordage that there was smoke near the fence. Feel free to use your BS meter here, as with all other wordages.
6. Re the lawsuit, it looks to me that u reckon that Hickey did not do the dirty deed koz of lawyers. Hardly science.
7. I don’t understand any of what u said re Donahue being disingenuous.
8. I don’t understand any of what u said re Donahue playing both sides.
9. Show me where there is no merit in my wordage re Hickey did it.
10. Show me one fact that precludes the Hickey did it theory. Just one. One strike & the Hickey theory is out.
11. How can anything connected with what Oswald did pre or post shooting be of any import re the fact that Hickey shot jfk?
-
1. Go to any of my threads re Hickey, & show where any of my conclusions are wrong.
2. Dwell for a moment, re the fact, that not one CTer or LNer etc have ever changed their opinion on this forum, not ever following my brilliant genius revelations, & not re any other revelations.
3. Add yourself to this list.
4. There are say 10 witnesses to Hickey firing his weapon.
5. Yes Holland's wordage that supports Hickey firing is at odds with his wordage that there was smoke near the fence. Feel free to use your BS meter here, as with all other wordages.
6. Re the lawsuit, it looks to me that u reckon that Hickey did not do the dirty deed koz of lawyers. Hardly science.
7. I don’t understand any of what u said re Donahue being disingenuous.
8. I don’t understand any of what u said re Donahue playing both sides.
9. Show me where there is no merit in my wordage re Hickey did it.
10. Show me one fact that precludes the Hickey did it theory. Just one. One strike & the Hickey theory is out.
11. How can anything connected with what Oswald did pre or post shooting be of any import re the fact that Hickey shot jfk?
not ever following my brilliant genius revelations
It seems you yourself haven't changed your flawed opinion that your revelations were "brilliant genius".
-
not ever following my brilliant genius revelations
It seems you yourself haven't changed your flawed opinion that your revelations were "brilliant genius".
Read my comments, 712 ovem.
Early on not so good, but i was learning fast.
Have u learnt anything?
I know more re the jfk saga than all members here combined.
Anyhow, show me where any one of my comments are flawed.
-
Read my comments, 712 ovem.
Early on not so good, but i was learning fast.
Have u learnt anything?
I know more re the jfk saga than all members here combined.
Anyhow, show me where any one of my comments are flawed.
Anyhow, show me where any one of my comments are flawed.
Easy, all your comments are automatically flawed when you qualify them as "brilliant genius" and arrogantly claim that you know more of this case than all members combined.
Have u learnt anything?
Sure, for one thing I have learned to write correctly and secondly that people who present themselves as a "brilliant genius" never really are.
-
Richard Smith wrote: "Oswald was smart enough to know there was no escape plan after shooting the president in broad daylight in the presence of law enforcement. He knew that death or arrest was part of the equation to commit this act which is why he left most of his money and wedding ring with his wife. If you believe the crazy Mortal Error theory that Hickey fired the fatal shot, why would that cause Oswald any shock since he was still the assassin...?"
Hi, Richard. Thanks for your reply. If LHO knew "there was no escape," then why did he try so desperately to escape?
That's very easy. Like almost every desperate criminal in history, Oswald just played out his hand until the end. He had nothing to lose. Almost no criminal on the run just waits to be arrested no matter how hopeless the situation. You are trying to use logic on a guy who is not acting rationally. Oswald decided he was going to kill the president. He probably expected to be killed or arrested in the building. He was likely as surprised as anyone that he got out. When he did, he just kept moving until they closed in on him. At that point, he is the most wanted criminal in the world. That would be a source of stress.
-
the oswald leaving all his money behind for marina stuff is a nonsense . for those unaware lone nut advocates have been saying FALSELY a long time now that oswald left all his money the morning of that tragic day for marina because he knew he would never return . bugliosi made such a claim . and its not true .firstly oswald had i believe from memory 13 dollars on his person when arrested . that was a tidy sum in 1963 . that was a good days salary back then .
as regard money found at the paines . that money was not left there by oswald on the friday morning november 22 1963 . it is money that lee and marina were saving . oswald put money in an old wallet every time he could , and had done so from a time before they ever lived at the paines . marina her self said so .
that only leaves oswalds ring which in terms of this case proves nothing . in fact oswalds fellow employees (not frazier as they knew each other better ) did not realize he was married . oswald apparently didnt wear his wedding ring during work time because it would snag on things . i can vouch for such a thing happening . i mean in that my ring also snagged and bent and i had to stop wearing it . oswald may have thought (given marinas demeanor thursday night ) that he could not convince her to talk and give him a chance to make things right , so in that sense he may have decided to remove his ring thinking his marriage was over or he may have done it simply in frustration . on the morning of the assassination he woke up late and quickly left and walked to fraziers house . it has been said that oswald strangely turned up before frazier was ready , but wes has stated that he was running late and had not realized until he saw lee outside . so in his rush having woke up late its not impossible that he forgot his ring something most of us will have done atleast once .but yes we also must allow that he left it there to say to marina that he knew his marriage was over . but that in no way proves he shot jfk .
I said that he left most of his money with Marina. Not all. And, of course, Oswald followed the Russian tradition of wearing his wedding ring on his right hand. Assuming that you are even correct that most of his co-workers didn't know he was married, that is probably because he hardly spoke to anyone and wore his ring on the opposite hand. Not because he didn't wear his wedding ring on a regular basis. Instead his own wife confirmed it was the only time he had done so. She was in the best position to know.
-
I said that he left most of his money with Marina. Not all. And, of course, Oswald followed the Russian tradition or wearing his wedding ring on his right hand. Assuming that you are even correct that most of his co-workers didn't know he was married, that is probably because he hardly spoke to anyone and wore his ring on the opposite hand. Not because he didn't wear his wedding ring on a regular basis. Instead his own wife confirmed it was the only time he had done so. She was in the best position to know.
From "Marina and Lee". On the morning of the assassination after dressing "Lee kissed the children, who were sleeping. But he did not kiss Marina, as he always did before he left in the morning. He got as far as the bedroom door, then came back, and said "I've left some money on the bureau. Take it and buy everything you and Junie and Rachel need. Bye-bye." Then Lee went out the door.
"Good God", thought Marina, "What has happened to my husband that he has all of a sudden got so kind?"
When she awakened later and "Looked into the bureau, she found the extraordinary sum of $170. It must have been nearly everything Lee had."
He didn't leave the money in his wallet as he normally kept it. He took it out, placed it on the bureau and specifically told her to spend it all on her and the girls. All of it. No worries about tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow......
-
From "Marina and Lee". On the morning of the assassination after dressing "Lee kissed the children, who were sleeping. But he did not kiss Marina, as he always did before he left in the morning. He got as far as the bedroom door, then came back, and said "I've left some money on the bureau. Take it and buy everything you and Junie and Rachel need. Bye-bye." Then Lee went out the door.
"Good God", thought Marina, "What has happened to my husband that he has all of a sudden got so kind?"
When she awakened later when she "Looked into the bureau, she found the extraordinary sum of $170. It must have been nearly everything Lee had."
He didn't leave the money in his wallet. He took it out, placed it on the bureau and specifically told her to spend it all on her and the girls.
Yes, nothing to see there. Oswald takes a singular trip to the Paine home on a Thursday - the night before the assassination - where he just happened to store his rifle. He leaves his wedding ring for the first time with his wife the next day. He also leaves a large amount of money. He carries a long package which he tells Frazier contains curtain rods. No such curtain rods are ever found at any location he visited that day. He later denies carrying anything other than his lunch sack. He flees from the crime scene moments after the assassination - also his place of employment - in the middle of the day to obtain a gun. This flight from the crime is somehow twisted to mean that Oswald is innocent because if he were guilty, he would have sat down and allowed himself to be arrested.
-
Yes, nothing to see there. Oswald takes a singular trip to the Paine home on a Thursday - the night before the assassination - where he just happened to store his rifle. He leaves his wedding ring for the first time with his wife the next day. He also leaves a large amount of money. He carries a long package which he tells Frazier contains curtain rods. No such curtain rods are ever found at any location he visited that day. He later denies carrying anything other than his lunch sack. He flees from the crime scene moments after the assassination - also his place of employment - in the middle of the day to obtain a gun. This flight from the crime is somehow twisted to mean that Oswald is innocent because if he were guilty, he would have sat down and allowed himself to be arrested.
Nice regurgitation of the official narrative, but how much of it is really true?
-
Yes, nothing to see there. Oswald takes a singular trip to the Paine home on a Thursday - the night before the assassination - where he just happened to store his rifle. He leaves his wedding ring for the first time with his wife the next day. He also leaves a large amount of money. He carries a long package which he tells Frazier contains curtain rods. No such curtain rods are ever found at any location he visited that day. He later denies carrying anything other than his lunch sack. He flees from the crime scene moments after the assassination - also his place of employment - in the middle of the day to obtain a gun. This flight from the crime is somehow twisted to mean that Oswald is innocent because if he were guilty, he would have sat down and allowed himself to be arrested.
And he told Marina that he would see her again on the weekend but that he wouldn't stay Friday since he stayed Thursday.
What's the need to leave the money Friday? He's going to see her Saturday and Sunday, right? Give her the money then. Discuss what she needs to buy. Or go with her to pick the items up since she spoke and understood broken limited English. And what's the need for curtain rods anyway? He can get them over the weekend and take them back Monday.
There's a long list of circumstantial evidence, of acts, of behavior, of various accounts by people, that all point towards him. And only him. So all of this was faked? Manufactured? The evidence, the eyewitness accounts, his behavior? Absurd.
-
AND he told Marina that he would see her again on the weekend but that he wouldn't stay Friday since he stayed Thursday.
What's the need to leave the money Friday? He's going to see her Saturday and Sunday. Give her the money then. Discuss what she needs to buy. What's the need for curtain rods? He can get them over the weekend and take them back Monday.
There's a long list of circumstantial evidence, of acts, of behavior, of various accounts by people, that all point towards him. And only him. So all of this was faked? Manufactured? The evidence, the eyewitness accounts, his behavior? Absurd.
So all of this was faked? Manufactured? The evidence, the eyewitness accounts, his behavior? Absurd.
Silly remark. Any piece of circumstantial evidence, no matter how weak or insignificant, can be selectively fitted in a narrative pointing in some pre-determined direction.
An unscheduled trip to Irving, which differs from a hardly existing routine, Oswald allegedly leaving money behind for the kids and taking of his wedding ring all become sinister in a predetermined mind set. It's not the events that become the evidence, it's the interpretation of those events that somehow becomes evidence. Now that's really absurd!
-
He probably expected to be killed or arrested in the building. He was likely as surprised as anyone that he got out. When he did, he just kept moving until they closed in on him. At that point, he is the most wanted criminal in the world. That would be a source of stress.
Thumb1:
Thanks Richard, this insightful comment is not mere speculation, but from Oswald's own written words can be considered fact.
Oswald never thought he would get away with the murder of the President and fully expected to be killed by cops, and this can be seen in the very first Commission exhibit, the Walker note which says "11. If I am alive and taken Prisoner..." which indicates that he was fully prepared to commit suicide by cop.
(https://i.postimg.cc/N0vjkVsC/CE-1-walker-note.jpg)
Oswald's "historic diary" also gives further insight into his deranged state of mind where he admits he tried to commit suicide, and this dying for his Political beliefs even extends to his arrest at the Texas Theatre when he pulls out his revolver in front of a stack of cops, and then this maniac pulls the trigger and tries to kill McDonald. The only intended outcome was to die but the brave Dallas Police instead arrested this sick little double murderer.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MGkCyhzT/oswald-historic-diary-suicide.jpg)
JohnM
-
Thumb1:
Thanks Richard, this insightful comment is not mere speculation, but from Oswald's own written words can be considered fact.
Oswald never thought he would get away with the murder of the President and fully expected to be killed by cops, and this can be seen in the very first Commission exhibit, the Walker note which says "11. If I am alive and taken Prisoner..." which indicates that he was fully prepared to commit suicide by cop.
(https://i.postimg.cc/N0vjkVsC/CE-1-walker-note.jpg)
Oswald's "historic diary" also gives further insight into his deranged state of mind where he admits he tried to commit suicide, and this dying for his Political beliefs even extends to his arrest at the Texas Theatre when he pulls out his revolver in front of a stack of cops, and then this maniac pulls the trigger and tries to kill McDonald. The only intended outcome was to die but the brave Dallas Police instead arrested this sick little double murderer.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MGkCyhzT/oswald-historic-diary-suicide.jpg)
JohnM
What a joke... trying to dishonestly link massive assumptions made about Oswald with a document he allegedly wrote months earlier. But it's a good example how highly questional "evidence" (of absolutely nothing) and speculation somehow becomes "circumstantial evidence".
-
What a joke... trying to dishonestly link massive assumptions made about Oswald with a document he allegedly wrote months earlier. But it's a good example how highly questional "evidence" (of absolutely nothing) and speculation somehow becomes "circumstantial evidence".
Golly gee willikers Martin, why all the hostility, I didn't write that evidence, Oswald did!
I didn't shoot myself in the elbow while training to be a Marine, Oswald did!
I didn't lie about my Mother's illness to escape the Marines, Oswald did!
I didn't defect to the Enemy at the height of the Cold War, Oswald did!
I didn't slash my wrists when refused entry into Russia, Oswald did!
I didn't document my suicide attempt, Oswald did!
I didn't bash my wife, Oswald did!
I didn't order a mail order rifle, Oswald did!
I didn't order a mail order revolver, Oswald did!
I didn't try to kill General Walker, Oswald did!
I didn't write a note to my wife on what to do after I'm killed or captured, Oswald did!
I didn't leave the majority of my money with my wife on an unscheduled visit, Oswald did!
I didn't leave my wedding ring behind with my wife on the same unscheduled visit, Oswald did!
I didn't carry a long package to work on the morning of the assassination, Oswald did!
I didn't lie about the package, Oswald did!
I didn't leave my prints on the Murder weapon, Oswald did!
I didn't get identified by Brennan in the snioper's nest window, Oswald did!
I didn't leave my shirt fibers that matched fibers found on the Murder weapon, Oswald did!
I didn't leave prints on the rifle rest, Oswald did!
I didn't own the weapon that exclusively matched the bullet fragments found in the Limo, Oswald did!
I didn't immediately flee the crime scene, Oswald did!
I didn't catch a bus and then get off, Oswald did!
I didn't go way past my rooming house then walk back, Oswald did!
I didn't admit getting my revolver from Oswald's rooming house, Oswald did!
I didn't go to my room and be seen zipping up my jacket, Oswald did!
I didn't kill Tippit in front of an eyewitness, Oswald did!
I didn't get seen in front of a plethora of eyewitnesses fleeing from the Tippit crime scene, Oswald did!
I didn't leave my jacket under a car in a parking lot from the parking lot I was seen entering, Oswald did!
I didn't pass by by a shoe salesman without my jacket, Oswald did!
I didn't enter a Theatre without paying, Oswald did!
I didn't punch a Police Officer upon his approach, Oswald did!
I didn't pull out the Tippit murder weapon and try to kill more Police Officers, Oswald did!
I didn't lie about authenticated backyard photos, Oswald did!
I didn't lie about where I put my long package in Frazier's car, Oswald did!
I didn't lie about owning the Murder weapon, Oswald did!
Etc etc etc!
JohnM
-
Golly gee willikers Martin, why all the hostility, I didn't write that evidence, Oswald did!
I didn't shoot myself in the elbow while training to be a Marine, Oswald did!
I didn't lie about my Mother's illness to escape the Marines, Oswald did!
I didn't defect to the Enemy at the height of the Cold War, Oswald did!
I didn't slash my wrists when refused entry into Russia, Oswald did!
I didn't document my suicide attempt, Oswald did!
I didn't bash my wife, Oswald did!
I didn't order a mail order rifle, Oswald did!
I didn't order a mail order revolver, Oswald did!
I didn't try to kill General Walker, Oswald did!
I didn't write a note to my wife on what to do after I'm killed or captured, Oswald did!
I didn't leave the majority of my money with my wife on an unscheduled visit, Oswald did!
I didn't leave my wedding ring behind with my wife on the same unscheduled visit, Oswald did!
I didn't carry a long package to work on the morning of the assassination, Oswald did!
I didn't lie about the package, Oswald did!
I didn't leave my prints on the Murder weapon, Oswald did!
I didn't get identified by Brennan in the snioper's nest window, Oswald did!
I didn't leave my shirt fibers that matched fibers found on the Murder weapon, Oswald did!
I didn't leave prints on the rifle rest, Oswald did!
I didn't own the weapon that exclusively matched the bullet fragments found in the Limo, Oswald did!
I didn't immediately flee the crime scene, Oswald did!
I didn't catch a bus and then get off, Oswald did!
I didn't go way past my rooming house then walk back, Oswald did!
I didn't admit getting my revolver from Oswald's rooming house, Oswald did!
I didn't go to my room and be seen zipping up my jacket, Oswald did!
I didn't kill Tippit in front of an eyewitness, Oswald did!
I didn't be seen in front of a plethora of eyewitnesses fleeing from the Tippit crime scene, Oswald did!
I didn't leave my jacket under a car in a parking lot from the parking lot I was seen entering, Oswald did!
I wasn't seen by a shoe salesman without my jacket, Oswald did!
I didn't enter a Theatre without paying, Oswald did!
I didn't punch a Police Officer upon his approach, Oswald did!
I didn't pull out the Tippit murder weapon and try to kill more Police Officers, Oswald did!
I didn't lie about authenticated backyard photos, Oswald did!
I didn't lie about where I put my long package in Frazier's car, Oswald did!
I didn't lie about owning the Murder weapon, Oswald did!
Etc etc etc!
JohnM
Golly gee willikers Martin, why all the hostility,
A simple statement of fact isn't really hostility, but I can understand how somebody like you could perceive it to be.
I didn't write that evidence, Oswald did!
What "evidence" did Oswald write, exactly and how is what he allegedly wrote evidence and of what?
Btw.. repeating a bunch of wild claims for which you can't produce a shred of conclusive evidence is exactly what my previous comment was about.
I'll give you one example; you claim that Oswald lied about the package he brought to work on Friday morning, but you haven't got a shred of evidence to back it up. All you've got is conjecture.
Another example; You claim that Oswald owned the weapon that exclusively matched the bullet fragments found in the Limo, but again, apart from conjecture, you haven't got a shred of evidence to back up that claim. In fact, you can't even prove that the bullet fragments now in evidence were in fact found in the Limo.
It's easy to concoct a story, but at some point you will need some solid conclusive evidence to back it up and it's exactly there were you fail massively.
-
It's easy to concoct a story, ....
Wow, just wow!!!
I just supplied a Mountain of interconnecting pieces of evidence from an equal Mountain of unconnected sources and you have the audacity to suggest that it's "easy to concoct a story"? You can't be serious!
Do you ever think before you spew such illogical rubbish?
Just consider(well not you personally because you live with the fairies), the difficulty of grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street and creating this Enormously complicated backstory of assassination attempts, buying a rifle, purchasing a revolver, faking evidence, faking documents, faking eyewitnesses, faking films, faking autopsies, having officials from conflicting sources all lie, etc etc?
And you offhandedly claim without a second thought that "it's easy"! Hahahaha!
JohnM
-
Wow, just wow!!!
I just supplied a Mountain of interconnecting pieces of evidence from an equal Mountain of unconnected sources and you have the audacity to suggest that it's "easy to concoct a story"? You can't be serious!
Do you ever think before you spew such illogical rubbish?
Just consider(well not you personally because you live with the fairies), the difficulty of grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street and creating this Enormously complicated backstory of assassination attempts, buying a rifle, purchasing a revolver, faking evidence, faking documents, faking eyewitnesses, faking films, faking autopsies, having officials from conflicting sources all lie, etc etc?
And you offhandedly claim without a second thought that "it's easy"! Hahahaha!
JohnM
I just supplied a Mountain of interconnecting pieces of evidence from an equal Mountain of unconnected sources and you have the audacity to suggest that it's "easy to concoct a story"? You can't be serious!
Oh please, spare me the BS. It's a bunch of questionable claims that do not constitute a mountain of any sort nor do they interconnect. So, yes, I am serious.... the basis for any circumstantial case is a concocted story. This just isn't a very strong or persuasive story.
Do you ever think before you spew such illogical rubbish?
What is "illogical" about it? Could it be that you are utterly unable to understand how anybody can come to a different conclusion than you?
Just consider(well not you personally because you live with the fairies), the difficulty of grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street and creating this Enormously complicated backstory of assassination attempts,
How said anything about "grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street"? And what makes you even think that some of Oswald's history was created? And what "assassination attempts" are you talking about.
buying a rifle, purchasing a revolver,
Getting somebody like Oswald to fill out a couple order forms is, in the right set of circumstances, not really difficult at all.
faking evidence, faking documents, faking eyewitnesses, faking films, faking autopsies,
Are you really completely incapable to understand that people who control an investigation also have the means to manipulate evidence?
having officials from conflicting sources all lie, etc etc?
And yet, we know for a fact that some of those officials did in fact lie.... Go figure!
And you offhandedly claim without a second thought that "it's easy"! Hahahaha!
I fully understand why you consider it difficult, because the more difficult it becomes the less likely it actually happened.
But with all your grandstanding, there is one thing missing and that's conclusive evidence...... which of course is why you invest so heavily in the concocted circumstantial case. After all, it's easier to make up something to allegedly connect dots that do not exist than it is to actually prove a case.
But, I'm truly sorry, John, that what I have written has gone way over your head.
-
I just supplied a Mountain of interconnecting pieces of evidence from an equal Mountain of unconnected sources and you have the audacity to suggest that it's "easy to concoct a story"? You can't be serious!
Oh please, spare me the BS. It's a bunch of questionable claims that do not constitute a mountain of any sort nor do they interconnect. So, yes, I am serious.... the basis for any circumstantial case is a concocted story. This just isn't a very strong or persuasive story.
Do you ever think before you spew such illogical rubbish?
What is "illogical" about it? Could it be that you are utterly unable to understand how anybody can come to a different conclusion than you?
Just consider(well not you personally because you live with the fairies), the difficulty of grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street and creating this Enormously complicated backstory of assassination attempts,
How said anything about "grabbing some unassuming nobody off the street"? And what makes you even think that some of Oswald's history was created? And what "assassination attempts" are you talking about.
buying a rifle, purchasing a revolver,
Getting somebody like Oswald to fill out a couple order forms is, in the right set of circumstances, not really difficult at all.
faking evidence, faking documents, faking eyewitnesses, faking films, faking autopsies,
Are you really completely incapable to understand that people who control an investigation also have the means to manipulate evidence?
having officials from conflicting sources all lie, etc etc?
And yet, we know for a fact that some of those officials did in fact lie.... Go figure!
And you offhandedly claim without a second thought that "it's easy"! Hahahaha!
I fully understand why you consider it difficult, because the more difficult it becomes the less likely it actually happened.
But with all your grandstanding, there is one thing missing and that's conclusive evidence...... which of course is why you invest so heavily in the concocted circumstantial case. After all, it's easier to make up something to allegedly connect dots that do not exist than it is to actually prove a case.
But, I'm truly sorry, John, that what I have written has gone way over your head.
You're clearly having difficulties comprehending the enormity of the deception that you propose and the fact that you consider that a literal cast of more than you can possibly imagine of unassociated innocent eyewitnesses and officialdom on every conceivable level and from many and varied conflicting departments and agencies, can seamlessly contribute to the guilt of an "innocent" man shows your lack of real World experience which incidentally endearingly contributes to your charming childlike naivety.
JohnM
-
You're clearly having difficulties comprehending the enormity of the deception that you propose and the fact that you consider that a literal cast of more than you can possibly imagine of unassociated innocent eyewitnesses and officialdom on every conceivable level and from many and varied conflicting departments and agencies, can seamlessly contribute to the guilt of an "innocent" man shows your lack of real World experience which incidentally endearingly contributes to your charming childlike naivety.
JohnM
Utter BS and exactly what can be expected from you.
The whole thing is idiotic hyperbole. Just because you can't understand that there doesn't have to be an "enormity of deception", Oswald must have done it alone. There just one problem; you don't have and can't present conclusive proof of that foolish leap of faith.
-
I said that he left most of his money with Marina. Not all. And, of course, Oswald followed the Russian tradition of wearing his wedding ring on his right hand. Assuming that you are even correct that most of his co-workers didn't know he was married, that is probably because he hardly spoke to anyone and wore his ring on the opposite hand. Not because he didn't wear his wedding ring on a regular basis. Instead his own wife confirmed it was the only time he had done so. She was in the best position to know.
well we are trying to ascertain as best as is humanly possible (and its not always possible i know ) what the true facts of this case are . so what one feels oswald PROBABLY did is not the same as showing he actually did that . a little speculation has its place of course .
no you did not say OSWALD LEFT ALL HIS MONEY FOR MARINA , and i dont believe i said you did , from memory i was talking in general about how lone nut advocates talk about this money that was found at the paines . but the fact i she neither left all or most of his money for marina that morning . the money found was found in an old wallet in which oswald placed much of any monies he had at any time inside it .from a time dating back atleast even before he and marina ever lived at the paines . it not only contained cash but an unemployment cheque . so we can with all due respect dispense with any notion that oswald left asome or all of his money for marina THAT morning because he believed he would never return .
marina was in a position certainly to speak about oswalds habits at home , but not at work as she was never at work with him .but she did say in testimony that she recalled that he did not like to wear his ring at times , while at work now not at home .
Mr. RANKIN. Had your husband ever left his wedding ring at home that way before?
Mrs. OSWALD. At one time while he was still at Fort Worth, it was inconvenient for him to work with his wedding ring on and he would remove it, but at work--he would not leave it at home. His wedding ring was rather wide, and it bothered him.
I don't know now. He would take it off at work.
but the ring is proof of nothing in terms of the jfk assassination . one can speculate for sure , but that is all . and yes you raise a good point that people may not have realized he was married because he didnt wear his ring on his left hand . that is a valid point . but what is equally as valid is that he at times didnt like wearing his ring at work as it snagged on things , something i understand from personal experience work wise .
-
From "Marina and Lee". On the morning of the assassination after dressing "Lee kissed the children, who were sleeping. But he did not kiss Marina, as he always did before he left in the morning. He got as far as the bedroom door, then came back, and said "I've left some money on the bureau. Take it and buy everything you and Junie and Rachel need. Bye-bye." Then Lee went out the door.
"Good God", thought Marina, "What has happened to my husband that he has all of a sudden got so kind?"
When she awakened later and "Looked into the bureau, she found the extraordinary sum of $170. It must have been nearly everything Lee had."
He didn't leave the money in his wallet as he normally kept it. He took it out, placed it on the bureau and specifically told her to spend it all on her and the girls. All of it. No worries about tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow......
FROM MARINA OSWALD (not from an author whos connections with cia are questionable )
Mr. RANKIN. Did you usually keep a wallet with money in it at the Paines?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, in my room at Ruth Paine's there was a black wallet in a wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there, but I never counted it.
Mr. RANKIN. On the evening of November 21st, do you know how much was in the wallet?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. One detail that I remember was that he had asked me whether I had bought some shoes for myself, and 1 said no, that I hadn't had any time. He asked me whether June needed anything and told me to buy everything that I needed for myself and for June and for the children. This was rather unusual for him, that he would mention that first.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the rest in the wallet.
I know that the money that was found there, that you think this was not Lee's money. But I know for sure that this was money that he had earned. He had some money left after his trip to Mexico. Then we received an unemployment compensation check for $33. And then Lee paid only $7 or $8 for his room. And I know how he eats, very little.
-
Yes, nothing to see there. Oswald takes a singular trip to the Paine home on a Thursday - the night before the assassination - where he just happened to store his rifle. He leaves his wedding ring for the first time with his wife the next day. He also leaves a large amount of money. He carries a long package which he tells Frazier contains curtain rods. No such curtain rods are ever found at any location he visited that day. He later denies carrying anything other than his lunch sack. He flees from the crime scene moments after the assassination - also his place of employment - in the middle of the day to obtain a gun. This flight from the crime is somehow twisted to mean that Oswald is innocent because if he were guilty, he would have sat down and allowed himself to be arrested.
we have already established that HE DID NOT LEAVE THE MONEY THERE . it was always there in that wallet dating back to even before marina ever lived at the paines .
Mr. RANKIN. Did you usually keep a wallet with money in it at the Paines?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, in my room at Ruth Paine's there was a black wallet in a wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there, but I never counted it.
Mr. RANKIN. On the evening of November 21st, do you know how much was in the wallet?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. One detail that I remember was that he had asked me whether I had bought some shoes for myself, and 1 said no, that I hadn't had any time. He asked me whether June needed anything and told me to buy everything that I needed for myself and for June and for the children. This was rather unusual for him, that he would mention that first.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the rest in the wallet.
I know that the money that was found there, that you think this was not Lee's money. But I know for sure that this was money that he had earned. He had some money left after his trip to Mexico. Then we received an unemployment compensation check for $33. And then Lee paid only $7 or $8 for his room. And I know how he eats, very little.
the ring proves nothing relating to the assassination of jfk . marina gave him no encouragement in terms of reconciliation , she refused to talk to him . why he took his ring off can only be speculated upon in the sense that we cant ask mr oswald . was it frustration ? was it he thought his marriage was over ? was it just spur of the moment ? who can say .marina can of course give her opinion on this but only mr oswald knew for sure , and he cant tell us .
the rifle even when broken down was some 35 or 36 inches long , frazier described the manner in which oswald carried the sack and even the sort of paper it was made from . like a regular paper sack one gets in a store . he described the manner in which he said oswald carried that sack , and unless one has very long arms oswald did not carry a broken down 36 inch rifle .
no mention is given to why oswald might tell frazier he was going to the paines to pick up curtain rods , as opposed to telling wes his marriage was in the crapper . oswald even by your admission kept to himself , he was quiet and volunteered little information to people , even wes said really the only thing he could lee to talk about was his kids . so i see no reason that oswald would have told wes his marriage might be over and that he was going to try and talk to marina and try to save his marriage . and he didnt volunteer that information did he ? .
i dont know if oswald was innocent or guilty , i dont know if he played no part , a small part or was guilty as charged .but i do know i want truth and facts to guide me not speculation , agenda or bias or anything like that .
-
AND he told Marina that he would see her again on the weekend but that he wouldn't stay Friday since he stayed Thursday.
What's the need to leave the money Friday? He's going to see her Saturday and Sunday. Give her the money then. Discuss what she needs to buy. What's the need for curtain rods? He can get them over the weekend and take them back Monday.
There's a long list of circumstantial evidence, of acts, of behavior, of various accounts by people, that all point towards him. And only him. So all of this was faked? Manufactured? The evidence, the eyewitness accounts, his behavior? Absurd.
no money was left that morning , it was always there in an old wallet .
-
well we are trying to ascertain as best as is humanly possible (and its not always possible i know ) what the true facts of this case are . so what one feels oswald PROBABLY did is not the same as showing he actually did that . a little speculation has its place of course .
no you did not say OSWALD LEFT ALL HIS MONEY FOR MARINA , and i dont believe i said you did , from memory i was talking in general about how lone nut advocates talk about this money that was found at the paines . but the fact i she neither left all or most of his money for marina that morning . the money found was found in an old wallet in which oswald placed much of any monies he had at any time inside it .from a time dating back atleast even before he and marina ever lived at the paines . it not only contained cash but an unemployment cheque . so we can with all due respect dispense with any notion that oswald left asome or all of his money for marina THAT morning because he believed he would never return .
marina was in a position certainly to speak about oswalds habits at home , but not at work as she was never at work with him .but she did say in testimony that she recalled that he did not like to wear his ring at times , while at work now not at home .
Mr. RANKIN. Had your husband ever left his wedding ring at home that way before?
Mrs. OSWALD. At one time while he was still at Fort Worth, it was inconvenient for him to work with his wedding ring on and he would remove it, but at work--he would not leave it at home. His wedding ring was rather wide, and it bothered him.
I don't know now. He would take it off at work.
but the ring is proof of nothing in terms of the jfk assassination . one can speculate for sure , but that is all . and yes you raise a good point that people may not have realized he was married because he didnt wear his ring on his left hand . that is a valid point . but what is equally as valid is that he at times didnt like wearing his ring at work as it snagged on things , something i understand from personal experience work wise .
The amount of money left under the circumstances was unusually large for LHO. According to his own wife, leaving his wedding ring at home was an extremely unusual occurrence. His mere presence at the Paine home on Thursday was singular. Do those things alone prove he was the assassin? No, but taken in the context of all the evidence they lend themselves to the conclusion that Oswald made this unusual trip to the home that night to obtain the rifle which he stored there. Knowing that the act of assassinating the president entailed his death or arrest, he left the money and wedding ring for his family. He lied to Frazier. Telling him that the trip was to obtain curtain rods. No such curtain rods were taken. Oswald didn't need any such curtain rods. No curtain rods were found in the TSBD or Oswald's boarding house in a package as described by Frazier. Oswald's rifle was missing from the Paine garage. It was found on the 6th floor along with a long bag with Oswald's prints. Oswald told Frazier that he was not carrying his lunch that morning, but then told the police that he carried his lunch in a sack. Why lie about his lunch to Frazier or the police? It makes for a compelling case against Oswald.
-
"The only intended outcome was to die" john mytton
it was ? so then why did he shout out for all to hear i am not resisting arrest , i am not resisting arrest . surely if he had this death wish you speak of he would have ensured he died ? . he had ample time while mcdonald was walking down the aisle away from him to pull out a gun and at the least shoot mcdonald . which i should think would ensure he died there and then at the hands of the police . but that does not happen .instead he stays seated at first . then mcdonald orders him to stand and he does , he orders oswald walk toward him , oswald again complies and does so with both hands up to atleast shoulder / head height . and then oswald only reacts when mcdonald reaches into oswalds waist band .
-
The amount of money left under the circumstances was unusually large for LHO. According to his own wife, leaving his wedding ring at home was an extremely unusual occurrence. His mere presence at the Paine home on Thursday was singular. Do those things alone prove he was the assassin? No, but taken in the context of all the evidence they lend themselves to the conclusion that Oswald made this unusual trip to the home that night to obtain the rifle which he stored there. Knowing that the act of assassinating the president entailed his death or arrest, he left the money and wedding ring for his family. He lied to Frazier. Telling him that the trip was to obtain curtain rods. No such curtain rods were taken. Oswald didn't need any such curtain rods. No curtain rods were found in the TSBD or Oswald's boarding house in a package as described by Frazier. Oswald's rifle was missing from the Paine garage. It was found on the 6th floor along with a long bag with Oswald's prints. Oswald told Frazier that he was not carrying his lunch that morning, but then told the police that he carried his lunch in a sack. Why lie about his lunch to Frazier or the police? It makes for a compelling case against Oswald.
it seems the point i have made several times now is being ignored . i will say it one last time . the money was found in an old wallet . this was money and even atleast one cheque , monies that oswald placed in that wallet at differing points in time over weeks if not months . and dating from a time prior to them ever living at the paines house . yes oswald may have told marina to take some of that money if she needed , he was after all trying to reconcile with her , and so he may have thought that would make marina happy .
his presence at the paines on thursday was singular ? you mean a singular event ? that he had never gone to the paines on any other night other than a friday ? . if so you will find that to be incorrect .
we know even from one of your very own star witnesses (marina her self ) in testimony that oswald did indeed come home to try and make things right with her . he tried to talk to her and try to reconcile but she would have none of it . so to say he only went home to get a rifle is not accurate .
oswald as has been said here already was usually quiet and kept to himself , even frazier said it was difficult to get him to talk . but he would talk about his kids . so in that sense i have zero reason to believe that oswald being the way he was would volunteer to tell frazier he was going home on thursday because his marriage was in the crapper .and that he was going there because he was desperate to try and reconcile with her . so i would not be surprised in such a case if oswald or whom ever made up a reason for the trip . you ask why lie ? well ive just given you a valid reason based on our knowledge of oswald as a person .
-
Depository worker Oswald suddenly has a Friday afternoon off. Wouldn't he check with Frasier to see when he was going to Irving? Or was Oswald-the-Family-Man skipping a weekend with his family?
I figure Oswald-the-Cheapskate (who bought himself magazine subscriptions, weapons and a trip to Mexico City while Marina's teeth rotted and the kids lived on handouts) would be so worried that Marina would splurge the "fortune" he left behind that he would want to get back to Irving pronto.
-
Depository worker Oswald suddenly has a Friday afternoon off. Wouldn't he check with Frasier to see when he was going to Irving? Or was Oswald-the-Family-Man skipping a weekend with his family?
I figure Oswald-the-Cheapskate (who bought himself magazine subscriptions, weapons and a trip to Mexico City while Marina's teeth rotted and the kids lived on handouts) would be so worried that Marina would splurge the "fortune" he left behind that he would want to get back to Irving pronto.
Marina/WC testimony on Oswald's weekend plans:
Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss the weekend that was coming up?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said that he probably would not come on Friday, and he didn't come he was in jail.
Mr. RANKIN. When he said he would not be home that Friday evening [November 21st 22nd], did you ask him why?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said that since he was home on Thursday, that it wouldn't make any sense to come again on Friday, that he would come for the weekend.
So he leaves $170 and tells Marina to buy what she wants. Even though he was going to see her Saturday and Sunday. They lived apart due to lack of money; they were always poor, desperate (those CIA checks kept getting lost in the mail I guess). But suddenly money is no issue? "Go ahead Marina, spend it all."
-
The amount of money left under the circumstances was unusually large for LHO. According to his own wife, leaving his wedding ring at home was an extremely unusual occurrence. His mere presence at the Paine home on Thursday was singular. Do those things alone prove he was the assassin? No, but taken in the context of all the evidence they lend themselves to the conclusion that Oswald made this unusual trip to the home that night to obtain the rifle which he stored there. Knowing that the act of assassinating the president entailed his death or arrest, he left the money and wedding ring for his family. He lied to Frazier. Telling him that the trip was to obtain curtain rods. No such curtain rods were taken. Oswald didn't need any such curtain rods. No curtain rods were found in the TSBD or Oswald's boarding house in a package as described by Frazier. Oswald's rifle was missing from the Paine garage. It was found on the 6th floor along with a long bag with Oswald's prints. Oswald told Frazier that he was not carrying his lunch that morning, but then told the police that he carried his lunch in a sack. Why lie about his lunch to Frazier or the police? It makes for a compelling case against Oswald.
His mere presence at the Paine home on Thursday was singular.
So what? The weekend before he didn't go at all, which was also singular. In total he only made a couple of trips to Irving. To argue that his trip on Thursday has some special meaning, because it was a deviation from his usual routine, is utter speculation.
Do those things alone prove he was the assassin? No, but taken in the context of all the evidence they lend themselves to the conclusion that Oswald made this unusual trip to the home that night to obtain the rifle which he stored there.
The only problem with this is that you can't even prove that Oswald owned a rifle in November 1963 and that it was that rifle that was "stored" in Ruth Paine's garage. All you actually have is Marina saying that she looked in the blanket, about a week after leaving New Orleans (which would make it late September 63), and saw a rifle. Everything else is supposition and conjecture. You can't even prove that it was the MC rifle that was stored in the garage.
So, how any of those other things, which are questionable by themselves, can justify the conclusion that Oswald went to Irving to collect a rifle that you can't even show was actually there, is beyond me. You've got your imagination running wild.
Oswald's rifle was missing from the Paine garage.
There you go again. Another combination of wild claims for which you can not provide a shred of actual evidence. It's all assumption and speculation.
Oswald told Frazier that he was not carrying his lunch that morning, but then told the police that he carried his lunch in a sack.
More LN cherry picking. If you are going to rely on Frazier, then also rely on him when he described how Oswald held the package (between the cup of his hand and below his armpit) and also accept that, on Friday evening, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and clearly stated that it wasn't the bag he had seen Oswald carry.
It makes for a compelling case against Oswald.
No it doesn't. It only demonstrates clearly what the pre-determined outcome of the investigation had to be.
-
Depository worker Oswald suddenly has a Friday afternoon off. Wouldn't he check with Frasier to see when he was going to Irving? Or was Oswald-the-Family-Man skipping a weekend with his family?
I figure Oswald-the-Cheapskate (who bought himself magazine subscriptions, weapons and a trip to Mexico City while Marina's teeth rotted and the kids lived on handouts) would be so worried that Marina would splurge the "fortune" he left behind that he would want to get back to Irving pronto.
If Oswald was really the cheapskate you make him out to be, why would he have left money for Marina and the kids in the first place? If he was killed and the money was found on his person, it would go to Marina anyway, so there was no reason for him to leave it in Irving. In fact, if he only thought about himself it would have made more sense to keep the money himself just in case he could get away.
Your "logic" (if it can be called that) simply doesn't make any sense.
-
it seems the point i have made several times now is being ignored . i will say it one last time . the money was found in an old wallet . this was money and even atleast one cheque , monies that oswald placed in that wallet at differing points in time over weeks if not months . and dating from a time prior to them ever living at the paines house . yes oswald may have told marina to take some of that money if she needed , he was after all trying to reconcile with her , and so he may have thought that would make marina happy .
his presence at the paines on thursday was singular ? you mean a singular event ? that he had never gone to the paines on any other night other than a friday ? . if so you will find that to be incorrect .
we know even from one of your very own star witnesses (marina her self ) in testimony that oswald did indeed come home to try and make things right with her . he tried to talk to her and try to reconcile but she would have none of it . so to say he only went home to get a rifle is not accurate .
oswald as has been said here already was usually quiet and kept to himself , even frazier said it was difficult to get him to talk . but he would talk about his kids . so in that sense i have zero reason to believe that oswald being the way he was would volunteer to tell frazier he was going home on thursday because his marriage was in the crapper .and that he was going there because he was desperate to try and reconcile with her . so i would not be surprised in such a case if oswald or whom ever made up a reason for the trip . you ask why lie ? well ive just given you a valid reason based on our knowledge of oswald as a person .
Oswald must have had the worst luck of any person in history. Imagine how unlucky that it was that he broke his normal routine to visit the very location where he kept his rifle on the night before the assassination. That he left his wedding ring that morning. That he carried a long package to work. That he was the only TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes. Wow. He was like Mr. Magoo in that old cartoon. Marina confirmed the money was left on Oswald's last visit. You try to rebut this by suggesting that the author had CIA connections. Let me get this one straight. You think that long after Oswald's death that the CIA needed to influence a book to put out a story that Oswald left some money on his last visit? Why? He was dead and the official investigations had linked him to the crime. And what was in the long packages that he carried that morning if not curtain rods? How did Oswald's rifle make its way from the Paine garage to the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment? Why couldn't his visit wait one more day to his usual Friday visit? Why did Oswald flee the scene within minutes of the assassination and get a gun?
-
Oswald must have had the worst luck of any person in history. Imagine how unlucky that it was that he broke his normal routine to visit the very location where he kept his rifle on the night before the assassination. That he left his wedding ring that morning. That he carried a long package to work. That he was the only TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes. Wow. He was like Mr. Magoo in that old cartoon. Marina confirmed the money was left on Oswald's last visit. You try to rebut this by suggesting that the author had CIA connections. Let me get this one straight. You think that long after Oswald's death that the CIA needed to influence a book to put out a story that Oswald left some money on his last visit? Why? He was dead and the official investigations had linked him to the crime. And what was in the long packages that he carried that morning if not curtain rods? How did Oswald's rifle make its way from the Paine garage to the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment? Why couldn't his visit wait one more day to his usual Friday visit? Why did Oswald flee the scene within minutes of the assassination and get a gun?
Here is Marina on the accuracy of the book:
Q. And following that then, after you saw the book in its final form, did you read it in its entirety?
A. Yes; I did.
Q. With respect to the matters in the book that you have personal knowledge about, and I take it there are some things in there you simply have no personal knowledge about, but with respect to the things that you do, did you find inaccuracies in the book or things that did not comport with your memory?
A. Well, as far as the facts that came from me or---
Q. Yes, ma'am.
A. That is true but some conclusion that she has to come to on her own, maybe even analyzing my character, that was up to her to decide but the facts were not twisted.
Q. OK, So the facts then that you have knowledge of as portrayed in the book are accurate to the best of your memory?
A. Only the facts that concern my and Lee's life. I am not responsible for other characters, I don't know how true that is.
Q. I understand. At least the facts that concern you and Lee and that you had personal knowledge of after reading the book seemed accurate?
A. Yes
And her view on Priscilla McMillan:
Q. When did you first meet Priscilla Johnson MacMillan?
A. I think in 1964.
Q. And what were the circumstances of that meeting ?
A. Well, he had lots of approaches from different writers or publish- ing companies to write the 'book about and I did not want to or did I have the rights to do anything like that and I was approached by Priscilla MacMillian and then she was Johnson, or by Harper & Rowe and by telegrams or maybe it was a written request and I refused. Then one day she arrived in Dallas and was on my doorstep. I liked the person very much and never changed my opinion of her since then.
Link/source: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/marinade.htm
-
Oswald must have had the worst luck of any person in history. Imagine how unlucky that it was that he broke his normal routine to visit the very location where he kept his rifle on the night before the assassination. That he left his wedding ring that morning. That he carried a long package to work. That he was the only TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes. Wow. He was like Mr. Magoo in that old cartoon. Marina confirmed the money was left on Oswald's last visit. You try to rebut this by suggesting that the author had CIA connections. Let me get this one straight. You think that long after Oswald's death that the CIA needed to influence a book to put out a story that Oswald left some money on his last visit? Why? He was dead and the official investigations had linked him to the crime. And what was in the long packages that he carried that morning if not curtain rods? How did Oswald's rifle make its way from the Paine garage to the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment? Why couldn't his visit wait one more day to his usual Friday visit? Why did Oswald flee the scene within minutes of the assassination and get a gun?
Try reading this BS while ignoring the questionable claim that Oswald owned a rifle which he stored at Ruth Paine's garage and took to the TSBD on Friday morning. Without that rifle all Richard's assumptions fall apart.
The bottom line is that Richard hasn't got a shred of evidence that Oswald owned a rifle, that he kept it at Ruth Paine's garage, that he took it to the TSBD and/or that it even was the MC rifle that was found on the 6th floor. You can ask Richard for this evidence as much as you like, you will never ever get an answer, because it doesn't exist. Instead, Richard will just go with unsubstantiated assumptions and conjecture.
-
Oswald must have had the worst luck of any person in history. Imagine how unlucky that it was that he broke his normal routine to visit the very location where he kept his rifle on the night before the assassination. That he left his wedding ring that morning. That he carried a long package to work. That he was the only TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes. Wow. He was like Mr. Magoo in that old cartoon. Marina confirmed the money was left on Oswald's last visit. You try to rebut this by suggesting that the author had CIA connections. Let me get this one straight. You think that long after Oswald's death that the CIA needed to influence a book to put out a story that Oswald left some money on his last visit? Why? He was dead and the official investigations had linked him to the crime. And what was in the long packages that he carried that morning if not curtain rods? How did Oswald's rifle make its way from the Paine garage to the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment? Why couldn't his visit wait one more day to his usual Friday visit? Why did Oswald flee the scene within minutes of the assassination and get a gun?
Oswald must have had the worst luck of any person in history.
All very good points but I just would like to add;
Oswald happened to work in the building with a clear view of when the shots took place.
Even though there was only black men and women in the windows facing Elm street, the first Police radio report said a white slim male about 30(Oswald early balding fits) was doing the shooting.
Oswald is on film admitting that he was inn the building at the time without any other alibi.
The 3 distinctly different fibers on the rifle just happened to match the 3 distinctly different fibers shirt he was wearing when arrested, and we know the prohibitive probability is extremely unlikely that they came from elsewhere.
The first cop killed by a firearm in Dallas for years just happened to occur at a time and place that was between Oswald's confirmed leaving the Rooming house and when he was arrested.
The jacket that was discovered in a Parking lot that he just happened to b e seen entering while wearing a jacket.
What an unlucky son of a gun.
JohnM
-
The bottom line is that Richard hasn't got a shred of evidence that Oswald owned a rifle, blah blah blah...
There's way more than a shred of evidence! You're not only an embarrassment to this Forum but the you're an embarrassment to the entire Human Race!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kvpb3hFL/WCReport-0072b.jpg)
(https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/-mm-/87faa3c76f9af8191a7e6d011cc12afc3f966768/c=13-0-755-742/local/-/media/2015/10/20/USATODAY/USATODAY/635809354159962897-lho.JPG)
JohnM
-
All very good points but I just would like to add;
Oswald happened to work in the building with a clear view of when the shots took place.
Even though there was only black men and women in the windows facing Elm street, the first Police radio report said a white slim male about 30(Oswald early balding fits) was doing the shooting.
Oswald is on film admitting that he was inn the building at the time without any other alibi.
The 3 distinctly different fibers on the rifle just happened to match the 3 distinctly different fibers shirt he was wearing when arrested, and we know the prohibitive probability is extremely unlikely that they came from elsewhere.
The first cop killed by a firearm in Dallas for years just happened to occur at a time and place that was between Oswald's confirmed leaving the Rooming house and when he was arrested.
The jacket that was discovered in a Parking lot that he just happened to b e seen entering while wearing a jacket.
What an unlucky son of a gun.
JohnM
Oswald happened to work in the building with a clear view of when the shots took place.
Even though there was only black men and women in the windows facing Elm street, the first Police radio report said a white slim male about 30(Oswald early balding fits) was doing the shooting.
Wow, now that's what I call rock solid evidence ...BS. Oswald worked in the building so he must be guilty. John just didn't lower the bar for evidence, he buried it 10 feet down.
Oswald is on film admitting that he was inn the building at the time without any other alibi.
Oswald admitted no such thing. All he did was reply to a question by a reporter, saying that he worked in the building, so of course he was inside.
The 3 distinctly different fibers on the rifle just happened to match the 3 distinctly different fibers shirt he was wearing when arrested, and we know the prohibitive probability is extremely unlikely that they came from elsewhere.
Too bad that John can't produce a shred of evidence that shows that Oswald was wearing the same shirt in the morning and at his arrest. And of course John misrepresents the fact that there is a match between 3 fibers when in fact no such thing as a conclusive match can be made.
The first cop killed by a firearm in Dallas for years just happened to occur at a time and place that was between Oswald's confirmed leaving the Rooming house and when he was arrested.
Not true, again... the 10th street location where Tippit was shot is in no way between Oswald's roominghouse and the Texas Theater.
The jacket that was discovered in a Parking lot that he just happened to b e seen entering while wearing a jacket.
What jacket would that be? The white one found by an unidentified officer, or the light gray one that Captain Westbrook somehow obtained and presented to the evidence room with initials on it from officers who never were in the car park (and thus the chain of custody) where allegedly the jacket was found.
And what John, of course, doesn't tell you is that Wesley Buell Frazier and Marina Oswald actually saw Oswald wearing his light gray jacket when he travelled to Irving on Thursday evening. In her testimony Marina actually identified CE 162 as the jacket she had seen, which justifies the question how a jacket that Oswald was wearing in Irving on Thursday evening can end up in the hands of Captain Westbrook on Friday afternoon at around 3 PM? I suggest you don't wait for a reply from John, because you will never get one. At best he'll post some spin and gifs.
-
There's way more than a shred of evidence! You're not only an embarrassment to this Forum but the you're an embarrassment to the entire Human Race!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kvpb3hFL/WCReport-0072b.jpg)
(https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/-mm-/87faa3c76f9af8191a7e6d011cc12afc3f966768/c=13-0-755-742/local/-/media/2015/10/20/USATODAY/USATODAY/635809354159962897-lho.JPG)
JohnM
Insults instead of actual evidence. Precisely what you can expect from Mytton when he gets stuck.
None of the Klein's documents actually show that Oswald owned a rifle. At best, the order form and money order proves that Oswald filled out those documents. And of course, a photograph of Oswald holding a rifle, taken some 8 months prior to the assassination, does not prove ownership of a rifle in November 1963.
This is, yet again, just another case where a desperate prosecutor is trying to use some questionable documents to build a circumstantial argument which he then hopes will somehow turn into actual evidence.
Btw, did you notice that John just completely ignored everything else I said and just focused on what he foolishly believed he can prove with some photocopies and a photograph? The conclusion must be that even John understands that he there isn't a shred of evidence that Oswald kept a rifle at Ruth Paine's garage, that he took it to the TSBD and/or that it even was the MC rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
It's wise to pay more attention to what LNs don't say rather than the BS the do say.
-
No true, again... the 10th street location where Tippit was shot is in no way between Oswald's roominghouse and the Texas Theater.
Forgetting for a moment that almost a Dozen eyewitnesses confirmed seeing Oswald carrying a gun close to the Tippit crime scene, of course the location where Tippit was shot is in between the two confirmed locations where I said Oswald was, just because the murdering Oswald was avoiding the main roads and was not walking directly as the crow flies only adds to his consciousness of guilt.
And getting back to how unlucky Oswald was, out of the close to 400 square miles of Dallas, here's Oswald who in two confirmed locations, first the Rooming House was only 0.8 miles away and secondly the Texas Theatre was just 0.7 miles away from the Tippit crime scene! And considering that no cop in Dallas was shot in years, the time of Tippit being shot just happens to be between those two confirmed sightings of Oswald.
What an unlucky son of a gun.
(https://www.crimetraveller.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Oswald-fled-from-the-TSBD1.jpg)
JohnM
-
The bottom line is that Richard hasn't got a shred of evidence that Oswald owned a rifle,
At best, the order form and money order proves that Oswald filled out those documents. And of course, a photograph of Oswald holding a rifle, taken some 8 months prior to the assassination, does not prove ownership of a rifle in November 1963.
Thank you, so there is more than a shred of evidence that Oswald owned a rifle.
JohnM
-
Thank you, so there is more than a shred of evidence that Oswald owned a rifle.
JohnM
All we have is a picture of Oswald holding the rifle and documents that confirm he was sent the rifle. His prints were also found on the rifle. HA HA HA. Why haven't you invented a time machine to prove it to the subjective satisfaction of a loon?
-
Utter BS and exactly what can be expected from you.
The whole thing is idiotic hyperbole. Just because you can't understand that there doesn't have to be an "enormity of deception", Oswald must have done it alone. There just one problem; you don't have and can't present conclusive proof of that foolish leap of faith.
I see hours later you added more than your first two words "Utter BS", and you even personalized those words against me with a nasty little sentence, which hurts oh so much!
The whole thing is idiotic hyperbole. Just because you can't understand that there doesn't have to be an "enormity of deception", Oswald must have done it alone. There just one problem; you don't have and can't present conclusive proof of that foolish leap of faith.
And next comes the meaningless rhetoric of what you initially were trying to say.
There's two ways of looking at the JFKA;
1) The Occam's razor approach, Oswald ordered a mail order rifle and took it to work and killed the President.
Or
2) The CT approach, where everything and anything needs to be possible, or plain and simply any conspiracy just won't work.
The following compiled list reflects the effort for just a tiny fraction of a planned conspiracy, the faking of Oswald's Hidell alias.
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!
But instead when faced with their very own posts, the obvious enormity of conspiracy and the amount of deception required, CT's like Martin say blank faced without a worry in the World, and I'm paraphrasing here, "any conspiracy I've talked about endlessly for thousands of posts was just very small with possibly just a few people involved" and yes this is seriously how they think!
JohnM
-
All we have is a picture of Oswald holding the rifle and documents that confirm he was sent the rifle. His prints were also found on the rifle. HA HA HA. Why haven't you invented a time machine to prove it to the subjective satisfaction of a loon?
Even with a time machine they will believe that someone is tricking their eyes but it does remind me of a joke;
A conspiracy theorist dies and goes to Heaven. God says, “Welcome! Do you have any questions?”
“Yeah, who really shot JFK?”
“Oh, it was Lee Harvey Oswald. He acted alone.”
“Man, this goes higher than I thought.”
:D
JohnM
-
Even with a time machine they will believe that someone is tricking their eyes but it does remind me of a joke;
A conspiracy theorist dies and goes to Heaven. God says, “Welcome! Do you have any questions?”
“Yeah, who really shot JFK?”
“Oh, it was Lee Harvey Oswald. He acted alone.”
“Man, this goes higher than I thought.”
:D
JohnM
A good one John, but sadly, that really is the depth of their mindsets. And the reason the controversy will go on and on and on.
-
Forgetting for a moment that almost a Dozen eyewitnesses confirmed seeing Oswald carrying a gun close to the Tippit crime scene, of course the location where Tippit was shot is in between the two confirmed locations where I said Oswald was, just because the murdering Oswald was avoiding the main roads and was not walking directly as the crow flies only adds to his consciousness of guilt.
And getting back to how unlucky Oswald was, out of the close to 400 square miles of Dallas, here's Oswald who in two confirmed locations, first the Rooming House was only 0.8 miles away and secondly the Texas Theatre was just 0.7 miles away from the Tippit crime scene! And considering that no cop in Dallas was shot in years, the time of Tippit being shot just happens to be between those two confirmed sightings of Oswald.
What an unlucky son of a gun.
(https://www.crimetraveller.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Oswald-fled-from-the-TSBD1.jpg)
JohnM
More BS. The photograph clearly shows that the 10th street location is completely on the other side of Beckley than the Texas Theater.
By your "logic" even Jack Ruby's appartment would be between the roominghouse and the Texas Theater.
-
Thank you, so there is more than a shred of evidence that Oswald owned a rifle.
JohnM
None of the Klein's documents actually show that Oswald owned a rifle. At best, the order form and money order proves that Oswald filled out those documents. And of course, a photograph of Oswald holding a rifle, taken some 8 months prior to the assassination, does not prove ownership of a rifle in November 1963.
When you have to misrepresent what I actually said, by leaving out part of it, you've already lost the argument. It's the normal dishonesty that I have learned to come to expect from you.
Btw, anybody who claims that somebody holding a rifle in a photograph eight months ago is actual proof of ownership of that rifle needs his head examined.
-
All we have is a picture of Oswald holding the rifle and documents that confirm he was sent the rifle. His prints were also found on the rifle. HA HA HA. Why haven't you invented a time machine to prove it to the subjective satisfaction of a loon?
You don't have documents that confirm Oswald was sent a rifle. All you've got is an internal document of Klein's with a handwritten circle around the letters "PP". There is no proof whatsoever that a rifle was actually sent.
Also, Oswald's prints were not found on the rifle. The FBI tested the rifle for prints in the night after the murder and found no prints. All you've got is an evidence card which allegedly has part of Oswald's palmprint on it which did not surface until after Oswald had been killed. It's just one more example of evidence suddenly popping up when it is needed.
-
Oswald must have had the worst luck of any person in history. Imagine how unlucky that it was that he broke his normal routine to visit the very location where he kept his rifle on the night before the assassination. That he left his wedding ring that morning. That he carried a long package to work. That he was the only TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes. Wow. He was like Mr. Magoo in that old cartoon. Marina confirmed the money was left on Oswald's last visit. You try to rebut this by suggesting that the author had CIA connections. Let me get this one straight. You think that long after Oswald's death that the CIA needed to influence a book to put out a story that Oswald left some money on his last visit? Why? He was dead and the official investigations had linked him to the crime. And what was in the long packages that he carried that morning if not curtain rods? How did Oswald's rifle make its way from the Paine garage to the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment? Why couldn't his visit wait one more day to his usual Friday visit? Why did Oswald flee the scene within minutes of the assassination and get a gun?
well i see that you know enough not to try to deny miss mcmillans connections to the cia . her book came out in 1977 if memory serves me correctly , wasnt the hsca being put in place at that point ? yet another so called investigation that had to deceive and lie in order to find oswald as the lone assassin . and she was already very interested in mr oswald as early as 1959 .LONG AFTER ? i dont think so .
regarding the money at the paines what priscilla said is neither here nor there , because the money was found in an old wallet where oswald left it , and had been leaving it for weeks and even prior to living at the paines . that money is not suspicious , nor is how it came to be at the paines .
as for routines we are talking about around a 5 week period of time . oswald did not go home on friday one week . the week prior he did not go home at all . prior to that he had stayed at the paines on atleast one holliday .WHAT ROUTINE ? if we were talking about a 6 month or 12 month period you might have some point , but even then you would have to actually show routine , and you have not .
only two people said they saw this package you speak of , and from what they said and described neither of them support your view that oswald carried a broken down carcano in a package that had to have been atleast 36 inches long . yet you still maintain that oswald had a rifle , broke it down , put it in a sack and carried it in such a manner that would require him to have the arms of an orangutan . but hey .
wow oswald worked in a building , he worked on several floors including the 6th floor . his job was filling book orders from boxes of books on those floors including the 6th floor . he filled orders that morning and was seen working filling orders specifically from those very floors and you think its unusual that his prints should be found ? . how many prints did the key stone i mean dallas police destroy that afternoon ? . exactly how many police prints were found ? .
bugliosi what ? 3 decades after oswalds death still felt it important enough to deceive his readers by telling them such things as oswald lied and said he ate lunch with jarmin and norman in hopes of getting an alibi when the interrogation notes show that oswald said he ate alone . he further used the money saved for weeks if not months to deceptively say that oswald left it there for marina knowing he would never return , while omitting marinas testimony in which she said oswald told her he would not be back that friday evening but he would return on saturday instead . i guess he thought that might spoil his story .
regarding what ever oswald carried you cant prove it was a rifle , in fact your only two witnesses dispute you on this . so you cant prove it was a rifle but you expect me to prove it was curtain rods ? , when exactly did i claim oswald carried curtain rods ? . i can tell you what oswald said he carried , an apple and a sandwich . you can prove the rifle in evidence found at the depository was oswalds , well given that the rifle we were told was ordered was the short 36 inch model and the model in the depository is a long 40 inch model well you already have a problem .
as for why oswald did not wait till friday to visit marina well some times some things are just too important too wait . like saving ones marriage .
-
I see hours later you added more than your first two words "Utter BS", and you even personalized those words against me with a nasty little sentence, which hurts oh so much!
And next comes the meaningless rhetoric of what you initially were trying to say.
There's two ways of looking at the JFKA;
1) The Occam's razor approach, Oswald ordered a mail order rifle and took it to work and killed the President.
Or
2) The CT approach, where everything and anything needs to be possible, or plain and simply any conspiracy just won't work.
The following compiled list reflects the effort for just a tiny fraction of a planned conspiracy, the faking of Oswald's Hidell alias.
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!
But instead when faced with their very own posts, the obvious enormity of conspiracy and the amount of deception required, CT's like Martin say blank faced without a worry in the World, and I'm paraphrasing here, "any conspiracy I've talked about endlessly for thousands of posts was just very small with possibly just a few people involved" and yes this is seriously how they think!
JohnM
I'm not going to waste a lot of time dealing with the whole list because most of it, as per usual is just drivel. Instead, to demonstrate clearly just how superficial and narrowminded John really thinks about this case, I'll give a couple of examples.
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
There is no evidence that Oswald was carrying the Hidell ID in his wallet when he was arrested. Paul Bentley stated that he took the wallet from Oswald in the car and found only documents in name of Oswald. Not a word about Hidell. There is no report by any of the officers in the car with Oswald that the Hidell ID was found on his person. On the other hand, there is evidence that a wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene which did contain identification for Oswald and Hidell. There is also no ambiguity about the fact that Gus Rose was the first DPD officer who asked Oswald at the police station about the Hidell alias and that he did so after a still, to this day, unidentified officer gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to Oswald.
There is also no contempary record that negatives were found at Ruth Paine's "the gift that kept on giving" garage. John, of course, is too superficial to deal with these facts honestly and prefers to simply state his usual BS as if it is "rock solid evidence".
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.
There is no reason to assume that "conspirators" did any of this. Having said that, Oswald could well have been manipulated into using the Hidell alias to apply for a N.O. Post box and use it in connection with the "Fair play for Cuba". But even if he did, how does something that Oswald possibly did in New Orleans, months prior to the assassination, somehow becomes "evidence" in the assassination case? The answer is simple; the actual evidence against Oswald is so weak that they (the WC and FBI) needed to paint the darkest picture of him so that any easily persuaded fool would believe their flawed narrative.
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.
Again, John ignores are far more likely and possible explanation. The easiest way to get the order form documents onto Klein's microfilm is to simply manipulate Oswald to fill out those forms and mail them to Klein's. We don't know what actually happened after that. What we do know is that Oswald ordered a 36" rifle and the MC found at the TSBD was a 40" rifle. The explanation, for the LNs, for this that Klein's simply had run out of 36" rifles and thus sent Oswald a 40" instead. There is no evidence for that, just as there is no evidence that any rifle was ever sent to Oswald. There is no shipping document and no proof that Oswald, or anybody else, ever collected a rifle at the Dallas postoffice. All there is, is an internal document, Waldman #7, which shows a handwritten circle around the letters "PP", which according to Waldman (who himself was not involved in the transaction) means that the item was sent by post. Could Waldman actually confirm that this is what really happened in this instance? No of course not. He wasn't even asked.
But instead when faced with their very own posts, the obvious enormity of conspiracy and the amount of deception required, CT's like Martin say blank faced without a worry in the World, and I'm paraphrasing here, "any conspiracy I've talked about endlessly for thousands of posts was just very small with possibly just a few people involved" and yes this is seriously how they think!
In three examples I have just demonstrated just how superficial John really is. In every example that are several possible explanations which were never really resolved and John, who is so desperate to maintain the "Oswald did it alone" mantra just selects the most simple explanantion and ignores everything else.
The irony is that in the three examples (as well as in the ones not discussed) it would only require a couple of persons to actually manipulate Oswald and get him to do things that can later be used against him. But don't tell John that, because he is to narrowminded to accept any of it as a possibility.
-
A good one John, but sadly, that really is the depth of their mindsets. And the reason the controversy will go on and on and on.
Wrong. The reason the controversy will go on is simply that the evidence against Oswald is so weak and inconclusive that any rational person has to conclude that there was something else going on than what the official narrative tells us.
It may well be that Oswald did it alone, but in order to come to such a conclusion you need conclusive evidence and not a highly questionable circumstantial case based, for the biggest part at least, on assumptions and speculations.
You want me and other to believe Oswald was the lone gunman? All it takes is persuasive evidence and if you can't present that, you really shouldn't be whining about those nasty people who don't believe your fairytale story.
-
I see hours later you added more than your first two words "Utter BS", and you even personalized those words against me with a nasty little sentence, which hurts oh so much!
And next comes the meaningless rhetoric of what you initially were trying to say.
There's two ways of looking at the JFKA;
1) The Occam's razor approach, Oswald ordered a mail order rifle and took it to work and killed the President.
Or
2) The CT approach, where everything and anything needs to be possible, or plain and simply any conspiracy just won't work.
The following compiled list reflects the effort for just a tiny fraction of a planned conspiracy, the faking of Oswald's Hidell alias.
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!
But instead when faced with their very own posts, the obvious enormity of conspiracy and the amount of deception required, CT's like Martin say blank faced without a worry in the World, and I'm paraphrasing here, "any conspiracy I've talked about endlessly for thousands of posts was just very small with possibly just a few people involved" and yes this is seriously how they think!
JohnM
occams razor ?
"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose an event has two possible explanations. The explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation."
so in essence occams razor is that all things being considered the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation . and you say that applies to the warren commission (and all other so called investigations) determined version of events . but i should think that occams razor was intended to be used not only with evidence , with logic but also WITH TRUTH . if the simplest explanation that you speak about here required omission , distortion , sealing of evidence and documents , burying of documents such as the stroud document and ignoring or actively seeking to dispute witness who had independent corroboration such as vicky adams , sealing away contradictory testimonies such as the hsca was guilty of , falsely misrepresenting wound locations and in fact outright lying HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SAY THAT SATISFIES THE OCCAMS RAZOR METHOD OF GETTING AT THE TRUTH ?. but i have dealt with very many lone nut advocates in my time and over a lot of years . and i have to say that in all cases they have one of two issues (some suffer with both ) that stick out like the proverbial sore thumb , well two issues at minimal lol . one being that to be a lone nut advocate one either must be deluded , the other that they simply cant deal with the evidence in this case without ignoring it or trying to deceive in regard it .
-
well i see that you know enough not to try to deny miss mcmillans connections to the cia . her book came out in 1977 if memory serves me correctly , wasnt the hsca being put in place at that point ? yet another so called investigation that had to deceive and lie in order to find oswald as the lone assassin . and she was already very interested in mr oswald as early as 1959 .LONG AFTER ? i dont think so .
regarding the money at the paines what priscilla said is neither here nor there , because the money was found in an old wallet where oswald left it , and had been leaving it for weeks and even prior to living at the paines . that money is not suspicious , nor is how it came to be at the paines .
as for routines we are talking about around a 5 week period of time . oswald did not go home on friday one week . the week prior he did not go home at all . prior to that he had stayed at the paines on atleast one holliday .WHAT ROUTINE ? if we were talking about a 6 month or 12 month period you might have some point , but even then you would have to actually show routine , and you have not .
only two people said they saw this package you speak of , and from what they said and described neither of them support your view that oswald carried a broken down carcano in a package that had to have been atleast 36 inches long . yet you still maintain that oswald had a rifle , broke it down , put it in a sack and carried it in such a manner that would require him to have the arms of an orangutan . but hey .
wow oswald worked in a building , he worked on several floors including the 6th floor . his job was filling book orders from boxes of books on those floors including the 6th floor . he filled orders that morning and was seen working filling orders specifically from those very floors and you think its unusual that his prints should be found ? . how many prints did the key stone i mean dallas police destroy that afternoon ? . exactly how many police prints were found ? .
bugliosi what ? 3 decades after oswalds death still felt it important enough to deceive his readers by telling them such things as oswald lied and said he ate lunch with jarmin and norman in hopes of getting an alibi when the interrogation notes show that oswald said he ate alone . he further used the money saved for weeks if not months to deceptively say that oswald left it there for marina knowing he would never return , while omitting marinas testimony in which she said oswald told her he would not be back that friday evening but he would return on saturday instead . i guess he thought that might spoil his story .
regarding what ever oswald carried you cant prove it was a rifle , in fact your only two witnesses dispute you on this . so you cant prove it was a rifle but you expect me to prove it was curtain rods ? , when exactly did i claim oswald carried curtain rods ? . i can tell you what oswald said he carried , an apple and a sandwich . you can prove the rifle in evidence found at the depository was oswalds , well given that the rifle we were told was ordered was the short 36 inch model and the model in the depository is a long 40 inch model well you already have a problem .
as for why oswald did not wait till friday to visit marina well some times some things are just too important too wait . like saving ones marriage .
When you go down the rabbit hole that people are working for the CIA to frame a long dead Oswald and discounting the evidence, we are in fantasy land. The facts are that Oswald made an unusual trip to the Paine residence on a Thursday. There was no apparent reason for him to deviate from his normal schedule. He provided no such reason to his wife. He told Frazier that he was getting curtain rods. There was no urgency to do so, and we know that Oswald neither needed nor took any curtain rods with him on Friday. We do know that he stored his rifle in the Paine's garage. When the police arrived just a few hours after the assassination and asked his wife about a gun she directs them to the garage. That rifle is gone and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found on the 6th floor. It's association to Oswald is confirmed by his print and the serial number matching the rifle sent to his PO Box. The person who drove Oswald to work that very morning observed him carrying a long package. The package was so unusual that he asked about it. Oswald told him it contained curtain rods and was not his lunch. Later, Oswald tells the police that he carried only his lunch. The only long bag associated with Oswald is the one found on the 6th floor. Empty. No package with curtain rods or anything else is ever found. Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window from which witnesses observed the rifle at the moment of the assassination. Oswald has no credible alibi. Instead he flees the scene without pausing to inquire about what is going on or asking his employer for permission to leave for the day. Suddenly, it is off to the movies in the middle of the day while history in unfolding around him. Oswald, the guy who read JFK's book and was a student of politics and history is not interested. On the way to the movies, he obtains a gun. He is identified by several witnesses as the person at the scene of the Tippit murder with a gun. It is a drumbeat of guilt.
-
Well it did not take you long at all to try to place your words in my mouth , and also for you to try and be insulting . But insults never bother me , many have tried that and all have failed .
I was quite clear in what i said about miss mcmillan and her connections to the CIA . There is no mystery there , she wouldnt be the only member of the media that had an interest in being part of such organizations . here is a little information in regard miss mcmillan .
In August, 1993, thousands of pages of CIA documents were made available to researchers at the National Archives that had been previously classified, including several documents associated with Priscilla Johnson McMillan, author of Marina and Lee, and the subject of several earlier articles by this writer.(1)
The first document, dated December 11, 1962 (and numbered 17456), is a "contact report," previously classified "secret," written by Donald Jameson, Chief SR/CA, which possibly stands for "Soviet Russia/Covert Actions." The report is based on a 90- minute meeting with Priscilla Johnson in her room at the Brattle Inn, located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was pointed out that, according to Mr. Butler at the "OO Office" in Boston, Priscilla was "...allowed to use the Harvard-Russian Research Center for her own work, mainly the writing of articles and a book, but that she has no other official relationship to the center."
Jameson described Priscilla as being "able, astute and conscientious," reflected also in her writing, but at the same time, was "rather nervous and shy," suggesting a "lack of self-confidence." He noted, however, that she certainly had a large number of Soviet contacts, and knew how to meet and talk to people. Jameson indicated at the outset of his report that Priscilla had been "selected as a likely candidate to write an article on Yevtushenko in a major U.S. magazine for our campaign." He recognized that Priscilla was "concerned about making her articles accurate as to fact and free from any external influence," but believed that "she might be worked around to writing an article in which she genuinly (sic) believed, but would also further our purposes for Yevtushenko" (a popular Russian poet).
Much of the report is a summary of Jameson's discussion with Priscilla about various Russian poets and Yevtushenko especially, whom the CIA seemed to be particularly interested in. Priscilla informed Jameson that she had arranged to write several articles for The Reporter - including one on Yevtushenko - and emphasized that "she thought she must write only the truth, without defining exactly what that was to me."
In conclusion, Jameson pointed out that, despite what she had stated:
"I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want. It will require a little more contact and discussion, but I think she could come around ... Basically, if approached with sympathy in the cause she considers most vital, I believe she would be interested in helping us in many ways. It would be important to avoid making her think that she was being used as a propaganda tool and expected to write what she is told. I don't think she would go along with that idea at all. On the other hand, she is searching for both more information and more understanding of the problem of the Soviet intellectual and is consequently subject to influence."
Based on the fact that Priscilla had made the call to the CIA, regardless of her motivation, it would appear that she had become an informer for the Agency, although it is impossible to know how much other information she provided, and whether any of it related to her contact with Marina Oswald.
It should be noted that the CIA's interest in Priscilla Johnson began at an early date, based on the fact that a "201 file" was opened most likely in the mid-1950s(2) and, according to a fourth document declassified in 1993 entitled, "Review of 201 File on U.S. Citizen," Priscilla's file had not been closed as of Jan. 28, 1975. She was listed as a "witting collaborator," although the nature of her collaboration was not described .
http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-cia.htm
"The facts are that Oswald made an unusual trip to the Paine residence on a Thursday. There was no apparent reason for him to deviate from his normal schedule " richard
There was a reason , you just want to ignore it . Hes marriage was in such a bad way that he felt he had to go and talk to marina and try to reconcile . she herself confirmed that he tried to talk with and reconcile with her , so his reason to her should have been patently obvious without it being said , have you had a relationship richard ? . I ask because if there is a problem with my better half , if i see she is not her self or indeed if we had had an argument (as couples some times do ) i go out of my way to talk to her and make things right .And if i had to change all my plans to do do i would , because some things are more important. Especially when one has children .
You likewise choose to continually infer that Oswald had some sort of long standing routine . such a long standing routine that when he did something in any way different that it stood out a mile wide . However you refuse to acknowledge that we are only talking about a several week time line here , some 5 weeks . And that the week prior he did not go to irving at all YET FUNNILY ENOUGH NO ONE WAS SHOT THAT FRIDAY . And that prior to that he deviated again and came over on a different day because of a holliday , veterans day if my memory is correct . So what ? he goes home perhaps twice maybe 3 times on a friday in those 5 weeks , one week not going to irving at all , one week he went on a thursday , and one he went home on a different day due to a holliday and you call that a routine ? .Or infer some kind of long standing routine ? .
I am in no way saying there is nothing pointing at oswald , i am saying the veracity of the evidence can be easily challenged .
oswald was picked from unfair and perhaps even illegal line ups . one such line up had oswald a 24 year old man who looked 30 atleast placed in line with 3 teen boys , ONE OF WHOM WAS LATINO or dark complected .this was i believe the line up whalley and scoggins attended . and whalley said ANYONE WOULD HAVE PICKED OSWALD ...HE WAS BEING RAILROADED AND HE KNEW IT .
Oswald offered no alibi , he said he ate alone .
As has been pointed out here when the FBI processed the rifle the only prints found on the rifle were on the left side of the trigger guard , and were classified as useless for identification purposes . the FBI found no trace of any palm print or any other print on that rifle . When LN tell me that the FBI identified a palm print belonging to oswald they did so only after the fact .It was a print later provided to them by the dallas police after oswalds death .LT day stated that the palm print was STILL VISIBLE on the weapon even after he lifted it , yet the FBI found zero trace .
-
Well it did not take you long at all to try to place your words in my mouth , and also for you to try and be insulting . But insults never bother me , many have tried that and all have failed .
I was quite clear in what i said about miss mcmillan and her connections to the CIA . There is no mystery there , she wouldnt be the only member of the media that had an interest in being part of such organizations . here is a little information in regard miss mcmillan .
In August, 1993, thousands of pages of CIA documents were made available to researchers at the National Archives that had been previously classified, including several documents associated with Priscilla Johnson McMillan, author of Marina and Lee, and the subject of several earlier articles by this writer.(1)
The first document, dated December 11, 1962 (and numbered 17456), is a "contact report," previously classified "secret," written by Donald Jameson, Chief SR/CA, which possibly stands for "Soviet Russia/Covert Actions." The report is based on a 90- minute meeting with Priscilla Johnson in her room at the Brattle Inn, located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was pointed out that, according to Mr. Butler at the "OO Office" in Boston, Priscilla was "...allowed to use the Harvard-Russian Research Center for her own work, mainly the writing of articles and a book, but that she has no other official relationship to the center."
Jameson described Priscilla as being "able, astute and conscientious," reflected also in her writing, but at the same time, was "rather nervous and shy," suggesting a "lack of self-confidence." He noted, however, that she certainly had a large number of Soviet contacts, and knew how to meet and talk to people. Jameson indicated at the outset of his report that Priscilla had been "selected as a likely candidate to write an article on Yevtushenko in a major U.S. magazine for our campaign." He recognized that Priscilla was "concerned about making her articles accurate as to fact and free from any external influence," but believed that "she might be worked around to writing an article in which she genuinly (sic) believed, but would also further our purposes for Yevtushenko" (a popular Russian poet).
Much of the report is a summary of Jameson's discussion with Priscilla about various Russian poets and Yevtushenko especially, whom the CIA seemed to be particularly interested in. Priscilla informed Jameson that she had arranged to write several articles for The Reporter - including one on Yevtushenko - and emphasized that "she thought she must write only the truth, without defining exactly what that was to me."
In conclusion, Jameson pointed out that, despite what she had stated:
"I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want. It will require a little more contact and discussion, but I think she could come around ... Basically, if approached with sympathy in the cause she considers most vital, I believe she would be interested in helping us in many ways. It would be important to avoid making her think that she was being used as a propaganda tool and expected to write what she is told. I don't think she would go along with that idea at all. On the other hand, she is searching for both more information and more understanding of the problem of the Soviet intellectual and is consequently subject to influence."
Based on the fact that Priscilla had made the call to the CIA, regardless of her motivation, it would appear that she had become an informer for the Agency, although it is impossible to know how much other information she provided, and whether any of it related to her contact with Marina Oswald.
It should be noted that the CIA's interest in Priscilla Johnson began at an early date, based on the fact that a "201 file" was opened most likely in the mid-1950s(2) and, according to a fourth document declassified in 1993 entitled, "Review of 201 File on U.S. Citizen," Priscilla's file had not been closed as of Jan. 28, 1975. She was listed as a "witting collaborator," although the nature of her collaboration was not described .
http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-cia.htm
"The facts are that Oswald made an unusual trip to the Paine residence on a Thursday. There was no apparent reason for him to deviate from his normal schedule " richard
There was a reason , you just want to ignore it . Hes marriage was in such a bad way that he felt he had to go and talk to marina and try to reconcile . she herself confirmed that he tried to talk with and reconcile with her , so his reason to her should have been patently obvious without it being said , have you had a relationship richard ? . I ask because if there is a problem with my better half , if i see she is not her self or indeed if we had had an argument (as couples some times do ) i go out of my way to talk to her and make things right .And if i had to change all my plans to do do i would , because some things are more important. Especially when one has children .
You likewise choose to continually infer that Oswald had some sort of long standing routine . such a long standing routine that when he did something in any way different that it stood out a mile wide . However you refuse to acknowledge that we are only talking about a several week time line here , some 5 weeks . And that the week prior he did not go to irving at all YET FUNNILY ENOUGH NO ONE WAS SHOT THAT FRIDAY . And that prior to that he deviated again and came over on a different day because of a holliday , veterans day if my memory is correct . So what ? he goes home perhaps twice maybe 3 times on a friday in those 5 weeks , one week not going to irving at all , one week he went on a thursday , and one he went home on a different day due to a holliday and you call that a routine ? .Or infer some kind of long standing routine ? .
I am in no way saying there is nothing pointing at oswald , i am saying the veracity of the evidence can be easily challenged .
oswald was picked from unfair and perhaps even illegal line ups . one such line up had oswald a 24 year old man who looked 30 atleast placed in line with 3 teen boys , ONE OF WHOM WAS LATINO or dark complected .this was i believe the line up whalley and scoggins attended . and whalley said ANYONE WOULD HAVE PICKED OSWALD ...HE WAS BEING RAILROADED AND HE KNEW IT .
Oswald offered no alibi , he said he ate alone .
As has been pointed out here when the FBI processed the rifle the only prints found on the rifle were on the left side of the trigger guard , and were classified as useless for identification purposes . the FBI found no trace of any palm print or any other print on that rifle . When LN tell me that the FBI identified a palm print belonging to oswald they did so only after the fact .It was a print later provided to them by the dallas police after oswalds death .LT day stated that the palm print was STILL VISIBLE on the weapon even after he lifted it , yet the FBI found zero trace .
This is like UFO believers arguing that the reason they can never provide evidence is because the government is suppressing it. There is no reason to believe that McMillian wrote her book or made up the money left with Marina story as part of a CIA conspiracy to frame Oswald years after his death. But if this were the case, Marina is still alive. Has she ever come forward and claimed that was not true? She has expressed doubt as to Oswald's guilt. Why not with this story about Oswald leaving the money that morning? Why not contact her and see if she responds? Surely she would want to correct that story if untrue.
-
This is like UFO believers arguing that the reason they can never provide evidence is because the government is suppressing it. There is no reason to believe that McMillian wrote her book or made up the money left with Marina story as part of a CIA conspiracy to frame Oswald years after his death. But if this were the case, Marina is still alive. Has she ever come forward and claimed that was not true? She has expressed doubt as to Oswald's guilt. Why not with this story about Oswald leaving the money that morning? Why not contact her and see if she responds? Surely she would want to correct that story if untrue.
Why not contact her and see if she responds? Surely she would want to correct that story if untrue.
Now the forum's one trick pony thinks he also knows what Marina would want to do. And, of course, he never considers the possibility that Marina has even read the book and/or after 60 years of madness, simply wants to enjoy retirement.
The premise that what McMillian has written in her book must be true because Marina has not claimed that it was not true is simply idiotic, but it's exactly what to expect from "Richard Smith".
-
This is like UFO believers arguing that the reason they can never provide evidence is because the government is suppressing it. There is no reason to believe that McMillian wrote her book or made up the money left with Marina story as part of a CIA conspiracy to frame Oswald years after his death. But if this were the case, Marina is still alive. Has she ever come forward and claimed that was not true? She has expressed doubt as to Oswald's guilt. Why not with this story about Oswald leaving the money that morning? Why not contact her and see if she responds? Surely she would want to correct that story if untrue.
And now you are seemingly attempting to link me with ufo stuff lol . and in addition again putting your words in my mouth . i never said Priscilla made up anything about the money , what i did was reiterate that the money was money kept in an old wallet at the very least over a period of 5 weeks and up to 2 months prior to the assassination , and before they ever lived at the paines . the very person you cite (marina ) stated as much all be it as you can see i did not quote her . i feel i need to say that because i feel the next attack on me will probably be that i made some sort of claim without citing a quote .
I know what marina said about the old wallet , i have posted it here multiple times , i dont need to question her on it . if i was to question her my questions would be on far more important matters believe me .
-
I'm not going to waste a lot of time dealing with the whole list because most of it, as per usual is just drivel. Instead, to demonstrate clearly just how superficial and narrowminded John really thinks about this case, I'll give a couple of examples.
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
There is no evidence that Oswald was carrying the Hidell ID in his wallet when he was arrested. Paul Bentley stated that he took the wallet from Oswald in the car and found only documents in name of Oswald. Not a word about Hidell. There is no report by any of the officers in the car with Oswald that the Hidell ID was found on his person. On the other hand, there is evidence that a wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene which did contain identification for Oswald and Hidell. There is also no ambiguity about the fact that Gus Rose was the first DPD officer who asked Oswald at the police station about the Hidell alias and that he did so after a still, to this day, unidentified officer gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to Oswald.
There is also no contempary record that negatives were found at Ruth Paine's "the gift that kept on giving" garage. John, of course, is too superficial to deal with these facts honestly and prefers to simply state his usual BS as if it is "rock solid evidence".
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.
There is no reason to assume that "conspirators" did any of this. Having said that, Oswald could well have been manipulated into using the Hidell alias to apply for a N.O. Post box and use it in connection with the "Fair play for Cuba". But even if he did, how does something that Oswald possibly did in New Orleans, months prior to the assassination, somehow becomes "evidence" in the assassination case? The answer is simple; the actual evidence against Oswald is so weak that they (the WC and FBI) needed to paint the darkest picture of him so that any easily persuaded fool would believe their flawed narrative.
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.
Again, John ignores are far more likely and possible explanation. The easiest way to get the order form documents onto Klein's microfilm is to simply manipulate Oswald to fill out those forms and mail them to Klein's. We don't know what actually happened after that. What we do know is that Oswald ordered a 36" rifle and the MC found at the TSBD was a 40" rifle. The explanation, for the LNs, for this that Klein's simply had run out of 36" rifles and thus sent Oswald a 40" instead. There is no evidence for that, just as there is no evidence that any rifle was ever sent to Oswald. There is no shipping document and no proof that Oswald, or anybody else, ever collected a rifle at the Dallas postoffice. All there is, is an internal document, Waldman #7, which shows a handwritten circle around the letters "PP", which according to Waldman (who himself was not involved in the transaction) means that the item was sent by post. Could Waldman actually confirm that this is what really happened in this instance? No of course not. He wasn't even asked.
But instead when faced with their very own posts, the obvious enormity of conspiracy and the amount of deception required, CT's like Martin say blank faced without a worry in the World, and I'm paraphrasing here, "any conspiracy I've talked about endlessly for thousands of posts was just very small with possibly just a few people involved" and yes this is seriously how they think!
In three examples I have just demonstrated just how superficial John really is. In every example that are several possible explanations which were never really resolved and John, who is so desperate to maintain the "Oswald did it alone" mantra just selects the most simple explanantion and ignores everything else.
The irony is that in the three examples (as well as in the ones not discussed) it would only require a couple of persons to actually manipulate Oswald and get him to do things that can later be used against him. But don't tell John that, because he is to narrowminded to accept any of it as a possibility.
Wow, so many words and silly excuses trying to justify Martins teeny weeny conspiracy. Hilarious!
But I will respond to one of his claims.
The easiest way to get the order form documents onto Klein's microfilm is to simply manipulate Oswald to fill out those forms and mail them to Klein's. We don't know what actually happened after that.
So in Kleins normal business transaction, they received the order but Martin says and I quote him verbatim "We don't know what actually happened after that." but we do know Martin, we do know!
Oswald received the exact same rifle that Kleins sent.
Oswald was photographed with C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qq508DqM/backyarda-zps722be80b.jpg)
And the very same rifle that Kleins sent was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace!
(https://i.postimg.cc/ryb9PGvB/C2766isinevidence.jpg)
Now 3..2..1 like clockwork, Martin will claim that the HSCA expert was wrong about Oswald being photographed with C2766 and don't forget dear reader that the backyard rifle was the same make and model as the one Oswald was sent, and at the time Kleins new stock was for the 36 inch model which means that this relatively rare make of rifle was made even more obscure by the shorter new stock!
And then Martin will spin some malarkey about how Oswald didn't put C2766 on the 6th floor but allude to some mysterious unknown person/persons somehow over the previous 8 months somehow acquired C2766 and snuck it into the building to set Oswald up??
You simply can't make this stuff up, but you just gotta laugh at the unbelievable lengths that these Oswald apologists will go to to claim Oswald's innocence. Hardy Ha Ha!!
JohnM
-
Wow, so many words and silly excuses trying to justify Martins teeny weeny conspiracy. Hilarious!
But I will respond to one of his claims.
So in Kleins normal business transaction, they received the order but Martin says and I quote him verbatim "We don't know what actually happened after that." but we do know Martin, we do know!
Oswald received the exact same rifle that Kleins sent.
Oswald was photographed with C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qq508DqM/backyarda-zps722be80b.jpg)
And the very same rifle was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace!
(https://i.postimg.cc/ryb9PGvB/C2766isinevidence.jpg)
Now 3..2..1 like clockwork Martin will claim that the HSCA expert was wrong about Oswald being photographed with C2766 and don't forget dear reader that the backyard rifle was the same make and model as the one Oswald was sent and at the time Kleins new stock was for the 36 inch model which means that this relatively rare make of rifle was made even more obscure by the shorter new stock!
And then Martin will spin some malarkey about how Oswald didn't put C2766 on the 6th floor but allude to some mysterious unknown person/persons somehow over the previous 8 months somehow acquired C2766 and snuck it into the building to set Oswald up??
You simply can't make this stuff up but you just gotta laugh at the unbelievable lengths that these Oswald apologists go to to claim Oswald's innocence. Hardy Ha Ha!!
JohnM
Wow, so many words and silly excuses trying to justify Martins teeny weeny conspiracy. Hilarious!
When a LN starts with an ad hom attack, you already know it's go down hill fast from that moment on. Instead of dealing with what I actually said, John exposes the superficial way he deals with "evidence" and just simply dismisses what I said as "silly excuses". A classic move by somebody who doesn't really want to debate, because they have nothing credible to say....
But I will respond to one of his claims.
So in Kleins normal business transaction, they received the order but Martin says and I quote him verbatim "We don't know what actually happened after that." but we do know Martin, we do know!
Oswald received the exact same rifle that Kleins sent.
And here we go again, the king of gifs strikes again. He posts a copy of Waldman 7, presumably as some sort of proof that Oswald received a rifle from Klein's, but in reality that document doesn't show anything of the kind. There is no evidence whatsoever that Klein's ever sent a rifle to Oswald's P.O. address and there is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald or anybody else ever received a rifle.
What John fails to understand (which is more likely than simply ignores) is that Waldman 7 is an internal document of Klein's that was allegedly found on a microfilm, which FBI agents took with them on 11/23/63. The microfilm was never returned to Klein's and the first (and only) time Waldman saw it again was during his WC testimony, several months later. Now let's not forget that Waldman 7 is a photocopy (which are easy to manipulate) and most of it's content is printed. Only the serial number is handwritten (by whom, we don't know). So, when Waldman was shown exhibit 7, he could and did not have any knowledge about the authenticity of the document, for which there was never a chain of custody provided. Now, just how convenient was it to have the serial number of the rifle found at the TSBD handwritten on the only document that could provide a link between the Hidell order form and the rifle? Do the math; Waldman 7 has very limited, if any, evidentiary value, no matter what John and his ilk claim.
Oswald was photographed with C2766.
If that is true, you should be able to show us that serial number on the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph, right? So, why don't you show us an enlargement showing the number, John? Go on then...
And the very same rifle was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace!
And what evidence exactly do you have that the rifle found at the TSBD is the exact same one as the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photo? Surely, you're not just making this crucial claim without anything solid to back it up, right? So, why don't you tell is what that evidence is, John?
Now 3..2..1 like clockwork Martin will claim that the HSCA expert was wrong about Oswald being photographed with C2766
Show me the report of the HSCA expert in which he unequivocally states that the rifle Oswald was holding had the serial number C2766. I won't hold my breath, though.
and don't forget dear reader that the backyard rifle was the same make and model as the one Oswald was sent and at the time Kleins new stock was for the 36 inch model which means that this relatively rare make of rifle was made even more obscure by the shorter new stock!
Who are you trying to fool with this nonsense? Hidell ordered a 36" rifle. The rifle found at the TSBD was 40". So, not the same model at all. As already stated, there is no evidence that Oswald was sent any rifle.
And then Martin will spin some malarkey about how Oswald didn't put C2766 on the 6th floor but allude to some mysterious unknown person/persons somehow over the previous 8 months somehow acquired C2766 and snuck it into the building to set Oswald up??
Rather than trying to incorrectly predict what I would say, I would prefer that you actually present some conclusive evidence for all the BS you are spewing.
You simply can't make this stuff up but you just gotta laugh at the unbelievable lengths that these Oswald apologists go to to claim Oswald's innocence. Hardy Ha Ha!!
You should know what you can't make up, as you are the expert in - and only one here - making things up.
A photograph of a man holding a rifle, taken 8 months earlier, is somehow evidence of ownership of that rifle....... Hilarious
A handwritten circle on the letters "PP" on a photocopy of an unauthenticated document is proof that Oswald was sent and received a rifle ..... Pathetic
A rifle found at the TSBD somehow becomes "Oswald's rifle" because of a serial number that can't be seen on the photograph of him holding a rifle..... LOL
Get back to me when you have anything substantive to bring to the discussion, so you won't waste anymore of my time with your propagandistic drivel.
-
Wow, so many words and silly excuses trying to justify Martins teeny weeny conspiracy. Hilarious!
When a LN starts with an ad hom attack, you already know it's go down hill fast from that moment on. Instead of dealing with what I actually said, John exposes the superficial way he deals with "evidence" and just simply dismisses what I said as "silly excuses". A classic move by somebody who doesn't really want to debate, because they have nothing credible to say....
But I will respond to one of his claims.
So in Kleins normal business transaction, they received the order but Martin says and I quote him verbatim "We don't know what actually happened after that." but we do know Martin, we do know!
Oswald received the exact same rifle that Kleins sent.
And here we go again, the king of gifs strikes again. He posts a copy of Waldman 7, presumably as some sort of proof that Oswald received a rifle from Klein's, but in reality that document doesn't show anything of the kind. There is no evidence whatsoever that Klein's ever sent a rifle to Oswald's P.O. address and there is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald or anybody else ever received a rifle.
What John fails to understand (which is more likely than simply ignores) is that Waldman 7 is an internal document of Klein's that was allegedly found on a microfilm, which FBI agents took with them on 11/23/63. The microfilm was never returned to Klein's and the first (and only) time Waldman saw it again was during his WC testimony, several months later. Now let's not forget that Waldman 7 is a photocopy (which are easy to manipulate) and most of it's content is printed. Only the serial number is handwritten (by whom, we don't know). So, when Waldman was shown exhibit 7, he could and did not have any knowledge about the authenticity of the document, for which there was never a chain of custody provided. Now, just how convenient was it to have the serial number of the rifle found at the TSBD handwritten on the only document that could provide a link between the Hidell order form and the rifle? Do the math; Waldman 7 has very limited, if any, evidentiary value, no matter what John and his ilk claim.
Oswald was photographed with C2766.
If that is true, you should be able to show us that serial number on the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph, right? So, why don't you show us an enlargement showing the number, John? Go on then...
And the very same rifle was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace!
And what evidence exactly do you have that the rifle found at the TSBD is the exact same one as the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photo? Surely, you're not just making this crucial claim without anything solid to back it up, right? So, why don't you tell is what that evidence is, John?
Now 3..2..1 like clockwork Martin will claim that the HSCA expert was wrong about Oswald being photographed with C2766
Show me the report of the HSCA expert in which he unequivocally states that the rifle Oswald was holding had the serial number C2766. I won't hold my breath, though.
and don't forget dear reader that the backyard rifle was the same make and model as the one Oswald was sent and at the time Kleins new stock was for the 36 inch model which means that this relatively rare make of rifle was made even more obscure by the shorter new stock!
Who are you trying to fool with this nonsense? Hidell ordered a 36" rifle. The rifle found at the TSBD was 40". So, not the same model at all. As already stated, there is no evidence that Oswald was sent any rifle.
And then Martin will spin some malarkey about how Oswald didn't put C2766 on the 6th floor but allude to some mysterious unknown person/persons somehow over the previous 8 months somehow acquired C2766 and snuck it into the building to set Oswald up??
Rather than trying to incorrectly predict what I would say, I would prefer that you actually present some conclusive evidence for all the BS you are spewing.
You simply can't make this stuff up but you just gotta laugh at the unbelievable lengths that these Oswald apologists go to to claim Oswald's innocence. Hardy Ha Ha!!
You should know what you can't make up, as you are the expert in - and only one here - making things up.
A photograph of a man holding a rifle, taken 8 months earlier, is somehow evidence of ownership of that rifle....... Hilarious
A handwritten circle on the letters "PP" on a photocopy of an unauthenticated document is proof that Oswald was sent and received a rifle ..... Pathetic
A rifle found at the TSBD somehow becomes "Oswald's rifle" because of a serial number that can't be seen on the photograph of him holding a rifle..... LOL
Get back to me when you have anything substantive to bring to the discussion, so you won't waste anymore of my time with your propagandistic drivel.
OMG, let's have a quick review of this solitary topic, one of many more, of what it takes for a teeny weeny conspiracy.
Kleins were incompetent.
That Kleins made up their internal records then conveniently kept the stock?
Forgets that Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750
That Waldman had complete memory failure when in the early hours of the following day he saw the most important document in this entire investigation.
Implies that for some reason Kleins never sent C2766.
Or perhaps the American Post Office just lost the order.
Forgets that there is no record of Oswald following up on the lost order.
Oswald just after he received and was photographed with the exact same make and model of an obscure rifle that Kleins sent was somehow not that rifle?
The FBI were involved.
Alludes to the FBI manipulating Kleins business records
Waldman 7 was faked.
Waldman 7 had a faked rifle serial number.
Photocopy's are easy to manipulate!
That the HSCA photographic expert who said "indeed it's the same rifle" was incompetent.
Etc etc etc
JohnM
-
OMG, let's have a quick review of this solitary topic, one of many more, of what it takes for a teeny weeny conspiracy.
Kleins were incompetent.
That Kleins made up their internal records then conveniently kept the stock?
Forgets that Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750
That Waldman had complete memory failure when in the early hours of the following day he saw the most important document in this entire investigation.
Implies that for some reason Kleins never sent C2766.
Or perhaps the American Post Office just lost the order.
Forgets that there is no record of Oswald following up on the lost order.
Oswald just after he received and was photographed with the exact same make and model of an obscure rifle that Kleins sent was somehow not that rifle?
The FBI were involved.
Alludes to the FBI manipulating Kleins business records
Waldman 7 was faked.
Waldman 7 had a faked rifle serial number.
Photocopy's are easy to manipulate!
That the HSCA photographic expert who said "indeed it's the same rifle" was incompetent.
Etc etc etc
JohnM
Please note that nowhere in this pathetic rant does John provide even a shred of the evidence I asked him for. But that's no surprise....
Instead of providing actual evidence, which he hasn't got, John is desperately trying to influence the reader, with bogus arguments, to believe his silly fairytale story despite a total lack of conclusive evidence.
-
Instead of providing actual evidence, which he hasn't got,......
Huh?, What?, You can't be serious? I'm the only one that has provided a stack of powerful irrefutable evidence and as is your right, you have attempted to refute my evidence but your scattershot attempts to create reasonable doubt which involve attacking any person or organisation that stand in your way, are so far pisspoor.
My advice would be to forget about wasting your time with endless unprovable allegations and just accept the truth, Oswald all by his lonesome killed two men on the Twenty Second of November Nineteen Sixty Three! See easy peasy!
Sincerely
JohnM
-
And now you are seemingly attempting to link me with ufo stuff lol . and in addition again putting your words in my mouth . i never said Priscilla made up anything about the money , what i did was reiterate that the money was money kept in an old wallet at the very least over a period of 5 weeks and up to 2 months prior to the assassination , and before they ever lived at the paines . the very person you cite (marina ) stated as much all be it as you can see i did not quote her . i feel i need to say that because i feel the next attack on me will probably be that i made some sort of claim without citing a quote .
I know what marina said about the old wallet , i have posted it here multiple times , i dont need to question her on it . if i was to question her my questions would be on far more important matters believe me .
Huh? She wrote in her book that LHO left the money on the morning of the assassination. You responded to that by suggesting that she had CIA connections. What point would you be making by linking her to the CIA in that context unless you were implying that she made it up to frame Oswald. You said as much indicating that it was to influence the HSCA. But here is the deal. Marina is still alive. If it isn't true, wouldn't she want to set the record straight? Has anyone contacted her? Why not?
-
Wow, so many words and silly excuses trying to justify Martins teeny weeny conspiracy. Hilarious!
But I will respond to one of his claims.
So in Kleins normal business transaction, they received the order but Martin says and I quote him verbatim "We don't know what actually happened after that." but we do know Martin, we do know!
Oswald received the exact same rifle that Kleins sent.
Oswald was photographed with C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qq508DqM/backyarda-zps722be80b.jpg)
And the very same rifle that Kleins sent was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace!
(https://i.postimg.cc/ryb9PGvB/C2766isinevidence.jpg)
Now 3..2..1 like clockwork, Martin will claim that the HSCA expert was wrong about Oswald being photographed with C2766 and don't forget dear reader that the backyard rifle was the same make and model as the one Oswald was sent, and at the time Kleins new stock was for the 36 inch model which means that this relatively rare make of rifle was made even more obscure by the shorter new stock!
And then Martin will spin some malarkey about how Oswald didn't put C2766 on the 6th floor but allude to some mysterious unknown person/persons somehow over the previous 8 months somehow acquired C2766 and snuck it into the building to set Oswald up??
You simply can't make this stuff up, but you just gotta laugh at the unbelievable lengths that these Oswald apologists will go to to claim Oswald's innocence. Hardy Ha Ha!!
JohnM
Great post John. And if Oswald wasn't sent this rifle with that serial number, what happened to it? Was it still it the possession of Klein's? Is it still at the Dallas post office unclaimed? The contrarians don't care about the consequences of their lunacy having any validity. If X didn't happen as they baselessly suggest in contradiction to all the evidence and common sense, then something else like Y or Z must have happened and there is zippo evidence of either. Oswald is pictured holding the rifle. It was found at his place of employment. The rifle that his wife confirmed that he owned and stored in the Paine's garage is gone on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found on the 6th floor. That rifle has the same serial number as the rifle Klein's sent to his PO Box. And his print is on that rifle. No reasonable person could believe that the Oswald did not possess this rifle. "Reasonable" is where the problem lies. Not with the evidence.
-
Huh?, What?, You can't be serious? I'm the only one that has provided a stack of powerful irrefutable evidence and as is your right, you have attempted to refute my evidence but your scattershot attempts to create reasonable doubt which involve attacking any person or organisation that stand in your way, are so far pisspoor.
My advice would be to forget about wasting your time with endless unprovable allegations and just accept the truth, Oswald all by his lonesome killed two men on the Twenty Second of November Nineteen Sixty Three! See easy peasy!
Sincerely
JohnM
I'm the only one that has provided a stack of powerful irrefutable evidence
No need to display your delusion, John.... I already know what LNs consider weak sauce to be "powerful irrefutable evidence". It's hilarious!
I've said it before and I'll say it again; anybody who claims that a photograph of Oswald holding a rifle, taken 8 months earlier, somehow not only proves that Oswald owned a rifle but that its was CE2766 as well, needs his head examined.
you have attempted to refute my evidence but your scattershot attempts to create reasonable doubt which involve attacking any person or organisation that stand in your way, are so far pisspoor.
Yeah right,... too bad that you can't provide even a shred of the evidence I asked you for. Typical for somebody who lives in a world of assumptions and speculation!
My advice would be
Stop right there... you are just about the last person I would ask for advice.
forget about wasting your time with endless unprovable allegations
What unprovable allegations did I make exactly?
Btw I mean real ones.... not those you imagined in your confused mind....
-
Great post John. And if Oswald wasn't sent this rifle with that serial number, what happened to it? Was it still it the possession of Klein's? Is it still at the Dallas post office unclaimed? The contrarians don't care about the consequences of their lunacy having any validity. If X didn't happen as they baselessly suggest in contradiction to all the evidence and common sense, then something else like Y or Z must have happened and there is zippo evidence of either. Oswald is pictured holding the rifle. It was found at his place of employment. The rifle that his wife confirmed that he owned and stored in the Paine's garage is gone on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found on the 6th floor. That rifle has the same serial number as the rifle Klein's sent to his PO Box. And his print is on that rifle. No reasonable person could believe that the Oswald did not possess this rifle. "Reasonable" is where the problem lies. Not with the evidence.
And if Oswald wasn't sent this rifle with that serial number, what happened to it?
So, now the argument becomes that Oswald must have been sent CE2766 because we don't know what else could have happened to it..... Pathetic.
Oswald is pictured holding the rifle.
Not so fast... Oswald was photographed holding a rifle. Now where is the proof this was the rifle he allegedly received from Klein's (as you claim) and that he actually owned that rifle? Let me guess, you just assume it, right?
The rifle that his wife confirmed that he owned and stored in the Paine's garage is gone on 11.22
Marina said that she looked inside the blanket in the garage once, in late September 1963. Marina did not say it was Oswald's rifle or that he stored it in the Paine's garage. But even if it was Oswald's rifle. where is your proof that a rifle that was only seen by Marina in late September was still there on 11/21/63? Let me guess... another assumption, right?
That rifle has the same serial number as the rifle Klein's sent to his PO Box.
There is no evidence that Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald's P.O. box.... Prove me wrong!
And his print is on that rifle.
Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels said; “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. This is a good example of how this works. In reality the FBI examined the rifle in the night after the assassination and found no prints.
No reasonable person could believe that the Oswald did not possess this rifle.
Hilarious... Calling anybody who isn't convinced by the fairytale story you defend unreasonable is just about the most unreasonable thing anybody can do.
What you are really saying is that people are automatically unreasonable if they do not have the same opinion as you. Delusions of grandeur, perhaps?
-
Great post John. And if Oswald wasn't sent this rifle with that serial number, what happened to it? Was it still it the possession of Klein's? Is it still at the Dallas post office unclaimed? The contrarians don't care about the consequences of their lunacy having any validity. If X didn't happen as they baselessly suggest in contradiction to all the evidence and common sense, then something else like Y or Z must have happened and there is zippo evidence of either. Oswald is pictured holding the rifle. It was found at his place of employment. The rifle that his wife confirmed that he owned and stored in the Paine's garage is gone on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found on the 6th floor. That rifle has the same serial number as the rifle Klein's sent to his PO Box. And his print is on that rifle. No reasonable person could believe that the Oswald did not possess this rifle. "Reasonable" is where the problem lies. Not with the evidence.
The contrarians don't care about the consequences of their lunacy having any validity.
It really is bizarre, earlier when I confronted Martin about the enormity of his endless allegations he tried to cover his tracks and said that Oswald may have sent the coupon, but, and listen to this, then Kliens who received a normal order on a normal day didn't do their normal procedure and apparently we don't know what happened to the rifle. And he's serious!?!?
Kleins had a post office address but for some reason we don't know what happened to the rifle, like what the F? The extent that a devout contrarian will go to keep the rifle out of Oswald's hands is beyond belief. I mean there can be value in playing devils advocate but surely common sense and what happens in the real world must be considered.
And later the unfocused Martin with an inexistent game plan forgets about Oswald's transaction with Kliens and tries a new tact and says that the FBI, Oooh the evil FBI had possession of the microfilm and implies that they altered the microfilm to insert Oswald/Hidell into Kleins records but how does this event tie into Oswald being photographed with a rifle 8 months earlier, were the Conspirators just lucky that Oswald just happened to be photographed with a rifle and revolver?
I can understand why you have Martin on your "ignore list" he keeps writing checks that he can't cash and then ludicrously demands that we prove that he has money in the bank!
JohnM
-
It really is bizarre, earlier when I confronted Martin about the enormity of his endless allegations he tried to cover his tracks and said that Oswald may have sent the coupon, but, and listen to this, then Kliens who received a normal order on a normal day didn't do their normal procedure and apparently we don't know what happened to the rifle. And he's serious!?!?
Kleins had a post office address but for some reason we don't know what happened to the rifle, like what the F? The extent that a devout contrarian will go to keep the rifle out of Oswald's hands is beyond belief. I mean there can be value in playing devils advocate but surely common sense and what happens in the real world must be considered.
And later the unfocused Martin with an inexistent game plan forgets about Oswald's transaction with Kliens and tries a new tact and says that the FBI, Oooh the evil FBI had possession of the microfilm and implies that they altered the microfilm to insert Oswald/Hidell into Kleins records but how does this event tie into Oswald being photographed with a rifle 8 months earlier, were the Conspirators just lucky that Oswald just happened to be photographed with a rifle and revolver?
I can understand why you have Martin on your "ignore list" he keeps writing checks that he can't cash and then ludicrously demands that we prove that he has money in the bank!
JohnM
When LNs start complaining about a person who disagrees with them, rather than discuss the case itself, you know they have already lost the argument.
It really is bizarre, earlier when I confronted Martin about the enormity of his endless allegations he tried to cover his tracks and said that Oswald may have sent the coupon, but, and listen to this, then Kliens who received a normal order on a normal day didn't do their normal procedure and apparently we don't know what happened to the rifle. And he's serious!?!?
Yes, he is serious. You keep on forgetting / ignoring that Hidell ordered a rifle (C20 - T750) from Klein's department 358! That's a 36" MC rifle, which, as it turned out Klein's no longer had in stock. Your idiotic assumption that Klein's simply would have sent another rifle is merely an assumption. There isn't a shred of proof for it. So, indeed, we do not know what happened to the Hidell order. Perhaps it was cancelled, because they could not fill the order. Who knows? Nobody, and that's the point!
Kleins had a post office address but for some reason we don't know what happened to the rifle, like what the F? The extent that a devout contrarian will go to keep the rifle out of Oswald's hands is beyond belief. I mean there can be value in playing devils advocate but surely common sense and what happens in the real world must be considered.
And there we have it. Whenever an LN can not produce evidence he uses the "common sense" argument, as if common sense (which is another word for pure speculation) somehow is actual evidence. It's pathetic.
And later the unfocused Martin with an inexistent game plan forgets about Oswald's transaction with Kliens and tries a new tact and says that the FBI, Oooh the evil FBI had possession of the microfilm and implies that they altered the microfilm to insert Oswald/Hidell into Kleins records but how does this event tie into Oswald being photographed with a rifle 8 months earlier, were the Conspirators just lucky that Oswald just happened to be photographed with a rifle and revolver?
Another example of flawed reasoning. Yes, Oswald was photographed holding a rifle, but you clearly can not prove that it was CE2766. I've asked you to do so a number of times and you have failed completely. If the rifle in the photograph isn't CE2766 your entire reasoning falls flat on it's face.
So, why don't you stop complaining and simply provide the evidence for your absurd claims?
Btw, yesterday I was photographed sitting behind the wheel of a F1 car. Does that now mean that I own that car?
-
Btw, yesterday I was photographed sitting behind the wheel of a F1 car. Does that now mean that I own that car?
Well Martin, if you paid for it, there was a record of the money you sent in your handwriting, you filled out the order form in your handwriting, if the order form was addressed to your PO Box, the company that sent it had a record of you buying it, you were photographed with the F1, the F1 at your workplace had the same licence plate that the company sent, and your wife saw the F1's spoiler poking out from behind a car cover then yeah sure, I'd be absolutely certain that you own the F1 car!
Oops, that didn't work out how you guessed it would, did it! Hehehe!
JohnM
-
Would LHO have planned to shoot the president, without also planning an escape? Or did he see something happen on Elm Street that caused him to abandon his escape plan and flee the SBD in panic?
After the shooting, LHO behaved in a confused manner. Walking, bus and taxi took him home, where he grabbed a jacket and pistol, which he could easily have taken to work that morning. He had no disguise prepared, but went back out on the street anyway, leading to his tragic encounter with Officer Tippit, and to his later arrest. If LHO was cool and coldhearted enough to murder a president, why did he fall apart afterwards?
The Mortal Error theory -- that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally fired his AR-15 rifle and hit JFK in the head -- may provide an answer.
As the presidential limo continued down Elm Street, LHO was watching thru his telescopic sight. His first shot missed, his second shot hit JFK in the upper back, and, as he was lining up his third shot, he would have seen JFK's skull explode from Hickey's AR-15 shot(s). Instantly, LHO would have known there was another shooter, and that suddenly he was part of something that looked like someone else's assassination plan. He might have felt like a "patsy." The shock of that belief might have sent him into a panic. Thinking he now needed a pistol to defend himself, did he abandon whatever plan he might have prepared, and run helter-skelter for his life?
The Mortal Error theory has been soundly debunked, yet it keeps reappearing from time to time.
Oswald showed no signs of "panic" when he was confronted by a pistol-waving Officer Marrion Baker barely a minute after the shooting, according to Officer Baker's own account. (I acknowledge the evidence that Baker may have fabricated the encounter and that the encounter may not have happened, but I quote Baker's account because all WC defenders still accept it as valid.)
Nor did Oswald show any signs of "panic" right after he left his rooming house. Ms. Roberts said that when she looked out the window shortly after Oswald left the house, she saw him standing near the street.
-
Well Martin, if you paid for it, there was a record of the money you sent in your handwriting, you filled out the order form in your handwriting, if the order form was addressed to your PO Box, the company that sent it had a record of you buying it, you were photographed with the F1, the F1 at your workplace had the same licence plate that the company sent, and your wife saw the F1's spoiler poking out from behind a car cover then yeah sure, I'd be absolutely certain that you own the F1 car!
Oops, that didn't work out how you guessed it would, did it! Hehehe!
JohnM
It worked out fine, because you, foolishly and without being able to provide conclusive evidence for it, make the same mistake as you did with the BY photograph. There you assume that the rifle Oswald is holding in the photo is in fact the one that Hidell ordered from Klein's. It is in no way certain that it is.
Even if Hidell did order a rifle from Klein's and even if Klein's shipped a rifle to Oswald's P.O. box and even if Marina saw a rifle in the blanket at Ruth Paine's garage, in late September, that still does not prove that the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph is the same one and/or the same rifle as the one found at the TSBD. In other words, there is no proof whatsoever that Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with, just as I don't own the F1 car I was photographed with.
That's where your little fairytale story crashes every time, yet you keep telling the same story, expecting a different outcome..... Go figure.
Do you understand what I am saying or should I dumb it down even further for you?
-
well Mr mytton i think gil jesus has done some very good work in regards the rifle . i dont know if he is still a member here . but its worth repeating what he has previously pointed out .
"A second issue I have with the order form and the order blank has to do with the catalog number. The catalog number for the rifle in the Klein's ad was C20-T750. It described a 36" rifle ( B, below ), while the catalog number for the 40" rifle, like the one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was slightly different, C20-750 ( C, below ). The catalog number for the 36" rifle was on the order blank ( above, Cadigan 3-A ) and the order form ( A, below ). The order form appears to be a document that was generated by the office of Klein's which typed in certain information and then passed it on to the warehouse to fill the order. Klein's control number and the rifle's serial number were then apparently handwritten by warehouse employees whose job it was to fill the orders." gil jesus
regardless of who one may say ordered a rifle the order form and kliens own documentation tell us that on the order was an order for a 36 inch carcano , along with the kliens catalogue number for a 36 inch carcano . then kliens documentation tells us that THEY SAID they sent the same 36 inch rifle , with same catalogue number that was on the order . so if LN accept that both the order and the kliens documentation is genuine well then equally should it then not also be accepted that a 36 inch rifle was ordered and a 36 inch rifle was dispatched ? .
(https://www.whokilledjfk.net/PBS_Frontline_-_Who_Was_Lee_Harvey_Oswald__Part_1__0001.jpg)
(https://www.whokilledjfk.net/rifle_size.JPG)
if we accept that kliens did indeed send a 36 inch rifle ? well then LN have a serious problem , because the rifle in evidence is a 40 inch model . LN will of course argue and say well maybe kliens did not have the 36 inch model so they sent the 40 inch model , but that is just assumption not proof .
there are other issues of course . such as oswalds jaggers chiles stoval work records placing him very much in work on the morning and at the very time the money order was bought and posted . LN will of course say OH HE MUST HAVE SLIPPED OUT OF WORK even tho they have not one shred of proof that he did so .
-
well Mr mytton i think gil jesus has done some very good work in regards the rifle . i dont know if he is still a member here . but its worth repeating what he has previously pointed out .
"A second issue I have with the order form and the order blank has to do with the catalog number. The catalog number for the rifle in the Klein's ad was C20-T750. It described a 36" rifle ( B, below ), while the catalog number for the 40" rifle, like the one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was slightly different, C20-750 ( C, below ). The catalog number for the 36" rifle was on the order blank ( above, Cadigan 3-A ) and the order form ( A, below ). The order form appears to be a document that was generated by the office of Klein's which typed in certain information and then passed it on to the warehouse to fill the order. Klein's control number and the rifle's serial number were then apparently handwritten by warehouse employees whose job it was to fill the orders." gil jesus
regardless of who one may say ordered a rifle the order form and kliens own documentation tell us that on the order was an order for a 36 inch carcano , along with the kliens catalogue number for a 36 inch carcano . then kliens documentation tells us that THEY SAID they sent the same 36 inch rifle , with same catalogue number that was on the order . so if LN accept that both the order and the kliens documentation is genuine well then equally should it then not also be accepted that a 36 inch rifle was ordered and a 36 inch rifle was dispatched ? .
(https://www.whokilledjfk.net/PBS_Frontline_-_Who_Was_Lee_Harvey_Oswald__Part_1__0001.jpg)
(https://www.whokilledjfk.net/rifle_size.JPG)
if we accept that kliens did indeed send a 36 inch rifle ? well then LN have a serious problem , because the rifle in evidence is a 40 inch model . LN will of course argue and say well maybe kliens did not have the 36 inch model so they sent the 40 inch model , but that is just assumption not proof .
there are other issues of course . such as oswalds jaggers chiles stoval work records placing him very much in work on the morning and at the very time the money order was bought and posted . LN will of course say OH HE MUST HAVE SLIPPED OUT OF WORK even tho they have not one shred of proof that he did so .
Interesting,
So when Mytton says;
Forgets that Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750
JohnM
he is in fact (and what else is new?) misrepresenting the facts, as the catalog number for the 40" rifle was C20-750.
-
well Mr mytton i think gil jesus has done some very good work in regards the rifle . i dont know if he is still a member here . but its worth repeating what he has previously pointed out .
"A second issue I have with the order form and the order blank has to do with the catalog number. The catalog number for the rifle in the Klein's ad was C20-T750. It described a 36" rifle ( B, below ), while the catalog number for the 40" rifle, like the one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was slightly different, C20-750 ( C, below ). The catalog number for the 36" rifle was on the order blank ( above, Cadigan 3-A ) and the order form ( A, below ). The order form appears to be a document that was generated by the office of Klein's which typed in certain information and then passed it on to the warehouse to fill the order. Klein's control number and the rifle's serial number were then apparently handwritten by warehouse employees whose job it was to fill the orders." gil jesus
regardless of who one may say ordered a rifle the order form and kliens own documentation tell us that on the order was an order for a 36 inch carcano , along with the kliens catalogue number for a 36 inch carcano . then kliens documentation tells us that THEY SAID they sent the same 36 inch rifle , with same catalogue number that was on the order . so if LN accept that both the order and the kliens documentation is genuine well then equally should it then not also be accepted that a 36 inch rifle was ordered and a 36 inch rifle was dispatched ? .
(https://www.whokilledjfk.net/PBS_Frontline_-_Who_Was_Lee_Harvey_Oswald__Part_1__0001.jpg)
(https://www.whokilledjfk.net/rifle_size.JPG)
if we accept that kliens did indeed send a 36 inch rifle ? well then LN have a serious problem , because the rifle in evidence is a 40 inch model . LN will of course argue and say well maybe kliens did not have the 36 inch model so they sent the 40 inch model , but that is just assumption not proof .
there are other issues of course . such as oswalds jaggers chiles stoval work records placing him very much in work on the morning and at the very time the money order was bought and posted . LN will of course say OH HE MUST HAVE SLIPPED OUT OF WORK even tho they have not one shred of proof that he did so .
If Kleins was faithful to the advertisement, they would have been mailing out modified M91s that were originally over 50" long (that's the illustration in the ad). As well, no Carcano military issue weighed 5.5 lbs.
-
If Kleins was faithful to the advertisement, they would have been mailing out modified M91s that were originally over 50" long (that's the illustration in the ad). As well, no Carcano military issue weighed 5.5 lbs.
So, we can't rely on anything that Klein's told us? Is that what you are trying to say?
-
Interesting,
So when Mytton says;
he is in fact (and what else is new?) misrepresenting the facts, as the catalog number for the 40" rifle was C20-750.
Just like your silly F1 car analogy which I ripped apart, here again you are very, very wrong!
Here's the only relevant Kleins ad which applies to the precise timeframe of when Oswald purchased the rifle
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrBBm025/Riflead1.jpg)
And here's the April American Rifleman Kleins ad.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pT9DW2FP/American-Rifle-man-APRIL-1963-zpsup5zetrx.jpg)
You boys should have consulted me first before accepting Gil Jesus's typical misrepresentation of the evidence.
Bye.
JohnM
-
well Mr mytton i think gil jesus has done some very good work in regards the rifle . i dont know if he is still a member here . but its worth repeating what he has previously pointed out .
"A second issue I have with the order form and the order blank has to do with the catalog number. The catalog number for the rifle in the Klein's ad was C20-T750. It described a 36" rifle ( B, below ), while the catalog number for the 40" rifle, like the one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was slightly different, C20-750 ( C, below ). The catalog number for the 36" rifle was on the order blank ( above, Cadigan 3-A ) and the order form ( A, below ). The order form appears to be a document that was generated by the office of Klein's which typed in certain information and then passed it on to the warehouse to fill the order. Klein's control number and the rifle's serial number were then apparently handwritten by warehouse employees whose job it was to fill the orders." gil jesus
regardless of who one may say ordered a rifle the order form and kliens own documentation tell us that on the order was an order for a 36 inch carcano , along with the kliens catalogue number for a 36 inch carcano . then kliens documentation tells us that THEY SAID they sent the same 36 inch rifle , with same catalogue number that was on the order . so if LN accept that both the order and the kliens documentation is genuine well then equally should it then not also be accepted that a 36 inch rifle was ordered and a 36 inch rifle was dispatched ? .
(https://www.whokilledjfk.net/PBS_Frontline_-_Who_Was_Lee_Harvey_Oswald__Part_1__0001.jpg)
(https://www.whokilledjfk.net/rifle_size.JPG)
if we accept that kliens did indeed send a 36 inch rifle ? well then LN have a serious problem , because the rifle in evidence is a 40 inch model . LN will of course argue and say well maybe kliens did not have the 36 inch model so they sent the 40 inch model , but that is just assumption not proof .
there are other issues of course . such as oswalds jaggers chiles stoval work records placing him very much in work on the morning and at the very time the money order was bought and posted . LN will of course say OH HE MUST HAVE SLIPPED OUT OF WORK even tho they have not one shred of proof that he did so .
Fergus, in case you missed my reply to Martin. And by the way, my name is Mytton with a capital "M", not mytton, please be more vigilant in the future!
Here's the only relevant Kleins ad which applies to the precise timeframe of when Oswald purchased the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrBBm025/Riflead1.jpg)
And here's the April American Rifleman Kleins ad.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pT9DW2FP/American-Rifle-man-APRIL-1963-zpsup5zetrx.jpg)
You boys should have consulted me first before accepting Gil Jesus's typical misrepresentation of the evidence.
Bye.
JohnM
-
So, we can't rely on anything that Klein's told us? Is that what you are trying to say?
What a stupid leap of self serving convenience, Jerry didn't say that at all.
JohnM
-
Just like your silly F1 car analogy which I ripped apart, here again you are very, very wrong!
Here's the only relevant Kleins ad which applies to the precise timeframe of when Oswald purchased the rifle
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrBBm025/Riflead1.jpg)
And here's the April American Rifleman Kleins ad.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pT9DW2FP/American-Rifle-man-APRIL-1963-zpsup5zetrx.jpg)
You boys should have consulted me first before accepting Gil Jesus's typical misrepresentation of the evidence.
Bye.
JohnM
And here's the April American Rifleman Kleins ad.
Who cares what the add in April was? By then the BY photos had already been taken, if the official narrative is to be believed.
If any rifle was sent at all, there is no reason to assume that a 40" MC rifle was sent instead of a 36".
According to Waldman C20-T750 was ordered and C20-T750 was sent. There is no mention of a 40" rifle being sent.
In fact Waldman doesn't even know (he only has reason to believe) that the rifle that was ordered was in fact shipped with a scope mounted.
Mr. WALDMAN. Our catalog No. C20-T750, which was the number indicated on the coupon prepared by A. Hidell, designates a rifle with scope attached. And we would have so shipped it unless the customer specifically specified that he did not wish to have it attached. There is nothing in our records to indicate that there was any request made by the customer, and therefore we would have every reason to believe that it was shipped as a rifle with scope-mounted.
You boys should have consulted me first before accepting Gil Jesus's typical misrepresentation of the evidence.
Hilarious...never in a million years. You can't even be believed when you claim your name is Mytton!
-
What a stupid leap of self serving convenience, Jerry didn't say that at all.
JohnM
Since when does Jerry need you to answer a question directed to him?
-
What a stupid leap of self serving convenience, Jerry didn't say that at all.
JohnM
Thanks, John. You handled it better than I would have. Don't want anybody thinking I believed Waldman lied under oath or some shadowy figures forged microfilm.
BTW, I wonder how many people thought those ads in the back of 1960s magazines were 100% reliable or up-to-date. They must have been disappointed when their X-Ray Specs didn't work or the ants on the Ant Farm weren't wearing overalls. It's like Ralphy slugging gallons of Ovaltine so he could get his Orphan Annie Secret Society Decoder Pin.
-
Thanks, John. You handled it better than I would have. Don't want anybody thinking I believed Waldman lied under oath or some shadowy figures forged microfilm.
BTW, I wonder how many people thought those ads in the back of 1960s magazines were 100% reliable or up-to-date. They must have been disappointed when their X-Ray Specs didn't work or the ants on the Ant Farm weren't wearing overalls. It's like Ralphy slugging gallons of Ovaltine so he could get his Orphan Annie Secret Society Decoder Pin.
Don't want anybody thinking I believed Waldman lied under oath or some shadowy figures forged microfilm.
Nobody suggested that. Why would you even think about that?
BTW, I wonder how many people thought those ads in the back of 1960s magazines were 100% reliable or up-to-date.
So, what you are actually saying is that ads in 1960's were not reliable or up to date. Ok, but how does this relate to Klein's? Were their adds not reliable? Is that what you are saying, and if so, do you have evidence to support that?
-
Don't want anybody thinking I believed Waldman lied under oath or some shadowy figures forged microfilm.
Nobody suggested that. Why would you even think about that?
BTW, I wonder how many people thought those ads in the back of 1960s magazines were 100% reliable or up-to-date.
So, what you are actually saying is that ads in 1960's were not reliable or up to date. Ok, but how does this relate to Klein's? Were their adds not reliable? Is that what you are saying, and if so, do you have evidence to support that?
Who said all the Klein's ads were always unreliable?
The February ad in question (Honest JohnM provided the right one) showed that if one ordered an individual Carcano, the ad showed a M91 (originally 50" but shortened) and the text said it would be 36" long and 5 1/2 lbs. If one believes that ad was literally accurate, then they must believe Klein's was mailing out M91s that weighed 5 1/2 lbs.
One reason why I believe they were filling orders with the Carcano M91/38 40" Short Rifles was the price $12.88. It costed Klein's a dollar more-per-unit to purchase the Short Rifles when the smaller TS model (which had been selling at $11.88) was no longer available. The April ad showed the specs were a bit more accurate (40" length and 7 lbs), and the price was $12.88.
-
Who said all the Klein's ads were always unreliable?
The February ad in question (Honest JohnM provided the right one) showed that if one ordered an individual Carcano, the ad showed a M91 (originally 50" but shortened) and the text said it would be 36" long and 5 1/2 lbs. If one believes that ad was literally accurate, then they must believe Klein's was mailing out M91s that weighed 5 1/2 lbs.
One reason why I believe they were filling orders with the Carcano M91/38 40" Short Rifles was the price $12.88. It costed Klein's a dollar more-per-unit to purchase the Short Rifles when the smaller TS model (which had been selling at $11.88) was no longer available. The April ad showed the specs were a bit more accurate (40" length and 7 lbs), and the price was $12.88.
Who said all the Klein's ads were always unreliable?
Nobody. I just asked you for clarification about what you said.
The February ad in question (Honest JohnM provided the right one) showed that if one ordered an individual Carcano, the ad showed a M91 (originally 50" but shortened) and the text said it would be 36" long and 5 1/2 lbs. If one believes that ad was literally accurate, then they must believe Klein's was mailing out M91s that weighed 5 1/2 lbs.
Honest JohnM? Really... do you want me to take you seriously?
As for the February ad, regardless of what it showed (and I'll take your word for it as far as the image goes, as I have no knowledge about rifles), the description of the rifle on offer was pretty clear. They offered a 36" long MC rifle, so if I had ordered one, that's what I would expect to receive.
One reason why I believe they were filling orders with the Carcano M91/38 40" Short Rifles was the price $12.88. It costed Klein's a dollar more-per-unit to purchase the Short Rifles when the smaller TS model (which had been selling at $11.88) was no longer available. The April ad showed the specs were a bit more accurate (40" length and 7 lbs), and the price was $12.88.
There are two problems with this reasoning. First of all, the rifle wasn't ordered from the April add and was in fact - if the official narrative is to be believed - already shipped and photographed in Oswald's hands before the April add was actually published and, secondly, Klein's gunsmith, Westra, is on record, in the HSCA files, that Klein's did not mount scopes on 40" rifles.
And then there is this;
One reason why I believe they were filling orders with the Carcano M91/38 40" Short Rifles was the price $12.88.
If Klein's was sending out rifles that were not really ordered, instead of those that were ordered, how can they be considered to be reliable?
-
And here's the April American Rifleman Kleins ad.
Who cares what the add in April was? By then the BY photos had already been taken, if the official narrative is to be believed.
In North America, issues of monthly magazines tend to be off by one or more months. See here for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_date
In the case of American Rifleman, the April issue was delivered at the beginning of March. As such, the Klein's ad shows the status of Klein's inventory for March, 1963. Anyone who ordered C20-T750 in March was ordering a 40" long rifle.
-
Thanks, John. You handled it better than I would have. Don't want anybody thinking I believed Waldman lied under oath or some shadowy figures forged microfilm.
BTW, I wonder how many people thought those ads in the back of 1960s magazines were 100% reliable or up-to-date. They must have been disappointed when their X-Ray Specs didn't work or the ants on the Ant Farm weren't wearing overalls. It's like Ralphy slugging gallons of Ovaltine so he could get his Orphan Annie Secret Society Decoder Pin.
They must have been disappointed when their X-Ray Specs didn't work or the ants on the Ant Farm weren't wearing overalls.
Or when their newly hatched brine shrimp didn't build castles, rarely smiled and looked nothing like the Magazine ad.
(https://www.remindmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/sea-monkey-ad-1014x570.jpg)
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-85738520988e9d5178794f81801f7871-lq)
JohnM
-
In North America, issues of monthly magazines tend to be off by one or more months. See here for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_date
In the case of American Rifleman, the April issue was delivered at the beginning of March. As such, the Klein's ad shows the status of Klein's inventory for March, 1963. Anyone who ordered C20-T750 in March was ordering a 40" long rifle.
As such, the Klein's ad shows the status of Klein's inventory for March, 1963.
No it doesn't. At best it shows what they were offering for the month of April 1963.
The February issue showed what they were offering at that time and that's the rifle that was allegedly ordered by Hidell.
Anyone who ordered C20-T750 in March was ordering a 40" long rifle.
Where in the February ad for a 36" rifle does it say that rifles ordered in March would be filled by 40" rifles on offer in April?
Silly, right? Well, that's how idiotic your argument is!
-
The February issue showed what they were offering at that time and that's the rifle that was allegedly ordered by Hidell.
Ouch, Too bad Oswald ordered and paid for C20-T750 the following month, in mid March!
February < March!
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRTRFwQx/Oswald-money-order.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6rcPv9B/ce-773.jpg)
You walked right into that one, didn't you, better luck next time!!
JohnM
-
As such, the Klein's ad shows the status of Klein's inventory for March, 1963.
No it doesn't. At best it shows what they were offering for the month of April 1963.
The February issue showed what they were offering at that time and that's the rifle that was allegedly ordered by Hidell.
Anyone who ordered C20-T750 in March was ordering a 40" long rifle.
Where in the February ad for a 36" rifle does it say that rifles ordered in March would be filled by 40" rifles on offer in April?
Silly, right? Well, that's how idiotic your argument is!
Please go back and read the Wikipedia link I posted. It will explain what you refuse to understand. The "April" issue of American Rifleman appeared on newsstands and in mailboxes at the beginning of March.
-
Ouch, Too bad Oswald ordered and paid for C20-T750 the following month, in mid March!
February < March!
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRTRFwQx/Oswald-money-order.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6rcPv9B/ce-773.jpg)
You walked right into that one, didn't you, better luck next time!!
JohnM
What a fool. If I order something from a February ad, I expect either the merchandise that was advertised or a notification that the item is no longer available.
I don't expect to be sent an item that isn't what I ordered and isn't advertised until April 1963
-
I don't expect to be sent an item that isn't what I ordered and isn't advertised until April 1963
Nobody cares what you expect!
Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750. Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pqx3CwGn/c20-t750.jpg)
Live with it! :D
JohnM
-
Please go back and read the Wikipedia link I posted. It will explain what you refuse to understand. The "April" issue of American Rifleman appeared on newsstands and in mailboxes at the beginning of March.
Wikipedia still has a long way to go before it becomes a credible and reliable source, but even if the April issue appeared on news stands at the beginning of March, it still does not alter the fact that he Hidell order form clearly refers to the February issue.
The most remarkable part of this discussion is how LNs are trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
This was supposed to be a simple, normal, transaction. A guy orders a mail order rifle from the February issue of some magazine and either receives that rifle or gets notified it's out of stock.
Here we have, as so often in this case, as massive spin story on how a 36" rifle ordered from the February issue of a magazine somehow turns into an alleged delivery of a 40" rifle that wasn't advertised until the April issue of the same magazine.
Even worse, there isn't even a shred of evidence that any rifle was actually sent to a P.O. box in Dallas and/or was received by anybody.
LNs who actually believe and defend this BS have no sense of reality but could do very well by a applying for a job at Disney Land!
-
Nobody cares what you expect!
Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750. Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pqx3CwGn/c20-t750.jpg)
Live with it! :D
JohnM
Utter BS... show that Oswald ever received C20-T750! Oh, wait... you can't.... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Ouch, Too bad Oswald ordered and paid for C20-T750 the following month, in mid March!
February < March!
You walked right into that one, didn't you, better luck next time!!
JohnM
The critics think American readers of gun magazines were Carcano experts who wanted an old M91 that was shortened from 50" to 36" and weighed 5 1/2 lbs, if they saw it in an ad.
-
Wikipedia still has a long way to go before it becomes a credible and reliable source, but even if the April issue appeared on news stands at the beginning of March, it still does not alter the fact that he Hidell order form clearly refers to the February issue.
The most remarkable part of this discussion is how LNs are trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
This was supposed to be a simple, normal, transaction. A guy orders a mail order rifle from the February issue of some magazine and either receives that rifle or gets notified it's out of stock.
Here we have, as so often in this case, as massive spin story on how a 36" rifle ordered from the February issue of a magazine somehow turns into an alleged delivery of a 40" rifle that wasn't advertised until the April issue of the same magazine.
Even worse, there isn't even a shred of evidence that any rifle was actually sent to a P.O. box in Dallas and/or was received by anybody.
LNs who actually believe and defend this BS have no sense of reality but could do very well by a applying for a job at Disney Land!
So much hostility for something you don't even understand!
It's not like a pair of shoes or a shirt, it's a rifle, where the extra inches gives more accuracy and is an added bonus!
Besides Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pqx3CwGn/c20-t750.jpg)
Put that in your pipe and smoke it! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
So much hostility for something you don't even understand!
It's not like a pair of shoes or a shirt, it's a rifle, where the extra inches gives more accuracy and is an added bonus!
Besides Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pqx3CwGn/c20-t750.jpg)
Put that in your pipe and smoke it! Thumb1:
JohnM
So much hostility for something you don't even understand!
Not this BS again.... Don't you ever grow up?
It's not like a pair of shoes or a shirt, it's a rifle, where the extra inches gives more accuracy and is an added bonus!
Right, so one would expect Klein's to emphasize it in the ads... Can you understand why they didn't?
Besides Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.
Taking lessons from Joseph Goebbles, are you?
Btw, where is the evidence that Oswald received C20-T750 or anything else? It's the second time I've asked you. Why not simply answer the question?
-
The critics think American readers of gun magazines were Carcano experts who wanted an old M91 that was shortened from 50" to 35" and weighed 5 1/2 lbs, if they saw it in an ad.
Exactly Jerry, the price of the Carcano in the Kleins ad in the April 1963 issue of American Rifleman was close to half the price of the next cheapest rifle and the description was most likely written by some half assed advertising agency, and as you say there was a plethora of problems with that ad, which if Kleins were aware of these problems they never bothered to change the info for the close to a year of Kleins ads that I have seen.
So clearly the amount of negative reaction due to the misinformation in the Carcano ad was negligible.
This faux outrage by the CT community is absurd and at the end of the day, the longer Carcano was the better Carcano, so where is the problem? Like I said the slight difference in size had little effect on the finished product, a rifle isn't like a pair of trousers or a pair of shoes where an exact size is required.
JohnM
-
Exactly Jerry, the price of the Carcano in the Kleins ad in the April 1963 issue of American Rifleman was close to half the price of the next cheapest rifle and the description was most likely written by some half assed advertising agency, and as you say there was a plethora of problems with that ad, which if Kleins were aware of these problems they never bothered to change the info for the close to a year of Kleins ads that I have seen.
So clearly the amount of negative reaction due to the misinformation in the Carcano ad was negligible.
This faux outrage by the CT community is absurd and at the end of the day, the longer Carcano was the better Carcano, so where is the problem? Like I said the slight difference in size had little effect on the finished product, a rifle isn't like a pair of trousers or a pair of shoes where an exact size is required.
JohnM
All this BS for what is supposed to be a simple normal of transaction of a guy ordering a rifle from a magazine ad and actually receiving it.
Hilarious!
-
It's not like a pair of shoes or a shirt, it's a rifle, where the extra inches gives more accuracy and is an added bonus!
Right, so one would expect Klein's to emphasize it in the ads... Can you understand why they didn't?
Listen closely, Kleins couldn't even be bothered changing the item number for an item's slight change in size which clearly indicates how much value Kleins placed on this very cheap war surplus rifle.
You obviously don't understand how big business works!
JohnM
-
Listen closely, Kleins couldn't even be bothered changing the item number for an item's slight change in size which clearly indicates how much value Kleins placed on this very cheap war surplus rifle.
You obviously don't understand how big business works!
JohnM
So, Klein's business records can't be relied on after all. Thank you for confirming that.
-
All this BS for what is supposed to be a simple normal of transaction of a guy ordering a rifle from a magazine ad and actually receiving it.
Yes indeed, it was a simple transaction, in the warehouse there was a section where Kleins stocked their Carcano Rifles and regardless of size as seen in various Kliens Sporting Ads, the item number was C20-T750.
So Oswald's order was received by the office and Waldman 7 was filled out, then a warehouse employee went to the section which was identified as stocking C20-T750 and grabbed Oswald's rifle and put the serial number of Oswald's rifle on Waldman 7. And then the rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box. As simple as that.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JnBLShQZ/Waldman-7.jpg)
JohnM
-
Listen closely, Kleins couldn't even be bothered changing the item number for an item's slight change in size which clearly indicates how much value Kleins placed on this very cheap war surplus rifle.
You obviously don't understand how big business works!
JohnM
As you know firsthand this is the classic conspiracy mindset you are trying to reason with. "What about this huh?" and "What about that?". They make incessant demands on evidence that are never required even in a court. Meanwhile every hair-brained cockamamie conspiracy claim dreamed of is uncritically accepted. Gordon Arnold anyone?
-
As you know firsthand this is the classic conspiracy mindset you are trying to reason with. "What about this huh?" and "What about that?". They make incessant demands on evidence that are never required even in a court. Meanwhile every hair-brained cockamamie conspiracy claim dreamed of is uncritically accepted. Gordon Arnold anyone?
Another LN diversion?
-
So, Klein's business records can't be relied on after all. Thank you for confirming that.
Are you insane? How do you derive that conclusion?
The Carcano rifles were assigned the item number of C20-T750 and Waldman had no trouble on the night following the assassination of searching Kleins business records and managed to locate Oswald's transaction from their microfilm records.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JnBLShQZ/Waldman-7.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6rcPv9B/ce-773.jpg)
You keep trying to make a case for conspiracy but like always you keep failing miserably.
JohnM
-
As you know firsthand this is the classic conspiracy mindset you are trying to reason with. "What about this huh?" and "What about that?". They make incessant demands on evidence that are never required even in a court. Meanwhile every hair-brained cockamamie conspiracy claim dreamed of is uncritically accepted. Gordon Arnold anyone?
As you know firsthand this is the classic conspiracy mindset you are trying to reason with. "What about this huh?" and "What about that?". They make incessant demands on evidence that are never required even in a court. Meanwhile every hair-brained cockamamie conspiracy claim dreamed of is uncritically accepted.
Hi Steve, you're right, specifically here regarding Oswald ordering, receiving and possessing the rifle there is a literal Mountain of evidence yet Martin and his cronies keep trying to create doubt from isolated pieces of evidence while ignoring the Mountain of connected rock solid evidence.
Gordon Arnold anyone?
Royell really has a bug up his ass about Gordon Arnold and Royell thinks that Arnold's BS holds the key to this entire investigation?
I also find Royell's latest stance on "SCIENCE" absolutely astonishing, because the amount of science that is integral to this case comes from the LNer side which incidentally is beyond compare but Royell has so far ignored the Medical Experts, Forensic Specialists, Photographic Experts, Ballistics Experts, Handwriting Experts and etc etc all in favour of the scraps of pseudo science he collects from the gutter!
JohnM
-
If that MC had been fired at 12:30 Nov 23/63, why wasn’t there any gunpowder residue in the rifle grooves or the breech or chamber of the rifle when they examined it within one hour after it had been fired?
How is that 7 people whom were given a paraffin test on their cheek after firing an MC rifle were ALL positive, while Oswald’s cheek test was negative?
-
If that MC had been fired at 12:30 Nov 23/63, why wasn’t there any gunpowder residue in the rifle grooves or the breech or chamber of the rifle when they examined it within one hour after it had been fired?
How is that 7 people whom were given a paraffin test on their cheek after firing an MC rifle were ALL positive, while Oswald’s cheek test was negative?
If that MC had been fired at 12:30 Nov 23/63, why wasn’t there any gunpowder residue in the rifle grooves or the breech or chamber of the rifle when they examined it within one hour after it had been fired?
We know for a fact that Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor was fired because the shells on the floor of the snipers nest were an exclusive match. Now you may claim that at an earlier time that someone fired Oswald's rifle and dropped the shells on the floor of the sniper's nest, Which leads to some interesting questions?
How long after a rifle is fired can you expect to detect "gunpowder residue in the rifle grooves or the breech or chamber of the rifle"? Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, or years?
Who did this investigation?
What qualifications did he/she have?
What kind of test did this investigator employ, was it by eyeball, smell or what exactly?
Was the investigator familiar with military weapons, the Carcano specifically?
Can you forensically state that this test is valid?
Is there any forensic evidence of Oswald's rifle being later tested that supports your claim?
How is that 7 people whom were given a paraffin test on their cheek after firing an MC rifle were ALL positive, while Oswald’s cheek test was negative?
Who did the test and did they use the actual rifle that Oswald used because if not your results are null and void!
Testing with the actual weapon that Oswald owned and used!
(https://i.postimg.cc/SsCjnSmx/CE-139-Oswald-s-rifle.jpg)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.
And again!
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct
-
Are you insane? How do you derive that conclusion?
The Carcano rifles were assigned the item number of C20-T750 and Waldman had no trouble on the night following the assassination of searching Kleins business records and managed to locate Oswald's transaction from their microfilm records.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JnBLShQZ/Waldman-7.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6rcPv9B/ce-773.jpg)
You keep trying to make a case for conspiracy but like always you keep failing miserably.
JohnM
Only a delusional fool would argue that if a 36" MC rifle is ordered (as it was) and Klein's ships a 40" MC rifle that the client has received what he has ordered!
-
"by the way, my name is Mytton with a capital "M", not mytton, please be more vigilant in the future! " John Mytton
I am aware of the shall we say protocol of duncans forum , the preferred manner in which duncan would like members to post and act .And duncan mentioned this to me in a very courteous and respectful manner which i really do appreciate . And i will attempt my very best to adhere to that and to all forum rules . To that end i have been attempting to post as i was asked , i see that even tho i thought i had done as i was asked i can see i misunderstood slightly what Duncan asked and i erred , in that regard Duncan has my apology . However (and it is no way any criticism of Duncan or his forum at all , i respect Duncan and his forum greatly and i have happily visited here for many years ) i do take exception to what i feel is a rather juvenile complaint by you , and a rather hypocritical demand for respect when you go around attacking people on this forum in the manner that you do and have done . I have always believed and asserted that respect is a two way street , and ones respect is earned , it is not an automatic right , especially if that individual seemingly demanding some level of respect does not always care to afford others the same level of respect they them selves now seemingly demand .
For the record you can spell or misspell my name in any manner that you deem appropriate , you will receive no complaint from me what so ever . I would not lower myself to your level , that is the level to which many LN of my previous acquaintance have lowered them selves .that is in attacking ones grammar or lack there of often while using that as a method of ignoring facts that had been provided . For my self it is of no import what so ever how a person types (or writes ) , whether they have grammatical error or not . And after all not every person will speak or even write in fluent english , so in that sense i personally dont care about grammatical issues . What is most important to me is what one says when they do write is honest , reliable and credible , accurate , unbiased and as truthful as is humanly possible . but i will endeavor to always try to ensure to type your name correctly going forward , so as not to insult your delicate sensibilities by failing to use a capital letter .
-
So many rabbit holes. If logic and facts had any impact on the CTers, they wouldn't reach the conclusions that they come to in the first place. We all know it is futile. They have been presented with the evidence countless times. They discount it as fakery or refuse to accept any fact by implication. For example, if Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald's PO Box with a specific serial number and that rifle shows up in Oswald's place of employment with his print found on it, that means he received this particular rifle. Throw in a picture of him holding it, confirmation from his own wife that he possessed a rifle in this same timeframe, the fact that his rifle is missing on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found on the 6th floor on the very same day that Oswald made an unusual visit to the Paine home where he stored the rifle and carried a long package to work the next morning and then lied about doing so to police indicating it was his lunch sack. No reasonable person could dispute the obvious conclusion to be drawn from all this evidence and circumstances. Reasonable is the key word.
-
So many rabbit holes. If logic and facts had any impact on the CTers, they wouldn't reach the conclusions that they come to in the first place. We all know it is futile. They have been presented with the evidence countless times. They discount it as fakery or refuse to accept any fact by implication. For example, if Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald's PO Box with a specific serial number and that rifle shows up in Oswald's place of employment with his print found on it, that means he received this particular rifle. Throw in a picture of him holding it, confirmation from his own wife that he possessed a rifle in this same timeframe, the fact that his rifle is missing on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found on the 6th floor on the fact that his rifle is missing on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found on the 6th floor on the very same day that Oswald made an unusual visit to the Paine home where he stored the rifle and carried a long package to work the next morning and then lied about doing so to police indicating it was his lunch sack. No reasonable person could dispute the obvious conclusion to be drawn from all this evidence and circumstances. Reasonable is the key word.
if Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald's PO Box with a specific serial number - assumption for which there is no evidence
that rifle shows up in Oswald's place of employment with his print found on it, - assumption that it is the rifle which you can't even prove was sent by Klein's and utter lie that a print was found on the rifle. The FBI found no print.
that means he received this particular rifle. - speculative conclusion based on a questionable premise
Throw in a picture of him holding it, - assumption that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photos is the same as the one allegedly sent by Klein's and/or found at the TSBD
confirmation from his own wife that he possessed a rifle in this same timeframe, - utter lie. Marina Oswald never confirmed anything of the kind
the fact that his rifle is missing on 11.22 - assumption. There is no evidence that was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage after late September that could have gone missing
and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found on the 6th floor - untrue. Marina said she saw the wooden stock of a rifle in a blanket in the last week of september. If you accept that Marina did see a rifle, anything could have happened to that rifle during the two months between the last sighting and the assassination
on the very same day that Oswald made an unusual visit to the Paine home - untrue. There is nothing unusual about the visit. In total, Oswald only visited Irving about six times between early october and 11/21/63. In that time he skipped one weekend and once went on a Thursday instead of Friday. Marina and Ruth Paine both stated that Oswald had come on Thursday to try and save his marriage.
where he stored the rifle - assumption. There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald ever stored a rifle at Ruth Paine's garage.
carried a long package to work the next morning and then lied about doing so to police indicating it was his lunch sack. - assumption. There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald lied to the police
No reasonable person could dispute the obvious conclusion to be drawn from all this evidence and circumstances. Reasonable is the key word.
No reasonable person would jump to any conclusion based on assumptions and claims for which no evidence exists. Thumb1:
-
"by the way, my name is Mytton with a capital "M", not mytton, please be more vigilant in the future! " John Mytton
I am aware of the shall we say protocol of duncans forum , the preferred manner in which duncan would like members to post and act .And duncan mentioned this to me in a very courteous and respectful manner which i really do appreciate . And i will attempt my very best to adhere to that and to all forum rules . To that end i have been attempting to post as i was asked , i see that even tho i thought i had done as i was asked i can see i misunderstood slightly what Duncan asked and i erred , in that regard Duncan has my apology . However (and it is no way any criticism of Duncan or his forum at all , i respect Duncan and his forum greatly and i have happily visited here for many years ) i do take exception to what i feel is a rather juvenile complaint by you , and a rather hypocritical demand for respect when you go around attacking people on this forum in the manner that you do and have done . I have always believed and asserted that respect is a two way street , and ones respect is earned , it is not an automatic right , especially if that individual seemingly demanding some level of respect does not always care to afford others the same level of respect they them selves now seemingly demand .
For the record you can spell or misspell my name in any manner that you deem appropriate , you will receive no complaint from me what so ever . I would not lower myself to your level , that is the level to which many LN of my previous acquaintance have lowered them selves .that is in attacking ones grammar or lack there of often while using that as a method of ignoring facts that had been provided . For my self it is of no import what so ever how a person types (or writes ) , whether they have grammatical error or not . And after all not every person will speak or even write in fluent english , so in that sense i personally dont care about grammatical issues . What is most important to me is what one says when they do write is honest , reliable and credible , accurate , unbiased and as truthful as is humanly possible . but i will endeavor to always try to ensure to type your name correctly going forward , so as not to insult your delicate sensibilities by failing to use a capital letter .
So many words Fergus, I didn't ask for your life story, I just want you to show the same respect that I show you and address me properly.
JohnM
-
Wikipedia still has a long way to go before it becomes a credible and reliable source,
Whatever flaws you think it has, Wikipedia is still universally regarded as a more reliable source than Martin Weidman.
but even if the April issue appeared on news stands at the beginning of March, it still does not alter the fact that he Hidell order form clearly refers to the February issue.v
You are operating under the delusion that the difference would matter, or that the fulfillment staff would even notice.
The most remarkable part of this discussion is how LNs are trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
This was supposed to be a simple, normal, transaction. A guy orders a mail order rifle from the February issue of some magazine and either receives that rifle or gets notified it's out of stock.
Here we have, as so often in this case, as massive spin story on how a 36" rifle ordered from the February issue of a magazine somehow turns into an alleged delivery of a 40" rifle that wasn't advertised until the April issue of the same magazine.
We have an order code that in the February issue refers to a 36" long rifle and in the April issue refers to a 40" version of the same model rifle. At some point between the February issue and the April issue c20-t250 went from being 36" to 40". Even if we ignore any post-dating of the issues, that leaves March open as the month in which this change occurred. In short, there's no actual evidence of a discrepancy in the first place. And if the post-dating is taken into account, Oswald got exactly what he actually ordered, if not exactly quite what he might have expected.
Even worse, there isn't even a shred of evidence that any rifle was actually sent to a P.O. box in Dallas and/or was received by anybody.
And now you want to try and change the subject to something else.
-
Whatever flaws you think it has, Wikipedia is still universally regarded as a more reliable source than Martin Weidman.
You are operating under the delusion that the difference would matter, or that the fulfillment staff would even notice.
We have an order code that in the February issue refers to a 36" long rifle and in the April issue refers to a 40" version of the same model rifle. At some point between the February issue and the April issue c20-t250 went from being 36" to 40". Even if we ignore any post-dating of the issues, that leaves March open as the month in which this change occurred. In short, there's no actual evidence of a discrepancy in the first place. And if the post-dating is taken into account, Oswald got exactly what he actually ordered, if not exactly quite what he might have expected.
And now you want to try and change the subject to something else.
Whatever flaws you think it has, Wikipedia is still universally regarded as a more reliable source than Martin Weidman.
Who said so? Was there research on this topic, or are you simply making it up?
You are operating under the delusion that the difference would matter, or that the fulfillment staff would even notice.
Of course it matters. Only a fool would say that if you order a 36" rifle and they sent you a 40" rifle. you recieved what you've ordered.
We have an order code that in the February issue refers to a 36" long rifle and in the April issue refers to a 40" version of the same model rifle. At some point between the February issue and the April issue c20-t250 went from being 36" to 40". Even if we ignore any post-dating of the issues, that leaves March open as the month in which this change occurred. In short, there's no actual evidence of a discrepancy in the first place..
Bla bla bla.... The Hidell order was for a 36" rifle, as advertised in the February issue. The order should have been filled with a 36" rifle or cancelled it they had run out of stock.
And if the post-dating is taken into account, Oswald got exactly what he actually ordered, if not exactly quite what he might have expected
Just how idiotic can you be? If Oswald ordered anything at all, he ordered a 36" rifle. If he then receives a 40" than he didn't get exactly what he ordered, !
And now you want to try and change the subject to something else.
Utter BS... you just don't want to go there
-
Whatever flaws you think it has, Wikipedia is still universally regarded as a more reliable source than Martin Weidman.
You are operating under the delusion that the difference would matter, or that the fulfillment staff would even notice.
We have an order code that in the February issue refers to a 36" long rifle and in the April issue refers to a 40" version of the same model rifle. At some point between the February issue and the April issue c20-t250 went from being 36" to 40". Even if we ignore any post-dating of the issues, that leaves March open as the month in which this change occurred. In short, there's no actual evidence of a discrepancy in the first place. And if the post-dating is taken into account, Oswald got exactly what he actually ordered, if not exactly quite what he might have expected.
And now you want to try and change the subject to something else.
And if the post-dating is taken into account, Oswald got exactly what he actually ordered, if not exactly quite what he might have expected.
Yeah, Oswald thought his rifle was the 36 inch model, so he made a 38 inch bag. Imagine the look on Oswald's face when on the Thursday night, his rifle wouldn't fit in the bag! Oops!
This is just more powerful evidence that Oswald ordered the rifle!
And many CT's like to believe that the cops made the ill fitting bag but why would the Dallas Police make the wrong sized bag when they actually had the weapon in their hands?
(https://i.postimg.cc/PrCM0N76/Oswaldsriflebag.jpg)
And now you want to try and change the subject to something else.
Yeah, whenever he's stuck, he does this!
JohnM
-
Yeah, Oswald thought his rifle was the 36 inch model, so he made a 38 inch bag. Imagine the look on Oswald's face when on the Thursday night, his rifle wouldn't fit in the bag! Oops!
This is just more powerful evidence that Oswald ordered the rifle!
And many CT's like to believe that the cops made the ill fitting bag but why would the Dallas Police make the wrong sized bag when they actually had the weapon in their hands?
(https://i.postimg.cc/PrCM0N76/Oswaldsriflebag.jpg)
Yeah, whenever he's stuck, he does this!
JohnM
It does seem reasonable that LHO might have remembered the advertised length of 36” but never had a reason to measure the rifle’s actual length. To assume (mainly due to time constraints and logistics) that the remembered 36” length was correct when he fabricated the bag and making the bag 38” long seems very likely to me. Good point John!
-
Yeah, Oswald thought his rifle was the 36 inch model, so he made a 38 inch bag. Imagine the look on Oswald's face when on the Thursday night, his rifle wouldn't fit in the bag! Oops!
This is just more powerful evidence that Oswald ordered the rifle!
And many CT's like to believe that the cops made the ill fitting bag but why would the Dallas Police make the wrong sized bag when they actually had the weapon in their hands?
(https://i.postimg.cc/PrCM0N76/Oswaldsriflebag.jpg)
Yeah, whenever he's stuck, he does this!
JohnM
Yeah, whenever he's stuck, he does this!
Says the guy who just tried to change the subject :D
Yeah, Oswald thought his rifle was the 36 inch model, so he made a 38 inch bag. Imagine the look on Oswald's face when on the Thursday night, his rifle wouldn't fit in the bag! Oops!
This is just more powerful evidence that Oswald ordered the rifle!
Still unable to understand the difference between baseless selfserving speculation and actual evidence, I see.
There is no evidence that Oswald made any bag. According to the official narrative the bag was made at the TSBD, but nobody saw him anywhere near the wrapping machines. Frazier also did not see Oswald carry a bag to Irving on Thursday night and Marina and Ruth Paine also saw no bag.
So, only in a very confused and delusional mind can this be seen as "powerful evidence that Oswald ordered the rifle".
All it really exposes is the utter desperation of the LNs to present the most feeble case.
-
So many words Fergus, I didn't ask for your life story, I just want you to show the same respect that I show you and address me properly.
JohnM
As i have said respect is a two way street , first it is earned , and in my case you have not earned it . But by all means you can feel free to start over again with me , and perhaps then you will earn the respect you demand . And by the way i addressed you by name very respectfully , that is assuming it is indeed your real name . Or just simple carry on with your antics , they will not phase me one bit . So please do as you see fit .
-
As i have said respect is a two way street , first it is earned , and in my case you have not earned it . But by all means you can feel free to start over again with me , and perhaps then you will earn the respect you demand . And by the way i addressed you by name very respectfully , that is assuming it is indeed your real name . Or just simple carry on with your antics , they will not phase me one bit . So please do as you see fit .
As i have said respect is a two way street , first it is earned , and in my case you have not earned it .
Well, well, well, Fergus O'bumhead, aren't you the pretentious, self entitled Twat.
But by all means you can feel free to start over again with me , and perhaps then you will earn the respect you demand .
Thanks Fergus, I sure will.
And by the way i addressed you by name very respectfully,...
No you didn't.
...that is assuming it is indeed your real name .
My real name on this Forum is John Mytton and don't you forget it!
Or just simple carry on with your antics...
Not that I need your permission but thanks for the advice.
...they will not phase me one bit .
Sorry Fergus, but so far all your overreactions and hissy fits, tell quite the different story.
So please do as you see fit .
As always I will call a spade a spade and when I see poorly thought out, stupid and illogical attempts of rewriting History, I will very carefully explain why you are wrong and gently guide you to a place called reality.
JohnM
-
Well, well, well, Fergus O'bumhead, aren't you the pretentious, self entitled Twat.
Thanks Fergus, I sure will.
No you didn't.
My real name on this Forum is John Mytton and don't you forget it!
Not that I need your permission but thanks for the advice.
Sorry Fergus, but so far all your overreactions and hissy fits, tell quite the different story.
As always I will call a spade a spade and when I see poorly thought out, stupid and illogical attempts of rewriting History, I will very carefully explain why you are wrong and gently guide you to a place called reality.
JohnM
Well, well, well, Fergus O'bumhead, aren't you the pretentious, self entitled Twat.
Says the guy who demands respect.... Hilarious! And as for the "pretentious, self entitled Twat" you win that award every year hands down.
My real name on this Forum is John Mytton and don't you forget it! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D What a loser!
As always I will call a spade a spade and when I see poorly thought out, stupid and illogical attempts of rewriting History,
Said the biggest pretentious twat of them all. You actually believe you are superior than everybody else, don't you?
I will very carefully explain why you are wrong and gently guide you to a place called reality.
Apply for a job at Disney. There they believe in these fairytales....
-
You actually believe you are superior than everybody else, don't you?
Well Martin, being Mentally Superior to a bunch of paranoid, brainless conspiracy theorists isn't that difficult.
JohnM
-
Well Martin, being Mentally Superior to a bunch of paranoid, brainless conspiracy theorists isn't that difficult.
JohnM
Anybody who calls others "paranoid, brainless conspiracy theorists" is showing a total lack of superiority.
Really superior people don't need to attack others in such a way. They know better.
-
Anybody who calls others "paranoid, brainless conspiracy theorists" is showing a total lack of superiority.
Really superior people don't attack others in such a way. They know better.
C'mon Martin, the way you attacked me with every venomous word and then you asked a self serving offensive question designed for a reaction, was "tongue in cheek" reciprocated with the same "respect" that your question deserved.
JohnM
-
C'mon Martin, the way you attacked me with every venomous word and then you asked a self serving offensive question designed for a reaction, was "tongue in cheek" reciprocated with the same "respect" that your question deserved.
JohnM
So, it's the coward's "it was tongue in cheek" way out after overplaying your hand?
Never mind, I know a narcissist, when I see one.
-
Whatever flaws you think it has, Wikipedia is still universally regarded as a more reliable source than Martin Weidman.
Who said so? Was there research on this topic, or are you simply making it up?
I can't think of anyone who thinks that Martin Weidman is a more reliable source than Wikipedia. Other than Martin Weidman. Much of the research has been done one this topic, and a great deal already exists on this particular forum!
Kidding aside, researchers looked into the issue issue decades ago, and their findings circulated around the community Samizadat style. No one hears about it now, because they found that there was no discrepancy.
You are operating under the delusion that the difference would matter, or that the fulfillment staff would even notice.
Of course it matters. Only a fool would say that if you order a 36" rifle and they sent you a 40" rifle. you recieved what you've ordered.
We have an order code that in the February issue refers to a 36" long rifle and in the April issue refers to a 40" version of the same model rifle. At some point between the February issue and the April issue c20-t250 went from being 36" to 40". Even if we ignore any post-dating of the issues, that leaves March open as the month in which this change occurred. In short, there's no actual evidence of a discrepancy in the first place..
Bla bla bla.... The Hidell order was for a 36" rifle, as advertised in the February issue. The order should have been filled with a 36" rifle or cancelled it they had run out of stock.
And if the post-dating is taken into account, Oswald got exactly what he actually ordered, if not exactly quite what he might have expected
Just how idiotic can you be? If Oswald ordered anything at all, he ordered a 36" rifle. If he then receives a 40" than he didn't get exactly what he ordered, !
The length of the rifle doesn't appear at all on the order form, so your continued attempt to tie some measurement to it is ridiculous. Oswald put in the "C20-T750" order code, which was used for both the 36" and 40" rifle at different times. And he got a C20-T750 in return. It's as simple as that. Anything more is just wishful thinking on your part.
And now you want to try and change the subject to something else.
Utter BS... you just don't want to go there
There is no "there" to get to. Just the usual parade of your retroactively inventing some organization's policy requirement in order to claim a "discrepancy" that only exists as a figment of your own desires.
-
So, it's the coward's "it was tongue in cheek" way out after overplaying your hand?
Never mind, I know a narcissist, when I see one.
In virtually every one of your responses going back to the year dot, you constantly use aggressive inflammatory language designed for maximum emotional impact, you really can't help yourself, can you!
It's no wonder you forced Bill Brown to be less active and made Richard Smith put you on ignore.
I truly feel sorry for you, but since this Forum appears to be your sole social outlet, feel free to use me as another one of your punching bags because I can take it and keeping you off the streets is not only right, it is a necessary public service!
JohnM
-
In virtually every one of your responses going back to the year dot, you constantly use aggressive inflammatory language designed for maximum emotional impact, you really can't help yourself, can you!
It's no wonder you forced Bill Brown to be less active and made Richard Smith put you on ignore.
I truly feel sorry for you, but since this Forum appears to be your sole social outlet, feel free to use me as another one of your punching bags because I can take it and keeping you off the streets is not only right, it is a necessary public service!
JohnM
Ooh poor cry baby suffering from so many delusions.... Don't try to justify yourself so much. It only shows your weakness and insecurities.
I don't need a nobody with a superiority complex and hiding behind an alias as a "punching bag". It would be easy but also a complete waste time.
but since this Forum appears to be your sole social outlet
Well, it's not the only one, but one of a few, because, unlike you, I actually have a life off line.
Now, can we get back to the discussion in the thread, or do you want to continue to derail?
-
I can't think of anyone who thinks that Martin Weidman is a more reliable source than Wikipedia. Other than Martin Weidman. Much of the research has been done one this topic, and a great deal already exists on this particular forum!
Kidding aside, researchers looked into the issue issue decades ago, and their findings circulated around the community Samizadat style. No one hears about it now, because they found that there was no discrepancy.
The length of the rifle doesn't appear at all on the order form, so your continued attempt to tie some measurement to it is ridiculous. Oswald put in the "C20-T750" order code, which was used for both the 36" and 40" rifle at different times. And he got a C20-T750 in return. It's as simple as that. Anything more is just wishful thinking on your part.
There is no "there" to get to. Just the usual parade of your retroactively inventing some organization's policy requirement in order to claim a "discrepancy" that only exists as a figment of your own desires.
Oswald could never have received the rifle as advertised from the February ad. The rifle pictured in the February Ad is a 40 inch carcano not a 36 inch carcano. A 36 inch carcano has a shorter barrel length sticking out front of the hand guard and a different rear sight. There are no carcano’s that weigh 5 and ½ pounds. Kleins just fixed the ad for April and sold the rifle they had pictured.
A Quick and Dirty Guide: Carcano Rifle Models – Surplused
-
Now, can we get back to the discussion in the thread, or do you want to continue to derail?
Huh? You, not me was the one who butted in and started attacking me in the post designated "reply 130", but since you are getting your ass kicked you are now running away, run little Marty run! Hahahaha!
JohnM
-
Huh? You, not me was the one who butted in and started attacking me in the post designated "reply 130", but since you are getting your ass kicked you are now running away, run little Marty run! Hahahaha!
JohnM
but since you are getting your ass kicked
And there it is again.... Johnny is so insecure that he constantly needs to remind himself just how "superior" he thinks he is. Sad, very sad
Btw prior to post 130 we were discussing your idiotic claim that, if somebody orders a 36" rifle and receives a 40" rifle, he somehow has received what he ordered.
-
Btw prior to post 130 we were discussing your idiotic claim that, if somebody orders a 36" rifle and receives a 40" rifle, he somehow has received what he ordered.
Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wpy0nnx1/c20-t750.jpg)
JohnM
-
Btw prior to post 130 we were discussing your idiotic claim that, if somebody orders a 36" rifle and receives a 40" rifle, he somehow has received what he ordered.
Kleins sent Oswald a better, longer more accurate rifle.
But let me put this in words that are more applicable to you and perhaps you will finally understand, say you ordered a home delivery 750ml bottle of that cheap alcohol that you are currently full of, and the bottle shop sends you a 1 litre bottle are you going to complain?
JohnM
-
Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wpy0nnx1/c20-t750.jpg)
JohnM
Semantics. The truth is in the details which you so eagerly ignore.
Hidell ordered C20-T750 from department 358, which is a 36" MC rifle.
He did not order a 40" MC rifle.
-
Kleins sent Oswald a better, longer more accurate rifle.
But let me put this in words that are more applicable to you and perhaps you will finally understand, say you ordered a home delivery 750ml bottle of that cheap alcohol that you are currently full of, and the bottle shop sends you a 1 litre bottle are you going to complain?
JohnM
Kleins sent Oswald a better, longer more accurate rifle.
Really? Show me the shipping document that proves they sent anything at all. Oh wait, it doesn't exist, except in your delusional mind.
-
Semantics. The truth is in the details which you so eagerly ignore.
Hidell ordered C20-T750 from department 358, which is a 36" MC rifle.
He did not order a 40" MC rifle.
You can't possibly be this Stupid?
The Department Number 358 isn't a specific Department within the Kliens warehouse but is a code which applied to every product ordered on that unique Kleins Advertisement, and is purely used to determine the origin of which magazine the coupon came from and is used for marketing. You really don't have a clue about how businesses work, do you!
Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Guns Magazine" had a department Number of 319 in Kleins Feb1963 ad. And interestingly Kleins ad in this magazine up until July63 was for the 36 inch model and thus proving once and for all, that Kleins didn't place any importance on the weight or length of the Carcano rifles that they stocked.
February 1963 Guns Magazine
(https://i.postimg.cc/rFkLJxmD/Guns-Magazine-Kleins-Feb-1963.jpg)
https://gunsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G0263.pdf
April 1963 Guns Magazine
(https://i.postimg.cc/26x9zbQ5/Guns-Magazine-Kleins-April-1963.jpg)
https://gunsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G0463.pdf
July 1963 Guns Magazine
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZbryYYP/Guns-Magazine-Kleins-July-1963.jpg)
https://gunsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G0763.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore as can be seen by the plethora of various Department Numbers across any number of Kliens rifle ads, the only applicable number is the Order Number.
Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrBBm025/Riflead1.jpg)
JohnM
-
Kleins sent Oswald a better, longer more accurate rifle.
Really? Show me the shipping document that proves they sent anything at all. Oh wait, it doesn't exist, except in your delusional mind.
We know Oswald received the rifle because he was photographed with it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yNpQm5jB/oswald-back-yard-b-c2.gif)
We know Oswald received the rifle because it contained his palm print and the FBI confirmed that Oswald had contact with Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6p1g0Djz/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)
We also have not one, not two but three types of fibers that match the three types of fibers contained in Oswald's arrest shirt, and the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald's shirt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8cwdBfd3/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
JohnM
-
You can't possibly be this Stupid?
The Department Number 358 isn't a specific Department within the Kliens warehouse but is a code which applied to every product ordered on that unique Kleins Advertisement, and is purely used to determine the origin of which magazine the coupon came from and is used for marketing. You really don't have a clue about how businesses work, do you!
Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Guns Magazine" had a department Number of 319 in Kleins Feb1963 ad. And interestingly Kleins ad in this magazine up until July63 was for the 36 inch model and thus proving once and for all, that Kleins didn't place any importance on the weight or length of the Carcano rifles that they stocked.
February 1963 Guns Magazine
(https://i.postimg.cc/rFkLJxmD/Guns-Magazine-Kleins-Feb-1963.jpg)
https://gunsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G0263.pdf
April 1963 Guns Magazine
(https://i.postimg.cc/26x9zbQ5/Guns-Magazine-Kleins-April-1963.jpg)
https://gunsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G0463.pdf
July 1963 Guns Magazine
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZbryYYP/Guns-Magazine-Kleins-July-1963.jpg)
https://gunsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G0763.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore as can be seen by the plethora of various Department Numbers across any number of Kliens rifle ads, the only applicable number is the Order Number.
Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrBBm025/Riflead1.jpg)
JohnM
You can't possibly be this Stupid?
No, but you can....
The Department Number 358 isn't a specific Department within the Kliens warehouse
Nobody said it was, except you of course...
but is a code which applied to every product ordered on that unique Kleins Advertisement,
You can try to muddy the water as much as you like, but the Department Number identified the magazine where the coupon came from. That, in turn, identified the exact item ordered.
So, Ìf you believe that Oswald ordered anything at all, it was a 36" MC rifle as advertised in the February issue of American Rifleman Magazine. Period!
The "Guns Magazine" had a department Number of 319 in Kleins Feb1963 ad. And interestingly Kleins ad in this magazine up until July63 was for the 36 inch model and thus proving once and for all, that Kleins didn't place any importance on the weight or length of the Carcano rifles that they stocked.
Another selfserving argument that goes nowhere fast. It can just as easily be said that the ad proves that Klein's still was selling (and thus had in stock) 36" model MC rifles.
-
Well, well, well, Fergus O'bumhead, aren't you the pretentious, self entitled Twat.
Thanks Fergus, I sure will.
No you didn't.
My real name on this Forum is John Mytton and don't you forget it!
Not that I need your permission but thanks for the advice.
Sorry Fergus, but so far all your overreactions and hissy fits, tell quite the different story.
As always I will call a spade a spade and when I see poorly thought out, stupid and illogical attempts of rewriting History, I will very carefully explain why you are wrong and gently guide you to a place called reality.
JohnM
WOW lol , thank you for taking the time to reveal your true self to the many readers here who will see this . It is always fun to see an LN throw their toys out of their pram . For some reason when you speak the following quotes spring to mind , i wonder why ? lol .
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Mark Twain
-
We know Oswald received the rifle because he was photographed with it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yNpQm5jB/oswald-back-yard-b-c2.gif)
We know Oswald received the rifle because it contained his palm print and the FBI confirmed that Oswald had contact with Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6p1g0Djz/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)
We also have not one, not two but three types of fibers that match the three types of fibers contained in Oswald's arrest shirt, and the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald's shirt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8cwdBfd3/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
JohnM
I asked you for a shipping document showing that a rifle was actually sent. In other words, I asked you for actual evidence, not some voodoo mambo jambo about why you think a rifle was sent.
We know Oswald received the rifle because he was photographed with it.
No, we don't know that. There is no way to identify the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph. I've asked you before to show me an enlargement of the serial number on the rifle in the photo and you've failed to do so.
And, btw, care to explain how somebody holding a rifle in a photograph is proof of either ownership or that person having received that rifle from Klein's?
We know Oswald received the rifle because it contained his palm print and the FBI confirmed that Oswald had contact with Oswald's rifle.
More utter stupidity. The rifle did not contain Oswald's palm print. FBI supervisor of the latent fingerprint section, Sebastian Latona examined the rifle in the night following the assassination and from no prints on the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald. Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?
Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.
But even if, for the sake of argument, Oswald print was indeed on the rifle, how in the world does that even begin to prove that he received the rifle? The jumps to conclusions you are making are larger than a jump to the moon.
We also have not one, not two but three types of fibers that match the three types of fibers contained in Oswald's arrest shirt, and the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald's shirt.
More BS... there is no such thing as the ability to "match" fibers. At best it can be said that fibers are simular, but I suspect you don't understand the difference between the two anyway.
Even Stombaugh couldn't say it with 100% certainty;
Mr. EISENBERG. On the basis of these examinations, did you draw a conclusion as to the probability of the cotton fibers found in the butt plate having come from the shirt pictured in Exhibit 673?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it was my opinion that these fibers could easily have come from the shirt.
"Could easily have come from the shirt" is a far cry from a 100% certain match!
Even worse, there has never been any evidence that the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested is the same one he had on in the morning. That's again, nothing more than another selfserving assumption on your part.
So, the bottom line is that you've got nothing... nada, just a lot of conjecture based on misrepresented evidence. But, hey, what else is new with you?
-
So, the bottom line is that you've got nothing... nada,....
Thanks for proving me correct when I made the earlier statement "You can't possible be this Stupid".
But I will leave the Readers with this final piece of the puzzle.
In addition of the proof I presented of Lee Harvey Oswald's ownership of the rifle, the exact same rifle that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO box was discovered on the 6th floor of the place Oswald worked, and not forgetting that Oswald had no alibi at the time, was identified in the Sniper's nest Window, then Oswald fled from the scene within a few minutes of committing Murder, then went on to commit more Murder and when Oswald was arrested tried to commit even more Murder!
(https://i.postimg.cc/zDM8cvxY/C2766isinevidence.jpg)
Case Closed!
JohnM
-
Thanks for proving me correct when I made the earlier statement "You can't possible be this Stupid".
But I will leave the Readers with this final piece of the puzzle.
In addition of the proof I presented of Lee Harvey Oswald's ownership of the rifle, the exact same rifle that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO box was discovered on the 6th floor of the place Oswald worked, and not forgetting that Oswald had no alibi at the time, was identified in the Sniper's nest Window, then Oswald fled from the scene within a few minutes of committing Murder, then went on to commit more Murder and when Oswald was arrested tried to commit even more Murder!
(https://i.postimg.cc/zDM8cvxY/C2766isinevidence.jpg)
Case Closed!
JohnM
Thanks for proving me correct when I made the earlier statement "You can't possible be this Stupid".
Yes, you were correct when you said I couldn't possible be this stupid, because I am not. Thumb1:
What exactly have you claimed in this post that you haven't claimed thousands of times before? Are you one of those fools who keeps repeating the same BS time after time and expects a different result?
It's probably futile, but I'll try to dumb it down for you... now sit down, take a deep breath, try to think logically and ignore all the propaganda stuff in your head. Here we go;
the exact same rifle that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO box was discovered on the 6th floor of the place Oswald worked
There is not a shred of conclusive evidence for this claim. Yes, the official narrative says that a rifle with serial number C2766 was found at the TSBD, and it probably was, but there is nothing, I repeat; nothing, that explains conclusively how it got there.
You can post Waldman 7 as often as you like, but the basic fact is that it is a photocopy of an internal document, allegedly found on a micro film confiscated by the FBI on 11/23/63.
There is no chain of custody for the micro film and it didn't surface again until Waldman testified before the WC, several months later. There is no way to authenticate the document. We don't know where it was and who handled it. The only person to "verify" the document, shown during his testimony, as an internal Klein's document, is Waldman, who held a supervisiory position and had no direct involvement in the sales of rifles.
Mr. WALDMAN. Vice president of Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc.
Mr. BELIN. How long have you been with Klein's?
Mr. WALDMAN. Approximately 12 years.
Mr. BELIN. And in your capacity as vice president, what are your general areas of work?
Mr. WALDMAN. Supervising office, warehouse, and retail operations, participating in the merchandising and advertising.
Waldman didn't - and wouldn't have been able to - confirm this was the exact same document that was on the micro film on 11/23/63.
There would have been an easy way to authenticate the document; just get the man who filled the order identify his handwriting and confirm that he filled the order and shipped the rifle. In this instance that would most likely have been Westra, but he is on record in the HSCA files that Klein's did not mount a scope on a 40" MC rifle. Go figure. Could that be the reason why the WC investigators never asked him?
and not forgetting that Oswald had no alibi at the time,
Who said he didn't have an alibi? Oswald was questioned four times before he was killed. We don't know what he said during those interviews, nor do we know what he could have said if he had lived.
was identified in the Sniper's nest Window,
No he wasn't
then Oswald fled from the scene within a few minutes of committing Murder, then went on to commit more Murder and when Oswald was arrested tried to commit even more Murder!
Yeah, that's what the official narrative fairytale tells us, but there is enough reasonable doubt that any of it actually happened. And before you ask, the reasonable doubt starts with the pathetic claim that he "fled from the scene" when we already know that he didn't. He probably did leave the building, but why did he stop to get a coke after allegedly coming down the stairs, when he could have continued walking through the office area on the second floor and out the door? Why did Marion Baker say that Oswald did not seem out of breath or nervous in any way when he confronted him and why did he offer his cab to an elderly lady if he was on the run.
As for him commiting another murder, you can't even provide a conclusive timeline that puts him at 10th street when Tippit was killed.
All this grandstanding might convince a newbie with limited knowledge of this case, but please don't try to sell this same old crap to me.
-
Thanks for proving me correct when I made the earlier statement "You can't possible be this Stupid".
Yes, you were correct when you said I couldn't possible be this stupid, because I am not. Thumb1:
What exactly have you claimed in this post that you haven't claimed thousands of times before? Are you one of those fools who keeps repeating the same BS time after time and expects a different result?
It's probably futile, but I'll try to dumb it down for you... now sit down, take a deep breath, try to think logically and ignore all the propaganda stuff in your head. Here we go;
the exact same rifle that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO box was discovered on the 6th floor of the place Oswald worked
There is not a shred of conclusive evidence for this claim. Yes, the official narrative says that a rifle with serial number C2766 was found at the TSBD, and it probably was, but there is nothing, I repeat; nothing, that explains conclusively how it got there.
You can post Waldman 7 as often as you like, but the basic fact is that it is a photocopy of an internal document, allegedly found on a micro film confiscated by the FBI on 11/23/63.
There is no chain of custody for the micro film and it didn't surface again until Waldman testified before the WC, several months later. There is no way to authenticate the document. We don't know where it was and who handled it. The only person to "verify" the document, shown during his testimony, as an internal Klein's document, is Waldman, who held a supervisiory position and had no direct involvement in the sales of rifles.
Mr. WALDMAN. Vice president of Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc.
Mr. BELIN. How long have you been with Klein's?
Mr. WALDMAN. Approximately 12 years.
Mr. BELIN. And in your capacity as vice president, what are your general areas of work?
Mr. WALDMAN. Supervising office, warehouse, and retail operations, participating in the merchandising and advertising.
Waldman didn't - and wouldn't have been able to - confirm this was the exact same document that was on the micro film on 11/23/63.
There would have been an easy way to authenticate the document; just get the man who filled the order identify his handwriting and confirm that he filled the order and shipped the rifle. In this instance that would most likely have been Westra, but he is on record in the HSCA files that Klein's did not mount a scope on a 40" MC rifle. Go figure. Could that be the reason why the WC investigators never asked him?
and not forgetting that Oswald had no alibi at the time,
Who said he didn't have an alibi? Oswald was questioned four times before he was killed. We don't know what he said during those interviews, nor do we know what he could have said if he had lived.
was identified in the Sniper's nest Window,
No he wasn't
then Oswald fled from the scene within a few minutes of committing Murder, then went on to commit more Murder and when Oswald was arrested tried to commit even more Murder!
Yeah, that's what the official narrative fairytale tells us, but there is enough reasonable doubt that any of it actually happened. And before you ask, the reasonable doubt starts with the pathetic claim that he "fled from the scene" when we already know that he didn't. He probably did leave the building, but why did he stop to get a coke after allegedly coming down the stairs, when he could have continued walking through the office area on the second floor and out the door? Why did Marion Baker say that Oswald did not seem out of breath or nervous in any way when he confronted him and why did he offer his cab to an elderly lady if he was on the run.
As for him commiting another murder, you can't even provide a conclusive timeline that puts him at 10th street when Tippit was killed.
All this grandstanding might convince a newbie with limited knowledge of this case, but please don't try to sell this same old crap to me.
And there you have it in a NUT shell, the very essence of conspiracy, CT's continually misrepresent and/or simply don't understand the evidence, fakery from a variety of unrelated sources and lies from a variety of unrelated sources.
I rest my case!
JohnM
-
And so the question of how that 40” MC rifle got placed on 6th floor of TSBD will have to remain a mystery even after these years 😵💫
-
And so the question of how that 40” MC rifle got placed on 6th floor of TSBD will have to remain a mystery even after these years 😵💫
You've got it, Zeon Thumb1:
-
And there you have it in a NUT shell, the very essence of conspiracy, CT's continually misrepresent and/or simply don't understand the evidence, fakery from a variety of unrelated sources and lies from a variety of unrelated sources.
I rest my case!
JohnM
What evidence did I misrepresent or don't understand exactly? Be precise.....
I rest my case!
What case would that be?
-
And so the question of how that 40” MC rifle got placed on 6th floor of TSBD will have to remain a mystery even after these years 😵💫
Huh? the most logical answer is Oswald took an unplanned trip mid week to Oswald's rifle then Oswald took Oswald's rifle to Oswald's work or some unseen, unconfirmed and still 60 years later unknown conspirators did, your choice but choose wisely.
JohnM
-
Problem is, Mr.Mytton, that the bag doesn’t fit , so you must acquit and it’s even worse than OJ because really there’s dozens of people who have stated Oswald liked JFK and generally approved of JFK so Oswald’s motive questionable than the very strong motive that OJ had.
-
Problem is, Mr.Mytton, that the bag doesn’t fit , so you must acquit and it’s even worse than OJ because really there’s dozens of people who have stated Oswald liked JFK and generally approved of JFK so Oswald’s motive questionable than the very strong motive that OJ had.
What?
The bag does fit.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PrCM0N76/Osw-aldsriflebag.jpg)
The bag contained Oswald's prints.
(https://i.postimg.cc/N0QG02H2/Oswald-s-prints-on-the-bag.jpg)
there’s dozens of people who have stated Oswald liked JFK and generally approved of JFK
Dozens? Name them!
JohnM
-
What?
The bag does fit.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PrCM0N76/Osw-aldsriflebag.jpg)
The bag contained Oswald's prints.
(https://i.postimg.cc/N0QG02H2/Oswald-s-prints-on-the-bag.jpg)
Dozens? Name them!
JohnM
The bag does fit.
Really? A 38" bag for a 40"rifle?
And how can the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry between his armpit and the cup of his hand be 40" long?
The bag contained Oswald's prints.
Did it? If Oswald made that bag at the TSBD his prints would be all over the bag, don't you think? So, why wasn't that the case?
-
Huh? the most logical answer is Oswald took an unplanned trip mid week to Oswald's rifle then Oswald took Oswald's rifle to Oswald's work or some unseen, unconfirmed and still 60 years later unknown conspirators did, your choice but choose wisely.
JohnM
the most logical answer is Oswald took an unplanned trip mid week to Oswald's rifle then Oswald took Oswald's rifle to Oswald's work
Are you drunk?
-
Before this thread is further contaminated, Bump for Zeon!
Problem is, Mr.Mytton, that the bag doesn’t fit , so you must acquit and it’s even worse than OJ because really there’s dozens of people who have stated Oswald liked JFK and generally approved of JFK so Oswald’s motive questionable than the very strong motive that OJ had.
What?
The bag does fit.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PrCM0N76/Osw-aldsriflebag.jpg)
The bag contained Oswald's prints.
(https://i.postimg.cc/N0QG02H2/Oswald-s-prints-on-the-bag.jpg)
there’s dozens of people who have stated Oswald liked JFK and generally approved of JFK
Dozens? Name them!
JohnM
-
Well there’s a thread over at the Education /JFK forum 60 points for conspiracy, where there’s listed about a dozen persons, including people like Oswald’s good friend George DeM , with quotes about how Oswald generally liked JFK.. so I’m not really tech savy on how to cut and paste from that thread to this forum or even if that’s allowed or not.
I’m using internet thru my dumb phone rather than a computer si maybe Mr. W could help me out here and knows how to cut and paste from that other forum thread to help me out here, so that Mr Mytton won’t think im just making this up :)
-
Well there’s a thread over at the Education /JFK forum 60 points for conspiracy, where there’s listed about a dozen persons, including people like Oswald’s good friend George DeM , with quotes about how Oswald generally liked JFK.. so I’m not really tech savy on how to cut and paste from that thread to this forum or even if that’s allowed or not.
I’m using internet thru my dumb phone rather than a computer si maybe Mr. W could help me out here and knows how to cut and paste from that other forum thread to help me out here, so that Mr Mytton won’t think im just making this up :)
where there’s listed about a dozen persons
So we've gone from dozens back to a dozen, Okey dokey.
But even if Oswald thought that at one time the sun shone out of Kennedy's behind, how does that affect Oswald months later?
For instance we know that in the paper just days before the assassination that Kennedy wanted to oust Fidell and we also know that it's most likely that Oswald's alias Hidell" was based on "Fidel"
I think that Oswald's(Hidell) main motivation was his wanting to be accepted as a Marxist and any political leader that spoke ill of Fidel Castro was put on Oswald's hit list, CT's claim that the left Kennedy and the extreme right Walker had no connection but I believe that in Oswald's eyes, what connected Kennedy and Walker was their dislike of the Cuban regime.
Fritz was the one of the last people to spend considerable time with Oswald.
Mr. DULLES. Have you any views of your own as to motive from your talks with him? Did you get any clues as to possible motive in assassinating the President?
Mr. FRITZ. I can only tell you what little I know now. I am sure that we have people in Washington here that can tell far more than I can.
Mr. DULLES. Well, you saw the man and the others didn't see the man.
Mr. FRITZ. I got the impression, I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.
(At this point the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)
Mr. FRITZ. I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing. I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, I think he had--he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that.
Oswald in New Orleans handing out "Hands off Cuba" leaflets
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREIgle_n5Ym3Lqvxrwg9MsOnZBFGg2wBDjTVE5nFQA6LF8x8Q&s)
(https://neworleanshistorical.org/files/fullsize/9838d4cff8e68d9b73e4a4bcf9b9d07a.jpg)
Oswald's "Fair play for Cuba" membership card where he was also the Chapter President.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vByVsPVC/oswald-fair-play-for-cuba-member.jpg)
Three days before Oswald killed Kennedy, there was this newspaper article in the Dallas Times Herald of Kennedy saying that it would be a happy day if the Castro government was ousted.
(https://i.postimg.cc/V6JFJZ6v/WH-Vol26-0053a.gif)
Oswald's personal possessions had a number of positive Castro literature.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MK5mMHNL/oswald-literature.jpg)
A week after the Dallas Herald Times reported that Walker wanted to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba" Oswald ordered his rifle and not long after Oswald took surveillance photos of General Walkers house and a little later Oswald tried to kill General Walker.
In February 1963, Walker joined Billy Hargis on an anti-communist tour named "Operation Midnight Ride".[24] In a speech Walker made on March 5, reported in the Dallas Times Herald, he called on the United States military to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba."[25] Seven days later, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a Carcano rifle by mail, using the alias "A. Hidell".[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQ822SnJYZCpzMys89HFCy5YUyGSz8wNb3-gg&usqp=CAU)
Just my 2 cents, but do the Math!
JohnM
-
Ok, then for Oswalds motive , it’s a combination of failure and disappointment to reconcile his marriage PLUS a feeling of betrayal? perceiving JFK having apparently reversed his position about cooperation with USSR with a newspaper report?
So basically Oswald just lost all hope at this point in time which then turned to anger at the JFK whom Oswald had perhaps at one time admired only to perceive JFK at the later time after presumably Oswald reading the paper, that JFK was just the same as Walker, ie.. just another Fascist whom should be shot?
Maybe… if he was Bipolar / schizophrenic which there’s some plausibility to that but just do not have any science like Royal s team to prove it just yet :)
-
Ok, then for Oswalds motive , it’s a combination of failure and disappointment to reconcile his marriage PLUS a feeling of betrayal? perceiving JFK having apparently reversed his position about cooperation with USSR with a newspaper report?
So basically Oswald just lost all hope at this point in time which then turned to anger at the JFK whom Oswald had perhaps at one time admired only to perceive JFK at the later time after presumably Oswald reading the paper, that JFK was just the same as Walker, ie.. just another Fascist whom should be shot?
Maybe… if he was Bipolar / schizophrenic which there’s some plausibility to that but just do not have any science like Royal s team to prove it just yet :)
You can also add that Oswald didn't treasure his life.
1. In Oswald's Historic Diary he admits to attempting suicide.
2. In the Walker Note he indicates that he may die in a shootout with Police.
3. At the Texas Theatre, pulling a out a gun and pulling the trigger on so many armed Police, was a definite attempt of suicide by cop, but luckily the Dallas Police wanted this Son of a Gun alive.
JohnM
-
Ok, then for Oswalds motive , it’s a combination of failure and disappointment to reconcile his marriage PLUS a feeling of betrayal? perceiving JFK having apparently reversed his position about cooperation with USSR with a newspaper report?
So basically Oswald just lost all hope at this point in time which then turned to anger at the JFK whom Oswald had perhaps at one time admired only to perceive JFK at the later time after presumably Oswald reading the paper, that JFK was just the same as Walker, ie.. just another Fascist whom should be shot?
Maybe… if he was Bipolar / schizophrenic which there’s some plausibility to that but just do not have any science like Royal s team to prove it just yet :)
If he "liked" JFK so much and was such a political person who kept abreast of political matters, why did he have no interest in what happened to JFK outside the place where he worked? According to all accounts he talked to no co-worker about what happened, he inquired to no one about the events (it was chaos outside the TSBD with people running around) and he showed no interest in listening to the radio or watching TV about news about what happened. Nothing.
He returns to his rooming house where the TV is on providing reports on the assassination. Does he stop and watch it? Talk to Roberts about the latest news? Stay around to find out? No, he leaves to go see a movie.
Again: if he admired JFK and was, as is shown, a political person then why act like this? No interest at all?
As towards his views on JFK and the US. We do have this account from a German visitor who talked with Oswald at a party in February of '63: Volkmar Schmidt.
Schmidt said: "Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy."
Schmidt was interviewed by the FBI shortly after the assassination and never mentions this. So his account is questionable.
Oswald also reportedly complained to the Soviets when he visited their embassy in Mexico City that the US government was after him, that he was being mistreated and that he needed to carry a revolver to protect himself. He said "I am afraid...they'll kill me!!"
The Schmidt quote is here: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/etc/script.html
The Soviet Embassy statement is here: https://archive.org/details/passporttoassass0000nech/page/76/mode/2up?q=terrible
-
If he "liked" JFK so much and was such a political person who kept abreast of political matters, why did he have no interest in what happened to JFK outside the place where he worked? According to all accounts he talked to no co-worker about what happened, he inquired to no one about the events (it was chaos outside the TSBD with people running around) and he showed no interest in listening to the radio or watching TV about news about what happened. Nothing.
Outstanding Steve, a brilliant irrefutable observation.
And we know where Oswald was, Oswald was on the 6th floor in his Sniper's Nest, aiming his rifle at Kennedy's head and pulling the trigger.
JohnM
-
The Department Number 358 isn't a specific Department within the Kliens warehouse
Nobody said it was, except you of course...
but is a code which applied to every product ordered on that unique Kleins Advertisement,
You can try to muddy the water as much as you like, but the Department Number identified the magazine where the coupon came from. That, in turn, identified the exact item ordered.
Who said that Klein's used the department number on the ad to identify a particular item? No one from Klein's claimed that. Nor does the department number appear on the Waldman exhibit 7 order form, although the C20-T750 code does.
This is another case where you simply suppose something must work a certain way because you want to believe it so, and have run out any other arguments to make your dream-world work.
-
Who said that Klein's used the department number on the ad to identify a particular item? No one from Klein's claimed that. Nor does the department number appear on the Waldman exhibit 7 order form, although the C20-T750 code does.
This is another case where you simply suppose something must work a certain way because you want to believe it so, and have run out any other arguments to make your dream-world work.
Hi Mitch, check your messages.
JohnM
-
Hi Mitch, check your messages.
JohnM
OK. It's faint enough in the versions I'm looking at that I can't tell if it's supposed to be "358" or "633" or maybe something else, even with glasses. Even if it is 358, it's set off by itself, and not associated with the C20-T750 order code the way the other identifiers like the control number, item description, and serial number are. As such, it still doesn't give any real credence to the idea that it's some sort of extension to the catalog number. If Klein's really thought that the 36" and 40" rifles were different things, they wouldn't have had the two sizes sharing the same order number. And, if Klein's didn't have any 36" rifles available, "358" is meaningless as some kind of disambiguator. They may have simply fulfilled the order with what they had, figuring that the people buying these things weren't liable to be the type to be picky about the exact length. They just wanted a serviceable rifle cheap, cheap, cheap, and there would be few complaints. Those who did object could then be given the choice of sending it back for a refund or exchange with a 36" model, but they not be many. I've seen this kind of thinking on both ends of the exchange before.
-
OK. It's faint enough in the versions I'm looking at that I can't tell if it's supposed to be "358" or "633" or maybe something else, even with glasses. Even if it is 358, it's set off by itself, and not associated with the C20-T750 order code the way the other identifiers like the control number, item description, and serial number are. As such, it still doesn't give any real credence to the idea that it's some sort of extension to the catalog number. If Klein's really thought that the 36" and 40" rifles were different things, they wouldn't have had the two sizes sharing the same order number. And, if Klein's didn't have any 36" rifles available, "358" is meaningless as some kind of disambiguator. They may have simply fulfilled the order with what they had, figuring that the people buying these things weren't liable to be the type to be picky about the exact length. They just wanted a serviceable rifle cheap, cheap, cheap, and there would be few complaints. Those who did object could then be given the choice of sending it back for a refund or exchange with a 36" model, but they not be many. I've seen this kind of thinking on both ends of the exchange before.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d1bmgb0v/Waldman-7.jpg)
The bottom line is, if Kleins were concerned about sending out two different sized Carcano's they would call one C20-T750 and the other one perhaps C20-T751.
Also worth noting is Kleins were advertising the 36 inch Carcano in Guns Magazine as C20-T50 until July63 which directly conflicted with American Rifleman advertising the 40 inch model from April63 to July63 as C20-T750, which indicates that they didn't give a Royal stuff.
Warehouse staff are not designated to think, they receive an order and go to the appropriate shelf and fill out the order with the given Item Number. To believe that they have to cross reference product item numbers with department numbers across a number differing magazines across a number of months across hundreds of various sporting items just doesn't work in the real World.
The Warehouse staff at Kleins, like Oswald in the Depository would be given orders on a clipboard and would go away and fill them. The following crop of Waldman 7 is all they would be concerned with, which they would write in the serial numbers by hand and then take the product and paperwork to despatch.
(https://i.postimg.cc/YCznYCCF/Waldman7-crop.jpg)
JohnM
-
OK. It's faint enough in the versions I'm looking at that I can't tell if it's supposed to be "358" or "633" or maybe something else, even with glasses. Even if it is 358, it's set off by itself, and not associated with the C20-T750 order code the way the other identifiers like the control number, item description, and serial number are. As such, it still doesn't give any real credence to the idea that it's some sort of extension to the catalog number. If Klein's really thought that the 36" and 40" rifles were different things, they wouldn't have had the two sizes sharing the same order number. And, if Klein's didn't have any 36" rifles available, "358" is meaningless as some kind of disambiguator. They may have simply fulfilled the order with what they had, figuring that the people buying these things weren't liable to be the type to be picky about the exact length. They just wanted a serviceable rifle cheap, cheap, cheap, and there would be few complaints. Those who did object could then be given the choice of sending it back for a refund or exchange with a 36" model, but they not be many. I've seen this kind of thinking on both ends of the exchange before.
If Klein's really thought that the 36" and 40" rifles were different things,
Are you for real? How in the world can you consider a 36" rifle and a 40" rifle to be the same thing?
They may have simply fulfilled the order with what they had, figuring that the people buying these things weren't liable to be the type to be picky about the exact length.
What a load of BS. It only shows the LN desperation to "explain" how a 36" rifle that was ordered somehow morphed into a 40" rifle. It's pathetic. At least the WC was wise enough not to touch the subject. When they took testimony from Waldman, they just ignored the issue all together. Just like they did not show bullet CE399 to Tomlinson when they took his deposition. If you don't ask, you can't get an answer you don't like.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/d1bmgb0v/Waldman-7.jpg)
The bottom line is, if Kleins were concerned about sending out two different sized Carcano's they would call one C20-T750 and the other one perhaps C20-T751.
Also worth noting is Kleins were advertising the 36 inch Carcano in Guns Magazine as C20-T50 until July63 which directly conflicted with American Rifleman advertising the 40 inch model from April63 to July63 as C20-T750, which indicates that they didn't give a Royal stuff.
Warehouse staff are not designated to think, they receive an order and go to the appropriate shelf and fill out the order with the given Item Number. To believe that they have to cross reference product item numbers with department numbers across a number differing magazines across a number of months across hundreds of various sporting items just doesn't work in the real World.
The Warehouse staff at Kleins, like Oswald in the Depository would be given orders on a clipboard and would go away and fill them. The following crop of Waldman 7 is all they would be concerned with, which they would write in the serial numbers by hand and then take the product and paperwork to despatch.
(https://i.postimg.cc/YCznYCCF/Waldman7-crop.jpg)
JohnM
Isn't it just amazing what these LNs are able to do? They can tells us what Oswald was thinking, without having actually known the man or spoken to him. Now, as it turns out they can tell us how Klein's operations worked, without ever having been there and seeing it first hand.
-
Hi Mitch, check your messages.
JohnM
Is there something you said to Todd, to clearly correct him, that you didn't want to share with the forum? I wonder why :D :D :D :D :D
Let me guess, you told him in a PM that he was mistaken because the department number was on the actual coupon, right?
-
Now, as it turns out they can tell us how Klein's operations worked,
Says the man who thinks that the exact same Product Item Number should be differentiated by a magazine coupon? You can't make this up, Hilarious!
JohnM
-
Says the man who thinks that the exact same Product Item Number should be differentiated by a magazine coupon? You can't make this up, Hilarious!
JohnM
Well, clearly, you can make it up, because I never said or thought that.
But now you brought it up, what exactly was the purpose of the different department numbers if it wasn't to differentiate between different products?
-
what exactly was the purpose of the different department numbers if it wasn't to differentiate between different products?
Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrBBm025/Riflead1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTPV3vrB/Kleins-Feb-ad-dept-358.jpg)
JohnM
-
Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrBBm025/Riflead1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTPV3vrB/Kleins-Feb-ad-dept-358.jpg)
JohnM
So, not only did the department number identify the magazine but also the month of the issue in which the (in this case) 36" MC rifle was advertised.
I don't think you can any more specific about which item was ordered by using the item number in combination with the department number!
And that's not all. It also explains how Klein's, in later issues of the magazine, continued with C20-T750 for the 40" rifle, as the department number on the coupon would confirm that a 40" rifle was ordered.
Thanks for clearing that up, John
-
OK. It's faint enough in the versions I'm looking at that I can't tell if it's supposed to be "358" or "633" or maybe something else, even with glasses. Even if it is 358, it's set off by itself, and not associated with the C20-T750 order code the way the other identifiers like the control number, item description, and serial number are. As such, it still doesn't give any real credence to the idea that it's some sort of extension to the catalog number. If Klein's really thought that the 36" and 40" rifles were different things, they wouldn't have had the two sizes sharing the same order number. And, if Klein's didn't have any 36" rifles available, "358" is meaningless as some kind of disambiguator. They may have simply fulfilled the order with what they had, figuring that the people buying these things weren't liable to be the type to be picky about the exact length. They just wanted a serviceable rifle cheap, cheap, cheap, and there would be few complaints. Those who did object could then be given the choice of sending it back for a refund or exchange with a 36" model, but they not be many. I've seen this kind of thinking on both ends of the exchange before.
OK. It's faint enough in the versions I'm looking at that I can't tell if it's supposed to be "358" or "633" or maybe something else, even with glasses. Even if it is 358, it's set off by itself, and not associated with the C20-T750 order code the way the other identifiers like the control number, item description, and serial number are.
So, after John corrected you, you still found the need to continue to argue for argument's sake? How typical of you....
Btw, you do understand/know that there is no control number, item description or serial number on the order form, don't you?
They all are on Waldman 7, which got it's basic information from the order form that only contained the order code and the department number on it.
-
Ok, in that Backyard photo, the rifle Oswald holding is an MC rifle and it looks like it’s probably closer to 40” in length than 36”
And it has a scope.
That’s about all that can be concluded except for maybe some notch detail on the stock that matches with the MC rifle that was mysteriously placed somehow on the 6th floor TSBD so that it would be found at 1:22 pm Nov 22/63.
Now idk what Oswald’s personality was exactly , but if I received a 40” rifle when I ordered by mail a 36” rifle, I’d kinda be angry about that and probably send the rifle back and demand to either get the rifle I wanted or give me my money back.
However, if somebody I knew fairly well (or thought I did) just GAVE me a 40” rifle that THEY had originally ordered as a 36” rifle then I would not care because I’m getting it FREE!
So this is how Oswald could easily have been set up, unbeknownst to him, somebody opened up a fake Oswald PO Box and added the name A..Hidell as a second name. Then they picked up the rifle when it arrived at the mailbox and then they just gave the rifle to the patsy Oswald.
The backyard photo may have been part of the plan or it might have just been coincidence, which none the less worked out well to further set up the patsy..
-
Ok, in that Backyard photo, the rifle Oswald holding is an MC rifle and it looks like it’s probably closer to 40” in length than 36”
And it has a scope.
That’s about all that can be concluded except for maybe some notch detail on the stock that matches with the MC rifle that was mysteriously placed somehow on the 6th floor TSBD so that it would be found at 1:22 pm Nov 22/63.
Now idk what Oswald’s personality was exactly , but if I received a 40” rifle when I ordered by mail a 36” rifle, I’d kinda be angry about that and probably send the rifle back and demand to either get the rifle I wanted or give me my money back.
However, if somebody I knew fairly well (or thought I did) just GAVE me a 40” rifle that THEY had originally ordered as a 36” rifle then I would not care because I’m getting it FREE!
So this is how Oswald could easily have been set up, unbeknownst to him, somebody opened up a fake Oswald PO Box and added the name A..Hidell as a second name. Then they picked up the rifle when it arrived at the mailbox and then they just gave the rifle to the patsy Oswald.
The backyard photo may have been part of the plan or it might have just been coincidence, which none the less worked out well to further set up the patsy..
“So this is how Oswald could easily have been set up, unbeknownst to him, somebody opened up a fake Oswald PO Box and added the name A..Hidell as a second name. Then they picked up the rifle when it arrived at the mailbox and then they just gave the rifle to the patsy Oswald.”
The problem with this thought is the fact the pistol ordered from Seaport Traders by Oswald, using the Hidell alias, was delivered to the exact same Post Office Box using the alias A.J. Hidell as the carcano. The same Hidell alias used by Oswald to order the carcano from Kleins, was used to order the pistol from Seaport Traders.
Tying both these weapons together is the M13 Holster strap used by Oswald as a sling on the carcano. A shoulder strap from the same shoulder holster that was designed for the USAF to hold the Smith and Wesson M13, a 2 1/2” barreled snub nose pistol used by the USAF, a pistol, similar to the Smith and Wesson pistol purchased by Oswald using the Hidell name, this strap was used by Oswald as a sling for the carcano.
=================================
A local L.A. FBI agent was dispatched to question Seaport Traders if they had a record of this revolver, serial number and purchase either through the Oswald or Hidell name.
They did, and furnished the following documentation: an order coupon placed in a magazine with the Hidell name and a shipping manifest through Railway Express (licensed weapon carrier). It was a C.O.D purchase of $29.95, with $10 cash as a down payment, and the remainder to be paid upon delivery.
Further link to Oswald was the P.O. Box 2915, which was opened by him in Dallas in October, 1962.[5]
Oswald’s Revolver (steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com)
===================
Purchase of the revolver[edit]
On October 9, 1962, Lee Harvey Oswald rented post office box number 2915 in Dallas, Texas.[7] On January 27, 1963, Oswald ordered a snub-nosed Smith & Wesson "Victory" Model .38 Special revolver from Seaport Traders of Los Angeles, using the name A. J. Hidell, and his post office box as address, for $29.95 (equivalent to $286 in 2022) plus postage and handling. It was shipped to him C.O.D. by rail on March 20, and due to policies on shipping of pistols to prevent them from being sent to minors, he was required to pick it up directly at the offices of the Railway Express Agency in Dallas.[8][9]
Magazine advertisement through which Oswald purchased the rifle (left column, third from top). The ad photo for a "6.5 Italian Carbine" actually shows a telescopically modified Carcano TS carbine, but by the time of Oswald's order Klein's was shipping the longer Carcano Model 91/38's.
On March 12, 1963, Oswald placed his second mail-order: this time it was for the mentioned "6.5 Italian Carbine" from Klein's Sporting Goods located in Chicago, as advertised in the February 1963 American Rifleman. Using the alias "Alek Hidell", a variation of the "A.J. Hidell" alias employed to purchase the Smith & Wesson pistol five weeks earlier, Oswald purchased the rifle (model not given in the advertisement), complete with an attached new 4x telescopic sight, for $19.95 (equivalent to $190 in 2022) plus $1.50 shipping. (The rifle alone – without the scope – was priced at $12.78.) Like the handgun, this was also shipped to Oswald at his post office box in Dallas, also on March 20. He picked up the rifle on March 2
-
“So this is how Oswald could easily have been set up, unbeknownst to him, somebody opened up a fake Oswald PO Box and added the name A..Hidell as a second name. Then they picked up the rifle when it arrived at the mailbox and then they just gave the rifle to the patsy Oswald.”
The problem with this thought is the fact the pistol ordered from Seaport Traders by Oswald, using the Hidell alias, was delivered to the exact same Post Office Box using the alias A.J. Hidell as the carcano. The same Hidell alias used by Oswald to order the carcano from Kleins, was used to order the pistol from Seaport Traders.
Tying both these weapons together is the M13 Holster strap used by Oswald as a sling on the carcano. A shoulder strap from the same shoulder holster that was designed for the USAF to hold the Smith and Wesson M13, a 2 1/2” barreled snub nose pistol used by the USAF, a pistol, similar to the Smith and Wesson pistol purchased by Oswald using the Hidell name, this strap was used by Oswald as a sling for the carcano.
=================================
A local L.A. FBI agent was dispatched to question Seaport Traders if they had a record of this revolver, serial number and purchase either through the Oswald or Hidell name.
They did, and furnished the following documentation: an order coupon placed in a magazine with the Hidell name and a shipping manifest through Railway Express (licensed weapon carrier). It was a C.O.D purchase of $29.95, with $10 cash as a down payment, and the remainder to be paid upon delivery.
Further link to Oswald was the P.O. Box 2915, which was opened by him in Dallas in October, 1962.[5]
Oswald’s Revolver (steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com)
===================
Purchase of the revolver[edit]
On October 9, 1962, Lee Harvey Oswald rented post office box number 2915 in Dallas, Texas.[7] On January 27, 1963, Oswald ordered a snub-nosed Smith & Wesson "Victory" Model .38 Special revolver from Seaport Traders of Los Angeles, using the name A. J. Hidell, and his post office box as address, for $29.95 (equivalent to $286 in 2022) plus postage and handling. It was shipped to him C.O.D. by rail on March 20, and due to policies on shipping of pistols to prevent them from being sent to minors, he was required to pick it up directly at the offices of the Railway Express Agency in Dallas.[8][9]
Magazine advertisement through which Oswald purchased the rifle (left column, third from top). The ad photo for a "6.5 Italian Carbine" actually shows a telescopically modified Carcano TS carbine, but by the time of Oswald's order Klein's was shipping the longer Carcano Model 91/38's.
On March 12, 1963, Oswald placed his second mail-order: this time it was for the mentioned "6.5 Italian Carbine" from Klein's Sporting Goods located in Chicago, as advertised in the February 1963 American Rifleman. Using the alias "Alek Hidell", a variation of the "A.J. Hidell" alias employed to purchase the Smith & Wesson pistol five weeks earlier, Oswald purchased the rifle (model not given in the advertisement), complete with an attached new 4x telescopic sight, for $19.95 (equivalent to $190 in 2022) plus $1.50 shipping. (The rifle alone – without the scope – was priced at $12.78.) Like the handgun, this was also shipped to Oswald at his post office box in Dallas, also on March 20. He picked up the rifle on March 2
Also, Robert Oswald wrote in his book “Lee” that it is the same post office box that he used in his written correspondence with his brother Lee during that time period.
-
Also, Robert Oswald wrote in his book “Lee” that it is the same post office box that he used in his written correspondence with his brother Lee during that time period.
Even better yet. Now there is supposedly some kind of a question as to who ordered and took possession of the rifle, when the mailbox Oswald used to accept personal mail, is also used to buy not one but two mail order weapons from two completely different companies using the same alias, an alias known to be used by Oswald in New Orleans. It completely staggers the imagination that anyone could even begin to float the idea that he was framed or that it was really Oswald who purchased the rifle.
You must have to leave all self respect and intellect at the door when you decide to believe there was some kind of a conspiracy in this case.
-
Well, clearly, you can make it up, because I never said or thought that.
This is exactly what you've been saying the whole time. And now you claim you didn't say it?
But now you brought it up, what exactly was the purpose of the different department numbers if it wasn't to differentiate between different products?
Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads. If you dig around Klein's ads in different publications, and different issues of each publication, the department number on each ad was unique. And it always appeared on the order blank part. Doing this allowed the marketing department to determine which ads brought in orders, and which did not. In turn, it allowed Klein's (or any other contemporary mail order outfit) to target their advertising spending efficiently.
-
OK. It's faint enough in the versions I'm looking at that I can't tell if it's supposed to be "358" or "633" or maybe something else, even with glasses. Even if it is 358, it's set off by itself, and not associated with the C20-T750 order code the way the other identifiers like the control number, item description, and serial number are.
So, after John corrected you, you still found the need to continue to argue for argument's sake? How typical of you....
Btw, you do understand/know that there is no control number, item description or serial number on the order form, don't you?
They all are on Waldman 7, which got it's basic information from the order form that only contained the order code and the department number on it.
By law, the serial number of the firearm had to be carefully recorded when it was sold. But Kleins sold any number of other items besides firearms --scopes, parkas, canoes, and lord knows what else, that did not require such careful recordkeeping. So the base order form didn't need a specific field for serial number or control number, since those were only used for firearms. But you notice that the stamp/autotype detailing order of a C20-T750 has specific fields for control number and serial number and includes the item description. But not for the ad's "department" number (assuming that's what it is). The department number, if that's indeed what it is, is randomly squeezed into some free space between two lines of text in another section of the order form. It's not associated with the line item representing the rifle.
-
JohnM: Says the man who thinks that the exact same Product Item Number should be differentiated by a magazine coupon? You can't make this up, Hilarious!
Martin: Well, clearly, you can make it up, because I never said or thought that.
Mitch: This is exactly what you've been saying the whole time. And now you claim you didn't say it?
Thumb1:
Yeah, it's pretty crazy. I was going to respond to Martin's game but I could see another pointless argument about semantics where he'll say he never said the precise words "magazine coupon", then once again he'll realize his mistake and backpedal like a man possessed. Rinse wash repeat. Yawn!
JohnM
-
This is exactly what you've been saying the whole time. And now you claim you didn't say it?
Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads. If you dig around Klein's ads in different publications, and different issues of each publication, the department number on each ad was unique. And it always appeared on the order blank part. Doing this allowed the marketing department to determine which ads brought in orders, and which did not. In turn, it allowed Klein's (or any other contemporary mail order outfit) to target their advertising spending efficiently.
Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads.
I don't believe it. How would you even know this? Unless you can actually show evidence for this absurd claim, it's pretty obvious you just made this up. What reason would they have to differentiate between ads?
By law, the serial number of the firearm had to be carefully recorded when it was sold. But Kleins sold any number of other items besides firearms --scopes, parkas, canoes, and lord knows what else, that did not require such careful recordkeeping. So the base order form didn't need a specific field for serial number or control number, since those were only used for firearms. But you notice that the stamp/autotype detailing order of a C20-T750 has specific fields for control number and serial number and includes the item description. But not for the ad's "department" number (assuming that's what it is). The department number, if that's indeed what it is, is randomly squeezed into some free space between two lines of text in another section of the order form. It's not associated with the line item representing the rifle.
By law, the serial number of the firearm had to be carefully recorded when it was sold.
True, and not only that. There needed to be a registration of any weapon being sent in the mail. So, where is that paperwork for the rifle?
But not for the ad's "department" number (assuming that's what it is). The department number, if that's indeed what it is, is randomly squeezed into some free space between two lines of text in another section of the order form. It's not associated with the line item representing the rifle.
More selfserving flawed made up nonsense.
-
1927 — Congress passes the “Nonmailable Firearms Act of 1927, making it illegal to use the U.S. mail to ship “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person.”
A typical rifle would not be considered concealable. Pistols, etc could be sent via private carriers. “Registration of any weapon sent in the mail” wasn’t a part of the legislation.
-
Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads.
I don't believe it. How would you even know this? Unless you can actually show evidence for this absurd claim, it's pretty obvious you just made this up. What reason would they have to differentiate between ads?
Because this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades. If you don't want to believe it, that's not my problem. But, really, I've actually had good acquaintance with people who perform what is now called "analytics" for pre-ecommerce catalog sales, and found out about this independently of my interest in the JFKA. Big ads in national publications weren't cheap, so the advertiser needed a way to know which ads brought in orders and which did not. This, in turn, influenced future advertising buys.
By law, the serial number of the firearm had to be carefully recorded when it was sold.
True, and not only that. There needed to be a registration of any weapon being sent in the mail. So, where is that paperwork for the rifle?
Nope. The only firearms that would need to be registered were/are NFA items like short-barreled (i.e. <16") rifles, machine guns, and silenced weapons. Carcanos did not fall under any of these categories.
But not for the ad's "department" number (assuming that's what it is). The department number, if that's indeed what it is, is randomly squeezed into some free space between two lines of text in another section of the order form. It's not associated with the line item representing the rifle.
More selfserving flawed made up nonsense.
If it was that flawed, you'd be able to point out the flaws in my statement.
-
Because this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades. If you don't want to believe it, that's not my problem. But, really, I've actually had good acquaintance with people who perform what is now called "analytics" for pre-ecommerce catalog sales, and found out about this independently of my interest in the JFKA. Big ads in national publications weren't cheap, so the advertiser needed a way to know which ads brought in orders and which did not. This, in turn, influenced future advertising buys.
Nope. The only firearms that would need to be registered were/are NFA items like short-barreled (i.e. <16") rifles, machine guns, and silenced weapons. Carcanos did not fall under any of these categories.
If it was that flawed, you'd be able to point out the flaws in my statement.
Because this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades.
So you haven't got any evidence and are just making hollow statements... Got it
But, really, I've actually had good acquaintance with people who perform what is now called "analytics" for pre-ecommerce catalog sales, and found out about this independently of my interest in the JFKA. Big ads in national publications weren't cheap, so the advertiser needed a way to know which ads brought in orders and which did not. This, in turn, influenced future advertising buys.
True, but you have not demonstrated that this has anything to do with Klein's. You just assume it has, just like you assume that this was the only purpose of the Department number.
If it was that flawed, you'd be able to point out the flaws in my statement.
My past experiences with you make it clear that it would be futile.
-
Because this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades. If you don't want to believe it, that's not my problem. But, really, I've actually had good acquaintance with people who perform what is now called "analytics" for pre-ecommerce catalog sales, and found out about this independently of my interest in the JFKA. Big ads in national publications weren't cheap, so the advertiser needed a way to know which ads brought in orders and which did not. This, in turn, influenced future advertising buys.
That's right, Mitch. A Dept. No. was merely a unique identifier in the order coupon to identify what magazine the coupon originated from. Sometimes there would instead be a small-sized code in a corner of the order coupon and not in the coupon's mailing address, that did the same thing in terms of tracking.
I wonder if Klein's provided its own ads or simply relied on the art departments of the magazines. The larger magazines had substantial art departments and some would include "free" art for larger ad buyers. If magazines were providing the finished ads, Klein's needed only to sent pictures of new products, and changes in order nos. and prices. The ad department at gun magazines might have a collection of line art or photos of guns they could draw from, so Klein's wouldn't have to send pictures.
Klein's would have to approve a pre-publication printout of their ad. Klein's might only check the changes in order nos. and prices, and any new illustrations, particularly the more-expensive "featured" rifles. They were the bread-and-butter.
-
Because this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades. If you don't want to believe it, that's not my problem. But, really, I've actually had good acquaintance with people who perform what is now called "analytics" for pre-ecommerce catalog sales, and found out about this independently of my interest in the JFKA. Big ads in national publications weren't cheap, so the advertiser needed a way to know which ads brought in orders and which did not. This, in turn, influenced future advertising buys.
That's right, Mitch. A Dept. No. was merely a unique identifier in the order coupon to identify what magazine the coupon originated from. Sometimes there would instead be a small-sized code in a corner of the order coupon and not in the coupon's mailing address, that did the same thing in terms of tracking.
I wonder if Klein's provided its own ads or simply relied on the art departments of the magazines. The larger magazines had substantial art departments and some would include "free" art for larger ad buyers. If magazines were providing the finished ads, Klein's needed only to sent pictures of new products, and changes in order nos. and prices. The ad department at gun magazines might have a collection of line art or photos of guns they could draw from, so Klein's wouldn't have to send pictures.
Klein's would have to approve a pre-publication printout of their ad. Klein's might only check the changes in order nos. and prices, and any new illustrations, particularly the more-expensive "featured" rifles. They were the bread-and-butter.
Yep!
If Kliens wanted each variation of Carcano to have a unique Item Number then they would have easily assigned a unique Item Number, one would be C20-T750 and the other would be C20-T751 or some close variation. Simple as that!
The very thought of the complications of having to cross reference hundreds of Item Numbers with each and every Dept Number across a multitude of Sporting Magazines is a CT's wet pipe dream.
(https://i.postimg.cc/YqYvrtTz/kleins-1965-catalogue.jpg)
Huge 1965, 160 pages sporting goods catalog: rifles and shotguns, gun cabinets, fishing equipment, archery equipment, golfing, etc. etc. Very good condition. Seller Inventory # 020504
https://www.abebooks.com/KLEINS-SPORTING-GOODS-CATALOG-NO-700/30586644077/bd
JohnM
-
Yep!
If Kliens wanted each variation of Carcano to have a unique Item Number then they would have easily assigned a unique Item Number, one would be C20-T750 and the other would be C20-T751 or some close variation. Simple as that!
The very thought of the complications of having to cross reference hundreds of Item Numbers with each and every Dept Number across a multitude of Sporting Magazines is a CT's wet pipe dream.
(https://i.postimg.cc/YqYvrtTz/kleins-1965-catalogue.jpg)
Huge 1965, 160 pages sporting goods catalog: rifles and shotguns, gun cabinets, fishing equipment, archery equipment, golfing, etc. etc. Very good condition. Seller Inventory # 020504
https://www.abebooks.com/KLEINS-SPORTING-GOODS-CATALOG-NO-700/30586644077/bd
JohnM
If Kliens wanted each variation of Carcano to have a unique Item Number then they would have easily assigned a unique Item Number, one would be C20-T750 and the other would be C20-T751 or some close variation. Simple as that!
Classic LN "logic"; "I think what Klein's should have done and since they didn't, my argument is correct". Hilarious!
Never considered the possibility that Klein's had the same Item Number for all Carcano rifles and pin pointed the one that was ordered by the Department number?
The very thought of the complications of having to cross reference hundreds of Item Numbers with each and every Dept Number across a multitude of Sporting Magazines is a CT's wet pipe dream.
Those complications would have also existed if they used the Department number only for the purpose of advertising analysis.
What is still lacking is a credible explanation why Klein's would also copy the Department number on the "Order blank" form, when, as the LNs insist, it has nothing to do with the actual order.
-
If Kliens wanted each variation of Carcano to have a unique Item Number then they would have easily assigned a unique Item Number, one would be C20-T750 and the other would be C20-T751 or some close variation. Simple as that!
Classic LN "logic"; "I think what Klein's should have done and since they didn't, my argument is correct". Hilarious!
Never considered the possibility that Klein's had the same Item Number for all Carcano rifles and pin pointed the one that was ordered by the Department number?
The very thought of the complications of having to cross reference hundreds of Item Numbers with each and every Dept Number across a multitude of Sporting Magazines is a CT's wet pipe dream.
Those complications would have also existed if they used the Department number only for the purpose of advertising analysis.
What is still lacking is a credible explanation why Klein's would also copy the Department number on the "Order blank" form, when, as the LNs insist, it has nothing to do with the actual order.
Give it up Martin, you are starting to look a desperate Fool!
JohnM
-
Was Oswald dumb enough to hand write the fake name A.Hidell, and so stupid as to have that fake name attached to his own real name Oswald P.O.box?
And so retarded as to carry his fake ID on day of the assassination , in his wallet , and drop his wallet at the Tippit scene( or where ever it was eventually found).
Possible alternatives:
A. Oswald shot both JFK and Tiipit and was incredibly that stupid.
B. Oswald shot both JFK and Tippit and thought up this complicated idea of how he could leave evidence in such a way that he would have a good argument that he was set up, In this way , able to get the trial of fame, get exonerated, and write a book and so forth.
C. Oswald was set up before the assassination
D. Oswald was set up immediately after the assassination
If C. Then Oswald could have been partially involved indirectly , was not the JFK shooter but was possibly the Walker shooter, and was paid to deliver a package to the TSBD. The MC rifle and revolver had been given to Oswald by conspirator handlers/ ex BOP CIA possibly whom Oswald may have worked with and may have been seen with ( Sylvia Odios apartment)
D. To set up Oswald after the fact would require post planting MC rifle on the 6th floor TSBD and getting a revolver into the hand of Oswald so that his hand would test positive. Would require making a bag and getting one Oswald palm print on it. A paper trail, and fake ID and PO Box set up within a day or 2. Someone else whom was similar looking to Oswald had to have shot Tippit or else the set up of Oswald post JFK shooting starts just after Oswald shot Tippit out of panic.
-
Was Oswald dumb enough to hand write the fake name A.Hidell, and so stupid as to have that fake name attached to his own real name Oswald P.O.box?
And so retarded as to carry his fake ID on day of the assassination , in his wallet , and drop his wallet at the Tippit scene( or where ever it was eventually found).
Possible alternatives:
A. Oswald shot both JFK and Tiipit and was incredibly that stupid.
B. Oswald shot both JFK and Tippit and thought up this complicated idea of how he could leave evidence in such a way that he would have a good argument that he was set up, In this way , able to get the trial of fame, get exonerated, and write a book and so forth.
C. Oswald was set up before the assassination
D. Oswald was set up immediately after the assassination
If C. Then Oswald could have been partially involved indirectly , was not the JFK shooter but was possibly the Walker shooter, and was paid to deliver a package to the TSBD. The MC rifle and revolver had been given to Oswald by conspirator handlers/ ex BOP CIA possibly whom Oswald may have worked with and may have been seen with ( Sylvia Odios apartment)
D. To set up Oswald after the fact would require post planting MC rifle on the 6th floor TSBD and getting a revolver into the hand of Oswald so that his hand would test positive. Would require making a bag and getting one Oswald palm print on it. A paper trail, and fake ID and PO Box set up within a day or 2. Someone else whom was similar looking to Oswald had to have shot Tippit or else the set up of Oswald post JFK shooting starts just after Oswald shot Tippit out of panic.
There is so much evidence against him that we must conclude he is innocent.
-
Because this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades.
So you haven't got any evidence and are just making hollow statements... Got it
You haven't shown us any evidence that your preferred interpretation is correct, so neither I nor anyone else owes you anything in return. So far, all you've done is make a baseless unsupported claim, then turn around and claim that you never said it.
But, really, I've actually had good acquaintance with people who perform what is now called "analytics" for pre-ecommerce catalog sales, and found out about this independently of my interest in the JFKA. Big ads in national publications weren't cheap, so the advertiser needed a way to know which ads brought in orders and which did not. This, in turn, influenced future advertising buys.
True, but you have not demonstrated that this has anything to do with Klein's. You just assume it has, just like you assume that this was the only purpose of the Department number.
Again, if the department code was used to designate a specific order item, it would show up in the ordered item in the order form with the order code, serial number, control number, etc. and not squeezed between two lines of unrelated text in a different section of the form.
If it was that flawed, you'd be able to point out the flaws in my statement.
My past experiences with you make it clear that it would be futile.
It's only futile for you because you have no argument to make.
-
Give it up Martin, you are starting to look a desperate Fool!
JohnM
So, you can't answer my question? Go it!
-
You haven't shown us any evidence that your preferred interpretation is correct, so neither I nor anyone else owes you anything in return. So far, all you've done is make a baseless unsupported claim, then turn around and claim that you never said it.
Again, if the department code was used to designate a specific order item, it would show up in the ordered item in the order form with the order code, serial number, control number, etc. and not squeezed between two lines of unrelated text in a different section of the form.
It's only futile for you because you have no argument to make.
You haven't shown us any evidence that your preferred interpretation is correct, so neither I nor anyone else owes you anything in return.
Hang on, it was you who said "Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads". It was your claim, not mine!
You also said; "this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades". If that were true, it would be easy for you to prove me wrong, but instead you play the weak "I don't owe you anything in return" card.
The obvious truth is clearly different;
First you claimed falsely that the department number did not appear on the Waldman exhibit 7 order form, which was somehow to prove that Klein's didn't use the department number on the ad to identify a particular item.
Then, after John Mytton obviously told you in a PM that you were wrong, you shifted to "it's faint" (on Waldman 7) and "set off by itself, and not associated with the C20-T750 order code the way the other identifiers like the control number, item description, and serial number are."
You are clearly making stuff up as you go along. I've seen you do this several times before, in other threads. That's why it's such a waste of time to talk to you.
Again, if the department code was used to designate a specific order item, it would show up in the ordered item in the order form with the order code, serial number, control number, etc. and not squeezed between two lines of unrelated text in a different section of the form.
Says who? Regardless of whatever you make up, by way of excuses, the Department number does show up on the Order blank. If Klein's only used it for analysis it would have sufficed to keep the actual order coupons.
-
WC theory is Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor at the SW window and then “escaped” from 6th floor , using the staircase, to be seen IN the 2nd floor lunchroom not later than 90 secs post shots.
That insistence that 90 secs is a fixed time that cannot be exceeded causes a problem due to the witnesses like Garner, Adams, Jackson and Couch.
Adams/Stiles (A/S)left the open window on the 4th floor office not later than 15 sec post shots and more likely 5 secs post shots, such that she and reached the ground floor by 60 secs post shots.
The Dillard photo taken of the TBDS approx 10 sec post shots shows an open window at 4th floor office and there is no one in the window. This is a possible confirmation that A/S did in fact leave the office window by 10 sec post shots.
Dorothy Garner, is a problem, because , she stated she followed A/S “almost immediately” and was “right behind them”
She originally had stated that she “saw” the girls going down, but in an interview with Barry Ernest, she amended that to “heard them” on the stairs.
Never the less, “hearing them” still means that Garner must have exited the 4th floor office door by approx not later than 40 sec post shots to have had a reasonable probability of hearing A/S voices/heels on the staircase , since it would be take about 10 sec more for Garner to walk about another 60 ft to be standing near the the stairs at a west window.
Beyond 50 secs post shots, it’s improbable that Garner would have heard any voices/heels or any other noise on the staircase because of 2 floors of separation and the nature of the dogleg type stair that is NOT a continuous “well” type volume as in a parallel staircase.
Also, there is no way that Garner could have seen Baker/Truly (B/T)ascending up to the 4th floor via the staircase after having just seen A/S leave the office and Garner hearing them going down the stairs when she was standing by the west window near the stairs.
The 60 sec time that Adams estimated of reaching the ground floor therefore is probably correct because that’s the only way that A/S and B/T miss seeing each other and also went down before Garner saw B/T ascending up using the stair.
Bob Jackson and Malcolm Couch are tge other 2 witness who mess up the WC not later than 90 sec absolute time stamp.
Jackson’s WC testimony is that it took approx 3 secs post shots before he saw a rifle sticking out the 6th floor SW window of TSBD.
Jackson then stated he said “I see a gun”, then heard someone (Couch? ) ask “”where” and then Jackson pointed to the SW window and stated “in that window”.
Malcolm Couch was probably the one in the same car with Jackson who had asked “where”
Both Jackson and Couch then saw the rifle slowly withdrawn from the window.(3secs?)
The problem caused here is that this adds an approx extra 15 secs of time required for the 6th floor SW gunman/rifle displayer. to exit out from the barricaded SN. ( via Tom Aleya, the boxes originally barricaded the SN so tightly they had to move the boards to get into the SN).
When added to the time required to double time jog (8ft/sec) across 180 ft distance and while simultaneously wiping prints of the rifle, then hiding the rifle between the rows of boxes, Oswald would likely have started down the stairs until approx 50 secs post shots .
Since it has not been demonstrated that a person could go down the dog leg 18 steps staircase and cross about 20 ft of landing any faster than 10 secs/floor, then Oswald could not have started down the 4th floor staircase any sooner than approx 70 secs post shots.
Therefore Dorothy Garner would have to change her statement about following A/S “ almost immediately “ ( 30 sec or less) to something like “Maybe it was more like about 1 min and 15 secs before I came out of the office.
Even if Garner could change that time, however, Oswald still cannot get to the 2nd floor landing any sooner than approx 85 secs post shots a bit to be IN the 2nd floor lunchroom not later than 90 sec post shots.
Conclusion: To make the WC “escape” via staircase theoretically work , without having to completely ignore or dismiss Garner, Adams , Jackson and Couch, requires 2 changes:
1. Mrs Garners statement of time has to be changed from “almost immediately” or the statement must be interpreted to mean a period of time that was at least 1min 15sec.
2. Baker/Truly have to take slightly longer (about 10 secs more) to reach the 2nd floor lunchroom, so the 90 sec time should be considered only an approximation and not as an absolute maximum as the WC seems to suggest.
-
You haven't shown us any evidence that your preferred interpretation is correct, so neither I nor anyone else owes you anything in return.
Hang on, it was you who said "Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads". It was your claim, not mine!
No sooner did Mytton show that c20-t750 was used for 40" rifles as well as 36" ones, you immediately started to hem and haw that Klein's would have shipped a 36" rifle, based on the department number on the order coupon. That is to say, you started this little diversion. And in support of your assertion, you've given us (drum roll please) ....nothing whatsoever. If you want to claim that the department number would have made a difference in fulfilling the order, it's up to you to make a case for it, instead of the usual empty blurts of hot air you tend to regurgitate.
You also said; "this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades". If that were true, it would be easy for you to prove me wrong, but instead you play the "I don't owe you anything in return".
It's definitely has been argued over for decades, in internet forums, on the old JFKA BBSes, and even in the earlier age when people argued via newsletters glorified into "research journals". I've seen a lot of it, and participated in some.
And, yes, we owe you nothing, since (again) you've signally failed to do anything support your opening assertion to begin with.
The obvious truth is clearly different;
First you claimed falsely that the department number did not appear on the Waldman exhibit 7 order form, which was somehow to prove that Klein's didn't use the department number on the ad to identify a particular item.
Then, after John Mytton obviously told you in a PM that you were wrong, you shifted to "it's faint" (on Waldman 7) and "set off by itself, and not associated with the C20-T750 order code the way the other identifiers like the control number, item description, and serial number are."
You are clearly making stuff up as you go along. I've seen you do this several times before. That's why it's such a waste of time to talk to you.
You're now down to trying to arguing by adverb and sprinkling in "obvious" as a substitute for substantiating your assertions. Like when you falsely claimed that there "needed to be a registration of any weapon being sent in the mail."
Again, if the department code was used to designate a specific order item, it would show up in the ordered item in the order form with the order code, serial number, control number, etc. and not squeezed between two lines of unrelated text in a different section of the form.
Says who? Regardless of whatever you make up, by way of excuses, the Department number does show up on the Order blank. If Klein's only used it for analysis it would have sufficed to keep the actual order coupons.
If Klein's only used it for analysis it would have sufficed to keep the actual order coupons.
Says who? You are clearly making stuff up as you go along.
Anyway, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Klein's did use the department number on the ads to identify a particular stock item and that the number tucked away ion an odd spot on the order form is "358." Now we have a situation where the fulfilment workers in the warehouse have to take the c20-t750 item identifier, then cross reference it against a list of department numbers built from a matrix of publications and months in order to identify the particular item to ship. That situation lends itself to mistakes, like sending a 40" rifle instead of a 36" rifle and vice versa. So, even if we assume that your unsupported assertion is correct, there exists good reason why Oswald would have wound up with a 40" rifle when the ad he ordered from said it was 36".
-
No sooner did Mytton show that c20-t750 was used for 40" rifles as well as 36" ones, you immediately started to hem and haw that Klein's would have shipped a 36" rifle, based on the department number on the order coupon. That is to say, you started this little diversion. And in support of your assertion, you've given us (drum roll please) ....nothing whatsoever. If you want to claim that the department number would have made a difference in fulfilling the order, it's up to you to make a case for it, instead of the usual empty blurts of hot air you tend to regurgitate.
It's definitely has been argued over for decades, in internet forums, on the old JFKA BBSes, and even in the earlier age when people argued via newsletters glorified into "research journals". I've seen a lot of it, and participated in some.
And, yes, we owe you nothing, since (again) you've signally failed to do anything support your opening assertion to begin with.
You're now down to trying to arguing by adverb and sprinkling in "obvious" as a substitute for substantiating your assertions. Like when you falsely claimed that there "needed to be a registration of any weapon being sent in the mail."
If Klein's only used it for analysis it would have sufficed to keep the actual order coupons.
Says who? You are clearly making stuff up as you go along.
Anyway, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Klein's did use the department number on the ads to identify a particular stock item and that the number tucked away ion an odd spot on the order form is "358." Now we have a situation where the fulfilment workers in the warehouse have to take the c20-t750 item identifier, then cross reference it against a list of department numbers built from a matrix of publications and months in order to identify the particular item to ship. That situation lends itself to mistakes, like sending a 40" rifle instead of a 36" rifle and vice versa. So, even if we assume that your unsupported assertion is correct, there exists good reason why Oswald would have wound up with a 40" rifle when the ad he ordered from said it was 36".
Anyway, just for the sake of argument,
Hilarious, all you do is argue for the sake of argument. You've done it before and are desperately trying to do it again.
I'll cut to the end of your usual longwinded yet hollow "arguments" by replying to the last sentence you wrote;
So, even if we assume that your unsupported assertion is correct, there exists good reason why Oswald would have wound up with a 40" rifle when the ad he ordered from said it was 36".
The problem with this is that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that Oswald received any rifle at all.
All you do is rely on Waldman 7 for everything (including alleged postage and receipt of the goods ordered not ordered) except of course for the Department Number, which you can not explain why it is also written on the same document. Isn't it ironic how you first tried (in vain) to make a big deal of the Department Number not being on the order blank? Until, that is, you learned from Mytton that you were wrong and it actually was on the form after all.
So, as long as you can't give a reasonable and credible explanation of the Department Number being on the order blank, I will not take serious anything you have to say. I'm sure you won't mind.
Btw, your utter desperation, and all the speculation that goes along with it, to negate the significance of the Department Number is duly noted. It's petty and pathetic, but noted nevertheless.
But who knows, perhaps you are right and Klein's was just a shabby outfit who would ignore actual orders and sent something else instead. A toy gun perhaps.... ?
-
Anyway, just for the sake of argument,
Hilarious, all you do is argue for the sake of argument. You've done it before and are desperately trying to do it again.
I'll cut to the end of your usual longwinded yet hollow "arguments" by replying to the last sentence you wrote;
So, even if we assume that your unsupported assertion is correct, there exists good reason why Oswald would have wound up with a 40" rifle when the ad he ordered from said it was 36".
The problem with this is that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that Oswald received any rifle at all.
All you do is rely on Waldman 7 for everything (including alleged postage and receipt of the goods ordered not ordered) except of course for the Department Number, which you can not explain why it is also written on the same document. Isn't it ironic how you first tried (in vain) to make a big deal of the Department Number not being on the order blank? Until, that is, you learned from Mytton that you were wrong and it actually was on the form after all.
So, as long as you can't give a reasonable and credible explanation of the Department Number being on the order blank, I will not take serious anything you have to say. I'm sure you won't mind.
Btw, your utter desperation, and all the speculation that goes along with it, to negate the significance of the Department Number is duly noted. It's petty and pathetic, but noted nevertheless.
But who knows, perhaps you are right and Klein's was just a shabby outfit who would ignore actual orders and sent something else instead. A toy gun perhaps.... ?
Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald - Page 209
books.google.com › books (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22*+Oswald+picked+it+up+at+the+post+office+and+brought+it+back+to+his+office+%2C+where+he+showed+it+to+one+of+his+fellow+employees+%2C+Jack+Bowen++%22&sca_esv=584551767&hl=en&tbm=bks&sxsrf=AM9HkKlk8IO7pTZvMowdiOshANq9sFR46Q%3A1700649302429&ei=VtldZYPcGdKiqtsP1oOxyAU&ved=0ahUKEwiD37ustNeCAxVSkWoFHdZBDFkQ4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=%22*+Oswald+picked+it+up+at+the+post+office+and+brought+it+back+to+his+office+%2C+where+he+showed+it+to+one+of+his+fellow+employees+%2C+Jack+Bowen++%22&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIo8BIiogT3N3YWxkIHBpY2tlZCBpdCB1cCBhdCB0aGUgcG9zdCBvZmZpY2UgYW5kIGJyb3VnaHQgaXQgYmFjayB0byBoaXMgb2ZmaWNlICwgd2hlcmUgaGUgc2hvd2VkIGl0IHRvIG9uZSBvZiBoaXMgZmVsbG93IGVtcGxveWVlcyAsIEphY2sgQm93ZW4gICJIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz-books)
Edward Jay Epstein · 1978 · Snippet view
Found inside – Page 209
... the rifle arrived in Dallas . Oswald picked it up at the post office and brought it back to his office , where he showed it to one of his fellow employees , Jack Bowen . Things had not been going well for Oswald at Jaggars- Chiles ...
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/demohr_j.htm
Mr. JENNER. Then, go on. Tell me about it.
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?
Mr. JENNER. You say---
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. A rifle.
Mr. JENNER. A rifle, in the closet?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In the closet, right in the beginning. It wasn't hidden or anything.
Mr. JENNER. Standing up on its butt?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. I show you Commission Exhibit 139. Is that the rifle that you saw?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. It looks very much like it.
Mr. JENNER. And was it standing in the corner of the closet?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. You want me to show you how it was leaning? Make believe I open the closet door this way. And the rifle was leaning something like that.
Mr. JENNER. Right against the wall?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; and the closet was square. I said, what is this?
Mr. JENNER. It was this rifle?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't know. It looks very much like it, because something was dangling over it, and I didn't know what it was. This telescopic sight. Like we had a rifle with us on the road, we just had a smooth thing, nothing attached to it. And I saw something here.
Mr. JENNER. I say your attention was arrested, not only, because when the closet door was opened by Marina you saw the rifle in the closet--you saw a rifle?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. That surprised you, first?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Of course.
Mr. JENNER. And then other things that arrested your attention, as I gather from what you said, is that you saw a telescopic sight?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; but I didn't know what it was.
Mr. JENNER. But your attention was arrested by that fact, because it was something new and strange to you?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. You were accustomed to your husband having weapons?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Well, we had only one rifle on our trip. But my father was a collector of guns, that was his hobby.
Mr. JENNER. And being accustomed to rifles, to the extent you have indicated, you noticed this telescopic lens, because you had not seen a rifle with a telescopic lens on it before? Had you seen a rifle with the bolt action that this has?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No; I didn't ever know. I read it was bolt action but I would not know.
Mr. JENNER. But you did notice this protrusion, the ball sticking out?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No; I don't recall. The only thing there was something on it. It could be that it was the telescopic sight or something, but it was something on the rifle. It was not a smooth, plain rifle. This is for sure.
Mr. JENNER. Now, when you saw that, and being surprised, were you concerned about it?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I just asked what on earth is he doing with a rifle?
Mr. JENNER. What did she say?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. She said, "Oh, he just loves to shoot." I said, "Where on earth does he shoot? Where can he shoot?" When they lived in a little house. "Oh, he goes in the park and he shoots at leaves and things like that." But it didn't strike me too funny, because I personally love skeet shooting. I never kill anything. But I adore to shoot at a target, target shooting.
-
Anyway, just for the sake of argument,
Hilarious, all you do is argue for the sake of argument. You've done it before and are desperately trying to do it again.
I'll cut to the end of your usual longwinded yet hollow "arguments" by replying to the last sentence you wrote;
So, even if we assume that your unsupported assertion is correct, there exists good reason why Oswald would have wound up with a 40" rifle when the ad he ordered from said it was 36".
The problem with this is that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that Oswald received any rifle at all.
All you do is rely on Waldman 7 for everything (including alleged postage and receipt of the goods ordered not ordered) except of course for the Department Number, which you can not explain why it is also written on the same document. Isn't it ironic how you first tried (in vain) to make a big deal of the Department Number not being on the order blank? Until, that is, you learned from Mytton that you were wrong and it actually was on the form after all.
So, as long as you can't give a reasonable and credible explanation of the Department Number being on the order blank, I will not take serious anything you have to say. I'm sure you won't mind.
Btw, your utter desperation, and all the speculation that goes along with it, to negate the significance of the Department Number is duly noted. It's petty and pathetic, but noted nevertheless.
When we subtract all the empty bluster, hot air, sour grapes, ad hominem, and the other junk from your reply, all we're left with is:
"The problem with this is that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that Oswald received any rifle at all" and "All you do is rely on Waldman 7 for everything"
Both of these statement are nothing more than your own attempt to change the subject away from what rifle Klein's would have shipped, now that your assertions died on the vines, and your repeated attempts at creating a smokescreen have failed. Even then, you fail. Waldman ex. 7 is just the filled order blank for C2766, showing that it was sent to "A. Hidell" addressed to Oswald's Post Office box. There is also Waldman Ex. 8, the order coupon and the envelope it arrived in, both bearing handwriting determined to be Oswald's. And the Postal Money order, also with handwriting determined to be Oswald's, and bearing Klein's endorsement on the back. And there are the backyard photographs showing Oswald holding a Carcano with a distinctive defect the same size and the same place as one on C2766. And Marina Oswald testified that Oswald owned a rifle. And did I mention that a Carcano, serial #2766 (same as on Waldman Ex 7) was discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace within an hour of shots being fired from the building? It's much more than just Waldman 7. And he did received a rifle, as shown in the backyard photos and his wife's testimony.
But who knows, perhaps you are right and Klein's was just a shabby outfit who would ignore actual orders and sent something else instead. A toy gun perhaps.... ?
I don't know how it worked in your neck of the woods, but in pre-ecommerce America, ads in the back of magazines had something of a seedy reputation. To the point where "I got it from an ad in the back of a magazine" was something of a precursor punchline to the more modern "I read it on the internet." Ordering from such ads might not result in a total rip off, but one had to expect some amount of disappointment when making such a purchase.
But that would assume that Klein's really would have sent a 36" rifle.
-
When we subtract all the empty bluster, hot air, sour grapes, ad hominem, and the other junk from your reply, all we're left with is:
"The problem with this is that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that Oswald received any rifle at all" and "All you do is rely on Waldman 7 for everything"
Both of these statement are nothing more than your own attempt to change the subject away from what rifle Klein's would have shipped, now that your assertions died on the vines, and your repeated attempts at creating a smokescreen have failed. Even then, you fail. Waldman ex. 7 is just the filled order blank for C2766, showing that it was sent to "A. Hidell" addressed to Oswald's Post Office box. There is also Waldman Ex. 8, the order coupon and the envelope it arrived in, both bearing handwriting determined to be Oswald's. And the Postal Money order, also with handwriting determined to be Oswald's, and bearing Klein's endorsement on the back. And there are the backyard photographs showing Oswald holding a Carcano with a distinctive defect the same size and the same place as one on C2766. And Marina Oswald testified that Oswald owned a rifle. And did I mention that a Carcano, serial #2766 (same as on Waldman Ex 7) was discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace within an hour of shots being fired from the building? It's much more than just Waldman 7. And he did received a rifle, as shown in the backyard photos and his wife's testimony.
I don't know how it worked in your neck of the woods, but in pre-ecommerce America, ads in the back of magazines had something of a seedy reputation. To the point where "I got it from an ad in the back of a magazine" was something of a precursor punchline to the more modern "I read it on the internet." Ordering from such ads might not result in a total rip off, but one had to expect some amount of disappointment when making such a purchase.
But that would assume that Klein's really would have sent a 36" rifle.
Waldman ex. 7 is just the filled order blank for C2766, showing that it was sent to "A. Hidell" addressed to Oswald's Post Office box. There is also Waldman Ex. 8, the order coupon and the envelope it arrived in, both bearing handwriting determined to be Oswald's. And the Postal Money order, also with handwriting determined to be Oswald's, and bearing Klein's endorsement on the back. And there are the backyard photographs showing Oswald holding a Carcano with a distinctive defect the same size and the same place as one on C2766. And Marina Oswald testified that Oswald owned a rifle. And did I mention that a Carcano, serial #2766 (same as on Waldman Ex 7) was discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace within an hour of shots being fired from the building? It's much more than just Waldman 7. And he did received a rifle, as shown in the backyard photos and his wife's testimony.
And there is the same old LN BS again! :D :D :D :D :D
Waldman ex. 7 is just the filled order blank for C2766, showing that it was sent to "A. Hidell" addressed to Oswald's Post Office box.
No it doesn't. It's just a microfilm copy of a document with the Hidell address and a handwritten serial number on it. It does not show anything was actually sent. That's just a flawed assumption.
There is also Waldman Ex. 8, the order coupon and the envelope it arrived in, both bearing handwriting determined to be Oswald's. And the Postal Money order, also with handwriting determined to be Oswald's, and bearing Klein's endorsement on the back.
Even if Oswald did write it, which is debatable, how do these documents prove that Oswald was actually sent and received a rifle? Short answer; it doesn't. It's just another assumption.
And there are the backyard photographs showing Oswald holding a Carcano with a distinctive defect the same size and the same place as one on C2766.
How does a photograph of a man holding a rifle prove that Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald? Again, the short answer is; it doesn't. Just one more assumption. And btw, unless you can show that this alleged "distinctive defect" is exclusive to C2766, you've got nothing.
And Marina Oswald testified that Oswald owned a rifle.
Marina also testified that Oswald went to shoot his rifle at Love field and she failed to identify the rifle when the MC found at the TSBD was shown to her on Friday evening.
Having said that, how does Marina believing that Oswald owned a rifle, prove that Klein's did sent a rifle to Oswald and he received it?
And did I mention that a Carcano, serial #2766 (same as on Waldman Ex 7) was discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace within an hour of shots being fired from the building?
Well, let's also mention that Waldman 7 was never authenticated and the serial number was handwritten on the document, which was taken from a microfilm that was confiscated by the FBI in November 1963, has no chain of custody and didn't surface again until Waldman testified, only to disappear again after that. To authenticate the document, all they had to do is have the actual order filler confirm his handwriting on it. They never did. Instead they had Waldman (who had nothing to do with the gun department) explain the content of the document.
Waldman, who had no first hand knowledge to share, could only make assumptions based on what he saw on the microfilm.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
It's much more than just Waldman 7.
True. It's Waldman 7 and a whole lot of speculative conjecture.
And he did received a rifle, as shown in the backyard photos and his wife's testimony.
Already debunked. The backyard photos show Oswald holding a rifle. They, and Marina's testimony, do not prove he received or owned a rifle.
-
Would LHO have planned to shoot the president, without also planning an escape? Or did he see something happen on Elm Street that caused him to abandon his escape plan and flee the SBD in panic?
After the shooting, LHO behaved in a confused manner. Walking, bus and taxi took him home, where he grabbed a jacket and pistol, which he could easily have taken to work that morning. He had no disguise prepared, but went back out on the street anyway, leading to his tragic encounter with Officer Tippit, and to his later arrest. If LHO was cool and coldhearted enough to murder a president, why did he fall apart afterwards?
The Mortal Error theory -- that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally fired his AR-15 rifle and hit JFK in the head -- may provide an answer.
As the presidential limo continued down Elm Street, LHO was watching thru his telescopic sight. His first shot missed, his second shot hit JFK in the upper back, and, as he was lining up his third shot, he would have seen JFK's skull explode from Hickey's AR-15 shot(s). Instantly, LHO would have known there was another shooter, and that suddenly he was part of something that looked like someone else's assassination plan. He might have felt like a "patsy." The shock of that belief might have sent him into a panic. Thinking he now needed a pistol to defend himself, did he abandon whatever plan he might have prepared, and run helter-skelter for his life?
This is similar to what I've proposed in another thread (2 unrelated plots that day). I suggest that Oswald was merely pulling a stunt, perhaps with blanks.
He panicked because he realised that JFK had actually been shot at or killed and he realised that he would be implicated. Panic stations.
My (unpopular ;D) thread:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3918.0.html
-
...regarding what ever oswald carried you cant prove it was a rifle , in fact your only two witnesses dispute you on this . so you cant prove it was a rifle but you expect me to prove it was curtain rods ? , when exactly did i claim oswald carried curtain rods ? . i can tell you what oswald said he carried , an apple and a sandwich . you can prove the rifle in evidence found at the depository was oswalds , well given that the rifle we were told was ordered was the short 36 inch model and the model in the depository is a long 40 inch model well you already have a problem .
Everybody here seems to get hung up on the length of the package. Don't forget that Oswald could have sneaked the long wooden stock into the TSBD on a previous occasion. Then on the morning of the 23rd, the package contained only the final parts, including the very curtain rail-like barrel section.