JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on June 07, 2023, 08:34:57 AM
-
LNers, CT's and fence sitters alike should read The Warren Commission Report so y'all at least have a basic understanding of how the Commission derived their conclusions because trusting some obscure CT web site will oftentimes not tell you the full story. And of course there is the occasional insignificant mistake which we can all debate within this thread.
The following web site has the WC Report in easily digestible chapters.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/WarrenReport-cover1.jpg/220px-WarrenReport-cover1.jpg)
And as an added bonus the Mary Ferrell web site has the 26 volumes with a useful search function, which is all the evidence that the Commission based their conclusions.
https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1006
(https://d2skn5554g4boz.cloudfront.net/content/images/larger/3359/3359734_1.jpg)
Also, if anyone finds any other helpful website I will add it here, for instance the following compilation of JFK eyewitnesses is especially valuable in quickly finding what someone exactly testified to.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/wit.htm
So basically here it all is, so hopefully there will be no more "iirc" shenanigans and we can all be on an even playing ground, so dig in and hopefully learn something new. ;D
JohnM
-
LNers, CT's and fence sitters alike should read The Warren Commission Report so y'all at least have a basic understanding of how the Commission derived their conclusions because trusting some obscure CT web site will oftentimes not tell you the full story. And of course there is the occasional insignificant mistake which we can all debate within this thread.
The following web site has the WC Report in easily digestible chapters.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/WarrenReport-cover1.jpg/220px-WarrenReport-cover1.jpg)
And as an added bonus the Mary Ferrell web site has the 26 volumes with a useful search function, which is all the evidence that the Commission based their conclusions.
https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1006
(https://d2skn5554g4boz.cloudfront.net/content/images/larger/3359/3359734_1.jpg)
Also, if anyone finds any other helpful website I will add it here, for instance the following compilation of JFK eyewitnesses is especially valuable in quickly finding what someone exactly testified to.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/wit.htm
So basically here it all is, so hopefully there will be no more "iirc" shenanigans and we can all be on an even playing ground, so dig in and hopefully learn something new. ;D
JohnM
I agree that this is a resource that should be the starting point for anyone wanting to learn about the assassination. And thankfully, as you pointed out, it is freely available to anyone who might be inclined. Sadly, there are plenty of people who are predisposed (biased) against the “government” or any of the “authorities” and would never believe a thing from them. Most of these people do not realize that the WC staff (who did the vast majority of the actual investigative work of the WC) were not in the government at that time. Polarized politics and the related accusations tend to reinforce the distrust of authorities. While some of the distrust is due to past questionable behavior of some unscrupulous characters and is justified. A wholesale distrust of everything about the authorities is just paranoia. Being skeptical and questioning the authorities is one thing and is healthy. Outright complete bias against the authorities is another thing and is not healthy.
-
One of the first things I did, 35 years ago, was read the WCR cover to cover. You have to know what it says and what they based their conclusions on to understand the fallacies in their arguments and of those who spout their conclusions as gospel.
-
To LNers, CTers and anyone on the fence about this case, or is just starting to read up about it. It's very important to make sure you read this letter written by the assistant AG the day after Lee Oswald was murdered in the basement of the Dallas police building. And it's important to think of this letter as the preface of a book.
Guess what? You will not find the letter below on a single page of the official Warren Report.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-82555/124-10010-10135/html/124-10010-10135_0002a.htm
Ask yourself something - and let's imagine for a moment - what if a letter like this was written for the following cases?
The Charles Manson case
The Scott Peterson case
The Jeff MacDonald case
What do you think would have happened if the above cases had reached their conclusion only to find such a letter after the fact?
The Warren Report was tainted from the get-go. As the above letter says, all speculation about a conspiracy WAS, indeed, quashed.
It's important, too, to remember that Oswald had NO representation during the entire WC investigation. In other words, his voice was silenced the day Ruby shot him and no one from a legal standpoint was there during the WC investigation to rebut whatever it is they brought up, which makes the above letter highly suspicious because they knew they could get away with just about any "conclusion" they came up with.
I've been interested in this case for 40 years now. Like a lot of folks who think the WC is 100% correct, it's got nothing to do with "not believing our government." I worked for the Federal government myself and until recently was a contractor for the government. My relative works directly for them as well.
No, it's got nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the powers that be back then who knew it would open up a huge can of worms to vigorously and honestly investigate what happened on 11/22. And it doesn't matter how many "blue ribbon panels" were going to be created to investigate what happened, because as the above letter shows, these powers that be has an ulterior motive to come up with the conclusion that was eventually reached in the WC.
EDIT - for further reading. The above letter from Katzenbach was suppressed for 12 years:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files%20Original/S%20Disk/Schweiker%20Report%206-23-76/Item%2012.pdf
-
To LNers, CTers and anyone on the fence about this case, or is just starting to read up about it. It's very important to make sure you read this letter written by the assistant AG the day after Lee Oswald was murdered in the basement of the Dallas police building. And it's important to think of this letter as the preface of a book.
Guess what? You will not find the letter below on a single page of the official Warren Report.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-82555/124-10010-10135/html/124-10010-10135_0002a.htm
Ask yourself something - and let's imagine for a moment - what if a letter like this was written for the following cases?
The Charles Manson case
The Scott Peterson case
The Jeff MacDonald case
What do you think would have happened if the above cases had reached their conclusion only to find such a letter after the fact?
The Warren Report was tainted from the get-go. As the above letter says, all speculation about a conspiracy WAS, indeed, quashed.
It's important, too, to remember that Oswald had NO representation during the entire WC investigation. In other words, his voice was silenced the day Ruby shot him and no one from a legal standpoint was there during the WC investigation to rebut whatever it is they brought up, which makes the above letter highly suspicious because they knew they could get away with just about any "conclusion" they came up with.
I've been interested in this case for 40 years now. Like a lot of folks who think the WC is 100% correct, it's got nothing to do with "not believing our government." I worked for the Federal government myself and until recently was a contractor for the government. My relative works directly for them as well.
No, it's got nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the powers that be back then who knew it would open up a huge can of worms to vigorously and honestly investigate what happened on 11/22. And it doesn't matter how many "blue ribbon panels" were going to be created to investigate what happened, because as the above letter shows, these powers that be has an ulterior motive to come up with the conclusion that was eventually reached in the WC.
EDIT - for further reading. The above letter from Katzenbach was suppressed for 12 years:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files%20Original/S%20Disk/Schweiker%20Report%206-23-76/Item%2012.pdf
If there was a conspiracy and they were trying to cover it up, there would be no way they would commit anything to the written record, that's simply absurd.
By the time the memo was written the facts and evidence that Oswald was guilty and acted alone were abundantly clear, no one was waiting for Oswald to help him escape and with no place to go, Oswald ended up all alone in a public theatre.
After discovering that Kennedy was going to pass right by his building, Oswald on the spur of the moment decided to kill the President, it's as simple as that.
Btw it's almost 60 years later and there is still absolutely no signs of any conspiracy, so history has ironically in fact positively reinforced the original intention of Katzenberg's memo, how about that.
JohnM
-
If there was a conspiracy and they were trying to cover it up, there would be no way they would commit anything to the written record, that's simply absurd.
By the time the memo was written the facts and evidence that Oswald was guilty and acted alone were abundantly clear, no one was waiting for Oswald to help him escape and with no place to go, Oswald ended up all alone in a public theatre.
After discovering that Kennedy was going to pass right by his building, Oswald on the spur of the moment decided to kill the President, it's as simple as that.
Btw it's almost 60 years later and there is still absolutely no signs of any conspiracy, so history has ironically in fact positively reinforced the original intention of Katzenberg's memo, how about that.
JohnM
If there was a conspiracy and they were trying to cover it up, there would be no way they would commit anything to the written record, that's simply absurd.
For once we agree. Except, when you know and understand this, why do you keep on asking for physical evidence of a conspiracy?
Btw it's almost 60 years later and there is still absolutely no signs of any conspiracy, so history has ironically in fact positively reinforced the original intention of Katzenberg's memo, how about that.
How about that? It's BS. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of evidence manipulation and dubious activity that could point to a conspiracy, but you will never accept that.
-
By the time the memo was written the facts and evidence that Oswald was guilty and acted alone were abundantly clear
LOL. What facts and evidence, exactly?
-
There was no obligation for the federal government to investigate this case. The DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt based upon the evidence that had been obtained. If the highest levels of the US government were involved in the assassination, framing of Oswald, and cover up, then the very last thing they would have done is to initiate a voluntary investigation into the matter. That would be absurd. The WC did an outstanding job. If CTer loons want to believe that they didn't keep an open mind and had a preconceived conclusion, maybe they should blame Oswald for leaving so much evidence of his guilt. If the WC was biased toward Oswald, it was because the evidence demonstrates that he was stone cold guilty of this crime. There is no doubt.
-
There was no obligation for the federal government to investigate this case. The DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt based upon the evidence that had been obtained. If the highest levels of the US government were involved in the assassination, framing of Oswald, and cover up, then the very last thing they would have done is to initiate a voluntary investigation into the matter. That would be absurd. The WC did an outstanding job. If CTer loons want to believe that they didn't keep an open mind and had a preconceived conclusion, maybe they should blame Oswald for leaving so much evidence of his guilt. If the WC was biased toward Oswald, it was because the evidence demonstrates that he was stone cold guilty of this crime. There is no doubt.
…maybe they should blame Oswald for leaving so much evidence of his guilt.
Here’s a twist from the late Donald E. Wilkes, a CTer that apparently, and inexplicably, believed all the incriminating evidence somehow means LHO was framed. ::)
One of the mysteries that still surrounds Oswald is why, assuming he was the presidential assassin, he appears to have left behind him, in the words of Melanson, “a trail that any correspondence school gum-shoe could follow... a trail of self-implicating evidence...”
Here are just three examples of Oswald unnecessarily engaging in conduct that either strongly suggested he was guilty of assassinating JFK or made it extremely easy for others to identify him on the day of the assassination. Each example raises the same question: For what possible reason would a presidential assassin act so indescribably doltishly?
First, although it is a little-known fact, Warren Commission documents prove beyond doubt that at the time of his arrest less than two hours after the assassination Oswald was wearing on his left wrist a shiny sterling silver identification bracelet with his name on it! A taxi driver who drove Oswald after the assassination and who happened to make and collect identification bracelets, was deposed by Warren Commission staff and testified about seeing the bracelet when Oswald sat next to him in the cab, and in his deposition a Dallas policeman testified that at the police station he removed from Oswald’s wrist a bracelet with Oswald’s name on it. Therefore, if the Warren Commission was right in proclaiming Oswald to be the single assassin, then this means that when Oswald set out to murder an American president he opted to wear an easy-to-spot bracelet with his name on it and that after the assassination he opted to continue wearing it. This is not only mysterious but unfathomable. Why in the world would a presidential assassin behave in such an astonishingly foolish manner?
Second, the Warren Report says that when Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested he had in his left hip pocket a wallet, which Dallas police seized while he was a prisoner in a police car transporting him to headquarters. In this wallet were valid identification documents in his name as well as two phony identification documents in the name of Alek James Hidell, a fictional person made up by Oswald. The Hidell name was allegedly an alias sometimes used by Oswald. The Report also says that an Italian carbine used to shoot JFK had been ordered by mail by a person who gave his name as “A. Hidell.”
If, therefore, the Warren Commission was right in proclaiming Oswald to be the sole assassin, then this means that Oswald set out to murder the President of the United States while carrying a wallet bearing false identification in the name of the fictional person he had invented and utilized to procure the murder weapon. Once again, a presidential assassin is acting mysteriously and unfathomably.
“f Oswald had ordered the rifle he allegedly used to assassinate the President under the name Hidell,” JFK assassination researcher Hasan Yusuf sensibly asks, “why would he be carrying in his wallet a fake card with a photograph of him (and with the name Hidell on it) on the day of the assassination, when the only purpose it served was to incriminate him?”
Third, the Warren Report says that Lee Harvey Oswald used the Hidell alias to order both a carbine with which he assassinated JFK and a pistol with which he murdered Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit (who was shot after stepping out of his patrol car on a Dallas street around 45 minutes after the presidential assassination), and that when he purchased them Oswald had both weapons delivered to a post office box that he had rented in his own name. Once again, a presidential assassin is behaving mysteriously and unfathomably.
As JFK assassination blogger Bert J. Paulson comments: “The idea that Oswald would order the rifle and the revolver under the Hidell name, but have them delivered to his Post Office box under his real name, is truly absurd and bizarre. Now, obviously, the purpose of using an alias is to conceal the fact that he had purchased the weapons. So why in God’s name would he have them delivered to his P.O. box?”
The most likely answer to questions about why it appears that for no apparent reason Oswald left behind him a swath of incriminating evidence is that he was not the presidential assassin and did not kill police officer Tippit; that instead he was an innocent person being framed by conspirators who intended to make him to be the patsy for both crimes; and that his apparently incriminating behavior was actually an indication of a frame-up. The conspirators, or corrupt police in league with them, could, for example, have planted the false Hidell identification documents Dallas police said they found in Oswald’s arrest wallet.
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=fac_pm (https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=fac_pm)
-
If CTer loons want to believe that they didn't keep an open mind and had a preconceived conclusion, maybe they should blame Oswald for leaving so much evidence of his guilt.
Which “Richard” never seems to be able to specify. Beyond his usual list of unsubstantiated claims.
-
…maybe they should blame Oswald for leaving so much evidence of his guilt.
Here’s a twist from the late Donald E. Wilkes, a CTer that apparently, and inexplicably, believed all the incriminating evidence somehow means LHO was framed. ::)
One of the mysteries that still surrounds Oswald is why, assuming he was the presidential assassin, he appears to have left behind him, in the words of Melanson, “a trail that any correspondence school gum-shoe could follow... a trail of self-implicating evidence...”
Here are just three examples of Oswald unnecessarily engaging in conduct that either strongly suggested he was guilty of assassinating JFK or made it extremely easy for others to identify him on the day of the assassination. Each example raises the same question: For what possible reason would a presidential assassin act so indescribably doltishly?
First, although it is a little-known fact, Warren Commission documents prove beyond doubt that at the time of his arrest less than two hours after the assassination Oswald was wearing on his left wrist a shiny sterling silver identification bracelet with his name on it! A taxi driver who drove Oswald after the assassination and who happened to make and collect identification bracelets, was deposed by Warren Commission staff and testified about seeing the bracelet when Oswald sat next to him in the cab, and in his deposition a Dallas policeman testified that at the police station he removed from Oswald’s wrist a bracelet with Oswald’s name on it. Therefore, if the Warren Commission was right in proclaiming Oswald to be the single assassin, then this means that when Oswald set out to murder an American president he opted to wear an easy-to-spot bracelet with his name on it and that after the assassination he opted to continue wearing it. This is not only mysterious but unfathomable. Why in the world would a presidential assassin behave in such an astonishingly foolish manner?
Second, the Warren Report says that when Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested he had in his left hip pocket a wallet, which Dallas police seized while he was a prisoner in a police car transporting him to headquarters. In this wallet were valid identification documents in his name as well as two phony identification documents in the name of Alek James Hidell, a fictional person made up by Oswald. The Hidell name was allegedly an alias sometimes used by Oswald. The Report also says that an Italian carbine used to shoot JFK had been ordered by mail by a person who gave his name as “A. Hidell.”
If, therefore, the Warren Commission was right in proclaiming Oswald to be the sole assassin, then this means that Oswald set out to murder the President of the United States while carrying a wallet bearing false identification in the name of the fictional person he had invented and utilized to procure the murder weapon. Once again, a presidential assassin is acting mysteriously and unfathomably.
“f Oswald had ordered the rifle he allegedly used to assassinate the President under the name Hidell,” JFK assassination researcher Hasan Yusuf sensibly asks, “why would he be carrying in his wallet a fake card with a photograph of him (and with the name Hidell on it) on the day of the assassination, when the only purpose it served was to incriminate him?”
Third, the Warren Report says that Lee Harvey Oswald used the Hidell alias to order both a carbine with which he assassinated JFK and a pistol with which he murdered Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit (who was shot after stepping out of his patrol car on a Dallas street around 45 minutes after the presidential assassination), and that when he purchased them Oswald had both weapons delivered to a post office box that he had rented in his own name. Once again, a presidential assassin is behaving mysteriously and unfathomably.
As JFK assassination blogger Bert J. Paulson comments: “The idea that Oswald would order the rifle and the revolver under the Hidell name, but have them delivered to his Post Office box under his real name, is truly absurd and bizarre. Now, obviously, the purpose of using an alias is to conceal the fact that he had purchased the weapons. So why in God’s name would he have them delivered to his P.O. box?”
The most likely answer to questions about why it appears that for no apparent reason Oswald left behind him a swath of incriminating evidence is that he was not the presidential assassin and did not kill police officer Tippit; that instead he was an innocent person being framed by conspirators who intended to make him to be the patsy for both crimes; and that his apparently incriminating behavior was actually an indication of a frame-up. The conspirators, or corrupt police in league with them, could, for example, have planted the false Hidell identification documents Dallas police said they found in Oswald’s arrest wallet.
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=fac_pm (https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=fac_pm)
Thanks Charles, I see this all the time, for instance why would Oswald carry the Hidell ID in his wallet because it looks like this Professor with 40 years of teaching experience seems to be saying, "it doesn't make sense because I wouldn't do that" but is that how the real World works?
I watched a Youtube video recently and some young guy stabbed his girlfriend over 100 times and tried to get away with it but there was a trail of clues that led straight to him, like front door videos, traces of blood in his drains and his knife was missing from it's holder. Now one could ask why didn't he throw away the knife holder or why didn't he clean his drains more thoroughly but he didn't and he got busted, I reckon while high on adrenaline he had a hundred ideas of what he should do and probably did the obvious stuff like washing his clothes and hiding the knife but he simply forgot or never realized about other pieces of potential evidence.
In Oswald's case on why he had the Hidell ID in his wallet, that could equally be explained in numerous ways, like he simply forgot it was there or if he remembered, he planned on using it in case if he was stopped by Police to essentially say that he wasn't Oswald but in fact Alek Hidell.
And another thought is he never cared because he never thought he would get away with it and 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.
JohnM
-
Which “Richard” never seems to be able to specify. Beyond his usual list of unsubstantiated claims.
Maybe and this is just 1 example, perhaps Richard is first waiting for you to substantiate your belief that Oswald's rifle(LOL) was not Oswald's rifle(LOL)??
Kleins microfilm records which were verified by Waldman, show that A J Hidell sent an envelope and coupon wanting an Italian Carcano
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box
Shortly thereafter Oswald was photographed with the exact type and size of Italian Carcano that matched the Italian Carcano in the Backyard photo and which later the HSCA confirmed the rifle were the exact same because of you know "moon craters" etc.
Why was the blanket which contained Oswald rifle(LOL) was empty when searched on the afternoon of the 22nd?
Why an Italian Carcano with the serial number C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's work?
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had attached the 3 same types of thread which made up the shirt which Oswald was arrested in, the prohibitive probability is that they came from the same source.
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had his palmprint as confirmed by Lt Day and later verified by the FBI that the print came from Oswald's rifle(LOL) meaning that Oswald himself touched the rifle
Why Oswald told his interrogators a different story than what Oswald told Frazier about the contents of his long brown package.
And then and most importantly for your credibility, in detail can you explain how and who co-ordinated this massive charade which involved multiple unconnected participants?
Waiting.....
JohnM
-
Thanks Charles, I see this all the time, for instance why would Oswald carry the Hidell ID in his wallet because it looks like this Professor with 40 years of teaching experience seems to be saying, "it doesn't make sense because I wouldn't do that" but is that how the real World works?
I watched a Youtube video recently and some young guy stabbed his girlfriend over 100 times and tried to get away with it but there was a trail of clues that led straight to him, like front door videos, traces of blood in his drains and his knife was missing from it's holder. Now one could ask why didn't he throw away the knife holder or why didn't he clean his drains more thoroughly but he didn't and he got busted, I reckon while high on adrenaline he had a hundred ideas of what he should do and probably did the obvious stuff like washing his clothes and hiding the knife but he simply forgot or never realized about other pieces of potential evidence.
In Oswald's case on why he had the Hidell ID in his wallet, that could equally be explained in numerous ways, like he simply forgot it was there or if he remembered, he planned on using it in case if he was stopped by Police to essentially say that he wasn't Oswald but in fact Alek Hidell.
And another thought is he never cared because he never thought he would get away with it and 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.
JohnM
which indicates that he was fully prepared to commit suicide by cop.
Another indication would be pulling out his revolver under the circumstances that he found himself in at the Texas Theater. If he wanted to “go out in a blaze of glory,” Jack Ruby unwittingly gave him his wish and much more (including a national TV audience)…
-
…maybe they should blame Oswald for leaving so much evidence of his guilt.
Here’s a twist from the late Donald E. Wilkes, a CTer that apparently, and inexplicably, believed all the incriminating evidence somehow means LHO was framed. ::)
One of the mysteries that still surrounds Oswald is why, assuming he was the presidential assassin, he appears to have left behind him, in the words of Melanson, “a trail that any correspondence school gum-shoe could follow... a trail of self-implicating evidence...”
Here are just three examples of Oswald unnecessarily engaging in conduct that either strongly suggested he was guilty of assassinating JFK or made it extremely easy for others to identify him on the day of the assassination. Each example raises the same question: For what possible reason would a presidential assassin act so indescribably doltishly?
First, although it is a little-known fact, Warren Commission documents prove beyond doubt that at the time of his arrest less than two hours after the assassination Oswald was wearing on his left wrist a shiny sterling silver identification bracelet with his name on it! A taxi driver who drove Oswald after the assassination and who happened to make and collect identification bracelets, was deposed by Warren Commission staff and testified about seeing the bracelet when Oswald sat next to him in the cab, and in his deposition a Dallas policeman testified that at the police station he removed from Oswald’s wrist a bracelet with Oswald’s name on it. Therefore, if the Warren Commission was right in proclaiming Oswald to be the single assassin, then this means that when Oswald set out to murder an American president he opted to wear an easy-to-spot bracelet with his name on it and that after the assassination he opted to continue wearing it. This is not only mysterious but unfathomable. Why in the world would a presidential assassin behave in such an astonishingly foolish manner?
Second, the Warren Report says that when Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested he had in his left hip pocket a wallet, which Dallas police seized while he was a prisoner in a police car transporting him to headquarters. In this wallet were valid identification documents in his name as well as two phony identification documents in the name of Alek James Hidell, a fictional person made up by Oswald. The Hidell name was allegedly an alias sometimes used by Oswald. The Report also says that an Italian carbine used to shoot JFK had been ordered by mail by a person who gave his name as “A. Hidell.”
If, therefore, the Warren Commission was right in proclaiming Oswald to be the sole assassin, then this means that Oswald set out to murder the President of the United States while carrying a wallet bearing false identification in the name of the fictional person he had invented and utilized to procure the murder weapon. Once again, a presidential assassin is acting mysteriously and unfathomably.
“f Oswald had ordered the rifle he allegedly used to assassinate the President under the name Hidell,” JFK assassination researcher Hasan Yusuf sensibly asks, “why would he be carrying in his wallet a fake card with a photograph of him (and with the name Hidell on it) on the day of the assassination, when the only purpose it served was to incriminate him?”
Third, the Warren Report says that Lee Harvey Oswald used the Hidell alias to order both a carbine with which he assassinated JFK and a pistol with which he murdered Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit (who was shot after stepping out of his patrol car on a Dallas street around 45 minutes after the presidential assassination), and that when he purchased them Oswald had both weapons delivered to a post office box that he had rented in his own name. Once again, a presidential assassin is behaving mysteriously and unfathomably.
As JFK assassination blogger Bert J. Paulson comments: “The idea that Oswald would order the rifle and the revolver under the Hidell name, but have them delivered to his Post Office box under his real name, is truly absurd and bizarre. Now, obviously, the purpose of using an alias is to conceal the fact that he had purchased the weapons. So why in God’s name would he have them delivered to his P.O. box?”
The most likely answer to questions about why it appears that for no apparent reason Oswald left behind him a swath of incriminating evidence is that he was not the presidential assassin and did not kill police officer Tippit; that instead he was an innocent person being framed by conspirators who intended to make him to be the patsy for both crimes; and that his apparently incriminating behavior was actually an indication of a frame-up. The conspirators, or corrupt police in league with them, could, for example, have planted the false Hidell identification documents Dallas police said they found in Oswald’s arrest wallet.
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=fac_pm (https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=fac_pm)
It's the old "he left so much evidence of his guilt, that we can only conclude he was innocent" argument to paraphrase Maxwell Smart. Completely absurd.
-
There was no obligation for the federal government to investigate this case. The DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt based upon the evidence that had been obtained. If the highest levels of the US government were involved in the assassination, framing of Oswald, and cover up, then the very last thing they would have done is to initiate a voluntary investigation into the matter. That would be absurd. The WC did an outstanding job. If CTer loons want to believe that they didn't keep an open mind and had a preconceived conclusion, maybe they should blame Oswald for leaving so much evidence of his guilt. If the WC was biased toward Oswald, it was because the evidence demonstrates that he was stone cold guilty of this crime. There is no doubt.
There is no doubt.
Really? If that is true, why can't you answer most, if not all, the questions you've been asked in the past?
"The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot is.... that it happened - "Richard Smith" :D :D :D :D
-
Maybe and this is just 1 example, perhaps Richard is first waiting for you to substantiate your belief that Oswald's rifle(LOL) was not Oswald's rifle(LOL)??
Kleins microfilm records which were verified by Waldman, show that A J Hidell sent an envelope and coupon wanting an Italian Carcano
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box
Shortly thereafter Oswald was photographed with the exact type and size of Italian Carcano that matched the Italian Carcano in the Backyard photo and which later the HSCA confirmed the rifle were the exact same because of you know "moon craters" etc.
Why was the blanket which contained Oswald rifle(LOL) was empty when searched on the afternoon of the 22nd?
Why an Italian Carcano with the serial number C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's work?
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had attached the 3 same types of thread which made up the shirt which Oswald was arrested in, the prohibitive probability is that they came from the same source.
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had his palmprint as confirmed by Lt Day and later verified by the FBI that the print came from Oswald's rifle(LOL) meaning that Oswald himself touched the rifle
Why Oswald told his interrogators a different story than what Oswald told Frazier about the contents of his long brown package.
And then and most importantly for your credibility, in detail can you explain how and who co-ordinated this massive charade which involved multiple unconnected participants?
Waiting.....
JohnM
Maybe and this is just 1 example, perhaps Richard is first waiting for you to substantiate your belief that Oswald's rifle(LOL) was not Oswald's rifle(LOL)??
Classic LN BS, wanting somebody to prove a negative.
Kleins microfilm records which were verified by Waldman, show that A J Hidell sent an envelope and coupon wanting an Italian Carcano
Yes, that's what the photocopies of the microfilm (that's now lost) show.
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box
There is no evidence for this. Waldmann claimed that the letters "PP" on one of the documents mean it had been sent but that's hardly conclusive
Shortly thereafter Oswald was photographed with the exact type and size of Italian Carcano that matched the Italian Carcano in the Backyard photo
Of course, if he was photographed with a particular rifle, that same rifle would actually show up in the photograph... :D
Do the photograph(s) prove anything beyond Oswald was holding that rifle when the photo was taken? Nope.... they don't
and which later the HSCA confirmed the rifle were the exact same because of you know "moon craters" etc.
Photocopies and "moon craters".... and that's part of the "mountain of evidence"? Really? :D :D :D :D
Why was the blanket which contained Oswald rifle(LOL) was empty when searched on the afternoon of the 22nd?
Easy. Because there was nothing in it. And since nobody paid any attention to that blanket since late September '63, it could have been empty for quite a while.
Why an Italian Carcano with the serial number C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's work?
Because somebody left it there
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had attached the 3 same types of thread which made up the shirt which Oswald was arrested in, the prohibitive probability is that they came from the same source.
That's actually a good question, as it was never established that Oswald, that morning, was wearing the shirt he was arrested in.
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had his palmprint as confirmed by Lt Day and later verified by the FBI that the print came from Oswald's rifle(LOL) meaning that Oswald himself touched the rifle
Oswald's palmprint didn't show up until about a week after the murder when Lt Day produced an evidence card with that print on in. The FBI examined the rifle during the night after the murder and could not even find a trace of a print or any evidence that a print had been lifted.
Why Oswald told his interrogators a different story than what Oswald told Frazier about the contents of his long brown package.
Did he?
in detail can you explain how and who co-ordinated this massive charade which involved multiple unconnected participants?
LOL Do you want their addresses and social security numbers as ?
Here's an idea, why don't you connect the points you have raised without merely making highly speculative leaps of faith and provide the evidence that connect the dots as well?
-
There is no doubt.
Really? If that is true, why can't you answer most, if not all, the questions you've been asked in the past?
"The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot is.... that it happened - "Richard Smith" :D :D :D :D
That's the example? Wow. If a thing has happened, then there is no need for proof that it happened to reach a conclusion. Much less having to convince a kook. Unreal. Let's say I hit a golf ball and you and I stand and see the ball resting at an exact spot. You argue that the evidence is lacking that the ball landed there. That to prove it, I have to demonstrate to your subjective satisfaction using an impossible standard of proof the velocity that I hit the ball, the wind direction, the rate at which a golf ball rolls and also disprove to your satisfaction various other alternative factors that COULD preclude us from reaching the conclusion that the ball came to rest on the spot where we can see it with our own eyes. None of that is necessary when it has actually happened. That is rabbit hole lunacy. There is no better evidence that something occurred than it occurring. If someone wins the lottery, would you argue that the odds are so great of it happening that they didn't win. Stupidity.
We know from the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and we know that he was seen by Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunchroom. That means he MUST have gone down the stairs because that is the ONLY means for him to have done so in the known timeframe. We know he did so without being seen. Thus, your idiotic analysis of witness movements in an attempt to preclude reaching this conclusion is laughable. No one has to prove anythign to your idiotic satisfaction. It happened. Therefore, we know with certainty that it could happen.
-
That's the example? Wow. If a thing has happened, then there is no need for proof that it happened to reach a conclusion. Much less having to convince a kook. Unreal. Let's say I hit a golf ball and you and I stand and see the ball resting at an exact spot. You argue that the evidence is lacking that the ball landed there. That to prove it, I have to demonstrate to your subjective satisfaction using an impossible standard of proof the velocity that I hit the ball, the wind direction, the rate at which a golf ball rolls and also disprove to your satisfaction various other alternative factors that COULD preclude us from reaching the conclusion that the ball came to rest on the spot where we can see it with our own eyes. None of that is necessary when it has actually happened. That is rabbit hole lunacy. There is no better evidence that something occurred than it occurring. If someone wins the lottery, would you argue that the odds are so great of it happening that they didn't win. Stupidity.
We know from the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 and we know that he was seen by Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunchroom. That means he MUST have gone down the stairs because that is the ONLY means for him to have done so in the known timeframe. We know he did so without being seen. Thus, your idiotic analysis of witness movements in an attempt to preclude reaching this conclusion is laughable. No one has to prove anythign to your idiotic satisfaction. It happened. Therefore, we know with certainty that it could happen.
If a thing has happened, then there is no need for proof that it happened to reach a conclusion.
Really? And how do you know something happened, when you have no evidence that it did happen?
We know from the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30
No we don't know that. For the biggest part of last year you were asked for the evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and you could never produce it. Stop confusing what you believe with actual evidence.
and we know that he was seen by Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
True
That means he MUST have gone down the stairs because that is the ONLY means for him to have done so in the known timeframe.
No, that only MUST be true if you can first show that Oswald was indeed on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. And that's something you simply can not do.
and that, in turn, makes this comment
"The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot is.... that it happened - "Richard Smith" :D :D :D :D
a particularly stupid one!
-
There was no obligation for the federal government to investigate this case. The DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt based upon the evidence that had been obtained. If the highest levels of the US government were involved in the assassination, framing of Oswald, and cover up, then the very last thing they would have done is to initiate a voluntary investigation into the matter. That would be absurd. The WC did an outstanding job. If CTer loons want to believe that they didn't keep an open mind and had a preconceived conclusion, maybe they should blame Oswald for leaving so much evidence of his guilt. If the WC was biased toward Oswald, it was because the evidence demonstrates that he was stone cold guilty of this crime. There is no doubt.
There was no obligation for the federal government to investigate this case. The DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt based upon the evidence that had been obtained.
And Hoover was convinced as well. So, all they now needed to do was to convince the American people. Hence, the Katzenbach memo.
If the highest levels of the US government were involved in the assassination, framing of Oswald, and cover up, then the very last thing they would have done is to initiate a voluntary investigation into the matter.
The explanation for the "investigation" is clearly set out in the Katzenbach memo. And, if the highest lever of the Goverment were involved, they could steer the secret investigation in any direction they wanted, right? So, nothing to lose, everything to gain....
The WC did an outstanding job.
And still they only convinced a minority of the population. Go figure...
-
If a thing has happened, then there is no need for proof that it happened to reach a conclusion.
Really? And how do you know something happened, when you have no evidence that it did happen?
We know from the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30
No we don't know that. For the biggest part of last year you were asked for the evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 and you could never produce it. Stop confusing what you believe with actual evidence.
and we know that he was seen by Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunchroom.
True
That means he MUST have gone down the stairs because that is the ONLY means for him to have done so in the known timeframe.
No, that only MUST be true if you can first show that Oswald was indeed on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. And that's something you simply can not do.
and that, in turn, makes this comment
"The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot is.... that it happened - "Richard Smith" :D :D :D :D
a particularly stupid one!
Whew. Unreal. You know the evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30. It is conclusive unless you require a time machine. The shots were fired at 12:30. Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes. Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired. Oswald's rifle is found on that floor. A long bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the SN. Oswald carried a long bag to work that morning that can't be accounted for in any other way. Oswald had no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting. Your counterargument to this mountain of evidence apparently is that there is no time machine to confirm the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. You imply that all this evidence which derives from numerous sources was potentially all the product of some type of frame up of Oswald. You provide zero credible evidence of this. Just that the possibility exists because no one has access to a time machine to disprove the possibility of fabrication to your subjective satisfaction. And an on and on and on. Lunacy.
How about this? If Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor at 12:30, do you agree that means he took the stairs unnoticed to the 2nd floor? In other words, that was the only way he gets there within the known timeframe. And your idiotic analysis of witness accounts does not preclude him from doing so IF he was on the 6th floor at 12:30? I'm not asking you to agree that he was on the 6th floor at 12:30. Only that my analysis is correct as a point of logic (i.e. if Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 that proves beyond any doubt that he made his way down the stairs to the 2nd floor lunchroom unnoticed). It proves the premise without having to rebut any of your idiotic claims.
-
Maybe and this is just 1 example, perhaps Richard is first waiting for you to substantiate your belief that Oswald's rifle(LOL) was not Oswald's rifle(LOL)??
Classic LN BS, wanting somebody to prove a negative.
Kleins microfilm records which were verified by Waldman, show that A J Hidell sent an envelope and coupon wanting an Italian Carcano
Yes, that's what the photocopies of the microfilm (that's now lost) show.
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box
There is no evidence for this. Waldmann claimed that the letters "PP" on one of the documents mean it had been sent but that's hardly conclusive
Shortly thereafter Oswald was photographed with the exact type and size of Italian Carcano that matched the Italian Carcano in the Backyard photo
Of course, if he was photographed with a particular rifle, that same rifle would actually show up in the photograph... :D
Do the photograph(s) prove anything beyond Oswald was holding that rifle when the photo was taken? Nope.... they don't
and which later the HSCA confirmed the rifle were the exact same because of you know "moon craters" etc.
Photocopies and "moon craters".... and that's part of the "mountain of evidence"? Really? :D :D :D :D
Why was the blanket which contained Oswald rifle(LOL) was empty when searched on the afternoon of the 22nd?
Easy. Because there was nothing in it. And since nobody paid any attention to that blanket since late September '63, it could have been empty for quite a while.
Why an Italian Carcano with the serial number C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's work?
Because somebody left it there
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had attached the 3 same types of thread which made up the shirt which Oswald was arrested in, the prohibitive probability is that they came from the same source.
That's actually a good question, as it was never established that Oswald, that morning, was wearing the shirt he was arrested in.
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had his palmprint as confirmed by Lt Day and later verified by the FBI that the print came from Oswald's rifle(LOL) meaning that Oswald himself touched the rifle
Oswald's palmprint didn't show up until about a week after the murder when Lt Day produced an evidence card with that print on in. The FBI examined the rifle during the night after the murder and could not even find a trace of a print or any evidence that a print had been lifted.
Why Oswald told his interrogators a different story than what Oswald told Frazier about the contents of his long brown package.
Did he?
in detail can you explain how and who co-ordinated this massive charade which involved multiple unconnected participants?
LOL Do you want their addresses and social security numbers as ?
Here's an idea, why don't you connect the points you have raised without merely making highly speculative leaps of faith and provide the evidence that connect the dots as well?
I know it's a public Forum but I specifically asked John to respond and it would have been decent of you to let him go first but I do understand your uncontrollable obsession.
Anyway let's see how YOU answered.
Either C2766 was ordered by Oswald and Kleins sent the rifle to Oswald which ended up on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked, or step by step you allude to;
1. Faked evidence
2. Faked evidence and Waldmann lied
3. Conspirators had Oswald pose with the murder weapon 8 months previous, that's some plan.
4. More fakery and lying experts.
5. A rifle that was in the blanket somehow disappeared?
6. More unseen, unknown conspirators.
7. Conspirators at some point obtained Oswald's shirt and transferred fibres.
8. Lying Police and Lying FBI Experts.
9a. Lying agents
9b. Lying Postal Inspector
9c. Lying Police
Here's an idea, why don't you connect the points you have raised without merely making highly speculative leaps of faith and provide the evidence that connect the dots as well?
The connected dots do indeed lead straight to Oswald whereas out of whole cloth you've invented a narrative which involves a stack of unproven fakery, unseen unknown Conspirators and lies from a multitude of unconnected witnesses?
Thanks for at least trying! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Whew. Unreal. You know the evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30. It is conclusive unless you require a time machine. The shots were fired at 12:30. Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes. Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired. Oswald's rifle is found on that floor. A long bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the SN. Oswald carried a long bag to work that morning that can't be accounted for in any other way. Oswald had no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting. Your counterargument to this mountain of evidence apparently is that there is no time machine to confirm the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. You imply that all this evidence which derives from numerous sources was potentially all the product of some type of frame up of Oswald. You provide zero credible evidence of this. Just that the possibility exists because no one has access to a time machine to disprove the possibility of fabrication to your subjective satisfaction. And an on and on and on. Lunacy.
How about this? If Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor at 12:30, do you agree that means he took the stairs unnoticed to the 2nd floor? In other words, that was the only way he gets there within the known timeframe. And your idiotic analysis of witness accounts does not preclude him from doing so IF he was on the 6th floor at 12:30? I'm not asking you to agree that he was on the 6th floor at 12:30. Only that my analysis is correct as a point of logic (i.e. if Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 that proves beyond any doubt that he made his way down the stairs to the 2nd floor lunchroom unnoticed). It proves the premise without having to rebut any of your idiotic claims.
You know the evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30.
No I don't, because there isn't any. You can regurgitate all your speculation and assumptions as much as you want, it still amounts to anything conclusive.
The shots were fired at 12:30. Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes. Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired. Oswald's rifle is found on that floor. A long bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the SN. Oswald carried a long bag to work that morning that can't be accounted for in any other way. Oswald had no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting. Your counterargument to this mountain of evidence apparently is that there is no time machine to confirm the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.
So, you admit that you base your entire "Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30" argument upon flawed and questionable circumstantial evidence combined with speculation. Oswald worked at the TSBD and his job involved moving boxes, making the fingerprint claim worthless. And you can call it "Oswald's rifle" as much as you like, but that's also an assumption for which you have no evidence. But even if it was indeed his rifle, that still doesn't prove that he was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.
You imply that all this evidence which derives from numerous sources was potentially all the product of some type of frame up of Oswald.
I imply no such thing. What you seem unable to understand is that I don't know what really happened. I hear stories, theories, claims etc but at the end of the day I'm playing devil's advocate to obtain the information I need to reach a conclusion. I'm not claiming there was a conspiracy, nor do I claim Oswald is guilty or innocent and framed. I wasn't there, so I don't know. What stands out for me is that somebody like you, who is convinced that Oswald is guilty, should be able to provide the conclusive evidence of that guilty, but every time I ask a question I get evasion and highly speculative arguments that are nowhere near conclusive.
You provide zero credible evidence of this.
Don't have to. You claimed Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot, so it's up to you to prove that the was on the 6th floor to begin with and did come down the stairs. You can't do either!
How about this? If Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor at 12:30, do you agree that means he took the stairs unnoticed to the 2nd floor? In other words, that was the only way he gets there within the known timeframe.
Not sure about "unnoticed" but, yes, that seems the most likely scenario. If he was on the 6th floor, the stairs would probably have been his only way down to the 2nd floor within the timeframe.
And your idiotic analysis of witness accounts does not preclude him from doing so IF he was on the 6th floor at 12:30?
There is noting idiotic about it, so no! There isn't a great deal of space in the TSBD. The wooden stairs were extremely noisy and somebody running down the stairs would have made a lot of noise. There is, in my mind, no way that Dorothy Garner could have missed him, if he came down the stairs.
I'm not asking you to agree that he was on the 6th floor at 12:30. Only that my analysis is correct as a point of logic (i.e. if Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 that proves beyond any doubt that he made his way down the stairs to the 2nd floor lunchroom unnoticed).
Your "analysis" is perhaps obvious at a superficial level but as a point of logic it certainly doesn't prove anything beyond any doubt. And, no I don't need your childish time machine.
-
I know it's a public Forum but I specifically asked John to respond and it would have been decent of you to let him go first but I do understand your uncontrollable obsession.
Anyway let's see how YOU answered.
Either C2766 was ordered by Oswald and Kleins sent the rifle to Oswald which ended up on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked, or step by step you allude to;
1. Faked evidence
2. Faked evidence and Waldmann lied
3. Conspirators had Oswald pose with the murder weapon 8 months previous, that's some plan.
4. More fakery and lying experts.
5. A rifle that was in the blanket somehow disappeared?
6. More unseen, unknown conspirators.
7. Conspirators at some point obtained Oswald's shirt and transferred fibres.
8. Lying Police and Lying FBI Experts.
9a. Lying agents
9b. Lying Postal Inspector
9c. Lying Police
The connected dots do indeed lead straight to Oswald whereas out of whole cloth you've invented a narrative which involves a stack of unproven fakery, unseen unknown Conspirators and lies from a multitude of unconnected witnesses?
Thanks for at least trying! Thumb1:
JohnM
I know it's a public Forum but I specifically asked John to respond and it would have been decent of you to let him go first
Now, why don't I care?
Either C2766 was ordered by Oswald and Kleins sent the rifle to Oswald which ended up on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked, or step by step you allude to;
1. Faked evidence
Kleins microfilm records which were verified by Waldman, show that A J Hidell sent an envelope and coupon wanting an Italian Carcano
Yes, that's what the photocopies of the microfilm (that's now lost) show.
Where did I mention "faked evidence"
2. Faked evidence and Waldmann lied"
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box
There is no evidence for this. Waldmann claimed that the letters "PP" on one of the documents mean it had been sent but that's hardly conclusive
Where did I say that evidence was faked and Waldmann lied?
3. Conspirators had Oswald pose with the murder weapon 8 months previous, that's some plan.
Shortly thereafter Oswald was photographed with the exact type and size of Italian Carcano that matched the Italian Carcano in the Backyard photo
Of course, if he was photographed with a particular rifle, that same rifle would actually show up in the photograph... :D
Do the photograph(s) prove anything beyond Oswald was holding that rifle when the photo was taken? Nope.... they don't
Setting up somebody can take a long time. That you seem to think it can be done in a couple of days only tells me that you are clueless about what goes on in the real world.
4. More fakery and lying experts.
and which later the HSCA confirmed the rifle were the exact same because of you know "moon craters" etc.
Photocopies and "moon craters".... and that's part of the "mountain of evidence"? Really? :D :D :D :D
I wasn't aware there were experts on "moon craters" on rifle? And what did they lie about?
5. A rifle that was in the blanket somehow disappeared?
Why was the blanket which contained Oswald rifle(LOL) was empty when searched on the afternoon of the 22nd?
Easy. Because there was nothing in it. And since nobody paid any attention to that blanket since late September '63, it could have been empty for quite a while.
Are you sure there was a rifle in that blanket to begin with? And do you believe that nobody but Oswald had access to that alleged rifle?
6. More unseen, unknown conspirators.
Why an Italian Carcano with the serial number C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's work?
Because somebody left it there
So it was a conspirator who left the rifle there? Is that what you are saying?
7. Conspirators at some point obtained Oswald's shirt and transferred fibres.
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had attached the 3 same types of thread which made up the shirt which Oswald was arrested in, the prohibitive probability is that they came from the same source.
That's actually a good question, as it was never established that Oswald, that morning, was wearing the shirt he was arrested in.
If Oswald did change his shirt, can you come up with any logical and plausible argument how fibers from his shirt got on the rifle?
8. Lying Police and Lying FBI Experts.
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had his palmprint as confirmed by Lt Day and later verified by the FBI that the print came from Oswald's rifle(LOL) meaning that Oswald himself touched the rifle
Oswald's palmprint didn't show up until about a week after the murder when Lt Day produced an evidence card with that print on in. The FBI examined the rifle during the night after the murder and could not even find a trace of a print or any evidence that a print had been lifted.
There is no doubt that Lt Day lied, as the WC deleted part of his testimony. I'm not sure which FBI experts are lying, according to you. Are they the folks who examined the rifle within 24 hours after the shooting and found no print or evidence of a print having been lifted, or the ones you claim verified the print later on.
9a. Lying agents
9b. Lying Postal Inspector
9c. Lying Police
Why Oswald told his interrogators a different story than what Oswald told Frazier about the contents of his long brown package.
Did he?
No verbatim recording of what the suspect in the killing of a President said, reports written days later, from memory, sometimes contradicting eachother.
Dallas PD in the early 60's was one of the most corrupt departments, as is demonstrated by the innocence project, yet for a shallow superficial invidual like you they are all truth tellers and can't do anything wrong. Never mind they were caught out in a plethora of evidence manipulation.
The connected dots do indeed lead straight to Oswald whereas out of whole cloth you've invented a narrative which involves a stack of unproven fakery, unseen unknown Conspirators and lies from a multitude of unconnected witnesses?
This only tells me that you are clueless when it comes to connecting dots.
-
This only tells me that you are clueless when it comes to connecting dots.
You clearly don't understand the concept of connecting dots, 1 leads to 2 which leads to 3 and so on till you reach a logical conclusion whereas you have a jumbled mess of unproven facts which leads nowhere. Hahaha!
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E12AQE2-EzVXJaabg/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1597814167665?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=uwGBvHF4Uu9fn0som3O0ilyPOjRl3hNCKuGpqtE2kmw)
JohnM
-
You clearly don't understand the concept of connecting dots, 1 leads to 2 which leads to 3 and so on till you reach a logical conclusion whereas you have a jumbled mess of unproven facts which leads nowhere. Hahaha!
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E12AQE2-EzVXJaabg/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1597814167665?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=uwGBvHF4Uu9fn0som3O0ilyPOjRl3hNCKuGpqtE2kmw)
JohnM
You clearly don't understand the concept of connecting dots, 1 leads to 2 which leads to 3 and so on till you reach a logical conclusion
That's the best you've got? A pathetic gif?
And as for understanding connecting dots, you first need to make sure that the dots are actual dots. You kinda missed that.....
a jumbled mess of unproven facts which leads nowhere. Hahaha!
I actually agree.... the WC report is a collection of assumptions and unproven facts, so I'm glad you agree it leads nowhere Thumb1:
-
Thanks Charles, I see this all the time, for instance why would Oswald carry the Hidell ID in his wallet because it looks like this Professor with 40 years of teaching experience seems to be saying, "it doesn't make sense because I wouldn't do that" but is that how the real World works?
Hilarious, given how much of your “evidence” is “I think a guilty person would act like that”.
And another thought is he never cared because he never thought he would get away with it and 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.
“Walker note”. LOL.
-
Maybe and this is just 1 example, perhaps Richard is first waiting for you to substantiate your belief that Oswald's rifle(LOL) was not Oswald's rifle(LOL)??
Who said that is my belief?
And speaking of lists of unsubstantiated claims…
Kleins microfilm records which were verified by Waldman, show that A J Hidell sent an envelope and coupon wanting an Italian Carcano
“Verified”. LOL.
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO Box
You forgot to provide evidence of any such thing being shipped via the postal service.
Shortly thereafter Oswald was photographed with the exact type and size of Italian Carcano that matched the Italian Carcano in the Backyard photo
You forgot to provide evidence that it was “the exact type and size”.
and which later the HSCA confirmed the rifle were the exact same because of you know "moon craters" etc.
They “confirmed” no such thing.
Why was the blanket which contained Oswald rifle(LOL) was empty when searched on the afternoon of the 22nd?
You forgot to provide evidence that this blanket ever contained the rifle you call “Oswald’s rifle”.
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had attached the 3 same types of thread which made up the shirt which Oswald was arrested in, the prohibitive probability is that they came from the same source.
“Types of thread”. LOL. “Prohibitive probability”. LOL.
Why Oswald's rifle(LOL) had his palmprint as confirmed by Lt Day
You mean a partial palmprint on an index card that turned up a week later.
and later verified by the FBI that the print came from Oswald's rifle(LOL) meaning that Oswald himself touched the rifle
“Verified”. LOL. Hoover wrote a letter and sent a indistinct smudge.
Why Oswald told his interrogators a different story than what Oswald told Frazier about the contents of his long brown package.
Is that supposed to be evidence of something?
And then and most importantly for your credibility, in detail can you explain how and who co-ordinated this massive charade which involved multiple unconnected participants?
Who claimed there was a “massive charade which involved multiple unconnected participants” to explain?
-
Another indication would be pulling out his revolver under the circumstances that he found himself in at the Texas Theater.
Except that “pulling out his revolver” is LNer mythology. McDonald merely said he “went for it” (whatever that means).
-
It's the old "he left so much evidence of his guilt, that we can only conclude he was innocent" argument to paraphrase Maxwell Smart. Completely absurd.
Not nearly as absurd as your “a conspiracy would have done a better job incriminating Oswald, therefore Oswald did it”.
-
Whew. Unreal. You know the evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30. It is conclusive unless you require a time machine. The shots were fired at 12:30. Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes. Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired. Oswald's rifle is found on that floor. A long bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the SN. Oswald carried a long bag to work that morning that can't be accounted for in any other way. Oswald had no credible alibi for the moment of the shooting.
No, because none of these mostly unsubstantiated claims tells you a thing about where Oswald was at 12:30. Wishful thinking is not evidence.
-
You clearly don't understand the concept of connecting dots, 1 leads to 2 which leads to 3 and so on till you reach a logical conclusion whereas you have a jumbled mess of unproven facts which leads nowhere. Hahaha!
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E12AQE2-EzVXJaabg/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1597814167665?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=uwGBvHF4Uu9fn0som3O0ilyPOjRl3hNCKuGpqtE2kmw)
Meanwhile, this is how the WC-faithful go about “connecting the dots”:
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/oswald-dots.jpg)
-
The WC evidence that proves Oswald purchased C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGJpm5Ty/WCReport-0072b.jpg)
The proof Oswald possessed C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCg6tK1j/Osw-ald-s-Backyard-photo-a.jpg)
The HSCA proof that the identifying gouge on C2766 was seen in the backyard photo
(https://i.postimg.cc/Lsrv33VH/Photo-hsca-ex-206.jpg)
A still from the film evidence taken the afternoon of the 22nd proving that C2766 was recovered
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdYfH39K/Rifle-Found-In-TSBDFrom-Alyea-Film.jpg)
Oswald's print on the long brown paper bag found in the sniper's nest
(https://i.postimg.cc/xC444pbh/palm-bag.jpg)
The FBI's proof that the Lt Day print came from C2766
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZnGK71b/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)
A tuft of several fresh, dark blue, gray-black, and orange-yellow cotton fibers was found in a crevice between the butt plate of the Carcano and the wooden stock. The FBI laboratory found that the colors, and even the twist of the fibers, perfectly matched those on the shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. Though such fibers could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald’s shirt.
VBRH
(https://i.postimg.cc/C5ZrbCd0/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
You're welcome.
JohnM
-
We know that a crime was committed at 12:30 using a rifle fired from the 6th floor. That is a fact even most CTer loons can agree upon. Witnesses saw the rifle in the 6th floor window at that moment. Witnesses below that window heard the shots being fired directly above their heads. One TSBD employee left their prints on the SN boxes. Oswald. Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired. Oswald's rifle was found on that floor. Oswald had no credible alibi. Instead he flees the scene. A witness confirms that Oswald was the man with the rifle in that window. These are all cast aside as "assumptions." LOL. These loons are suggesting that a time machine is necessary to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30. There would be no debate at all in other criminal case when the suspect leaves the murder weapon at the scene of the crime. Oswald had an opportunity to explain to the police why his rifle was there. Instead he lies to them and denies ownership of the rifle. Oswald is connected to this rifle in numerous ways from evidence that comes from a variety of different sources. It is a slam dunk of guilt.
-
You're welcome.
JohnM
Did you think your flawed arguments would get any better when you post gifs? :D :D :D :D
-
We know that a crime was committed at 12:30 using a rifle fired from the 6th floor. That is a fact even most CTer loons can agree upon. Witnesses saw the rifle in the 6th floor window at that moment. Witnesses below that window heard the shots being fired directly above their heads. One TSBD employee left their prints on the SN boxes. Oswald. Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired. Oswald's rifle was found on that floor. Oswald had no credible alibi. Instead he flees the scene. A witness confirms that Oswald was the man with the rifle in that window. These are all cast aside as "assumptions." LOL. These loons are suggesting that a time machine is necessary to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30. There would be no debate at all in other criminal case when the suspect leaves the murder weapon at the scene of the crime. Oswald had an opportunity to explain to the police why his rifle was there. Instead he lies to them and denies ownership of the rifle. Oswald is connected to this rifle in numerous ways from evidence that comes from a variety of different sources. It is a slam dunk of guilt.
Wash, rinse and repeat
-
I always find it interesting that the people on here who defend the WR, and I'm sure there are many others as well, keep saying and doing the same old tired thing - it was the gun order or threads or this or that.
There are plenty of other things that contradict the WR's conclusions and if Oswald had been allowed to live and be adequately represented at trial, all of these things would have brought a harsh light on the conclusions.
Even the Wiki page has been vastly improved to show the skepticism of the report's conclusions, yet the same old tried people on here just cannot and will not open up their eyes and minds - even for just a little bit - to see that the report was very flawed. It reminds me of the folks who wave banners around when Trump is visiting and the sign says TRUMP WON 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission
Funny, too, how the same folks here who worship the WR say very little about what another "Blue ribbon panel" concluded - the HSCA in the 70's.
More than anything, here's a nice quote that perfectly fits what's lacking from folks on here:
"Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider." -- Sir Francis Bacon:
-
The WC evidence that proves Oswald purchased C2766.
No, it’s evidence of somebody’s wishful thinking that a couple of block letters on a copy from “missing” microfilm can be conclusively identified.
The proof Oswald possessed C2766.
A photo containing a rifle that has not and cannot be uniquely identified.
The HSCA proof that the identifying gouge on C2766 was seen in the backyard photo
“Identifying gouge”. LOL.
“I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.” - Lyndal Shaneyfelt, 1964
A still from the film evidence taken the afternoon of the 22nd proving that C2766 was recovered
Tells you exactly nothing about what weapon killed the president or who fired it.
Oswald's print on the long brown paper bag found in the sniper's nest
Evidence that this was “found in the sniper’s nest” or had anything to do with a crime: goose egg.
The FBI's proof that the Lt Day print came from C2766
No, that would be another contrived “Mytton” gif. The FBI’s “proof” was a letter from Hoover and a smudge.
A tuft of several fresh, dark blue, gray-black, and orange-yellow cotton fibers
There’s no evidence to determine that they were “fresh” (whatever that even means).
was found in a crevice between the butt plate of the Carcano and the wooden stock. The FBI laboratory found that the colors, and even the twist of the fibers, perfectly matched those on the shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest.
“Perfectly matched” is typical “Mytton” spin. It’s 3 colors in a sample of only 6 or 7 fibers. You can’t match them to any particular shirt to the exclusion of all other objects.
Though such fibers could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald’s shirt.
VBRH
Lawyer weasel words that prove nothing.
-
Funny, too, how the same folks here who worship the WR say very little about what another "Blue ribbon panel" concluded - the HSCA in the 70's.
Hi Michael, you do realize that the HSCA with teams of handwriting experts, photographic experts, medical experts, ballistics experts and etc concluded that;
On the Kennedy assassination, the HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:
1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
So as can be seen The HSCA with advanced scientific techniques had the exact same conclusion of who committed the murder of Kennedy than the Warren Commission, it was only at the 11th hour that flawed dictabelt acoustic evidence apparently showed a missed shot from the front and even then the HSCA said there was only a "high probability".
The HSCA also couldn't find any connection of conspiracy with the Soviets, the Cubans, anti castro Cuban groups, The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the Central Intelligence Agency.
For further research into the flawed dictabelt evidence cab be read here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_Dictabelt_recording
A modern American hero Steve Barber was a vital part of the discovery of the flawed HSCA dictabelt evidence.
And without the flawed dictabelt evidence, the HSCA and the WC came to the exact same conclusion, that Oswald killed Kennedy.
JohnM
-
We know that a crime was committed at 12:30 using a rifle fired from the 6th floor. That is a fact even most CTer loons can agree upon. Witnesses saw the rifle in the 6th floor window at that moment. Witnesses below that window heard the shots being fired directly above their heads. One TSBD employee left their prints on the SN boxes. Oswald. Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired. Oswald's rifle was found on that floor. Oswald had no credible alibi. Instead he flees the scene. A witness confirms that Oswald was the man with the rifle in that window. These are all cast aside as "assumptions." LOL. These loons are suggesting that a time machine is necessary to prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30. There would be no debate at all in other criminal case when the suspect leaves the murder weapon at the scene of the crime. Oswald had an opportunity to explain to the police why his rifle was there. Instead he lies to them and denies ownership of the rifle. Oswald is connected to this rifle in numerous ways from evidence that comes from a variety of different sources. It is a slam dunk of guilt.
And even with a time machine the hardcore conspiracy theorist wouldn't believe their own lying eyes! Hahaha!
It's kinda ironic that Martin uses the phrase of "connect the dots" because that leads to his unknown, unseen conspiracy but the reality is that by connecting the dots it leads straight to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Whenever a list of the incriminating evidence is posted, some Conspiracy Kook goes through 1 by 1 and shows how each piece of rock solid evidence is somehow false because of some reason or another but shouldn't their list of objections be evidence that leads to whoever committed the crime but alas they can never make a connection because their grievances are just a jumbled mess which ultimately leads nowhere!
JohnM
-
And even with a time machine the hardcore conspiracy theorist wouldn't believe their own lying eyes! Hahaha!
It's kinda ironic that Martin uses the phrase of "connect the dots" because that leads to his unknown, unseen conspiracy but the reality is that by connecting the dots it leads straight to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Whenever a list of the incriminating evidence is posted, some Conspiracy Kook goes through 1 by 1 and shows how each piece of rock solid evidence is somehow false because of some reason or another but shouldn't their list of objections be evidence that leads to whoever committed the crime but alas they can never make a connection because their grievances are just a jumbled mess which ultimately leads nowhere!
JohnM
When you start to complain about those nasty non-believers, it usually means that you haven't got a reply to the points that have been raised.
It's kinda ironic that Martin uses the phrase of "connect the dots" because that leads to his unknown, unseen conspiracy but the reality is that by connecting the dots it leads straight to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Which only tells me that you really are clueless about how to understand evidence and connect actual dots.
each piece of rock solid evidence
LOL
Here's a simple question for you, so you can show us you're not as superficial as I believe you are.
What is the photocopy of a microfilm of an order form (in name of Hidell), an envelope and a money order actually "rock solid evidence" of?
Easy question, right? You should be able to answer it, shouldn't you? Go on than....
-
Here's a simple question for you, so you can show us you're not as superficial as I believe you are.
What is the photocopy of a microfilm of an order form (in name of Hidell), an envelope and a money order actually "rock solid evidence" of?
Easy question, right? You should be able to answer it, shouldn't you? Go on than....
Mr. KLEIN - The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?
Mr. MCNALLY - It was; yes.
Mr. KLEIN - And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - That is right.
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/lee-harvey-oswald-1963-money-order-used-to-purchase-the-gun-that-killed-president-john-f-kennedy-peter-ogden-gallery.jpg)
The list of documents from a variety of sources which were used to validate the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. McNally, do you recognize that document?
Mr. MCNALLY - I do.
Mr. KLEIN - Does that document contain a listing of all the documents examined by the panel that were allegedly written or signed by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. MCNALLY - It does.
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. Chairman, at this time I would ask that the documents marked JFK F-478 through JFK F-510 be received as committee exhibits and shown to the witness. I should state for the record these documents are either the originals or the best existing copy of the documents listed on JFK F-399 and were obtained from the Navy Department, the Archives, the committee offices, and the FBI.
Chairman STOKES - Without objection, they may be entered and made part of the record at this point. [Whereupon, JFK exhibits F-478 through F-510 were received.]
JFK EXHIBIT F-478
JFK EXHIBIT F-479
JFK EXHIBIT F-480
JFK EXHIBIT F-481
JFK EXHIBIT F-482
JFK EXHIBIT F-483
JFK EXHIBIT F-484
JFK EXHIBIT F-485
JFK EXHIBIT F-486
JFK EXHIBIT F-487
JFK EXHIBIT F-488
JFK EXHIBIT F-489
JFK EXHIBIT F-490A
JFK EXHIBIT F-490B
JFK EXHIBIT F-491
JFK EXHIBIT F-492
JFK EXHIBIT F-493
JFK EXHIBIT F-494
JFK EXHIBIT F-495
JFK EXHIBIT F-496
JFK EXHIBIT F-497
JFK EXHIBIT F-498
JFK EXHIBIT F-500
JFK EXHIBIT F-501
JFK EXHIBIT F-502
JFK EXHIBIT F-503
JFK EXHIBIT F-504
JFK EXHIBIT F-505
JFK EXHIBIT F-506
JFK EXHIBIT F-507
JFK EXHIBIT F-508
JFK EXHIBIT F-509
JFK EXHIBIT F-510
JohnM
-
Just 1 example, one of the documents the HSCA had was written and signed by Lee Harvey Oswald and therefore verified by Roy Truly.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else you can remember about Lee Harvey Oswald on that day?
Mr. TRULY. She told me she would tell him to come down and see me.
So he came in, introduced himself to me, and I took him in my office and interviewed him. He seemed to be quiet and well mannered.
I gave him an application to fill out, which he did.
Mr. BELIN. Did he fill it out in front of you, or not?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; he did.
JohnM
-
Mr. KLEIN - The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?
Mr. MCNALLY - It was; yes.
Mr. KLEIN - And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - That is right.
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/lee-harvey-oswald-1963-money-order-used-to-purchase-the-gun-that-killed-president-john-f-kennedy-peter-ogden-gallery.jpg)
The list of documents from a variety of sources which were used to validate the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. McNally, do you recognize that document?
Mr. MCNALLY - I do.
Mr. KLEIN - Does that document contain a listing of all the documents examined by the panel that were allegedly written or signed by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. MCNALLY - It does.
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. Chairman, at this time I would ask that the documents marked JFK F-478 through JFK F-510 be received as committee exhibits and shown to the witness. I should state for the record these documents are either the originals or the best existing copy of the documents listed on JFK F-399 and were obtained from the Navy Department, the Archives, the committee offices, and the FBI.
Chairman STOKES - Without objection, they may be entered and made part of the record at this point. [Whereupon, JFK exhibits F-478 through F-510 were received.]
JFK EXHIBIT F-478
JFK EXHIBIT F-479
JFK EXHIBIT F-480
JFK EXHIBIT F-481
JFK EXHIBIT F-482
JFK EXHIBIT F-483
JFK EXHIBIT F-484
JFK EXHIBIT F-485
JFK EXHIBIT F-486
JFK EXHIBIT F-487
JFK EXHIBIT F-488
JFK EXHIBIT F-489
JFK EXHIBIT F-490A
JFK EXHIBIT F-490B
JFK EXHIBIT F-491
JFK EXHIBIT F-492
JFK EXHIBIT F-493
JFK EXHIBIT F-494
JFK EXHIBIT F-495
JFK EXHIBIT F-496
JFK EXHIBIT F-497
JFK EXHIBIT F-498
JFK EXHIBIT F-500
JFK EXHIBIT F-501
JFK EXHIBIT F-502
JFK EXHIBIT F-503
JFK EXHIBIT F-504
JFK EXHIBIT F-505
JFK EXHIBIT F-506
JFK EXHIBIT F-507
JFK EXHIBIT F-508
JFK EXHIBIT F-509
JFK EXHIBIT F-510
JohnM
That doesn't answer the question I asked.
All this shows is that McNally compared the handwriting on the money order with "the documents examined by the panel that were allegedly written or signed by Lee Harvey Oswald".
So, basically, what you have "proven" here is that McNally compared one document allegedly written by Oswald with some other documents allegedly written by Oswald....
I'll make it even more simple for you, shall I? Let's assume that Oswald did indeed write the Kleins' order form and the money order, what exactly does that actually prove?
-
Just 1 example, one of the documents the HSCA had was written and signed by Lee Harvey Oswald and therefore verified by Roy Truly.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else you can remember about Lee Harvey Oswald on that day?
Mr. TRULY. She told me she would tell him to come down and see me.
So he came in, introduced himself to me, and I took him in my office and interviewed him. He seemed to be quiet and well mannered.
I gave him an application to fill out, which he did.
Mr. BELIN. Did he fill it out in front of you, or not?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; he did.
JohnM
Truly was a handwriting expert?
Sorry, couldn't resist. But, for the sake of this conversation, I have already assumed that Oswald did write the Kleins' documents. So, let's move on, shall we?
-
That doesn't answer the question I asked.
All this shows is that McNally compared the handwriting on the money order with "the documents examined by the panel that were allegedly written or signed by Lee Harvey Oswald".
So, basically, what you have "proven" here is that McNally compared one document allegedly written by Oswald with some other documents allegedly written by Oswald....
You're nothing if not predictable, hence the reason I quoted the Truly testimony.
Of course the usage of "allegedly" by McNally was 100% correct because McNally never saw Oswald write any of the documents, I doubt McNally even met Lee Harvey Oswald, so he could only verify that the same documents that were the WC pieces of evidence were written by the same person that wrote or signed Marine documents, Job applications, postal applications, personal letters and etc, which he and his team in fact did do.
You can argue that ALL the documents that verified Oswald's handwriting were faked but I'm not interesting in pursuing such an absurdity.
I'll make it even more simple for you, shall I? Let's assume that Oswald did indeed write the Kleins' order form and the money order, what exactly does that actually prove?
Thank goodness you have some semblance of common sense.
The rifle order from Kleins proves that Oswald ordered the murder weapon under an alias which suggests to me he didn't want Lee Harvey Oswald associated with his purchase, I reckon his initial reasoning was to disassociate himself from the Walker attempted assassination.
Subsequently Oswald was photographed with C2766 proving he received the Kleins order.
Then on the afternoon of the 22nd, the rifle that Oswald bought(C2766) had Oswald's prints and contained fibres which matched Oswald's shirt and was discovered on the 6th floor of his workplace,
Oswald carried a long package to work that day which Oswald said only contained his lunch which contradicts the story Oswald told Frazier.
Oswald immediately flees the building and we both know the rest.
JohnM
-
Truly was a handwriting expert?
Sorry, couldn't resist. But, for the sake of this conversation, I have already assumed that Oswald did write the Kleins' documents. So, let's move on, shall we?
Truly was a handwriting expert?
Truly's handwriting expertise was not required, all Truly could do was say that the Job Application was filled in by Lee Harvey Oswald right in front of him and thus when the document was examined the origin of who wrote it was beyond all doubt.
JohnM
-
Truly's handwriting expertise was not required, all Truly could do was say that the Job Application was filled in by Lee Harvey Oswald right in front of him and thus when the document was examined the origin of who wrote it was beyond all doubt.
JohnM
And you have, of course, evidence that shows that Truly actually identified the actual Job Application and confirmed it was the one Oswald filled out and gave him? Right?
-
And you have, of course, evidence that shows that Truly actually identified the actual Job Application and confirmed it was the one Oswald filled out and gave him? Right?
Huh? The Depository Job Application was filled out right in front of Roy Truly.
Mr. BELIN. Did he fill it out in front of you, or not?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; he did.
Also worth noting is the entirety of the Lee Harvey Oswald written documents that were gathered from a multitude of differing sources including the depository Job Application so they ALL could be compared to the WC evidence, were concluded to be written by the same individual. Thumb1:
Mr. KLEIN - Did the entire panel have an opportunity to view those documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - They did.
Mr. KLEIN - Did the panel members after examining those documents come to any conclusions with respect to those documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - Yes; they did.
Mr. KLEIN - Would you please tell the committee what they concluded.
Mr. MCNALLY - The conclusion of the panel was that the writing on all of these original documents was all done by the, same individual.
A small addition to the above Oswald written documents collection is that the handwriting panel also examined the infamous Hunt letter which was forwarded to a JFKA author in 1975 and concluded that "it stood out, quite frankly, like a sore thumb" thus showing that trying to forge someone's handwriting ain't so easy.
Mr. SAWYER - Were there some of the panel who felt that that Hunt letter was written by the same person as the others were?
Mr. KLEIN - No; we were pretty much in agreement on that; not sure of it, suspicious of that particular document. It stood out, quite frankly, like a sore thumb.
Mr. SAWYER - There was unanimity in the suspicion, I assume?
Mr. MCNALLY - There was.
(https://www.jfk-online.com/mrhunt.jpg)
JohnM
-
There is also no evidence for Oswald, or anybody else, receiving a rifle.
You obviously don't know the evidence.
C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
C2766 was discovered with Oswald's prints on the 6th floor of Oswald's work.
After you have sufficiently proven that you know this evidence then we may proceed but otherwise I'm getting tired of repeating myself, and watching your lacklustre attempts to show conspiracy is just plain boring.
Try harder or perhaps find another hobby.
JohnM
-
You obviously don't know the evidence.
C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
C2766 was discovered with Oswald's prints on the 6th floor of Oswald's work.
After you have sufficiently proven that you know this evidence then we may proceed but otherwise I'm getting tired of repeating myself, and watching your lacklustre attempts to show conspiracy is just plain boring.
Try harder or perhaps find another hobby.
JohnM
You obviously don't know the evidence.
C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
C2766 was discovered with Oswald's prints on the 6th floor of Oswald's work.
Hilarious. Even if all this were true, it still wouldn't be evidence that Oswald or anybody else received a rifle in the post.
C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
There is no evidence that Kleins' posted any rifle. All there is, is Waldmann 7, which had a serial number and the letters "PP" hand written on it. According to Waldmann, "PP" normally means that a package was sent, but there are no postal documents to show this actually happened and Waldmann, who had no direct involvement in the weapons department, had no way of knowing or verifying that the information on Waldmann 7 is actually correct. Even worse, they never even traced the person who wrote the serial nummer and the letters "PP" on the document. Waldmann 7 is the only document that links the serial number C2766 to the Hidell transaction and it was never authenticated.
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
This is simply not true. Nowhere in their reports do they say that the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos is C2766 or CE 139. All they say is that the rifle is similar to the one they photographed in the National Archive.
C2766 was discovered with Oswald's prints on the 6th floor of Oswald's work.
Another distortion of the truth. The FBI examined the rifle found at the TSBD in the night of Friday to Saturday and found no trace of a print or of a print having been lifted.
Only about a week later Lt Day produced an evidence card with a palmprint on it, which he claimed he had lifted from the rifle before sending the weapon to the FBI.
He just had not told anybody (yeah, right) and it's just about impossible to lift a print without leaving zero residue.
How disappointing. So early in the conversation you already show that you confuse actual evidence with assumptions.
It's either that or you have figured out that you don't really have the "rock solid evidence" that you constantly claim you have.
In any case, your total inability of having a normal conversation about the actual evidence clearly demonstrates that you are unable to defend the case against Oswald beyond, rather boringly, repeating the same old talking points regardless of how superficial they are.
Keep running, John
-
You obviously don't know the evidence.
C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
C2766 was discovered with Oswald's prints on the 6th floor of Oswald's work.
Hilarious. Even if all this were true, it still wouldn't be evidence that Oswald or anybody else received a rifle in the post.
Thanks for responding but this is where I stopped reading.
Good luck and may your God be with you.
Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Thanks for responding but this is where I stopped reading.
Good luck and may your God be with you.
Thumb1:
JohnM
Of course you stopped reading. You wouldn't want to get facts in the way of your superficial opinions about what is actually evidence. :D
-
C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
C2766 was discovered with Oswald's prints on the 6th floor of Oswald's work.
JohnM
C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGJpm5Ty/WCReport-0072b.jpg)
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
(https://i.postimg.cc/g29wNLkW/HSCA-rifle-in-backyard-same-as-6th-floor.jpg)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0042a.htm
C2766 was discovered with Oswald's prints on the 6th floor of Oswald's work.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y05SnT73/Rifle-Found-In-TSBDFrom-Alyea-Film.jpg)
The FBI's proof that the Lt Day print came from C2766, thus proving Oswald touched the murder weapon
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZnGK71b/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)
JohnM
-
C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGJpm5Ty/WCReport-0072b.jpg)
Let's deal with this first. How in the world can you find evidence in those documents that a rifle was sent?
All you really have is Waldmann stating that "PP" on Waldmann 7 means that it was shipped by Parcel Post.
Now, just to avoid misunderstandings; that's what Waldmann said the marking on the form means. It does not prove an actual shipment was ever sent.
Let's make this really simple, shall we? Let's say you ordered something at Amazon and paid for it by credit card. However, your order never arrives and you phone Amazon to ask what happened. They tell you you must have received it because the order was definitively shipped as on their paperwork it says "PP". Would you consider that to be a satisfactory response?
-
Whenever a list of the incriminating evidence is posted, some Conspiracy Kook goes through 1 by 1 and shows how each piece of rock solid evidence is somehow false because of some reason or another but shouldn't their list of objections be evidence that leads to whoever committed the crime but alas they can never make a connection because their grievances are just a jumbled mess which ultimately leads nowhere!
Whenever the topic of evidence comes up, some LN Kook rattles off a laundry list of false, inconclusive, unreliable, or unsubstantiated claims and calls it evidence.
-
Even if handwriting “analysis” was reliable, exactly what is the money order supposedly found in Virginia supposed to prove? There’s nothing that connects it to any particular order.
-
The rifle order from Kleins proves that Oswald ordered the murder weapon under an alias which suggests to me he didn't want Lee Harvey Oswald associated with his purchase, I reckon his initial reasoning was to disassociate himself from the Walker attempted assassination.
What you “reckon” isn’t particularly interesting. Or relevant.
Subsequently Oswald was photographed with C2766
LOL.
-
You seem to begin "connecting the dots" by making large jumps of faith...
Bingo. The biggest failing among the WC-faithful is equating imagination and faith to “solid evidence”.
-
C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
There is ZERO evidence of that.
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
This is false. The panel “verified” no such thing.
C2766 was discovered with Oswald's prints on the 6th floor of Oswald's work.
No, there were some prints near the trigger guard that were unsuitable for identification purposes and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.
You obviously don’t know the evidence.
After you have sufficiently proven that you know this evidence then we may proceed but otherwise I'm getting tired of repeating myself, and watching your lacklustre attempts to show conspiracy is just plain boring.
Try harder or perhaps find another hobby.
Maybe you should try something besides parroting the same BS and expecting it to somehow be more convincing.
-
C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
That doesn’t prove that anything was sent anywhere. Repeating the claim doesn’t make it any more true.
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
A conclusion isn’t a “verification”. Repeating the claim doesn’t make it any more true.
The FBI's proof that the Lt Day print came from C2766, thus proving Oswald touched the murder weapon
A contrived “Mytton” gif is not “FBI proof”. Nor have you proven what “the murder weapon” was. Repeating the claim doesn’t make it any more true.
-
John,
A couple of pages back I asked a question in response to one of your claims. You might have missed it, so here it is again;
The rifle order from Kleins proves that Oswald ordered the murder weapon under an alias
Really? So, there is no possible way that he just filled out those forms for a guy he knew as A. Hidell? Remember, in a conspiracy scenario Oswald would have to be manipulated and set up, right?
Can you answer the question, please?
-
John, regarding the HSCA. you're missing the larger point or conclusion of it.
They did conclude there was a "probable conspiracy" in the case. That's what I meant by my previous reply, not the acoustic evidence, which I do think was flawed, too.
Now you're probably going to say, "well, that was neither here nor there." But it's not. It's a conclusion from a so-called blue ribbon panel, just like the WC folks were considered a blue ribbon panel.
In other words, you can't just dismiss one and embrace the other.
-
John, regarding the HSCA. you're missing the larger point or conclusion of it.
They did conclude there was a "probable conspiracy" in the case. That's what I meant by my previous reply, not the acoustic evidence, which I do think was flawed, too.
Now you're probably going to say, "well, that was neither here nor there." But it's not. It's a conclusion from a so-called blue ribbon panel, just like the WC folks were considered a blue ribbon panel.
In other words, you can't just dismiss one and embrace the other.
In other words, you can't just dismiss one and embrace the other.
Of course, he can! He is "John Mytton" and can dismiss evidence just as easily as accept superficial assumptions!
-
Let's deal with this first. How in the world can you find evidence in those documents that a rifle was sent?
All you really have is Waldmann stating that "PP" on Waldmann 7 means that it was shipped by Parcel Post.
Now, just to avoid misunderstandings; that's what Waldmann said the marking on the form means. It does not prove an actual shipment was ever sent.
Let's make this really simple, shall we? Let's say you ordered something at Amazon and paid for it by credit card. However, your order never arrives and you phone Amazon to ask what happened. They tell you you must have received it because the order was definitively shipped as on their paperwork it says "PP". Would you consider that to be a satisfactory response?
Let's deal with this first. How in the world can you find evidence in those documents that a rifle was sent?
All you really have is Waldmann stating that "PP" on Waldmann 7 means that it was shipped by Parcel Post.
Now, just to avoid misunderstandings; that's what Waldmann said the marking on the form means. It does not prove an actual shipment was ever sent.
Huh?
Waldman tells us that Kleins business records indicates that C2766 was sent to Oswald's PO Box by Parcel Post on the 20th of March, which is exactly what I said. C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
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."
Let's deal with this first.
And since you didn't answer anything else in your usual point by point fashion, I decided through gritted teeth to go back and read past where I stopped reading your original post and boy oh boy another Martin Whopper, you really got to learn the evidence, the amount of fallacies you are spreading is getting out of control, first all your Tippit misinformation and now this. Ouchie Mama!
JohnM C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
Martin Weidmann This is simply not true. Nowhere in their reports do they say that the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos is C2766 or CE 139. All they say is that the rifle is similar to the one they photographed in the National Archive.
Read, comprehend and learn!
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
(https://i.postimg.cc/g29wNLkW/HSCA-rifle-in-backyard-same-as-6th-floor.jpg)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0042a.htm
So let's connect the dots so far, Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO BOX and we know C2766 arrived because Oswald was Photographed with C2766, see how easy this is!
JohnM.
-
One of the first things I did, 35 years ago, was read the WCR cover to cover.
Yeah, sure John.
-
John, regarding the HSCA. you're missing the larger point or conclusion of it.
They did conclude there was a "probable conspiracy" in the case. That's what I meant by my previous reply, not the acoustic evidence, which I do think was flawed, too.
Now you're probably going to say, "well, that was neither here nor there." But it's not. It's a conclusion from a so-called blue ribbon panel, just like the WC folks were considered a blue ribbon panel.
In other words, you can't just dismiss one and embrace the other.
The HSCA's conclusion of a probable conspiracy isn't very compelling.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMrqDc9R/HSCA-Conspiracy.jpg)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0064a.htm
JohnM
-
Yeah, sure John.
Thumb1:
If only I had a dollar for every time some rabid CT said they read the WCR from cover to cover. LOL
JohnM
-
Huh?
Waldman tells us that Kleins business records indicates that C2766 was sent to Oswald's PO Box by Parcel Post on the 20th of March, which is exactly what I said. C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box.
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."
You can't be this superficial and gullible, can you?
Waldman tells us that Kleins business records indicates that C2766 was sent to Oswald's PO Box by Parcel Post on the 20th of March, which is exactly what I said.
No, that's not what you said. That's what you misrepresented. Waldman confirming what some markings on a copy of a document mean doesn't provide proof that something was actually sent.
You claimed without reservation and utterly misleading that "C2766 was sent by Kleins to Oswald's PO box." when there is no evidence for that.
All there really is, is a copy of a microfilm showing an internal document of Kleins' on which somebody unknown, at some point in time, has written a serial number and the letters "PP". That's it. They never authenticated the document by having the person who wrote those markings confirm them. And they can't check it against the microfilm either as that's been "missing" for decades now!
And since you didn't answer anything else in your usual point by point fashion, I decided through gritted teeth to go back and read past where I stopped reading your original post and boy oh boy another Martin Whopper, you really got to learn the evidence, the amount of fallacies you are spreading is getting out of control, first all your Tippit misinformation and now this. Ouchie Mama!
Read, comprehend and learn!
Spare me the pathetic LN patronizing. It doesn't impress.
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
(https://i.postimg.cc/g29wNLkW/HSCA-rifle-in-backyard-same-as-6th-floor.jpg)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0042a.htm
First of all, a conclusion by the HSCA based on non existing evidence isn't somehow evidence.
Secondly, there is no proof that the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos is C2766. All the HSCA panel said in their report is that the rifle looked similar to the one they photographed at the National Archives. They do not mention C2766 anywhere in their report. So, read their report and stop lying about the evidence!
So let's connect the dots so far, Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO BOX and we know C2766 arrived because Oswald was Photographed with C2766, see how easy this is!
JohnM.
It is indeed easy to simply make up stuff based on claims for which there is no evidence. It's exactly what I am used to when it comes to you!
You can repeat your crappy arguments a thousand times more and they still will never become true. The dots you want to connect only exist in your imagination.
-
The HSCA's conclusion of a probable conspiracy isn't very compelling.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMrqDc9R/HSCA-Conspiracy.jpg)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0064a.htm
JohnM
But their flawed conclusion, based on no evidence, that Oswald was photographed holding C2766, is compelling, right?
Pathetic!
-
Thumb1:
If only I had a dollar for every time some rabid CT said they read the WCR from cover to cover. LOL
JohnM
If only I had a dollar for every time some nutty LN claims he knows the evidence..... LOL
-
Yeah, sure John.
Why is this hard to believe? Have you read it, newbie?
-
The HSCA's conclusion of a probable conspiracy isn't very compelling.
Neither is the WC’s conclusion that Oswald did it.
-
If only I had a dollar for every time some rabid CT said they read the WCR from cover to cover. LOL
If I only had a dollar for every LN evangelist who thinks that challenging their faith-based assumptions is a “conspiracy theory”.
-
C2766 was photographed with Oswald which was verified by the HSCA photographic panel.
This is false. You really should learn the evidence.
Nobody “verified” anything, and it wasn’t a panel conclusion, it was a Cecil Kirk conclusion:
“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.” (6HSCA88)
Cecil Kirk, by his own admission based this “consideration” on a “tilting of the scales”:
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle. (2HSCA429)
That’s not a “verification”. That’s not to the exclusion of all other rifles. It’s not even beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
There is an abundance of evidence that indicates LHO was the assassin. Where is the evidence that exonerates LHO and indicates a need to look at someone else?
-
This is false. You really should learn the evidence.
Nobody “verified” anything, and it wasn’t a panel conclusion, it was a Cecil Kirk conclusion:
“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.” (6HSCA88)
Cecil Kirk, by his own admission based this “consideration” on a “tilting of the scales”:
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle. (2HSCA429)
That’s not a “verification”. That’s not to the exclusion of all other rifles. It’s not even beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nobody “verified” anything, and it wasn’t a panel conclusion, it was a Cecil Kirk conclusion
How bizarre, another odd Iacoletti conclusion, Kirk and McCamy were speaking on behalf of the photographic panel. And let's not forget that we also have McCamy reinforcing the Panel's conclusion. Geez John, whatever it takes! LOL²
Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. McCamy, can you give us any measurement or photogrammetric process or anything that you did to further nail down this I think vital question.
Mr. McCAMY. Yes. We made measurements, measurements on the rifle, and on the photographs to ascertain that indeed this particular chip was in the right place.
That’s not a “verification”. That’s not to the exclusion of all other rifles. It’s not even beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh really??
"yes, indeed it is the same rifle."
And the HSCA Photographic Panel even provided their evidence to support their conclusion and the fanatical CT community has has decades to disprove their findings and so far not a peep, why is that, John?
(https://i.postimg.cc/N0nW5Dnv/Photo-hsca-ex-206a.jpg)
JohnM
-
If I only had a dollar for every LN evangelist who thinks that challenging their faith-based assumptions is a “conspiracy theory”.
"faith-based" LOL²
JohnM
-
And they can't check it against the microfilm either as that's been "missing" for decades now!
"missing"
Prove it!
JohnM
-
"missing"
Prove it!
JohnM
Another pathetic LN trick; asking for a negative to be proven.
But let's try this; the Kleins' microfilm is part of the evidence. The FBI took it on 11/23/63 and the WC used it in Waldman's testimony. As such, it should be with all the other evidence in the National Archives, but guess what; it isn't there.
Just ask them and find out for yourself.
-
Another pathetic LN trick; asking for a negative to be proven.
But let's try this; the Kleins' microfilm is part of the evidence. The FBI took it on 11/23/63 and the WC used it in Waldman's testimony. As such, it should be with all the other evidence in the National Archives, but guess what; it isn't there.
Just ask them and find out for yourself.
Just ask them and find out for yourself.
It's YOUR claim, now prove it! Thanks in advance.
JohnM
-
Mr Waldman verified that the microfilm No. 270502 which are Kleins business records showed a purchase of this particular rifle(C2766) to a A J Hidell Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. I wonder if we can adjourn the deposition upstairs to take a look at these records in the microfilm and get copies of the appropriate records that you found on the evening of November 22.
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the microfilm machine.)
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
JohnM
-
It's YOUR claim, now prove it! Thanks in advance.
JohnM
I already have, but it seems you are too dumb to understand it.
-
Mr Waldman verified that the microfilm No. 270502 which are Kleins business records showed a purchase of this particular rifle(C2766) to a A J Hidell Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. I wonder if we can adjourn the deposition upstairs to take a look at these records in the microfilm and get copies of the appropriate records that you found on the evening of November 22.
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the microfilm machine.)
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
JohnM
Oh, the desperation. This is still Waldman looking at Waldman 7 and explaining what the information on the document means.
Waldman did not handle the Hidell order, nor did he pack the rifle and brought it to Parcel Post. In other words; he hasn't got a clue if the rifle was really sent or not, so his opinion isn't evidence of the rifle being sent.
I've been trying to explain the difference to you in several posts by now and you still don't get it?
Although you will probably ignore it, as you did the first time, let me ask this question again. Let's say you order something from Amazon and pay for it, but the package doesn't arrive. So, you contact Amazon and they tell you that according to their documents the package was sent, so they won't do anything, would you accept that answer?
-
Let's say you order something from Amazon and pay for it, but the package doesn't arrive. So, you contact Amazon and they tell you that according to their documents the package was sent, so they won't do anything, would you accept that answer?
How is this even relevant?
Kleins sent a package and Oswald was photographed with what the package contained. End of story!
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6J5dSoCs3xw/maxresdefault.jpg)
JohnM
-
How is this even relevant?
Kleins sent a package and Oswald was photographed with what the package contained. End of story!
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6J5dSoCs3xw/maxresdefault.jpg)
JohnM
How is this even relevant?
You just don't want to answer. What else is new?
Kleins sent a package and Oswald was photographed with what the package contained. End of story!
Thank you for admitting that it is nothing more than a story! :D :D :D :D :D
-
Thank you for admitting that it is nothing more than a story! :D :D :D :D :D
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvJs1YtV/end-of-story.jpg)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/end%20of%20story
Sorry to keep clobbering you, but you asked for it! ;D
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/qvJs1YtV/end-of-story.jpg)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/end%20of%20story
Sorry to keep clobbering you, but you asked for it! ;D
JohnM
Even too dumb to understand sarcasm.
-
How bizarre, another odd Iacoletti conclusion, Kirk and McCamy were speaking on behalf of the photographic panel. And let's not forget that we also have McCamy reinforcing the Panel's conclusion. Geez John, whatever it takes! LOL²
“Odd conclusion”. LOL.
“Reinforcing”. LOL.
McCamy never said he considered the rifle uniquely identifiable. There’s a reason for that.
Oh really??
"yes, indeed it is the same rifle."
Yes, really.
"has to tilt the scales in the direction"
Ignoring that part doesn’t make it go away.
And the HSCA Photographic Panel even provided their evidence to support their conclusion and the fanatical CT community has has decades to disprove their findings and so far not a peep, why is that, John?
It’s not necessary to disprove something that hasn’t been proven in the first place. That’s the thing the fanatical LN zealots never seem to understand.
You said they “verified” that it was the same rifle. You’re just wrong.
-
How is this even relevant?
Kleins sent a package and Oswald was photographed with what the package contained. End of story!
LOL. Repeating the claim doesn’t make it any more true. Neither does tacking on “end of story”.
-
LOL. Repeating the claim doesn’t make it any more true. Neither does tacking on “end of story”.
LOL
Repeating "LOL" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, ad infinitum, doesn't make your weak rebuttals any more true and in fact your obsession of "Laughing Out Loud" at every misperceived injustice, does your CT community no favours. So indeed do keep it up because it makes my job a hellava lot easier.
Btw, incidentally for someone who is constantly Laughing Out Loud, you don't exactly come across as a guy that has a sense of humour, just sayin'.
JohnM
-
Repeating "LOL" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, ad infinitum, doesn't make your weak rebuttals any more true and in fact your obsession of "Laughing Out Loud" at every misperceived injustice, does your CT community no favours. So indeed do keep it up because it makes my job a hellava lot easier.
Btw, incidentally for someone who is constantly Laughing Out Loud, you don't exactly come across as a guy that has a sense of humour, just sayin'.
JohnM
it makes my job a hellava lot easier.
You have a job?
As for the LOL replies, they are the best way to deal with all the BS LNs come up with. As our recent encounter clearly shows there's just no way to have a reasonable adult conversation with a fanatic like you. So, John should continue to call you and your ilk out and if he gets under your skin - as he clearly does - all the more power to him.
-
McCamy never said he considered the rifle uniquely identifiable. There’s a reason for that.
McCamy never said he considered the rifle uniquely identifiable. There’s a reason for that.
Huh? Why would McCamy need to repeat what Kirk just spent considerable time explaining, he simply adds that the particular chip on the rifle in the backyard photo was in the same place as the one in evidence.
"to ascertain that indeed this particular chip was in the right place."
So essentially a random sized chip in a random place by definition becomes a distinguishingly unique feature.
JohnM
-
Huh? Why would McCamy need to repeat what Kirk just spent considerable time explaining, he simply adds that the particular chip on the rifle in the backyard photo was in the same place as the one in evidence.
"to ascertain that indeed this particular chip was in the right place."
So essentially a random sized chip in a random place by definition becomes a distinguishingly unique feature.
JohnM
They just assumed that only this particular rifle had that particular chip, or did they check all the MC rifles to make sure?
-
Repeating "LOL" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, ad infinitum, doesn't make your weak rebuttals any more true and in fact your obsession of "Laughing Out Loud" at every misperceived injustice, does your CT community no favours. So indeed do keep it up because it makes my job a hellava lot easier.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
And I’m not part of your imagined “CT community”. Nice try though.
Btw, incidentally for someone who is constantly Laughing Out Loud, you don't exactly come across as a guy that has a sense of humour, just sayin'.
You’re just not funny. At least not when you’re trying to be. Just sayin’.
-
it makes my job a hellava lot easier.
You have a job?
As for the LOL replies, they are the best way to deal with all the BS LNs come up with. As our recent encounter clearly shows there's just no way to have a reasonable adult conversation with a fanatic like you. So, John should continue to call you and your ilk out and if he gets under your skin - as he clearly does - all the more power to him.
You have a job?
Yes, the CIA pays me well.
As for the LOL replies, they are the best way to deal with all the BS LNs come up with.
Thanks John.
As our recent encounter clearly shows there's just no way to have a reasonable adult conversation with a fanatic like you.
Yet you still reply to almost every one of my posts, is it to show the Forum how much of an Adult you are?
So, John should continue to call you and your ilk out and if he gets under your skin - as he clearly does - all the more power to him.
I thought we were here to debate the evidence?
JohnM
-
Huh? Why would McCamy need to repeat what Kirk just spent considerable time explaining, he simply adds that the particular chip on the rifle in the backyard photo was in the same place as the one in evidence.
This is not ambiguous to anyone without an agenda to read things that aren’t there:
“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.”
That’s Cecil Kirk. It’s not anybody else.
So essentially a random sized chip in a random place by definition becomes a distinguishingly unique feature.
Because it tilts the scales. Because moon craters. Because wishful thinking.
-
I thought we were here to debate the evidence?
Bleating “he was photographed with his rifle” over and over again is not “debating the evidence”.
-
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
And I’m not part of your imagined “CT community”. Nice try though.
You’re just not funny. At least not when you’re trying to be. Just sayin’.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Thanks for clarifying your belief of what constitutes as evidence.
And I’m not part of your imagined “CT community”.
Ok, whatever.
You’re just not funny.
When did I claim to be funny?
JohnM
-
Yes, the CIA pays me well.
Thanks John.
Yet you still reply to almost every one of my posts, is it to show the Forum how much of an Adult you are?
I thought we were here to debate the evidence?
JohnM
Yet you still reply to almost every one of my posts,
Yes, I do. It's a character flaw on my part. Very often against my better judgment I always try to help seriously misguided people to find their way again. Unfortunately, it frequently doesn't work because the worst idiots just don't want to be helped. So, tonight it hit me... John's "LOL" option is the best way to go with clowns like you.
I thought we were here to debate the evidence?
Why don't you get that dictionary you love using so much and find out what the word "debate" actually means, because up until now you've been pretty clueless and totally unable to have any kind of a debate.
-
This is not ambiguous to anyone without an agenda to read things that aren’t there:
“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.”
That’s Cecil Kirk. It’s not anybody else.
Because it tilts the scales. Because moon craters. Because wishful thinking.
“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification.”
Yes, because Kirk was a Forensic Photographic Specialist who had the qualifications to make that specific final assertion, which was as McCamy tells us, based on the Photographic Panels measurements of a particular chip being in the right place.
Because it tilts the scales. Because moon craters. Because wishful thinking.
And decades have passed and one of the most important HSCA discoveries and still no rebuttal from any photographic expert within or hired by the rabid CT community, why is that John?
And further to that, just after Kleins sent an Italian Carcano to Oswald's PO Box, Oswald was photographed with an Italian Carcano, that poor Oswald must be the unluckiest guy in the World.
JohnM
-
Yet you still reply to almost every one of my posts,
Yes, I do. It's a character flaw on my part. Very often against my better judgment I always try to help seriously misguided people to find their way again. Unfortunately, it frequently doesn't work because the worst idiots just don't want to be helped. So, tonight it hit me... John's "LOL" option is the best way to go with clowns like you.
"Seriously misguided"
"worst idiots"
"clowns like you"
OMG, I didn't think that anyone could fit so many insults into a single short paragraph, congrats!
JohnM
-
Thanks for clarifying your belief of what constitutes as evidence.
Thanks for your opinion on who killed Kennedy.
When did I claim to be funny?
How are you measuring the “sense of humour” that you whinged about?
-
Yes, because Kirk was a Forensic Photographic Specialist who had the qualifications to make that specific final assertion,
False appeal to authority. Next?
And decades have passed and one of the most important HSCA discoveries and still no rebuttal from any photographic expert within or hired by the rabid CT community, why is that John?
The rebuttal is trivial. Neither Kirk nor anybody else proved that it was the same rifle to the exclusion of all others.
And further to that, just after Kleins sent an Italian Carcano to Oswald's PO Box, Oswald was photographed with an Italian Carcano, that poor Oswald must be the unluckiest guy in the World.
Says the guy who has no evidence of anything being sent to “Oswald’s PO Box”. Will you ever grasp the concept that claims are not evidence?
-
Thanks for your opinion on who killed Kennedy.
No worries and fortunately for histories sake it's an opinion supported by two in depth investigations! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Says the guy who has no evidence of anything being sent to “Oswald’s PO Box”. Will you ever grasp the concept that claims are not evidence?
Yawn, the old "he has no evidence" mantra, I'm the only person supplying the connected mountain of evidence and you desperately claim it's ALL flawed in some way or another, for example;
The money order in Oswald's handwriting for the exact amount of the cost of the rifle with postage is somehow not connected?
The money order payed to Kleins Sporting Goods is somehow not connected?
The date of the stamped money order and dated the exact same day as the envelope was posted is somehow not connected?
The coupon and the accompanying envelope(CE773) is somehow not connected?
The coupon with two matching block letters with Oswald's PO Box is somehow not connected?
Kleins records(Waldman7) of when and where the rifle was sent with Oswald's PO box is somehow not connected?
And on and on it goes, every piece of evidence is examined without context and each time we receive an absurd biased conclusion.
Now I fully expect as usual, Iacoletti will separate each piece of evidence with his ever so boring "LOL"s and he will simply ignore all the obvious connections but as Weidman says "connect the dots", and in this case all the dots lead straight to Lee Harvey Oswald.
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/lee-harvey-oswald-1963-money-order-used-to-purchase-the-gun-that-killed-president-john-f-kennedy-peter-ogden-gallery.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Lee_Harvey_Oswald%27s_order_form_and_envelope_%28exhibit_CE773%29.jpg?20060701225905)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqKg4y7d/Waldman-Exhibit-No7.jpg)
JohnM
-
Yawn, the old "he has no evidence" mantra, I'm the only person supplying the connected mountain of evidence and you desperately claim it's ALL flawed in some way or another, for example;
The money order in Oswald's handwriting for the exact amount of the cost of the rifle with postage is somehow not connected?
The money order payed to Kleins Sporting Goods is somehow not connected?
The date of the stamped money order and dated the exact same day as the envelope was posted is somehow not connected?
The coupon and the accompanying envelope(CE773) is somehow not connected?
The coupon with two matching block letters with Oswald's PO Box is somehow not connected?
The drama queen strikes again. I don't think there is anybody who has even claimed that there is no connection between the money order and the order form.
The problem is that they don't "prove" what you claim they prove. Even if Oswald did write the documents (and handwriting experts don't all agree on that), it could easily be that he was being manipulated into writing those documents. I could explain, but I won't bother, as there is no point in trying to explain something so basic to a fanatical zealot like you.
Kleins records(Waldman7) of when and where the rifle was sent with Oswald's PO box is somehow not connected?
This is where it gets dodgy. For evidence to be relied upon, it's needs to be authenticated. Waldman 7 never was. It was never established who wrote the serial and control numbers on that internal Kleins' document and when. All we know is that Waldman, a Kleins' VP who had nothing to do with the gun department, explained what the markings on the document mean. That's not authentication.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqKg4y7d/Waldman-Exhibit-No7.jpg)
For some inexplicable reason, Waldman 7, an internal document, was only available as a photocopy taken from a microfilm which the FBI confiscated on 11/23/63. Nobody knows what happened to the original and/or the microfilm and if the one they showed Waldman during his testimony, several months later was in fact the same one. The evidentiary value of Waldman 7 is highly questionable.
And on and on it goes, every piece of evidence is examined without context and each time we receive an absurd biased conclusion.
Utter BS. When you say evidence is examined without context, you actually mean that evidence is "examined" based upon a pre-determined conclusion of guilt. And that's when you always get an absurd biased conclusion. What you constantly fail to understand is that pieces of evidence need to be authenticated and not just taken at face value.
Now I fully expect as usual, Iacoletti will separate each piece of evidence with his ever so boring "LOL"s and he will simply ignore all the obvious connections but as Weidman says "connect the dots", and in this case all the dots lead straight to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Actually, not really. Not the dots, but the leaps of faith and the assumptions required to "connect" the dots lead to LHO. The pieces of evidence themselves don't get even close.
-
The drama queen strikes again. I don't think there is anybody who has even claimed that there is no connection between the money order and the order form.
The problem is that they don't "prove" what you claim they prove. Even if Oswald did write the documents (and handwriting experts don't all agree on that), it could easily be that he was being manipulated into writing those documents. I could explain, but I won't bother, as there is no point in trying to explain something so basic to a fanatical zealot like you.
This is where it gets dodgy. For evidence to be relied upon, it's needs to be authenticated. Waldman 7 never was. It was never established who wrote the serial and control numbers on that internal Kleins' document and when. All we know is that Waldman, a Kleins' VP who had nothing to do with the gun department, explained what the markings on the document mean. That's not authentication.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqKg4y7d/Waldman-Exhibit-No7.jpg)
For some inexplicable reason, Waldman 7, an internal document, was only available as a photocopy taken from a microfilm which the FBI confiscated on 11/23/63. Nobody knows what happened to the original and/or the microfilm and if the one they showed Waldman during his testimony, several months later was in fact the same one. The evidentiary value of Waldman 7 is highly questionable.
Utter BS. When you say evidence is examined without context, you actually mean that evidence is "examined" based upon a pre-determined conclusion of guilt. And that's when you always get an absurd biased conclusion. What you constantly fail to understand is that pieces of evidence need to be authenticated and not just taken at face value.
Actually, not really. Not the dots, but the leaps of faith and the assumptions required to "connect" the dots lead to LHO. The pieces of evidence themselves don't get even close.
Thank you for expressing your opinion. Thumb1:
JohnM
-
No worries and fortunately for histories sake it's an opinion supported by two in depth investigations! Thumb1:
"investigations". LOL.
-
Yawn, the old "he has no evidence" mantra,
Yawn, the old "if I claim it, then it's true" mantra.
The money order in Oswald's handwriting for the exact amount of the cost of the rifle with postage is somehow not connected?
"Oswald's handwriting". LOL. You can either connect the money order found in Virginia with a specific Klein's order or you cannot. And you cannot.
The money order payed to Kleins Sporting Goods is somehow not connected?
Somehow deposited a month before it was received.
The date of the stamped money order and dated the exact same day as the envelope was posted is somehow not connected?
Gee, somebody had a stamp.
The coupon and the accompanying envelope(CE773) is somehow not connected?
"Accompanying envelope". LOL.
The coupon with two matching block letters with Oswald's PO Box is somehow not connected?
"two matching block letters". LOL.
Kleins records(Waldman7) of when and where the rifle was sent with Oswald's PO box is somehow not connected?
There's no record of when or where anything was sent.
And on and on it goes, every piece of evidence is examined without context and each time we receive an absurd biased conclusion.
Each time we receive an absurd and biased characterization of the evidence. And speculative conclusions that have no merit.
Now I fully expect as usual, Iacoletti will separate each piece of evidence with his ever so boring "LOL"s and he will simply ignore all the obvious connections but as Weidman says "connect the dots", and in this case all the dots lead straight to Lee Harvey Oswald.
"Obvious connections". LOL.
I'm not LOL-ing at the evidence. If LOL-ing at your ridiculous and unsupported claims about the evidence.
But thanks for your opinion.
-
Yawn, the old "he has no evidence" mantra, I'm the only person supplying the connected mountain of evidence and you desperately claim it's ALL flawed in some way or another, for example;
The money order in Oswald's handwriting for the exact amount of the cost of the rifle with postage is somehow not connected?
The money order payed to Kleins Sporting Goods is somehow not connected?
The date of the stamped money order and dated the exact same day as the envelope was posted is somehow not connected?
The coupon and the accompanying envelope(CE773) is somehow not connected?
The coupon with two matching block letters with Oswald's PO Box is somehow not connected?
Kleins records(Waldman7) of when and where the rifle was sent with Oswald's PO box is somehow not connected?
And on and on it goes, every piece of evidence is examined without context and each time we receive an absurd biased conclusion.
Now I fully expect as usual, Iacoletti will separate each piece of evidence with his ever so boring "LOL"s and he will simply ignore all the obvious connections but as Weidman says "connect the dots", and in this case all the dots lead straight to Lee Harvey Oswald.
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/lee-harvey-oswald-1963-money-order-used-to-purchase-the-gun-that-killed-president-john-f-kennedy-peter-ogden-gallery.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Lee_Harvey_Oswald%27s_order_form_and_envelope_%28exhibit_CE773%29.jpg?20060701225905)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqKg4y7d/Waldman-Exhibit-No7.jpg)
JohnM
Interesting that Oswald stamped his "Hands off Cuba" handbills as "A.J. Hidell" but the Klein's order form and the money order shows "A. Hidell".
-
This Lee Harvey Oswald who was able to speak fluent Russian language and he was able to figure out exact route of travel to which embassy’s to get himself into the USSR , was accepted and coincidentally able to get himself assigned to work in the area of USSR where the U -2 Spy plane got shot down…
THIS Oswald who figured out all that, was somehow unable to realize that writing a fake name with his same regular handwriting style, and using P.O. Box link to his usual Oswald self, was STUPID?
It seems incredulous unless Oswald can be proved to be an idiot savant or was a schizo phrenic shifting back and forth between 2 personalities kind of like the guy in the movie Fight Club.
-
This Lee Harvey Oswald who was able to speak fluent Russian language and he was able to figure out exact route of travel to which embassy’s to get himself into the USSR , was accepted and coincidentally able to get himself assigned to work in the area of USSR where the U -2 Spy plane got shot down…
THIS Oswald who figured out all that, was somehow unable to realize that writing a fake name with his same regular handwriting style, and using P.O. Box link to his usual Oswald self, was STUPID?
It seems incredulous unless Oswald can be proved to be an idiot savant or was a schizo phrenic shifting back and forth between 2 personalities kind of like the guy in the movie Fight Club.
You hit the nail on the head, Zeon.
The LNs want to have their cake and eat it too. What kind of an idiot orders a rifle under an alias and has it sent to his own p.o. box, then uses that alias in New Orleans in such away that the authorities are aware of it and then kills the President while walking around with a fake ID of that same alias in his wallet, linking him to the rifle he left at his place of work.
It stretches credulity.
-
This Lee Harvey Oswald who was able to speak fluent Russian language and he was able to figure out exact route of travel to which embassy’s to get himself into the USSR , was accepted and coincidentally able to get himself assigned to work in the area of USSR where the U -2 Spy plane got shot down…
THIS Oswald who figured out all that, was somehow unable to realize that writing a fake name with his same regular handwriting style, and using P.O. Box link to his usual Oswald self, was STUPID?
It seems incredulous unless Oswald can be proved to be an idiot savant or was a schizo phrenic shifting back and forth between 2 personalities kind of like the guy in the movie Fight Club.
This Lee Harvey Oswald who was able to speak fluent Russian language
Wow, he was in the country for well over two years, surrounded by Russian speaking people, of course you're going to learn the language. But as De Mohrenschildt says "and made mistakes, grammatical mistakes".
and he was able to figure out exact route of travel to which embassy’s to get himself into the USSR
Is that supposed to be difficult?
was accepted
Don't forget when Oswald was denied entry into Russia, Oswald hacked into his wrist, enough to require stitches and the Russians put Oswald into a psychiatric ward.
and coincidentally able to get himself assigned to work in the area of USSR where the U -2 Spy plane got shot down…
Oswald was sent to Minsk.
THIS Oswald who figured out all that
Wow²
was somehow unable to realize that writing a fake name with his same regular handwriting style, and using P.O. Box link to his usual Oswald self, was STUPID?
Well Zeon, Oswald at the age of 24, worked in a warehouse as a human conveyer belt, the intelligence on display was Extraordinary!
It seems incredulous unless Oswald can be proved to be an idiot savant or was a schizo phrenic shifting back and forth between 2 personalities kind of like the guy in the movie Fight Club.
Oswald was just a thug who hit his wife and murdered two men.
JohnM
-
Thank you for expressing your flawed opinion. Thumb1: