Stolen Blank Money Orders
As could be expected, the theft of blank money orders from post offices, and their subsequent completion and transfer to innocent parties, is not an unusual occurrence. Such a series of events involved United States v. Northwestern Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. In that case, the post office in Mississippi City, Mississippi was burglarized and the thief stole both blank money orders and the rubber stamps used to validate them. Twelve of the money orders were completed in usual form by the thief for $100 each, drawn on the post office at Minneapolis, Minnesota, payable to a fictitious payee. Though the defendant bank cashed the money orders, it did so only after one of its clerks telephoned a branch post office and received assurance from the unidentified postal clerk that the described money orders were genuine. The postal clerk had overlooked the fact that they were listed as stolen in a postal bulletin on file at the branch. When the bank presented the money orders to the main Minneapolis post office for payment, the postal employees again failed to detect them as stolen, and they were therefore honored. Despite the genuine but unauthorized form of execution and the failure of the postal employees to identify the money orders as stolen, judgment was rendered for the Government. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3600&context=clr
(https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3600&context=clr) page 367.
I have noticed that some CTers don't believe Oswald could have picked up C2766 from the USPS because it would have violated certain postal regulations or would have left a paper trail. I'm not familiar with postal regulations back then or now but I'm very familiar with postal workers screwing up in one way or another. Same goes for UPS, Federal Express so I'm not trying to just pick on the USPS. In fact, there have been times when dealing with government agencies at all levels and the private sector that orders and transactions have been botched and, I must confess, that includes me.
To illustrate one incident of major screwup by the USPS here is quoted text from a legal case involving the theft of Postal Money Orders and negligence by two postal clerks.
The point of the post is.... Why assign to malice when stupidity and carelessness can explain the event.
I have noticed that some CTers don't believe Oswald could have picked up C2766 from the USPS because it would have violated certain postal regulations or would have left a paper trail. I'm not familiar with postal regulations back then or now but I'm very familiar with postal workers screwing up in one way or another. Same goes for UPS, Federal Express so I'm not trying to just pick on the USPS. In fact, there have been times when dealing with government agencies at all levels and the private sector that orders and transactions have been botched and, I must confess, that includes me.
To illustrate one incident of major screwup by the USPS here is quoted text from a legal case involving the theft of Postal Money Orders and negligence by two postal clerks.
The point of the post is.... Why assign to malice when stupidity and carelessness can explain the event.
I don't believe I've ever agreed with anything you've posted Mr Navarro, but in this case I completely agree...
Although I'm not convinced that Lee Oswald was the person who received the carcano at the P.O. he definitely could have been the person who received it. But there is also the possibility that De Morenschildt or Paine could have picked up the rifle from the PO.
I know from personal experience that some PO clerks did not religiously adhere to postal regulations.... I have received mail and packages from my PO box without displaying any ID or notification that there was a parcel too large for my mail box awaiting to be picked up. IOW.... anybody with a key too the mail box could have received the rifle. ( If Marina had loaned her key to De M he could easily have received the rifle)
Agreed Oscar. Plus the number of people who saw what they didn't see, like the doctors at Parkland. People who did things they never did, and people who told lies. Doesn't make sense does it?
BS:
Cakebread, I don't know if I should be flattered or insulted that you "completely agree" with me. ;D Just kidding. I've seen that you're a committed conspiracist and can come up with some fancy tales. For instance, this GeorgeD or Ruth Paine connection is one that I wouldn't mind if you would expand upon.
It would have to be a lot of people who were in on it, Ray. The more people involved the less chance for the conspiracy to remain secret.
It would have to be a lot of people who were in on it, Ray. The more people involved the less chance for the conspiracy to remain secret.
Agreed Oscar. Plus the number of people who saw what they didn't see, like the doctors at Parkland. People who did things they never did, and people who told lies. Doesn't make sense does it?
BS:
It would have to be a lot of people who were in on it
This is a commonly heard LN claim, but I have never understood why it would have involved a lot of people.
Perhaps you can explain it?
Ok...Let's use this scenario...
George... "Lee, We need to get moving on creating the photo that will show that you are a bonafide communist revolutionary, Have you received that cheap rifle that I gave you the Money order to buy from Kleins?
Lee... Yes, I know George, that there is a need to hurry, And, yes, I did order that rifle ... It should be in the mail....Perhaps you can check my mail box tomorrow and see if there is a notice of a parcel to be picked up in the P.O. box... Here's my key to box number 2915...
Oscar apparently 130,000 people worked on the Manhattan atom bomb project and that never leaked.
Ruth Paine was working for the FBI....Hoover didn't know that Lee had been sent to Russia by ONI. Hoover thought that Lee really was a turncoat Marine, and he hated him. When the Oswald's moved from Russia to Texas, Hoover wanted to keep an eye on them because he thought they were communist spies. ( Hoover preached that one way to spot a communist is by listening to a suspected commie, and if he espoused Russia over the U.S. then he was a commie. Which is a gross oversimplification ) Lee most certainly had denounced the US , because he would never have been allowed to stay in Russia if he praised life in the US, and he had a mission to fulfill...Thus, he was a commie in Hoover's eyes.
Good one, Cakebread. So you admit the Klein coupon and envelope were sent by Oswald alias A. Hidell and that the BY photos are genuine. Have you felt the wrath of the CT community for committing this act of treason?
What about Ruth Paine. How does she fit into the equation?
I have noticed that some CTers don't believe Oswald could have picked up C2766 from the USPS because it would have violated certain postal regulations or would have left a paper trail. I'm not familiar with postal regulations back then or now but I'm very familiar with postal workers screwing up in one way or another. Same goes for UPS, Federal Express so I'm not trying to just pick on the USPS. In fact, there have been times when dealing with government agencies at all levels and the private sector that orders and transactions have been botched and, I must confess, that includes me.
To illustrate one incident of major screwup by the USPS here is quoted text from a legal case involving the theft of Postal Money Orders and negligence by two postal clerks.
The point of the post is.... Why assign to malice when stupidity and carelessness can explain the event.
Oswald ordered a rifle and it was sent to his PO Box. All he had to do was take the slip placed in his box to a clerk who handed him his package. CTers have argued it couldn't be delivered because the Hidell name was not listed on his PO authorization form. But that form was lost and Oswald did list Hidell on his NO PO box form. If CTers were correct, however, then the logical next sequence in this pedantic interpretation of post office procedure would have been for the rifle to be returned to Klein's. It was not. CTers could care less about the implications of their theories due to an inability or unwillingness to apply logic to any event that results in an outcome they don't like. If by asserting that A did not happen, it must result in B occurring, then the absence of B occurring undermines the original claim. Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald's PO Box. It can't be accounted for in any way except as being received by Oswald. If post office procedures had precluded delivery, it would have been sent back. It was not. If there were any doubt, there are pictures of Oswald holding the rifle, his prints are on the rifle sent to his PO box (same serial #) etc. And when all is said and done, if there had been some document Oswald signed or clerk who could remember giving him the rifle, CTers would claim they were lying or forged. The game never ends when any evidence of Oswald's guilt is suspect for that reason alone. We would just add a postal clerk's name to all the others who lied to frame Oswald.
Oswald ordered a rifle and it was sent to his PO Box. All he had to do was take the slip placed in his box to a clerk who handed him his package. CTers have argued it couldn't be delivered because the Hidell name was not listed on his PO authorization form. But that form was lost and Oswald did list Hidell on his NO PO box form. If CTers were correct, however, then the logical next sequence in this pedantic interpretation of post office procedure would have been for the rifle to be returned to Klein's. It was not. CTers could care less about the implications of their theories due to an inability or unwillingness to apply logic to any event that results in an outcome they don't like. If by asserting that A did not happen, it must result in B occurring, then the absence of B occurring undermines the original claim. Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald's PO Box. It can't be accounted for in any way except as being received by Oswald. If post office procedures had precluded delivery, it would have been sent back. It was not. If there were any doubt, there are pictures of Oswald holding the rifle, his prints are on the rifle sent to his PO box (same serial #) etc. And when all is said and done, if there had been some document Oswald signed or clerk who could remember giving him the rifle, CTers would claim they were lying or forged. The game never ends when any evidence of Oswald's guilt is suspect for that reason alone. We would just add a postal clerk's name to all the others who lied to frame Oswald.
Ruth Paine was working for the FBI....Hoover didn't know that Lee had been sent to Russia by ONI. Hoover thought that Lee really was a turncoat Marine, and he hated him. When the Oswald's moved from Russia to Texas, Hoover wanted to keep an eye on them because he thought they were communist spies. ( Hoover preached that one way to spot a communist is by listening to a suspected commie, and if he espoused Russia over the U.S. then he was a commie. Which is a gross oversimplification ) Lee most certainly had denounced the US , because he would never have been allowed to stay in Russia if he praised life in the US, and he had a mission to fulfill...Thus, he was a commie in Hoover's eyes.
Since Hoover suspected the Oswald's of being Russian spies, he assigned Ruth Paine to keep tabs on them. ( she admitted that she was spying on Lee, and called FBI agent Hosty to come and pick up a letter that she had stolen from Lee Oswald.)
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is.
By claiming that Oswald could have picked up a package addressed to Hidell, due to postal workers screwing up, aren't you also implicitly saying that anybody else could have picked up that same package as well?
Not just anybody but someone that had the key to the PO box and who picked up the form that let's Hidell know he has a package to pick up. In other words, Oswald.
So getting a duplicate key for a PO box is not possible?
What a desperate suggestion. Here's another; maybe the paper slip was placed in the wrong box and John Doe collected the package. Still odd though that the rifle ended up at the TSBD.
It wasn't a suggestion. It was a question... you do understand the difference between them, don't you?
Still odd though that the rifle ended up at the TSBD.
How in the world would you know that a rifle delivered to a PO box in March is the same one that was found at the TSBD in November?
You LNs are extremely good in assuming things without a shred of evidence to support it!
Oh it was a question. What a stupid question. How do we know the rifle ended up at the TSBD? Read the evidence FFS.
Oh did I miss something? You know what, just present it and I'll read it..... This should be interesting.
Do your own reading. I'm not here to serve you nor convince you of anything. If you choose to be willfully ignorant that's your decision.
Ignorant of what? You haven't shown me a damned thing...
Go find it Martin. You're a big boy aren't you? I bet it's no more that a few key strokes and mouse clicks away from where you are right now.
Go find it Martin. You're a big boy aren't you? I bet it's no more that a few key strokes and mouse clicks away from where you are right now.
Exactly what I thought; a big mouth and nothing to back it up!
... because the paper work gave the serial number of c2766 does NOT prove that the TSBD rifle is that same rifle...
Far too wacky for me Walt.
Any powerful cabal that was desperate enough to plot the murder of the POTUS could very easily have created a carcano with the serial number c 2766.
Again, that's far too wacky for me. And just how many people were involved in this cabal Walt? 10? 50? 500? How about a name or two?
Exactly what I thought; a willfully ignorant person. Well, it's either that or someone simply trolling the forum day after day. Maybe both caps fit.
More superficial simpleton "logic"; "believe and accept what I say or be deemed to be ignorant and a troll"
I am just as happy, as you are upset, that I am not as gullible and narrow-minded as you.
So getting a duplicate key for a PO box is not possible?
Quote from: Steve Howsley on Today at 07:20:34 PM
What a desperate suggestion. Here's another; maybe the paper slip was placed in the wrong box and John Doe collected the package. Still odd though that the rifle ended up at the TSBD.
It wasn't a suggestion. It was a question... you do understand the difference between them, don't you?
Still odd though that the rifle ended up at the TSBD.
How in the world would you know that a rifle delivered to a PO box in March is the same one that was found at the TSBD in November?
You LNs are extremely good in assuming things without a shred of evidence to support it!
Steve, Martin asked you a simple question...
How in the world would you know that a rifle delivered to a PO box in March is the same one that was found at the TSBD in November?
I too, would like to know how you know that the carcano that was sent to PO box 2925 is the same carcano that was found where it had been carefully hidden, buried BENEATH a heavy stack of boxes of books,on a a pallet.
And simple because the paper work gave the serial number of c2766 does NOT prove that the TSBD rifle is that same rifle...
Any powerful cabal that was desperate enough to plot the murder of the POTUS could very easily have created a carcano with the serial number c 2766.
Oh it was a question. What a stupid question. How do we know the rifle ended up at the TSBD? Read the evidence FFS.
More superficial simpleton "logic"; "believe and accept what I say or be deemed to be ignorant and a troll"
I am just as happy, as you are upset, that I am not as gullible and narrow-minded as you.
How about a name or two?
Certainly...I'll give you the Two at the top... Lyndon Baines Johnson, and John Edgar Hoover......You can decide which was the more culpable....
And the evidence is?
It's easy to pick a prominent name or two without evidence. What about a name or two from the middle of the pack or a couple from the front line?
Quote from: Steve Howsley on Today at 10:56:57 PM
And the evidence is?
It's easy to pick a prominent name or two without evidence. What about a name or two from the middle of the pack or a couple from the front line?
What's wrong with your power of reasoning? It as plain as the new moon in a clear sky, that the official tale that LBJ and Hoover created for us gullible suckers, is the same type of big lie that became the way of life in Nazi Germany.
What's wrong with your power of reasoning? It as plain as the new moon in a clear sky, that the official tale that LBJ and Hoover created for us gullible suckers, is the same type of big lie that became the way of life in Nazi Germany.
You can willingly place yourself in a group labelled 'us gullible suckers'.
IMO Hoover is guilty of putting his arse covering on equal terms with conducting an open investigation and for that he will always be a bad guy in my book but dragging in comparisons with Nazi Germany is just a tad OTT. :D
So do you have some names of players from the middle of the deck and the front line? It's been 55 years now so surely the CTers can finally lay an egg on this one.
As a matter of fact I do have names that were a bit further from the top.... But I'm not playing your game...When you extract your head, and man up to the truth, you'll learn them by yourself.
Sorry Walt. That statement says to me that you've got nothing in the way of names. That's OK. I didn't expect you to provide any.
Nice cop out Mr Howsley .... Wake up fool.....
Oswald ordered a rifle and it was sent to his PO Box. All he had to do was take the slip placed in his box to a clerk who handed him his package. CTers have argued it couldn't be delivered because the Hidell name was not listed on his PO authorization form. But that form was lost and Oswald did list Hidell on his NO PO box form. If CTers were correct, however, then the logical next sequence in this pedantic interpretation of post office procedure would have been for the rifle to be returned to Klein's. It was not. CTers could care less about the implications of their theories due to an inability or unwillingness to apply logic to any event that results in an outcome they don't like. If by asserting that A did not happen, it must result in B occurring, then the absence of B occurring undermines the original claim. Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald's PO Box. It can't be accounted for in any way except as being received by Oswald. If post office procedures had precluded delivery, it would have been sent back. It was not. If there were any doubt, there are pictures of Oswald holding the rifle, his prints are on the rifle sent to his PO box (same serial #) etc. And when all is said and done, if there had been some document Oswald signed or clerk who could remember giving him the rifle, CTers would claim they were lying or forged. The game never ends when any evidence of Oswald's guilt is suspect for that reason alone. We would just add a postal clerk's name to all the others who lied to frame Oswald.
Yep, I know. They're the official Oswald Hair Splitter Defense Club. They all carry a photo of Oswald with a halo. I just thought that if there's someone who is on the fence on this subject that PO clerks are prone to screw up just as all other normal human beings on the planet.
Not just anybody but someone that had the key to the PO box and who picked up the form that let's Hidell know he has a package to pick up. In other words, Oswald.
LNers like you always claim that LHO "could have" received the rifle and pistol, but what you don't do is cite any supporting evidence to show that he did receive the weapons. Why is that?
The old automated response when you are "sunk." There is a ton of supporting evidence cited. Photos, documents, prints, serial numbers, witness testimony. It's almost impossible to dream up any further evidence that is lacking from the record.
There is a ton of supporting evidence cited. Photos, documents, prints, serial numbers, witness testimony.
But NONE of the evidence is undeniable proof that Lee Oswald was the person who received the rifle at the P.O....And there is in fact evidence, that the carcano that was carefully hidden beneath a pallet with boxes of books stacked on it, is NOT the same carcano the Lee Oswald was holding in CE 133A.
The sling that is on CE 139 ( the TSBD carcano) did not exist on the carcano in Lee Oswald's hand in the photo CE 133A.
The "investigators" recognized this FACT and then attempted to explain why the rifle in the photo ( CE 133A. ) is different than the TSBD rifle. They invented a fanciful tale about Lee fabricating a leather sling for the cheap carcano that he and George De M had ordered for the staged carnival photo. (CE 133A) They claimed that Lee had created the sling from possibly several different sources, including a musical instrument case strap, and a surplus Air Force pistol belt.....
The fact is...The strap is an authentic strap that was created for the carcanos of Mussolini' s elite body guards, the Guardie Del Duce.
The rifle found in the TSBD has the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald's PO Box. His prints were on that rifle. It was found at his place of work. His wife confirmed he had a rifle and that rifle can't be accounted for in any way after 11.22 except as the rifle on the 6th floor. Having a different sling is weak sauce compared to all that. Particularly when the sling can be easily replaced on the same rifle. You think that Oswald changing the sling is more "fanciful" in comparison to the outrageous yarn you have spun here implying that all the evidence that links Oswald to the rifle was fabricated in a grand conspiracy to frame him for the assassination of the president? LOL. Almost no fact in human history could be proven based on an "undeniable" proof standard. It is always remotely possible that something other than the obvious occurred. But what you are suggesting is that someone would have to build a time machine to prove this fact. And even if CTers could see a postal clerk hand the package to Oswald, some would suggest that it was an Oswald double etc. A neverending game of ad hoc excuses.
The rifle found in the TSBD has the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald's PO Box.
I know for a fact that the FBI testified that barrel had been replaced on CE 139, (the TSBD carcano) Since replacement barrels had no number stamped in them, it would have been very easy to replace the barrel of a carcano and then stamp it with the number C 2766....
His prints were on that rifle.
There were NO identifiable prints found on the carcano.
It was found at his place of work.
Means nothing.... A more important question... Did anybody verify that it had been fired that day?
Particularly when the sling can be easily replaced on the same rifle.
Yes, the sling is easily changed...IF there is a replacement sling at hand...and the slings were not readily available.. .But who would want a sling ?? Only someone who had his rifle ready for combat. And what appears to be a sling in the photo CE 133A is simply something drawn onto the photo to give the illusion that the rifle is a combat ready weapon.
You are again confusing what is possible with what is probable. Almost anything is theoretically possible. The only indication I remember of rebarreling the rifle relates to the Italians during WWII. Does the plot go back to Mussolini? Finding a rifle at the scene of the assassination on the floor from which witnesses confirmed they saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination "means nothing"? That rifle is linked to an employee of the building who flees the building. You think that is not important but subjective claims like "who would want a sling" are important? They have to draw a sling on the photo to "give the illusion" that it is combat ready? I'm not even sure what the means. I don't think anyone believes you need a sling on a rifle to shoot someone with it. That is pretty far out stuff.
The old automated response when you are "sunk." There is a ton of supporting evidence cited. Photos, documents, prints, serial numbers, witness testimony. It's almost impossible to dream up any further evidence that is lacking from the record.
The only indication I remember of rebarreling the rifle relates to the Italians during WWII. Does the plot go back to Mussolini?
The FBI testified that the barrel had been replaced on CE 139. They couldn't have known WHEN that barrel had been replaced... Wise guy!
Finding a rifle at the scene of the assassination on the floor from which witnesses confirmed they saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination "means nothing"? That rifle is linked to an employee of the building who flees the building.
Where do think the conspirators who were setting Lee up, should have planted the rifle.... In Mr Caster office? Is that where Detective Day spotted the paper sack that was SHAPED LIKE A GUN CASE ( triangular shaped)
How about citing the specific FBI testimony that you are referring too and we wouldn't have to guess? As I said, the only FBI testimony that I saw along those lines related to the Italians rebarreling the guns DURING WWII. They knew the timeframe because the purpose of the rebarreling related to the type of ammunition available during the war.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is there any reason that you can think of why this Exhibit 139 might be thought to be a 7.35- or 7.65-caliber rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - From outward appearances, it could be a 7.35-mm. rifle, because, basically, that is what it is. But its mechanism has been rebarreled with a 6.5 mm. barrel. Photographs of the weapons are similar, unless you make a very particular study of the photographs of the original model 38 Italian military rifle, which is 7.35 mm.
Early in the Second World War, however, the Italian Government barreled many of these rifles with a 6.5 mm. barrel, since they had a quantity of that ammunition on hand. I presume that would be the most logical way of confusing this weapon with one of a larger caliber.
The FBI testified that there were marks on the barrel that were made by the tool used to tighten the barrel in the receiver when the barrel was replaced...
Agree that it could have been a legitimate mistake. After all, mistakes do happen.
However, IMO (I'm not a marksman) a would-be assassin is unlikely to accomplish the damage (even as stated in WC) to two human beings (in mere seconds) with a faulty, slow-to-manipulate, mail-order rifle that had a less-than-desirable-scope mounted on it. LHO was in the USMC, thus, he would know the difference between a crap weapon and one that worked well. Even if he wasn't an accomplished shooter on a range while in the USMC.
Some of the leaps the citizenry are forced to take in accepting LHO as the lone shooter is just incredible.
While on the subject of incredible leaps, I was always curious as to how the hell a former USMC member denounces the US, moves to Russia, marries a Russian gal and hangs out in the USSR for a period of time, then gets a US Government loan to come back to the US? All during the ever-escalating Cold War period.
I guess the US Government just felt "really bad" for the former Devil Dog and let him come home, right? Perhaps I am mistaken and there are other examples of such instances?
Agree that it could have been a legitimate mistake. After all, mistakes do happen.
However, IMO (I'm not a marksman) a would-be assassin is unlikely to accomplish the damage (even as stated in WC) to two human beings (in mere seconds) with a faulty, slow-to-manipulate, mail-order rifle that had a less-than-desirable-scope mounted on it. LHO was in the USMC, thus, he would know the difference between a crap weapon and one that worked well. Even if he wasn't an accomplished shooter on a range while in the USMC.
Some of the leaps the citizenry are forced to take in accepting LHO as the lone shooter is just incredible.
While on the subject of incredible leaps, I was always curious as to how the hell a former USMC member denounces the US, moves to Russia, marries a Russian gal and hangs out in the USSR for a period of time, then gets a US Government loan to come back to the US? All during the ever-escalating Cold War period.
I guess the US Government just felt "really bad" for the former Devil Dog and let him come home, right? Perhaps I am mistaken and there are other examples of such instances?
There is nothing "faulty" about the rifle. The fact that it was "mail-order" is meaningless. You can easily search You Tube and see examples of how lethal this rifle is and the damage that it can do to the human body. Several recreations of the event using a similar rifle and ammo at the same distance and angle confirms that the damage done on 11.22 is entirely consistent with the results of the recreations. CTers have conjured up a lot of smoke and mirrors about this rifle but it doesn't change the facts.
You can easily search You Tube and see examples of how lethal this rifle is and the damage that it can do to the human body. Several recreations of the event using a similar rifle and ammo at the same distance and angle confirms that the damage done on 11.22 is entirely consistent with the results of the recreations.
BULL STUFF!.... "this rifle" is not THE rifle ...that was found where it had been CAREFULLY hidden BENEATH a pallet on which boxes of books were stacked.
A "similar" rifle...is NOT proof that the TSBD rifle would perform the same as someother rifle. In the same vein, A person who is experienced and skilled with a M-1 Garand may not be able to hit a barn at a hundred yards with a carcano.....
So the only the way to test this is to steal the actual rifle from the National Archives and fire it at someone? LOL. That is a nonsensical way to avoid acknowledging the obvious conclusion. And the FBI did test the actual rifle. The results can be simulated using the exact same model rifle and ammo as Oswald and firing it from the same distance and angle to measure the results. Those tests have been performed and confirmed that the damage done to JFK and JC are consistent with the recreations. It is a mathematical issue whose resolution does not require opinions or guesses.
And the FBI did test the actual rifle.
Thank you for acknowledging that fact... ( Now I won't need to post the proof that you'd clamor for if I posted that)
Yes They did test the rifle before any shims were placed under the scope mount... And the bullets struck OVER FOUR INCHES from the aiming point at a mere 15 yards.... Since you may have trouble comprehending what this information means, Let me enlighten you... 4 inches off at 15 yards would put the bullets off target by TEN yards at a hundred yards....IOW JFK would have been in no danger and would have rode on to the Trade Center... But Abraham Zapruder might have been in danger of being struck.....
Of course this is a bit flippant and facetious, because it is based on the silly idea that Lee Oswald fired that rifle at JFK from the window of the TSBD.
First, you don't know whether Oswald used the scope or not. Second, you don't know the condition of the scope at the time of the assassination. Lastly, you don't know how much Oswald practiced with the rifle and could have made adjustments for any imperfections in the scope. The FBI found the rifle highly accurate.
Mr. EISENBERG - Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed November 27th?
Mr. FRAZIER - When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting.
Mr. EISENBERG - But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced?
Mr. FRAZIER - As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, when you were running, let's say, the last test, could you have compensated for this defect?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; you could take an aiming point low and to the left and have the shots strike a predetermined point. But it would be no different from taking these targets and putting an aiming point in the center of the bullet-impact area. Here that would be the situation you would have--- an aiming point off to the side and an impact area at the high right corner.
Mr. EISENBERG - If you had been shooting to score bulls-eyes, in a bulls-eye pattern, what would you have what action, if any, would you have taken, to improve your score?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would have aimed low and to the left--after finding how high the bullets were landing; you would compensate by aiming low left, or adjusting the mount of the scope in a manner which would cause the hairlines to coincide with the point of impact.
Mr. EISENBERG - How much practice had you had with the rifle before the last series of four targets were shot by you?
Mr. FRAZIER - I had fired it possibly 20 rounds, 15 to 20 rounds, and in addition had operated the bolt repeatedly.
Mr. EISENBERG - Does practice with this weapon--or would practice with this weapon--materially shorten the time in which three shots could be accurately fired?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; very definitely.
Representative BOGGS - There is no reason to believe that this weapon is not accurate, is there?
Mr. FRAZIER - It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination, in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which needed, to be given to the target?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. As to how that would affect the lead--the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right.
If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance.
The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you.
I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right.
You're a slow fool Mr, "Smith"... Can you get that through your thick skull, Mr Smith?
You have lost the plot. You lose control every time your opinions are challenged. Can't you disagree without resorting to abuse?
Oh, I'm sorry Mr, How Sly ... You clearly have a limited mentality.... and a limited ability to reason rationally.
If you can't follow along with the dialog than perhaps you should discontinue posting, and review the evidence...
So instead of relying on evidence you rely on silly unsupported theories like "someone screwed up ". Why is that?
Yep, I know. They're the official Oswald Hair Splitter Defense Club. They all carry a photo of Oswald with a halo. I just thought that if there's someone who is on the fence on this subject that PO clerks are prone to screw up just as all other normal human beings on the planet.
But it wasn't addressed to LHO.Me;
Not just anybody but someone that had the key to the PO box and who picked up the form that let's Hidell know he has a package to pick up. In other words, Oswald.
First, you don't know whether Oswald used the scope or not.
DUH!... It's clear that I need to remind you that the original reports released by the authorities, touted the deadly accuracy of the rifle because it was equipped with a scope....
You're a slow fool Mr, "Smith"... How many times have I stated that Lee Oswald was NOT one of the assassins ..He never fired that carcano a single time. ( nor did anybody else) Can you get that through your thick skull, Mr Smith?
But IF ? any assassin had fired that Carcano he would have used the scope...AND any experience shooter would have made certain that the scope was zeroed...
Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself.
Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three.
Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.
Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.
On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.
Me;
So instead of relying on evidence you rely on silly unsupported theories like "someone screwed up ". Why is that?
I rely on evidence. The purpose of the original post is to illustrate that some CTers make a big deal about there not being any proof that Oswald could have received the rifle because, according to some CTers, there were Postal regulations that would have prevented a postal clerk from giving the package containing the rifle, and addressed to A. Hidell, because there's no proof that Hidell was on the list of those authorized to receive mail at the PO box. If that was the case, and I'm not saying it was, postal clerks screw up just as all human beings are prone to do and evidence of such screw up was presented. Comprende!
First, you don't know whether Oswald used the scope or not.
DUH!... It's clear that I need to remind you that the original reports released by the authorities, touted the deadly accuracy of the rifle because it was equipped with a scope....
You're a slow fool Mr, "Smith"... How many times have I stated that Lee Oswald was NOT one of the assassins ..He never fired that carcano a single time. ( nor did anybody else) Can you get that through your thick skull, Mr Smith?
But IF ? any assassin had fired that Carcano he would have used the scope...AND any experience shooter would have made certain that the scope was zeroed...
Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself.
Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three.
Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.
Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.
On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.
Walt really seems to be losing it with his rants. Again, you have no idea if Oswald used the scope, what condition the scope was in at the time of the assassination (by the time it had been fired for accuracy it had been dropped behind some boxes and it may have been disassembled looking for prints) and how often Oswald had practiced with it to compensate for any imperfection. At the end of the day Frazier confirmed that the rifle was highly accurate. There is nothing to suggest that this rifle was incapable making the shots fired on 11.22.
Again, you have no idea if Oswald used the scope,
Duh!... I'm sure that I said that Lee Oswald never fired that Carcano....
What part of that can't you understand, Mr "Smith" ?
I rely on evidence.
No. You over exaggerate the signicifance of pieces of evidence in order to make them fit the narrative.
If that was the case, and I'm not saying it was, postal clerks screw up just as all human beings are prone to do and evidence of such screw up was presented.
Where, when and by whom was "evidence of such screw up" presented? So far, in this thread, all I have seen is a classic "could have happened" LN argument.
Frazier and Cunningham where firing to determine how fast they could fire three rounds and were not firing for accuracy. As has already been pointed out to you by Richard Smith, Frazier testified C2766 was "a very accurate weapon".
No they were not....But go ahead and continue lying to yourself, if that's what makes you comfortable.
Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
I rely on the evidence as presented by the WC and supported by the HSCA. If you believe they have "over exaggerated" the evidence then present evidence of that "over exaggeration" instead of just questioning the evidence and nitpicking ad nauseum.
Where, when and by whom was "evidence of such screw up" presented? So far, in this thread, all I have seen is a classic "could have happened" LN argument.
It's in the OP.
I rely on evidence.
No. You over exaggerate the signicifance of pieces of evidence in order to make them fit the narrative.
If that was the case, and I'm not saying it was, postal clerks screw up just as all human beings are prone to do and evidence of such screw up was presented.
Where, when and by whom was "evidence of such screw up" presented? So far, in this thread, all I have seen is a classic "could have happened" LN argument.
Actually, this entire forum is evidence of the fact that the WC and HSCA over exaggerated the evidence. That's why we are still talking about this case 55 years later.
Given the plethora of conflicting conspiracy-monger books claiming this, that and the other... yet with none able to replace the prime suspect or prove that anyone other than the said prime suspect knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, it seems to me that your 'could of happened' describes you lot perfectly.
Me;
But it wasn't addressed to LHO.
Hidell was an Oswald alias just as O. H. Lee was another alias used by Oswald at the N. Beckley rooming house. There's about a dozen examples of Oswald using Hidell as an alias or to represent a ficticious doctor in the forged immunization form and there's Marina's testimony about Oswald using Hidell. Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with you CTers. The evidence for this Oswald = Hidell stands out like a Mike Tyson face tattoo.
I rely on evidence. The purpose of the original post is to illustrate that some CTers make a big deal about there not being any proof that Oswald could have received the rifle because, according to some CTers, there were Postal regulations that would have prevented a postal clerk from giving the package containing the rifle, and addressed to A. Hidell, because there's no proof that Hidell was on the list of those authorized to receive mail at the PO box. If that was the case, and I'm not saying it was, postal clerks screw up just as all human beings are prone to do and evidence of such screw up was presented. Comprende!
Walt really seems to be losing it with his rants. Again, you have no idea if Oswald used the scope,
Actually, this entire forum is evidence of the fact that the WC and HSCA over exaggerated the evidence. That's why we are still talking about this case 55 years later.
No, it is not in the OP. You have not presented a shred of evidence to support the claim that postal workers simply screwed up when they gave Oswald a package addressed to Hidell?.
What is in the OP is an example of how postal workers can screw up combined with your "it could have happened here also" argument
'could of happened'
It's "could have happened"! Try to get something right for once!
This is going to be another one of those "I stand corrected" moments for Oscar Navarro.
Name these dozen examples, and show even one example where Oswald used Hidell as an alias for himself.
Actually, this entire forum is evidence of the fact that the WC and HSCA over exaggerated the evidence. That's why we are still talking about this case 55 years later.
Present evidence of the alleged over exaggeration of evidence. BTW, did the WC exaggerate all or some of the evidence? If some, which evidence is kosher?
No, it is not in the OP. You have not presented a shred of evidence to support the claim that postal workers simply screwed up when they gave Oswald a package addressed to Hidell?.
What is in the OP is an example of how postal workers can screw up combined with your "it could have happened here also" argument
The OP was not intended to show evidence that Postal workers actually screwed up but to illustrate that if there were Postal regulations that would have prevented a postal worker from giving Oswald the rifle, that said postal worker could have simply screwed up. Capiche! Are you aware of any Postal regulations that would have prevented a postal worker from handing Oswald the rifle or was Holmes right?
and evidence of such screw up was presented. Comprende!
Where, when and by whom was "evidence of such screw up" presented?
It's in the OP.
LOL
That's all you've got, Martin? Not that you're desperate. No, not you..
You have no idea if Oswald used the rifle at all.
But if the scope was never intended to be used, then the narrative would be that he disassembled and reassembled the rifle and in doing so included a scope that he didn't intend to use. Makes perfect sense.
Oh my goodness... Now Chappie is claiming to have been right there on site and observed the rifle being dropped behind some boxes ... ( unless he was there he could not know how the rifle was handled) ...
That should co it for now. Since Oswald's life was not as the one depicted in the movie Truman it's impossible to know when or if Oswald used Hidell directly as himself.
It's hilarious how you often refer to the rifle as being carefully placed ...
How would you know? Were you there?
Common sense says it is more likely dropped as Oswald was in a hurry to grab a Coke before heading off to the movies.
I can just imagine him jumping for joy "Whoopee, the POTUS has been shot. I reckon I'll take the rest of the day off."
You?re hilarious, Oscar. You post a list of things that are not Oswald using Hidell as an alias for himself, and then admit that it?s impossible to know what you just claimed there were a dozen examples of.
Just trying to be helpfull
It's hilarious how you often refer to the rifle as being carefully placed ...
How would you know? Were you there?
Carefully hidden....The rifle was carefully hidden by placing it beneath the pallet on which boxes of books were stacked and then placing boxes of books over the crevasse between the boxes of books. I was NOT there, But Eugene Boone swore under oath that officers had searched the area along the likely escape path from the SE corner window to the NW stairway, and the rifle was not seen until Boone who was using a powerful flashlight moved a box that had been placed over the crevasse and shined his flashlight down into the dark cavern. He the spotted a tiny portion of the butt of the rifle as it lay on the floor beneath the pallet. At about the same instant Seymour Weitzman who was approaching the same area from the east and working westward toward Boone got down on the floor and shined his flashlight BENEATH the pallet of books, and he too spotted the rifle laying on the floor....
The area was bathed in bright sunlight shining through a window that was only a few feet from the stairway....but nobody saw the rifle until Boone moved at least one box and used his bright flashlight.
The rifle obviously had been carefully hidden.......
At other times you've claimed that the weapon had been just thrown down.
Boone testified that this was the positioning of the boxes when he found them:
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce514.jpg)
Once again you are lying otherwise you would have posted this image
We've been over this many times...This so called in situ photo is a fake....
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce514.jpg)
The DPD presented many fake photos to the Warren Commission as though they were authentic crime scene photos but in reality the photos were of the "reconstructed" scene.
Boone testified that this was the positioning of the boxes when he found them:
This could be true ( but not necessarily) as Boone was speaking about the position of the BOXES...NOT the rifle.
We've discussed this aspect many times and Tom Alyea's film shows that the rifle was laying on it's right side with the sling up when Lt Day reaches out and grabs the sling and lifts the rifle....If the rifle had been positioned as seen in this fake in situ photo the sling would have been on the far side of the rifle and he would have not been able to simply grab the sling.
Oswald is arrested with a false ID in the name of Hidell in his wallet but some are still not convinced he used that alias. Wow. What more needs to be said about how far out these folks are? Now they will lecture us on how they are not suggesting any evidence was planted or that they are implying a conspiracy. How could anyone come that conclusion? The evidence found on Oswald that confirms his use of the alias just isn't so for reasons we are left to ponder.
Oswald is arrested with a false ID in the name of Hidell in his wallet
Really? Are you sure? None of the four officers that were in the car with Oswald, when Paul Bentley searched Oswald's wallet said anything about a second ID in the name of Hidell. The first time the Hidell ID comes up is at the police station, when Rose (who had just started work) was handed a wallet, by an unidentified officer, which contained the Hidell ID. And guess what, the Hidell ID wasn't included in the evidence that was shipped to the FBI on Friday evening and Rose never mentioned it either until he testified before the WC, some months later.
We've discussed this aspect many times and Tom Alyea's film shows that the rifle was laying on it's right side with the sling up when Lt Day reaches out and grabs the sling and lifts the rifle....If the rifle had been positioned as seen in this fake in situ photo the sling would have been on the far side of the rifle and he would have not been able to simply grab the sling.
I've been waiting for this. The Big Cakebread Lie. How many frigging times does this have to be shown to you. Do I need to show you AGAIN. You know the rifle was NOT on it's side. The Tom Alyea film never ever shows the rifle on it's side . The butt plate is north south not east west.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4843/45442171635_6097df27eb_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2cez1rR) (https://flic.kr/p/2cez1rR)
We've been over this many times...This so called in situ photo is a fake....
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce514.jpg)
The DPD presented many fake photos to the Warren Commission as though they were authentic crime scene photos but in reality the photos were of the "reconstructed" scene.
Boone testified that this was the positioning of the boxes when he found them:
This could be true ( but not necessarily) as Boone was speaking about the position of the BOXES...NOT the rifle.
We've discussed this aspect many times and Tom Alyea's film shows that the rifle was laying on it's right side with the sling up when Lt Day reaches out and grabs the sling and lifts the rifle....If the rifle had been positioned as seen in this fake in situ photo the sling would have been on the far side of the rifle and he would have not been able to simply grab the sling.
LOL
Stop lying, Wallyburger. Boone is clearly describing the whereabouts of the rifle, and how they were positioned between the boxes.
Boone WC testimony
[EXCERPTS]
Mr. BALL - What did you do after you got up to the sixth floor?
Mr. BOONE - Well, I proceeded to the east end of the building, I guess, and started working our way across the building to the west wall, looking in, under, and around all the boxes and pallets, and what-have-you that were on the floor. Looking for the weapon. And as I got to the west wall, there were a row of windows there, and a slight space between some boxes and the wall. I squeezed through them.
When I did--I had my light in my hand. I was slinging it around on the floor, and I caught a glimpse of the rifle, stuffed down between two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it. And I hollered that the rifle was here.
Boone used his flashlight and shined it down into a dark cavern of ... "two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it."
Boone had moved a box that formed the "roof" of the cavern.... (Think of a capital "H" with the horizontal bar moved up to the top of the vertical sides. ) The rifle was laying on the floor at the bottom of the cavern... Isn't that correct?
I had my light in my hand. I was slinging it around on the floor, and I caught a glimpse of the rifle,
Stick to your original claim: Boone confirmed the photo posted is the way he found the rifle. It is NOT a recreation.
Oscar apparently 130,000 people worked on the Manhattan atom bomb project and that never leaked.
(https://flic.kr/p/2cez1rR)
Could you find something a bit more blurred and claim that it's a photo of the rifle? How about posting an ink blot?
Lo Gun wrote: ... The butt plate is north south not east west.
Wow!! It causes me severe stomach rumbling ...but I must agree with you Mr Lo Gun.
Although I can't decipher that blurred image... I'll take your word that the butt plate is on a N/S axis in the photo.
That's what I've been saying since day Numero Uno...
And...as Julius, and Umberto ( Gallo) used to say.... "Thanks for your support".
I'll get to that point....Now answer the question..... Have I quoted Boone accurately when he described the finding of the rifle.
Boone used his flashlight and shined it down into a dark cavern of ... "two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it."
Boone had moved a box that formed the "roof" of the cavern.... (Think of a capital "H" with the horizontal bar moved up to the top of the vertical sides. ) The rifle was laying on the floor at the bottom of the cavern... Isn't that correct?
I had my light in my hand. I was slinging it around on the floor, and I caught a glimpse of the rifle,
Oswald is arrested with a false ID in the name of Hidell in his wallet
Really? Are you sure? None of the four officers that were in the car with Oswald, when Paul Bentley searched Oswald's wallet said anything about a second ID in the name of Hidell. The first time the Hidell ID comes up is at the police station, when Rose (who had just started work) was handed a wallet, by an unidentified officer, which contained the Hidell ID. And guess what, the Hidell ID wasn't included in the evidence that was shipped to the FBI on Friday evening and Rose never mentioned it either until he testified before the WC, some months later.
I believe the only question that arose, during Friday's interrogations, were about Lee's use of an alias was in reference to the fact that he was registered as OH Lee at the rooming house. Since Fritz did ask him if used an alias and mentioned the fact that he was registered as OH Lee at the RH, IF Fritz had any information about any other alias he most certainly would have mentioned it.
The fact that Fritz did not ask about AJ Hidell on Friday is a strong indication that the name never surfaced until Saturday....
Could you find something a bit more blurred and claim that it's a photo of the rifle? How about posting an ink blot?
Stick to your original claim: Boone confirmed the photo posted is the way he found the rifle. It is NOT a recreation.
Don't give your typical bullsh*t answer.
You said the rifle was on it's side.
Stop putting on a show for the newbies. You know where the frame comes from on the Alyea film.
We've gone over this at least 5 different times.
The butt plate as shown on the Alyea film shows the the plate up and down/north and south.
Not side to side/east to west.
You're lying AGAIN. You said in your own words "If the rifle had been positioned as seen in this fake in situ photo the sling would have been on the far side of the rifle and he would have not been able to simply grab the sling."
In the Alyea film the rifle is already off the floor when the filming starts. There are no photographs or film(s) that show what you fabricate.
You're on a two week run of jumping on everybody's posts with your fabricated junk. New meds maybe? Somethings never change.
It did leak.
https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2014/08/manhattan-project-leaks/
...says the guy who thinks he can see a clip in the rifle in the blurry Alyea clip.
There isn't even any good reason to think that Oswald deliberately used O. H. Lee as an alias. According to Fritz, Oswald said that the landlady misunderstood his name when he gave it to her.
Exactly. It was never mentioned on the record by anyone in either verbal or written form until after the Klein's order was found.
Oswald said that the landlady misunderstood his name when he gave it to her.
Oswald said it so it must be true!
;)
Then why does the photo not show "another box or so pulled over the top of it"?
Then why does the photo not show "another box or so pulled over the top of it"?
Oswald said that the landlady misunderstood his name when he gave it to her.
Oswald said it so it must be true!
;)
Bottom line:
You claimed 514 was faked, just a recreation
Boone confirmed 514 as accurate
You're cornered, Wallyburger
Oswald is arrested with a false ID in the name of Hidell in his wallet but some are still not convinced he used that alias. Wow. What more needs to be said about how far out these folks are? Now they will lecture us on how they are not suggesting any evidence was planted or that they are implying a conspiracy. How could anyone come that conclusion? The evidence found on Oswald that confirms his use of the alias just isn't so for reasons we are left to ponder.
In the Anybody But Oswald (ABO) crowd nothing is what it seems. These guys and gals are the self appointed Oswald defense team. Since it can be denied that JFK was assassinated, and since it could not have been Oswald, the only conclusion is that it had to be a conspiracy because Oswald wouldn't lie. No, sir. He was a patsy. His mother said so. Never mind that both his wife and brother knew Oswald was guilty as sin. Never mind that he denied living at the Neely Street address where the BY photos were taken. Never mind that he fled the scene of two murders. Both events can be rationally explained. In the first instance Oswald left the TSBD within minutes of the shooting because he figured there was no more work to be done. In the second instance Oswald was not there. Yea! The witnesses didn't see what they saw, the evidence was planted, and there was an Oswald impersonator who either entered the Texas Theater early or was seen leaving the theater after the real Oswald was arrested, or both.
In the Anybody But Oswald (ABO) crowd nothing is what it seems. These guys and gals are the self appointed Oswald defense team.
And you are part of the Oswald prosecution team, right?
Since it can be denied that JFK was assassinated, and since it could not have been Oswald, the only conclusion is that it had to be a conspiracy because Oswald wouldn't lie.
Who said it could not have been Oswald? Isn't that up to the prosecution team to prove it was Oswald? But if it wasn't Oswald, whatever other option but a conspiracy do you suggest?
Never mind that he fled the scene of two murders.
Did he?
Oswald left the TSBD within minutes of the shooting because he figured there was no more work to be done.
Did he?
witnesses didn't see what they saw
You mean, like some of the people at Dealey Plaza and the doctors at Parkland as well as several people who were present at the autopsy?
Bottom line:
You claimed 514 was faked, just a recreation
Boone confirmed 514 as accurate
You're cornered, Wallyburger
Lt. J. C. Day and Det Robert Studebaker both testified the photos were taken before the rifle was moved.
Here's Studebaker Exhibit C (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studec.jpg)
Lt. J. C. Day and Det Robert Studebaker both testified the photos were taken before the rifle was moved.
Here's Studebaker Exhibit C (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studec.jpg)
In the Anybody But Oswald (ABO) crowd nothing is what it seems. These guys and gals are the self appointed Oswald defense team. Since it can be denied that JFK was assassinated, and since it could not have been Oswald, the only conclusion is that it had to be a conspiracy because Oswald wouldn't lie. No, sir. He was a patsy. His mother said so. Never mind that both his wife and brother knew Oswald was guilty as sin. Never mind that he denied living at the Neely Street address where the BY photos were taken. Never mind that he fled the scene of two murders. Both events can be rationally explained. In the first instance Oswald left the TSBD within minutes of the shooting because he figured there was no more work to be done. In the second instance Oswald was not there. Yea! The witnesses didn't see what they saw, the evidence was planted, and there was an Oswald impersonator who either entered the Texas Theater early or was seen leaving the theater after the real Oswald was arrested, or both.
witnesses didn't see what they saw
You mean, like some of the people at Dealey Plaza and the doctors at Parkland as well as several people who were present at the autopsy?
I await an AnybodyButOswald who was positively identified as being at the scene during both murders.
I await an AnybodyButOswald who knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
What? Too soon?
Oswald said that the landlady misunderstood his name when he gave it to her.
Oswald said it so it must be true!
;)
Ask the guy under oath
In the Anybody But Oswald (ABO) crowd nothing is what it seems. These guys and gals are the self appointed Oswald defense team. Since it can be denied that JFK was assassinated, and since it could not have been Oswald, the only conclusion is that it had to be a conspiracy because Oswald wouldn't lie. No, sir. He was a patsy. His mother said so. Never mind that both his wife and brother knew Oswald was guilty as sin. Never mind that he denied living at the Neely Street address where the BY photos were taken. Never mind that he fled the scene of two murders. Both events can be rationally explained. In the first instance Oswald left the TSBD within minutes of the shooting because he figured there was no more work to be done. In the second instance Oswald was not there. Yea! The witnesses didn't see what they saw, the evidence was planted, and there was an Oswald impersonator who either entered the Texas Theater early or was seen leaving the theater after the real Oswald was arrested, or both.
You said the rifle was on it's side.
Yes, that's a fact....And I was agreeing with you.....
Lo Gun wrote: ... The butt plate is north south not east west.
Wow!! It causes me severe stomach rumbling ...but I must agree with you Mr Lo Gun.
The only way the butt plate could be oriented North / South would be if the butt plate was horizontal as with the rifle laying on it's side. If the butt plate were vertical the long axis of that butt plate cannot be aligned with any N/S or E/W grid.
The butt plate as shown on the Alyea film shows the the plate up and down/north and south.
Up and down is NOT north /south...up and down, is vertical....
I'm sorry Mr. Lo Gun.... Perhaps you need a new pair of spectacles ...( or a new brain) The butt plate is NOT vertical in the Alyea film... Detective Day was on the south side of the rifle which was laying on the floor pointing east with the scope up This means that the left side of the rifle was up and the sling was right there within easy reach for Detective Day who was on the south side of the rifle. The film shows Day grab the sling and hoist the rifle up from the floor.
Even if he used O.H. Lee as an alias that doesn't support the claim that he used the A. Hidell alias as the WC claimed.
Did I say something about Hidell (rhymes with Fidel) while addressing the apparently 'misunderstood' O.H. Lee?
When they hire you out to do Kid's birthday parties does it become bothersome trying to breath through that red rubber nose you have to wear as part of your clown getup?
When I get my other laptop I'll post the Alyea snip that will once again show you and everybody else your premium fabricating skills.
Let's have a look at the photos.....and focus our attention on the rifle as it is seen in the photos...
Boone testified that this was the positioning of the boxes as found:
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce514.jpg)
Here's Studebaker Exhibit C (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studec.jpg)
Hmmmm.... It appears that someone has cut off the butt of the rifle in Stubaker Exhibit C ... That's weird!... Or maybe someone has added the butt in the official government approved in situ photo....Now why would they do that??
The NBO (Nobody But Oswald) crowd relies on opinion, belief, faith and "because the authorities said so" instead of evidence. They are allergic to the evidence.
It?s not all about you, Chapman. Oscar claimed there were a dozen examples of Oswald using Hidell as an alias, and one of his examples was ?O H Lee?.
Where did I agree with Oscar? I'm directly addressing Oswald's rooming-house related statement.
Speaking of which, I find it hard to digest... especially how in the hell the name 'Lee Oswald' or 'Lee Harvey Oswald' (and by all means do feel free to take the opportunity here to suggest your own combos) could possibly be mistaken for 'O.H. Lee'
Unless he omitted his last name altogether of course.
;)
Hey Chappie.... You're rarely at a loss for words and a opportunity to open that big mouth.... Where's your response to my question?
You're lucky anyone responds to you at all
This will probably shock you....So be sure you're sitting down ( in the event you feint )
I believe that Lee did register as OH Lee at the rooming house... It is a common and routine practice for intelligence agents to register at hotels under an assumed name....
I'l interpret that for you Chappie... BFD!!.... So Lee used an alias at the rooming house... How does that indicate that he was a cold blooded killer??
Yes, I agree.... Very few would step into the ring with Mohamed Ali either......
This will probably shock you....So be sure you're sitting down ( in the event you feint )
I believe that Lee did register as OH Lee at the rooming house... It is a common and routine practice for intelligence agents to register at hotels under an assumed name....
I'l interpret that for you Chappie... BFD!!.... So Lee used an alias at the rooming house... How does that indicate that he was a cold blooded killer??
Whew. So Oswald's use of an alias at his boardinghouse is evidence of his being an "intelligence agent" because they register at hotels under assumed names. And you know this from what? Watching old spy movies? By that logic, anyone who wears shorts must be a NBA player because they wear shorts when playing basketball. I think Oswald used an alias because he knew the FBI was keeping tabs on him and he didn't want to make it easy for them to track him. If he was working for an US intelligence agency, then they would certainly know his whereabouts and there would be no need to use an alias. Who would Oswald be hiding from in the US if he is an intelligence agent for the FBI or CIA? You only use an alias if you don't want to be tracked. Not if you are working for the folks who are doing the tracking.
The AnybodyButOswald crowd cannot show that AnybodyButOswald knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day. The AnybodyButOswald crowd cannot show that AnybodyButOswald was positively identified as being at the scene during both murders.
And that's a fact.
Where did I agree with Oscar? I'm directly addressing Oswald's rooming-house related statement.
Speaking of which, I find it hard to digest... especially how in the hell the name 'Lee Oswald' or 'Lee Harvey Oswald' (and by all means do feel free to take the opportunity here to suggest your own combos) could possibly be mistaken for 'O.H. Lee'
Did I say something about Hidell (rhymes with Fidel) while addressing the apparently 'misunderstood' O.H. Lee?
The AnybodyButOswald crowd cannot show that AnybodyButOswald knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day. The AnybodyButOswald crowd cannot show that AnybodyButOswald was positively identified as being at the scene during both murders.
And that's a fact.
Let's let the photos do the talking...They don't lie, but the DPD cops have been shown to be a pack of liars....
Here's Studebaker Exhibit C (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studec.jpg)
There can be no doubt that some boxes were moved ...because the boxes in this photo do NOT correlate with Boone's description. Boone said that the rifle was at the bottom of a cavern of book boxes.( he shined his flashlight down onto the floor) and saw a tiny portion of the BUTT ( not the muzzle as seen in the photo) of the rifle.
So since Boone indicated that the rifle was completely covered by the boxes that formed the roof of the cavern ..HOW could an escaping assassin have dashed by and dumped the rifle and the dashed down the stairs to arrive just 1 second ahead of Baker?
Answer that question Chappie....
Let's have a look at the photos.....and focus our attention on the rifle as it is seen in the photos...
Boone testified that this was the positioning of the boxes as found:
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce514.jpg)
Here's Studebaker Exhibit C (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studec.jpg)
Hmmmm.... It appears that someone has cut off the butt of the rifle in Stubaker Exhibit C ... That's weird!... Or maybe someone has added the butt in the official government approved in situ photo....Now why would they do that??
The NBO (Nobody But Oswald) crowd relies on opinion, belief, faith and "because the authorities said so" instead of evidence. They are allergic to the evidence.
Let's have a look at the photos.....and focus our attention on the rifle as it is seen in the photos...
I think Oswald used an alias because he knew the FBI was keeping tabs on him and he didn't want to make it easy for them to track him.Then why the anagram...why not call himself Alek Hidell...or Harold Schwartz?
So what?
Who were all the other renters that lived there anyway?Yeah and who were their parents and who were their siblings and how many of these connections had some link to organized crime, the FBI or the DPD? This case can't be progressed until we have answers to these burning questions. ::)
So you can show that the JFK assassination was premeditated? Good, because the WC couldn't. So you say that it is a fact that LHO killed two people. Good, because the WC couldn't do this.
When will you present your evidence for these facts of yours?
This will probably shock you....So be sure you're sitting down ( in the event you feint )
I believe that Lee did register as OH Lee at the rooming house... It is a common and routine practice for intelligence agents to register at hotels under an assumed name....
I'l interpret that for you Chappie... BFD!!.... So Lee used an alias at the rooming house... How does that indicate that he was a cold blooded killer??
Easy. Oswald already had prepared were he would hide the rifle just like he prepared the SN. In fact, that may have been the place were Oswald had hidden the rifle wrapped in the paper bag. Now, a lot is being made about how Boone described the area were he found the rifle but the following part of Boone's testimony is being ignored;
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. BOONE - Some of the other officers came over to look at it. I told them to stand back, not to get around close, they might want to take prints of some of the boxes, and not touch the rifle. And at that time Captain Fritz and an ID man came over. I believe the ID man's name was Lieutenant Day--I am not sure. They came over and the weapon was photographed as it lay. And at that time Captain Fritz picked it up by the strap, and it was removed from the place where it was. (Here, Boone's memory failed him as it was Day who picked up the rifle by the strap)
Mr. BALL - You saw them take the photograph?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you alone at that time?
Mr. BOONE - There was an Officer Weitzman, I believe. He is a deputy constable.
Mr. BALL - Where was the rifle located on the floor, general location?
Mr. BOONE - Well, it was almost--the stairwell is in the corner of the building, something like this, and there is a wall coming up here, making one side of the stairwell with the building acting as the other two sides. And from that, it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell.
Mr. BALL - The rifle was about 3 feet from the--
Mr. BOONE - Yes, sir; behind a row of boxes. There was a row of boxes that came across there. Then the rifle was behind that first row of boxes.
Mr. BALL - I show you 514. Is that the way it looked when you saw it?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is that the way it was when the picture was taken?
Mr. BOONE - Yes; I believe so.
Mr. BALL - This shows the rifle as you saw it, does it?
Mr. BOONE - That is right. Then you could kneel down over here and see that it had a scope, a telescopic sight on it, by looking down underneath the boxes.
Boone looked underneath the boxes. It's entirely possible that Boone indivertibly moved the box directly above the rifle. That would explain the position of the box covering more of the rifle when he first saw the rifle. When Day and Studebaker arrived to take the photos that's the position of the boxes as they found them. As can be noticed Ball asked Boone three times if CE-514 accurately portrayed the scene as he found it. I think Ball might have been trying to get Boone to admit he might have moved the box but Boone kind off (Boone - Yes; I believe so) recognized that and stuck to the description of CE-514. Boone testifies to admonishing others to stand back and to not touch the boxes and the rifle in order to keep the area undisturbed after he had just done that himself.
Your description of how Boone found the boxes does not correlate with Boone's testimony. Boone " caught a glimpse of the rifle, stuffed down between two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it." and not "a tiny portion of the BUTT ( not the muzzle as seen in the photo) of the rifle." and " the rifle was completely covered by the boxes that formed the roof of the cavern"(Cakebread fabrication # ?).
Or that Day's photo is just sharper than Studebaker's. Notice how all the other details in the photos correlate with each other.
Easy. Oswald already had prepared were he would hide the rifle just like he prepared the SN. In fact, that may have been the place were Oswald had hidden the rifle wrapped in the paper bag. Now, a lot is being made about how Boone described the area were he found the rifle but the following part of Boone's testimony is being ignored;
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. BOONE - Some of the other officers came over to look at it. I told them to stand back, not to get around close, they might want to take prints of some of the boxes, and not touch the rifle. And at that time Captain Fritz and an ID man came over. I believe the ID man's name was Lieutenant Day--I am not sure. They came over and the weapon was photographed as it lay. And at that time Captain Fritz picked it up by the strap, and it was removed from the place where it was. (Here, Boone's memory failed him as it was Day who picked up the rifle by the strap)
Mr. BALL - You saw them take the photograph?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you alone at that time?
Mr. BOONE - There was an Officer Weitzman, I believe. He is a deputy constable.
Mr. BALL - Where was the rifle located on the floor, general location?
Mr. BOONE - Well, it was almost--the stairwell is in the corner of the building, something like this, and there is a wall coming up here, making one side of the stairwell with the building acting as the other two sides. And from that, it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell.
Mr. BALL - The rifle was about 3 feet from the--
Mr. BOONE - Yes, sir; behind a row of boxes. There was a row of boxes that came across there. Then the rifle was behind that first row of boxes.
Mr. BALL - I show you 514. Is that the way it looked when you saw it?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is that the way it was when the picture was taken?
Mr. BOONE - Yes; I believe so.
Mr. BALL - This shows the rifle as you saw it, does it?
Mr. BOONE - That is right. Then you could kneel down over here and see that it had a scope, a telescopic sight on it, by looking down underneath the boxes.
Boone looked underneath the boxes. It's entirely possible that Boone indivertibly moved the box directly above the rifle. That would explain the position of the box covering more of the rifle when he first saw the rifle. When Day and Studebaker arrived to take the photos that's the position of the boxes as they found them. As can be noticed Ball asked Boone three times if CE-514 accurately portrayed the scene as he found it. I think Ball might have been trying to get Boone to admit he might have moved the box but Boone kind off (Boone - Yes; I believe so) recognized that and stuck to the description of CE-514. Boone testifies to admonishing others to stand back and to not touch the boxes and the rifle in order to keep the area undisturbed after he had just done that himself.
Your description of how Boone found the boxes does not correlate with Boone's testimony. Boone " caught a glimpse of the rifle, stuffed down between two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it." and not "a tiny portion of the BUTT ( not the muzzle as seen in the photo) of the rifle." and " the rifle was completely covered by the boxes that formed the roof of the cavern"(Cakebread fabrication # ?).
Or that Day's photo is just sharper than Studebaker's. Notice how all the other details in the photos correlate with each other.
Thank you. I'm so happy that you mentioned the sharpness of the photos....
Studebaker Exhibit C (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studec.jpg)
Do you find it odd that the grain of the wood of the boards of the floor can be clearly seen in Stubaker's photo but the butt of the rifle has become invisible? Would you believe that the clown who added the image of the muzzle of a carcano into the photo forgot that the rifle in the fake photo also required a butt.....
You know what I?m not seeing anywhere in this strawman screed? Any actual evidence that Oswald was ?guilty as sin?. Argument by attempted ridicule doesn?t get you very far.
Even if he used O.H. Lee as an alias that doesn't support the claim that he used the A. Hidell alias as the WC claimed.
Fleeing the scene of two crimes is evidence of guilt. As far as I'm concerned there is enough circumstantial and direct evidence that leaves no doubt as to Oswald's guilt in both murders, the wounding of JBC and the attempt to shoot it out in the Texas Theater. For you to ask for evidence is useless as any evidence will not be accepted. It's the CTer merry-go-round that never stops.
Fleeing the scene of two crimes is evidence of guilt.
Fleeing??.... Walking up Elm street to catch a bus home and then sitting on that city bus is "fleeing"??
And The man that you imagine to be Lee Oswald merely WALKED away from the scene....
In neither case could the man be described as "FLEEING".....
Or that Day's photo is just sharper than Studebaker's. Notice how all the other details in the photos correlate with each other.
Thank you. I'm so happy that you mentioned the sharpness of the photos....
Studebaker Exhibit C (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studec.jpg)
Do you find it odd that the grain of the wood of the boards of the floor can be clearly seen in Stubaker's photo but the butt of the rifle has become invisible? Would you believe that the clown who added the image of the muzzle of a carcano into the photo forgot that the rifle in the fake photo also required a butt.....
There's no imagining here, Cakebread. Oswald fled both scene's of the crime. Since Oswald didn't run out of the TSBD so as to announce the he was fleeing he did what anyone who doesn't want to get caught did. In the Tippitt murder Oswald was seen fleeing by several witnesses.
I know that in you're mind you see the arch villain depicted for you by LBJ's "Special Blue Ribbon Committee".... Just like little kids can easily identify the arch villain Snidely Whiplash, in the Dudley Doright cartoons.
And since you see Lee Oswald as the arch villain, you see any action attributed to him in a sinister light.
Sitting on a stationary city bus is FLEEING... Ha, ha, ha, heee heee heee.... :D
Hey Mytton.... Why did you hastily delete your post? It was an excellent demonstration of how the DPD inserted that carcano into a photo that had no rifle in the photo....
Studebaker Exhibit C (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studec.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/PfcQTH14/c2766asfound.gif)
JohnM
I know that in you're mind you see the arch villain depicted for you by LBJ's "Special Blue Ribbon Committee".... Just like little kids can easily identify the arch villain Snidely Whiplash, in the Dudley Doright cartoons.
And since you see Lee Oswald as the arch villain, you see any action attributed to him in a sinister light.
Sitting on a stationary city bus is FLEEING... Ha, ha, ha, heee heee heee.... :D
?
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3YgYScb/c2766asfound1.gif)
JohnM
The bus was moving. When Oswald saw the bus being held up get what he did.. he caught a taxi.
An excellent demonstration of how the DPD inserted a rifle into a photo that had no rifle in it.....Thank You, Mr Mytton.
Nah! It's you guys that are allergic to real evidence becuase it exposes your hero for the scumbag that he really was.
It simply establishes the fact that Oswald was the only person on earth positively identititified as being on the scene during both murders.
Oh, wait... was some other shooter positively ID'd as being present at either scene during even one murder, let alone both, John?
Then why the anagram...why not call himself Alek Hidell...or Harold Schwartz?
BTW I read [somewhere] that there was another guy named Lee that had lived at that rooming house [then]
Fleeing the scene of two crimes is evidence of guilt.
As far as I'm concerned there is enough circumstantial and direct evidence that leaves no doubt as to Oswald's guilt in both murders, the wounding of JBC and the attempt to shoot it out in the Texas Theater.
For you to ask for evidence is useless as any evidence will not be accepted.
If you don't accept that Oswald used Hidell as an alias then quit asking for evidence.
There's no imagining here, Cakebread. Oswald fled both scene's of the crime. Since Oswald didn't run out of the TSBD so as to announce the he was fleeing he did what anyone who doesn't want to get caught did. In the Tippitt murder Oswald was seen fleeing by several witnesses.
And since you see Lee Oswald as the arch villain, you see any action attributed to him in a sinister light.
Sitting on a stationary city bus is FLEEING... Ha, ha, ha, heee heee heee.... :D
The bus was moving. When Oswald saw the bus being held up get what he did.. he caught a taxi.
Nah! It's you guys that are allergic to real evidence becuase it exposes your hero for the scumbag that he really was.
It simply establishes the fact that Oswald was the only person on earth positively identititified as being on the scene during both murders.
Oh, wait... was some other shooter positively ID'd as being present at either scene during even one murder, let alone both, John?
Where did I state in my last post anything other than Oswald was the only person on the face of the planet who was positively ID'd as being on the scene during both murders. And that no one can name anyone, other than the shooter, who knew that there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.
And that's fact.
The bus was moving.
No ...Wrong again, Mr Navarro... Cecil Mc Watters said his bus was stopped in traffic when the man knocked on the bus door....
And by "real evidence", Oscar means stuff he just made up like the HSCA photo panel supposedly saying that the rifle in the backyard photos was C2766 to the exclusion of any other rifle.
Here is CE-515. This is the view of the area where Boone saw the rifle
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)
That was amended by me about a week ago and you know that.
"Real Evidence" is what you always demand but never accept and never provide.
Would you care to explain why his landlady thinking his name was "O. H. Lee" has anything to do with your claim that he used "Hidell" as an alias?
Correction: several witnesses identified Oswald in rigged, unfair lineups (or from looking at a single mugshot of Oswald months later) as the man they saw walking or running in the vicinity of where Tippit was shot.
So you are 🏃♂️from your earlier comment. No shock there. Now, show where LHO was "positively identified" at both murder scenes.
So, what Oswald said during his interrogation is "solid evidence" that he was telling the truth? That's not what Oswald told Marina. That Oswald registered at N. Beckley under O. H. Lee is "solid evidence".
That Oswald ordered both C2766 and V510210 is very solid circumstantial evidence.
That Oswald was identified as the man who shot Tippit (by Markham)
and fled the scene eventually ending up at the Texas Theater (by several witnesses) is solid direct evidence.
That the 6.5mm WC shells found on the SN were traced to C2766 to the exclusion of all other rifles is solid circumstantial evidence.
The same goes for the shells found on the Tippit crime scene.
That CE-399 was traced to C2766 to the exclusion of all other rifles is solid circumstantial evidence.
That the two fragments of a WC 6.5mm found in the presidential limo were traced to C2766 to the exclusion of all other rifles is solid circumstantial evidence.
That Oswald was arrested with V510210 on his person is solid direct evidence.
What more is needed to satisfy any reasonable person that Oswald was guilty as sin of the assassination of JFK and the murder of Tippit? The key here is "rasonable person".
Do you deny that Oswald used Hidell and O. H. Lee as aliases?
(or from looking at a single mugshot of Oswald months later)
Yep, anything Oswald may have done that day would be considered "evidence of guilt" by people who don't have actual evidence of guilt.
- Leaving his wedding ring behind at the Paine house is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Not reading the newspaper in the domino room that morning is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Going to the second floor to get a Coke when he preferred Dr. Pepper is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Not being chatty with the cab driver is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Showing reporters his handcuffed hands is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Marina thinking his eyes looked guilty is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Leaving his blue jacket in the domino room is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Leaving a clipboard on the sixth floor is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
He was "fleeing" so hard, he offered his cab to another passenger.
Yep! Typical CTer excuse. If Oswald was yelling and screaming about the makeup of the lineup then he must be taken at his word.
You're hallucinating again. The proof that you LNers have no supporting evidence is seen every time that you fail to cite it. And this is all the time.
He was "fleeing" so hard, he offered his cab to another passenger.
Very good, JohnI. Everything in the list does provide evidence of guilt
except that you mischaracterized Oswald's handcuffed wrist episode. Oswald raised his handcuffed right fist as a sign of solidarity with the left.
That action connects with Oswald's claim that he was a patsy after answering a reporters question about why he had been arrested with "because I had been to the Soviet Union" (I believe that's the correct quote
Then why didn't Oswald wait for the bus that would leave him practically across the street from the N. Beckley rooming house?
It has nothing to do with Oswald yelling and screaming. They violated every quideline now in place for reducing bias in police lineups.
- The fillers were not chosen to resemble the witnesses' descriptions of the perpetrator
Yep! Typical CTer excuse. If Oswald was yelling and screaming about the makeup of the lineup then he must be taken at his word. Anything that identifies Oswald as the culprit must be questioned and Oswald's version of events must be taken into account. One of these days the real culprit(s) will be found just as the culprit(s) that killed Nicole and Ronald Goldman will be found. Good luck with your search.
Cite?
I wonder how close a witness would have to be for these guys to accept any testimony, even begrudgingly. For instance how far away from Oswald was the guy who heard darling angel Lee mutter something like 'poor dumb cop'?
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
PATTERSON was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD at which time he identified said photograph as being identical with the individual he had observed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, running south on Patton Avenue with a weapon in his hand.
REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.
Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD # 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
LEWIS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD No. 112723, dated August 9, 1963, at which time Mr. LEWIS advised due to the distance from which he observed the individual he would hesitate to state whether the individual was identical with OSWALD.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if he was an FBI man or a Dallas policeman or a Secret Service agent?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He was an FBI or a Secret Service.
Mr. BELIN. What did he ask you and what did you tell him?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He gave me some pictures, showed me several pictures there,, which was, some of them were, pretty well resembled him, and some of them didn't, and they looked like they was kind of old pictures, and I think I picked the wrong picture. I am not too--
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJDyG83P/whaley-handwritten-affidavit.gif)
JohnM
Would you please explain how Mr Oswald could have been at two places at the same moment in time?
AT 12:30 PM, on Friday November 22, 1963 Mr William Whaley swore in a written affidavit that he had his taxi parked at the Greyhound Bus Depot at Lamar and Jackson and was waiting for a fare, when "this boy" walked up to his cab and asked if Whaley's cab was available for hire.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJDyG83P/whaley-handwritten-affidavit.gif)
At 12:30 PM on Friday November 22,1963 President John F. Kennedy was shot to death while riding in an open car through Dealey Plaza which was about a half mile away from the Greyhound bus depot.
Would you please explain how Mr Oswald could have been at two places at the same moment in time?
Wait for it: the universal LN excuse. He was "mistaken".
He was also "mistaken" about the 500 block thing. And the silver stripe on the shirt and just about everything else including his own age, except for the thing about it being Oswald. That was reliable.
Right. Amended to something that was also false.
How would you know what I would accept, given that you have yet to cite any actual evidence?
And I'm not the one making the claim that requires evidence, you are. What is it that you want me to provide evidence of?
Mr. BALL. I don't want you to say he admitted the transfer. I want you to tell me what he said about the transfer.
Mr. FRITZ. He told he that was the transfer the busdriver had given him when he caught the bus to go home. But he had told me if you will remember in our previous conversation that he rode the bus or on North Beckley and had walked home but in the meantime, sometime had told me about him riding a cab.
So, when I asked him about a cab ride if he had ridden in a cab he said yes, he had, he told me wrong about the bus, he had rode a cab. He said the reason he changed, that he rode the bus for a short distance, and the crowd was so heavy and traffic was so bad that he got out and caught a cab, and I asked him some other questions about the cab and I asked him what happened there when he caught the cab and he said there was a lady trying to catch a cab and he told the busdriver, the busdriver told him to tell the lady to catch the cab behind him and he said he rode that cab over near his home, he rode home in a cab.
I asked him how much the cabfare was, he said 85 cents.
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; I don't recall anything along that line, but I can recall one subject matter probably in the first interview where he talked about his method of transportation after leaving the Texas Book Depository, having gotten on a bus, and then that subject was taken up again, as I recall, in the second interview, expressed the same answer at that time, and then subsequently to that interview he backed up and said that it wasn't actually true as to how he got home. That he had taken a bus, and due to the traffic jam he had left the bus and got a taxicab, by which means he actually arrived at his residence.
JohnM
I wonder how close a witness would have to be for these guys to accept any testimony, even begrudgingly. For instance how far away from Oswald was the guy who heard darling angel Lee mutter something like 'poor dumb cop'?
Wait for it: the universal LN excuse. He was "mistaken".
He was also "mistaken" about the 500 block thing. And the silver stripe on the shirt and just about everything else including his own age, except for the thing about it being Oswald. That was reliable.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cH0HVv65/CE-382-Whaleys-taxi-manifest.jpg)
JohnM
Nothing will ever satisfy these people because they're members of a cult. They worship at the altar of St. Oswald the Patsy.
Thank you for post Whaley's trip manifest.....
I call your attention to Item number 14... Where William Whaley verifies his the opening statement of his affidavit.....
In his affidavit he said the time was 12:30 pm 11 / 22/63 and entry #14 on his legal manifest verifies he time of 12:30....
An excellent demonstration of how the DPD inserted a rifle into a photo that had no rifle in it.....Thank You, Mr Mytton.
Nothing will ever satisfy these people because they're members of a cult. They worship at the altar of St. Oswald the Patsy.
It simply establishes the fact that Oswald was the only person on earth positively identititified as being on the scene during both murders.
Correction: several witnesses identified Oswald in rigged, unfair lineups (or from looking at a single mugshot of Oswald months later) as the man they saw walking or running in the vicinity of where Tippit was shot.
unfair lineups
Wait for it: the universal LN excuse. He was "mistaken".
He was also "mistaken" about the 500 block thing. And the silver stripe on the shirt and just about everything else including his own age, except for the thing about it being Oswald. That was reliable.
Is 'identititified' = being super ID'd? Anyway I think you stated all that earlier...like 8 months ago!
I'll post the Alyea snip that will once again show you and everybody else your premium fabricating skills.
Oh Boy!..I can't wait...
Solid evidence of what, exactly? You tried to pass that off as having something to do with the Hidell name.
Not it's not. Handwriting "analysis" is subjective and biased. Handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon is even more subjective and biased.
Based on her looking at his eyes and kind of falling over -- not his face or how he was dressed.
Not of murder. Markham was the only one of them who saw Tippit shot.
Evidence that shells on a floor were fired by a rifle on the floor? Yes....
Which ones? The ones that Poe's initial disappeared from, or the one that was handed to the police at the station in a wad of kleenex?
What makes you think CE-399 ever went through Kennedy or Connally? What even makes you think that CE399 was the bullet that Tomlinson said he found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Setting aside that there is no documented chain of custody for how these fragments (which were allegedly found by a Navy corpman and a secret service agent tampering with a crime scene before FBI crime scene analysts arrived) actually got to FBI agent Frazier, what does this tell you about who fired the shot(s) that produced these fragments?
Oswald had no revolver on him when he was arrested. By the time he was arrested, somebody had grabbed a gun out of McDonald's hand and McDonald didn't even know who that was. I think what you mean is that V510210 was pulled out of Gerald Hill's pocket at the station 2 hours later.
Well, let's see. So far you've managed to implicate a rifle that fired a couple of fragments that you think were in the limo. Is that it?
I know of no example of Oswald ever using Hidell as an alias for himself. Why is why I asked. You said there were a dozen examples. All I know is that an ID card that nobody mentioned at the time eventually turned up.
Is this the shirt? The striping looks white to me.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4syz1Nc/oswald-shirt.png)
No, super laid. I'm still stuttering after just drilling my girlfriend.
Now you'll all be dreaming about tittitities tonight.
You're welcome.
;)
they're members of a cult.
Yes..as part of our creed.....We routinely recite... "With Liberry and JUSTICE for all"......
So Oswald's use of an alias at his boardinghouse is evidence of his being an "intelligence agent" because they register at hotels under assumed names. And you know this from what? Watching old spy movies?
Do you listen to the news or read newspapers? It's common practice for intelligence agents to use an alias...
But even if you aren't aware of this fact.... Most folks with just one iota of commonsense can see the logic of a secret agent using an alias....
Oswald was charged with the murders of Tippitt and JFK. He was given every opportunity to be represented by counsel while under arrest. The DPD failed to protect Oswald during his transfer to a more secure jail but that can be laid at the foot of incompetence than of deliberate maliciousness.
When it comes to the cult, you specifically, in your misguided efforts to exonerate Saint Oswald you trample over the injustice done in that process to dozens of individuals falsely implicated in a coverup and/or, as you're so fond of saying, a coup d'?tat. Your lot should be ashamed of yourselves specially those shameless individuals who sought and seek to profit from this tragedy for personal gain.
You're waaaaay off course Mr Navarro..... Why don't you try to get back on track, and Let's discuss and examine the EVIDENCE...
In the above tirade you're dealing with the abstract, and emotions....
Tell me again how the "fleeing" arch villain, and devil's handy man, Lee Harrrrrvey Osssswald ( booooo hissss) managed to reach across a five foot span with an 8 pound rifle and lay that heavy rifle on the floor beneath a pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. ...and then place boxes of books over the top of the opening so that the rifle was completely hidden at he bottom of an enclosed cavern.
So, what Oswald said during his interrogation is "solid evidence" that he was telling the truth? That's not what Oswald told Marina. That Oswald registered at N. Beckley under O. H. Lee is "solid evidence". That Oswald ordered both C2766 and V510210 is very solid circumstantial evidence. That Oswald was identified as the man who shot Tippit (by Markham) and fled the scene eventually ending up at the Texas Theater (by several witnesses) is solid direct evidence. That the 6.5mm WC shells found on the SN were traced to C2766 to the exclusion of all other rifles is solid circumstantial evidence. The same goes for the shells found on the Tippit crime scene. That CE-399 was traced to C2766 to the exclusion of all other rifles is solid circumstantial evidence. That the two fragments of a WC 6.5mm found in the presidential limo were traced to C2766 to the exclusion of all other rifles is solid circumstantial evidence. That Oswald was arrested with V510210 on his person is solid direct evidence. What more is needed to satisfy any reasonable person that Oswald was guilty as sin of the assassination of JFK and the murder of Tippit? The key here is "rasonable person".
Do you deny that Oswald used Hidell and O. H. Lee as aliases?
Quote my 'earlier comment', so far you've missed my point all together...
The AnybodyButOswald crowd cannot show that AnybodyButOswald knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day. The AnybodyButOswald crowd cannot show that AnybodyButOswald was positively identified as being at the scene during both murders.
And that's a fact.
BS:Says the guy who has failed to cite one piece of supporting evidence in this thread.
I think you have watched too many "Secret Squirrel" and "Morocco Mole" cartoons. Why would someone working for the FBI or CIA need an alias while in the US? Who would they be hiding from?
Are you sane and sober?.... Of course secret agents use false identities no matter where in the world they happen to be.
However your suggestion does display the gullible naivete of a trusting child. Lee Oswald was also gullible and naive...
When he was in Russia he was always on his toes,kept himself alert and on guard.... But he foolishly thought that he could relax when he returned home to the good ol USA. He was simply too naive to understand that there were Brigands and Bastards right here in the good ol USA, who would use him like a marionette...
Nothing will ever satisfy these people because they're members of a cult. They worship at the altar of St. Oswald the Patsy.
Whaley testified that he jotted down fares in 15 minute intervals or when he had the chance, I believe.
Again, if Oswald was working for the FBI or CIA as you have suggested, who would he be hiding from in the US by using an alias? Simply repeating over and over again that secret agents use false identities is not an answer. Lots of criminals use false names as well. You don't need an alias if you are working for the very people who are doing the looking. They would know Oswald's whereabouts if he was working for them. An alias would be pointless. Oswald used an alias not because he was working for the FBI but because he knew the FBI was keeping tabs on him and he wanted to make it as difficult as possible to track him.
Again, if Oswald was working for the FBI or CIA as you have suggested, who would he be hiding from in the US by using an alias? Simply repeating over and over again that secret agents use false identities is not an answer. Lots of criminals use false names as well. You don't need an alias if you are working for the very people who are doing the looking. They would know Oswald's whereabouts if he was working for them. An alias would be pointless. Oswald used an alias not because he was working for the FBI but because he knew the FBI was keeping tabs on him and he wanted to make it as difficult as possible to track him.
He lied based on his own trip sheet.
Lots of criminals use false names Yes, that's true... and many intelligence agencies use criminals as agents....
You don't need an alias if you are working for the very people who are doing the looking.
How old are you Dickie?.... 11---12 ??
As the old Private Detective, Jack Martin, said to Jim Garrison the District Attorney ....."You are sooooo naive !!"
Amidst this rambling is there an answer to my question? If Oswald was working for the FBI, then who would be looking for him in Dallas that would necessitate his use of an alias? Can you focus on that instead of going off on some incoherent tangent.
Amidst this rambling is there an answer to my question? If Oswald was working for the FBI, then who would be looking for him in Dallas that would necessitate his use of an alias? Can you focus on that instead of going off on some incoherent tangent.
How tall do you think someone would have to be to do this? And your fantasy giant went unnoticed in the TSBD?
Yep, Oswald was an agent who apparently worked for free, was forced to live apart from his wife and at the end lived in a shoebox. Now that's dedication.
JohnM
An excellent demonstration of how the DPD inserted a rifle into a photo that had no rifle in it.....Thank You, Mr Mytton.
Lee periodically received CASH at the Western Union office.... It's a little difficult to trace CASH.... Who sent him that money?
You may recall that in January 1964 LBJ's Special Blue Ribbon Cover Up committee learned that Lee Oswald worked for J.Edgar Hoover and was paid $200 per month.
Seriously? So Oswald was making bucket loads of cash yet he died with virtually nothing and left bugger all for his family?
JohnM
Are you aware that Marina received money from "anonymous donors" after Lee was buried? She bought a house and a Mercedes and sent the girls to college.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Xaho3HdBL._UX569_.jpg)The gift that keeps giving.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJYzBsY4/c2766asfound2.gif)
JohnM
The gift that keeps giving.
I think Wally's on new Meds. He can't stop himself from posting his stagnant nonsense.
Next up:
Stetson's to signal the assassin on who to shoot at.
Red Rings to let Johnson know "It's a go" and that he better start ducking.
Oswald's signal beaming electric razor.
Photos of the rifle sticking out of the 6th floor SN window.
Chicken bones on the top of one of the boxes in the SN.
Then there's his earth shattering photo evidence of (depending on which day it is) the shooter hit the ledge or the ledge was hit because someone was shooting at the shooter.
Remember this is who your dealing with John.
Hi Steve, I'm sure Walt keeps seeing the refutation for his rifle nonsense but being the intellectually dishonest person that he is, Walt just ignores my irrefutable evidence just so he can say his lies all again tomorrow.
JohnM
You're waaaaay off course Mr Navarro..... Why don't you try to get back on track, and Let's discuss and examine the EVIDENCE...
In the above tirade you're dealing with the abstract, and emotions....
Tell me again how the "fleeing" arch villain, and devil's handy man, Lee Harrrrrvey Osssswald ( booooo hissss) managed to reach across a five foot span with an 8 pound rifle and lay that heavy rifle on the floor beneath a pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. ...and then place boxes of books over the top of the opening so that the rifle was completely hidden at he bottom of an enclosed cavern.
Can you prove that he did use those aliases?
He lied based on his own trip sheet.
Lee periodically received CASH at the Western Union office.... It's a little difficult to trace CASH.... Who sent him that money?
You may recall that in January 1964 LBJ's Special Blue Ribbon Cover Up committee learned that Lee Oswald worked for J.Edgar Hoover and was paid $200 per month.
That was a hoax perpetrated on Lonnie Hudkins of the Houston Post by DMN reporter Hugh Ayenesworth
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1998/november/jfk-special-report-how-hucksters-crazies-built-the-big-lie-and-why-we-still-believe-it/
(https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1998/november/jfk-special-report-how-hucksters-crazies-built-the-big-lie-and-why-we-still-believe-it/)
That was a hoax perpetrated on Lonnie Hudkins of the Houston Post by DMN reporter Hugh Ayenesworth
No....That was how the government ( under LBJ ) discredited the truth.....
reporter Hugh Ayenesworth
Aynesworth described hearing a first shot as possibly backfire from a motorcycle, and recognizing a second and a third shot as coming from a rifle.[4] He described the scene immediately afterwards as "total chaos".[4] Aynesworth reported that activity converged upon the Texas School Book Depository, and that he did not enter the building possibly for fear of running into a gunman.[4Right ::) Anyway, that is not what the pictures show.
He said he instructed another reporter to stay at the Texas School Book Depository and followed the police to the scene of the shooting in a WFAA mobile unit.[2] He was with the police when they entered the Texas Theater searching for Oswald, and he saw Oswald's attempt to shoot Office Nick McDonald.[2] Two days later, Aynesworth was talked into going to the Dallas Police Headquarters by his wife and then saw Ruby lunge and shoot Oswald.[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Aynesworth
Yep, Oswald was an agent who apparently worked for free, was forced to live apart from his wife and at the end lived in a shoebox. Now that's dedication.
JohnM
Of course it can be proven. You'll just trot out the usual CTer MO of denying that the evidence proves anything so why bother.
See! When presented with evidence deny the validity of the evidence. You're so predictable.
Right ::) Anyway, that is not what the pictures show.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Aynesworth
Mr Everywhere :-\ Still kicking at 87
I guess the movie "Serpico" isn't big in Australia. You have just described under cover life John.
I guess the movie "Serpico" isn't big in Australia.
You have just described under cover life John.
Hahaha, even in the 70's Serpico was just another cop movie and 44 years later I doubt that the movie is big anywhere, but if this decades old cop movie is the best example you have of "undercover" work then basically you got nothing, but keep trying.
Really?
Was Serpico married?
Did Serpico have small children?
Was Serpico an FBI/CIA agent?
Was Serpico arrested for murder?
Did Serpico try to kill a cop when he was arrested?
Undercover agents generally as far as I know fit a certain profile and let's be honest Oswald who was married with young children, had no higher qualifications was not Government Agent material unless you can prove to me that he was an Agent? How about you have another go and try and convince me, K?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How To Become a Special Agent with the FBI
The basic qualifications to become a FBI Special Agent are rigorous and include the following:
Be a U.S. citizen or a citizen of the Northern Mariana Islands
Be between 23 and 37 years of age, unless seeking a veteran?s waiver
Possess a bachelor?s degree from an accredited four year college
Possess a valid state driver?s license
Have worked as a professional for at least three years
https://www.fbiagentedu.org/careers/fbi-special-agent/become-special-agent-with-fbi/
JohnM
Day had moved the box immediately in front of the rifle in order to lift the rifle from the floor so, naturally, the rifle would then fall to it's side as it no longer had the box for support.
Day had moved the box immediately in front of the rifle in order to lift the rifle from the floor so, naturally, the rifle would then fall to it's side as it no longer had the box for support.
That's right, amended to "Identical" which fits to a T the HSCA photo panel description. I can't help that your so pedantic that no other word in the English language can be used to describe the same exact meaning for which the HSCA final summary came to the conclusion that "identical" was what the photo panel meant.
That is a big time falsehood. The evidence that has always been cited by LNers is presented by the WC, the HSCA and other evidence that has been made available that correct an erroneous conclusion reached by the HSCA of a second shooter that missed and evidence that corroborates the overall conclusion reached by the WC.
Since you consider yourself a self-appointed defense lawyer for Oswald
how about providing evidence that exonareates Oswald?
Just trying to create reasonable doubt by questioning everything that points to Oswald's culpability goes nowhere with NTers (if I could be permitted to speak for LNers in this instance).
Nothing will ever satisfy these people because they're members of a cult. They worship at the altar of St. Oswald the Patsy.
Is this the shirt? The striping looks white to me.
Then prove it! If you can prove it then I won't be able to "trot anything out", but, alas, you can't support the claim let alone prove it.
JohnI, all you've demonstrated by the responses is that you're not serious about requesting evidence. This is just a stupid little game you, Mark and that other fella play so that you can pretend to be Perry Mason wannabees.
Contrary to your incorrect version of Markham's testimony she testified to recognizing Oswald by looking at his face, from a sidewiew and by the dark trousers he was wearing.
All four shells were traced to Oswald's S&W 38 Special and the two shells picked up by the Davis girls had a complete chain of evidence.
In addition bullets recovered from Tippit's body were of Western-Winchester and Remington-Peters manufacture the same as the shells recovered from the crime scene and found in Oswald's S&W revolver and in his pocket.
The above statement has to win the award for silliness. During interrogation Oswald admitted to having a gun.
"When Captain Fritz asked him why he carried the revolver, he answered, "Well, you know about a pistol. I just carried it."
I said there were a dozen example of Oswald using Hidell as an alias and that included other names. I never claimed there were any witnesses that could identify Oswald as using Hidell to represent himself. There is the example of Oswald using O. H. Lee as an alias for himself and the probable example of Oswald using Osborne as himself when he ordered and picked up the FPCC flyers in NO.
I just thought of a possible example that would fit your criteria. Railway Express shipped the revolver C.O.D. It's entirely possible, and even probable, that Oswald had to produce the Hidell ID to the RE courier in order to receive the package before paying cash for the balance owed.
Your question implies there was forging of documents by the DPD to implicate Oswald in the murder of Tippit.
Oswald was charged with the murders of Tippitt and JFK. He was given every opportunity to be represented by counsel while under arrest.
When it comes to the cult, you specifically, in your misguided efforts to exonerate Saint Oswald
Your lot should be ashamed of yourselves specially those shameless individuals who sought and seek to profit from this tragedy for personal gain.
?At the end of August she wrote saying that Lee was out of work again and they had not enough money for the maternity hospital. The baby was due in October, so I suggested that she should come to Dallas, where she could qualify for county aid towards hospital care."
Ruth Paine.
Of course it can be proven. You'll just trot out the usual CTer MO of denying that the evidence proves anything so why bother.
See! When presented with evidence deny the validity of the evidence. You're so predictable.
WC and HSCA handwriting experts reached the conclusion that it was Oswald who wrote the name Hidell and other aliases in documents used as evidence that it was Oswald who ordered both the MC rifle and the S&W revolver and in fake ID's and certificate of immunization. Oswald also used Hidell as an official of the fake FPCC chapter in NO.
No, you either inadvertantly or intentionally conflated the panel's description of photos taken of the rifle being brought out of the TSBD on the day of the assassination with the backyard photos. The panel made no such conclusion about the backyard photos. As I already pointed out, the best they could say is that Cecil Kirk thought the scales were tipped in the direction of it being the same rifle. Not anywhere near "identical".
Since this has already been pointed out to you multiple times, you've gone from "mistaken" to "lying". Just like you lied about Frazier saying the bag was made out of heavy duty paper.
That's a copout from somebody who can't or won't actually articulate what evidence places Oswald firing a rifle at the motorcade.
No, that's your rhetoric to minimize the fact that you're making claims you can't support.
Because I never made the claim that Oswald is innocent. I'm pointing out that your case against him is weak, rhetorical, and nowhere near a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Your claim doesn't just win by default if I can't prove you wrong. That's another fallacy.
I'm not "creating" anything. What little evidence that exists in this case is questionable, impeachable, arguable, or tainted in some way. I didn't make that happen.
No, you either inadvertantly or intentionally conflated the panel's description of photos taken of the rifle being brought out of the TSBD on the day of the assassination with the backyard photos. The panel made no such conclusion about the backyard photos. As I already pointed out, the best they could say is that Cecil Kirk thought the scales were tipped in the direction of it being the same rifle. Not anywhere near "identical".
You either do not know how to read or you intentionally misrepresent what I posted about the subject (nice way of saying you are lying). I believe it's the latter. Richard Smith is sooooo right about you.
Detective Studebaker made a map of the sixth floor and recorded the locations of the various pieces of evidence on that map. He made precise measurements and recorded the measurements on the map. He recorded that the rifle was 15 feet 4 inches south of the north wall of the TSBD.... ( LOOK at the map)
https://zmail04-mta.peak.org/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=6209&part=2
Deputy Boone said that the rifle was about 8 feet south of the south end of the partition on the east side of the stairway. Boone's estimate fits very nicely with Studebakers actual measurement. Studebakers measurement places the rifle about 5 feet from the row of boxes that formed the E / W/ aisle at the top of the stairs....That rifle was NOT jammed down between boxes ....It was laying on the floor just as Seymour Weitzman said. " I got down on the floor and shined my light beneath a pallet and I saw the rifle laying on the floor"
You either do not know how to read or you intentionally misrepresent what I posted about the subject (nice way of saying you are lying). I believe it's the latter. Richard Smith is sooooo right about you.
WC and HSCA handwriting experts reached the conclusion that it was Oswald who wrote the name Hidell and other aliases in documents used as evidence that it was Oswald who ordered both the MC rifle and the S&W revolver and in fake ID's and certificate of immunization. Oswald also used Hidell as an official of the fake FPCC chapter in NO. For the actual documents go to the WR and look for them or the notes which direct where to look for them in the accompanying 26 volumes of hearings, exhibits and documents.
BTW, since you don't believe that Willliam Whaley was thruthful then you accept that Oswald got on his taxicab at 12:30PM?
They gave a biased (all the experts worked with or depended on the government for their livelihoods) opinion. Nothing more. LHO was not allowed to do the same.
This is hardly proof as you claim.
All that demonstrates is that he was too cheap to pay a hospital bill.
Actually, John is spot on with his comments. IMO, this, in part, is why you abandoned our conversation about the subject. The one misrepresenting things is you?.
I stopped because the debate had run it's course and frankly, I got bored with the incessant demands for answers. As for me misrepresenting things all you have to do is look at the facts without your obvious tilt to exonerate Oswald at all costs. That goes for your boyfriend JohnI. Your claims that you have no stake in Oswalds guilt or innocence would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
Try to open your eyes and SEE.... That's the reason we were given this beautiful gift....
LOOK at the 0:47 point of the Alyea film.....
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94APWcGDMyY
At the 0:47 point the shiny metal butt plate of the carcano can be seen just to the left of Lt Day's left elbow as he squats down and grabs the sling of the rifle. Although the film isn't as clear as it could be it's clear enough to see that the long axis of the butt plate is nearly horizontal .....The rifle is pointed east and the butt of the rifle is toward the window in the est wall of the TSBD. The butt plate is horizontal (parallel to the floor) and the long axis of that plate is N/S....
Which means the left side of the rifle is up ( toward the ceiling) and the leather sling is also up.... Since Day has hold of that sling and he didn't reach across the rifle ....the rifle was laying ON THE FLOOR with the sling side ( left side) up....
The rifle was NOT jammed down between any boxes......
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJYzBsY4/c2766asfound2.gif)
This photo is a fake!....It was created by the DPD to support the lie that the arch villain Lee Harrrrrrvey Ossssswald ( boooo hissss) dashed by that site and hastily dumped the rifle before running down the stairs and crashing by Vicky Adams and Sandra Styles on his way to the lunchroom.
P.S. I forgot.... Vicky and Sandra said nobody passed them while they were on the stairs....
It actually demonstrates quite nicely that you are all bluff and misrepresentation. The only people who would fall for it is people who don't know the evidence.
Nice cherry pick. Maybe you missed his part.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
"Oswald's S&W 38 Special". LOL. I suppose now you'll try to claim that the HSCA photo panel said the revolver in the backyard photos was "identical" too... :D
And of what use is a shell handed to a police officer in a wad of kleenex at the police station? Can you show that it was ever at the crime scene?
You mean in the revolver that Hill pulled out of his pocket two hours later and the shells that were "found in Oswald's pocket" also two hours later? The police just "forgot" to search the pockets of a suspected double murderer when he was arrested, I guess. Yeah, that's the ticket.
He (allegedly) admitted he had a gun purchased in Fort Worth. Does that describe V510210?
And I'm sure you believe that Fritz recalled his exact words verbatim several months later.
What in the hell do "Osborne" and "O.H. Lee" (neither of which you have actually shown that Oswald used, by the way, you just assumed it) have to do with your supposed dozen examples of him using "Hidell" as an alias? With the possible exception of the selective service ID card that you claim he was carrying when he was arrested (despite no direct evidence of such), you haven't even given a single example! What makes you think Osborne and Hidell weren't other people? Just because you want them to be Oswald?
Is there any record that this payment was ever made or deposited into a Railway Express account at all, much less by whom?
I made no such implication. What are you talking about? You claimed that Oswald used Hidell as an alias and you claimed there were a dozen examples. This is just your weak attempt at shifting the burden of proof, because you got called out on another misrepresentation.
Many folks think Helen Markham was "slow"..... But Ball didn't seem to be able to comprehend a simple answer. Markham clearly said that she didn't recognize any of the men in the line up ...
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
The ones that are slow are you and JohnI. On several occasions before the quoted text above Helen Markham testifies to seeing Oswalds face and recognizing him in the lineup.
Mr. BALL. Toward what direction did he walk?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Come back towards me, turned around, and went back.
Mr. BALL. Toward Patton?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; towards Patton. He didn't run. It just didn't scare him to death. He didn't run. When he saw me he looked at me, stared at me. I put my hands over my face like this, closed my eyes. I gradually opened my fingers like this, and 1 opened my eyes, and when I did he started off in kind of a little trot. (The only way Markham can know this man is staring at her is if she is also staring at him)??Mr. BALL. Before you put your hands over your eyes, before you put your hand over your eyes, did you see the man walk towards the corner? [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes. [/font]Mr. BALL. What did he do? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, he stared at me. (Markham repeats the same scenario above)[/font]Mr. BALL. You looked at him? [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes. [/font]Mr. BALL. You looked at him [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. He looked wild. I mean, well, he did to me. (What part of the body makes a person look wild....his face)[/font]Mr. BALL. When you looked at the man, though, when he came toward the corner, you were standing on one corner, were you? [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir [/font]Mr. BALL. Where was he standing with reference to the other corner? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. After he had shot-- [/font]Mr. BALL. When he looked at you. [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. After he had shot the policeman? [/font]Mr. BALL. Yes. [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. He was standing almost even to that curb, not very far from the curb, from the sidewalk. [/font]Mr. BALL. Across the street from you? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. [/font]Mr. BALL. Did he look at you? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. [/font]Mr. BALL. And did you look at him? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. I sure did. [/font]Mr. BALL. That was before you put your hands over your eyes? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; and he kept fooling with his gun, and I slapped my hands up to my face like this. (Again Markham testifies she saw him looking at her and she at him)[/font]
Mr. BALL. Later that day they had a showup you went to?
Mrs. MARKHAM. A lineup?
Mr. BALL. A lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How many men were in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe there were, now I am not positive, I believe there were three besides this man.
Mr. BALL. That would be four people altogether?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe that is correct. (Markham has recognized this man, the man that shot Tippit in the lineup)
After finally squaring things out were Markham had become confused about whether she recognized or could identify the men in the lineup (I believe Markham was very nervous and that she was not familiar with the words recognize and identify; Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing. ) Markham then points out that #2 was the man who shot Tippit.Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there-- [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two. [/font]Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak. [/font]Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman. [/font]Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me. [/font]Mr. BALL. When you saw him? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don't know, just-- [/font]Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too. [/font]Mr. BALL. Did he have the same clothing on that the man had that you saw shoot the officer? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. He had, these dark trousers on. [/font]Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or a shirt? The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did you notice if he had a jacket on? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.[/font]Mr. BALL. Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face? [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Mostly from his face. [/font]Mr. BALL. Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. I am sure.Mr. DULLES. Could I ask just one question? [/color][/font]Mr. BALL. Yes. [/font]Mr. DULLES. You referred to his eyes; they were rather striking. Can you give any impression of how his eyes looked to you? I realize that is a very vague question. [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes. He looked wild. They were glassy looking, because I could see-- [/font]Mr. DULLES. He had no glasses on? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. No. When we looked at each other, he just stared, just like that. I just don't know. I just seen him--I would know the man anywhere, I know I would. [/font]Mr. DULLES. Thank you[/font]
If by now anyone doubts that Markham picked Oswald out of the lineup because she recognized his face then nothing else will convince. Markham was emphatic in her recognition of Oswald as the man who shot Tippit and described Oswald as wearing a jacket during the shooting. What has caused Cters to cling to the mistaken story that Markham only identified Oswald due to his clothing was that lizard Mark Lane who testified that Markham had told him the basis for her identification of Oswald was because he was wearing a gray jacket and dark trousers.
Before finishing her testimony Markham was again asked by Ball on what basis did she identify Oswald from the lineup;Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit? [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did. [/font]Mr. BALL. Did you identify him because of his clothing that he had on at that time in the lineup. [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Just like I told you. I mostly looked at his face, his eyes, and his clothing, too. [/font]Mr. BALL. He said here you were able to identify him, Mark Lane testified that you told him you were able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket. First, did the man in the lineup have a gray jacket on?[/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir. [/color][/font]Mr. BALL. What did he have on? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on this light shirt, dark trousers.[/font]
So, it is obvious to me that many CTers have chosen the path paved by Mark Lane of shame and deceit that for some unfathomable reason only sick minds can find solace in.
I only have one question for you?
Do you really believe that had this case gone to trial, the prosecutors would have called Markham as a witness?
After a considerable time coashing her, yes. I'm sure you believe the defense would have called her to the stand to try to discredit her testimony so I would beat the defense to the punch. Prepare the crap out of her and, along with the other witnesses and the forensic evidence, Saint Oswald would have fried.
The ones that are slow are you and JohnI. On several occasions before the quoted text above Helen Markham testifies to seeing Oswalds face and recognizing him in the lineup.
Mr. BALL. Toward what direction did he walk?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Come back towards me, turned around, and went back.
Mr. BALL. Toward Patton?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; towards Patton. He didn't run. It just didn't scare him to death. He didn't run. When he saw me he looked at me, stared at me. I put my hands over my face like this, closed my eyes. I gradually opened my fingers like this, and 1 opened my eyes, and when I did he started off in kind of a little trot. (The only way Markham can know this man is staring at her is if she is also staring at him)??Mr. BALL. Before you put your hands over your eyes, before you put your hand over your eyes, did you see the man walk towards the corner? [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes. [/font]Mr. BALL. What did he do? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, he stared at me. (Markham repeats the same scenario above)[/font]Mr. BALL. You looked at him? [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes. [/font]Mr. BALL. You looked at him [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. He looked wild. I mean, well, he did to me. (What part of the body makes a person look wild....his face)[/font]Mr. BALL. When you looked at the man, though, when he came toward the corner, you were standing on one corner, were you? [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir [/font]Mr. BALL. Where was he standing with reference to the other corner? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. After he had shot-- [/font]Mr. BALL. When he looked at you. [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. After he had shot the policeman? [/font]Mr. BALL. Yes. [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. He was standing almost even to that curb, not very far from the curb, from the sidewalk. [/font]Mr. BALL. Across the street from you? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. [/font]Mr. BALL. Did he look at you? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. [/font]Mr. BALL. And did you look at him? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. I sure did. [/font]Mr. BALL. That was before you put your hands over your eyes? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; and he kept fooling with his gun, and I slapped my hands up to my face like this. (Again Markham testifies she saw him looking at her and she at him)[/font]
Mr. BALL. Later that day they had a showup you went to?
Mrs. MARKHAM. A lineup?
Mr. BALL. A lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How many men were in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe there were, now I am not positive, I believe there were three besides this man.
Mr. BALL. That would be four people altogether?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe that is correct. (Markham has recognized this man, the man that shot Tippit in the lineup)
After finally squaring things out were Markham had become confused about whether she recognized or could identify the men in the lineup (I believe Markham was very nervous and that she was not familiar with the words recognize and identify; Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing. ) Markham then points out that #2 was the man who shot Tippit.Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there-- [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two. [/font]Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak. [/font]Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman. [/font]Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me. [/font]Mr. BALL. When you saw him? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don't know, just-- [/font]Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too. [/font]Mr. BALL. Did he have the same clothing on that the man had that you saw shoot the officer? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. He had, these dark trousers on. [/font]Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or a shirt? The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did you notice if he had a jacket on? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.[/font]Mr. BALL. Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face? [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Mostly from his face. [/font]Mr. BALL. Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. I am sure.Mr. DULLES. Could I ask just one question? [/color][/font]Mr. BALL. Yes. [/font]Mr. DULLES. You referred to his eyes; they were rather striking. Can you give any impression of how his eyes looked to you? I realize that is a very vague question. [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes. He looked wild. They were glassy looking, because I could see-- [/font]Mr. DULLES. He had no glasses on? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. No. When we looked at each other, he just stared, just like that. I just don't know. I just seen him--I would know the man anywhere, I know I would. [/font]Mr. DULLES. Thank you[/font]
If by now anyone doubts that Markham picked Oswald out of the lineup because she recognized his face then nothing else will convince. Markham was emphatic in her recognition of Oswald as the man who shot Tippit and described Oswald as wearing a jacket during the shooting. What has caused Cters to cling to the mistaken story that Markham only identified Oswald due to his clothing was that lizard Mark Lane who testified that Markham had told him the basis for her identification of Oswald was because he was wearing a gray jacket and dark trousers.
Before finishing her testimony Markham was again asked by Ball on what basis did she identify Oswald from the lineup;Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit? [/color][/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did. [/font]Mr. BALL. Did you identify him because of his clothing that he had on at that time in the lineup. [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. Just like I told you. I mostly looked at his face, his eyes, and his clothing, too. [/font]Mr. BALL. He said here you were able to identify him, Mark Lane testified that you told him you were able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket. First, did the man in the lineup have a gray jacket on?[/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir. [/color][/font]Mr. BALL. What did he have on? [/font]Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on this light shirt, dark trousers.[/font]
So, it is obvious to me that many CTers have chosen the path paved by Mark Lane of shame and deceit that for some unfathomable reason only sick minds can find solace in.
I didn't ask you for what you believe the outcome of the trial would be and I don't believe that the defense would have called her to the stand at all, but they sure as hell would have cross examined her if she had previously testified for the prosecution. So, by "beating them to the punch" you would effectively expose her to a potentially harmfull cross examination. Not calling her would IMO be the best strategy for the prosecutor.
It's pretty clear to me that you have no court experience whatsoever.
The Divine Miss M says she had never seen the men before
She did not say have
Do any of you lot know the difference?
Hint: Before that day
I stopped because the debate had run it's course and frankly, I got bored with the incessant demands for answers.
As for me misrepresenting things all you have to do is look at the facts without your obvious tilt to exonerate Oswald at all costs. That goes for your boyfriend JohnI.
I really don't give a crap how it is you wanted the question answered. Tell you what, Mark Lane lapdog. Don't ask me any more questions. Capiche!
When did she say "before that day"?
Detective Studebaker made a map of the sixth floor and recorded the locations of the various pieces of evidence on that map. He made precise measurements and recorded the measurements on the map. He recorded that the rifle was 15 feet 4 inches south of the north wall of the TSBD.... ( LOOK at the map)
https://zmail04-mta.peak.org/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=6209&part=2
Deputy Boone said that the rifle was about 8 feet south of the south end of the partition on the east side of the stairway. Boone's estimate fits very nicely with Studebakers actual measurement. Studebakers measurement places the rifle about 5 feet from the row of boxes that formed the E / W/ aisle at the top of the stairs....That rifle was NOT jammed down between boxes ....It was laying on the floor just as Seymour Weitzman said. " I got down on the floor and shined my light beneath a pallet and I saw the rifle laying on the floor"
Stick to your original claim: Boone confirmed the photo posted is the way he found the rifle. It is NOT a recreation.
Boone testimony
(...)
Mr. Ball - Where was the rifle located on the floor, general location?
Mr. BOONE - Well, it was almost--the stairwell is in the corner of the building, something like this, and there is a wall coming up here, making one side of the stairwell with the building acting as the other two sides. And from that, it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell.
it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell.
Mr. BALL - The rifle was about 3 feet from the--
Mr. BOONE - Yes, sir; behind a row of boxes. There was a row of boxes that came across there. Then the rifle was behind that first row of boxes.
Mr. BALL - I show you 514. Is that the way it looked when you saw it?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is that the way it was when the picture was taken?
Mr. BOONE - Yes; I believe so.
Mr. BALL - This shows the rifle as you saw it, does it?
Mr. BOONE - That is right. Then you could kneel down over here and see that it had a scope, a telescopic sight on it, by looking down underneath the boxes.
(...)
Bill Crapman posted this; and I have underlined the part of Boone's testimony that I'd like to focus on...
Stick to your original claim: Boone confirmed the photo posted is the way he found the rifle. It is NOT a recreation.
Boone testimony
(...)
Mr. Ball - Where was the rifle located on the floor, general location?
Mr. BOONE - Well, it was almost--the stairwell is in the corner of the building, something like this, and there is a wall coming up here, making one side of the stairwell with the building acting as the other two sides. And from that, it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell.
Mr. BALL - The rifle was about 3 feet from the--
Mr. BOONE - Yes, sir; behind a row of boxes. There was a row of boxes that came across there. Then the rifle was behind that first row of boxes.
Mr. BALL - I show you 514. Is that the way it looked when you saw it?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is that the way it was when the picture was taken?
Mr. BOONE - Yes; I believe so.
Mr. BALL - This shows the rifle as you saw it, does it?
Mr. BOONE - That is right. Then you could kneel down over here and see that it had a scope, a telescopic sight on it, by looking down underneath the boxes.
What's very interesting to me is the FACT that Eugene Boone specifically stated that the rifle was about EIGHT FEET south of the partition that was the east wall of the stairs ( a partition to prevent someone from falling down into the stair well.) And in the very next question Mr. Ball changes that distance to 3 feet.....
Bill Crapman posted this; and I have underlined the part of Boone's testimony that I'd like to focus on...
Stick to your original claim: Boone confirmed the photo posted is the way he found the rifle. It is NOT a recreation.
Boone testimony
(...)
Mr. Ball - Where was the rifle located on the floor, general location?
Mr. BOONE - Well, it was almost--the stairwell is in the corner of the building, something like this, and there is a wall coming up here, making one side of the stairwell with the building acting as the other two sides. And from that, it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell.
Mr. BALL - The rifle was about 3 feet from the--
Mr. BOONE - Yes, sir; behind a row of boxes. There was a row of boxes that came across there. Then the rifle was behind that first row of boxes.
Mr. BALL - I show you 514. Is that the way it looked when you saw it?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is that the way it was when the picture was taken?
Mr. BOONE - Yes; I believe so.
Mr. BALL - This shows the rifle as you saw it, does it?
Mr. BOONE - That is right. Then you could kneel down over here and see that it had a scope, a telescopic sight on it, by looking down underneath the boxes.
What's very interesting to me is the FACT that Eugene Boone specifically stated that the rifle was about EIGHT FEET south of the partition that was the east wall of the stairs ( a partition to prevent someone from falling down into the stair well.) And in the very next question Mr. Ball changes that distance to 3 feet.....
I stopped because the debate had run it's course and frankly, I got bored with the incessant demands for answers. As for me misrepresenting things all you have to do is look at the facts without your obvious tilt to exonerate Oswald at all costs. That goes for your boyfriend JohnI. Your claims that you have no stake in Oswalds guilt or innocence would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
You are wasting your time. Like a couple of Inspector Clouseaus, they suspect everyone and suspect no one. Of course it is much easier to be able to claim that you are not suggesting anything. Just taking issuing with everything without ever having to connect the dots or make any sense of the direct implications of any of their nonsense having validity. A defense attorney approach to raise false doubt for a stone cold guilty client. Questionable in the legal context. Lazy and dishonest in the context of discussing a case more than fifty years after the fact.
I stopped because the debate had run it's course and frankly, I got bored with the incessant demands for answers. As for me misrepresenting things all you have to do is look at the facts without your obvious tilt to exonerate Oswald at all costs. That goes for your boyfriend JohnI. Your claims that you have no stake in Oswalds guilt or innocence would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.I cannot think of - or even imagine - another historic event of any note where participants in discussing or debating what happened engage in the type of reasoning that some of the Oswald defenders do.
If the 5 foot 9 inch, Lee Oswald had placed the carcano on the floor beneath the pallet stacked with boxes of books he would have had to have laid down on top of the rows of boxes. The rifle was found by Deputy Boone 15 feet 4 inches south of the north wall or about 5 feet south of the aisle at the top of the stairs. Lee Oswald could not have reached across that 5 foot span and placed the rifle down on the floor behind boxes that were stacked four feet high.
I cannot think of - or even imagine - another historic event of any note where participants in discussing or debating what happened engage in the type of reasoning that some of the Oswald defenders do.
Frankly, I have more respect for the Walter Cakebread types who largely agree that there is evidence of Oswald's complicity in this matter but insist that the evidence has been faked or planted or altered or staged. Or that Oswald's strange behavior - which he admits to - was part of him being directed or controlled by others. Okay, he admits "it's" there but denies "it's" authenticity.
But to argue that the evidence exists in a sort of twilight zone - it exists but it doesn't, it's not real but it's not faked, it's there but not there - is remarkable. It's been more than half a century; we will not learn anything new. We have to sift through what we have, put together what we think happened, consider alternatives and make a judgment. Demanding more evidence, more this and that is a dodge.
The contrarian motto: "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."
There is a pathetic desire to be relevant or garner attention by taking a contrarian stance to the obvious conclusions drawn from the mountain of evidence. It is, however, just a lazy and dishonest approach that implicitly acknowledges the strength of the case against Oswald. To argue over and over and over again that all evidence against Oswald is suspect, the product of outright fakery or lies, but deny not only that such evidence would have to be faked by a variety of different folks from many walks of life (including often random citizens i.e. the liars) or that they are even suggesting a conspiracy is Alice-in-Wonderland logic. I have more respect for the loons who at least have the courage to openly advocate a conspiracy belief over those that hide behind the crooked fa?ade of trying to have it both ways to avoid ever having to take any position that requires support or explanation.
To argue over and over and over again that all evidence against Oswald is suspect, the product of outright fakery or lies,
Nobody argues that, ?Richard?, that?s your strawman.
The king of strawman arguments strikes again....
Nobody I know is trying to "have it both ways". Some less gullible only require that those proclaiming Oswald's guilt back it up with credible and conclusive evidence (which btw is not the same as so-called "logical common sense conclusions) before reaching a conclusion.
What Richard would like is that one first presents a conclusion (probably based on speculation) so that he can easily attack it using the questionable, tained and unreliable evidence he constantly refers to as a "mountain of evidence", which btw seems to be a mountain which can only be seen by those zealots who believe rather than enquire.
rather than enquire
There you go again
The CT cop-out 'just asking questions' thing.
Also known as JAQing off: Making outrageous claims and then avoiding having to prove anything by claiming you are 'just asking questions'. Highly popular amongst consiracy-mongers of all stripes.
The king of strawman arguments strikes again....
Nobody I know is trying to "have it both ways". Some less gullible only require that those proclaiming Oswald's guilt back it up with credible and conclusive evidence (which btw is not the same as so-called "logical common sense conclusions) before reaching a conclusion.
What Richard would like is that one first presents a conclusion (probably based on speculation) so that he can easily attack it using the questionable, tained and unreliable evidence he constantly refers to as a "mountain of evidence", which btw seems to be a mountain which can only be seen by those zealots who believe rather than enquire.
Great. That means you will finally gives us some straightforward answers for once. The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle (documents, photos, prints). Genuine or the product of fakery and lies? Again, don't avoid answering by jumping ahead to whether Oswald's ownership of the rifle proves he pulled the trigger. Just was he sent a specific MC rifle and have that rifle in his possession as demonstrated by the mountain of documents, photos, prints etc or not? If not, who faked all this evidence since it comes from a variety of different sources? We await an answer that doesn't try to "have it both ways."
I say again;
What Richard would like is that one first presents a conclusion (probably based on speculation) so that he can easily attack it using the questionable, tained and unreliable evidence he constantly refers to as a "mountain of evidence", which btw seems to be a mountain which can only be seen by those zealots who believe rather than enquire.
I'm sure glad Martin is not trying to have it both ways and answered my question about whether the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle was genuine or not. My "conclusion" was in the form of a simple question to Martin and referenced documents, photos, prints, witness testimony etc. The type of material commonly known as "evidence." A contrarian wants to imply all this evidence is suspect but without acknowledging the obvious absurdity of taking that position by somehow suggesting it is "speculation." How about going through the individual pieces of evidence that link Oswald to a MC rifle and letting us know which are genuine and which are fake? His prints on the rifle, for example? Genuine or fake? The order form in Hidell's name? Genuine to Oswald or forged? The Hidell ID that links him to the alias used to order the rifle? Oswald's or planted on him? The BY photos. Genuine or fake? Documentation from Klein's? Genuine or fake? All of that is evidence or collectively a mountain of evidence. There is nothing speculative about whether it is sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and was sent a specific MC rifle (the same one found on the 6th floor with the same serial number). If it is genuine, then it demonstrates that Oswald ordered and received a specific rifle. The only alternative is that it is all faked. So which is it?
LNs that constantly complain about questions being asked and opinions being challenged are the same LNs who constantly are unable to answer those questions.
My "conclusion" was in the form of a simple question to Martin and referenced documents, photos, prints, witness testimony etc.
Whoever said anything about your "conclusion"?
The type of material commonly known as "evidence."
And the type question that's commonly known as a loaded question
Even more so as you have already indicated the conclusion you want to read;
All of that is evidence or collectively a mountain of evidence. There is nothing speculative about whether it is sufficient to prove that Oswald ordered and was sent a specific MC rifle (the same one found on the 6th floor with the same serial number). If it is genuine, then it demonstrates that Oswald ordered and received a specific rifle. The only alternative is that it is all faked. So which is it?
Which of course is the usual hyperbole that is in fact nothing more than your opinion.
If the 5 foot 9 inch, Lee Oswald had placed the carcano on the floor beneath the pallet stacked with boxes of books he would have had to have laid down on top of the rows of boxes. The rifle was found by Deputy Boone 15 feet 4 inches south of the north wall or about 5 feet south of the aisle at the top of the stairs. Lee Oswald could not have reached across that 5 foot span and placed the rifle down on the floor behind boxes that were stacked four feet high.
Point out where any LNer has complained about questions being asked.
Perhaps most CTer questions being asked are seen by LNers as just plain dumb, adolescent & pointless
CTer blanket dismissal (see what I did there? Another twofer*) of all evidence as being faked, planted, or altered is not going garner any respect from us sheeple.
Still waiting for your shooter & conspiracy to show up
What... too soon?
*The hits just keep on comin'
Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls
I asked a simple, straightforward question as to whether you accepted the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle was genuine or not. And you responded that was somehow a "loaded" question. Ridiculous. You have proven the larger point that it is a waste of time to discuss this case with a contrarian who takes issue with reaching any conclusions. The documents, prints, photos, and witness testimony exist. They are part of the record. Those are the kinds of items commonly referred to as evidence. Not opinions or speculation. If genuine, then they make a convincing case that Oswald ordered and received a specific MC rifle from Klein's. You can't have it both ways suggesting that the evidence is somehow lacking to reach conclusions but failing to acknowledge the reasons for your skepticism (i.e. all this evidence must be the product of fakery from a variety of sources). The question is only "loaded" if you don't like the answer and want to avoid it (i.e. having it both ways in questioning the conclusions based upon evidence but refusing to acknowledge the implications of widespread fakery).
rather than enquire
There you go again
The CT cop-out 'just asking questions' thing.
Also known as JAQing off: Making outrageous claims and then avoiding having to prove anything by claiming you are 'just asking questions'. Highly popular amongst consiracy-mongers of all stripes.
I asked a simple, straightforward question as to whether you accepted the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle was genuine or not. And you responded that was somehow a "loaded" question. Ridiculous.
Very insightful that the contrarian brothers believe it is a loaded question to ask whether the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle is genuine or not. It is a loaded question to them because they want to have it both ways. Suggesting there is doubt that Oswald ordered and was sent a specific rifle (as the documentation confirms) but implicitly recognizing the absurdity that all this evidence is the product of fakery. So they want to have it both ways. Expressing doubt as to the evidence but without the corresponding logical obligation of owning the consequences of the evidence being faked. It is a dishonest and intellectually lazy approach to the case. Crooked John asks "what prints". He clearly know what prints are being discussed and by asking such a stupid question implies that he believes that Oswald's prints on the rifle must be the product of fakery or lies. But then he will deny that. And round and round we go down the rabbit hole.
I presented a simple premise. If the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle is genuine, then it presents a convincing case that he ordered and then was sent a MC rifle with a specific serial number. The same one found on the 6th floor. You don't have to accept the logical inference from that conclusion that Oswald was the assassin as Martin erroneously suggests to avoid answering but is impossible to square accepting the evidence that Oswald was sent a MC rifle as being genuine with any doubt about his possession of this rifle. If Oswald filled out the order form and Klein's sent a MC rifle to his PO Box as the documentation confirms, then it seems pretty obvious that the rifle is linked directly to Oswald. Consistent with photos and prints linking him to that same rifle. So you have to make a decision here to be honest. Is the documentation and evidence linking Oswald to the rifle genuine or forged? If genuine, then the MC rifle is conclusively linked to Oswald. Only if you are contending it is faked can you logically argue that there is no link to Oswald. But dishonest contrarians want to have it both ways. Which is why they believe it is a loaded question to own the consequences of their dishonest approach and are dancing like circus monkeys here to explain why they won't answer a very basic question.