JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on June 23, 2020, 09:03:41 PM
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
-
Thanks, Michael!
-
Page 93:
On October 11, 1963, when the real Oswald was in Dallas, someone in New Orleans filed a
change-of-address card in Oswald's name to forward his mail to a house in Dallas. The card is
signed in Oswald's name but the signature is not in his handwriting (14:375).
Wasn't it just the mail clerk at the post office in new Orleans that wrote in Oswalds name?
-
Please be advised that if you by chance downloaded the book yesterday, you will want to download it again because I went through the book this morning and discovered and fixed the formatting errors that occurred when I converted the book from Word 97 to PDF.
The formatting errors didn't alter the text, but, among other things, they added several blank pages, underlined the chapter titles, orphaned several single lines of text, and made a few of the paragraph spacings inconsistent. This is what can happen when you covert a book that was written with Word 97 into PDF! Anyway, all those formatting errors have been fixed. I also found one name misspelled and one name written in lowercase. I fixed both of those snafus as well.
-
Thankyou Thumb1:
-
Although I've read only a few pages the writing style is excellent. Very clear and concise.
-
Although I've read only a few pages the writing style is excellent. Very clear and concise.
Thank you.
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
Posner insists that the famous backyard photographs, which appear to show Oswald holding the
alleged murder weapon and some radical newspapers, and wearing a pistol, have been positively
authenticated for good reason. They have been authenticated. By the 21 member HSCA Photographic analysis panel.
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
Brennan is no more discredited than Carolyn Arnold.
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
The palm print was lifted off the rifle by Carl Day on Nov 22, 1963. He was both authorized and qualified to do so. FBI agent Pinkston was aware on Nov 22 that Day had noticed a latent print of the rifle. The FBI lab specialists would later confirm that the print had indeed been lifted off of the barrel of Oswald's rifle.
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/XCVyI1h.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/QeBPGEJ.png)
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
How have you determined that more fragments were recovered from Governor Connally's wrist alone than are missing from CE 399?
-
Carl Day didn’t photograph the alleged print, or cover it with cellophane like he did with the others, even though he had time to do so. He was told to turn over all the evidence to Vince Drain, but didn’t turn this over or even notify Drain of its existence. Day claimed that there were still traces left on the rifle. Latona didn’t learn of the existence of this print until Nov. 29 when it arrived on an index card, sent separately from anything else. Latona found no traces of the print or even any indication that the area had been processed. Hoover claimed that 5 spots on the lift were matched to “pits” on the rifle, but all we have is a smudge with lines drawn on it, nor is there any documentation or report from who did the match and how it was done. Or even any communication with Day as to exactly where the lift was taken to see if they were “matching” to the same spot. Drain told Henry Hurt that he didn’t think it was legitimate.
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
Canning didn't have to assume that Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in the middle of the jump seat. The ITEK film and photographic analysis determined that Connally was positioned as far as that to the left. Canning just went with the ITEK numbers.
-
Itek analyzed Z frames 183 and 186, and gave an over 4-inch range on how inboard Connally was from Kennedy.
-
Carl Day didn’t photograph the alleged print, or cover it with cellophane like he did with the others, even though he had time to do so. He was told to turn over all the evidence to Vince Drain, but didn’t turn this over or even notify Drain if it’s existence. Day claimed that there were still traces left on the rifle. Latona didn’t learn of the existence of this print until No. 29 when it was arrived on and index card, sent separately from anything else. Latina found no traces of the print or even any indication that the area had been processed. Hoover claimed that 5 spots on the lift were matched to “pits” on the rifle, but all we have is a smudge with lines drawn on it, nor is there any documentation as to who did the match and how it was done. Or even any communication with Day as to exactly where the lift was taken to see if they were “matching” to the same spot. Drain told Henry Hurt that he didn’t think it was legitimate.
Drain told Larry Sneed that he believed Carl Day was an honest man.
-
Drain told Larry Sneed that he believed Carl Day was an honest man.
I don’t see how that changes anything.
-
Item analyzed Z frames 183 and 186, and gave an over 4-inch range on how inboard Connally was from Kennedy.
They considered Frames 183 and 186 to be an excellent stereo pair. However, they also utilized stereo pairs from 183-187, and 189-193. They determined that Connally was inboard of Kennedy 6.4"+/-2.2". So, Canning had every right to place Connally 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy if he chose to.
-
I don’t see how that changes anything.
How could Drain think that the palm print wasn't legitimate while at the same time believing that Carl Day wouldn't lie?
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
No magic-bullet alignment theory needs to explain how bullets coming from the alleged sniper's nest could have caused the damage that was done to the limousine's windshield. Damage to the windshield and chrome piece was from fragment strikes from the head shot. You are falsely assuming that a deformed and fragmenting bullet will take a straight path through a human head.
(https://i.imgur.com/z3HcZUk.png)
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
No witnesses to the Tippit slaying described the killer in terms that did not resemble Oswald at all.
No witnesses in the days, weeks, months and years following Nov 22, 1962 said Oswald entered the Texas Theater just a few minutes after 1:00 P.M., and that he remained in the theater until he was arrested there about an hour later. You have to jump forward two and a half decades before Marrs could find a mentally challenged individual who he could get to make claims contrary to testimony that he gave to the Warren Commission.
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
Poe said that he could not swear that he had marked the shells. If he did , he obviously never marked them in a way that he could identify them later. Dhority and Doughty did definitely mark their shells and , as such, were both able to positively identify their respective shells. Those shells were matched to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.
-
Michael, thank you. Not only are you giving it away, but you made an effort expending the time to correct formatting errors with no expectation of material compensation.
Page 93:
On October 11, 1963, when the real Oswald was in Dallas, someone in New Orleans filed a
change-of-address card in Oswald's name to forward his mail to a house in Dallas. The card is
signed in Oswald's name but the signature is not in his handwriting (14:375).
Wasn't it just the mail clerk at the post office in new Orleans that wrote in Oswalds name?
Ferrie was engaged in damage control, if spurred on by nothing more than concern over the mid 1950s CAP link to Oswald.
http://www.jfk-online.com/dbgafvisit.html
…..Mrs. Jesse James (Lena) Garner was interviewed by NOPD, FBI, Secret Service and Warren Commission representatives in 1963-4, mostly about Oswald. She did not mention Ferrie.
In Garner's 1969 Shaw trial testimony, she mentioned the visit in passing, but neither prosecution or defense picked up on it.
On 2/20/78, Garner was interviewed by Bill Brown of HSCA:
"On the night of the assassination, about 10:30 or 11:00pm, a man appeared at the apartment. She assumed he was an agent and let him in. He identified himself as a friend of LHO, that his name was Dave Ferrie and that his library card was found on LHO. That he had nothing to do with it (the assassination) and wanted to know 'who had been to her house'. She made him leave without answering his question. She states that she had not seen this person before, but noticed his unusual appearance, wig and false eyebrows."
On 5/5/78, Garner testified before Jonathan Blackmer of HSCA:
"Later on that night [November 22] I think it was about 9:00, maybe later or maybe earlier, this guy comes and rings the doorbell...I opened the door and I thought it was from the Secret Service or something or newsmen or something...I can't forget him because he had false eyebrows and his hair was false...I'm sure it was [November 22]...He said 'I'm David Ferrie...What's all this? I come to see about this.' He said they found his library card on Oswald'...I said 'Get out'...He came out with the library card business. It wasn't his fault that he [Oswald] borrowed it to use...It was like he [Ferrie] didn't have much time. He didn't even sit...I presume he was in a car when he left...I never seen the man before until he hit my door.
[Condensed from a long transcript]
I find the November 22 date confusing, because Ferrie's time that evening is accounted for by himself, Beauboeuf and Coffey. They said they ate dinner in Kenner from about 7:00-9:00pm, then left for Houston shortly after 9:00pm. The three were in Houston on Saturday evening. They arrived back in New Orleans on Sunday between 7:00 and 9:30pm.
Further, a November 22 date is confusing, as it was about 24 hours before Jack Martin and Hardy Davis say Martin came up with the library card allegation.
oo
David
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Garner's Account of Ferrie Visit
Date: 30 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <20000630174941.17957.00000503@ng-fu1.aol.com>
I presume everybody is going to disagree with me, but I'll give my interpretation anyway:
Ferrie's friend John Irion said that Ferrie conducted his own investigation of the allegations aginst him, just after he was released from custody. And we have some documentary evidence to support it: Ferrie told the FBI he spoke with Eddie Voebel on November 27, and Roy McCoy said his home was called by Ferrie on the same day (both in regard to Oswald in the CAP). Doris Eames said Ferrie visited her asking questions about the library card after the assassination, but could not give a specific day.
Lena Garner's account of Ferrie's visit carries enough detail for me to accept that it may have happened. It seems consistent with the "investigation" he was conducting to clear himself after his release. The problem is the date: November 22.
I am inclined to credit the accounts of Ferrie, Beauboeuf and Coffey that they ate dinner in Kenner from 7-9pm, then left for Houston. The time frame fits, too, in that a 9:15 or so departure would put them in Houston at around 4:30am, the time they are recorded as checking in.
For these reasons, I am inclined to feel that Ferrie may have visited Garner, but not on the night of the assassination. But there is enough uncertainty that other explanations should be considered.
There is other material bearing on this, when I have more time.
oo
David
-
Posner insists that the famous backyard photographs, which appear to show Oswald holding the alleged murder weapon and some radical newspapers, and wearing a pistol, have been positively authenticated for good reason. They have been authenticated. By the 21 member HSCA Photographic analysis panel.
I am afraid you are a few decades behind the information curve. It seems you are unaware of the evidence that has surfaced and the research that has been done on the backyard photos since the HSCA.
And the HCSA photographic experts found plenty of evidence of fakery in the backyard rifle photos but refused to face it, as I document in "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos":
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
I briefly corresponded with one of the HSCA photographic experts, and when I confronted him with two of the clear indications of fakery that the panel found, he ended the correspondence.
-
I am afraid you are a few decades behind the information curve. It seems you are unaware of the evidence that has surfaced and the research that has been done on the backyard photos since the HSCA.
And the HCSA photographic experts found plenty of evidence of fakery in the backyard rifle photos but refused to face it, as I document in "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos":
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
I briefly corresponded with one of the HSCA photographic experts, and when I confronted him with two of the clear indications of fakery that the panel found, he ended the correspondence.
The HSCA photographic experts confirmed the authenticity of the Backyard photos, did they not? Who since then has examined the actual photos and negative(s) , together with the camera, and came to a different conclusion?
-
I briefly corresponded with one of the HSCA photographic experts, and when I confronted him with two of the clear indications of fakery that the panel found, he ended the correspondence.
What is your own expertise or background in photographic analysis?
-
What is your own expertise or background in photographic analysis?
I see nothing here that would indicate any expertise in photo-analysis on the part of Mr Griffith. In addition, perhaps people didn't find his 'evidence' all that compelling, at least in the book that he is now giving away.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Master’s degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Graduate Certificate in Ancient and Classical History from American Military University, a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, and two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force. He also holds an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College. He is a graduate in Arabic and Hebrew of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas. In addition, he has completed Advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is the author of five books on Mormonism and ancient texts, including How Firm A Foundation, A Ready Reply, and One Lord, One Faith. He is also the author of a book on the JFK assassination titled Compelling Evidence (JFK Lancer, 1996).
-
They considered Frames 183 and 186 to be an excellent stereo pair. However, they also utilized stereo pairs from 183-187, and 189-193. They determined that Connally was inboard of Kennedy 6.4"+/-2.2". So, Canning had every right to place Connally 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy if he chose to.
That doesn’t make it the correct choice.
-
How could Drain think that the palm print wasn't legitimate while at the same time believing that Carl Day wouldn't lie?
When did he say Carl Day wouldn’t lie? And how would he even know that?
-
No witnesses to the Tippit slaying described the killer in terms that did not resemble Oswald at all.
No witnesses in the days, weeks, months and years following Nov 22, 1962 said Oswald entered the Texas Theater just a few minutes after 1:00 P.M., and that he remained in the theater until he was arrested there about an hour later. You have to jump forward two and a half decades before Marrs could find a mentally challenged individual who he could get to make claims contrary to testimony that he gave to the Warren Commission.
Evidence, please, that Butch Burroughs was “mentally challenged”.
-
Poe said that he could not swear that he had marked the shells.
So then the Benavides shells have no provenance.
Dhority and Doughty did definitely mark their shells and , as such, were both able to positively identify their respective shells.
Dhority and Doughty were handed shells by civilians and just told that they were found near the crime scene. How would they know if that was true or not?
Besides, how hard would it be to scratch “GD” on any random shell and show it to a guy 5 months later? What’s he gonna say?
Those shells were matched to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.
“Oswald’s revolver”. LOL.
You mean the revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 1.5-2 hours after Oswald’s arrest and then had everyone initial it.
-
Evidence, please, that Butch Burroughs was “mentally challenged”.
'Mentally challenged'
Mr Ball. Where did you go to school?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, I'm going to private school 2 days a week. I stopped going to public school in the ninth grade.
Mr. BALL. You quit in the ninth grade?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I stopped in the ninth grade, but I'm going to private school 2 days a week over in Highland Park.
Mr. BALL. You are now?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes; I am now.
Mr. BALL. How old are you?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Twenty-two.
Mr. BALL. What have you been doing most of your life what kind of work have you been doing?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I worked at the Texas Theatre and I helped my dad out as an apprentice, he is an electrician.
Mr. BALL. Were you ever in the Army?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir----they tried to get me, but I couldn't pass----I passed the physical part, but the mental part----I didn't make enough points on the score, so the board sent me a card back and classifying me different.
-
Evidence, please, that Butch Burroughs was “mentally challenged”.
Mr. BALL. Were you ever in the Army?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir----they tried to get me, but I couldn't pass----I passed the physical part, but the mental part----I didn't make enough points on the score, so the board sent me a card back and classifying me different.
-
'Mentally challenged'
Mr Ball. Where did you go to school?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, I'm going to private school 2 days a week. I stopped going to public school in the ninth grade.
Mr. BALL. You quit in the ninth grade?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I stopped in the ninth grade, but I'm going to private school 2 days a week over in Highland Park.
Mr. BALL. You are now?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes; I am now.
Mr. BALL. How old are you?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Twenty-two.
Mr. BALL. What have you been doing most of your life what kind of work have you been doing?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I worked at the Texas Theatre and I helped my dad out as an apprentice, he is an electrician.
Mr. BALL. Were you ever in the Army?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir----they tried to get me, but I couldn't pass----I passed the physical part, but the mental part----I didn't make enough points on the score, so the board sent me a card back and classifying me different.
Thumb1:
-
The HSCA photographic experts confirmed the authenticity of the Backyard photos, did they not? Who since then has examined the actual photos and negative(s) , together with the camera, and came to a different conclusion?
I discuss the backyard rifle photos in chapter 5 of Hasty Judgment. So you are commenting on my book but have not read it? You are commenting on my response to Posner's defense of the backyard rifle photos but have not read my response?
Why don't you go read the chapter on the backyard rifle photos, chapter 5, and then address the evidence and points that I present therein?
I have also written an article that deals specifically with the HSCA photographic evidence panel's "authentication" of the backyard rifle photos: "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos." Here's the link:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
Ditto for the latent palmprint. Regarding the palmprint, after I wrote Hasty Judgment, I wrote a separate, longer analysis on the palmprint titled "Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted on the Alleged Murder Weapon?" Here's the link:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/palmprint.htm
-
Thumb1:
Don't permit your assumptions to cloud your research conclusions.
Warren "Butch" Burroughs @ 12:35 :
How common is it for management of a multi-state corp. in the business of providing a direct service to literally millions of consumers to put, as you assume, a mentally deficient employee in the position of "minding the store"?
-
Don't permit your assumptions to cloud your research conclusions.
How common is it for management of a multi-state corp. in the business of providing a direct service to literally millions of consumers to put, as you assume, a mentally deficient employee in the position of "minding the store"?
Good point. The myth that Oswald was somehow mentally deficient is one of the easiest lone-gunman myths to debunk. No one who is mentally deficient could learn to speak Russian like a native, nor would he get a security clearance and qualify to become a radar operator with the U-2 program, etc., etc.
-
It tells you all you really need to know about Posner that he claimed to have interviewed people whom he never interviewed. Posner claimed he interviewed Dr. Boswell, Marinaq Oswald, and James Tague, all of whom later said they had never spoken with Posner. Posner might have gotten away with his false interview claims if he had not quoted Dr. Boswell as telling him that he, Boswell, now agreed that the entry wound on the back of the head was 4 inches higher than where he and the other autopsy doctors said it was in the autopsy report and in their HSCA testimony. Dr. Gary Aguilar thought that sounded very suspicious, so he called Boswell, who adamantly denied every speaking with Posner and who insisted that he still believed the rear entry wound was where he, Humes, and Finck originally said it was.
Armed with this knowledge, researchers contacted other people whom Posner claimed he had interviewed and discovered that Marina and Tague had never spoken with Posner either.
-
I discuss the backyard rifle photos in chapter 5 of Hasty Judgment. So you are commenting on my book but have not read it? You are commenting on my response to Posner's defense of the backyard rifle photos but have not read my response?
Why don't you go read the chapter on the backyard rifle photos, chapter 5, and then address the evidence and points that I present therein?
I have also written an article that deals specifically with the HSCA photographic evidence panel's "authentication" of the backyard rifle photos: "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos." Here's the link:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
Ditto for the latent palmprint. Regarding the palmprint, after I wrote Hasty Judgment, I wrote a separate, longer analysis on the palmprint titled "Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted on the Alleged Murder Weapon?" Here's the link:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/palmprint.htm
None of those arguments hold up under scrutiny. Your backyard photo nonsense has been dealt with numerous times in this forum. Here's just one such discussion:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,863.0.html
You avoided addressing the information that I presented here on the palm print. Why is that?
-
None of those arguments hold up under scrutiny. Your backyard photo nonsense has been dealt with numerous times in this forum. Here's just one such discussion:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,863.0.html
None of my arguments and observations are refuted in that thread, not one of them. In fact, the thread fails to address several of my points.
You avoided addressing the information that I presented here on the palm print. Why is that?
Because your information does not explain the problems that I and others have pointed out with the alleged palmprint. Simply brushing aside as "mistakes" all the evidence that indicates the palmprint was not on the rifle when the FBI got it does not do much for me.
If Oswald had been given a fair trial with an honest judge, the palmprint would have been excluded for lack of a credible chain of evidence. Indeed, if the prosecution knew that the judge would be honest, they might not have even entered the palmprint into evidence given the fact that it disappeared from the rifle barrel when the rifle was turned over to the FBI on the night of 11/22 (Latona said the rifle barrel did not look like it had even been processed for prints). It was only after federal agents paid a visit to the funeral home and took prints from Oswald's corpse that the DPD magically discovered that, "Oh, yeah, did we mention we found a palmprint on the barrel?"
-
None of my arguments and observations are refuted in that thread, not one of them. In fact, the thread fails to address several of my points.
Try reading the tread. Your chin argument is addressed on the first page.
Because your information does not explain the problems that I and others have pointed out with the alleged palmprint. Simply brushing aside as "mistakes" all the evidence that indicates the palmprint was not on the rifle when the FBI got it does not do much for me.
If Oswald had been given a fair trial with an honest judge, the palmprint would have been excluded for lack of a credible chain of evidence. Indeed, if the prosecution knew that the judge would be honest, they might not have even entered the palmprint into evidence given the fact that it disappeared from the rifle barrel when the rifle was turned over to the FBI on the night of 11/22 (Latona said the rifle barrel did not look like it had even been processed for prints). It was only after federal agents paid a visit to the funeral home and took prints from Oswald's corpse that the DPD magically discovered that, "Oh, yeah, did we mention we found a palmprint on the barrel?"
You are still avoiding addressing the information that I posted. Here it is again:
(https://i.imgur.com/XCVyI1h.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/QeBPGEJ.png)
For the record, there was a credible chain of evidence for the print.
-
Try reading the tread. Your chin argument is addressed on the first page.
Thumb1:
(https://s15.postimg.cc/hef5txoej/Ossychin_zpsgs9wcd0f.gif)
JohnM
-
(https://www.kold.com/resizer/k2HTW8HZ-PUxlal3NCN0WciqXQE=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-raycom.s3.amazonaws.com/public/2J2PFBICINEZPHWY3AX2NX3CE4.jpg)
-
(https://www.kold.com/resizer/k2HTW8HZ-PUxlal3NCN0WciqXQE=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-raycom.s3.amazonaws.com/public/2J2PFBICINEZPHWY3AX2NX3CE4.jpg)
Which Oswald is that, Harvey or Lee? ;D
I've never seen that pic before.
-
Try reading the tread. Your chin argument is addressed on the first page.
You still have not read the chapter on the backyard photos, have you? Did you miss the part about the discovery of DPD backyard rifle photos in 1992, one of which shows a white silhouette where Oswald's body was later pasted, and another of which shows a DPD detective striking the same pose seen in the third photo? Did you miss that? Now, gosh gully gulp, can you tell me why the DPD would have taken and manipulated such pictures?
Even the Houston Post (February 9, 1992) acknowledged that "One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation" and that this manipulation involved "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the background" of the picture. Did you miss all that? You and your fellow true believers are about 30 years behind the information curve.
Anyway, regrading the chin issue, anyone with eyes who is willing to use them can look at those photos and see that the chin is noticeably different from Oswald's chin in genuine photos of him. British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson rejected the HSCA photographic panel's labored attempt to deny the chin problem.
You are still avoiding addressing the information that I posted. Here it is again: [SNIP]
SMH. That well-known and misused memo proves nothing, and in fact only raises more questions.
For the record, there was a credible chain of evidence for the print.
Not on this planet. You must be kidding. Lt. Day "failed" to take a single photograph of the print, even though he took several photos of the partial prints on the trigger guard. When the DPD handed over all the physical evidence on the night of 11/22, Lt. Day said nothing about having found a palmprint on the barrel (which print, by the way, was allegedly "found" beneath the foregrip, i.e., on a part of the barrel that a gunman could not have touched while firing the rifle). When Latona got the rifle at FBI HQ, he found no trace of a print on the barrel, even though Lt. Day later claimed that the print was still visible after he did his lift. Moreover, Latona said he found no trace of any attempt to even process the barrel for prints; in other words, he could see no evidence that anyone had tried to detect/lift a print on/from the barrel.
And you realize that the palmprint did not arrive to the FBI until November 29, right? You know that, right? Why the seven-day delay in sending the most crucial piece of evidence that the DPD supposedly found, whereas all the prints were sent, and arrived, before then? Hey? What was the holdup? And why didn't the DPD rush to announce the finding of the palmprint as soon as it was found? Why the long delay?
This is your idea of a "credible chain of evidence"?
-
You still have not read the chapter on the backyard photos, have you? Did you miss the part about the discovery of DPD backyard rifle photos in 1992, one of which shows a white silhouette where Oswald's body was later pasted, and another of which shows a DPD detective striking the same pose seen in the third photo? Did you miss that? Now, gosh gully gulp, can you tell me why the DPD would have taken and manipulated such pictures?
Even the Houston Post (February 9, 1992) that "One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation" and that this manipulation involved "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the background" of the picture. Did you miss all that? You and your fellow true believers are about 30 years behind the information curve.
What does the white silhouette have to do with the authenticity of the Backyard photos themselves?
Anyway, regrading the chin issue, anyone with eyes who is willing to use them can look at those photos and see that the chin is noticeably different from Oswald's chin in genuine photos of him. British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson rejected the HSCA photographic panel's labored attempt to deny the chin problem.
Sorry but John Mytton has destroyed your chin argument and he did so with little effort.
Malcolm Thompson never had the actual photos and negative(s) at his disposal. He ended up deferring to the conclusions of the HSCA panel of photographic analysis experts.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0092a.htm
SMH. That well-known and misused memo proves nothing, and in fact only raises more questions.
The FBI memo establishes that the palm print had been lifted off the barrel of Oswald's rifle. And yes, it raises questions. Ones that you are unwilling or unable to address. Like, how did Oswald's palm print get on the barrel if he had never had possession of the rifle?
Not on this planet. You must be kidding. Lt. Day "failed" to take a single photograph of the print, even though he took several photos of the partial prints on the trigger guard. When the DPD handed over all the physical evidence on the night of 11/22, Lt. Day said nothing about having found a palmprint on the barrel (which print, by the way, was allegedly "found" beneath the foregrip, i.e., on a part of the barrel that a gunman could not have touched while firing the rifle). When Latona got the rifle at FBI HQ, he found no trace of a print on the barrel, even though Lt. Day later claimed that the print was still visible after he did his lift. Moreover, Latona said he found no trace of any attempt to even process the barrel for prints; in other words, he could see no evidence that anyone had tried to detect/lift a print on/from the barrel.
And you realize that the palmprint did not arrive to the FBI until November 29, right? You know that, right? Why the seven-day delay in sending the most crucial piece of evidence that the DPD supposedly found, whereas all the prints were send, and arrived, before then? Hey? What was the holdup? And why didn't the DPD rush to announce the finding of the palmprint as soon as it was found? Why the long delay?
This is your idea of a "credible chain of evidence"?
A photo is not required for a chain of evidence. Latona found no trace of a print on the barrel on Nov 23 because Carl Day had removed all traces of it. Day thought later that he had left some traces of it but he was wrong.
The FBI received the palm print on Nov 26, not Nov 29 as you claim. The chain of custody was from Day to Drain to Latona.
-
The FBI memo establishes that the palm print had been lifted off the barrel of Oswald's rifle.
“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL.
The FBI memo doesn’t “establish” anything. It’s just a claim.
The FBI received the palm print on Nov 26, not Nov 29 as you claim. The chain of custody was from Day to Drain to Latona.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.
Mr. EISENBERG. Seven days after the assassination. And in the intervening period, correspondingly, the FBI had no such knowledge?
Mr. LATONA. As far as I know.
Cite Drain having it on the 26th. And a better question is, why didn’t Drain get it on the 22nd?
-
Cite Drain having it on the 26th.
(https://i.imgur.com/va8KmfX.jpg)
-
The FBI memo doesn’t “establish” anything. It’s just a claim.
The palmprint that Day took on the 22nd.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtGjvGDk/palm-print-a.jpg)
The print that the FBI took directly from Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvJvjH7x/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
The random marks from Days print is a perfect match to the prints take from Oswald's rifle by the FBI.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JKxKTvt/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
JohnM
-
The palmprint that Day took on the 22nd.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtGjvGDk/palm-print-a.jpg)
The print that the FBI took directly from Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvJvjH7x/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
The random marks from Days print is a perfect match to the prints take from Oswald's rifle by the FBI.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JKxKTvt/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
JohnM
(http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/b/bow_down_before_you-960.gif)
-
John,
That doesn't count.
Iacoletti, et al, can't even discern a print.
It's just a big blob, and it wasn't videotaped and notarized in triplicate.
You made it up!
-- MWT ;)
PS And why does the white spot in the middle disappear, huh ??!!??!!!!!!!
You have proved nothing.
You made it all up.
You made it all up.
YOU MADE IT ALL UP!
You ... you ... you ... CHARLATAN, you!
/s
Hi Thomas, Iirc "Iacoletti" or whatever his name is has already argued that the 5 random marks could be from another random rifle??, that the blob could be from anywhere and that Hoover must have lied, etc etc. He knows how devastating this evidence is for his client so like a sleazy defence attorney he's willing to try every trick in the book, sad!
JohnM
-
What does the white silhouette have to do with the authenticity of the Backyard photos themselves?
You're kidding, right? You really must be kidding. We find prints that reveal early drafts of the production of the backyard rifle photos, and you ask what the most damning of the prints have to do with the photos' authenticity?!
Sorry but John Mytton has destroyed your chin argument and he did so with little effort.
No, he's just seeing the Emperor's New Clothes. He might want to go talk with all the photographic experts who have noted the clear difference between the backyard figure's chin and Oswald's chin in genuine pictures of him.
Malcolm Thompson never had the actual photos and negative(s) at his disposal. He ended up deferring to the conclusions of the HSCA panel of photographic analysis experts.
Not quite. He did not buy their conclusion about the chin. You don't need the original prints and negatives to see the clear indications of fakery in the photos. The HSCA PEP was unable to duplicate the impossible shadows seen in the backyard pics, as I document:
The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
And the PEP didn't even try to explain how a cheap handheld camera supposedly passed back and forth between shots could have produced three pictures whose backgrounds are so nearly identical that the panel could only detect the differences by photogrammetric measurement. Such an astonishing sameness of backgrounds would be difficult to achieve even by using a tripod to steady the camera. And it's not like the PEP experts were not aware of this problem; they just couldn't explain it. So they ignored it.
Another issue the PEP punted on was the absence of the ring in 133-A. Why would anyone take off their ring for one picture and put it back on for the two other pictures, while being handed the camera back and forth to advance the film? That makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody does that.
The FBI memo establishes that the palm print had been lifted off the barrel of Oswald's rifle. And yes, it raises questions. Ones that you are unwilling or unable to address. Like, how did Oswald's palm print get on the barrel if he had never had possession of the rifle?
The FBI memo "establishes" no such thing. How many times was the FBI caught making false claims about evidence in the case? Guess what happened when the HSCA wanted to test the memo's claim by examining the original palmprint, which was given to the FBI? Take a guess. Just take a guess. Have you guessed yet? Here you go:
The FBI told the HSCA that the palmprint had been "misplaced." They said they couldn't find it. "Gee, we know that palmprint was one of the most historic pieces of evidence in criminal history, but, gulp, we have misplaced it, and it would take a 'mammoth effort' to find it." The HSCA never did get it.
A photo is not required for a chain of evidence.
Uh, photographing a print before you lift it is standard procedure, just in case you botch the lift. Day admitted that it was DPD standard procedure to do this. So tell us again why he took photos of the trigger-guard partial prints but no photos of the palmprint, even though he had hours to do so? Why did he lie and claim that he didn't take pics of the palmprint because he was being rushed, when in fact he had several hours to photograph the palmprint?
Latona found no trace of a print on the barrel on Nov 23 because Carl Day had removed all traces of it. Day thought later that he had left some traces of it but he was wrong.
Oh, Lt. Day was "wrong"?! So not only was he wrong about the palmprint still being visible when he handed over the rifle, but he was wrong about there being fingerprint powder on the barrel?! Uh-huh. You bet.
Of course, nobody wanted to explain how the print could vanish from the barrel between Dallas and Washington, especially given the fact that it was under the wooden stock and thus could not be touched unless the stock were removed.
And how would all trace of print processing have vanished from the barrel? Hey? How could that have happened? Recall that Latona said the barrel did not even look like it had been processed for prints.
The FBI received the palm print on Nov 26, not Nov 29 as you claim. The chain of custody was from Day to Drain to Latona.
Uh, no, Day reviewed the palmprint on 11/26. The print did not get to FBI HQ until 11/29.
If anyone's interested, one of the most thorough examinations of the palmprint claim is Sylvia Meagher's section on this in Accessories After the Fact (pp. 120-127). A complete readable and downloadable PDF of the book is available at the Internet Archive website:
https://archive.org/details/AccessoriesAfterTheFact
-
Hi Thomas, Iirc "Iacoletti" or whatever his name is has already argued that the 5 random marks could be from another random rifle??
I never made such an argument.
a) you haven't established that the 5 locations that you stuck arrows on correspond to the locations where the numbered lines are pointing to on the Hoover memo.
b) neither you or Hoover established that their test lift came from the same spot that Day allegedly did his lift from.
c) There are similar visible white spots on the John Hunt scan of the lift (who you neglected to credit or cite) and on the Hoover smudge that you ignored in your zeal to find 5 spots you could sort of "line up".
d) Like your other contrived alternating gifs, this proves nothing.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/va8KmfX.jpg)
Thanks. Something is amiss here. Latona got the boxes (which are on the same list) on the 27th. Why did the magic partial palmprint not show up until the 29th?
-
You're kidding, right? You really must be kidding. We find prints that reveal early drafts of the production of the backyard rifle photos, and you ask what the most damning of the prints have to do with the photos' authenticity?!
Nope. I'm dead serious. What does the white silhouette have to do with the authenticity of the Backyard photos themselves? The actual photos and negative(s) were examined thoroughly down to the minutest detail by a panel of 21 experts in photographic analysis. The camera that took those photos was used in that investigation. How does something outside of those original photos and negative(s) alter the conclusion that the photos themselves were authentic and unaltered?
No, he's just seeing the Emperor's New Clothes. He might want to go talk with all the photographic experts who have noted the clear difference between the backyard figure's chin and Oswald's chin in genuine pictures of him.
Not quite. He did not buy their conclusion about the chin. You don't need the original prints and negatives to see the clear indications of fakery in the photos. The HSCA PEP was unable to duplicate the impossible shadows seen in the backyard pics, as I document:
The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
And the PEP didn't even try to explain how a cheap handheld camera supposedly passed back and forth between shots could have produced three pictures whose backgrounds are so nearly identical that the panel could only detect the differences by photogrammetric measurement. Such an astonishing sameness of backgrounds would be difficult to achieve even by using a tripod to steady the camera. And it's not like the PEP experts were not aware of this problem; they just couldn't explain it. So they ignored it.
Another issue the PEP punted on was the absence of the ring in 133-A. Why would anyone take off their ring for one picture and put it back on for the two other pictures, while being handed the camera back and forth to advance the film? That makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody does that.
You're still clinging to your chin nonsense? I'll leave the backyard photo stuff to John Mytton. He will slap you silly. In fact, he already has. Thompson may have had a problem with the chin issue but he did ultimately defer to the HSCA conclusions on the photos.
The FBI memo "establishes" no such thing.
The FBI memo , together with Liebeler's HSCA testimony, and the graphic provided here by John Mytton establishes it beyond any reasonable doubt.
How many times was the FBI caught making false claims about evidence in the case? Guess what happened when the HSCA wanted to test the memo's claim by examining the original palmprint, which was given to the FBI? Take a guess. Just take a guess. Have you guessed yet? Here you go:
The FBI told the HSCA that the palmprint had been "misplaced." They said they couldn't find it. "Gee, we know that palmprint was one of the most historic pieces of evidence in criminal history, but, gulp, we have misplaced it, and it would take a 'mammoth effort' to find it." The HSCA never did get it.
Oh really? Where in the HSCA Volumes can we find that little piece of information? How, pray tell, would the failure of the FBI to find the lift in 1978 prove that they made false claims? And you might want to take a look at the following:
From the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF VINCENT J. SCALICE (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0126b.htm):
The following inked impressions were examined and compared at the latent print section, Federal Bureau of Investigation, on June 8, 1978.
-
-
10) Latent palm print lifted from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip, developed by the Dallas Police Department. I examined enlarged negatives which I identified as being identical to the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald.
The HSCA never did get it eh? (http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/u/umm-1371.gif)
Uh, photographing a print before you lift it is standard procedure, just in case you botch the lift. Day admitted that it was DPD standard procedure to do this. So tell us again why he took photos of the trigger-guard partial prints but no photos of the palmprint, even though he had hours to do so? Why did he lie and claim that he didn't take pics of the palmprint because he was being rushed, when in fact he had several hours to photograph the palmprint?
Photographing a print before you lift it may be standard procedure but it's got nothing to do with chain of custody. Day did not lie about anything. He was very busy all day. When Doughty came and told him to get the items of evidence packed up to be handed over to the FBI, Day had yet to around to photographing the print. He was rushed.
Oh, Lt. Day was "wrong"?! So not only was he wrong about the palmprint still being visible when he handed over the rifle, but he was wrong about there being fingerprint powder on the barrel?! Uh-huh. You bet.
Of course, nobody wanted to explain how the print could vanish from the barrel between Dallas and Washington, especially given the fact that it was under the wooden stock and thus could not be touched unless the stock were removed.
And how would all trace of print processing have vanished from the barrel? Hey? How could that have happened? Recall that Latona said the barrel did not even look like it had been processed for prints.
Yes, Day was wrong. It happens. As for how no trace of the print or processing were left on the barrel, you'll have to ask those who make their living in the field of fingerprint identification. But it's an undeniable and irrefutable fact that Lee Harvey Oswald's palm print was lifted off of the underside of the barrel of his rifle.
Uh, no, Day reviewed the palmprint on 11/26. The print did not get to FBI HQ until 11/29.
Uhh..yes. The FBI did receive the palm print on Nov 26. Unless you're going to somehow be able to show that Vincent Drain was not a member of the FBI on Nov 26.1963.
-
I never made such an argument.
a) you haven't established that the 5 locations that you stuck arrows on correspond to the locations where the numbered lines are pointing to on the Hoover memo.
b) neither you or Hoover established that their test lift came from the same spot that Day allegedly did his lift from.
c) There are similar visible white spots on the John Hunt scan of the lift (who you neglected to credit or cite) and on the Hoover smudge that you ignored in your zeal to find 5 spots you could sort of "line up".
d) Like your other contrived alternating gifs, this proves nothing.
a) you haven't established that the 5 locations that you stuck arrows on correspond to the locations where the numbered lines are pointing to on the Hoover memo.
LOL!
b) neither you or Hoover established that their test lift came from the same spot that Day allegedly did his lift from.
LOL!
c) There are similar visible white spots on the John Hunt scan of the lift (who you neglected to credit or cite) and on the Hoover smudge that you ignored in your zeal to find 5 spots you could sort of "line up".
LOL!
d) Like your other contrived alternating gifs, this proves nothing.
LOLOLOL!!!
JohnM
-
Photographing a print before you lift it may be standard procedure but it's got nothing to do with chain of custody. Day did not lie about anything. He was very busy all day. When Doughty came and told him to get the items of evidence packed up to be handed over to the FBI, Day had yet to around to photographing the print. He was rushed.
Yeah, that was the excuse, but Day's testimony belies that excuse.
Mr. BELIN. At what time did these same photographs which are the same as Commission Exhibit 720 and 721 of this print----
Mr. DAY. About 8 o'clock, somewhere around 8 o'clock, in that neighborhood.
So he took the photos of the trigger guard prints around 8 PM....
When was he instructed by Curry to turn over the evidence to the FBI? Shortly before midnight. (CE 3145, p. 832)
-
Knickers has tried to get away with this nonsense for years.
Good to know.
"Wrong" -- LOL
Day was very specific about the reason ridges were left on the barrel:
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when you got the lift, Exhibit 637, is that what you mean by the lift of the remaining print on the gun?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were traces of ridges still on the gun barrel.
Yet clean as a whistle when Latona, your expert(!) witness, received it. Game over.
Wow, where did Day hide it for four days?
From my post above, there is absolutely no doubt that Oswald's prints came directly from C2766, therefore Oswald touched the rifle.
JohnM
-
From my post above, there is absolutely no doubt that Oswald's prints came directly from C2766, therefore Oswald touched the rifle.
LOLOLOL
"Mytton" is a legend in his own mind.
-
There's no such post above.
ROFL!
JohnM
-
Knickers has tried to get away with this nonsense for years.
Good to know.
"Wrong" -- LOL
Day was very specific about the reason ridges were left on the barrel:
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when you got the lift, Exhibit 637, is that what you mean by the lift of the remaining print on the gun?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were traces of ridges still on the gun barrel.
Yet clean as a whistle when Latona, your expert(!) witness, received it. Game over.
Wow, where did Day hide it for four days?
It seems that Day remembered it wrong. Many months had passed. Or he was in such a hurry reassembling the rifle that he inadvertently removed any traces of the print left on the barrel. He was careless. Who knows for sure. I'm going with the former. He kept the lift locked up in his office.
-
There's no such post above.
Did you just lie or were you just mistaken?
-
Did you just lie or were you just mistaken?
Otto's not the sharpest tool in the shed. ROFL!
JohnM
-
I checked twice.
There's no evidence of a November 22 lift.
From that rifle.
OK, no worries.
JohnM
-
Nope. I'm dead serious.
Then you are not to be taken seriously, either because you just don't have the capacity to grasp the significance of the DPD prints or because you will not be honest about them.
What does the white silhouette have to do with the authenticity of the Backyard photos themselves?
Well, again, as even the Houston Post acknowledged, they show stages of manipulation in the production of the backyard photos. It's that simple. If you can't or won't grasp that, then, again, you are not to be taken seriously.
The actual photos and negative(s) were examined thoroughly down to the minutest detail by a panel of 21 experts in photographic analysis.
SMH. You mean "the actual photos and negatives" that emerged from the manipulation process uncovered by the 1992 discovery of the DPD prints of the photos?
And I notice that you snipped and ignored my points about the indications of fraud that the HSCA photographic evidence panel (PEP) did not explain (especially the impossible virtual sameness of backgrounds) and about the HSCA PEP's inability to duplicate the variant shadows.
The camera that took those photos was used in that investigation.
You sure about that? Why couldn't the PEP explain why 133-A-DEM was not cropped but the others were? 133-A-DEM is the photo that magically turned up at DeMohrenschildt's house. Why were the others cropped but not this one?
Why didn't the PEP explain why 133-A-DEM's resolution is stunningly higher than that of the others? Indeed 133-A-DEM is so pixel-heavy, so high quality, that you can read the print on the newspaper the figure is holding. How do you get such a huge variation in picture resolution from the kind of camera that was supposedly used? It's not like the camera had different pixel/resolution settings. It was a low-budget, basic camera.
How does something outside of those original photos and negative(s) alter the conclusion that the photos themselves were authentic and unaltered?
SMH. Well . . . uh . . . umm . . . if the "something outside of those original photos" happens to be prints that were made in the production of those "original photos and negatives," and if those prints show that those "original photos and negatives" are composites that were made by having someone else strike the needed poses, then by cutting out the silhouette of the person's image, and then by pasting a body and Oswald's head where the first person's figure was--that's how that "something else" alters the conclusion that the photos are "authentic and unaltered."
And, again, I notice that you snipped and ignored my points about the indications of fraud that the PEP did not explain (especially the impossible virtual sameness of backgrounds) and about the PEP's inability to duplicate the variant shadows.
You're still clinging to your chin nonsense? I'll leave the backyard photo stuff to John Mytton. He will slap you silly. In fact, he already has. Thompson may have had a problem with the chin issue but he did ultimately defer to the HSCA conclusions on the photos.
Thompson simply chose not to get into a public argument with the HSCA. Go read his full interview. Even after he "deferred," he made it clear that he did not buy the PEP's lame explanation of the chin problem.
The FBI memo , together with Liebeler's HSCA testimony, and the graphic provided here by John Mytton establishes it beyond any reasonable doubt.
Then why are you unable to explain the glaring holes in the fable of the palmprint's alleged discovery and transmission?
Oh really? Where in the HSCA Volumes can we find that little piece of information?
It's not in the HSCA volumes. This information was revealed in a memo that was included in the batch of JFK assassination-related documents that were released in 2017:
"Another revelation comes from a July 1978 memo to an attorney on the staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations: The FBI was unable to locate the original fingerprints lifted from the rifle found at the sniper's perch on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. . . .
"Top FBI officials told House investigators that finding the prints would be a 'mammoth research effort.'" (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/12/16/new-jfk-files-show-fbi-misplaced-oswald-s-fingerprints-and-cia-opened-his-mail-and-john-steinbeck-s/)
How, pray tell, would the failure of the FBI to find the lift in 1978 prove that they made false claims? And you might want to take a look at the following:
From the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF VINCENT J. SCALICE (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0126b.htm):
The following inked impressions were examined and compared at the latent print section, Federal Bureau of Investigation, on June 8, 1978.
10) Latent palm print lifted from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip, developed by the Dallas Police Department. I examined enlarged negatives which I identified as being identical to the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald.
The HSCA never did get it eh?
Umm, did you miss the part where he said he examined "enlarged negatives" of the palmprint? He did not examine the palmprint itself, but negatives of pictures taken of the palmprint that belatedly arrived on 11/29. Do you understand the difference?
So, no, the HSCA did not get the original palmprint from the FBI.
Photographing a print before you lift it may be standard procedure but it's got nothing to do with chain of custody. Day did not lie about anything. He was very busy all day. When Doughty came and told him to get the items of evidence packed up to be handed over to the FBI, Day had yet to around to photographing the print. He was rushed.
This mythical nonsense was debunked decades ago. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll quote from my article "Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted on the Alleged Murder Weapon?":
"2. Lt. Day had the rifle from 1:25 till 11:45 p.m. on November 22 and took photos of the partial prints on the trigger guard. Why, then, did he not take a single photograph of the palmprint before or after he supposedly lifted it? It was, as Day admitted, standard procedure to photograph a print before lifting it. At the very least, Day could have photographed the print after he lifted it, since he said it was still visible.
"3. Lt. Day said he didn't take any photographs of the print because just as he was about to do so he received a call from Chief Curry's office telling him to stop all work on the rifle so that FBI could finish what he had started. In his WC testimony, Day said this call came at around 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. However, Lt. Day, by his own admission, took another photograph of the rifle half an hour to an hour later, at 9:00 or 9:30 (4 H 273). Why, then, didn't he take a picture of the print on the barrel?
"Moreover, in an earlier statement, made to the FBI, Day said the call from the chief's office came just before midnight. If so, why didn't he photograph the palmprint on the barrel? Why the marked conflict concerning when he received the call from Curry's office? (It's worth noting that in the three times that Chief Curry appeared before the WC he said nothing about making any such call, nor did he say anything about directing anyone from his office to make such a call. Curry, or someone from his office, probably did call Day shortly before midnight just to advise him that an FBI agent was about to come and pick up the rifle. That was probably all that was said--that was all that would have needed to be said, e.g., "Hey, an FBI guy's coming to get the rifle in a little while, so just make sure it's ready for him to pick up." Lt. Day would have been at perfect liberty to take a minute or two to take a few photos of the palmprint on the barrel, and he certainly would have done so had there been such a print.)" (https://miketgriffith.com/files/palmprint.htm)
Yes, Day was wrong. It happens. As for how no trace of the print or processing were left on the barrel, you'll have to ask those who make their living in the field of fingerprint identification. But it's an undeniable and irrefutable fact that Lee Harvey Oswald's palm print was lifted off of the underside of the barrel of his rifle.
And the Earth is flat, right? You take Day's word on every other single point regarding the print, but not on these two statements because they indicate the emperor has no clothes.
Explain to me how Day would have been "wrong" about seeing part of the palmprint on the barrel after he had lifted it? I mean, did he dream it? Was he drunk? Was he "seeing things"? This was a very specific item in a very specific situation. Either he could see that the basic outlines of the print remained on the barrel or he could not. What could he have mistaken for the outline of a palmprint on the dark rifle barrel?
And fingerprint powder is designed to adhere to the object to which it is being applied so that it can provide a "print" of whatever is on the part of the object where it has been applied. But you are saying that somehow, someway every speck, every trace of fingerprint powder magically vanished from the barrel during between the time it was handed over to the FBI on and the time it reached FBI HQ a few hours later. Amazing! Poof! Gone! Even though it was under the wooden stock and could not be touched!
Or maybe Latona saw no fingerprint powder because Day didn't process that part of the barrel for prints because it was under the wooden stock and he logically assumed that no prints would have been made there during the shooting.
Uhh..yes. The FBI did receive the palm print on Nov 26. Unless you're going to somehow be able to show that Vincent Drain was not a member of the FBI on Nov 26.1963.
I'm reminded of the old saying "It's not what you don't know that worries me, it's what you 'know for sure' that just ain't so." Even Vincent Bugliosi, the king of WC true believers, acknowledged that the palmprint did not arrive at the FBI until 11/29:
"Five days later, on November 29, the card containing the palm print that Day had lifted on the night of November 22, along with the notation "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766"--the serial number of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano--reached the FBI crime lab." (Reclaiming History, p. 801)
Go read Lt. Day's WC testimony. Day detailed each item that he gave to Agent Drain on 11/26. He even photographed them. The photo of the items is CE 738. Perhaps you are confusing the palmprint from the cardboard box with the palmprint allegedly taken from the rifle. The cardboard box palmprint was included in the items that Day turned over to Drain on 11/26, not the latent palmprint allegedly taken from the rifle.
-
(especially the impossible virtual sameness of backgrounds) and about the HSCA PEP's inability to duplicate the variant shadows.
"virtual sameness" wtf?
It's physically impossible to take one photo and change the perspective so that it will create the massive number of parallax changes as seen all three backyard photos. By definition every backyard photo was taken from a different position.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jd0PNkZj/stairsbyf.gif)
JohnM
-
Then you are not to be taken seriously, either because you just don't have the capacity to grasp the significance of the DPD prints or because you will not be honest about them.
Well, again, as even the Houston Post acknowledged, they show stages of manipulation in the production of the backyard photos. It's that simple. If you can't or won't grasp that, then, again, you are not to be taken seriously.
SMH. You mean "the actual photos and negatives" that emerged from the manipulation process uncovered by the 1992 discovery of the DPD prints of the photos?
And I notice that you snipped and ignored my points about the indications of fraud that the HSCA photographic evidence panel (PEP) did not explain (especially the impossible virtual sameness of backgrounds) and about the HSCA PEP's inability to duplicate the variant shadows.
You sure about that? Why couldn't the PEP explain why 133-A-DEM was not cropped but the others were? 133-A-DEM is the photo that magically turned up at DeMohrenschildt's house. Why were the others cropped but not this one?
Why didn't the PEP explain why 133-A-DEM's resolution is stunningly higher than that of the others? Indeed 133-A-DEM is so pixel-heavy, so high quality, that you can read the print on the newspaper the figure is holding. How do you get such a huge variation in picture resolution from the kind of camera that was supposedly used? It's not like the camera had different pixel/resolution settings. It was a low-budget, basic camera.
SMH. Well . . . uh . . . umm . . . if the "something outside of those original photos" happens to be prints that were made in the production of those "original photos and negatives," and if those prints show that those "original photos and negatives" are composites that were made by having someone else strike the needed poses, then by cutting out the silhouette of the person's image, and then by pasting a body and Oswald's head where the first person's figure was--that's how that "something else" alters the conclusion that the photos are "authentic and unaltered."
And, again, I notice that you snipped and ignored my points about the indications of fraud that the PEP did not explain (especially the impossible virtual sameness of backgrounds) and about the PEP's inability to duplicate the variant shadows.
Thompson simply chose not to get into a public argument with the HSCA. Go read his full interview. Even after he "deferred," he made it clear that he did not buy the PEP's lame explanation of the chin problem.
Why should we care about what the Houston Post "acknowledged"? What makes them experts on photo analysis? It doesn't alter the fact that the Backyard photos were confirmed to be authentic by the 21 members of the HSCA photographic analysis panel. As I said, I'll leave the Backyard photo issue for John Mytton to deal with. Photo analysis is definitely not my forte. Neither is it yours. I'm terrible at it. I had trouble being able to say for sure that, in a film frame taken of the sixth floor of the TSBD, Capt Fritz wasn't actually standing on the long paper sack in the corner of the sniper's nest. I bet that you would too.
Then why are you unable to explain the glaring holes in the fable of the palmprint's alleged discovery and transmission?
There aren't any holes in the palmprint's documented discovery or transmission.
It's not in the HSCA volumes. This information was revealed in a memo that was included in the batch of JFK assassination-related documents that were released in 2017:
"Another revelation comes from a July 1978 memo to an attorney on the staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations: The FBI was unable to locate the original fingerprints lifted from the rifle found at the sniper's perch on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. . . .
"Top FBI officials told House investigators that finding the prints would be a 'mammoth research effort.'" (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/12/16/new-jfk-files-show-fbi-misplaced-oswald-s-fingerprints-and-cia-opened-his-mail-and-john-steinbeck-s/)
Where is that memo? Let's see it. Notice that the memo was dated July 1978. That was after Scalice had examined the palm print. Also, perhaps more importantly, notice that the article refers to fingerprints. Multiple fingerprints, not a single latent palm print.
Umm, did you miss the part where he said he examined "enlarged negatives" of the palmprint? He did not examine the palmprint itself, but negatives of pictures taken of the palmprint that belatedly arrived on 11/29. Do you understand the difference?
So, no, the HSCA did not get the original palmprint from the FBI.
I did miss that part. (http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/b/blushy-1027.gif) I must have been having a rough day myself. :) Because I also missed this part:
9. Lift from the rifle (designated commission exhibit 139) from the underside of the foregrip of a Mannlicher-Carcano serial no. C2766. I identified five characteristics or points of identity which match the lift.
So, there you have it, Not only did the HSCA get the original palm print lift, they were able to have it positively matched to Oswald's rifle as well. Which was just a confirmation of what Latona et al had done 14 years prior. John Mytton has allowed us to see it for ourselves.
Scalice had the actual palm print itself to determine if it was Oswald's or not but for for his own purposes he chose to use enlarged negatives of the print to make the identification.
This mythical nonsense was debunked decades ago. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll quote from my article "Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted on the Alleged Murder Weapon?":
"2. Lt. Day had the rifle from 1:25 till 11:45 p.m. on November 22 and took photos of the partial prints on the trigger guard. Why, then, did he not take a single photograph of the palmprint before or after he supposedly lifted it? It was, as Day admitted, standard procedure to photograph a print before lifting it. At the very least, Day could have photographed the print after he lifted it, since he said it was still visible.
"3. Lt. Day said he didn't take any photographs of the print because just as he was about to do so he received a call from Chief Curry's office telling him to stop all work on the rifle so that FBI could finish what he had started. In his WC testimony, Day said this call came at around 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. However, Lt. Day, by his own admission, took another photograph of the rifle half an hour to an hour later, at 9:00 or 9:30 (4 H 273). Why, then, didn't he take a picture of the print on the barrel?
"Moreover, in an earlier statement, made to the FBI, Day said the call from the chief's office came just before midnight. If so, why didn't he photograph the palmprint on the barrel? Why the marked conflict concerning when he received the call from Curry's office? (It's worth noting that in the three times that Chief Curry appeared before the WC he said nothing about making any such call, nor did he say anything about directing anyone from his office to make such a call. Curry, or someone from his office, probably did call Day shortly before midnight just to advise him that an FBI agent was about to come and pick up the rifle. That was probably all that was said--that was all that would have needed to be said, e.g., "Hey, an FBI guy's coming to get the rifle in a little while, so just make sure it's ready for him to pick up." Lt. Day would have been at perfect liberty to take a minute or two to take a few photos of the palmprint on the barrel, and he certainly would have done so had there been such a print.)" (https://miketgriffith.com/files/palmprint.htm)
Saying that it was debunked is not the same as showing that it was debunked. Nothing in that excerpt of yours challenges what I said. By the time that Day was told to pack everything up he just had not got around to photographing the print and he felt rushed to get all of the items properly prepared for pick up.There's no way to debunk it. All you have is speculation.
And the Earth is flat, right? You take Day's word on every other single point regarding the print, but not on these two statements because they indicate the emperor has no clothes.
Explain to me how Day would have been "wrong" about seeing part of the palmprint on the barrel after he had lifted it? I mean, did he dream it? Was he drunk? Was he "seeing things"? This was a very specific item in a very specific situation. Either he could see that the basic outlines of the print remained on the barrel or he could not. What could he have mistaken for the outline of a palmprint on the dark rifle barrel?
And fingerprint powder is designed to adhere to the object to which it is being applied so that it can provide a "print" of whatever is on the part of the object where it has been applied. But you are saying that somehow, someway every speck, every trace of fingerprint powder magically vanished from the barrel during between the time it was handed over to the FBI on and the time it reached FBI HQ a few hours later. Amazing! Poof! Gone! Even though it was under the wooden stock and could not be touched!
Or maybe Latona saw no fingerprint powder because Day didn't process that part of the barrel for prints because it was under the wooden stock and he logically assumed that no prints would have been made there during the shooting.
Why are you focusing on minor inconsistencies in Day's foggy four month old recollection instead of dealing with the elephant in the room? That elephant being the lift itself and it having been positively matched to Oswald's rifle. Day's recollections on some minor details were faulty. No question about it. However, none of it negates the fact that he lifted the palm print off of the barrel of the rifle. Yes, the print had been under the wooden stock and would not have been placed there by normal handling of the rifle. However, Oswald had disassembled the rifle before bringing it to work. Probably the night before.
I'm reminded of the old saying "It's not what you don't know that worries me, it's what you 'know for sure' that just ain't so." Even Vincent Bugliosi, the king of WC true believers, acknowledged that the palmprint did not arrive at the FBI until 11/29:
"Five days later, on November 29, the card containing the palm print that Day had lifted on the night of November 22, along with the notation "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766"--the serial number of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano--reached the FBI crime lab." (Reclaiming History, p. 801)
Go read Lt. Day's WC testimony. Day detailed each item that he gave to Agent Drain on 11/26. He even photographed them. The photo of the items is CE 738. Perhaps you are confusing the palmprint from the cardboard box with the palmprint allegedly taken from the rifle. The cardboard box palmprint was included in the items that Day turned over to Drain on 11/26, not the latent palmprint allegedly taken from the rifle.
Latona never got the print until the 29th. However, the FBI got it on the 26th. And no, I'm not confusing the palmprint from the cardboard box with the palmprint taken from the rifle.
CE 738 does not include all of the evidence that Drain took possession of that day. Those are the items that he picked up at 2 PM. The piece of cardboard doesn't appear to be in that photo. According to Day, it was picked up by Drain at 11:45 that night. The lift of the partial palm print and the cardboard boxes would have been picked up at the time as well.
(https://i.imgur.com/HrNHJ3v.jpg)
-
Evidently your only way out because an old print would also destroy the idea of the rifle having been recently disassembled.
How would the print being an old one destroy the idea of the rifle having been recently disassembled? An old print just means that Oswald disassembled it sometime in the past as well. It says nothing about whether the rifle was recently disassembled or not.
To help the commission out Latona had to "infer" that the lift had removed any trace of the rifle being processes -- LOL
"This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle. "
The provenance of that lift sucks bit time, the only direct link between Oswald and the rifle was unaccounted for for FOUR days!
A defense team would have had a field day in court.
The print was accounted for at all times. Day had lifted it and held onto it until Nov 26. The provenance of it is rock solid. Not only that but the lift is just one of the direct links between Oswald and the rifle. There's the paper trail of Oswald's purchase of it and there's the backyard photos. With the law and the evidence against them, a defense team could only pound the table and yell like hell.
-
Correct, I should have noted Nov 21/22, to fit the bag, for which there is zero evidence.
Yeah, zero evidence except for the bag with his prints on it being found in the sniper's nest and the fact that he was seen carrying a long package to work that morning. Oh yeah, and those fibers in the bag that matched with fibers of the blanket that he kept his rifle wrapped in.
b]The print was accounted for at all times.[/b]
Zero evidence of it's existence prior to being thrown in the pile on Nov 26.
Carl Day accounted for it's existence prior to Nov 26. That alone would suffice in any court of law.
There's the paper trail of Oswald's purchase
Good luck with that one, so bring it on if you want to get crushed.
You mean like you've never seen it before? You've never seen the Waldman exhibits or the money order? How about the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President. Have you ever read that? If you want to approach this seriously, let me know.
With the law and the evidence against them, a defense team could only pound the table and yell like hell.
Like Day only submitting two of the three shells found? -- ROFL
All three shells were accounted for. One was not submitted to the Crime Lab right away because Fritz held onto it for awhile.
-
Yeah, zero evidence except for the bag with his prints on it being found in the sniper's nest and the fact that he was seen carrying a long package to work that morning. Oh yeah, and those fibers in the bag that matched with fibers of the blanket that he kept his rifle wrapped in.
Carl Day accounted for it's existence prior to Nov 26. That alone would suffice in any court of law.
You mean like you've never seen it before? You've never seen the Waldman exhibits or the money order? How about the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President. Have you ever read that? If you want to approach this seriously, let me know.
All three shells were accounted for. One was not submitted to the Crime Lab right away because Fritz held onto it for awhile.
You mean like you've never seen it before? You've never seen the Waldman exhibits or the money order? How about the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President. Have you ever read that? If you want to approach this seriously, let me know.
Tim,
From all the Waldman exhibits and his testimony, which piece(s) of evidence establish a direct link to Hidell or Oswald?
-
You mean like you've never seen it before? You've never seen the Waldman exhibits or the money order? How about the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President. Have you ever read that? If you want to approach this seriously, let me know.
Tim,
From all the Waldman exhibits and his testimony, which piece(s) of evidence establish a direct link to Hidell or Oswald?
Martin,
Waldman exhibits 7 and 8, together with the money order and the WC testimony of William Waldman. And of course the parts of the testimonies of Cadigan and Cole dealing with the handwriting on #8 and the money order.
-
Martin,
Waldman exhibits 7 and 8, together with the money order and the WC testimony of William Waldman. And of course the parts of the testimonies of Cadigan and Cole dealing with the handwriting on #8 and the money order.
Nope, sorry Tim but you are completely wrong.
The only documents possibly linked directly to Hidell are the microfilm fotocopies of the order form and the money order, with the actual connection only being established (for what that's worth) by handwriting analysis.
Waldman 7 is an internal document, perpared by Klein's staff based upon the incoming order form. It only proves that an order was processed and it has no direct relation to Hidell (or Oswald). Waldman's testimony merely confirms the internal procedure and provides no direct evidentary link to Hidell (or Oswald) either. Waldman may confirm as much as he wants that according to the documents a rifle was sent to a p.o. box in Dallas, but that's at best only an assumption on his part. He was not involved in shipping it, nor does he have any first hand knowledge about when and to whom the rifle was ever delivered.
This is exactly why the Waldman evidence is so extremely weak. It all comes back to a few handwritten words written on an order form and a money order for which not even originals are available for handwriting analysis.
Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science to begin with. Having worked with experts in the past, I can tell you there is not one expert in the world who can say with 100% certainty that a particular individual, to the exclusion of all others, wrote a particular text. Handwriting analysis is done by comparing known (and certified) samples of an individual to the text on a questioned document. In court cases, the individual has to provide at least 10 samples of his handwriting by writing them down in front of a notary public or a judge. In this case, with Oswald dead, this of course did not happen. The experts only relied on documents for comparison they were told had been written by Oswald. A second way to compare handwritting is to examine the pressure on the paper applied by the pen and the flow of the pen when a word is written. This kind of comparison can not be done on a photo copy!
But it gets worse. The order form and money order, by themselves, even if they were written by Oswald do not prove he actually bought a rifle for himself or ever received it. In theory (and you will probably dismiss this out of hand for no good reason), a guy named or using the name Hidell could have asked Oswald to fill in the form and the money order for him citing for instance that he himself couldn't write. In my company I frequently fill in documents for people who have difficulties doing that themselves. To be clear, I'm not saying this actually happened, but it needs to be ruled out as a possibility before anyone can say with any kind of certainty that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.
-
Nope, sorry Tim but you are completely wrong.
The only documents possibly linked directly to Hidell are the microfilm fotocopies of the order form and the money order, with the actual connection only being established (for what that's worth) by handwriting analysis.
Waldman 7 is an internal document, perpared by Klein's staff based upon the incoming order form. It only proves that an order was processed and it has no direct relation to Hidell (or Oswald). Waldman's testimony merely confirms the internal procedure and provides no direct evidentary link to Hidell (or Oswald) either. Waldman may confirm as much as he wants that according to the documents a rifle was sent to a p.o. box in Dallas, but that's at best only an assumption on his part. He was not involved in shipping it, nor does he have any first hand knowledge about when and to whom the rifle was ever delivered.
This is exactly why the Waldman evidence is so extremely weak. It all comes back to a few handwritten words written on an order form and a money order for which not even originals are available for handwriting analysis.
Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science to begin with. Having worked with experts in the past, I can tell you there is not one expert in the world who can say with 100% certainty that a particular individual, to the exclusion of all others, wrote a particular text. Handwriting analysis is done by comparing known (and certified) samples of an individual to the text on a questioned document. In court cases, the individual has to provide at least 10 samples of his handwriting by writing them down in front of a notary public or a judge. In this case, with Oswald dead, this of course did not happen. The experts only relied on documents for comparison they were told had been written by Oswald. A second way to compare handwritting is to examine the pressure on the paper applied by the pen and the flow of the pen when a word is written. This kind of comparison can not be done on a photo copy!
But it gets worse. The order form and money order, by themselves, even if they were written by Oswald do not prove he actually bought a rifle for himself or ever received it. In theory (and you will probably dismiss this out of hand for no good reason), a guy named or using the name Hidell could have asked Oswald to fill in the form and the money order for him citing for instance that he himself couldn't write. In my company I frequently fill in documents for people who have difficulties doing that themselves.
Thumb1:
-
Yeah, zero evidence except for the bag with his prints on it being found in the sniper's nest and the fact that he was seen carrying a long package to work that morning. Oh yeah, and those fibers in the bag that matched with fibers of the blanket that he kept his rifle wrapped in.
Carl Day accounted for it's existence prior to Nov 26. That alone would suffice in any court of law.
You mean like you've never seen it before? You've never seen the Waldman exhibits or the money order? How about the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President. Have you ever read that? If you want to approach this seriously, let me know.
All three shells were accounted for. One was not submitted to the Crime Lab right away because Fritz held onto it for awhile.
Yeah, zero evidence except for the bag with his prints on it being found in the sniper's nest and the fact that he was seen carrying a long package to work that morning. Oh yeah, and those fibers in the bag that matched with fibers of the blanket that he kept his rifle wrapped in.
Couple of questions, Tim
1. What evidentiary value does the paper bag allegedly found in the snipers nest have, considering that;
(1) it was made from TSBD material and found in the TSBD, on a floor where Oswald worked,
(2) it only had two identifiable prints on it, apparently belonging to Oswald, of which the locations on the bag were not consistent with the way Oswald, according to Frazier, carried the bag he brought with him,
(3) there were more prints present on the bag which could not be identified, leaving open the possibility of other people also having touched the bag
2. What, other than assumption, proves that the bag allegedly found at the TSBD is the same one Oswald carried that morning?
3. First of all, there is no match, to the exclusion of all other blankets, between the fibers found in the bag and the blanket found in Ruth Paine's garage. At best you can say the fibers are similar, but using the term "matched" is overstating the evidence.
And the question is; I'm sure you've seen the photographs made by the DPD and the FBI lab in which the blanket from Ruth Paine's garage lies directly next to the paper bag allegedly found at the TSBD. How can you rule out a transfer of fibers from the blanket to the bag when those photographs were taken? And if you can not rule out such a transfer, what evidentiary value do the fibers found in the paper bag actually have?
-
I don't take Bugliosi bait. There is ZERO evidence of C 2766 ever being in the bag, read the FBI reports.
I've read the FBI reports. The matched fibers do not equate with zero evidence. Also, just the fact that it was found in the sniper's nest that C2766 was used from strongly suggests that C2766 had been in that bag.
Except when he was wrong. His account vs. Latona's observations make no sense.
His being wrong about minor details about the rifle has no impact on his full accounting for the existence of the print lift itself.
I've seen the alleged evidence. I don't care about the money order, show that Klein's stocked C 2766 when they claim to have shipped it.
(https://i.imgur.com/pt5hW0t.png)
Who do you think you're fooling? Not submitted means not accounted for.
Not submitted just means that it was not submitted to the Crime Lab. Submitting an item to the Crime Lab was not an absolute requirement. Lots of items were never submitted. The shell was accounted for.
(https://i.imgur.com/sqXBztL.jpg)
-
Nope, sorry Tim but you are completely wrong.
The only documents possibly linked directly to Hidell are the microfilm fotocopies of the order form and the money order, with the actual connection only being established (for what that's worth) by handwriting analysis.
Waldman 7 is an internal document, perpared by Klein's staff based upon the incoming order form. It only proves that an order was processed and it has no direct relation to Hidell (or Oswald). Waldman's testimony merely confirms the internal procedure and provides no direct evidentary link to Hidell (or Oswald) either. Waldman may confirm as much as he wants that according to the documents a rifle was sent to a p.o. box in Dallas, but that's at best only an assumption on his part. He was not involved in shipping it, nor does he have any first hand knowledge about when and to whom the rifle was ever delivered.
This is exactly why the Waldman evidence is so extremely weak. It all comes back to a few handwritten words written on an order form and a money order for which not even originals are available for handwriting analysis.
Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science to begin with. Having worked with experts in the past, I can tell you there is not one expert in the world who can say with 100% certainty that a particular individual, to the exclusion of all others, wrote a particular text. Handwriting analysis is done by comparing known (and certified) samples of an individual to the text on a questioned document. In court cases, the individual has to provide at least 10 samples of his handwriting by writing them down in front of a notary public or a judge. In this case, with Oswald dead, this of course did not happen. The experts only relied on documents for comparison they were told had been written by Oswald. A second way to compare handwritting is to examine the pressure on the paper applied by the pen and the flow of the pen when a word is written. This kind of comparison can not be done on a photo copy!
But it gets worse. The order form and money order, by themselves, even if they were written by Oswald do not prove he actually bought a rifle for himself or ever received it. In theory (and you will probably dismiss this out of hand for no good reason), a guy named or using the name Hidell could have asked Oswald to fill in the form and the money order for him citing for instance that he himself couldn't write. In my company I frequently fill in documents for people who have difficulties doing that themselves. To be clear, I'm not saying this actually happened, but it needs to be ruled out as a possibility before anyone can say with any kind of certainty that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.
Klein's Vice President assumed that the company's records were accurate? WOW! Imagine that.
(https://i.imgur.com/QBZJWsM.jpg)
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see the extreme top of this microfilm, the date, March 13, 1963; to what does that refer?
Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our register on that date.
Mr. BELIN. And to the right of that, I see $21.45. Is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Waldman wasn't just saying that he assumed that the rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He asserted positively that rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He trusted what his own company's records were showing him.
(https://i.imgur.com/jVl3GQF.jpg)
Handwriting identification is consistently accepted as evidence in courts of law. The money order and CE 773 were examined by four or five experts in forensic document analysis. Maybe more.
-
Klein's Vice President assumed that the company's records were accurate? WOW! Imagine that.
(https://i.imgur.com/QBZJWsM.jpg)
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see the extreme top of this microfilm, the date, March 13, 1963; to what does that refer?
Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our register on that date.
Mr. BELIN. And to the right of that, I see $21.45. Is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Waldman wasn't just saying that he assumed that the rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He asserted positively that rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He trusted what his own company's records were showing him.
(https://i.imgur.com/jVl3GQF.jpg)
Handwriting identification is consistently accepted as evidence in courts of law. The money order and CE 773 were examined by four or five experts in forensic document analysis. Maybe more.
Waldman wasn't just saying that he assumed that the rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He asserted positively that rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He trusted what his own company's records were showing him.
Thanks for showing the contradiction in your own argument.
If Waldman "trusted what his own company's records were showing him" he was in fact making an assumption. He may have confidently believed that the rifle was shipped to Hidell, but unless he actually shipped it himself, all he could do was assume that the rifle was actually send to the person mentioned on the form.
Handwriting identification is consistently accepted as evidence in courts of law. The money order and CE 773 were examined by four or five experts in forensic document analysis. Maybe more.
Appeal to a majority is a logical fallacy. The fact that more than one expert examined the photocopies and compared them to other writings claimed to be by Oswald's hand, do not make the conclusion true or correct. If you let several people do the exact same flawed test over and over again, you'll still end up with the same result every time.
Of course handwriting identification is accepted as evidence in the courts. I've been involved in several cases over the past 30 years where that was the case. It's not the findings of the expert that is the problem, it's the quality of the test. In this case, the experts had to work with photocopies of only a few handwritten words. They had no certified handwritings of Oswald to compare the documents with. All they had were some documents which they were told were written by Oswald. There was no authentication in the normal prescribed manner. And there was no way to examine the documents for the pressure applied to the paper by the pen and/or the flow of the pen over the paper during the writing. In other words, the procedure followed to make a determination was seriously flawed and probably wouldn't have held up in court. I have worked with handwriting experts enough to know that any "expert" that declares to 100% certainty that a text was writen by one particular person, to the exclusion of all others, should be instantly kicked out of the profession.
But after all this having been said, the bottom line is that the only thing that connects Hidell to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's are a few handwritten words on a order form and a money order, which some handwriting experts declared was Oswald's handwriting. That's it.... That's all there is.
-
I've read the FBI reports. The matched fibers do not equate with zero evidence. Also, just the fact that it was found in the sniper's nest that C2766 was used from strongly suggests that C2766 had been in that bag.
There was no such thing as matched fibers. There never is and no FBI says there was a match. Even by today's standards they still can't match a fiber to a particular garment, to the exclusion of all others. At best the few fibers found in the bag were found to be similar to those of the blanket. That's ZERO evidence. Even more so as those fibers could have gotten into the bag by cross contamination of the evidence!
This is like saying, we found a black hair in the snipers nest and Oswald's hair is black so it must he his; we have a match!. Do you understand how stupid that sounds?
And the bag, made from TSBD materials and found inside the TSBD does in no way suggest that a rifle, any rifle, was ever in that bag. That's just wishfull thinking, for which there isn't a shred of evidence. You are making stuff up as you go along, just like the WC build a case based on assumptions and speculation.
-
Waldman wasn't just saying that he assumed that the rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He asserted positively that rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He trusted what his own company's records were showing him.
Thanks for showing the contradiction in your own argument.
If Waldman "trusted what his own company's records were showing him" he was in fact making an assumption. He may have confidently believed that the rifle was shipped to Hidell, but unless he actually shipped it himself, all he could do was assume that the rifle was actually send to the person mentioned on the form.
Handwriting identification is consistently accepted as evidence in courts of law. The money order and CE 773 were examined by four or five experts in forensic document analysis. Maybe more.
Appeal to a majority is a logical fallacy. The fact that more than one expert examined the photocopies and compared them to other writings claimed to be by Oswald's hand, do not make the conclusion true or correct. If you let several people do the exact same flawed test over and over again, you'll still end up with the same result every time.
Of course handwriting identification is accepted as evidence in the courts. I've been involved in several cases over the past 30 years where that was the case. It's not the findings of the expert that is the problem, it's the quality of the test. In this case, the experts had to work with photocopies of only a few handwritten words. They had no certified handwritings of Oswald to compare the documents with. All they had were some documents which they were told were written by Oswald. There was no authentication in the normal prescribed manner. And there was no way to examine the documents for the pressure applied to the paper by the pen and/or the flow of the pen over the paper during the writing. In other words, the procedure followed to make a determination was seriously flawed and probably wouldn't have held up in court. I have worked with handwriting experts enough to know that any "expert" that declares to 100% certainty that a text was writen by one particular person, to the exclusion of all others, should be instantly kicked out of the profession.
But after all this having been said, the bottom line is that the only thing that connects Hidell to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's are a few handwritten words on a order form and a money order, which some handwriting experts declared was Oswald's handwriting. That's it.... That's all there is.
Your original question to me was in regards to the Waldman exhibits and Waldman's testimony and how they would establish a direct link to Hidell or Oswald. I've shown you how. As you know, they are not the only things that connect Hidell (Oswald) to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's.
-
There was no such thing as matched fibers. There never is and no FBI says there was a match.
There was such a thing as matched fibers. What you have in mind is that the FBI never made a conclusive match to the blanket. That's because all of the different fibers of the blanket were not found in the bag.
-
There was not only 1 type of fiber, Oswald's brown arrest shirt was made up of 3 different types of fibers and all 3 fibers on Oswald's rifle matched in colour and twist.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7PCJx84Q/brownshirtfibers.jpg)
Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fabric%20Type
JohnM
-
Your original question to me was in regards to the Waldman exhibits and Waldman's testimony and how they would establish a direct link to Hidell or Oswald. I've shown you how. As you know, they are not the only things that connect Hidell (Oswald) to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's.
Your original question to me was in regards to the Waldman exhibits and Waldman's testimony and how they would establish a direct link to Hidell or Oswald. I've shown you how.
Yes, you did and you were wrong, where it concerns Waldman's testimony and/or all the internal Klein's documents. Only the order form and the money order potentially provide a direct link to Hidell, through solid handwriting examination. Everything else, including Waldman's testimony" is derived from those two documents and as such have no evidentiary value to link the rifle ordered to Hidell or Oswald.
As you know, they are not the only things that connect Hidell (Oswald) to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's.
Actually no I don't know that. Care to enlighten me?
-
There was such a thing as matched fibers. What you have in mind is that the FBI never made a conclusive match to the blanket. That's because all of the different fibers of the blanket were not found in the bag.
I think you misunderstand the legal definition of a "match".... There is only a match when two pieces connect to eachother to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
What you have in mind is that the FBI never made a conclusive match to the blanket.
When you don't have a conclusive match you do not have a match.... It's simple, really
There was not only 1 type of fiber, Oswald's brown arrest shirt was made up of 3 different types of fibers and all 3 fibers on Oswald's rifle matched in colour and twist.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7PCJx84Q/brownshirtfibers.jpg)
Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fabric%20Type
JohnM
First of all, we were not talking about the fibers found on the rifle. But since you mention it, there is not a shred of evidence that shows that, on Friday morning, Oswald was wearing the shirt he was arrested in. We were actually talking about fibers of the blanket that allegedly were found in the paper bag.
Secondly, coincidence can only be considered when cross examination of the evidence has been completely ruled out and when there is certainty about what a suspect was wearing. In this case neither is the case.
-
"virtual sameness" wtf?
It's physically impossible to take one photo and change the perspective so that it will create the massive number of parallax changes as seen all three backyard photos. By definition every backyard photo was taken from a different position.
JohnM
LOL! This is abject quackery! Every photographic expert who has studied the backyard rifle photos has noted that the backgrounds appear to be identical, including Thompson, Pickard, Jaffe, and Womack. Brian Mee, the NSA photographic expert whom I interviewed for hours, said the backgrounds are virtually identical and could not have resulted from snapshots made by a handheld camera handed back and forth between pictures. The HSCA photographic evidence panel admitted that there are only "very small" differences in the backgrounds, so small, in fact, that they could only be identified by photogrammetric measurement.
If you understand the background of the HSCA's admission, it becomes even more telling. Several experts has already noted the virtual sameness of the backgrounds, and this problem was brought to the attention of the PEP and was mentioned in testimony during the HSCA hearings. The PEP's "solution" to this problem was to note that they had discovered "very small" differences in the backgrounds by photogrammetric measurement, saying, "so you see, the backgrounds are not identical."
But the PEP never explained how photos taken by a cheap handheld camera passed back and forth between shots could produce backgrounds that have only minute differences between them, differences so tiny that they can only be detected by photogrammetric measurement. Mee found this failure surprising and revealing. He said the PEP members had to know that if the photos had been taken in the manner alleged, the differences in the backgrounds should have been much greater.
-
LOL! This is abject quackery! Every photographic expert who has studied the backyard rifle photos has noted that the backgrounds appear to be identical, including Thompson, Pickard, Jaffe, and Womack. Brian Mee, the NSA photographic expert whom I interviewed for hours, said the backgrounds are virtually identical and could not have resulted from snapshots made by a handheld camera handed back and forth between pictures. The HSCA photographic evidence panel admitted that there are only "very small" differences in the backgrounds, so small, in fact, that they could only be identified by photogrammetric measurement.
If you understand the background of the HSCA's admission, it becomes even more telling. Several experts has already noted the virtual sameness of the backgrounds, and this problem was brought to the attention of the PEP and was mentioned in testimony during the HSCA hearings. The PEP's "solution" to this problem was to note that they had discovered "very small" differences in the backgrounds by photogrammetric measurement, saying, "so you see, the backgrounds are not identical."
But the PEP never explained how photos taken by a cheap handheld camera passed back and forth between shots could produce backgrounds that have only minute differences between them, differences so tiny that they can only be detected by photogrammetric measurement. Mee found this failure surprising and revealing. He said the PEP members had to know that if the photos had been taken in the manner alleged, the differences in the backgrounds should have been much greater.
Every photographic expert who has studied the backyard rifle photos has noted that the backgrounds appear to be identical
I really don't care what your Kook mates say, the backyard photos were taken from different positions but why believe me, a picture's worth a thousand words.
In the following gif I lined up 3 palings of the fence and as can be seen there is literally a bazillion parallax changes, the building, window and roof behind shifts, all the stairs and supporting post show major perspective changes as do the other posts on the right side, the windows and shutter also demonstrate this difference in the cameras location. So in conclusion, I'll state the bleeding obvious once again, there is absolutely no possible way to take 1 photo and tilt it to create all the following parallax changes because all the objects within the image are shifting relative to each other.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZsSfQrh/griffithsnightmare.gif)
JohnM
-
Why should we care about what the Houston Post "acknowledged"? What makes them experts on photo analysis?
You still have not read my chapter on the backyard photos in Hasty Judgment, have you? Or did you overlook the fact that I note therein that the Houston Post contacted a photographic expert at Texas Tech University, Dr. Hershel Womack, regarding the DPD backyard rifle prints.
If you would read chapter 5, you would see that I corresponded with Dr. Womack about the backyard rifle photos. I include two of Dr. Womack’s e-mails to me regarding the photos, in which he explained some of the indications of tampering in them.
It doesn't alter the fact that the Backyard photos were confirmed to be authentic by the 21 members of the HSCA photographic analysis panel.
So you are going to rely on one giant appeal to authority? Is that it? I notice that you guys only insist on “trusting the experts” when they say what you want to hear. Do you regard the HSCA acoustical experts with the same slavish reverence? I’m guessing the answer is a big, whopping No.
It is almost as if you guys were born yesterday when it comes to your willingness to gullibly, uncritically accept whatever this or that government-hired expert says—that is, as long as he says what you are determined to believe.
Should we take several pages and go through the instances, in the JFK case alone, where government experts goofed, misrepresented their own experiments or the experiments of others, suppressed evidence that did not fit their conclusions, rigged their tests, etc., etc.?
As I said, I'll leave the Backyard photo issue for John Mytton to deal with. Photo analysis is definitely not my forte. Neither is it yours. I'm terrible at it.
Yeah, well, after your reply, Mr. Mytton made the ludicrous claim that the backyard photos’ backgrounds are not virtually identical. Mytton might want to start by reading the HSCA PEP’s report, wherein the panel acknowledged that they found only “very small” differences in the background after photogrammetrically measuring them. This is especially telling because the PEP made this observation because outside experts had noted the virtual sameness of the backgrounds, but the panel didn’t bother to explain how in the world photos taken in the alleged manner could have produced backgrounds that were so similar that the variations between them could only be detected by photogrammetric measurement.
Then, perhaps Mytton will address the facts I present in my article “The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos”:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
There aren't any holes in the palmprint's documented discovery or transmission.
Except for the failure to take a single photo of the print before lifting it—Lt. Day surely knew that such photos would be strong evidence of the print’s presence on the rifle on 11/22. Except for the unexplained delay in getting the print to FBI HQ. Except for Lt. Day’s sworn assertion that the print was still visible on the barrel when he gave the rifle to Drain, whereas Drain stated that Day said nothing about a print on the rifle barrel. Except for the unexplained visit of FBI agents to the funeral home to take prints of Oswald’s fingers and hands—gee, what was that all about? Except for the inexplicable silence of the DPD for several days about finding a palmprint on the rifle, when the DPD rushed to tell journalists about every other piece of seemingly incriminating evidence that they found. Except for the absence of any trace of fingerprint processing on the barrel when Latona examined the rifle on 11/23.
Where is that memo? Let's see it. Notice that the memo was dated July 1978. That was after Scalice had examined the palm print. Also, perhaps more importantly, notice that the article refers to fingerprints. Multiple fingerprints, not a single latent palm print.
I did miss that part. (http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/b/blushy-1027.gif) I must have been having a rough day myself. :) Because I also missed this part:
9. Lift from the rifle (designated commission exhibit 139) from the underside of the foregrip of a Mannlicher-Carcano serial no. C2766. I identified five characteristics or points of identity which match the lift.
So, there you have it.
I think you might be right. Perhaps the memo was referring to the trigger-guard prints. But, as we’ll see in a moment, Scalice’s statements raise some interesting questions.
Not only did the HSCA get the original palm print lift, they were able to have it positively matched to Oswald's rifle as well. Which was just a confirmation of what Latona et al had done 14 years prior. John Mytton has allowed us to see it for ourselves.
Scalice had the actual palm print itself to determine if it was Oswald's or not but for his own purposes he chose to use enlarged negatives of the print to make the identification.
Yes, but notice that Scalice could only identify five characteristics/points of identity when he reportedly examined the palmprint itself. The minimum number of matching characteristics for a print identification to be considered positive is 10. Some experts say 12 is the minimum number. Scalice could only find five, which might be why he decided to examine enlarged negatives of the print. But why could Scalice only see five characteristics on the palmprint itself but more on the negatives of the print?
And, of course, the palmprint is only valid evidence if it was not planted on the rifle barrel. If the palmprint was planted on the rifle after Oswald was killed, obviously it is worthless as evidence against him, and that’s why the glaring holes in the print’s chain of evidence are so important.
Saying that it was debunked is not the same as showing that it was debunked. Nothing in that excerpt of yours challenges what I said. By the time that Day was told to pack everything up he just had not got around to photographing the print and he felt rushed to get all of the items properly prepared for pick up.There's no way to debunk it. All you have is speculation.
I explained that Day had ample time to take 1 or 2 minutes to photograph the most important palmprint he would ever (supposedly) lift. Even if we buy the story that he was being rushed, he, as a senior crime-scene detective, surely could and would have said, “Ok, give me just a minute, because I need to take a photo of this palmprint.” Whoever was supposedly rushing him certainly would have understood the need to photograph the print in situ on the barrel. A rookie cop fresh from the police academy would have known this.
When Lt. Day was asked why he had not made a photograph of the palmprint, he claimed that he had been told by DPD Chief Curry “to go no further with the processing,” which is an unbelievable tale in and of itself. But in an earlier interview with the FBI, Day had claimed that he had not received this instruction from Curry until immediately before the rifle was due to be sent to Washington, more than three hours after he had worked on the prints (26 H 832-833 vs. CE 3145:7). So this “he was rushed” dog just won’t hunt.
Why are you focusing on minor inconsistencies in Day's foggy four month old recollection instead of dealing with the elephant in the room? That elephant being the lift itself and it having been positively matched to Oswald's rifle. Day's recollections on some minor details were faulty. No question about it. However, none of it negates the fact that he lifted the palm print off of the barrel of the rifle. Yes, the print had been under the wooden stock and would not have been placed there by normal handling of the rifle. However, Oswald had disassembled the rifle before bringing it to work. Probably the night before.
“Minor inconsistencies”? “Minor”? He swore the print was still visible when he handed over the rifle. He knew he was supposed to photograph the print before lifting it, and he had ample time to do so. He somehow found the time to photograph the partial prints on the trigger guard, but supposedly just couldn’t squeeze in a minute or two to photograph the much more crucial palmprint. He said he told Drain about the palmprint on the barrel when he gave him the rifle, but Drain said he did not.
And we should pause to note that even the “we can see the emperor’s new clothes” Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint and therefore asked Lt. Day to sign a separate affidavit about his lifting and processing of the print, and that Lt. Day refused to do so.
Latona never got the print until the 29th. However, the FBI got it on the 26th. And no, I'm not confusing the palmprint from the cardboard box with the palmprint taken from the rifle.
CE 738 does not include all of the evidence that Drain took possession of that day. Those are the items that he picked up at 2 PM. The piece of cardboard doesn't appear to be in that photo. According to Day, it was picked up by Drain at 11:45 that night. The lift of the partial palm print and the cardboard boxes would have been picked up at the time as well.
You realize that Agent Drain was in Dallas on 11/26, right? If Drain got the palmprint on 11/26, why did it not get to FBI HQ until 11/29? Every other item on that 11/26 DPD “Property Clerk’s Invoice or Receipt” arrived at FBI HQ the next day, 11/27. But the palmprint did not arrive until 11/29, as even Bugliosi acknowledges.
Again, why the delay? Why were items that were far less incriminating rushed to FBI HQ but not the palmprint? Did Drain need to wait until the FBI agents brought Oswald’s prints back from the funeral home?
You are aware that Agent Drain told Henry Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22 but that it was planted, right? (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 109)
-
And we should pause to note that even the “we can see the emperor’s new clothes” Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint and therefore asked Lt. Day to sign a separate affidavit about his lifting and processing of the print, and that Lt. Day refused to do so.
Is there even a hypothetical innocent explanation for this?
-
Is there even a hypothetical innocent explanation for this?
Indeed. The guy who was sent to get Day to do an affidavit, as luck would have it, was . . . Agent Drain. Perhaps this is one reason that Drain later told Henry Hurt that he did not believe Oswald's palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22 but that it was planted later (Reasonable Doubt, p. 109).
-
I really don't care what your Kook mates say, the backyard photos were taken from different positions but why believe me, a picture's worth a thousand words.
In the following gif I lined up 3 palings of the fence and as can be seen there is literally a bazillion parallax changes, the building, window and roof behind shifts, all the stairs and supporting post show major perspective changes as do the other posts on the right side, the windows and shutter also demonstrate this difference in the cameras location. So in conclusion, I'll state the bleeding obvious once again, there is absolutely no possible way to take 1 photo and tilt it to create all the following parallax changes because all the objects within the image are shifting relative to each other.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZsSfQrh/griffithsnightmare.gif)
JohnM
Michael Griffiths calls that abject quackery. He has got himself so mired in the Kook bog that he'll never get out.
-
You still have not read my chapter on the backyard photos in Hasty Judgment, have you? Or did you overlook the fact that I note therein that the Houston Post contacted a photographic expert at Texas Tech University, Dr. Hershel Womack, regarding the DPD backyard rifle prints.
If you would read chapter 5, you would see that I corresponded with Dr. Womack about the backyard rifle photos. I include two of Dr. Womack’s e-mails to me regarding the photos, in which he explained some of the indications of tampering in them.
So you are going to rely on one giant appeal to authority? Is that it? I notice that you guys only insist on “trusting the experts” when they say what you want to hear. Do you regard the HSCA acoustical experts with the same slavish reverence? I’m guessing the answer is a big, whopping No.
It is almost as if you guys were born yesterday when it comes to your willingness to gullibly, uncritically accept whatever this or that government-hired expert says—that is, as long as he says what you are determined to believe.
Should we take several pages and go through the instances, in the JFK case alone, where government experts goofed, misrepresented their own experiments or the experiments of others, suppressed evidence that did not fit their conclusions, rigged their tests, etc., etc.?
Yeah, well, after your reply, Mr. Mytton made the ludicrous claim that the backyard photos’ backgrounds are not virtually identical. Mytton might want to start by reading the HSCA PEP’s report, wherein the panel acknowledged that they found only “very small” differences in the background after photogrammetrically measuring them. This is especially telling because the PEP made this observation because outside experts had noted the virtual sameness of the backgrounds, but the panel didn’t bother to explain how in the world photos taken in the alleged manner could have produced backgrounds that were so similar that the variations between them could only be detected by photogrammetric measurement.
Then, perhaps Mytton will address the facts I present in my article “The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos”:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
Except for the failure to take a single photo of the print before lifting it—Lt. Day surely knew that such photos would be strong evidence of the print’s presence on the rifle on 11/22. Except for the unexplained delay in getting the print to FBI HQ. Except for Lt. Day’s sworn assertion that the print was still visible on the barrel when he gave the rifle to Drain, whereas Drain stated that Day said nothing about a print on the rifle barrel. Except for the unexplained visit of FBI agents to the funeral home to take prints of Oswald’s fingers and hands—gee, what was that all about? Except for the inexplicable silence of the DPD for several days about finding a palmprint on the rifle, when the DPD rushed to tell journalists about every other piece of seemingly incriminating evidence that they found. Except for the absence of any trace of fingerprint processing on the barrel when Latona examined the rifle on 11/23.
I think you might be right. Perhaps the memo was referring to the trigger-guard prints. But, as we’ll see in a moment, Scalice’s statements raise some interesting questions.
Yes, but notice that Scalice could only identify five characteristics/points of identity when he reportedly examined the palmprint itself. The minimum number of matching characteristics for a print identification to be considered positive is 10. Some experts say 12 is the minimum number. Scalice could only find five, which might be why he decided to examine enlarged negatives of the print. But why could Scalice only see five characteristics on the palmprint itself but more on the negatives of the print?
And, of course, the palmprint is only valid evidence if it was not planted on the rifle barrel. If the palmprint was planted on the rifle after Oswald was killed, obviously it is worthless as evidence against him, and that’s why the glaring holes in the print’s chain of evidence are so important.
I explained that Day had ample time to take 1 or 2 minutes to photograph the most important palmprint he would ever (supposedly) lift. Even if we buy the story that he was being rushed, he, as a senior crime-scene detective, surely could and would have said, “Ok, give me just a minute, because I need to take a photo of this palmprint.” Whoever was supposedly rushing him certainly would have understood the need to photograph the print in situ on the barrel. A rookie cop fresh from the police academy would have known this.
When Lt. Day was asked why he had not made a photograph of the palmprint, he claimed that he had been told by DPD Chief Curry “to go no further with the processing,” which is an unbelievable tale in and of itself. But in an earlier interview with the FBI, Day had claimed that he had not received this instruction from Curry until immediately before the rifle was due to be sent to Washington, more than three hours after he had worked on the prints (26 H 832-833 vs. CE 3145:7). So this “he was rushed” dog just won’t hunt.
“Minor inconsistencies”? “Minor”? He swore the print was still visible when he handed over the rifle. He knew he was supposed to photograph the print before lifting it, and he had ample time to do so. He somehow found the time to photograph the partial prints on the trigger guard, but supposedly just couldn’t squeeze in a minute or two to photograph the much more crucial palmprint. He said he told Drain about the palmprint on the barrel when he gave him the rifle, but Drain said he did not.
And we should pause to note that even the “we can see the emperor’s new clothes” Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint and therefore asked Lt. Day to sign a separate affidavit about his lifting and processing of the print, and that Lt. Day refused to do so.
You realize that Agent Drain was in Dallas on 11/26, right? If Drain got the palmprint on 11/26, why did it not get to FBI HQ until 11/29? Every other item on that 11/26 DPD “Property Clerk’s Invoice or Receipt” arrived at FBI HQ the next day, 11/27. But the palmprint did not arrive until 11/29, as even Bugliosi acknowledges.
Again, why the delay? Why were items that were far less incriminating rushed to FBI HQ but not the palmprint? Did Drain need to wait until the FBI agents brought Oswald’s prints back from the funeral home?
You are aware that Agent Drain told Henry Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22 but that it was planted, right? (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 109)
==================================================================================
Yes, but notice that Scalice could only identify five characteristics/points of identity when he reportedly examined the palmprint itself. The minimum number of matching characteristics for a print identification to be considered positive is 10. Some experts say 12 is the minimum number. Scalice could only find five, which might be why he decided to examine enlarged negatives of the print. But why could Scalice only see five characteristics on the palmprint itself but more on the negatives of the print?
==================================================================================
I'll address the post tonight but for now I just wanted to address this part of it. The five points that Scalice identified did not have to do with print identification. They had to do with matching the lift to the barrel of the rifle. Scalice didn't say how many points of identity that he found to make the determination that the palmprint was Oswald's.
-
Except for Lt. Day’s sworn assertion that the print was still visible on the barrel when he gave the rifle to Drain, whereas Drain stated that Day said nothing about a print on the rifle barrel.
....
You are aware that Agent Drain told Henry Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22 but that it was planted, right? (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 109)
"Rusty was standing by as lieutenant Day gave the rifle to Drain. Rusty told me that
Drain was in a hurry to leave and was distracted by another FBI agent who was
hurrying him to leave. According to Rusty, 'Drain was half listening to Lieutenant Day
and half to the other FBI man and evidently didn't get the word about the palm plant
at the time.'"
-- JFK first Day Evidence, Gary Savage, 1993
"Rusty" is Crime Lab Det. Richard W. Livingston, with the DPD 1951-74.
-
As late as August 1964, WC attorneys Wesley Liebeler, Burt Griffin, and David Slawson had serious doubts about Lt. Day’s claims regarding the palmprint. In a memo dated August 28, 1964, Liebeler expressed the reasons for these doubts to J. Lee Rankin, the WC’s chief counsel, and told Rankin that he, Griffin, and Slawson believed that further investigation was needed. Liebeler even outlined issues that needed to be pursued. The HSCA was nice enough to enter the memo into the record. Here it is:
JFK Exhibit No. 34
[Memorandum]
AUGUST 28, 1964
To: J . Lee Rankin .
From: Wesley J . Liebeler.
Messrs. Griffin and Slawson and I raise questions covering the palmprint which Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department testified he lifted from the underside of the barrel of the K-1 rifle on November 22, 1963. That story is set forth on pages 7-10 of the proposed final draft of Chapter IV of the Report, copies of which are attached.
We suggest that additional investigation be conducted to determine with greater certainty that the palmprint was actually lifted from the rifle as Lt. Day has testified. The only evidence we presently have on that print is the testimony of Lt. Day himself. He has stated that although he lifted the palmprint on November 22, 1963, he did not provide a copy of the lift to the FBI until November 26, 1963 (9 R 260-61). He also testified that after the lift he "could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print." Mr. Latona of the FBI testified with respect to the lift of the palmprint that "evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such—even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle" (Id. at 24).
Additional problems are raised by the fact that:
(1) Agent Latona testified that the poor finish of the K-1 rifle made it absorbent and not conducive to getting a good print;
(2) None of the other prints on the rifle could be identified because they were of such poor quality;
(3) The other prints on the rifle were protected by cellophane while the area where the palmprint had been lifted was not, even though Lt. Day testified that after the lift the "([palm] print on gun was their best bet, still remained on there," when he was asked why he had not released the lift to the FBI on November 22, 1963.
We should review the above circumstances at our conference with Agent Latona and Inspector Malley. The configuration of the palmprint should be reviewed to determine, if possible, whether or not it was removed from a cylindrical surface . The possibility that the palmprint or evidence of the lift was destroyed while the rifle was in transit should be reviewed with them. The exact condition of the rifle at the time It was turned over to the FBI Dallas office should be ascertained . Agent Latona should be asked if he can think of any explanation for the apparent conflict in the above testimony.
We should also:
(1) Determine whether or not Lt. Day had assistance when he worked with the prints on the rifle. If he did, we should obtain statements from those who assisted him.
(2) Lt. Day should be asked why he preserved the fingerprints on the rifle, which were not sufficiently clear to make positive identification, and yet did not preserve the palmprint, which was clear enough for that purpose.
(3) Lt. Day should also be asked why he removed only the palmprint and should be re-questioned covering his recollection that he saw the palmprint still on the rifle after he made the lift.
(4) Lt. Day should be asked if he took any photographs of the palmprint on the rifle after the lift. He may have done so, since he did photograph the less valuable fingerprints, and the palmprint on the rifle, according to his testimony, was still the "best bet" for identification. It is also significant that Lt. Day stated that he was going to attempt to get a better print through use of photography. (11 HSCA 218-219, my emphasis)
No wonder the WC asked Lt. Day to sign a separate affidavit about his processing of the palmprint, and no wonder Day refused.
As for the belated tale that Agent Drain wasn't paying attention to Day when Day supposedly told him about the print on the barrel, Drain told Henry Hurt that he was certain Day did not say a word about any print on the barrel when he handed over the rifle. Hurt interviewed Day as well, and Day repeated his tale that he both told Drain about the print, showed him where it was, and advised him to ensure the area of the print was not disturbed en route the FBI HQ:
In 1984, the author interviewed both Lieutenant Day and Agent Drain about the mysterious print. Day remains adamant that the Oswald print was on the rifle when he first examined it a few hours after the shooting. Moreover, Day stated that when he gave the rifle to Agent Drain, he pointed out to the FBI man both the area where the print could be seen and the fingerprint dust used to bring it out. Lieutenant Day states that he cautioned Drain to be sure the area was not disturbed while the rifle was in transit to the FBI laboratory.
Drain flatly disputes this, claiming that Day never showed him such a print. "I just don't believe there was ever a print," said Drain. He noted that there was increasing pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case. (Reasonable Doubt, p. 109)
-
I'll address the post tonight but for now I just wanted to address this part of it. The five points that Scalice identified did not have to do with print identification. They had to do with matching the lift to the barrel of the rifle.
And like in the Hoover memo, there is nothing beyond a claim that this was done.
-
"Rusty was standing by as lieutenant Day gave the rifle to Drain. Rusty told me that
Drain was in a hurry to leave and was distracted by another FBI agent who was
hurrying him to leave. According to Rusty, 'Drain was half listening to Lieutenant Day
and half to the other FBI man and evidently didn't get the word about the palm plant
at the time.'"
-- JFK first Day Evidence, Gary Savage, 1993
"Rusty" is Crime Lab Det. Richard W. Livingston, with the DPD 1951-74.
Of course. And Day just let the matter drop, because that’s what crime lab officers do when they are instructed to turn over ALL the evidence they have to the FBI.
-
You still have not read my chapter on the backyard photos in Hasty Judgment, have you? Or did you overlook the fact that I note therein that the Houston Post contacted a photographic expert at Texas Tech University, Dr. Hershel Womack, regarding the DPD backyard rifle prints.
If you would read chapter 5, you would see that I corresponded with Dr. Womack about the backyard rifle photos. I include two of Dr. Womack’s e-mails to me regarding the photos, in which he explained some of the indications of tampering in them.
You stated that the Houston Post acknowledged that the backyard photos show stages of manipulation in the production. In reality, it was just Mary LaFontaine pushing the Conspiracy Buff narrative. Womack said nothing at all about his own examination of the autopsy photos and negative(s). He never said that they showed any signs of fakery or alteration. His comment was only in regards to the matte photograph. Even in his emails to you, he's not giving opinion based on an actual examination of the photos themselves. Nor does he even claim outright that the copies he looked at are fake. He's not even accurately describing the photos. His descriptions sound rather amateurish.
So you are going to rely on one giant appeal to authority? Is that it? I notice that you guys only insist on “trusting the experts” when they say what you want to hear. Do you regard the HSCA acoustical experts with the same slavish reverence? I’m guessing the answer is a big, whopping No.
It is almost as if you guys were born yesterday when it comes to your willingness to gullibly, uncritically accept whatever this or that government-hired expert says—that is, as long as he says what you are determined to believe.
The comparison between the two isn't even close to being apt. The National Academy of Sciences panel had at its disposal all of the material that BRSW had. Their examination of that material was not as rushed and was more thorough. Those who question the authenticity of the backyard photos have never examined the actual photos or the negative(s), or the camera that took them.
Should we take several pages and go through the instances, in the JFK case alone, where government experts goofed, misrepresented their own experiments or the experiments of others, suppressed evidence that did not fit their conclusions, rigged their tests, etc., etc.?
Sure, go ahead.
Yeah, well, after your reply, Mr. Mytton made the ludicrous claim that the backyard photos’ backgrounds are not virtually identical. Mytton might want to start by reading the HSCA PEP’s report, wherein the panel acknowledged that they found only “very small” differences in the background after photogrammetrically measuring them. This is especially telling because the PEP made this observation because outside experts had noted the virtual sameness of the backgrounds, but the panel didn’t bother to explain how in the world photos taken in the alleged manner could have produced backgrounds that were so similar that the variations between them could only be detected by photogrammetric measurement.
Then, perhaps Mytton will address the facts I present in my article “The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos”:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
The claim that the backyard photos’ backgrounds are not virtually identical is not ludicrous at all. John Mytton has made it plain for all of us to see. None of us need to be photogammetrists in order to see it. It's right there. And not just within the section that bordered in red.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZsSfQrh/griffithsnightmare.gif)
Why don't you send that to Dr Womack and get his opinion on it?
Except for the failure to take a single photo of the print before lifting it—Lt. Day surely knew that such photos would be strong evidence of the print’s presence on the rifle on 11/22. Except for the unexplained delay in getting the print to FBI HQ. Except for Lt. Day’s sworn assertion that the print was still visible on the barrel when he gave the rifle to Drain, whereas Drain stated that Day said nothing about a print on the rifle barrel. Except for the unexplained visit of FBI agents to the funeral home to take prints of Oswald’s fingers and hands—gee, what was that all about? Except for the inexplicable silence of the DPD for several days about finding a palmprint on the rifle, when the DPD rushed to tell journalists about every other piece of seemingly incriminating evidence that they found. Except for the absence of any trace of fingerprint processing on the barrel when Latona examined the rifle on 11/23.
By Day's four month old recollection, signs of the print were still visible on the barrel when he gave it to Drain. Day was mistaken. His recollection was faulty.
Regarding the alleged visit by the FBI to the funeral home, it was a claim made by Paul Groody some three decades after the fact. Groody said that the Agents had left ink all over Oswald's hands. There are a couple of problems with your suggection that the FBI planted Oswald's palm print on the barrel of the rifle then. One, any ink on the lift of the print would not have gone unnoticed by Latona or any of the others who examined it. Two, the FBI had handed the rifle back over to the DPD at 3:40 PM on the 24th. According to Groody, he never even got to the funeral home with the body until around 11 o'clock that night.
(https://i.imgur.com/2LVGmCR.png)
I think you might be right. Perhaps the memo was referring to the trigger-guard prints. But, as we’ll see in a moment, Scalice’s statements raise some interesting questions.
Yes, but notice that Scalice could only identify five characteristics/points of identity when he reportedly examined the palmprint itself. The minimum number of matching characteristics for a print identification to be considered positive is 10. Some experts say 12 is the minimum number. Scalice could only find five, which might be why he decided to examine enlarged negatives of the print. But why could Scalice only see five characteristics on the palmprint itself but more on the negatives of the print?
I'll just repost this:
The five points that Scalice identified did not have to do with print identification. They had to do with matching the lift to the barrel of the rifle. Scalice didn't say how many points of identity that he found to make the determination that the palmprint was Oswald's.
And, of course, the palmprint is only valid evidence if it was not planted on the rifle barrel. If the palmprint was planted on the rifle after Oswald was killed, obviously it is worthless as evidence against him, and that’s why the glaring holes in the print’s chain of evidence are so important.
The "palmprint being planted after Oswald was killed" notion is abject quackery, if I may use that term.
I explained that Day had ample time to take 1 or 2 minutes to photograph the most important palmprint he would ever (supposedly) lift. Even if we buy the story that he was being rushed, he, as a senior crime-scene detective, surely could and would have said, “Ok, give me just a minute, because I need to take a photo of this palmprint.” Whoever was supposedly rushing him certainly would have understood the need to photograph the print in situ on the barrel. A rookie cop fresh from the police academy would have known this.
When Lt. Day was asked why he had not made a photograph of the palmprint, he claimed that he had been told by DPD Chief Curry “to go no further with the processing,” which is an unbelievable tale in and of itself. But in an earlier interview with the FBI, Day had claimed that he had not received this instruction from Curry until immediately before the rifle was due to be sent to Washington, more than three hours after he had worked on the prints (26 H 832-833 vs. CE 3145:7). So this “he was rushed” dog just won’t hunt.
“Minor inconsistencies”? “Minor”? He swore the print was still visible when he handed over the rifle. He knew he was supposed to photograph the print before lifting it, and he had ample time to do so. He somehow found the time to photograph the partial prints on the trigger guard, but supposedly just couldn’t squeeze in a minute or two to photograph the much more crucial palmprint. He said he told Drain about the palmprint on the barrel when he gave him the rifle, but Drain said he did not.
Day was told by Curry to go no further with the processing. He had not yet got around to photographing the print. He may have had plenty of time to do so prior to that but he just never got around to doing it. Criticize him all you want for failing to do so but it won't alter the fact the he lifted that print. I believe him. He was an honest man. The "he was rushed" dog hunts very well.
And we should pause to note that even the “we can see the emperor’s new clothes” Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint and therefore asked Lt. Day to sign a separate affidavit about his lifting and processing of the print, and that Lt. Day refused to do so.
Day felt no need to sign an affidavit. If he had something else to offer than what he said under oath, or as a clarification or correction, then he would have. Like with his June 1964 affidavit regarding the hulls.
You realize that Agent Drain was in Dallas on 11/26, right? If Drain got the palmprint on 11/26, why did it not get to FBI HQ until 11/29? Every other item on that 11/26 DPD “Property Clerk’s Invoice or Receipt” arrived at FBI HQ the next day, 11/27. But the palmprint did not arrive until 11/29, as even Bugliosi acknowledges.
Again, why the delay? Why were items that were far less incriminating rushed to FBI HQ but not the palmprint? Did Drain need to wait until the FBI agents brought Oswald’s prints back from the funeral home?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339534/
"This is a list of evidence released to the FBI from our crime lab 11-26-63."
Drain got the lift of the palm print on Nov 26. Not sure why he held onto it until the 29th. How have you determined that every other item on 11/26 DPD “Property Clerk’s Invoice or Receipt” arrived at FBI HQ the next day, 11/27?
You are aware that Agent Drain told Henry Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22 but that it was planted, right? (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 109)
I am aware that, according to Henry Hurt, Drain told Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22. I wasn't aware that he said that he thought it was planted. Are you aware that Agent Drain told Larry Sneed that he believed Day to be an honest man?
-
"Rusty was standing by as lieutenant Day gave the rifle to Drain. Rusty told me that
Drain was in a hurry to leave and was distracted by another FBI agent who was
hurrying him to leave. According to Rusty, 'Drain was half listening to Lieutenant Day
and half to the other FBI man and evidently didn't get the word about the palm plant
at the time.'"
-- JFK first Day Evidence, Gary Savage, 1993
"Rusty" is Crime Lab Det. Richard W. Livingston, with the DPD 1951-74.
Thumb1: I have to get a copy of that book.
-
.....
And we should pause to note that even the “we can see the emperor’s new clothes” Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint and therefore asked Lt. Day to sign a separate affidavit about his lifting and processing of the print, and that Lt. Day refused to do so.
You realize that Agent Drain was in Dallas on 11/26, right? If Drain got the palmprint on 11/26, why did it not get to FBI HQ until 11/29? Every other item on that 11/26 DPD “Property Clerk’s Invoice or Receipt” arrived at FBI HQ the next day, 11/27. But the palmprint did not arrive until 11/29, as even Bugliosi acknowledges.
Again, why the delay? Why were items that were far less incriminating rushed to FBI HQ but not the palmprint? Did Drain need to wait until the FBI agents brought Oswald’s prints back from the funeral home?
You are aware that Agent Drain told Henry Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22 but that it was planted, right? (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 109)
Henry Hurt was run by Bush and Readers Digest editor, Fulton Oursler and reported directly at Readers Digest to the younger Edward Thompson, son of the former Life Magazine editor.
Henry Hurt leaned on Billy Joe Lord, under the direction of Bush's best friend, Gerry Bemiss, a cousin of Henry Hurt's wife, who happened to be the niece of Freeport Sulphur's chairman, Langbourne Williams.
Dec. 6 specially decorated Bush '41 Train engine, was Billy Joe Lord on board?
« on: December 06, 2018, 06:59:00 PM »
.......
And :
.....
(http://jfkforum.com/images/HenryHurtKennebunkport.jpg)
...........
-
Yeah, zero evidence except for the bag with his prints on it being found in the sniper's nest and the fact that he was seen carrying a long package to work that morning. Oh yeah, and those fibers in the bag that matched with fibers of the blanket that he kept his rifle wrapped in.
Couple of questions, Tim
1. What evidentiary value does the paper bag allegedly found in the snipers nest have, considering that;
(1) it was made from TSBD material and found in the TSBD, on a floor where Oswald worked,
(2) it only had two identifiable prints on it, apparently belonging to Oswald, of which the locations on the bag were not consistent with the way Oswald, according to Frazier, carried the bag he brought with him,
(3) there were more prints present on the bag which could not be identified, leaving open the possibility of other people also having touched the bag
2. What, other than assumption, proves that the bag allegedly found at the TSBD is the same one Oswald carried that morning?
3. First of all, there is no match, to the exclusion of all other blankets, between the fibers found in the bag and the blanket found in Ruth Paine's garage. At best you can say the fibers are similar, but using the term "matched" is overstating the evidence.
And the question is; I'm sure you've seen the photographs made by the DPD and the FBI lab in which the blanket from Ruth Paine's garage lies directly next to the paper bag allegedly found at the TSBD. How can you rule out a transfer of fibers from the blanket to the bag when those photographs were taken? And if you can not rule out such a transfer, what evidentiary value do the fibers found in the paper bag actually have?
Elaborate means were undertaken to discourage the drawing of conclusions. Another of numerous examples besides what appears below in this post was Roscoe White's wife, Geneva, being in possession of the BYP photo print with the figure of Oswald cut out of it....
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24554-roscoe-white/
http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/murr.htm
The Undeliverable Package
by Gary Murr
What I am about to outline, briefly, is from notes regarding this issue that grew out of discussions between myself, Fred Newcomb and the late Perry Adams back in 1972.
This brown paper parcel that showed up at the "dead letter" section of the Irving, Texas Post Office, had been labeled, as described by Jerry, and it was handwritten. Originally the word Dallas had been on the ostensible address, but this had been scratched through with a pencil and Irving, Texas (gray box) was written beneath the original Dallas inscription.
(http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/nassaus.jpg)
The FBI agent who examined this find indicated that when he was shown the parcel, it "...was partially opened at the time of discovery [Dec. 4, 1963]." (CD 205) As Jerry's writings indicated, this "parcel" contained a brown paper bag "...open at both ends." The address was non-existent and, importantly, the parcel lacked any postage. Commission Document # 735 indicates that the FBI thereafter launched an investigation to determine the contents of the now-empty parcel, but that is where the trail ended. As far as I know, the results of this FBI "investigation" have never come to light. Of course, none of this was mentioned in the Warren Report.
Fred Newcomb had the parcel, bag etc. photographed at the Archives, and when he received the enlarged detail of the handwritten address label, he and Perry Adams were of the opinion that the writing was that of Lee Harvey Oswald. This is one potential lead which would be nice to pursue, with handwriting experts.
Where does this all tie in? Fred and Perry came up with a hypothesis, the nuts and bolts of which I will herein present for everyone's edification.
One of the items listed on the inventory of those articles seized during a search of the Paine residence on November 23, 1963, was the following:
1(one) notice of attempt to deliver mail, card dated November 20, 1963, to Mr. Lee Oswald, 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas - a parcel to be picked up.(CE2003;24H348) ....
.......
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldNassauStBag.jpg)
-
Nope, sorry Tim but you are completely wrong.
The only documents possibly linked directly to Hidell are the microfilm fotocopies of the order form and the money order, with the actual connection only being established (for what that's worth) by handwriting analysis.
Waldman 7 is an internal document, perpared by Klein's staff based upon the incoming order form. It only proves that an order was processed and it has no direct relation to Hidell (or Oswald). Waldman's testimony merely confirms the internal procedure and provides no direct evidentary link to Hidell (or Oswald) either. Waldman may confirm as much as he wants that according to the documents a rifle was sent to a p.o. box in Dallas, but that's at best only an assumption on his part. He was not involved in shipping it, nor does he have any first hand knowledge about when and to whom the rifle was ever delivered.
This is exactly why the Waldman evidence is so extremely weak. It all comes back to a few handwritten words written on an order form and a money order for which not even originals are available for handwriting analysis.
Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science to begin with. Having worked with experts in the past, I can tell you there is not one expert in the world who can say with 100% certainty that a particular individual, to the exclusion of all others, wrote a particular text. Handwriting analysis is done by comparing known (and certified) samples of an individual to the text on a questioned document. In court cases, the individual has to provide at least 10 samples of his handwriting by writing them down in front of a notary public or a judge. In this case, with Oswald dead, this of course did not happen. The experts only relied on documents for comparison they were told had been written by Oswald. A second way to compare handwritting is to examine the pressure on the paper applied by the pen and the flow of the pen when a word is written. This kind of comparison can not be done on a photo copy!
But it gets worse. The order form and money order, by themselves, even if they were written by Oswald do not prove he actually bought a rifle for himself or ever received it. In theory (and you will probably dismiss this out of hand for no good reason), a guy named or using the name Hidell could have asked Oswald to fill in the form and the money order for him citing for instance that he himself couldn't write. In my company I frequently fill in documents for people who have difficulties doing that themselves. To be clear, I'm not saying this actually happened, but it needs to be ruled out as a possibility before anyone can say with any kind of certainty that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.
The government's questioned documents expert witness testified to examination and evaluation of the handwriting on the original postal money order. The provenance of the original, located at the Arlington, VA archive, IMO, is solid. My research forced a revision by John Armstrong of his claim the Klein's money order was located in the wrong city compared to what Armstrong originally inaccurately claimed was the correct location, the Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City and disqualified Armstrong's claim the Klein's money order serial number was out of sequence compared to the
serial numbers on money orders known to have been purchased by Oswald in Dallas in fall, 1962 and sent to the Dept. of State to repay his travel expenses loan in the process of his and Marina's journey from Minsk to the U.S.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0191a.htm
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/pages/WC_Vol4_0191a.gif)
-
.....
Not submitted just means that it was not submitted to the Crime Lab. Submitting an item to the Crime Lab was not an absolute requirement. Lots of items were never submitted. The shell was accounted for.
(https://i.imgur.com/sqXBztL.jpg)
minor details -- LOL
OK, as has been documented so far also the WC knew that foggy Day was FoS.
The 'Rusty' story makes no sense since there was nothing to explain, just hand Vince the card (CE 637) which said where the lift came from.
Holding on to the card would have made no sense for Day as the FBI now had the reference prints from Oswald, Day couldn't work on that lift anyway.
All BS, implying that CE 637 was fabricated evidence --- that's why the commission had to come up with something in September.
I'll get back to you on the fake Waldman exhibit and the third shell.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MauserCraigRobertsJgaryShawCakebread.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MauserCraigRobertsJgaryShaw3rdEmptyHull.jpg)
-
I did a little more digging into the matter of the HSCA’s access to the rifle palmprint lift. After doing so, I am not convinced that Scalice actually examined the lift itself.
I located the 7/7/1978 Klein-Moriarty HSCA memo, released in 2017, regarding the FBI’s inability to find the original Oswald’s prints for the HSCA. The memo is clearly and indisputably referring to all Oswald prints, not just his fingerprints. The memo uses “prints,” “fingerprints,” and “lifts” interchangeably, even when referring to the palmprint found on one of the boxes (“cardboard carton”) from the sixth-floor window and even when referring to Commission Exhibits 627 through 660, which included the rifle palmprint lift.
In one statement, the memo says “inquire about lifts re rifle, carton, and bag.” One of the prints from the carton was a palmprint, but the memo simply calls it and the others “lifts.” More revealingly, and conclusively, Moriarty added a note to his memo on 7/18/1978 that a Mr. Johnson from the FBI advised him that the FBI had none of the original lifts for Commission Exhibits 627 through 660: “no original lifts, have copies (C.E. 627 thru 660).” The rifle palmprint is CE 637, 638, and 639.
So according to this memo, the FBI told the HSCA that it could not find the original lifts for all prints identified by the Warren Commission as exhibits 627 through 660, which include the rifle palmprint lift. Here is the memo:
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32262580.pdf
Two interesting side points about the memo before we get to Scalice’s statement about examining the palmprint lift, and these are points I have not seen discussed elsewhere:
* The memo mentions that Paine, the chief of the FBI’s latent prints office, said that the only way they could trace what had happened to the misplaced print evidence would be to examine “the original worksheet that the print section had to make up as it received the material initially,” but Paine said they were unable to find the worksheet either.
* The memo mentions that Moriarty was getting “flack” from the FBI on this issue (“FBI flack”) but that Moriarty intended to continue “despite Bureau’s criticism.” Now, gee, why would the FBI be criticizing Moriarty, and giving him flack, for trying to obtain the original lifts for the HSCA?
Okay, so what are we to make of Scalice’s claim that he examined the palmprint lift itself in June when Moriarty stated in a July 18 postscript in his memo that the FBI had advised him that they could not find the original lifts for CEs 627 through 660, which included the rifle palmprint lift? Did Scalice really examine it? Or did he just look at photos and negatives of it? Based on the Klein-Moriarty memo, and based on Scalice’s report, I am inclined to think that Scalice did not examine the palmprint lift itself. Just for context and background, let us revisit the relevant section from Scalice’s HSCA report, where Scalice lists the items he examined and what he found:
(158) 9. Lift from rifle (designated commission exhibit 139) from the underside of the foregrip at the gun barrel end of the foregrip of a Mannlicher-Carcano, serial no. C2766. I identified five characteristics or points of identity which match the lift.
(159) 10. Latent palm print lifted from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip, developed by the Dallas Police Department. I examined enlarged negatives which I identified as being identical to the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald. (8 HSCA 248)
In addition to the fact that Scalice said he examined an original lift that the FBI told Moriarty they could not find, a few questions come to mind:
1. Why is the palmprint lift not listed in the HSCA exhibits? If Scalice examined it, why is it not included in the HSCA exhibits? (If I am wrong and it is included, please correct me. I have checked three lists of the HSCA exhibits—the palmprint lift does not appear on any them.)
2. Why did Scalice not provide an exhibit number or numeric designation for the palmprint lift but provided this information for every other item that he examined?
3. Why was Scalice able to find only 5 matching characteristics on the palmprint lift itself, assuming he really examined it, but was able to find at least double that amount on the enlarged negatives of the lift? Notice that Scalice did not say that he identified the lift itself as matching Oswald’s palmprint—he only said this about the enlarged negatives of the lift.
Since the minimum number of points of identity required for a credible identification is 10 or 12, Scalice’s implication is that the negatives of the lift provided at least twice the number of matching characteristics than did the lift itself. We are left to infer this, because Scalice only implied it, and he did not testify and thus was never asked about the number of points of identity he allegedly found.
4. Why did Scalice not testify? He simply submitted a report. Given the controversy and questions about the rifle palmprint, one would think that the committee would have wanted Scalice to testify to address those questions.
5. Why does the HSCA’s final report say nothing about any examination of the palmprint lift except the one done for the Warren Commission? This is a very curious omission. (The palmprint lift is not included in the final report’s list of exhibits either.)
-
So according to this memo, the FBI told the HSCA that it could not find the original lifts for all prints identified by the Warren Commission as exhibits 627 through 660, which include the rifle palmprint lift.
Interesting. So what did John Hunt scan in the National Archives, the original magic partial palmprint lift or just a copy?
Maybe Pat Speer would know.
-
I did a little more digging into the matter of the HSCA’s access to the rifle palmprint lift. After doing so, I am not convinced that Scalice actually examined the lift itself.
I located the 7/7/1978 Klein-Moriarty HSCA memo, released in 2017, regarding the FBI’s inability to find the original Oswald’s prints for the HSCA. The memo is clearly and indisputably referring to all Oswald prints, not just his fingerprints. The memo uses “prints,” “fingerprints,” and “lifts” interchangeably, even when referring to the palmprint found on one of the boxes (“cardboard carton”) from the sixth-floor window and even when referring to Commission Exhibits 627 through 660, which included the rifle palmprint lift.
In one statement, the memo says “inquire about lifts re rifle, carton, and bag.” One of the prints from the carton was a palmprint, but the memo simply calls it and the others “lifts.” More revealingly, and conclusively, Moriarty added a note to his memo on 7/18/1978 that a Mr. Johnson from the FBI advised him that the FBI had none of the original lifts for Commission Exhibits 627 through 660: “no original lifts, have copies (C.E. 627 thru 660).” The rifle palmprint is CE 637, 638, and 639.
So according to this memo, the FBI told the HSCA that it could not find the original lifts for all prints identified by the Warren Commission as exhibits 627 through 660, which include the rifle palmprint lift. Here is the memo:
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32262580.pdf
Two interesting side points about the memo before we get to Scalice’s statement about examining the palmprint lift, and these are points I have not seen discussed elsewhere:
* The memo mentions that Paine, the chief of the FBI’s latent prints office, said that the only way they could trace what had happened to the misplaced print evidence would be to examine “the original worksheet that the print section had to make up as it received the material initially,” but Paine said they were unable to find the worksheet either.
* The memo mentions that Moriarty was getting “flack” from the FBI on this issue (“FBI flack”) but that Moriarty intended to continue “despite Bureau’s criticism.” Now, gee, why would the FBI be criticizing Moriarty, and giving him flack, for trying to obtain the original lifts for the HSCA?
Okay, so what are we to make of Scalice’s claim that he examined the palmprint lift itself in June when Moriarty stated in a July 18 postscript in his memo that the FBI had advised him that they could not find the original lifts for CEs 627 through 660, which included the rifle palmprint lift? Did Scalice really examine it? Or did he just look at photos and negatives of it? Based on the Klein-Moriarty memo, and based on Scalice’s report, I am inclined to think that Scalice did not examine the palmprint lift itself. Just for context and background, let us revisit the relevant section from Scalice’s HSCA report, where Scalice lists the items he examined and what he found:
In addition to the fact that Scalice said he examined an original lift that the FBI told Moriarty they could not find, a few questions come to mind:
1. Why is the palmprint lift not listed in the HSCA exhibits? If Scalice examined it, why is it not included in the HSCA exhibits? (If I am wrong and it is included, please correct me. I have checked three lists of the HSCA exhibits—the palmprint lift does not appear on any them.)
2. Why did Scalice not provide an exhibit number or numeric designation for the palmprint lift but provided this information for every other item that he examined?
There's no mention in that memo of Scalise having already examined a number of those items at the Latent Print Section of the FBI. Were none of them aware of it?
Some of the items that he examined were definitely photographs. The prints on the paper bag, for example. So it is possible, and even likely, that he never had the actual lift at his disposal. However, he specified that he used enlarged negatives of the palm print, which would be of the lift itself. While using secondhand photos of prints can be problematic when it comes to making positive identification, the use of photos taken by identification experts themselves is/was common. Scalise was obviously comfortable enough with the quality of the negatives to make his determinations. It's similar to Cadigan using an enlarged photo of the money order to aid in his own identification of the handwriting on it. In fact, Latona himself used enlarged photographs to aid in his identification of prints. Latona had photos of the prints prepared under his personal direction. The negatives that Scalise refers to would have been of the photos of the lift prepared for Latona.
3. Why was Scalice able to find only 5 matching characteristics on the palmprint lift itself, assuming he really examined it, but was able to find at least double that amount on the enlarged negatives of the lift? Notice that Scalice did not say that he identified the lift itself as matching Oswald’s palmprint—he only said this about the enlarged negatives of the lift.
Since the minimum number of points of identity required for a credible identification is 10 or 12, Scalice’s implication is that the negatives of the lift provided at least twice the number of matching characteristics than did the lift itself. We are left to infer this, because Scalice only implied it, and he did not testify and thus was never asked about the number of points of identity he allegedly found.
You are still confusing Scalise's identification of the palm print with his matching of the lift to the barrel of the rifle. They are two separate things. Two separate identifications.
4. Why did Scalice not testify? He simply submitted a report. Given the controversy and questions about the rifle palmprint, one would think that the committee would have wanted Scalice to testify to address those questions.
Not sure why the HSCA wasn't interested in having Scalise testify.
-
A few points in reply to various comments about the backyard rifle photos:
* Any discussion of the backyard rifle photos has to start with the fact that in 1992 we discovered prints that were used in the fabrication process. Before lone-gunman theorists can expect us to address all of their labored, convoluted attempts to explain the indications of tampering in the photos, they need to first and foremost face the fact that the DPD prints released in 1992 show a part of the fabrication process that was used to create the photos.
* The DPD prints released in 1992 are especially revealing and crucial because one of them shows a DPD detective striking a pose that was not officially known to exist among the backyard rifle photos until 1976 when Geneva Dees gave a new backyard rifle photo to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Mrs. Dees explained that she found the photo among the belongings of her late husband, former Dallas policeman Roscoe White. The photo is designated as 133-C-Dees. It shows the Oswald figure in a pose that is different from the poses in 133-A and 133-B. So, gee, what was going on with a DPD detective being photographed in Oswald’s backyard and striking a pose that no could have known about at the time, if the DPD’s story about “finding” the photos in Ruth Paine’s garage were true?
* John Mytton does not seem to understand the issue of the virtual sameness of backgrounds. He seems to be mistakenly assuming that the term “virtual sameness of backgrounds” refers to the amount of background visible in each photo and/or the position of the Oswald figure in relation to the background in each picture. It does not. The amount of background seen in the three photos differs. We are talking about the distances between objects in the backgrounds, not the amount of background seen in each photo.
When a camera moves between exposures during the taking of photos of the same scene, this will cause the distances between background objects in the scene to change, because the camera’s horizontal and vertical position relative to the background changed and because the camera’s distance from the target changed.
If the backyard rifle photos were taken in the manner alleged, i.e., taken with a cheap handheld camera that was passed back and forth between exposures, there would be substantial differences in the distances between background objects from photo to photo.
* Numerous photographic experts have noted that the backgrounds in the backyard rifle photos seem virtually identical, that the differences in the distances between objects are extremely small, and that this is a clear indication that the same background was keystoned and used for all the photos.
* The HSCA photographic evidence panel (PEP) was aware of this problem and sought to explain it. The PEP declared that it had found “measurable” differences in the distances between the background objects. But when you check the PEP’s report, you discover that these differences were incredibly small. PEP member Calvin McCamy acknowledged this in his testimony, although he did not fully explain just how small the differences were. He said that the measurements indicated the camera “moved slightly” between exposures, that the horizontal measurements showed “a small change” in the camera’s horizontal position between exposures, and that the vertical measurements showed a “very small” vertical movement of the camera between exposures.
* Just how small was “small,” “very small,” and “slight”? Incredibly small. The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. Parallax measurements are photogrammetric measurements performed to detect the slightest variations in distances between objects in photos.
The horizontal parallax measurements were done on points on the fence at three levels on 133-A and 133-B. There was an “a” measurement and a “b” measurement, each done at three levels. Here are the differences—in millimeters; yes, millimeters:
a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 mm
a-upper: 1.1 mm
b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm
The largest difference was 1.1 mm, which equals 0.043 inches. If fractions are easier to grasp, 0.043 inches as a fraction is 11/256ths of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of inch is 1.59 mm. So 1.1 mm is 30% smaller than 1/16th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.
The vertical parallax measurements were done on two objects on the fence. To account for differences in magnification, the measurements were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next, and the scaling distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four pickets on the fence. The differences:
Gate bolt to screen: 1.7 mm
Scaling distance: 0.3 mm
Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B)
If it helps any, here are the measurements as written in the PEP report:
133A: gate bolt to screen =30.4 mm. scaling; dist.=15.5 mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B: gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm, scaling dist.=15 .2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11
You do not have to be a scientist or a mathematician to understand that these are very, very tiny differences. Just try to imagine the odds of the camera ending up in virtually the same horizontal, vertical, and distance position in relation to the target, to within a tiny fraction of an inch each time, after being handed back and forth between each exposure.
Mr. Mee, the NSA photographic expert whom I interviewed, was particularly struck by these amazingly tiny differences in background object distances. He said “no way” the variations would be so small if these photos were taken in the manner alleged. I quote from the transcript of my interview with him:
MTG. Okay. Now, I'd like to ask you about the fact
that the panel found only very small variations in the
distances between objects in the background of the pictures.
Given the way that these photos were supposedly taken, does
that seem possible?
MR. MEE. No, the variations would be greater if these
photographs were taken the way Marina said they were. I mean,
like they showed in the video: She snaps a picture; Oswald walks
over and takes the camera from her; he advances the film; he
hands the camera back to her; he goes back over and assumes
another pose; she aims with the camera again and then takes the
picture; and they go through this process again for the third
photo. No. No way. The camera would have moved more than
just a tiny fraction of an inch.
Even with a professional photographer who's trying to hold the
camera as still as possible, you're going to have more variations
in distance than what they're talking about in these pictures.
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf)
-
* Numerous photographic experts have noted that the backgrounds in the backyard rifle photos seem virtually identical, that the differences in the distances between objects are extremely small, and that this is a clear indication that the same background was keystoned and used for all the photos.
Do you even know what it means to apply "keystone" correction to a photograph?
The first image is an original backyard photograph and the second backyard photograph is where I've applied keystone correction to make the right hand posts more parallel with the left hand post.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTVT6QSx/backyardphot.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ydMWZ6PV/backyardphoot.jpg)
Now when we directly compare these two images we see that every object within the frame is relatively proportional to each and every object within the image.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFFb54dh/backyardphotokeystonecomparison.gif)
Whereas when we compare two separate backyard photos which were taken from different positions we immediately see that the relative distances between the objects is radically different, the distance between the top of the fence to the window behind changes, where the roof behind intersects with the stairs is in a different position, the top of the window frame on the left hand side shows more of the top surface, etc etc.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZsSfQrh/griffithsnightmare.gif)
Btw please don't embarrass yourself any further, show these images to someone that you claim is an "expert" and let's see where that goes.
JohnM
-
When a camera moves between exposures during the taking of photos of the same scene, this will cause the distances between background objects in the scene to change, because the camera’s horizontal and vertical position relative to the background changed and because the camera’s distance from the target changed.
If the backyard rifle photos were taken in the manner alleged, i.e., taken with a cheap handheld camera that was passed back and forth between exposures, there would be substantial differences in the distances between background objects from photo to photo.
The three photographs differ among themselves in camera tilt, parallax, etc. Changes caused by the camera being held in a unique manner for each exposure. There's shadow movement seen on objects as well, meaning time has passed between each picture
Don't see what the camera being "cheap" has to do with anything.
-
Do you even know what it means to apply "keystone" correction to a photograph?
Now when we directly compare these two images we see that every object within the frame is relatively proportional to each and every object within the image.
Whereas when we compare two separate backyard photos which were taken from different positions we immediately see that the relative distances between the objects is radically different, the distance between the top of the fence to the window behind changes, where the roof behind intersects with the stairs is in a different position, the top of the window frame on the left hand side shows more of the top surface, etc etc.
Btw please don't embarrass yourself any further, show these images to someone that you claim is an "expert" and let's see where that goes.
Yeah, uh-huh. Obviously, you have no clue how to explain the minute differences between background objects in the photos; in fact, you deny they exist! You claim there are large differences in the distances between background objects. You do so, even though I quoted McCamy's admission that the differences are "small," "very small," and "slight," and even though I quoted the HSCA PEP's measurements, which document that the differences are incredibly small.
Since you have no idea how to explain this problem, you once again posted your silly GIF and are posturing as though I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Your GIF alone shows you don't even understand the basics about the problem the HSCA PEP was trying to explain.
I notice that you said nothing about the DPD backyard rifle prints released in 1992 and the fact that they are clearly from a stage in the fabrication of the backyard photos. Surely with your self-professed expertise in photographic evidence, you can provide a rational, believe explanation for why a DPD officer posed for pictures in Oswald's backyard and struck a pose that was never seen in any alleged Oswald backyard rifle photos until 1976.
And surely, since you are pretending that you know far more than I do about photographic evidence, you should have no problem refuting my article "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos." Here's the URL again:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
Jerry Organ doesn't understand why the camera's cheapness is relevant. Well, here's why: Cheap cameras, such as the Imperial Reflex, shake more easily and are not built to take high-quality pictures. The lower the camera quality, the higher the odds that your pictures will be less than optimally clear.
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
I asked you this question before but you must have overlooked it. How have you determined that more fragments were recovered from Governor Connally's wrist alone than are missing from CE 399?
-
The three photographs differ among themselves in camera tilt, parallax, etc. Changes caused by the camera being held in a unique manner for each exposure. There's shadow movement seen on objects as well, meaning time has passed between each picture
Don't see what the camera being "cheap" has to do with anything.
There's shadow movement seen on objects as well, meaning time has passed between each picture
Yep nice pickup Jerry, the electricity wires cast a shadow in different positions onto the stair support post which is proof positive that each photo was taken at a different time.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zXH2KTmC/climbingshadows.gif)
JohnM
-
I asked you this question before but you must have overlooked it. How have you determined that more fragments were recovered from Governor Connally's wrist alone than are missing from CE 399?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yq1r8GYF/Lattimer-fragments-80-100-zpsafe94b92.jpg)
JohnM
-
Like anyone actually knows how much lead was missing from CE 399.
-
Like anyone actually knows how much lead was missing from CE 399.
How much truth was missing from the WC inquiry and Report? Is beyond reasonable doubt a standard of guilt exclusive for still living accused?
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldConnallyFragmentsRemoval.jpg)
Gov. Connally was fortunate not to have been hit by any of these other rounds.:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296#relPageId=35&tab=page
(http://jfkforum.com/images/FourCarcanoBulletsFiredIntoCadaverWrists.jpg)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
.....
....Mr. BAKER - As we approached the corner there of Main and Houston we were making a right turn, and as I came out behind that building there, which is the county courthouse, the sheriff building, well, there was a strong wind hit me and I almost lost my balance.
Mr. BELIN - How fast would you estimate the speed of your motorcycle as you turned the corner, if you know?
Mr. BAKER - I would say--it wasn't very fast. I almost lost balance, we were just creeping along real slowly.
Mr. DULLES - That is turning from Main into Houston?
Mr. BAKER - That is right, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You turned-do you have any actual speed estimate as you turned that corner at all or just you would say very slow?
Mr. BAKER - I would say from around 5 to 6 or 7 miles an hour, because you can't hardly travel under that and you know keep your balance.
Mr. BELIN - From what direction was the wind coming When it hit you?
Mr. BAKER - Due north.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Now, tell us what happened after you turned on to Houston Street?
Mr. BAKER - AS I got myself straightened up there, I guess it took me some 20, 30 feet, something like that, and it was about that time that I heard these shots come out.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Could you just tell us what you heard and what you saw and what you did?
Mr. BAKER - As I got, like I say as I got straightened up there, I was, I don't know when these shots started coming off, I just--it seemed to me like they were high, and I just happened to look right straight up---
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/folsom.htm
....Mr. ELY - Is it possible, Colonel, to tell anything from this scorebook, assuming for the moment that it was accurately maintained, concerning the marksmanship of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Colonel FOLSOM - Well, yes. But very generally. For instance, at 200 yards slow fire on Tuesday, at 200 yards slow fire, offhand position----
Mr. ELY - You are referring, are you not, to the page designated 22 in Oswald's scorebook?
Colonel FOLSOM - Right--well, 22 as opposed to 23. He got out in the three ring, which is not good. They should be able to keep them--all 10 shots within the four ring.
Mr. ELY - And even if his weapon needed a great deal of adjustment in terms of elevation or windage, he still would have a closer group than that if he were a good shot?
Colonel FOLSOM - Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should get a score of between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.
Mr. ELY - And what was his score?
Colonel FOLSOM - Well, total shown on page 22 would be he got a score of 34 out of a possible 50 on Tuesday, as shown on page 22 of his record book. On Wednesday, he got a score of 38, improved four points. Do you want to compute these?
Mr. ELY - I don't see any point in doing this page by page.
I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.
Colonel FOLSOM - No, no, he was not. His scorebook indicates--as a matter of fact--that he did well at one or two ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.
Mr. ELY - In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?
Colonel FOLSOM - I would say so....
"Sgt. Schultz" imitations from everyone who allegedly touched ce-399 :
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0215b.jpg)
-
A few points in reply to various comments about the rifle palmprint:
* Keep in mind that Hoover’s September 4 memo, which claimed that irregularities from the rifle barrel could be seen in the palmprint lift, came a week after Liebeler’s August 28 memo. After Liebeler wrote the August 28 memo expressing doubts about the palmprint, Rankin wrote to the FBI on September 1 requesting additional information about the palmprint. Hoover’s September 4 memo was written in reply to Rankin’s request.
* We know from an internal FBI memo released in 1978 that before Rankin sent his September 1 memo to the FBI, he warned the FBI on August 28 that there was “a serious question in the minds of the Commission” about whether or not the palmprint was a “legitimate latent palm impression removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source,” and that “this matter needs to be resolved.”
* In his September 4 reply, Hoover claimed that FBI “laboratory examiners” determined that the palmprint came from the rifle barrel because they said that irregularities on the rifle barrel could be seen in the palmprint lift. Let us state a few obvious facts about this claim:
-- The unnamed lab examiners were never called to testify about this alleged finding.
-- Hoover’s memo was not a sworn statement, and the lab examiners provided no sworn statement either.
-- Hoover did not address the issue of how and when the palmprint allegedly got on the rifle before it was supposedly lifted.
-- The WC made no effort to independently verify Hoover’s claim.
-- Vincent Scalice, the HSCA fingerprint expert who claimed he examined the original palmprint lift, said nothing about finding impressions of irregularities from the barrel on the palmprint lift. Not one word.
* Sylvia Meagher’s critique of Hoover’s claim is one of the best ever written. I quote a sizable part of it in my article “Was Oswald’s Palmprint Planted on the Alleged Murder Weapon?” Rather than quote it here, I refer interested readers to my article:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/palmprint.htm
* But let us assume for the sake of argument that the palmprint came from the rifle barrel. This would not automatically prove the print to be incriminating. Why? Because the FBI sent the rifle back to Dallas on 11/24, so the rifle was available in Dallas from 11/24 until Lt. Day handed it over for the second and final time to the FBI on 11/26. And we know that FBI agents took fingerprints and palmprints from Oswald’s body in the morgue on 11/24, a fact that Agent Drain found baffling and suspicious.
* Why did the FBI send the rifle back to Dallas on 11/24 only take it again on 11/26? Why? What was up with that? Why send it back for two days and then pick it up again? Why? Because Oswald’s palmprint needed to be planted on it?
* The fact that FBI agents spent a long time with Oswald’s body on 11/24 and took prints from it is well documented. This suspicious excursion was reported in the local press (Fort Worth Press), and the funeral home director, Paul Groody, confirmed the strange visit in multiple interviews.
* Therefore, at some point between the rifle’s return to Dallas on 11/24 and Oswald’s burial the next day, the rifle could have been taken to the morgue and the barrel could have been pressed and rolled against Oswald’s palm (although, as Meagher noted, Latona gave no indication that the palmprint he examined had any of the disruptions and omissions that one would see in a palmprint created by a hand holding a rifle barrel).
* Another way the palmprint could have been planted on the rifle barrel would have been to take a fresh Oswald palmprint lift and place it on the barrel. Forensic experts have known since the 1930s that lifts can be placed on other surfaces, not just on fingerprint cards. The differences between a real print and a planted one are not always readily apparent, and sometimes the differences can only be detected by microscopic examination:
Later we learned that a genuine latent impression could be picked up bodily and transplanted by means of a surprisingly simple transfer material. This looked formidable at first, but on examining the transferred impressions microscopically it was discovered that they differed in two aspects from the genuine. . . . .
While the problem of planting forged finger-prints at the site of crime is probably not quite so simple as Wehde implies, we have no doubt that in practice it could be done so skillfully as to escape detection and permit the forgeries to pass for genuine. (C.D. Lee, “Fingerprints Can Be Forged,” Police Science, Winter 1934, volume 25, pp. 672-673, available at https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2507&context=jclc)
* Interestingly, Agent Drain suggested that the palmprint was planted on the rifle by taking one of Oswald’s palmprint cards and putting the impression on the rifle: “You could take the print off Oswald's card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened” (Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p. 109).
-
A few points in reply to various comments about the rifle palmprint:
* Keep in mind that Hoover’s September 4 memo, which claimed that irregularities from the rifle barrel could be seen in the palmprint lift, came a week after Liebeler’s August 28 memo. After Liebeler wrote the August 28 memo expressing doubts about the palmprint, Rankin wrote to the FBI on September 1 requesting additional information about the palmprint. Hoover’s September 4 memo was written in reply to Rankin’s request.
* We know from an internal FBI memo released in 1978 that before Rankin sent his September 1 memo to the FBI, he warned the FBI on August 28 that there was “a serious question in the minds of the Commission” about whether or not the palmprint was a “legitimate latent palm impression removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source,” and that “this matter needs to be resolved.”
* In his September 4 reply, Hoover claimed that FBI “laboratory examiners” determined that the palmprint came from the rifle barrel because they said that irregularities on the rifle barrel could be seen in the palmprint lift. Let us state a few obvious facts about this claim:
-- The unnamed lab examiners were never called to testify about this alleged finding.
-- Hoover’s memo was not a sworn statement, and the lab examiners provided no sworn statement either.
-- Hoover did not address the issue of how and when the palmprint allegedly got on the rifle before it was supposedly lifted.
-- The WC made no effort to independently verify Hoover’s claim.
Latona himself met with Rankin and Liebeler on the same day of the memo to discuss latent print issues. The latent palm print lifted by Day was one of those issues. While Hoover’s memo was not a sworn statement, and the lab examiners provided no sworn statement either, Liebeler did swear under oath that it was Latona who matched the lift with the barrel of the rifle.
-- Vincent Scalice, the HSCA fingerprint expert who claimed he examined the original palmprint lift, said nothing about finding impressions of irregularities from the barrel on the palmprint lift. Not one word.
Scalise reported that he identified five points of identity which match the lift to the barrel. If not impressions of irregularities, then what could those points of identity possibly have been? How else could they have been described?
It seems that Cecil Kirk also matched the lift to the barrel. He found six points of matching identity. Although, his finding was never included in the HSCA volumes. It's not confirmed to my satisfaction that he did. It's just something that I stumbled upon.
...
Also found in the archive is a four page typewritten statement, likely done sometime after Kirk testified before the House committee, discussing the circumstances surrounding the "latent palm print" that conspiracy theorists alleged was faked to frame Oswald. Using photographic analysis Kirk demonstrated six defects on the gun that matched the flaws on the palm print taken by the F.B.I.: "The photographs of the barrel were in effect an aerial survey which was used to locate those six craters (metal defects) that were recorded by the latent print lift 15 years earlier. Indeed, they were found to still exist and can be recognized in the photographic documentation."
...
https://goldinauctions.com/1978_John_F_Kennedy_Archive_Collection__University-LOT18935.aspx
It'd be nice to find a copy of that letter.
* Why did the FBI send the rifle back to Dallas on 11/24 only take it again on 11/26? Why? What was up with that? Why send it back for two days and then pick it up again? Why? Because Oswald’s palmprint needed to be planted on it?
The FBI sent the rifle back to the DPD on the 24th because it was part of the agreement in getting the DPD to hand it over to them on the 22nd. They received it again on the 26th by the request of DA Henry Wade, who instructed the DPD to turn all of the evidence in the assassination over to the FBI.
* But let us assume for the sake of argument that the palmprint came from the rifle barrel. This would not automatically prove the print to be incriminating. Why? Because the FBI sent the rifle back to Dallas on 11/24, so the rifle was available in Dallas from 11/24 until Lt. Day handed it over for the second and final time to the FBI on 11/26. And we know that FBI agents took fingerprints and palmprints from Oswald’s body in the morgue on 11/24, a fact that Agent Drain found baffling and suspicious.
* The fact that FBI agents spent a long time with Oswald’s body on 11/24 and took prints from it is well documented. This suspicious excursion was reported in the local press (Fort Worth Press), and the funeral home director, Paul Groody, confirmed the strange visit in multiple interviews.
* Therefore, at some point between the rifle’s return to Dallas on 11/24 and Oswald’s burial the next day, the rifle could have been taken to the morgue and the barrel could have been pressed and rolled against Oswald’s palm (although, as Meagher noted, Latona gave no indication that the palmprint he examined had any of the disruptions and omissions that one would see in a palmprint created by a hand holding a rifle barrel).
* Another way the palmprint could have been planted on the rifle barrel would have been to take a fresh Oswald palmprint lift and place it on the barrel. Forensic experts have known since the 1930s that lifts can be placed on other surfaces, not just on fingerprint cards. The differences between a real print and a planted one are not always readily apparent, and sometimes the differences can only be detected by microscopic examination:
Again, the problem with that, which I stated earlier, is that according to Paul Groody, he never even got to the funeral home with the body until around 11 o'clock that night. The FBI had handed the rifle back over to the DPD at 3:40 pm that day.
(https://i.imgur.com/2LVGmCR.png)
* Interestingly, Agent Drain suggested that the palmprint was planted on the rifle by taking one of Oswald’s palmprint cards and putting the impression on the rifle: “You could take the print off Oswald's card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened” (Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p. 109).
"As to Lieutenant Day, I've known him a long time, and I think that he's an honest individual." -- Vincent Drain, quoted in "No More Silence", by Larry Sneed, page 260
Day handed the lift over to Drain on November 26, 1963 and Drain signed for it.
-
Liebeler did swear under oath that it was Latona who matched the lift with the barrel of the rifle.
Hearsay at best. There is no first hand account or documentation of any kind from Latona that he did this or what procedures he used or what the results were.
-
Interesting. So what did John Hunt scan in the National Archives, the original magic partial palmprint lift or just a copy?
Maybe Pat Speer would know.
John, Pat's article doesn't seem to address the specific generation of the archived evidence.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4c%3Athefingerprintsofmyth
......
....But that changed circa 2003, when researcher John Hunt was allowed to make a scan of the barrel lift in the archives...and wisely shared his scan with the research community.
I present Hunt's scan below, on the left. On the right is Oswald's right palm print as found in the Warren Commission's volumes.
And so I ask you, is this a
......................................................................Match?
(http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1525999424788/chapter4c%3Athefingerprintsofmyth/Screen%20Shot%202018-05-10%20at%205.41.14%20PM.png)
......
....Or No Match?
I honestly don't know.The prints bare a strong resemblance, but there are clear differences between the two.
I'm not sure if this is related to the age of the lift when scanned by Hunt, or not.
But one thing is clear.
The central loop in the print on the barrel lift (CE 637) is not a clear match with the central loop in the FBI's photo of the palm print found on the paper bag (CE 632).
They are placed side by side below, with the bag print on the left and the supposed rifle print on the right. Keep in mind that these are supposedly the identical loop from Oswald's right palm. (While both images are of low quality, they are taken from the best quality versions of these images available to the public.).....
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4d-boxing-day
Chapter 4d: The Myth of Fingerprints and The Fingerprints of Myth
.....
-
One of the reasons so many researchers doubt the authenticity of the backyard rifle photos is that the official account of their alleged discovery and of the discovery of the camera contains suspicious claims and odd contradictions. Here are some of those claims and conntradictions:
* The Dallas Police Department (DPD) claimed they found two negatives of the backyard photos in Ruth Paine’s garage, but the DPD only gave one negative to the Warren Commission (WC), and the other negative disappeared without explanation. Can you imagine how a police department could “misplace” one of the two most important negatives in the history of crime?
* The backyard photos were not found until the day after the assassination. Somehow the multiple waves of DPD officers and federal agents who searched Ruth Paine’s home hours after the assassination “missed” them.
* 133-C-Dees, the backyard photo that Roscoe White’s widow Geneva Dees gave to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1976, was judged by the HSCA PEP to be a first-generation print, which would mean the DPD must have had the picture’s negative. However, that negative has also gone “missing.”
* The pose of the backyard figure in 133-C-Dees is different from the poses in the two other backyard photos, yet we learned in 1992 that one week after the assassination, DPD officers took backyard rifle photos in Oswald’s backyard, during which one of the officers struck the same pose seen in 133-C-Dees. We know this because some of the photos from this photo shoot were released in 1992.
* Robert Hester, a photographer who worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas and who helped process assassination-related film for the Dallas police and the FBI on 11/22, reported in a 1970 interview that he saw an FBI agent with a transparency of one of the backyard pictures on 11/22, which was the day before the police said they "found" the photos. Moreover, one of the backyard photos Hester processed showed no figure in the picture, just like one of the DPD prints that were discovered in 1992. Obviously, Hester could not have known about the DPD print that shows a silhouette instead of the Oswald figure because it was not released until 1992.
* The Imperial Reflex camera, the camera that was allegedly used to take the backyard photos, was not included in the inventories of Oswald’s possessions seized by the DPD.
* The Imperial Reflex camera was not “found” until nearly three months after the assassination.
* On February 24, 1964, Oswald’s brother Robert gave the Imperial Reflex camera to law enforcement authorities. Robert claimed that he did not hand over “this cheap camera” sooner “because he had never been asked for it previously” and because “it had never occurred to him that anyone would be interested in the camera.” But federal agents had asked Robert about his Lee’s cameras and showed him pictures of cameras on February 16.
* Perhaps realizing that Robert Oswald’s story sounded suspicious (assuming it even was his story and not a story that he was coerced into telling), many months after the assassination, the FBI produced a report that claimed that Detective John McCabe of the Irving Police Department saw the Imperial Reflex camera in a gray metal box in Ruth Paine’s garage on 11/23, but that McCabe did not take the camera because he did not think it was important! Right, so none of the waves of police and federal agents who searched that garage on 11/22 and 11/23 saw the camera, but McCabe saw it, and then ignored it.
* The gray box in which McCabe belatedly claimed he saw the Imperial Reflex camera on 11/23 had already been itemized by the FBI. The FBI itemization said the box contained 13 books and some random items—no camera was listed. The 11/23 DPD inventory of the gray box likewise did not mention a camera.
* Police officers and detectives gave conflicting stories about who found the backyard rifle photos (see Meagher’s detailed discussion on this in Accessories After the Fact, pp. 200-209).
* The WC described the Imperial Reflex camera as “a relatively inexpensive, fixed-focus, one-shutter speed, box-type camera, made in the United States” (WCR 593). Even that was being generous. The camera had a cheap plastic body and a basic set of flimsy elements within. It was one of the cheapest, most basic cameras you could buy at the time.
* Incidentally, regarding the HSCA PEP’s admission that there are only “small,” “very small,” “slight” differences in the distances between objects in the backgrounds of the backyard photos, we should pause to consider how those photos would have been taken with the Imperial Reflex camera:
The camera’s viewer was on top of the camera, so the camera had to be held at mid-body rather than held to the eye. Moreover, in order to snap a picture, one had to push down on a lever rather than simply press a button. These facts make it all the more impossible that the backyard photos could have been taken in the manner alleged. Even a skilled photographer could not have used this camera without a tripod and produced pictures that contained only incredibly tiny differences in the distances between objects in the backgrounds.
* Jeff Carter, a filmmaker and audio technician, notes that none of the Oswald-taken photos taken during Oswald’s time in Dallas have the dimensions and borders of 133-A and 133-B:
From the record, excluding the backyard photos, there appear to be only six Oswald family-type snapshots from the first months of 1963 and, from the record, very few others from Oswald’s entire stay in Dallas in 1962-63. . . .
None of the photos in the record from this time period, including the photos of the Walker house attributed to Oswald, have the dimensions or borders of the backyard photos known as 133-A and 133-B. The “drugstore” finishing is unique to these photos. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3)
* A note on British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson and his “deferring” to the HSCA PEP on the authenticity of the backyard photos: First of all, Thompson was indeed a genuine forensic photography expert. He ran the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also a president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society, and the Institute of Professional Investigators.
Lone-gunman theorists usually overstate the degree to which Thompson deferred to the HSCA PEP. Thompson told the PEP that he still believed that the backyard figure’s chin was “suspiciously different” from Oswald’s chin. He also said that he doubted that even computer analysis (on which the PEP relied heavily) could detect a fake photo that was a photocopied composite:
Thomson did, however, reserve his opinion that the chin in the backyard pictures was suspiciously different from the chin that he had observed in the Dallas arrest photographs of Oswald. He also remained skeptical as to the ability of a computer to detect a photocopied composite photograph. (6 HSCA 177)
So, in other words, Thompson told the PEP that they did a great and thorough job and that he deferred to their conclusions about fakery, but in the next breath he said that he rejected the PEP’s explanation for the most glaring indication of fakery in the photos and that he doubted that computer analysis could detect a composite picture that had been photocopied.
If anyone wants to read the extensive interview that Thompson gave on the backyard photos, I include the entire interview in the section on the photos in my article “Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald” and in chapter 5 of my free online book Hasty Judgment:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/faulty.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
* Finally, there are three issues that the PEP simply ignored: the fact that the ring visible on the backyard figure’s left hand in 133-B is not visible in 133-A (so he took off his ring for one picture but left it on for the others?); the fact that the rifle sling in the backyard photos is a rope sling, whereas the alleged murder weapon had a leather sling; and the fact that the backyard figure is wearing clothing that was never found among Oswald’s possessions.
-
One of the reasons so many researchers doubt the authenticity of the backyard rifle photos is that the official account of their alleged discovery and of the discovery of the camera contains suspicious claims and odd contradictions. Here are some of those claims and conntradictions:
* The Dallas Police Department (DPD) claimed they found two negatives of the backyard photos in Ruth Paine’s garage, but the DPD only gave one negative to the Warren Commission (WC), and the other negative disappeared without explanation. Can you imagine how a police department could “misplace” one of the two most important negatives in the history of crime?
* The backyard photos were not found until the day after the assassination. Somehow the multiple waves of DPD officers and federal agents who searched Ruth Paine’s home hours after the assassination “missed” them.
......
Michael, maryferrell link in my post I've quoted below opens to page of Marina's HSCA vague, barely remembered details reluctantly corroborating Marguerite's earlier claim.
Jim Martin was a WWII Navy deserter and convicted car thief with a subsequent scrape with the law, but there is consistency in the claims of all three witnesses. It is curious Martin was not background checked by the SS, a routine action of the protective advance teams, or by his two most recent employers.
Both 1930 and 1940 US Census records for Martin's family, parents Hebert John and Gertrude Martin, (brother Robert in 1940 census) inidicate James Herbert Martin's age as 3 and 13, (born no earlier than in 1926.) Yet his birthdate in the FBI's arrest report is 6 October, 1925:
See bottom of page at following link, for Martin's birthdate:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71119&relPageId=14
Martin's US Navy enlistment date was 1 Oct., 1943, he may have been 5 days shy of his 17th birthday on that date.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71119&relPageId=15
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71122&relPageId=8
Martin received a bad conduct discharge from the US Navy on 2 March, 1945, as a result of being A.W.O.L. and charged with crimes described below.:
June, 1945, James Herbert Martin sentenced to one year suspended and two years probation for interstate auto theft:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71123&relPageId=3
James Herbert Martin's probation was extended two years until 1950.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71128&relPageId=3
In 1967, the FBI had a new D.O.B. for Martin, exactly one year younger:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=97748&relPageId=8
DPD's Jack Revill reported a background check on Martin and his wife, Wanda, on 2 Dec., 1963. Revill includes a 1926 birth year, not 1925 as displayed in Marttin's 1945 FBI arrest report. Some of Martin's employment details differ with his WC testimony:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150919002536/http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/11/1173-001.gif
What do you make of this? If Martin's 1992 claim is accurate, and it explains how Marina was still in possession, in late November, of BYP missed entirely in the searches, days before, IMO it tends to support the authenticity of the BYP.
.......
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81&search=porter_and+burned#relPageId=248&tab=page
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/A_IXPBGnPpAs8aXe8YWqfhBOo4IhdLUu4uVysbq663-UOgMb-tCxrIL1aYp4qmI5VPW1h8coAmcKs4Xq9gZevoJ4cHDIf6no-XPI31hWJ1ZqpeswyUnnzV2h2Vz_xI3_Oek8KE1EbayZLJntLnvAcqDlzkEHKh2UsvaIDTK0JKOBbtHNsolJOEnU1LbEn0ZIrVmGxWsQiFpw_ImA7WRx7yDvB3q53H1hBKqRVY5hXMs5-yLPRW9TF14lBWwOW8u69tjLrSJl8KzReizMz9OrGIowxyAu3nx0B6L2cv8i9TruSbO_u4lcoK0xzYdcBruqyb-a7U6EbAV_5vH2abDDr6nFx1c31UY2ZkCVhCn32KTTIVbFjaPF37T-f3_wQW5Z-pDo3YQbB0aXzGus6RX1iXaKoFFJ_9uZsSflOvzpEyRFcw7SGVU6wl03wYynbGwGIMcvikRY6jpppG4Hfo7Xugf16lL9i_BLWQYKYlRpcmqiSNx-Z1Rl14uATobAeVGd8VoUhjcl0uRRe3DikrSsK3xccswKiwduFj9wv4CQ0Cja95KHD2ZM3qBCrx-c8sqMi_pIvujcXv_2sSjuuVXy3CrHiMBd-59VGtSb5Sv5MHefx0rzqofM1fJjnphBC-cCq9uDdLUnaYKolo-0poMA-qZl9x4cqCA=s250-k-no)
Only the 1964 FBI report and the interview in 1992 of Jim Martin include the word scrapbook.....
Marina and Lee: The Tormented Love and Fatal Obsession Behind Lee ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1586422170 (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Marina_and_Lee/Af0lAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marina+and+lee+alone+in+her+bedroom+june%27s+baby+book+two+copies+wearing+his+guns&pg=PA543&printsec=frontcover)
Priscilla Johnson McMillan - 2013
FOUND INSIDE - PAGE 543
Alone in the bedroom she found June's baby book, which, by some miracle of oversight, the policemen had left behind. In it were the two small photographs of Lee dressed in black and wearing his guns. He had given them to her to keep for ...More
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/2_10_64_AM.htm
TESTIMONY OF MRS. MARGUERITE OSWALD
The President's Commission met at 10 a.m. on February 10, 1964,
....I sensed we were alone. And there I was with a Russian girl. And I didn't want anybody to know who we were, because I knew my son had been picked up.
So this is where the picture comes in.
While there, Marina--there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with hits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it.
Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely.
Mr. RANKIN. Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture."
And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture.
She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet.
Mr. RANKIN. And what time was this?
Mrs. OSWALD. This--now, just a minute, gentlemen, because this I know is very important to me and to you, too.
We had been in the jail. This was an evening. Well, this, then, would be approximately 5:30 or 6 in the evening.
Mr. RANKIN. What day?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Saturday, November 23. Now, I flushed the torn bits and the half-burned thing down the commode. And nothing was said. There was nothing said.
Mr. RANKIN. That was at the Executive Inn?
Mrs. OSWALD. At the Executive Inn. ...
-
The three photographs differ among themselves in camera tilt, parallax, etc. Changes caused by the camera being held in a unique manner for each exposure. There's shadow movement seen on objects as well, meaning time has passed between each picture.
So your answer to the problem that there are only microscopic differences in the distances between background objects is to essentially repeat what I said and act like this somehow solves the problem.
Yes, of course, the camera changed positions for each picture. That's a non-response response. You need to address the point that the camera positions were so astonishingly similar that the differences between background objects was found to be so miniscule (tiny fractions of inches) that they had to be measured photogrammetrically. You need to explain how that could happen with pictures (1) that were supposedly taken by handing the camera back and forth twice between exposures and (2) that were allegedly taken with a camera that required the cameraman to press down on a lever instead of just pressing a button.
I'll tell you what, fellas: Why you don't you perform a home experiment with a similar camera? Take three pics. Hand the camera back and forth twice between the pics. And see if you can produce three photos that have such microscopic differences in distances between their background objects. Let's see it. It's just nonsense. It's total nonsense.
John Mytton, let me just see if I can encapsulate how irrelevant your GIF is: If the differences shown by your GIF, which are created because the figure's arm moves--if those are the kinds of differences that the HSCA PEP was trying to explain, don't you find it very odd that they did not pounce on the differences displayed in your GIF? Did they just "miss" them? This would have been an answer to their prayers.
The problem is that those are not the kinds of differences they were talking about. They were talking about the fact that outside experts who had studied the backyard photos had noted that the same background appeared to have been used for all three photos. The HSCA PEP's response to this argument was that they found very small differences in the distances between background objects. They ignored the fact that Thompson had already noted the presence of these tiny differences. They simply pretended that the differences meant the backgrounds were not the same. Those guys were surely aware that those tiny differences could have been created by keystoning the backgrounds. They also surely knew that the odds would have been 1,000,000 to 1 that the camera would have returned to virtually the same position--to within tiny fractions of of an inch horizontally, vertically, and distance-wise--for each photo.
When I asked McCamy about this--when I asked him why the PEP did not explain how the camera could have returned to virtually the same exact position each time and thus produce such tiny distances between objects in the background--he abruptly ended our correspondence.
-
atona himself met with Rankin and Liebeler on the same day of the memo to discuss latent print issues. The latent palm print lifted by Day was one of those issues. While Hoover’s memo was not a sworn statement, and the lab examiners provided no sworn statement either, Liebeler did swear under oath that it was Latona who matched the lift with the barrel of the rifle.
And that's good enough for you? Really? Hoover said "examiners"--plural--had done so. But Liebeler said it was just Latona. What's going on?
And if it was Latona, why didn't he say a word about barrel irregularities supposedly appearing in the lift in his very extensive WC testimony? Did this important matching factor slip his mind?
At some point do not these endless contradictory stories give you pause?
Scalise reported that he identified five points of identity which match the lift to the barrel. If not impressions of irregularities, then what could those points of identity possibly have been? How else could they have been described?
Huh? The points of identity would have been the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm. He said nothing about irregularities from the barrel also appearing in the lift. And he only matched five points, well below the minimum needed for a credible identification.
And, pray tell, what "irregularities" would there be on the part of the rifle barrel that is protected by the stock? No one could even touch that part of the barrel unless they removed the stock.
It seems that Cecil Kirk also matched the lift to the barrel. He found six points of matching identity. Although, his finding was never included in the HSCA volumes. It's not confirmed to my satisfaction that he did. It's just something that I stumbled upon.
Yeah, strange that his "identification" was not included in the HSCA volumes, hey? Six points--you need at least 10--many experts say 12--for a credible match.
And none of this deals with the issue *how* the print supposedly got on the barrel.
The FBI sent the rifle back to the DPD on the 24th because it was part of the agreement in getting the DPD to hand it over to them on the 22nd. They received it again on the 26th by the request of DA Henry Wade, who instructed the DPD to turn all of the evidence in the assassination over to the FBI.
Uh-huh. It's not like the FBI didn't blow off the DPD whenever they felt like it. Why did the DPD want the rifle back only to hand it over again on the 26th? Why would the FBI have bothered sending it back when they were going to get it back two days later? Let me guess: None of this strikes you as the least bit odd.
Again, the problem with that, which I stated earlier, is that according to Paul Groody, he never even got to the funeral home with the body until around 11 o'clock that night. The FBI had handed the rifle back over to the DPD at 3:40 pm that day.
Which means there was ample time to take one of the fresh palmprint lifts and transfer it to the rifle's barrel before the rifle was handed back to the FBI on the 26th. Or, they could have taken a different rifle, pressed his hand against it, and lifted that print.
"As to Lieutenant Day, I've known him a long time, and I think that he's an honest individual." -- Vincent Drain, quoted in "No More Silence", by Larry Sneed, page 260. Day handed the lift over to Drain on November 26, 1963 and Drain signed for it.
I'll take Hurt's recorded interviews with Drain in 1983 and 1984 over Drain's chapter in Sneed's 2002 book. Moreover, Drain's later statement does not address Day's repeated claim that he told Drain about the print and also showed it to him when he gave him the rifle.
-
And that's good enough for you? Really? Hoover said "examiners"--plural--had done so. But Liebeler said it was just Latona. What's going on?
And if it was Latona, why didn't he say a word about barrel irregularities supposedly appearing in the lift in his very extensive WC testimony? Did this important matching factor slip his mind?
At some point do not these endless contradictory stories give you pause?
Yes, that's good enough for me. Latona was the chief examiner. Whenever we say that the latent palm print was identified as being Oswald's, it's always that Latona made the match. Even though Mandella also made the match. On the lift card , you can see "a.m. 9-17-64". We can safely assume that the a.m. being Arthur Mandella. That shows that Mandella handled the lift around the same period that the positive match with the barrel was made. About a week later.
Latona wasn't asked about barrel irregularities. He was asked about whether the print was Oswald's or not.
Where is the contradiction? I don't see it.
Huh? The points of identity would have been the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm. He said nothing about irregularities from the barrel also appearing in the lift. And he only matched five points, well below the minimum needed for a credible identification.
How is it possible that you can be so confused? You still continue to conflate two separate issues. This is the third or fourth time you've done so here. The palm print characteristics and the barrel irregularities are not the same thing. The points of identity matching the lift to the barrel would not have been the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm. Those are palm print characteristics. None of those were left on the barrel. Day had lifted them entirely so that no trace of them remained. While five matching points of identity is below the minimum needed for a credible identification of a fingerprint or palm print, it obvious was enough for Scalice to make his positive match of the lift to the barrel.
And, pray tell, what "irregularities" would there be on the part of the rifle barrel that is protected by the stock? No one could even touch that part of the barrel unless they removed the stock.
Please stop asking me stupid questions.
Yeah, strange that his "identification" was not included in the HSCA volumes, hey? Six points--you need at least 10--many experts say 12--for a credible match.
Scalice's identification was included in the the HSCA Volumes and you dismiss that. Why would Kirk's identification being included be any different? Five points of identification was sufficient for Scalice to make his match. Six points of identification is over and above.
And none of this deals with the issue *how* the print supposedly got on the barrel.
Obviously, Oswald had disassembled the rifle sometime before his disassembling of it on Nov 21-Nov 22. Why is this stuff so hard for you?
Uh-huh. It's not like the FBI didn't blow off the DPD whenever they felt like it. Why did the DPD want the rifle back only to hand it over again on the 26th? Why would the FBI have bothered sending it back when they were going to get it back two days later? Let me guess: None of this strikes you as the least bit odd.
I already addressed that. The DPD wanted it all back because they were primarily responsible for the investigations of the crimes. The FBI sent it back because they had agreed to do so. They didn't know that they would be getting it back two days later.
Which means there was ample time to take one of the fresh palmprint lifts and transfer it to the rifle's barrel before the rifle was handed back to the FBI on the 26th.
LOL...What?? How would that be done exactly and has it ever been successfully done?
Or, they could have taken a different rifle, pressed his hand against it, and lifted that print.
They? Who were They? And what would be the point of placing Oswald's hand on a different rifle? The lift with Oswald's palm print wasn't matched to a different rifle. It was matched to the barrel of Oswald's rifle. The one that he had purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods though mail order. The same rifle that he had himself photographed holding.
I'll take Hurt's recorded interviews with Drain in 1983 and 1984 over Drain's chapter in Sneed's 2002 book. Moreover, Drain's later statement does not address Day's repeated claim that he told Drain about the print and also showed it to him when he gave him the rifle.
I'd have to listen to those recordings myself before offering my opinion on them. Where can they be listened to? For now, I'll continue to assume that Larry Sneed himself is an honest individual. Hurt is a bit of a loon. I still get a kick out of how he described the three shots that Oswald got off in Dealey Plaza.
-
Obviously, Oswald had disassembled the rifle sometime before his disassembling of it on Nov 21-Nov 22. Why is this stuff so hard for you?
The lift with Oswald's palm print wasn't matched to a different rifle. It was matched to the barrel of Oswald's rifle. The one that he had purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods though mail order. The same rifle that he had himself photographed holding.
You sure like to state assumptions as fact. You don’t know Oswald disassembled that rifle on Nov 21-22. Or that he purchased it, or that it’s the same rifle in the photos.
For now, I'll continue to assume that Larry Sneed himself is an honest individual. Hurt is a bit of a loon. I still get a kick out of how he described the three shots that Oswald got off in Dealey Plaza.
You think everybody who contradicts your mythology is a “loon”.
-
Michael, maryferrell link in my post I've quoted below opens to page of Marina's HSCA vague, barely remembered details reluctantly corroborating Marguerite's earlier claim.
Jim Martin was a WWII Navy deserter and convicted car thief with a subsequent scrape with the law, but there is consistency in the claims of all three witnesses. It is curious Martin was not background checked by the SS, a routine action of the protective advance teams, or by his two most recent employers.
Both 1930 and 1940 US Census records for Martin's family, parents Hebert John and Gertrude Martin, (brother Robert in 1940 census) inidicate James Herbert Martin's age as 3 and 13, (born no earlier than in 1926.) Yet his birthdate in the FBI's arrest report is 6 October, 1925:
See bottom of page at following link, for Martin's birthdate:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71119&relPageId=14
Martin's US Navy enlistment date was 1 Oct., 1943, he may have been 5 days shy of his 17th birthday on that date.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71119&relPageId=15
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71122&relPageId=8
Martin received a bad conduct discharge from the US Navy on 2 March, 1945, as a result of being A.W.O.L. and charged with crimes described below.:
June, 1945, James Herbert Martin sentenced to one year suspended and two years probation for interstate auto theft:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71123&relPageId=3
James Herbert Martin's probation was extended two years until 1950.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71128&relPageId=3
In 1967, the FBI had a new D.O.B. for Martin, exactly one year younger:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=97748&relPageId=8
DPD's Jack Revill reported a background check on Martin and his wife, Wanda, on 2 Dec., 1963. Revill includes a 1926 birth year, not 1925 as displayed in Marttin's 1945 FBI arrest report. Some of Martin's employment details differ with his WC testimony:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150919002536/http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/11/1173-001.gif
What do you make of this? If Martin's 1992 claim is accurate, and it explains how Marina was still in possession, in late November, of BYP missed entirely in the searches, days before, IMO it tends to support the authenticity of the BYP.
For starters, Marina's "testimony" was given with a proverbial gun pointed to her head. She was scared to death. When she initially began to answer questions honestly and her answers were not what the feds wanted to hear, she was quickly made to understand that she could find herself on the next flight back to the Soviet Union if she did not start "cooperating."
I'll say again that any attempt to defend the backyard rifle photos needs to start by providing a rational innocent explanation (1) for the DPD backyard rifle prints discovered in 1992, (2) for the fact that the Oswald stand-in in one of those prints assumed a pose that no one knew existed until 1976, and (3) for Robert and Patricia Hester's account of seeing an FBI agent with a backyard rifle photo with a while silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be on 11/22, the day before the photos were allegedly "found." Start there. Because if you cannot come up with a plausible innocent explanation for those two points, there backyard photos stand exposed as frauds.
-
For starters, Marina's "testimony" was given with a proverbial gun pointed to her head. She was scared to death. When she initially began to answer questions honestly and her answers were not what the feds wanted to hear, she was quickly made to understand that she could find herself on the next flight back to the Soviet Union if she did not start "cooperating."
I'll say again that any attempt to defend the backyard rifle photos needs to start by providing a rational innocent explanation (1) for the DPD backyard rifle prints discovered in 1992, (2) for the fact that the Oswald stand-in in one of those prints assumed a pose that no one knew existed until 1976, and (3) for Robert and Patricia Hester's account of seeing an FBI agent with a backyard rifle photo with a while silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be on 11/22, the day before the photos were allegedly "found." Start there. Because if you cannot come up with a plausible innocent explanation for those two points, there backyard photos stand exposed as frauds.
According to KGB true-defector Pyotr Deriabin, Marina HAD to be at the very least a low-level KGB informant.
And what about Rusophile Ruthie and the "Comrade Kostin" letter, hmm?
-- MWT ;)
-
I'll say again that any attempt to defend the backyard rifle photos needs to start by providing a rational innocent explanation (1) for the DPD backyard rifle prints discovered in 1992, (2) for the fact that the Oswald stand-in in one of those prints assumed a pose that no one knew existed until 1976, and (3) for Robert and Patricia Hester's account of seeing an FBI agent with a backyard rifle photo with a while silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be on 11/22, the day before the photos were allegedly "found." Start there. Because if you cannot come up with a plausible innocent explanation for those two points, there backyard photos stand exposed as frauds.
I've never heard of the Robert and Patricia Hester's account before. When was this account made and where can it be seen or heard?
-
.....
Please stop asking me stupid questions.
Scalice's identification was included in the the HSCA Volumes and you dismiss that. Why would Kirk's identification being included be any different? Five points of identification was sufficient for Scalice to make his match. Six points of identification is over and above.
......
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4c%3Athefingerprintsofmyth?
.....The Missing Charts
I suspect worse... There are reasons to believe Scalice was biased. He worked for the New York City Police Dept. from 1956-1977. He spent much of that time as the Coordinator of the NYPD's Latent Fingerprint Unit. He was almost certainly trained by Arthur Mandella. Mandella, as we've seen, testified in a suspicious manner before the Warren Commission, with his conclusions and testimony being pretty much a rubber-stamp of the FBI's conclusions and testimony.
Was Scalice determined to support his mentor, and/or his colleagues in the FBI, by adding another piece to the evidence pile supporting Oswald's guilt? Scalice's latter-day C.V. boasted that he'd "worked closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning deaths of President John F. Kennedy and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King." Well, this is a bit of a shock seeing as he was supposed to be coming to an independent conclusion regarding the fingerprint evidence for these cases.
Or was Scalice merely out for attention? It seems a bit of a coincidence that, but 18 months after his appearance on Frontline, in which he presented himself as a fingerprint expert, Scalise appeared at a press conference funded by right-wingers opposed to Bill and Hillary Clinton, and presented himself as a handwriting expert, and not just any handwriting expert, mind you, but as a handwriting expert claiming Vince Foster's suicide note had been forged.
And that wasn't the last we heard of Scaiice. On March 22, 1996, Scalice appeared once again on national TV, this time on the program Unsolved Mysteries. Well, did he add any details regarding his matching the trigger guard prints to Oswald's prints? Nope, no such luck. His appearance was devoted to his latest project--he doubled-down on his claim the Foster note was forged.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/25/no-donald-trump-theres-nothing-fishy-about-vince-fosters-suicide/
No, Donald Trump, there's nothing 'fishy' about Vince Foster's .
May 25, 2016 - The GOP presumptive nominee says some people think Foster was murdered. Five official reports said that was bunk.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vince-foster-was-my-brother-donald-trump-should-be-ashamed/2016/05/26/95c684f2-233f-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html
Vince Foster was my brother. Donald Trump should be ashamed ...
May 26, 2016 - I can't let his irresponsible revival of a conspiracy theory pass without comment.
Scalice died on Nov. 25, 1997.
Now, think about this. Scalice died four years after announcing a major breakthrough in the Kennedy assassination. He claimed he'd ID'ed 18 points of similarity between Oswald's prints and the trigger guard prints. And this even though Lt. Day, working with the actual trigger guard prints and not just photos of the trigger guard prints, told FBI agent Bookhout there were but 4 points on these prints that he was going to try to match to Oswald's prints......
-
For starters, Marina's "testimony" was given with a proverbial gun pointed to her head. She was scared to death. When she initially began to answer questions honestly and her answers were not what the feds wanted to hear, she was quickly made to understand that she could find herself on the next flight back to the Soviet Union if she did not start "cooperating."
I'll say again that any attempt to defend the backyard rifle photos needs to start by providing a rational innocent explanation (1) for the DPD backyard rifle prints discovered in 1992, (2) for the fact that the Oswald stand-in in one of those prints assumed a pose that no one knew existed until 1976, and (3) for Robert and Patricia Hester's account of seeing an FBI agent with a backyard rifle photo with a while silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be on 11/22, the day before the photos were allegedly "found." Start there. Because if you cannot come up with a plausible innocent explanation for those two points, there backyard photos stand exposed as frauds.
"Kat" Ford emigrated from Russia after WWII. She was a native Russian speaker. The record indicates Marina described Oswald's background identically with that of Robert E. Webster's. Your post displays your claim Marina was "scared to death".
Someone so "scared" would not be selling a photo the record states was deliberately kept from investigators, so ridiculously soon after obstructing their investigation. A "scared" person, if only in consideration of the future of her two daughters, would have surrendered the photos to persuade she was fully cooperating.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MarinaWebsterOswaldKatFord.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62306&relPageId=107&search="she_had%20placed%20the%20pictures%20in%20the%20baby"
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldMarinaBurnedBYP.jpg)
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20100/100c.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldMarinaBurnedBYPjfkhoodedu2of2.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldMarinaBurnedBYPjfkhoodedu1of2.jpg)
-
I'll say again that any attempt to defend the backyard rifle photos needs to start by providing a rational innocent explanation (1) for the DPD backyard rifle prints discovered in 1992, (2) for the fact that the Oswald stand-in in one of those prints assumed a pose that no one knew existed until 1976, and (3) for Robert and Patricia Hester's account of seeing an FBI agent with a backyard rifle photo with a while silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be on 11/22, the day before the photos were allegedly "found." Start there. Because if you cannot come up with a plausible innocent explanation for those two points, there backyard photos stand exposed as frauds.
I should have mentioned the fact that Robert Hester, who worked at a Dallas film lab and assisted the DPD with the backyard photos--that he and his wife had no way of knowing that 22 years after they gave their account, DPD backyard rifle prints would surface that showed a white silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be. Of course, one can always just say this is a coincidence, if one is determined to believe the photos are genuine. If it is a coincidence, it is a whopping, remarkable coincidence. Confirmation of such a specific account 22 years later by hard evidence would usually be viewed as powerful evidence of the account's veracity.
-
For starters, Marina's "testimony" was given with a proverbial gun pointed to her head. She was scared to death. When she initially began to answer questions honestly and her answers were not what the feds wanted to hear, she was quickly made to understand that she could find herself on the next flight back to the Soviet Union if she did not start "cooperating."
Turn Marina and two orphaned children over to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War? You don't have much common sense, do you, feller?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/Jim_Goldman_and_Elian_Gonzalez.jpg)
Can you cite where she was threatened with deportation?
I'll say again that any attempt to defend the backyard rifle photos needs to start by providing a rational innocent explanation (1) for the DPD backyard rifle prints discovered in 1992,
You mean the one with the white cutout? Composites with an empty background wouldn't be made that way. The white cutout was just an attempt at an evidence display. Probably never used.
(2) for the fact that the Oswald stand-in in one of those prints assumed a pose that no one knew existed until 1976,
See Chapter V of "JFK First Day Evidence". Prints of the "unknown" pose was given out by the Dallas Crime Lab in 1963 as a souvenir to many Dallas policemen, including the husband of the woman who turned her copy over to the HSCA in 1976. The Dallas police were duplicating the poses in 133-A and 133-C when they took pictures at the Neely Street backyard not long after the assassination.
and (3) for Robert and Patricia Hester's account of seeing an FBI agent with a backyard rifle photo with a while silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be on 11/22, the day before the photos were allegedly "found." Start there. Because if you cannot come up with a plausible innocent explanation for those two points, there backyard photos stand exposed as frauds.
Need a little more than what Jim Marrs claimed they said. And what were they doing on the night of the assassination processing work for the FBI and Dallas police? Both investigative outfits have their own photography labs, with superior equipment.
-
Yes, that's good enough for me.
Yes, of course it is, because you are emotionally committed to believing the lone-gunman theory, so you can't admit that a single piece of evidence was fabricated or altered or misrepresented.
Latona was the chief examiner. Whenever we say that the latent palm print was identified as being Oswald's, it's always that Latona made the match. Even though Mandella also made the match. On the lift card , you can see "a.m. 9-17-64". We can safely assume that the a.m. being Arthur Mandella. That shows that Mandella handled the lift around the same period that the positive match with the barrel was made. About a week later.
Right, so what was going on with Liebeler saying it was just Latona?
Again, we have only the word of Hoover's "lab examiners" about the barrel irregularities appearing in the palmprint lift, never mind that their claim, even if true, does not establish how the palmprint got on the barrel.
Latona wasn't asked about barrel irregularities. He was asked about whether the print was Oswald's or not.
LOL! Right, so he said nothing about such a crucial identification because no one asked him about it! How lame can your excuses be? People who are not emotionally determined to uphold the lone-assassin myth look at this and say, "Well, wait a minute. Surely if Latona had identified irregularities from the barrel in the palmprint lift, he would have mentioned this in his testimony." Of course he would have. He didn't mention it because he had seen any such evidence.
But, later, when the FBI was pressed by the WC about the glaring holes in Lt. Day's story and the doubts about the palmprint's origin, Hoover, without even mentioning their names, says that two of his lab examiners found barrel irregularities in the palmprint lift. Then, later, Liebeler is told that Frazier was the one who did this, but Frazier clearly did not see any barrel irregularities in the palmprint lift the first time he examined it--or else he surely would have mentioned this in his WC testimony.
But, I know: You don't see anything the least bit suspicious about any of this.
Where is the contradiction? I don't see it.
You mean you won't see it. It's there for any rational, honest person to see, but you are determined to see the emperor's new clothes, so you "don't see it."
How is it possible that you can be so confused? You still continue to conflate two separate issues. This is the third or fourth time you've done so here. The palm print characteristics and the barrel irregularities are not the same thing. The points of identity matching the lift to the barrel would not have been the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm. Those are palm print characteristics. None of those were left on the barrel. Day had lifted them entirely so that no trace of them remained. While five matching points of identity is below the minimum needed for a credible identification of a fingerprint or palm print, it obvious was enough for Scalice to make his positive match of the lift to the barrel.
HUH? YOU are the one who said that when Scalice referred to five matching points, those points must have included barrel irregularities. You said that, not I. Do I need to quote you back to yourself? I said that the barrel irregularities were *not* the characteristics that Scalice would have identified as points of identity in the palmprint. I then said that those characteristics would have been "the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm." I said the exact opposite of what you say I said, and you are the one who said that the matching points that Scalice identified must have included the barrel irregularities.
Please stop asking me stupid questions.
IOW, stop asking you questions that you can't plausibly, credibly answer. Your list of "stupid question" includes such logical, fact-based questions as
What irregularities could there have been on a part of the barrel that was protected by the stock?
Why didn't Day take a single photograph of the alleged palmprint but took several photos of the partial trigger-guard prints?
How did all the impression-lifting dust, which is designed to adhere to its surface, disappear from the barrel between Dallas and DC?
Why did Day repeatedly insist that the palmprint was still visible after he lifted it, when the FBI found no trace of the print, nor even of any evidence that the barrel had been dusted?
Why did Day pass up every single opportunity to properly document the palmprint?
Scalice's identification was included in the the HSCA Volumes and you dismiss that. Why would Kirk's identification being included be any different? Five points of identification was sufficient for Scalice to make his match. Six points of identification is over and above.
Did you forget about the HSCA memo that says the FBI told the HSCA that they could not find the original lift for the palmprint? Did you forget about that?
If you will check any forensic textbook on print identification, you will find that the standard number of minimum matches for a credible identification is 10-12, not 5 or 6.
And I again point out that Scalice said nothing about seeing any irregularities from the barrel in the palmprint lift that he allegedly examined. Not one word. Nor did Kirk. Yet, both men surely knew that this was a crucial issue regarding the palmprint's origin and authenticity.
And I ask again, why was not the palmprint lift included in the HSCA's list of exhibits?
Obviously, Oswald had disassembled the rifle sometime before his disassembling of it on Nov 21-Nov 22. Why is this stuff so hard for you?
First of all, you don't know that Oswald ever disassembled that rifle. Every piece of "evidence" you have connecting him to the rifle is riddled with problems and contradictions. The story of how he supposedly got the rifle into the building in the first place is problematic.
But let's think about your scenario: Oswald disassembles the rifle so he can carry it into the building and then reassembles it in the building, and in the process somehow creates "irregularities" on the barrel that, my oh my, just happen to be where Lt. Day later claims he found Oswald's palmprint, a palmprint that Day remarkably failed to photograph even once, even though he took several photos of the trigger-guard prints. And Oswald doesn't just create one irregularity but multiple irregularities, all in the process of one episode of disassembly and assembly.
I already addressed that. The DPD wanted it all back because they were primarily responsible for the investigations of the crimes. The FBI sent it back because they had agreed to do so. They didn't know that they would be getting it back two days later.
Oh, so they had no idea they would get the rifle back in two days! The FBI did not give a hoot about what the DPD wanted. The FBI forced the DPD to hand over all the evidence within days after the shooting, beginning on the night of the assassination, which the DPD greatly resented.
LOL...What?? How would that be done exactly and has it ever been successfully done?
I already cited a forensic source on the fact that print lifts can be planted on surfaces. Did you miss that?
They? Who were They? And what would be the point of placing Oswald's hand on a different rifle?
Gosh, really? The point of placing Oswald's palmprint on another rifle would be to then lift that print from the rifle.
The lift with Oswald's palm print wasn't matched to a different rifle. It was matched to the barrel of Oswald's rifle.
You don't know that at all. You have only Hoover's unsworn claim that it was, a claim that was not verified by Scalice or Kirk, a claim that Latona never even mentioned in his extensive testimony. Scalice and Kirk were aware of the doubts about the palmprint--they knew full well that critics had long asserted that it was planted--yet they said nothing about seeing any barrel irregularities in the palmprint lift (or, more likely, in the photos they examined of the lift).
The one that he had purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods though mail order.
I take it you are not aware of any of the problems with the claim that Oswald bought the rifle through Klein's through the mail with a money order? Did you know that Oswald was at work when he supposedly bought the money order, and that the money order was purchased at a location that was far from the TSBD? Did you know that the money order was never cashed? Any clue about any of this stuff?
The same rifle that he had himself photographed holding.
Yeah, uh-huh. Yet we both know that you have no explanation for the impossibly small differences in the distances between objects in the background of the backyard rifle photos. You have no rational innocent explanation for the DPD prints revealed in 1992, one of which shows a silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be, and another of which shows a stand-in assuming a pose that no one knew existed until 1976. And this is not to mention the myriad of suspicious holes in the stories of the alleged discovery of the photos and the camera.
Where'd those clothes go? Oswald was a miser and was known to keep things forever. Whey weren't the clothes of the backyard figure found in his belongings? Why does the figure's ring disappear in one of the photos?
And are you guys ever going to do a reenactment that duplicates the variant nose shadow? HCA PEP member McCamy admitted in his testimony that in order to allegedly duplicate the variant nose shadow, not only was the model's head tilted and rotated at the same time to precise points, which made it so that the subject was no longer looking at the camera, but the camera itself was then shifted just to reacquire a frontal view of the face. Even Congressman Fithian noted that "the probability would be that those three things . . . would not come together at the same place, at the same time." It was at this point that McCamy conceded that "a number of assumptions" would be necessary to "interpret the Oswald photograph" from the demonstration that was supposed to duplicate the variant shadows. I cover this in detail in "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos":
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
I'd have to listen to those recordings myself before offering my opinion on them. Where can they be listened to? For now, I'll continue to assume that Larry Sneed himself is an honest individual. Hurt is a bit of a loon. I still get a kick out of how he described the three shots that Oswald got off in Dealey Plaza.
Oh, wow. So now Henry Hurt "is a bit of a loon," huh? No, but such a comment paints you as a clown. FYI, Henry Hurt was a widely respected scholar and author, known as a straight shooter and a careful researcher. He was a Rockefeller Foundation fellow and an editor for Reader's Digest for many years. One review of his best-selling book Reasonable Doubt said the book established Hurt "as a world-class investigative reporter." In its review of Hurt's book, the New York Times said Hurt "writes convincingly." Hurt's other books also received wide praise. Hurt was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
This has nothing to do with Sneed. It is about Drain. I'll take what he said in 1983 and 1983. Also, what he said in 2002, as I noted, does not address Day's repeated claim that he told Drain about the print and also showed it to him when he gave him the rifle, nor does Drain's 2002 statement address his previous comments about the FBI's strange visit to the morgue to take Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints and about the palmprint's origin.
-
Turn Marina and two orphaned children over to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War? You don't have much common sense, do you, feller?
Jerry Organ believes in a sweet sweet compassionate FBI/CIA...Edgar Hoover and Alan Dulles were very caring and concerned for Oswald's family :D
Can you cite where she was threatened with deportation?
Has been done many times.
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, that is correct. And that this particular one agent--not the Mr. Brown I have referred to, but the other gentleman that I do not recall his name--she had an aversion to speaking to him because she was of the opinion that he had harassed Lee in his interviews, and my observation of this at this time, at this particular interview, was attempting to start--I would say this was certainly so. His manner was very harsh sir.
Mr. JENNER. Harsh towards Marina?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, Mr, it most certainly was. And by the tone of conversation by Marina to Mr. Gopadze, who was interpreting----
Mr. JENNER. In your presence?
Mr. OSWALD. In my presence. And the tone of the reply between this gentle man and Mr. Gopadze, and back to Marina, it was quite evident there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time. And she was refusing to. And they were insisting, sir. And they implied in so many words, as I sat there--if I might state--with Secret Service Agent Gary Seals, of Mobile, Ala.--we were opening the first batch of mail that had come to Marina and Lee's attention, and we were perhaps just four or five feet away from where they were attempting this interview, and it came to my ears that they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps--I say, again, I am implying--in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_r.htm
-
Has been done many times.
But as usual will be ignored once again.
-
Yes, of course it is, because you are emotionally committed to believing the lone-gunman theory, so you can't admit that a single piece of evidence was fabricated or altered or misrepresented.
Dear Mike,
How many single pieces of evidence do you figure were forged or altered?
Ten?
Twenty?
Couple hundred?
Oodles and gobs?
-- MWT ;)
-
Jerry Organ believes in a sweet sweet compassionate FBI/CIA...Edgar Hoover and Alan Dulles were very caring and concerned for Oswald's family :D
They were indeed. Marina was sent money and letters of support by thousands of Americans. She didn't commit a crime (though helping a Southern cracker replicate ought to be).
Has been done many times.
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, that is correct. And that this particular one agent--not the Mr. Brown I have referred to, but the other gentleman that I do not recall his name--she had an aversion to speaking to him because she was of the opinion that he had harassed Lee in his interviews, and my observation of this at this time, at this particular interview, was attempting to start--I would say this was certainly so. His manner was very harsh sir.
Mr. JENNER. Harsh towards Marina?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, Mr, it most certainly was. And by the tone of conversation by Marina to Mr. Gopadze, who was interpreting----
Mr. JENNER. In your presence?
Mr. OSWALD. In my presence. And the tone of the reply between this gentle man and Mr. Gopadze, and back to Marina, it was quite evident there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time. And she was refusing to. And they were insisting, sir. And they implied in so many words, as I sat there--if I might state--with Secret Service Agent Gary Seals, of Mobile, Ala.--we were opening the first batch of mail that had come to Marina and Lee's attention, and we were perhaps just four or five feet away from where they were attempting this interview, and it came to my ears that they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps--I say, again, I am implying--in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_r.htm
Quite the mishmash of hearsay, dubious interpretation and language barrier. Americans aren't that capable of understanding the language of others. They're better at it in Europe and they still had wars break out.
-
J Edgar Hoover and Alan Dulles were very caring and concerned for Oswald's family
They were indeed.
J. Edgar Hoover ... Public Must Believe Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone. There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead.
Such compassion. She didn't commit a crime.
Perjury.
-
J. Edgar Hoover ...
What about Hoover?
Such compassion.
For Marina and the two children. Not so much for Lee Oswald. in that regard, Hoover was like most Americans at the time. Hoover didn't care too much for Southern crackers unhinged; for example, he authorized the FBI to investigate deaths of civil rights workers around that time. Later, they did a great job tracking down James Earl Ray.
Perjury.
She did? According to you? LOL.
-
What about Hoover?
You must not even read the posts that you quote.
Perjury. She did?
OK then let's just say that Marina told lies, untruths, falsities, disinformation, misinformation, myths, yarns, fabrications, and various other mendacity.
Interested members and guests may wish to read-----
http://iacoletti.org/jfk/marina-contradictions.pdf
-
Yes, of course it is, because you are emotionally committed to believing the lone-gunman theory, so you can't admit that a single piece of evidence was fabricated or altered or misrepresented.
I won't admit to something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true. Claiming that something was fabricated or altered is not the same thing as proving that it was.
Right, so what was going on with Liebeler saying it was just Latona?
I already addressed that. Can't you read? Latona was the primary examiner who made the match. Whenever we say that the latent palm print was identified as being Oswald's, it's always that Latona made the match. Even though Mandella also made the match. It's similar to the shell casings in the Tippit shooting being matched to Oswald's revolver. We say that Cortlandt Cunningham made the match even though others did as well. Liebeler was only doing what we all do.
Again, we have only the word of Hoover's "lab examiners" about the barrel irregularities appearing in the palmprint lift, never mind that their claim, even if true, does not establish how the palmprint got on the barrel.
We have more than just Hoover's examiners. We have Vincent Scalice confirming it as well. The palm print got on the barrel by Oswald having his hand on it.
LOL! Right, so he said nothing about such a crucial identification because no one asked him about it! How lame can your excuses be? People who are not emotionally determined to uphold the lone-assassin myth look at this and say, "Well, wait a minute. Surely if Latona had identified irregularities from the barrel in the palmprint lift, he would have mentioned this in his testimony." Of course he would have. He didn't mention it because he had seen any such evidence.
But, later, when the FBI was pressed by the WC about the glaring holes in Lt. Day's story and the doubts about the palmprint's origin, Hoover, without even mentioning their names, says that two of his lab examiners found barrel irregularities in the palmprint lift. Then, later, Liebeler is told that Frazier was the one who did this, but Frazier clearly did not see any barrel irregularities in the palmprint lift the first time he examined it--or else he surely would have mentioned this in his WC testimony.
For goodness sakes Michael, would you just stop and think about what you are posting before actually posting it? Latona testified in April of 1964. He never tried to match the lift with the barrel until September of 1964. When he examined the palm print in Nov of 63 , he wasn't looking for any characteristics on the lift other than those of the palm print itself. Liebeler was not told that Frazier had made the match. He was told that Latona had made the match. Perhaps by Latona himself.
HUH? YOU are the one who said that when Scalice referred to five matching points, those points must have included barrel irregularities. You said that, not I. Do I need to quote you back to yourself? I said that the barrel irregularities were *not* the characteristics that Scalice would have identified as points of identity in the palmprint. I then said that those characteristics would have been "the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm." I said the exact opposite of what you say I said, and you are the one who said that the matching points that Scalice identified must have included the barrel irregularities.
You are still confused and even moreso than you were before. And your confusion is giving me a headache. Yes, I am the one who said that when Scalice referred to five matching points, those points must have included barrel irregularities. That's what I've been saying all along. So, why are you refering to "the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm" when the issue we have been discussing in the barrel/lift match, not the palm print identification? Scalice matched five points. But you have it stuck in your head that what he was doing was the same thing as identifying a palm print. As you put it "he only matched five points, well below the minimum needed for a credible identification." Five points may be well below the minimum needed for credibly identifying a fingerprint or a palm print but it was sufficient enough for Scalice to positively match the lift with the barrel. It's doubtful that Latona found many more than five. Kirk found six.
IOW, stop asking you questions that you can't plausibly, credibly answer. Your list of "stupid question" includes such logical, fact-based questions as
What irregularities could there have been on a part of the barrel that was protected by the stock?
Why didn't Day take a single photograph of the alleged palmprint but took several photos of the partial trigger-guard prints?
How did all the impression-lifting dust, which is designed to adhere to its surface, disappear from the barrel between Dallas and DC?
Why did Day repeatedly insist that the palmprint was still visible after he lifted it, when the FBI found no trace of the print, nor even of any evidence that the barrel had been dusted?
Why did Day pass up every single opportunity to properly document the palmprint?
The rifle was 23 years old. My guess would be that the irregularities were pits of corrosion. The stock would not protect the barrel from corrision.
I've already previously addressed your other questions.
Did you forget about the HSCA memo that says the FBI told the HSCA that they could not find the original lift for the palmprint? Did you forget about that?
No, I haven't forgot that. You employ a double standard. You demand to see sworn testimony or to be shown that something was included in the HSCA Volumes when confronted with facts that you find inconvenient. Yet, you have no trouble whatsoever holding up a memo that isn't sworn testimony, or found in the HSCA Volumes, as being gospel. Here's the thing, I don't know if Scalice had the actual lift or not. But what I do know is that he had made use of enlarged negatives of photos of the lift. While using secondhand photos of prints can be problematic when it comes to making positive identification, the use of photos taken by identification experts themselves is/was common. Scalise was obviously comfortable enough with the quality of the negatives to make his determinations. Latona himself used enlarged photographs to aid in his identification of prints. Latona had photos of the prints prepared under his personal direction. The negatives that Scalise refers to would have been of the photos of the lift prepared for Latona.
If you will check any forensic textbook on print identification, you will find that the standard number of minimum matches for a credible identification is 10-12, not 5 or 6.
And there it is again. You are confused. You are conflating two separate issues. >:(
And I again point out that Scalice said nothing about seeing any irregularities from the barrel in the palmprint lift that he allegedly examined. Not one word. Nor did Kirk. Yet, both men surely knew that this was a crucial issue regarding the palmprint's origin and authenticity.
What do you suppose the points of identity were, if not irregularities? Give your head a shake.
First of all, you don't know that Oswald ever disassembled that rifle. Every piece of "evidence" you have connecting him to the rifle is riddled with problems and contradictions. The story of how he supposedly got the rifle into the building in the first place is problematic.
Actually, I do know that Oswald disassembled the rifle because of where he left his palm print on the barrel.
But let's think about your scenario: Oswald disassembles the rifle so he can carry it into the building and then reassembles it in the building, and in the process somehow creates "irregularities" on the barrel that, my oh my, just happen to be where Lt. Day later claims he found Oswald's palmprint, a palmprint that Day remarkably failed to photograph even once, even though he took several photos of the trigger-guard prints. And Oswald doesn't just create one irregularity but multiple irregularities, all in the process of one episode of disassembly and assembly.
Michael, the irregularities were pits of corrosion. They were not placed there by Oswald. You are coming across as being somewhat dimwitted. I'm sorry, but you are.
Oh, so they had no idea they would get the rifle back in two days! The FBI did not give a hoot about what the DPD wanted. The FBI forced the DPD to hand over all the evidence within days after the shooting, beginning on the night of the assassination, which the DPD greatly resented.
The FBI didn't force the DPD to do anything. The DPD voluntarily handed items of evidence over to the FBI on Nov 22 with the agreement that the FBI would return it all within 48 hours. On the 24th, the FBI had no idea that they would be getting it all back two days later.
I already cited a forensic source on the fact that print lifts can be planted on surfaces. Did you miss that?
You did no such thing.
Gosh, really? The point of placing Oswald's palmprint on another rifle would be to then lift that print from the rifle.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
You don't know that at all. You have only Hoover's unsworn claim that it was, a claim that was not verified by Scalice or Kirk, a claim that Latona never even mentioned in his extensive testimony. Scalice and Kirk were aware of the doubts about the palmprint--they knew full well that critics had long asserted that it was planted--yet they said nothing about seeing any barrel irregularities in the palmprint lift (or, more likely, in the photos they examined of the lift).
I have Hoover's memo. I have the Warren Commission including the finding in their report. I have Liebeler sworn testimony before the HSCA. I have Vincent Scalice's finding which is found in the HSCA Volumes. And I have a line on Cecil Kirk as having made the match as well. Not to mention John Mytton's graphic which allows us to see the match for ourselves.
I take it you are not aware of any of the problems with the claim that Oswald bought the rifle through Klein's through the mail with a money order? Did you know that Oswald was at work when he supposedly bought the money order, and that the money order was purchased at a location that was far from the TSBD?
Oswald wasn't at work when he bought the money order. He was at the Post Office on 400 N.Ervay Street when he bought the money order. It was about a half a mile from where he worked. He had fudged his timesheet to make it appear that he never left work that day.
Did you know that the money order was never cashed? Any clue about any of this stuff?
Sheesh man! Are you ever out of the loop. You've been at this stuff a lot longer than I have and you are still clueless on a great many things. I know for a fact the the money order was cashed. You can take that to the bank.
Yeah, uh-huh. Yet we both know that you have no explanation for the impossibly small differences in the distances between objects in the background of the backyard rifle photos. You have no rational innocent explanation for the DPD prints revealed in 1992, one of which shows a silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be, and another of which shows a stand-in assuming a pose that no one knew existed until 1976. And this is not to mention the myriad of suspicious holes in the stories of the alleged discovery of the photos and the camera.
Where'd those clothes go? Oswald was a miser and was known to keep things forever. Whey weren't the clothes of the backyard figure found in his belongings? Why does the figure's ring disappear in one of the photos?
And are you guys ever going to do a reenactment that duplicates the variant nose shadow? HCA PEP member McCamy admitted in his testimony that in order to allegedly duplicate the variant nose shadow, not only was the model's head tilted and rotated at the same time to precise points, which made it so that the subject was no longer looking at the camera, but the camera itself was then shifted just to reacquire a frontal view of the face. Even Congressman Fithian noted that "the probability would be that those three things . . . would not come together at the same place, at the same time." It was at this point that McCamy conceded that "a number of assumptions" would be necessary to "interpret the Oswald photograph" from the demonstration that was supposed to duplicate the variant shadows. I cover this in detail in "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos":
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
Not interested in debating the backyard photos. They are authentic and unaltered.
Oh, wow. So now Henry Hurt "is a bit of a loon," huh? No, but such a comment paints you as a clown. FYI, Henry Hurt was a widely respected scholar and author, known as a straight shooter and a careful researcher. He was a Rockefeller Foundation fellow and an editor for Reader's Digest for many years. One review of his best-selling book Reasonable Doubt said the book established Hurt "as a world-class investigative reporter." In its review of Hurt's book, the New York Times said Hurt "writes convincingly." Hurt's other books also received wide praise. Hurt was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
This has nothing to do with Sneed. It is about Drain. I'll take what he said in 1983 and 1983. Also, what he said in 2002, as I noted, does not address Day's repeated claim that he told Drain about the print and also showed it to him when he gave him the rifle, nor does Drain's 2002 statement address his previous comments about the FBI's strange visit to the morgue to take Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints and about the palmprint's origin.
If the FBI visited the morgue, they did so after they had already handed the rifle back to the DPD.
"As to Lieutenant Day, I've known him a long time, and I think that he's an honest individual." -- Vincent Drain, quoted in "No More Silence", by Larry Sneed, page 260
Day handed the lift over to Drain on November 26, 1963 and Drain signed for it.
-
Oswald wasn't at work when he bought the money order. He was at the Post Office on 400 N.Ervay Street when he bought the money order. It was about a half a mile from where he worked. He had fudged his timesheet to make it appear that he never left work that day.
I heard that on a different timesheet it indicated that Oswald worked a full eight hours on November 22, 1963.
Hey Tim. I got a free book for you. Are you interested?
-
I heard that on a different timesheet it indicated that Oswald worked a full eight hours on November 22, 1963.
Hey Tim. I got a free book for you. Are you interested?
Oswald was marked in as having worked a full 8 hours on Nov 22,1963. I've seen the time sheet.
Free? Sure, what have you got?
-
Oswald wasn't at work when he bought the money order. He was at the Post Office on 400 N.Ervay Street when he bought the money order. It was about a half a mile from where he worked. He had fudged his timesheet to make it appear that he never left work that day.
Oswald has a history of leaving work without permission.
Lee Harvey Oswald became employed by William B. Reily Company, Inc. as a greaser and oiler maintenance man on May 10, 1963. His employment terminated on July 19, 1963. During the latter portion of his employment, I served as his immediate supervisor. As his supervisor I was aware of Oswald's performance or lack thereof of his duties.
There were occasions from time to time when I was unable to locate Oswald in and about the premises and learned that he was in the habit of absenting himself from the premises without leave and visiting a service station establishment adjacent to the Reily Coffee Company known as Alba's Crescent City Garage.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/barbe.htm
Mr. BALL - Did you know Lee Oswald?
Mr. SHELLEY - He worked for me.
...
Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the President was shot tell Oswald to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
JohnM
-
Oswald was marked in as having worked a full 8 hours on Nov 22,1963. I've seen the time sheet.
Free? Sure, what have you got?
Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed by Michael Griffith.
Now, before you make a hasty judgment of your own, remember that the toilet paper shortage of three months ago may come again.
-
How is it possible that you can be so confused? You still continue to conflate two separate issues. This is the third or fourth time you've done so here. The palm print characteristics and the barrel irregularities are not the same thing. The points of identity matching the lift to the barrel would not have been the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm. Those are palm print characteristics. None of those were left on the barrel. Day had lifted them entirely so that no trace of them remained. While five matching points of identity is below the minimum needed for a credible identification of a fingerprint or palm print, it obvious was enough for Scalice to make his positive match of the lift to the barrel.
I decided to go back and find your statement, just to set the record straight that you are the one who confused barrel irregularities with palm characteristics.
In reply to my point that Scalice said nothing about seeing barrel irregularities in the palmprint lift, you said the following:
Scalise reported that he identified five points of identity which match the lift to the barrel. If not impressions of irregularities, then what could those points of identity possibly have been? How else could they have been described?
In response to this, I said that the matching points that Scalice identified would have been ulnar loops, ridge flows, etc., and I repeated the point that Scalice said nothing about seeing any barrel irregularities:
Huh? The points of identity would have been the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm. He said nothing about irregularities from the barrel also appearing in the lift. And he only matched five points, well below the minimum needed for a credible identification.
Matching points/points of identity are not irregularities, and certainly not rifle barrel irregularities, but are characteristics shared by the lift impression with an undisputed print impression made of the person's palm or fingers. If Scalice had found any irregularities from the barrel present in the palmprint lift, certainly he would have said so.
You know, we would not be having this conversation if Lt. Day had done the same thing with the palmprint that he did with the trigger-guard prints, namely, take in situ photographs of them before lifting them. He followed long-established, common-sense procedure with the trigger-guard prints, but passed up every opportunity to do so with the palmprint. If he had photographed the palmprint before supposedly lifting it, and if the photos of the palmprint had been sent along with the rifle when it was first sent to the FBI, there could be no suggestion that the print was planted on the rifle between 11/24 and 11/26.
Similarly, if Lt. Day had not repeatedly claimed that the palmprint was still visible on the rifle when he handed it over to Drain, you would not be left with explaining how the palmprint, along with any indication that the barrel had even been processed for prints, magically disappeared in the few hours before it reached FBI HQ in DC.
Of course, if Lt. Day had even processed the barrel for prints, at least some latent lift powder would have still been on the barrel when Latona examined the rifle a few hours later. That powder doesn't fall off easily.
We might also ask why Lt. Day did not cover the palmprint with cellophane, which was standard procedure, but did so with the trigger-guard prints. It was standard procedure to cover any detected prints with cellophane, and Day did so with the trigger-guard prints, but, once again, veered from standard procedure with the palmprint. Gee, why was that? When asked this question, Lt. Day said that he saw no need for cellophane with the palmprint because the print was on a part of the barrel that was protected by the wooden foregrip! Oh, okay. Then what happened to the palmprint and the surrounding latent print dust between Dallas and FBI HQ?! Poof! Gone! Magic!
Latona not only saw no trace of a print on the barrel, but he saw no trace that that part of the barrel had even been dusted for prints. That's because Lt. Day did not dust it for prints. He did not dust because he logically assumed that the gunman could not have touched that part of the barrel during the shooting because it was protected by the wooden foregrip.
By the way, Latona added that as of 11/23 he had heard nothing about a palmprint being found on the rifle.
When they planted the palmprint on the rifle, they knew they could not plant it anywhere on the rifle that had already been dusted for prints, so they planted it on a part of the barrel under the foregrip of the wooden stock. But they couldn't do this until they had gotten Oswald's palmprint at the morgue and until the rifle was returned.
That's why nobody in the DPD said one blessed word about finding a palmprint on the rifle until 11/24. Veteran journalists with long-time sources in the DPD were reporting as late as the night of 11/23 that their police sources were telling them that Oswald's prints had not been found on the rifle.
-
For goodness sakes Michael, would you just stop and think about what you are posting before actually posting it? Latona testified in April of 1964. He never tried to match the lift with the barrel until September of 1964.
Why didn’t they call him back, then? They called Whaley back just to make him say he dropped his passenger off two blocks sooner.
-
Oswald wasn't at work when he bought the money order. He was at the Post Office on 400 N.Ervay Street when he bought the money order. It was about a half a mile from where he worked. He had fudged his timesheet to make it appear that he never left work that day.
How do you know all this?
-
I decided to go back and find your statement, just to set the record straight that you are the one who confused barrel irregularities with palm characteristics.
In reply to my point that Scalice said nothing about seeing barrel irregularities in the palmprint lift, you said the following:
In response to this, I said that the matching points that Scalice identified would have been ulnar loops, ridge flows, etc., and I repeated the point that Scalice said nothing about seeing any barrel irregularities:
Matching points/points of identity are not irregularities, and certainly not rifle barrel irregularities, but are characteristics shared by the lift impression with an undisputed print impression made of the person's palm or fingers. If Scalice had found any irregularities from the barrel present in the palmprint lift, certainly he would have said so.
You know, we would not be having this conversation if Lt. Day had done the same thing with the palmprint that he did with the trigger-guard prints, namely, take in situ photographs of them before lifting them. He followed long-established, common-sense procedure with the trigger-guard prints, but passed up every opportunity to do so with the palmprint. If he had photographed the palmprint before supposedly lifting it, and if the photos of the palmprint had been sent along with the rifle when it was first sent to the FBI, there could be no suggestion that the print was planted on the rifle between 11/24 and 11/26.
Similarly, if Lt. Day had not repeatedly claimed that the palmprint was still visible on the rifle when he handed it over to Drain, you would not be left with explaining how the palmprint, along with any indication that the barrel had even been processed for prints, magically disappeared in the few hours before it reached FBI HQ in DC.
Of course, if Lt. Day had even processed the barrel for prints, at least some latent lift powder would have still been on the barrel when Latona examined the rifle a few hours later. That powder doesn't fall off easily.
We might also ask why Lt. Day did not cover the palmprint with cellophane, which was standard procedure, but did so with the trigger-guard prints. It was standard procedure to cover any detected prints with cellophane, and Day did so with the trigger-guard prints, but, once again, veered from standard procedure with the palmprint. Gee, why was that? When asked this question, Lt. Day said that he saw no need for cellophane with the palmprint because the print was on a part of the barrel that was protected by the wooden foregrip! Oh, okay. Then what happened to the palmprint and the surrounding latent print dust between Dallas and FBI HQ?! Poof! Gone! Magic!
Latona not only saw no trace of a print on the barrel, but he saw no trace that that part of the barrel had even been dusted for prints. That's because Lt. Day did not dust it for prints. He did not dust because he logically assumed that the gunman could not have touched that part of the barrel during the shooting because it was protected by the wooden foregrip.
By the way, Latona added that as of 11/23 he had heard nothing about a palmprint being found on the rifle.
When they planted the palmprint on the rifle, they knew they could not plant it anywhere on the rifle that had already been dusted for prints, so they planted it on a part of the barrel under the foregrip of the wooden stock. But they couldn't do this until they had gotten Oswald's palmprint at the morgue and until the rifle was returned.
That's why nobody in the DPD said one blessed word about finding a palmprint on the rifle until 11/24. Veteran journalists with long-time sources in the DPD were reporting as late as the night of 11/23 that their police sources were telling them that Oswald's prints had not been found on the rifle.
(http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/n/no-1325.gif) I honestly don't know how to respond to that. I really don't.
-
I honestly don't know how to respond to that. I really don't.
Doesn't have a response? This is truly a first!
-
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on Today at 06:36:13 AM
For goodness sakes Michael, would you just stop and think about what you are posting before actually posting it?
LOL! Yeah, okay. You have done nothing but duck and dodge and bob and weave about the holes in the palmprint story. You're the last person in the world to be telling anyone about thinking about what they're posting before they post it.
You have painted yourself as a fringe online propagandist with your lowlife claim that a respected, Pulitzer-Prize-nominated scholar like Henry Hurt was a "kook." I'd bet good money that you don't even know that Hurt differed with most conspiracy theorists on a number of issues about the assassination.
Quote from: Tim Nickerson at 06:36:13 AM] Latona testified in April of 1964. He never tried to match the lift with the barrel until September of 1964.
Oh, of course! Gosh, it just never occurred to him to check for this until he was asked! This is Exhibit 15 for what I said above. Latona was no rookie. If he had seen non-human impressions in the palmprint, surely, surely it would have occurred to him to check the barrel to see if those impressions came from the barrel, because this would have strengthened his identification. You might want to read Sylvia Meagher's section on the palmprint in Accessories After the Fact. The entire book is available for free online reading and PDF download:
https://archive.org/details/AccessoriesAfterTheFact
Just once, do some homework before you try to see the emperor's new clothes.
Why didn’t they call him back, then? They called Whaley back just to make him say he dropped his passenger off two blocks sooner.
Good questions indeed. Also, why didn't Hoover name the lab examiners in his memo? Why didn't he have them make sworn statements? Why didn't the WC make any effort to verify Hoover's claim?
For that matter, why wouldn't Lt. Day sign the affidavit that the WC wanted him to sign to reaffirm his story about the palmprint? Clearly, because when Day was asked to sign the affidavit, he realized that the WC and/or the FBI doubted his story, that they might discover that he'd lied, and if they ended up finding evidence that he'd lied, he would be in more trouble for signing a second affidavit.
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on Today at 06:36:13 AM
Oswald wasn't at work when he bought the money order. He was at the Post Office on 400 N. Ervay Street when he bought the money order. It was about a half a mile from where he worked. He had fudged his timesheet to make it appear that he never left work that day.
You don't know any of this. You are just repeating the kool-aid you have read in pro-WC books. You clearly have not read anything that challenges the money order story.
I see that now you are willing to entertain the idea of evidence tampering! My, my! Here you have rejected every previous suggestion of evidence tampering, no matter how compelling. But, oh, now you are willing to posit tampering to explain Oswald's timesheet, apparently not realizing the kind of job Oswald had at the time.
Anyway, leaving aside for a moment the issue of Oswald's timesheet, there is also the fact that the envelope containing the money order was stamped and mailed in postal zone 12, which was several miles from the North Ervay post office and across the Trinity River. I am guessing you were not aware of this fact.
Now why oh why oh why would anyone buy a money order at one post office and then walk 3 miles to mail it from another post office?
Furthermore, returning to the issue of Oswald's whereabouts at the time the money order was purchased, Jaggars-Stovall records show that Oswald worked from 8:00 AM through 12:15 PM on nine printing jobs. Like many high-tech companies, Jagger-Stovall tracked each employee's work for the day, not just their hours. Oswald's job at Jaggars-Stovall was not the kind of job that you could disappear from for 2 hours without being noticed, not to mention that he completed nine printing jobs that morning.
Walking to the North Ervay post office, then walking 3 miles to another post office, and then walking back to Jaggars-Stovall would have taken Oswald at least 2 hours.
And it should be noted again that the money order was never cashed, as anyone can see by looking at the money order itself. It has no dated bank endorsement stamp, in fact no bank endorsement stamp of any kind, and does not have the final date stamp that it should have received if it had gone to the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City after it was cashed.
When the WC asked Klein's to document that they had cashed the $21.45 money order, Klein's sent the commission a deposit statement from their bank, and the commission uncritically accepted it, apparently not realizing--or assuming nobody would notice--that the statement had neither a bank stamp nor a date stamp and that it was dated 2/15/1963, nearly one month before the money order was even purchased.
It is telling that every single piece of evidence that supposedly incriminates Oswald falls apart when you look at it more closely.
-
You don't know any of this. You are just repeating the kool-aid you have read in pro-WC books. You clearly have not read anything that challenges the money order story.
I see that now you are willing to entertain the idea of evidence tampering! My, my! Here you have rejected every previous suggestion of evidence tampering, no matter how compelling. But, oh, now you are willing to posit tampering to explain Oswald's timesheet, apparently not realizing the kind of job Oswald had at the time.
It was Oswald himself who fudged on his timesheet. If you want to call that evidence tampering then so be it.
Anyway, leaving aside for a moment the issue of Oswald's timesheet, there is also the fact that the envelope containing the money order was stamped and mailed in postal zone 12, which was several miles from the North Ervay post office and across the Trinity River. I am guessing you were not aware of this fact.
Where do you get that the envelope was stamped and mailed in postal zone 12? I'm aware of that CT claim but it's not one with any evidential foundation. And it makes no sense at all. Why would Oswald travel miles away to a different Post Office than his regular one? No, the 12 on the stamp does not represent the number of the Postal Zone. It almost certainly represents the number of the cancelling machine in the Ervay street post office that stamped that envelope.
Now why oh why oh why would anyone buy a money order at one post office and then walk 3 miles to mail it from another post office?
Yeah, as I said, it makes no sense at all. What does make sense is that Oswald's envelope passed through the number 12 cancelling machine at the Ervay street Post office.
Furthermore, returning to the issue of Oswald's whereabouts at the time the money order was purchased, Jaggars-Stovall records show that Oswald worked from 8:00 AM through 12:15 PM on nine printing jobs. Like many high-tech companies, Jagger-Stovall tracked each employee's work for the day, not just their hours. Oswald's job at Jaggars-Stovall was not the kind of job that you could disappear from for 2 hours without being noticed, not to mention that he completed nine printing jobs that morning.
Walking to the North Ervay post office, then walking 3 miles to another post office, and then walking back to Jaggars-Stovall would have taken Oswald at least 2 hours.
By "Jaggars-Stovall records" you mean the timesheet that Oswald filled out himself. The one that he obviously lied on. Oswald likely missed work for no more than a half hour.
And it should be noted again that the money order was never cashed, as anyone can see by looking at the money order itself.
I already told you that I know for a fact that the money order was cashed. And the proof is right on the money order itself.
It has no dated bank endorsement stamp, in fact no bank endorsement stamp of any kind,
So what? If it had a bank endorsement stamp on it , it likely would have been considered invalid.
and does not have the final date stamp that it should have received if it had gone to the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City after it was cashed.
How have you determined that it should have had a bank endorsement stamp and a final date stamp on it? It never went to the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City after it was cashed. It went to the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Washington after it was cashed. Or it might have been Alexandria, Virginia. I can't remember. I'll have to check my notes.
When the WC asked Klein's to document that they had cashed the $21.45 money order, Klein's sent the commission a deposit statement from their bank, and the commission uncritically accepted it, apparently not realizing--or assuming nobody would notice--that the statement had neither a bank stamp nor a date stamp and that it was dated 2/15/1963, nearly one month before the money order was even purchased.
Again, how have you determined that it should have had a bank endorsement stamp and a final date stamp on it?
-
It was Oswald himself who fudged on his timesheet. If you want to call that evidence tampering then so be it.
How about the 9 printing jobs that he was recorded as doing? Did he fudge those as well, and nobody noticed?
Where do you get that the envelope was stamped and mailed in postal zone 12? I'm aware of that CT claim but it's not one with any evidential foundation. And it makes no sense at all. Why would Oswald travel miles away to a different Post Office than his regular one?
You just can't connect the dots, can you? Read this really slowly: Oswald did not buy the money order and did not mail it to Klein's.
No, the 12 on the stamp does not represent the number of the Postal Zone. It almost certainly represents the number of the cancelling machine in the Ervay street post office that stamped that envelope. Yeah, as I said, it makes no sense at all. What does make sense is that Oswald's envelope passed through the number 12 cancelling machine at the Ervay street Post office.
What were you saying about thinking about what you write before you post it?! Now, think about this: Why would the USPS bother to include the number of the machine that processed the envelope in the postmark? Why? What good would that do? Is it not much more logical that the Post Office would want to be able to document the postal zone from which the letter was sent?
And since when is a machine identified only by a two-digit number? Even making the unlikely assumption that the only ID numbers the USPS put on its processing machines were two-digit numbers, how many machines numbered "12" do you suppose the USPS had just in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area alone?
But we do not need to guess about the information in the postmark. Turning to the USPS's official website, we learn that postmarks are intended to provide "the location and date" the USPS accepted custody of the item:
A postmark indicates the location and date the Postal Service accepted custody of a mailpiece. (https://about.usps.com/handbooks/po408/ch1_003.htm)
The USPS did not institute zip codes until April 1963. Before then, starting in 1943, the Post Office divided cities into zones:
1943: The United States Post Office Department divides cities into zones. (https://www.zip-codes.com/united-states-zip-codes-timeline.asp#1943)
So, obviously, it made sense to stamp the letter with a postmark that included the postal zone from which the letter was mailed.
By "Jaggars-Stovall records" you mean the timesheet that Oswald filled out himself. The one that he obviously lied on. Oswald likely missed work for no more than a half hour.
Here again, as you are prone to do, you base your arguments on debunked or unproven assumptions. Why don’t you go read Robert Stovall’s WC testimony and come back and tell me that Oswald could have been gone for 30 minutes, much less 2-3 hours, without anyone noticing, and could have gotten away with claiming to have done nine printing jobs that he did not do.
I already told you that I know for a fact that the money order was cashed. And the proof is right on the money order itself.
Really? I suspect that you did not look at the money order but simply decided to repeat what you read on some pro-WC site.
I invite you to post a copy of that money order that shows a dated bank endorsement stamp, or a bank endorsement stamp of any kind, and the final date stamp that it should have received if it had gone to the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City, or from any PMOC, after it was cashed. Let's see it.
The only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited.
The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.
So, yes, show me an image of that money order that shows a single bank endorsement stamp of any kind on the money order. Let's see it.
So what? If it had a bank endorsement stamp on it , it likely would have been considered invalid. Again, how have you determined that it should have had a bank endorsement stamp and a final date stamp on it?
Seriously? Have you never seen a cashed money order? How about a cashed check--ever seen one of those? I mean, good grief, how can you not know that when a bank deposits any kind of a check, it stamps it with a dated endorsement stamp to show that it was cashed? Go to your online bank account and look at the image of the back of one of your cashed checks.
John Armstrong provides numerous examples of cashed checks and vouchers from 1963 to show what we should see on the $21.94 money order that Oswald supposedly sent to Klein's.
http://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html
How have you determined that it should have had a bank endorsement stamp and a final date stamp on it? It never went to the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City after it was cashed. It went to the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Washington after it was cashed. Or it might have been Alexandria, Virginia. I can't remember. I'll have to check my notes.
It should have gone to the KC PMOC. But, wherever it went, once it got there, it would have been stamped a second time after it had been cashed by an associated bank and/or had through the Federal Reserve. The money order contains no such stamp. Because it was not cashed.
The fact that the money order was not cashed explains why Klein’s could not come up with a genuine bank deposit statement from their bank that showed the money order had been deposited. Instead, as I mentioned in my previous reply, Klein’s sent the WC a deposit statement that seemed to show the deposit but that was dated “2/15/1963,” which was nearly a month before the money order was supposedly bought. If you doubt this, just go look at the last page of CE 10, and see for yourself.
-
Seriously? Have you never seen a cashed money order? How about a cashed check--ever seen one of those? I mean, good grief, how can you not know that when a bank deposits any kind of a check, it stamps it with a dated endorsement stamp to show that it was cashed? Go to your online bank account and look at the image of the back of one of your cashed checks.
John Armstrong provides numerous examples of cashed checks and vouchers from 1963 to show what we should see on the $21.94 money order that Oswald supposedly sent to Klein's.
http://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html
Those show unemployment payments and paychecks. Not money orders. Just why "should we see" such stamps on a US money order?
You're expected to do better than that on the Forum here. This is not "JFK Assassination Debate" at the so-called Education Forum.
-
How about the 9 printing jobs that he was recorded as doing? Did he fudge those as well, and nobody noticed?
He fudged the time that it took to do them. Or some of them anyway.
You just can't connect the dots, can you? Read this really slowly: Oswald did not buy the money order and did not mail it to Klein's.
Read this very slowly: It's Oswald's handwriting on the money order, as confirmed by four or five handwriting identification experts. Oswald bought the money order and he mailed it to Klein's.
What were you saying about thinking about what you write before you post it?! Now, think about this: Why would the USPS bother to include the number of the machine that processed the envelope in the postmark? Why? What good would that do? Is it not much more logical that the Post Office would want to be able to document the postal zone from which the letter was sent?
And since when is a machine identified only by a two-digit number? Even making the unlikely assumption that the only ID numbers the USPS put on its processing machines were two-digit numbers, how many machines numbered "12" do you suppose the USPS had just in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area alone?
But we do not need to guess about the information in the postmark. Turning to the USPS's official website, we learn that postmarks are intended to provide "the location and date" the USPS accepted custody of the item:
The USPS did not institute zip codes until April 1963. Before then, starting in 1943, the Post Office divided cities into zones:
So, obviously, it made sense to stamp the letter with a postmark that included the postal zone from which the letter was mailed.
David Von Pein reached out to a number of different entities 8 years ago to try and settle the question of the number 12 mark on the stamp.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html
I would encourage you to read through the whole thing. Here is some of what you'll find there.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
As I predicted, it didn't take long to get some responses on Facebook to my question about the "12" on the postmark. On the evening of August 5, 2012, I got this additional response from a member of the "Machine Cancel Society":
"The 12 is the machine number that canceled the envelope. Larger post offices have multiple machines to cancel their mail, so they number the machines and sometimes the machine number appears in the postmark, and sometimes it appears in the killer bars."
=============================================
The purpose of the "12" is to distinguish the mail from any other machine that cancelled mail from Dallas. Each post office uses these methods to track workers assigned to cancelling, to distinguish mail from one station from another, to identify the machine that applied the cancel, and the list goes on. --Ohio collector, A J Savakis
=============================================
Here's one from a friend of mine:
"At first glance, David . . . the postmark seems to be of a Model G flyer, of which we still use one in Greenville [South Carolina] to this day. An electric machine, it probably dates to the 1930's, but is still useful to cancel heavy, non-automation pieces.
There would have been absolutely NO local zone classification for cancellations in 1963, as there are absolutely none to date on this equipment. The number 12, most assuredly, would have indicated a machine number at the processing plant in Dallas. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been with USPS for 29 years now. Nothing on a postmark other than city, state, and zip code has EVER indicated an origination.
[The] MPO [Main Post Office] in Dallas would have typically had a large workroom area with multiple flyer machines in 1963. It is also quite probable that they had as many as twelve mechanized Mark II cancellation machines. The dies would be nearly identical and would merely indicate the machine number. I believe, firmly, that no conclusion can be drawn about the origin of the letter within the Dallas community by observing the postmark.
Also David, the time of 10:30 [which is also stamped on Commission Exhibit 773] would indicate the 'clearance' time for delivery. Anything before 10:30 would constitute next day service. That which was received later would not. There would have been ABSOLUTELY no changing of the dies to reflect what time the letter was received . . . with the letter volume of 1963 as compared to today's internet generation . . . the notion is ludicrous . . . cancellations in Dallas at the time were probably upwards of 300,000 letters per day."-- Jimmy Orr, Manager/Supervisor at the U.S. Postal Service, Greenville, South Carolina
Here again, as you are prone to do, you base your arguments on debunked or unproven assumptions. Why don’t you go read Robert Stovall’s WC testimony and come back and tell me that Oswald could have been gone for 30 minutes, much less 2-3 hours, without anyone noticing, and could have gotten away with claiming to have done nine printing jobs that he did not do.
Oswald could easily have gone down to the Post Office on Ervay Street and not be noticed as missing from work.
-
Really? I suspect that you did not look at the money order but simply decided to repeat what you read on some pro-WC site.
I invite you to post a copy of that money order that shows a dated bank endorsement stamp, or a bank endorsement stamp of any kind, and the final date stamp that it should have received if it had gone to the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City, or from any PMOC, after it was cashed. Let's see it.
The only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited.
The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.
So, yes, show me an image of that money order that shows a single bank endorsement stamp of any kind on the money order. Let's see it.
You haven't answered my question. You are working under the notion that the money order should have had a bank endorsement stamp on it. How have you determined that it should have had a bank endorsement stamp on it? On the back of the money order you can see "Bank stamps are not regarded as endorsements".
Seriously? Have you never seen a cashed money order? How about a cashed check--ever seen one of those? I mean, good grief, how can you not know that when a bank deposits any kind of a check, it stamps it with a dated endorsement stamp to show that it was cashed? Go to your online bank account and look at the image of the back of one of your cashed checks.
John Armstrong provides numerous examples of cashed checks and vouchers from 1963 to show what we should see on the $21.94 money order that Oswald supposedly sent to Klein's.
http://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html
It should have gone to the KC PMOC. But, wherever it went, once it got there, it would have been stamped a second time after it had been cashed by an associated bank and/or had through the Federal Reserve. The money order contains no such stamp. Because it was not cashed.
The fact that the money order was not cashed explains why Klein’s could not come up with a genuine bank deposit statement from their bank that showed the money order had been deposited. Instead, as I mentioned in my previous reply, Klein’s sent the WC a deposit statement that seemed to show the deposit but that was dated “2/15/1963,” which was nearly a month before the money order was supposedly bought. If you doubt this, just go look at the last page of CE 10, and see for yourself.
I have seen a cashed USPS money order. You can see it below.
(https://i.imgur.com/jVl3GQF.jpg)
USPS money orders and bank checks were not handled in the same way. A check should get a bank endorsement stamp on it when cashed. USPS money orders did not.
You haven't been paying attention to what I have said. I know for a fact that the money order was cashed. And the proof is right on the money order itself. Have you ever seen uncashed USPS money orders from that period? Here is a blue tinted money order of the format that was being fazed out in late 1962 and replaced with Yellow tinted cards in January of 1963:
(https://i.imgur.com/0c5Rm9G.jpg?3)
Smuckler was a collector. The blue tinted cards were replaced with yellow tinted ones like the one Oswald purchased to pay Klein's with. Tom Scully did some research on this issue and made some discoveries. He can fill you in on those if he reads this post. Here is an uncashed money order from 1963:
(https://i.imgur.com/kOFOzoP.jpg)
Take note of what I've boxed in with green border. Then compare that with the Klein's money order.
In the Fall of 2015, Lance Payette found the following PDF and posted it on the ED forum:
https://www.computer.org/csdl/pds/api/csdl/proceedings/download-article/12OmNzmclTx/pdf
Found on page 483 (fifth page of the PDF):
(https://i.imgur.com/NL1hnLl.png)
The money order had that file locator number(138 J159796) placed on it by the US Treasury Department in Washington. From there, it went to the federal records retention center in Alexandria, Virginia, where it was found on Nov 23, 1963.
The money passed through the Federal reserve system and reached it's final destination in Alexandria. It never would have done so if it hadn't been cashed.
-
He fudged the time that it took to do them. Or some of them anyway.
You're just once again repeating your argument without dealing with the responses to it. Why didn’t you address my point about Stovall’s WC testimony and the nature of Oswald’s job and the work environment at Jaggars-Stovall? Why didn’t you explain how Oswald could have falsely claimed he did nine print jobs without anyone noticing, especially given the fact that all his work, like that of other junior associates, was periodically checked by senior associates? Why didn’t you address my point that in the Jaggars-Stovall work environment, he could not have just disappeared for 30 minutes, much less 2 hours, without someone noticing?
Read this very slowly: It's Oswald's handwriting on the money order, as confirmed by four or five handwriting identification experts. Oswald bought the money order and he mailed it to Klein's.
You just go around and circles, repeat yourself, and ignore contrary points and evidence.
Now, as for the handwriting on the money order, envelope, and order form, such a small sample of handwriting could have easily been faked. Are you familiar with the "Mr. Hunt" note that was allegedly written by Oswald? Most of your fellow WC apologists now agree that the note was faked. Yet, three renowned handwriting experts examined the note and concluded it was written by Oswald. But, the HSCA's handwriting experts could not decide if the handwriting on the note was Oswald's. The history of spying is loaded with examples of expert handwriting forgery.
David Von Pein reached out to a number of different entities 8 years ago to try and settle the question of the number 12 mark on the stamp.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html
David Von Pein. . . . Yeap, I suspected that's where you were getting your weak arguments and why you were (and still are) avoiding the readily visible evidence on the money order itself. Did you not notice that Von Pein does not explain or show where a bank endorsement stamp can be seen on the money order? Why do you suppose that is?
Could you not gather up the courage to check out the Armstrong link, where Armstrong provides numerous examples of checks/vouchers cashed in 1963 to show us what we should see on the back of the money order?
I would encourage you to read through the whole thing. Here is some of what you'll find there.
And I would encourage you to do your own research instead of just relying on what you find on some pro-WC website.
You're not going to post an image of the money order that shows any kind of a bank endorsement stamp, are you? Nor are you going to post an image of the money order that shows the stamp it would have received at the PMOC after it was cashed at an associated bank or processed through the Federal Reserve, are you? Do you know why you're not gonna post any such image? Because no such image exists. Because anyone can look at the money order and see what is and is not there.
Not one of the money order images you just posted shows any kind of bank endorsement stamp on the money order that Oswald allegedly mailed to Klein's.
As I've said, and as anyone can confirm with their own two eyes, the only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited.
The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
[SNIP]
None of this addresses a single point I made about the "12" in the postmark. And I take it you didn't bother to go to the USPS links that I provided on the purpose of a postmark and on the fact that the Post Office used zone numbers from 1943 until April 1963 before they used zip codes?
You see, when you read the evidence that I presented, your first and only thought was to go running to Von Pein's website and copy and paste a bunch of his non-responsive points.
So let me ask you again: Why would the USPS bother to include the number of the machine that processed the envelope in the postmark? Why? What good would that do? Is it not much more logical that the Post Office would want to be able to document the postal zone from which the letter was sent?
And since when is a machine identified only by a two-digit number? Even making the unlikely assumption that the only ID numbers the USPS put on its processing machines were two-digit numbers, how many machines numbered "12" do you suppose the USPS had just in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area alone?
And I would again point out that we don't have to guess here. We have the Post Office's own website telling us that postmarks are . . . well, let's read it again:
A postmark indicates the location and date the Postal Service accepted custody of a mailpiece. (https://about.usps.com/handbooks/po408/ch1_003.htm)
The USPS did not institute zip codes until April 1963. Before then, starting in 1943, the Post Office divided cities into zones:
1943: The United States Post Office Department divides cities into zones. (https://www.zip-codes.com/united-states-zip-codes-timeline.asp#1943)
And did you notice that Von Pein doesn't explain why the deposit statement that Klein's provided to the WC is dated February 15, 1963, nearly four weeks before the money order was supposedly purchased?
-
No, the 12 on the stamp does not represent the number of the Postal Zone. It almost certainly represents the number of the cancelling machine in the Ervay street post office that stamped that envelope.
Why is this almost certain?
By "Jaggars-Stovall records" you mean the timesheet that Oswald filled out himself. The one that he obviously lied on. Oswald likely missed work for no more than a half hour.
Why are these things "obvious" and "likely"?
-
Now, as for the handwriting on the money order, envelope, and order form, such a small sample of handwriting could have easily been faked. Are you familiar with the "Mr. Hunt" note that was allegedly written by Oswald? Most of your fellow WC apologists now agree that the note was faked. Yet, three renowned handwriting experts examined the note and concluded it was written by Oswald. But, the HSCA's handwriting experts could not decide if the handwriting on the note was Oswald's. The history of spying is loaded with examples of expert handwriting forgery.
Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific and biased. The so-called Hitler diaries fooled "experts" too.
Besides, there is no way to connect the money order found in Virginia to any specific Klein's order.
-
one of which shows a silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be,
The image that you refer to was taken many months after Oswald's backyard photo and shows massive new growth on the shrub to Oswald's left, the bush in front of the post holding the stairs has grown and lost it's leaves and the tree behind has also lost it's leaves, please explain in your own words where this leads to? Btw you also claim that Oswald's chin in the backyard photo wasn't Oswald's so how does that fit into a full sized cut-out? Enquiring minds would at least like to hear your rational explanation?
(https://i.postimg.cc/dQWmqDm7/backyard-and-cutout-GIF.gif)
Photographic scholars have long understood how light and shadow works and how a harsh overhead light will create a more defined masculine chin line, also notice the strong similar shadow in the eye area along with the tell tale triangular shadow under the nose
(https://i.postimg.cc/brKZZXw5/Oswaldvs-Arnold.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/hef5txoej/Ossychin_zpsgs9wcd0f.gif)
JohnM
-
How about the 9 printing jobs that he was recorded as doing? Did he fudge those as well, and nobody noticed?
You just can't connect the dots, can you? Read this really slowly: Oswald did not buy the money order and did not mail it to Klein's.
What were you saying about thinking about what you write before you post it?! Now, think about this: Why would the USPS bother to include the number of the machine that processed the envelope in the postmark? Why? What good would that do? Is it not much more logical that the Post Office would want to be able to document the postal zone from which the letter was sent?
And since when is a machine identified only by a two-digit number? Even making the unlikely assumption that the only ID numbers the USPS put on its processing machines were two-digit numbers, how many machines numbered "12" do you suppose the USPS had just in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area alone?
But we do not need to guess about the information in the postmark. Turning to the USPS's official website, we learn that postmarks are intended to provide "the location and date" the USPS accepted custody of the item:
The USPS did not institute zip codes until April 1963. Before then, starting in 1943, the Post Office divided cities into zones:
So, obviously, it made sense to stamp the letter with a postmark that included the postal zone from which the letter was mailed.
Here again, as you are prone to do, you base your arguments on debunked or unproven assumptions. Why don’t you go read Robert Stovall’s WC testimony and come back and tell me that Oswald could have been gone for 30 minutes, much less 2-3 hours, without anyone noticing, and could have gotten away with claiming to have done nine printing jobs that he did not do.
Really? I suspect that you did not look at the money order but simply decided to repeat what you read on some pro-WC site.
I invite you to post a copy of that money order that shows a dated bank endorsement stamp, or a bank endorsement stamp of any kind, and the final date stamp that it should have received if it had gone to the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City, or from any PMOC, after it was cashed. Let's see it.
The only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited.
The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.
So, yes, show me an image of that money order that shows a single bank endorsement stamp of any kind on the money order. Let's see it.
Seriously? Have you never seen a cashed money order? How about a cashed check--ever seen one of those? I mean, good grief, how can you not know that when a bank deposits any kind of a check, it stamps it with a dated endorsement stamp to show that it was cashed? Go to your online bank account and look at the image of the back of one of your cashed checks.
John Armstrong provides numerous examples of cashed checks and vouchers from 1963 to show what we should see on the $21.94 money order that Oswald supposedly sent to Klein's.
http://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html
It should have gone to the KC PMOC. But, wherever it went, once it got there, it would have been stamped a second time after it had been cashed by an associated bank and/or had through the Federal Reserve. The money order contains no such stamp. Because it was not cashed.
The fact that the money order was not cashed explains why Klein’s could not come up with a genuine bank deposit statement from their bank that showed the money order had been deposited. Instead, as I mentioned in my previous reply, Klein’s sent the WC a deposit statement that seemed to show the deposit but that was dated “2/15/1963,” which was nearly a month before the money order was supposedly bought. If you doubt this, just go look at the last page of CE 10, and see for yourself.
OMG, I suppose you've never heard of the "KISS principle", why on Earth would any conspirator go to the trouble of doing masses of research, inventing so much evidence, placing it all over the country and in turn inadvertently involving Kleins, Crescent, the US postal service etc etc, when the alternative of actually just buying a rifle with a Kleins magazine coupon would only cost $21.45 or even simpler still, just buy a rifle from a local gunshop and have the owner "remember" Oswald then plant the receipt on Oswald? Doh!
BTW why would conspirators directly tie the name A. Hidell instead of Lee Harvey Oswald to the order process, why add unnecessary complications? The only person who would feel the need to use an alias could only be Oswald.
JohnM
-
On the fact that postal zones were the early version of the zip code:
Initially, the first postal zoning system had been developed during WWII, assigning 2-digit numbers to the largest metro areas across the country. That system was later expanded with the introduction of the 5-digit number in [April] 1963, made mandatory in 1967. (https://www.policymap.com/2013/04/tips-on-zips-part-ii-a-brief-history-us-postal-codes/)
San Diego, California, had a postal zone 12. Waco, Texas, had a postal zone 1, as did Dallas. Dallas also had a postal zone 12, which is undisputed. An envelope postmarked in Waco in 1962:
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/wacozone1.jpg)
According to the USPS, postmarks include “a two-letter state abbreviation, ZIP code, and date of mailing” (https://about.usps.com/handbooks/po408/ch1_003.htm).
If post-April-1963 postmarks include the zip code, it stands to reason that previous postmarks included the postal zone, which was then replaced by the zip code when the zip code came along.
Let us look at the back of the money order, just to confirm that there is no bank endorsement or PMOC endorsement of any kind on it. (And do not mistake the circular stamp mark in the bottom right corner as a bank endorsement—it is just bleed-through from the front of the money order.)
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/moneyorderback.jpg)
The only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited. The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.
Armstrong provides a detailed, illustrated explanation of how money orders were processed in Oswald's day:
http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/PMO/Money_Orders.html
Regarding Oswald's Jaggars-Stovall timesheet, if we look at the timesheet, we see that every print job had a job number and that the time spent on each job had to be noted:
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/lhojstimesheet.jpg)
Finally, notice the obvious difference in how the "A" in "A. Hidell" is written on the color original of the order form vs. how it is written in Cadigan Exhibit 3A:
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/orderforms.jpg)
Clearly, somebody was meddling with the writing of the name on the order form between the time the order form was first filled out and the time it was copied as an evidence exhibit for the WC.
-
You're just once again repeating your argument without dealing with the responses to it. Why didn’t you address my point about Stovall’s WC testimony and the nature of Oswald’s job and the work environment at Jaggars-Stovall? Why didn’t you explain how Oswald could have falsely claimed he did nine print jobs without anyone noticing, especially given the fact that all his work, like that of other junior associates, was periodically checked by senior associates? Why didn’t you address my point that in the Jaggars-Stovall work environment, he could not have just disappeared for 30 minutes, much less 2 hours, without someone noticing?
I've read Stovall's testimony. You're going to have to highlight the part of it where he offers, or even hints, that Oswald could not have just disappeared for 30 minutes, or even longer, without someone noticing. Because I don't see it. All I see is him noting that Oswald never took any days off. He also noted that Oswald was a slacker. He was not very productive at all.
Now, as for the handwriting on the money order, envelope, and order form, such a small sample of handwriting could have easily been faked. Are you familiar with the "Mr. Hunt" note that was allegedly written by Oswald? Most of your fellow WC apologists now agree that the note was faked. Yet, three renowned handwriting experts examined the note and concluded it was written by Oswald. But, the HSCA's handwriting experts could not decide if the handwriting on the note was Oswald's. The history of spying is loaded with examples of expert handwriting forgery.
Who were the three renowned handwriting experts who examined the note and concluded it was written by Oswald? Name them.
The HSCA handwriting experts were unable to render a decision on the note because they only had poor quality photoreproductions of it at their disposal. However, they pretty much dismissed it as fake anyway.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0120a.htm
41) VIII. The signature, "Lee Harvey Oswald," on the Hunt note (item 4-7) does not correspond to the Oswald signatures described under section I [signatures judged to be Oswald's].
.......
(43) From the examinations of item 4-7, it was determined that the signature does not correspond with any of the Oswald signatures of section I. Similarly, the writing does not correspond to that in the section II Oswald documents.
(44) I would like to note, however, that the quality of the original photoreproductions of the Hunt note was poor. Under the best of circumstances, reproductions lack clarity and detail. Here, as can be seen from the copies, the original photoreproduction was out of focus, giving the document a fuzzy appearance. Accurate analysis was difficult. The note is highly suspicious. The original would have to be checked in order to make a more definite analysis and reach a definitive conclusion.
Your attempt to discredit handwriting identification done by real experts has flopped. Handwriting identification is consistently accepted in courts of law. The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's.
David Von Pein. . . . Yeap, I suspected that's where you were getting your weak arguments and why you were (and still are) avoiding the readily visible evidence on the money order itself. Did you not notice that Von Pein does not explain or show where a bank endorsement stamp can be seen on the money order? Why do you suppose that is?
How are my arguments weak? Did you even read what I posted? Members of the "Machine Cancel Society" and a senior Postal manager confirmed that the 12 represents a canceling machine, not a Postal zone.
Could you not gather up the courage to check out the Armstrong link, where Armstrong provides numerous examples of checks/vouchers cashed in 1963 to show us what we should see on the back of the money order?
How does Armstrong know that the numerous examples of checks/vouchers cashed in 1963 show us what we should see on the back of the money order?
You're not going to post an image of the money order that shows any kind of a bank endorsement stamp, are you? Nor are you going to post an image of the money order that shows the stamp it would have received at the PMOC after it was cashed at an associated bank or processed through the Federal Reserve, are you? Do you know why you're not gonna post any such image? Because no such image exists. Because anyone can look at the money order and see what is and is not there.
Not one of the money order images you just posted shows any kind of bank endorsement stamp on the money order that Oswald allegedly mailed to Klein's.
As I've said, and as anyone can confirm with their own two eyes, the only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited.
The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.
You keep saying the same thing over and over again. Remove your damn CT blinders and answer the question that I have asked you repeatedly.
HOW HAVE YOU DETERMINED THAT THE MONEY ORDER SHOULD HAVE HAD A BANK ENDORSEMENT STAMP ON IT?
You completely ignored what I posted that shows that the money order was cashed. Why?
So let me ask you again: Why would the USPS bother to include the number of the machine that processed the envelope in the postmark? Why? What good would that do? Is it not much more logical that the Post Office would want to be able to document the postal zone from which the letter was sent?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html
"The purpose of the "12" is to distinguish the mail from any other machine that cancelled mail from Dallas. Each post office uses these methods to track workers assigned to cancelling, to distinguish mail from one station from another, to identify the machine that applied the cancel, and the list goes on." -- A.J. Savakis, "Machine Cancel Society" member
And since when is a machine identified only by a two-digit number? Even making the unlikely assumption that the only ID numbers the USPS put on its processing machines were two-digit numbers, how many machines numbered "12" do you suppose the USPS had just in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area alone?
And I would again point out that we don't have to guess here. We have the Post Office's own website telling us that postmarks are . . . well, let's read it again:
The USPS did not institute zip codes until April 1963. Before then, starting in 1943, the Post Office divided cities into zones:
Your link does not back you up. It does not say that postal zones were included on postmarks in the 1960s. Let me ask you this: Where was Postal Zone 2B located in Dallas in 1963?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0147b.htm
From your link:
A “local” postmark shows the full name of the Post Office, a two-letter state abbreviation, ZIP Code
Now take a look at the following:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hG1f4lAYem8/UB9tgMsJe3I/AAAAAAAAGc4/qU_dgBRNABM/s1600/1967-1968-Dallas-Texas-Postmarks.jpg)
What areas of Dallas fell under the Zip Codes 3B and 1B in the late 1960s?
And did you notice that Von Pein doesn't explain why the deposit statement that Klein's provided to the WC is dated February 15, 1963, nearly four weeks before the money order was supposedly purchased?
Notice that the amount on the deposit slip ($13,827.98) is the exact amount to the penny as that of the itemized deposit document dated March 13, 1963. How would you explain that?
-
After looking at literally hundreds of 1960's Dallas Tex (postal stamps or machine cancellation numbers) I found a definite trend of these numbers being 11,12,13,14 and even 1A,2B,3B,4A etc which are a little odd for postal zones?, anyway considering that Dallas had 35 or so postal zones I never found any corresponding numbers in the twenties or thirties, now of course this is anecdotal and anybody is free to believe what they want but this evidence isn't hard to find and I welcome any doubting Thomas's to find at least 1 number in the 20's or 30's and I will gladly capitulate. Any takers?
(https://i.postimg.cc/rm3JkCHN/Dallaspostmarks-zpsbitwddlg.jpg)
Also worth a look is the following website which was written by someone who appears either way to be completely unbiased.
http://www.machinecancel.org/forum/ludeman/ludeman.html
JohnM
-
Armstrong provides a detailed, illustrated explanation of how money orders were processed in Oswald's day:
http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/PMO/Money_Orders.html
Armstrong really took a thumping from Lance Payette. And Lance had been an admirer of Armstrong. That "illustrated explanation of how money orders were processed in Oswald's day" resulted from that thumping. And he still went ahead and made this unsupported claim : "All postal money orders had to be date stamped/endorsed by the bank receiving the deposit. Without the endorsement, the Federal Reserve would have no way of knowing to which bank the money order was to be credited."
To my knowledge, he has yet to provide any proof for that claim.
Regarding Oswald's Jaggars-Stovall timesheet, if we look at the timesheet, we see that every print job had a job number and that the time spent on each job had to be noted:
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/lhojstimesheet.jpg)
Oswald was rather thorough in his fakery.
Finally, notice the obvious difference in how the "A" in "A. Hidell" is written on the color original of the order form vs. how it is written in Cadigan Exhibit 3A:
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/orderforms.jpg)
Clearly, somebody was meddling with the writing of the name on the order form between the time the order form was first filled out and the time it was copied as an evidence exhibit for the WC.
The order form filled out with blue ink is a fake. How could you not know that? The original order form was destroyed by Klein's. They kept all of their records on microfilm.
-
After looking at literally hundreds of 1960's Dallas Tex (postal stamps or machine cancellation numbers) I found a definite trend of these numbers being 11,12,13,14 and even 1A,2B,3B,4A etc which are a little odd for postal zones?, anyway considering that Dallas had 35 or so postal zones I never found any corresponding numbers in the twenties or thirties, now of course this is anecdotal and anybody is free to believe what they want but this evidence isn't hard to find and I welcome any doubting Thomas's to find at least 1 number in the 20's or 30's and I will gladly capitulate. Any takers?
(https://i.postimg.cc/rm3JkCHN/Dallaspostmarks-zpsbitwddlg.jpg)
Also worth a look is the following website which was written by someone who appears either way to be completely unbiased.
http://www.machinecancel.org/forum/ludeman/ludeman.html
JohnM
Thumb1: Thumb1:
-
I've read Stovall's testimony. You're going to have to highlight the part of it where he offers, or even hints, that Oswald could not have just disappeared for 30 minutes, or even longer, without someone noticing. Because I don't see it. All I see is him noting that Oswald never took any days off. He also noted that Oswald was a slacker. He was not very productive at all.
Hi Tim, has it ever been established when the Dallas Post Office in 1963 actually opened?
JohnM
-
Hi Tim, has it ever been established when the Dallas Post Office in 1963 actually opened?
JohnM
Not to my knowledge. It is possible that it opened sometime before 8AM.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkmRKfpf/backofmoneyorderinitial-zpsujp9yqie.jpg)
JohnM
-
anyway considering that Dallas had 35 or so postal zones I never found any corresponding numbers in the twenties or thirties, now of course this is anecdotal and anybody is free to believe what they want but this evidence isn't hard to find and I welcome any doubting Thomas's to find at least 1 number in the 20's or 30's and I will gladly capitulate. Any takers?
Yes, absolutely: here is a postmark made in Dallas showing postal zone 32:
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/johnsonexhibit7.jpg)
As you might notice, this is a WC exhibit of a letter sent from Oswald's post office box in Dallas to an address in New York.
-
Yes, absolutely: here is a postmark made in Dallas showing postal zone 32:
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/johnsonexhibit7.jpg)
As you might notice, this is a WC exhibit of a letter sent from Oswald's post office box in Dallas to an address in New York.
Sorry Michael but that's definitely a "2B". But keep trying and let's see what you can find. K?
(https://i.postimg.cc/P544Q7jc/2-Bornot2-B.jpg)
JohnM
-
Sorry Michael but that's definitely a "2B". But keep trying and let's see what you can find. K?
(https://i.postimg.cc/P544Q7jc/2-Bornot2-B.jpg)
JohnM
Oh my goodness! You're right! I stand corrected. I did not notice that the 2 was not oriented correctly to be the 2 in 32.
-
Oh my goodness! You're right! I stand corrected. I did not notice that the 2 was not oriented correctly to be the 2 in 32.
No worries, it's in my above example, I also considered it could be a 28 but for the "Dallas Tex" stamps the numbers face inwards and the number/letter combinations face outwards.
JohnM
-
You haven't answered my question. You are working under the notion that the money order should have had a bank endorsement stamp on it. How have you determined that it should have had a bank endorsement stamp on it? On the back of the money order you can see "Bank stamps are not regarded as endorsements".
I have seen a cashed USPS money order. You can see it below.
USPS money orders and bank checks were not handled in the same way. A check should get a bank endorsement stamp on it when cashed. USPS money orders did not.
When the Post Office changed the style of money orders in 1951, the postal regulation specified that "the new orders will be handled like checks," as Armstrong has documented (he provides an image of the source page in the postal regulations). Furthermore, has also documented, ALL money orders went to the Federal Reserve System. I'll quote from his article, since you apparently have not read it yet:
Postal money orders have traditionally been manufactured at a printing facility in Washington, DC. On July 1, 1951 the post office announced the introduction of a new style money order (blue tinted color), to be issued on tabulating (punch) cards that can be processed by electronic machinery. During production the new money orders were imprinted with sequential serial numbers and rows of punched rectangular holes (Hollerith computer code) that identified the serial number. With the computer-coded punch holes the new money orders could be sorted with electronic machinery and, according to the post office, handled "like checks." After being deposited or redeemed for cash at a bank or post office, these "pre-punched" money orders were sent to a Federal Reserve Bank (or Branches) and then sent (returned) to one of 12 postal accounting offices throughout the US.
According to the Postal Department, "The new type of orders, whether cashed at post offices or cashed at or deposited with banks, will ultimately be deposited with a Federal Reserve Bank or branch which, after processing the orders, will charge them to the account of the Treasurer of the United States and turn them over to the regional accounting office of the Post Office Department in the Federal Reserve city of the district." (July 1, 1951)( http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/PMO/Money_Orders.html)
The FBI confirmed this fact when it interviewed senior figures at the First Bank of Chicago and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, as I will discuss later on.
As for your argument in another reply that since some postmarks have a number and a letter after the city and state, e.g., 3B, therefore this notation cannot be a postal zone. But you said the number 12 on the envelope to Klein's was the number of the cancelling machine that processed the envelope. So now you're saying that those machines had a mix of two-digit numbers in some cases and one digit and one letter in other cases? Why would those machines be labeled like that? Is it not more logical to suppose that a postal zone could have been administratively (on paper) divided so that zone 3 would be 3A and 3B than to suppose that machines were given two types of identification numbers? Why would a cancelling machine have had the number 3B?
In another reply you also said you see nothing in Robert Stovall's testimony that would suggest it was unlikely that Oswald could have been gone for 30 minutes or more without being noticed. You didn't see where Stovall described the technical nature of the work and said that Oswald was a trainee and that several guys worked "right with him"? Trainees at technical firms usually don't go unsupervised for very long. How about John Graef's WC testimony? Graef was Oswald's trainer at Jaggars-Stovall. Among other things, Graef said Oswald was "very punctual" and did whatever he was asked to do (10 H 180-186).
And I don't see anything in your reply that addresses the problems with the deposit statement that Klein's submitted to the WC.
Take a step back and think about what you are saying: You are saying that "Oswald's" money order was deposited in the First National Bank of Chicago and then processed through the Federal Reserve System but somehow, someway magically avoided receiving a single mark/stamp/notation that it was actually deposited by the bank or that it actually went through the Federal Reserve System. Somehow, someway, according to you, nobody at any of those institutions put a single mark/stamp/notation to document the order's deposit and processing.
You haven't been paying attention to what I have said. I know for a fact that the money order was cashed. And the proof is right on the money order itself. Have you ever seen uncashed USPS money orders from that period? Here is a blue tinted money order of the format that was being fazed out in late 1962 and replaced with Yellow tinted cards in January of 1963:
The bank endorsement would have been on the back of the money order, not the front. This is the front of the money order. Why are you not showing the back of the money order?
Smuckler was a collector. The blue tinted cards were replaced with yellow tinted ones like the one Oswald purchased to pay Klein's with. Tom Scully did some research on this issue and made some discoveries. He can fill you in on those if he reads this post. Here is an uncashed money order from 1963:
Take note of what I've boxed in with green border. Then compare that with the Klein's money order.
What is your point here? I have said nothing about the color of the money order. What does this have to do with anything? The color of the money order does not change the fact that it should have a bank endorsement and a Federal Reserve endorsement on the back to document its receipt by the Federal Reserve.
In the Fall of 2015, Lance Payette found the following PDF and posted it on the ED forum:
Found on page 483 (fifth page of the PDF):
The money order had that file locator number (138 J159796) placed on it by the US Treasury Department in Washington. From there, it went to the federal records retention center in Alexandria, Virginia, where it was found on Nov 23, 1963.
The money passed through the Federal reserve system and reached it's final destination in Alexandria. It never would have done so if it hadn't been cashed.
This is old ground that was covered decades ago, but you do not know this because you have only consulted pro-WC sources. As for the money order's arrival in Alexandria, there is much more to this issue than you seem to be aware. You could start by reading Armstrong's research on the matter:
http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
The FBI interviewed First National Bank of Chicago VP Robert Wilmouth and Lester Gohr of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on this issue, and they explained that the money order would have gone to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago after it had been deposited. Walmouth said it should have gotten to the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank by March 18. See:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=199&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=200&tab=page
To fully understand Wilmouth's statements to the FBI, see:
http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
David Josephs has provided an entire appendix on the processing of money orders (Appendix B):
https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf
Josephs also addresses some of the problems with the story of the money order's "discovery," which I have not even mentioned yet.
This, of course, ties back to the altered handwriting in the existing copies of the order form. The original color copy that I presented earlier was included in PBS's 1988 documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? If Cadigan 3A is a copy of the color original, someone needs to explain why the "A" in "A. Hidell" is clearly, indisputably written differently in the two documents. In the color copy, the "A" is written in cursive, but in Cadigan 3A, it is written in print style. This indicates that somebody faked Oswald's handwriting in a second order form and decided to write the "A" in print style instead of cursive, and a copy of this form became Cadigan 3A.
-
Not to my knowledge. It is possible that it opened sometime before 8AM.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=56967#relPageId=33&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=56967#relPageId=33&tab=page)
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/dallas-post-office-8am.png)
-
Oswald was rather thorough in his fakery.
It would appear that your only evidence Oswald faked his time sheet is that you believe he was buying a money order during that time.
-
The HSCA handwriting experts were unable to render a decision on the note because they only had poor quality photoreproductions of it at their disposal. However, they pretty much dismissed it as fake anyway.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0120a.htm
41) VIII. The signature, "Lee Harvey Oswald," on the Hunt note (item 4-7) does not correspond to the Oswald signatures described under section I [signatures judged to be Oswald's].
.......
(43) From the examinations of item 4-7, it was determined that the signature does not correspond with any of the Oswald signatures of section I. Similarly, the writing does not correspond to that in the section II Oswald documents.
(44) I would like to note, however, that the quality of the original photoreproductions of the Hunt note was poor. Under the best of circumstances, reproductions lack clarity and detail. Here, as can be seen from the copies, the original photoreproduction was out of focus, giving the document a fuzzy appearance. Accurate analysis was difficult. The note is highly suspicious. The original would have to be checked in order to make a more definite analysis and reach a definitive conclusion.
Your attempt to discredit handwriting identification done by real experts has flopped. Handwriting identification is consistently accepted in courts of law. The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's.
The HSCA handwriting experts were unable to render a decision on the note because they only had poor quality photoreproductions of it at their disposal. However, they pretty much dismissed it as fake anyway.
And how does this differ from a photocopy taken from a microfilm of the Klein's order form? I would argue it doesn't, yet there they had no problem claiming the handwriting belonged to Oswald.
The original would have to be checked in order to make a more definite analysis and reach a definitive conclusion.
But they didn't require the original of the Klein's order form to "make a more definite analysis and reach a definitive conclusion"?
Handwriting identification is consistently accepted in courts of law.
I'm not sure what you mean by the word "accepted", but you are correct when you mean that it is allowed to be entered into evidence, so that it can be examined and challenged by the defense and their experts.
If you mean, however, that the word "accepted" means that the court accepts the findings of the handwriting expert as if it were a proven fact, then you are completely wrong.
The mere fact that courts of law accept handwriting identification into evidence is meaningless and does not say anything about the quality of the expert's findings!
The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's.
Really? It seems to me that, at best, you can say that according to the opinion of some experts the handwriting is Oswald's and even that is putting it to strongly, as from my own experience working with real unbiased handwriting experts I know they will never ever say with 100% certainty that the handwriting belongs to a particular person to the exclusion of all others.
-
We have already seen that Oswald’s Jaggars-Stovall timesheet shows he was at work when he supposedly bought the money order. We have also seen that his timesheet required specific job numbers for each print job that he did and how long he took on each print job.
Since lone-gunman theorists cannot tolerate the idea that someone else bought the money order, they speculate that Oswald doctored his timesheet to hide his 30-minute tardiness/absence, even though he had to list job numbers for each print job and had to put how much time he spent on each print job. This speculation seems unlikely on its face, given that Oswald’s job was not some low-skill warehouse job in a seven-story warehouse where you could take off for 30 minutes or more without your absence being noticed.
When we consider the WC testimony of Robert Stovall, one of the owners, and John Graef, Oswald’s trainer at the firm, the argument that he was gone at least 30 minutes and doctored his timesheet to hide it seems to collapse completely.
Mr. STOVALL. We are in the typographic services. We serve advertising agencies, advertising departments, and the graphic arts industry as a middle supplier for type services. We also produce newspaper mats for duplication throughout the United States. (10 H 168)
So this was not some low-skilled job in a seven-story warehouse where you could wander off for a time without anyone noticing.
Mr. STOVALL. You see, we employed him only as a trainee and I think we probably started him at $1.25 or $1.35, or something like that, (10 H 172)
So Oswald was a trainee. Technical companies normally do not leave trainees unattended/unsupervised to the degree that they could leave work for 30 minutes or more, or arrive 30 minutes late, and not be noticed. Trainees are usually watched fairly closely.
Mr. STOVALL. I don’t believe so. There was such a short period of time this fellow worked for us and he was a constant source of irritation because of his lack of productive ability, that. . . .
Mr. JENNER. Would you elaborate on that, please?
Mr. STOVALL. We would ask him to reduce a line to 4 inches in width, that happened to be 6, and he might make it 4 1/4 or 3 7/8, and this was a loss in labor and materials both, and it had to be redone. (10 H 172)
So Oswald irritated others because of his inferior skill at the job. This makes it all more unlikely that he could have skated off for 30 minutes or more without being noticed and reported. When your coworkers don’t like you very much, they won’t be inclined to look the other way if you are gone for at least 30 minutes.
Stovall’s comment here also speaks to Oswald’s known lack of coordination. He was a very smart guy, but he was not very coordinated. Several people who knew him noted this. They also thought it was why he did not drive. Yet, we are supposed to believe that he pulled off a feat of marksmanship that the WC’s NRA Master-rated riflemen did not even come close to duplicating.
Mr. STOVALL. I think he must have been reserved, because the fellows who worked right with him, no one seems to have had any particular conversation with him. One guy invited him to go to church and he had such an unpleasant reception to it that that was the end of that.
Mr. JENNER. What incident was that? Tell us about that.
Mr. STOVALL. Well, the fellow asked him what his religion was, and he asked him if he would like to go to church and I don’t know what he said, but that was the end of that. (10 H 173)
So there were employees who “worked right with him.” Not just one, but several—“the fellows.” They worked in his immediate area/proximity. This makes it extremely unlikely that he could have been gone for 30 minutes or more, or arrived 30 minutes late, without being noticed, especially given that the fellows who “worked right with him” did not particularly like him.
Now let us turn to the WC testimony of John Graef, who worked with and trained Oswald at Jaggars-Stovall:
Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, he worked directly with you or under you or under your supervision and direction?
Mr. GRAEF. That’s correct--that’s correct. He was with me a great part of the time. Of course, there are various times when I couldn’t be with him, but for the better part of the first 3 or 4 months of his employment-he worked for us approximately 6 months. (10 H 184)
So Graef was with Oswald “a great part of the time.” And then we learn that Oswald was “punctual” and that his work habits were “satisfactory”:
Mr. JENNER. Was he regular in his arrival at work?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Were his work habits in that connection satisfactory?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes. I would say he was very punctual in his arrival to work. He began working under me and I began the process of teaching him how to use our equipment. (10 H 184)
So Oswald was “very punctual” in arriving to work. Graef would not have said this if Oswald had been gone 30 minutes or arrived 30 minutes late one day. Given what we know about Oswald's work environment, it seems impossible that he could done this without anyone noticing.
We find out more about the fact that Oswald’s job was a technical job that required considerable training:
Mr. JENNER. Tell us what you taught him and how you attempted to train him and in what, and give me also, when you are doing that, his skills and aptitudes, as you recall them at the beginning?
Mr. GRAEF. Well, as I have explained, the most we hope for in a person is that perhaps any past skills they have will help them in learning our work, but basically our work is so different that there is no experienced help, and everyone who comes into the department is automatically a trainee.
Mr. JENNER. And he fell into that category?
Mr. GRUF. That’s correct. All our cameras are different from the ordinary cameras you find in commercial printing shops or printing establishments.
Mr. JENNER. Are these portable cameras or fixed cameras?
Mr. GRAEF. No, fixed cameras--dark room cameras. (10 H 184)
That’s not the kind of job that you can skip out for half an hour or more, or show up half an hour late, without your absence being noticed, especially when your trainer is with you “a great part of the time.”
Graef elaborated on the kind of training that Oswald received and how he performed. Graef explained that Oswald tried hard but just could not master the harder, more technical tasks:
Mr. GRAEF. Distortion work; yes. Now, the time that it took to bring him up to this point may have been 2 or 3 months, at any rate. It was at this time that we began, or he began to make a few mistakes on sizing. He would take a job back and it might be that his orders were to make it 4 inches wide and when the final print came up it might be 4ya inches wide or 41/s inches wide and this would have to be done over.
Mr. JENNER. Now, as much a difference as one-eighth of an inch on sizing as against an order for, let’s say, exactly 4 inches or for one-eighth of an inch, as the case might be, would make that particular work unusable?
Mr. GRAEF. Correct.
Mr. JENNER. This has to be exactitude?
Mr. GRAEF. Right. This didn’t mean that every job was wrong, but little by little as the days passed and we got into--we’ll say--into the fourth and fifth month of his employment, more and more he was being relied upon to produce this exact work and there were too many times-it was his mistakes were above normal-he was making too many mistakes. Of course, we helped him as much as we could to do a better job.
Mr. JENNER. Was it your impression along about this area that the errors were ones of lack of skill, or do you have a recollection now of any attributing on your part of those errors to lack of interest, lack of industry, dissatisfaction with the position-would you give me your impression in this connection, please?
Mr. GRAEF. Well, my impression of his mistakes were somehow that he just couldn’t manage to avoid them. It wasn’t that he lacked industry or didn’t try. Whenever he was asked to do a job over, he would do it willingly for me, with no--he would be more perturbed at himself that he had made an error, so I think he just couldn’t--he somehow couldn’t manage to handle work that was that exact. It wasn’t that he wasn’t trying or didn’t work hard to do the job, but somehow he just couldn’t make it, and now, like I said, it wasn’t every job that this happened, but it was too frequent to allow. There were too many times that these things had to be made over and they added to the final reason for dismissing him. (10 H 186-187)
-
'WC’s NRA Master-rated riflemen'
You seem to have a fondness for puffing up people's credentials. So I guess that means these these master-rated riflemen were somebodies, huh. Seems Oswald wanted to be a somebody as well. And he had bigger fish to fry than dummy targets; and didn't have to match somebody else's time.
'Oswald was “very punctual”
Kennedy would agree with that..
-
It would appear that your only evidence Oswald faked his time sheet is that you believe he was buying a money order during that time.
Huh? The money order written in Oswald's handwriting is most definitely evidence.
(https://i.imgur.com/jVl3GQF.jpg)
For comparison purposes the HSCA acquired a number of documents written by Oswald.
Mr. KLEIN - At this time would you please be seated, Mr McNally. I would now direct your attention to exhibit JFK F-504, which is a microfilm reproduction of an order form to Klein's Sporting Goods Co. for a rifle, plus the envelope in which the order form was sent; and JFK F-509, which is a money order made out to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., both of which documents have the name Hidell on them.
Mr. MCNALLY - I have both of them.
Mr. KLEIN - JFK F-504 and F-509; do you recognize those documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - I do.
Mr. KLEIN - Did the entire panel have an opportunity to examine those documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - They did.
Mr. KLEIN - Did the panel reach a conclusion with respect to those documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - They did.
Mr. KLEIN - What was that conclusion?
Mr. MCNALLY - That JFK exhibit F-504 and F-509 were written by the same person, again with the caveat. JFK exhibit F-504 is a photo reproduction of a microfilm.
Mr. KLEIN - The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?
Mr. MCNALLY - It was; yes.
Mr. KLEIN - And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - That is right.
And perhaps you missed my previous post that there is rock solid evidence that Oswald had a history of leaving work without permission.
Lee Harvey Oswald became employed by William B. Reily Company, Inc. as a greaser and oiler maintenance man on May 10, 1963. His employment terminated on July 19, 1963. During the latter portion of his employment, I served as his immediate supervisor. As his supervisor I was aware of Oswald's performance or lack thereof of his duties.
There were occasions from time to time when I was unable to locate Oswald in and about the premises and learned that he was in the habit of absenting himself from the premises without leave and visiting a service station establishment adjacent to the Reily Coffee Company known as Alba's Crescent City Garage.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/barbe.htm
Mr. BALL - Did you know Lee Oswald?
Mr. SHELLEY - He worked for me.
...
Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the President was shot tell Oswald to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
JohnM
-
Huh? The money order written in Oswald's handwriting is most definitely evidence.
Evidence of him faking his time sheet? I don't think so.
And perhaps you missed my previous post that there is rock solid evidence that Oswald had a history of leaving work without permission.
Tells you nothing about whether he was able to leave J-C-S without being noticed. And it's very arguable that he necessarily left the TSBD without permission. He could have overheard Shelley dismissing employees without being told face-to-face.
-
That’s not the kind of job that you can skip out for half an hour or more, or show up half an hour late,
"half an hour or more"?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Post Office was half a mile from Jaggars and according to google maps at average walking speed this distance could comfortably be completed in 11 minutes and considering Oswald knew he had to be at work very soon, Oswald would have been at the Post Office register at precisely 8 AM and let's be generous and say that it takes 4 minutes to buy and fill in 10 words on the Money Order which leaves us with a maximum time of 15 minutes but being realistic this time would likely be about 10 minutes and who hasn't been ten-fifteen minutes late for work and blamed it on a bus, traffic or whatever. As long as the job gets done, nobody in my experience would be that upset to dock you the 10-15 minutes.
Mr. JENNER. You are president of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, 525 Browder, here in Dallas, is that right?
Mr. STOVALL. Right.
The U.S. Post Office and Courthouse is an historic post office and courthouse building located at 400 North Ervay Street in the City Center District of downtown Dallas, Texas (USA).
(https://i.postimg.cc/nzZnHWXH/postofficetojaggars.jpg)
JohnM
-
And it's very arguable that he necessarily left the TSBD without permission. He could have overheard Shelley dismissing employees without being told face-to-face.
Who did Shelley dismiss and at what time?
JohnM
-
The 10-digit number on the front of the money order does not prove it was cashed and does not prove it was processed through the Federal Reserve System. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I am going to take the liberty of quoting from one of David Josephs' replies to David Von Pein on this issue:
What DVP here fails to mention is the 4 different reports of finding this Money Order .... and that it would have been the TREASURY who had the tape created by these punch cards. The TAPE which connects the serial number to the FILE LOCATOR NUMBER.
Following encashment of a check by the payee, it is deposited sooner or later in a commercial bank. The bank will honor the check after proper examination and then will apply to its cognizant Federal Reserve Bank for the reimbursement, which usually takes the form of a credit to the bank's reserve account. The Federal Reserve Bank then applies to the Treasurer of the United States for reimbursement of the amount which it has credited to the commercial bank. When the Treasurer has electronically examined the check to determine that it bears an authorized disbursing officer's symbol and serial number and that there is not a stop-payment notice against it, the check is considered "paid." Checks are received in batches of about 1,000 checks, accompanied by detailed listings.
One of these 4 brings us to the USPS National Records center in Maryland where the Money Order was supposedly retrieved by Robert Jackson and given to J. Harold Marks who in turn gives it to Secret Service SA PARKER at 10:10pm.
Problem being, Dave, the Fed Records Center is not the US Treasury. the FILE LOCATOR NUMBER appears to only be used by the Treasury. At what point that day does the SS/FBI/USPS acquire this file locator number?
Why is it not until that night that "computers" were turned on at the Fed Records Center by Secret Service "Recording" Agent BURKE claiming it would be 15 mins for the computer to warm up so they could find the PMO.
DAVE - What info would they be feeding into that system and from where did they get it? According to WCD87 p118 SS Asst Chief Paterni asks SAIC GAIGLEIN to find the PMO and is given the serial number, March 12, $21.45, KLEINS and HIDELL.
About that same time Postal Inspector KNIGHT tells SS SA GRIFFITHS the PMO would be sent to Kansas City and the PIs there are already looking.
at 8:55pm EST, 70 minutes before it is actually found, SS SA GRIFFITHS learns the original PMO has been recovered "By Postal Inspectors" and is on the way to Asst Chief of the SS PATERNI.
You see Dave... there being a file locator is nice - if a PMO was forged we'd expect to see the number... if the PMO was NOT forged... we'd expect to see the MO STUB which remains attached to the MO BOOK. Neither of which are in evidence and would have looked like this before being detached... The stub on the far right would still be in the book even if Oswald lost his copy of the receipt - yet given that Oswald kept EVERYTHING, kinda strange this stub was not among his belongings...
5912320373514_LHOMoneyorderincolorwithsignaturecomparisonsandwhatthestublookslike.thumb.jpg.c057888cfaa41f0be9bff81c0e961717.jpg
This thread deals with the required processing marks on the back of this PMO. The STAMP placing "50 91144" is the KLEIN STAMP for depositing checks... Once it hits the 1st Nat'l of Chicago, it and the Federal Reserve Bank will process this check so the USPS can transfer the money to the correct bank.
=================================================================================
1. The Bank, now the new Payee, forwards the PMO to their affiliated Federal Reserve Bank for reimbursement of funds and processing USPS Fed Res Sys process
a. All money orders are forwarded through the Federal Reserve Banking System, to which commercial banks have access
i. For this standard: Money order means a U.S. Postal Money Order.
b. The postmaster general has the usual right of a drawee to examine money orders presented for payment by banks through the Federal Reserve System and to refuse payment of money orders, and has a reasonable time after presentation to make each examination. Provisional credit is given to the Federal Reserve Bank when it furnishes the money orders for payment by the postmaster general. Money orders are deemed paid only after examination is completed, subject to the postmaster general’s right to make reclamation under 3.4.
c. The presenting bank and the endorser of a money order presented for payment are deemed to guarantee to the postmaster general that all prior endorsements are genuine, whether an express guarantee to that effect is placed on the money order. When an endorsement is made by a person other than the payee personally, the presenting bank and the endorser are deemed to guarantee to the postmaster general, in addition to other warranties, that the person who so endorsed had capacity and authority to endorse the money order for the payee.
d. The postmaster general has the right to demand refund from the presenting bank of the amount of a paid money order if, after payment, the money order is found to be stolen, or to have a forged or unauthorized endorsement, or to contain any material defect or alteration not discovered on examination. Such right includes, but is not limited to, the right to make reclamation of the amount by which a genuine money order with a proper and authorized endorsement has been raised. Such right must be exercised within a reasonable time after the postmaster general discovers that the money order is stolen, bears a forged or unauthorized endorsement, or is otherwise defective. If refund is not made by the presenting bank within 60 days after demand, the postmaster general takes such actions as may be necessary to protect the interests of the United States.
2. The Federal Reserve Bank will record the transaction and also include markings on the back of the PMO in accordance to their batch processing rules.
a. Today, the Federal Reserve Banking System (FRBS) processes everything electronically yet fairly recently the paper products themselves were sent through Batch Processing machines. Section 7040 of Chapter 7000 of the “Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders” tells us:
i. Section 7040 -Processing Fit Money Orders
7030.25 -Fit Money Order. A money order that can be completely processed on high speed processing equipment.
· Batching and Listing Fit Money Orders. Paper money orders are MICR printed with the routing code (including a routing number of 0000-0020 or 000000204) and the serial number with check digit. The routing number is also preprinted in the upper right corner on the form, which is in the location and front as prescribed by the ABA.
FRBs will process FIT money orders as follows:
· Receive money orders from banks and process on high speed equipment in the manner most compatible with the processing of other categories of cash items.
Prepare batches of no more than 500 items.
· Insert (in numerical sequence) USPS batch Locator Control Documents so that one is filed at the beginning of each batch of money orders to be read.
· Create a paper-tape list of serial numbers with optional check digit and amount of each money order read. The list will show the batch number and a subtotal for each batch with an overall total of all money orders listed on the paper tape.
· The total amount of fit items should be entered on PS Form 1901, code 100.
· Money orders bearing unreadable MICR characters in the on-us field are not to be rejected and handled as mutilated. List the characters that can be read on the paper tape as a reconcilement aid.
ii. Section 7040 & 7050 (Manual process)
· 7050.20 -Insert a USPS Batch Locator Control Document at the beginning of each batch of mutilated money orders.
· 7050.30 -Prepare an adding machine listing of each batch showing the following information:
a. FRB name or code at the top.
b. The amount of each item.
c. The total amount of the batch.
d. FRB clearance date.
e. Batch number
iii. Section 7070 - Processing Old Style Money Orders
· "Punch card" money orders that have the ABA routing number 0000-0119 will be handled as mutilated items. They should be identified as old style "punch card" money orders on the PS Form 1901 for code 004
=====================================
Notice the "punch card" of these OLD STYLE PMOs. Why doesn't the Fed for Chicago have a record as well as the PMO exhibiting their markings?
And finally - one of the stories offered is from Harry Holmes who claims the STUB was found since one of the 3 copies of the PMO is the receipt retained by the USPS.. The ORIGINAL PMO would have looked kinda like this before the left 2 copies are torn from the book and given to the customer...
Dave - where is the book with the stub proving that PMO was EVER real? It doesn't exist buddy... for Holmes' story was a complete crock of sh!t as we all now know.
5912320373514_LHOMoneyorderincolorwithsignaturecomparisonsandwhatthestublookslike.thumb.jpg.c057888cfaa41f0be9bff81c0e961717.jpg
So while you may have found something on this faked piece of evidence which does correlate to the real world - connecting it to that real world is not something you ever seem able to do. You like to pick one and only one thing and hammer it relentlessly. It's a tactic so you don't have to deal with all the other items of evidence supporting the creation of that item of evidence.
Why too would the HSCA "handwriting experts" be given a photocopy of this critical item when it is the only item the expressly connects Oswald to Hidell to the rifle?
Not only was the PMO offered a XEROX, but one of the experts goes on to explain how copy/paste/rephoto is one of the key ways to create a fraudulent document.
ITEM #29. March 12, 1963. U.S. postal money order No. 2,202,130,462 bearing handwritten fill-ins as follows: Klein's Sporting Goods, A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915. Dallas, Tex. Blue ink, ballpoint pen. Location: Archives. (CE 788; JFK exhibit F-509A and 509B.) Note: Item #29 is acknowledged as a XEROX COPY made from the microfilm copy.
From the HSCA Experts report itself:
Limitations on the examination (71) Five items of evidence were not examined in the original, but were copies. Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison. At best, they do not produce as sharp an image as a properly produced photograph, and they lack tonal gradations, a result of the contrasting process of reproduction. In addition, it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method. (72) Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made. (73) Because of problems with the following documents, no definite opinion can be rendered: (74) Item 18, a halftone copy of a photograph of the original document. This is at least a third generation copy and is not suitable for comparison. (A halftone copy consists of very small dots and not continuous lines.) (75) Item 29 was a Xerox copy made from a microfilm copy. Such a second generation copy has the defects of both processes. (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22439-yes-postal-money-orders-do-require-bank-endorsements/?do=findComment&comment=352787)
-
The 10-digit number on the front of the money order does not prove it was cashed and does not prove it was processed through the Federal Reserve System. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I am going to take the liberty of quoting from one of David Josephs' replies to David Von Pein on this issue:
The money order was located in the archives and has a clear chain of custody and as I've previously stated, the easiest and least complicated way to create a transaction was to simply buy a money order and order the rifle through the standard channels because inventing each part of the process is simply absurd.
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkmRKfpf/backofmoneyorderinitial-zpsujp9yqie.jpg)
JohnM
-
The money order was located in the archives and has a clear chain of custody and as I've previously stated, the easiest and least complicated way to create a transaction was to simply buy a money order and order the rifle through the standard channels because inventing each part of the process is simply absurd.
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkmRKfpf/backofmoneyorderinitial-zpsujp9yqie.jpg)
JohnM
Great, now all you need to do is link that money order to a specific transaction at Klein's
Can you do that?
-
When were the employees told to go home? Indeterminate.
Roy Lewis: "Following the assassination, all employees were dismissed from work, and I left the building about 1:15 P.M."
Gloria Holt, Stella Jacob: "Following the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy I tried to return to work in the Texas School Book Depository but was told by other employees that no one would be allowed in the building so I did not return to work that day."
Virginia Barnum: "When I returned to the building at 12:40 P.M. I was not permitted to enter, and consequently went home."
Buell Frazier: "I left the Texas School Book Depository Building sometime between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM on November 22, 1963, and went directly home."
Carol Hughes: "I remained in my office until about 1:30 P .M . when I left for the day and went home."
Eddie Piper: "That afternoon about 2:00 PM we were told the building was to be closed and we could go home. I got my hat and coat and left for home a few minutes after this time."
Karen Westbrook: "I left my office for the day at about 1:30 PM and went home."
-
When the Post Office changed the style of money orders in 1951, the postal regulation specified that "the new orders will be handled like checks," as Armstrong has documented (he provides an image of the source page in the postal regulations). Furthermore, has also documented, ALL money orders went to the Federal Reserve System. I'll quote from his article, since you apparently have not read it yet:
That's from 1951 and we don't know what they meant exactly by "handled like checks". One thing is for certain is that in 1963 money orders were not handled exactly like checks. Checks should have received bank endorsement stamps after being cashed. USPS money orders did not. Bank stamps on USPS money orders were not regarded as endorsements. It's right there on the back of the Klein's money order. See for yourself.
(https://i.imgur.com/sLw32JI.png)
The FBI confirmed this fact when it interviewed senior figures at the First Bank of Chicago and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, as I will discuss later on.
Yes, the money order passed through the Federal Reserve Banking system. I already noted that. So why are you telling it to me if as I don't already know? The money order passed through the Federal Reserve Banking system and reached the US Treasury Dept. where it received a File Locator number. It would not have done so if it had not been cashed.
As for your argument in another reply that since some postmarks have a number and a letter after the city and state, e.g., 3B, therefore this notation cannot be a postal zone. But you said the number 12 on the envelope to Klein's was the number of the cancelling machine that processed the envelope. So now you're saying that those machines had a mix of two-digit numbers in some cases and one digit and one letter in other cases? Why would those machines be labeled like that? Is it not more logical to suppose that a postal zone could have been administratively (on paper) divided so that zone 3 would be 3A and 3B than to suppose that machines were given two types of identification numbers? Why would a cancelling machine have had the number 3B?
I don't know why some canceling machines had a number and a letter, but they did. And they continued to do so throughout the 1960s and beyond.
In another reply you also said you see nothing in Robert Stovall's testimony that would suggest it was unlikely that Oswald could have been gone for 30 minutes or more without being noticed. You didn't see where Stovall described the technical nature of the work and said that Oswald was a trainee and that several guys worked "right with him"? Trainees at technical firms usually don't go unsupervised for very long. How about John Graef's WC testimony? Graef was Oswald's trainer at Jaggars-Stovall. Among other things, Graef said Oswald was "very punctual" and did whatever he was asked to do (10 H 180-186).
Yes , Oswald was punctual and always showed up for work. However, there's nothing in Stovall's or Graef's WC testimonies that says that Oswald was watched over at all times or even much at all. Oswald was described as being a slacker. How does one be a slacker while be supervised at all times?
And I don't see anything in your reply that addresses the problems with the deposit statement that Klein's submitted to the WC.
That's because you don't give my posts proper attention. Go back and read my post again.
Take a step back and think about what you are saying: You are saying that "Oswald's" money order was deposited in the First National Bank of Chicago and then processed through the Federal Reserve System but somehow, someway magically avoided receiving a single mark/stamp/notation that it was actually deposited by the bank or that it actually went through the Federal Reserve System. Somehow, someway, according to you, nobody at any of those institutions put a single mark/stamp/notation to document the order's deposit and processing.[/size]
Yup. That's exactly what I'm saying.
What is your point here? I have said nothing about the color of the money order. What does this have to do with anything? The color of the money order does not change the fact that it should have a bank endorsement and a Federal Reserve endorsement on the back to document its receipt by the Federal Reserve.
I wasn't trying to make a point by posting the image of the blue-tinted money order. I was just offering extra information, that's all.
This is old ground that was covered decades ago, but you do not know this because you have only consulted pro-WC sources. As for the money order's arrival in Alexandria, there is much more to this issue than you seem to be aware. You could start by reading Armstrong's research on the matter:
http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
This wasn't really covered until 2015, when it was settled in favor of the money order being cashed. You have been out of the loop. You are now just regurgitating slop that Armstrong feeds you. I don't need to read anything from Armstrong or David Josephs. I've already seen it all before. Neither Armstrong nor Josephs knew what that ten digit number on the MO stood for until Lance Payette informed them in the Fall of 2015.
The FBI interviewed First National Bank of Chicago VP Robert Wilmouth and Lester Gohr of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on this issue, and they explained that the money order would have gone to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago after it had been deposited. Walmouth said it should have gotten to the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank by March 18. See:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=199&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=200&tab=page
To fully understand Wilmouth's statements to the FBI, see:
http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
Again, you're just repeating something that I already told you myself. The money order passed through the Federal reserve system and reached it's final destination in Alexandria. It never would have done so if it hadn't been cashed.
David Josephs has provided an entire appendix on the processing of money orders (Appendix B):
https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf
Josephs also addresses some of the problems with the story of the money order's "discovery," which I have not even mentioned yet.
David Josephs is as nutty as Armstrong, if not moreso. He has argued that one of the people who was involved in the discovery of the money order in Alexandria was not a real person. That is, that he never existed. His muddled thinking is headache material. He sees conspiracy around every corner.
This, of course, ties back to the altered handwriting in the existing copies of the order form. The original color copy that I presented earlier was included in PBS's 1988 documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? If Cadigan 3A is a copy of the color original, someone needs to explain why the "A" in "A. Hidell" is clearly, indisputably written differently in the two documents. In the color copy, the "A" is written in cursive, but in Cadigan 3A, it is written in print style. This indicates that somebody faked Oswald's handwriting in a second order form and decided to write the "A" in print style instead of cursive, and a copy of this form became Cadigan 3A.
And another example of you not paying attention to what I say. My patience with you is running thin. The color copy that you posted earlier is a fake. The color original was destroyed by Klein's. They kept all of their records on microfilm. Neither Cadigan nor Cole, or any other investigator ever saw the original.
-
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=56967#relPageId=33&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=56967#relPageId=33&tab=page)
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/dallas-post-office-8am.png)
Thumb1:
-
The HSCA handwriting experts were unable to render a decision on the note because they only had poor quality photoreproductions of it at their disposal. However, they pretty much dismissed it as fake anyway.
And how does this differ from a photocopy taken from a microfilm of the Klein's order form? I would argue it doesn't, yet there they had no problem claiming the handwriting belonged to Oswald.
The difference being is that none of the examiners described the microfilm of the Klein's order form as being of poor quality.
The original would have to be checked in order to make a more definite analysis and reach a definitive conclusion.
But they didn't require the original of the Klein's order form to "make a more definite analysis and reach a definitive conclusion"?
We have gone over this before. With photocopies, examiners usually will only offer qualified opinions. Although, I don't believe that Cadigan or Cole did so.
Handwriting identification is consistently accepted in courts of law.
I'm not sure what you mean by the word "accepted", but you are correct when you mean that it is allowed to be entered into evidence, so that it can be examined and challenged by the defense and their experts.
If you mean, however, that the word "accepted" means that the court accepts the findings of the handwriting expert as if it were a proven fact, then you are completely wrong.
The mere fact that courts of law accept handwriting identification into evidence is meaningless and does not say anything about the quality of the expert's findings!
The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's.
Really? It seems to me that, at best, you can say that according to the opinion of some experts the handwriting is Oswald's and even that is putting it to strongly, as from my own experience working with real unbiased handwriting experts I know they will never ever say with 100% certainty that the handwriting belongs to a particular person to the exclusion of all others.
Accepted into courts of law as evidence. If a defense wanted to try and challenge it with experts of their own then they would certainly be allowed to. As it stands though, the established authorship of the money order has never been challenged by any expert in handwriting identification. The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's.
-
The 10-digit number on the front of the money order does not prove it was cashed and does not prove it was processed through the Federal Reserve System. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I am going to take the liberty of quoting from one of David Josephs' replies to David Von Pein on this issue:
(https://i.imgur.com/kOFOzoP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/jVl3GQF.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rPwa5ZS.png)
The 10-digit number on the top of the money order proves it was cashed.
-
The difference being is that none of the examiners described the microfilm of the Klein's order form as being of poor quality.
A photocopy made from a micro film is by definition a poor quality copy.
We have gone over this before. With photocopies, examiners usually will only offer qualified opinions. Although, I don't believe that Cadigan or Cole did so.
The experts I have worked with in the past will always qualify their opinion. And some would not even acccept a photocopy as a questioned document for the simple reason that photocopies can easily be manipulated. The mere fact that the "experts" in thise case did not qualify their opinions at all, makes their opinions questionable
Accepted into courts of law as evidence.
As long as a piece of evidence has some connection to the case, it will normally be allowed in by the Judge. That itself says nothing about the quality and/veracity of that evidence.
If a defense wanted to try and challenge it with experts of their own then they would certainly be allowed to. As it stands though, the established authorship of the money order has never been challenged by any expert in handwriting identification.
As it stands no defense lawyer or even an independent expert has never been allowed to examine the document and/or the handwriting. With this in mind, to claim that "the established authorship of the money order has never been challenged by any expert" is utterly meaningless.
Since when is the legal standard: "The prosecutor has this evidence, we're not going to let you examine it and by the way your are found guilty because the prosecutor's evidence was never challenged"?
The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's.
That's just asinine disingenuous.
-
...has it ever been established when the Dallas Post Office in 1963 actually opened?
I will take that one...The Main Post Office was open 24 hrs for mail sorting operations. The windows opened at 8 AM for things like purchases--- [stamps...money orders] and package pick up.
Packages were kept in a big cage room for security purposes and only the window tellers had the key to open it.
Customers may have a pick up package card placed in their PO Box but the pick up during business hours [8Am-5PM] are stated so.
-
Carl Day didn’t photograph the alleged print, or cover it with cellophane like he did with the others, even though he had time to do so. He was told to turn over all the evidence to Vince Drain, but didn’t turn this over or even notify Drain of its existence. Day claimed that there were still traces left on the rifle. Latona didn’t learn of the existence of this print until Nov. 29 when it arrived on an index card, sent separately from anything else. Latona found no traces of the print or even any indication that the area had been processed. Hoover claimed that 5 spots on the lift were matched to “pits” on the rifle, but all we have is a smudge with lines drawn on it, nor is there any documentation or report from who did the match and how it was done. Or even any communication with Day as to exactly where the lift was taken to see if they were “matching” to the same spot. Drain told Henry Hurt that he didn’t think it was legitimate.
ROTFLMAO!!.... Watta gullible sucker!!
-
A photocopy made from a micro film is by definition a poor quality copy.
The experts I have worked with in the past will always qualify their opinion. And some would not even acccept a photocopy as a questioned document for the simple reason that photocopies can easily be manipulated. The mere fact that the "experts" in thise case did not qualify their opinions at all, makes their opinions questionable
As long as a piece of evidence has some connection to the case, it will normally be allowed in by the Judge. That itself says nothing about the quality and/veracity of that evidence.
As it stands no defense lawyer or even an independent expert has never been allowed to examine the document and/or the handwriting. With this in mind, to claim that "the established authorship of the money order has never been challenged by any expert" is utterly meaningless.
Since when is the legal standard: "The prosecutor has this evidence, we're not going to let you examine it and by the way your are found guilty because the prosecutor's evidence was never challenged"?
That's just asinine disingenuous.
CE 773 is a photograph, not a photocopy. It was developed off of a negative from Klein's roll of microfilm. Cadigan, Cole, McNally, and Scott all had that photograph at their disposal and they all concluded that the handwriting on the envelope and the order coupon was that of Oswald's.
"The committee asked the president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners for recommendations on the leading experts in the field of questioned document examination, specifically handwritten documents. The committee then asked each of the people he recommended for their suggestions. Three names appeared consistently. After ascertaining that none had had a prior connection with the FBI or the Kennedy case, the committee requested that they undertake and examination of various documents. The panel members, all of whom belong to the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, were Joseph P. McNally, David J. Purtell, and Charles C. Scott."
There are your three independent experts.
-
CE 773 is a photograph, not a photocopy. It was developed off of a negative from Klein's roll of microfilm. Cadigan, Cole, McNally, and Scott all had that photograph at their disposal and they all concluded that the handwriting on the envelope and the order coupon was that of Oswald's.
"The committee asked the president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners for recommendations on the leading experts in the field of questioned document examination, specifically handwritten documents. The committee then asked each of the people he recommended for their suggestions. Three names appeared consistently. After ascertaining that none had had a prior connection with the FBI or the Kennedy case, the committee requested that they undertake and examination of various documents. The panel members, all of whom belong to the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, were Joseph P. McNally, David J. Purtell, and Charles C. Scott."
There are your three independent experts.
CE 773 is a photograph, not a photocopy. It was developed off of a negative from Klein's roll of microfilm.
Makes no difference. A microfilm is already a photocopy.
Cadigan, Cole, McNally, and Scott all had that photograph at their disposal and they all concluded that the handwriting on the envelope and the order coupon was that of Oswald's.
Again, handwriting examination isn't an exact science. All you've got is opinions.
There are your three independent experts.
Really? Remind me.... Who were they working for again? And what documents did they examine precisely?
-
CE 773 is a photograph, not a photocopy. It was developed off of a negative from Klein's roll of microfilm.
Makes no difference. A microfilm is already a photocopy.
Is not.
b]Cadigan, Cole, McNally, and Scott all had that photograph at their disposal and they all concluded that the handwriting on the envelope and the order coupon was that of Oswald's.[/b]
Again, handwriting examination isn't an exact science. All you've got is opinions.
Handwriting identification is a forensic science and it is recognized as such by courts of law.
There are your three independent experts.
Really? Remind me.... Who were they working for again? And what documents did they examine precisely?
They were hired by the HSCA as independent experts. The items that were made available for them to examine can be found in their report (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0114a.htm).
-
Yes, absolutely: here is a postmark made in Dallas showing postal zone 32: (https://miketgriffith.com/files/johnsonexhibit7.jpg)
It just might be the postal zone --would make sense.
[Dallas 32, Tex back then] now 75232 was Oswald's neighborhood coincidentally.
I looked around a bit and saw Dallas. Texas. 5 [would be maybe the Highland Park zone] here---
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/DPoAAOSwTs9d8nTv/s-l500.jpg)
Here is a Dallas Texas 7 post mark...would be 75207 perhaps? The Riverfront area---
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/MM4AAOSwi0BfCxs7/s-l500.jpg)
A lot of 50's and 60's Dallas post marks don't have any zips, zones or extra numbers.
And then some others [I could not copy] do have 1A or 1B. Who knows what that means?
But it actually should be written Dallas 32, Texas to mean a zone. It could be [as mentioned] a 2B upside down-- terrible printing though.
Currently, all mail cancellations are made up near Coppell Tx [DFW airport] and zips are not even used anymore.
-
Here is a simple question that has not been asked yet: When Lt. Day gave Agent Drain the rifle on the night of 11/22, why didn't he hand over the palmprint lift?
For that matter, why didn't Lt. Day even tell Drain about the palmprint? Day claimed that he did, but Drain insisted that Day never said a word about the palmprint or else he would have informed FBI HQ about it when he arrived there a few hours later with the rifle. (I hope no one will cite the very belated tale told by one of Day's Dallas law enforcement buddies that Drain "wasn't paying attention" when Day supposedly told him about the palmprint.)
This explains why the FBI's Sebastian Latona told the WC that as of 11/23, he had heard nothing about a palmprint being found on the rifle.
Interestingly, in 1978, FBI agent Ben Harrison told Gary Mack that he took the alleged murder rifle to the Miller Funeral Home when FBI agents took fingerprints and palmprints from Oswald's body. He said his understanding was that Oswald's palmprint was to be placed on the rifle "for comparison purposes."
-
He said his understanding was that Oswald's palmprint was to be placed on the rifle "for comparison purposes."
In 1978, the HSCA requested to see this “lift”, seeing it was part of the evidence Drain takes again on the 26th. Yet again, we have Day stating all the evidence was taken the 22nd. This palmprint cannot be found—the official reason states:(https://kennedysandking.com/images/2020/josephs-capa/CAPA_54.png) It appears to have been be lost by the FBI.
Stanley...How can you be so careless?
-
Is not.
Handwriting identification is a forensic science and it is recognized as such by courts of law.
They were hired by the HSCA as independent experts. The items that were made available for them to examine can be found in their report (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0114a.htm).
Is not.
Tim, really? ....It's either an original or it's a copy. Are you really arguing that a microfilm reproduction of a document is an original? You must be, if you disagree that a microfilm is a copy. That's just silly.
Handwriting identification is a forensic science and it is recognized as such by courts of law.
Another meaningless statement intended to give handwriting identification more scientific merit than it actually has. All handwriting experts can provide is a qualified opinion.
They were hired by the HSCA as independent experts. The items that were made available for them to examine can be found in their report (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0114a.htm).
Great, and how can we be sure that the items that were made available to them for examination were authentic? Which of those documents were used as the known standard and how were they conclusively determined to be exactly that?
Btw, you might want to have a closer look at the summary of conclusions in their report. It provides you with a perfect example of a qualified opinion.
(27) With the restrictions and reservations stated in each panel member's final report, * the members conclude, generally, that the signatures and handwriting purported to be by Oswald are consistently that of one person.
-
Notice that the amount on the deposit slip ($13,827.98) is the exact amount to the penny as that of the itemized deposit document dated March 13, 1963. How would you explain that?
You mean the itemized deposit document that just has "13,827.98" handwritten off to the side but is not reflected in the actual printout?
-
CE 773 is a photograph, not a photocopy. It was developed off of a negative from Klein's roll of microfilm. Cadigan, Cole, McNally, and Scott all had that photograph at their disposal and they all concluded that the handwriting on the envelope and the order coupon was that of Oswald's.
Charles Scott:
"The envelope addressed to Kleins (item 30) was available only in the form of a microfilm enlargement. This is even less satisfactory than a photocopy as a basis for an opinion on handwriting."
-
Gentlemen,
I have a question regarding the authenticity of the backyard photographs. Marina testified she took the photos on the instructions of, and aided by, her husband. But since she has credibility issues, many people believe she lied about this, as she did on many other occasions, because she was threatened with deportation back to the USSR. This was in 1963-1964.
Yesterday I watched an interview with Marina Oswald-Porter as she is now known - apparently she remarried. In it, she told reporter Jack Anderson that she took the backyard photos. The interview was done in 1988. In a conversation she had with Governor Jesse Ventura for his tv program Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura she reaffirmed this statement, although not directly on camera. Unfortunately I can't find the segment no more and am therefore unable to determine the year it was broadcast, but it was well after the 1988 Jack Anderson program.
So is she still lying? What possible reason could she have? She has reversed many of her past (1963-64) statements and has not been deported as far as I know.
Thanks in advance for your considered reply
-
Gentlemen,
I have a question regarding the authenticity of the backyard photographs. Marina testified she took the photos on the instructions of, and aided by, her husband. But since she has credibility issues, many people believe she lied about this, as she did on many other occasions, because she was threatened with deportation back to the USSR. This was in 1963-1964.
Yesterday I watched an interview with Marina Oswald-Porter as she is now known - apparently she remarried. In it, she told reporter Jack Anderson that she took the backyard photos. The interview was done in 1988. In a conversation she had with Governor Jesse Ventura for his tv program Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura she reaffirmed this statement, although not directly on camera. Unfortunately I can't find the segment no more and am therefore unable to determine the year it was broadcast, but it was well after the 1988 Jack Anderson program.
So is she still lying? What possible reason could she have? She has reversed many of her past (1963-64) statements and has not been deported as far as I know.
Thanks in advance for your considered reply
-
For now, I am bracketing the issue of the meaning of the "12" that appears after the city and state on the postmark on the envelope to Klein's. I do not buy the theory that it is the number of the cancelling machine that processed it. That makes no sense to me at all, especially since some postmarks show a number-letter instead of just a number, and I don't think any such machines would have ID numbers of 3A, 3B, etc. For that matter, I've never heard of any kind of a machine being given a number/number-letter ID of just two characters.
I have confirmed from USPS sites that when zip codes were implemented in April 1963, they were placed after the city and state in the postmark, so it makes sense to me that postal zones would have been the logical predecessor that was placed after the city and state before then. However, I cannot account for the 2B entry on Johnson Exhibit 17. I finally found a 1963 postal zone chart for Dallas, and it shows no number-letter zones, only numbers. I can imagine a scenario where a large/busy zone was administratively divided into, say, 2A and 2B, but I can't find any evidence of this.
In any case, I think the attempts to explain away Oswald's Jaggars-Stovall timesheet are unconvincing and implausible, given the nature of Oswald's job there and given the WC testimony about Oswald's work environment. I think his timesheet proves he did not buy the money order.
I also think that the evidence that the money order was not cashed is compelling. The idea that any money order in 1963 could have gone through a major bank and the Federal Reserve System and ended up in Virginia without a single stamp/mark/notation that it was cashed is far fetched, just unbelievable.
I think David Josephs has answered all of David Von Pein's arguments regarding the money order.
The deposit statement that Klein's submitted to the WC to try to establish that the money order had been deposited is not credible and is more evidence of fraud.
Beyond this, if you take a step back and look at this logically, the rifle-purchase evidence is far too pat and far too implausible to take seriously from the outset. Oswald was many things, but he most certainly was not stupid. Yet, we are asked to believe that Oswald was so utterly brain-dead that, instead of just buying a rifle at a local gun store in Dallas, he left a glaring paper trail straight back to himself by ordering a rifle by mail with a postal money order and using a false name, and then shot Kennedy while carrying a fake ID card in the same name he had used to order the rifle and never bothered to discard the fake ID before he was arrested. I mean, come on. . . .
-
For now, I am bracketing the issue of the meaning of the "12" that appears after the city and state on the postmark on the envelope to Klein's. I do not buy the theory that it is the number of the cancelling machine that processed it. That makes no sense to me at all, especially since some postmarks show a number-letter instead of just a number, and I don't think any such machines would have ID numbers of 3A, 3B, etc. For that matter, I've never heard of any kind of a machine being given a number/number-letter ID of just two characters.
I have confirmed from USPS sites that when zip codes were implemented in April 1963, they were placed after the city and state in the postmark, so it makes sense to me that postal zones would have been the logical predecessor that was placed after the city and state before then. However, I cannot account for the 2B entry on Johnson Exhibit 17. I finally found a 1963 postal zone chart for Dallas, and it shows no number-letter zones, only numbers. I can imagine a scenario where a large/busy zone was administratively divided into, say, 2A and 2B, but I can't find any evidence of this.
In any case, I think the attempts to explain away Oswald's Jaggars-Stovall timesheet are unconvincing and implausible, given the nature of Oswald's job there and given the WC testimony about Oswald's work environment. I think his timesheet proves he did not buy the money order.
I also think that the evidence that the money order was not cashed is compelling. The idea that any money order in 1963 could have gone through a major bank and the Federal Reserve System and ended up in Virginia without a single stamp/mark/notation that it was cashed is far fetched, just unbelievable.
I think David Josephs has answered all of David Von Pein's arguments regarding the money order.
The deposit statement that Klein's submitted to the WC to try to establish that the money order had been deposited is not credible and is more evidence of fraud.
Beyond this, if you take a step back and look at this logically, the rifle-purchase evidence is far too pat and far too implausible to take seriously from the outset. Oswald was many things, but he most certainly was not stupid. Yet, we are asked to believe that Oswald was so utterly brain-dead that, instead of just buying a rifle at a local gun store in Dallas, he left a glaring paper trail straight back to himself by ordering a rifle by mail with a postal money order and using a false name, and then shot Kennedy while carrying a fake ID card in the same name he had used to order the rifle and never bothered to discard the fake ID before he was arrested. I mean, come on. . . .
Oswald's handwriting on the money order proves that he bought it. The money order was cashed, as is evidenced by the File Locator Number on it. David Josephs has done nothing but flop about and present nonsensical arguments, as he always does. You guys don't know how to look at it logically. You never do. Klein's shipped the rifle to Oswald's PO Box. Do you really think that they would have never bothered to cash the money order?
-
Oswald's handwriting on the money order proves that he bought it.
No it doesn't. First of all, you don't have to buy a money order in order to write on it. Second of all, handwriting "analysis" is unscientific and biased.
Klein's shipped the rifle to Oswald's PO Box.
Too bad you don't have any evidence that such a package ever went through the mail and was delivered there.
Do you really think that they would have never bothered to cash the money order?
You can't even connect the money order found in Virginia to any specific Klein's order.
-
Gentlemen,
I have a question regarding the authenticity of the backyard photographs. Marina testified she took the photos on the instructions of, and aided by, her husband. But since she has credibility issues, many people believe she lied about this, as she did on many other occasions, because she was threatened with deportation back to the USSR. This was in 1963-1964.
Yesterday I watched an interview with Marina Oswald-Porter as she is now known - apparently she remarried. In it, she told reporter Jack Anderson that she took the backyard photos. The interview was done in 1988. In a conversation she had with Governor Jesse Ventura for his tv program Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura she reaffirmed this statement, although not directly on camera. Unfortunately I can't find the segment no more and am therefore unable to determine the year it was broadcast, but it was well after the 1988 Jack Anderson program.
So is she still lying? What possible reason could she have? She has reversed many of her past (1963-64) statements and has not been deported as far as I know.
Thanks in advance for your considered reply.
Soon after the Secret Service and the FBI started interviewing Marina, they made it clear to her that she would end up back in Russia if she did not "cooperate." This was not an implied threat, but a clearly stated, expressly worded threat. They did not mince words. She clearly feared deportation for many years after the WC concluded.
During the 1980s, she began to insist that her husband was innocent of the assassination. During one of the interviews Marina gave in the 1990s, she was asked about the backyard photos, and she said they were not the pictures she took.
During the WC investigation, Marina was pressured into saying all kinds of incriminating things to corroborate evidence that was later exposed as fraudulent, such as Oswald's alleged attempt to shoot General Walker and his alleged 11/9/1963 letter to the Soviet embassy in DC. The Walker tale has been so thoroughly refuted that there's no need to reinvent the wheel here about it.
As for the phony Oswald letter to the Soviet embassy in DC, we now know that the Soviets concluded that Oswald did not write the letter, that it was faked in his name as part of an effort to plant a phony evidence trail that could be used to implicate Russia in JFK's death. The Soviets noted that the letter was "totally unlike" previous, undisputed letters that they had received from Oswald. Yet, Marina obligingly said, "Oh, yeah, I saw that letter before he mailed it."
Incidentally, the fake 11/9/63 Oswald letter to the DC Soviet embassy also reveals Ruth Paine's role as a CIA asset in helping to frame Oswald, as James Douglass discusses in JFK and the Unspeakable (pp. 319-324). Apparently, the CIA tasked her with coming up with an alternative version of the letter that would be far easier to innocently explain, and the WC uncritically gobbled up her obviously faked version. Paine's fraud was exposed when the actual letter that the Soviets received was made public--her version is markedly different from the letter the Soviets received. But the fact that the Soviets concluded the letter was fake was not revealed until 1999 when Anatoly Dobrynin's report on the letter was released with a bunch of other assassination-related documents.
All of which is to say that it is very hard to believe anything Marina said while there was any chance that she would be deported. I hesitate to judge her because she was a single mom with two kids who was scared to death of being deported back to Russia.
-
-
[Link to documentary snipped.]
It is too bad that Newsmax was not aware that several of the people whom Posner claimed to have interviewed later said they never spoke with him, including Dr. Boswell, whom Posner falsely quoted as having changed his mind about the location of the rear head entry wound. When Dr. Aguilar spoke with Dr. Boswell and asked him about Posner's claim, not only did Boswell adamantly deny changing his mind about the rear head entry wound but he insisted that he never even spoke with Posner. If Newsmax had known this, I wonder if they would have still included Posner in the documentary.
As usual, Posner makes several claims that have been debunked for years. And I see he repeats his yarn that if there was a grassy knoll gunman, he must have missed the entire limousine. Posner knows that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists do not believe this, but he keeps saying it anyway. It is too bad that the interviewer did not ask Posner about the wild miss that he proposes to explain the Tague wounding: Posner theorizes that his alleged lone-gunman not only fired a shot while his view of the limo was obscured by the oak tree, but that this ridiculous shot hit one of the tree's branches and sent a fragment streaking toward Tague.
Posner felt compelled to offer this theory because he at least recognized that the WC's theory--that a fragment from the head shot caused the Tague wounding--was even more ludicrous (yet we have several lone-gunman theorists in this forum who still defend it).
I was glad to see the documentary mention the fact that we've known for many years that the Kennedy family does not buy the lone-gunman theory. We know from released Soviet files that barely two weeks after the assassination, RFK and Jackie sent a close family friend to tell the Soviets that the Kennedys did not believe the Soviets were involved but that they believed JFK had been killed by a large "right-wing conspiracy."
Overall, this is a reasonably balanced documentary. It is much better than the pure-propaganda documentaries done by PBS and other major networks over the last 10 years.
-
Hi Michael,
Glad you found the video interesting. I had no time to post additional comments as it was already late at night, so here are a few:
- what pleased me was the incredible clear footage of the motorcade - I'd almost only seen grainy movies until now. And I also appreciated President Kennedy's sense of humour: "Nobody wonders what Lyndon and I wear." "I am the man accompanying Mrs. Kennedy to Texas." LOL :)
- Howard Brennan comes on and says the assassin "was in no great rush" and "paused for a moment" after firing the third shot. Do you think Oswald had time to do that? I am under the impression that Oswald was in a great rush in order to make it on time to the second floor lunchroom for his meeting with Roy Truly and officer Baker.
- Governor Connally is adamant about being hit by the second bullet. He didn't hear this shot. Which means either the first shot missed and the second shot produced the Magic Bullet, or the President and Governor were hit by separate bullets fired so closely together that multiple assassins had to be involved, right?
- What do you think of Dr. Posner's psycho-analyses of Oswald which starts about the 32:00 minute mark? That Oswald was bullied in school and in the Marines, was a loser with a lot of resentment and in order to make a name for himself assassinated the President?
- Do you think Vice President Johnson was involved? The documentary is partly devoted to this theory and shows Mr. Stone promoting this.
-
Have you checked if those VC and serial numbers are actually in the master control book?
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any master control ledger or book of any kind that has these control numbers on them?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes. One copy is sent to what we call the booking department, and those are put into a master book, control book.
Mr. BELIN. Are you required by law to keep records of serial numbers of guns?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes.
I have not. Why do you want to know?
-
Just wanted to make sure, as predicted, you couldn't deal with the Waldman 4 fantasy numbers.
Like Mytton and Von P.
The Nutters always chicken out on Waldman 4, love it.
Chicken out on Waldman 4? What are you talking about?
(https://i.imgur.com/pt5hW0t.png)
-
No, your bluff will not work.
The WC provided no evidence of any of those control and serial numbers to have been entered into the master book as required by law.
Which part of the testimony do you not understand?
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any master control ledger or book of any kind that has these control numbers on them?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes. One copy is sent to what we call the booking department, and those are put into a master book, control book.
Mr. BELIN. Are you required by law to keep records of serial numbers of guns?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes.
What difference does it make if they were put into a master book or not? Waldman Exhibit #4 itself is a record that Klein's kept of the serial numbers of the rifles.
-
Because that was the alleged purpose of producing the the original to Waldman 4.
So how would you verify its authenticity without consulting the master book?
What? The alleged purpose of producing the original to Waldman 4? What are you talking about?
How would consulting the masterbook verify its authenticity? The master book would just be a duplication of the record of Waldman #4.
-
What? The alleged purpose of producing the original to Waldman 4? What are you talking about?
How would consulting the masterbook verify its authenticity? The master book would just be a duplication of the record of Waldman #4.
Gosh, really? The fact that it was never entered into the master book/control book suggests that it was not a real item, that it was fabricated and was not an item that went through the normal processing and documentation procedures.
That is why you cannot find any evidence that the money order was ever cashed. That is why there is no evidence that it was processed by the bank or by the Federal Reserve System.
That is why the money order was bought by someone else, while Oswald was at work at Jaggars-Stovall.
Etc., etc., etc.
And, by the way, regarding your claim about the timing of and reasons for the SBT's creation, you might want to read historian Dr. Gerald McKnight's chapter on this in his book Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (University Press of Kansas, 2005). It is chapter 8.
-
Gosh, really? The fact that it was never entered into the master book/control book suggests that it was not a real item, that it was fabricated and was not an item that went through the normal processing and documentation procedures.
How do you know that it was never entered into the master book? Scibor said it was. Waldman #4 alone establishes that it was a real item. Waldman #7 would also suffice as a standalone in establishing that it was a real item.
That is why you cannot find any evidence that the money order was ever cashed. That is why there is no evidence that it was processed by the bank or by the Federal Reserve System.
The File Locator Number proves that the money order was cashed and processed by the Federal Reserve system.
(https://i.imgur.com/kOFOzoP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/jVl3GQF.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/NL1hnLl.png)
That is why the money order was bought by someone else, while Oswald was at work at Jaggars-Stovall.
The money order was bought by Oswald. He snuck away from work and then lied on his timesheet.
And, by the way, regarding your claim about the timing of and reasons for the SBT's creation, you might want to read historian Dr. Gerald McKnight's chapter on this in his book Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (University Press of Kansas, 2005). It is chapter 8.[/size]
Not interested. The SBT was realized no later than April of 1964.
-
Get up to speed:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408&search=rupp#relPageId=197&tab=page
That doesn't help at all.
Wow, I forgot how bad you are at this.
Because the master book is the official record required by law, it would not "just" be a duplication. It would also log the chronology of weapons received to verify that C 2766 was an actual February shipment. There is zero evidence to support W4 was created as the result of a February shipment.
Where do you get that they were required by law to keep the control and serial numbers in a master book? What specific Federal or State of Illinois law required those records to be kept in a master book?
-
That is why you cannot find any evidence that the money order was ever cashed. That is why there is no evidence that it was processed by the bank or by the Federal Reserve System.
That is why the money order was bought by someone else, while Oswald was at work at Jaggars-Stovall.
So you reckon the money order was bought by someone else therefore you have no choice but to admit that the money order was a real item and existed in our World and logically thereafter it was sent to Kleins which we know because Kleins stamped the money order with their official stamp(see below), yet for some unknown reason when it arrived at Kleins it wasn't cashed? Wtf?
As I already told you, the only foolproof method to pull off this "deception" was just to simply make the entire order in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald(only Oswald would use an alias of A. Hidell) and let it go through the normal channels and intercept the package after it arrived at the Post Office, but this elaborate plan with a cast of thousands that you have cooked up fails on almost every level and in court someone like Bugliosi would make you look very foolish.
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser named A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office Box No. 2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963: and underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank.
I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc."
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order?
Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.
Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that shown on the money order in question.
Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zF0NQ4T/Money-Order-Back-Side-Comparison.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZKrrMXz/waldman-Kleins-stamp.jpg)
The money order has a solid chain of custody.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Rhmzz4nz/backofmoneyorderinitial-zpsujp9yqie.jpg)
JohnM
-
Gosh, really? The fact that it was never entered into the master book/control book suggests that it was not a real item, that it was fabricated and was not an item that went through the normal processing and documentation procedures.
That is why you cannot find any evidence that the money order was ever cashed. That is why there is no evidence that it was processed by the bank or by the Federal Reserve System.
That is why the money order was bought by someone else, while Oswald was at work at Jaggars-Stovall.
Etc., etc., etc.
And, by the way, regarding your claim about the timing of and reasons for the SBT's creation, you might want to read historian Dr. Gerald McKnight's chapter on this in his book Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (University Press of Kansas, 2005). It is chapter 8.
Baloney, Michael! an SS agent retrieved the yellow PMO on Saturday evening, 11/23, receiving it to the home of Mr. Marks, a Post office executive, who received it from an employee of the Arlington, VA archive. David Joseph went on BlackOp radio to claim that employee did not exist. I presented this to silence him....
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490&relPageId=120&search=marks_and%20jackson
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldKleinsMoneyOrderArlington.jpg)
The initials of Jackson, Marks, and the SS agent on the reverse side of the yellow PMO:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170816075730/http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box5.htm
(https://web.archive.org/web/20170806231524im_/http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1412-001.gif)
It should work, on you, as well! Death cert. describes him as "analyst, National Archive". Anyone going where you've gone, should consider how elaborate a deception would be that included naming a real person who retrieved the yellow PMO from the archive, while actually the whole reported sequence was fake.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170806231524/http://www.jfk.education/node/13
Klein's postal money order - claims raising suspicion it was faked
Submitted by Admin on Fri, 11/20/2015 - 15:13
......
...........
https://web.archive.org/web/20170806231524/http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=121290021
(https://web.archive.org/web/20170806231524im_/http://jfk.education/images/RobertHjacksonMoneyOrder.jpg)
Page from Hill's 1959 Alexandria, VA, City Directory :
(https://web.archive.org/web/20170806231524im_/http://jfk.education/images/1959AlexandriaDirRobertHjackson.jpg)
My original research in 2015 documented why the "Federal Reserve System literally could not process the "new process" Postal Money Order in the W.C. exhibits.
This is separate from the question of who purchased it or when or where it was mailed to Chicago. I believe the #12 displayed inside the post mark circle on the envelope accepted by the W.C. as the envelope associated with a PMO rifle purchase, is a franking machine number.
From my PMO research, and the PMO in question was of the new process variety, as presented by Tim Nickerson. This type was first sold in Dallas in early 1963, as I presented proof of, here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170806231323/http://www.jfk.education/node/11
Sorry Brian, Jean, and DVP, Banks Did Not Key-Punch 1963 P.O. Money Orders
Submitted by Admin on Tue, 11/10/2015 - 06:47
Updated November 19, 2015:
https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/afips/1966/5068/00/50680479.pdf
(Lance Payette brought this to my attention, today. "File Locator Numbers - See Explanation, below:)
......
In the article I presented in Nov., 2015, linked in the quote box directly above, I've supported better than any other source I've been able to find, the following points.:
The PMOs Oswald was known to have purchased in Dallas in fall, 1962, sent to the Dept. of State to repay a travel loan, were of the old, blue colored variety, of a serial number sequence and a process incompatible with the Postal Money Order (PMO) associated with Klein's Sporting Goods.
The blue colored money orders had no automatic data processing associated with the face amounts of dollars and cents filled in manually by the issuing postal clerks at point of purchase.
Instead, each and every one went through a process unique to them, performed by regional Fed. Reserve banks' keypunch operators contracted by the Post Office, via the Federal Reserve. IOW, the Post Office paid the Federal Reserve more than $600,000 annually to hire keypunch operators who manually read the face amount displayed on each blue colored PMO, and then keypunched that amount into each PMO card, in machine language code!
If you read my entire article linked in the quote box above, you will be informed that the blue colored money orders ended up in the Post Office Money order center in Kansas City, MO, where manual fraud detection was conducted and PMOs were manually archived and stored for two years until destruction, per statute.
The innovation associated with the yellow colored PMOs of the type Tim depicted, made the Kansas City PMO center and the Fed. Reserve bank, PMO keypunch process obsolete.
The yellow PMOs were keypunched in Friden manufactured machines at the sales counter of each post office, as each was purchased. The postal clerk simply punched in the purchase amount as each PMO was paid for, and then issued. Upon arrival at the U.S. Treasury data center in DC, large banks submitted both US Treasury checks and PMOs in bulk, from their backroom clearing operations, accompanied with a "cash letter" for each bundle, listing the individual amounts and the total amount of each bundle.
The Treasury's data center operators fed the checks and PMOs into readers capable of reconciling totals and printing file locator numbers (FLN) on each. From there, all were sent on to the archive in Arlington, VA, where they were automatically stored and retrieved via the FLN....
The confusion over the introduction of the new yellow money orders, aggravated further by the incomplete assumptions presented by John Armstrong, would only have been made even more counterproductive if both the old style blue PMOs and the new style yellow PMOs were suddenly and simultaneously all routed in bulk to each Fed. Reserve Bank, especially since most banks either were large enough to prepare cash letters for the unique Treasury issued checks or, in the case of smaller banks, contracted with larger banks for this back office service.
The new yellow PMOs were intentionally designed to be processed identically with the already existing design and processing of checks issued by the U.S. Gov!
So.... especially during that critical transition period during the sequential, regional introduction of the new, yellow colored PMOs, the last thing the Fed. Reserve banks needed was to receive both styles of money orders in bulk. There was no processing of US Treasury issued checks or of yellow PMOs the Federal Reserve banks needed to do!. The Treasury data center had an automated process to sort, verify, and route all of them to the Arlington, VA archive, and once each accompanying cash letter was proofed via that automated process, it could be submitted to the Federal Reserve for debiting of the Post Office account and crediting of the account of each PMO cashing bank.
As the older, blue colored PMOs diminished.... I presented a late 1962 newsletter to Post Offices instructing each to burn their inventory of the obsolete, blue colored PMOs, they became few enough by the late 1960s to be handled individually.
The point of all of this is to say that the regional Fed. Banks processed only the few yellow PMOs submitted by small banks without clearing arrangements with banks large enough to conduct their own back office clearing, and the Fed. Banks treated them just as the big banks, bundling them with accompanying cash letters.
The regional Fed. Banks sent the bundles of US Treasury checks and yellow PMOs to the Treasury Data Center in DC, and this is the only contact they had with the Chicago bank Klein's deposited the yellow PMO at.
The unique thing about these U.S. Gov checks and yellow PMOs was that, unlike private entity issued checks, the Fed. Reserve submitted them to a middle step of verification, at the Treasury's Data Center, versus verifying and clearing all private checks entirely inside the Federal Reserve!
https://web.archive.org/web/20170806231306/http://www.jfk.education/node/12
(https://web.archive.org/web/20170806231306im_/http://jfk.education/images/FedTreasuryADPstudy6.jpg)
-
only Oswald would use an alias of A. Hidell
Says who?
-
Says who?
The LN rulze!
Seriously, if you were patsifying Oswald, consider him and his brother and dad all had portions of Robert E. Lee's name in each of their names, and Hidell happened to be the name of the male secretary of the prominent confederate, "Little Alec"...., http://www.ourgeorgiahistory.com/ogh/Alexander_Stephens
and Hidell's descendants had set up shop sort of prominently...in Texas!
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/7006-frazier-and-oswald/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-231512
...And St. Clair, the lawyer for the Army who asked, "At long last, Sen. McCarthy, have you no shame," and later represented Nixon, was well versed in the "Little Alec", AKA VP of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens,
Well, if Nagell was real... but he wasn't. Bill Stuckey allegedly didnt' see the Fair Play card until August,
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62272&relPageId=130&search=stuckey_and%20hidell
...but at some earlier point, LHO allegedly applied for a job using that name as a reference?
(http://jfkforum.com/images/NagellCardUnknownOriginCX.jpg)
-
Says who?
Besides Marina, "unscientific" handwriting analysis and a nonsense "planted" ID, how much evidence attaches Lee Harvey Oswald to the alias A.J. Hidell?
JohnM
-
There is no amount of evidence, none that will ever convince a conspiracy advocate to consider what ultimately is a simple murder case. It cannot be done. Unanswered questions in the JFK event?Absolutely. Such is the case in most murder cases. Speak with any homicide cop. Yet, in the Kennedy case, to conspiracy types, ALL unanswered questions are nefarious. This purchase order to Klein’s is a perfect example of this phenomenon. The fact this dialogue is 56 years after the event and has been discussed ad nauseam for 56 years is remarkable imo. What’s the point?
-
There is no amount of evidence, none that will ever convince a conspiracy advocate to consider what ultimately is a simple murder case. It cannot be done. Unanswered questions in the JFK event?Absolutely. Such is the case in most murder cases. Speak with any homicide cop. Yet, in the Kennedy case, to conspiracy types, ALL unanswered questions are nefarious. This purchase order to Klein’s is a perfect example of this phenomenon. The fact this dialogue is 56 years after the event and has been discussed ad nauseam for 56 years is remarkable imo. What’s the point?
Paul, consider who we are as a country, where we've been, and where we are, now....
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201812/complete-psychological-analysis-trumps-support
Bobby Azarian Ph.D. - Mind In The Machine
A Complete Psychological Analysis of Trump's Support
Science can help us make sense of the president's political invincibility.
Posted Dec 27, 2018
....We are talking about a man who was caught on tape saying, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy.” Politically surviving that video is not normal, or anything close to it, and such a revelation would likely have been the end of Barack Obama or George Bush had it surfaced weeks before the election.......
Trumpism is the "Lost Cause", on steroids, IOW, anything is possible.
Paul, some coincidences strung together... JFK's presidency began exactly 100 years after Lincoln's. Just as "the Lost Cause" had "hung on", long after Lee's surrender in 1865, prominently through the Daughters of the Confederacy, so had segregation. I recently read that, in the 20th century some 35,000 monuments were erect to honor and memorialize prominent confederate military and political figures, as well as ordinary confederate soldiers.
JFK had to step in and insist that Civil War Centennial planning and coordinating entities not exclude blacks from being represented after several incidents indicating expectations that interests intent on rewriting history to make the confederate cause seem noble, were dominating the anniversary planning.
Major coincidences were Oswald having Lee as his middle name, with Robert E. Lee references in the names of his father and brother. Where did Oswald work and allegedly fire shots at JFK from?
He worked at a distribution hub at the center of the "project described below.:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whitewashing-civil-war-history-for-young-minds/2015/07/06/1168226c-2415-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html
How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history -
Jul 6, 2015 - New textbooks in the state assign slavery to a secondary role in causing the Civil War. ... The Confederate flag on display, from 1938 to today ... THIS FALL, Texas schools will teach students that Moses
https://www.facingsouth.org/2019/04/twisted-sources-how-confederate-propaganda-ended-souths-schoolbooks
TWISTED SOURCES: How Confederate propaganda ended up in the South's schoolbooks
Apr 10, 2019 - Though better known these days for erecting statues to Confederate veterans during the ... to control history textbooks used in the South's public schools. ... and Texas actively partnered with the UDC and UCV to choose textbooks. ... only histories favorable to the South be used in North Carolina schools.
Paul, you've done more than any member to expose the total lack of discourse Trump's supporters are willing to engage in. They are a "wink and a nod", cult
Isn't it possible it was enough to communicate symbolically to Lost Cause sympathizers by having Oswald front for assassination of JFK from a distribution hub of Lost Cause propaganda text books, with a rifle purchased by "A. Hidell", an obscure name connected with V.P. of the confederate government, Alexander Hamilton Stephens of Washington, GA .... a "wink and a nod", in circumstances where openly taking responsibility for killing President Kennedy just past "high noon" in a city in a prominent state of the old confederacy, would have been counter productive to the Lost Cause?
To me, if this is what actually happened, how much more openly could they have communicated what they did, to those who would notice and appreciate it, than if they rented billboards displaying, "We, of the Lost Cause movement sponsored LEE Harvey Oswald, and what are you going to do about it?"
In my last post, I had the name of the lawyer representing the army vs. Sen. Joseph McCarthy wrong, it is actually Joseph N Welch, of the Hale and Doerr firm, in Boston.
Tom Scully - Posted July 29, 2011
Of course, it must be only coincidental that the sole suspect immediately branded as the lone nut assassin of President John F. Kennedy was accused of carrying identification, of ordering the alleged assassination weapon, of passing out literature stamped with the name, and of using the name on two applications of employment; the name of the son and the grandson of the secretary of the Vice President of the Confederate States of America.
That secretary happened to be Col. William Henry Hidell, CSA, and Hidell evidently thought so highly of the rebel Vice President....
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,888373,00.html
Books: Little Aleck
Monday, Sept. 16, 1946
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS (337 pp.)—Rudolph von Abele—Knopf ($4).
...The people of the North, from Abraham Lincoln down, knew him as Little Aleck, devoted champion of states' rights and the constitutional liberties of all men—except Negroes. To the South he was Alexander Hamilton Stephens of Georgia, Vice President and chief enigma of the Confederacy....
http://www.archive.org/stream/littlealeckalife001558mbp/littlealeckalife001558mbp_djvu.txt
Full text of "Little Aleck A Life Of Alexander H. Stephens"
...that both his son, and later his grandson were named in "Little Aleck's" honor.:
......
Pay-Per-View - Atlanta Constitution - Nov 9, 1890
Alexander S Hidell age. 13 Rome Ga. SECOND PRIZE. D. F. McClatchey Jr age. 13 Marietta. THIRD PRIZE. R. J. Travis age 13 Cov. ington. First Prize$18 Suit .
This is still an unsolved crime. The man the government has been working so hard to blame for nearly a half century was alleged to have been using the names of two men well known to some southerners and certainly to scholars of American History, especially in the midst of the craze of interest most of us old enough to remember, will recall as the Civil War Centennial years, 1961 to 1965. Isn't it especially curious and an outrage that no one came forward who was in a position to know, to describe these startling coincidences of names?
Was the purpose of the alleged "shooting" at Edwin Walker, a well planned smoke screen to eliminate the risk of telegraphing to interested parties that sons of the Confederacy, had indeed, assassinated a second, "Yankee" president, and gotten away with it, undetected? Could this still be a detail these "sons" snicker about, among themselves, when they are absolutely sure they are sharing their own company?
Who knows? These coincidences of names reaching into the highest levels of Confederate government leadership were twisted, defelected, and distorted so as to always be unnoticeable to those with no knowledge or inkling to look. But, how could everyone have no inkling, when the man the government so obsessively pinned the assassination on, was the man of the deep south, accused of killing the president in a former Confederate State, and who was the son of a man named enthusiastically for the most famous Confederate military commander?[/quote]
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/13931-488th-military-intelligence-detachment/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-242934
Tom Scully - Posted January 6, 2012 (edited)
.....Mccarthy Roe At Army If Hearings .Joseph Welch, Noted...
Windsor Star - Oct 6, 1960
Mr. Welch, an expert in crossexamination, worked without fee for the army. ....
Joseph N. Welch was with Hale & Dorr from 1923. After posting about Paul F. Hellmuth last night, and influenced by much of my other research, which all began with my reading the name Lester Crown, linked to Obama, is whether it is possible that Lester's brother-in-law, G. David Schine, was sheep dipped before LHO was?
Welch's wife's brochure influences me to think that Welch would have been aware through her, of V.P. of the Confederacy, Alexander "Little Alek" Stephens, and his loyal secretary, William H. Hidell, father of Alexander Stephens Hidell.:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17989&view=findpost&p=231505
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/traveling-culture/chau1/pdf/lyndon/1/brochure.pdf
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7141/6649380457_42c79a75e7_z.jpg)
.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_Georgia
Washington (originally called Heard's Fort) is a city in Wilkes County, Georgia, United States. The population was 4,295 at the 2000 census. The city is the county seat of Wilkes County[3]. The city is often referred to as Washington-Wilkes by locals, distinguishing it from any other Washington in the United States.
Washington has a number of restored antebellum, Victorian, and colonial homes along the narrow, tree-lined streets. Washington claims to have more antebellum homes per capita than any other city of its size in Georgia[citation needed]. Several sites in Washington are on the National Register of Historic Places including the Wilkes County Courthouse, the Robert Toombs State Historic Site, ...
...On April 3, 1865, with Union troops under Ulysses S. Grant poised to capture Richmond, Jefferson Davis escaped for Danville, Virginia, together with the Confederate cabinet. After leaving Danville, and continuing south, Davis met with his Confederate Cabinet for the last time on May 5, 1865 in Washington, Ga....
.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Toombs
Robert Augustus Toombs (July 2, 1810 – December 15, 1885) was an American political leader, United States Senator from Georgia, 1st Secretary of State of the Confederacy, and a Confederate general in the Civil War.
Early life
Born near Washington, Wilkes County, Georgia, Robert Augustus Toombs was the fifth child of Catherine Huling and Robert Toombs. His father died when he was five, and he entered Franklin College at the University of Georgia in Athens when he was just fourteen. ....
Final years
When the Confederacy finally collapsed in 1865, Toombs barely escaped arrest by Union troops and went into hiding until he fled to Cuba on November 4, and then to London and Paris. He returned to the United States via Canada in 1867. Because he refused to request a pardon from Congress, he never regained his American citizenship. He did restore his lucrative law practice as an "unreconstructed" southerner. In addition, he dominated the Georgia constitutional convention of 1877, where once again he demonstrated the political skill and temperament that earlier had earned him a reputation as one of Georgia's most effective leaders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Stephens
Alexander Hamilton Stephens (February 11, 1812 – March 4, 1883) was an American politician from Georgia. He was Vice President of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War.
....Stephens and fellow Georgia Representative Robert Toombs campaigned for the election of Zachary Taylor as President in 1848. Both were chagrined and angered when Taylor proved less than pliable on aspects of the Compromise of 1850. Stephens and Toombs both supported the Compromise of 1850 though they opposed the exclusion of slavery from the territories on the theory that such lands belonged to all of the people. The pair returned to Georgia to secure support for the measures at home. Both men were instrumental in the drafting and approval of the Georgia Platform, which rallied Unionists throughout the Deep South.
Not only were Stephens and Toombs political allies, but they were lifelong friends. Stephens was described as "a highly sensitive young man of serious and joyless habits of consuming ambition, of poverty-fed pride, and of morbid preoccupation within self," a contrast to the "robust, wealthy, and convivial Toombs. But this strange camaraderie endured with singular accord throughout their lives."[3]...[/quote]
-
Which part of the testimony do you not understand?
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any master control ledger or book of any kind that has these control numbers on them?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes. One copy is sent to what we call the booking department, and those are put into a master book, control book.
Mr. BELIN. Are you required by law to keep records of serial numbers of guns?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes.
Yawn! Are you still banging on about this? This basic concept has already been explained to you, this time listen closely
Business records are perfectly acceptable as evidence. The Kleins business record(Waldman 4) indicates C2766 was received by Kleins. And Kleins business record( Waldman 7) indicates that C2766 was sent to Oswald's PO box. Case Closed!
Mr. BELIN. Well, I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is the record created by us showing the control number we have assigned to the gun together with the serial number that is imprinted in the frame of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Now, this is a photostat, I believe, of records you have in front of you on your desk right now?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you find anywhere on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 the serial number C--2766?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what is your control number for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Our control number for that is VC-836.
(https://i.imgur.com/pt5hW0t.png)
Mr. BELIN. ...Now, I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a cops made from our microfilm reader-printer of Dallas, Tex. I want to clarify that this is not the order, itself, received from Mr. Hidell, but it's a form created by us internally from an order received from Mr. Hidell on a small coupon taken from an advertisement of ours in a magazine.
Mr. BELIN. This Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 is a print from the micro- film negative which we just viewed upstair; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j2O-kIQp5Aw/Uppyyq6H3KI/AAAAAAAAxSI/G97X3C5lxOI/s690/Waldman-Exhibit-7.jpg)
JohnM
-
Johnny,
What do you think does Waldman 7 prove exactly?
-
The link doesn't work for you?
Which part of the testimony do you not understand?
The link works fine but it still doesn't help me understand this:
Quote from: Otto Beck on August 06, 2020, 07:37:59 AM
"Because that was the alleged purpose of producing the the original to Waldman 4."
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any master control ledger or book of any kind that has these control numbers on them?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes. One copy is sent to what we call the booking department, and those are put into a master book, control book.
Mr. BELIN. Are you required by law to keep records of serial numbers of guns?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes.
Yeah, and? Scibor acknowledged that they were required by law to keep records of serial numbers of guns. They kept at least two copies of them. One copy being in a master book. He said nothing at all about the law requiring those records to be kept in a master book.
Why are you asking me?
Because it's your claim, that's why. Where do you get that they were required by law to keep the control and serial numbers in a master book? What specific Federal or State of Illinois law required those records to be kept in a master book?
-
Which part of this statement do you not understand?
"He stated that the original of this report is directed at the company recording and booking department, where it is entered into a master booking system and the original of this report is then destroyed."
I understand that statement. What I don't understand is this:
"Because that was the alleged purpose of producing the the original to Waldman 4."
Right, I see where your semantic game is headed....
But it doesn't help you one bit. The Klein's official record of serial (and control) numbers, if the law dropped by, would be the "master book".
I'm not playing a semantics game here. You claimed that Klein's was required by law to keep their records of serial (and control) numbers in a master book. You've just repeated that claim. Where do you get that they were required by law to keep the control and serial numbers in a master book? What specific Federal or State of Illinois law required those records to be kept in a master book?
Waldman #4 is a record that Klein's kept of the serial and control numbers.
See above.
See above.
-
So you do understand that W4 is claimed to be a copy of an original alleged to be the source of the numbers in the master book?
Yes, I do understand that.
Wrong, I did not repeat that claim, I carefully rephrased it:
You worded it differently but the meaning is the same.
The Klein's official record of serial (and control) numbers, if the law dropped by, would be the "master book".
Prove it.
They could simply have filed the original coming out of the receiving department but put extra effort into copying the numbers into the master book, then destroying the original. There can be no doubt the master (or control) book is where they kept serial numbers to comply with the law. Waldman 4 was for Scibor's convenience.
Again, prove it.
-
The Klein's official record of serial (and control) numbers, if the law dropped by, would be the "master book".
Guess what Einstein, the law did drop by and Kleins readily retrieved all the relevant paperwork! LOL!
Kleins traced where they received the rifle from.
Kleins traced their catalogue number.
Kleins traced who bought the rifle
Kleins traced where they sent the rifle.
Kleins business records as required by law allowed them to successfully achieve these results.
Btw keep trying because watching you dig a deeper hole with every post amuses me.
JohnM
-
What does "master" and "control" suggest?
You claim that Klein's official record of serial (and control) numbers, if the law dropped by, would be the "master book".
Where's your proof?
See above.
What? You claimed that Klein's was required by law to keep the control and serial numbers in a master book. How does what you stated above substantiate that claim? What specific Federal or State of Illinois law required those records to be kept in a master book?
-
It wasn't W4, so you're left with be the master or control book since the original was destroyed. That's why Scibor used the terms "master" and "control".
Is it that difficult for you?
With the original destroyed, Waldman 4 was just as acceptable as the master book. It was a record of the serial number and the control number. I don't know what you mean by "control book". The control number was just a booking number used by Klein's to record the history of the gun while it was in their possession.
Rephrased several posts back, see above. You can stop the BS.
So, now you're saying that keeping the records of the serial and control numbers in a master book was not required by law? We don't need to see the master book afterall? That's what I've been saying. We are now in agreement.
-
Terms "master book" and "control book" both used by Scibor.
Ok, I see it now.
Wrong, only acceptable if mirrored in the master book.
Prove it.
You still seem confused.
Well, yeah. You aren't making any sense.
Who's "we"?
Tim Nickerson and Otto Beck.
See above.
See above.
-
There's nothing to prove, it's pure logic.
Your logic is somewhat lacking. When you return a purchased item to a store for a refund do you bring two copies of the receipt with you?
If W4 is an actual copy the content of the original prior to being destroyed would have been entered into the master book.
Waldman 4 is an actual copy of the original. Another copy was sent to the booking department where it was entered into a master book. Either one of those two copies would suffice as Klein's record of the serial numbers. In fact, Waldman No. 3 would probably suffice as a record of the serial numbers as well.
The check was/is needed because the W4 content itself suggest it's faked.
How exactly does the content of Waldman #4 suggest that it is fake?
-
This is really simple, Scibor who at the time was the General Operating Manager with 18 years experience at Kleins was well aware of how to access Kleins business records and where to go and find the receiving information so at a future date they could identify any particular gun, identify where it came from and identify when they initially handled the gun.
Step 1 Locate the order.
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes; we used two machines and looked at the microfilms of our sales until we had found that particular gun with the serial number.
Mr. BELIN. You were upstairs when Mr. Waldman was looking at the microfilm of which a printed copy is Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7; is that correct?
Mr. SCIBOR. Correct.
Step 2 Locate the receiving record of the order for future identification.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes; it's a copy of our receiving record which we use to identify firearms or guns by assigning a weapon a particular booking number or control number along with the serial number so at a future date we can identify that particular gun.
......
Mr. BELIN. Where is Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 filed customarily?
Mr. SCIBOR. That is filed in a desk drawer back in the receiving department, which I designated that those should be filed.
......
Mr. BELIN. And do you find on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 your control number for a rifle with the serial number C-2766?
Mr. SCIBOR. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What is your control number?
Mr. SCIBOR. VC-836.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nhx5C1C7/waldman-7-and-4.jpg)
-
Wow, if it's that simple how come Johnny got the two steps reversed?
Only a complete fool would spend the night scanning micro film looking for an order if Klein's never stocked C 2766. Waldman actually got the narrative right:
Mr. BELIN. Did the FBI indicate at what time, what period that they felt you might have received this rifle originally?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.
Mytton meltdown for everyone to enjoy -- ROFL
Wow, if it's that simple how come Johnny got the two steps reversed?
Admittedly in my haste, I should have clarified my original post and can see how you would erroneously come to that conclusion but I was describing that there was two steps to linking Kleins business records to any particular customer. One of the steps I wrote makes this clear by my heading of "Locate the receiving record of the order for future identification."
Only a complete fool would spend the night scanning micro film looking for an order if Klein's never stocked C 2766. Waldman actually got the narrative right:
We know Kleins stocked C2766 because the reason the FBI contacted Kleins in the first place was because the FBI had a record that Crescent shipped Kleins C2766* and Waldman could indeed have searched all of their microfilms to find the Hidell order but as Waldman tells us he initially narrowed down the approx dates of his search by locating Kleins purchase records.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know how the FBI happened to contact you or your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. The FBI had a record of a gun of this type and with this serial number having been shipped to us by Crescent Firearms.
*I, Louis Feldsott, being duly sworn say:
1. I am the President of Crescent Firearms, Inc., 2 West 37th Street, New York 18, New York.
2. On November 22, 1963, the F.B.I. contacted me and asked if Crescent Firearms, Inc., had any records concerning the sale of an Italian made 6.5 m/m rifle with the serial number C 2766.
3. I was able to find a record of the sale of this rifle which indicated that the weapon had been sold to Kleins' Sporting Goods, Inc., Chicago, Illinois on June 18, 1962. I conveyed this information to the F.B.I. during the evening of November 22, 1963.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/feldsot.htm
Mytton meltdown for everyone to enjoy -- ROFL
Sorry, but you're the one who's struggling and failing to provide a legal precedent that a master control book must be presented in addition to the comprehensive corroborating Kleins business records that Waldman supplied.
JohnM
-
False analogy.
Is not. It's a perfect analogy.
No supporting evidence for that claim without checking the master book.
Nonsense.
It wasn't a copy (as stated in the testimony, mistake?), it was the original, according to the FBI report.
Sworn testimony vs FBI report. It makes no difference either way. The original was destroyed. Both the copy that became Waldman 4 and the copy entered into the master book were made off of the original.
Suffice, how?
Because both contain Klein's record of the serial numbers. That are both duplicates of the original.
Wrong order of serial numbers.
LOL...What??
-
More like a Joe Biden moment.
Mindlessly repeating a claim doesn't make it true.
Which means that IF there were a genuine original record W4 and the master book should be in agreement.
If not, W4 is a fake.
Only way to make sure W4 is not a fake is to check the master book.
How do we make sure that the master book isn't fake? You CTs are clownish.
But the Waldman 3 slips were not Klein's, you didn't know that?
Waldman 3 was Klein's. The slips on that exhibit were in their possession.
Serial numbers are expected to be grouped according to the slips in Waldman 3.
As the FBI says, the control numbers were assigned as the guns were taken from the case.
The FBI does not say that the serial numbers were grouped according to the slips in Waldman 3. I wouldn't expect them to necessarily be grouped according to the slips.
-
How do we make sure that the master book isn't fake? You CTs are clownish.
Yep, down into the rabbit hole we descend and on and on and on it goes and when we hit the bottom of the available evidence the next step is that the mountain of evidence is faked unless we can prove otherwise, then we have to produce the person who wrote the evidence because otherwise it's faked, then we have to present the person who sent the evidence because otherwise it's faked and on and on that goes..... It truly is never ending, there will never be enough evidence to satisfy a hardcore CT.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/IXy5Gfu7fz5AY/giphy.gif?cid=dc79c3573acda663a3fc75b00921f978cf23e91b029f63af&rid=giphy.gif)
JohnM
-
Yep, down into the rabbit hole we descend and on and on and on it goes and when we hit the bottom of the available evidence the next step is that the mountain of evidence is faked unless we can prove otherwise, then we have to produce the person who wrote the evidence because otherwise it's faked, then we have to present the person who sent the evidence because otherwise it's faked and on and on that goes..... It truly is never ending, there will never be enough evidence to satisfy a hardcore CT.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/IXy5Gfu7fz5AY/giphy.gif?cid=dc79c3573acda663a3fc75b00921f978cf23e91b029f63af&rid=giphy.gif)
JohnM
It's turtles all the way down. :)
-
There's no "mountain of evidence". There's just a mountain of claims that "Mytton" makes about the evidence.
-
There's no "mountain of evidence". There's just a mountain of claims that "Mytton" makes about the evidence.
No mountain needed
The 'silly little communist* shot himself in the foot
*Jackie
-
More incoherent babbling from Bill Chapman.
-
More incoherent babbling from Bill Chapman.
My deepest condolences for your continuing inability to read between the lines.
-
Which is Chapman-speak for making up incoherent crap and patting yourself on the back about how clever you think you are.
-
Which is Chapman-speak for making up incoherent crap and patting yourself on the back about how clever you think you are.
'Which is Chapman-speak for making up incoherent crap and patting yourself himself on the back about how clever you think you are he thinks he is.'
There, fixed it for you, professor.
-
Glad you agree that is what you are doing.
-
Chapman as Third Person is going all tongue-in-cheek to emphasize Iacoletti's continuing inability to read between the lines.
-
Gentlemen,
I have a question regarding the authenticity of the backyard photographs. Marina testified she took the photos on the instructions of, and aided by, her husband. But since she has credibility issues, many people believe she lied about this, as she did on many other occasions, because she was threatened with deportation back to the USSR. This was in 1963-1964.
Yesterday I watched an interview with Marina Oswald-Porter as she is now known - apparently she remarried. In it, she told reporter Jack Anderson that she took the backyard photos. The interview was done in 1988. In a conversation she had with Governor Jesse Ventura for his tv program Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura she reaffirmed this statement, although not directly on camera. Unfortunately I can't find the segment no more and am therefore unable to determine the year it was broadcast, but it was well after the 1988 Jack Anderson program.
So is she still lying? What possible reason could she have? She has reversed many of her past (1963-64) statements and has not been deported as far as I know.
Thanks in advance for your considered reply
This is one of the few things she's been consistent on. It would seem she did take at least two of those photos, but necessarily all four. I don't think she ever claimed to have taken more than two.
-
Gosh, really? The fact that it was never entered into the master book/control book suggests that it was not a real item, that it was fabricated and was not an item that went through the normal processing and documentation procedures.
That is why you cannot find any evidence that the money order was ever cashed. That is why there is no evidence that it was processed by the bank or by the Federal Reserve System.
That is why the money order was bought by someone else, while Oswald was at work at Jaggars-Stovall.
Etc., etc., etc.
And, by the way, regarding your claim about the timing of and reasons for the SBT's creation, you might want to read historian Dr. Gerald McKnight's chapter on this in his book Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (University Press of Kansas, 2005). It is chapter 8.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22439-yes-postal-money-orders-do-require-bank-endorsements/?do=findComment&comment=521923
Nice work, Sandy. Very nice work. The whole rifle-ordering affair has always struck me as smelling bad, sounding fishy, and making no sense. Why bother with getting a money order and postage and filling out an order form, when you can just walk into any gun store and buy a rifle in a matter of minutes--and without leaving a paper trail?
Edited December 4 by Michael Griffith
It is not "nice work". It misinforms, by individuals who seem to prefer to be. New postal money order design and point of sale issuance came to Dallas and much of the rest of the country in early 1963, along with a new serial number sequence. Old format PMOs, blue in color, had to be manually key punched at each FRB, the operator reading the dollar amount off of each PMO and key punching the corresponding code into each PMO. These were still sent to Kansas City, slated to close as the volume diminished after sales ceased. There was no way for the new design yellow PMO, printed at sale on new countertop machines off of individual paper slips along with two receipt stubs not associated with any PMO record "book" to end up in the KC PMO storage center because that was the step in the sequence after the manual keypunching at the FRBs, which the new design PMOs were not subjected to. New design PMOs could not end up in Arlington, VA without a FLN (file locator number facilitating retrieval) printed on the face, conceivably any other way than routine processed, in the case of larger regional bank back offices, logged on a batched shipment accompanied by a cash letter delivered to the local FRB for transport to the US Treasury Processing Center in DC, but not processed individually at the closest FRB.Large banks competed with the FRB with regard to processing and only subvmitted processed batches to accompany to DC the processed output of the closest FRB.
It is obvious from comments posted by Michael and others at the Ed Forum that the facts included in this post are required, again, this month since inaccurate information creating unnecessary concern continues to go unchallenged, despite proof being presented to Joseph and Hargrove in 2015 that Armstrong was mistaken!
Loads slowly from archive.org :
https://web.archive.org/web/20170806231323/http://www.jfk.education/node/11
Sorry Brian, Jean, and DVP, Banks Did Not Key-Punch 1963 P.O. Money Orders
Submitted by Admin on Tue, 11/10/2015 - 06:47
Updated November 19, 2015:
https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/afips/1966/5068/00/50680479.pdf
(Lance Payette brought this to my attention, today. "File Locator Numbers - See Explanation, below:)
Hargrove, quoting Joseph resurrecting what had been disproven 29 months earlier.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22439-yes-postal-money-orders-do-require-bank-endorsements/?do=findComment&comment=376402
On 4/27/2018 at 4:16 PM, David Josephs said:
So basically I am stuck at "a money order was purchased".... Unlike DVP - I cannot pretend that the existence of the item is PROOF the item is authentic... the Chain of events related to that item or the declaration of uniqueness give the item authenticity... (i.e. that the rifle was found on the sixth floor does not prove Oswald bought it)
Jason - why aren't the most basic rules of evidence authentication applied? If it came from a book that left stubs.... and a USP Inspector claims they found the PMO based on finding that stub... why isn't that book/stub in evidence?
If there were only 2 $21.45's... then this is not the correct deposit to prove anything related to that PMO - let alone that it was mailed from Dallas to Chicago (airmail), then received, opened, processed and deposited in less than 24 hours. And then there's the fact the deposit is dated FEBRUATY 15 not March....
If the PMO was created from a different book (analysis of the numbering of the PMO reveals a problem) that evening at the USPS center very few things would be needed for this item to come alive... the ONLY thing that could not exist would be the book/stub from where it came as that would prove the deception.
And Finally the PMO #2,202,130,461.... Books of these blank PMOs are sent all over the country... On Nov 14, 1962 Oswald uses PMO# 1,158,380,709 to send $10 to Uncle Sam to pay off his loan... Is it really conceivable that between Dec 1962 and March 1963 over 1 billion PMOs would be used ?
Either resulting from aging or willful desire reiterate Armstrong's uninformed assumptions, this disproven claim about mysterious PO serial $'s discrepancy was posted again (See Hargrove and Joseph, above.)
Baloney, Michael! an SS agent retrieved the yellow PMO on Saturday evening, 11/23, receiving it to the home of Mr. Marks, a Post office executive, who received it from an employee of the Arlington, VA archive. David Joseph went on BlackOp radio to claim that employee did not exist. I presented this to silence him....
....
...
In the article I presented in Nov., 2015, linked in the quote box directly above, I've supported better than any other source I've been able to find, the following points.:
The PMOs Oswald was known to have purchased in Dallas in fall, 1962, sent to the Dept. of State to repay a travel loan, were of the old, blue colored variety, of a serial number sequence and a process incompatible with the Postal Money Order (PMO) associated with Klein's Sporting Goods.
The blue colored money orders had no automatic data processing associated with the face amounts of dollars and cents filled in manually by the issuing postal clerks at point of purchase.
Instead, each and every one went through a process unique to them, performed by regional Fed. Reserve banks' keypunch operators contracted by the Post Office, via the Federal Reserve. IOW, the Post Office paid the Federal Reserve more than $600,000 annually to hire keypunch operators who manually read the face amount displayed on each blue colored PMO, and then keypunched that amount into each PMO card, in machine language code!
If you read my entire article linked in the quote box above, you will be informed that the blue colored money orders ended up in the Post Office Money order center in Kansas City, MO, where manual fraud detection was conducted and PMOs were manually archived and stored for two years until destruction, per statute.
The innovation associated with the yellow colored PMOs of the type Tim depicted, made the Kansas City PMO center and the Fed. Reserve bank, PMO keypunch process obsolete.
The yellow PMOs were keypunched in Friden manufactured machines at the sales counter of each post office, as each was purchased. The postal clerk simply punched in the purchase amount as each PMO was paid for, and then issued. Upon arrival at the U.S. Treasury data center in DC, large banks submitted both US Treasury checks and PMOs in bulk, from their backroom clearing operations, accompanied with a "cash letter" for each bundle, listing the individual amounts and the total amount of each bundle.
The Treasury's data center operators fed the checks and PMOs into readers capable of reconciling totals and printing file locator numbers (FLN) on each. From there, all were sent on to the archive in Arlington, VA, where they were automatically stored and retrieved via the FLN....
The confusion over the introduction of the new yellow money orders, aggravated further by the incomplete assumptions presented by John Armstrong, would only have been made even more counterproductive if both the old style blue PMOs and the new style yellow PMOs were suddenly and simultaneously all routed in bulk to each Fed. Reserve Bank, especially since most banks either were large enough to prepare cash letters for the unique Treasury issued checks or, in the case of smaller banks, contracted with larger banks for this back office service.
The new yellow PMOs were intentionally designed to be processed identically with the already existing design and processing of checks issued by the U.S. Gov!
So.... especially during that critical transition period during the sequential, regional introduction of the new, yellow colored PMOs, the last thing the Fed. Reserve banks needed was to receive both styles of money orders in bulk. There was no processing of US Treasury issued checks or of yellow PMOs the Federal Reserve banks needed to do!. The Treasury data center had an automated process to sort, verify, and route all of them to the Arlington, VA archive, and once each accompanying cash letter was proofed via that automated process, it could be submitted to the Federal Reserve for debiting of the Post Office account and crediting of the account of each PMO cashing bank.
As the older, blue colored PMOs diminished.... I presented a late 1962 newsletter to Post Offices instructing each to burn their inventory of the obsolete, blue colored PMOs, they became few enough by the late 1960s to be handled individually.
The point of all of this is to say that the regional Fed. Banks processed only the few yellow PMOs submitted by small banks without clearing arrangements with banks large enough to conduct their own back office clearing, and the Fed. Banks treated them just as the big banks, bundling them with accompanying cash letters.
The regional Fed. Banks sent the bundles of US Treasury checks and yellow PMOs to the Treasury Data Center in DC, and this is the only contact they had with the Chicago bank Klein's deposited the yellow PMO at.
The unique thing about these U.S. Gov checks and yellow PMOs was that, unlike private entity issued checks, the Fed. Reserve submitted them to a middle step of verification, at the Treasury's Data Center, versus verifying and clearing all private checks entirely inside the Federal Reserve! ...
-
That is why you cannot find any evidence that the money order was ever cashed. That is why there is no evidence that it was processed by the bank or by the Federal Reserve System.
That is why the money order was bought by someone else, while Oswald was at work at Jaggars-Stovall.
Etc., etc., etc.
I know the above post is a few years old but I hope in the meantime you have thought this through because these two ideas, seem to be at cross purposes.
The first part of your post looks like the entire process was fraudulent from the start but your second idea is that the money order was actually sent? So what do you think happened?
Now, if someone(who ever it was), bought the money order and sent it to Kleins with the rifle coupon, what stopped the order from being completed in the usual way that Kleins processed all their orders?
Anyway, let's go deeper, the money order was retrieved from the Federal reserve and as Tom and Tim have pointed out, the Oswald Money Order was retrieved by locating the "File Locator Number"?
(https://i.postimg.cc/3wCFX4k3/A-HIDELL-Money-order.jpg)
And we know it was retrieved because the money order has a chain of custody from the National Archive until it was submitted into evidence
(https://i.postimg.cc/CKYjxhmX/backofmoneyorderinitial-zpsujp9yqie.jpg)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But let's suppose that the Money Order was entirely fraudulent, how would we fill in the original blank Money Order and get the Money Order to the Archive?
We'd have to have access to, or knowledge of, the Dallas Post Office date stamp.
We'd have to have knowledge of the correct keypunch procedure.
We'd have to be familiar with Kleins and have access to or knowledge of their bank stamp.
We'd have to know that a Money Order within the archives had to have a "File Locator Number".
We'd have to have access to the National Archives
We'd have to know that our "File Locator Number" would allow retrieval from the Archives.
So in conclusion we would need for reference, some completed and stored Money Orders to use as a template, and various insiders with the appropriate knowledge of each different company, therefore any perceived missing bank stamps or any other missing details were most likely never on any Money Orders within the Archives in the first place, because why go to the trouble and time investment of recreating an undetectable Money Order with infinite precision just to let the entire deception down with an easily detectable flaw?
Either Oswald just bought a Mail Order rifle or a massive team of conspirators went above and beyond, manufacturing a fraudulent transaction? If it was me and I was a Conspirator I would have just convinced 1 shop owner to say that Oswald bought a rifle. Easy peasy!
Btw then we have another problem in that the rifle was ordered under Oswald's alias "A. J. Hidell" which opens up a whole new case of worms.
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kliens coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kliens microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell name on on the Kleins Coupon found by Waldman on the night following the assassination was forgotten?
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
JohnM
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
hi Mr griffith the above pdf download link no longer works . i was wondering if you still have your book pdf available for download elsewhere ? . thank you .