JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Dan O'meara on May 02, 2021, 07:02:53 PM

Title: Spot The Difference
Post by: Dan O'meara on May 02, 2021, 07:02:53 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8pgL5wL/Photo-55-Sixth-Floor-angled-view-of-Sniper-s-Nest.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR7h90pP/Photo-56-Sixth-Floor-Sniper-s-Nest-close-up.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Which is the correct set up?
Why are they different?
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 02, 2021, 07:06:54 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8pgL5wL/Photo-55-Sixth-Floor-angled-view-of-Sniper-s-Nest.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR7h90pP/Photo-56-Sixth-Floor-Sniper-s-Nest-close-up.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Which is the correct set up?
Why are they different?

They are different because DPD officers messed with the potential crime scene by moving boxes.
And they did so without leaving any prints. Go figure!
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Dan O'meara on May 02, 2021, 07:14:48 PM
They are different because DPD officers messed with the potential crime scene by moving boxes.
And they did so without leaving any prints. Go figure!

I was under the impression the boxes were covered with prints, I could be wrong.

How can there be two photos of completely different set-ups in evidence?

Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 02, 2021, 07:29:56 PM
I was under the impression the boxes were covered with prints, I could be wrong.

How can there be two photos of completely different set-ups in evidence?

Oh there were prints on the boxes. Two parcials linked to Oswald and some 25 apparently linked to DPD officer Studebaker, but that last link wasn't made until September 1964 when the WC report was already being printed.

Astonishing isn't it. Studebaker allegedly left 25 prints just moving a couple of boxes and Oswald allegedly left only two parcials while building the entire snipers nest. I have a bridge for sale for anybody who believes this!

How can there be two photos of completely different set-ups in evidence?

There are two sets of photos, one taken on 11/22/64 and the other one or two days later. Can you imagine what would have happened if those two sets would have been presented in a court?

Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Bill Chapman on May 02, 2021, 08:27:03 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8pgL5wL/Photo-55-Sixth-Floor-angled-view-of-Sniper-s-Nest.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR7h90pP/Photo-56-Sixth-Floor-Sniper-s-Nest-close-up.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Which is the correct set up?
Why are they different?

The first one. I read they were photographed in position, removed for fingerprinting, then replaced later at random. There's a Getty Images photo of the second image from a different angle in which the boxes appear to be almost dirty; which I took to be powder from the fingerprinting procedure.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 02, 2021, 10:59:33 PM
Oh there were prints on the boxes. Two parcials linked to Oswald and some 25 apparently linked to DPD officer Studebaker, but that last link wasn't made until September 1964 when the WC report was already being printed.

Astonishing isn't it. Studebaker allegedly left 25 prints just moving a couple of boxes and Oswald allegedly left only two parcials while building the entire snipers nest. I have a bridge for sale for anybody who believes this!

How can there be two photos of completely different set-ups in evidence?

There are two sets of photos, one taken on 11/22/64 and the other one or two days later. Can you imagine what would have happened if those two sets would have been presented in a court?

Who claimed Oswald built the entire SN?  Oswald just moved a few boxes to use as a shooting platform and left his prints.  The other boxes were already in place. One print is enough to conclusively link him to the boxes.  What is so astonishing about an investigator who touched the boxes leaving his prints on them while he searched for evidence?
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 02, 2021, 11:27:17 PM
Who claimed Oswald built the entire SN?  Oswald just moved a few boxes to use as a shooting platform and left his prints.  The other boxes were already in place. One print is enough to conclusively link him to the boxes.  What is so astonishing about an investigator who touched the boxes leaving his prints on them while he searched for evidence?

The other boxes were already in place.

Really? Says who?

One print is enough to conclusively link him to the boxes.

Yes indeed... boxes at his place of work, where part of his job was moving boxes. Big deal!

What is so astonishing about an investigator who touched the boxes leaving his prints on them while he searched for evidence?

That's not astonishing. That is what one would accept when those boxes full with books are handled. What is astonishing is that Oswald allegedly handled those same boxes and only left two parcial prints yet Studebaker alone is supposed to have left 25.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 03, 2021, 02:14:41 AM
The other boxes were already in place.

Really? Says who?

One print is enough to conclusively link him to the boxes.

Yes indeed... boxes at his place of work, where part of his job was moving boxes. Big deal!

What is so astonishing about an investigator who touched the boxes leaving his prints on them while he searched for evidence?

That's not astonishing. That is what one would accept when those boxes full with books are handled. What is astonishing is that Oswald allegedly handled those same boxes and only left two parcial prints yet Studebaker alone is supposed to have left 25.

We have gone over this one a thousand times.  Oswald is the only TSBD employee to leave his prints on the SN boxes.  So the excuse that "he worked there" doesn't cut.  Other folks worked on that floor but didn't leave their prints on the boxes used by the sniper.  And you really believe the official story is that every single box around the 6th floor would have been moved there by Oswald to construct the SN?  And that none of those boxes were already in place.  Wow.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 03, 2021, 02:17:21 AM
We have gone over this one a thousand times.  Oswald is the only TSBD employee to leave his prints on the SN boxes.  So the excuse that "he worked there" doesn't cut.  Other folks worked on that floor but didn't leave their prints on the boxes used by the sniper.  And you really believe the official story is that every single box around the 6th floor would have been moved there by Oswald to construct the SN?  And that none of those boxes were already in place.  Wow.

Hey idiot, stop changing the subject.

Who said the other boxes were already in place?

You can't, can you now pathetic low life. Never answering any questions is you M.O.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 03, 2021, 02:22:00 AM
Hey idiot, stop changing the subject.

Who said the other boxes were already in place?

You can't, can you now pathetic low life. Never answering any questions is you M.O.

I'm trying to understand what you are suggesting.  That all those boxes around the 6th floor window were moved there by Oswald or some conspirator and were not already in that position?   And no one saw all those boxes being move by some strangers on the 6th floor?  That is far out UFO stuff.  That's a lot of boxes.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 03, 2021, 02:29:55 AM
I'm trying to understand what you are suggesting.  That all those boxes around the 6th floor window were moved there by Oswald or some conspirator and were not already in that position?   And no one saw all those boxes being move by some strangers on the 6th floor?  That is far out UFO stuff.  That's a lot of boxes.

I don't give a f*ck what you are trying to figure out.

You claimed that the "other boxes [of the snipers nest] were already in place"

For once, present the evidence for one of your pathetic claims.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 03, 2021, 03:06:00 AM
I don't give a f*ck what you are trying to figure out.

You claimed that the "other boxes [of the snipers nest] were already in place"

For once, present the evidence for one of your pathetic claims.

You are starting to lose it.  Truly confirmed those boxes were in place due to the floor laying project on the 6th floor.  The only boxes out of place were those Rolling Reader boxes that Oswald moved as a gun rest.  The very ones that had his prints on them.

 Mr. TRULY. They moved a long row of books down parallel to the windows on the south side, following the building, and had quite a lot of cartons on the north--let's see-- the southeast corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. Sometime on November 22d did you go to the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice anything particularly about the books that were in the southeast corner?
Mr. TRULY. I didn't at that time with the exception of a few cartons that were moved. But, I did not know any pattern that the boys used in putting these cartons up there. They were just piled up there more or less at that time



Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 03, 2021, 03:10:45 AM
You are starting to lose it.  Truly confirmed those boxes were in place due to the floor laying project on the 6th floor.  The only boxes out of place were those Rolling Reader boxes that Oswald moved as a gun rest.  The very ones that had his prints on them.

 Mr. TRULY. They moved a long row of books down parallel to the windows on the south side, following the building, and had quite a lot of cartons on the north--let's see-- the southeast corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. Sometime on November 22d did you go to the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice anything particularly about the books that were in the southeast corner?
Mr. TRULY. I didn't at that time with the exception of a few cartons that were moved. But, I did not know any pattern that the boys used in putting these cartons up there. They were just piled up there more or less at that time

Truly confirmed those boxes were in place due to the floor laying project on the 6th floor.  The only boxes out of place were those Rolling Reader boxes that Oswald moved as a gun rest.  The very ones that had his prints on them. 

None of this is in the testimony you quoted.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Patrick Jackson on May 03, 2021, 06:49:04 AM
To gain the correct setup, you need to take all other photos into the consideration. And even when you compare it all, you will not be 100% sure what was the setup at 12:30PM.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on May 03, 2021, 12:20:47 PM
To gain the correct setup, you need to take all other photos into the consideration. And even when you compare it all, you will not be 100% sure what was the setup at 12:30PM.

Whatever the 'correct setup', Ozzie still shot Jack.  End of story.  It was his lucky day....... sigh+  but not for us.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 03, 2021, 12:48:06 PM
Whatever the 'correct setup', Ozzie still shot Jack.  End of story.  It was his lucky day....... sigh+  but not for us.

Oh boy, Mark Oblazney said it happened that way so it must be true.
Time to close the forum

 :D
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 03, 2021, 02:38:58 PM
Truly confirmed those boxes were in place due to the floor laying project on the 6th floor.  The only boxes out of place were those Rolling Reader boxes that Oswald moved as a gun rest.  The very ones that had his prints on them. 

None of this is in the testimony you quoted.

Yes, it does.  Truly confirms that the only cartons that didn't belong there were the Rolling Reader boxes.   If they are out of place, then the other boxes were, as he explained, properly in that location.  No one - Oswald or anyfantasy conspirator - could have moved all the boxes around that window unnoticed in an effort to construct the SN.  There were dozens on large boxes. It was already largely in place.  And Oswald just moved a few smaller boxes to construct the gun rest.

Representative FORD. The Rolling Reader boxes were not ordinarily in that southeast corner?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. That was not the place for them. They were 40 feet or so away.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 03, 2021, 02:48:22 PM
Yes, it does.  Truly confirms that the only cartons that didn't belong there were the Rolling Reader boxes.   If they are out of place, then the other boxes were, as he explained, properly in that location.  No one - Oswald or anyfantasy conspirator - could have moved all the boxes around that window unnoticed in an effort to construct the SN.  There were dozens on large boxes. It was already largely in place.  And Oswald just moved a few smaller boxes to construct the gun rest.

Representative FORD. The Rolling Reader boxes were not ordinarily in that southeast corner?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. That was not the place for them. They were 40 feet or so away.

Amazing. You still don't understand that your conclusions about what Truly is saying is not evidence.

Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Dan O'meara on May 03, 2021, 04:47:22 PM
Whatever the 'correct setup', Ozzie still shot Jack.  End of story.  It was his lucky day....... sigh+  but not for us.

So having two completely different set-ups in evidence is ok with you?
You're satisfied with that?
It doesn't tell you something about the incompetent/corrupt nature of the investigation?

Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Bill Chapman on May 03, 2021, 05:53:33 PM
Whatever the 'correct setup', Ozzie still shot Jack.  End of story.  It was his lucky day....... sigh+  but not for us.

It was a lucky day for conspiracy-authors everywhere. They got to line their pockets thanks to the Oswald-loving crowd, who in turn found something to live for, which in turn gives Oswald a real shot at being remembered for the next 10,000 9,942 years. Which in turn, down in Hell, keeps a permanent smirk on the little prick's face.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 03, 2021, 05:59:39 PM
So having two completely different set-ups in evidence is ok with you?
You're satisfied with that?
It doesn't tell you something about the incompetent/corrupt nature of the investigation?

Obviously, the crime scene analysis in Nov. '63 would be vastly different than today.  Is that ideal? No.  But that doesn't negate for a second, however, the basic evidence that links Oswald to this crime beyond doubt.  His rifle, his prints, his bullet casings, no alibi, flight from the crime scene, involvement in another murder less than an hour later.  It's a slam dunk.  If we never know exactly how Oswald arranged the boxes because the cops moved them around while searching for evidence, then so be it.  It means nothing in terms of Oswald's guilt. 
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Dan O'meara on May 03, 2021, 06:30:39 PM
Obviously, the crime scene analysis in Nov. '63 would be vastly different than today.  Is that ideal? No.  But that doesn't negate for a second, however, the basic evidence that links Oswald to this crime beyond doubt.  His rifle, his prints, his bullet casings, no alibi, flight from the crime scene, involvement in another murder less than an hour later.  It's a slam dunk.  If we never know exactly how Oswald arranged the boxes because the cops moved them around while searching for evidence, then so be it.  It means nothing in terms of Oswald's guilt.

My point isn't about how the boxes were originally arranged.
It's about having two completely different set ups in evidence. If this was the only example of the profound incompetence/corruption of the investigation, it would still be bad enough. This is the crime scene.
The doubts about the investigation allow all sorts of  BS: to proliferate - there can be little doubt about that - but to describe an investigation that is as shoddy as these pictures demonstrate as a "slam dunk" is way off.
It doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it but the confidence you exhibit about it is unwarranted.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 03, 2021, 06:42:57 PM
My point isn't about how the boxes were originally arranged.
It's about having two completely different set ups in evidence. If this was the only example of the profound incompetence/corruption of the investigation, it would still be bad enough. This is the crime scene.
The doubts about the investigation allow all sorts of  BS: to proliferate - there can be little doubt about that - but to describe an investigation that is as shoddy as these pictures demonstrate as a "slam dunk" is way off.
It doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it but the confidence you exhibit about it is unwarranted.

The evidence is the evidence.  There is no doubt that Oswald's rifle was found on the floor from which witnesses saw a rifle in the SN window.  Fired bullet casings from that same rifle were found by that window.  Oswald's prints on are the boxes by that window.  He has no alibi for the moment of the shooting.  Instead he flees the scene and becomes involved in another murder.  He lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle.  It is actually difficult to imagine how we could have much more evidence of his guilt.  The pedantic analysis of chicken bones and arrangement of the boxes has some historical interest but does absolutely nothing to rebut the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.  That is mostly just rabbit hole nitpicking that many CTer like to go down instead of dealing with the basic evidence of the case.   I agree, however, that the investigators provided fodder to CTers by making many premature statements about the investigation that were erroneous.   The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards but whether LHO assassinated JFK.  And there is no doubt as to the latter.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Dan O'meara on May 03, 2021, 07:03:49 PM
The evidence is the evidence.  There is no doubt that Oswald's rifle was found on the floor from which witnesses saw a rifle in the SN window.  Fired bullet casings from that same rifle were found by that window.  Oswald's prints on are the boxes by that window.  He has no alibi for the moment of the shooting.  Instead he flees the scene and becomes involved in another murder.  He lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle.  It is actually difficult to imagine how we could have much more evidence of his guilt.  The pedantic analysis of chicken bones and arrangement of the boxes has some historical interest but does absolutely nothing to rebut the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.  That is mostly just rabbit hole nitpicking that many CTer like to go down instead of dealing with the basic evidence of the case.   I agree, however, that the investigators provided fodder to CTers by making many premature statements about the investigation that were erroneous.   The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards but whether LHO assassinated JFK.  And there is no doubt as to the latter.

"The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards"

To imagine having two different set ups for the crime scene was ideal by the standards of the 1960's is dubious, to say the least.
To imagine this is "nit-picking" is plain wrong.
As for the "pedantic" examination of the lunch remains...if Oswald's prints would've been on the soda pop bottle it would have been one of the most important pieces of physical evidence in the case, placing Oswald in the SN. But his prints weren't found on it so it was lost/discarded/ignored. Questions of a potential accomplice weren't entertained for a second. When the evidence was sent off to the FBI that evening the lunch remains were not even considered evidence. The Oswald-Did-It-Alone mentality was in full force on day one. Again, this doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it, it just means the investigation was so incompetent and so blinkered that it can come as no surprise it is still being questioned today.
Just to remind you:

(https://i.postimg.cc/v8pgL5wL/Photo-55-Sixth-Floor-angled-view-of-Sniper-s-Nest.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR7h90pP/Photo-56-Sixth-Floor-Sniper-s-Nest-close-up.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

How crazy is this?
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 03, 2021, 07:32:43 PM
"The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards"

To imagine having two different set ups for the crime scene was ideal by the standards of the 1960's is dubious, to say the least.
To imagine this is "nit-picking" is plain wrong.
As for the "pedantic" examination of the lunch remains...if Oswald's prints would've been on the soda pop bottle it would have been one of the most important pieces of physical evidence in the case, placing Oswald in the SN. But his prints weren't found on it so it was lost/discarded/ignored. Questions of a potential accomplice weren't entertained for a second. When the evidence was sent off to the FBI that evening the lunch remains were not even considered evidence. The Oswald-Did-It-Alone mentality was in full force on day one. Again, this doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it, it just means the investigation was so incompetent and so blinkered that it can come as no surprise it is still being questioned today.
Just to remind you:

(https://i.postimg.cc/v8pgL5wL/Photo-55-Sixth-Floor-angled-view-of-Sniper-s-Nest.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR7h90pP/Photo-56-Sixth-Floor-Sniper-s-Nest-close-up.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

How crazy is this?

It doesn't strike me as a big deal that the boxes were moved in the search for evidence and perhaps no one remembered exactly how they were found.  Again, not ideal but so what?  Oswald's rifle was found.  Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found.  His prints are on all the relevant evidence.  After nearly 60 years of every official investigation and many "researchers" looking under every rock, there is still no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone other than Oswald.  There are some folks who would not accept that Oswald was the assassin even if they had a time machine. 

Just because we can never know everything with absolute certainty doesn't mean we can't know anything or reach reasonable conclusions about what happened.   That is the basic distinction between LNers and CTers.  CTers are unable to distinguish information from knowledge.  They become overwhelmed by endless details.  They see anomalies or unimportant details that can't be exlained to their satisfaction as de facto proof of conspiracy. The conclusion or implications they draw from this information doesn't have to add up to any coherent counter narrative or even be mutually consistent.  They can draw inconsistent conclusions from the evidence and not miss a beat (e.g. the purpose of the conspirators was to start a war with Cuba but the conspirators framed Oswald and ignored evidence of Cuban involvement).  Until someone can explain the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor and why Oswald lied to the DPD about his ownership of that rifle, there is no real uncertainty about the only issue that really matters.  Who killed JFK?  The evidence confirms that is LHO even if we can't answer every question about that day with certainty.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Dan O'meara on May 03, 2021, 09:06:58 PM
It doesn't strike me as a big deal that the boxes were moved in the search for evidence and perhaps no one remembered exactly how they were found.  Again, not ideal but so what?  Oswald's rifle was found.  Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found.  His prints are on all the relevant evidence.  After nearly 60 years of every official investigation and many "researchers" looking under every rock, there is still no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone other than Oswald.  There are some folks who would not accept that Oswald was the assassin even if they had a time machine. 

Just because we can never know everything with absolute certainty doesn't mean we can't know anything or reach reasonable conclusions about what happened.   That is the basic distinction between LNers and CTers.  CTers are unable to distinguish information from knowledge.  They become overwhelmed by endless details.  They see anomalies or unimportant details that can't be exlained to their satisfaction as de facto proof of conspiracy. The conclusion or implications they draw from this information doesn't have to add up to any coherent counter narrative or even be mutually consistent.  They can draw inconsistent conclusions from the evidence and not miss a beat (e.g. the purpose of the conspirators was to start a war with Cuba but the conspirators framed Oswald and ignored evidence of Cuban involvement).  Until someone can explain the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor and why Oswald lied to the DPD about his ownership of that rifle, there is no real uncertainty about the only issue that really matters.  Who killed JFK?  The evidence confirms that is LHO even if we can't answer every question about that day with certainty.

"The conclusion or implications they draw from this information doesn't have to add up to any coherent counter narrative or even be mutually consistent"


It is surely time for a coherent counter-narrative to be produced that (non-mental) CTers can get behind as there are aspects of this case that do not sit well with the LN narrative (nearly everyone who was on the 6th floor lying in their various statements, the Rose Cherami case, Shelley in New Orleans etc.)
Until then it's just endless rabbit-hole  BS:

I disagree about the importance of having two completely different photos of the crime scene in evidence and just repeating "Oswald's rifle" isn't addressing the issues being raised in this thread. I get the impression, because of the bitterness generated by the fringe (see Otto's post above), you can't engage in any sensible discussion about the incompetence/corruption of the investigation without half a dozen arseholes jumping down your throat.

It's all really f^*king annoying.

Other than the points raised in this post, it is very difficult to argue with anything you're saying.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 04, 2021, 02:22:27 PM
"Oswald's rifle" - - LOL

No Warren wanker, including you, have so far been able to support that claim.

Can't wait to see you go down in flames trying just one more time, please!

The evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is well documented.  Maybe instead of my recounting it once again you can tell us what evidence is lacking.  There are photos, forms, serial numbers and even prints that link Oswald to a specific rifle.  The one found on the 6th floor.  But if that doesn't do it, perhaps outline for us how investigators link a suspect to a weapon and what is lacking in this context.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Patrick Jackson on May 04, 2021, 02:45:18 PM
So having two completely different set-ups in evidence is ok with you?
You're satisfied with that?
It doesn't tell you something about the incompetent/corrupt nature of the investigation?

You are right. I was comparing boxes photos a lot and there are many differences that it is absolutely impossible to determine which is the exact set up Oswald left behind. You simply cannot state that any photo of the sniper nest is the exact what DPD found. Crime scene was interupted in who knows which and how many ways.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 04, 2021, 07:21:15 PM
There's no "but" as you haven't put anything on the table so far "in this context" (but nice try).

Ownership is fine with me; if Oswald owned the rifle it's Oswald's rifle.

Even "well documented", so you should have no problems getting started.

I'm not following what you mean by "Ownership is fine with me."  I thought you were disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald?  The WC detailed the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  It's been a matter of public record for almost six decades.  Do you just want me to recite that again?  I"m assuming that you are aware of that evidence. Why play silly games to avoid a direct question?  If you are disputing that it was Oswald's rifle, then simply specify why you reached that conclusion (e.g. cite what evidence is lacking).
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 04, 2021, 07:30:13 PM
I'm not following what you mean by "Ownership is fine with me."  I thought you were disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald?  The WC detailed the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  It's been a matter of public record for almost six decades.  Do you just want me to recite that again?  I"m assuming that you are aware of that evidence. Why play silly games to avoid a direct question?  If you are disputing that it was Oswald's rifle, then simply specify why you reached that conclusion (e.g. cite what evidence is lacking).

You still haven't figured why you can not definitively conclude from the available evidence that Oswald owned a rifle or even the MC rifle that was found at the TSBD.

As per usual you can only assume it is, by simply ignoring all sorts of possible variables

The WC detailed the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

No, they simply claimed it was on the say so based on extremely questionable evidence.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 04, 2021, 07:59:58 PM
You still haven't figured why you can not definitively conclude from the available evidence that Oswald owned a rifle or even the MC rifle that was found at the TSBD.

As per usual you can only assume it is, by simply ignoring all sorts of possible variables

The WC detailed the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

No, they simply claimed it was on the say so based on extremely questionable evidence.

Did I miss the part where you specified what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle?  Photos - check.  Order form - check.  Oswald's palm print - check.  Serial number match - check.   Oswald's alias used to order the rifle - check.   Oswald's PO Box address - check.  Absent a time machine, it is difficult to imagine what more evidence of this fact would reasonably be expected to exist.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 04, 2021, 08:18:14 PM
Did I miss the part where you specified what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle?  Photos - check.  Order form - check.  Oswald's palm print - check.  Serial number match - check.   Oswald's alias used to order the rifle - check.   Oswald's PO Box address - check.  Absent a time machine, it is difficult to imagine what more evidence of this fact would reasonably be expected to exist.

Did I miss the part where you specified what evidence is lacking from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle? 

No you didn't miss it. You ignored it as per usual.

Photos - check. Photos of a man holding a rifle does not prove ownership of that rifle

Order form - check. You mean photocopy of a (now gone missing) microfilm and the opinion of one FBI handwriting expert?

Oswald's palm print - check. Which surfaces days after Oswald was killed on an evidence card. The FBI examined the rifle during the night after the assassination and found no prints.

Serial number match - check Match with what? A photocopy of an internal Klein's document which had mainly printed or typed information on it, and conviently a handwritten serial number? That kind of match?

Oswald's alias used to order the rifle - check. Really? Other than your assumptions, where is the proof for that?

Oswald's PO Box address - check. Is it a crime to have a postoffice box, now? If indeed he actually had one. It's so hard to tell with so many things going missing, like part of the paperwork for the P.O. box. But let's say that Oswald owned a PO box, how does that prove he owned a rifle?

Absent a time machine, it is difficult to imagine what more evidence of this fact would reasonably be expected to exist.

What "fact" would that be? You've given me some highly questionable "evidence" that doesn't even come close to proving any fact. It does however show once again just how shallow, gullible and naive you truly are.

You actually believe that by parroting the WC fairytale you are somehow proving something. So sad.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 04, 2021, 08:52:49 PM
I'm not following what you mean by "Ownership is fine with me."

I'm simply stating that if you provide supporting evidence for Oswald owning the rifle I'm fine with "Oswald's rifle".

I thought you were disputing that the rifle belonged to Oswald?

I am, see above how to fix it.

The WC detailed the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

They didn't.

It's been a matter of public record for almost six decades.

Wrong, see above.

Do you just want me to recite that again?

How would I know what you consider supporting evidence? I'll consider anything you can provide a link to (or at least reference by CE number or some FBI identification) and we'll go from there.

I"m assuming that you are aware of that evidence.

Depends on what "that evidence" is, see above.

Why play silly games to avoid a direct question?

No games, so far you haven't brought anything to the table except.....Warren Commission.

If you are disputing that it was Oswald's rifle, then simply specify why you reached that conclusion (e.g. cite what evidence is lacking).

Since nobody so far has provided evidence of Oswald taking ownership of that rifle or at least that it was sold to him.

Capisce?

So silly.  Again, it's not "my" evidence but evidence gathered by the official investigators.  The WC has an entire section on the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  In fact, it is titled:  "Ownership and Possession of Assassination Weapon."  LOL.  But I'll play along just to see how long you can avoid trying to articulate why you believe this evidence is insufficient to link Oswald to the rifle.  Very amusing.  Capisce?  Here is "my" evidence:

OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ASSASSINATION WEAPON

Purchase of Rifle by Oswald

Shortly after the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building,1 agents of the FBI learned from retail outlets in Dallas that Crescent Firearms, Inc., of New York City, was a distributor of surplus Italian 6.5-millimeter military rifles.2 During the evening of November 22, 1963, a review of the records of Crescent Firearms revealed that the firm had shipped an Italian carbine, serial number C2766, to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., of Chicago, Ill.3 After searching their records from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. the officers of Klein's discovered that a rifle bearing serial number C2766 had been shipped to one A. Hidell,

Page 119

Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex., on March 20, 1963.4 (See Waldman Exhibit No. 7, p. 120.)

According to its microfilm records, Klein's received an order for a rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman magazine. The order coupon was signed, in handprinting, "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." (See Commission Exhibit No. 773, p. 120.) It was sent in an envelope bearing the same name and return address in handwriting. Document examiners for the Treasury Department and the FBI testified unequivocally that the bold printing on the face of the mail-order coupon was in the handprinting of Lee Harvey Oswald and that the writing on the envelope was also his. 5 Oswald's writing on these and other documents was identified by comparing the writing and printing on the documents in question with that appearing on documents known to have been written by Oswald, such as his letters, passport application, and endorsements of checks.6 (See app. X, p. 568-569.)

In addition to the order coupon the envelope contained a. U.S. postal money order for $21.45, purchased as No. 2,202,130,462 in Dallas, Tex., on March 12, 1963.7 The canceled money order was obtained from the Post Office Department. Opposite the printed words "Pay To" were written the words "Kleins Sporting Goods," and opposite the printed word "From" were written the words "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915 Dallas, Texas." These words were also in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. 8 (See Commission Exhibit No. 788, p. 120.)

From Klein's records it was possible to trace the processing of the order after its receipt. A bank deposit made on March 13, 1963, included an item of $21.45. Klein's shipping order form shows an imprint made by the cash register which recorded the receipt of $21.45 on March 13, 1963. This price included $19.95 for the rifle and the scope, and $1.50 for postage and handling. The rifle without the scope cost only $12.78.9

According to the vice president of Klein's, William Waldman, the scope was mounted on the rifle by a gunsmith employed by Klein's, and the rifle was shipped fully assembled in accordance with customary company procedures. 10 The specific rifle shipped against the order had been received by Klein's from Crescent on February 21, 1963. It bore the manufacturer's serial number C2766. On that date, Klein's placed an internal control number VC836 on this rifle. 11 According to Klein's shipping order form, one Italian carbine 6.5 X-4 x scope, control number VC836, serial number C2766, was shipped parcel post to "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas," on March 20, 1963. 12 Information received from the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service has established that this particular rifle was the only rifle of its type bearing serial number C2766.13 (See app. X, p. 554.)

The post office box to which the rifle was shipped was rented to "Lee H. Oswald" from October 9, 1962, to May 14, 1963.14 Experts on handwriting identification from the Treasury Department and the

Page 120

This page reproduces COMMISSION EXHIBITS 791, 773, 788, and WALDMAN'S EXHIBIT 7 showing documents establishing purchase of rifle by Lee Harvey Oswald

Page 121

FBI testified that the signature and other writing on the application for that box were in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald,15 as was a change-of-address card dated May 12, 1963,16 by which Oswald requested that mail addressed to that box be forwarded to him in New Orleans, where he had moved on April 24.17 Since the rifle was shipped from Chicago on March 20, 1963, it was received in Dallas during the period when Oswald rented and used the box. (See Commission Exhibit No. 791, p. 120.)

It is not known whether the application for post office box 2915 listed "A. Hidell" as a person entitled to receive mail at this box. In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963. 18 Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes of the Dallas Post Office testified, however, that when a package is received for a certain box, a notice is placed in that box regardless of whether the name on the package is listed on the application as a person entitled to receive mail through that box. The person having access to the box then takes the notice to the window and is given the package. Ordinarily, Inspector Holmes testified, identification is not requested because it is assumed that the person with the notice is entitled to the package.19

Oswald's use of the name "Hidell" to purchase the assassination weapon was one of several instances in which he used this name as an alias. When arrested on the day of the assassination, he had in his possession a Smith & Wesson 38 caliber revolver purchased by mail-order coupon from Seaport-Traders, Inc., a mail-order division of George Rose & Co., Los Angeles. The mail-order coupon listed the purchaser as "A. J. Hidell Age 28" with the address of post office box 2915 in Dallas. 21 Handwriting experts from the FBI and the Treasury Department testified that the writing on the mail-order form was that of Lee Harvey Oswald.22

Among other identification cards in Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest were a Selective Service notice of classification, a Selective Service registration certificate,23 and a certificate of service in the U.S. Marine Corps,24 all three cards being in his own name. Also in his wallet at that time were a Selective Service notice of classification and a Marine certificate of service in the name of Alek James Hidell.25 On the Hidell Selective Service card there appeared a signature, "Alek J. Hidell," and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald.26 Experts on questioned documents from the Treasury Department and the FBI testified that the Hidell cards were counterfeit photographic reproductions made by photographing the Oswald cards, retouching the resulting negatives, and producing prints from the retouched negatives. The Hidell signature on the notice of classification was in the handwriting of Oswald. (See app. X, p. 572.)

In Oswald's personal effects found in his room at 1026 North Beckley Avenue in Dallas was a purported international certificate of vaccination signed by "Dr. A. J. Hideel, Post Office Box 30016, New

Page 122

Orleans. 28 It certified that Lee Harvey Oswald had been vaccinated for smallpox on June 8, 1963. This, too, was a forgery. The signature of "A. J. Hideel" was in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. 29 There is no "Dr. Hideel" licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana.30 There is no post office box 30016 in the New Orleans Post Office but Oswald had rented post office box 30061 in New Orleans on June 3, 1963, listing Marina Oswald and A. J. Hidell as additional persons entitled to receive mail in the box.32 The New Orleans postal authorities had not discarded the portion of the application listing the names of those, other than the owner of the box, entitled to receive mail through the box. Expert testimony confirmed that the writing on this application was that of Lee Harvey Oswald. 33

Hidell's name on the post office box application was part of Oswald's use of a nonexistent Hidell to serve as president of the so-called New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. (As discussed below in ch.VI, p. 292.) Marina Oswald testified that she first learned of Oswald's use of the fictitious name "Hidell" in connection with his pro-Castro activities in New Orleans.34 According to her testimony, he compelled her to write the name "Hidell" on membership cards in the space designated for the signature of the "Chapter President." 35 The name "Hidell" was stamped on some of the "Chapter's" printed literature and on the membership application blanks.36 Marina Oswald testified, "I knew there was no such organization. And I know Hidell is merely an altered Fidel, and I laughed at such foolishness." 37 Hidell was a fictitious president of an organization of which Oswald was the only member.38

When seeking employment in New Orleans, Oswald listed a "Sgt. Robt. Hidell" as a reference on one job application 39 and "George Hidell" as a reference on another.40 Both names were found to be fictitious.41 Moreover, the use of "Alek" as a first name for Hidell is a further link to Oswald because "Alek" was Oswald's nickname in Russia.42 Letters received by Marina Oswald from her husband signed "Alek" were given to the Commission.43

Return to Top

Oswald's Palmprint on Rifle Barrel

Based on the above evidence, the Commission concluded that Oswald purchased the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building. Additional evidence of ownership was provided in the form of palmprint identification which indicated that Oswald had possession of the rifle he had purchased.

A few minutes after the rifle was discovered on the sixth floor of the Depository Building 44 it was examined by Lt. J. C. Day of the identification bureau of the Dallas police. He lifted the rifle by the wooden stock after his examination convinced him that the wood was too rough to take fingerprints. Capt. J. W. Fritz then ejected a cartridge by operating the bolt, but only after Day viewed the knob on the bolt through a magnifying glass and found no prints.45 Day continued to examine the rifle with the magnifying glass, looking for

Page 123

possible fingerprints. He applied fingerprint powder to the side of the metal housing near the trigger, and noticed traces of two prints.46 At 11:45 p.m. on November 22, the rifle was released to the FBI and forwarded to Washington where it was examined on the morning of November 23 by Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint Section of the FBI's Identification Division.47

In his testimony before the Commission, Latona stated that when he received the rifle, the area where prints were visible was protected by cellophane.48 He examined these prints, as well as photographs of them which the Dallas police had made, and concluded that:
...the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.49
Latona then processed the complete weapon but developed no identifiable prints.50 He stated that the poor quality of the wood and the metal would cause the rifle to absorb moisture from the skin, thereby making a clear print unlikely. 51

On November 22, however, before surrendering possession of the rifle to the FBI Laboratory, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department had "lifted" a palmprint from the underside of the gun barrel "near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose." 52 "Lifting" a print involves the use of adhesive material to remove the fingerprint powder which adheres to the original print. In this way the powdered impression is actually removed from the object.53 The lifting had been so complete in this case that there was no trace of the print on the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed. 54 Day, on the other hand, believed that sufficient traces of the print had been left on the rifle barrel, because he did not release the lifted print until November 26, when he received instructions to send "everything that we had" to the FBI.55 The print arrived in the FBI Laboratory in Washington on November 29, mounted on a card on which Lieutenant Day had written the words "off underside gun barrel near end of grip C2766." 56 The print's positive identity as having been lifted from the rifle was confirmed by FBI Laboratory tests which established that the adhesive material bearing the print also bore impressions of the same irregularities that appeared on the barrel of the rifle. 57

Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.58 At the request of the Commission, Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department, conducted an independent examination and also determined that this was the right palmprint of Oswald.59 Latona's findings were also confirmed by Ronald G. Wittmus, another FBI fingerprint

Page 124

expert.60 In the opinion of these experts, it was not possible to estimate the time which elapsed between the placing of the print on the rifle and the date of the lift.61

Experts testifying before the Commission agreed that palmprints are as unique as fingerprints for purposes of establishing identification.62 Oswald's palmprint on the underside of the barrel demonstrates that he handled the rifle when it was disassembled. A palmprint could not be placed on this portion of the rifle, when assembled, because the wooden foregrip covers the barrel at this point.63 The print is additional proof that the rifle was in Oswald's possession. Fibers on Rifle

In a crevice between the butt plate of the rifle and the wooden stock was a tuft of several cotton fibers of dark blue, gray-black, and orange-yellow shades.64 On November 23, 1963, these fibers were examined by Paul M. Stombaugh, a special agent assigned to the Hair and Fiber Unit of the FBI Laboratory.65 He compared them with the fibers found in the shirt which Oswald was wearing when arrested in the Texas Theatre.66 This shirt was also composed of dark blue, gray- black and orange-yellow cotton fibers. Stombaugh testified that the colors, shades, and twist of the fibers found in the tuft on the rifle matched those in Oswald's shirt.67 (See app. X, p. 592.) Stombaugh explained in his testimony that in fiber analysis, as distinct from fingerprint or firearms identification, it is not possible to state with scientific certainty that a particular small group of fibers come from a certain piece of clothing to the exclusion of all others because there are not enough microscopic characteristics present in fibers.68 Judgments as to probability will depend on the number and types of matches.69 He concluded, "There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt." 70

Having considered the probabilities as explained in Stombaugh's testimony, the Commission has concluded that the fibers in the tuft on the rifle most probably came from the shirt worn by Oswald when he was arrested, and that this was the same shirt which Oswald wore on the morning of the assassination. Marina Oswald testified that she thought her husband wore this shirt to work on that day. The testimony of those who saw him after the assassination was inconclusive about the color of Oswald's shirt,72 but Mary Bledsoe, a former landlady of Oswald, saw him on a bus approximately 10 minutes after the assassination and identified the shirt as being the one worn by Oswald primarily because of a distinctive hole in the shirt's right elbow. 73 Moreover, the bus transfer which he obtained as he left. the bus was still in the pocket when he was arrested.74 Although Oswald returned to his roominghouse after the assassination and when questioned by the police, claimed to have changed his shirt,75 the evidence

Page 125

indicates that he continued wearing the same shirt which he was wearing all morning and which he was still wearing when arrested.

In light of these findings the Commission evaluated the additional testimony of Stombaugh that the fibers were caught in the crevice of the rifle's butt plate "in the recent past."76 Although Stombaugh was unable to estimate the period of time the fibers were on the rifle he said that the fibers "were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up." 77 The relative freshness of the fibers is strong evidence that they were caught on the rifle on the morning of the assassination or during the preceding evening. For 10 days prior to the eve of the assassination Oswald had not been present at Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Tex.,78 where the rifle was kept. 79 Moreover, the Commission found no reliable evidence that Oswald used the rifle at any time between September 23, when it was transported from New Orleans, and November 22, the day of the assassination.80 The fact that on the morning of the assassination Oswald was wearing the shirt from which these relatively fresh fibers most probably originated, provides some evidence that they were placed on the rifle that day since there was limited, if any, opportunity for Oswald to handle the weapon during the 2 months prior to November 22.

On the other hand Stombaugh pointed out that fibers might retain their freshness if the rifle had been "put aside" after catching the fibers. The rifle used in the assassination probably had been wrapped in a blanket for about 8 weeks prior to November 22.81 Because the relative freshness of these fibers might be explained by the continuous storage of the rifle in the blanket, the Commission was unable to reach any firm conclusion as to when the fibers were caught in the rifle. The Commission was able to conclude, however, that the fibers most probably came from Oswald's shirt. This adds to the conviction of the Commission that Oswald owned and handled the weapon used in the assassination.

Return to Top

Photograph of Oswald With Rifle

During the period from March 2, 1963, to April 24, 1963, the Oswalds lived on Neely Street in Dallas in a rented house which had a small back yard.32 One Sunday, while his wife was hanging diapers, Oswald asked her to take a picture of him holding a rifle, a pistol and issues of two newspapers later identified as the Worker and the Militant.83 Two pictures were taken. The Commission has concluded that the rifle shown in these pictures is the same rifle which was found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building on November 22, 1963. (See Commission Exhibits Nos. 133-A and 133-B, p.. 126.)

One of these pictures, Exhibit No. 133-A, shows most of the rifle's configuration.84 Special Agent Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, a photography expert with the FBI, photographed the rifle used in the assassination, attempting to duplicate the position of the rifle and the lighting in Exhibit No. 133-A.85 After comparing the rifle in the simulated

Page 126 This page reproduces the photographs of Oswald holding rifle: COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 133-A; COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 133-B; and COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 134 (Enlargement of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A)

Page 127

photograph with the rifle in Exhibit No. 133-A, Shaneyfelt testified, "I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same." He found "one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph." He stated, however, that while he "found no differences" between the rifles in the two photographs, he could not make a "positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration." 86

The authenticity of these pictures has been established by expert testimony which links the second picture, Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, to Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera, with which Marina Oswald testified she took the pictures.87 The negative of that picture, Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, was found among Oswald's possessions.88 Using a recognized technique of determining whether a picture was taken with a particular camera, Shaneyfelt compared this negative with a negative which he made by taking a new picture with Oswald's camera.89 He concluded that the negative of Exhibit No. 133-B was exposed in Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. 90 He could not test Exhibit No. 133-A in the same way because the negative was never recovered. 91 Both pictures, however, have identical backgrounds and lighting and, judging from the shadows, were taken at the same angle. They are photographs of the same scene.92 Since Exhibit No. 133-B was taken with Oswald's camera, it is reasonably certain that Exhibit No. 133-A was taken by the same camera at the same time, as Marina Oswald testified. Moreover, Shaneyfelt testified that in his opinion the photographs were not composites of two different photographs and that Oswald's face had not been superimposed on another body.93

One of the photographs taken by Marina Oswald was widely published in newspapers and magazines, and in many instances the details of these pictures differed from the original, and even from each other, particularly as to the configuration of the rifle. The Commission sought to determine whether these photographs were touched prior to publication. Shaneyfelt testified that the published photographs appeared to be based on a copy of the original which the publications had each retouched differently.94 Several of the publications furnished the Commission with the prints they had used, or described by correspondence the retouching they had done. This information enabled the Commission to conclude that the published pictures were the same as the original except for retouching done by these publications, apparently for the purpose of clarifying the lines of the rifle and other details in the picture.95

The dates surrounding the taking of this picture and the purchase of the rifle reinforce the belief that the rifle in the photograph is the rifle which Oswald bought from Klein's. The rifle was shipped from Klein's in Chicago on March 20, 1963, at a time when the Oswalds were living on Neely Street.96 From an examination of one of the photographs, the Commission determined the dates of the issues of the Militant and the Worker which Oswald was holding in his hand.

Page 128

By checking the actual mailing dates of these issues and the time usually takes to effect. delivery to Dallas, it was established that the photographs must have been taken sometime after March 27.97 Marina Oswald testified that the photographs were taken on a Sunday about 2 weeks before the attempted shooting of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker on April 10, 1963.98 By Sunday, March 31, 1963, 10 days prior to the Walker attempt, Oswald had undoubtedly received the rifle shipped from Chicago on March 20, the revolver shipped from Los Angeles on the same date,99 and the two newspapers which he was holding in the picture.

Return to Top

Rifle Among Oswald's Possessions

Marina Oswald testified that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building was the "fateful rifle of Lee Oswald." Moreover, it was the only rifle owned by her husband following his return from the Soviet Union in June 1962.101 It had been purchased in March 1963, and taken to New Orleans where Marina Oswald saw it in their rented apartment during the summer of 1963.102 It appears from his wife's testimony that Oswald may have sat on the screened-in porch at night practicing with the rifle by looking through the telescopic sight and operating the bolt.103 In September 1963, Oswald loaded their possessions into a station wagon owned by Ruth Paine, who had invited Marina Oswald and the baby to live at her home in Irving,104 Tex. Marina Oswald has stated that the rifle was among these possessions,105 although Ruth Paine testified that she was not aware of it.106

From September 24, 1963, when Marina Oswald arrived in Irving from New Orleans, until the morning of the assassination, the rifle was, according to the evidence, stored in a green and brown blanket in the Paines' garage among the Oswalds' other possessions.107 About 1 week after the return from New Orleans, Marina Oswald was looking in the garage for parts to the baby's crib and thought that the parts might be in the blanket. When she started to open the blanket, she saw the stock of the rifle.108 Ruth and Michael Paine both noticed the rolled-up blanket in the garage during the time that Marina Oswald was living in their home.109 On several occasions, Michael Paine moved the blanket in the garage.110 He thought it contained tent poles, or possibly other camping equipment such as a folding shovel.111 When he appeared before the Commission, Michael Paine lifted the blanket with the rifle wrapped inside and testified that it appeared to be the same approximate weight and shape as the package in his garage.112

About 3 hours after the assassination, a detective and deputy sheriff saw the blanket-roll, tied with a string, lying on the floor of the Paines' garage. Each man testified that he thought he could detect the outline of a rifle in the blanket, even though the blanket was empty.113 Paul M. Stombaugh, of the FBI Laboratory, examined the blanket and discovered a bulge approximately 10 inches long midway in the blanket. This bulge was apparently caused by a hard protruding

Page 129

object which had stretched the blanket's fibers. It could have been caused by the telescopic sight of the rifle which was approximately 11 inches long.114 (See Commission Exhibit No. 1304 p. 132.) Conclusion

Having reviewed the evidence that (1) Lee Harvey Oswald purchased the rifle used in the assassination, (2) Oswald's palmprint was on the rifle in a position which shows that he had handled it while it was disassembled, (3) fibers found on the rifle most probably came from the shirt Oswald was wearing on the day of the assassination, (4) a photograph taken in the yard of Oswald's apartment showed him holding this rifle, and (5) the rifle was kept among Oswald's possessions from the time of its purchase until the day of the assassination, the Commission concluded that the rifle used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Governor Connally was owned and possessed by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Return to Top

THE RIFLE IN THE BUILDING

The Commission has evaluated the evidence tending to show how Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766, was brought into the Depository Building, where it was found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination. In this connection the Commission considered (1) the circumstances surrounding Oswald's return to Irving, Tex., on Thursday, November 21, 1963, (2) the disappearance of the rifle from its normal place of storage, (3) Oswald's arrival at the Depository Building on November 22, carrying a long and bulky brown paper package, (4) the presence of a long handmade brown paper bag near the point from which the shots were fired, and (5) the palmprint, fiber, and paper analyses linking Oswald and the assassination weapon to this bag.

Return to Top

The Curtain Rod Story

During October and November of 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald lived in a roominghouse in Dallas while his wife and children lived in Irving, at the home of Ruth Paine,113 approximately 15 miles from Oswald's place of work at the Texas School Book Depository. Oswald traveled between Dallas and Irving on weekends in a car driven by a neighbor of the Paines, Buell Wesley Frazier, who also worked at the Depository.116 Oswald generally would go to Irving on Friday afternoon and return to Dallas Monday morning. According to the testimony of Frazier, Marina Oswald, and Ruth Paine, it appears that Oswald never returned to Irving in midweek prior to November 21, 1963, except on Monday, October 21, when he visited his wife in the hospital after the birth of their second child.117

During the morning of November 21, Oswald asked Frazier whether he could ride home with him that afternoon. Frazier, surprised, asked

Page 130

him why he was going to Irving on Thursday night rather than Friday. Oswald replied, "I'm going home to get some curtain rods... [to] put in an apartment." 118 The two men left work at 4: 40 p.m. and drove to Irving. There was little conversation between them on the way home.119 Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle, Frazier's sister, commented to her brother about Oswald's unusual midweek return to Irving. Frazier told her that Oswald had come home to get curtain rods.120

It would appear, however, that obtaining curtain rods was not the purpose of Oswald's trip to Irving on November 21. Mrs. A. C. Johnson, his landlady, testified that Oswald's room at 1026 North Beckley Avenue had curtains and curtain rods,121 and that Oswald had never discussed the subject with her.122 In the Paines' garage, along with many other objects of a household character, there were two flat lightweight curtain rods belonging to Ruth Paine but they were still there on Friday afternoon after Oswald's arrest.123 Oswald never asked Mrs. Paine about the use of curtain rods,124 and Marina Oswald testified that Oswald did not say anything about curtain rods on the day before the assassination.125 No curtain rods were known to have been discovered in the Depository Building after the assassination.126 In deciding whether Oswald carried a rifle to work in a long paper bag on November 22, the Commission gave weight to the fact that Oswald gave a false reason for returning home on November 21, and one which provided an excuse for the carrying of a bulky package the following morning.

Return to Top

The Missing Rifle

Before dinner on November 21, Oswald played on the lawn of the Paines' home with his daughter June.127 After dinner Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald were busy cleaning house and preparing their children for bed.128 Between the hours of 8 and 9 p.m. they were occupied with the children in the bedrooms located at the extreme east end of the house.129 On the west end of the house is the attached garage, which can be reached from the kitchen or from the outside.130 In the garage were the personal belongings of the Oswald family including, as the evidence has shown, the rifle wrapped in the old brown and green blanket.131

At approximately 9 p.m., after the children had been put to bed, Mrs. Paine, according to her testimony before the Commission, "went out to the garage to paint some children's blocks, and worked in the garage for half an hour or so. I noticed when I went out that the light was on." 132 Mrs. Paine was certain that she had not left the light on in the garage after dinner.138 According to Mrs. Paine, Oswald had gone to bed by 9 p.m.; 134 Marina Oswald testified that it was between 9 and 10 p.m.135 Neither Marina Oswald nor Ruth Paine saw Oswald in the garage.136 The period between 8 and 9 p.m., however, provided ample opportunity for Oswald to prepare the rifle for his departure the next morning. Only if disassembled could

Page 131

the rifle fit into the paper bag found near the window 137 from which the shots were fired. A firearms expert with the FBI assembled the rifle in 6 minutes using a 10-cent coin as a tool, and he could disassemble it more rapidly.138 While the rifle may have already been disassembled when Oswald arrived home on Thursday, he had ample time that evening to disassemble the rifle and insert it into the paper bag.

On the day of the assassination, Marina Oswald was watching television when she learned of the shooting. A short time later Mrs. Paine told her that someone had shot the President "from the building in which Lee is working." Marina Oswald testified that at that time "My heart dropped. I then went to the garage to see whether the rifle was there and I saw that the blanket was still there and I said 'Thank God.'" She did not unroll the blanket. She saw that it was in its usual position and it appeared to her to have something inside.139

Soon afterward, at about 3 p.m., police officers arrived and searched the house. Mrs. Paine pointed out that most of the Oswalds' possessions were in the garage.140 With Ruth Paine acting as an interpreter, Detective Rose asked Marina whether her husband had a rifle. Mrs. Paine, who had no knowledge of the rifle, first said "No," but when the question was translated, Marina Oswald replied "Yes." 141 She pointed to the blanket which was on the floor very close to where Ruth Paine was standing. Mrs. Paine testified:
As she [Marina] told me about it I stepped onto the blanket roll... And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle. And I then translated this to the officers that she knew that her husband had a gun that he had stored in here... I then stepped off of it and the officer picked it up in the middle and it bent so... 142
Mrs. Paine had the actual blanket before her as she testified and she indicated that the blanket. hung limp in the officer's hand.143 Marina Oswald testified that this was her first knowledge that the rifle was not in its accustomed place.144

Return to Top

The Long and Bulky Package

On the morning of November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald left the Paine house in Irving at approximately 7:15 a.m., while Marina Oswald was still in bed.145 Neither she nor Mrs. Paine saw him leave the house.146 About half-a-block away from the Paine house was the residence of Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle, the sister of the man with whom Oswald drove to work--Buell Wesley Frazier. Mrs. Randle stated that on the morning of November 22, while her brother was eating breakfast, she looked out the breakfast-room window and saw Oswald cross the street and walk toward the driveway where her brother parked his car near the carport. He carried a "heavy brown bag." 147 Oswald

Page 132

This page reproduces COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 1304: C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and paper bag found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Page 133

gripped the bag in his right hand near the top. "It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was ... more bulky toward the bottom" than toward the top.148 She then opened the kitchen door and saw Oswald open the right rear door of her brother's car and place the package in the back of the car.149 Mrs. Randle estimated that the package was approximately 28 inches long and about 8 inches wide.150 She thought. that its color was similar to that of the bag found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository after the assassination.151

Frazier met Oswald at the kitchen door and together they walked to the car.152 After entering the car, Frazier glanced over his shoulder and noticed a brown paper package on the back seat. He asked, "What's the package, Lee?" Oswald replied, "curtain rods."153 Frazier told the Commission "... the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that."154 Frazier estimated that the bag was 2 feet long "give and take a few inches," and about 5 or 6 inches wide.155 As they sat in the car, Frazier asked Oswald where his lunch was, and Oswald replied that he was going to buy his lunch that day.156 Frazier testified that Oswald carried no lunch bag that day. "When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day." 157

Frazier parked the car in the company parking lot about 2 blocks north of the Depository Building. Oswald left the car first, picked up the brown paper bag, and proceeded toward the building ahead of Frazier. Frazier walked behind and as they crossed the railroad tracks he watched the switching of the cars. Frazier recalled that one end of the package was under Oswald's armpit and the lower part was held with his right hand so that it was carried straight and parallel to his body. When Oswald entered the rear door of the Depository Building, he was about 50 feet ahead of Frazier. It was the first time that Oswald had not walked with Frazier from the parking lot to the building entrance.158 When Frazier entered the building, he did not see Oswald.159 One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to work, but he does not remember that Oswald had anything in his hands as he entered the door.160 No other employee has been found who saw Oswald enter that morning.161

In deciding whether Oswald carried the assassination weapon in the bag which Frazier and Mrs. Randle saw, the Commission has carefully considered the testimony of these two witnesses with regard to the length of the bag. Frazier and Mrs. Randle testified that the bag which Oswald was carrying was approximately 27 or 28 inches long,162 whereas the wooden stock of the rifle, which is its largest component, measured 34.8 inches.163 The bag found on the sixth floor was 88 inches long.164 (See Commission Exhibit No. 1304, p. 132.) When Frazier appeared before the Commission and was asked to demonstrate how Oswald carried the package, he said, "Like I said, I remember that I didn't look at the package very much ...

Page 134

but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that," 165 and at this point Frazier placed the upper part of the package under his armpit and attempted to cup his right hand beneath the bottom of the bag. The disassembled rifle was too long to be carried in this manner. Similarly, when the butt of the rifle was placed in Frazier's hand, it extended above his shoulder to ear level. 1 Moreover, in an interview on December 1, 1963, with agents of the FBI, Frazier had marked the point on the back seat of his car which he believed was where the bag reached when it was laid on the seat with one edge against the door. The distance between the point on the seat and the door was 27 inches.167

Mrs. Randle said, when shown the paper bag, that the bag she saw Oswald carrying "wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long." 168 And she folded the bag to length of about 28½ inches. Frazier doubted whether the bag that Oswald carried was as wide as the bag found on the sixth floor,169 although Mrs. Randle testified that the width was approximately the same.170

The Commission has weighed the visual recollection of Frazier and Mrs. Randle against the evidence here presented that the bag Oswald carried contained the assassination weapon and has concluded that Frazier and Randle are mistaken as to the length of the bag. Mrs. Randle saw the bag fleetingly and her first remembrance is that it was held in Oswald's right hand "and it almost touched the ground as he carried it." 171 Frazier's view of the bag was from the rear. He continually advised that he was not paying close attention.172 For example, he said,
...I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.173
Frazier could easily have been mistaken when he stated that Oswald held the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand with the upper end tucked into his armpit. Location of Bag

A handmade bag of wrapping paper and tape 174 was found in the southeast corner of the sixth floor alongside the window from which the shots were fired.175 (See Commission Exhibit No. 2707, p. 142.) It was not a standard type bag which could be obtained in a store and it was presumably made for a particular purpose. It was the appropriate size to contain, in disassembled form, Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial No. C2766, which was also found on the sixth floor.176 Three cartons had been placed at the window apparently to act as a gun rest and a fourth carton was placed behind those at the window.177 (See Commission Exhibit No. 1301,

Page 135

p. 138.) A person seated on the fourth carton could assemble the rifle without being seen from the rest of the sixth floor because the cartons stacked around the southeast corner would shield him.178 (See Commission Exhibit No. 723, p. 80.) The presence of the bag in this corner is cogent evidence that it was used as the container for the rifle. At the time the bag was found, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas police wrote on it, "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lt. J. C. Day." 179

Return to Top

Scientific Evidence Linking Rifle and Oswald to Paper Bag

Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint found on bag.--Using a standard chemical method involving silver nitrates 180 the FBI Laboratory developed a latent palmprint and latent fingerprint on the bag. (See app. X, p. 565.) Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Section, identified these prints as the left index fingerprint and right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.181 The portion of the palm which was identified was the heel of the right palm, i.e., the area near the wrist, on the little finger side.182 These prints were examined independently by Ronald G. Wittmus of the FBI,183 and by Arthur Mandella, a fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department. 184 Both concluded that the prints were the right palm and left index finger of Lee Oswald. No other identifiable prints were found on the bag.185

Oswald's palmprint on the bottom of the paper bag indicated, of course, that he had handled the bag. Furthermore, it was consistent with the bag having contained a heavy or bulky object when he handled it since a light object is usually held by the fingers.186 The palmprint was found on the closed end of the bag. It was from Oswald's right hand, in which he carried the long package as he walked from Frazier's car to the building.187

Materials used to make bag.--On the day of the assassination, the Dallas police obtained a sample of wrapping paper and tape from the shipping room of the Depository and forwarded it to the FBI Laboratory in Washington.188 James C. Cadigan, a questioned-documents expert with the Bureau, compared the samples with the paper and tape in the actual bag. He testified, "In all of the observations and physical tests that I made I found ... the bag ... and the paper sample ... were the same." 189

Among other tests, the paper and tape were submitted to fiber analysis and spectrographic examination.190 In addition the tape was compared to determine whether the sample tape and the tape on the bag had been taken from the tape dispensing machine at the Depository. When asked to explain the similarity of characteristics, Cadigan stated: 191
Well, briefly, it would be the thickness of both the paper and the tape, the color under various lighting conditions of both the paper and the tape, the width of the tape, the knurled markings
Page 136
on the surface of the fiber, the texture of the fiber, the letting pattern ...
°     °     °     °     °     
I found that the paper sack found on the sixth floor ... and the sample ... had the same observable characteristics both under the microscope and all the visual tests that I could conduct.
°     °     °     °     °     
The papers I also found were similar in fiber composition, therefore, in addition to the visual characteristics, microscopic and UV [ultra violet] characteristics.
Mr. Cadigan concluded that the paper and tape from the bag were identical in all respects to the sample paper and tape taken from the Texas School Book Depository shipping room on November 22, 1963.192

On December l, 1963, a replica bag was made from materials found on that date in the shipping room. This was done as an investigatory aid since the original bag had been discolored during various laboratory examinations and could not be used for valid identification by witnesses.193 Cadigan found that the paper used to make this replica sack had different characteristics from the paper in the original bag.194 The science of paper analysis enabled him to distinguish between different rolls of paper even though they were produced by the same manufacturer.125

Since the Depository normally used approximately one roll of paper every 3 working days,196 it was not surprising that the replica sack made on December 1, 1963, had different characteristics from both the actual bag and the sample taken on November 22. On the other hand, since two rolls could be made from the same batch of paper, one cannot estimate when, prior to November 22, Oswald made the paper bag. However, the complete identity of characteristics between the paper and tape in the bag found on the sixth floor and the paper and tape found in the shipping room of the Depository on November 22 enabled the Commission to conclude that the bag was made from these materials. The Depository shipping department was on the first floor to which Oswald had access in the normal performance of his duties filling orders.197

Fibers in paper bag matched fibers in blanket.--When Paul M. Stombaugh of the FBI Laboratory examined the paper bag, he found, on the inside, a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light green cotton fibers.198 The blanket in which the rifle was stored was composed of brown and green cotton, viscose and woolen fibers.199

The single brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics.200 The green cotton fibers found in the paper bag matched some of the green cotton fibers in the blanket "in all observable microscopic

Page 137

characteristics." 201 Despite these matches, however, Stombaugh was unable to render on opinion that the fibers which he found in the bag had probably come from the blanket, because other types of fibers present in the blanket were not found in the bag. He concluded:
All I would say here is that it is possible that these fibers could have come from this blanket., because this blanket is composed of brown and green woolen fibers, brown and green delustered viscose fibers, and brown and green cotton fibers... We found no brown cotton fibers, no green viscose fibers, and no woolen fibers.
So if I found all of these then I would have been able to say these fibers probably had come from this blanket. But since I found so few, then I would say the possibility exists, these fibers could have come from this blanket.202
Stombaugh confirmed that the rifle could have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the paper bag.203 In light of the other evidence linking Lee Harvey Oswald, the blanket, and the rifle to the paper bag found on the sixth floor, the Commission considered Stombaugh's testimony of probative value in deciding whether Oswald carried the rifle into the building in the paper bag.

Return to Top

Conclusion

The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) told the curtain rod story to Frazier to explain both the return to Irving on a Thursday and the obvious bulk of the package which he intended to bring to work the next day; (2) took paper and tape from the wrapping bench of the Depository and fashioned a bag large enough to carry the disassembled rifle; (3) removed the rifle from the blanket in the Paines' garage on Thursday evening; (4) carried the rifle into the Depository Building, concealed in the bag; and, (5) left the bag alongside the window from which the shots were fired.


Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 04, 2021, 08:58:58 PM

So silly.  Again, it's not "my" evidence but evidence gathered by the official investigators.  The WC has an entire section on the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  In fact, it is titled:  "Ownership and Possession of Assassination Weapon."  LOL.  But I'll play along just to see how long you can avoid trying to articulate why you believe this evidence is insufficient to link Oswald to the rifle.  Very amusing.  Capisce?  Here is "my" evidence:


And then the idiot quotes from his bible (exactly the propaganda document which contains all the disputed claims) and calls it "evidence" , by using the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument.

It doesn't get any more comical than this....  :D
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 05, 2021, 05:46:46 PM
And then the idiot quotes from his bible (exactly the propaganda document which contains all the disputed claims) and calls it "evidence" , by using the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument.

It doesn't get any more comical than this....  :D

Citing the actual evidence compiled by the law enforcement entities charged with investigating the case is somehow comical and an appeal to authority in your view?  Wow.  Imagine Martin/Roger Googling that phrase to come up with something clever.  Pitiful.  I guess I should just jump on an Internet forum and make stuff up in endless rambling posts.   I know that the use of evidence is inconsistent with your impossible standard of proof mantra when it comes to Oswald's guilt (i.e. the lazy contrarian Alice-in-Wonderland logic) but that is what is used to solve criminal cases here on Planet Earth.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 05, 2021, 07:26:48 PM
Citing the actual evidence compiled by the law enforcement entities charged with investigating the case is somehow comical and an appeal to authority in your view?  Wow.  Imagine Martin/Roger Googling that phrase to come up with something clever.  Pitiful.  I guess I should just jump on an Internet forum and make stuff up in endless rambling posts.   I know that the use of evidence is inconsistent with your impossible standard of proof mantra when it comes to Oswald's guilt (i.e. the lazy contrarian Alice-in-Wonderland logic) but that is what is used to solve criminal cases here on Planet Earth.

Citing the actual evidence compiled by the law enforcement entities charged with investigating the case is somehow comical and an appeal to authority in your view?  Wow.

Yes because it shows you are merely a parrot and have no inquisitive mind of your own.

I know that the use of evidence is inconsistent with your impossible standard of proof mantra when it comes to Oswald's guilt (i.e. the lazy contrarian Alice-in-Wonderland logic) but that is what is used to solve criminal cases here on Planet Earth.

Your constant whing about my alleged "impossible standard of proof" is not only getting old, it also exposes the weakness of the case you are trying to promote. I've said this before, you're like a badly prepared prosecutor with a weak case who complains to the Judge about the jury because they are not buying his crap!

And btw, I don't believe for a moment that you have any idea how crimes are solved.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 05, 2021, 08:44:47 PM
Citing the actual evidence compiled by the law enforcement entities charged with investigating the case is somehow comical and an appeal to authority in your view?  Wow.

Yes because it shows you are merely a parrot and have no inquisitive mind of your own.

I know that the use of evidence is inconsistent with your impossible standard of proof mantra when it comes to Oswald's guilt (i.e. the lazy contrarian Alice-in-Wonderland logic) but that is what is used to solve criminal cases here on Planet Earth.

Your constant whing about my alleged "impossible standard of proof" is not only getting old, it also exposes the weakness of the case you are trying to promote. I've said this before, you're like a badly prepared prosecutor with a weak case who complains to the Judge about the jury because they are not buying his crap!

And btw, I don't believe for a moment that you have any idea how crimes are solved.

By using a "mind of your own" do you mean ignoring the actual evidence compiled by the investigators and instead dreaming up what might be "possible"?  Then suggesting there is doubt but only after adding numerous insults.  Good work Inspector Clouseau.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Jon Banks on May 05, 2021, 08:50:03 PM
The Crime Scene looks staged because it was staged
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Martin Weidmann on May 05, 2021, 09:26:46 PM
By using a "mind of your own" do you mean ignoring the actual evidence compiled by the investigators and instead dreaming up what might be "possible"?  Then suggesting there is doubt but only after adding numerous insults.  Good work Inspector Clouseau.

By using a "mind of your own" do you mean ignoring the actual evidence compiled by the investigators and instead dreaming up what might be "possible"? 

If one of us is ignoring evidence then it's you. You do it all the time. Whatever is written in your WC bible is all you ever want to know. I'm guessing your high priest told you not to listen to other opinions because you might stray from the righteous path! You're a zealot in a cult and don't even know it.

Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Dan O'meara on May 05, 2021, 10:58:06 PM
The Crime Scene looks staged because it was staged

Tom Alyea really argues for this point.
He says he took images of the SN in it's original position but then the whole thing was stripped down before Studebaker or Day took any photos of it. It then had to be reconstructed for the official investigation pics, which may explain why there are two completely different set-ups for the "rifle rest".
He is also adamant Fritz pocketed the shells before any official pics were taken and gave them to Studebaker to recreate the scene.
If true we must be looking at something beyond incompetence.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 06, 2021, 01:01:09 AM
Nice cut and paste job, "Richard".  As usual, you confuse conclusions and conjectures made about the evidence with evidence itself.  You claim that "there are photos, forms, serial numbers and even prints that link Oswald to a specific rifle", and then spew a cut-and-paste job that admits that the photos did not identify a specific rifle and that the prints were insufficient for identification purposes.

As for the WC conclusions,

- There is no evidence that Klein's ever sent such a package through the mail
- There is no evidence that such a package was picked up at the post office by Oswald or anybody else
- The FBI stated definitively that Hidell was not authorized on PO Box 2915
- The bank deposit slip presented was from February
- There is no evidence of Oswald ever using "Hidell" or anything like it as an alias for himself
- The original Klein's microfilm is conveniently "missing"
- Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific and biased and even those who do it say that it is particularly unreliable when done on non-originals with small sample sizes
- Oswald was at work all day when the money order found in Virginia was allegedly purchased
- Klein's produced no image of the alleged money order used for this alleged order
- The Hidell selective service card was not mentioned in any statement, interview, or report prior to the Klein's order turning up
- Carl Day's magic partial palmprint was not turned over to the FBI with all the other evidence or even mentioned to the FBI, and instead showed up a week later on an index card.  Latona said that area of the rifle did not have traces remaining there, which Day claimed there were, and it didn't appear to Latona that the area had even been processed
- The WC admitted that fibers cannot be matched to a specific garment
- There is no evidence that that particular rifle was in the Paine garage on 11/21 or ever
- Marina never said in any testimony that she saw Lee "on the screened-in porch at night practicing with the rifle by looking through the telescopic sight and operating the bolt"
- The paper bag does not appear in any crime scene photos and the officers involved didn't even agree on where it was found, when it was found, or how it was folded
- The only two people to see the package Oswald carried said it was not CE142
- There is no evidence that a rifle was ever inside CE142 or the package Frazier saw

So the question is, does "Richard" even understand his own cut-and-paste argument?
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Tom Scully on May 06, 2021, 01:25:35 AM
John, I think you are going beyond what is reasonable in several of your points besides these three examples.

Also, the P. Money Order was found exactly where a money order of that type should have been archived.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170728100038/http://jfk.education/node/11
....
(https://web.archive.org/web/20161220000934im_/http://jfk.education/images/WarrenMoneyOrderC.jpg)
....
https://web.archive.org/web/20170728100038/http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/PDF/Vol83_Issue20338_19621129.pdf#search=%22money%20order%22
(https://web.archive.org/web/20161220002627im_/http://jfk.education/images/SuspicionsVsFacts.jpg)

Nice cut and paste job, "Richard".  As usual, you confuse conclusions and conjectures made about the evidence with evidence itself.  You claim that "there are photos, forms, serial numbers and even prints that link Oswald to a specific rifle", and then spew a cut-and-paste job that admits that the photos did not identify a specific rifle and that the prints were insufficient for identification purposes.

As for the WC conclusions,

- There is no evidence that Klein's ever sent such a package through the mail
- There is no evidence that such a package was picked up at the post office by Oswald or anybody else
- The FBI stated definitively that Hidell was not authorized on PO Box 2915
- The bank deposit slip presented was from February
- There is no evidence of Oswald ever using "Hidell" or anything like it as an alias for himself
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=433&search=hidell_and%20%22fair%20play%22

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51159655902_811753d5f6_b.jpg)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=143&search=oswald_and%20hidell%20and%20application

- The original Klein's microfilm is conveniently "missing"
- Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific and biased and even those who do it say that it is particularly unreliable when done on non-originals with small sample sizes
- Oswald was at work all day when the money order found in Virginia was allegedly purchased
- Klein's produced no image of the alleged money order used for this alleged order
- The Hidell selective service card was not mentioned in any statement, interview, or report prior to the Klein's order turning up
- Carl Day's magic partial palmprint was not turned over to the FBI with all the other evidence or even mentioned to the FBI, and instead showed up a week later on an index card.  Latona said that area of the rifle did not have traces remaining there, which Day claimed there were, and it didn't appear to Latona that the area had even been processed
- The WC admitted that fibers cannot be matched to a specific garment
- There is no evidence that that particular rifle was in the Paine garage on 11/21 or ever
- Marina never said in any testimony that she saw Lee "on the screened-in porch at night practicing with the rifle by looking through the telescopic sight and operating the bolt"
- The paper bag does not appear in any crime scene photos and the officers involved didn't even agree on where it was found, when it was found, or how it was folded
- The only two people to see the package Oswald carried said it was not CE142
- There is no evidence that a rifle was ever inside CE142 or the package Frazier saw

So the question is, does "Richard" even understand his own cut-and-paste argument?
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 06, 2021, 01:46:15 AM
Astute observers will note the utter hypocrisy of these two statements:

Again, the absence of DNA is not the same as its presence.  It is possible to wear a jacket and not leave DNA on it.  Particularly if it is not tested for six decades after the person last came into contact with the jacket. The absence of DNA doesn't mean that it was never worn by that person.

We have gone over this one a thousand times.  Oswald is the only TSBD employee to leave his prints on the SN boxes.  So the excuse that "he worked there" doesn't cut.  Other folks worked on that floor but didn't leave their prints on the boxes used by the sniper.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 06, 2021, 08:11:19 AM
It doesn't strike me as a big deal that the boxes were moved in the search for evidence.... 
The "evidence" was tampered with in the search for evidence...how lame is that?
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 06, 2021, 09:10:10 AM
The FBI stated definitively that Hidell was not authorized on PO Box 2915
The FBI could not have possibly known this even if a Mr Hidell was or was not authorized.
Bx 2915 was closed by Oswald [sometime] before he went to New Orleans where he had supposedly transferred his mail to a Bx 6225.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes ---
Quote
Mr. LIEBELER. What is the ordinary procedure that is followed when a box is rented and this form is used?
Mr. HOLMES. The form is completed, usually by the applicant, and it must be signed by the applicant, even if an employee does complete it. This portion of the---I don't know how you want to designate it.
Mr. LIEBELER. We will number them portions 1, 2, and 3.
Mr. HOLMES. All right, part I of this application is simply the instructions on a combination box, and instructions to the patron is torn off, and he keeps it or they throw it away. Portions 2 and 3 are completed, too. 2 gives the applicant's name, the name of his corporation or firm he represents, if applicable, the kind of business, the business address, the home address, and the place for his signature and the date. On the third portion is a box for him to indicate whether he wants all mail in the box, or Just whether he wants some other disposition and so on, and a place for name of person entitled to receive mail through the box other than the applicant himself, and he firs in that. These two portions then remain together in the file of the post office where he made application,
Mr. LIEBELER. That is portions 2 and 3?
Mr. HOLMES. Until he relinquishes the box. They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been closed, and the date and they tear off 3 and throw it away.
It has no more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915.

Mr. LIEBELER. They have thrown part 3 away?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes; as it so happens, even though they closed the box in New Orleans, they still had part 3 and it showed that the mail for Marina Oswald and A. J. Hidell was good in the box. They hadn't complied with regulations. They still had it there.
Mr. LIEBELER. It was a lucky thing. [Right...a lucky thing-- just like everything else that happened]
Mr. HOLMES. We wish they had here.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now is this regulation that says section 3 should be torn off and thrown away, is that a general regulation of the Post Office Department?
Mr. HOLMES. It is in the Post Office Manual Instructions to employees; yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. So there is no way, as I understand it, to tell from the records maintained, as far as you know anyway, who was authorized to receive mail at Post Office Box 2915 that Oswald had while he was here in Dallas before he went to New Orleans in April of 1963; is that correct?
Mr. HOLMES. Other than Oswald himself and his name on the application.

Mr. LIEBELER. Right.
Mr. HOLMES. Now he did tell me in personal interrogation that no one was permitted to get mail in that box but him.
So how could the FBI had known either way? They took Oswald's word for it?
So who has the Bx 6225 link that shows A J Hidell listed to have received mail?
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 06, 2021, 02:53:38 PM
Bump.

Richard stalled out....?

I presented "my" evidence and you ran away never indicating what you believed was lacking from the record.  Just as expected.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 06, 2021, 04:53:51 PM
I did, very specifically.

As you requested.

Are you bailing this quick?

You merely presented an incomplete subjective opinion without even expressing the basis for that opinion to discuss: 

"I'm missing verification of control number VC836."

This implies that you believe there is some "missing verification" for which others would have to convince you otherwise to your subjective satisfaction.  A silly standard.  But you have not even articulated what you believe is "missing" in this context.  Waldman, as Klein's representative, confirmed that this is the control number assigned to the rifle.  They are the ones who assigned it.  But you know that already.  What manner of "verification" should there be that is "missing"?  Are you suggesting Waldman lied and that you have evidence to support this claim?  Or that you have some other basis to dispute Waldman's confirmation?  Why not articulate something for once?
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 07, 2021, 12:55:35 AM
Why did the WC interview somebody who personally had nothing to do with receiving, filling, or shipping orders?
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on May 07, 2021, 03:22:53 PM
None of the control numbers were checked against the control book.

Waldman cheked against the recieving record which itself is dubious.

There's nothing subjective about this, it's a fact.

How about laying out the basis of your claim instead of making conclusory statements?  And, of course, even if your claims have any basis in fact they still don't prove anything or rebut the overwhelming cumulative evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Oswald's palm print is on the rifle found on the 6th floor.  It has the same serial number as the one sent from Klein's to his PO Box.  There are photos of Oswald holding that rifle.  His wife confirmed he owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  On Nov. 22 she directs the police to that location and the rifle is no longer there.  Where did Oswald's rifle go if not to the 6th floor?  Why did Oswald lie to the DPD about his ownership of a rifle if he had nothing to do with this crime?  Why didn't he just direct them to his rifle to assist himself? Let me guess.  Everyone lied.  Marina, Ruth Paine (who you have some disgusting grudge against), the DPD, Waldman, FBI, and on and on.  Everyone except Oswald.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 13, 2021, 02:42:32 AM
I'm trying to understand what you are suggesting.  That all those boxes around the 6th floor window were moved there by Oswald or some conspirator and were not already in that position?   And no one saw all those boxes being move by some strangers on the 6th floor?  That is far out UFO stuff.  That's a lot of boxes.

Lee Oswald had nothing to do with the boxes in the window....   The so called "Snipers Nest" was a figment of some idiotic cops imagination( probably Will Fritz)  Lee Oswald was o the first floor of the TSBD at the time JFK was ambushed.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Tyler Powell on June 02, 2021, 05:57:13 PM
How about laying out the basis of your claim instead of making conclusory statements?  And, of course, even if your claims have any basis in fact they still don't prove anything or rebut the overwhelming cumulative evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Oswald's palm print is on the rifle found on the 6th floor.  It has the same serial number as the one sent from Klein's to his PO Box.  There are photos of Oswald holding that rifle.  His wife confirmed he owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  On Nov. 22 she directs the police to that location and the rifle is no longer there.  Where did Oswald's rifle go if not to the 6th floor?  Why did Oswald lie to the DPD about his ownership of a rifle if he had nothing to do with this crime?  Why didn't he just direct them to his rifle to assist himself? Let me guess.  Everyone lied.  Marina, Ruth Paine (who you have some disgusting grudge against), the DPD, Waldman, FBI, and on and on.  Everyone except Oswald.

Hi Richard,

I'm new here -- this is my first post, actually -- but I hope you don't mind my discussing this a bit with you? I believe that there was a "conspiracy," broadly, but can't make any specific claims. I want to try to understand things better. And your questions speak to that, my lack of understanding. I find Oswald utterly impenetrable.

The things you mention, assuming they are exactly as stated: Oswald's print found on the rifle; the same serial number as one he'd ordered and had sent to his PO Box; photos of himself holding the rifle (to which, it is my understanding, Oswald directed the detectives); his wife's confirmation of his ownership of the rifle... with all of this evidence available, evidence he himself should have been readily aware of, why should Oswald lie about the mere fact of owning a rifle?

Perhaps, accounting to the circumstances, he acted unreasonably... but he appears to be so collected in the footage I've seen and the transcripts I've read (perhaps strangely so), and I've heard it said that Oswald was intelligent. It makes no sense to me. Why lie about some basic fact you know will be easily caught out?

Presented with the photos of himself holding the rifle, it's again my understanding that Oswald claimed the photos were not legitimate -- that they were faked with his face put onto someone else's body. It's such a strange approach, such a strange claim (and strangely specific), in my opinion. How much easier would it be to admit to having the rifle and having taken the pictures, but claim that he was still innocent of the shooting (that perhaps the rifle was planted, etc.)?

And ordering the rifle, using an alias, but then having it sent to a PO Box in his own name -- rather than buy the rifle (let alone a better one, a more reliable one) for cash? Why create such an undeniable connection between yourself and a weapon, leaving paper and photographic evidence about where there need be none, use that weapon in the commission of a crime (rather than pick up any other), only to deny not only the crime but even the ownership of the weapon itself?

None of Oswald's purported actions with respect to this rifle make a lick of sense to me.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 06, 2021, 10:45:30 PM
How about laying out the basis of your claim instead of making conclusory statements?  And, of course, even if your claims have any basis in fact they still don't prove anything or rebut the overwhelming cumulative evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Oswald's palm print is on the rifle found on the 6th floor.  It has the same serial number as the one sent from Klein's to his PO Box.  There are photos of Oswald holding that rifle.  His wife confirmed he owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  On Nov. 22 she directs the police to that location and the rifle is no longer there.  Where did Oswald's rifle go if not to the 6th floor?

A better question would be, "why does 'Richard' spew the same BS claims over and over again as if repetition will somehow turn them into facts?"
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 06, 2021, 10:57:27 PM
The FBI could not have possibly known this even if a Mr Hidell was or was not authorized.

I don't know how they could have stated this so definitively unless the complete form was actually available at one time and then went "missing".

CE 2585, page 4:

CLAIM:  The Post Office Box in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept under both his name and that of 'A. Hidell." Page 111.

INVESTIGATION:  Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963.


Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Richard Smith on June 14, 2021, 04:47:52 PM
Hi Richard,

I'm new here -- this is my first post, actually -- but I hope you don't mind my discussing this a bit with you? I believe that there was a "conspiracy," broadly, but can't make any specific claims. I want to try to understand things better. And your questions speak to that, my lack of understanding. I find Oswald utterly impenetrable.

The things you mention, assuming they are exactly as stated: Oswald's print found on the rifle; the same serial number as one he'd ordered and had sent to his PO Box; photos of himself holding the rifle (to which, it is my understanding, Oswald directed the detectives); his wife's confirmation of his ownership of the rifle... with all of this evidence available, evidence he himself should have been readily aware of, why should Oswald lie about the mere fact of owning a rifle?

Perhaps, accounting to the circumstances, he acted unreasonably... but he appears to be so collected in the footage I've seen and the transcripts I've read (perhaps strangely so), and I've heard it said that Oswald was intelligent. It makes no sense to me. Why lie about some basic fact you know will be easily caught out?

Presented with the photos of himself holding the rifle, it's again my understanding that Oswald claimed the photos were not legitimate -- that they were faked with his face put onto someone else's body. It's such a strange approach, such a strange claim (and strangely specific), in my opinion. How much easier would it be to admit to having the rifle and having taken the pictures, but claim that he was still innocent of the shooting (that perhaps the rifle was planted, etc.)?

And ordering the rifle, using an alias, but then having it sent to a PO Box in his own name -- rather than buy the rifle (let alone a better one, a more reliable one) for cash? Why create such an undeniable connection between yourself and a weapon, leaving paper and photographic evidence about where there need be none, use that weapon in the commission of a crime (rather than pick up any other), only to deny not only the crime but even the ownership of the weapon itself?

None of Oswald's purported actions with respect to this rifle make a lick of sense to me.

Tyler-
The evidence of Oswald's guilt is overwhelming.  It comes from a variety of different sources including the DPD, FBI, his own wife, random citizens that he encountered, and private businesses like Klein's who sold him the rifle.  Much of that evidence was compiled within hours of the crime. Ironically, some CTers argue that because the evidence against Oswald is so overwhelming that we can only conclude that he must be innocent.  Of course the jails are full of criminals who, in retrospect, have done stupid things that lead to their arrest.  We can ask "what were they thinking" but that does not mitigate the evidence against them or cast doubt on their guilt. 

I don't believe that Oswald had a reasonable expectation that he would get away with assassinating the president.  As evidenced by his leaving most of his money with Marina that morning.  At best, he entertained some fantasy that perhaps he could elude capture and maybe make it to Mexico and then to Cuba where he would be granted asylum and treated as some type of revolutionary figure.  But Oswald was smart enough to realize the odds were against him.  CTers sometimes ask why if Oswald knew he couldn't get away he would even try or not confess when arrested.  The mind of an unbalanced person, however, does not lend itself to the application of logic.  And most criminals make the effort to escape no matter how long the odds.  They have nothing to lose.  Oswald was an angry malcontent with contempt for authority.   He had no desire to make the job of the DPD and FBI easy.  And the only card that he held after his arrest was his confession and details of the crime.  He wasn't going to give that up in the first 48 hours after his arrest.  My guess is that Oswald would have eventually confessed in exchange for not being given the death penalty.  But Ruby had other plans.

When all is said and done this is a fairly simple case.  All the important evidence points to Oswald's guilt.  Almost equally compelling is the sheer implausibility of any alternative narrative that would square with all the evidence and facts of the case.  After nearly 60 years, and the efforts of countless CTers to connect all the dots there is no such plausible alternative narrative to Oswald's guilt that squares with all the known facts.  Oswald did it all by his lonesome even if he perhaps didn't always make the decisions that make sense.  Keep in mind also that Oswald did not order his rifle intending to leave it at any crime scene to be discovered.  He ordered his rifle with the intent to shoot General Walker and hide the rifle.  Which is what he did.  Thus, the circumstance presented at the JFK assassination were not factors in his decision making when he ordered the rifle.  So questions about why he used a known alias or had the rifle delivered to his PO Box are not relevant to Oswald's decision making in the JFK assassination context because he had no idea that he would have to leave the rifle at a crime scene.  He had no other choice on 11.22.63.   And death or arrest was part of the equation that Oswald accepted in deciding to carry out this act.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 15, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Hi Richard,

I'm new here -- this is my first post, actually -- but I hope you don't mind my discussing this a bit with you? I believe that there was a "conspiracy," broadly, but can't make any specific claims. I want to try to understand things better. And your questions speak to that, my lack of understanding. I find Oswald utterly impenetrable.

The things you mention, assuming they are exactly as stated: Oswald's print found on the rifle; the same serial number as one he'd ordered and had sent to his PO Box; photos of himself holding the rifle (to which, it is my understanding, Oswald directed the detectives); his wife's confirmation of his ownership of the rifle... with all of this evidence available, evidence he himself should have been readily aware of, why should Oswald lie about the mere fact of owning a rifle?

Perhaps, accounting to the circumstances, he acted unreasonably... but he appears to be so collected in the footage I've seen and the transcripts I've read (perhaps strangely so), and I've heard it said that Oswald was intelligent. It makes no sense to me. Why lie about some basic fact you know will be easily caught out?

Presented with the photos of himself holding the rifle, it's again my understanding that Oswald claimed the photos were not legitimate -- that they were faked with his face put onto someone else's body. It's such a strange approach, such a strange claim (and strangely specific), in my opinion. How much easier would it be to admit to having the rifle and having taken the pictures, but claim that he was still innocent of the shooting (that perhaps the rifle was planted, etc.)?

And ordering the rifle, using an alias, but then having it sent to a PO Box in his own name -- rather than buy the rifle (let alone a better one, a more reliable one) for cash? Why create such an undeniable connection between yourself and a weapon, leaving paper and photographic evidence about where there need be none, use that weapon in the commission of a crime (rather than pick up any other), only to deny not only the crime but even the ownership of the weapon itself?

None of Oswald's purported actions with respect to this rifle make a lick of sense to me.

Oswald said he was innocent so it must be true.
Title: Re: Spot The Difference
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 16, 2021, 08:30:47 PM
Tyler-
The evidence of Oswald's guilt is overwhelming.

It doesn't take much to overwhelm "Richard".  In fact, it doesn't even have to be actual evidence.  Speculation and conjecture will do just fine.