JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on May 01, 2018, 12:53:50 AM
-
While in custody Oswald LIED whenever the rifle was discussed.
1. Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
2. Oswald lied that the backyard photos weren't authentic.
3. Oswald said he never saw the BY photos before but his handwriting was discovered on one.
3. Oswald lied about putting the long package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
4. Oswald told Frazier the long package contained curtain rods but told the Dallas Police that it contained his lunch.
5. Oswald lied about living at Neeley Street, (the location of the incriminating backyard photos)
6. Oswald told Fritz at the time of the assassination he had lunch with Jarman, another lie.
7. Oswald denied that he told Frazier that the reason for his unexpected visit was for curtain rods.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AWfc1z7uTs4/VdNxT9EUv0I/AAAAAAABHBc/2pz8hoBtE_I/s3000/LHO.png)
JohnM
-
the guy on the left looks like the heavier Oswald
-
the guy on the left looks like the heavier Oswald
Yep, over the years people lose/gain weight.
JohnM
-
While in custody Oswald LIED whenever the rifle was discussed.
1. Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
2. Oswald lied that the backyard photos weren't authentic.
3. Oswald said he never saw the BY photos before but his handwriting was discovered on one.
3. Oswald lied about putting the long package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
4. Oswald told Frazier the long package contained curtain rods but told the Dallas Police that it contained his lunch.
5. Oswald lied about living at Neeley Street, (the location of the incriminating backyard photos)
6. Oswald told Fritz at the time of the assassination he had lunch with Jarman, another lie.
7. Oswald denied that he told Frazier that the reason for his unexpected visit was for curtain rods.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AWfc1z7uTs4/VdNxT9EUv0I/AAAAAAABHBc/2pz8hoBtE_I/s3000/LHO.png)
JohnM
1. Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
Provide absolute proof tha Lee Oswald was the owner of the carcano that was found in the RSBD....
2. Oswald lied that the backyard photos weren't authentic.
Lee was shown ONE BY photo, that was 133C, he said it was a fake...and it is....
3. Oswald said he never saw the BY photos before but his handwriting was discovered on one.
No....He said that he had never seen 133c .....
3. Oswald lied about putting the long package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
No ...He said that his lunch sack may have been bigger than necessary for his sandwich... but "one can't always find a sack that is just the right size"....
4. Oswald told Frazier the long package contained curtain rods but told the Dallas Police that it contained his lunch.
Do you have a tape that records Lee telling Frazier that the sack contained curtain rods?
6. Oswald told Fritz at the time of the assassination he had lunch with Jarman, another lie.
He said nothing of the kind.....He said that he saw Jarman and Norman "come in" while he was in the Domino Room eating his lunch....
7. Oswald denied that he told Frazier that the reason for his unexpected visit was for curtain rods.
See above....
-
You are aware that there were at least three pictures of Oswald with the rifle in the yard and two of them have the exact same facial expression In other words the same photograph imposed on a background
-
1. Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
Provide absolute proof tha Lee Oswald was the owner of the carcano that was found in the RSBD....
?
Define "absolute proof"?
JohnM
-
You are aware that there were at least three pictures of Oswald with the rifle in the yard and two of them have the exact same facial expression In other words the same photograph imposed on a background
The exact same facial expression, really?
Prove it!
JohnM
-
Yep, over the years people lose/gain weight.
Over the years? Are we referring to some middle aged Oswald? (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/rolleyes008.gif)
-
Roscoe White who worked for DPD in Nov 63 as a photography expert, had copies and a cut out of the Oswald picture in his possession when he died. White's son, upon his Fathers death, announced old Roscoe had worked for the CIA
-
He is the one John Armstrong called "Lee".
Indeed Rob I want to thank John for providing it
-
Over the years? Are we referring to some middle aged Oswald? (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/rolleyes008.gif)
He's not Al Bundy!? Hahaha!
While in the Marines he lost some puppy fat, big deal!
JohnM
-
While in custody Oswald LIED whenever the rifle was discussed.
1. Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
2. Oswald lied that the backyard photos weren't authentic.
3. Oswald said he never saw the BY photos before but his handwriting was discovered on one.
3. Oswald lied about putting the long package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
4. Oswald told Frazier the long package contained curtain rods but told the Dallas Police that it contained his lunch.
5. Oswald lied about living at Neeley Street, (the location of the incriminating backyard photos)
6. Oswald told Fritz at the time of the assassination he had lunch with Jarman, another lie.
7. Oswald denied that he told Frazier that the reason for his unexpected visit was for curtain rods.
JohnM
Before you start claiming that Oswald lied, why don't you first prove that this is indeed what he said?
-
Before you start claiming that Oswald lied, why don't you first prove that this is indeed what he said?
This could be interesting.
-
Before you start claiming that Oswald lied, why don't you first prove that this is indeed what he said?
The same lazy nonsense over and over. And from the guy who forever claims he is not suggesting a conspiracy or frame up. Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said? What you are suggesting is that everything that points to Oswald guilt must be suspect for that reason alone but without explaining why. It's laughable. The old CTer catch-22.
-
First of all, LHO didn't have to say anything as that was his right. All these years later not one LNer has provided evidence showing that he waived his right.
Secondly, we can't take anything that the authorities CLAIMED LHO said at face value since there are NO recordings. The authorities could tell us he said anything since there is no way of knowing.
Finally, there is NO supporting evidence for any of the things that you claimed LHO lied about, thus, none of them are facts so the term "lie" is not appropriate.
Whether Oswald had legal rights to remain silent or have counsel is not relevant to whether he lied. In a trial, it would be relevant but here on planet earth it's not. You have severe difficulty understanding that point. If there had been "recordings" you would just claim those were faked as well. How about asking yourself why the authorities would allow Oswald to speak to the press is they were so concerned with controlling what he said? There is no supporting evidence of his lies? You mean other than the confirmation of those present? And a mountain of evidence like the testimony Marina that she took the BY pictures, that Oswald owned a rifle, and Frazier's testimony that Oswald carried a long package that morning that he claimed contained curtain rods. And you are the guy who finds Oswald "suspicious" and believe he was "involved" but never utter a single word against him. Everyone else must be lying but never your hero Oswald.
-
Yes I suppose those points are worthy for those not willing to consider a conspiracy I too would question such people on why they believe Oswald's fingerprints were lifted at the morgue onto the rifle
-
The same lazy nonsense over and over. And from the guy who forever claims he is not suggesting a conspiracy or frame up. Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said? What you are suggesting is that everything that points to Oswald guilt must be suspect for that reason alone but without explaining why. It's laughable. The old CTer catch-22.
Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said?
Because those are the people who contradicted eachother on key points in their obviously incomplete non-verbatim reports.
What you are suggesting is that everything that points to Oswald guilt must be suspect for that reason alone
I am not suggesting that at all. Stop making up crap!
If and when a solid piece of evidence points to Oswald's guilt, I'll gladly accept it as such, but that's a far cry from taking some guy's word for it in after the fact reports written from memory and in the knowledge that Oswald was already dead!
-
Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said?
Because those are the people who contradicted eachother on key points in their obviously incomplete non-verbatim reports.
What you are suggesting is that everything that points to Oswald guilt must be suspect for that reason alone
I am not suggesting that at all. Stop making up crap!
If and when a solid piece of evidence points to Oswald's guilt, I'll gladly accept it as such, but that's a far cry from taking some guy's word for it in after the fact reports written from memory and in the knowledge that Oswald was already dead!
How about citing some of these "contradictions" from those actually present relating the statements attributed to Oswald in the OP? Did anyone indicate, for example, that Oswald admitted ownership of the rifle or that he was in the BY pictures? Is there any contradiction among those present on Oswald's responses to those basic points? Why would anyone think that the police would make up statements in which Oswald is basically denying guilt? If they were going to falsify statements, then why not say he confessed after he is dead. What you always circle back to is trying to create an impossible standard of proof to imply false doubt about the facts. No one could prove anything from history to your subjective satisfaction if the response to any evidence was just that there is implicit doubt because someone recounted what they heard or saw from "memory." It's always "possible" they all got it wrong. LOL. What is being suggested is not just that those present characterized what Oswald said in slightly different ways (which might be expected) but those present lied about it for some unknown reason.
-
Before you start claiming that Oswald lied, why don't you first prove that this is indeed what he said?
What is your standard for what constitutes as proof? James Bookhout, Will Fritz, James Hosty, Thomas Kelley, and Harry Holmes all said that Oswald denied owning a rifle.
-
What is your standard for what constitutes as proof? James Bookhout, Will Fritz, James Hosty, Thomas Kelley, and Harry Holmes all said that Oswald denied owning a rifle.
And just to be clear the evidence he did is that Marina said she saw it. The picture and the curtain rods? Not trying to be smarmy just wanting to make sure I am not missing anything?
-
Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said?
The people who were present don't even agree on what was said.
-
And just to be clear the evidence he did is that Marina said she saw it. The picture and the curtain rods? Not trying to be smarmy just wanting to make sure I am not missing anything?
The evidence that he did is that Marina said she saw it, George De Mohrenschildt said he saw it, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt said she saw it, the backyard photos, the Waldman exhibits, the Klein's money order, the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President William Waldman, and Oswald's palm print being on the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
-
And a mountain of evidence like the testimony Marina that she took the BY pictures,
You mean the Marina who originally said that she took one photo with a black camera that is held up to the face?
-
While in custody Oswald LIED whenever the rifle was discussed.
1. Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
2. Oswald lied that the backyard photos weren't authentic.
3. Oswald said he never saw the BY photos before but his handwriting was discovered on one.
3. Oswald lied about putting the long package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
4. Oswald told Frazier the long package contained curtain rods but told the Dallas Police that it contained his lunch.
5. Oswald lied about living at Neeley Street, (the location of the incriminating backyard photos)
6. Oswald told Fritz at the time of the assassination he had lunch with Jarman, another lie.
7. Oswald denied that he told Frazier that the reason for his unexpected visit was for curtain rods.
Something doesn't become a lie just because John Mytton doesn't believe it's true
-
First of all, LHO didn't have to say anything as that was his right. All these years later not one LNer has provided evidence showing that he waived his right.
Secondly, we can't take anything that the authorities CLAIMED LHO said at face value since there are NO recordings. The authorities could tell us he said anything since there is no way of knowing.
Finally, there is NO supporting evidence for any of the things that you claimed LHO lied about, thus, none of them are facts so the term "lie" is not appropriate.
Secondly, we can't take anything that the authorities CLAIMED LHO said at face value since there are NO recordings. The authorities could tell us he said anything since there is no way of knowing.
If the authorities were lying about what Oswald said or did not say in an effort to make him appear guilty, then why not just come out and make the (false) claim that Oswald admitted that he owned the rifle? Why stop short of that?
-
Yes I suppose those points are worthy for those not willing to consider a conspiracy I too would question such people on why they believe Oswald's fingerprints were lifted at the morgue onto the rifle
Please explain the process used to extract prints from a dead body at the morgue.
-
The evidence that he did is that Marina said she saw it, George De Mohrenschildt said he saw it, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt said she saw it,
How does seeing an object tell you anything about who owns it?
the Waldman exhibits, the Klein's money order, the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President William Waldman,
These tell you nothing about Oswald.
and Oswald's palm print being on the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
No. A partial palm print identified as Oswald's turned up a week later on an index card.
-
Oswald's lies proves his guilt.
Even if you could show that Oswald told a lie, the only thing that would be proof of is that he told a lie, not murder.
-
Please explain the process used to extract prints from a dead body at the morgue.
Take fingertips press onto rifle
-
The evidence that he did is that Marina said she saw it, George De Mohrenschildt said he saw it, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt said she saw it, the backyard photos, the Waldman exhibits, the Klein's money order, the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President William Waldman, and Oswald's palm print being on the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
Is the following incorrect
On November 22nd Lt. Day of the Dallas Police examined the rifle and discovered little evidence of prints except on the metal housing near the trigger, where there were traces of two prints. Then, according to Day, the FBI ordered him not to make a comparison between these prints and Oswald's prints, so he discontinued his work, with no print evidence established.
On November 23rd the rifle was brought to an FBI Laboratory in Washington for inspection. Sebastian Latona examined the rifle that morning and concluded that the print marks on the rifle were insufficient for identification purposes. In fact he stated that it looked like the rifle hadn't even been processed for prints, suggesting that Lt. Day did not carry out any investigations for prints. This prompted FBI Director Hoover to sign a statement confirming that no latent prints of value were lifted from the rifle.
On November 24th Dallas Police Officers were reporting in public interviews that Oswald's prints were not found on the rifle.
Also on Nov 24th, just hours after Oswald was killed the rifle was brought back to Dallas by the FBI, and brought to the funeral home where Oswald's body lay. And according to the funeral home director and the statements from the FBI agents involved, they, the FBI, proceeded to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle (for comparison purposes according to the FBI).
On Nov 26th Lt. Day now claims he found Oswald's palm prints on the rifle on Nov 22nd. This part is the evidence that the WC used ignoring the other confusing and contradictory evidence.
-
Is the following incorrect
On November 22nd Lt. Day of the Dallas Police examined the rifle and discovered little evidence of prints except on the metal housing near the trigger, where there were traces of two prints. Then, according to Day, the FBI ordered him not to make a comparison between these prints and Oswald's prints, so he discontinued his work, with no print evidence established.
On November 23rd the rifle was brought to an FBI Laboratory in Washington for inspection. Sebastian Latona examined the rifle that morning and concluded that the print marks on the rifle were insufficient for identification purposes. In fact he stated that it looked like the rifle hadn't even been processed for prints, suggesting that Lt. Day did not carry out any investigations for prints. This prompted FBI Director Hoover to sign a statement confirming that no latent prints of value were lifted from the rifle.
On November 24th Dallas Police Officers were reporting in public interviews that Oswald's prints were not found on the rifle.
Also on Nov 24th, just hours after Oswald was killed the rifle was brought back to Dallas by the FBI, and brought to the funeral home where Oswald's body lay. And according to the funeral home director and the statements from the FBI agents involved, they, the FBI, proceeded to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle (for comparison purposes according to the FBI).
On Nov 26th Lt. Day now claims he found Oswald's palm prints on the rifle on Nov 22nd. This part is the evidence that the WC used ignoring the other confusing and contradictory evidence.
Matt, since you lumped all of those together then the answer to your question is Yes. It is incorrect. I'll expand on it later.
-
What is your standard for what constitutes as proof? James Bookhout, Will Fritz, James Hosty, Thomas Kelley, and Harry Holmes all said that Oswald denied owning a rifle.
He probably did deny owning a rifle, but that can't be qualified as a lie if you can't prove conclusively he did own a rifle.
And so we are back to the problematic physical evidence that is so common in this case. You know, the physical evidence I asked about in another thread....
-
This is how the LN "logic" process goes:
"Oswald must have been the one who killed JFK because he lied"
"What was the lie?"
"He said he didn't kill JFK"
-
Take fingertips press onto rifle
Mat, to put it crudely fingerprints are basically perspiration marks...dead people don't tend to perspire too much. Unlike in the movies, you can't just cover a dead person's fingers with some kind of artificial sweat such as oil or grease, all you end up with is a smudgy mess. Nor can you coat a dead person's fingers with fingerprint ink and then press them on an object, all that gives you is an inkprint, not a fingerprint.
-
-
You have to ask them that. Your response doesn't address my point.
How would they explain claiming (in reports after his death) that Oswald admitted his guilt, when they told the media, while Oswald was being interrogated, that he denied any involvement?
-
Mat, to put it crudely fingerprints are basically perspiration marks...dead people don't tend to perspire too much. Unlike in the movies, you can't just cover a dead person's fingers with some kind of artificial sweat such as oil or grease, all you end up with is a smudgy mess. Nor can you coat a dead person's fingers with fingerprint ink and then press them on an object, all that gives you is an inkprint, not a fingerprint.
https://careertrend.com/how-8593322-fingerprint-dead-person.html
-
https://careertrend.com/how-8593322-fingerprint-dead-person.html
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)
Sprinkle powder on the fingers of the corpse and brush off excess powder with the camel hair brush.
Take a piece of tape and press the sticky side against the finger; apply pressure first in the center and then work out from there.
Remove the tape from the finger.
Stick the tape flat against the index card to get a clean, legible fingerprint.
Then claim a week later that you lifted that index card print from a rifle and forgot to tell anybody about it.
-
Matt -- I liked the References
" Science of fingerprints : Classification and Uses "; U.S. Department of Justice; 1993
This just seems like another case where someone of power thinks that you will accept whatever you are told . I don't think there were a lot of people who would stand up and object to what they had been told by an authoritative figure back in 1963. Today those figures don't carry as much clout as they used to !
Good posting , Matt
-
Then claim a week later that you lifted that index card print from a rifle and forgot to tell anybody about it.
Wow what a surprise, another liar! Yawn.
This basically encapsulates the CT case, whoever from whatever walk of life all these seemingly unconnected people collaborated in some way to convict poor little Oswald, from waitresses, to cab drivers, to fellow employees, to rooming house staff, to ticket sellers, to shoe salesman, to policeman, to the CIA, to the FBI and all the way up to LBJ, it looks like nobody wanted Kennedy alive.
So what this amounts to is that I would supply a Mountain of evidence and credible eyewitnesses in a long long line in court and Iacoletti would simply be reduced to claiming that alot of these innocent people for reasons only known to Iacoletti all got together in some massive stadium and decided to lie? But where does this go who benefitted and why, Oswald was insane whereas the alternative is simply unbelievable.
JohnM
-
Wow what a surprise, another liar! Yawn.
This basically encapsulates the CT case, whoever from whatever walk of life all these seemingly unconnected people collaborated in some way to convict poor little Oswald, from waitresses, to cab drivers, to fellow employees, to rooming house staff, to ticket sellers, to shoe salesman, to policeman, to the CIA, to the FBI and all the way up to LBJ, it looks like nobody wanted Kennedy alive.
So what this amounts to is that I would supply a Mountain of evidence and credible eyewitnesses in a long long line in court and Iacoletti would simply be reduced to claiming that alot of these innocent people for reasons only known to Iacoletti all got together in some massive stadium and decided to lie? But where does this go who benefitted and why, Oswald was insane whereas the alternative is simply unbelievable.
JohnM
Oh poor little boy, please get some help.... You really need it.
-
Is the following incorrect
On November 22nd Lt. Day of the Dallas Police examined the rifle and discovered little evidence of prints except on the metal housing near the trigger, where there were traces of two prints. Then, according to Day, the FBI ordered him not to make a comparison between these prints and Oswald's prints, so he discontinued his work, with no print evidence established.
On November 23rd the rifle was brought to an FBI Laboratory in Washington for inspection. Sebastian Latona examined the rifle that morning and concluded that the print marks on the rifle were insufficient for identification purposes. In fact he stated that it looked like the rifle hadn't even been processed for prints, suggesting that Lt. Day did not carry out any investigations for prints. This prompted FBI Director Hoover to sign a statement confirming that no latent prints of value were lifted from the rifle.
On November 24th Dallas Police Officers were reporting in public interviews that Oswald's prints were not found on the rifle.
Also on Nov 24th, just hours after Oswald was killed the rifle was brought back to Dallas by the FBI, and brought to the funeral home where Oswald's body lay. And according to the funeral home director and the statements from the FBI agents involved, they, the FBI, proceeded to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle (for comparison purposes according to the FBI).
On Nov 26th Lt. Day now claims he found Oswald's palm prints on the rifle on Nov 22nd. This part is the evidence that the WC used ignoring the other confusing and contradictory evidence.
Matt,
Carl Day lifted a palm print off of the underside of the barrel of the rifle on Nov 22, 1963. He was both qualified and authorized to do so. FBI agent Nat Pinkston was aware on Nov 22, 1963 that Day had raised a partial latent print on the rifle.
(https://i.imgur.com/nP9YTc7.png)
On Nov 26, FBI Agent Vince Drain took possession of the print from the DPD. On Nov 29, Agent Sebastion Latona received the print and confirmed that it was Oswald's.
Some of the WC staff had doubts about that palm print. Rankin wrote a letter to Hoover on Sept 1, 1964 asking if the FBI could somehow match the palm print to the rifle barrel. Here is from Hoover's reply ten days later:
(https://i.imgur.com/XCVyI1h.png)
Wesley Liebeler was one of those who had questions about the palm print. From Liebeler's HSCA testimony:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol11/pdf/HSCA_Vol11_WC_3E2_Liebeler.pdf
Mr. DODD - I have just two questions really. You stated in regard to the rifle, the palm print, and I think on the boxes as well you had a bit of disagreement over whether or not those prints ought to be--was it verified or checked out? I wasn't sure what you meant. They had actually been run already once. There was some question of the absorption because of the wood. Had there already been a test on them?
Mr. LIEBELER - If I may, I will explain exactly what happened in both of those cases, it won't take very long. I think particularly the point on the rifle barrel may be worthwhile. The Dallas Police Department had gotten to the rifle. Very shortly thereafter they sent it to the FBI for fingerprint analysis. The FBI reported there were no prints on the rifle. Four days later the Dallas Police Department forwarded to the FBI a lift of a palm print that they said had been taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When they were asked, as they were, why they had waited 4 days to send this lift to the FBI or had not told the FBI that they had made this lift from the rifle, their reply was that even though the print had been lifted, that that lift had not removed the latent print from the underside of the rifle barrel and it was still there. Well, the problem was that the FBI never found it there. It occurred to us that it was possible that in fact the palm print never came from the rifle. We only had the say-so of the Dallas Police Department to that effect and we weren't satisfied with that. We wanted the FBI to establish, if they could, whether that palm print in fact came from that rifle or not. At the time this question was raised no attempt whatever had been made to deal with that problem. Now after the discussion that Mr. Willens and Redlich and I had that was referred to in the testimony Mr. Rankin invited to his office the chief FBI fingerprint expert, Inspector Mally of the FBI, who was liaison with the Commission and I think Mr. Slawson and Mr. Griffin and Mr. Willens and Mr. Redlich and Mr. Rankin met with them. I suggested to Mr. Latona, their fingerprint expert, that there might be some distortion in the lift because it had been taken from a cylindrical surface, sort of a Mercator projection is here, put your hand on a light bulb and take the lift and lay it flat, it might distort the lift from what it might have been on the surface. Latona went back and looked at the lift. He found that there were indications in the lift itself of pits and scores and marks and rust spots that had been on the surface from which the print had been lifted, and happily they conformed precisely to a portion of the underside of the rifle barrel and the FBI so reported to us. As far as I was concerned that conclusively established the proposition that, that that had come from that rifle.
-
.....Day claimed dried ridges were still present when he handed over the rifle.
Did Day hand the rifle directly to Latona?
JohnM
-
Mr. BELIN. Based on your experience, I will ask you now for a definitive statement as to whether or not you can positively identify the print shown on Commission Commission Exhibit No. 637as being from the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald as shown on Commission Exhibit 629?
Mr. DAY. Maybe I shouldn't absolutely make a positive statement without further checking that. I think it is his, but I would have to sit down and take two glasses to make an additional comparison before I would say absolutely, excluding all possibility, it is. I think it is, but I would have to do some more work on that.
Again not a researcher so I could be way off, but it seems Day is saying they have either pictures or lifts of the prints in DPD possession and they have Oswald's prints including his palm print in their possession as well, but he/they still have not made a positive identification?
Do the pictures Day took still exist? He also seems to say the boxes in the SN in later exhibits are not the same as he saw them that day
-
The chain of custody is Carl Day to Vincent Drain to Sebastion Latona.
On the 26th?
-
On the 26th?
From Carl Day to Vincent Drain on the 26th.
-
Nothing presented proves ownership of that rifle.
Nothing could ever prove to you that Oswald owned the rifle. You are a Hardcore Conspiracy Buff. You cannot, and will not, view with an objective eye any evidence that implicates Oswald's guilt.
-
Yes and hundreds of people have made an instant impression of you and unfortunately for you your use of a feeble irrelevant insult just makes you look like a Goose, congratulations!
Btw next time try harder because so far you're not even a challenge, just a piece of crap that needs scraping off the bottom of my shoe!
JohnM
That rant just proves my point.
-
Wow what a surprise, another liar! Yawn.
What do you mean "another"? Who's the first liar, you?
This basically encapsulates the CT case, whoever from whatever walk of life all these seemingly unconnected people collaborated in some way to convict poor little Oswald, from waitresses, to cab drivers, to fellow employees, to rooming house staff, to ticket sellers, to shoe salesman, to policeman, to the CIA, to the FBI and all the way up to LBJ, it looks like nobody wanted Kennedy alive.
Nice strawman. Never mind what I think about Carl Day. Let's go with the FBI agent who Day gave his evidence to:
"In 1984, the author interviewed both Lieutenant Day and Agent Drain about the mysterious print. Day remains adamant that the Oswald print was on the rifle when he first examined it a few hours after the shooting. Moreover, Day stated that when he gave the rifle to Agent Drain, he pointed out to the FBI man both the area where the print COULD BE SEEN and the fingerprint dust used to bring it out. Lieutenant Day states that he CAUTIONED DRAIN to be sure the area was not disturbed while the rifle was in transit to the FBI laboratory."
"DRAIN FLATLY DISPUTES THIS, claiming that DAY NEVER showed him such a print. "I just don't believe there was ever a print," said Drain. He noted that there was increased pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case."
"Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated: "All I can figure is that it [Oswald's print] was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald's card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened." -- Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p. 109
So what this amounts to is that I would supply a Mountain of evidence and credible eyewitnesses in a long long line in court
No you wouldn't. This "mountain of evidence" is a figment of your imagination.
-
Carl Day lifted a palm print off of the underside of the barrel of the rifle on Nov 22, 1963. He was both qualified and authorized to do so. FBI agent Nat Pinkston was aware on Nov 22, 1963 that Day had raised a partial latent print on the rifle.
Where does the Pinkston memo say that this was the supposed barrel print and not a trigger guard print?
Some of the WC staff had doubts about that palm print. Rankin wrote a letter to Hoover on Sept 1, 1964 asking if the FBI could somehow match the palm print to the rifle barrel. Here is from Hoover's reply ten days later:
Well that settles it. J Edgar Hoover said so. The same guy who said that the public needed to be convinced that Oswald was the real assassin. Where can I find Latona ever saying that he matched the "pits and scores and marks and rust spots"? Let's see the match.
-
He had enough time to lift it, as is evidenced by the fact that he did lift it.
So either Day (or Pinkston) lied about this, or it's not the same print.
-
Actually I have a picture of that in a folder a guy who is sort of JFK researcher who gave it to me It is basically a photograph that shows the Neely street background and then just has a cutout that is black where Oswald's figure appears I am not sure if it available online somewhere
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339222/m1/1/med_res/)
-
Nothing could ever prove to you that Oswald owned the rifle. You are a Hardcore Conspiracy Buff. You cannot, and will not, view with an objective eye any evidence that implicates Oswald's guilt.
Tim I get what you are saying For instance, the handwriting expert's conclusion that it was Oswald's writing on the order form for Klein's should count for something. Part of the problem is all of the seeming dishonesty of the investigation, for some of us, has created an environment where suspicion effects virtually everything John L has called into question when and where the handwriting analysis came from But if we put that aside for the moment and just say there was a properly executed handwriting analysis that determined it was LHO's handwriting then yes that counts as a piece of evidence I do think people on both sides go to far in saying there is absolutely zero evidence of something one way or another
That being said I am having a lot of trouble finding clean facts that support the LN
-
Thanks John That is the one
-
Tim I get what you are saying For instance, the handwriting expert's conclusion that it was Oswald's writing on the order form for Klein's should count for something.
It doesn't count for much. First of all handwriting "analysis" is unscientific and subjective.
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3835&context=penn_law_review (http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3835&context=penn_law_review)
Secondly, this identification was done based on two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon. That's unreliable even by handwriting "analysis" standards (such as they are/were).
Thirdly, even if this identification was perfectly accurate (and not just wishful thinking), all that would tell you is that Oswald filled out an order blank, not that he killed the president.
Part of the problem is all of the seeming dishonesty of the investigation, for some of us, has created an environment where suspicion effects virtually everything John L has called into question when and where the handwriting analysis came from But if we put that aside for the moment and just say there was a properly executed handwriting analysis that determined it was LHO's handwriting then yes that counts as a piece of evidence I do think people on both sides go to far in saying there is absolutely zero evidence of something one way or another
Sure, it's evidence, but evidence of what exactly? The amount written on the coupon doesn't match the amount of the alleged money order, Klein's didn't even make a copy of the payment for this order coupon, nor was there anything to tie that particular coupon or that particular money order with that particular rifle. Nor is there any evidence that a package from Klein's was ever shipped through the postal service to PO box 2915, or picked up or signed for by Oswald or anybody else.
That being said I am having a lot of trouble finding clean facts that support the LN
That's because it's all speculation, assumptions, and handwaving.
P.S. it's John I, with a capital i, not L
-
What do you mean "another"? Who's the first liar, you?
Nice strawman. Never mind what I think about Carl Day. Let's go with the FBI agent who Day gave his evidence to:
"In 1984, the author interviewed both Lieutenant Day and Agent Drain about the mysterious print. Day remains adamant that the Oswald print was on the rifle when he first examined it a few hours after the shooting. Moreover, Day stated that when he gave the rifle to Agent Drain, he pointed out to the FBI man both the area where the print COULD BE SEEN and the fingerprint dust used to bring it out. Lieutenant Day states that he CAUTIONED DRAIN to be sure the area was not disturbed while the rifle was in transit to the FBI laboratory."
"DRAIN FLATLY DISPUTES THIS, claiming that DAY NEVER showed him such a print. "I just don't believe there was ever a print," said Drain. He noted that there was increased pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case."
"Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated: "All I can figure is that it [Oswald's print] was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald's card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened." -- Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p. 109
No you wouldn't. This "mountain of evidence" is a figment of your imagination.
If you'd open your eyes to the evidence you would know that the palm print WAS listed among the evidence ( item #14) that as turned over to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63. The clerk who typed up the evidence list placed quotation marks around the words "Off underside of gun barrel near end of fore grip "
Those are the exact words that Lt Day scribbled on the white card on which he had placed the cellophane tape that held what he imagined to be a palm print. Tom Alyea watched Detective Day lift that smudge the Day thought might be a print while they were on the sixth floor of the TSBD a about 1:45 pm that afternoon.
The white card with the note on it was turned over to the FBI at midnight and it later became CE 634......
The quotation identifies the evidence ......
-
If you'd open your eyes to the evidence you would know that the palm print WAS listed among the evidence ( item #14) that as turned over to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63. The clerk who typed up the evidence list placed quotation marks around the words "Off underside of gun barrel near end of fore grip "
Still pushing the fabrication that your undated evidence list was written on 11/22? If it was, then Drain would have known about the magic palmprint.
-
Tim I get what you are saying For instance, the handwriting expert's conclusion that it was Oswald's writing on the order form for Klein's should count for something. Part of the problem is all of the seeming dishonesty of the investigation, for some of us, has created an environment where suspicion effects virtually everything John L has called into question when and where the handwriting analysis came from But if we put that aside for the moment and just say there was a properly executed handwriting analysis that determined it was LHO's handwriting then yes that counts as a piece of evidence I do think people on both sides go to far in saying there is absolutely zero evidence of something one way or another
That being said I am having a lot of trouble finding clean facts that support the LN
Matt, it wasn't just the conclusion of one handwriting expert.
(https://i.imgur.com/X7Gdc4y.jpg)
From the WC testimony of James Cadigan:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you been in this field, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. Twenty-three and one-half years.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your training in this field?
Mr. CADIGAN. Upon being assigned to the laboratory I was given a specialized course of training and instruction which consisted of attending various lectures and conferences on the subject, reading books, and working under the direction of experienced examiners.
Upon attaining a required degree of proficiency, I was assigned cases on my own responsibility, and since that time I have examined many thousands of cases involving handwriting, hand printing, typewriting, forgeries, erasures, alterations, mechanical devices of all types, pens, paper, and ink. I conduct research on various problems as they arise and assist in the training of our new examiners.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in Federal or other courts, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; in many Federal and State courts, and military courts-martial.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 773, and I ask you whether you have examined that item.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
........................................
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, can you explain the meaning of the term "standard" or "known documents" as used in the field of questioned-document examination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Known standards are samples of writings of an individual which are known to be in his writing and which are available for comparison with questioned or suspect writings.
.........................................
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to Commission Exhibit No. 773, did you compare the handwriting on that exhibit with the writing in the known standards to see if they were written by the same person?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the writer of the known standards, Lee Harvey Oswald, prepared the handwriting and hand printing on Commission Exhibit No. 773.
===========================================================
From the WC testimony of Alwyn Cole:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cole1.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your position, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. I am employed as examiner of questioned documents with the U.S. Treasury Department.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state your specific duties in this position?
Mr. COLE. I am required to examine any document in which the Treasury Department is interested when a question arises about the genuineness of the document or the identity of any of its parts. A good deal of this work includes the identification of handwriting.
Mr. EISENBERG. From what sources is work referred to your laboratory, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. From the several divisions of the Office of the Treasury of the United States, and from the various Bureaus of the Treasury Department, including the enforcement agencies: Secret Service, narcotics, customs, internal revenue service.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, can you tell us how you prepared yourself to carry on this work of questioned documents examination?
Mr. COLE. I served an apprenticeship of 6 years under Mr. Burt Farrar from 1929 to 1935. Mr. Farrar at that time was the document examiner for the Treasury Department, and at the time of my association with him he had had over 40 years of experience in the work. Under Mr. Farrar's tutelage I studied the leading textbooks on the subject of questioned documents, which includes handwriting identification, and I received from him cases for practice examination of progressively increasing difficulty, made these examinations, prepared reports for his review, and also during this period I had assignments to other Government laboratories, those of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the Government Printing Office, and I had close association with other technical workers in the government service. I succeeded Mr. Farrar in 1935, and I have had daily practical contact with questioned problems from 1929 to the present date.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, are you a member of any associations of persons engaged in questioned documents examination?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you state those positions?
Mr. COLE. I am a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, of the International Association for Identification, and of the American Academy of Forensic Science.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you give instructions to others in this work, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. I do. I am an instructor at the Treasury Department Law Enforcement Officer Training School.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to testify in Federal or other courts?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have, many times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this witness be permitted to give expert testimony on the subject of questioned documents.
The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now show you a photograph of an envelope and a purchase order. The envelope is addressed to Klein's, in Chicago, from one "A. Hidell," and the purchase order, which is included in the photograph, is order also addressed to Klein's from "A. Hidell," and I ask you whether you have examined this photograph.
Mr. COLE. I have.
.............................................
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, have you compared the documents 774-783, all signed "Lee H. Oswald," with the document 773, the photograph of a purchase order to Klein's Sporting Goods, for purposes of determining whether the author of the documents 774-783 also authored the document 773?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the author of the standard writing bearing the exhibit numbers which you just related----
Mr. EISENBERG. 774-783?
Mr. COLE. 774-783, is the author of the handwriting on Commission Exhibit 773.
========================================
From Summary of conclusions the HSCA questioned documents expert Joseph P. McNally:
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/hscahand.htm
The same writing is on the order form and envelope (item 30) as is on the letters and on the inside cover of the passport (item 9). (51) The writing and signatures that appear on the letters (items 25, 32, 38, and 42) agree with the writing and signatures on the U.S. Post Office applications for post office boxes (items 27, 45, and 46). (52) The signature and writing on the back of the photograph (item 31) agree with the signatures and script writing of Oswald (sections and II).
-
Tim I get what you are saying For instance, the handwriting expert's conclusion that it was Oswald's writing on the order form for Klein's should count for something. Part of the problem is all of the seeming dishonesty of the investigation, for some of us, has created an environment where suspicion effects virtually everything John L has called into question when and where the handwriting analysis came from But if we put that aside for the moment and just say there was a properly executed handwriting analysis that determined it was LHO's handwriting then yes that counts as a piece of evidence I do think people on both sides go to far in saying there is absolutely zero evidence of something one way or another
That being said I am having a lot of trouble finding clean facts that support the LN
More:
(https://i.imgur.com/jVl3GQF.jpg)
From the WC testimony of James Cadigan:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 788, and ask you if you have examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that is the money order which was included with the purchase order to Klein's. Have you prepared a photograph of that exhibit, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate photograph of the money order, Exhibit No. 788?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you compare Exhibit No. 788 with the standards to determine whether Exhibit No. 788 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
==================================================
From the WC testimony of Alwyn Cole:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cole1.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing.
================================================
From Summary of conclusions the HSCA questioned documents expert Joseph P. McNally:
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/hscahand.htm
Virtually all the Lee H. Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald signatures are by the same person. There is some normal variation among the signatures, and no significant differences along the Oswald signatures identified as being the same. The overall writing pattern consistently similar, and the individual letter designs match throughout without major differences. The same holds true for the script and handprint on these documents that are identified as being written by the same person. (50) The same writing is on the U.S. Postal money order to Klein's (item 29) as is on the various letters and correspondence.
-
Tim I get what you are saying For instance, the handwriting expert's conclusion that it was Oswald's writing on the order form for Klein's should count for something. Part of the problem is all of the seeming dishonesty of the investigation, for some of us, has created an environment where suspicion effects virtually everything John L has called into question when and where the handwriting analysis came from But if we put that aside for the moment and just say there was a properly executed handwriting analysis that determined it was LHO's handwriting then yes that counts as a piece of evidence I do think people on both sides go to far in saying there is absolutely zero evidence of something one way or another
That being said I am having a lot of trouble finding clean facts that support the LN
Matt, it's not just the handwriting.
(https://i.imgur.com/QBZJWsM.jpg)
From the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President William Waldman;
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/waldman.htm
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see the extreme top of this microfilm, the date, March 13, 1963; to what does that refer?
Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our register on that date.
Mr. BELIN. And to the right of that, I see $21.45. Is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Is there any other record that you have in connection with the shipment of this rifle other than the particular microfilm negative frame that we are looking at right now?
Mr. WALDMAN. We have a--this microfilm record of a coupon clipped from a portion of one of our advertisements, which indicates by writing of the customer on the coupon that he ordered our catalog No. C20-T750; and he has shown the price of the item, $19.95, and gives as his name A. Hidell, and his address as Post Office Box 2915, in Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else on that negative microfilm frame?
Mr. WALDMAN. The coupon overlays the envelope in which the order was mailed and this shows in the upper left-hand corner .the return address of A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, in Dallas, Tex.
There is a postmark of Dallas, Tex., and a postdate of March 12, 1963, indicating that the order was mailed by airmail.
-
Nothing could ever prove to you that Oswald owned the rifle. You are a Hardcore Conspiracy Buff. You cannot, and will not, view with an objective eye any evidence that implicates Oswald's guilt.
You've hit the crux of the matter and the Catch-22 of CTer logic. It isn't that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is deficient or lacking in any respect. How could there even be any more evidence of such under the known circumstances? But no amount of evidence can ever convince a CTer. They effectively have adopted an impossible standard of proof on the topic which they then attempt to pawn off as doubt. No legitimate historian has expressed any doubt whatsoever regarding Oswald's ownership of the rifle. Internet cowboys like John I make ridiculous statements to discount all evidence like handwriting analysis not being a science. This from the same guy who when asked how we know that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln if we applied his same kooky analysis to that case cited to Booth's handwritten diary. I guess handwriting is dubious scientific only if you don't like the results.
-
It isn't that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is deficient or lacking in any respect. How could there even be any more evidence of such under the known circumstances? But no amount of evidence can ever convince a CTer. They effectively have adopted an impossible standard of proof on the topic which they then attempt to pawn off as doubt. No legitimate historian has expressed any doubt whatsoever regarding Oswald's ownership of the rifle.
Over and over we go, and you just pretend there is not a giant hole in your story, you have zero evidence he received the rifle! That is just a regular standard of proof don't you think?
What defines a legitimate historian?
Don't get me wrong, you are of course quite correct that the experts in the eye of the mainstream do tow the line So just keep looking to those who are paid to give their opinions instead of independent researchers
-
Over and over we go, and you just pretend there is not a giant in your story, you have zero evidence he received the rifle! That is just a regular standard of proof don't you think?
What defines a legitimate historian?
Don't get me wrong, you are of course quite correct that the experts in the eye of the mainstream do tow the line So just keep looking to those who are paid to give their opinions instead of independent researchers
Anyone who says there is "zero" evidence can't be taken seriously. The evidence is well documented and conclusive of the matter. Do you really want to go through all that again? The rifle was ordered in an alias associated with Oswald. It was sent to his PO Box. He is depicted holding it in the BY pictures. His prints are on a rifle with the same serial number as the one shipped to him. There is no accounting for this rifle except as in the possession of Oswald (i.e. it wasn't left at the post office or returned to Klein's). That rifle is found in his place of work on the day that he carries a long package into the building. No other rifle was found on 11.22 when Marina directed the police to the location where Oswald stored his rifle. Good grief.
-
Anyone who says there is "zero" evidence can't be taken seriously.
I said there was zero evidence in regard to him receiving it. One wonders if your seeming blatant manipulation of my words is by design
Perhaps you do not understand what I mean by evidence that he received it at the post office That category of evidence does not include inferential references such as that people claimed he had a similar rifle, the SN information etc. Yes those things matter in the big picture, but they are not direct evidence of what happened at the post office In lieu of not having any direct evidence of what happened we are left only with what should have happened in terms of post office policy and that does not seem to bode well for your version of events
-
You've hit the crux of the matter and the Catch-22 of CTer logic. It isn't that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is deficient or lacking in any respect. How could there even be any more evidence of such under the known circumstances? But no amount of evidence can ever convince a CTer. They effectively have adopted an impossible standard of proof on the topic which they then attempt to pawn off as doubt. No legitimate historian has expressed any doubt whatsoever regarding Oswald's ownership of the rifle. Internet cowboys like John I make ridiculous statements to discount all evidence like handwriting analysis not being a science. This from the same guy who when asked how we know that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln if we applied his same kooky analysis to that case cited to Booth's handwritten diary. I guess handwriting is dubious scientific only if you don't like the results.
My favorite (yes, it's a long list) is: "The backyard photos MUST be faked! They're too incriminating!! Nobody would implicate themselves like that!"
The very evidence that incriminates him is, to the conspiracy crowd, evidence of his innocence.
If we produce eight pieces, they demand nine. If we produce nine then they want 10. On and on and on it goes.
-
Matt, it wasn't just the conclusion of one handwriting expert.
Notice the sleight of hand going on here. They conflate the order coupon and the envelope and don't say which handwriting they identified. The envelope tells you nothing about what was ordered. Neither does the money order found in Virginia.
Tim also left out this pertinent detail from Charles Scott's HSCA report:
"The envelope addressed to Kleins (item 30) was available only in the form of a microfilm enlargement. This is even less satisfactory than a photocopy as a basis for an opinion on handwriting."
-
They effectively have adopted an impossible standard of proof on the topic which they then attempt to pawn off as doubt.
No, there's doubt because your evidence is weak and tainted. You've adopted a ridiculously low standard of proof for yourself to believe something is true.
No legitimate historian has expressed any doubt whatsoever regarding Oswald's ownership of the rifle.
LOL. Like "historians" are any more authoritative on matters of truth, science, and evidence than everyone else.
Internet cowboys like John I make ridiculous statements to discount all evidence like handwriting analysis not being a science.
I take it you didn't bother to read the Pennsylvania Law Review article? Please explain how this is scientific? Is it repeatable, falsifiable, testable, and measurable? Maybe we should get some historians to decide. LOL.
This from the same guy who when asked how we know that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln if we applied his same kooky analysis to that case cited to Booth's handwritten diary.
No clue what you're talking about. Another one of Richard Smith's legendary made-up strawmen? Are you still pretending that the evidence against Oswald is anything like the evidence against Booth? Booth's handwriting is irrelevant.
-
Anyone who says there is "zero" evidence can't be taken seriously. The evidence is well documented and conclusive of the matter. Do you really want to go through all that again?
You have yet to "go through all that". All you do is make a bunch of false statements and call it "evidence".
The rifle was ordered in an alias associated with Oswald.
Associated how? Via an ID card that nobody said a word about until after the Klein's order was "found"?
It was sent to his PO Box.
No evidence of that.
He is depicted holding it in the BY pictures.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
His prints are on a rifle with the same serial number as the one shipped to him.
False. One partial palmprint was found on an index card a week later.
There is no accounting for this rifle except as in the possession of Oswald
LOL. Except you haven't actually shown that it was ever in the possession of Oswald.
That rifle is found in his place of work on the day that he carries a long package into the building.
A package which the only two people who saw it, said was too short to hold that rifle.
No other rifle was found on 11.22 when Marina directed the police to the location where Oswald stored his rifle. Good grief.
There's no evidence that Oswald "stored his rifle" there.
Good grief, indeed. Your standard of proof is so weak that it even depends on false statements to prop it up.
-
I said there was zero evidence in regard to him receiving it. One wonders if your seeming blatant manipulation of my words is by design
Of course it is. That's what "Richard Smith" does. He can't tell the truth about anything.
-
My favorite (yes, it's a long list) is: "The backyard photos MUST be faked! They're too incriminating!! Nobody would implicate themselves like that!"
Please provide a link to anyone ever actually saying that.
How exactly are the backyard photos "incriminating"?
-
How exactly are the backyard photos "incriminating"?
The photos are incriminating ...that was the whole idea.
They are fakes.
In the three pictures produced, the head, face, and expression are all the same...an impossibility.
It is also impossible for anyone to stand like the image produced in Life magazine without falling down [no one has ever duplicated that stance]
His chin in the photo doesn't match the look and shape of Oswald's chin in any other photographs. You can even see a dividing line across his chin, where it looks like Oswald's head has been pasted on.
The Warren Commission as well as the HSCA [for unknown reasons] simply ignored these points.
An unofficial photo imaging study...
-
The photos are incriminating ...that was the whole idea.
They are fakes.
In the three pictures produced, the head, face, and expression are all the same...an impossibility.
It is also impossible for anyone to stand like the image produced in Life magazine without falling down [no one has ever duplicated that stance]
His chin in the photo doesn't match the look and shape of Oswald's chin in any other photographs. You can even see a dividing line across his chin, where it looks like Oswald's head has been pasted on.
The Warren Commission as well as the HSCA [for unknown reasons] simply ignored these points.
An unofficial photo imaging study...
The BYPs are real, but they were also choreographed and edited as part of Oswald's sheep-dipping to be the designated patsy. Oswald knew he was the patsy, but he hoped that the plan involved an escape route out of the country. Turns out the CIA double-crossed him which he found out at the theater and later when Ruby offed him. He KNEW he was the patsy in the "Big Event". He said so. But what he didn't know was how desperate the CIA/FBI were back then and how they had nothing to lose and offing him was part of the plan.
-
The photos are incriminating ...that was the whole idea.
They are fakes.
Even if they are fakes . . . how are they incriminating?
-
The BYPs are real, but they were also choreographed and edited as part of Oswald's sheep-dipping to be the designated patsy. Oswald knew he was the patsy, but he hoped that the plan involved an escape route out of the country. Turns out the CIA double-crossed him which he found out at the theater and later when Ruby offed him. He KNEW he was the patsy in the "Big Event". He said so. But what he didn't know was how desperate the CIA/FBI were back then and how they had nothing to lose and offing him was part of the plan.
Oswald knew he was the patsy, but he hoped that the plan involved an escape route out of the country.
Lee never was informed that JFK was going to be murdered.....He thought it was another General Walker type hoax whereby the sounds of "gunfire" and the spent shells and rifle would convince the public ( and Castro's agents) that Lee had fired at JFK but missed just as he had missed Walker.
-
At least the photos are consistent that Oswald was having a bad standing day
-
The BYPs are real, but they were also choreographed and edited as part of Oswald's sheep-dipping to be the designated patsy. Oswald knew he was the patsy, but he hoped that the plan involved an escape route out of the country. Turns out the CIA double-crossed him which he found out at the theater and later when Ruby offed him. He KNEW he was the patsy in the "Big Event". He said so. But what he didn't know was how desperate the CIA/FBI were back then and how they had nothing to lose and offing him was part of the plan.
Jack, if any of the above was true Oswald wouldn't have got out of the TSBD alive. There would have been a bent member of the DPD stationed in that building ready to take Oswald out the moment he'd pulled the trigger. The cop would have been a hero, probably giving a medal, then a few months later 'killed in action'.
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AWfc1z7uTs4/VdNxT9EUv0I/AAAAAAABHBc/2pz8hoBtE_I/s3000/LHO.png)
To me, this doesn't look like the same guy.
Look at his eyebrows.
But they sure look alike.
To tell you the truth, when I compare these photos against LHO;s mug shot, I don't know what the heck is going on with the rifle photo. The guy in the rifle photo looks like some kind of ghoul.
Steve Thomas
-
Matt Grantham... understand now?
https://careertrend.com/how-8593322-fingerprint-dead-person.html
-
https://careertrend.com/how-8593322-fingerprint-dead-person.html
Right.
But, there's a big difference between finger print powder and ink.
-
Right.
But, there's a big difference between finger print powder and ink.
http://crimeandclues.com/2013/01/31/fingerprinting-the-dead/
-
Jack, if any of the above was true Oswald wouldn't have got out of the TSBD alive. There would have been a bent member of the DPD stationed in that building ready to take Oswald out the moment he'd pulled the trigger. The cop would have been a hero, probably giving a medal, then a few months later 'killed in action'.
It's fun concocting scenarios I suppose.
But it's more fun considering what restrictions actually stand in the way in the real world. The DPD didn't even know that Oswald had secured a job at the DPD. The FBI said they couldn't have stopped Oswald even they had wanted to; they would be unlikely to obtain a warrant to have Oswald somehow 'watched' on that particular day. On what basis, anyway? He wasn't even on the list of persons considered a threat to the president during the Texas visit.
-
Jack, if any of the above was true Oswald wouldn't have got out of the TSBD alive. There would have been a bent member of the DPD stationed in that building ready to take Oswald out the moment he'd pulled the trigger. The cop would have been a hero, probably giving a medal, then a few months later 'killed in action'.
Denis, as it was, the DPD were on the scene in record time. Same goes for converging on Oswald in the theater. But they had a deal with the FBI that they would not be responsible for offing Oswald. They would only deliver him so they could claim plausible deniability. Their handling of the crime scene was incriminating enough. Killing Oswald would have opened a whole new fresh can-o-worms.
At some point Oswald suspected a double-cross was afoot and made a break for it, perhaps ahead of schedule. He had no choice but to head towards the post-coup pick up point where his handler would either help him escape, or kill him. By this point, his best bet was to surrender to the DPD in a public setting. Oswald was safe with them, so he thought, until they delivered him to Ruby on a silver platter.
-
The DPD didn't even know that Oswald had secured a job at the DPD.
Because they said so? They obviously knew all about the SN and they knew way too much about Oswald. Yet they were bumbling incompetent boobs when it came to handling evidence and managing a crime scene. I guess the gravity of the crime got them all flustered. So flustered that Fritz took no notes and handled evidence with his bare hands and staged evidence, etc.
The FBI said they couldn't have stopped Oswald even they had wanted to; they would be unlikely to obtain a warrant to have Oswald somehow 'watched' on that particular day. On what basis, anyway? He wasn't even on the list of persons considered a threat to the president during the Texas visit.
You don't expect the CIA to recruit a patsy that was on anyone's radar, do you? Give them some credit. You gotta start thinking more like a conspirator. Only then will you see the light. :)
Here is your list of patsy LNers:
Thomas Arthur Vallee - Plan A in Chicago (aborted)
Lee Harvey Oswald - Plan B in Dallas (succeeded)
Does anyone actually believe these 2 gentlemen just happened to occupy buildings directly adjacent to the Presidential motorcade route? Oswald got his job at the TSBD only 3 weeks before he supposedly shot and killed JFK. Imagine that.
-
But it's more fun considering what restrictions actually stand in the way in the real world. The DPD didn't even know that Oswald had secured a job at the DPD.
Oswald secured a job at the DPD? I learn something new every day from Bill Chapman!
-
Oswald secured a job at the DPD? I learn something new every day from Bill Chapman!
I know, eh... that's my best one so far. Let the punters figure that one out..
-
Mat, to put it crudely fingerprints are basically perspiration marks...dead people don't tend to perspire too much. Unlike in the movies, you can't just cover a dead person's fingers with some kind of artificial sweat such as oil or grease, all you end up with is a smudgy mess. Nor can you coat a dead person's fingers with fingerprint ink and then press them on an object, all that gives you is an inkprint, not a fingerprint.
Get real...Fingerprints are not 'perspiration'! Fingers [sweat and debris] are actually wiped off before they are printed.
-
Oswald said he never saw the BY photos before but his handwriting was discovered on one.
You can find 'experts' that will say anything. Certainly Marina could recognize Lee's handwriting?
Mr. McDONALD ... do you recognize the handwriting?
Mrs. PORTER. No, I don’t ... you have certain way of writing, habit of writing certain letters, so I know for sure that I could not, I do not write certain letter that way. So at first I thought it was maybe my handwriting, but after I examine it, I know it is not ... this is something like maybe foreigner would try to write it, you know, to copy Russian language.4
-
Denis, as it was, the DPD were on the scene in record time. Same goes for converging on Oswald in the theater. But they had a deal with the FBI that they would not be responsible for offing Oswald. They would only deliver him so they could claim plausible deniability. Their handling of the crime scene was incriminating enough. Killing Oswald would have opened a whole new fresh can-o-worms.
At some point Oswald suspected a double-cross was afoot and made a break for it, perhaps ahead of schedule. He had no choice but to head towards the post-coup pick up point where his handler would either help him escape, or kill him. By this point, his best bet was to surrender to the DPD in a public setting. Oswald was safe with them, so he thought, until they delivered him to Ruby on a silver platter.
WOW!!....You've summed it up very nicely Mr Trojan..... In A nut shell. I'd like to add a little "food for thought" in a rhetorical question.....
What the hell were THREE FBI agents doing in the Texas Theater at the time the cops burst in to arrest a man who had allegedly sneaked into the theater without buying a ticket. ????
-
What the hell were THREE FBI agents doing in the Texas Theater at the time the cops burst in to arrest a man who had allegedly sneaked into the theater without buying a ticket?
According to The Man from Minsk .... http://www.reformation.org/oleg-shot-in-texas-theater.html
...naturally, the Dallas police knew that the cop-killer was hiding in the theater. Within minutes of the report of the dead policeman, at least 30 officers and 2 FBI agents descended on the theater. When the cops arrived, ticket taker Julia Postal said that the man who ran into the theater was in the BALCONY.
The lawmen were practically there before the call to the theater went out :-\
-
According to The Man from Minsk .... http://www.reformation.org/oleg-shot-in-texas-theater.html The lawmen were practically there before the call to the theater went out :-\
There were THREE FBI agents in the theater at the time Lee was arrested..... What the hell were they doing there???
-
Why can't we just accept that this was the highest quality detective work to anticipate JFK's killer would be there?
-
Why can't we just accept that this was the highest quality detective work to anticipate JFK's killer would be there?
Yep. But I disagree that it would take anything more than common sense to figure that out. It's a no-brainer that anyone trying to avoid detection would naturally play-hide-and-seek. Even a pre-schooler can figure that out.
-
There were THREE FBI agents in the theater at the time Lee was arrested..... What the hell were they doing there???
Looking for the cop-killer.
-
Looking for the cop-killer.
Did you say something?
-
Yep. But I disagree that it would take anything more than common sense to figure that out. It's a no-brainer that anyone trying to avoid detection would naturally play-hide-and-seek. Even a pre-schooler can figure that out.
“Trying to avoid detection”. LOL.
-
Looking for the cop-killer.
The FBI has no jurisdiction with regard to finding cop killers.
Never mind the fact that there wasn’t any probable cause to suspect anyone in the theater of killing a cop.
-
The FBI has no jurisdiction with regard to finding cop killers.
Never mind the fact that there wasn’t any probable cause to suspect anyone in the theater of killing a cop.
Everybody on the planet has jurisdiction to see/say
Never mind the fact that the cop-killer probably caused a second manhunt
-
“Trying to avoid detection”. LOL.
???
A cop-killer wouldn't want to avoid detection?
-
???
A cop-killer wouldn't want to avoid detection?
Were all of the 20 or so people in the theater that day "trying to avoid detection"?
-
To a WC devotee, everything Oswald did was evidence of his guilt. He forgot his wedding ring. He preferred Dr Pepper. He wasn’t chatty with the cab driver. He asked Jarman why people were gathering on the corner. He had instant coffee that morning. He wore briefs instead of boxers.
-
He wore briefs instead of boxers.
:D
-
IF LHO had pulled this off
like any infamous assassin in the history of mankind
he would have said WHY he did it and HOW he did it
assassins want a platform
thats why they do what they do
particularly a politically motivated assassination like this
with a man not shy about expressing his rather extreme political views
he proudly shows DeMorinchild the pic of him and the rifle
he was boastful
even arrogantly so
this does not fit
-
IF LHO had pulled this off
like any infamous assassin in the history of mankind
he would have said WHY he did it and HOW he did it
assassins want a platform
thats why they do what they do
particularly a politically motivated assassination like this
with a man not shy about expressing his rather extreme political views
he proudly shows DeMorinchild the pic of him and the rifle
he was boastful
even arrogantly so
this does not fit
he proudly shows DeMorinchild the pic of him and the rifle. he was boastful even arrogantly so, this does not fit
I believe that Lee showed De M the B.Y. photo that he had developed and retouched.....Lee had created the photo to fool the viewer into believing that they were looking at a photo of a armed and ready communist revolutionary. He hoped the photo would be seen by Castro's agents so he could gain access to Castroland.
He and George had worked on the scheme to get Lee into Cuba where he could possibly pick up information about the Russian missiles that may have been there.
At the time Lee displayed the photo to George ....George laughed at the incongruity of the photo...thought is was funny..... He knew damned well that Lee was an American spy who had been back from Russia by the US government who hoped that he would accept a mission of attempting to gain access to Cuba. Both Lee And George knew that General Walker was a Nazi , and an avowed anticommunist, who advocated the assassination of Fidel Castro. Thus by staging an attempt to shoot Walker they thought that the fugitive Lee Oswald would be welcomed to Cuba. When George saw the photo that Lee had autographed for him , He jokingly inscribed the back of the photo " Hunter of fascists" ha, ha, ha....
-
Cool story, bro.
-
It's much simpler than that. Oswald was the designated patsy and DeMorinschilds was his handler. Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent extracted from the fake defector program (patsy pool) and represented Plan B, backup to Plan A in Chicago with Oswald's counterpart, Thomas Arthur Vallee. The BYPs were all part of the sheep-dipping. Oswald knew he was the designated patsy and hoped the feds had his back.
The DPD/SS likely dragged Marina out to take a pic with the Imperial Reflex but not 6 or more pics. Otherwise, no one could be so wrong about the number of pics they took without lying about it.
I'm a photogrammetrist and I know how to identify and measure lens distortion and how it affects the imagery. IMO, the differences in the spherical aberration of the following 2 back yard photos prove they were not taken with the same camera. CE-399A was way too good to have been taken with the crap Imperial Reflex (CE-399BCDE) Did Marina claim to have switched from the Imperial Reflex to the Minox spy camera during the BYP shoot for the money shot CE-399A?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
-
It's much simpler than that. Oswald was the designated patsy and DeMorinschilds was his handler. Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent extracted from the fake defector program (patsy pool) and represented Plan B, backup to Plan A in Chicago with Oswald's counterpart, Thomas Arthur Vallee. The BYPs were all part of the sheep-dipping. Oswald knew he was the designated patsy and hoped the feds had his back.
The DPD/SS likely dragged Marina out to take a pic with the Imperial Reflex but not 6 or more pics. Otherwise, no one could be so wrong about the number of pics they took without lying about it.
I'm a photogrammetrist and I know how to identify and measure lens distortion and how it affects the imagery. IMO, the differences in the spherical aberration of the following 2 back yard photos prove they were not taken with the same camera. CE-399A was way too good to have been taken with the crap Imperial Reflex (CE-399BCDE) Did Marina claim to have switched from the Imperial Reflex to the Minox spy camera during the BYP shoot for the money shot CE-399A?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/anim5.gif)
Oswald knew he was the designated patsy and hoped the feds had his back.
Possibly.....But I would say that Lee recognized that he was playing a very dangerous game...( just as he had at Walker's) one in which he could be a scapegoat (patsy) and hoped the feds had his back....He didn't merely "hope" the FBI had his back...Because he thought that he was working undercover for the FBI....He had been assured that the FBI would protect him, if things went haywire. He'd gone to the FBI to try to warn them of a plot to assassinate JFK.....( The alarming note) that he thought would bring an FBI agent looking for him....and then he could reveal the plot that he'd heard was afoot .... A plot that used the hoax attempt that he was involved in. He suspected that he could be made a patsy in an actual assassination attempt but he was assured that the Feds knew about the plot and had everything under control.
PS....Recall what he said at the midnight "press appearance" ....when he requested "someone" to come to his legal defense....
-
So is Marina lying when she said she took the pictures? How do we explain Oswalds signature?
-
So is Marina lying when she said she took the pictures? How do we explain Oswalds signature?
She lied every time that she spoke. The photographs are forgeries and so is any signature. Who would so incredibly incriminate themselves? It is absolutely ludicrous. The '6th floor rifle' [a side mounted sling] is not the same as the one in the picture [where the sling is mounted on the bottom]
(https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/T5u37o3EIdvdykDw0auvkWQHvSY=/fit-in/1072x0/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/35/35/3535fd35-2fb0-4cd6-b710-afc60adcf422/be025673.jpg)
The rifles were not shipped equipped with scope and sling ::)
-
So is Marina lying when she said she took the pictures? How do we explain Oswalds signature?
So is Marina lying when she said she took the pictures?
Pictures....Plural... Yes, she was lying, she never took more than one BY photo (CE 133A) ....But she wanted to be cooperative with the authorities so she said she took two photos both (CE 133A and CE 133B )..... Then several years later another BY photo surfaced. This third photo had been in the possession of Geneva White, the widow of a Dallas police officer, Roscoe White.
Lee had Marina take the Photo CE 133A.... He developed it and retouched it, and made several copies of that photo...He sent one copy to a communist news paper, he autographed one for his daughter June, and he autographed one for George De Morhenschildt ......
That photo is ridiculously phony.... Because it depicts Lee as being a armed and ready communist revolutionary.....and he most certainly was NOT a communist revolutionary. He was an American secret agent.
-
She lied every time that she spoke. The photographs are forgeries and so is any signature. Who would so incredibly incriminate themselves? It is absolutely ludicrous. The '6th floor rifle' [a side mounted sling] is not the same as the one in the picture [where the sling is mounted on the bottom]
(https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/T5u37o3EIdvdykDw0auvkWQHvSY=/fit-in/1072x0/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/35/35/3535fd35-2fb0-4cd6-b710-afc60adcf422/be025673.jpg)
The rifles were not shipped equipped with scope and sling ::)
Who would so incredibly incriminate themselves?
Someone who was trying to deceive another party... and trick them into believing the person in the photo was something ( a communist Revolutionary) that he was not.
It is absolutely ludicrous
You're right the BY photo is a ludicrous characterization ...
-
So is Marina lying when she said she took the pictures?
Pictures....Plural... Yes, she was lying, she never took more than one BY photo (CE 133A) ....But she wanted to be cooperative with the authorities so she said she took two photos both (CE 133A and CE 133B )..... Then several years later another BY photo surfaced. This third photo had been in the possession of Geneva White, the widow of a Dallas police officer, Roscoe White.
Lee had Marina take the Photo CE 133A.... He developed it and retouched it, and made several copies of that photo...He sent one copy to a communist news paper, he autographed one for his daughter June, and he autographed one for George De Morhenschildt ......
That photo is ridiculously phony.... Because it depicts Lee as being a armed and ready communist revolutionary.....and he most certainly was NOT a communist revolutionary. He was an American secret agent.
Don't forget, she said she held the reflex camera up to her eye when she allegedly took the photos, despite the fact that the camera didn't have a viewfinder for taking photos that way.
-
She lied every time that she spoke. The photographs are forgeries and so is any signature. Who would so incredibly incriminate themselves?
The old "there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt that he must be innocent" argument. Criminals sometimes do dumb things that result in being convicted. The prisons are full of such people. But even so, this argument makes no sense. At the time Oswald posed for the pictures, he had no idea that he would be assassinating JFK and leaving his rifle for the authorities to find. Rather, he intended to shoot Walker and hide the rifle. Thus escaping without detection. Which is exactly what happened. Oswald wasn't implicated in the Walker shooting because he posed for these pictures. So even your bizarre argument that he wouldn't have left so much evidence that he was guilty is based on a false premise. Oswald was cultivating some type of fantasy that he was a revolutionary with the goal of going to Cuba. He was a nut. And nuts often do these types of bizarre things.
In the JFK situation, Oswald understood that there was no committing the act and getting away. He knew the outcome was death or arrest. That is part of the calculation in assassinating the president in broad daylight in the presence of numerous people and law enforcement. As evidenced by his leaving his wedding ring and most of his money with Marina. He was willing to accept that outcome in committing the act. He wanted to be someone of historical note and was willing to die for that purpose. The evidence left behind doesn't matter in that context. And there was nothing much he could do about the BY pictures because they had been sent to others. This is where CTers ask why Oswald fled the scene if he knew that he was doomed. The obvious answer is that he had nothing to lose. Criminals often flee even when their situation is hopeless. OJ, the Boston bombers etc. What did he have to lose? Nothing. He just played out his hand to the end.
-
Don't forget, she said she held the reflex camera up to her eye when she allegedly took the photos, despite the fact that the camera didn't have a viewfinder for taking photos that way.
I don't know that Marina's memory of how she held the camera is worth using as the basis to debate the authenticity of the photo...... She could easily have been recalling a camera that she had used in Russia..... There are many photos that were taken when Lee Was in Russia.....
-
He wanted to be someone of historical note and was willing to die for that purpose.
Then why did he deny shooting anyone?
-
Then why did he deny shooting anyone?
Touche ! I'm not an expert on assassins... but I believe that they usually are proud of their deed, because they have assassinated a person whom they viewed as a evil person and a threat to society. ( Which, BTW is exactly how the conspirators that assassinated JFK thought, but they also thought that JFK had abandoned them at BOP and they wanted revenge)
Lee Oswald never ever showed any sign that he as happy that JFK had been assassinated.... In fact, he became choked up when the reporters enlightened him that JFK had been murdered....By asking him if he had shot the President. He nearly lost his stoic composure and the police immediately hustled him out of the room.
-
How did they fake Oswalds signature?
-
How would you have done it?
Why would the conspirators setup Oswald with the name "Hidell"?
The only person who would use an alias to buy weapons would be Oswald, any other scenario simply adds unnecessary complications and makes no sense.
JohnM
-
The only person who would use an alias to buy weapons would be Oswald, leaving a paper trail to his own P.O. box...
Even though the Dallas equivalent has never been seen/found, the New Orleans Post Office Application shows that Oswald already had your feeble objections worked out and it's reasonable to conclude that if Oswald was having stuff sent to Hidell while he was in Dallas, Oswald would have had Hidell's name on that form as well.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/postal-form-concerning-a-new-orleans-post-box-the-box-users-are-as-picture-id576878048)
Time for another break from the forum?
You'd like that wouldn't you, but too bad I'm here for as long as I can stand the stink.
JohnM
-
How did they fake Oswalds signature?
Who said anybody faked Oswald's signature?
-
Even though the Dallas equivalent has never been seen/found, the New Orleans Post Office Application shows that Oswald already had your feeble objections worked out and it's reasonable to conclude that if Oswald was having stuff sent to Hidell while he was in Dallas, Oswald would have had Hidell's name on that form as well.
CE2585, p. 4:
-----------
12. 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.
-----------
Besides, who said that "Oswald was having stuff sent to Hidell"?
-
?
Define "absolute proof"?
JohnM
Show me something that PROVES that Lee OWNED ( legally owned ) the carcano that was found in the TSBD. A photo that shows he possessed a carcano that was NOT identical to the TSBD carcano, won't cut it. .... and when you provide that proof... Then we'll take the next step....
I'll grant you that Lee ordered A carcano from Kleins to use as a photo prop, and to be left behind in the hoax shooting at Walker's .....But was it his money that bought the MO to purchase the rifle??... There is very good reason to doubt that he bought the money order ....and if it was not he, nor his money, that bought the money order then it was NOT his rifle....
-
While in custody Oswald LIED whenever the rifle was discussed.
1. Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
2. Oswald lied that the backyard photos weren't authentic.
3. Oswald said he never saw the BY photos before but his handwriting was discovered on one.
3. Oswald lied about putting the long package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
4. Oswald told Frazier the long package contained curtain rods but told the Dallas Police that it contained his lunch.
5. Oswald lied about living at Neeley Street, (the location of the incriminating backyard photos)
6. Oswald told Fritz at the time of the assassination he had lunch with Jarman, another lie.
7. Oswald denied that he told Frazier that the reason for his unexpected visit was for curtain rods.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AWfc1z7uTs4/VdNxT9EUv0I/AAAAAAABHBc/2pz8hoBtE_I/s3000/LHO.png)
JohnM
Is lying an indication of guilt? If it is...Then the authorities are guilty, because they piled lie upon lie in the framing of Lee Oswald.
One of the key lies was presented by Dallas DA Henry Wade..... On Saturday 11 /23/63 neither the DPD nor he FBI had found any print on the rifle that had been identified as the print of Lee Oswald ( that's still true today) But Henry Wade told reporters ( as if it was an after thought) " Oh, and did I mention that they have found his prints on the gun?" This was a barefaced lie.... At the time that Wade sucked those reporters in with that lie, nobody had found an identifiable print on the rifle.
-
Forget about that seven-point list, go with the wedding ring in tea cup and the tilt!
No, let's NOT forget.... Because Mr Mytton is flat WRONG.....
Oswald lied that the backyard photos weren't authentic.
Lee couldn't possibly have lied about the back yard PHOTOS ( Plural).....Because at the time Lee was shown A (singular )photo they had not been officially discovered.
Captain Fritz displayed "A" ( singular ) photo to Lee, and lee immediately pronounced it to be fake. Since CE 133A and CE 133B were officially found in the Paine's garage about an hour AFTER Fritz displayed the photo to Lee we can surmise that the photo that Lee pronounced to be a fake was 133c.
So Lee DID NOT lie about the PHOTOS being authentic...He said the photo that he was shown was a fake.
-
At the time that Wade sucked those reporters in with that lie, nobody had found an identifiable print on the rifle.
Or indeed at any time.
-
Hope you have your research down on this one, Walt.
Just an hour off and you could be in trouble. Mr. Iacoletti, you know!
You worked out the time line?
Check it out for yourself.....Read Captain Fritz Report on page 607 of the WR.....
-
Forget about that seven-point list, go with the wedding ring in tea cup and the tilt!
Why forget any evidence, you don't solve any murder by ignoring the facts.
And as for the tilt, too bad that's already been scientifically dealt with.
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/wm/live/624_351/images/live/p0/57/99/p05799dx.jpg)
JohnM
-
Sure, is that why you're stuck on #1?
Good for you but it doesn't look like a 36 inch rifle to me....
Sure, is that why you're stuck on #1?
No, but beware of being stuck in number 2!
Good for you but it doesn't look like a 36 inch rifle to me....
Otto, it's a good idea to focus your questions instead of spinning around in riddles so let me guess, since you didn't post or refer to any any photogrammetry evidence which would be beyond your grasp anyway, you must be questioning the Kleins rifle order but when one takes a closer examination of the facts and subsequent timeline we find all is hunky dory A-OK.
First of all, Oswald placed his order in mid March for a rifle advertised in a February issue and since there was no ad in the March issue the next relevant month must be April.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9f0rqyTv/Febapramericanriflemance773.jpg)
The April Kleins advertisement shows the same catalogue number as the February issue(C20-T750) so Oswald's coupon which was for C20-T750 was sent according to the stock shown in the April issue.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYkx5F93/carcanofebapr.jpg)
And the same rifle that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO Box and which Oswald was photographed with ended up on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace and to top it off, the rifle had Oswald's prints and fibers which matched the arrest shirt. That's some powerful evidence that still after 55 years hasn't been refuted.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvPwS4Nb/C2766isinevidence.jpg)
JohnM
-
“Mytton” still hasn’t learned the difference between evidence and claims/supposition.
“Oswald placed his order”
“Oswald's coupon”
“which was for C20-T750 was sent”
“according to the stock shown in the April issue”
“And the same rifle that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO Box”
“and which Oswald was photographed with”
“the rifle had Oswald's prints”
“and fibers which matched the arrest shirt”
LOL
-
“Mytton” still hasn’t learned the difference between evidence and claims/supposition.
“Oswald placed his order”
“Oswald's coupon”
“which was for C20-T750 was sent”
“according to the stock shown in the April issue”
“And the same rifle that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO Box”
“and which Oswald was photographed with”
“the rifle had Oswald's prints”
“and fibers which matched the arrest shirt”
LOL
“and fibers which matched the arrest shirt”
This is one of my favorite rebuttals..... If the fibers matched the arrest shirt they had to have been placed on the rifle AFTER both the rifle and the arrest shirt were in the possession of the Dallas Police. Here's why.... Lee went to his room and changed his clothes at 1:00pm ...AFTER he left the TSBD he could NOT have had contact with the rifle AFTER he left the TSBD..... So if there were fibers on the butt of the rifle, and Lee had had the rifle against his shirt at the TSBD, then those fibers should have matched the shirt he left in his room at 1026 N. Beckley, NOT the shirt that he was wearing in the Texas Theater.
-
Where did JohnM go?
Let's try again,
First of all, Oswald placed his order in mid March for a rifle advertised in a February issue and since there was no ad in the March issue the next relevant month must be April.
So Klein's receives an order for a 36 inch rifle from a February issue (Dept. 358) in March but ships a 40 inch rifle listed in an April issue because "the next relevant month must be April."
Please provide quote(s) from the WCR to back up this claim and while you're at it how about some CE numbers for the ads you refer to?
Thanks.
Sorry Otto there's nothing to discuss, Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750. Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYkx5F93/carcanofebapr.jpg)
JohnM
-
Well, at least I gave you the opportunity to back up your claims and like Von P you fell on your face as you always do when it comes down to the evidence.
The junk the WC presented has been destroyed a long time ago,
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-index (section 4)
A link to "kennedysandking"?, now I know you're joking. Thanks for the LOL's.
JohnM
-
“Mytton” still hasn’t learned the difference between evidence and claims/supposition.
“Oswald placed his order”
“Oswald's coupon”
“which was for C20-T750 was sent”
“according to the stock shown in the April issue”
“And the same rifle that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO Box”
“and which Oswald was photographed with”
“the rifle had Oswald's prints”
“and fibers which matched the arrest shirt”
LOL
Omg, not yet another "LOL" rebuttal, YAWN!
JohnM
-
Looking forward to your rebuttal.
Or will you prove to be a coward like Von P?
A rebuttal to what, you never post anything?
JohnM
-
In reply to the quoted part, but I realize you have problems keeping up...
I'm glad you know what you are talking about, because no one else does!
Care to try again?
JohnM
-
Have you considered changing your name to John Dunce?
Here you go:
A link to "kennedysandking"?, now I know you're joking. Thanks for the LOL's.
and backing further up:
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-index (section 4)
As i said you haven't posted anything, a possible virus filled external link is a waste of everybody's time.
Start again and use your own words, it's time to grow up.
JohnM
-
As i said you haven't posted anything
I know you're a pathological liar but I don't mind restating my question related to your unsupported claim:
So Klein's receives an order for a 36 inch rifle from a February issue (Dept. 358) in March but ships a 40 inch rifle listed in an April issue because "the next relevant month must be April."
Please provide quote(s) from the WCR to back up this claim and while you're at it how about some CE numbers for the ads you refer to?
Thanks.
Calm down Otto, I already answered your question and then you posted a link as a response, a link to information which was not written by you, how lame.
JohnM
-
... a possible virus filled external link is a waste of everybody's time.
Right. How thoughtless it is to contaminate someone with objectiveness.
... it's time to grow up.
Patronizing isn't he? :D
-
Omg, not yet another "LOL" rebuttal, YAWN!
Stop presenting conjectures as facts and evidence, and I’ll stop LOLing.
-
I'm perfectly calm, thank you.
It's usually a waste of time reinventing the wheel that's why I provided the link to a handy paper detailing why the WC couldn't support their claims, the same problem you're facing now.
Your answer to my question, which BTW didn't address what I was asking, put forward yet another claim by stating "...Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750."
Two problems here
1) You left out that he ordered C20-T750 from the February issue
2) There is zero evidence of C20-T750 (what ever that might be) was picked up by Oswald or even was delivered to his P.O. Box.
Claims piling up...
I'm perfectly calm, thank you.
If this is you when you're calm, I'd hate to see you when you're angry!
It's usually a waste of time reinventing the wheel that's why I provided the link to a handy paper detailing why the WC couldn't support their claims, the same problem you're facing now.
No, it's just better to present an argument in your own words.
Your answer to my question, which BTW didn't address what I was asking, put forward yet another claim by stating "...Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750."
Let's be honest, all you are trying to do is invent a problem where there was no problem to begin with. The WC didn't have to address every time the wind changed direction, they just dealt with the facts.
1) You left out that he ordered C20-T750 from the February issue
No, in my first or second response to your I showed the following graphic. But what you keep leaving out is that Oswald didn't order his rifle in February.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9f0rqyTv/Febapramericanriflemance773.jpg)
2) There is zero evidence of C20-T750 (what ever that might be) was picked up by Oswald or even was delivered to his P.O. Box.
C20-T750 is the catalogue number that Kleins used for both the 36 and 40 inch Italian Carcano's and that fact is never going away.
The proof that Oswald received the rifle is that he ordered the rifle, he was photographed with the rifle, he left his prints on the rifle, the rifle was found with Oswald's prints and Oswald was identified on the 6th floor holding a rifle. How much evidence do you think was manufactured and how many liars, my narrative simply involves Oswald whereas yours involves half of Dallas.
Claims piling up...
No worries, keep em coming and let's see who else you can get involved in your massive conspiracy.
JohnM
-
Stop presenting conjectures as facts and evidence, and I’ll stop LOLing.
The facts and evidence in this case have been well established for many decades and the fact that you are still trying to argue otherwise 55 years later just proves my point. Thanks for your participation.
JohnM
-
No, in my first or second response to your I showed the following graphic. But what you keep leaving out is that Oswald didn't order his rifle in February.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9f0rqyTv/Febapramericanriflemance773.jpg)
JohnM
It doesn't matter if the coupon was received by Klein's in February or March. The coupon came from "Department 358" which indicates the February issue of American Rifleman Magazine, which advertised a 36" rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.
Mr. BELIN. And that number also appears in the address on the envelope to you, is that correct, or to your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
The April advertisment had not even been published at that time, so why is Klein's sending a 40" rifle to a client who ordered a 36" rifle?
-
It doesn't matter if the coupon was received by Klein's in February or March. The coupon came from "Department 358" which indicates the February issue of American Rifleman Magazine, which advertised a 36" rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.
Mr. BELIN. And that number also appears in the address on the envelope to you, is that correct, or to your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
The April advertisment had not even been published at that time, so why is Klein's sending a 40" rifle to a client who ordered a 36" rifle?
If Kleins themselves differentiated between different Carcano models then they would have used two catalogue numbers but both the 36inch and the 40inch models had the exact same catalogue number.
Department 358 is not a specific department within Kleins but is merely a way of tracking where the ads are coming from, Kleins received Oswald's order and gave him the C20-T550 rifle that they had in stock, it's not rocket science!
JohnM
-
If Kleins themselves differentiated between different Carcano models then they would have used two catalogue numbers but both the 36inch and the 40inch models had the exact same catalogue number.
Department 358 is not a specific department within Kleins but is merely a way of tracking where the ads are coming from, Kleins received Oswald's order and gave him the C20-T550 rifles that they had in stock, it's not rocket science!
JohnM
If Kleins themselves differentiated between different Carcano models then they would have used two catalogue numbers
Pure speculation, you have no clue what Klein's would or would not have done.
but both the 36inch and the 40inch models had the exact same catalogue number.
That may be the case, but the coupons from the February and April issues of A.R.M. had different department numbers, which is how they differentiated!
Department 358 is not a specific department within Kleins but is merely a way of tracking where the ads are coming from
Exactly, that's how Waldman knew it came from the February issue of A.R.M..... and that's how they knew which rifle they needed to send.
Kleins received Oswald's order and gave him the C20-T550 rifles that they had in stock, it's not rocket science!
Indeed... it's not rocket science, it's idiotic. You don't send a 40" rifle, which was not even advertised yet, to a client who ordered a 36".
-
No, in my first or second response to your I showed the following graphic. But what you keep leaving out is that Oswald didn't order his rifle in February.
What you keep leaving out is that the alleged Klein’s order wasn’t made in April either.
The proof that Oswald received the rifle is that he ordered the rifle, he was photographed with the rifle, he left his prints on the rifle, the rifle was found with Oswald's prints and Oswald was identified on the 6th floor holding a rifle.
lololololol
-
The facts and evidence in this case have been well established for many decades and the fact that you are still trying to argue otherwise 55 years later just proves my point. Thanks for your participation.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Thanks for your participation.
-
The April advertisment had not even been published at that time, so why is Klein's sending a 40" rifle to a client who ordered a 36" rifle?
Also, Klein’s was still advertising a 36” rifle as late as November, 1963 in Field and Stream.
-
If Kleins themselves differentiated between different Carcano models then they would have used two catalogue numbers but both the 36inch and the 40inch models had the exact same catalogue number.
Department 358 is not a specific department within Kleins but is merely a way of tracking where the ads are coming from, Kleins received Oswald's order and gave him the C20-T550 rifles that they had in stock, it's not rocket science!
JohnM
JM copy and pasted due to a formatting error.
JohnM
Weidmann
JohnM
If Kleins themselves differentiated between different Carcano models then they would have used two catalogue numbers
Pure speculation, you have no clue what Klein's would or would not have done.
We know exactly what they did because they advertised the same catalogue number for two rifles.
but both the 36inch and the 40inch models had the exact same catalogue number.
That may be the case, but the coupons from the February and April issues of A.R.M. had different department numbers, which is how they differentiated!
Every Kleins ad in every magazine had a different Dept number which would be a logistical nightmare to cross reference every order with every Dept number and then that is multiplied by all the different products and their slight differences in each ad. That makes absolutely no sense, the catalogue number is what they use to find items in the factory, if Kleins gave a stuff about a "5.5 pound" rifle they would have given a different catalogue number for the 36 inch model and the 40 inch model but they just lumped them together in the same group.
Department 358 is not a specific department within Kleins but is merely a way of tracking where the ads are coming from
Exactly, that's how Waldman knew it came from the February issue of A.R.M.....
Yes.
and that's how they knew which rifle they needed to send.
No, adding an unnecessary step in the order process is a waste of time, the catalogue number defines the item.
Kleins received Oswald's order and gave him the C20-T550 rifles that they had in stock, it's not rocket science!
Indeed... it's not rocket science, it's idiotic. You don't send a 40" rifle, which was not even advertised yet, to a client who ordered a 36".
As I said above if Kleins gave a stuff about a 13 dollar second hand war surplus rifle then they would have given both models different catalogue numbers but they didn't, there is nothing to argue, you can say what you believe that should have done but it was their business and they conducted it their way, sorry but that's business.
And btw why would anybody complain about receiving more rifle for the same price?, only a desperate CT.
-
What you keep leaving out is that the alleged Klein’s order wasn’t made in April either.
So what, the stock was received in February and the Kleins warehouse just filled out Oswald's order according to their catalogue number(C20-T750)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Bbbf2TSP/waldman-feb-20-rifle-received.jpg)
JohnM
-
JohnM
Weidmann
JohnM
If Kleins themselves differentiated between different Carcano models then they would have used two catalogue numbers
Pure speculation, you have no clue what Klein's would or would not have done.
We know exactly what they did because they advertised the same catalogue number for two rifles.
My remark was not about what "we know", but what you claimed they would have done if they wanted to differentiate between two rifles. That was pure speculation!
but both the 36inch and the 40inch models had the exact same catalogue number.
That may be the case, but the coupons from the February and April issues of A.R.M. had different department numbers, which is how they differentiated!
Every Kleins ad in every magazine had a different Dept number which would be a logistical nightmare to cross reference every order with every Dept number and then that is multiplied by all the different products and their slight differences in each ad. That makes absolutely no sense, the catalogue number is what they use to find items in the factory, if Kleins gave a stuff about a "5.5 pound" rifle they would have given a different catalogue number for the 36 inch model and the 40 inch model but they just lumped them together in the same group.
Every Kleins ad in every magazine had a different Dept number which would be a logistical nightmare to cross reference every order with every Dept number and then that is multiplied by all the different products and their slight differences in each ad.
That's only your opinion. The fact of the matter is that Klein's did use different department number for each advert as a way of telling where the coupon came from and thus which rifle was ordered.
That makes absolutely no sense, the catalogue number is what they use to find items in the factory,
Nevertheless, that's what they did, regardless if it makes sense to you or not. If it wasn't why would the use those department numbers at all?
if Kleins gave a stuff about a "5.5 pound" rifle they would have given a different catalogue number for the 36 inch model and the 40 inch model but they just lumped them together in the same group.
Again, pure speculation..... If not for pin pointing the exact rifle ordered, what was the purpose of the entire department system?
Department 358 is not a specific department within Kleins but is merely a way of tracking where the ads are coming from
Exactly, that's how Waldman knew it came from the February issue of A.R.M.....
Yes.
and that's how they knew which rifle they needed to send.
No, adding an unnecessary step in the order process is a waste of time, the catalogue number defines the item.
No, adding an unnecessary step in the order process is a waste of time, the catalogue number defines the item.
It's only an unnecessary step to you and no the catalogue number doesn't define the item, because - a we know - two different items (advertised in different magazines) had the same catalogie number, making your point invalid.
It's the department number on the order coupon that makes each item unique and identifiable!
Kleins received Oswald's order and gave him the C20-T550 rifles that they had in stock, it's not rocket science!
Indeed... it's not rocket science, it's idiotic. You don't send a 40" rifle, which was not even advertised yet, to a client who ordered a 36".
As I said above if Kleins gave a stuff about a 13 dollar second hand war surplus rifle then they would have given both models different catalogue numbers but they didn't, there is nothing to argue, you can say what you believe that should have done but it was their business and they conducted it their way, sorry but that's business.
As I said above if Kleins gave a stuff about a 13 dollar second hand war surplus rifle then they would have given both models different catalogue numbers but they didn't, there is nothing to argue, you can say what you believe that should have done but it was their business and they conducted it their way, sorry but that's business.
This is hilarious. First you, once again, say that Klein's would have used different catalogue numbers (which you have no way of knowing) and then you complain about what I "believe that should have been done" when in fact all I have stated is that Klein's conducted their business in such a way that they used the Department number on the order form to determine which article was ordered!
The stupidity of your argument is amazing. Did you ever think about the possibility that a client ordered a 40" without a scope and received a 36" with a scope? Using only the article number and not the department number would make something like that equally possible, right? Do you really think Klein's would want to be known as a company that sends clients the wrong articles simply because they have the same article number?
And btw why would anybody complain about receiving more rifle for the same price?, only a desperate CT.[/u]
Totally beside the point.
-
So what, the stock was received in February and the Kleins warehouse just filled out Oswald's order according to their catalogue number(C20-T750)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Bbbf2TSP/waldman-feb-20-rifle-received.jpg)
JohnM
Now you'll have to provide a never-ending list of witnesses with film of the warehouse guy actually signing the order... on film, of course. Then do entire background stories of each individual, including Genealogy Man doing a complete, never ending search connecting everybody on the planet to some sort of conspiracy.. except Oswald of course.
@Lurkers:
Five Stupid Things About JFK Conspiracy Theories
-Steve Shives
-
My remark was not about what "we know", but what you claimed they would have done if they wanted to differentiate between two rifles. That was pure speculation!
Every Kleins ad in every magazine had a different Dept number which would be a logistical nightmare to cross reference every order with every Dept number and then that is multiplied by all the different products and their slight differences in each ad.
That's only your opinion. The fact of the matter is that Klein's did use different department number for each advert as a way of telling where the coupon came from and thus which rifle was ordered.
Again, pure speculation..... If not for pin pointing the exact rifle ordered, what was the purpose of the entire department system?
No, adding an unnecessary step in the order process is a waste of time, the catalogue number defines the item.
It's only an unnecessary step to you and no the catalogue number doesn't define the item, because - a we know - two different items (advertised in different magazines) had the same catalogie number, making your point invalid.
It's the department number on the order coupon that makes each item unique and identifiable!
As I said above if Kleins gave a stuff about a 13 dollar second hand war surplus rifle then they would have given both models different catalogue numbers but they didn't, there is nothing to argue, you can say what you believe that should have done but it was their business and they conducted it their way, sorry but that's business.
This is hilarious. First you, once again, say that Klein's would have used different catalogue numbers (which you have no way of knowing) and then you complain about what I "believe that should have been done" when in fact all I have stated is that Klein's conducted their business in such a way that they used the Department number on the order form to determine which article was ordered!
The stupidity of your argument is amazing. Did you ever think about the possibility that a client ordered a 40" without a scope and received a 36" with a scope? Using only the article number and not the department number would make something like that equally possible, right? Do you really think Klein's would want to be known as a company that sends clients the wrong articles simply because they have the same article number?
Totally beside the point.
Sorry Martin but the following Feb/Apr Kleins ads shows that they used the same catalogue number for the Carcano and that's it, we don't need to second guess because the evidence was printed in thousands of magazines across America.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYkx5F93/carcanofebapr.jpg)
JohnM
-
Now you'll have to provide a never-ending list of witnesses with film of the warehouse guy actually signing the order... on film, of course. Then do entire background stories of each individual, including Genealogy Man doing a complete, never ending search connecting everybody on the planet to some sort of conspiracy.. except Oswald of course.
@Lurkers:
Five Stupid Things About JFK Conspiracy Theories
-Steve Shives
Thanks Bill, these CT's are mostly just a bunch of angry old men who have failed at life and are now desperately clinging to some sort of demented Conspiracy religion.
It's ironic that Iacoletti argues against religion but fully embraces some unknown entity and worships at the feet of Oswald.
(https://veryersatznews.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/lho-as-venus.jpg?w=420)
JohnM
-
Thanks Bill, these CT's are mostly just a bunch of angry old men who have failed at life and are now desperately clinging to some sort of demented Conspiracy religion.
It's ironic that Iacoletti argues against religion but fully embraces some unknown entity and worships at the feet of Oswald.
(https://veryersatznews.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/lho-as-venus.jpg?w=420)
JohnM
Says the guy who lives by his bible, called the WC report, and who worships his highpriest Bugliosi....It's comedy gold!
-
Thanks Bill, these CT's are mostly just a bunch of angry old men who have failed at life and are now desperately clinging to some sort of demented Conspiracy religion.
It's ironic that Iacoletti argues against religion but fully embraces some unknown entity and worships at the feet of Oswald.
(https://veryersatznews.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/lho-as-venus.jpg?w=420)
JohnM
Friends, it looks like Mr Iacoletti has really gotten under poor Mr Mytton's skin. Imagine needing consolation from Mr Chapman... Oh vey! :D
-
Friends, it looks like Mr Iacoletti has really gotten under poor Mr Mytton's skin. Imagine needing consolation from Mr Chapman... Oh vey! :D
Just because I'm blowing you away in another thread is no reason to chase me around like a little puppy dog. Woof woof!
JohnM
-
Says the guy who lives by his bible, called the WC report, and who worships his highpriest Bugliosi....It's comedy gold!
Awesome, another religious Kook.
JohnM
-
Awesome, another religious Kook.
JohnM
Did your mommy not tell you that calling names is a sign of weakness, even it it is the last resort because you have nothing of interest or credibility to say?
It's a telling sign when a die hard LN finds himself confronted with information he can not counter with credible arguments. They will try every trick in the book, ranging from outright dismissal to ridicule, from trying to change the subject to muddy the waters and pretending not to understand and so on.
There's just one thing they will never ever do; enter into an open and honest discussion about the information that has been presented.
-
Just because I'm blowing you away running away from your straightforward question in another thread is no reason to chase me around like a little puppy dog. Woof woof!
JohnM
:D
-
Did your mommy not tell you that calling names is a sign of weakness, even it it is the last resort because you have nothing of interest or credibility to say?
Sorry Martin but my Mommy also says you are a "Religious Kook".
I find this entire subject an interesting diversion where I can learn about another time and another place whereas you and your aggressive hostile buddies treat this like a war where anybody who doesn't say Conspiracy is instantly dismissed and thrown to the lions.
JohnM
-
Sorry Martin but my Mommy also says you are a "Religious Kook".
I find this entire subject an interesting diversion where I can learn about another time and another place whereas you and your aggressive hostile buddies treat this like a war where anybody who doesn't say Conspiracy is instantly dismissed and thrown to the lions.
JohnM
Sorry Martin but my Mommy also says you are a "Religious Kook".
Which probably explains how you became so obnoxious... No decent upbringing will do that to you!
I find this entire subject an interesting diversion
Your fanatical nature tells a different story.
where I can learn about another time and another place
Usually, people who want to learn don't have predetermined ideas.... I have never seen you being interested in anything! Just show me the last post in which you actually were interested in anybody's opinions or arguments.....
whereas you and your aggressive hostile buddies treat this like a war
You are cracking me up....
where anybody who doesn't say Conspiracy is instantly dismissed and thrown to the lions.
As opposed to instantly being branded a kook and lots of other words by guys like you who will not tolerate even the slightest comment that goes against the WC religion?
You're a pathetic piece of work, Mytton
-
Now you'll have to provide a never-ending list of witnesses with film of the warehouse guy actually signing the order... on film, of course. Then do entire background stories of each individual, including Genealogy Man doing a complete, never ending search connecting everybody on the planet to some sort of conspiracy.. except Oswald of course.
Therefore you should just believe what Chapman thinks probably happened. Because reasons.
@Lurkers:
Five Stupid Things About JFK Conspiracy Theories
This old chestnut again.
Lurkers:
Great job pasting that Youtube link Bill! That's some impressive research.
As for the actual video. That's 6 minutes of life that nobody will ever get back. Here we see a guy named Steve Shives use the usual LN tactic of argument by appeal to ridicule, without ever actually addressing any reasons for believing the narrative.
His "5 Stupid things":
1. The endless list of potential suspects
This is the usual strawman that says that every CT believes every conjecture that has ever been brought forth. As an amusing aside he talks here about preferring the "explanation that requires the fewest assumptions" as if the WC explanation isn't absolutely loaded with assumptions.
2. The equally endless list of possible motives
As opposed to the WC's lack of any motive.
3. The lack of a coherent counter-narrative
As opposed to the WC's lack of a coherent narrative to begin with.
4. They attract people who aren't normally conspiracy theorists
I'm not sure why he considers this "stupid". But this may have something to do with this case being nothing like conspiracy theories like the moon landing hoax or Bigfoot, despite some LNers' best attempts to paint them with the same brush to avoid actually talking about the evidence.
5. They combine to form the perfect storm of conspiracy theories
Also not about anything stupid. I think Steve lost his train of thought halfway though the video. Here he shows a cute graphic with JFK's picture and the quote "Ask not what the evidence says happened. Ask what sounds good to you". Which in fact describes perfectly how the WC came to their conclusion.
Nice try, but a giant fail on multiple levels.
-
Thanks Bill, these CT's are mostly just a bunch of angry old men who have failed at life and are now desperately clinging to some sort of demented Conspiracy religion.
Says the guy who believes the WC conclusions on faith as inerrant and unquestionable gospel, and is such a fanboy of his prophet Bugliosi that he makes videos praising him.
-
Says the guy who believes the WC conclusions on faith as inerrant and unquestionable gospel, and is such a fanboy of his prophet Bugliosi that he makes videos praising him.
No, no, no John, you've got that all wrong. Mytton says he is here for completely different reasons;
I find this entire subject an interesting diversion where I can learn about another time and another place
Now, if you believe that I have the Eiffel tower and Buckingham Palace for sale at break down prices.... interested?
-
Also, Klein’s was still advertising a 36” rifle as late as November, 1963 in Field and Stream.
Yes they advertised the Carcano in different magazines and with different prices and different catalogue numbers.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Bnd3dSHL/Kleins-different-price.jpg)
Yet here we have pure consistency, Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYkx5F93/carcanofebapr.jpg)
JohnM
-
Yes they advertised the Carcano in different magazines and with different prices and different catalogue numbers.
So we’re to believe that they “ran out” of 36” carbines in March and just accidentally continued to advertise them until November.
-
So we’re to believe that they “ran out” of 36” carbines in March and just accidentally continued to advertise them until November.
Please post a copy of a Klein's ad from any November magazine in which the carcano is listed as 36 inches long.
-
Please post a copy of a Klein's ad from any November magazine in which the carcano is listed as 36 inches long.
Sorry, I can’t. My source for this info is:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf (http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf)
“A 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream from January, 1962, through November, 1963.”
But that can’t be right, because the 40” Klein’s ad that Holmes tried to pass off as being the one that C2766 was ordered from was supposedly the November, 1963 Field and Stream. I will continue to investigate.
-
Sorry, I can’t. My source for this info is:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf (http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf)
“A 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream from January, 1962, through November, 1963.”
But that can’t be right, because the 40” Klein’s ad that Holmes tried to pass off as being the one that C2766 was ordered from was supposedly the November, 1963 Field and Stream. I will continue to investigate.
I didn't read that entire article.....But Paul Hoch seems to be saying that the torn out Klein add matches perfectly with a page from a magazine found in Alba's garage.... BFD!!..... Even a ten year old kid could create that ruse....
-
Sorry, I can’t. My source for this info is:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf (http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf)
“A 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream from January, 1962, through November, 1963.”
But that can’t be right, because the 40” Klein’s ad that Holmes tried to pass off as being the one that C2766 was ordered from was supposedly the November, 1963 Field and Stream. I will continue to investigate.
At one time many years ago, I could tell you what magazine ( and the month it was published) a particular add came from if I knew the depart number from the ad.
I no longer remember the department numbers for the various magazines and the month of publication. The DEPT number was not actually a department number....Klein's used the "dept number' as a way of determining which magazine was most effective for advertising and sales. When an order came in with the coupon ( order blank) they knew which magazine it had came from. I'm pretty sure that they changed the ad for the carcano from 36 inches to 40 inches in April. But it's been years since I've looked at that info.
-
Therefore you should just believe what Chapman thinks probably happened. Because reasons.
Where do I say that people should agree with me.
-
Roscoe White who worked for DPD in Nov 63 as a photography expert, had copies and a cut out of the Oswald picture in his possession when he died. White's son, upon his Fathers death, announced old Roscoe had worked for the CIA
Roscoe White who worked for DPD in Nov 63 as a photography expert,
Photography expert? Roscoe White was a lowly patrolman, rookie, trainee..... However, I believe that he was hired so he would be on the police force at the time of the assassination..... Maybe he was supposed to be in "J.D. Tippit's role???
-
Where do I say that people should agree with me.
Where do you say anything that's even remotely significant?
-
Sorry, I can’t. My source for this info is:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf (http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf)
“A 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream from January, 1962, through November, 1963.”
But that can’t be right, because the 40” Klein’s ad that Holmes tried to pass off as being the one that C2766 was ordered from was supposedly the November, 1963 Field and Stream. I will continue to investigate.
Allegedly the FBI didn't discover the Kleins ad until the early hours of Saturday morning .... Holmes took the Klein's ad from Field & Stream to DPD headquarters on Saturday morning..... How did Holmes know that the rifle had been ordered from Kleins ???
I've long believed that Holmes was an FBI informant who spied on postal patrons and reported anything suspicious to the FBI. He knew that Lee Oswald received "communist literature" ( actually Russian magazines for Marina.) at the PO box, and he certainly would have noticed a rifle being sent to PO Box 2915. Holmes knew that the rifle had been sent in March of 63, and so did J.Edgar Hoover.... The FBI knew where to go ( Kleins) to find the paper work for the rifle that was sent to PO Box 2915.....
-
Whether Oswald had legal rights to remain silent or have counsel is not relevant to whether he lied. In a trial, it would be relevant but here on planet earth it's not. You have severe difficulty understanding that point. If there had been "recordings" you would just claim those were faked as well. How about asking yourself why the authorities would allow Oswald to speak to the press is they were so concerned with controlling what he said? There is no supporting evidence of his lies? You mean other than the confirmation of those present? And a mountain of evidence like the testimony Marina that she took the BY pictures, that Oswald owned a rifle, and Frazier's testimony that Oswald carried a long package that morning that he claimed contained curtain rods. And you are the guy who finds Oswald "suspicious" and believe he was "involved" but never utter a single word against him. Everyone else must be lying but never your hero Oswald.
EXACTLY! if it is so blatantly obvious to all these Oswald worshippers that the Dallas police and FBI lied about everything Oswald (allegedly) said, why would they state that Oswald refused to admit he owned the rifle? Why inform the public that Oswald said the backyard photos were fake? Why report that Oswald denied putting the long brown paper package in the back of Frazier's car? Or that he didn't shoot the President or Tippit?
If it was such a stitch up and they all cohered to lie about everything in order to frame him, why not just say that he admitted to all these things or at least that he refused to comment. With no recordings they could have claimed anything so why "make up" or lie about stuff that casts doubts or could avert liability from him?
I know this point has been made by several other people on this forum but so far I have yet to see anyone come up with a suitable reply
-
EXACTLY! if it is so blatantly obvious to all these Oswald worshippers that the Dallas police and FBI lied about everything Oswald (allegedly) said, why would they state that Oswald refused to admit he owned the rifle? Why inform the public that Oswald said the backyard photos were fake? Why report that Oswald denied putting the long brown paper package in the back of Frazier's car? Or that he didn't shoot the President or Tippit?
If it was such a stitch up and they all cohered to lie about everything in order to frame him, why not just say that he admitted to all these things or at least that he refused to comment. With no recordings they could have claimed anything so why "make up" or lie about stuff that casts doubts or could avert liability from him?
I know this point has been made by several other people on this forum but so far I have yet to see anyone come up with a suitable reply
Welcome! In you first sentence in your first post, you've shared the colour of your stripes. Not expecting you will post more reasonably as time progresses. Carry on!
...If it was such a stitch up and they all cohered to lie about everything in order to frame him, why not just say that he admitted to all these things or at least that he refused to comment. With no recordings they could have claimed anything so why "make up" or lie about stuff that casts doubts or could avert liability from him?...
There were representatives of three federal (SS, FBI, Post Office Inspector) investigative departments in the DPD interrogations of Oswald. These four agencies distrusted each other. The SS had removed the body of the murder victim from the hospital at gunpoint, and then hastily flew it entirely out of lawful jurisdiction, to federal custody in DC, all actions outside Texas and federal law. They defied the 62 year old, McKinley precedent, shot in Buffalo, died (days later) in Buffalo, autopsied in Buffalo.
The representatives of each did not collaborate with each other before submitting timely reports. The DPD chief and the FBI were openly hostile to each other. The DPD and SS were most defensive while Postal Inspector Harry Holmes seemed to have little exposure to the accusation of failing to protect the President during his visit to Dallas.
-
Welcome! In you first sentence in your first post, you've shared the colour of your stripes. Not expecting you will post more reasonably as time progresses. Carry on!
Thanks for the kind welcome, Tom.
Congratulations on posting multiple times on this forum before and apologies if I have a different opinion to you.
As you could probably tell, my post was reply to a previous comment which took a swipe at people who saw Oswald as a hero, hence my use of the tag "Oswald worshippers". What I said was nothing new and something that had been said multiple times on this thread already, the point I was trying to make is that despite all the lazy claims of everything just being lies, nobody has come up with a reasonable answer for the aforementioned question, but you have now put an end to that.
I appreciate your patronising tone and your highly insightful reply and as a result I am now truly enlightened and see the errors of my way. Oswald was clearly innocent and was framed all along. Excuse me while I rush to grab my Mark Lane & Jim Garrison books from bin.
Not expecting you to post any more reasonable or less condescending comments as time progresses. Carry on!
-
Sorry, I can’t. My source for this info is:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf (http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf)
“A 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream from January, 1962, through November, 1963.”
But that can’t be right, because the 40” Klein’s ad that Holmes tried to pass off as being the one that C2766 was ordered from was supposedly the November, 1963 Field and Stream. I will continue to investigate.
I'm pretty sure that in some sporting/gun magazine Kleins was advertising a 36 inch Carcano after April 1963 but it doesn't matter because the stock that Kleins were selling can be traced back to Crescent firearms and C2766 was part of the shipment that Kleins received in February 1963.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgN8vxGT/crescent-kleins-x100-zpsh9oxcbyf.jpg)
JohnM
-
Thanks for the kind welcome, Tom.
Congratulations on posting multiple times on this forum before and apologies if I have a different opinion to you.
As you could probably tell, my post was reply to a previous comment which took a swipe at people who saw Oswald as a hero, hence my use of the tag "Oswald worshippers". What I said was nothing new and something that had been said multiple times on this thread already, the point I was trying to make is that despite all the lazy claims of everything just being lies, nobody has come up with a reasonable answer for the aforementioned question, but you have now put an end to that.
I appreciate your patronising tone and your highly insightful reply and as a result I am now truly enlightened and see the errors of my way. Oswald was clearly innocent and was framed all along. Excuse me while I rush to grab my Mark Lane & Jim Garrison books from bin.
Not expecting you to post any more reasonable or less condescending comments as time progresses. Carry on!
I must give the impression I am unreasonable? Reasonable enough to serve as moderator of comments on the forum at this link, and a sample of my well supported criticism of Garrison, his investigation, and of the authors who later wrote about them.
https://jfkfacts.org/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869223
I'm a tweener, trapped by the facts into not fitting in well in either LN or CT camp. I've been accused of being in either camp, depending on the camp of my accuser. One camp seems more bent on exonerating Oswald than in pursuing the entirety of the facts. That distraction was always there, but took flame since mid-2013, one poster on one forum convincing a good portion of the camp that it was reasonable to assert all witnesses from Bill to Buell lied in WC testimony related to the last time they saw Oswald before his arrest.
I apologize for not abbreviating my welcome, to...
Welcome! Only one opportunity to make a first impression.
-
The representatives of each did not collaborate with each other before submitting timely reports. The DPD chief and the FBI were openly hostile to each other. The DPD and SS were most defensive while Postal Inspector Harry Holmes seemed to have little exposure to the accusation of failing to protect the President during his visit to Dallas.
And yet their accounts of interrogating Oswald still come out fairly similar with reports of him denying owning the rifle, failing to authenticate the backyard photo, etc, etc.
This would suggest to me one of the following three occurrences happened then:
a) All the representatives collaborated with each other before submitting their reports (which you claim they did not)
b) They each decided to tell lies about what Oswald said and by sheer pot luck, coincidentally told the same lies as the other investigative departments
c) It is actually what Oswald said
My personal opinion is that it's more likely to be C.
Obviously this does not prove or disprove Oswald's guilt and I'm not addressing whether the President's body was illegally taken at gunpoint, whether it differed from McKinely's assassination or even whether Woody Harrelson's old man was disguised as a tramp on the grassy knoll and shot JFK himself. Once again, the question I was merely asking to all those people who lazily state that because there are no recordings of these interviews that everything stated in the reports are obviously all lies, was why would they lie about it and why chose to lie and say he denied everything if they could have just said that he admitted to everything once he was dead?
-
And yet their accounts of interrogating Oswald still come out fairly similar with reports of him denying owning the rifle, failing to authenticate the backyard photo, etc, etc.
This would suggest to me one of the following three occurrences happened then:
a) All the representatives collaborated with each other before submitting their reports (which you claim they did not)
b) They each decided to tell lies about what Oswald said and by sheer pot luck, coincidentally told the same lies as the other investigative departments
c) It is actually what Oswald said
My personal opinion is that it's more likely to be C.
Obviously this does not prove or disprove Oswald's guilt and I'm not addressing whether the President's body was illegally taken at gunpoint, whether it differed from McKinely's assassination or even whether Woody Harrelson's old man was disguised as a tramp on the grassy knoll and shot JFK himself. Once again, the question I was merely asking to all those people who lazily state that because there are no recordings of these interviews that everything stated in the reports are obviously all lies, was why would they lie about it and why chose to lie and say he denied everything if they could have just said that he admitted to everything once he was dead?
The C (3rd of 3) choice seems the most reasonable but I object to inclusion of anything "unique" from "Fritz's notes," donated, submitted anonymously to the ARRB in the 1990's. Fritz testified to writing down non-contemporaneous notes, only.
Harry Holmes claimed Fritz and he had been "old school" trained not to take interrogation notes so as to offer no basis for a defense attorney to twist their written contemporaneous notes to attempt to cast doubt in favorable of the accused
FBI's Hosty testified to destroying his notes, only to publish images of them in his book, more than 20 years later.
-
The C (3rd of 3) choice seems the most reasonable but I object to inclusion of anything "unique" from "Fritz's notes," donated, submitted anonymously to the ARRB in the 1990's. Fritz testified to writing down non-contemporaneous notes, only.
Harry Holmes claimed Fritz and he had been "old school" trained not to take interrogation notes so as to offer no basis for a defense attorney to twist their written contemporaneous notes to attempt to cast doubt in favorable of the accused
FBI's Hosty testified to destroying his notes, only to publish images of them in his book, more than 20 years later.
Were at least some of the reports not written days after the fact and based on the handwritten notes of Fritz?
-
Were at least some of the reports not written days after the fact and based on the handwritten notes of Fritz?
Two men say their Jesus. one of them must be wrong, but what if one man is saying as much (about his perfect memory)?
Martin, Fritz's notes are in agreement with many points in others' notes documented and filed at the time.
My objection is to anything new supported mainly by Fritz's notes, or say.... something of Fritz's notes clearing up long disputed details, either for or against a poorly supported claim. I haven't looked that closely because I don't know where those notes actually came from. The ARRB could have certified them as authentic, I haven't found where the ARRB disclosed much beyond obtained from anonymous donor.
Did Holmes's memory improve with age, 1953 vs '63? He didn't work at place that sold bananas, but at one that sold stamps.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/HarryHolmesSneedNoMoreSilencePg366.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/FritzHolmesMemory.jpg)
-
I'm pretty sure that in some sporting/gun magazine Kleins was advertising a 36 inch Carcano after April 1963 but it doesn't matter because the stock that Kleins were selling can be traced back to Crescent firearms and C2766 was part of the shipment that Kleins received in February 1963.
Or June 1962.
(https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Feldsott%20affidavit.jpg)
-
EXACTLY! if it is so blatantly obvious to all these Oswald worshippers that the Dallas police and FBI lied about everything Oswald (allegedly) said, why would they state that Oswald refused to admit he owned the rifle? Why inform the public that Oswald said the backyard photos were fake? Why report that Oswald denied putting the long brown paper package in the back of Frazier's car? Or that he didn't shoot the President or Tippit?
If it was such a stitch up and they all cohered to lie about everything in order to frame him, why not just say that he admitted to all these things or at least that he refused to comment. With no recordings they could have claimed anything so why "make up" or lie about stuff that casts doubts or could avert liability from him?
I know this point has been made by several other people on this forum but so far I have yet to see anyone come up with a suitable reply
I am aware there were no contemporaneous recordings but is there a single reliable source of exactly who were present at each official interrogation, (not the unofficial "discussions" with various officers in between.) Also what times they commenced and concluded. You know, there bare minimum information that most official meetings record.
-
Or June 1962.
(https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Feldsott%20affidavit.jpg)
What's the problem?, Kleins secured and paid for the rifles in June and then took delivery in February.
And besides, in your Affidavit from Louis Feldsott, he tells us that Crescent's transportation records were turned over to the FBI and as the following image shows, Crescent transported C2766 to Kleins and Kleins records shows they received C2766.
Btw isn't it time to just accept that the rifle was ordered through mail order and the alternative of making up the entire process is absolutely nuts!
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgN8vxGT/crescent-kleins-x100-zpsh9oxcbyf.jpg)
JohnM
-
What's the problem?, Kleins secured and paid for the rifles in June and then took delivery in February.
And besides, in your Affidavit from Louis Feldsott, he tells us that Crescent's transportation records were turned over to the FBI and as the following image shows, Crescent transported C2766 to Kleins and Kleins records shows they received C2766.
Btw isn't it time to just accept that the rifle was ordered through mail order and the alternative of making up the entire process is absolutely nuts!
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgN8vxGT/crescent-kleins-x100-zpsh9oxcbyf.jpg)
JohnM
Kleins secured and paid for the rifles in June and then took delivery in February.
How do you know Klein's took delivery of the rifles in February 1963?
The documents you show us are not dated and I seem to recall having read that the original records Feldsott turned over to the FBI have magically disappeared.
-
What's the problem?, Kleins secured and paid for the rifles in June and then took delivery in February.
8 months later. That figures prominently on the lame LN excuses list.
Btw isn't it time to just accept that the rifle was ordered through mail order and the alternative of making up the entire process is absolutely nuts!
Unfortunately you can’t demonstrate who, if anybody, ordered it or that it was mailed at all.
-
8 months later. That figures prominently on the lame LN excuses list.
Unfortunately you can’t demonstrate who, if anybody, ordered it or that it was mailed at all.
John,
Are you a CTer when it comes to the JFK assassination?
Who do you think killed JFK -- the evil, evil CIA?
"Rogue" elements thereof?
The Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex???
Have you read Mark "I Was Paid By The KGB To Debunk The Warren Report" Lane's Rush to Judgement , and watched Oliver "I Like Putin and My Son Works For RT" Stone's film, JFK, yet?
-- MWT ;)
-
To be clear...Because someone thinks that Oswald was a patsy- does not mean that they "worship" him or think he was a "hero"....Just to be clear :-\
-
To be clear...Because someone thinks that Oswald was a patsy- does not mean that they "worship" him or think he was a "hero"....Just to be clear :-\
It bothers me that many young men were naive and could have been used by "men with credentials, and authority " and could have been made a patsy just as Lee Oswald was. Lee was naive and egotistical.... He thought that he was working for US government agents..... Little did he suspect that those agents viewed JFK as a threat to their ideas of what the US should be.... ( Which is the motive that 98% of assassins use to kill the leader )
-
To be clear...Because someone thinks that Oswald was a patsy- does not mean that they "worship" him or think he was a "hero"....Just to be clear :-\
That’s just Nutter propaganda. They’ll resort to every rhetorical trick in the book to avoid supporting their case with actual evidence.
-
8 months later. That figures prominently on the lame LN excuses list.
Kleins initiated the rifle order 13 months before they received delivery and then 9 months before delivery Kleins changed the order to a different rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/R0F9Hh1J/Waldman-ex-1.jpg)
Unfortunately you can’t demonstrate who, if anybody, ordered it or that it was mailed at all.
So they setup Oswald with evidence that can't be linked to Oswald? What a brilliant plan!
JohnM
-
Kleins initiated the rifle order 13 months before they received delivery and then 9 months before delivery Kleins changed the order to a different rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/R0F9Hh1J/Waldman-ex-1.jpg)
So they setup Oswald with evidence that can't be linked to Oswald? What a brilliant plan!
JohnM
Kleins initiated the rifle order 13 months before they received delivery and then 9 months before delivery Kleins changed the order to a different rifle.
Again, how do you know when Klein's took delivery of those rifles?
-
Kleins initiated the rifle order 13 months before they received delivery and then 9 months before delivery Kleins changed the order to a different rifle.
How does this show that Klein's "took delivery" of a June 1962 order in February 1963?
So they setup Oswald with evidence that can't be linked to Oswald? What a brilliant plan!
Who's "they"?
So you're agreeing then that the evidence can't be linked to Oswald? Thumb1:
-
EXACTLY! if it is so blatantly obvious to all these Oswald worshippers that the Dallas police and FBI lied about everything Oswald (allegedly) said, why would they state that Oswald refused to admit he owned the rifle? Why inform the public that Oswald said the backyard photos were fake? Why report that Oswald denied putting the long brown paper package in the back of Frazier's car? Or that he didn't shoot the President or Tippit?
If it was such a stitch up and they all cohered to lie about everything in order to frame him, why not just say that he admitted to all these things or at least that he refused to comment. With no recordings they could have claimed anything so why "make up" or lie about stuff that casts doubts or could avert liability from him?
I know this point has been made by several other people on this forum but so far I have yet to see anyone come up with a suitable reply
Oswald may have done all his own sheep-dipping and ordered the rifle, posed for the backyard photos holding both murder weapons and commie lit (cough, cough), smuggled the rifle into the TSBD, set up the sniper's nest and even taken some shots at the POTUS and even shot Tippit to death. But he was not a lone nut assassin who just happened to get a job right next to the motorcade route. He was a patsy. Once you acknowledge that as fact, all Oswald's actions fit like a glove and all your questions get answered without being twisted like a pretzel into the LN narrative.
LNers just can't get past Oswald being a patsy. They are actually conspiracy deniers who have been inadvertent shills for the conspirators. Their ghosts thank you LNers for your patronage. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! BEST COUP EVER!
-
Oswald may have done all his own sheep-dipping and ordered the rifle, posed for the backyard photos holding both murder weapons and commie lit (cough, cough), smuggled the rifle into the TSBD, set up the sniper's nest and even taken some shots at the POTUS and even shot Tippit to death. But he was not a lone nut assassin who just happened to get a job right next to the motorcade route. He was a patsy. Once you acknowledge that as fact, all Oswald's actions fit like a glove and all your questions get answered without being twisted like a pretzel into the LN narrative.
LNers just can't get past Oswald being a patsy. They are actually conspiracy deniers who have been inadvertent shills for the conspirators. Their ghosts thank you LNers for your patronage. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! BEST COUP EVER!
This is almost exactly how Trump supporters think. To wit, he's a patsy, he was set up by the deep state.
All of those things he did - trying to obstruct the Muller investigation, pressuring foreign governments to investigate his political opponents - are ignored because "they" and "them" set him up. His supporters want to look at everyone else but not at what he did. It's remarkable how similar the thinking is.
Oswald never had a house, never had a car, never had a phone, never had a decent job. He had to travel using buses. He spent long stretches living on unemployment checks. He and his wife had to live apart because of his poverty. He had nothing almost nothing. What little he did have - about $185 in cash - he largely ($170 of it) left his wife on the morning of the assassination. Most people would consider that act a clue.
But no, actually he was a sheep-dipped CIA agent sent into the Soviet Union. Then brought back to spy on pro-Castro groups. In the middle of the Cold War the CIA relied on this pathetic nobody. Who worked for free.
It's absurd. It's worse than absurd: it's simply not true.
-
This is almost exactly how Trump supporters think. To wit, he's a patsy, he was set up by the deep state.
All of those things he did - trying to obstruct the Muller investigation, pressuring foreign governments to investigate his political opponents - are ignored because "they" and "them" set him up. His supporters want to look at everyone else but not at what he did. It's remarkable how similar the thinking is.
Oswald never had a house, never had a car, never had a phone, never had a decent job. He had to travel using buses. He spent long stretches living on unemployment checks. He and his wife had to live apart because of his poverty. He had nothing.
But no, actually he was a sheep-dipped CIA agent sent into the Soviet Union. Then brought back to spy on pro-Castro groups. In the middle of the Cold War the CIA relied on this pathetic nobody. Who worked for free.
It's absurd. It's worse than absurd: it's simply not true.
But..... what did he bring to work the morning of the assassination?
Penny for your truthy thoughts on this document, Mr Galbraith! Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/vnSvZDp.jpg)
-
Oswald may have done all his own sheep-dipping and ordered the rifle, posed for the backyard photos holding both murder weapons and commie lit (cough, cough), smuggled the rifle into the TSBD, set up the sniper's nest and even taken some shots at the POTUS and even shot Tippit to death. But he was not a lone nut assassin who just happened to get a job right next to the motorcade route. He was a patsy. Once you acknowledge that as fact, all Oswald's actions fit like a glove and all your questions get answered without being twisted like a pretzel into the LN narrative.
LNers just can't get past Oswald being a patsy. They are actually conspiracy deniers who have been inadvertent shills for the conspirators. Their ghosts thank you LNers for your patronage. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! BEST COUP EVER!
posed for the backyard photos holding both murder weapons
You're a nut.... Lee posed for ONE BY photo..... and the guns in the photos are NOT the murder weapons.....
-
This is almost exactly how Trump supporters think. To wit, he's a patsy, he was set up by the deep state.
All of those things he did - trying to obstruct the Muller investigation, pressuring foreign governments to investigate his political opponents - are ignored because "they" and "them" set him up. His supporters want to look at everyone else but not at what he did. It's remarkable how similar the thinking is.
Oswald never had a house, never had a car, never had a phone, never had a decent job. He had to travel using buses. He spent long stretches living on unemployment checks. He and his wife had to live apart because of his poverty. He had nothing.
But no, actually he was a sheep-dipped CIA agent sent into the Soviet Union. Then brought back to spy on pro-Castro groups. In the middle of the Cold War the CIA relied on this pathetic nobody. Who worked for free.
It's absurd. It's worse than absurd: it's simply not true.
Oswald never had a house, never had a car, never had a phone, never had a decent job. He had to travel using buses. He spent long stretches living on unemployment checks. He and his wife had to live apart because of his poverty. He had nothing.
And that tells you, what exactly?
I'm not saying Oswald was one, but when police officers, investigators, spies etc go undercover, do you really think they do it on a 9 to 5, 5 day week basis and return home every night after work?
But no, actually he was a sheep-dipped CIA agent sent into the Soviet Union. Then brought back to spy on pro-Castro groups. In the middle of the Cold War the CIA relied on this pathetic nobody. Who worked for free.
How do you know that he was a "pathetic nobody" who worked for free? Did you know the guy personally or do you simply rely on what you are told?
It's absurd. It's worse than absurd: it's simply not true.
What is really absurd is that you make a determination on nothing else but what you (want to) believe.
-
Kleins initiated the rifle order 13 months before they received delivery and then 9 months before delivery Kleins changed the order to a different rifle.
Again, how do you know when Klein's took delivery of those rifles?
*bumped*
for an answer from Mytton.
-
*bumped*
for an answer from Mytton.
Hi Peter, I don't know what you're asking for, put the question in your own words and I'll see what I can do.
JohnM
-
This is almost exactly how Trump supporters think. To wit, he's a patsy, he was set up by the deep state.
All of those things he did - trying to obstruct the Muller investigation, pressuring foreign governments to investigate his political opponents - are ignored because "they" and "them" set him up. His supporters want to look at everyone else but not at what he did. It's remarkable how similar the thinking is.
Is that how you Forever Trumpers really think? You must also think Trump is a lone nut/Russian asset just like Oswald. You might be onto something there if the LNer BS wasn't concocted by the WC conspirators as part of the coup.
Oswald never had a house, never had a car, never had a phone, never had a decent job. He had to travel using buses. He spent long stretches living on unemployment checks. He and his wife had to live apart because of his poverty. He had nothing.
But no, actually he was a sheep-dipped CIA agent sent into the Soviet Union. Then brought back to spy on pro-Castro groups. In the middle of the Cold War the CIA relied on this pathetic nobody. Who worked for free.
Every good coup needs a lone nut patsy. Do you think they grow on trees? Thomas Arthur Vallee was Plan A in Chicago, but his cover got blown so Oswald was up for Plan B in Dallas. Get out of your LN bubble and smell the coffee.
It's absurd. It's worse than absurd: it's simply not true.
"Not true" is worse than "absurd"? Ok. You realize that absurd speculation doesn't make Oswald a LN by default, right? Why is a conspiracy so hard to imagine at a time when Hoover was the defacto mafia boss, JFK was at war with Dulles and the CIA after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cuban Missile Crisis put the world on the brink of war, etc.? There were several groups lining up to get a piece of JFK. He was the original enemy of the Deep State. Conspiracies and coups did happen back then. The Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy comes to mind.
Are you trying to conflate Trump's situation with Oswald being framed as the patsy or Kennedy's coup d'État? What's your Trumputin perspective?
-
Is that how you Forever Trumpers really think? You must also think Trump is a lone nut/Russian asset just like Oswald. You might be onto something there if the LNer BS wasn't concocted by the WC conspirators as part of the coup.
Every good coup needs a lone nut patsy. Do you think they grow on trees? Thomas Arthur Vallee was Plan A in Chicago, but his cover got blown so Oswald was up for Plan B in Dallas. Get out of your LN bubble and smell the coffee.
"Not true" is worse than "absurd"? Ok. You realize that absurd speculation doesn't make Oswald a LN by default, right? Why is a conspiracy so hard to imagine at a time when Hoover was the defacto mafia boss, JFK was at war with Dulles and the CIA after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cuban Missile Crisis put the world on the brink of war, etc.? There were several groups lining up to get a piece of JFK. He was the original enemy of the Deep State. Conspiracies and coups did happen back then. The Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy comes to mind.
Are you trying to conflate Trump's situation with Oswald being framed as the patsy or Kennedy's coup d'État? What's your Trumputin perspective?
the Cuban Missile Crisis put the world on the brink of war, etc.?
JFK was on the brink of ordering the Marines to Cuba.... ( I know, I was personally involved) Thank God that he didn't order the Marines to attack because the Russians troops in Cuba, had nuclear weapons as big as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima , aimed at cities in the southern US and Gitmo. After the crisis JFK had no sure way of knowing that the nukes had been removed from Cuba.....Thus he had men like Lee Oswald who were trying to gain access to Cuba.
-
Hi Peter, I don't know what you're asking for, put the question in your own words and I'll see what I can do.
JohnM
I thought Martin was quite clear. I'll post it again.
Kleins initiated the rifle order 13 months before they received delivery and then 9 months before delivery Kleins changed the order to a different rifle.
Again, how do you know when Klein's took delivery of those rifles?
-
I thought Martin was quite clear. I'll post it again.
Sorry Goth, but if I didn't know what you were asking for the first time then why do you think that repeating the exact same request is going to change anything? DUH!
Just put your question to me in your own words and I'll be quite happy to respond.
JohnM
-
I thought Martin was quite clear. I'll post it again.
Sorry Goth, but if I didn't know what you were asking for the first time then why do you think that repeating the exact same request is going to change anything? DUH!
Just put your question to me in your own words and I'll be quite happy to respond.
JohnM
This is hilarious.
Like a six year old, little Johnny is pretending that he does not see my question. :D
I must really have gotten under his skin. Oh poor boy...
-
Sorry Goth, but if I didn't know what you were asking for the first time then why do you think that repeating the exact same request is going to change anything? DUH!
Just put your question to me in your own words and I'll be quite happy to respond.
JohnM
Martin's question is quite clear. It is a response to one your "facts"
I see no need to re phrase it.
Either you can answer it, or you won't.
up to you.
-
Kleins initiated the rifle order 13 months before they received delivery and then 9 months before delivery Kleins changed the order to a different rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/R0F9Hh1J/Waldman-ex-1.jpg)
So they setup Oswald with evidence that can't be linked to Oswald? What a brilliant plan!
JohnM
:D Thumb1:
-
Martin's question is quite clear. It is a response to one your "facts"
I see no need to re phrase it.
Either you can answer it, or you won't.
up to you.
Sorry, I still don't understand.
JohnM
-
Ultimately, you have to ask the question why, after over 50 years when the majority of the people involved in any alleged cover up are either dead or on their last legs, nobody involved has actually gone public and exposed a cover up?
I can't believe that some narked off policeman who thought he'd unfairly treated later on in his career didn't decide to get his own back by coming forward with evidence of any conspiracy. No fame hungry, attention seeking FBI official who fancied a nice pay-day courtesy of the press ever came forward with hard evidence of any cover up. No CIA agent ever wrote a complete confession on their deathbed outlining all that was done.
I genuinely can't believe in an age of reality TV where everyone wants their 5 minutes of fame and can get thousands by appearing on chat shows that not one single person involved would not have come forward.
Yeah, you've had the odd person come out claiming to be the 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll or whatever but as soon as this has happened everyone, regardless of your view on the assassination, immediately disregards this person as a fruitcake. Even those who for years have insisted a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
As soon as someone comes out that might validate their belief it's disregarded.
To me, that strongly suggests that nobody has come forward with any evidence because there wasn't any cover up!
-
Ultimately, you have to ask the question why, after over 50 years when the majority of the people involved in any alleged cover up are either dead or on their last legs, nobody involved has actually gone public and exposed a cover up?
I can't believe that some narked off policeman who thought he'd unfairly treated later on in his career didn't decide to get his own back by coming forward with evidence of any conspiracy. No fame hungry, attention seeking FBI official who fancied a nice pay-day courtesy of the press ever came forward with hard evidence of any cover up. No CIA agent ever wrote a complete confession on their deathbed outlining all that was done.
I genuinely can't believe in an age of reality TV where everyone wants their 5 minutes of fame and can get thousands by appearing on chat shows that not one single person involved would not have come forward.
Yeah, you've had the odd person come out claiming to be the 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll or whatever but as soon as this has happened everyone, regardless of your view on the assassination, immediately disregards this person as a fruitcake. Even those who for years have insisted a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
As soon as someone comes out that might validate their belief it's disregarded.
To me, that strongly suggests that nobody has come forward with any evidence because there wasn't any cover up!
You are sooooo naive..... You enjoy living in Fairy Land, and you don't want to believe ....the world is corrupt.
-
You are sooooo naive..... You enjoy living in Fairy Land, and you don't want to believe ....the world is corrupt.
Thanks for that insightful perspective, Mr Cakebread. I'm well aware the world is corrupt but it doesn't mean every single thing you read or hear is not the truth. No doubt you don't believe the moon landings, 9/11, The Holocaust actually happened either.
Where as I appreciate the personal insult, what I had actually hoped for in posting this was a reasonable explanation to my question.
Thanks anyway, I'm off home to Fairy Land
-
And besides, in your Affidavit from Louis Feldsott, he tells us that Crescent's transportation records were turned over to the FBI and as the following image shows
Louis Feldsott didn't say he turned over those packing slips shown, stop lying.
Geez Otto you must be Blotto, Feldsott the President of Crescent Firearms says he handed over the records of purchase, sale and transportation and what I posted is directly related to the sale of the rifle of C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dw5tt9th/Feldsott-affidavit.jpg)
JohnM
-
Thanks for that insightful perspective, Mr Cakebread. I'm well aware the world is corrupt but it doesn't mean every single thing you read or hear is not the truth. No doubt you don't believe the moon landings, 9/11, The Holocaust actually happened either.
Where as I appreciate the personal insult, what I had actually hoped for in posting this was a reasonable explanation to my question.
Thanks anyway, I'm off home to Fairy Land
No doubt you don't believe the moon landings, 9/11, The Holocaust actually happened either.
You Ass u me and are completely wrong..... The only event that I doubt is 9 /11 .... I don't believe we've been told the truth about 9 /11, just as we haven't been told the truth about the coup d e'tat in Dallas.
-
There's no reference to Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 whatsoever, those slips could originate from anywhere.
You're sunk.
Hilarious, Blotto strikes again, Waldman tells us where the slips with the Crescent Firearms letterhead comes from and it just so happens that Crescent's records matches Kleins records.
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; these are memos prepared by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles that were shipped to us and each one of these represents those rifles that were contained in a case.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you earlier mentioned that these were packed with the case.
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, I would like to correct that. This particular company does not include these with the cases, but sends these memos separately with their invoice.
Mr. BELIN. Now, again, Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 is a photostatic copy. Do you have the actual copies that came to you in front of you at this time?
Mr. WALDMAN. I do.
Mr. BELIN. And is Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 an accurate photostat of these other copies?
Mr. WALDMAN. It is.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgN8vxGT/crescent-kleins-x100-zpsh9oxcbyf.jpg)
Sayonara, glug glug glug!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWF5Pvr3M7gEfUxYucUuLlWf16gX5ETw4_X-hE2vI8kMr5KqDQ&s)
JohnM
-
And you have the exhibit number for Klein's slips?
Of course.
Mr. BELIN. Well, I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is the record created by us showing the control number we have assigned to the gun together with the serial number that is imprinted in the frame of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Now, this is a photostat, I believe, of records you have in front of you on your desk right now?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you find anywhere on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 the serial number C--2766?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what is your control number for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Our control number for that is VC-836.
JohnM
-
Wrong, again.
Mr. BELIN. Now, again, Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 is a photostatic copy. Do you have the actual copies that came to you in front of you at this time?
Mr. WALDMAN. I do.
The slips, exhibit number?
Huh?, the exhibit number is "Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3".
Btw come back with an intelligent well explained argument because all of your above ramblings are difficult to follow and only further reinforce that you're a little blotto.
JohnM
-
Wrong, again.
Mr. BELIN. Now, again, Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 is a photostatic copy. Do you have the actual copies that came to you in front of you at this time?
Mr. WALDMAN. I do.
The bit you cut out, naughty naughty!
Mr. BELIN. Now, again, Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 is a photostatic copy. Do you have the actual copies that came to you in front of you at this time?
Mr. WALDMAN. I do.
Mr. BELIN. And is Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 an accurate photostat of these other copies?
Mr. WALDMAN. It is.
JohnM
-
Ultimately, you have to ask the question why, after over 50 years when the majority of the people involved in any alleged cover up are either dead or on their last legs, nobody involved has actually gone public and exposed a cover up?
I can't believe that some narked off policeman who thought he'd unfairly treated later on in his career didn't decide to get his own back by coming forward with evidence of any conspiracy. No fame hungry, attention seeking FBI official who fancied a nice pay-day courtesy of the press ever came forward with hard evidence of any cover up. No CIA agent ever wrote a complete confession on their deathbed outlining all that was done.
I genuinely can't believe in an age of reality TV where everyone wants their 5 minutes of fame and can get thousands by appearing on chat shows that not one single person involved would not have come forward.
Yeah, you've had the odd person come out claiming to be the 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll or whatever but as soon as this has happened everyone, regardless of your view on the assassination, immediately disregards this person as a fruitcake. Even those who for years have insisted a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
As soon as someone comes out that might validate their belief it's disregarded.
To me, that strongly suggests that nobody has come forward with any evidence because there wasn't any cover up!
:D you talk like Mytton.
-
:D you talk like Mytton.
Thanks for paying attention to the way I talk, I'm flattered.
There may be hope for you yet!
JohnM
-
Ultimately, you have to ask the question why, after over 50 years when the majority of the people involved in any alleged cover up are either dead or on their last legs, nobody involved has actually gone public and exposed a cover up?
I can't believe that some narked off policeman who thought he'd unfairly treated later on in his career didn't decide to get his own back by coming forward with evidence of any conspiracy. No fame hungry, attention seeking FBI official who fancied a nice pay-day courtesy of the press ever came forward with hard evidence of any cover up. No CIA agent ever wrote a complete confession on their deathbed outlining all that was done.
I genuinely can't believe in an age of reality TV where everyone wants their 5 minutes of fame and can get thousands by appearing on chat shows that not one single person involved would not have come forward.
You seem to think there were hundreds involved, when there were maybe 50 tops, and they're all dead now, one of the last being GHWB. Obviously, the conspirators kept the number down to a bare minimum. But as far as witnesses coming forward that knew anything is concerned, they are either prematurely dead or knew when to keep their yaps shut.
Yeah, you've had the odd person come out claiming to be the 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll or whatever but as soon as this has happened everyone, regardless of your view on the assassination, immediately disregards this person as a fruitcake. Even those who for years have insisted a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
As soon as someone comes out that might validate their belief it's disregarded.
Forget about James Files, what about E. Howard Hunt's confession? The problem is that any assassin that confesses will be regarded as a kook because he is a killer in the 1st place.
To me, that strongly suggests that nobody has come forward with any evidence because there wasn't any cover up!
There is a mountain of evidence that there was a cover up. Read the forum.
-
Thanks for paying attention to the way I talk, I'm flattered.
Mytton being flattered....
(https://media.tenor.com/images/4402a81a2f7acf4a73c41c57809b52b2/tenor.gif)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRiOGEoqAG3T8bLxdMjaytnvSL3J9fcNscgwR8oxKYCXavJ_RneFA&s)
I adopted a cat and named him Mytton... R U flattered?
-
So it's no longer Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 as you claimed earlier?
I provide a lot of evidence, what evidence are you disputing?
Btw Otto, here's some advice, I'm sure you know what you're trying to say but frankly your Forum posting style leaves a great deal to be desired and along with the bad attitude you're lucky that I am even responding. Clean up your act!
JohnM
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRiOGEoqAG3T8bLxdMjaytnvSL3J9fcNscgwR8oxKYCXavJ_RneFA&s)
I adopted a cat and named him Mytton... R U flattered?
R U joking?, of course I'm flattered, what a cute cat.
And you'll be constantly reminded of me, thanks!
JohnM
-
Again, how do you know when Klein's took delivery of those rifles?
Martin's question is quite clear. It is a response to one your "facts"
I see no need to re phrase it.
Either you can answer it, or you won't.
up to you.
Sorry, I still don't understand.
JohnM
Which means that he can't answer it, at least not without making a fool of himself.
-
:D you talk like Mytton.
I talk like Mytton? The person you're currently accusing of not answering a question? And by completely ignoring my question and just replying with a stupid comment is a much more reasonable response and a perfect example of how someone should behave on this Forum? Well done, Goth! I salute you!
Or do you just have the arse ache because we don't subscribe to your opinion of it being a cover up?
Everyone who believes it's a cover up are always happy to unite together whether you believe its the CIA, FBI, Cubans, Russians or whatever, despite the fact that you can't all be right. So called "evidence" pointing to one theory clearly cancels out "evidence" to another theory but forget about that because you at least agree a cover up occurred.
Yet as soon as someone believes the lone gunman theory you all spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants and have to point out they're wrong and that they're just gullible idiots who believe anything they are force fed by the government.
If you analyse any murder case in detail you'll find numerous inconsistencies (The O.J. Simpson case is a perfect example of how someone clearly guilty can be acquitted on inconsistencies).
People have different opinions, so unless you can offer anything of value to address a question put forward, don't bother. Or is the fact that I "talk like Mytton" meant to convince me that my opinion is totally wrong and all of a sudden I should see that light and realise it was all a cover up?
-
You seem to think there were hundreds involved, when there were maybe 50 tops, and they're all dead now, one of the last being GHWB. Obviously, the conspirators kept the number down to a bare minimum. But as far as witnesses coming forward that knew anything is concerned, they are either prematurely dead or knew when to keep their yaps shut.
Forget about James Files, what about E. Howard Hunt's confession? The problem is that any assassin that confesses will be regarded as a kook because he is a killer in the 1st place.
There is a mountain of evidence that there was a cover up. Read the forum.
50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.
Any Assassin would be regarded as a kook simply because he's a killer in the first place? Which is all very convenient for those insisting other people were involved despite having no hard evidence. Just regard any assassin as a kook, well, all except Oswald obviously, who was clearly just a poor innocent patsy, right?
I have read the Forum thanks, and numerous books both for and against cover up theories. Hence, my conclusion of believing the lone gunman theory is the most likely.
-
I talk like Mytton? The person you're currently accusing of not answering a question? And by completely ignoring my question and just replying with a stupid comment is a much more reasonable response and a perfect example of how someone should behave on this Forum? Well done, Goth! I salute you!
Or do you just have the arse ache because we don't subscribe to your opinion of it being a cover up?
Everyone who believes it's a cover up are always happy to unite together whether you believe its the CIA, FBI, Cubans, Russians or whatever, despite the fact that you can't all be right. So called "evidence" pointing to one theory clearly cancels out "evidence" to another theory but forget about that because you at least agree a cover up occurred.
Yet as soon as someone believes the lone gunman theory you all spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants and have to point out they're wrong and that they're just gullible idiots who believe anything they are force fed by the government.
If you analyse any murder case in detail you'll find numerous inconsistencies (The O.J. Simpson case is a perfect example of how someone clearly guilty can be acquitted on inconsistencies).
People have different opinions, so unless you can offer anything of value to address a question put forward, don't bother. Or is the fact that I "talk like Mytton" meant to convince me that my opinion is totally wrong and all of a sudden I should see that light and realise it was all a cover up?
whoa...
All I did was bump a post for Mytton to answer a question he was obviously avoiding.
Now, he is either playing dumb, or actually too incompetent to understand a simple question, in direct response to something he called a fact.
...when did I say I thought there was a coverup? - or even a conspiracy?
-
whoa...
All I did was bump a post for Mytton to answer a question he was obviously avoiding.
Now, he is either playing dumb, or actually too incompetent to understand a simple question, in direct response to something he called a fact.
...when did I say I thought there was a coverup? - or even a conspiracy?
No you were clearly trying to be a smart arse by likening me to Mytton. It's fine, I enjoy a bit of banter but I was just pointing out it had no relevance to my post.
So are you telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?
-
50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.
How do you know 50 people is enough? Wouldn't you keep your mouth shut for 50 years if you had the inside track on the assassination of the POTUS? You're bloody rights you would, if you knew what was good for you. Or would you rather go to jail as a co-conspirator?
Any Assassin would be regarded as a kook simply because he's a killer in the first place? Which is all very convenient for those insisting other people were involved despite having no hard evidence. Just regard any assassin as a kook, well, all except Oswald obviously, who was clearly just a poor innocent patsy, right?
E. Howard Hunt cracked. Was he a kook? No one said Oswald wasn't a kook, just a patsy which is so obvious if you did your homework. You just need to recognize sheep-dipping when you see it beyond your LNer fog.
I have read the Forum thanks, and numerous books both for and against cover up theories. Hence, my conclusion of believing the lone gunman theory is the most likely.
Considering how the LNers on this forum lose every single debate and resort to ad homs and lame excuses, I would say that you merely skimmed the forum, absorbed only the LN BS and decided it would be more fun as a LNer at war with the CTs. JMHO.
-
How do you know 50 people is enough? Wouldn't you keep your mouth shut for 50 years if you had the inside track on the assassination of the POTUS? You're bloody rights you would, if you knew what was good for you. Or would you rather go to jail as a co-conspirator?
E. Howard Hunt cracked. Was he a kook? No one said Oswald wasn't a kook, just a patsy which is so obvious if you did your homework. You just need to recognize sheep-dipping when you see it beyond your LNer fog.
Considering how the LNers on this forum lose every single debate and resort to ad homs and lame excuses, I would say that you merely skimmed the forum, absorbed only the LN BS and decided it would be more fun as a LNer at war with the CTs. JMHO.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that at least one person in 50 would come clean, tell someone or at the very least leave a deathbed confession.
I doubt anyone would go to jail as a co-consparitor. To convict someone as that they'd first have to completely admit that it was a complete cover up in the first place.
By all accounts E. Howard Hunt was hounded and exploited by his family in the last days of his life when he was pretty unintelligible. They tried tell his alleged confession for financial gain and publcity, but even the most ardent conspiracy subscribers didn't find it to be worthy of validity.
I admit, I have only skimmed this forum. No offence to anyone on here who are clearly knowledgeable on the subject, but I prioritise getting my information from books written by respected researchers, whether they be LNs or CTs. I've read lots by both camps and, sorry if I don't share the same view as you, but from what I've read so far, I'm finding myself to be in the LNs camp.
As far as LNs losing every single debate on this forum, if you class every argument being cut down by a "They were forced to lie", "Have you got actual evidence that that happened? If not, then its not true" or "You're just an idiot who is brainwashed and believed everything you are told" as winning a bebate, then yes, LNs lose every debate. Personally, I don't class this as being a conclusive winning conclusion to every argument.
As you can tell, I'm quite new to this forum and instead of getting sensible answers for queries I put forward (completely willing to listen and open to explanations that could potentially change my mind) so far all I've got from CTs are personal insults, aggressive behaviour and not one worthy reply to any questions.
Like I said, I'm willing to be proven wrong on here, but nobody seems willing to have a non-aggressive conversation. Hence why I say I prefer (or am rather forced) to get my information from books
-
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that at least one person in 50 would come clean, tell someone or at the very least leave a deathbed confession.
I doubt anyone would go to jail as a co-consparitor. To convict someone as that they'd first have to completely admit that it was a complete cover up in the first place.
By all accounts E. Howard Hunt was hounded and exploited by his family in the last days of his life when he was pretty unintelligible. They tried tell his alleged confession for financial gain and publcity, but even the most ardent conspiracy subscribers didn't find it to be worthy of validity.
I admit, I have only skimmed this forum. No offence to anyone on here who are clearly knowledgeable on the subject, but I prioritise getting my information from books written by respected researchers, whether they be LNs or CTs. I've read lots by both camps and, sorry if I don't share the same view as you, but from what I've read so far, I'm finding myself to be in the LNs camp.
As far as LNs losing every single debate on this forum, if you class every argument being cut down by a "They were forced to lie", "Have you got actual evidence that that happened? If not, then its not true" or "You're just an idiot who is brainwashed and believed everything you are told" as winning a bebate, then yes, LNs lose every debate. Personally, I don't class this as being a conclusive winning conclusion to every argument.
As you can tell, I'm quite new to this forum and instead of getting sensible answers for queries I put forward (completely willing to listen and open to explanations that could potentially change my mind) so far all I've got from CTs are personal insults, aggressive behaviour and not one worthy reply to any questions.
Like I said, I'm willing to be proven wrong on here, but nobody seems willing to have a non-aggressive conversation. Hence why I say I prefer (or am rather forced) to get my information from books
By all accounts E. Howard Hunt was hounded and exploited by his family in the last days of his life when he was pretty unintelligible. They tried tell his alleged confession for financial gain and publcity, but even the most ardent conspiracy subscribers didn't find it to be worthy of validity.
>>> By all accounts? Seems you're reading only conspiracy-monger books.
"Deathbed confession" of involvement in Kennedy assassination
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=67340;topic=660.250
[Excerpts]
According to Hunt's widow and other children, the two sons took advantage of Hunt's loss of lucidity by coaching and exploiting him for financial gain and furthermore falsified accounts of Hunt's supposed confession. The Los Angeles Times said they examined the materials offered by the sons to support the story and found them to be "inconclusive".[67]
-
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.
-
No you were clearly trying to be a smart arse by likening me to Mytton. It's fine, I enjoy a bit of banter but I was just pointing out it had no relevance to my post.
So are you telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?
No you were clearly trying to be a smart arse by likening me to Mytton.
I can fully understand that you don't want to be compared to Mytton. What sane person would?
So are you telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?
Why are you putting words in Peter's mouth?
All he did was ask you when he said he thought there was a coverup or even a conspiracy? Why do you answer his question with a question?
-
50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.
Any Assassin would be regarded as a kook simply because he's a killer in the first place? Which is all very convenient for those insisting other people were involved despite having no hard evidence. Just regard any assassin as a kook, well, all except Oswald obviously, who was clearly just a poor innocent patsy, right?
I have read the Forum thanks, and numerous books both for and against cover up theories. Hence, my conclusion of believing the lone gunman theory is the most likely.
50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.
How do you know that "one of them would have cracked..."?
I have read the Forum thanks, and numerous books both for and against cover up theories. Hence, my conclusion of believing the lone gunman theory is the most likely.
Let's see if I understand this correctly.... Instead of examining the actual evidence, you prefer your conclusion to be based on the opinion of the author or those authors who, in your mind, present the most persuasive case?
-
By all accounts E. Howard Hunt was hounded and exploited by his family in the last days of his life when he was pretty unintelligible. They tried tell his alleged confession for financial gain and publcity, but even the most ardent conspiracy subscribers didn't find it to be worthy of validity.
>>> By all accounts? Seems you're reading only conspiracy-monger books.
Fair point, sir! Im not going to lie and pretend I'm the equivalent of the Britannia Encyclopaedia on the E.Howard Hunt confession, but I've read stuff both for & against it and, by my own reckoning, haven't found anything worthy to be classed as conclusive evidence.
Considering all the conspiracy theories still being thrown around on this forum, I would think it's pretty safe to say that even the most ardent of conspiracy theory believers didn't find anything valid in the, alleged "genuine", confession either as they're still banging on about their own theories.
Would you mind me asking you a question? If someone asked you now who shot JFK would you say it was 100% "A French man on the grassy knoll"?
-
No you were clearly trying to be a smart arse by likening me to Mytton.
I can fully understand that you don't want to be compared to Mytton. What sane person would?
So are you telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?
Why are you putting words in Peter's mouth?
All he did was ask you when he said he thought there was a coverup or even a conspiracy? Why do you answer his question with a question?
And it's Super Weidmann coming to Goth's rescue. I'm sure he'll appreciate you butting in and making him look like a bellend who can't speak for himself.
Why do I answer his question with a question? Well, considering he replied to my original query/question with a stupid answer that did not address the question and then in another post went on to ask me the aforementioned question of "when did I say I thought there was a cover up?", again without answering anything related to my previous post, you could just as easily ask him the same thing.
I think if you were capable of reading between the lines, anyone with any ounce of intelligence can work out that me asking him another question pretty much indicated that I acknowledged he didn't specifically state he thought there was a cover up, otherwise why would I have had the need to ask him what his view actually was? But if I need to spell it out so as not to confuse you, please amend my previous post to Goth to:
"Well, Goth. You did not specifically say that you did or did not believe there was a cover up. Are you therefore telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?"
I notice you didn't leap to my defence to ask Goth why he failed to answer my question or why he retorted to asking me a question without answering mine. I'm sure in time I'll get over that, but then again I'm quite happy to speak for myself and don't really need Super Weidmann to randomly fight my battles.
-
50 people is more than enough. And do you really question those 50 people's integrity and reliability considering you're accusing them of lying to the entire world for 50 years? One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence.
How do you know that "one of them would have cracked..."?
Oh, here we go. The good old classic and predictable "How do you know that?" argument.
Clearly, I wasn't stating that as FACT! I think it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire post that I'm putting forward a question based on my own speculation.
Of course I don't have inside evidence and proof that one of them WOULD have cracked, in the exact same way you don't have proof that none of them wouldn't. It's mere speculation. My personal opinion that I was putting out there. Agree with it or don't agree with it but I was just seeing if anyone had any similar feelings and was hopeful that someone might add something insightful rather that the tiresome counter-argument of "Prove it!" ::)
Thanks again for another stimulating reply though, Weidmann. May I suggest next time you just go and stand in the corner and spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants as that will add about as much relevant input to this discussion as your previous two posts have.
-
And it's Super Weidmann coming to Goth's rescue. I'm sure he'll appreciate you butting in and making him look like a bellend who can't speak for himself.
Why do I answer his question with a question? Well, considering he replied to my original query/question with a stupid answer that did not address the question and then in another post went on to ask me the aforementioned question of "when did I say I thought there was a cover up?", again without answering anything related to my previous post, you could just as easily ask him the same thing.
I think if you were capable of reading between the lines, anyone with any ounce of intelligence can work out that me asking him another question pretty much indicated that I acknowledged he didn't specifically state he thought there was a cover up, otherwise why would I have had the need to ask him what his view actually was? But if I need to spell it out so as not to confuse you, please amend my previous post to Goth to:
"Well, Goth. You did not specifically say that you did or did not believe there was a cover up. Are you therefore telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?"
I notice you didn't leap to my defence to ask Goth why he failed to answer my question or why he retorted to asking me a question without answering mine. I'm sure in time I'll get over that, but then again I'm quite happy to speak for myself and don't really need Super Weidmann to randomly fight my battles.
And it's Super Weidmann coming to Goth's rescue.
What's with the obnoxious Mytton-esque "Super Weidmann" comments? You seem extremely defensive. Are you always like that when somebody asks you a simply question? Why the animosity?
Why do I answer his question with a question? Well, considering he replied to my original query/question with a stupid answer that did not address the question and then in another post went on to ask me the aforementioned question of "when did I say I thought there was a cover up?", again without answering anything related to my previous post, you could just as easily ask him the same thing.
Actually, no I couldn't. He responded to your first post in the thread, in which you were only asking rhetorical questions leading up to a "conclusion", by saying that "you talk like Mytton", which was indeed a factual comment. You then responded with a rant about people who "at least agree a cover up occurred", which fully justifies Peter asking you where he said he thought there was a coverup or even a conspiracy?
Obviously, you could not show where Peter had said anything of the sort, which of course means that you were wrong to make that comment in your post to him!
I think if you were capable of reading between the lines, anyone with any ounce of intelligence can work out that me asking him another question pretty much indicated that I acknowledged he didn't specifically state he thought there was a cover up, otherwise why would I have had the need to ask him what his view actually was?
Another typical Mytton-esque ad hominem reply and filled with "logic" that makes (one's) toes curl. You did not ask him what his view actually was. You asked him what was he was telling you, when in fact he had not told you anything!
But if I need to spell it out so as not to confuse you, please amend my previous post to Goth to:
"Well, Goth. You did not specifically say that you did or did not believe there was a cover up. Are you therefore telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?"
Nice bit of backpeddling!
I notice you didn't leap to my defence to ask Goth why he failed to answer my question or why he retorted to asking me a question without answering mine.
Already explained. You also did not leap to my defense to ask Mytton why he failed/refused to answer my question. So what?
I'm sure in time I'll get over that, but then again I'm quite happy to speak for myself and don't really need Super Weidmann to randomly fight my battles.
I truly hope that you do indeed get over it fast, because if our initial exchange got you so worked up that you felt the need to resort to this "Super Weidmann" crap, we are going to have a lot of fun in the future Thumb1:
Btw, if you don't really need Super Weidmann to fight your battles, why did you just complain that I did not leap to your defense and fight your battle with Peter Goth for you? You are not making a great deal of sense.....
-
Oh, here we go. The good old classic and predictable "How do you know that?" argument.
Clearly, I wasn't stating that as FACT! I think it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire post that I'm putting forward a question based on my own speculation.
Of course I don't have inside evidence and proof that one of them WOULD have cracked, in the exact same way you don't have proof that none of them wouldn't. It's mere speculation. My personal opinion that I was putting out there. Agree with it or don't agree with it but I was just seeing if anyone had any similar feelings and was hopeful that someone might add something insightful rather that the tiresome counter-argument of "Prove it!" ::)
Thanks again for another stimulating reply though, Weidmann. May I suggest next time you just go and stand in the corner and spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants as that will add about as much relevant input to this discussion as your previous two posts have.
Oh, here we go. The good old classic and predictable "How do you know that?" argument.
What's wrong with asking somebody how he knows something he presents as a fact?
Clearly, I wasn't stating that as FACT! I think it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire post that I'm putting forward a question based on my own speculation.
Yes, clearly you were stating it as fact. But this has now been cleared up nicely. Thank you. See what asking a simple question can achieve?
Of course I don't have inside evidence and proof that one of them WOULD have cracked, in the exact same way you don't have proof that none of them wouldn't.
Irrelevant. I did not make any claim and asking for proof "that none of them wouldn't" is asking for proof of a negative.
It's mere speculation. My personal opinion that I was putting out there.
Great, it's always good to have clarity
Agree with it or don't agree with it but I was just seeing if anyone had any similar feelings
Sure, of course you were...
In fact, and this may confuse you, I do think that in the past 50 years people would have talked. In fact, I believe they did or at least tried to.
and was hopeful that someone might add something insightful rather that the tiresome counter-argument of "Prove it!" ::)
Since when is asking for proof a "tiresome counter-argument"? If somebody makes a claim he/she should be able to provide proof for that claim, right? Or do you perhaps disagree with that?
Thanks again for another stimulating reply though, Weidmann. May I suggest next time you just go and stand in the corner and spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants as that will add about as much relevant input to this discussion as your previous two posts have.
Wow.. aggressive. Did I get under you skin or are you by nature just a nasty piece of work who starts behaving badly like another six year old from down under I know?
Btw, what exactly was the discussion and with whom were you having that discussion?
-
And it's Super Weidmann coming to Goth's rescue.
What's with the obnoxious Mytton-esque "Super Weidmann" comments? You seem extremely defensive. Are you always like that when somebody asks you a simply question?
Why do I answer his question with a question? Well, considering he replied to my original query/question with a stupid answer that did not address the question and then in another post went on to ask me the aforementioned question of "when did I say I thought there was a cover up?", again without answering anything related to my previous post, you could just as easily ask him the same thing.
Actually, no I couldn't. He responded to your first post in the thread, in which you were only asking rhetorical questions leading up to a "conclusion", by saying that "you talk like Mytton", which was indeed a factual comment. You then responded with a rant about people who "at least agree a cover up occurred", which fully justifies Peter asking you where he said he thought there was a coverup or even a conspiracy?
Obviously, you could not show where Peter had said anything of the sort, which of course means that you were wrong to make that comment in your post to him!
I think if you were capable of reading between the lines, anyone with any ounce of intelligence can work out that me asking him another question pretty much indicated that I acknowledged he didn't specifically state he thought there was a cover up, otherwise why would I have had the need to ask him what his view actually was?
Another typical Mytton-esque ad hominem reply and filled with "logic" that makes (one's) toes curl. You did not ask him what his view actually was. You asked him was he was telling you, when in fact he had not told you anything!
But if I need to spell it out so as not to confuse you, please amend my previous post to Goth to:
"Well, Goth. You did not specifically say that you did or did not believe there was a cover up. Are you therefore telling me that you don't believe in any conspiracies and that you subscribe to the lone gunman theory?"
Nice bit of backpeddling!
I notice you didn't leap to my defence to ask Goth why he failed to answer my question or why he retorted to asking me a question without answering mine.
Already explained. You also did not leap to my defense to ask Mytton why he failed/refused to answer my question. So what?
I'm sure in time I'll get over that, but then again I'm quite happy to speak for myself and don't really need Super Weidmann to randomly fight my battles.
I truly hope that you do indeed get over it fast, because if our initial exchange got you so worked up that you felt the need to resort to this "Super Weidmann" crap, we are going to have a lot of fun in the future Thumb1:
Btw, if you don't really need Super Weidmann to fight your battles, why did you just complain that I did not leap to your defense and fight your battle with Peter Goth for you? You are not making a great deal of sense.....
Hmm, yeah nice one Weidmann. As much as we all enjoy a bit of fun banter this whole "you said this which clearly means this" and "by saying this you meant this" is getting a bit tedious and it just comes across as you scraping the barrel looking to win an argument which nobody really gives a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about in the first place.
Pretty much everything on this forum is speculation so I don't see why you had to have such a big wank about me speculating that Goth believed in cover ups. You accuse me of getting "extremely defensive" by someone asking me a simple question, yet its totally acceptable for you to go to the extra effort of butting into a conversation to get "extremely defensive" about your mate.
I'm then criticised for not coming to Mytton's defence. Can I just respond to that point by saying WHO THE FUCK IS THIS MYTTON GUY? And why am I supposed to come to his defence? I have no idea who this geezer is and I had no interest in getting involved with your pointless little argument with him. I'm not arsed about what fucking hard evidence or proof this Mytton guy has about his point and I'm really bothered, so why the hell are you trying to drag me into a conversation that I've showed absolutely no interest in before? The only reason I mentioned this guy was in response to Goth saying I sounded like him and in no way did I give an opinion either way on what he was saying, so I'm just a bit confused as to why you suddenly think me and Mytton are Siamese twins or something.
Now, I know we all come on these forums because it's fun to have a little argument with strangers and hide safely behind our computer screens but the last few posts have not had anything to do with my original post. Its all been about you dissecting my, already off-topic, replies and going "Ah you said this and then you said this" and dragging it further into total irrelevance for a JFK forum. I can have exactly the same type of pointless arguments on a Brexit or Donald Trump forum if I wanted to, and they'd probably be a whole lot more funnier too.
Feel free to start dissecting this post with monotonous crap like "Ah, you said you've only ever mentioned Mytton in response to Peter's post where he likened you to him, but you've also mentioned him in this post so clearly that wasn't the only time you mentioned Mytton" or "If you really don't give a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about this then why are you bothering to reply?", etc, etc. I'm sure they will be as captivating and humorous as your previous posts (sarcasm there if you didn't pick up on it) but how about, and this might be an absolutely ridiculous suggestion considering this is a JFK forum, but how about you actually share your thoughts on my original post which actually fell in line with subject of the forum and we have have some argumentative fun with that rather than just commenting on what Peter and me did or didn't say to each other?
-
Hmm, yeah nice one Weidmann. As much as we all enjoy a bit of fun banter this whole "you said this which clearly means this" and "by saying this you meant this" is getting a bit tedious and it just comes across as you scraping the barrel looking to win an argument which nobody really gives a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about in the first place.
You seem to be the only one who is pre-occupied with winning arguments. As far as I am concerned, I just call it as I see it. Deal with it....
Pretty much everything on this forum is speculation so I don't see why you had to have such a big wank about me speculating that Goth believed in cover ups. You accuse me of getting "extremely defensive" by someone asking me a simple question, yet its totally acceptable for you to go to the extra effort of butting into a conversation to get "extremely defensive" about your mate.
Of course this forum is mainly about speculation when it involves the murders of Kennedy and Tippit. That doesn't mean though that members will let you get away with just posting anything without providing at least some proof for it.
But you were not speculating that Goth believed in cover ups. Once again, you were asking him if he was telling you something which he in fact had not told you. That's not speculation, that's putting words in people's mouth.
And as far as me "butting into a conversation" goes, I was taking part in the conversation in the thread long before you joined the forum and decided to but in. I also did not get defensive over anybody. I just don't like newbies who think they know it all and act accordingly whilst in fact displaying not much more than pure ignorance and who provoke a reply with smart-ass comments like "Super Weidmann".
I'm then criticised for not coming to Mytton's defence. Can I just respond to that point by saying WHO THE FUCK IS THIS MYTTON GUY? And why am I supposed to come to his defence? I have no idea who this geezer is and I had no interest in getting involved with your pointless little argument with him. I'm not arsed about what fucking hard evidence or proof this Mytton guy has about his point and I'm really bothered, so why the hell are you trying to drag me into a conversation that I've showed absolutely no interest in before? The only reason I mentioned this guy was in response to Goth saying I sounded like him and in no way did I give an opinion either way on what he was saying, so I'm just a bit confused as to why you suddenly think me and Mytton are Siamese twins or something.
Wow, touchy.... First of all, you seem to have a reading problem, as nobody said anything about you coming to Mytton's defense. You rather pathetically complained that I did not come to your defense when somebody did not reply to a question you never asked. I in turn pointed out that you also did not come to my defense when Mytton did not reply to my simple question. I thought I had explained it quite clearly, but it seems you didn't understand it after all. Sorry, next time I'll lower the bar even further.
I'm not arsed about what fucking hard evidence or proof this Mytton guy has about his point
So, fact-checking and providing proof for a claim isn't your thing? Go it!
so why the hell are you trying to drag me into a conversation that I've showed absolutely no interest in before?
Again, get your facts straight; you were the one who jumped into the conversation. Nobody dragged you in. In fact, I don't think anybody with a sane mind will ever drag you into an conversation, the way you are behaving.
The only reason I mentioned this guy was in response to Goth saying I sounded like him and in no way did I give an opinion either way on what he was saying, so I'm just a bit confused as to why you suddenly think me and Mytton are Siamese twins or something.
Goth was right in saying that, and as the discussion has progressed you've only enforced that notion. Having said that, I can't recall having said that I think you and Mytton "are Siamese twins or something". You wouldn't have just made that up, would you? As far as I am concerned you two sound alike, that's all.
Now, I know we all come on these forums because it's fun to have a little argument with strangers and hide safely behind our computer screens but the last few posts have not had anything to do with my original post. Its all been about you dissecting my, already off-topic, replies and going "Ah you said this and then you said this" and dragging it further into total irrelevance for a JFK forum. I can have exactly the exactly same type of pointless arguments on a Brexit or Donald Trump forum if I wanted to, and they'd probably be a whole lot more funnier too.
If you can't stand the heat........
But if it's only entertainment you seek, you might indeed be better of on a Brexit or Trump forum.
Feel free to start dissecting this post with monotonous crap like "Ah, you said you've only ever mentioned Mytton in response to Peter's post where he likened you to him, but you've also mentioned him in this post so clearly that wasn't the only time you mentioned Mytton" or "If you really don't give a spombleprofglidnoctobuns about this then why are you bothering to reply?", etc, etc, that will no doubt be as captivating and humorous as your previous posts but how about, and this might be an absolutely ridiculous suggestion considering this is a JFK forum, you actually share your thoughts on my original post rather than what Peter and me did or didn't say to each other?
This is indeed a JFK forum and as soon as you say anything remotely interesting I may well reply.
And yes, it's an absolute ridiculous suggestion that you think you can tell me what I should do.
Now, do you have anything of significance to say, or not?
-
Fair point, sir! Im not going to lie and pretend I'm the equivalent of the Britannia Encyclopaedia on the E.Howard Hunt confession, but I've read stuff both for & against it and, by my own reckoning, haven't found anything worthy to be classed as conclusive evidence.
I would say the same thing about the Warren Commission Report.
-
Oh, here we go. The good old classic and predictable "How do you know that?" argument.
What's wrong with asking somebody how he knows something he presents as a fact?
Clearly, I wasn't stating that as FACT! I think it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire post that I'm putting forward a question based on my own speculation.
Yes, clearly you were stating it as fact. But this has now been cleared up nicely. Thank you. See what asking a simple question can achieve?
Of course I don't have inside evidence and proof that one of them WOULD have cracked, in the exact same way you don't have proof that none of them wouldn't.
Irrelevant. I did not make any claim and asking for proof "that none of them wouldn't" is asking for proof of a negative.
It's mere speculation. My personal opinion that I was putting out there.
Great, it's always good to have clarity
Agree with it or don't agree with it but I was just seeing if anyone had any similar feelings
Sure, of course you were...
In fact, and this may confuse you, I do think that in the past 50 years people would have talked. In fact, I believe they did or at least tried to.
and was hopeful that someone might add something insightful rather that the tiresome counter-argument of "Prove it!" ::)
Since when is asking for proof a "tiresome counter-argument"? If somebody makes a claim he/she should be able to provide proof for that claim, right? Or do you perhaps disagree with that?
Thanks again for another stimulating reply though, Weidmann. May I suggest next time you just go and stand in the corner and spombleprofglidnoctobuns your pants as that will add about as much relevant input to this discussion as your previous two posts have.
Wow.. aggressive. Did I get under you skin or are you by nature just a nasty piece of work who starts behaving badly like another six year old from down under I know?
Btw, what exactly was the discussion and with whom were you having that discussion?
::)
Of course, there is nothing wrong with asking somebody if they have facts, but as I stated previously, I was not presenting something as a fact.
If you look way back to when I started my first post on this subject, you'll see I began with the line "Ultimately, you have to ask the question why, after over 50 years when the majority of the people involved in any alleged cover up are either dead or on their last legs, nobody involved has actually gone public and exposed a cover up?"
And concluded it with "To me, that strongly suggests that nobody has come forward with any evidence because there wasn't any cover up!"
Now even as someone who likes to dissect every little bit of text written, I'm sure you'd even struggle to pinpoint exactly where I claimed anything of what I was saying to be fact or where I was saying "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED". Or did you think I was claiming to have completely solved the entire JFK assassination conspiracy with one post? I've single handedly done, in one simple post, what millions of people haven't been able to do in over 50 years?
And obviously I don't have any hard proof. My personal belief is that there was no cover up, but if there was one then surely someone would have come forward with evidence about this. So, if I'm suggesting there was no cover up, thus being nobody to come forward and expose a cover up, how could I possibly have evidence to back this up? It seems a stupid thing to ask for in the first place as surely you knew nobody could prove such a statement. It was clearly an opinion!
Thus, that is why I said asking for proof was a tiresome counter-argument. Someone else on the forum replied and said that it was because people were scared or threatened and mentioned the suspicious deaths of many other witnesses, which is great. A valid point that they actually gave to explain why someone wouldn't have come forward and that I take on board. Or am I supposed to reply to that guy and say "Well, what proof do you have that these non-existent people are scared and have been threatened?"
And yeah, me asking proof that "none of them wouldn't" was just bad English. The point I was basically trying to make was that I don't have evidence to support or not support what I was saying. As I said, it was something I was just putting out there. You said yourself you that you believed people had or had tried to talk so wouldn't it have just been a bit more interesting to say that and maybe say why rather than going through my messages and trying to point out niggling arguments rather than just saying so?
-
You seem to be the only one who is pre-occupied with winning arguments. As far as I am concerned, I just call it as I see it. Deal with it....
I'm the only one pre-occupied with winning argument, yet you have to reply to everything I post to try to put your point across and attempt to have the last word?
Well, you can dress it up however you like and say you're just calling it as you see it but from where I'm standing it looks like you're trying to win an argument to me.
Of course this forum is mainly about speculation when it involves the murders of Kennedy and Tippit. That doesn't mean though that members will let you get away with just posting anything without providing at least some proof for it.
But you were not speculating that Goth believed in cover ups. Once again, you were asking him if he was telling you something which he in fact had not told you. That's not speculation, that's putting words in people's mouth.
I was asking him a simple question, I really don't see the big problem here. Whether I asked him "Are you saying you don't believe in a cover up?", "Are you saying you do believe in a cover up?" or "Do you believe there was a cover up" it all pretty much equates to the same question that a simple "yes" or "no" answer will solve. I'm not exactly convicting him of anything by phrasing a question in a certain way as any of the above questions are totally irrelevant and invalid until he actually replies. It's at that point when his opinion comes out. I really don't see why anyone would get so upset and make such a point about it. Its a question that is asking for an answer, its not a statement or accusation!
And as far as me "butting into a conversation" goes, I was taking part in the conversation in the thread long before you joined the forum and decided to but in. I also did not get defensive over anybody. I just don't like newbies who think they know it all and act accordingly whilst in fact displaying not much more than pure ignorance and who provoke a reply with smart-ass comments like "Super Weidmann".
OK, fair point but within this huge long thread many posts have strayed away from the original point of Oswald's lies. Maybe I should have started a new thread rather than post within this thread? But clearly you did butt into an exchange between me and Goth and accused me of putting words in his mouth.
It's pretty small minded and egotistical to be so hostile to someone just because they're "a newbie". Just because someone only just joined a JFK forum it doesn't mean they know less than you. I'm sure some of most prolific JFK researchers aren't members of this forum so if they were to join tomorrow would you automatically accuse them of being newbies who think they know it all, just because you've been a member of this forum for longer?.
As it stands, and this probably won't surprise you one little bit, I'm by no means an expert on this case. I'm from the UK and the JFK assassination is not even something we're taught in school. I randomly got interested in the case a few years ago and have read numerous books both for, against and neutral to any conspiracy theories. I joined this forum as I don't know anyone else who is interested in this subject and there are several things that I'm curious about that, so far, I have never seen addressed in the books I've read. Hence, I thought that joining something like this would offer some fun discussion and useful insight in to what other people think about certain topics. Sadly, all I've seem to have gotten so far is aggressive replies, demands of "proof" or being told I live in a fairy land and that I just believe anything the government tells me, rather than any actual discussion and the majority of my discussions so far have been completely irrelevant to the JFK assassination and mainly about how I phrase questions to Peter Goth.
As such, I hope you can see why I resorted to such comments as "Super Weidmann". I read your comment and just thought to myself "oh here we go, another nobber who is just going to rant about spombleprofglidnoctobuns without actually addressing the issue.
Wow, touchy.... First of all, you seem to have a reading problem, as nobody said anything about you coming to Mytton's defense. You rather pathetically complained that I did not come to your defense when somebody did not reply to a question you never asked. I in turn pointed out that you also did not come to my defense when Mytton did not reply to my simple question. I thought I had explained it quite clearly, but it seems you didn't understand it after all. Sorry, next time I'll lower the bar even further.
I'm not arsed about what fucking hard evidence or proof this Mytton guy has about his point
So, fact-checking and providing proof for a claim isn't your thing? Go it!
so why the hell are you trying to drag me into a conversation that I've showed absolutely no interest in before?
Again, get your facts straight; you were the one who jumped into the conversation. Nobody dragged you in. In fact, I don't think anybody with a sane mind will ever drag you into an conversation, the way you are behaving.
Again, I refer back to my error of not starting a new thread. I have to admit I was not really following the interactions between you, Goth & Mytton until I was likened to him
The only reason I mentioned this guy was in response to Goth saying I sounded like him and in no way did I give an opinion either way on what he was saying, so I'm just a bit confused as to why you suddenly think me and Mytton are Siamese twins or something.
Goth was right in saying that, and as the discussion has progressed you've only enforced that notion. Having said that, I can't recall having said that I think you and Mytton "are Siamese twins or something". You wouldn't have just made that up, would you? As far as I am concerned you two sound alike, that's all.
Yeah, you didn't say we were Siamese twins. Do you really have to take everything so literally? It was an OTT exaggeration on how you seemed to be assuming me and Mytton were best buddies or something. I thought anyone with an ounce of common sense would get that. I was just watching an old episode of a 1970s British sit-com called George & Mildred when one of the characters said the line "Blimey! Look at him. Once dance lesson and already he thinks he's John Travolta". This was obviously meant as a joke, but no doubt you would have got angry and written to the show's writers stating "At no point did that guy who took the dance lesson ever say he was John Travolta. You just made that up!"
If you can't stand the heat........
But if it's only entertainment you seek, you might indeed be better of on a Brexit or Trump forum.
This is indeed a JFK forum and as soon as you say anything remotely interesting I may well reply.
And yes, it's an absolute ridiculous suggestion that you think you can tell me what I should do.
Now, do you have anything of significance to say, or not?
Well clearly not as far as you're concerned. I'm clearly just "a newbie" who's not worthy of your expertise or time so I won't be offended if you don't bother replying to this with another one of your long winded accusations of how I'm putting words in people's mouths or not backing any of my notions up with hard evidence.
-
"...But clearly you did butt into an exchange between me and Goth and accused me of putting words in his mouth...."
um,
yea, you did.
-
::)
Of course, there is nothing wrong with asking somebody if they have facts, but as I stated previously, I was not presenting something as a fact.
If you look way back to when I started my first post on this subject, you'll see I began with the line "Ultimately, you have to ask the question why, after over 50 years when the majority of the people involved in any alleged cover up are either dead or on their last legs, nobody involved has actually gone public and exposed a cover up?"
And concluded it with "To me, that strongly suggests that nobody has come forward with any evidence because there wasn't any cover up!"
You just can't help yourself, can you now? Your desperate need to "win the argument" seems to have gotten the better of you, hasn't it?
So, why are you now, rather dishonestly, trying to shift the goalposts? We never discussed your first post on the subject, so you now quoting from it doesn't do you much good. We were actually talking about a remark you made in a reply to Jack Trojan where, talking about people not having come forward in 50 years, you stated unequivocally, and thus presented as fact, that;
"One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence."
Now even as someone who likes to dissect every little bit of text written, I'm sure you'd even struggle to pinpoint exactly where I claimed anything of what I was saying to be fact or where I was saying "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED". Or did you think I was claiming to have completely solved the entire JFK assassination conspiracy with one post? I've single handedly done, in one simple post, what millions of people haven't been able to do in over 50 years?
I'm sure you'd even struggle to pinpoint exactly where I claimed anything of what I was saying to be fact or where I was saying "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED".
Ah, more twisting and turning. I never claimed that you said any of that, so there's hardly any requirement for me to "pinpoint" anything.
I simply asked you how you knew that and you replied by saying that you were not "stating that as fact". Obviously I disagreed with you, that was all. But nice try......
And obviously I don't have any hard proof. My personal belief is that there was no cover up, but if there was one then surely someone would have come forward with evidence about this. So, if I'm suggesting there was no cover up, thus being nobody to come forward and expose a cover up, how could I possibly have evidence to back this up? It seems a stupid thing to ask for in the first place as surely you knew nobody could prove such a statement. It was clearly an opinion! Thus, that is why I said asking for proof was a tiresome counter-argument.
Yes I know, you keep telling us now that it was only an opinion, but you only said that after I asked you how you knew that "One of them would have cracked and exposed some meaningful evidence" and getting you to confirm that it was nothing more than an opinion was the entire point to my question.
Btw, nobody asked you for evidence to back up anything. I merely asked how you knew.... You do understand the difference, don't you?
Someone else on the forum replied and said that it was because people were scared or threatened and mentioned the suspicious deaths of many other witnesses, which is great. A valid point that they actually gave to explain why someone wouldn't have come forward and that I take on board. Or am I supposed to reply to that guy and say "Well, what proof do you have that these non-existent people are scared and have been threatened?"
I saw that exchange and I am not going to tell you what you are supposed to do or how.
And yeah, me asking proof that "none of them wouldn't" was just bad English. The point I was basically trying to make was that I don't have evidence to support or not support what I was saying. As I said, it was something I was just putting out there.
Yes we know that now.
You said yourself you that you believed people had or had tried to talk so wouldn't it have just been a bit more interesting to say that and maybe say why rather than going through my messages and trying to point out niggling arguments rather than just saying so?
If you wanted to have a conversation with me about the remark I made, I can only wonder why you felt the need to continue our present conversation instead.
-
You just can't help yourself, can you now? Your desperate need to "win the argument" seems to have gotten the better of you, hasn't it?
Of course that quote only applies to me. You in no way can "help yourself" can you?
Nothing else of relevance was really said in your full reply so I really don't think its worth addressing. The fact that you're still going on about a quote that I've already explained was only an opinion is just getting tiresome and we're just going to be here all year going round and round in circles.
I shall sit back and await your next pointless reply as clearly "you can't help yourself" either
-
um,
yea, you did.
Yeah, I put words in your mouth. So shoot me! Is it really that much of a big deal for you? I'd hate to see what you'd be like if someone did anything seriously bad to you.
How about just answering the question? Are you telling me you don't believe there was no JFK assassination cover up?
(Did you see I did it again? Round up a few more of your mates and get them to moan at me too)
-
I'm the only one pre-occupied with winning argument, yet you have to reply to everything I post to try to put your point across and attempt to have the last word?
Well, you can dress it up however you like and say you're just calling it as you see it but from where I'm standing it looks like you're trying to win an argument to me.
yet you have to reply to everything I post to try to put your point across and attempt to have the last word?
You write something stupid on this forum, and I reply.... that's how it works on forums. As for trying to have the last word, why do you keep replying?
from where I'm standing it looks like you're trying to win an argument to me.
That's only because you are wired that way...
I was asking him a simple question, I really don't see the big problem here. Whether I asked him "Are you saying you don't believe in a cover up?", "Are you saying you do believe in a cover up?" or "Do you believe there was a cover up" it all pretty much equates to the same question that a simple "yes" or "no" answer will solve. I'm not exactly convicting him of anything by phrasing a question in a certain way as any of the above questions are totally irrelevant and invalid until he actually replies. It's at that point when his opinion comes out. I really don't see why anyone would get so upset and make such a point about it. Its a question that is asking for an answer, its not a statement or accusation!
I was asking him a simple question
Sure you were...
OK, fair point but within this huge long thread many posts have strayed away from the original point of Oswald's lies. Maybe I should have started a new thread rather than post within this thread? But clearly you did butt into an exchange between me and Goth and accused me of putting words in his mouth.
It's pretty small minded and egotistical to be so hostile to someone just because they're "a newbie". Just because someone only just joined a JFK forum it doesn't mean they know less than you. I'm sure some of most prolific JFK researchers aren't members of this forum so if they were to join tomorrow would you automatically accuse them of being newbies who think they know it all, just because you've been a member of this forum for longer?.
It's pretty small minded and egotistical to be so hostile to someone just because they're "a newbie".
I wasn't hostile to you because you are a newbie. If I was hostile to you it was because you behaved obnoxiously. The first thing you did was pick a fight with Tom Scully.
Just because someone only just joined a JFK forum it doesn't mean they know less than you.
Strawman! Nobody said that.
I'm sure some of most prolific JFK researchers aren't members of this forum so if they were to join tomorrow would you automatically accuse them of being newbies who think they know it all, just because you've been a member of this forum for longer?.
Another strawman! You are making up your own reality here... I was not hostile to you because you were a newbie but because you deserved it.
As it stands, and this probably won't surprise you one little bit, I'm by no means an expert on this case. I'm from the UK and the JFK assassination is not even something we're taught in school. I randomly got interested in the case a few years ago and have read numerous books both for, against and neutral to any conspiracy theories. I joined this forum as I don't know anyone else who is interested in this subject and there are several things that I'm curious about that, so far, I have never seen addressed in the books I've read. Hence, I thought that joining something like this would offer some fun discussion and useful insight in to what other people think about certain topics. Sadly, all I've seem to have gotten so far is aggressive replies, demands of "proof" or being told I live in a fairy land and that I just believe anything the government tells me, rather than any actual discussion and the majority of my discussions so far have been completely irrelevant to the JFK assassination and mainly about how I phrase questions to Peter Goth.
So, you decided to join this forum to enhance your knowledge and figured a good way to start was to piss off some of the members?
Btw, I already firgured you were either from the U.K. or down under. Your spelling and choice of words gave that away fairly quickly.
As such, I hope you can see why I resorted to such comments as "Super Weidmann". I read your comment and just thought to myself "oh here we go, another nobber who is just going to rant about spombleprofglidnoctobuns without actually addressing the issue.
No, I can't see why you resorted to such a comment.
Again, I refer back to my error of not starting a new thread. I have to admit I was not really following the interactions between you, Goth & Mytton until I was likened to him
Then perhaps you should have done a bit more research before you replied.
Yeah, you didn't say we were Siamese twins. Do you really have to take everything so literally? It was an OTT exaggeration on how you seemed to be assuming me and Mytton were best buddies or something. I thought anyone with an ounce of common sense would get that. I was just watching an old episode of a 1970s British sit-com called George & Mildred when one of the characters said the line "Blimey! Look at him. Once dance lesson and already he thinks he's John Travolta". This was obviously meant as a joke, but no doubt you would have got angry and written to the show's writers stating "At no point did that guy who took the dance lesson ever say he was John Travolta. You just made that up!"
I like British humor. The only problem is that sit-com doesn't really go down in writing on a forum and neither does your feeble attempt at ridicule.
Well clearly not as far as you're concerned. I'm clearly just "a newbie" who's not worthy of your expertise or time so I won't be offended if you don't bother replying to this with another one of your long winded accusations of how I'm putting words in people's mouths or not backing any of my notions up with hard evidence.
I'm clearly just "a newbie" who's not worthy of your expertise or time
Oh poor boy...
I won't be offended if you don't bother replying to this
What? And let you get away with this kind of BS? Not a chance.....
-
Yeah, I put words in your mouth. So shoot me! Is it really that much of a big deal for you? I'd hate to see what you'd be like if someone did anything seriously bad to you.
How about just answering the question? Are you telling me you don't believe there was no JFK assassination cover up?
(Did you see I did it again? Round up a few more of your mates and get them to moan at me too)
From "I was only asking him a question" to Yeah, I put words in your mouth. in just three subsequent posts.
Amazing... just how much of a hypocrite can this guy be?
-
yet you have to reply to everything I post to try to put your point across and attempt to have the last word?
You write something stupid on this forum, and I reply.... that's how it works on forums. As for trying to have the last word, why do you keep replying?
from where I'm standing it looks like you're trying to win an argument to me.
That's only because you are wired that way...
I was asking him a simple question
Sure you were...
It's pretty small minded and egotistical to be so hostile to someone just because they're "a newbie".
I wasn't hostile to you because you are a newbie. If I was hostile to you it was because you behaved obnoxiously. The first thing you did was pick a fight with Tom Scully.
Just because someone only just joined a JFK forum it doesn't mean they know less than you.
Strawman! Nobody said that.
I'm sure some of most prolific JFK researchers aren't members of this forum so if they were to join tomorrow would you automatically accuse them of being newbies who think they know it all, just because you've been a member of this forum for longer?.
Another strawman! You are making up your own reality here... I was not hostile to you because you were a newbie but because you deserved it.
So, you decided to join this forum to enhance your knowledge and figured a good way to start was to piss off some of the members?
Btw, I already firgured you were either from the U.K. or down under. Your spelling and choice of words gave that away fairly quickly.
No, I can't see why you resorted to such a comment.
Then perhaps you should have done a bit more research before you replied.
I like British humor. The only problem is that sit-com doesn't really go down in writing on a forum and neither does your feeble attempt at ridicule.
I'm clearly just "a newbie" who's not worthy of your expertise or time
Oh poor boy...
I won't be offended if you don't bother replying to this
What? And let you get away with this kind of BS? Not a chance.....
OK, busted! Maybe an incy, teeny weeny bit of me did come on here just to pick immature fights but I swear that wasn't my intention when I signed up. I did honestly hope to enhance my knowledge but it seems that's not really how JFK forums work. Am I right to assume that American people can get pretty defensive and indiscriminately dislike someone entirely depending on what their views on the assassination are? Is it a bit like how British people are divided over Brexit?
I do apologise to Tom Scully if I picked a fight with him for no reason, but being civil doesn't seem to be the theme of this forum. And admit it, you enjoy it as much as me.
p.s. Are we Brits really that easy to detect?
-
Yeah, I put words in your mouth.
Amazing... just how much of a hypocrite can this guy be?
Personally, I still don't think phrasing the question the way I did was exactly putting words into his mouth. Certainly it was something I wouldn't even have bothered mentioning or getting offended about if someone had done the same to me, but clearly there's no point me in trying to argue that case anymore as you've both already determined that I did so it's down to interpretation.
Thought I'd just concede in the hope that he might actually reply to the question now rather than go all round the houses about how I'm putting words in his mouth. Out of curiosity I really want to know now considering the whole bloody palaver its caused.
-
OK, busted! Maybe an incy, teeny weeny bit of me did come on here just to pick immature fights but I swear that wasn't my intention when I signed up. I did honestly hope to enhance my knowledge but it seems that's not really how JFK forums work. Am I right to assume that American people can get pretty defensive and indiscriminately dislike someone entirely depending on what their views on the assassination are? Is it a bit like how British people are divided over Brexit?
I do apologise to Tom Scully if I picked a fight with him for no reason, but being civil doesn't seem to be the theme of this forum. And admit it, you enjoy it as much as me.
p.s. Are we Brits really that easy to detect?
being civil doesn't seem to be the theme of this forum. And admit it, you enjoy it as much as me.
Actually, no I don't enjoy that at all. I'd much rather discuss the case and the evidence.
p.s. Are we Brits really that easy to detect?
When you use words like "geezer" and write "defence" instead of "defense" it's pretty obvious.
-
So far you haven't proven anything yourself so why would anyone waste their time proving you wrong?
I didn't say I'd proven anything myself, I merely stated one of my own personal opinions.
And anyway, since when did you have to prove something in the first place in order to be proven wrong? Do criminals prove that they were somewhere else at the time of an alleged crime before they can be proven they weren't?
-
OK, busted! Maybe an incy, teeny weeny bit of me did come on here just to pick immature fights but I swear that wasn't my intention when I signed up. I did honestly hope to enhance my knowledge but it seems that's not really how JFK forums work. Am I right to assume that American people can get pretty defensive and indiscriminately dislike someone entirely depending on what their views on the assassination are? Is it a bit like how British people are divided over Brexit?
I do apologise to Tom Scully if I picked a fight with him for no reason, but being civil doesn't seem to be the theme of this forum. And admit it, you enjoy it as much as me.
p.s. Are we Brits really that easy to detect?
Vincent, these clowns like Goth, Otto and Roger Collins are all created by the same cookie cutter and can't debate their way out of a wet paper bag, they all know there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence so they start attacking the messenger and try to make it personal, my advice is just present the facts and watch them all scurry away like frightened mice.
JohnM
-
Try posting supporting evidence.
Memory fading?
Instead of speaking in vague riddles that only you can understand, how about you map out your paranoid suspicions and then I can help you see reality.
JohnM
-
being civil doesn't seem to be the theme of this forum. And admit it, you enjoy it as much as me.
Actually, no I don't enjoy that at all. I'd much rather discuss the case and the evidence.
Well then why don't you bugger off and discuss the case and the evidence instead of constantly replying to tedious posts that are getting more and more ridiculous the longer you fuel them.
I've already stated that I do it because I find it fun, but seeing as you don't why do you bother engaging in it all the time?
The fact that you had ample opportunity to discuss the case when I initially posted something which actually related to it but instead chose to be a dick and discuss pretty much everything BUT the case, suggests to me you're talking as much spombleprofglidnoctobuns as me.
-
There are no suspicions just the plain fact that you posted nonsense.
Otto, explain why the evidence I supplied was nonsense?
JohnM
-
Vincent, these clowns like Goth, Otto and Roger Collins are all created by the same cookie cutter and can't debate their way out of a wet paper bag, they all know there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence so they start attacking the messenger and try to make it personal, my advice is just present the facts and watch them all scurry away like frightened mice.
JohnM
my advice is just present the facts
Let's see if this is merely "do as I say, not as I do" crap.....
How do you know when Klein's took delivery of those rifles ordered from Cresent?
-
Vincent, these clowns like Goth, Otto and Roger Collins are all created by the same cookie cutter and can't debate their way out of a wet paper bag, they all know there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence so they start attacking the messenger and try to make it personal, my advice is just present the facts and watch them all scurry away like frightened mice.
JohnM
Thank you! I wasn't even trying to produce a fact, I merely posted an opinion and asked people's thoughts about it. Clearly my opinion did not fall into their way of thinking and since then I've spent the last 3 days listening to them rabbit on in long messages about how I put words into people's mouths, used bad English, said hypocritical things and pretty much everything else other than address anything remotely connected to my question about the case.
The funny thing is they don't see this and just continue to give it all the holier than thou attitude.
Good luck
-
Well then why don't you bugger off and discuss the case and the evidence instead of constantly replying to tedious posts that are getting more and more ridiculous the longer you fuel them.
I've already stated that I do it because I find it fun, but seeing as you don't why do you bother engaging in it all the time?
Well, let's just say, it's because I dislike wankers with a bad additute
The fact that you had ample opportunity to discuss the case when I initially posted something which actually related to it but instead chose to be a dick and discuss pretty much everything BUT the case, suggests to me you're talking as much spombleprofglidnoctobuns as me.
Nobody is talking as much spombleprofglidnoctobuns as you....
-
Thank you! I wasn't even trying to produce a fact, I merely posted an opinion and asked people's thoughts about it. Clearly my opinion did not fall into their way of thinking and since then I've spent the last 3 days listening to them rabbit on in long messages about how I put words into people's mouths, used bad English, said hypocritical things and pretty much everything else other than address anything remotely connected to my question about the case.
The funny thing is they don't see this and just continue to give it all the holier than thou attitude.
Good luck
How nice to see that you and that geezer are becoming best buddies so fast....
-
Because you confirmed having understood the question, which you obviously didn't, then posted a random quote.
You're still making no sense, if I didn't answer your question to your biased satisfaction then explain yourself? As I said it's not my job to decipher your incoherent ramblings?
JohnM
-
OK, so let me rephrase: Have you so far posted anything that would require anyone to spend their time proving you wrong?
I don't know, thats up for interpretation isn't it? Depends whether that specific aspect of the case that I mentioned interests you or not.
Just to recap, in reference to people claiming there was a cover up I enquired as to what the likelihood was that nobody involved in an alleged cover up ever came clean or left a full confession? And stated that personally I thought at least one person would have done by now.
Now, to me, that seems a fairly rational question and I don't see anything wrong with the actual question. If that topic was of no relevance or interest to you then you're all welcome to scroll past or just ignore the post.
Granted, it might have been something that has been asked a lot of times before, so I can understand if people didn't want to waste their time replying. But clearly people (especially you) have plenty of time to reply with numerous posts about the way I phrased a question or saying that I claimed something happened which I didn't have evidence for, but that didn't address the actual issue.
Obviously there was that one chap who did reply with a sensible answer, so lets exclude him.
-
Thank you! I wasn't even trying to produce a fact, I merely posted an opinion and asked people's thoughts about it. Clearly my opinion did not fall into their way of thinking and since then I've spent the last 3 days listening to them rabbit on in long messages about how I put words into people's mouths, used bad English, said hypocritical things and pretty much everything else other than address anything remotely connected to my question about the case.
The funny thing is they don't see this and just continue to give it all the holier than thou attitude.
Good luck
and pretty much everything else other than address anything remotely connected to my question about the case.
That's it, you nailed it!
JohnM
-
Well, let's just say, it's because I dislike wankers with a bad additute
I can't agree more!
Nobody is talking as much spombleprofglidnoctobuns as you....
I dunno, you're making a pretty good effort yourself
-
How nice to see that you and that geezer are becoming best buddies so fast....
Like Siamese twins, mate
-
So what is Exhibit 4 doing there?
Again with the stupid vague riddles, I clearly have no idea what you're desperately trying to prove and have asked you on multiple occasions to clarify your argument but instead you keep replying with insults and more questions?
JohnM
-
I don't know, thats up for interpretation isn't it? Depends whether that specific aspect of the case that I mentioned interests you or not.
Just to recap, in reference to people claiming there was a cover up I enquired as to what the likelihood was that nobody involved in an alleged cover up ever came clean or left a full confession? And stated that personally I thought at least one person would have done by now.
Now, to me, that seems a fairly rational question and I don't see anything wrong with the actual question. If that topic was of no relevance or interest to you then you're all welcome to scroll past or just ignore the post.
Granted, it might have been something that has been asked a lot of times before, so I can understand if people didn't want to waste their time replying. But clearly people (especially you) have plenty of time to reply with numerous posts about the way I phrased a question or saying that I claimed something happened which I didn't have evidence for, but that didn't address the actual issue.
Obviously there was that one chap who did reply with a sensible answer, so lets exclude him.
Just to recap, in reference to people claiming there was a cover up I enquired as to what the likelihood was that nobody involved in an alleged cover up ever came clean or left a full confession? And stated that personally I thought at least one person would have done by now.
Against my better judgment, let's see if you are capable of discussing the case.....
How do you know that nobody ever came clean or left a confession?
Does the mere fact that you and I don't know about it automatically mean that something didn't happen?
If there was indeed a cover up, don't you think suppression of evidence and misinformation would be part of it?
-
Again with the stupid vague riddles, I clearly have no idea what you're desperately trying to prove and have asked you on multiple occasions to clarify your argument but instead you keep replying with insults and more questions?
JohnM
Johnny's latest strategy to dealing with questions he can't answer: Ignoring them or claiming he doesn't understand the question....
-
Fair point, sir! Im not going to lie and pretend I'm the equivalent of the Britannia Encyclopaedia on the E.Howard Hunt confession, but I've read stuff both for & against it and, by my own reckoning, haven't found anything worthy to be classed as conclusive evidence.
Considering all the conspiracy theories still being thrown around on this forum, I would think it's pretty safe to say that even the most ardent of conspiracy theory believers didn't find anything valid in the, alleged "genuine", confession either as they're still banging on about their own theories.
Would you mind me asking you a question? If someone asked you now who shot JFK would you say it was 100% "A French man on the grassy knoll"?
You posted that Hunt's family exploited him. My point was that not all of Hunt's family exploited him; just the two brothers. His widow and the rest of the family did not. Why did you leave that part of my post out?
I'm an LN... Oswald all the way.
-
Just tell in your own words why you posted Exhibit 4 quotes, OK?
You're telling the story, why question me?
JohnM
-
OK, busted! Maybe an incy, teeny weeny bit of me did come on here just to pick immature fights but I swear that wasn't my intention when I signed up. I did honestly hope to enhance my knowledge but it seems that's not really how JFK forums work.
Generally, people who come to pick fights get what they came for.
People who come to enhance their knowledge don’t pick fights.
-
Vincent, these clowns like Goth, Otto and Roger Collins are all created by the same cookie cutter and can't debate their way out of a wet paper bag, they all know there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence so they start attacking the messenger and try to make it personal, my advice is just present the facts and watch them all scurry away like frightened mice.
JohnM
Well said, sir! Thumb1:
Speaking of people who scurry away like frightened mice when presented with facts, Mr Mytton, perhaps you could scurry your way back to this?:
"I, Mr John Mytton, believe that the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady in Wiegman has a simple rational explanation: _____________________________"
(https://i.imgur.com/Z37PIXN.jpg)
You wouldn't want people reading to come away with the impression this problem has left you completely stumped, now, would you? :D
-
Would be nice to have your side of the story and you posted the quote, didn't you?
No Otto, it doesn't work like that anywhere in the World I answered your question and you placed a big red cross next to my answer, so now you "Mr Beck" being in position of Teacher are obligated to explain why my answer was wrong, so go ahead and let's be on an even playing field.
JohnM
-
The "Sure." part makes sense if it referred to Exhibit 3, the Exhibit 4 part makes no sense if "Sure." was the answer to the question.
I'm "sure" you know what you are trying to say but I think you're trying too hard to sound not like your real self?
The following Exhibits shows the contents of ten boxes that were sent to Kleins and on the right shows Kleins records which matches the stock that Crescent sent and the date they catalogued the rifles was 2/22/63.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgN8vxGT/crescent-kleins-x100-zpsh9oxcbyf.jpg)
Lifschultz the transport company was booked to carry ten boxes of rifles and finished the order on the 21st of February.
(https://i.postimg.cc/23RYrMmK/Waldman-ex-2.jpg)
Kleins initiated this whole process in early 1962, so obviously acquiring imported used Italian rifles doesn't just happen overnight and takes a little planning.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cLPbjwxF/Waldman-ex-1.jpg)
And here's one of the documents of sale that shows Crescent's invoice.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYJgjr1N/Waldman-ex-5.jpg)
And here's the order showing the rifle C2766 that was sent to Oswald's Post office box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3kTsCTt/Waldman-Exhibit-7.jpg)
And here's the envelope and coupon that Oswald filled out.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QN0sz4RS/waldman-8.jpg)
And the money order.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6TxpQytw/Money-Order.jpg)
So in conclusion do you think all this evidence was faked and that Crescent and Kleins were involved in killing the President?
When in reality all they had to do was get someone to say they sold the rifle to Oswald and it's a done deal but instead you weave this massive conspiracy and this is just a fraction of the alleged conspiracy that you people are guessing at.
JohnM
-
Too bad you handed in your draft, that's why you got the whole Waldman 4 part crossed out.
Teachers know all the bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns excuses and diversions the students come up with and that's why all your bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns posters doesn't work.
But let me show you exactly where Waldman fucked up RE packing slips:
Mr. BELIN. Now, you earlier mentioned that these were packed with the case.
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, I would like to correct that. This particular company does not include these with the cases, but sends these memos separately with their invoice.
Assignment for tomorrow: Who sunk Waldman?
(hint: the early Gemberling report)
Wow, why all the anger?
Anyway, I'm guessing you're going with all of the above documents were faked and way too many people were involved, yes?
JohnM
-
Kleins initiated this whole process in early 1962, so obviously acquiring imported used Italian rifles doesn't just happen overnight and takes a little planning.
“Obviously” ::)
And here's the order showing the rifle C2766 that was sent to Oswald's Post office box.
That doesn’t show that anything was sent anywhere.
And here's the envelope and coupon that Oswald filled out.
The envelope is irrelevant, because there’s nothing that connects that envelope with any specific order. Biased and unscientific handwriting “analysis” of two block letters on a picture of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch coupon (from microfilm that is now “missing”) was claimed to match Oswald.
And the money order.
There’s nothing that connects the money order found in Virginia with any specific Klein’s order.
In conclusion, you make a lot of assumptions.
-
You posted that Hunt's family exploited him. My point was that not all of Hunt's family exploited him; just the two brothers. His widow and the rest of the family did not. Why did you leave that part of my post out?
I'm an LN... Oswald all the way.
Sorry, didn't realise I did. It wasn't intentional that I left that part out and I wasn't trying to undermine your post anything. Of course, you're totally correct.
The point I was just trying to get at was that I wondering why his story was so easily dismissed by everyone? People who have been on about there being a second shooter in the grassy knoll for years had the perfect opportunity to jump on this yet seemingly weren't phased by it?
I too believe it was Oswald all the way, so I don't hold much validity to his claim, but just wondered why others don't either.
-
Yep, over the years people lose/gain weight.
JohnM
Yes but not assassins John. :'(