Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963  (Read 21316 times)

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
:D

Mr Mytton against demonstrates the dangers of not reading the thread before jumping in with a clueless contribution...

-----------I pointed out these anomalies between the two forms back on March 6!

 Thumb1:

Geez Alan, why is every one of your posts overloaded with sarcasm and/or insults, could it be because you yourself know that your "theory" requires supporting evidence that you don't have? From a wrong date you've extrapolated an entire industry! Btw Denis has already thoroughly embarrassed you by revealing some of your prior posts and now you suggest that somewhere within your history we will find all the answers?, talk about delusions of grandeur!

As I said in my first post, I don't believe that the document was written in real time from top to bottom.
Colin was right in saying that the document was written about the time of when he had to give his WC testimony, so in essence Lt Day had his normal day to day activities, on top of his JFK investigation and then he had to prepare for court.

What I see is for whatever reason Day simply wrote when he received the curtain rods from Howlett, early the next day the 24th at 7:50 AM, in the wrong place. Then at some later stage Day filled the rest in red and just went by memory or some scrambled notes and picked a date before the 24th, how could Day know that some one like Alan would come along and place so much importance on some insignificant date when clearly all Day was worried about is the actual evidence.



JohnM
« Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 12:31:19 AM by John Mytton »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
I think the least we can conclude is that Day was not adverse to altering documentation.

Sure the date was altered but why would he remove his signature just to sign it again?



JohnM

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
Don’t we? What do you conclude from CE1952?

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm


Cropped close-ups:



I conclude that CE1952 is a very poor photocopy of a document that was copied before John Howlett signed it a second time. It's similar to the following:





JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Denis Pointing

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Look at the difference between Day's signature on the photographed copy and the photocopied one.

Yep, just about to point out the same thing Tim, the 'DAY' signature is written more to the right than on the photographed copy. Also, the 7.50a timestamp is written slightly different.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 01:09:15 AM by Denis Pointing »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
Yep, just about to point out the same thing Tim, the 'DAY' signature is written more to the right than on the photographed copy.

I deleted my post because I realized that John was already making that point.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
I think the least we can conclude is that Day was not adverse to altering documentation. Knock me over with a feather.

I can now think of a reason to fingerprint the rods in the Paine garage. If the rods were originally stored in a bag and Oswald’s prints were on rods 275 and/or 276 it might suggest he used that bag (and possibly other rods if there were originally more than 2).

I think the least we can conclude is that Day was not adverse to altering documentation.

Day, wasn't adverse to outright lying......   He lied his eyes out about the so called "palm print"  CE 639 is absolute proof that Day did not lift the unidentifiable smudge from the metal barrel of a carcano....CE 639 shows the bayonet slot that is cut into the WOODEN foregrip  of all 91/38 Mannlicher Carcanos.

That bayonet storage slot is solid proof that the lift was taken from the WOODEN foregrip. 
« Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 01:39:24 AM by Walt Cakebread »

Online Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Beware of Geeks bearing gifs.
I conclude that CE1952 is a very poor photocopy of a document that was copied before John Howlett signed it a second time. It's similar to the following:




On your example I can see for some reason the photocopy has Burkley's signature removed. It does not appear to be lost from the photocopy process but a deliberate removal. Why would anyone do that? Without doing an overlay I can't see any other obvious alterations. Thanks for providing another example though. Do you not agree that the documents shown are "alterations" of originals?

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
Since Colin discovered the WC exhibit it helps make all the pieces fall into place.
Like Tim's example, I think Day signed and dated a photocopy or carbon of Howlett's earlier partially completed copy which became the WC exhibit.
Also if Day was going to alter the date wouldn't he just alter the 4 into 6 and just leave the signature?



JohnM
« Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 02:15:02 AM by John Mytton »

Online Colin Crow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Beware of Geeks bearing gifs.
I conclude that CE1952 is a very poor photocopy of a document that was copied before John Howlett signed it a second time. It's similar to the following:




So you conclude that both Howlett and Day signed a form on two occasions that had the wrong date of submission of the evidence. Could both of then be so sloppy? Do you think they do not even read the documents they put their signature to in such an important case? It was an eight day mistake.....an error of 800% if signed on the 24th.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
Since Colin discovered the WC exhibit it helps make all the pieces fall into place.
Like Tim's example, I think Day signed and dated a photocopy or carbon of Howlett's earlier partially completed copy which became the WC exhibit.
JohnM

I posted the below on 6 March, Mr Mytton, but it's good to see you're catching up!  Thumb1:

It is an extremely curious circumstance.

We have two official forms for the 2 curtain rods tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints.

The first (call it CURTAINS #1) has the 'released' date of 3-24-64:



It is important to note that the elements on this document written in red pen are exactly replicated in the second version (call it CURTAINS #2), which has the 'released' date of 3-26-64:



This tells us that
---------------CURTAINS #1 is the original
---------------CURTAINS #2 contains text added to a photocopy of CURTAINS #1
---------------the photocopy of CURTAINS #1 was made, however, before the following elements had been written in: signature of 'John Joe Howlett' (the 2nd instance of this signature) + '3-24-64' + '750 a[.m.]' + signature of 'J. C. Day'.

This is the only logical way of accounting for the discrepancies.