Help Please - need to see FBI Item D-77: Kleins orders

[Michael Clark]

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Dead wrong. Jeanne never said that SHE herself saw Oswald out in the park shooting his gun. Jeanne was talking about what MARINA had said to her.

Minor mistake, as were the "birds" as opposed to the "leaves". 

Thats just an attempt at obfuscation, DVP, the details of which I'll assume you were cued-up to by my above post which you chose to ignore. You never know, perhaps Jeanne corrected herself, such that her testimony came into line with Jim D's recollection. I shall have a look...

Real researchers, even those with a good memory, don't have time to dig into the nitty-gritty in order to present you with all of the failings of your arguments. I am glad that, for the time being, I am here to do-so.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Von Pein]

It's not a "minor" mistake on DiEugenio's part, IMO, Michael. Because Jimmy was implying that Jeanne HERSELF was a rotten l-i-a-r. What he really meant, though, is that MARINA lied to Jeanne. (Of course, perhaps DiEugenio really does think Jeanne lied in that part of her testimony....which would mean Jimmy thinks Jeanne just MADE UP the quote that Jeanne attributed to Marina about Lee shooting at leaves.) ~shrug~

Edited April 11, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

It's not a "minor" mistake on DiEugenio's part, IMO, Michael. Jimmy was implying that Jeanne HERSELF was a rotten l-i-a-r. What he really meant, though, is that MARINA lied to Jeanne. (Of course, perhaps DiEugenio really does think Jeanne lied in that part of her testimony....which would mean Jimmy thinks Jeanne just MADE UP the quote that Jeanne attributed to Marina about Lee shooting at leaves.)

DVP, you are on tilt, desparate or.... IDK?

Would you care to clarify?

Edited April 11, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Von Pein]

Real researchers, even those with a good memory, don't have time to dig into the nitty-gritty in order to present you with all of the failings of your arguments. I am glad that, for the time being, I am here to do so.

When are you going to start doing that, Michael?

Edited April 11, 2017 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

2 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

DVP, you are on tilt, desparate or.... IDK?

Would you care to clarify?

Clarify what? I was just pointing out that DiEugenio was misrepresenting Jeanne DeM.'s testimony. That's all.

[Michael Clark]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

 

Sorry, DVP, You have lost me. I looked back to the thread title in order to get back on topic. That's what I am thinking at the moment but I don't have much to add in that respect.

[Michael Clark]

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Clarify what? I was just pointing out that DiEugenio was misrepresenting Jeanne DeM.'s testimony. That's all.

Roger that. As per my above post. I think I (we?) have wound-down through this thread topic.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Von Pein]

Just now, Michael Clark said:

Sorry, DVP, You have lost me. I looked back to the thread title in order to get back on topic. That's what I am thinking at the moment but I don't have much to add in that respect.

Michael,

Maybe you'd care to answer this question that other CTers have dodged....

Do conspiracy theorists really think the FBI "planted" all of those records in BOTH the Klein's files in Chicago AND the Seaport Traders files in Los Angeles prior to each of those companies finding the pertinent "Hidell" purchase records for both the rifle and the revolver on November 23, 1963? Can CTers REALLY believe they planted all of those records---right under the noses of the various Klein's and Seaport personnel who were performing the physical searches for those documents on 11/23/63? Such a notion is absurd, of course. But I guess many conspiracists must buy it.

 

[Michael Clark]

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Michael,

Maybe you'd care to answer this question that other CTers have dodged....

Do conspiracy theorists really think the FBI "planted" all of those records in BOTH the Klein's files in Chicago AND the Seaport Traders files in Los Angeles prior to each of those companies finding the pertinent "Hidell" purchase records for both the rifle and the revolver on November 23, 1963? Can CTers REALLY believe they planted all of those records---right under the noses of the various Klein's and Seaport personnel who were performing the physical searches for those documents on 11/23/63? Such a notion is absurd, of course. But I guess many conspiracists must buy it.

 

David Josephs, in this thread, requested some help on a particular matter. Perhaps you should open a thread on that particular subject, maybe making a case, one way or another, in your introduction?

[David Von Pein]

I take it, then, Michael, you don't want to answer my question?

[David Josephs]

No Dave, the evidence was not PLANTED... it was CREATED AFTER THE FACT.  I'm so sorry you cannot figure out the difference...

AFTER THE FACT the FBI created/altered/removed/destroyed evidence so that which incriminated Oswald stayed, that which didn't disappeared or was buried and the evidence needed was created.  Some may have already been created... but the great bulk of it was done as needed by the FBI and SS.

That you cannot understand or fathom the means by which the FBI accomplished this is not an indication of it begin impossible to do but only of your inability to see beyond the blinders you've placed over you eyes.  The FBI materially changed evidence during this investigation...  Again, I'm sorry you keep your head stuck in the ground - doesn't change how wrong and completely unsupported your conclusions remain.  

The reality is you simply don't know the evidence that well.  If you did you'd realize that you can't explain away the FACT both FELDSOTT and WALDMAN are credited with submitting the 10 packing slips.  These slips only designate the rifles " 38  E " which is the INTERNATIONAL designation reflecting these were shipped from Italy using these packing slips...  

How in the world then can they also be submitted by Waldman in March 1964 as proof of a shipment to Kleins in Feb when they are still the original international slips?    

 

Dave... how many "no's" does it take?

Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise? 
Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you drive them to your home? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. 
Mr. JENNER - Were the materials and things in your station wagon unpacked and placed in your home? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; immediately. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you see that being done, were you present? 
Mrs. PAINE - I helped do it; yes. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you see any weapon on that occasion? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - Whether a rifle, pistol or-- 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - Or any covering, any package, that looked as though it might have a weapon, pistol, or firearm? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 

Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home? 
Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no. 
Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one? 
Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November. 

Mr. LIEBELER - I now show you Commission Exhibit 139, which is a rifle that was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building, and ask you if you at any time ever saw this rifle prior to November 22, 1963? 
Mr. PAINE - I did not

 

[Michael Clark]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I take it, then, Michael, you don't want to answer my question?

DVP, wasn't inclined to speak for CTers, but it looks as though Mr. Josephs may have cleared things up for you.

[Michael Walton]

Back to those records showing the whited out portions and numbers written in.  Does anyone have the records that show perhaps a month or two before and after those records? I would absolutely LOVE to see what those records look like. If those records are neatly typed in or look legit with a complete underline for each entry compared to the whited out ones, that would definitely show something amiss IMO.

[David Josephs]

Finally, let's look at Jeanne's statement and what Marina claims

JD claims that on a "showing" of their new place Marina takes her into a room with an open closet where she supposedly see the rifle and asks about it

Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there? 

So one would think that while on Magazine, the Ozzie kept his rifle in a room in a closet...

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle later placed in a closet in the apartment at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was always either in a corner, standing up in a corner or on a shelf.

What? Is this Marina conflicting with Jeanne's recollection?  How can she have forgotten the one and only time Jeanne was shown around her new apartment only to stumble across the rifle in a closet...  I wonder why they conflict so on their memories??  Much like forgetting the process of using the box camera and Ozzie's upside-down image in the viewfinder...  how can Marina forget something so glaringly out of the ordinary?

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever show that rifle to the De Mohrenschildts?
Mrs. OSWALD. I know that De Mohrenschildts had said that the rifle had been shown to him, but I don't remember that.

Does she mention anything specific to the rifle and where Ozzie kept it?  Boy there Dave, she can't seem to get anything right...

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.

[David Josephs]

1 minute ago, Michael Walton said:

Back to those records showing the whited out portions and numbers written in.  Does anyone have the records that show perhaps a month or two before and after those records? I would absolutely LOVE to see what those records look like. If those records are neatly typed in or look legit with a complete underline for each entry compared to the whited out ones, that would definitely show something amiss IMO.

That's the entire point Michael...   only evidence which corroborates itself was kept or even reviewed...  the master VC list, the copies, records which would prove of disprove the SOP for shipping an order with different merchandise.   We don't get to see ANYTHING which would establish Standard (& historical) Operating Procedure.

We don't EVER get to see another C20-T750 order for a 36" carbine and what was shipped prior to Feb 1963
We don't EVER see any one of the other 99 rifles from that phantom shipment...
We don't EVER see any of the 903 other orders on the microfilm
We don't EVER see the orders producing a June 1962 and March 1963 shipment to Kleins....

There is so much we don't ever get to see, while what we do is easily shown to not be authentic.

I'd LOVE to see those records too... and when Armstrong went to the Archives to print from that microfilm, he found the film canister was empty.