Ray Mitcham Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 The 11/22 stamp is meant to reflect the date of the interview. (I guess.) ~shrug~ "(I guess)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 1, 2015 Author Share Posted May 1, 2015 The 11/22 stamp is meant to reflect the date of the interview. (I guess.) ~shrug~ "(I guess)" Yep. "I guess" is the best I can do. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) My understanding is that FBI agents couldn't type. They wrote up notes on the earliest day mentioned on the typed-up report, and then submitted these notes and a hand-written report to a pool of anonymous women, who then typed up the reports over the next few days. The typed-up reports were then re-submitted to the agents for their signature, and the original notes and reports destroyed. This, of course, was a TERRIBLE system, as it allowed agents to subsequently claim some dumb anonymous secretary screwed up when typing up their reports. It also allowed for no recourse should someone try to get the FBI's original notes or reports during a trial. They'd say "Sorry, we've burnt them. Too bad." Harold Weisberg tried to sue the FBI for the notes and hand-written reports of its crime lab, but was unsuccessful in gaining access to them, outside a few internal memos. The FBI's claim was that the notes and hand-written reports had all been destroyed. I'm fairly certain nothing has come up to prove they were lying. He struck a gold mine, however, when he expanded his lawsuit to include the Atomic Energy Commission, who'd tested the paraffin casts and bullet fragments for the FBI. By golly, they'd kept their notes (aka "source material"), and got out from under the lawsuit by having someone drive over and dump a big box of this stuff in Jim Lesar's office, if I recall. (This is all recounted in Post Mortem.) In any event, these notes (aka source material), which were never even sent the national archives, are retained at the Hood Library. Edited May 1, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) The 11/22 stamp is meant to reflect the date of the interview. (I guess.) ~shrug~ "(I guess)" Yep. "I guess" is the best I can do. Sorry. Maybe you can "guess" why the date on this memo is after it was typed up. Edited May 1, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 1, 2015 Author Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) Incompetence is everywhere, isn't it Ray? But where are you trying to go with this line of thought regarding the dates on the documents? Are you suggesting that the various dates that appear on some documents indicate they are fakes? Or what? Edited May 1, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Incompetence is everywhere, isn't it Ray? But where are you trying to go with this line of thought regarding the dates on the documents? Are you suggesting that the various dates that appear on some documents indicates they are fakes? Or what? I just wonder how a document can be filed the day before it was written. If that leads one to believe it could be faked then so be it. Perhaps you can explain. Oh no, guess you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 1, 2015 Author Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) I just wonder how a document can be filed the day before it was written. If that leads one to believe it could be faked then so be it. Perhaps you can explain. Oh no, guess you can't. No, I can't. But I certainly wouldn't conclude that the various dates that show up on certain documents indicate any kind of fakery. Because it makes no sense for someone faking a document to put into the record a copy of that fake document which includes dates on it that would make that fake document look like an obvious fake document. Therefore, the answer likely resides outside the realm of "fakery". But, maybe the plotters working for Hoover's FBI weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. Edited May 1, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I just wonder how a document can be filed the day before it was written. If that leads one to believe it could be faked then so be it. Perhaps you can explain. Oh no, guess you can't. No, I can't. But I certainly wouldn't conclude that the various dates that show up on certain documents indicate any kind of fakery. Because it makes no sense for someone faking a document to put into the record a copy of that fake document which includes dates on it that would make that fake document look like an obvious fake document. Therefore, the answer likely resides outside the realm of "fakery". But, maybe the plotters working for Hoover's FBI weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. I agree with your last comment. The evidence manufacturers weren't the brightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) I agree with your last comment. The evidence manufacturers weren't the brightest. But you have no doubt that the evidence was, indeed, "manufactured", versus it being real and legitimate evidence that was merely being collected and handled by a bunch of idiot country cops who didn't know what they were doing. Right, Ray? It's remarkable that your "evidence manufacturers", who certainly "weren't the brightest" people in the world, were able to pull off the alleged frame-up of Oswald---what with them being idiots and all. How did they manage it, Ray? ~shrug~ Edited May 3, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) I agree with your last comment. The evidence manufacturers weren't the brightest. But you have no doubt that the evidence was, indeed, "manufactured", versus it being real and legitimate evidence that was merely being collected and handled by a bunch of idiot country cops who didn't know what they were doing. Right, Ray? It's remarkable that your "evidence manufacturers", who certainly "weren't the brightest" people in the world, were able to pull off the alleged frame-up of Oswald---what with them being idiots and all. How did they manage it, Ray? ~shrug~ They didn't. That was brought about by the Warren Commission believing everything the FBI and the CIA told them. I notice no reply from you about about the shoulder wound. Edited May 2, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) It's remarkable that your "evidence manufacturers", who certainly "weren't the brightest" people in the world, were able to pull off the alleged frame-up of Oswald---what with them being idiots and all. How did they manage it, Ray? ~shrug~ They didn't. That was brought about by the Warren Commission believing everything the FBI and the CIA told them. The Warren Commission didn't "collect" any of the evidence. Nor did the FBI or CIA. The DPD did. Too many CTers wrongfully claim that it was "the Warren Commission's evidence". Total nonsense. The WC didn't collect or test the evidence. The WC merely evaluated it. I notice no reply from you about about the shoulder wound. The wound IS where it is, as anyone can see via the autopsy photograph. The wound is in the UPPER BACK. Not the NECK. Perfectly consistent with what we see in CE903 (within the "margin of error" leeway that MUST be afforded the WC regarding that exhibit, as I discuss HERE). jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html Edited May 2, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) I know you just can't see it, David, but the rod in CE 903 passes over the stand-in's shoulder line, when the bullet hole was inches below the shoulder line. The FBI took a number of pictures of the re-enactment. There's a reason Specter opted to publish only one, and that it was one on which the chalk mark on the back of the jacket was not shown. Edited May 2, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) The FBI took a number of pictures of the re-enactment. Yes, they did -----> jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html ------- Edited May 2, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Wait, are you really trying to say that the opposite angle photos taken by the FBI do not depict the SBT trajectory? Like they were just taking random photos with the rod at random angles? Shaneyfelt TESTIFIED under oath about the trajectory's proximity to the back wound. It was an essential part of their re-enactment. Are you really trying to pretend that those photos were not taken to depict the trajectory in relation to the back wound? And that it's just a coincidence these photos were not introduced into evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share Posted May 2, 2015 Are you really trying to pretend that those photos were not taken to depict the trajectory in relation to the back wound? Well, Pat, this one below sure as hell wasn't taken with the intent to depict where the bullet entered or exited President Kennedy. It's not even close. And I don't think Specter ever thought the bullet entered this high on JFK or exited under his chin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now