Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

I'm curious Jason...  have you ever heard of this guy?  FBI SA Nat Pinkston... the man who claims he was on the 6th floor even before Ellsworth, it seems.  Funny that Hill, Mooneyham or any of the other early arrivers don't say anything about Pinkston....

Considering the rifle was not in Day's hands until the Alyea film and is surrounded by other men...  what is he talking about here?

396055963_FBIAgentPINKSTONclaimingyearslatertohavebeen1stontheTSBDsceneandspokewithDayabouttherifle.thumb.jpg.dee99fcfe02391a2de7a89c32bfc458d.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

So, despite all the tangential bs....   what is the real proof THAT item was involved in a real transaction on March 12th? 

A USPS money order or any cancelled check is prima facie evidence by itself (of what it seems to be on its face.)   In court, only if the evidence is challenged as fraudulent is it necessary to go the extreme measures you demand - like asking for the book and stub.  The Warren Commission was by design not an adversarial venue and AFAIK there was never ANY evidence that was seriously challenged

Only the prosecution got to present their case - and you are saying that because the defendant never got to present their case, the prosecution's evidence is a fraud. 

 

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Despite HOLMES lying thru his teeth, the BOOK and STUB would still exist if a real PMO was purchased on that date from the GPO...

So, despite all the tangential bs....   what is the real proof THAT item was involved in a real transaction on March 12th? 

You're asking for this "proof" in 2018. 

It wasn't asked by the Warren Commission or any other investigative body so the presumption that the proof didn't exist is a logical fallacy.  No one ever asked.  You are essentially saying the government is lying because they didn't answer the question - but no one ever asked the question.  Note, however, that I agree you can still present evidence that the government was lying, but the mere fact that they provided minimal evidence shows us nothing.   The WC was designed to succeed where an adversarial system of challenges to the evidence would fail by acquitting Oswald. 

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

is to match the transaction to the Federal Reserve processing... 

The government was never asked to provide evidence of this - so your illogical claim that no evidence existed is a fallacy.  You are retroactively acting like Mark Lane was there to make these challenges (which I admit in some examples are good challenges) but the fact that the government didn't answer the challenges never asked of it means nothing.   Not asked - not answered.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Processing of money orders "AS PAID THRU THE FED RESERVE" should put an end to whether these items are indeed processed by the FED and whether we should see that on the PMO.

No.   

Plenty of checks are paid and processed with no Fed stamp whatsoever.   As you say, your nemesis here are the "greatest forgers in the world,"..so... forging any of this - stamps, signatures, money orders, stubs, Oswald's handwriting, would be no problem.   Part of the reason we are on separate tracks here is that I agree the CIA is great - but you say they are sometimes great and sometimes not great, depending on the needs of your CT.  You've got a complicated multi-year conspiracy involving as far as I can tell many intricate details manufactured by the "greatest forgers in the world," who are so great they decided to screw up the key piece of evidence linking Oswald to the rifle.   

 

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

WALDMAN was asked about this stamp so WALDMAN EXH 9 was created....  While it is a very close match...  it does not appear to be "identical"...  also n the WALDMAN exhibits are the deposits related to that Money Order....

Waldman is no doubt testifying after talking to a lawyer - the correct and safe way for him to testify about this is to say that the endorsement appears identical to his company's endorsement.    Demanding he answer the question Yes or No, 50+ years later when he wasn't asked to answer the question yes or no is IMO really disingenuous.

He can't testify as to whether it's an exact match because he's not an expert on printing, rubber stamps, etc....the legally safe way to testify in this case is to say it appears identical to his non-expert eye.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Jason - why aren't the most basic rules of evidence authentication applied?  If it came from a book that left stubs.... and a USP Inspector claims they found the PMO based on finding that stub... why isn't that book/stub in evidence?

The Federal Rules of Evidence, which I dearly wish more CTers would become acquainted with, are not applied because the Warren Commission was set up to deliver a Lone Nut explanation without in any way challenging the evidence brought before it.   You're imposing evidentiary standards not embraced by the venue.

This was Mark Lane's point in asking that he be appointed Oswald's attorney - so that there would be the usual rigorous contest of evidence you are retroactively expecting.   In a normal case involving a money order, the money order by itself is all the evidence that's needed - unless the evidence is challenged by a claim of fraud, forgery, etc.  In this case there was no challenge to the evidence and therefore no supporting-corroborative evidence was provided.

It is, however, in my view unpersuasive to accuse the prosecution (as it were) of failing to provide evidence they were never asked to provide, and which is often not necessary in the usual case of a bank-processed negotiable instrument like a check or money order.

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

As for the razor... which of those two processes insures the evidence fits the exact need
and which leaves it up to a wild variable in the equation? 

Who has some of the greatest forgers in the world? US Intelligence maybe?  

OMG this is exactly what I've always said about the CIA_did_it enthusiasts:

1. They claim the US intelligence is greatest, most powerful, technologically advanced, all-encompassing cast of 1000s involved in a conspiracy, yet,

2. They will simultaneously say that the crime doesn't have to be perfect - when confronted with sloppy evidence they don't admit the logical conclusion that this tends to point away from "the greatest forgers in the world," instead they just say, yeah the CIA is great, but also not-so-great, depending on how the evidence fits into the CT.

I just can't accept that at some points the CIA has "some of the greatest forgers on the world" with all that this implies, yet in other points where the evidence is absurdly a joke (magic bullet, autopsy, backyard photos, the entirety of Harry Holmes' testimony) I'm asked to believe that the CIA also produces a ludicrous screw up.  100s of pages in the WC testimony evidence a conspiracy, more than one gunman, manufactured evidence, and offer tons of evidence the masterminds at the CIA somehow let slip by them - which they could have easily quashed through the all-powerful Dulles-Cabell dichotomy, right?

In other words, you always conform the evidence to fit your CT.  The CIA is extremely ultra-capable and able to do anything in terms of evidence, they can and did forge or create EVERYTHING ...yet when you encounter sloppy evidence you say the CIA also chooses to make silly, gaping mistakes, allow holes in the evidence, decides to forge a money order but not the book-stub of the money order or the right endorsements, etc.   When the evidence is perfect - that proves the CIA did it.  When the evidence is sloppy - that proves the CIA did it.

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

No doubt he was both creating bona fides and incriminating himself with his actions....  what happens to all that junk if JFK is shot in Tampa; or in Chicago where VALLEE = Oswald?

FINALLY something we can agree upon - YES INDEED Oswald was creating bona fides with his actions, including affixing his imprint on all the paperwork associated with the rifle order - it's the simplest way to create a patsy and this only cost the conspirators, what, $22?   As for the second part, who cares?   If there is a Tampa version of Oswald then he's got a nicely paper-trailed rifle in 1963 that comes to nothing.  

 

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

We must remember that Oswald did not do this so by definition the evidence which points to his guilt needs extreme authentication

Again this is a common problem in the CIA-did-it crowd, who simultaneously claim

1. The evidence is so perfect only the CIA could create it, and only the US government could take such measures of extreme authentication.

but

2. The evidence is so sloppy and pointing to conspiracy in the WC (which it does!) that this proves the CIA and US govt did it, because they knew they could get away with a weak case counting on the media and people to get lost in the volumes of material.

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Could you do me a favor and answer the question please Jason....

What EVIDENCE do you offer that supports that PMO being purchased by Oswald on the 12th of March?

If this is Oswald's writing...  seems he was at work all morning...   or is this a fake?

Yes, thanks again for the polite conversation. 

I'm not here to sell a CT, please keep that in mind. I aim to look at evidence, not explain Oswald -Oswalds to you!- form birth to death, nor explain everything that happened in 1963.

I will meet you half way - you've made enough of a show of evidence for me to say a reasonable person can have some suspicion about the money order.  However, to me, it's obvious that Oswald started serious focus on his patsy role around March because that's when all the evidence of Oswald as commie nut starts coming online in great volume.  "Lee, here's a money order we bought today at the post office - please fill out, payable to Klein's, and also this order form."  Then, afaik, Oswald may never see the rifle or the PO box again until 22NOV63 while under arrest.

 

As to your specific question, this is EXACTLY how a CIA-did-it mindset causes you to make assumptions not in evidence.  Whether or not Oswald purchases the money order is irrelevant - yet you are magically building this point into the government's case and then attacking a point the government need not make.

1. The evidence indicates the money order was purchased on the 12th.   IT DOES NOT INDICATE THE MONEY ORDER WAS PURCHASED BY OSWALD, BUT NO FORM OF ID AND INDEED NO NAME IS TAKEN WHEN YOU PURCHASE A MONEY ORDER.    The Money order was purchased on the 12th.   Who bought it - who knows?  Who cares? Oswald filled it out, Klein's shipped it, all to establish a paper trail link between Oswald on the weapon...a paper trail that was revealed way to soon on 22-23NOV which caused Holmes et al. to have to cover their tracks when they were caught by surprise in having to explain their actions to the WC.

 

 

====

David, I do very much appreciate your extreme effort to provide evidence, you are almost one of a kind😊and a true asset to the forum in that regard.   

...but so is David von Pein.   He's probably disappointed to see I find more evidence of conspiracy than Lone Nut.  But he's right in his approach and is a much-needed voice around here.  You've got to be able to convince David von Pein if you want history books changed.

I started to answer you with a pile of evidence and answer every point you made - but would it do any good?  I don't think so.  Continue your pursuits and I"ll continue mine, we need not have the hostility so many with different opinions around here throw at each other.   Lets check in from time to time and thanks for being so serious with your review of evidence and for so thoroughly providing evidence here.  Let the evidence speak for itself.

 

Jason

 

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

I'm curious Jason...  have you ever heard of this guy?  FBI SA Nat Pinkston... the man who claims he was on the 6th floor even before Ellsworth, it seems.  Funny that Hill, Mooneyham or any of the other early arrivers don't say anything about Pinkston....

Considering the rifle was not in Day's hands until the Alyea film and is surrounded by other men...  what is he talking about here?

Great evidence, David!

This in my count is version #3 of how they came to determine the rifle came from Klein's.

Over in the Walker thread where CIA-ers do not tread, I've highlighted 6 explanations for how they found the Beckley address.

The appearance of manufactured evidence and chaotic, ludicrous explanations like this one from Pinkston is all over the place.   How you get from this retarded Keystone Cops show to saying that the greatest, smartest, richest intelligence agencies in the world did the assassination absolutely baffles me.  The cops - yes.  The CIA - no.

Jason

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites

David - do you think the CIA did it?

jason - why did our government let a bunch of Dallas cops get away with the crime of the century? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

So basically I am stuck at "a money order was purchased"....  Unlike DVP - I cannot pretend that the existence of the item is PROOF the item is authentic...  the Chain of events related to that item or the declaration of uniqueness give the item authenticity...  (i.e. that the rifle was found on the sixth floor does not prove Oswald bought it)

 

Jason - why aren't the most basic rules of evidence authentication applied?  If it came from a book that left stubs.... and a USP Inspector claims they found the PMO based on finding that stub... why isn't that book/stub in evidence?

If there were only 2 $21.45's... then this is not the correct deposit to prove anything related to that PMO - let alone that it was mailed from Dallas to Chicago (airmail), then received, opened, processed and deposited in less than 24 hours.  And then there's the fact the deposit is dated FEBRUATY 15 not March.... 

If the PMO was created from a different book (analysis of the numbering of the PMO reveals a problem) that evening at the USPS center very few things would be needed for this item to come alive...  the ONLY thing that could not exist would be the book/stub from where it came as that would prove the deception.

And Finally the PMO #2,202,130,461....    Books of these blank PMOs are sent all over the country... On Nov 14, 1962 Oswald uses PMO# 1,158,380,709 to send $10 to Uncle Sam to pay off his loan...   Is it really conceivable that between Dec 1962 and March 1963 over 1 billion PMOs would be used ?

DJ,

Thank you for providing so much more evidence that the Magic Money Order® was bogus.  In my arguments, I had completely forgotten about the stub that should have been in evidence but wasn’t, as well as the evidence that the money order was allegedly discovered in both Kansas City and Alexandria.  Amazing!

We both know how guilty Harry Holmes now looks.  For example, Holmes was the only man in the known universe who alleged he heard Oswald say he had traveled to Mexico City shortly before the assassination of JFK.  And what is a Postal Inspector/FBI informant doing in Dallas police headquarters immediately after the assassination there of a sitting US president anyway?

Thanks again for your work!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

This in my count is version #3 of how they came to determine the rifle came from Klein's.

[...]

The appearance of manufactured evidence and chaotic, ludicrous explanations like this one from Pinkston is all over the place.

But keep in mind, Jason, that the Nat Pinkston quote previously supplied is a quote from July of 2007. That makes it 44 years after the events took place, and Pinkston is trying to recall every small detail. He likely got a few details wrong. But, essentially, his 2007 account is fairly accurate with respect to how the FBI first was made aware of Klein's in Chicago (with Dallas FBI agents scouring local gun shops to try and find a store that might have sold the Italian-made rifle). Pinkston, however, left out one of the steps that led the FBI to Klein's---Crescent Firearms in New York. But, again, it's 44 years after the fact (per that document posted above by David Josephs), so I'd cut Pinkston a tiny bit of slack on some of the details. Wouldn't you?

RH-Excerpt-Page-170.png

 

Someone might ask --- But, Dave, how could Pinkston possibly get things so mixed up--even 44 years after the fact? And why didn't he mention Crescent Firearms, etc.?

Well, you just never know how a person's memory of an event is going to be recalled so many years later. A good example of this would be when Buell Wesley Frazier decided (for some reason) to start adding things to his story in about 2002. Frazier, at that time in '02, started saying in interviews [like this one] that he had actually seen Lee Oswald walking down Houston Street shortly after the assassination, which is a detail that completely contradicts what Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit. And I don't think for a minute that Buell Frazier is a deliberate l-i-a-r at all. But, for some odd reason, that extra info about seeing Oswald out on the street at about 12:35 to 12:40 on Nov. 22nd has now surfaced every time Buell is interviewed. ~shrug~

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

David - how do you square FBI scouring gun shops for a Carcano when the rifle was first identified by Dallas Police as a Mauser? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

David - how do you square FBI scouring gun shops for a Carcano when the rifle was first identified by Dallas Police as a Mauser?  

The police officers who said they thought it was a Mauser did not get a good close-up look at the rifle at the time they made their initial observations. They were guessing. Simple as that.

And in case Roger Craig's name should come up here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/10/The Lies Of Roger D. Craig

 

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But keep in mind, Jason, that the Nat Pinkston quote previously supplied is a quote from July of 2007. That makes it 44 years after the events took place, and Pinkston is trying to recall every small detail. He likely got a few details wrong. But, essentially, his 2007 account is fairly accurate with respect to how the FBI first was made aware of Klein's in Chicago (with Dallas FBI agents scouring local gun shops to try and find a store that might have sold the Italian-made rifle). Pinkston, however, left out one of the steps that led the FBI to Klein's---Crescent Firearms in New York. But, again, it's 44 years after the fact (per that document posted above by David Josephs), so I'd cut Pinkston a tiny bit of slack on some of the details. Wouldn't you?

Yes, David, I can give Pinkston some slack.

This actually brings up another point that is never considered around here: all of us lie.   

Some lie more than others, but all of us say things that are at best questionable and at worst deceptive, manipulative falsehoods.  The corollary to this is that all of us dress up our own past performance when testifying before authority.    My point is that when we are facing the Chief Justice of he United States or any questions about our involvement in the JFK case, all of us, 100% of us, will gloss over embarrassing details, conveniently forget to mention the parts where we just made stuff up because we were in a hurry, and so forth.   This doesn't mean they assassinated Kennedy.   

There's too often a GOTCHA! approach here, which now that I think about it is exemplified by your Pinkston example.   He's an old man.   He's loyal to the FBI.   Plus I don't know what other priorities he has.  We take his testimony with a large grain of salt, but we take everyone's testimony with some salt - and it is automatically a severe handicap that we're all trying to judge this on the written word instead of hearing it said in person.

You said as much a few posts up - the CIA-did-it group is taking he wrong tactic here.   A fake, altered, or suspicious money order neither helps nor hurts the CIA-did-it CT, IMO; they are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Jason

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Yes, David, I can give Pinkston some slack.

This actually brings up another point that is never considered around here: all of us lie.   

Some lie more than others, but all of us say things that are at best questionable and at worst deceptive, manipulative falsehoods.  The corollary to this is that all of us dress up our own past performance when testifying before authority.    My point is that when we are facing the Chief Justice of he United States or any questions about our involvement in the JFK case, all of us, 100% of us, will gloss over embarrassing details, conveniently forget to mention the parts where we just made stuff up because we were in a hurry, and so forth.   This doesn't mean they assassinated Kennedy.   

There's too often a GOTCHA! approach here, which now that I think about it is exemplified by your Pinkston example.   He's an old man.   He's loyal to the FBI.   Plus I don't know what other priorities he has.  We take his testimony with a large grain of salt, but we take everyone's testimony with some salt - and it is automatically a severe handicap that we're all trying to judge this on the written word instead of hearing it said in person.

You said as much a few posts up - the CIA-did-it group is taking he wrong tactic here.   A fake, altered, or suspicious money order neither helps nor hurts the CIA-did-it CT, IMO; they are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Jason

 

 

I beg to differ.  I have never knowingly intentionally lied on here to promote a theory.  I lied to the kids about what happened to the dog, and to my boss about why I was late.  Otherwise, speak for yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

What constitutes evidence? Seems strange to make a distinction between evidence and proof, since evidence is how we get to proof. Just because evidence exists doesn't make it true. Are the statements of confidential informants, as relayed by their handlers, evidence? Yes, but they have to be weighed. Joseph is imo correct when he says that evidence of Oswald's guilt or guilty actions (such as those in MC as reported by informants) needs to be viewed with extreme caution. Perhaps another way to say this is that evidence can be faked, whether physical or eyewitness. 

Jason - you are looking for proof as much as anyone. That's why you are examining evidence. 

Paul - did you even bother comprehending how Josephs interprets evidence and how Jason does?  Josephs is one of those "everything is fake" kind of believers. Fake as in the Z film/Towner film/Muchmore film are fake; that LHO had a clone discovered in Hungary...and the clone's Mom was also a clone of Marge Oswald; that the FBI dioramas were faked; that the body was squirreled away at Love Field and altered for some unknown reason. If you don't think that matters - trust me it DOES matter.

And aren't you being just a tad disingenuous here because you know Josephs is a CIA did it believer where as Ward is a Trejo the right wingers did it believer? 

If you hate the government as much as Josephs does, then you can go to the bank that everything is going to be colored biased in his mind. Trust me when I say no grizzled police investigator would take him seriously knowing how biased he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I beg to differ.  I have never knowingly intentionally lied on here to promote a theory.

Ron,

I think Jason was talking about about how "everybody lies" in life in general. I don't think Jason was implying that any forum member here was lying about anything. He was referring to "lies" that we all tell from time to time in our ordinary lives (and in front of authority figures as well).

Is that a correct interpretation of what you meant, Jason?

(BTW/FWIW, "Reclaiming History" author Vince Bugliosi has said basically the same thing that Jason Ward said above regarding the "Everybody Lies" topic. Such a passage can probably be found in Vincent's book, and I know I heard him say it in some of his 2007 radio interviews too.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still trying to get a reply about what is the proof, or evidence, that LHO picked up the handgun from REA.

I also think he is saying that LHO did get the rifle in question, and the FBI knew about it.  I guess he knows none of the problems with that transaction.

BTW, since Ward is such a great pontificator to us all about the rules of evidence etc, (maybe he is lawyer also?) when is he going to explain why its the wrong rifle.

Or maybe he will  just defer us to Von Pein.  

 

First Trejo, then Von Pein.  Like this guy's taste.

I think he forgot about why Paul almost quite the site also.  He visited the Trejo/Ward thread.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

...when is he [Jason Ward] going to explain why [it's] the wrong rifle[?]

Or maybe he will just defer us to Von Pein.

DiEugenio, of course, knows full well what the logical and reasonable answer is to his perpetual "Wrong Rifle" BS. It's been explained to him dozens of times. But he'll continue to pretend that it's an explanation that makes no sense at all --- even though it makes perfect sense, especially when we consider what length of rifle Klein's started selling to its mail-order customers in April of 1963, very shortly after Oswald purchased his gun from Klein's....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Ron,

I think Jason was talking about about how "everybody lies" in life in general. I don't think Jason was implying that any forum member here was lying about anything. He was referring to "lies" that we all tell from time to time in our ordinary lives (and in front of authority figures as well).

Is that a correct interpretation of what you meant, Jason?

(BTW/FWIW, "Reclaiming History" author Vince Bugliosi has said basically the same thing that Jason Ward said above regarding the "Everybody Lies" topic. Such a passage can probably be found in Vincent's book, and I know I heard him say it in some of his 2007 radio interviews too.)

Yes, David, that's what I'm saying.   

Some percentage of all testimony is false.   I don't think any forum member is lying - they believe 110% of what they're saying.  If the CIA is discussed conspiratorially , they take 120% of what is said as fact.

Just to pick a number, I will posit that perhaps 10% of the WC testimony is false or questionable, keeping in mind a huge bulk of testimony are from character witnesses and others with nothing to say about the death of Kennedy.  I'd say 90% of the Holmes testimony is false.   False or questionable testimony does not mean the CIA did it.  It doesn't even mean conspiracy.   It certainly does not mean that the opposite of what the lying witness says must be true.

I think you have the rational approach to evidence, which seems to be your purpose.  You get into arguments all the time because so many are more about creative writing and explaining every detail into some universal CT that explains not only the Kennedy assassination, but all the other problems in society, all other assassinations, and all the shortcomings in their own lives.   You don't have to explain the money order to explain the assassination, it's ok just to say, "I don't know."

 

Jason

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...