Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

John Armstrong blasts the mail order rifle “evidence”

Recommended Posts

BTW, let's hear what the FBI's Bob Frazier had to say about the bullet types....

MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you think of any reason why someone might have

called this [CE573] a steel-jacketed bullet?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer

to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact

just have a copper-alloy jacket."

------------

Frazier was just lying through his teeth there, right Jim?

Funny, isn't it, that the WC wanted to hear from Robert Frazier about the steel-jacketed bullet found at General Walker's house. Frazier wasn't there. He didn't take it into evidence. He could only lamely speculate about how “some individuals commonly refer” to steel vs. copper jackets. Are you really calling this significant?

Why didn't the WC talk about the slug with the Dallas cops who actually placed it into evidence? Maybe because the Dallas cops didn't have a procedure in place for routinely altering testimony of their men at any time needed. But the FBI sure did!

Dingle.gif

If Frazier didn't get his weasel words quite right first time around to Please J. Edgar and Clyde, no doubt he had a second, and third, chance to make it as dull and unmemorable as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but I sure think that undated, unsigned note, found by Ruth Paine almost a week after her whole house had been repeatedly searched by the police, was a fraud!

It was stuffed inside a book. Was the FBI supposed to leaf through every page of every book in Ruth's house in a search for potential evidence?

Get real.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but I sure think that undated, unsigned note, found by Ruth Paine almost a week after her whole house had been repeatedly searched by the police, was a fraud!

It was stuffed inside a book. Was the FBI supposed to leaf through every page of every book in Ruth's house in a search for potential evidence?

Get real.

On Saturday morning, November 30th, Mrs. Paine gave the book (actually two books) to Irving Police Captain Paul Barger. She said she found the book, "Our Child" in Marina's bedroom and the "Book of Helpful Instructions" in her kitchen. Mrs. Paine told Captain Barger that Marina could not get along without those books and constantly used both books during the day.

Why did it take a week for Mrs. Paine to offer police two books that Marina used every day and couldn't get along without? Someone needed to take a close look at those books. This story is as preposterous as the rest of the so-called "evidence" in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Saturday morning, November 30th, Mrs. Paine gave the book (actually two books) to Irving Police Captain Paul Barger. She said she found the book, "Our Child" in Marina's bedroom and the "Book of Helpful Instructions" in her kitchen. Mrs. Paine told Captain Barger that Marina could not get along without those books and constantly used both books during the day.

Why did it take a week for Mrs. Paine to offer police two books that Marina used every day and couldn't get along without? Someone needed to take a close look at those books. This story is as preposterous as the rest of the so-called "evidence" in this case.

Yeah, right. Like a week (SEVEN days) was an absolute eternity, wasn't it? You're a howl, Jim.

So, what are you trying to suggest anyway -- that Ruth Paine planted a fake note in a book before she gave it to the police?

And the note was a perfect forgery too (per CTers), with "Oswald"-like handwriting that fooled every expert who examined it for years thereafter.

Talk about preposterous stories. The CTer version of "The Note" is far more preposterous.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And blah-blah-blah-blah....

C'mon, Mr. Von Pein, you ALWAYS have to have the Last Word, right?

ADDED EDIT:

Mr. Von Pein wrote above: "And the note was a perfect forgery too (per CTers), with "Oswald"-like handwriting that fooled every expert who examined it for years thereafter."

That is hardly true. Although the FBI's utility fix-it man James Cadigan DID say the note was in "Oswald's" handwriting, only one of three handwriting experts from the HSCA made the same claim. Remember, J. Edgar Hoover and several of his men were the PRIME CONSPIRATORS in the cover-up.

From http://22november1963.org.uk/:

Was the Walker Note Authentic?

The note was undated, and did not mention General Walker or any reason why Oswald might find himself under arrest. There are several reasons to doubt the authenticity of the handwritten note:

Edited by Jim Hargrove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP: So, what are you trying to suggest anyway -- that Ruth Paine planted a fake note in a book before she gave it to the police?

Well, it appears that is what the Secret Service thought.

​They returned it to her since they thought it was hers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that the Pein ignored the comment from General Walker that the bullet in evidence is not the bullet removed from his wall.

“The bullet before your select committee, called the “Walker Bullet [CE573]...is not the bullet that was fired at me and taken out of my house by the Dallas Police on April 10, 1963.” “The bullet used and pictured on the t.v. By the [HSCA] is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet completely mutilated...[with] no resemblance to any unfired bullet in shape or form. I saw the hunk of lead picked up by the policeman in my house... I inspected it carefully. ~~There is no mistake there has been a substitution...” The HSCA ignored Walker's letter."

The V​on Pein motto.

"If you don't like the evidence - ignore it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn’t the Walker evidence pretty well been beaten to death and beyond, here and elsewhere? It’s as though if any category of evidence is even mentioned in a thread, people feel compelled to reopen the debate and rehash it all over again. Are any minds being changed? Do people actually enjoy this sort of "discussion"? (Some people seem to assume that I am uninformed about the basics of the JFK assassination or have gleaned my knowledge from a handful of books in the past six months. Such is hardly the case. In any event, http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-oswald-shoot-general-edwin-walker, seems to me to hit the key evidentiary issues in a reasonable manner.)

My wife, who was a social worker in Minsk and spoke nothing but Russian for the first 53 years of her existence, says the note is the work of someone with a poor command of Russian grammar, typical of someone who can speak Russian passably but not write it well. That could well be LHO.

All I meant when I said the Walker evidence seemed weak to me was that:

(1) If we believe it, as well as Marina’s “Nixon” tale, then LHO targeted Walker, Nixon and JFK – three characters with pretty much nothing in common. We would have to believe that he was determined to shoot someone, anyone, almost indiscriminately, in order to achieve notoriety. Yet when he finally was successful, with JFK, he adamantly denied any involvement.

(2) Nothing in LHO’s background suggests to me someone who was determined to shoot someone, anyone, in order to achieve notoriety or who fit the personality profile of the typical disaffected loner assassin. Really, quite the opposite.

(3) The evidence tying LHO to the Walker attempt all surfaced after the JFK assassination. The one piece which clearly existed before JFK assassination, the slug, is the one piece that isn’t an easy fit. Surely this has to be troubling. If there was in fact nothing in LHO’s background or personality to suggest a disaffected loner assassin, then the Walker attempt and Nixon tale would be just what the doctor ordered.

On the other hand, it appears that LHO could have written the note. If it were a fake, I would think one would expect it to be dated and to contain something a little more explicit to tie it to Walker or at least a shooting. It is unusually cryptic and reads as though it were written to a stranger. This might well reflect the state of the Oswalds’ marriage, which in turn might go a long way toward explaining why Oswald did snap and begin shooting at people in 1963. It also reads to me as “authentic.” I have a hard time believing someone who was faking a note would come up to this content. It reads like many notes that I have written to my wife – because she is still a bit lost in America, you must explain exactly what to do in short, clear sentences. Perhaps it reads cryptically because the Walker attempt was likewise a conspiracy involving others besides LHO, perhaps even a staged event in which the intent was to miss Walker.

In any event, I need to move along. I will emerge from hibernation if and when I hear anything useful from the National Postal Museum library. I’m hoping they don’t just do online research and quote my own posts back to me.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that the Pein ignored the comment from General Walker that the bullet in evidence is not the bullet removed from his wall.

“The bullet before your select committee, called the “Walker Bullet [CE573]...is not the bullet that was fired at me and taken out of my house by the Dallas Police on April 10, 1963.” “The bullet used and pictured on the t.v. By the [HSCA] is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet completely mutilated...[with] no resemblance to any unfired bullet in shape or form. I saw the hunk of lead picked up by the policeman in my house... I inspected it carefully. ~~There is no mistake there has been a substitution...” The HSCA ignored Walker's letter."

The V​on Pein motto.

"If you don't like the evidence - ignore it."

That right there is an excellent a smoking gun... pointing not only to the framing of Oswald, but also to the cover-up. Testified to by the victim of the crime himself. Easy to understand.

Can't get much better than that.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife, who was a social worker in Minsk and spoke nothing but Russian for the first 53 years of her existence, says the note is the work of someone with a poor command of Russian grammar, typical of someone who can speak Russian passably but not write it well. That could well be LHO.

Lance,
Wow! Please don't go into hibernation yet. At least consider this….
John Armstrong and I believe HARVEY Oswald (the guy shot by Jack Ruby) was most likely a World War II orphan who, before he was brought to the U.S., learned Russian from birth as a first or second language. But his exposure to Russian probably ended before he reached the age of 10, when he was brought to New York City, and it was probably also severely impacted by the war while he was still in Europe.
Please ask your wife if she feels that the note could have been written by someone with a biography like the one I've described above. I hope you see this and respond.
Either way, I still believe the note was forged. I imagine J. Edgar Hoover would have had no difficulty whatsoever in finding a linguist who could write something up to any spec he cared to create. Assuming the note now in evidence is the same one Ruth Paine placed in the book she gave to the police, Hoover had a week to create it. Since the rest of the evidence for the Walker shooting is so clearly fabricated, why believe the note is genuine?
It would also be really interesting if your wife could take a look at some of the other Russian writings of Harvey Oswald and give us her thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, Walker was complaining because Blakey used some kind of facsimile of WCC bullets.

So, let us not use that one.

There is plentiful evidence from that time period that says the bullet was a 30.06, steel coated bullet. And I use that in my review of Caufield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim, do you know if there is any significance to the following FBI report? It indicates that “the lead alloy of the bullet recovered from the attempted shooting of General Walker was different from the lead alloy of a large bullet fragment recovered from the car in which President Kennedy was shot.”


Walker2.jpg

Walker1.gif


I don't know enough about bullets to understand if this sort of (apparently considerable) chemical variation would normally be found in different cartridges for the same or similar rifles from different batches or different manufacturers. Anyway, the steel vs. copper jackets and the 30.06 size should be plenty enough ammunition (sorry!) for our arguments.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is for real.

Just check the readings, its obvious.

And i think it was Redlich who reads that report and said they had some real problems now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife, who was a social worker in Minsk and spoke nothing but Russian for the first 53 years of her existence, says the note is the work of someone with a poor command of Russian grammar, typical of someone who can speak Russian passably but not write it well. That could well be LHO.

Lance,
Wow! Please don't go into hibernation yet. At least consider this….
John Armstrong and I believe HARVEY Oswald (the guy shot by Jack Ruby) was most likely a World War II orphan who, before he was brought to the U.S., learned Russian from birth as a first or second language. But his exposure to Russian probably ended before he reached the age of 10, when he was brought to New York City, and it was probably also severely impacted by the war while he was still in Europe.
Please ask your wife if she feels that the note could have been written by someone with a biography like the one I've described above. I hope you see this and respond.

OK, just for you: Yes, my wife said that would be entirely possible. We have an example in our own family. My wife's sister was university-educated and lived and worked in Russia for her first 37 years. But she has been married to an American and has spoken English almost exclusively for more than 20 years. Even in this situation (i.e., where she once had a complete, educated adult command of Russian), she admits that she has forgotten a great many Russian words and she often communicates with my wife in writing in a phonetic "pidgin Russian" that my wife cannot read at all and can understand only when I read it phonetically out loud (which is quite comical). So, yes, the note could be someone who either never had a complete command of Russian or once did but then lost it due to circumstances. Russian is an extremely difficult language, at least IMHO. We have a couple of Russian-speaking friends who came to America when their children were in the 6-8 age range, and my wife is sure the kids are not going to be able to speak Russian at all by the time they are 15 unless the parents really work at maintaining their skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife, who was a social worker in Minsk and spoke nothing but Russian for the first 53 years of her existence, says the note is the work of someone with a poor command of Russian grammar, typical of someone who can speak Russian passably but not write it well. That could well be LHO.

Lance,
Wow! Please don't go into hibernation yet. At least consider this….
John Armstrong and I believe HARVEY Oswald (the guy shot by Jack Ruby) was most likely a World War II orphan who, before he was brought to the U.S., learned Russian from birth as a first or second language. But his exposure to Russian probably ended before he reached the age of 10, when he was brought to New York City, and it was probably also severely impacted by the war while he was still in Europe.
Please ask your wife if she feels that the note could have been written by someone with a biography like the one I've described above. I hope you see this and respond.

OK, just for you: Yes, my wife said that would be entirely possible. We have an example in our own family. My wife's sister was university-educated and lived and worked in Russia for her first 37 years. But she has been married to an American and has spoken English almost exclusively for more than 20 years. Even in this situation (i.e., where she once had a complete, educated adult command of Russian), she admits that she has forgotten a great many Russian words and she often communicates with my wife in writing in a phonetic "pidgin Russian" that my wife cannot read at all and can understand only when I read it phonetically out loud (which is quite comical). So, yes, the note could be someone who either never had a complete command of Russian or once did but then lost it due to circumstances. Russian is an extremely difficult language, at least IMHO. We have a couple of Russian-speaking friends who came to America when their children were in the 6-8 age range, and my wife is sure the kids are not going to be able to speak Russian at all by the time they are 15 unless the parents really work at maintaining their skills.

Didn't Ruth Paine speak Russian?

Share this post


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...