Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

John Armstrong blasts the mail order rifle “evidence”

Recommended Posts

[From John Armstrong's report:]

The Secret Service asked Waldman about the $13,827.98 deposit, which Waldman allegedly said included not one, but two $21.45 money orders (see both Waldman Exhibits 10, below). Waldman pointed out that the bank had listed the date of this deposit as 2-15-63; however, Waldman allegedly stated that the bank had definitely made a mistake on this date, as the date of deposit was 3/15/63. But Waldman then said that he had no way of proving it was the wrong date. NO WAY OF PROVING IT?? If a $13,827.98 deposit was made on 3/15/63, instead of on 2/15/63 as shown on the deposit slip, then Waldman simply needed to produce the Klein's bank statement for the month of March, 1963. But he did not.

The fact that neither Waldman, the FBI, the Secret Service, nor the Warren Commission requested Kleins bank statement for March, 1963, in order to prove the $13,827.98 deposit was made on March 15, is reason to believe the paper adding machine tapes and the non-stamped bank deposit slip (shown below as Waldman 10) are FBI fabrications. Both items were created for the purpose of showing that a postal money order in the amount of $21.45 was deposited to Klein's account at the First National Bank of Chicago.

Excellent point made by John Armstrong in his write-up.

David V.P., why didn't the WC prove that the 2/15/63 date on the deposit slip was a mistake, and that the deposit was really made on 3/15/63? All they had to do was introduce into evidence Klein's February and March bank statements.

And DVP, why did Waldman testify that he had no way of proving the date was wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"all of it is phony."

"the FBI altered their statements."

"FBI report falsifications."

"the FBI and/or Warren Commission merely had to alter his testimony."

"documents were fabricated."

"I don't trust ANY report."

When you have to resort to such massive allegations of constant "alteration" and "falsification" and "fabricated" stuff, it's a good sign that you've reached a level of deep desperation from which you can likely never escape.

In other words....since you've got no evidence of your own to prove any conspiracy, you have no choice but to try and invalidate the real evidence in the case. (The Hidell money order and CE399 being two prime examples, among dozens of others.)

When I see words like "all of it is phony", it's a sure sign that the CTer who wrote such nonsense has a very weak case for "conspiracy". So he's got to attack the legitimacy of ALL of the evidence. A very tiresome (and predictable) way to approach any murder case.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FBI's greatest piece of chicanery happened in the wee hours of the night of Nov 22-23, 1963, when the FBI secretly took “Oswald's Possessions” from the Dallas Police Department, transported them to Washington, D.C. altered them, and then secretly returned them to Dallas, only to publicly send them to Washington. D.C. a few days later. Among a great many other alterations, a Minox “spy camera” became a Minox “light meter.” FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the beans about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC.

CLICK HERE (see roughly half way down the page) to see Cadigan's altered WC testimony, which John Armstrong believes is in the handwriting of Allen Dulles....)

By mid-1964, the FBI had a procedure in place to materially alter the testimony of its own agents, even over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys. Read the FBI instructions here.

And by the way…

The FBI has a long and sordid history of inventing all kinds of incriminating evidence favorable to the prosecution. In more recent news of FBI malfeasance:

Jim didn't post the example of the government (the FBI in this case, according to John Armstrong) taking liberties in modifying sworn testimony. So I will.

Here's the transcript of Cadigan's testimony:

Cadigan%20changes.jpg

Note the handwritten changes! Now here is proof that the changes made their way to the Warren Report:

Cadigan%20WC%20testimony.jpg

Incredible!

What do you have to say about this, David V.P.?

BTW Jim, maybe you're having trouble posting images because of the 1 MB limit placed on images hosted on the forum. Are you aware that you can still post images? The images remain hosted on another website (like harveeandlee.net) but appear here in the thread. Here's how to do that, just in case you don't know. Right-click on the image you want and select Copy Image Location. Then in the thread here, click the editor's Image icon. When asked for the image URL, paste the image location (right-click and select Paste) you had copied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call this DVP land, which is similar to the territory that Rod Serling inhabited in his TV days. Consider:

For a solid week, up until about the 29th, the entire media, which included literally hundreds of reporters, maybe thousands, somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope!

Were they all blind? And this included the local newspapers.

Point Number Two for Rod:

Why did the FBI, who spent about seven hours and three agents (equals 21 man hours) not find the paper at Klein's to go ahead and certify C2766 as the proper rifle which was sold to Klein's from Crescent Firearms? In fact, they confessed to this lack by sending a memo to the Secret Service early the next morning admitting they had not found it, but they found a rifle that was close to it.

If they found something close to it, then why could they not find the right one?

Hmm. Maybe because the paper was not there?

Then why did they then insist on taking the microfilm with them. Never to be returned. Although they did furnish a cover story that it had been returned.

I urge everyone to read both parts of this article at CTKA. It literally knocks the stuffing out of the WC. And please listen to BOR tomorrow night. Try to discount my giggling, but all the holes exposed in the evidence trail is a real howler.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you have to say about this, David V.P.?

I don't think ANY testimony should be changed or altered. But my guess is that James Cadigan answered the same question twice, and the revised answer was used in the transcript.

Is it your contention that Cadigan never uttered the words "No, this is a latent fingerprint matter"? Do you think the WC (Dulles?) just inserted those words into the mouth of Cadigan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a solid week, up until about the 29th, the entire media, which included literally hundreds of reporters, maybe thousands, somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope!

Utter nonsense, Jim. The media was reporting that the murder weapon had a SCOPE on it as early as just a few hours after the assassination. There are even several FILMS (broadcast to the public on television on November 22) that show the scope attached to the rifle -- such as Tom Alyea's film, which was shown in its "wet" form (i.e., totally unedited) on WFAA-TV on the afternoon of the 22nd, with the film being narrated at various times by Bob Clark and Bert Shipp and Bob Walker, with the newsmen even pointing out the obvious fact that the rifle had a SCOPE on it.

And Walter Cronkite, on Nov. 22 and 23, talked about the rifle's "sniper scope attachment". And Dan Rather, at about 7:00 PM on Nov. 22, narrated a film showing Lt. Carl Day walking through the DPD corridor carrying the rifle, with Rather telling the CBS audience that the rifle "has a four-power telescopic sight on it" (with the scope easily visible in the film as well; see video below)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html#An-Italian-Gun

And the newspapers were reporting about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle as early as Day 1 (November 22) as well. Here's an example from a Portland, Oregon, paper:

Portland-Oregon-Newspaper-Front-Page-November-22-1963.jpg

Here's another newspaper (also dated 11/22/63), showing the same information about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle:

Sante-Fe-New-Mexico-Newspaper-Front-Page-November-22-1963.jpg

And yet another:

Oxnard-California-Newspaper-Front-Page-11-22-63.jpg

Those newspapers were reporting the early erroneous info about the rifle being a "7.65 Mauser". But each paper also mentioned the fact that the assassination rifle was equipped with a "telescopic sight". That Oxnard paper was even correctly reporting, as early as November 22 (the date on the paper), that the rifle was an "Italian" gun.

So, as all these examples illustrate, Jim DiEugenio doesn't know what he's talking about.

I guess Jim thinks that just because the media was reporting the $12.78 price for the assassination weapon for a few days beyond Nov. 22, that means that "the entire media...somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope".

But if that's Jimmy's belief, he looks awfully silly, because I just provided a bunch of examples showing that the media WAS reporting on the "scope" within hours of the assassination.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you have to say about this, David V.P.?

I don't think ANY testimony should be changed or altered. But my guess is that James Cadigan answered the same question twice, and the revised answer was used in the transcript.

Is it your contention that Cadigan never uttered the words "No, this is a latent fingerprint matter"? Do you think the WC (Dulles?) just inserted those words into the mouth of Cadigan?

I'm saying that the Warren Commission altered evidence.

What this example of evidence tampering tells me is that the WC had no qualms about changing evidence to meet their needs.

What DVP's response to this tampering tells me is that -- no matter how bad something looks -- he will make an excuse for it. But only if it suits his pro-WC agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a solid week, up until about the 29th, the entire media, which included literally hundreds of reporters, maybe thousands, somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope!

Utter nonsense, Jim. The media was reporting that the murder weapon had a SCOPE on it as early as just a few hours after the assassination. There are even several FILMS (broadcast to the public on television on November 22) that show the scope attached to the rifle -- such as Tom Alyea's film, which was shown in its "wet" form (i.e., totally unedited) on WFAA-TV on the afternoon of the 22nd, with the film being narrated at various times by Bob Clark and Bert Shipp and Bob Walker, with the newsmen even pointing out the obvious fact that the rifle had a SCOPE on it.

And Walter Cronkite, on Nov. 22 and 23, talked about the rifle's "sniper scope attachment". And Dan Rather, at about 7:00 PM on Nov. 22, narrated a film showing Lt. Carl Day walking through the DPD corridor carrying the rifle, with Rather telling the CBS audience that the rifle "has a four-power telescopic sight on it" (with the scope easily visible in the film as well; see video below)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html#An-Italian-Gun

And the newspapers were reporting about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle as early as Day 1 (November 22) as well. Here's an example from a Portland, Oregon, paper:

Portland-Oregon-Newspaper-Front-Page-November-22-1963.jpg

Here's another newspaper (also dated 11/22/63), showing the same information about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle:

Sante-Fe-New-Mexico-Newspaper-Front-Page-November-22-1963.jpg

And yet another:

Oxnard-California-Newspaper-Front-Page-11-22-63.jpg

Those newspapers were reporting the early erroneous info about the rifle being a "7.65 Mauser". But each paper also mentioned the fact that the assassination rifle was equipped with a "telescopic sight". That Oxnard paper was even correctly reporting, as early as November 22 (the date on the paper), that the rifle was an "Italian" gun.

So, as all these examples illustrate, Jim DiEugenio doesn't know what he's talking about.

Yes, Jim is mistaken on this one point. Everybody makes an occasional mistake. (Hopefully you're not generalizing when you say he doesn't know what he's talking about.)

I guess Jim thinks that just because the media was reporting the $12.78 price for the assassination weapon for a few days beyond Nov. 22, that means that "the entire media...somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope".

But if that's Jimmy's belief, he looks awfully silly, because I just provided a bunch of examples showing that the media WAS reporting on the "scope" within hours of the assassination.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully you're not generalizing when you say he [James DiEugenio] doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'll let you decide.....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

I don't have a lot of time, but I'll take a stab a some of these things Jim D. is said to believe:

1.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at JFK.

I'm pretty sure there is zero evidence that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/63. There is, however, evidence he didn't shoot a rifle that day.

2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit.

That person apparently wasn't Oswald. Interestingly, Oswald's wallet was found there, even though it was also found on Oswald at the theater. Clearly it was planted.

3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker.

I don't know enough to comment.

4.) Oswald did not visit the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.

The evidence points to an imposter, not Oswald, being there in Mexico City. Though it is possible that both the the imposter AND Oswald were there. Whether he was there depends partly upon whether it was he who visited Sylvia Odio. (I currently believe it was an Oswald imposter visiting Odio. So Oswald may have been in Mexico City. Though not necessarily at the embassies.)

5.) Oswald probably wasn't even IN Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.

Same as #4.

6.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.

The evidence suggest this to be the case.

7.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc.

I don't know anything about this topic.

8.) Oswald's signature on the register of the Hotel del Comercio in Mexico City is a fake signature.

That wouldn't surprise me given that the style Oswald's signature was all over the map, and thus could easily be forged. Look at his endorsements on checks he deposited and you will find that his signature varied greatly.

9.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake.

The evidence indicates that many of the rifle documents had to have been faked.

10.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake.

I don't know enough to comment.

11.) Marina Oswald lied about dozens of things, including when she said that Oswald had told her that he had taken a shot at General Walker.

Marina contradicted herself numerous time. So there is no question that she lied a lot.

12.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, with Ruth being instrumental in getting Oswald his job at the Book Depository so that LHO could be set up as the proverbial "patsy".

Either the conspirators got VERY lucky that a suitable patsy just happened to have gotten a job at a place where he could be set up, or Ruth Paine got him that job for that very purpose. I find the latter case to be far more likely. But I also find it highly unlikely that she had any idea as to why she was told to get him a job there.

13.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963.

Don't know.

14.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the TSBD.

I've seen a number of videos where Frazier talks about the length of that bag. In all but one he said that the bag was too small to have been carrying a broken down Carcano.

15.) Captain J. Will Fritz of the Dallas Police was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the DPD basement on Nov. 24, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot.

Don't know.

16.) The backyard photos of Oswald are fakes (despite what the HSCA said).

I'm currently not convinced either way. However I tend to lean on the "fakes" side of the fence because: 1) It is clear to me that the sling mount that can be seen in one of the photos doesn't match the sling mount on the rifle allegedly used to kill Kennedy. 2) It certainly does appear to me that the shadows from the wood steps are identical in multiple BY photos, even though the shadows from the Oswald character change dramatically from photo to photo. 3) In one BY photo, the Oswald character is missing fingertips. And 4) Oswald's chin is wrong, something I'm not convinced the lighting could account for.

17.) The autopsy report is pure bunk, which almost certainly means that DiEugenio thinks that all three autopsy doctors (Humes, Finck, and Boswell) lied out their collective assholes about President Kennedy's wounds.

Well of course the Autopsy is bunk. That's a proven fact as far as I'm concerned. No question about it.

18.) The conspirators planning the assassination, although they wanted to frame ONLY Lee Oswald, shot JFK from a variety of locations, and they fired more than three shots in so doing, which pretty much guaranteed that their "One Patsy" plot would be exposed after the shooting. (But Jimbo and many like him believe this craziness anyway. Go figure.)

This is absolutely true. One shot hit Kennedy in the back, one at the base of his skull from the back, and one from the front hit near his temple, blowing out the back of his skull. The throat wound was likely caused by an exiting bone fragment. Connally was hit by a separate bullet., from behind.

19.) A Mauser rifle was found in the TSBD after the assassination, even though the plotters knew they had to frame their one and only patsy with a Carcano rifle. (Brilliant!)

The evidence strongly suggests this to be the case. Clearly a clumsy blunder.

20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.

In the case of JFK's murder, yes, it appears that most the evidence was fabricated or manipulated. That's surely wasn't a difficult feat given that so much was classified and filed away for no one to scrutinize.

21.) There were very likely at least two "Lee Oswalds" running around in various locations before the assassination. (In general, DiEugenio pretty much believes everything in John Armstrong's book of fantasy about there being "2 Oswalds" and "2 Marguerites". This proves that NO theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate.)

I haven't read the Armstrong's book yet... just the first fifty pages. So I'm not sure about Harvey and Lee. But there were certainly some impostors involved... the ones in Mexico City proven to be impostors by the FBI.

22.) Jim Garrison was right about Clay Shaw after all. Shaw was guilty of being a co-conspirator in JFK's murder, despite the fact that Garrison did not provide ONE solid piece of evidence at Shaw's 1969 New Orleans trial to show that Shaw was involved in planning the assassination.

I read Jim's book, and he laid out a good case. But I feel I don't understand it well enough to comment on Clay Shaw's role. I am convinced, however, that Garrison's case and reputation were systematically destroyed by those involved in the assassination cover-up.

In summary, I can't see merit in any of your allegations against Jim DiEugenio, aside from the topics I don't have a good understanding of.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FBI's greatest piece of chicanery happened in the wee hours of the night of Nov 22-23, 1963, when the FBI secretly took “Oswald's Possessions” from the Dallas Police Department, transported them to Washington, D.C. altered them, and then secretly returned them to Dallas, only to publicly send them to Washington. D.C. a few days later. Among a great many other alterations, a Minox “spy camera” became a Minox “light meter.” FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the beans about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC.

CLICK HERE (see roughly half way down the page) to see Cadigan's altered WC testimony, which John Armstrong believes is in the handwriting of Allen Dulles....)

By mid-1964, the FBI had a procedure in place to materially alter the testimony of its own agents, even over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys. Read the FBI instructions here.

And by the way…

The FBI has a long and sordid history of inventing all kinds of incriminating evidence favorable to the prosecution. In more recent news of FBI malfeasance:

Jim didn't post the example of the government (the FBI in this case, according to John Armstrong) taking liberties in modifying sworn testimony. So I will.

Here's the transcript of Cadigan's testimony:

Cadigan%20changes.jpg

Note the handwritten changes! Now here is proof that the changes made their way to the Warren Report:

Cadigan%20WC%20testimony.jpg

Incredible!

What do you have to say about this, David V.P.?

BTW Jim, maybe you're having trouble posting images because of the 1 MB limit placed on images hosted on the forum. Are you aware that you can still post images? The images remain hosted on another website (like harveeandlee.net) but appear here in the thread. Here's how to do that, just in case you don't know. Right-click on the image you want and select Copy Image Location. Then in the thread here, click the editor's Image icon. When asked for the image URL, paste the image location (right-click and select Paste) you had copied.

Thanks, Sandy. I'll give the copy image location technique a try. My problem here is that on the add reply window, I have a message that reads: "You can upload up to 6.11KB of files (Max. single file size: 6.11KB)." It's pretty hard to find a useful image file that small.

Back to the subject of FBI malfeasance:

For those who find the idea of the FBI changing testimony and forging documents hard to believe, please be reminded that the whole article that is the subject of this thread gives example after example of just that. If you have an hour or so to read it, CLICK HERE.

If you only have three and a half minutes to see proof of how the FBI dramatically altered the statements of Dealey Plaza witness, take a look at this ....

Edited by Jim Hargrove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when Davey goes into one of his tantrums. As he did in 82 above. It shows you how exacerbated this issue gets him.

See, that is not what I meant. Let me explain:

If DVP is saying that the 12.78 price which was widely circulated was a mistake, because they did not realize the scope was a part of the purchase, then all they had to do was look at the rifle and see it had a scope. Which as he shows, many outlets did. OK, what is the price of the scope?

But if he is saying that they knew they knew it had a scope, then why did so many outlets still get it wrong?

Its that simple. DVP wants to have it both ways.

PS: Nice work on the FBI JIM H. Gil Jesus is really underrated/

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

Thanks for replying in number 86, but as usual Davey does not quote me accurately. Just to name four instances:

I don't think Fritz was part of a conspiracy with Ruby to rub out Oswald because of the gap he created in protection. I have noted that curious gap and I do think that it should be noted further by others. Along with the sound of the two horns. I do not know for sure if that was plotted in advance.

I do not consider Ruth and Mike Paine main "major anythings" in this case. I know who I consider the top level people in the plot and the Paines were not anywhere near that level.

Saying that Clay Shaw did not plan the assassination and therefore Garrison did not have a case against him is a non sequitur. Nothing new with Davey.

If you read Garrison's book, or my book--which I do not think DVP did--then you will see that I do not consider Shaw part of that plannning plane. There is no doubt that Shaw lied his head off at his trial--as JG knew he would. And this is why the perjury case was so important. And why Christenberry, Shaw, and his lawyers, had to get it thrown out. Because Shaw would have been convicted on more than one count. Just as he would have been convicted of conspiracy if the CIA had not interceded early on his behalf. Which, the CIA admitted way back in September of 1967, in a memo from Rocca. This is one of the reasons for the beginning of the Garrison Group at Langley: and the taking on of wide-ranging countermeasures against JG, the third phase of the obstruction of Garrison as I detail in my book. Which DVP knows nothing about since he has not read it.

As they say, ignorance is bliss. Deliberate ignorance is something different.

Edited by James DiEugenio

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...