Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

[David Josephs]

There was something very wrong with that typed letter dated Nov 9th.
There was the accompanying hand-written letter, and reference in both to 15 days and time in Mexico City

From Sept 18th thru Oct 2nd is 15 days...  yet even a 15-day visa has a grace period to travel THEN it is good for 15 days in country.

It is within this letter that we are introduced to the concept of Oswald feeling that he couldn't "do whatever it was" down there since he had to leave by Oct 2nd.
The final piece of this puzzle being the CIA's Gaudet receiving the next Visa after the one attributed to Oswald.

Except the document in question - the 15-day visa application - is actually for a 180-day Visa despite the Visa itself stating 15 days

• The Visa was never for 15-days, nor was "Oswald" required to leave by the 15th day or Oct 2nd
• The Visa Application is broken in 2 parts for the WCE... one without his signature, the other without the Visa app #, or 24085 the visa # itself, as well as no name
• Authenticating documentation is the "record of birth", not a Birth Certificate

Let's now move to the handwritten note which states that Hosty came to see Oswald and his wife on Nov 1st, 1963 (not "yesterday" which I will explain shortly)

The transfer from handwritten to typewritten introduces many changes to the draft... spelling gets worse, and paragraphs are rearranged.  Wording is changed, 
names are spelled out...

Back to Hosty and Nov 1.   While the type-written letter is dated Nov 9... the envelope is postmarked Nov 2.  The "15-day visa" like "Lee, Harvey Oswald (H.O.LEE)" is a mistake thread which from my view betrays the evidence's creation.

Add now GAUDET "applying for" his Visa 24084 - any proof??  NO T-2 is quoted in DeBreuys Dec 2nd report that a number of 15-day visas were given on Sept 17th in addition to 24085 including 24084 for William GAUDET.  I forget who this informant is yet they have access to documentation which is in essence from a foreign government... they are applying within the Mexican Consulate in New Orleans...  ultimately these card are forwarded to the Gobernacion and Mexican Immigration Authorities - one of whom very high up in the organization is an asset for the FBI.  

An asset that ultimately has his fingers on every piece of Mexican related evidence.

One of the greatest FBI assets at the time was the US Postal Service.  With inside access to all the processes and procedures, "creating" mail after the fact is truly not so difficult.

A side note:  the airmail stamp on the Kleins envelope and this envelope are the same

   

[James DiEugenio]

ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY OSWLAD DID NOT APPLY FOR THE VISA TO MEXICO?

[David Von Pein]

David Josephs said:

While the type-written letter is dated Nov 9... the envelope is postmarked Nov 2.

I don't think the postmark says Nov. 2, David. I think it says Nov. 12. The "1" in the 12 is just very faint and can hardly be seen.

11/12/63 was a Tuesday, while Nov. 9 was a Saturday. So the November 12 date on the postmark makes perfect sense too, given the fact that Nov. 12 was the Tuesday after the national holiday which fell on Monday, Nov. 11 (Veterans Day). And the post office, of course, was closed on Veterans Day. Ergo, Oswald's letter was postmarked the next business day---Tues., Nov. 12th.

And it makes sense that the letter Oswald wrote to the Russian Embassy (CE15) is dated on a Saturday, since Oswald was, indeed, spending that weekend (plus the Veterans Day holiday on Monday, November 11) at Ruth Paine's home in Irving.

Commission Exhibit No. 16 (Oswald's Envelope):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0029b.htm

There is also this portion of Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony regarding the date on which Lee Oswald borrowed Ruth's typewriter to compose his letter to the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C.:

Mrs. PAINE -- This was on the morning of November 9, Saturday. He asked to use my typewriter, and I said he might.

Mr. JENNER -- Excuse me. Would you please state to the Commission why you are reasonably firm that it was the morning of November 9? What arrests your attention to that particular date?

Mrs. PAINE -- Because I remember the weekend that this note or rough draft remained on my secretary desk. He spent the weekend on it. And the weekend was close and its residence on that desk was stopped also on the evening of Sunday, the 10th, when I moved everything in the living room around; the whole arrangement of the furniture was changed, so that I am very clear in my mind as to what weekend this was.

Mr. JENNER -- All right, go ahead.

Mrs. PAINE -- He was using the typewriter. I came and put June in her high-chair near him at the table where he was typing, and he moved something over what he was typing from, which aroused my curiosity.

Mr. JENNER -- Why did that arouse your curiosity?

Mrs. PAINE -- It appeared he didn't want me to see what he was writing or to whom he was writing. I didn't know why he had covered it. If I had peered around him, I could have looked at the typewriter and the page in it, but I didn't.

Mr. JENNER -- It did make you curious?

Mrs. PAINE -- It did make me curious. Then, later that day, I noticed a scrawling handwriting on a piece of paper on the corner at the top of my secretary desk in the living room. It remained there. Sunday morning I was the first one up. I took a closer look at this, a folded sheet of paper folded at the middle. The first sentence arrested me because I knew it to be false.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm

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

http://Ruth-Paine.blogspot.com

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Chris Newton]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

He spent the weekend on it

That's an  inaccurate statement unless Ruth has "alternative facts" to reveal.

By Ruth's testimony he had typed the letter between shortly after breakfast and when they left to go to the Driver's Testing Facility. Marina stated that he had re-typed the envelope several times. Ruth stated that she noticed the draft folded in half on her little desk secretary sometime in the afternoon on Saturday. There is no other mention of Oswald typing anything at any other time. "the weekend" = 2-3 hours max.

[David Josephs]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY OSWLAD DID NOT APPLY FOR THE VISA TO MEXICO?

Yes Jim...  I am saying that is a very good possibility given the other evidence.  GAUDET at this counter and "NO T-2" with access to completed, signed applications...
He/They has/have access to forms, stamps, etc....  

The insistence this was a 15-day visa when it is obvious the form is for a 180 day visa along with the FM-11 records out of Mexico recording this Visa under the name "OSWALD" and not "LEE" for which it was issued.

As to that stamp showing the 12th...  when there's a "1" it shows a "1".  

My point remains that the "15 day visa" was part of the planting of evidence.  If you take the time to read thru my essays on the topic, you'll find that these few examples are simply the tip of the FBI iceberg related to Mexico City.

[David Josephs]

Here is the application Jim...  as offered within the WCR...

Interesting cutoffs...  one with no signature...  one with no name or numbers assigned....

[David Von Pein]

David Josephs said:

As to that stamp showing the 12th... when there's a "1" it shows a "1".

You're attempting to compare the March '63 postmark on the Klein's envelope with the postmark seen in CE16 from eight months later. But that's not a reasonable comparison at all. In fact, it's an altogether silly comparison. Many factors could explain why the "1" in the March 12th postmark showed up very clearly, but the "1" in the postmark on Oswald's November 12th envelope didn't show up very well. And the postmarks are from totally different cities (Dallas vs. Irving). So why would anyone feel that that is a fair comparison in any way?

Plus, the fact that the November '63 envelope seen in CE16 was mailed in Irving, Texas, provides a further indication that Oswald wrote and mailed that letter while he was staying at Ruth Paine's residence in Irving during the weekend of November 9-11.

In any event, Oswald's Russian Embassy letter most certainly could not have been postmarked "Nov. 2", because Oswald didn't even write the letter until November 9, which is a date pretty much confirmed via Ruth Paine's testimony that I previously posted.

Also note the somewhat dim nature of the "1" (as well as the "9") in the "1963" part of the postmark in CE16....

Edited July 26, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

 Many factors could explain why the "1" in the March 12th postmark showed up very clearly, but the "1" in the postmark on Oswald's November 12th envelope didn't show up very well. 

 

DVP, The "1" didn't show up at all. It's not there. It never was. 

Perhaps you should go look for it in the Apollo Moon Mission threads. You might be able to come-up with a better argument after that sojourn to an altered reality. The one you are presenting here isn't going to work out well for you.

[David Von Pein]

The "1" is definitely there in CE16, Michael. I can see it. It's just very dim. And another reason I know it's there is because Oswald wrote that letter on 11/9/63. Therefore, the postmark for such a letter cannot possibly be 11/2/63.

Are you actually claiming that the envelope seen in CE16 is a fake envelope with a forged postmark? Really??

The "1" is easier to see if you use a magnifying glass when viewing this image:

Edited July 26, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

The "1" is definitely there in CE16, Michael. It's just very dim. The reason I know it's there is because Oswald wrote that letter on 11/9/63. Therefore, the postmark for such a letter cannot possibly be 11/2/63.

Are you actually claiming that the envelope seen in CE16 is a fake envelope with a forged postmark? Really??

I just know that your using your conclusion to support your premise, it's a fallacy.

[David Von Pein]

Do you think CE16 is a phony document, Michael? Yes or no?

[David Von Pein]

From Marina Oswald's Warren Commission testimony:

MARINA OSWALD -- "...I know that he [Lee Oswald] was typing there. I don't know what he was typing."

J. LEE RANKIN -- "And it is Ruth Paine's typewriter that you are referring to, when you say Ruth?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "Ruth Paine. Because Lee did not have a typewriter, and it is hardly likely that he would have had it typed somewhere else."

MR. RANKIN -- "I hand you Exhibit 16, which purports to be the envelope for the letter, Exhibit 15. Have you ever seen that?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "The envelope I did see. I did not see the letter, but I did see the envelope. Lee had retyped it some 10 times or so."

MR. RANKIN -- "Do you recall or could you clarify for us about the date on the envelope--whether it is November 2 or November 12?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "November 12."

MR. RANKIN -- "I might call your attention, Mrs. Oswald, to the fact that Exhibit 15, the letter, is dated November 9. Does that help you any?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. Then this must be 12."

MR. RANKIN -- "That is the only way you can determine it, is it?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
 

Edited July 26, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

Let's be fair to Dave.

He says there is a faint 1 in the postmark date.  I also see what appears to be a faint 1.

Portions of the letters "TEX" at the bottom of the mark are faint as well.

So Dave may have something.

On the other hand, it appears to me that the faint 1 is printed at a counter-clockwise angle. If that is not a optical illusion, then I doubt the faint 1 is real.

 

[David Von Pein]

29 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Let's be fair to Dave.

He says there is a faint 1 in the postmark date.  I also see what appears to be a faint 1.

Portions of the letters "TEX" at the bottom of the mark are faint as well.

So Dave may have something.

On the other hand, it appears to me that the faint 1 is printed at a counter-clockwise angle. If that is not a optical illusion, then I doubt the faint 1 is real.

There's also the fact that there appears to definitely be ENOUGH ROOM to easily fit a "1" right in front of the "2" in that CE16 postmark. Now, whether that extra little bit of space is significant, I really have no idea. Perhaps that "gap" is always present (even when an envelope is being stamped with a date with just one number in it).

Maybe somebody at the The International Machine Cancel Society could be of some help. (I've talked to a few members of that organization a few years ago during another "Postmark" controversy, regarding Commission Exhibit 773.)
 

Edited July 26, 2017 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

Dave...

Of course there is room there, stamps need to leave room for when a 1 is actually there.

You seem to be ignoring the "noise" of the paper itself and the limitation of the file.  

The thing you are calling a "1" is simply part of the pattern in the paper.  A real 1 looks like the 1 in front of 1963.

I put arrows near similar paper designs and even took one, rotated it to be vertical and show how identical they are.

Sorry buddy, no "1" there.  So explain how a letter typed on the 9th is postmarked the 2nd?

Oh, and how come they didn't give Oswald a 6 month visa from that 6 month application?