Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paz Marverde

Who changed the motorcade route?

Recommended Posts

I find the whole Marina Oswald/Nixon story entirely implausible.

 

It was supposed to have happened between April 10th and April 24th.

see Marina's testimony in June, 1964 in 5H388

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40#relPageId=398&tab=page

At first, it was supposed to have happened about two weeks before Lee left for New Orleans on April 24th. That would place it around April 10th (the day of the Walker shooting).

Then it was less than a week before Lee left for NO - perhaps as much as 10 days after the Walker incident. Maybe it was on the weekend, but then again, maybe it wasn't, because "he wasn't always employed". Oswald's last day of work at JCS was April 6th.

Lee got the idea of going down to Nixon after reading the paper. She didn't read newspapers herself, but Lee read the Dallas Morning News sometimes. She didn't know if there was any information in the paper about Nixon coming to town or not.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't believe any of it.

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

I find the whole Marina Oswald/Nixon story entirely implausible.

 

It was supposed to have happened between April 10th and April 24th.

see Marina's testimony in June, 1964 in 5H388

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40#relPageId=398&tab=page

At first, it was supposed to have happened about two weeks before Lee left for New Orleans on April 24th. That would place it around April 10th (the day of the Walker shooting).

Then it was less than a week before Lee left for NO - perhaps as much as 10 days after the Walker incident. Maybe it was on the weekend, but then again, maybe it wasn't, because "he wasn't always employed". Oswald's last day of work at JCS was April 6th.

Lee got the idea of going down to Nixon after reading the paper. She didn't read newspapers herself, but Lee read the Dallas Morning News sometimes. She didn't know if there was any information in the paper about Nixon coming to town or not.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't believe any of it.

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

 

Agreed Steve,

I seems it is meant to give the impression that LHO just wanted to kill someone important; Walker, Nixon, JFK, it didn't matter.

Herostratus burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, one of the wonders of the ancient world, just to make his name famous. I think that the WC tried to cast LHO in a similar mold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rich.

Steve, the Richard Nixon story is so goofy, that even the WC had serious problems with it.  And if anything shows just how intimidated and therefore untrustworthy the testimony of Marina Oswald was about her former husband, that confabulation does.

Let me quote Meagher on this one, "even when Marina belatedly came forward with a preposterous story--that Oswald had planned to shoot Richard Nixon at at time when Nixon was nowhere near Dallas and she had restrained Oswald by physical force..." (p. 241)

She goes on to say that all the WC could do with this is say it did not have probative value in regard to the JFK case. In other words, to paraphrase, if your prime witness comes up with a  story about an attempted murder that falls apart at every point, that does not impact her value with the JFK murder.

She goes on to say how this showed the extreme bias that the Commission had in accepting witness testimony.

IMO, the only time Marina told the truth was in her very first Secret Service interview. Which is exculpatory of Oswald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Herostratus burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, one of the wonders of the ancient world, just to make his name famous.

I really enjoy this Forum. You learn all kinds of stuff. Thanks Michael.

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Jim DiEugenio:

[...]

The ordered rifle was "CT 750";  the shipped rifle (per the shipping invoice) was "C 750".

David L.,

In case you didn't know --- I'm pretty sure that DiEugenio has you on "Ignore", so he probably can't see anything you write here.

And, BTW, the rifle Oswald ordered (the 36-incher) was not Klein's Catalog No. CT 750. It was C20-T750, which is the exact same number that appears on ALL THREE of the pertinent documents relating to Oswald's ("Hidell's") 1963 rifle purchase from Klein's (as proven by the photos of those documents below). 

Oswald ordered Item No. C20-T750 and (per Waldman Exhibit No. 7) he was shipped Item No. C20-T750. A perfect match....

Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-1963.jpg

 

CE773.jpg

 

Waldman-Exhibit-7.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP has been trying to derail this topic.

David, resurrect any one of these familiar Rifle or Mail order threads, please. I know, those threads have lots of bad memories for you, but that does not mean you should disrupt other threads..

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

Please point me to the post where I "derailed" this thread.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right here with one of your usual Ole Faithful windbag pontifications:

Well, I think it's a good idea for an LNer (like me) to occasionally remind people of what the ACTUAL EVIDENCE is in the JFK and Tippit cases, and to spell it out in black and white. And that "actual evidence" isn't going anywhere anytime soon. OSWALD'S rifle and the pictures of OSWALD holding the Kennedy murder weapon and OSWALD'S lies and the eyewitness testimony to OSWALD murdering J.D. Tippit are always going to be there. And it's important to remind people about all of that "Oswald" stuff every now and again---so that the CTers don't get the silly idea that their preposterous "Oswald Never Shot Anybody" theories are the only theories on the table when it comes to Internet discussions pertaining to the Kennedy and Tippit murders.

 

And BTW, in the ad DVP produced, the literature says its a 36 inch rifle.

Don't bother reading the link either.  It is more of his baseless bombast which says that Oswald ordered the rifle beyond reasonable doubt.  

LOL :P

ROTF :P

LMAO:)

This has been gone through so many times dating back to the days of the late Tom Purvis, to Gil Jesus, to David Josephs to Sandy Larsen, but yet DVP still clings to this buffoonery like a man in the ocean stranded on a life raft. There is simply no  credible evidence that LHO  ever picked up that rifle.  And at the Houston mock trial, the best moment for our side was when Simpich examined Brian Edwards on this issue. Unfortunately it was near the end of the mock trial.  I understand there will be a DVD of this.  Pay special attention to the questions about the sling on the rifle and the lack of transferring screws.  Key point. 

 

Let u snow get back to the motorcade route so DVP can get beat  up some more.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Right here with one of your usual Ole Faithful windbag pontifications:

Well, I think it's a good idea for an LNer (like me) to occasionally remind people of what the ACTUAL EVIDENCE is in the JFK and Tippit cases, and to spell it out in black and white. And that "actual evidence" isn't going anywhere anytime soon. OSWALD'S rifle and the pictures of OSWALD holding the Kennedy murder weapon and OSWALD'S lies and the eyewitness testimony to OSWALD murdering J.D. Tippit are always going to be there. And it's important to remind people about all of that "Oswald" stuff every now and again---so that the CTers don't get the silly idea that their preposterous "Oswald Never Shot Anybody" theories are the only theories on the table when it comes to Internet discussions pertaining to the Kennedy and Tippit murders.

And your follow-up windbag-ish post --- THIS ONE HERE --- wasn't the slightest bit "off-topic" and discusses ONLY "The Motorcade Route" and nothing else, right Jimmy?

(But thanks for re-posting my excellent "Ole Faithful windbag pontification" seen above. It's extremely good and should be re-posted as often as possible. Much obliged.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let us now get back to the motorcade route so DVP can get beat up some more.

I won that battle years ago. And CE1363 is the proof. (I guess Jim D. just never noticed.)

CE1363--Dallas-Morning-News--11-19-63.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

1.  Vincent Bugliosi l-i-e-d when he said he would present the evidence in the case not as he wanted it presented, but as the critics did. Now, DVP, VB's biggest fan, did not even know Bugliosi wrote that in the intro to his book.  I had to show him where it was.

 Then, for two solid weeks on this site, I pointed out 25 different instances where I demonstrated that Bugliosi did not do this.  And I showed how he had to have known what the critical facts were according to his own footnotes.  DVP gave up about five points into the demonstrations and he said, "Alright if you want to call him a  l-i-a-r" 

I did not call VB a l-i-a-r, he made a l-i-a-r out of himself.  He should have never said what he did in his introduction, since anyone will tell you if you present all the evidence about each issue fairly, the WC will lose.  That was true as shown by Sylvia Meagher. It is even more true with all the declassified files we have today. DVP did not have the honesty or courage to call him out on this.  All he could do was whine, "If you want to call him a l-i-a-r."

2.  The Argentine Mauser does show the 7.65 inscription on it.  David Josephs proved that to Bob Prudhomme's surprise.  

On 11/22/63 various  media reports went out that the murder weapon was either an Enfield or a Mauser. But no one in authority ever identified the murder weapon in the TSBD as an Enfield.  Now in addition to Weitzman writing an affidavit saying it was a Mauser.  Boone said the same in not one but two written reports.

 In the wee hours of the next morning, Wade said the same.  Boone said that Fritz thought it was a Mauser also.

This got so disturbing that the WC, as it usually did, tried to l-i-e about it.  McCloy got Curry to say there were no police reports  to that effect.  In fact, there were three. (Meagher, pp 95-100)

Federal agent Frank Ellsworth also said that the first rifle found in the TSBD was a Mauser.

3.  If anyone discredited herself as a witness its Marina Oswald, who, as DVP leaves out, in her very first interview said she did not know rifles had scopes.Oswald's did not have one.  She also said that she never saw LHO with a handgun.  

 Lee Harvey Oswald never ordered the rifle in evidence.  Period.  End of story.  He never picked up the rifle in evidence.  Period. End of story.  Further, there were  many rifles of that manufacture made with duplicate serial numbers.  The late Tom Purvis proved this on this site many times.  

The rifle Oswald ordered was the wrong length, the wrong weight, and the wrong classification.  The rifle in evidence is a 40.2 inch 7.5 lb short rifle.  The one allegedly ordered is a 36 inch carbine weighting 5.5 pounds.  Somehow Davey cannot do this arithmetic. 

David Belin knew this and he deliberately covered it up.  Whenever I mention this to rational people, they raise their eyebrows in disbelief.  Because the WC fruitcakes do not reveal this to anyone since they know how fatal it to their case. When you add in the wrong bullet to the wrong rifle,  I mean, what an absurd case. (I won't even go into it being the wrong brain.) But hey , things get boring in Indiana.  How many times can you watch Hoosiers.You have to do something, and since Davey does not travel like his brother, this is what he does.

 

 

 

 

Regarding the points made in your post,  there is important contrary evidence to at least two of the claims you are making.

Item # 1: The rifle ordered vs the rifle in evidence.

      The catalog number for the first is "C20 T750"; for the second: "C - 750"

       Yes, they are different items, but by catalog number, they are similar, similar enough to possibly account for an error that occurred when the order was processed. (DSL Note: alpha numeric error corrected, per subsequent post by DVP.)

       So now, go to Waldman Ex 7--to the shipping invoice--and ask: Which item was shipped?

 

       The shipping invoice describes the item shipped by its serial number ("C 2766"); and that is the serial number on the rifle in evidence.

DSL- 6/9/18 -  3:35 PM PDT

       

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, at this point, the question is: who changed this thread from the motorcade route to the rifle? In any case, since the rifle is in, I repeat: it emerges a connection between P2 and that rifle LHO was accused to have fired with. P2 was a CIA creature, headed by Licio Gelli. Two of Gelli's best friends were CMC members. CMC was a CIA front. Clay Shaw was a CMC member. It's all explained and shown here:

 

Edited by Paz Marverde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

If there were no rifle traceable to Lee Oswald, his framing would not be feasible. Thus, Lee had to have (own) the rifle at some points. However, it is also true that there were obvious problems with the paper trail related to the purchase of this rifle which has been convincingly demonstrated by John Amstrong. In my view, it is one more example of Lee's deceptive actions: the rifle was traceable to his post box via A.J. Hidell, however, the documents would not prove that he, in fact, had purchased that rifle. Thus, if Lee's case would ever come to a trial, the rifle would most likely be dismissed as evidence against him as there were major discrepancies regarding the purchase of the rifle, summarised by Jim. 

The backyard pictures also bear a mark of plausible denial. Lee was photographed by Marina with his rifle, handgun and two newspapers on March 30. However, the photographs clearly show major problems suggesting photographic manipulations, which Jack White and others have shown, also convincingly. Lee immediately pointed out to the falsification of the pictures during the interrogations and said he would demonstrate the manipulations when the time came. Unfortunately, the time never came. The point is that the backyard pictures were both genuine and manipulated, and would be dismissed as evidence during a trial based on the latter. With Marina not testifying against his husband, the backyard photographs would not be admissible in a trial against Lee Oswald.

This is how Lee had been moving in the world which was harsh, secretive and very dangerous - he agreed to risky moves but always ensured that there was a plausible deniability intertwined in the matter. I strongly believe that Lee Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting but that he had some foreknowledge of some risky enterprise, such as a phony assassination attempt on the President. So, how did he ensure plausible deniability for himself in that case? Well, I guess he went out just when shots rang out and let himself filmed. A man who was positively outside during or just after the shooting could not be the shooter, phony or real.

Hello Andrej: 

Thanks for your post.  Its good to see someone attempting to "get beneath the surface" and try to analyze Oswald's psychology.  Its not easy.  I first embarked on this journey (a serious study of Oswald) around the "summer of 1982" (approx 1-1/2 years after the publication of Best Evidence); and besides studying documents (FBI reports, SS reports, loads of testimony, plus a ton of writing by journalists, and books such as McMillan's Marina and Lee), I was greatly assisted by Marina Porter (nee Marina Oswald) herself.  In the aftermath of the publication of B.E.--and its best-seller status (Spring of 1981)--she contacted me, and we spoke frequently. Not once or twice, but dozens of times, over the course of many years (about 13 years). What she was saying on the phone--and the way she stood up for her husband's innocence--was so important (and sometimes, even, poetic) -- that I repeatedly urged her to go on camera and say those same things in that venue. As I recall, it wasn't until the 25th anniversary (Nov 1988, and the publication of an interview with her in the Ladies Home Journal) that the ice broke and she even considered it.  Finally, in the summer of 1990, she agreed to a filmed interview.

SUMMER OF 1990 - -FILMING MARINA

The film maker was a friend of mine who had serious credentials and I believe it was his participation that persuaded her to do it. We met at the Adolphus Hotel, and my friend ordered up sumptuous trays of food, and did everything we could do to make her feel comfortable. The filming was done in 16mm format (quite unlike today, where just about anyone can go to Best Buy, purchase a camera, and try their hand at becoming an "instant historian.")

One of the high points of that interview occurred when she volunteered--and I am quoting from memory here--that, in all truth, she wanted to make very clear that Lee "adored" President Kennedy.  Some of that interview can be found on YouTube today, because I ("we") used it on 3 sequential episodes of HARDCOPY; (and some of it may have been shown, again, when the show CURRENT AFFAIR, did a full 30 minutes on Marina).

THE CLOSING QUESTION OF A MULTI-HOUR INTERVIEW

But for me, one of the most memorable moments occurred at the very end.  As stated, our filming was done in 16mm and that meant a "reel change" every 11 minutes.  When we were on what appeared to be the last film cassette, and the cameraman signaled to me that we had 1 or 2 minutes left, i tried to think of a "final question" to ask.  Suddenly, an idea blossomed, and I said (again, from recollection): "Marina: If Lee could come back today, and if you could ask him a single question, what would that question be?"   She paused, and thought for a few seconds, and then looked directly at the camera, in what I always thought of as a "Greta Garbo" moment, she replied: "What would I ask him?  (long pause).  I would ask him, 'Who are you?'"

I caught it just in time; just before the film ran out.

I am relating this because it captures the essence of Marina Oswald. . . i.e., Marina Oswald Porter.

MARINA DIDN"T KNOW WHO LEE OSWALD "REALLY WAS"

As a good friend of mine said at the time, "David. . you know her husband better than she does!"  

And that was--and probably still is--true. 

I know--without a doubt--that the autopsy was falsified--i.e., based on an altered body  (and that this was "planned in advance", the central MO of the crime); but more important, I knew --in great detail--all about Lee Oswald's past, and about his character and psychology.  And a most important thing to understand--and which Marina certainly did not know (or if she suspected, was just beginning to think about) --was that Lee Oswald was an actor.  As George DeMohrenshildt said, "An actor in real life."

Not because he was mentally unstable, or anything like that.  But because ---in short--he was "on assignment" and often "in character," in the same way that an undercover agent plays a role, and can be said to be "in character."  

The difference with Oswald--after his June 1962 return from the U.S.S.R.--is that he was in character "all the time." He didn't go out "in the evening" to play some role.  He was "on" 24/7.  It was part of his job, an assignment that was explained to him, and which he thought was completely legitimate.

He never said to her, "I am going to tell you what I'm doing, but you must never breath a word of it."

No, not at all. He just lived his life "in character." 

Just how did this work?  Bottom line: Lee Oswald had a handler, and that explains why he behaved (most of the time) as he did.

He lived a life of pretense.

But there was a serious negative side to all this: it had a destructive effect on his marriage.

LEE OSWALD'S ROLE PLAYING HURT HIS MARRIAGE

Marina, who knew Lee as a reasonable, normal healthy male in the USSR, suddenly started to see him in a different light; and the major turning point for Marina was the April 10, 1963 (supposed) attempt to murder Walker (which I believe was a deliberate "missed shot", and possibly involved Walker's cooperation, though on this last point, I'm not completely sure).  But he came running into their apartment, breathless with excitement, and stating that he just tried to kill General walker, and--turning on the radio and listening to news reports--stated that he was so "sorry" that he "missed."

Following the Walker incident--which [after JFK's assassination]  Marina tried to conceal from the FBI (for about 10 days)--there followed another "theatrical performance",  what the Warren Report calls the "Richard M. Nixon Incident".  And following that, there was still another: the night that Lee talked about hijacking an airplane.

All of this was total b.s., a total theatrical act. A serious and well-designed  malicious attempt to impeach Oswald's character in the eyes of his wife; someone who would, after JFK's murder, be perhaps the most important living witness to the character of the accused.

MARINA'S FRONT ROW SEAT TO LEE'S DRAMATICS

Marina had a front row seat to all of this--this theatrical performance--and it had a serious effect on their marriage, and on her appraisal of the psychology and character of the person to whom she was married. 

In the dozens and dozens of conversations that I had with Marina--starting in the Spring of 1981, but especially in the years following-- I functioned not just as a friend, but (almost) as a "de-programmer."  I had to explain--repeatedly, in lengthy conversations--what this or that did not mean what (at first) she might think it did.  I kept careful records of all these conversations, and I know they had an effect.  If you want to see Marina "at her best," just find the interaction she had with Tom Brokaw, a true believer in the validity of the Warren Report, and how Marina put him down handily, and closed with a statement that she hoped he could "sleep well" at night, or words to that effect.

I remember the night of that broadcast: Pat Lambert telephoned afterwards, saying 'Hurray for Marina!"

THE 1993 TV MOVIE: Fatal Deception

When Marina sold the rights to her life story around 1992, and the producer (Bernard Safronski)  and writer (Steve Bello, of "Hillside Blues" fame) were writing a screenplay, they interviewed Marina extensively and asked her who had influenced her in her changing views. Apparently, she replied that I had done so, and that's why they approached me so they could portray me (in a highly synopsized manner) in their film ("Fatal Deception: The Marina Oswald Story").

"You played a unique role," they told me. 

Based on my experiences, I can say with considerable confidence that DiEugenio, in this area, is peddling pure superficialities--pure garbage. This man who flaunts himself as "a well recognized authority" is spreading b.s. He got involved in all of this decades after the events occurred, was nothing but a Jim Garrison adoring newbie at the time, and continues that role today.

MARINA'S AWAKENING AND THE KEY WORD: "Gaslight"

Now back to Marina:  Her "awakening" didn't occur until years later, it occurred gradually, and she finally "came out" and spoke her mind in a detailed interview with Myrna Blyth, Editor in Chief of the Ladies Home Journal.  Titled "Marina Oswald --25 Years later," the piece was published in the November 1988 issue of the LHJ. 

There is one final point to be made, and it is fairly important--and that concerns the word "gaslight".

The word "gaslight" comes from a famous movie film in which a husband tries (psychologically) to manipulate his wife (played by Ingrid Bergman) into thinking she is crazy, that she does not "know" her own mind, that she is imagining things.  Unfortunately, in the period following his June 1962 return from Russia--and especially starting in the fall of 1962, and then accelerating in the Spring of 1963--Lee (as part of his "assignment" [he thought]) was gas-lighting his wife. 

And it led to considerable damage in their marriage.

Lee never lived "to explain".  And so, because of his behavior, she was left with a host of unresolved issues.

When I met with the Director of the film (Robert Dornheim), and the writer (Bello), we discussed much of this, so he could --hopefully--fine tune the performances of the actors, and attempt to communicate, as best as one could, in the space of a TV movie, the complexities of this situation.

Those readers who wish to know more about this movie - -Google "Fatal Deception" (and/or look at the IMdb data base).

Those who have followed the case for years probably know the basics: Marina was played by Helena Bonham Carter, and I was portrayed by actor Robert Picardo (China Beach, Star Trek Voyager, Stargate). 

As is described in wikipedia (and elsewhere): It is "the story of the widow of Lee Harvey Oswald. .  coming to grips with the fact that she too may have been a pawn in a giant conspiracy."  Yes, it was very unusual to open TV Guide in November 1993, and see myself given second billing in a movie that was broadcast nationally via NBC. 

DSL

6/9/2018 - 5:15 PM PDT

South Orange County, California

 

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Lifton,

I don't want to move this discussion off topic but, could you take the time to make a comment on whether you would consider Marina Oswald a soviet spy.  That thought is mentioned from time to time with little or no evidence to back it up except her personal history.

thanks,

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...