David Josephs

That's it? Ain't it great Grego... Your Faith-based conclusions don't require you to prove anything... just like religion. And once again your command of the english language is awful... Take a minute and learn what it actually means please. I mean what I say I have no reversal of expectations when I say it And I'm not getting into another argument with you over your inability to understand the simplest of things http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony Learn the language already Gregster, maybe it will help you understand that Tippit call report you butchered so badly

Okay then Greg-O... let's take a look at your supporting evidence. Davo, 1. The name of the two gentlemen were Louis Weinstock and Emil GARDOS. It was not Armstrong who discovered the ID of the second man. It was me, So what Greg... Gardos had nothing at all to do with these men, unless you can post something that connects them 2. You don't know what she said. We are both interpreting her words through the FBI. Yes we are... that you can't undestand what is written in plain english remains our problem as you continue to push your poor understanding of the evidence at every chance. 3. Yes, I can read, I can also research. Give it a try some day! Despite what the FBI report states, Weinstock was the editor of WORKER'S WORLD not Woman's World. Again Greg-O... so what? Connect Weinstck to either "father" or "uncle" with evidence... since this report does no such thing. 4. She did use their names. Weinstock and Gardos. She then explained that they were Oswald's father and uncle.She also said the father and uncle lived in Yorkville... a Jewish enclave. Weinstock and Gardos were... what David.... Jehovah's Witnesses? Please point out below or with some new evidence where she "explains" that these two men are "father" and "uncle"... this report says no such thing 5. Yes, she claims both were unemployed. Do you believe the editor of a newspaper with a circulation of three is getting paid? What are they putting in the water in Sacramento? It's barely possible he received a small annual stipend, but I would doubt that as well. Connect the editor to THIS report about dad and his brother... or post another document that does. At this point, like all points, you are guessing again. Speculating based on incorrect reading of the material... well done mate... 6. You don't like qualifiers like "I believe" but then attack when you think something is presented as a fact if you disagree with it. Heads you win, tails I lose, eh, China? You qualify with "I believe" since you have nothing to PROVE IT. You "believe" since the report tells us something completely different so you must believe, you must have FAITH. Only way to avoid having to prove anything. I guess you are going to have to phone Armstrong and give him the lecture too. Yes grego... as a result of the EVIDENCE OFFERED IN THE BOOK, he believes... when and IF you post the evidence from which YOU BELIEVE we always find you've either misinterprested it or the evidence does not say what you claim it does. why is that? His belief on the other hand is evidence based versus yours which is FAITH based.... Problem being you don't know the difference nor it seems will ever learn there is a difference. "crucial piece of evidence is reason to believe " Tell us Greg-O... where are your crucial pieces of evidence as YOUR reason to believe... you don't ever seem to post those... why is that? "John Armstrong believes the FBI and the Warren Commission distorted..." "But it is easy to believe the FBI, through their undercover..." "time was of the essence and this material, I believe, was returned ..." "crucial piece of evidence is reason to believe that Westbrook was the person..." therealhardlyleedotnutsitenotthedoppelgangersiteputupbyparker ---------------- I take this as a concession on every other point -- otherwise I'm sure you would have had plenty to say. Not about anything of course. And certainly not directly addressing anything. Just more loud yabber. Of course you do Greg. That's what Faith-based believers do. You assume victory since there is nothing evidentiary with which they can defend yourself. And then you go about claiming what you've done is establish FACTS when all you've done is BELIEVE something to be true and present it as such... then get all indignant when confronted with the truth of the situation. So we wind up discussing your faith-based conclusions as if they were ever proven.. And yet, you never seem to actually PROVE anything... do you? Concede this mate... Can provide your rationale for concluding the two names mentioned and the father/uncle are connected?... or we just supposed to have faith in your analysis and word? as well as understanding why you don't post links to the source materials you "explain" to us. Too afraid they'll see you for the "faith-based" researcher you are? Well done Greg-O... two names are given, two relations are mentioned so they MUST be connected, even though that's not what it says on paper, but only in your narrowly focused, preconcluded thought process which pits you against the Evidence at all costs. Well done mate. You've dug a perfectly good and deep hole for yourself here. Keep shoveling it Greg-O, as I BELIEVE from your posts that's all you know how to do... Shovel away. if you forgot already - you're going to offer us the evidence which connects Weinstock and Gardos to the father/uncle mentioned by this report of what she said. Have at it

I wanted to return to this pile of misunderstanding Parker once again fosters on everyone as FACT... unlike Armstrong, you can't read a report correctly. The two names you get into at your link, "WEINSTOCK" and "(edit M KARDOS"), have nothing to do with the "father" or "uncle". Weinstock as you can read, is an editor at Woman's World while Mardos is the "head of the communists"... she doesn't say that these two are the "father and uncle" she is describing at all... she claims "both were unemployed" kind of eliminates Weinstock, no? you wrote at your link: "The mystery woman mentioned two names, "Weinstock" and "Emile Kardos", said to be Oswald's father and uncle who were Hungarian Communists. She also kept mentioning, without clarification, the term, "brother-in-law"." So once again you go off half-cocked with your assumptions about what is said, when what is actually said has nothing to do with your explanation which you now will forever present as FACT... The reference to "Woman's World" is probably a resullt of two distinct memory lapses (or one memory lapse and one mishearing) Key word being "PROBABLY" as in another of your assumptions without proof. (edit M Kardos), head of the communists, could not be the one supplying these men money... right? At least in her mind? If she knew their names, can we assume she would use them when discussing these two men? Disgraceful Greg. Every time anyone looks at your "sources" or your interpretation of the actual evidence, it's a joke. You then head off into the wrong direction with more assumptions and beliefs which become your "facts to be refuted" - yet still prove nothing. Maybe this woman and the Oxnard woman are related - what with your belief in Radionics and all Assuming that the phone call has any validity at all, I believe this may have been a reference to one of John Pic's brothers-in-law, either George Clifford Parishor John Ebel. "I believe" Greg? and you then offer a silly closed loop corroboration of the info by claiming there are connections where none exist. Link your reader to the document you are paraphrasing so they can see what you are doing Greg... you don't like doing that since you are wrong every single time... Can others read this and come to the conclusion the caller is stating that these two names are the father and uncle... iow your conclusion.... ?? Guess we'll see.

reposting

So what up ... You chastise then disappear? I addressed your assumptions again... May need to go back a page since Dave wants to talk shadows and stance... Your story never changes. Assumptions and belief become your facts and then you want these facts addressed. Ya gotta prove something for it to even be considered a fact... When do you get to the substance after all your fluff?

So glad you brought that up Dave... Check the shadows on the nose... why so different with identical shadows on the ground?

Prove something? Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. I have proved that Lee's letter to McBride was written in early September 1956. Bull... You proved no such thing... what, your "riots" thoughts proves something? only in your mind mate... both you and Lifton are so tied to your beliefs that the corroborated statements of the Pfisterer's employees hold no weight... only what YOU think counts... right mate? I have proved that the alleged "father" and uncle" of "Harvey" are no such thing. You "posted" some words, but offered nothing to prove what you claim... I have proven that tonsils can grow back. And I showed that only 6% of 5-7 years-olds showed tonsil regrowth within 3 years. I also specifically agreed with you that a 0% chance of regrowth does not exist. I also showed that the regrown tonsils are tiny by comparison... In Russia, Harvey's tonsils were quite normal... how dat? I have proven that you guys have completely misread the school records. Greg - the only thing you've shown here is you can't add or know what the months of a school year look like. You argue that 12 absent days added to 168 days equals the entire school year... but that 168 is not the # of days he attended? That in the same column as "168" is "89" and "90" and per your own argument, when added back to the 5 (4 + 1) 53-54 absences give us 184 total school days in that year... it was YOU who made this argument yet "89" is now NOT the # of attendance days... ok, whatever. I have proven that Voebel hung around a kid named Bobby Newman who fits Myra Darouse's description of "Harvey" and that she alone claimed that kid preferred to be called "Harvey" So what? You claimed it was Bobby under the piano and Bobby in the photo... did we miss your evidence supporting that belief? You claimed John led Myra when both Myra and John Pic ID the same boys as Lee and NOT Lee. What again have you offered in support of your Bobby claims? YOU and you alone claim the images were altered with noses added, hair touched up and what have you. Have you offered anything to substantiate your claim... or is this another one of those "you gonna believe me or your lying eyes" kinda thing? The Voebel classroom photo shows a pretty honking nose - how about posting the images of Oswald YOU have between the Aug 1953 zoo photo and the Voebel photo or the CAP photo from 55-56. The difference between a 13 year old and a 15 year old is usually pretty significant... and yet you claim these are the same men... 5'11" husky and muscular versus 5'9" 135 lb soaking wet whatever... You see Greg... this remains your MO. Claim a belief is a fact then never back away from this remaining a fact even though you never proved anything . We've offered mountains of proof that Lee and Harvey existed simultaneously... and none of which you've been able to refute with FACTS, only your personal beliefs and vapid statements based on assumptions growing out of these unproven beliefs. But that's great greg... the more you post of what you represent, the more you reveal yourself... too obsessed with John's work to contribute or substantiate your own. yeah, we know, all will be revealed in your volumes in due time... ----

Once again we are so very thankful you are here to tell us what every post and sentence ACTUALLY means.... helps in understanding what you are doing here at all.. Did you forget about your posts stating that your BELIEFS entitle you to ASSUME something is a fact that needs refuting... when you are only basing your "facts" on your beliefs and assumptions... Very transparent Greg... when and if you ever get around to offering the supporting evidence for you belief-based facts, snowballs will be thrown around in hell. You post these statements and then proceed as if they are facts... just like the WCR - and like the WCR your sources have nothing to do with the conclusions. it's a very poor way to fashion an argument as they have proven... but as you say, "Why am I not surprised?" ============================ As for "they are beneath me" - you having an inferiority complex and needing to lash out against your betters is very juvenile Greg. Makes you look desperate for attention and very insecure about your own position... then again, what your position is exactly and how you go about proving it is amazingly suspect and unbelievably self-centered... cause you know everything there is to be known about Oswald... yet you offer nothing to support this knowledge but assumptions and personal belief... (case in point... who the piano fell on and who that photo is which Myra claims was her Harvey during Mardi Gras... you make claims, but offer nothing to support them... you are refuting a direct eye witness with nothing but air, rainbows and hopes... your "belief" that they are wrong and somehow your "belief" you are right... Damn the evidence or proof... "you gonna believe me or your lying eyes" argument - now where have we seen that used repeatedly ?? Von Pein, Judy Baker, Posner, Bugliosi, Myers... you're in good company mate.... How about sticking to what YOU have to say and proving it - you know...how 200 days fits into 125 or how 168 + 12 is not the same concept as 179 + 5... info you've posted to prove your points... (ever figure out what significance 3830 W. 6th St has or is that still lost to you? - maybe if you read the work you'd have a clue) So I guess we'll have to continue to suffer thru you and your buddies trying to refute the evidence presented by focusing on NOT reading the work offered and spending post after post whining about the use of color or font size or the number of words being too much for your little minds to handle... all this when you have nothing with which to counter the evidence, As I said before - transparent tactics boys and girls.. and easily refuted by just asking to "provide supporting evidence", leaving them lost and confused once again... and the cycle begins anew.

Dup

To be clear... I am of the opinion the CIA is simply a military firewall put in place to take the brunt of inquiry and stifle it before it reaches military intelligence... In those days everyone was military or connected... And his removal was for well more than Vietnam as Jim writes. Nixon not winning was much more devastating to this group than most perceive.

Bump... Key thing again in that post... "In my opinion". Prove something, once

Greg... This is still just you saying it... Your beliefs, speculated upon, are not facts. They remain your assumptions until proven. Voebel not being asked about it does not mean it did not happen. You've proven nothing related to this Bobby, nothing. But you repeatedly make claims as if you did. When do you post the support for your beliefs so they can be taken seriously? You conclude... so what? What does the evidence state? It states that both Myra and Pic do not recognize that as Lee... Prove otherwise

Once you believe Greg... you can reasonably claim anything you like. The same thing is still missing from your post... anyone saying that was Bobby... You making a "claim" is not proof of a fact "until otherwise proven". you did not "prove" anything in that post Greg... you BELIEVED in that post. And once again the terms tautology and disingenuous are lost on you. That Myra said that was Harvey is FACT... that Myra recognized certain photos as Harvey and others as not is FACT... that John Pic remembers the images the same way only in reverse for his brother Lee is FACT which corroborates Myra's memory and identification of those images. So far only you alone has mentioned Bobby Newman. you. alone. backed by belief. === and here we have this entire thread in a single post, a single sentence: Greg's "claims", based on his "beliefs", are to be accepted as "Fact" until otherwise proven.

1 - resources within and at the disposal of the US Military and its intelligence operations 2 - see #1. Rinse and repeat. The history of US intelligence begins with the Navy's ONI well after the Civil war. the Army who had spies under Washington also got organized again for intelligence at this time. In between, the wealthy had their own spy networks as they were the only ones who afforded traveling the world and wanted the information... the governments were not paying for the services... until much later when the wealthy learned more about other people's money. To believe that the Fathers of US Intelligence, who were then connected to captains of industry and members of congress, would ever allow it to fall outside of their own control is to not understand the role of the military in any nation's history.

And I'm with you up to the Middle East not being serious talking point especially within this context. What we did in Israel after JFK is very telling, no? https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/arab-israeli-war-1967 And a little history from the Jewish perspective https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/roots_of_US-Israel.htmlwhich is a great site as well to see the actual letters between JFK and Ben-Gurion The JFK section of this site is quite deep and is very helpful in coming to one's own opinion about the time and context. Emotions pro/con Israel were as high as for communism, as I see it. One compelling reason support for Israel was always so strong was that family banking conglomerates remained sympathetic to Israel and in charge of much of the US economic base. I'm not saying that his stance one way or the other was a critical factor in his demise... but it can't be dismissed as a minor factor. I truly believe that our ability to understand the tensions and fears and the stakes involved at this time in history cannot be understated.. Stories and understanding handed down the generations cannot account for this mindset switch. The only ideology that repeatedly wins appears to be the spending of other people's money while simultaneously saddling debt on the population... Most the -ism's, from my readings of history keep coming around to this one thing - who gets to spend the money, how do I/We get to keep as much from this spending of other people's money and by God we better be defending the right to live this way and get others to see it too. Look at the 2 top Republicans... Funny thing, the Bush family is probably worth 10x Trump... but you still don't spend YOUR money, you spend other people's and make a lot of friends. and you never let 'em know how much you got... At the core of the question asked of this thread must be cooperation among some very key people to accomplish the How. Galloway & Burkley at Bethesda basically create the evidence to support Oswald from behind and above. Who could have influenced 2 rear admirals in the Navy to do such a thing? The Evidence is the road map to this How. I'm throwing this scribble up for those who may not know the connections within that Naval base that night. Cut off at the Top is JCS Naval Admiral Anderson There are a lot names, some very familiar and some not... this helped me see that evening more clearly and enjoy Best Evidence that much more. Some of the people in that room HAD to be involved in this amazing cover-up... If Oswald did not pull the trigger. {edit - if I got something wrong let me know... thx}

With all due respect Kenneth... These other hot spots did not control a large portion of the world's oil. There is a larger context than the movement of leaders in and out of power. Israel and the US are linked, period... JFK was all for relieving tensions and de-escalation everywhere on the planet. How does that bode for business and the spread of democratic capitalism when we are supposed to adopt a live and let live mentality with the world's emerging nations while our #1 enemy WAS INDEED looking to turn any and all nations toward communist rule centered in Moscow... To the majority of America's defenses and offenses related to this equal yet opposite spread of ideology, JFK's hopes and energies pushed in that direction meant either a drastic shift in how control, power and fortune was made... or the removal of this one man and his voice in favor for what we've seen since... and it's disgraceful that we could have lead the planet towards peace but due to justified paranoia and timing it was not to be. Why was any leader who pushed for equality in the use and benefits of the world's (or that nation's) resources seen as a threat? Kinda of answers itself, no? Nations were/are created to give sovereignty (and therefore the right to defend itself) to the lands of the wealthy against those who would take them,domestic or foreign. IMO the desire of the "sponsor" level of this tragedy was to keep the world's duality going. Us against Them from both sides - you think if the KBG believed they were winning, which they were, they'd want to give up their lead for peace? IMO JFK was killed to solidify the hold on the government these sponsors gained in the 8 Ike years after planting the seeds from about 1935. JFK was strong enough a leader to stir the people to action... revolutionary action in the eyes of the Sponsors and the Facilitators who enabled them (btw Sponsor-Facilitator-Mechanic is a model to identify those involved, developed by Drago and Evica) To conclude that he was killed for any one reason is to, imo, miss the larger context of those who run things within the Mil Ind Cong Complex

that's fixed now....

WARNING: tautological oxymoron ahead... back-peddling may cause injury.. "20 pieces of solid evidence" is where this falls apart Dave... List a few and then show how s-o-l-i-d they are... you CAN defend your own convictions and conclusions with logic and authentication.... Here Dave, start with solid evidence backing these 12 WCR conclusions - see, giving you 8 free passes... 1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository. 2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired. 3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot. hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds. 4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald 5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination 6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to shoot another Dallas police officer. 7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning Oswald’s interrogation and detention by the Dallas police : (a) Except for the force required to effect his arrest, Oswald was not subjected to any physical coercion by any law enforcement officials. He was advised that he could not be compelled to give any information and that any statements made by him might be used against him in court. He was advised of his right to counsel. He was given the opportunity to obtain counsel of his own choice and was offered legal assistance by the Dallas Bar Association, which he rejected at that time. ( Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were allowed uninhibited access to the area through which Oswald had to pass when he was moved from his cell to the interrogation room and other sections of the building, thereby subjecting Oswald to harassment and creating chaotic conditions which were not conducive to orderly interrogation or the protection of the rights of the prisoner. © The numerous statements, sometimes erroneous, made to the press by various local law enforcement officials, during this period of confusion and disorder in the police station, would have presented serious obstacles to the obtaining of a fair trial for Oswald. To the extent that the information was erroneous or misleading, it helped to create doubts, speculations, and fears in the mind of the public which might otherwise not have arisen. 8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963 9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy 10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official 11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that. Oswald acted alone 12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD.

DJ, i hope you didn't take that out of context - i value your input. the quote was just that, a quote, and appropriate as referred to other contributors, not yours. sorry about that. I didn't at all Glenn... I was twisting it into an example and didn't make my point... ie if your opinion went against the truth... you were targeted, not not cared about... as for Jackie and the Magazine.... IDK, just kinda slipped into the post... {rewind... delete...} lol

Not how it works mate.... You prove what you have is authentic and correct. John already spoke with Myra and got an answer... went to the archives and got the photos. What have you done to prove it's Bobby Newman... other than just say so?

The serial # thing is strange... Instead of unloading a carton and giving the 10 rifles sequential VC #'s... it appears that all the rifles are put in a pile and recorded randomly... Westra I believe even states that they look at each serial # to confirm the pacing slip. Rupp ALWAYS included these slips inside and outside the cartons... but for the Feb 63 shipment, Waldman recants and claims these were mailed to him separately... the same slips Feldsott gave up. There's no reason to make any of the other rifles traceable as they would never be traced. As for the microfilm... do we even know that NOT filming the payment with the order and coupon and envelope was SOP for Klein's. Sure would be nice to see ANY other roll of those films or the copy DOLAN gave back to Klein's...

Yes I am Jim... Let's see Jon: There are five main sections - The Klein's internal Rifle records, The MicroFilm, the Money Order, shipping the rifle and retreiving the rifle by getting it home from Dallas to New Orleans to Irving. The evidence which attempts to connect C2766 to Oswald is terribly inauthentic in that it's provenance is offered in conflicting reports and pysical evidence. The physical evidence includes: the packing slips, the Klein's VC=Serial # sheet and the Order Blank. C2766 appears on 1 of 520 packing slips for 520 10-rifle cartons in the gun wholesaler Crescent's inventory which were sent from Italy arriving in the US in Oct 1960. On the evening of Nov 22, the FBI claims to have contacted Crescent's President Mr. Feldsott in NYC and learned from him that C2766 was sent to Kleins in June 1962. He provides documentation for this June order and the FBI states that "Mr Feldsott advised that rifle number C2766 was among this shipment" Feldsott's affidavit is in Vol 11 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=45#relPageId=215&tab=page The report and affidavit make it appear that the FBI took with them 10 packing slips for a June 1962 order on Nov 22nd, the evening of the assassination and prior to the FBI arriving at Klein's that evening. These 10 packing slips become a Waldman exhibit since in March 1963, the FBI claims it received these slips from WALDMAN at Klein's and claims they are the slips for the Feb 1963 delivery of rifles. These are supposedly the same slips from Feldsott for June which have noew been repurposed for Feb. We are to remember that Waldman #1 - the order to Crescent - only shows the Feb 1963 shipment and the cancelled 36" TS rifle order replaced by "Beretta Terni M91/38" which in the world of Carcano is meaningless since those are two manufacturing locations and a generic description of a class of rifles, not a specific rifle. To compound matters, there is no evidence available that shows that carton or that rifle were ever removed from it's storage although 434 cartons of rifles were removed after Aug 29th. So how do we know there really was a June 1962 shipment to Klein's? The FBI refers to a conflict again in the evidence by stating that although they conclude that "C2766" was the rifle Klein's supposedly shipped to HIDELL, the records the FBI has found states that "N"2766 was sent in June, not "C". The FBI referring to a June order detail such as the serial number's prefix not matching means there was at one time June 1962 evidence (handed to the FBI by Feldsott according to his affidavit) Not only is there no proof the rifle was ever removed and prepared for shipment, what records Klein's does have for June contradicts the serial number of the rifle found on the 6th floor. So how does it get related to the FEB shipment? The second item of evidence is the Klein's internal document that matches incoming orders of rifle's serial numbers to Klein's VC# system. At least that is what we are told for we do not ever see another sheet of paper from Klein's which lists VC#'s and their matching Serial #'s. Jon, it is my conclusion based on the analysis of this copy and the information available to the FBI that this docuemnt was created by the FBI by removing the numbers that originally appeared and randomly writing in the serial #'s of the 10 cases of rifles from the June 1962 order and replaceing "N" with "C"... This is where I coined the term "Closed-loop corroboration". By writing C2766 and VC836 on the order blank at some point along the way and offering this page and the packing slips it APPEARS that the slips from Waldman represented the Feb shipment and this single page equates that rifle to the VC# also on the order. While these three pieces of evidence corroborate each other... they only represent the 100 rifles in question. We never see another VC page for anything other than these 100 rifle We never see another order for which one of these other 99 rifles was shipped We never know what rifles Klein's used to ship C20-T750 orders prior to Feb 23, 1963 We never know what rifles Klein's used to ship C20-T750 orders starting with the April 1963 ads which run thru Sept at least All we have are these three pieces of paper with C2766 on it and no recourse to the other day to day records of Klein's rifle inventory and shipping records. If any other 40" rifle was sent for a 36" carbine order, the FBI proves their point - but that never happens. The Microfilm... WCD7 p187, 188, 189 are a 2 page report and a 1 page report which are virtually identical except for one HUGE difference.. in the first the FBI leaves the Microfilm with WALDMAN in a safe under his control to be subpoenaed should the film be needed as evidence. In the second, only over FBI SA DOLAN's name, the FBI - Dolan - takes the microfilm and gives Waldman a receipt. In later reports we learn that it is 2 weeks before this film is reproduced for the FBI with an extra copy given to Waldman. What was originally on that microfilm is now impossible to tell since the roll of film has been removed from it's cannister at the Archives - John Armstrong specifically went one visit to find and copy what he could from it... this was in the mid 90's. Since the same roill of film cannot be taken and left simultaneously... the chain of evidence related to what is pulled from that film does not exist. The Money Order... When I did a timeline based n the available evidence offered by the FBI, Postal Services and Secret Service (and Harry Holmes' story of how it was found) I come to find that the EVIDENCE tells us this one Postal Money Order was found no less than 4 times. Once in Kansas City in a SS report, Holmes' find by noon Dallas time, The first finding of it by the Postal Service at 10pm Washington DC time and finally a last time at 11:10 DC time when two men who have never been called to testify are involved in producing the PMO from the Federal Records Center in Alexandria VA. We come to find that this slip of paper has no related stud int he book from which it was taken at the General Post Office, No name of the man who finds the stub for Holmes or who Homes speaks to who tells him an hour later it was found. No processing marks from either the 1st National in Chicago were it was deposited, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago which would process their member bank's deposits or the Postal service who would cancel said item and forward to Kansas City (per a Postal Inspector). All we have is a stamp which almost completely matches Klein's' onthe back and the initials of the 3 men in VA who produce the PMO (a 4th signature is added on the 24th when the PMO is given to the FBI by the SS) It never being processed cannot be dismissed by any means available. If it was never processed yet is produced 4 times in the evidence at 4 different locations... how can anything about this Money Order be authentic? Futhermore, the evidence which would allow Oswald to purchase this PMO at one place and take a 2 hour walking round trip to mail it from a mailbox in another zone when he could have simply mailed it after he bought it brings even more difficulty to the Money Order legend. The Shipping and Receiving of the package.... This can get a bit detailed - suffice to say, there is literally nothing in evidence to support that rifle ever being picked up from Klein's, or delivered to the Post Office with Oswald's Box. No notice of delivery, no form 2165 which is required to pick up firearms, no postal employee remembering Oswald or the package, no FBI reports between Jan and April 1963 informing them about a package sent to HIDELL at Oswald's box even though the FBi postal assets inform them of his move to Neely, his move from Neely, his new PO Box in New Orleans, and the kinds of magazines he was receiving. What we do know is that he'd have to pick it up the week of March 25th and get it back to his Neely apartment (if that's where they really were) When Marina and June are picked up in Sept to go back to Irving leaving Oswald to be set up for Mexico City they pack the car and drive off. After repeatedly asking Ruth and Michael who unloaded the car, about a rifle being unloaded, both state that they did not see a rifle first hand until they were shown it the night of Nov 22nd. How the rifle gets from Neely to Magazine to Irving is yet another mystery which cannot be explained. The piece is significantly large and delves deeply into the Evidence's conflicts and lack of authentication. That the rifle exists and is found on the 6th floor does not in itself prove it was ever anywhere else, let alone in Oswald's possession. This Closed-loop Corroboration is used repeatedly in the WCR evidence and at first glance appears sound until the desire to compare to any other "everyday rifle order for the same thing" is raised. It seems that on Nov 25th Waldman claims he had the remaining inventory of identical rifles removed from inventory. There are 86 cases of rifle in storage we never see or know what happens to and finally there is a shipment from Canada of 1300 rifles which includes mention of "2766". Thess same inventory sheets for the 1300 rifles does not show a single prefix for a single rifle's serial # There's more detail of course in the 75+ page piece as well as a link to the Money Order Timeline I created http://www.ctka.net/ I am convinced that none of these 100 rifles was ever at Klein's as there is simply nothing offered to prove so. I am convinced that none of these other 99 rifles was ever sent to anyone, used for any orders or given to anyone like the FBI. That the FBI claims "N" 2766 was from the June shipment and there was no evidence of a "C"2766 ever received at Klein's. If that is the case... how can C2766 be the rifle shipped to Hidell?

Yeah, yeah, Dave. We all know you think all of the evidence is fake. You made that quite clear recently when you bellowed this to me.... "Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC." -- D. Josephs So what else is new? Oswald was a patsy? ~Yawn~ ~Stretch~ ~Snooze~ You'll have to excuse me Dave... I thought you had the ability to present corroborated evidence and then Authenticate it' as real evidence. "~Yawn~ ~Stretch~ ~Snooze~" I realize this is your best effort to defend the indefensible... but I'm thinking those here who are looking to you to be their voice are a bit disappointed by your inability to address the simpliest of rebuttals... Who again saw him enter the TSBD with a 4 foot rifle in a package and where did you store it until he retrieved it when? Where did he reassemble it Dave? Why would he trust the scope when it had not yet been sighted in? BEFORE you reach conclusions you have some work to do. The FBI knew via their postal contacts that Oswald had been receiving communist Magazines for months/years and moving his mailing address repeatedly since his return from Russia... yet not a single FBI report is generated in March or April when a 5 foot carton from Klein's Sporting Goods arrives at his PO Box in the name of HIDELL? https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57690#relPageId=112&tab=page is a link to a FBi report of a postal employee asset who states that the Oswalds moved to Neely (at least their mail was being sent there) and that the FBI went to Neely and see the M/M Oswald nameplate on the mail box... This is March 11, 1963. And now you are going to claim that this same postal asset does not inform the FBI that a 5 foot carton from Kleins arrived in the wrong name? That there is no record of anyone filling out the paperwork to pick up such a mail order rifle... https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57690#relPageId=119&tab=page is a link to the August 23, 1963 report stating that Oswald and family moved from Neely... and he has a PO Box in New Orleans based on a July New Orleans FBI report... Seems to me they were keeping tabs on this man... and neither a rifle or pistol mail order is mentioned during this entire time? And when they try to find anyone who remembers the Money Order, who picks up the rifle, who puts a note in Oswlad's POBox to pick up the rifle, ANY REA paperwork, who finds the Stub, who Holmes calls, who finds the PMO by Noon Dallas time, who finds it in Kansas City, and the two different sets of people who find it twice later that evening. This is work I posted in my Rifle Article at CTKA.net if you'd like to see what real research and evidence authentication looks like. Thanks again for the sleepy cat impression - maybe you can post a youtube video? but for here it is woefully inadequate and completely commensaurate with your POV.

."The Truth doesn't give a sh** what your opinion is."... unless it contradicts what's in this report.... or has to do with what LBJ did while sitting waiting for the delivery...

Sun Tzu... nice Steve... the basis for all battle strategy Since I addressed the Myra photo question, it sure would be interesting to hear from Greg about 3830 W 6th #3 in Ft Worth in 1956 versus 4936 Collinwood... and why not a single letter Oswald wrote to his mother while in the Marines is in evidence. Mr. RANKIN. Now, except for that correspondence, you don't have any other correspondence from him while he was in the Marines? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I did have several letters. Except the only one in the WCE is from Sept 59 just before he comes home for a few days before he goes to Russia... Marguerite Oswald was interviewed at their (Red Cross) office on November 18, 1957: "She (Marguerite Oswald) stated that the serviceman (Lee Oswald) has always been good about writing to them, writing at least once a week, and often twice. However they last heard October 10." Two days later Red Cross records show that Marguerite Oswald telephoned their offices and advised, "She received two letters from the serviceman today." 12 Not a single letter written by Lee Oswald to his mother has ever been found. These are the WCE up to that Sept letter CE200 from Oswald... UP TO 11/18/57 he has written fairly consistently according to MO and Lee's USMC buddies... Where are all the LEE to MOM letters Greg? (Hint, it has to do with those 2 addresses) Page Exihibit No. Description Mo Day Year 67 10 and 10 A-B Letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to John Pic August 8 23 1950 25-26 1 Copy of a letter addressed "Dear Sirs" from Lee Harvey Oswald October 10 3 1956 633 234 Letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to the Albert Schweitzer College June 6 19 1959 814 294 Letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to Robert Oswald November 11 8 1959 815-823 295 Letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to Robert Oswald November 11 26 1959 580 200 Undated letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to Marguerite Oswald September 9 1959