David Josephs

Hoover knew there was a conspiracy.

None of the Hoover quotes you've presented prove that Hoover "knew there was a conspiracy". He was being honest and above board about the POSSIBILITY of a connection between Oswald and Ruby. That's what his "conspiracy" statements indicate.

Please point me to any Hoover quote (or maybe even some hard physical EVIDENCE, that'd be refreshing) to show that John Edgar Hoover of the FBI "knew" that a conspiracy existed in the murder of JFK. Can you do that, David?

I kinda doubt you can. But good luck.

David...

Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining....

You on the other hand are simply a shill... a parrot and a fraud. The sky is red... the water orange and the sun sets in the east.

You're not worth talking to about this subject... like discussing evolution with a born again Christian... there simply is no point...

Go back to playing your silly games... I'm not buying what you sell

I don't see ANYTHING from either man [Craig Lamson or David Von Pein] that refutes Hoover's awareness and declaration that there was a conspiracy....

How can they even BEGIN to argue against the following?

"that while I think there was no connection between him (Ruby) and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that." (this is written 3 days after the FBI report already states that there is no connection.)

Sounds to me like J. Edgar was being quite forthright and honest. Which seems mighty strange in light of the way most conspiracists paint Mr. Hoover -- i.e., as a worthless bastard who would do anything it takes to frame Lee Oswald as a lone assassin.

The more Hoover quotes you post, the more bullet holes you get in your feet--from your own gun.

David... that you are once again lost in your own mind's WCR excuses is no big surprise.

Hoover knew there was a conspiracy... that's ALL we are tlkaing about here. That he promoted the LONE NUT conclusion only bolsters the obvious...

He decided to help fool the world as to who was responsible.

Try to follow...

1) he knows there's a conspiracy and says so to LBJ and writes such to his Sr. Staff

2) he is convinced that exposure and/or investigation of this conspiracy is not in the best interest of the NEW government

3) he plays along and forever includes the CIA's Mexico charade in the same breath as BOP as prime examples of the CIA duplicity.

Pull your head out long enough to think like a human being rather than a McAdams parrot.

Before he was shut off... Hoover KNEW the CIA was lying to him, State, ONI and everybody else.... and chose to help hide that along with most everything else...

At some point David... ever YOU have to exhibit some common sense... no?

Cliff...

Is this the type of LNer acceptance of the iron clad evidence in support of a conspiracy you anticipated?

DVP/Lamson can do this ALL DAY LONG... and will.

btw - have either offered anything but "Hoover knew Oswald did it" in response to the notion that HOOVER knew there was a conspiracy...

I don't see ANYTHING from either man that refutes Hoover's awareness and declaration that there was a conspiracy....

How can they even BEGIN to argue against the following?

"that while I think there was no connection between him(Ruby) and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that." (this is written 3 days after the FBI report already states that there is no connection)

FBI REPORT: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402

Further, investigation has developed no proof of any prior

contact or association between Oswald and his murderer, Jack Leon Ruby.

"I further stated there may be some aspects Mr. Rankin will want to have run out farther; that there may be letters written to members of the Commission; that we have letters from people who claim to have seen Oswald; that up to the time we submitted the report we had cleared up all these angles except the Cuban thing which I discussed generally and explained that the informer recanted and blew that angle out of the window; that sort of thing may be popping up all the time. I advised Mr. Rankin if he wanted any leads followed out or any implementation of what we have already done we will give him 100% cooperation"

and the LAST LINE of the FBI report:

Leads are still being covered, and the FBI will continue to check out any

additional allegations or information which come to its attention. (DJ: uh, yeah... not so much)

THE DECEMBER 9, 1963, FBI REPORT http://www.jfklancer.com/Hoover.html

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

Put your dress and handbag away, David.

That's really the best you can do here Lee?

We have members discussing Hoover, his knowledge, Mexico City, LBJ and all you have are childish insults...?

What an amazing waste of time you are....

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

And yet... you STILL have nothing to refute Hoover's knowledge, his declarations and his physical evidence other than, "go see JFK again"... Pure marketing brilliance Lee.

How involved must a conspiracy be to the CIA that they needed to send Hoover on a wild goose chase in Mexico?

While Hoover is on the heels of a conspiracy... State and ONI seem to be right on board with it... as Katz's memo showed.

MAYBE Hoover simply siezed upon an opportunity - But we're not having a "discussion", are we....

Your turn to insult again... we're ALL dripping with anticipation at your next witty utterance...

If Oswald was FBI, as we suspect... this little piece of the puzzle successfully binds his hands to NOT look further.... we ALL understand that... yes?

I can see the T-shirt now... "J. Edgar - ask 'em about Mexico - Hoover"

DVP, can you refute this:?

"I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man." -- J. Edgar Hoover.

I love that quote from J. Edgar, because it destroys the notion that Hoover was "in" on a cover-up and a "Let's Frame Oswald As The Sole Assassin" plot.

What's to refute? I love it.

Plus:

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Hoover And Oswald

uh-huh right... that's like you saying you're open to other shooters in Dealey Plaza, give us a break, willya!

Hoover conspired with LBJ to cover up the murder of JFK on the streets of Dallas, Texas Nov 22nd 1963. There is no other answer.

Call the search party off. Tom Scully is alive and well.

Now you are stating that my comments regarding your TWO RECENT jumbled and confusing posts are "concerning." Whatcha gonna do, David? Accuse me of being an "Albert?"

A little paranoid are we?

I know there is a theory out there that the DPF member known as Albert Doyle is a multi-entitied creature who loves to endlessly argue with all and sundry in an effort to derail threads, so may I point out for the record that I, Lee David Farley, am not Albert Doyle nor a manifestation of "Albert Doyles." Just in case David thinks this is an avenue to pursue concerning his "concern."

For weeks you and Doyle went on and on for page after page arguing over the merits of the book Final Judgment. A book that has the backing of so few people you'd be hard pressed to fill a toilet stall with them. Reading that back and forth was enough for me to sit and ponder the question as to whether water boarding is really the most effective way to torture people.

If you paid just the littlest bit of attention to the posts in that thread you’d know that what I did was post the actual documentation of the time as well as excerpts from that terrible book to illustrate the point we ALL were making. But since this is all about you all the time… you probably missed all that.

I have passed comment on two posts you have made and like a man possessed you now thrash about claiming I have disrespected all of the "work" you have done in the past. Then you claim that I exude "self-importance" and that you are "concerned" by my comments. Ha ha ha ha

Laugh all you want Lee… all you’ve done with me is whine like a child. Soooo sorry you don’t get it. Can’t follow that HOOVER agrees that there was a conspiracy, and says so?

Too bad so sad… I care whether you GET IT or not… especially when you behave like a little child.

I really cannot be arsed arguing with you. The last person to demand respect from me because of the things that they had done previously was David Lifton and we all know what happened there.

Yes Lee… YOU are not to be trifled with. We’re all trembling dude… I’m sure Lifton is up nights worried about YOU.

Bark your challenges and demands elsewhere because the current absence of moderators here is giving me itchy fingers in telling you exactly what I think of you.

GFY.

Wow… and so stealthy too. Must be so proud of yourself here Lee. I present an argument that you either can’t understand or cannot find it in yourself to stay on topic and comment about… you have a cow, take everything as if YOU are the center of the universe and it’s everybody else’s fault? And then you revert back to the Lamson/May techniques…. Insult and then run off … GFY?? LMAO.

I'm done with you. I’m heartbroken… By all means write what you want to write and feel free to make it as jumbled up and as poorly written as possible and use as many fonts, colours and ellipses as you like - but don't ever put words in my mouth again. Thanks Lee… but you can shove your permission. I’ll post what I want and you can either deal or run away… up to you… Backtracking with some half-arsed attempt to say you had written it poorly simply proves my point. Understand? {yawn}

You’ve been ANGRY for months now Lee… shall we “back track” and find where you lost your sh!t and walked away from the forums? PLEASE do me the favor of ignoring me… whatever it is that crawled up your @$$ has turned you into a most unpleasant person…

ALL THIS cause you couldn’t follow my post… cause YOU didn’t like what I was saying, or how I was saying it ?…

It's impressive watching a "communicator" blame the person being "communicated to" for not "getting it." Real simple and understandable, eh? Will this be your technique when members of the public look at you cross-eyed?

Lee… continue to piss into the wind, it’s become quite entertaining. I disagree with the JFK the movie idea… sorry my opinion affects you so much. Didn’t realize how much you cared {smooch}.

And still, to this point, no one, including you, can write a few sentences that are more effective at exposing a conspiracy then:

HOOVER BELIEVED IN A CONSPIRACY THAT WEEKEND and said so, repeatedly.

I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

So let’s play our games… organize our “events” and let’s get the entire choir and congregation to give an “AMEN” with each and every bit of minutia WE can prove. Prove Salandria correct yet again. We don’t need to PROVE conspiracy to Joe Simple as that assumes there is a valid argument on the other side… there is not. JFK the Movie is chock full of micro-analyzed proofs… each of which can be argued against.

That you can’t fashion an argument that discounts Hoover’s statement or physical evidence is all I need to know I’m right. Your little "conversation" (talk about putting words into other's mouths and then go right out and do it yourself - and not very well to boot) is a figment of YOUR imagination... If that's the best you got... {yawn, again}

Every other argument is EASILY dismissed and/or completely mind numbingly complex.

All the movie did was open the door for real research into the minutia… and then, less than 10 years later, THEY do it again with 9/11 and we stand around surprised THEY could do it in OUR FACE without fear of ANYTHING (didn’t you see JFK? Don’t we now know THEY are out to get us?)…since we are all so busy showing Bledsoe was wrong, Brennen was a joke, Tippit was killed with auto shells, CE399 was not in Dallas, the rifle was 36” long, there was no paper bag…. ad infinitum…

Always had and always will have a respect for your work and analysis. That you chose THIS to make a stand over is, well, surprising. You want to harbor ill will toward me… have at it, that kinda stuff just eats away at YOU, not me. I KNOW what it is to disagree and still remain civil… All I did in my original post was to offer an option… my opinion… something that solidifies our message and is impossible to refute as a basis from which to fashion a message… I’ve helped companies generate BILLIONS $$ in sales thru these marketing processes and helped owners of companies see that their message and their desired results were not in sync. “JFK”’s message is not, repeat NOT the message to achieve our desired results, it is simply fuel for the WCR apologist’s fire…

DVP loves it when we start talking specifics… as each “specific” can easily be mitigated, or at least be made to appear nowhere near as SOILD as when presented - without DVP’s opposing argument.

DVP nor McAdams has an argument for this… as there is none. That you need to fashion a "Scene" as Lamson fashions his BS experiments is also - a surprise. but hey... play your games. Brighter minds than yours can grasp the direction and understand the significance of these declarations...

..............

MY conversation begins with, "Did you know HOOVER also believed the JFK assassination was the result a consiracy and warned LBJ about it that week? I wonder how HE knew?"

I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man. –JEH 12/12/64 (speaking past tense)

"The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

My suggestion was to campaign for Warner Brothers to re-release the film for the 50th Anniversary with a new marketing strategy including a new introduction and epilogue. If there is one thing that can truly get the world talking again about the assassination of John Kennedy it is Oliver Stone's movie.

I'm buying it. I think it's a far superior idea than cobbling together a bunch of experts. More and more I'm beginning to realize how many self-elected "experts" don't know the first thing about the actual murder of JFK, but can speak with authority on every last artifact of the cover-up.

This clip blows up the cover-up:

Blows up the cover-up? Really? Please try to remember I'm on YOUR side Cliff... I KNOW there was a conspiracy and all this clip does

is confuse the issue. All I am doing here is what any of the known LNers would do....

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

And in 5 seconds DVP... heck, even Brian Walker could rebut this argument...

LOOK at where that image puts the two men in relation to each other and the limo

LOOK at the right to left angle across JFK... the actual one was 11 degrees....

Why remove the limo and its position on Elm? Cause we all know it shifts everything to the left... JC is further left ON ELM then JFK and they aligned much more directly with the 6th floor... just sayin.

Where does 1.6 seconds come from? (that answer alone will confuse the uninformed)

Why can't Garrison (Costner) get the entrance and exit from JC's wrist correct?

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

We must include ballistics, sounds, testimonies, interpretations, etc... to even BELIEVE what Garrison is saying... and he STILL doesn't present the info with enough context to understand it.

But it makes for a very nice scene....

Now Cliff...

HOOVER tells us he thinks there was a conspiracy and why.... he tells LBJ and we have proof. He documents his feelings in a memo for all of history to find. AND we have that as well.

We also have the actual cables from CIA about Oswald... no ambiguity there.

DVP is on the thread... yo, DVP, can you refute this:?

I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man. J. Edgar Hoover.

Don't you dare sit there and put words in my mouth, David. I think we both put up with that from other people so don't you damn well stoop to the same level.

You want to miss the point of my VERY SIMPLE post to you from yesterday, then fine. Knock yourself out.

- Let’s see… YOU don’t understand… YOU can’t follow and it’s MY fault? Whatever Lee.

You started off by your jumbled mess last night by dismissing Tom Fairlie's idea to begin promoting scenes from JFK as a possiblility in generating some interest in the case and you dismissed it by claiming it is "not a documentary." Who the hell cares if it's not a documentary? Other than the assassination event itself there has been nothing over the last fifty years that has come even close to generating the level of discourse that Oliver Stone's film generated. So stop with the "it's not a documentary" bollocks.

- Correct.. IMO defaulting to JFK the movie filled with composite characters and stretches of the truth, to me, sets us up for having to explain even more than our point… we’d have to explain why so many inaccuracies are presented as “fact peppered with poetic license”… I think that muddies the water and makes our task even harder… MY OPINION Lee… so sorry you can’t receive it without coming unglued.

And second… In the same vein as your reply… DON’T TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT WRITE… JFK was not a documentary… sorry to burst your bubble. And if you think the “level of discourse” is more important than what the FOIA results were FROM those motivated by movie… have at it. More people know the History/Discovery channel DOCUMENTARIES which show conclusively that Oswald did it alone, than “JFK” which doesn’t. Talk about Bollocks -

How many people read Jim’s ripping apart of “the Ruby Connection” versus those who saw it and believed it… or “Inside the Target Car” crap for that matter…. Name a Single “name” who now publically claims what JFK the Movie tried to show… versus the Hanks/Paxon/DeCapria’s getting involved in yet MORE PROJECTS to show Oswald’s Guilt and the government’s innocence.

You went on to support your dismissal by stating there are entire website's out there that are devoted to debunking the movie's content and theories. Again, so what? There are people dedicated to coming on this damn forum each day to try and debunk every critical argument that you can muster and they'll be trying to debunk them as quick as you can write them! Shall we all dismiss ourselves as being irrelevant because there are people out there writing complete crap about us? Jeez.

No Lee… we should examine our message and work to make it clear, simple and concise. We don’t even agree as a community on what the message is while Fetzer is plowing ahead with a clear statement, “Oswald is Innocent” albeit with the wrong supporting argument…. Pointing to JFK the movie and saying “there it is” accomplishes nothing.

Finally, do you have a link to a post from where I've claimed the following :

"Yet you want to take an hour and 100 thread pages to explain why Bledsoe didn't see Oswald on the bus.. or where CE399 was... or the story of the rifle... or Baker's affidavit vs his testimony, or, or, or ???"

Wow, how much self-importance do you give yourself dude? Did you not take 100 pages in a thread to prove that point with people who KNOW the subject? Have WE not taken page after page to present the complete story of why C2766 was not Oswald’s?

Again, so sorry that YOU cannot read that statement in the manner it was delivered… YOU, the universal YOU… If I had written “WE” maybe you would have gotten it? Your only reply to my post was {sigh}….

If you can't find where I've suggested we use the above previous threads and topics I've been involved in to generate "public interest" in the case then I'd request that you shut your damn mouth.

Angry and literal… helluva way to go about this. Believe it or not… this is really not just about YOU. If it helps you... I apologize for inferring that YOU specifically would take so much time to present our case... when you offer something other than the 189 minute long "JFK the movie" and the reams of supporting data needed just to explain why it is not REALLY accurate, fine.

The only suggestion I've made to generate real "public interest" is to use the only bloody thing worked for us in the past; the movie JFK.

And I thought that was not a good idea – that there is still too much in that movie for most to latch onto. That we needed something simple and unassailable…

IMO (In MY opinion) HOOVER documenting his concern over a conspiracy – and the HSCA publishing its findings that there WAS a conspiracy… is simple and provable with little room for argument. THAT was my point, always has been my point – and I am again sorry you didn’t see that and instead decided to make this a personal attack.

My suggestion was to campaign for Warner Brothers to re-release the film for the 50th Anniversary with a new marketing strategy including a new introduction and epilogue. If there is one thing that can truly get the world talking again about the assassination of John Kennedy it is Oliver Stone's movie.

Fine Lee. Let’s talk about the assassination and Oswald’s involvement. You have 30 seconds to make your point…(as opposed to the 3+ hour movie) to offer ANY STATEMENT YOU WANT that suggests Oswald’s innocence and/or the machinery of a conspiracy. Here’s mine:

===============================

J. Edgar Hoover was told by the CIA, and his own sources, that Oswald was in Mexico City planning his escape after being paid for and then killing JFK. (CIA cables) HOOVER told LBJ this within days of the killing. HOOVER puts on paper, in a memo to his Senior Staff, that we should NOT state in the FBI report that Oswald was alone:

“Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

15 years later the HSCA concluded that JFK was killed as a result of a Conspiracy. HOOVER was right. HOOVER was right from the start. Lee Harvey Oswald was NEVER alone. NEVER a Lone Nut…. the CIA made the entire thing up… and HOOVER knew it.

I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

=================================

Now Lee…. If there is something you can offer that is as clear and easy to explain as the Director of the FBI stating point blank that HE does not feel his own agency’s report and subsequently the WCR should come to THAT conclusion…

Post it.

Your condescension and lack of respect for what I know, what I’ve offered in the past and what I will continue to offer is alarming. If you can do better… do it.

None of this was ever intended to be a personal attack on you.

Watching the research community “leaders” build a 4 hour opera in hopes Joe Sidewalk – who can’t pay attention for more than 30 seconds - gets the message is a bit disturbing. Define the message Lee…. That's Marketing's first task. I claimed that not only has Fetzer done so, but has made it very difficult for the rest of us to both disprove his evidence while singing the same conclusion.

When YOU tell newbies/friends/neighbors that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, what do YOU say to help them GET IT? (btw – if you feel this is too much asking you to do something that you don’t want to or shouldn’t have to, that’s fine too. You owe me nothing of course. I’ve just NEVER seen a quality argument against Mexico or Hoover’s declarations…)

You?

Thanks so much Lee...

Very helpful.

Hoover and the HSCA both state a Conspiracy existed in simple black and white.

the CIA tells Hoover Oswald was in Mexico City - again simple black and white

Hoover and the HSCA tells us the WCR was premature, inadequate and simple wrong.... but was sold to the US public in any case.

Yet you want to take an hour and 100 thread pages to explain why Bledsoe didn't see Oswald on the bus.. or where CE399 was... or the story of the rifle... or Baker's affidavit vs his testimony, or, or, or ???

and THAT will prove our case.?? to whom will this approach prove our case Lee?

WE already know this.... Joe Street-Corner does not.... he KNOWS something is wrong... but cannot put a finger on it.

What if "Joe" KNEW Hoover agreed with them THAT WEEKEND. and said so to LBJ as well as wrote it down?

talk about {sigh}

PS...

Wasn't there a fairly successful movie 'bout Edgar recently...

something HE actually wrote might be interesting to publicize

HIS suspicions, given he HAD to know what was shaking in some manner, was either correct

or created by the CIA to appear correct... which is what we come to find to be true...

Specific members of the CIA at the time were creating the evidence against Oswald at least as early as late Sept.. evidence Hoover relied upon to make strategic decisions...

NOT necessarily evidence against Oswald as JFK's assassin... maybe to create bona fides for some other mission, some other infultration or scene to play out...

Yet evidence none the less which BECAME part of the BEST evidence implicating Oswald.

....

This seems simple to understand and present ...

DJ

David,

Are you taking the piss?

Shall we do a quick test? Print off a copy of your last two posts and knock on your neighbours' front door. Ask them to have a read through. You can inform them that it will provide enlightenment in the JFK case.

After they've finished reading you could perhaps take a photograph of their faces and attach it to this thread.

{sigh} indeed.

Here's some feedback for you. I hope you take it well, seeing as how you're often quite quick in giving it out; what you have written reads like it's been put through an industrial food blender.

You write, "HIS suspicions, given he HAD to know what was shaking in some manner, was either correct or created by the CIA to appear correct... which is what we come to find to be true..."

You then say "This seems simple to understand and present..."

I beg to differ. Your last two posts require a deciphering manual. The irony of all this is you claim that "the FACE of our research is not taken seriously" before you go on to weave together a series of paragraphs that can only be described as some sort of military strength cryptogram.

Thanks for the post Lee... you seem to be the only one I have heard from who cannot follow the post... Hoover knew, Hoover said so, Hoover then covered it up. Lee was NEVER a "lone" anything... for if he was, the CIA made him out to be anything but.

I wrote:

HIS (Hoover) suspicions, given he HAD to know what was shaking in some manner, was (WERE / Sorry Lee wrong tense) either correct

or created by the CIA to appear correct... which is what we come to find to be true...

You do see this as a continuation of my previous post? They do appear back to back...

The info he has (both his own sources and the CIA's) suggests Oswald was NOT alone in the assassination OR the CIA is setting Oswald up to BE associated with "commies".... is there another conclusion here Lee?

Yet you make not a single comment about the MEAT of my post... HOOVER KNEW, HOOVER TOLD LBJ, HOOVER WROTE THAT MEMO TO HIS PEOPLE, EITHER HE WAS RIGHT and there was a conspiracy

or the CIA led him, ONI and State to believe there was, and leading thru Cuba to Russia...

I've shown friends the memo, the call transcript and shown them the CIA cables from Oct.... (I assume those here know the Cable I refer to so I did not post it - AGAIN)

No manual needed to understand at all... in fact - it's clear as day.

The FACE of our research is HOOVER, Lee. He KNEW there was a problem with Mexico City immediately... and he KNEW he could do nothing about it.

He BELIEVES there needs to be more investigation done and that the initial conclusions of the FBI report... HIS report... is, in essence, irresponsible.

You do not see how this memo is much more damaging than Katzenbach? It addresses each of the key aspects of the cover-up AND the conspiracy.... with the credibility of Hoover.

Add now the HSCA stating there WAS A CONSPIRACY....

Buddy, if you have a better way to say it, to get the message to the world... DO IT. Every other argument that I've read as the CRUX of the JFK Research community's is easily dismissed or made to appear ridiculous by the DVP crowd.

Have you seen ANY REBUTTAL to the Hoover Memo and LBJ conversation that allows for a different interpretation?

If my post itself does not convey this... I'm terribly sorry I did not express myself adequately. the passion though for this conclusion and presentation remains...

Offer me something else that PROVES Oswald was either set up or in a conspiracy... that cannot be easily refuted or misdirected away...

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

Lee,

Can you tell us what part of the following leaves the argument open to a rebuttal that can prove the opposite?

That Oswald was actually in Mexico City AND not connected to anyone during that entire episode.. a LONE NUT from day one just wandering around Mexico City for fun

I'm serious... and then add the CIA Alvarado memo attached. PLEASE find holes in the argument... if you'd rather red pencil the messenger... have at it... I only presented the idea for you and those with the skills to decide if the argument held the necessary water to make it one of the pillars of our presentation:

IMO... Oswald in Mexico makes or breaks it all...

If he WAS there, he was there involved in a conspiracy... not a LONE anything

If he was not... the CIA created the scapegoat 8 weeks prior to the killing

Hoover's letter on Dec 12th specifically states he was not / is not comfortable with charging Oswald alone based on MEXICO CITY FBI sources.. this is HARD evidence that is impossible to refute...

Nothing DVP or McAdams can say can counter that paragraph... or the simplicity of the logic....

The LNer cannot escape that Oswald HAD to be in Mexcio City on those dates.. for the sole purpose of arranging passage via friendlies back to Russia.

If that's not him in Mexico, "Oswald is a Patsy set up by the CIA"

JEH:

Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

PS...

Wasn't there a fairly successful movie 'bout Edgar recently...

something HE actually wrote might be interesting to publicize

HIS suspicions, given he HAD to know what was shaking in some manner, was either correct

or created by the CIA to appear correct... which is what we come to find to be true...

Specific members of the CIA at the time were creating the evidence against Oswald at least as early as late Sept.. evidence Hoover relied upon to make strategic decisions...

NOT necessarily evidence against Oswald as JFK's assassin... maybe to create bona fides for some other mission, some other infultration or scene to play out...

Yet evidence none the less which BECAME part of the BEST evidence implicating Oswald.

....

This seems simple to understand and present ...

DJ

{sigh}

This thread illustrates why the FACE of our reseach is not taken seriously...

Point by point DVP has an argument that MOST would find compelling... don't bother me with facts.

OUR government wouldn't let that happen....

Stone's JFK is not a documentary... there are sites devoted to nothing but showing the "poetic license" taken.

Loose Change is a documentary... Pentacon... etc. and is recent and relevant and deathly important... is it making a difference?

We'd like to think so.

CE399 - which I have always believed was never in DP... STILL has the c2766 rifle's signature... which then requires us to open that can of worms

and eyes glaze again...

Fetzer's project is called the "Oswald Innocence Campaign" - what happens when campaigns fail... and someone else wins...

The loser slinks off and disappears to history.... (and goes on to other more relevant conspiracies)

Damage to Fetzer's JFK presentation (which is as simple as reading the rest of Fritz's notes - the backbone of his argument - and finding he changed his clothes) damages the entire FJK effort... it back burners it as being "fringe" and lets Fetz sell MANY more 9/11 books, tapes and bobble heads

Fetz is winning this one... and it's brilliant. when WE trash Fetz's Oswald/Altgens, we TRASH the one product we are trying to put a face to.... he is forcing us to publically state that his Oswald Innocence is the RIGHT conclusion - which we KNOW it is - just from the wrong evidence... or get on the bandwagon, shut up and unify.

He (they) have now made it necessary to both discredit and distance ourselves from him... while proving his conclusion for ourselves....

Carolyn Arnold signed an FBI statement stating she saw Oswald walking past those same front doors at 12:25, after 12:20... and walk away.

We have discussed here... I personally have promoted the theory that the Lunchroom was a fable created by Baker/Truly and Fritz since they actually did run into someone, just not Oswald.

Yet if a Fable... where then was Oswald after passing the front doors and Carolyn's vision? Did he walk out the front door? Do we know what happens in the 20 minutes "someone" takes Altgens film and comes back with a photo?

The analysis of the image is not the issue... we know Baker's affidavit does not mention a lunchroom... written THAT DAY...

If it was Oswald coming down the stairs... it's a slam dunk - yet that's not where the testimony goes.... closing mechanisms, little windows... and a coke that gets excised... BY Baker.

Is it just a LITTLE more possible that Oswald was stading out front? I think Just as likely as Craig was right about Oswald leaving the way HE saw....

So round and round we go and the only one screaming "OSWALD IS INNOCENT - HERE'S {one reason} WHY" is Fetz.

Add his "probability" BS and the site and reasoning is a fiasco

So I ask again... WHAT is our product... WHY and WHO are we talking to?

How do we counter, "3 shots, three shells, his rifle" without it sounding like the DNA evidence at OJ's trial?

IMO... Oswald in Mexico makes or breaks it all...

If he WAS there, he was there involved in a conspiracy... not a LONE anything

If he was not... the CIA created the scapegoat 8 weeks prior to the killing

Hoover's letter on Dec 12th specifically states he was not / is not comfortable with charging Oswald alone based on MEXICO CITY FBI sources.. this is HARD evidence that is impossible to refute...

Nothing DVP or McAdams can say can counter that paragraph... or the simplicity of the logic....

The LNer cannot escape that Oswald HAD to be in Mexcio City on those dates.. for the sole purpose of arranging passage via friendlies back to Russia.

If that's not him in Mexico, "Oswald is a Patsy set up by the CIA"

Correct me if I'm wrong here... there simply is no argument that can overturn this conclusion and logic...

11:35 a.m. December 12, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. TOLSON

MR. BELMONT

MR. MOHR

MR. CONRAD

MR. DELOACH

MR. EVANS

MR. ROSEN

MR. SULLIVAN

Mr. Lee Rankin called from New York to check in with me on the matter of the Commission. He wanted to work out an arrangement with me which he thought might be satisfactory. He said he understood Mr. Belmont handled the investigation.

I told Mr. Rankin that Mr. Belmont, Mr. Rosen and I handled the preparation of the report and will handle additional leads as they come in.

Mr. Rankin asked how he should handle anything that comes up, things the Commission will want developed further, in regard to the FBI - whether they should be handled directly with me or somebody I would designate.

I replied that I will designate someone. I explained that I sent Mr. Malley down to Dallas to handle all of our angles down there; that he was on the ground there; and that I think he probably would be the man who would be more familiar with things Mr. Rankin should further explore. I stated Mr. Malley is in Dallas at the present time but will be ordered back tomorrow; that he will be available; and that we will be glad to run out any additional men as he may want.

Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963

page 2

Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan

it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

As to Rubenstein, I said I did not want a statement about Rubenstein and Oswald; that we have no proof they were ever together. I stated Rubenstein is a shady character from the hoodlum element of Chicago, has a poor background, runs a nightclub in Dallas, and is what would be called a police buff; that the police officers in the precinct have been able to get food and liquor from him at any time they drop in; that while I think there was no connection between him and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that.

Fourth, I stated I did not believe any conclusions concerning Rubenstein should be reached at this time because he has not been tried; that was why I suggested to the Attorney General of Texas - and understand the Chief Justice did too- that his court of special inquiry be held in abeyance until after the Commission makes its findings. I said I thought they would go ahead with the Rubenstein trial in February; that was why I felt our report should name merely the facts we have established.

I further stated there may be some aspects Mr. Rankin will want to have run out farther; that there may be letters written to members of the Commission; that we have letters from people who claim to have seen Oswald; that up to the time we submitted the report we had cleared up all these angles except the Cuban thing which I discussed generally and explained that the informer recanted and blew that angle out of the window; that sort of thing may be popping up all the time. I advised Mr. Rankin if he wanted any leads followed out or any implementation of what we have already done we will give him 100% cooperation.

Mr. Rankin stated he knew we would; that he just wanted to

-2-

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963

page 3

Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan

establishing it as a matter I should know. I told him not to hesitate to call me; that I will designate Mr. Malley and he will advise me at once of anything. Mr. Rankin then said he would get in touch with me if he thinks there is anything which should be taken up on that level.

I mentioned to him the actions of the Soviet Embassy, the Communist Party in New York, and John Abt is making available to us their information on Oswald.

I also discussed the operations of the Dallas Police Department in the case which led to the murder of Oswald.

I told Mr. Rankin the Department held the report about five days and then began to leak items from the Department on it, items such as the shooting of General Walker, things not known in Dallas; that I kept pressing them to get the report to the Commission; that a debate was going on between the Department and me; that I did not want any conclusion drawn but I thought a conclusion had been made in the letter of transmission to the Commission; that there would have been no purpose in appointing a Presidential Commission except to evaluate the facts; that it was the duty of the FBI to get the facts

and let the Commission reach a conclusion.

I told Mr. Rankin we would want to do anything we can here to make his job easier. He said he has always had complete confidence in that and in me.

Mr. Rankin inquired if anything had been done about seeing that the films would be preserved and available for the Commission. I answered that we have them ourselves; that we have films taken by private individuals; that the President was not being covered by a car with television people as they do here in Washington; that there was not a professional photographer where this took place; that the Secret Service car immediately in back had already passed the building, which was at an angle, with the result they couldn't tell where the shots were coming from. I mentioned the comment by former Chief of Secret Service Baughman that he could not understand why the Secret Service men did not open fire with machine guns at the window. I said the Secret Service men did not see where the shots came from and would have killed a lot of innocent people if they had done so.

In connection with stories indicating that Oswald could not have done this alone, I stated he was a marksman and it wasn't anything he

-3-

Memorandum for Messrs. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr December 12, 1963

page 4

Conrad, DeLoach, Evans Rosenm Sullivan

could not do; that we have tested it on our rifle range and were able to get shots off even faster than he did; that there is no question in my mind about it; that we also found the fingerprints and the bullets so conclusively fired from the gun; that we have all this and we have all the photographs.

Mr. Rankin inquired if we also have the television film run off of the shooting of Oswald, and I told him we have this.

Mr. Rankin said Mr. Malone delivered to him a copy of the report and also offered to help in any way possible; this was very kind of Malone; but he will not deal with Malone in anything unless it is some

emergency and he has to handle it locally. I told Mr. Rankin this was all right and, if he should need to call upon Malone, Malone would be available.

I also told Mr. Rankin there is a direct wire between the New York Office and here; that he can always place any calls to here over our wire; and that I will arrange for this.

I told Mr. Rankin to let us know if there is anything we can do.

Very truly yours,

J.E.H.

On 2/1/2013 at 2:31 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Let me try.

Tha case we have to present is that there has not yet been an official investigation that was not obstructed by the CIA. 50 years have passed and our government is still withholding thousands of documents. Its time to release everything and do a proper investigation.

Surely we can all agree on these two points.

As the face of our community I suggested William Kelly, but I actually think that there should be many, and that they should just stick to the two points above. We should save the public from endless squabbling. We all want the same thing.

Given his recent interview I would hope that RFK Jr. would take a prominent role with the media.

Personally, I agree with Salandria. We already know what happened and why. We wouldn't be mired in this endless debate about how it happened had our elected government and our media done their jobs.

Interesting post Paul... do you really think a proper investigation could be done 50 years later?

Doesn't your post beg the simple question: If Oswald was both LONE and NUT... what could the government consider TOP SECRET enough to seal files for 75 years?

Has ANYTHING sealed even for a short time and finally released thru FOIA been shown to be a threat to national security other than exposing non-related illegal activites of the CIA/SS/FBI etc...

or having nothing whatsoever to do with the case?

Does this clearly state our case?

That records/investigations were blocked by the CIA... sources and methods could have been compromised... we were in the midst of a Cold War... sensitive info could fall into the wrong hands - ????

The HSCA already concluded the WCR was a poor job and left most stones unturned....

Doesn't THIS state our case simply and clearly? We still don't really know Oswald's role, exactly.

Does the FACT that the same report concludes that Oswald fired all three shots and that the SBT MUST still be valid hurt this as the focal point of our "product"?

IMO... we print/copy/eBook as many copies of FASLE MYSTERY as possible.

Same thing for the Katzenbach memo.... and the HSCA conclusion...

And rest our case

C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to

it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a

result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other

gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

Throwing in my .02 among the "heavyweights"

I've spent my life creating, writing, managing and implementing Marketing strategy.

After reading this thread all I see is us talking about the package before we even know what the product is...

This is a MARKETING CAMPAIGN... and Fetzer knows it... which is why he is making sure all roads lead to him.

Doug Horne - ? Yes, he touched the evidence, interviewed those that blew the case open and has published the findings.

But how do you explain the casket fiasco without sounding ridiculous? Does it matter to today's skeptic who Ruby was? How many shots actually hit JFK (if the evidence is so bad, as we all agree, how can we prop up a conclusion on it?) Whether the Xrays say this or that?

So I am wondering aloud what kind of Marketing stategy and planning has gone into WHY we need a face at all.. or WHAT it is we want to accomplish

Who is our target market for this info? Those at the 50th are already part of the flock except for the disruptors... and we are not talking to them in this plan...

Are we trying to illuminate the situation for some ultimate action to be taken?

Why is this our target market? Are we "Meeting the needs of this market" with the information (product) we are preparing to deliver

What is it we are trying to get across? "Oswald was not a lone assassin?" "Oswald was innocent, completely?" "The entire thing was a conspiracy/conver-up wrapped in yet another one inside another one....?"

How are we positioning our "product" for the greatest consumption?

Describe the distribution channels to be used

What is the marketing mix of tools to be used to acheive our goals?

Who is going to manage this project and ensure the tasks are performed and the results are on track?

Which part of the evidence proving the obvious conclusion can escape DVP's twisted view of the case and his unsupportable objections?

I am asking... can ANYONE state our case so it is clearly understood?

In the real world marketing is: MEETING NEEDS PROFITABLY

What do the fence sitters and nay-sayers NEED to BUY our PRODUCT - Answer that question and THEN talk about the package..

DJ

And the Bell film of that corner before the limo turns...

Another look at the cardigan man and he seems too fat....

Mr. WORRELL - Well, I got up about, well, I got up at my usual time, about 6:30. I was going to go to school that day but I decided to go see the President and my mother left about 7:30, and my sister left about a quarter of 8. I left about 8, and hitchhiked down to Love Field and got there. It took me quite a while to get there, about 9, and just messed around there until the President come in, whatever time that was. And then I didn't get to see him good at all. So I caught a bus and went over, went downtown and I just, I don't know, happened to pick that place at the Depository, and I stood at the corner of Elm and Houston.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you leave Love Field before the President did?

Mr. WORRELL - Oh, yes.

Mr. SPECTER - Why did you happen to leave Love Field before he left?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, so I could see him better.

Mr. SPECTER - Couldn't you get a good view of him a Love Field?

Mr. WORRELL - No, I just saw him get off the plane and I figured that I wasn't going to see him good so I was going to get a better place to see him.

Mr. SPECTER - How did you travel from Love Field to Elm and Houston?

Mr. WORRELL - Bus. No, no; I just traveled so far on the bus. I went down to Elm, and took a buds from there. I went down as far as, I don't know where that bus stops, anyway, I got close to there and I walked the rest of the way.

Mr. SPECTER - What time, to the best of your recollection, did you arrive at the intersection of Elm and Houston?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, about 10, 10:30, 10:45, something around there. There weren't many people standing around there then.

Mr. SPECTER - Well about how long before the Presidential motorcade came to Elm and Houston did you get there?

Mr. WORRELL - An hour; an hour and a half.

Mr. SPECTER - Are you sure you were at Love Field when the President arrived there?

Mr. WORRELL - Oh yes.

Yet on the other side of that coin... this is simply not possible... since the plane does not arrive until well after 11am.

So either he has his times wrong (which months after the fact you'd think he would have given the timing a LITTLE thought...)

Or he simply wanted a little limelight

DJ

On 1/31/2013 at 9:11 PM, Duke Lane said:

David, what are we looking at? Can you post a larger or full-sized image of the inset photo? What is it, what is it looking at, and what time is it? Remember that Worrell was gone by the third shot; he heard two after he started running, he said. The key time(s) to find him would be before any shots were fired, particularly as the motorcade was moving north along Houston.

Remember, too, that he was there for an hour or longer, he said, before the parade got there (even though AF1 hadn't landed even an hour before JFK got to DP, and Dicky had to get from Love Field (where he'd seen the President) to DP by bus in the interim.

This is Betzner's 2nd photo as the limo turns the corner... possbily at or just before the first shot...

the person in question is just above the windshield...

Yet from Worrell's statement he seems to have been closer to the building... maybe one of the men to the left of the man in the foreground??

Just looks to me the one I pointed out before is Tall, and dressed similiarly to the other photo of him...

DJ

No, it's NOT worth noting ... if he wasn't there.

According to his own description of where he was standing, he is not in any photograph or movie of the front of the TSBD.

Until someone can place him there photographically, then it doesn't matter a whit about what he says occurred in DP.

Nothing else about his story holds up either. He didn't witness a thing, so sorry to say.

Duke... I found the image on the left of Worrell and then tried to find someone similiar in the location he described....

And I found this taller man, with what looks like an open dark cardigan and similair features...

Thoughts?

I started this a while back and have not had the chance to expand on it as I would have liked.... BUT

I believe a spreadsheet approach allows for EASY entry and sorting, filtering, etc... PLUS each cell can contain images, links, anything really....

I would upload to the site here but it does not allow xlsx files...

People along left side, Time across top... Once filled in we should be able to trace a person/group/whatever thru the timeline as well as all the people and events at a specific moment in time.

Kinda wish we could find a teacher with a class who could undertake such a project and spread the work among many....

But I will keep pluggin away

Cheers

DJ

On 1/25/2013 at 6:52 PM, Thomas Graves said:

On 2/1/2012 at 9:45 PM, David Josephs said:

One of my favorite in fact... the range of expression and emotion...

Tom,

if that's Hunt...

{sigh}

cheers

DJ

Could the guy (standing to the left of center in the group of people; below) who is wearing the light-colored fedora with the wide, black hatband be the same guy (E. Howard Hunt?) who was captured near the left edge of the Cancellare, above?

--Tommy

Hi Tommy...

Seems there are quite a few men with that type hat... so I'm not sure...

What I did try was to locate him on Houston near Main as that seems to be were he may have come from.... the giveaway for me is that Hunt does not crease his hat...

It stays rounded at the top... the man you point to has a crease in the hat...

Allen -

Are you then of a mind that the entire US defense system decided to stand down that day

while three of the worlds largest steel framed buildings come crashing down in their own footprint

with mysterious black vans in and out of the buildings for weeks ahead of time

with all security basically removed from the buildings

with explosions occurring 1800 feet BELOW the impacts

with ALL the concrete turned to dust

with ridiculously high temps and melted steel at the BASE of the columns... for weeks

without a SHRED of evidence that a plane filled with people hit the pentagon

without a single explanation for WTC 7

with millions/billions in gold missing

and as a result, the Bush admin has its cause and reason to take over the region's oil and herion production profits

all the while spending trillions on military expendables...

Yet you want to hold to the notion that some guy in a cave and 19-20 mostly ARAB men... none of which whose bodies were found afterward and many of which were still alive

and the FBI STILL does not amend the official terrorist list...

with Able Danger dismantled

with investigations blocked at every turn...

You are either incredibly naive or simply not looking very hard at the situation.

Sorry to burst your USA bubble Allen... but just like so many other atrocities... the US POTUS Admin of the time planned and executed it (had been planning it since Rumsfeld was Nixon's COS and brought in Chaney)

and continues to thumb its nose at the rest of us... the did it smack dab in front of your eyes and there is NOTHING we can do about it...

Since 11/22 when it became official, the only way the POTUS gets what he wants is if the CFR/FED klan gets what THEY want.

Obama printed 2 trillion in new money... who's yachts do you think THAT interest will pay for?

"Reasonable" is not in play here Len....

The ad was placed and ran since August 1962.

C20-T750 - in the AD - was a scoped 36" rifle, the TS.

Orders came into Kleins FROM THESE COUPONS - agreed?

Kleins shipped customers SOMETHING for Item # C20-T750 between August and March

HIDELL was supposedly shipped a 40" FC rifle - yet there is nothing to prove it was ever delivered - for a Feb 1963 order

I've argued that the 100 rilfes marked "38 E" on all 10 packing slips were TS rifles based on the weights shipped and some simple logic (100 6.5lb rifles, 100 1lb packing cartons, 10 master shippers each holding 10 packed rifles = about 750 lbs, the shipment weight Railway charged for.... 100 7.5lbs rifles plus packing would be 100 lbs OVER... simple math.) and NO ONE has come forward knowing what "38 E" stands for or where one - ANY ONE OF 99 OTHER RIFLES wound up.\

Not ONE Len.... Is it really possible to get 100 rifles on 2/22/63 and only sell ONE OF THEM?

Is it REASONABLE to believe that the FBI did not print a SINGLE other order as the information on those orders would contradict the story being told about C2766?

That's ALL WE KNOW, Len. We also know that the FBI had microfilm with copies of ALL THESE ORDERS... so finding out exactly what was shipped, to whom and when was EASY on 11/23/63.

ONE INSTANCE does not constitute a business practice of shipping a larger heavier more expensive item for one ordered without informing customers... without CHANGING THE AD in August 1962 if they had no more of these rifles....

The evidence as it now stands highly suggests that the pencil written C2766 and VC836 where AFTER THE FACT... until we see another VC # shipped from that 100 rifle lot

there is NOTHING to corroborate Kleins shipping HIDELL C2766 at any time.

DJ

So David do you think it reasonable Klein's would advertise an item it had been out of for months? Other researchers have claimed the exact opposite that based on the shipping weights the received the 36" models not the 40" inch ones. If YOU are correct that would totally undermine the claim LHO's receipt of the 'wrong' rifle is suspicious, if they had the latter but not the former it makes sense they would have substituted one for the other and in fact the catalogue # of the 40" replaced that of the 36" around the time of the shipment.

The microfilm that had the HIDELL order as well as hundred of orders PRIOR to HIDELL was used to print ONLY the HIDELL order and then was taken by the FBI and becomes a WC exhibit. Except when Armstrong went to the Archives in 1995, that Microfilm container was empty... there is no way to see what the orders prior to Oswalds ON THAT FILM were shipped and how they were processed.

I don't trust Armstrong, did anyone else confirm this?

Can you think of any reason NOT to print these corroborating orders, that would be right there on the microfilm with the HIDELL ORDER other than they did NOT process them that way?

Who do you think should have printed this? The WC? I don't think this issue came up till after the report was published. Another reason no to make them public is the privacy of the other customers.

And what do you think happened to the rifle from the Hidel order?

And a more general question how could a group plotters so incompetent have pulled off such a complex plot?

On 12/28/2012 at 6:33 AM, Len Colby said:

On 12/27/2012 at 11:42 AM, David Josephs said:

The rifle ordered was a C20-T750 - which, as listed in the FEB issue of the magazine - was the M91/38 TS... they simply wrote 5.5lbs instead of 6.5 lbs but all the other descriptions of the rifle matches the TS...

92.7cms = 36.5 inches. In APRIL 1063, Kleins replaces the TS with the FC in their ads for C20-T750....

An interesting question remains... the C20-T750 was on ad from Aubust 1962 thru Feb 1963 as a 36" TS. Since Kleins NEVER rec'd the TS rifles (the order they cancelled)

It was my understanding they simply ran out of the shorter rifles not that they never had them. Ozzie seems to have ordered just around the time they ran out. And I don't think many people would complain about receiving a $20 product instead of a $ 13 one.

Well Len... rather than going with your understanding... how about just going and looking into it?

Kleins orders 400 36" TS rifles (Waldman 1) on January 15,1962 from Crescent Firearms

On April 13th 1962 Waldman claims they CHANGED the order to the 40" FC rifle (by Mitchell Westra)

The FIRST ORDER of FC rifles supposedly arrives at Kleins on Feb 21, 1963... AFTER the Feb Ad for a 36" 5.5lb C20-T750 is already out

Kleins advertised the 36" C20-T750 with scope for $19.95 since August 1962. (Which rifle was shipped for orders placed between August and Feb?)

The microfilm that had the HIDELL order as well as hundred of orders PRIOR to HIDELL was used to print ONLY the HIDELL order and then was taken by the FBI and becomes a WC exhibit. Except when Armstrong went to the Archives in 1995, that Microfilm container was empty... there is no way to see what the orders prior to Oswalds ON THAT FILM were shipped and how they were processed.

I went thru the packing lists of the rifle that arrived WITH C2766 and found the corresponding VC # asigned by Kleins (Waldman) - attached.

We have not a single record of what happened to any one of the other 99 rifles from that shipment...

If they were shipped in place of C20-T750 - as you say - then any single order showing that occurred would be proof in support of Kleins sending a different rifle for C20-T750 orders prior to and after HIDELL.

Can you think of any reason NOT to print these corroborating orders, that would be right there on the microfilm with the HIDELL ORDER other than they did NOT process them that way?

So back to our story.....

You say they simply ran out of the shorter rifle... they never GOT the shorter rifle... unless you can produce something showing Kleins EVER getting 36" M91/38TS rifles from ANYONE

They cancelled that order Len... 5 months before they started selling them as a scoped, packaged bundle.

So between January 1962 and February 22, 1963 there is no record of a shipment of TS "short" rifles to Kleins... what were they shipping for orders as they did not get the 40" model until Feb 1963

So again... If I sent in a coupon for a C20-T750 in say OCTOBER 1962... what do you THINK Kleins sent? Why don't we know EXACTLY what they sent and what the orders looked like...? I mean they HAD the microfilm (attached)

If one of the 99 other rifles were sold, the serial # and VC # would be on the order just like HIDELL's. it would show a C20-T750 ordered just like Waldman 7

Without a single piece of evidence we are supposed to take for granted that Kleins was shipping a replacement rifle or a rifle THEY NEVER ORDERED OR RECEIVED in place of the advertised one?

To your final sentence... agreed, no on e would complain, unless they WANTED the 36" rifle NOT the 40" one...

In that same wein, if YOU irdered a 36"TS and got the same model as the rifle that killed JFK - you think we'd have heard about at least ONE of them?

Where ARE those other 99 rifles Len? or did they even exist in the first place?

DJ

Hi jim thanks for your reply ...in regards to the rifle that oswald supposedly ordered i believe under a hidell I had read somewhere that the rifle found had matched the one "ordered". Do you where i can confirm that the rifles did not match ...thanks again

The rifle ordered was a C20-T750 - which, as listed in the FEB issue of the magazine - was the M91/38 TS... they simply wrote 5.5lbs instead of 6.5 lbs but all the other descriptions of the rifle matches the TS...

92.7cms = 36.5 inches. In APRIL 1063, Kleins replaces the TS with the FC in their ads for C20-T750....

An interesting question remains... the C20-T750 was on ad from Aubust 1962 thru Feb 1963 as a 36" TS. Since Kleins NEVER rec'd the TS rifles (the order they cancelled)

WHAT ON EARTH were they shipping to customers prior to Feb 63 (Hidell's order) when a C20-T750 order came in?

And why do we not see a single witness in the entire country, who said they ordered the C20-T750 but got the heavier FC rifle instead - the SAME RIFLE as Oswald... you'd think that would be important...

a pattern of Kleins shipping a replacement rifle...

Hope this helps clarify the situation a little

DJ