David Josephs
-
Posts
6,169 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
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
-
The only question I have is... with everyone claiming the 2nd floor from the top, SE corner... why does it take from 12:37 till 1:22 to find the shells and rifle?
Huhh? Everyone? You quoted Harkness as saying 5th, Hill saying "upper right hand corner" and Sawyer saying 4th or 5th. Being told the wrong floor would explain the delay. Also IIRC a few witness indicated the 6th or upper floors.
The witnesses all placed the shooting in the upper right corner of the TSBD... If Brennen or Euins or Rowland or Worrell where asked, which they were, they would tell you the 2nd wondow down from the top right hand corner....
SAWYER goes to the 4th floor and drops off two policement at 12:34... and comes back alone. Read the testimony - it's absurd. The building was left wide open for 30 minutes if not longer... the QUESTION Len, is what happens between 12:37 and 1:22, almost 45 minutes... while the KEY WITNESSES all told DPD exactly where the shots where fired from... ?? D
Frank Ellis and Sawyer REPEATEDLY stated the evidence was found on the 5th floor ... Ellis says it was moved up to the sixth... That was the ORIGINAL STORYHuhh? The original story is that it was moved? Do you have a source for your claim about Ellis? As for Sawyer isn't the most likely explanation be that he was mistaken? What would be the point of planting the rifle on the 5th then moments later moving it to the 6th? Alyea said he accompanied the cops as they searched floor to floor starting at the bottom and they found it on the 6th, I assume others indicated this as well.
Ellsworth, not Ellis... my bad. You really need to read Sawyer's testimony... IMO Sawyer was one of the bad guys.
But what the officers found may very well have been a Mauser considering what Frank Ellsworth saw in the Depository that day. Ellsworth was an agent of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency and was in his office not far from the Depository when he was told of the shooting. He ran to the Depository and entered the building with Captain Will Fritz. Ellsworth claims he found the sniper's nest on the sixth floor, but the "gun was not found on the same floor as the cartridges, but on a lower floor by a couple of city detectives... I think the rifle was found on the fourth floor." [32] Ellsworth participated in a second search of the Depository after 1:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963. The gun that was found was an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano hidden behind boxes near the "stairwell back in the northwest corner ... I have the recollection that the position it was in, and where it was found, led to conjecture that as Oswald came down the stairs he probably pitched it over behind these books." [33] Ellsworth has stood by his original assessment of where the Mannlicher-Carcano was found in a 1993 interview with authors Ray and Mary LaFontaine.
32. Russell, Dick. The Man Who Knew Too Much, Carroll and Graf, 1992, p. 568.
33. Ibid, p. 569
As early as 12:36 they know the spot where the shooter was supposedly seen... yet it's 40 minutes before the rifle and shells are found...Does that sound reasonable to you?
DJ
Yes if they were not sure of the floor and the shells were partially concealed by boxes.
You seem to take issue with the rifle being found 11 minutes after the shells, if so why? You also seem to take issue with a witness (either Sawyer or someone who spoke to him) who only would have seen the barrel briefly from a distance thinking it "looked like a 30-30 rifle or some type of Winchester", why?
Not taking issue at all... again, read TRULY's testimony related to talking to Lumpkin and going to see Fritz... I think you will find it very illuminating.
That it looked like a 30-30 is NOT the point of this thread.... except that the broadcast is at 12:44... and as a result of SOMEONE seeing it... "it LOOKED LIKE..." so either one of the four men named TOLD him this, which also included WHERE they saw this 30-30 looking rifle sticking out from, and STILL they do not go to THAT CORNER for some time yet.... or Sawyer saw it and had one of the men MOVE IT.... or ???
There are too many mentions of THAT CORNER for it to take so long for ANYONE to reach there... IMO.
Looked like there were more police arresting Oswald at the theater than looking for the rifle in the TSBD.... or being concerned that an ARMED ASSASSIN was laying in wait within the TSBD...
DJ
-
Lee... how does Yates' story fit into your scenario?
The actual Carcano taken in and hidden as well as it being in the paper bag that is "found" yet never photographed (as I can't see how it could have been made on the 22nd)
Isn't that yet a 4th rifle to consider?
Cheers
DJ
If Yates' story is true, David, then it could have been the Carcano that was found. I've been intensively researching Yates' story for quite a few months now and still do not know what to make of it.
My main point is that whether a real Enfield or a real Mauser were found or whether they were simply reported as being found, I cannot buy into the coincidence that both these types of weapons had direct links to people who would help define the official narrative.
EDIT:
P.S. I believe Warren Caster gave his Warren Commission testimony with Bill Shelley sat with him.
Was the Mauser that made a trip to the TSBD a 7.65 or a 7.62, the more popular version?
I ask since Boone and Weitzman were SPECIFIC about the caliber when they really didn't have to be....
Without SEEING a 7.65mm on the rifle there would be no reason to call it such. Especially since our MC has 6.5 stamped right on it.
I still have yet to see a photo a a single MAUSER with 7.65 stamped on it "in plain sight" yet since the 7.65 is about the same size as the 30.06... there is good reason to see why they may be "confused" but no good reason for the coincidence of THOSE types of rifles being at the TSBD THAT WEEK....
and Given what I've read about the gun smuggling going on at the TSBD... it is not surprising to think that the activity earlier in the week had to do with THAT TSBD business as opposed to Oswald....
the only thing connecting the shots to 6.5mm is CE399 and the rifle, right? the fragments cannot be traced back to specific sized ammo...?
We have no idea what occurred on the other floors during those 40 minutes... other than some strange testimony from Sawyer and the contradiction with Truly KNOWING he spoke to Fritz much earlier than previously thought.
A conspirator thinking out loud:
"It doesn't matter what rifle(s) they find... it will be seen as a conspiracy to kill JFK, one of the rifles can be traced back to Oswald while the others... will be part of shipments going to Cuba...
(we have all the weapons we need right there at the TSBD and "they" got Oswald to order a MC from Kleins as HIDELL)"
As with so much "conspiracy" evidence... the other rifle(s) and shells, etc... simply disappeared, like the shirt Oswald wore to work. Once LONE NUT was established... the only thing to explain away is Mexico City and Sylvia Odio which are either LNer lies of the CIA or proof of Oswald the conspirator... can't have it both ways....
-
Lee... how does Yates' story fit into your scenario?
The actual Carcano taken in and hidden as well as it being in the paper bag that is "found" yet never photographed (as I can't see how it could have been made on the 22nd)
Isn't that yet a 4th rifle to consider?
Cheers
DJ
-
The only question I have is... with everyone claiming the 2nd floor from the top, SE corner... why does it take from 12:37 till 1:22 to find the shells and rifle?
Frank Ellis and Sawyer REPEATEDLY stated the evidence was found on the 5th floor ... Ellis says it was moved up to the sixth... That was the ORIGINAL STORY
As early as 12:36 they know the spot where the shooter was supposedly seen... yet it's 40 minutes before the rifle and shells are found...
Does that sound reasonable to you?
DJ
12:34 142 (Patrolman C.A. Haygood) I just talked to a guy up here who was standing close to it and the best he could tell it came from the Texas School Book Depository Building here with that Hertz Renting sign on top.
12:36 260 (Sergeant D.V. Harkness) I have a witness that says that it came from the 5th floor of the Texas Book Depository Store.
12:37 22 (Patrolman L.L. Hill) Get some men up here to cover this school depository building. It's believed the shot came from, as you see it on Elm Street, it would be upper right hand corner, second window from the end.
12:37 137 (Patrolman E.D. Brewer) We have a man here who says he saw him pull the weapon back through the window off of the second floor from the southeast corner of that depository building
12:41 Dispatcher 2 (Batchelor) there's a possibility that 6 or 7 more people may have been hit.
12:44 Dispatcher Yes, 12:44 p.m.
12:44 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) The type of weapon looked like a 30-30 rifle or some type of Winchester.
12:44 Dispatcher 9, it was a rifle?
12:44 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) A rifle, yes.
12:44 Dispatcher 9, any clothing description?
12:44 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) About 30, 5'10", 165 pounds.
12:45 Dispatcher Attention all squads, the suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is supposed to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle, - repeat, unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build. No further description at this time or information, 12:45 p.m.
12:45 531 (Sergeant G.D. Henslee) Well, all the information we have receive, 9(Sawyer), indicates that it did come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that building.
12:47 Dispatcher Signal 19, involving the President. Suspect: white male, thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty-five pounds, believed to have used 30 caliber rifle. Believed to be in the old School Book Depository, Elm and Houston, at this time.
1:11 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) On the 5th floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle hulls and it looked like the man had been here for some time. We are checking it out now.
RIFLE FOUND AT 1:22 ON 6TH FLOOR
1:33 Dispatcher Notify 9 that we have information that the ladder that runs up to the roof on this building there is concealed space under a sheet metal plate, sheet metal has to be raised and there is some concealed space under that sheet metal. 1:33 p.m.
-
and why put a PO Box onto a flyer that serves as an invitation for literature and lectures... that would be useless
Could one of the ostensible motives of the FPCC masquerade perhaps be to entrap lefties in NO to send requests to join, so information could be gathered, spying and incrimination performed, etc?
Interesting thought David...
Did anyone ever check to see if any mail was ever delivered to the POBox in NO? and if so, what OTHER OSWALD mail if any was there?
DJ
-
Yet the hand stamp on most of the flyers is a PO Box...
Why put a POB as a location to receive info and lit on FPC flyers other than to HIDE the real location,
which in turn leads to Oswald being on a mission...
Which mission is yet to be determined....
You get the feeling he was pushed and pulled, for and against by "handlers" he wasn't sure what he was doing and for who...
DJ
-
Getting back to the Stamp kit and Camp Street....
I did this collage and found it interesting... I would need a flyer with the CAMP street address stamped on it...
but it's obvious this kit did the work on Hideel and on HANDS OFF... I will need to look thru everything to find other places where Oswald may have used this Stamp Kit....
And is there any significane to JUN 8, 1963?
Cheers
DJ
and why put a PO Box onto a flyer that serves as an invitation for literature and lectures... that would be useless
-
Getting back to the thread's title for a second... Sawyer was in the TSBD from about 12:34 till 12:37...
His testimony states he and 2 others went up to the 4th floor "for a look around"... gave it a once over and came back down, running into Baker.
The broadcast with the description was not until 12:44...
If he heard from Baker this description... and was out front by his car and radio by 12:37 or so....
Why wait to broadcast it...
Harkness and Haygood as well as Brewer have taken "witnesses" to the front of the tSBD... this includes Euins and Brennan, and by 12:40 in every case....
I see no reason that while out front with witnesses and other police, Sawyer would not have heard this description from SOMEONE....
If Sawyer does indeed mirrot Baker, then we know for SURE it was not Oswald, as it was not Oswald who Baker describes on the stairs....
I too agree the lunch story was inserted... for some reason... to get Oswald into the lunchroom.... I guess since so many people saw him there at that time.
The 5'11" 165lbs was a standard used to describe Ozzie... yet he was NEVER that tall or that heavy.... but LEE was....
-
Averell Harriman had absolutely nothing to do with the JFK assassination. Nothing. Nothing at all. In 4-5 years of intense JFK research I have found almost nothing in the literature or in comments among the top JFK researchers to indicate that Averell Harriman had anything to do with the JFK assassination.
Spoken from a position of utter ignorance, Robert strikes again...
Indeed you haven't read very much so it's no wonder you haven't gotten to it yet.
And even more OBVIOUS, imo...
is if his statement is correct... wouldn't this lead one to believe - given his proximity - that Harriman and the other "sponsors" had done an amazingly good job at covering ANY tracks leading to them?
Doesn't the notion that LBJ could even be CONSIDERED a "materstermind" automatically remove him from possiblity? What "mastermind" creates a plot that includes himself as a possibility?
I've read Robert write about CFR-based sponsors repeatedly.... LBJ was not a CFR insider - he took orders.
If anything Harriman and the sponsors easily kept their finger on LBJ... the idea that LBJ was the second "patsy" is actually quite profound imo....
Not only was he fearing being killed, but being outed as well... LBJ was a player on the chessboard... he had not real idea who owned the pieces
DJ
-
On 12/5/2012 at 9:35 AM, James H. Fetzer said:
Not to raise an obvious question, but what does most of the discussion on this thread have to do with the Altgens6 reenactment? Have any of you been able to "explain away" the obfuscated face? the missing shoulder? the Black Tie Man's being in front of and behind Doorman at the same time? the profile of the black man covering his torso? Because these are four independent proofs that Altgens6 was altered, which I take it most of you want to deny. Given four blatant proofs of alteration, where is your response? Are you trying to bury the issue under irrelevancies? It would probably be appropriate for the moderator to move those posts to a separate thread.
I usually dont repost my stuff, but Jim here ran from the discussion on DPF when I directly confronted his conclusions and his misleading probability statements about IF THEY WERE THE SAME SHIRT what are the odds of things Matching.... y'all are being played.
https://deeppolitics...61698#post61698
Here is your EXPLANATION JIM... the one you ran from on this forum when I pointed out your MATH was wrong, the way you described probability was wrong,
The MATCHES you claim to have made are poorly supported AND I identify 6 areas in which the images are NOT the same in Altgens and your post arrest photo.
Any one, 100% correct MISMATCH reduces the chances of the shirts being the same to ZERO... I found 6 that you don't even bother to address
The most obvious being the sleeve lengths... look at Lovelady afterward and Doorman... the left sleeve is down past his wrist while Oswald's shirt barely reaches his wrist.......
and the bald heads just don't match... they are both lovelady's.
We also discuss how Fritz's notes say that Oswald was out with Shelley - yet you IGNORE comments both from that same page AND the previous page:
On a previous page of the same notes Fritz tells us:
Changed shirts + tr. Put in dirty clothes - long sleeve red sh + gray tr.
On the SAME PAGE AS THE LOVELADY reference is:
home by bus changed britches
(britches being clothes btw)
If JF is going to give Fritz's note 100% reliability to PROVE DOORMAN IS OSWALD... then how does he dismiss Oswald TWICE mentioning changing his clothes, Bookout confirming in HIS report and them finding these clothes in his room and listing them on the inventory?
“Obvious proof” is obviously in the eye of the beholder (or creator) in this case Jim. UNTIL you can adequately address MY SIX POINTS OF MISMATCH and mitigate them to a ZERO PROBABILITY and support why you are even better than 50/50 on your Items... you can have a thousand matching items and STILL they would not be the same shirt….
You’re reaching for straws with an argument that is terribly inaccurate to the point of misleading….
One would think that Jim Fetzer would be extra careful not to employ the same underhanded tactics as those he is trying to expose.
DJ
Who would you choose as the "face of JFK research" for the 50th Anniversary
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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:
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.