Gil Jesus

Sorry to have you list all of that, but I'm really interested in this, Thank you.

Where can I find the source of these FBI teletypes ? I'd like to examine them.

This document you posted proves my point that something was going on here. As of 1:45 am on Saturday, the FBI could find no record of the sale of C2766 by Crescent Firearms, But Crescent's President, Louis Feldsott, swore in an affidavit that they DID find the record on the evening of Friday and he gave that record to the FBI. And that record indicated that the sale of C2766 was on June 18, 1962. So what's the FBI's game here ? Mitchell Scibor testified that: Mr. SCIBOR. I got a call Friday evening, November 22, asking if it would be possible to get at the records---at our records to see if that gun had been in our possession or sold by us. I got permission from one of the executives to open the store and view our records, and I came down here somewhere between 10 and 11 o'clock.Mr. BELIN. And what did you do when you got down here?Mr. SCIBOR. We went in with the Government men and--just before we went in, Mr. Waldman came down and we came in and he took over as far as getting-- trying to find the information that we needed. ( 7 H 370 ) The official record has the FBI tracing the rifle first through Crescent Firearms and then to Klein's. So how did the Chicago FBI know to go to Klein's BEFORE the NY office had found any record of the rifle at Crescent Firearms ? And why did it take 2 men searching the records of Klein's on two microfilm machines 5-6 hours to find the shipping records ? That's 10-12 man-hours. Why so long if the FBI provided them with the date of receipt and date of sale ? And how did Klein's records end up showing the purchase from Crescent was made on February 7, 1963 and not June 18, 1962 ? There's something going on with these documents and the version of their discovery. Something's not right.

I wish I knew.

Tom, from Waldman's testimony beginning in 7 H 360: Mr. BELIN. Did the FBI indicate at what time, what period that they felt you might have received this rifle originally? Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us. ( 7 H 364-365 ) He didn't say "we" had the record, he said they ( the FBI ) had the record of when it was shipped. This was the only time in this answer he used the pronoun "they". When he was talking about Klein's, he used "we". So how did the FBI know when the rifle was shipped ? Also, Waldman was never asked to identify Waldman Exhibit 7 as a document he viewed on the morning of the 23rd. This omission casts some doubt on whether or not he actually saw the document. He identifies the carton that contained the microfilm, FBI # D-77 ( Klein's number 270502 ) by saying he initialled it. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0363b.htm He offers no testimony to prove that the microfilm was not tampered with after he turned it over to the FBI. Then we have an FBI report dated 12/9/63 from the Chicago office saying that the FBI wasn't notified by Klein's of the sale of the rifle to "A.Hidell" until December 7, 1963. ( CD 149, pg.3 ) This document never made it into the 26 volumes. My guess is that the FBI asked them for the microfilm records prior to 4/10/63 ( the date of the Walker shooting ), they found the microfilm and turned it over to the FBI, who then destroyed the record of the real purchaser, edited the "Hidell" transaction into the microfilm ( yes, the FBI had their own microfilm machine ) and copied it to hide the editing. Hence, the FBI finished forgery was done on 12/7/63 and it was shown to and verified by Klein's manager Mitchell Scibor. From that point on, it was an official record.

According to the ad: C20T751 was 108 rounds of ammo with a six-shot clip. C20T750 was the rifle, which came with the clip. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/kleins-ad-36.jpg

One of the major questions regarding the 40" rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository is how "A.Hidell" could have ordered a 36" rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, been shipped a 36" rifle serial number C2766, but received a 40" rifle with the same serial number.The truth of the matter is: the paperwork is fake. How do I know this ? Because the foundation of this rifle's connection to Oswald begins with the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman magazine. In it's ad, Klein's advertised a 36" Italian Carbine for $12.88. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/kleins-ad-36.jpg The FBI was given and used the information off of it to fake the Klein's shipping records to "A.Hidell". They used the C20-T750 catalog number on the paperwork and police had knowledge of its 36" length in order to make the 38" "paper gunsack" on the afternoon of the assassination.The FBI hand wrote the serial number C2766 from the 40" rifle onto the paperwork. Hence, you have paperwork showing a 36" rifle serial number C2766 and a 40" rifle with the same serial number. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/WH_Vol21_703-kleins-BOL.jpg They made this error because they never took the initiative to measure the 40" rifle. They had no idea there was a difference in length between the rifle in the February ad and the rifle that was ordered later that year.When the FBI faked the Klein's documents, they destroyed the original records on the sale of the 40" rifle C2766 to hide the identity of who really ordered that rifle.On the afternoon of the assassination, the "paper gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police using the paper and tape that was on the shipping table on the 1st floor of the TSBD. Then they took a sample of the same roll of paper and tape.What they were trying to do was to connect the "gunsack" to the TSBD, but what they didn't realize they were doing was connecting the "gunsack" to the TSBD on the afternoon of the assassination.That " gunsack" at 38 inches, was made for a 36" rifle.The fact it was made for a 36" rifle tells me that the police knew how long they thought the rifle was, but didn't know that Klein's had shipped 40" rifles later in the year when the 36" rifles ran out.The shipping paperwork and the length of the gunsack reflected information that could only come from the February 1963 Klein's ad in American Rifleman magazine.They thought the C2766 40" rifle was 36 inches, so they created the fake paperwork and the fake "gunsack' to reflect that. So in the end, the rifle never grew four inches, a physical impossibility. The FBI just faked the documentation and the Dallas Police faked the "gunsack" for the wrong sized rifle.

I suggested looking into moving the board to a free board provider like https://www.proboards.com/. Unlimited posts for free. My suggestion didn't seem to have been met with any enthusiasm.

Thanks for that link, Karl. I wonder why the authorities never ascertained whether or not there was anybody else in the shoe store at the time of this encounter and if they could substantiate Brewer's story. Once the city saw him as a hero, there was no putting that genie back in the bottle. And so the legend continued.....

Typical Von Peinspeak. No evidence, just commentary. He uses terms like "quite clear", "one of the radio stations" "whatever radio station.....most definitely did broadcast" and "most likely". LNers use these terms when they can't provide evidence for their argument. Brewer told the FBI he heard the description of the man wanted for the Tippit shooting on the radio and the man in the window "resembled this person". Brewer made no such claim that he heard a description of the suspect in his affidavit of December 5, 1963 nor during his Warren Commission testimony only a month after the above FBI statement. Why not ? And why did he tell the FBI that ? Ask Von Pein what radio station broadcast the description of the man and at what time ?

Kathy, I'm retired, I get SS too and I get barely by. I'm aware of the hardship for some but I just don't think that it's fair to ask one person or 10 people to pay for the gas so everybody else can ride in the bus for free. John Simkin, God bless him, took that burden upon himself, but that was a long time ago. Historically, donations haven't got it done, or else Jim wouldn't be in the pickle he's in. Then there's the question of who pays the shortfall every month when the donations don't cover it ? Somebody's going to have to take that hit. Donations may keep the forum afloat for a few months, but I doubt they'll be the answer in the long run. They never have been. Down the road, you may have to consider yearly subscriptions for membership anyways.

No not at all, I was talking about the lone nutters. I doubt they'd stick around if they had to pay. That tells you something about their commitment.

If the forum is not "pay-to-post", there's no benefit to paying. If you offer someone a service and give them the choice of paying or not paying, what do you think they're going to choose ? In an open posting format, what benefit would the paying member have that the non-paying member would not have ? What incentive do you have to draw new members to the forum ? "Pay-to-post" does that. It offers the paying members the benefit of posting and at the same time eliminates those "members" whose purpose here is only to disrupt, insult and cause chaos. Only the serious researchers will pay up. And the "guests" will still be able to read for free. I get the tradition and the John Simkin legacy thing. That comes from the hearts of well-intentioned people. I get that. But this is about whether or not this forum will exist three weeks from now. This isn't about heritage, this is about survival. This forum can no longer survive with one person ( first John, then Jim ) taking the burden of the costs alone, nor should we expect him to. That's not fair. I agree with you that it has to be run like a business, but in order for a business to be successful, it has to have capital. And to ask certain members to pay while excusing others, with no benefit offered to the payer, IMO, just doesn't seem fair either. That's my two cents worth.

Well then I hope you'll understand that I'm not going to pay to be insulted by those who don't agree with me.

I hope the powers to be will consider making the forum a "pay to post" format. I don't think it's fair to ask people to cough up money for the priviledge of being insulted by "freebies" who claim they can't afford it. The alternative would be to move the forum to a free forum carrier, like https://www.proboards.com/ .

Micah, On September 15, 1967 one of Jim Garrison's investigators, Bill Boxley, compiled a list of Dallas witnesses and their addresses and phone numbers. On page 2 of that document is the name of Tommy Rowe who Boxley noted, "allegedly told shoe store manager OSWALD had gone into theater." This is the same document Armstrong cites on page 859 ( "Dallas Miscellany", pg. 2 ) as the source that Garrison's office interviewed Rowe and that Rowe told them that he saw a man with a brown shirt enter the Texas Theater. As you can see, it says no such thing. It's hard to imagine Armstrong, or anyone else, misinterpreting the evidence. Either his citation is wrong or he misrepresented what the document really said. Brewer told Griggs that he thought the radio station he was listening to was KLIF and testified that he heard that a police officer had been shot ( 7 H 2 ) and a description of the suspect was broadcast. ( CD 735, pg. 266 ) But Mrs. Postal was listening to KLIF ( 7 H 9 ) at the same time and didn't even know a policeman had been shot until after Oswald was in custody ( 7 H 13 ). How did she not hear the broadcast ? Brewer told the FBI that he and Burroughs "looked over the patrons" and "did not see this person". ( CD 735, pg. 266 ) Why not ? If he saw Oswald in the window of his store and he looked familiar in the store window, why didn't he recognize him in the theater ? Because he never saw him in the window and the theater was too dark to determine color. He was looking for a brown shirt. I believe Rowe was the one who told Brewer about the man in the window. I believe he described him only as having a brown shirt. I believe that it was Rowe who saw him in the lobby and Rowe who went out to the sidewalk. I believe Rowe was the one who recognized him. I believe Rowe told Brewer the man went into the theater. I don't believe Rowe went down to the theater and pointed Oswald out. He couldn't just leave the store like that, he was only a clerk. But the manager could. Besides, all evidence points to Brewer as the one who approached Mrs. Postal. The evidence indicates that it was physicaly impossible for anyone standing in front of the shoe store to see someone 60 yards away enter the theater's recessed doors. Brewer's comment to Mrs. Postal that the man went right by her because she was facing west ( 7 H 11 ) indicates that he had no idea which way the man went. The fact that he couldn't even tell whether the man's pants were light colored or dark ( 7 H 3 ) indicates that he never saw him walking down the sidewalk. Brewer went looking for a guy in a brown shirt. This was the only description he had of a man he hadn't seen, but was told about. When the lights went on in the theater, he saw Oswald wearing a brown shirt and assumed he was the guy Rowe saw. Then we have Burroughs saying that Postal DID sell Oswald a ticket. Did Oswald enter the theater, not seeing Burroughs and simply "slipped" in with his ticket ? Did Burroughs miss him as he went by ? Did he come out to the lobby later, as Jack Davis indicated, to have his ticket checked by Burroughs ? Is that why Burroughs said Oswald "slipped into" the theater between 1:00 and 1:07, because he never saw him until he came to the concession stand at 1:07 to get his ticket torn ? If that's true, people want to know where the ticket stub is. Could Oswald have thrown it away ? Or was it in his pocket when he was arrested and "morphed" into the bus transfer ? There's a lot of smoke there.

Pete, I went back and checked the timeline and it seems like there WAS a period where Oswald could have bought the shoes. It was between the time he came back from Mexico ( Oct. 3rd ) and the time he got the job at the TSBD ( Oct. 16 ). He was staying at the YMCA at the time and looking for work. It makes sense that he'd want a new pair of shoes to wear to job interviews. If the purchase was made on a weekday, it had to have been the week of Oct. 6-10. I'm surprised the FBI couldn't figure that out and come up with a sales slip. It just seems strange to me that Brewer could remember every detail of the transaction except the date.

If the shoes were recovered from 1026 North Beckley, they would have had to have been purchased after he moved in there, October 14th. Looking at the picture, ( the black shoes in the middle ) they don't look like they're in bad shape, but do they look like they're only a month old ? So Brewer could remember the model number, color, the size of the shoe, the type of sole, how many eyelets it had and the price he paid for it, but couldn't remember when it was purchased. Didn't Hardy's keep sales records ? Was it on a weekday when his housekeeper, Mrs. Roberts, said he'd come home, go to his room and never come out ( 6 H 437 ), or was it on a weekend when he was at the Paine's house in Irving ( ibid. ) ? Isn't an 8 1/2 shoe a little small for a guy who was ( according to his DOD card ) 5-11 ? I'm 6ft and my shoe size is 10 1/2. How could Oswald buy shoes at Hardy's when all of his time after October 14th is accounted for by his job at the TSBD, his housekeeper, his wife and Mrs. Paine ? Was it Oswald who bought the shoes or someone who resembled him ? And if someone else bought them, how did they make it into the items recovered from his room at 1026 No. Beckley ? Makes you wonder.

Good point, Ron. It doesn't add up, does it ?

One way police can determine the credibility of a witness is whether that witness' version of events is supported by either another witness or the physical evidence. Was there another witness who could back Burroughs' revelation that Oswald was in the theater prior to 1:15 ? The answer to that question is yes. Theater patron Jack Davis told Jim Marrs said that only minutes past 1:00 pm, during the opening credits of the first movie, he was startled by a man who squeezed past him and sat down in the seat next to him. This man moved around in the theater and eventually got up and walked toward the lobby. Eventually, the man came back and sat in the center section. When the house lights came on, Davis went out to the lobby to find out what was going on when he saw the police rushing in. He heard the scuffle in the theater and saw them bring out Oswald, who he said, was the man who sat next to him when the movie began. ( Marrs, Crossfire, pg. 353 ) If Davis' is an example of the type of story the Dallas Police were getting from the patrons of the theater, then it's no wonder why the list of people in the theater and what they told police has disappeared into eternity. So then we look back at Burroughs' testimony and ask ourselves why he said what he said. One of the things I find strange while reseaching this, is that unlike many of the witnesses in this case, I could find no evidence that Burroughs ever gave a sworn affadavit. I could find no interview of him in either the Dallas Police files or the FBI files. And the Warren Report makes no mention of his name. A strange omission of the only witness who could prove the Commission's contention that Oswald sneaked into the theater to avoid apprehension by police. Or could he ? Did he tell them the truth or did he tell them what they wanted to hear ? During their investigation, the FBI threatened and coerced witnesses into changing their stories for the record. An example of the tactics they used was revealed in the testimony of W.W. Litchfield who told the Commission that the FBI threats definitely had an effect on how he answered their questions. In this example, Litchfield told the FBI that he saw Oswald in the Carousel Club but was forced on the record to sign a statement saying the man was "a close resemblance". Mr. HUBERT. I gather that you were more positive of the identity of Oswald as being the man in the Carousel on the occasion we have been speaking about at one time than you are now? Mr. LITCHFIELD. I was; yes. Mr. HUBERT. What has caused your opinion in the matter to weaken? Mr. LITCHFIELD. The fact that they gave me the polygraphic test, that showed when they asked me–was it definitely him, it didn’t show up right, and the fact that I had told Don when I called him, I said, “It sure as heck looks like him,” and when the police were questioning me, they said, “Are you positive, are you positive, are you positive?” I said, “It looks like him, it looks like him, it looks like him.” And they come back, “Are you positive, are you positive?” And then the fact that when the Federal agents talked to me, they said, “You know, if you say you are positive and it wasn’t him,” it’s a Federal charge, and I said, “Well, I’m not that positive.” Mr. HUBERT. The Federal agent told you if you gave an opinion—- Mr. LITCHFIELD. No; they said, “If you give false information as to an exact statement–” not an opinion, but if I say I’m positive, that’s a statement. Mr. HUBERT. Well, are you conveying to me that you really were positive, but that—- Mr. LITCHFIELD. In my mind. Mr. HUBERT. You were scared off of it ? Mr. LITCHFIELD. No, sir; no, sir. I said in my mind I was positive that it looked like him, but I’m just as fallible as anybody else. I could be 100 percent wrong. I said, “In my mind, the man that I saw looked just like him,” but then again, I can’t say 100 percent. Mr. HUBERT. And that is still your opinion? Mr. LITCHFIELD. I said it bears a close resemblance, but not having come in contact with Oswald at all or having never met him or anything, and just seeing him for a fleeting glance, the back of his head and when he walked by me; no, I can’t be 100 percent pure positive. Mr. HUBERT. But you knew all of that the first time you told it to Green ? Mr. LITCHFIELD. Well, like I said, “It sure does look like him–the man I saw there sure does look like Oswald,” those are my words. Mr. HUBERT. But, what has caused you to weaken in your opinion it was Oswald, as you tell it to me, is the fact that you got the impression that if you gave a positive identification and it proved to be false, that it would be a Federal offense, is that correct ? Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes; they said giving false information to the FBI, and I’m not 100 percent pure positive. I say, “It bears a close resemblance,” and this is all I can say. Mr. HUBERT. And that’s all you did tell them ? Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes, sir; that’s the statement I signed. ( 14 H 107-108 ) Not only did the FBI use threats to change what the witnesses said, they used threats against witnesses who were sure of what they saw to make them appear less sure in the official record. This same tactic was used on witnesses who said they were “positive” that the man they saw was not Oswald. This is why Federal agents were present during the questioning of witnesses at several different locations including the Tippit murder scene, the Dallas Police station and the Texas Theater, when the FBI had no legal jurisdiction in any of these crimes. They were there to hear, question and intimidate witnesses. These tactics seemed to work. Original stories like the one of Charles Givens, who at first said he saw Oswald on the first floor at 11:50 and then said he hadn’t seen Oswald all morning. Or Domingo Benavides, who was 15 feet away from the Tippit killer but was afraid of not being able to identify the killer if he said he could, so he declined to view a lineup. Then, once Oswald was dead, he identified him. But in the case of Marina Oswald, the threat was to deport her if she didn’t “cooperate” with the “investigation”. Deportation would have meant that she would have gone back to Russia without her kids, who were American citizens by birth. She’d go, they’d stay. She'd never see her daughters again. The threat of losing her children forever would have been enough to make ANY mother tell them what they wanted to hear. True or not. Under those circumstances, anything Marina Oswald testified to was made under duress and her testimony, to put it nicely, is suspect. While questioning witnesses whose statements did not fit the official version, the FBI notified them that they were making a “statement” and if they turned out to be wrong, they could be charged with making a false statement to a Federal Agent, a charge that carried with it a five year prison term. The only way to avoid this charge, the witnesses were told, was to change or alter their statement. Of course, witnesses feared a prison term for just being wrong, so many of them went on the record stating that which they knew was not true. Others' statements, like the theater patrons, disappeared. Still others, who may not have cooperated with the FBI, had their statements altered without their knowledge. That may be the reason why Burroughs' testimony says one thing, then years later, when he wasn't talking to a federal employee and under the threat of a prison term, he told the real story.

So I guess Burroughs lied. Then the question is did Burroughs lie originally or did he lie in later years ? And why did his story change ?

In this interview, Burroughs says Oswald came into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm. The man Brewer and Postal said they saw at 1:30 may have had a brown shirt, but he was NOT Oswald.

Agreed. This is the official story : Oswald discarded his jacket, but kept the very weapon that tied him to the Tippit murder. Oswald went from escaping the Walker shooting by bus, escaping the assassination scene via bus and taxi, to escaping the Tippit murder on foot. He fled down one of the busiest streets in Oak Cliff walking at time when the police were looking for a cop-killer on foot. He had money in his pocket but decided that rather than take the bus or taxi, which were his ( successful ) methods of escape previously, he'd risk drawing attention to himself by trying to beat the Texas Theater out of 90 cents. One thing I learned about criminals is that they stick to what works. That's what they call Modus Operandi, or M.O.. His "flight" from the Tippit murder is not only a change of M.O., it makes no sense at all.

Tell that to Bill Brown. He said it.

Jim, may I suggest that under the current economic situation you consider adding a fee of $60 per year ( $5/month ) for members who wish to post. Lurkers and non-members could continue to read the postings for free, but those who wish to participate in the debate and post would need to pay a fee. This would also serve to filter out the "riff-raff" and retain only those posters who are serious about the evidence. Current members would have the option of paying monthly or yearly or not paying at all and just read for free. I've been a member of this forum since 2005 and I realize that this forum gets a lot of exposure so its importance to all of us is quite obvious. I'd be willing to go the yearly route. I hope you and our members will consider this option to save our forum.