Gil Jesus

There's a second problem I have with the FBI's paperwork trail. The original Bill of Lading from Italy states that there were only 288 cartons of "model 38 E " rifles in that shipment. http://i51.tinypic.com/33osil1.jpg But the Harborside shipping records referred to above show that Rupp removed 434 rifles between August 29 and October 31, 1962 ( 170+90+70+64+40 ) and that ALL of those rifles were models "38 E" 's. The 170 he removed on 8/29/62 http://i55.tinypic.com/a9o2sk.jpg The 90 he removed on 10/4/62 http://i55.tinypic.com/2j2zrrr.jpg The 70 he removed on 10/16/62 http://i51.tinypic.com/1z5nr04.jpg The 64 he removed on 10/24/62 http://i54.tinypic.com/29gjqtc.jpg The 40 he removed on 10/31/62 http://i53.tinypic.com/aww9xj.jpg How could that possibly be ?

1. Produce it. Produce any document that says that carton 3376 was removed from Harborside Warehouse. 2. If you want to talk about the other nine cartons in the shipment, tell us why Crescent invoice 3178, the one the FBI used to "prove" that carton 3376 / rifle C2766 was part of the February shipment, shows that the "other nine" cartons in that shipment were checked off as being verified and the tenth, carton 3376 was not. http://i51.tinypic.com/15nkkjk.jpg IOW, carton 3376 was never verified as being part of that February shipment. 3. I never said that the other nine cartons in the shipment were fakes and I challenge you to go back to the original post and quote where I did. THAT WAS YOU WHO BROUGHT THAT UP in one of your usual attempts to change the subject when faced with evidence that makes you feel uncomfortable. I have a major problem with Crescent's invoice # 3178, which was used by the WC to "prove" that carton 3376 and thus rifle C2766 was part of the February shipment. The cartons on that document were checked off by someone who either shipped or received them and all were checked off EXCEPT carton 3376. http://i51.tinypic.com/15nkkjk.jpg As a result of that, I'm not convinced that carton 3376 / rifle C2766 was part of that shipment. If that makes me a "kook" or "retard" ( as you referred to me in the newsgroup alt. conspiracy.jfk ), so be it. I prefer to see myself as having legitimate questions regarding the evidence that you can't handle.

In 1958, Crescent Firearms purchased 500,000 rifles from the Italian Government. The final shipment of those rifles ( 520 cartons ) left Italy's port of Genoa after being identified as lot number 91594 and arrived in the New York via the steamer Elettra Fassio on October 15, 1960. The 520 cartons were removed and trucked by the Waterfront Transfer Company to the Harborside Terminal, a bonded warehouse in New Jersey. http://i51.tinypic.com/33osil1.jpg As one can see, the CARTON NUMBERS are listed on the manifest. For example, "3086/3094" means that all cartons numbered from 3086 thru 3094 inclusive were on this shipment. The third entry down, 3305/3436, means that all cartons bearing numbers in that range were part of this shipment, including the carton 3376, which contained rifle # C2766. In fact, ALL of the cartons listed in the February 1963 shipment to Klein's were part of this shipment. The shipment was placed in storage and remained there for the next two years. This is where the paper trial for carton 3376 ends. Fred Rupp was a federally-licensed gun dealer who had a contract with Crescent Firearms to pick up rifles at the Harborside Warehouse and inspect, clean, test-fire, repack and ship them to Crescent's retail customers. Klein's purchase order of 1/15/62 requested that 400 model 91TS rifles ( 36" troop specials ) be delivered in October, 1962. http://i56.tinypic.com/25u5mqf.jpg According to Harborside delivery order # 89238, Rupp removed the first 170 cartons on August 29, 1962. A list of the numbers of the cartons removed was on the manifest. CARTON 3376 WAS NOT AMONG THEM. http://i55.tinypic.com/a9o2sk.jpg Importers of rifles and gun dealers were required BY LAW to maintain a list of SERIAL NUMBERS of the rifles they imported. Rupp was required by law to keep a list of the serial numbers he removed from the warehouse ( which he did on the 8/29/62 manifest ) and the name of the retail customer he shipped them to. And Klein's was required to keep the serial numbers of rifle they sold to retail customers. ( 7 H 371 ) During the month of October, 1962, Rupp removed 264 more rifles from lot 91594. 90 on October 4th http://i55.tinypic.com/2j2zrrr.jpg 70 on October 16 http://i51.tinypic.com/1z5nr04.jpg 64 on October 24 http://i54.tinypic.com/29gjqtc.jpg 40 on October 31 http://i55.tinypic.com/2j2zrrr.jpg On all of the subsequent shipping manifests of the rifles removed from Harborside Warehouse by Fred Rupp, THE LIST OF CARTONS NUMBERS IS ABSENT, even though on the 10/24 manifest, it is clearly marked "list numbers of cases shipped". Rupp removed a total of 434 Mannlicher Carcano 91/38 rifles in the month of October 1962 from the lot of 520 rifles ( 91594 ) belonging to Crescent Firearms. He told the FBI that he kept no record of the carton numbers or serial numbers of the rifles he removed from Harborside. ( CD 7, pg. 180 ) In other words, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CARTON 3376 WAS AMONG the 434 rifles removed by Rupp, even though the FBI said it was. The FBI's " tracking of the rifle " included unsigned and undated documents and manifests which listed neither the serial numbers nor the carton numbers. One of particular note is Crescent Firearms invoice # 3178. Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, referring to Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3, which are the serial numbers of the 100 rifles which were made in this shipment from Crescent Firearms to you.......is there any way to verify that this payment pertained to rifles which are shown on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3? Mr. WALDMAN. The forms submitted by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles included in the shipment covered by their invoice No. 3178 indicate that the rifle carrying serial No. C-2766 was included in that shipment. ( 7 H 368 ) WHOA...WAIT A MINUTE...IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT !!!!! If you look closely at invoice # 3178, you'll see that ALL OF THE CARTON NUMBERS HAVE LITTLE CHECKS ABOVE THEM EXCEPT CARTON NUMBER 3376. http://i51.tinypic.com/15nkkjk.jpg That means that in verifying the carton numbers in that shipment, 3376 was never verified as being a part of that shipment.

While I agree with your basic complaint that the FBI reports are not very reliable, I tend to believe most of their misrepresentations came from the bias against Oswald spread from Hoover down to his men, as opposed to an organized effort. For example, in January, the FBI got wind of a rumor a bullet hole had been found in the limousine. So how did they handle it? Did they interview the SS agents and technicians involved in the re-modeling of the limousine? No, they called one SS official and ASKED HIM if it was true! When one reads through their memos and reports, it's quite clear, IMO, that they thought their efforts were an incredible waste of time, and that they wanted to do as little as possible, and that, in the process, they failed to include information that might lead them to "waste" more time. As yet another example, in March they were asked to talk to everyone who worked in the TSBD to see 1) where this person was when the shots rang out and 2) if this person recalled seeing anything odd on the day of the shooting. Well, WHY hadn't they done this the DAY after the shooting? And why, now that they have been ordered to actually do their job, did they fail to ask these potential witnesses pertinent details about the shooting, such as how many shots were fired and whether the P reacted to the first shot? Because they just didn't care... The WC was doomed, IMO, the moment they decided to rely not only upon the initial FBI and SS reports, but on the FBI to conduct any further investigation. It was like asking a bully to review his behavior and decide whether or not his blaming everything on the nerd was justified. Pat, it amazes me how many witnesses to the crime were not interviewed until AFTER the FBI's summary report on the assassination of 12/5/63. You'd think that they would have wanted to interview the witnesses BEFORE releasing the report.

The foundation of the case against Oswald depends on the credibility of the evidence, which is itself founded on the credibility of those who HANDLED the evidence. If those who handled the evidence were less than honest, then the evidence itself becomes questionable. The fact that the FBI intentionally omitted details, distorted facts and flat out lied about what the witnesses told them, serves as measurement of the credibility of the case against Oswald. And just one instance of such mishandling of the evidence is enough to get the case thrown out of any criminal court. Had the case against Oswald been that solid, there would have been no reason why the FBI or the Dallas Police would have had to omit, distort or lie about the facts. There would have been no reason to jeopardize having the case thrown out of court. A few opposing viewpoints would have made no difference. The case would have stood on its own merit. IOW---the truth never needs lies to support it.

Proof the FBI LIED in their WC Reports

Dallas DA Craig Watkins was interviewed on PBS Newshour last night. He said that EVERY ONE OF THE 25 PEOPLE WHOSE CONVICTIONS HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED BY DNA EVIDENCE WERE ORIGINALLY ID'd BY WITNESSES, just like Oswald, bringing to question how much pressure was placed on witnesses by Wade to ID "perpetrators" who were really not guilty of the crimes they were accused of. Here's the transcript of the interview: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june11/texascase_01-04.html

" The first tentative date was to have the trip coincide with Vice-President Johnson's birthday on August 27th...." Cliff Carter affidavit ( 7 H 475 )

Good catch, Gil. Actually two good catches. I do not suspect Hoover or the FBI of involvement in the plot to kill JFK, but it does appear that, after the fact, members of the FBI quickly bought into the "Oz did it" scenario, and downplayed or ignored any evidence that pointed elsewhere. Here's an excellent example of as you say "downplaying or ignoring any evidence that pointed elsewhere: Witness Jesse C. Price gave a statement to the Dallas Sheriff's Department on November 22, 1963. Price said that after the shooting, he saw a man running from the location where he believed the shots had been fired and described the man he saw: http://i53.tinypic.com/doxr0p.jpg But the FBI report on Price two days later contains nothing of what he saw, but rather simply says that Price saw "nothing pertinent". http://i51.tinypic.com/ipv0go.jpg So here's a witness who, after the shooting, sees a man running from the area where he thought the shots came from and it's "NOT PERTINENT" ??????? To what, the murder of the President, or the preconceived notion of Oswald's guilt ?

Good catch, Gil. Actually two good catches. I do not suspect Hoover or the FBI of involvement in the plot to kill JFK, but it does appear that, after the fact, members of the FBI quickly bought into the "Oz did it" scenario, and downplayed or ignored any evidence that pointed elsewhere. I've got a real good video on my youtube channel where Harold Weisberg explains why Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory actually hid Hoover's foreknowledge of the assassination. Here it is:

Although I've heard of the Thresher incident before and find it interesting, I also find it difficult to believe that someone blew the President's brains all over Elm Street by accident.

The FBI report of Richard C. Dodd ( CE 1420 ) says that Dodd "...did not look up and did not know where the shots came from." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433a.htm But in this 1966 interview with Mark Lane, Dodd says that "...we all...four saw the same thing---the shots--the smoke came from behind the hedge on the north side of the plaza." Dodd also tells Lane in the video that he gave the FBI the SAME ACCOUNT when he was interviewed that he gave Lane in the video. IOW, the FBI falsified what he told them----- and THAT brings the credibility of the entire written record into question. Is there any wonder why the witness was never called to testify ? You can believe what they said the witnesses said, or you can hear it from the witnesses themselves.

The FBI report of James Leon Simmons ( CE 1416 ) says that ..." it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432a.htm But in a 1966 video interview with Mark Lane, Simmons said that " ...it sounded like it came from the left and in front of us, towards the wooden fence." The FBI report also states that "Simmons then ran toward the Texas School Book Depository with a policeman." But Simmons gives a different location in the video "I was talking to a patrolman Foster and as soon as we heard the shots, we ran around to the wooden fence." Simmons also tells Lane in the video that he gave the FBI the SAME ACCOUNT when he was interviewed that he gave Lane in the video. IOW, the FBI falsified what he told them----- and THAT brings the credibility of the entire written record into question. Is there any wonder why the witness was never called to testify ? You can believe what they said the witnesses said, or you can hear it from the witnesses themselves.

At Love Field, General Godfrey McHugh (rode in VIP car)--- was asked to sit in a car farther back in the motorcade, rather than in the front seat. "normally, what I would do ( is sit ) between the driver and Secret Service agent in charge of trip"- he admitted this was "unusual". Ordinarily McHugh rode in the Presidential limousine in the front seat. Sources: http://i53.tinypic.com/2uz2rz4.jpg http://i56.tinypic.com/11v5daf.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/kbxpy.jpg also: CFTR radio (Canada) interview 1976

Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example: "Since we KNOW Oswald killed Kennedy, any evidence to the contrary is irrelevant." Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — "since we KNOW Oswald killed Kennedy" — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself. Circular reasoning is fallacious due to a flawed logical structure.

In an interview you won't see on any of the Von Pein internet sites, Jesse Ventura interviews Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi tells the camerman to "turn it off" several times. Typical of LNers, there's always something they don't want you to know.

The old channel is gone thanks to the CIA-backed lone nut cases. It took them 3 years to do it, but they got it done. My response is to create a new channel that will be better by dealing exclusively with the assassination. I am adding some of the old videos and some new ones to boot. If anyone has any favorites, please let me know and I'll try to do those first. Compilation videos will take longer as I will have to search through the sources and piece them together. Thanks. http://www.youtube.com/JFK63Conspiracy

I wouldn't belittle him for working at a KFC though. At least when he's working he's not trying to fool people about the assassination. In the early years I supported my JFK research making pizza. BK I'm not belittling him because he works there. I'm giving him the business because he refers to people like Fetzer, Mantik, Wecht and Thompson, all who have PhD's, as "kooks". He refers to people who are experts in their fields as "kooks". He refers to authors and researchers who have examined the case as "kooks". He talks down to people.......what gives him that right ? He has no credentials, no experience , no expertise, and no education. When you put their credentials against his, his is a joke. He should concentrate on what he knows about.......his mashed potato bowls.

1991 PICTURE OF DAVID VON PEIN AS MANAGER OF KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN STORE: http://www.timvp.com/david.html http://i44.tinypic.com/30c8w3l.jpg I just think it hilarious that a guy who talks down to everybody is nothing more than a jockey in a fast food joint. First, the plagarist Posner and now Von Pein the chicken slinger. Boy, their side is taking a beating.

I love it when they write: J.F.K.’s “executive action” policy was an open season of plots against troublesome foreign leaders such as Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem in Viet Nam, René Schneider in Chile, Patrice Lumumba in Congo and Fidel Castro in Cuba. Trujillo was killed while JFK was out of the country visiting DeGaulle. Diem was killed in spite of Kennedy's attempt to give him safe passage out of Vietnam. Schneider was killed in 1970, seven years after Kennedy was dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Schneider Lumumba was killed two days before Kennedy was inaugurated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba Castro was never killed and the plots against him were made without the knowledge of the President. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yvmqy5qEZQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuPEXyZDa0g I wonder of these people ever do any research into the facts before ok'ing this BS for publication. Shame on you, New York Times.

In his testimony in Volume 4 of the Warren Commission Hearings, Governor John B. Connally of Texas, who rode in the limo with JFK, tells the Commission that JFK wanted no more than one fundraising dinner and that he was in agreement with that. Governor CONNALLY. "...some thought was being given to having four fundraising dinners. His attitude on that was he wouldn't prefer that. He felt that the appearances would not be too good, that he would much prefer to have one if we were going to have any. I told him this was entirely consistent with my own thoughts. We ought not to have more than one fundraising dinner. " ( 4 H 130 ) But in this 1996 video, he tells a completely different story, that JFK wanted FIVE fundraising dinners and that he and Johnson were opposed to that many. When it comes to the details of the JFK Texas trip, Gov. Connally doesn't seem to be able to get his story straight.

Mr Lane: You probably don't remember me, but we met at the Wecht Symposium in 2003. Thank you for your work on the Kennedy Assassination over the years. Your courage in questioning the official lies and omissions of the Warren Commission gave rise to a generation of researchers whose revelations continue to rock the halls of secrecy even today. We were certainly lied to, and thanks to partiots like yourself, we now know it. Again, thank you sir and welcome to this forum.

1. Find evidence that the Depository Carcano was in the Paine garage on 11/21/63. 2. Find evidence that Oswald had in his possession a 34+ inch package on the morning of 11/22/63. 3. Find evidence of a bullet track through the President's body. 4. Find documentation or witness testimony indicating that Oswald ever received a rifle and a handgun at Box 2915 in Dallas. 5. Find the photographs of the bullet fragments inside the Presidential limo as they were found. 6. Find the photograph of the palmprint on the rifle as found. 7. Find the proof that bullet CE 399 contained the blood or clothing fibers from either victim, or bone particles of Governor Connally. 8. Show us how a 36" rifle that was shipped from Klein's Sporting Goods became a 40" rifle. 9. Find the photograph of the paper "gunsack" on the 6th floor as found. 10. Find the evidence that the bullets removed from the body of JD Tippit were fired from the Oswald handgun to the exclusion of all other weapons.

The script for the upcoming "The Kennedys" miniseries on History Channel is right-wing character assassination, not "history." Watch the video and sign the petition telling the History Channel that until they stop running politically motivated fiction as historical "fact," you will refuse to watch their programming. It's up to you to help make The History Channel take notice. We currently have 43,248 petition signatures and want to get to 50,000 by Fri, 3/26, a number that will make the media take notice and impact The History Channel. Please help us reach this goal by sending the video to your friends and encouraging them to sign the petition. Help spread the message to Stop the Kennedy Smears today http://stopkennedysmears.com/ Thank You.

Commission Exhibit 2585: http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle. Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.