James DiEugenio

What struck me was that once you assumed you knew what the File Locator number was and what it represented, you then said, that was it. Either its closed or everyone is nuts. Period. As if nothing else mattered. Without interviewing any bank presidents or supervisors etc. Which John just did. And that interview will have a very much divergent view than yours. I think a 35 year bank president would be a pretty good court witness. But that does not mean anything to you it seems. And you did not think it important to call one did you?

LP: The File Locator Number tells the Treasury Department where within the Department the item is physically located. I assume the 138 would be a box, bin, shelf or building. I don't believe the number would have anything to do with Dallas or any other geographical location. LP: If the ten digits are a File Locator Number, I am satisfied this is the end of the story. To perpetuate the "mystery" would require an extremely far-fetched scenario: The conspirators had an inside contact at the Treasury Department who was able to place a File Locator Number, and they hoped no one would notice the absence of endorsements by FNB and the Federal Reserve Bank. To me, a File Locator Number would pretty well say, "Nothing else matters." Lance: Just out of curiosity, how long have you been investigating this case? I say that because your urge to find closure on this issue, with conclusions that to most people would seem jerry built strikes me as being rather odd for any kind of person who is very familiar with this case. Also, your lack of any interviews or documentary research into the provenance of the money order is also puzzling. I mean lawyers are supposed to be ultra vigilant about the issues of chain of possession. That is, how did a piece of evidence get from one step to another, how did it originate? Because if there are any lacunae in that chain, the court, the jury and judge will look askance at that evidence. Yet, in your eagerness for finality, you have not asked one question about this issue. Therefore in just a matter of days and sixteen posts, you have done what say Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and the later Ray Gallagher could not do in literally years of research, going back to the nineties. Are you familiar with those issues at all? Have you researched them? Or are they irrelevant to you?

I don't know if this was ever posted here. Its a talk I did at the Wecht Conference for the 50th. It was largely based on the new evidence about JFK's foreign policy. These new discoveries turn JFK from a moderate liberal into a revolutionary. I think its all very relevant to Talbot's book. And complementary to it. Because as I outline here, almost every one of Kennedy's reforms to Dulles/Nixon/Ike was reversed after his murder by CIA and LBJ to what it was bedore he was inaugurated. Which is why I titled it what I did. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lQdDe7mOGym3fRrRjRydbJvR0URaL5Dd0n6eqKyX00o/edit#slide=id.p4

Here is another relatively recent book on JFK's foreign policy that brings up many new areas where he was changing things from Eisenhower/NIxon/Dulles http://www.ctka.net/reviews/africans.html Talbot actually references this book and uses it in his text to show the difference in the two administrations. These books deal only with issues of foreign policy, they say nothing about the JFK murder. That is why they are important.

Tommy, Please, that is utter nonsense. If you don't know anything about JFK's revolutionary foreign policy then just say so. I do, since I read these books and review them. You can start here: http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/rakove.html As I think the Rakove book is the best book on JFK's foreign policy since the Mahoney book, JFK: Ordeal in Africa. Which you probably did not read either. But if Talbot is right, and I think he is, then we should know this stuff. Because he touches on these matters in his book.

That chapter is one of the high points of Talbot's book. The best short treatment I ever read on the subject. And the DeGaulle interview at the end should be mandatory reading for everyone. He sounds like Castro the day after.

Talbot was good tonight. The place was packed. Literally standing room only. His book went to number seven on LA Times bestseller list.

Ray, that is a very good question which was thunderously ignored. Because its ramifications go to the heart of the matter. We shall soon see why. Lance, thanks for that. Its also a point John Armstrong will address soon.

I think the meaning is very clear is it not? I mean anyone should know that from the JFK field right? What rational publishing house would fund and then market Reclaiming History? In pure financial terms, how does that make any sense at all? How does spending the money to get Posner on every major show there is, how does that make sense? It only makes sense if you know who Bob Loomis is.

LOL ,I guess you don't read well.

LOL Me too Tommy. Geez, think Allen Dulles ever prevaricated? How about all the BS he told Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs invasion. PS: Davey, you are soon going to gag on Harry Holmes. You have clearly not familiarized yourself with the provenance of the money order. Which is SOP for you.

Let me add one more thing that I think is very important. On these forums, especially this one, we tend to get bogged down in what Jim Garrison used to call micro inquiry. We seldom discuss the Big Picture issues. But of late, I have become convinced that those issues are even more important and even more clear than anyone ever thought of before. But relevant to this point, Kennedy's policies were directly opposed to those Boston Brahmins and this imperial view of the world, of which Ben Bradlee was one.

I didn't say that. I just said if you want some feedback on the issue, you can find it there. I don't know about the book.

Tommy: It was called Tex Italia Films. ​Shortly after the signed contract, the company left Samuel Goldwyn Studios for failure to pay rent on their office. The FBI could find no pertinent info on the principals involved with the company. (FBI memo of 4/24/64) ​Hoover then wrote Rankin, "For your information, this Bureau is conducting no investigation regarding the commercial ventures or contract negotiations of Marina Oswald in connection with our investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald." (Letter by Hoover to Rankin of 6/5/64) ​That was some investigation by the FBI and WC was it not? (Sorry I cannot answer all questions all the time. I do have to open books and eat dinner.)

Further on this issue, just to show how bad the WC was and how malleable Marina was and how clumsy the cover up was. George DeMohrenschildt's wife said she also saw a rifle at Oswald's apartment. The WC pegged this on April 13th. The problem was that, according to Marina Oswald's testimony, the rifle was still buried at that time. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 81) To show how this story about the so called rifle gets further entangled with the Paines and DeMohrenschildts: in 1993, MIke Paine told Dan Rather that when he went to pick up Oswald for a dinner engagement in April of 1963, Oswald showed him a photo of him with a rifle and newspaper. Yet, if this was so then why did Mike not say this to the WC or FBI, since he had several opportunities to do so in 1963 or 1964? All of this less than credible testimony about Oswald and the provably wrong rifle smells to high heaven of the FBI pasting together a cover story willy nilly to frame a patsy. They had no fear of how bad they did it since the WC was, in many ways, worse than they were.

Brian S.: The rifle that Oswald owned. The one that Marina repeatedly refers to in her testimony. Excuse me, but this is simply not the case. And when we had people like Farley, Josephs, Hogan etc on this forum, it would have been called out immediately. On multiple counts. And any lawyer would have ripped it to smithereens. ​In her first Secret Service interview, she said she was shocked when she first saw the alleged rifle in evidence. Why? Because the rifle she said she saw Oswald with did not have a scope. (Reclaiming Parkland, by James DiEugenio, p. 62) ​Now, if we watch how Marina's story changed in this regard, things get very interesting. Because her story changes just as her story did about the Imperial Reflex Camera. Because by the time she was dressed up and ready to go for the WC, that rifle that shocked her at first now became "the fateful rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald." Geez, you think that deal she signed with that phony film company for 135,000 bucks (about 900 K today) had anything to do with that switcheroo? Need I add, the rifle that the FBI says Oswald ordered is not the rifle in evidence. Let us never lose sight of that fact. Because it is a fact.

See what David Josephs did with Duncan's work at DPF.

Lance P: I'm always troubled by the fact that the supposed conspirators are idiots when this best fits the theory and geniuses when that best fits the theory. As I have alway said, for decades, you don't have to pull off the perfect crime. You just have to control the cover up. ​If the WC had been any kind of real investigatory body, this thing would have been blown sky high in a month or so. Maybe less. ​But from the beginning, as Pat Speer can prove, they were figuring ways to cover it all up. In January they were trying to stitch together a way to make the Single Bullet Fantasy work. If that is so, then when did they ever look for a possible conspiracy? Further, who would take seriously the likes of Harry Holmes as witness? He was clearly covering up all the problems with this so called rifle shipment. ​So, no, you don't have to mastermind anything. With people like Allen Dulles and Jerry Ford, who later admitted to MItterand that ithe WR full of holes, you knew you were in the right hands for a super duper cover up. I mean just look at what an honest investigator like Schweiker said about the WC. It was a disgrace.

Now that Paul is at least temporarily gone, I will post here. When I wrote that it was open season on the Paines, I did not mean what I think PT thought I meant. All I meant was that now that all the camouflage around them has dissipated, people can now see them for who they really are and evaluate them by real standards and real circumstances. Before Carol's milestone work, we could not do that. It was her, Steve Jones, and Barbara La Monica who did the real digging into the Paines. To say that all there is is the Bancroft connection, that is simply wrong. Whether it is deliberately wrong, I do not know. But to just focus on Michael, his family was Boston Brahmin all the way. He was offspring of both the Cabot and Forbes families, who go back all the way to just about the Puritans. His uncle was governor and ambassador to the Phillipines. Prior to his death, Cameron Forbes then joined his relatives on the board of United Fruit. Also on that board was Michael's cousin, Thomas Dudley Cabot, who was actually a former president of United Fruit. Now where was Thomas in 1951, along with his brother, John Moors Cabot? They were both in the State Department interacting with the likes of Maurice Gatlin--Guy Banister's buddy-- over preparations for the CIA overthrow of Arbenz. In the early sixties, Thomas was president of Gibraltar Steam ship Corporation, which leased a barren island off the coast of Honduras. That land was called Swan Island. And Gibraltar was a CIA front company. It owned no ships. But it was on that island, through the Gibraltar front, that David Phillips established Radio Swan, used as a psy war arm of the CIA invasion of Cuba during the Bay of Pigs. (Destiny Betrayed, Second edition, p. 196) Need I add, that Michael was in receipt of trust fund money from both families--Forbes and Cabots--in 1963? If you want to ignore all of this, then fine. But don't say it does not exist. Or its "weak". Michael Paine had relatives involved in two major CIA covert invasions? Carol Hewett is an excellent researcher who backed up everything she wrote with documents. She never got the credit or attention she deserved. While others in this community, who never came close to her achievements, somehow did. Which is one reason she is not active anymore. (She is also retiring from the Florida BAR and moving north.) But that's our research community. It took something like 35 years to see the Paines clearly. And then people get angry because Carol did such good work on them. Go figure.

Stay tuned, Armstrong's full reply is on the way. You will get a full history of the whole money order process.

A reply to DVP and his phony handwriting imprimatur: HSCA Handwriting analysisThe final piece of the rifle order puzzle involves an analysis of the Dept 358 coupon which shows Hidell’s name with Oswald’s shipping info and the envelope Oswald supposedly filled out and was also on the microfilm. (Klein’s chooses to record an envelope, coupon and Order Blank on film but does not choose to include the Money Order which would prove payment of said order. This, as we will investigate in the next section, allows the FBI with help from Harry Holmes, Harold Marks and Robert Jackson to create a Money Order within a closed-loop corroboration). The HSCA and their handwriting experts are careful enough to include a disclaimer: HSCA handwriting panel Summary (27) With therestrictions and reservations stated in each panel member's final report,* the members conclude, generally, that the signatures and handwriting purported to be by Oswald are consistently that of one person . Because of the poor condition of the historical diary, they are unable to conclude firmly whether it was written at one or more than one sitting. On balance, it appears to have been written at one or a few sittings. *In particular, members noted that not all documents were available in their original . It is standard practice in the profession of questioned document examination to make definitive conclusions only about documents examined in their original. Thus the panel members gave only tentative opinions for items provided them in some type of facsimile. In other words, if the item examined is a copy, conclusions can only be tentative opinions instead of through scientific analysis and a statement of fact. Items #29 and #30 are the only two related to the ordering of the rifle which the experts used to determine if Oswald had written them. Yet as expected, these two items were both provided to the HSCA experts as COPIES, not Original documents. Items #29 and #30 were retrieved from the Archives. http://jfkassassinat...ll/hscahand.htm 29. March 12, 1963. U.S. postal money order No. 2,202,130,462 bearing handwritten fill-ins as follows: Klein's Sporting Goods, A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915. Dallas, Tex. Blue ink, ballpoint pen. Location: Archives. (CE 788; JFK exhibit F-509A and 509B.) Note: Item #29 is acknowledged as a XEROX COPY made from the microfilm copy 30. March 12, 1963. Enlargement of microfilm reproduction of Klein's order form for rifle from A. Hidell,superimposed on envelop (sic), postmarked March 12, 1963, addressed to Klein's, Dept. 358, 227 W. Washington Street, Chicago 6, Ill., with return address: A. Hidell. P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. Location: Archives. (CE 773: Cadigan's exhibit 1; JFK exhibit F-504.) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF JOSEPH P. MC NALLY (31) I conducted an examination and comparison of the signatures and writings on the items described in this report . At the time of the initial work in Washington, D.C., I made color photo-macrographs of the signatures and the writings on these documents. I then made slides from the photo-macrographs, which I subsequently projected and studied. The signatures were a particular focus of my examination. (50) The same writing is on the U.S. Postal money order to Klein's (item 29) as is on the various letters and correspondence . The same writing is on the order form and envelope, (item 30) as is on the letters and on the inside cover of the passport (item 9) . In essence, Mr. McNally made copies of copies from which to determine signature authenticity. According to his Conclusions section Item #29 is a “XEROX of Klein’s Money Order” FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF CHARLES C. SCOTT Photographic reproductions could only be compared visually with other photographic reproductions or with original documents. All conclusions based solely upon photographic reproductions are necessarilytentative and inconclusive. since they cannot reveal much about pen pressure and other dynamic qualities of handwriting. Further,they sometimes conceal, rather than reveal, evidence of tracings, alterations, erasures, or obliterated writing. (140) Opinion. The original of the money order (item 29) was examined and compared with the original writings purporting to be Oswald's. I am of the opinion that the fill-ins on the face of this money order are in the handwriting of the same person as the signatures and writings purporting to be Oswald's . Mr. Scott is the only one of the three who claims he saw Item 29 in the original form and contradicts the conclusive writings of the other two experts. It is unknown whether he actually saw an original while it seems strange that only one of the three has an original item. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF DAVID J. PURTELL Procedures (55) Items 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,15,16,17,18,19,20,22,23,24,25, 27,29,31,32,33,34,36,38,39,40,43,45,47,48,51,54,55,56,57,58,59,61,and 62 were studied, both visually and microscopically Limitations on the examination (71) Five items of evidence were not examined in the original, but were copies . Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison. At best, they do not produce as sharp an image as a properly produced photograph, and they lack tonal gradations, a result of the contrasting process of reproduction . In addition, it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies . A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used ; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method. Item 29 was a Xerox copy made from a microfilm copy. Such a second generation copy has the defects of both processes.) (Item 30 - Mr. PURTELL did not even bother to look at the poor reproduction of the Money Order) So while these experts were quick to connect these copies of copies with other items that were determined to be written by the man Ruby killed we are to remember that this is 15 years later and these items have been in the hands of the same people who are trying to insure that Oswald and only Oswald is incriminated for the crime. This HSCA realization casts serious doubts on the conclusions offered related to these items and adds yet another layer of uncorroborated evidence to ascertain that our Lee Harvey Oswald was materially connected to the evidence of the purchase and delivery of said rifle. The above is adapted from David Josephs' article at CTKA on the rifle order. Which everyone should read to understand all the problems with this issue. They are endless.

The key punch holes are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Namely, did the money order pass through the system.

John Armstrong will be posting on this soon. Armstrong knows more about this issue than any person alive. Or dead. What silliness DVP produced, walking around in the dark groping here and there, anywhere. But never doing his own original research. Armstrong has digested the whole history of money orders in America.

Oh really, he was quoting you? HT: Is Jim really right when he says: "All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey." Have you lost it? Or can't you read the English language anymore? He was quoting me, that is why he said what he did genius. But you have stuck so many words in my mouth over time, that people cannot tell the difference anymore. Which is why we are kaput.

HT: Is Jim really right when he says: "All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey." ​The above is one of the reasons I do not talk to DVP anymore. He cannot get the simplest matter correct. Like who Hank was quoting.