Jason Ward

Many thanks for the usual non-substantive reply that doesn't address my question.

Why do you see assassination research in terms of sides, teams, and competition? Are you mainly trying to win against the opposing team? I'm glad to have different approaches to history explored here but aren't you advocating tribalism with this talk of your side and "the other" side??? Jason

Hi Paul, Without question Hosty and Sorrels criminally denied the existence of any threats to the president from the extreme Right - even though Adlai Stevenson personally notified Kennedy that General Walker's capacity for violence was already apparent in the October 1963 Stevenson visit to Dallas. However, not wanting to tag their crusty reactionary friends as presidential threats is understandable, apart from any conspiratorial involvement in the assassination. It's also possible, IMO, that Hosty and Sorrels didn't want to put a fellow conservative on the list of security concerns because they expected merely protest and no violence (although in Walker's case - he was already very closely watched by the FBI for inciting domestic violence). Paul, I've seen you say that the CIA-did-it theorists should consider the plot and the cover-up separately. Different purposes. Different authors. Isn't it fair to say Hosty and Sorrels were really scared of getting blamed for the assassination, so much so that they lied and went overboard as to the non-existence of threats in Dallas pre-22NOV63? Isn't there evidence that the DPD was trying to throw blame on to the Feds - such as Curry's leak of the Revill memo? But does not wanting to get scapegoated for the assassination mean they were conspirators in the assassination??? 1. According to FBI agent James Hosty, he and the FBI joined the ATF in assuming any threat to JFK would come from General Walker's Minutemen. 2. Don't we get the impression that Hosty wants to name the DPD in a radical right wing Conspiracy Theory? Or is he retroactively trying to portray himself as a Kennedy liberal who held "John Bircher-type" conservatives in contempt? Is there any reason to frame Oswald for the assassination except to blame a communist conspiracy? If Lone Nut was the planned explanation of the conspirators - why not choose a less provocative patsy like a homeless person, a recently released mental patient, a drug addict, or known problem criminal? Do you need a man who's lived in Russia and agitated for Castro if you plan to blame the president's death on a crazy loner? 3. Hosty defines a presidential threat as a specific known plan to cause harm 4. Hosty isn't happy with the Warren Commission ... and doesn't he seem less than impressed with Earl Warren personally? SOURCE 1-4 James P Hosty & Thomas Hosty. Assignment Oswald. Skyhorse edition (2011). the electronic edition lacks page numbers but the cited passages are free from Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=YXEhAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=assignment+oswald+hosty&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8wf6lg-3aAhUiw4MKHRFVAIcQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=communist&f=false

Hi Robert. Oswald's travels alone make him quite a unique individual. Your profile says you are a Dutch so you are no doubt comfortable with the ease of travelling today across borders. But I think Americans both then and now are much less competent with this! I travel to London a lot for work and once or twice a year onward to other parts of Europe. From what I see, the average American today finds just London by itself intimidating & confusing even though now there is the internet and a lot more tourist infrastructure available to assist. A 19 y.o. American high school dropout in the 1950s managing global and trans-UK/trans-European travel is really impressive. One of a kind almost. I imagine even today few 19 year old Americans would be able to do what Oswald did so efficiently - no hiccups, no getting lost, everything quick and easy. BTW - I am skeptical of a CIA or other US intelligence connection to the assassination, although clearly Oswald is anything but ordinary. My hunch is Oswald imagines himself a 007 James Bond-type figure even though his actual intelligence connections are slight at best. His repeated arrogance (for instance, see the report from his shipboard cabinmate below) betrays to me a young man impressed with himself and his imagined potential but without any actual spy credentials. Jeremy, I took your links and reprinted them here. I added a couple more documents I found. (Notice the anger of the ship's steward at Oswald or not leaving a tip...) Itinerary Passenger list Oswald's passport and 1959 immigration stamps The question of Oswald's transport between London and Helsinki has been around for 55 years... Oswald shared a cabin with an 18 y.o. boy named Billy Lord for his transatlantic crossing on the SS Marion Lykes. Oswald = not a good tipper. Also, I believe it is now known that there was on that day the possibility of reaching Helsinki from Heathrow (then London Airport) via commercial airline connections in Europe such as Copenhagen. I discount the possibility of forging a London Airport UK exit stamp in Oswald's passport as this detail actually makes the Lone Nut Crazy Commie story harder to believe. The stamp is of course easy to forge - but there is no reason to do so. Mervyn, I think the Marion Lykes terminated its voyage at Le Havre meaning Oswald acquired passage across he channel on another vessel - presumably on the Liberté. As me and Robert Harper were discussing, Oswald's command of these atypical travel options are probably unheard of for a more typical 1950s American teenager. Jason

Hi Mervyn, 1962? Check the date? In the released FBI files there is a little info obtained from MI5/6? about Oswald in the UK. If I recall correctly there isn't much they were able to uncover apart from a study of journey times, routes, and similar efforts attempting to discern Oswald's likely movements. I'll try to look through what I have tomorrow as Oswald in the UK has always interested me, despite the paltry lack of information. There remains a significant question about how he gets from London to Helsinki. There are a couple other UK angles I've seen in the FBI releases. One is a pretty well known warning call to a Cambridge journalist 20 minutes before shots were fired in Dallas. The other event that interests me is a documented dockside pub conversation discussing the details of the assassination some weeks before it happened. Both events were investigated thoroughly by the UK authorities. Oswald is a pretty sophisticated world traveller for his age and for that era. Many Americans today would struggle with such quick movements in the UK - even with mobile phones, increased services, the internet, and so forth which were not around back then. Oswald apparently knew what to do, where to go, and how to get there with inexplicable efficiency for his nominally modest situation. Jason

Hi Paul, Walker's testimony seems to me like a many-faceted puzzle of truths, half-truths, and deception, and I'm not up to that today. So, I start with a small fry - Robert Klause. The Radical Right testifying before the Warren Commission Part I: Robert G Klause Testifying towards the "genesis and dissemination of the Wanted for Treason handbill," according to WC attorney Jenner Klause is employed in the family business, Lettercraft Printing Company, after previously working at Johnson Printing Company Robert Surrey was known to Krause at Johnson Printing Company Commission Exhibit 996 (below) is the topic of discussion Klause produced the negatives and ran the print production of the Wanted for Treason handbills Robert Surrey personally asks Krause to produce he handbills Klause has a small print shop in his home which he initially implies was used to produce the handbills Klause and Surrey met to discuss the handbills, but Klause cannot remember where they met Robert Surrey provides the front and profile views of Kennedy for the handbill from clipped magazine photos Klause was unable to reproduce the magazine photos Surrey provided, so he outsourced the photography reproduction job to another company Surrey provides a camera-ready copy off the worded portion of the handbill to Klause; Klause just has to marry the photos of JFK with the printed words to finalize the handbill for production Klause now admits he used the facilities of his employer, Lettercraft Printing, and not his own home printing equipment ~5200 handbills are printed, boxed, and delivered to Robert Surrey in early November, 1963 $40 is paid by Surrey to Klause for the handbills Klause next speaks to Surrey two weeks after the assassination to discuss another unrelated printing job Klause mysteriously says he was "quite upset" with Robert Surrey about the handbills Klause admits he did NOT tell the Secret Service the full story around Robert Surrey and how the handbills were produced Klause says he was trying to protect his parents (who own Lettercraft Printing) when he was not forthcoming in the Secret Service's handbill investigation Robert Surrey tells Klause he should remain silent or get a lawyer instead of cooperating with post-assassination investigations When Klause announces he will cooperate with investigators, Surrey responds, "that is the way the ball bounces." Klause says he did not even read the Wanted for Treason handbill, which he admits was a mistake Klause now contradicts himself and says he does NOT have a small print shop in his home General Edwin A Walker is unknown to Klause, Klause testifies American Eagle Publishing was familiar to Klause through his previous employer, Johnson Printing Company General Walker and Robert Surrey co-own American Eagle Publishing, WC attorney Jenner says - but Klause asserts he understood Surrey was the sole owner Klause admits to owning a copy of the Walker-produced book highlighting the assassination coverage of local media Klause denies knowing Jack Ruby A Minutemen-produced poster about Khrushchev captioned "Wanted for Murder", Commission Exhibit 1053 is shown to Klause (see below) Klause repeatedly denies any knowledge of the Minutemen Khrushchev poster Klause expresses much regret over his involvement in the handbill and says he has learned his lesson CONCERNS Why was Klause even asked to testify? Does the WC hope to leverage his disgust-anger with Surrey? WC attorney Jenner is quick to introduce Bob Surrey into the day's proceedings, which suggests to me that Jenner has a command of who's who in the Dallas extreme right - and probably considers Klause mainly as a porthole into Surrey. Is there some effort from the WC to preserve clues and evidence for future historians to figure out the truth? Why not just ignore all evidence except Oswaldish evidence? Why is Klause claiming he can't remember where he met Robert Surrey in preparation for printing the handbills? This seems a trivial detail, but it also seems like Klause is trying to hide something. Could they have met at Walker's house? Doesn't Klause's testimony initially suggest he wants us to believe he printed the handbills at home? Why later does he suddenly decide to admit the truth that his employer's equipment was used? Why does Klause hide details from the Secret Service about the handbills? Klause obviously has a capacity for deception - what else is he hiding? He seems like little more than an errand boy. Is he caught up in something much bigger than he realizes or does he know more than what he admits? Why is Surrey so hostile to the Secret Service investigation and to the Warren Commission? Apparently Klause and Surrey come to loggerheads over whether they should tell the truth to investigators. Is Klause more a pawn or participant? Is he a potential source for more damning information about Surrey and the extreme right? Does Paul Trejo need to track down Klause's descendants and hear the family's assassination lore? Do we believe that Klause did not bother to read the words on a print job with the president's picture on top boldly captioned 'Wanted for Treason'??? Why does Klause flip-flop about whether or not he has a home print shop? Why does WC attorney Jenner ask Klause if he knows General Edwin Walker? Doesn't this indicate Jenner and the WC suspect Walker and the Right more than they officially admit? WC attorney Jenner closes this deposition by producing the Minutemen-Khrushchev poster. Jenner obviously has a fairly complete picture of the extreme Right in Dallas including their propaganda efforts, leadership, and organizational entities. I don't see any purpose in making this so obvious if the sole point here is to convince us of the Lone Nut narrative. WC attorney Jenner refers to the Wanted for Murder Khrushchev poster as CE 1053 - but it is not CE 1053. Is this included in the WC record somewhere else, or was it inexplicably removed from evidence? What is the meaning of the Walker-Surrey produced digest of assassination coverage they print and send to their fellow travelers? (see item 3 below) This testimony from Klause is perhaps more revealing to me in terms of what it tells us about the Warren Commission, not Klause himself. Jenner has a conspiracy in mind because he shows that Surrey and Walker are deceptive: trying to hide their association with one another, trying to hide their activates (posters, handbills, publications), and trying to avoid giving information to assassination investigators.. Is Jenner on the cusp of accusing the extreme right of involvement in the assassination to kill president Kennedy? 1. CE 996: Produced by General Edwin Walker and Robert Surrey 2. This is not CE 1053, although WC attorney Jenner refers to this poster as CE 1053: 3. General Edwin Walker and Robert Surrey produce a book digest of selected press coverage after the assassination. What questions will the Warren Commission "not see fit to answer?"

Sure, Paul, I will take a detailed look at the right wing extremists as they testified before the WC and post anything that strikes me as noteworthy or concerning. I'll probably have time at work tomorrow for this, in the meantime I have a few quick points of review: Whoever is unmasked as the assassination's author, the murders on 22NOV63 are a messy, barely-successful, ridiculously risky, and most of all LUCKY operation, agree or disagree? There were 100s of witnesses, photographs, a still-living patsy, and perhaps only one lucky shot. A public shooting at a moving convertible is the least assured, riskiest way to kill. The Lone Nut story was under attack before the WC was released and has since attracted steady rejection. Do you see the assassination as a masterpiece of planning and delivery or do you join me in calling it a lucky day for the conspirators which never fully succeeded, plagued with countless mistakes? Walker hopes to get what from Kennedy's death in your CT? What exactly do you expect or hope to find in undiscovered evidence that will connect Walker to the criminal police coverup on full unedited display in WC testimony? Jason

Apologies, my mistake, I corrected it. Where to now?

Here's Larrie Schmidt writing 2 weeks before the assassination to Bernard Weissman complaining of the apology given for the assault on Ambassador Adlai Stevenson. It is amazing to me that the WC went so far as to collect the correspondence of the extreme right in Dallas, including in this case an effort to determine the source of the anti-JFK black bordered newspaper ads......but apparently no one ever investigated any further!?!?! The Dallas Radical Right? Larrie Schmidt writing to Bernard Weissman about John Birch Society, General Edwin Walker, Hunt. SOURCES: CE 1032 CE 1033 CE 1036

The conversation in the Winnipeg airport mentioned a meeting on 18MAR64 in Kansas City under the auspices of a textile company. I think the follow up investigation is detailed in this 9APR64 FBI report: SOURCE: Warren Commission Document 831

Hi Paul, Really we've got 4 separate major crimes that are all relevant. This confuses everyone, me included. 1 - The shooting of General Walker; 2 - The shooting of President Kennedy; 3 - The shooting of Officer Tippit; and 4 - The shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald. We spend a lot of time theorizing and arguing about who pulled the trigger and who was the mastermind of crimes 1-3, but for the 4th crime we at least have the gunman. Jack Ruby. 1. Not only does Jack Ruby invoke General Walker and the Minutemen in his jailhouse testimony to Earl Warren, Gerald Ford, et al., he's also concerned with the John Birch Society and HL Hunt in the months prior to he assassination. This is KLIF deejay Russ Knight: 2. How does H L Hunt's "LifeLine" somehow get into Ruby's abandoned car?; and Why does a key Hunt associate try to insert himself into assassination investigations after getting fired by Hunt? 3. This is a remarkable claim - has anyone heard this before? H L Hunt is removed from Dallas after the assassination by the FBI? {this reminds me of how post Sept 11 important Saudis were spirited out of the US by the govt even though airspace was closed...} SOURCES: 1 Warren Commission Hearings & Exhibits Volume 15, p 251 2 - 3 HSCA file; NARA180-10084-10148

Hi Paul, Indeed it seems Revill is angry with Curry for releasing this 22NOV63 report about what Hosty said to the media. Curry obviously wants to insulate the DPD by blaming Hosty and the FBI for allowing a commie-nut-assassin unmonitored access to the motorcade, agree? This May 1964 FBI internal memo has Revill and Curry kind of at loggerheads with each other: 1. Is DPT Lt Jack Revill angry with DPD Chief Curry? 2. Is the DPD the ultimate source of the still-with-us claim of FBI involvement in the assassination? SOURCES 1 - FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 150 2 - Dr Jerry Rose, The Third Decade, Vol 1, Issue 4, May 1985 & Dr Jerry Rose, The Third Decade, Vol 1, Issue 6, September 1985

Hi Paul, I've read through the testimony of about half the cops on your list. The #1 question I have is about Clyde Haygood. I think the photographic record confirms his testimony about when and what he did, right? The questions I have are: Who are the "dozen policemen" already in the parking lot / railroad tracks area in the quick seconds after the gunfire? Do we believe Beverly Oliver's memory of running into "Geneva's husband" around this area? Brown, Foster, White & Murphy are in a place (triple underpass) where civilian witnesses standing with them were able to report seeing smoke and vehicle activity from the bushes and parking lot. Shouldn't these cops have more to offer? Yeah, and Hosty is pissed off at Revill because this same accusation appeared in a Dallas Morning News article which Hosty had to explain in front of the Warren Commission. Revill makes interesting pre-22NOV63 reports on the Dallas extreme right. Did he say anything in later years? Maybe. But the Paines are fairly sophisticated people. Their education and worldliness make them a dangerous target to unwittingly drag into a conspiracy. Hosty investigates them pre-22NOV63 and gets glowing feedback about Ruth in particular. Isn't Buddy Walthers and his file cabinets one of the artifacts of a hoped-for communist conspiracy narrative that got reluctantly downgraded to a Lone Nut narrative? ...kind of like Captain Fritz and others who intimate Oswald's interrogations were almost fruitless because of Oswald's training at the KGB Minsk Assassin's Academy? ...kind of like Oswald theatrically demanding travel visas for his post-assassination escape plan from Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City? Jason

Paul, it's less about smashing down your Walker-did-it CT and more about asking you to explain yourself even if I am inclined to agree with you. The Socratic Method. I would like a CIA-did-it evangelist to explain and answer themselves in this way. I've not found many that are willing to present evidence instead of conclusions. I have found myself agreeing with Lone Nut advocates on a situational basis because of their much more strict adherence to evidence. We're in danger of losing our history because of this dichotomy - for the general public the choices are now Lone Nut or the CIA rules the world. The Academy won't touch this because it is so politically charged and because there is a high degree of of correlation between those who are certain they have actually boarded an alien spacecraft and those who are certain Ruth Paine is a CIA agent. The Vietnam War, the end of the Cold War, the 60's protest movements and other silos of American history are all well and thoroughly studied by trained, rigorous historians - but not this. Thanks for responding to my one-day-love-affair with Walker's writing. I'm over it now. He may be crazy, he may be a genius, or a bit of both. Thanks, but I have no police in mind. My preferred role is to independently evaluate your evidence. You're Walker's prosecutor. Make your case. Jason

We can leave that with no further study I guess. So much of the non-radical-right theories seek to explain the Vietnam War via the Kennedy assassination and I think it's notable that the far right wasn't necessarily pro-war. In fact they have an isolationist impulse that Trump leveraged as part of his victory. A CT should explain the Kennedy assassination, not try to be the Rosetta Stone that explains the Vietnam War, Watergate, and all bad things in human history since 1963. The American Nazis. Rockwell. Your point is that Walker was not politically sophisticated and was unable to lead public opinion in the way of LBJ or FDR. So you're saying he set fire to the Reichstag and then tried to blame the communists, like Hitler did. Ok, there is no meaningful Nazi connection. But did Walker take a page out off the Nazi playbook? Does Marinus van der Lubbe = Oswald ??? Ok. I've been chronically without any work to do at work for the last week and the problem is accelerating, so I've posted more on the forum today than I do in an average week. I hope you can find the time to read through some of my word eruption and point out blatant errors or perhaps good ideas. Let us move forward, shall we? I'm ready to agree that the following are reasonable conclusions: the assassination is largely a production of the local police - DPD and sheriff's department. I stop short of saying the police pulled the trigger, but they control the narrative in all CTs - they process evidence, they handle Oswald, they made it all possible. Perhaps most importantly the police closed the case and silenced the defendant in lighting speed, at best, they allowed the defendant to be silenced. The police testimony in the Warren Commission is a flaming wreck of incoherent dishonesty and obvious conspiracy. Garrison isn't so brilliant for identifying this - it's obvious. He's brilliant for actually reading it, which apparently no one else did then or since then. Finally, the evidence published by the Warren Commission is about the farthest you can get from a coverup that I can possibly imagine - it is in fact evidence of conspiracy way too obvious for anyone to reasonably insist this was a mastermind effort at deception. I sense Dulles was right - the true answer to the Kennedy assassination is right here in the Warren Commission evidence. No need for creative fantasies . So....do you want to look at a few more police or witnesses...or move to Walker...or what? Jason

Thanks for your comments, Michael. I have two points: While Josephs is indeed a CIA believer, a theory of which I am skeptical, I acknowledge that Josephs is one of the very few around here that posts evidence. Others will say that because so-and-so is related to so-and-so, they are a CIA agent and the CIA did it. Or, they say because Senator so-and-so says the CIA did it, that is evidence the CIA did it. All the classical logical fallacies (argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority); argumentum ad populum (it must be true because so many people believe it is true) are generally absent from what Josephs says. So, although I think his idea is too complicated and too much of a massive, multi-year conspiracy, I love him because he posts evidence. He's also polite and never posts comments about me personally - again, a rare trait around here. I don't think I've ever forcefully advocated any CT, including Paul Trejo's General Walker theory. I engage with him for the same reason I engage with David von Pein and David Josephs and you - Paul is evidence-centric. I block people who only post opinions - who needs it? Also, people love jumping on a bandwagon and I do not - I'm automatically going to be suspicious of the dominant CIA-did-it idea because it is in fact dominant. The great unstudied evidence is elsewhere. I think the far right in this country is under-appreciated and under-studied by they typical left wing male conspiracy theorist who usually has unwarranted confidence in their own ability to sniff out conspiracies no one else can. I like engaging with those who aren't afraid to stand alone as they never try to argue: Look how many people agree with me! or Look who else agrees with me! Paul may be right, wrong, or partially right, but he follows the evidence IMO much more closely than the CIA-did-it types I see. Thanks again for your courtesy. Jason

Yes, David, that's what I'm saying. Some percentage of all testimony is false. I don't think any forum member is lying - they believe 110% of what they're saying. If the CIA is discussed conspiratorially , they take 120% of what is said as fact. Just to pick a number, I will posit that perhaps 10% of the WC testimony is false or questionable, keeping in mind a huge bulk of testimony are from character witnesses and others with nothing to say about the death of Kennedy. I'd say 90% of the Holmes testimony is false. False or questionable testimony does not mean the CIA did it. It doesn't even mean conspiracy. It certainly does not mean that the opposite of what the lying witness says must be true. I think you have the rational approach to evidence, which seems to be your purpose. You get into arguments all the time because so many are more about creative writing and explaining every detail into some universal CT that explains not only the Kennedy assassination, but all the other problems in society, all other assassinations, and all the shortcomings in their own lives. You don't have to explain the money order to explain the assassination, it's ok just to say, "I don't know." Jason

Yes, David, I can give Pinkston some slack. This actually brings up another point that is never considered around here: all of us lie. Some lie more than others, but all of us say things that are at best questionable and at worst deceptive, manipulative falsehoods. The corollary to this is that all of us dress up our own past performance when testifying before authority. My point is that when we are facing the Chief Justice of he United States or any questions about our involvement in the JFK case, all of us, 100% of us, will gloss over embarrassing details, conveniently forget to mention the parts where we just made stuff up because we were in a hurry, and so forth. This doesn't mean they assassinated Kennedy. There's too often a GOTCHA! approach here, which now that I think about it is exemplified by your Pinkston example. He's an old man. He's loyal to the FBI. Plus I don't know what other priorities he has. We take his testimony with a large grain of salt, but we take everyone's testimony with some salt - and it is automatically a severe handicap that we're all trying to judge this on the written word instead of hearing it said in person. You said as much a few posts up - the CIA-did-it group is taking he wrong tactic here. A fake, altered, or suspicious money order neither helps nor hurts the CIA-did-it CT, IMO; they are barking up the wrong tree. Jason

Great evidence, David! This in my count is version #3 of how they came to determine the rifle came from Klein's. Over in the Walker thread where CIA-ers do not tread, I've highlighted 6 explanations for how they found the Beckley address. The appearance of manufactured evidence and chaotic, ludicrous explanations like this one from Pinkston is all over the place. How you get from this retarded Keystone Cops show to saying that the greatest, smartest, richest intelligence agencies in the world did the assassination absolutely baffles me. The cops - yes. The CIA - no. Jason

A USPS money order or any cancelled check is prima facie evidence by itself (of what it seems to be on its face.) In court, only if the evidence is challenged as fraudulent is it necessary to go the extreme measures you demand - like asking for the book and stub. The Warren Commission was by design not an adversarial venue and AFAIK there was never ANY evidence that was seriously challenged. Only the prosecution got to present their case - and you are saying that because the defendant never got to present their case, the prosecution's evidence is a fraud. You're asking for this "proof" in 2018. It wasn't asked by the Warren Commission or any other investigative body so the presumption that the proof didn't exist is a logical fallacy. No one ever asked. You are essentially saying the government is lying because they didn't answer the question - but no one ever asked the question. Note, however, that I agree you can still present evidence that the government was lying, but the mere fact that they provided minimal evidence shows us nothing. The WC was designed to succeed where an adversarial system of challenges to the evidence would fail by acquitting Oswald. The government was never asked to provide evidence of this - so your illogical claim that no evidence existed is a fallacy. You are retroactively acting like Mark Lane was there to make these challenges (which I admit in some examples are good challenges) but the fact that the government didn't answer the challenges never asked of it means nothing. Not asked - not answered. No. Plenty of checks are paid and processed with no Fed stamp whatsoever. As you say, your nemesis here are the "greatest forgers in the world,"..so... forging any of this - stamps, signatures, money orders, stubs, Oswald's handwriting, would be no problem. Part of the reason we are on separate tracks here is that I agree the CIA is great - but you say they are sometimes great and sometimes not great, depending on the needs of your CT. You've got a complicated multi-year conspiracy involving as far as I can tell many intricate details manufactured by the "greatest forgers in the world," who are so great they decided to screw up the key piece of evidence linking Oswald to the rifle. Waldman is no doubt testifying after talking to a lawyer - the correct and safe way for him to testify about this is to say that the endorsement appears identical to his company's endorsement. Demanding he answer the question Yes or No, 50+ years later when he wasn't asked to answer the question yes or no is IMO really disingenuous. He can't testify as to whether it's an exact match because he's not an expert on printing, rubber stamps, etc....the legally safe way to testify in this case is to say it appears identical to his non-expert eye. The Federal Rules of Evidence, which I dearly wish more CTers would become acquainted with, are not applied because the Warren Commission was set up to deliver a Lone Nut explanation without in any way challenging the evidence brought before it. You're imposing evidentiary standards not embraced by the venue. This was Mark Lane's point in asking that he be appointed Oswald's attorney - so that there would be the usual rigorous contest of evidence you are retroactively expecting. In a normal case involving a money order, the money order by itself is all the evidence that's needed - unless the evidence is challenged by a claim of fraud, forgery, etc. In this case there was no challenge to the evidence and therefore no supporting-corroborative evidence was provided. It is, however, in my view unpersuasive to accuse the prosecution (as it were) of failing to provide evidence they were never asked to provide, and which is often not necessary in the usual case of a bank-processed negotiable instrument like a check or money order. OMG this is exactly what I've always said about the CIA_did_it enthusiasts: 1. They claim the US intelligence is greatest, most powerful, technologically advanced, all-encompassing cast of 1000s involved in a conspiracy, yet, 2. They will simultaneously say that the crime doesn't have to be perfect - when confronted with sloppy evidence they don't admit the logical conclusion that this tends to point away from "the greatest forgers in the world," instead they just say, yeah the CIA is great, but also not-so-great, depending on how the evidence fits into the CT. I just can't accept that at some points the CIA has "some of the greatest forgers on the world" with all that this implies, yet in other points where the evidence is absurdly a joke (magic bullet, autopsy, backyard photos, the entirety of Harry Holmes' testimony) I'm asked to believe that the CIA also produces a ludicrous screw up. 100s of pages in the WC testimony evidence a conspiracy, more than one gunman, manufactured evidence, and offer tons of evidence the masterminds at the CIA somehow let slip by them - which they could have easily quashed through the all-powerful Dulles-Cabell dichotomy, right? In other words, you always conform the evidence to fit your CT. The CIA is extremely ultra-capable and able to do anything in terms of evidence, they can and did forge or create EVERYTHING ...yet when you encounter sloppy evidence you say the CIA also chooses to make silly, gaping mistakes, allow holes in the evidence, decides to forge a money order but not the book-stub of the money order or the right endorsements, etc. When the evidence is perfect - that proves the CIA did it. When the evidence is sloppy - that proves the CIA did it. FINALLY something we can agree upon - YES INDEED Oswald was creating bona fides with his actions, including affixing his imprint on all the paperwork associated with the rifle order - it's the simplest way to create a patsy and this only cost the conspirators, what, $22? As for the second part, who cares? If there is a Tampa version of Oswald then he's got a nicely paper-trailed rifle in 1963 that comes to nothing. Again this is a common problem in the CIA-did-it crowd, who simultaneously claim 1. The evidence is so perfect only the CIA could create it, and only the US government could take such measures of extreme authentication. but 2. The evidence is so sloppy and pointing to conspiracy in the WC (which it does!) that this proves the CIA and US govt did it, because they knew they could get away with a weak case counting on the media and people to get lost in the volumes of material. Yes, thanks again for the polite conversation. I'm not here to sell a CT, please keep that in mind. I aim to look at evidence, not explain Oswald -Oswalds to you!- form birth to death, nor explain everything that happened in 1963. I will meet you half way - you've made enough of a show of evidence for me to say a reasonable person can have some suspicion about the money order. However, to me, it's obvious that Oswald started serious focus on his patsy role around March because that's when all the evidence of Oswald as commie nut starts coming online in great volume. "Lee, here's a money order we bought today at the post office - please fill out, payable to Klein's, and also this order form." Then, afaik, Oswald may never see the rifle or the PO box again until 22NOV63 while under arrest. As to your specific question, this is EXACTLY how a CIA-did-it mindset causes you to make assumptions not in evidence. Whether or not Oswald purchases the money order is irrelevant - yet you are magically building this point into the government's case and then attacking a point the government need not make. 1. The evidence indicates the money order was purchased on the 12th. IT DOES NOT INDICATE THE MONEY ORDER WAS PURCHASED BY OSWALD, BUT NO FORM OF ID AND INDEED NO NAME IS TAKEN WHEN YOU PURCHASE A MONEY ORDER. The Money order was purchased on the 12th. Who bought it - who knows? Who cares? Oswald filled it out, Klein's shipped it, all to establish a paper trail link between Oswald on the weapon...a paper trail that was revealed way to soon on 22-23NOV which caused Holmes et al. to have to cover their tracks when they were caught by surprise in having to explain their actions to the WC. ==== David, I do very much appreciate your extreme effort to provide evidence, you are almost one of a kind😊and a true asset to the forum in that regard. ...but so is David von Pein. He's probably disappointed to see I find more evidence of conspiracy than Lone Nut. But he's right in his approach and is a much-needed voice around here. You've got to be able to convince David von Pein if you want history books changed. I started to answer you with a pile of evidence and answer every point you made - but would it do any good? I don't think so. Continue your pursuits and I"ll continue mine, we need not have the hostility so many with different opinions around here throw at each other. Lets check in from time to time and thanks for being so serious with your review of evidence and for so thoroughly providing evidence here. Let the evidence speak for itself. Jason

I remember now why I had you blocked. You're rude and putting words into my mouth I never said. I have never tried to sell anyone a CT. Goodbye.

David, many thanks for your reply and for supplying evidence. I don't know if we should talk much more because you have a different approach than I. First of all - there is EVIDENCE. Not proof. I don't ask for proof, I ask for evidence. We each determine the value of evidence. In my case, I am a banker and that informs the weight I assign to the evidence re: money order. You are on a different track than me. I seek to weigh evidence, you seem to insist on proof - proof as you define it of course. Using your standards you would be able to "prove" that half the checks written and processed in this country are fraudulent. I'll provide you with my responses to your points since you thankfully put in serious effort and invoked so much evidence. But first, let me ask about your invocation of Occam's razor. Don't you believe in multiple Oswalds? Don't you believe that 1-2 Oswalds are controlled by US intelligence not later than Oswald's time in the Marines? . Which is the simplest way to make Oswald into a patsy? a. Having one of your Oswalds self incriminate himself by ordering the rifle, write letters to the FPCC, etc., ? OR b. Try to fake all the evidence afterwards? Jason

Edwin Walker is the leader of the Dallas Minutemen, and this is one of several references in the new release from CIs who assert they were involved in the assassination: 180-10078-10074

Why would there be? The NARA has been trained by a CIA-centric conspiracy community to concentrate on Cubans, the mafia, and the CIA. Walker and the radical right are mostly off their radar because the thundering roar of the herd is demanding evidence to support their CIA theory as posited by Garrison 50+ years ago. The NARA releases are only what the government itself has designated as Kennedy-related. So, thanks to prominent CT theories, we get a boatload of stuff about the mafia, irrelevant Cubans, and other CIA adventures - most everything else is still hidden or worse - destroyed. {BTW - your point is not quite true. There are documents in the new releases discussing the Minutemen and Edwin Walker.} Jason

David, thanks for posting so much evidence, it's appreciated. The answer to your question is of course because the FBI cannot simultaneously admit it knew of the rifle shipment AND claim it had no reason to suspect Oswald of violence before the assassination, IMO. I think that despite some personal hostility here, there is possibly not much difference between what I might say is possible versus what you and some others are arguing re: the money order. I 100% agree Holmes is a dishonest conspirator. His testimony is ridiculous from start to finish. I've said as much repeatedly elsewhere on the forum. However, instead of looking at the money order-rifle-Holmes data in terms of evidence created out of thin air, I ask you to briefly look at this as less about manufactured evidence and more about explaining how the evidence was allegedly uncovered before it was ever possible to uncover. Try this on for size: a money order was purchased, a rifle was ordered, Klein's shipped the rifle to Oswald's PO box in the spring of 1963 we don't have to pinpoint who receives the rifle - could be LHO, could be Holmes, could be parties unknown we don't have to certify where the gun is between April and November of 1963. Maybe Oswald has it, maybe Holmes has it, maybe other conspirators have it. Not important for the moment. fast forward to about 1:12pm on 22NOV63 - Fritz and others say "Oswald's" rifle is discovered under boxes at the TSBD. Still doesn't matter whether this is true or not for my point in this post. The rifle shipped by Klein's is at some point entered into evidence by the DPD - maybe they found it on the 6th floor, maybe Oswald brought it to work with him, maybe Holmes had it all along. Still doesn't matter where the rifle is for my point. ****NOW**** a problem develops that IMO could be the source of all the conflict on this thread. Holmes within ~24 hours is able to figure out that: a. Oswald had a PO box in Dallas in the spring of 63 different from his fall of 63 PO box b. The rifle which officially becomes Oswald's assassination rifle was obtained through mail-order c. The rifle was paid for by a USPS money order e. Oswald ordered the rifle using the Hidell alias f. the price of the rifle is $xx.xx (they get confused on this point, which leads to Holmes perfidiously claiming his secretary found an ad for the rifle in Field and Stream on 22NOV63 which let Holmes figure out the true price) ....all of which, items A-F, are IMPOSSIBLE to know given the state of knowledge in the immediate aftermath of the assassination - especially the idea that a USPS money order was used as a form of payment and that the rifle was mail-ordered (there is in fact a Dallas retailer selling the rifle according to WC data). Why so certain a USPS money order is involved? Why so certain it is a mail order rifle? Therefore - IMO Holmes and the WC aren't furnishing fraudulent evidence here, they are trying to cover up the fact that they had the evidence against Oswald in hand before he was even a suspect. There is no way to know the rifle is a mail order rifle, nor that a money order was used to pay for it, nor its price. All of this and more is well beyond the POSSIBLE state of knowledge less than 24 hours after the assassination. IMO there is no problem with the money order and if there was - this can only be because Klein's is on board with the conspiracy, which is absurd. The rifle was ordered and the money order is real. What's NOT REAL is how Holmes et al. came up with such a perfect case so quickly. Yes, the story about finding the money order is 100% BS, but the money order itself is real and deposited by Klein's - and the rifle was sent to the PO box. This mendacity is an effort to hide the fact that they already had the evidence before they woke up on the morning of 22NOV63, it is not an attempt to hide fake evidence. The post-office-centric chain of evidence is way too important for the conspirators to fake after the fact- they set this up using a real order from Klein's with a real money order so that they'd have the evidence in hand on 22NOV63. Holmes and the conspirators never planned on having to explain all this. The WC was not part of the plan. What you're seeing here is a plan executed sloppily on 22NOV63 because the conspirators among law enforcement never thought they'd have to explain how evidence was found to anyone but themselves, since they in fact had jurisdiction for the crime. Thoughts? Jason