Greg Doudna
-
Posts
2,265 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Doudna
-
-
Let it be clear what is going on here. In DiEugenio's afterward, he is citing unproven allegation and suspicion toward two named persons as logical grounds for not responding to substantive criticism or engagement of points of evidence. That is so wrong on multiple levels. First, it is the ad hominem logical fallacy, also known as "poisoning the well": attack the character of the source or the messenger as a means of persuading an audience to not hear or register the content of a message.
And second, look at the structure of these particular ad hominems: it is not even a claim of evidence of any character aspersion toward either of the individuals targeted, Litwin and Roe. It is expressed suspicion, with DiEugenio smearing without evidence (by expressing suspicion) and then casting it as Litwin's, and Roe's, burden of proof to disprove those suspicions to DiEugenio's satisfaction. What a rhetorical method: fling an unproven suspicion, any unproven suspicion, and lay it on the target as their burden to disprove! And if they don't, that proves the content of their writing is not to be read!
The allegation against Roe is especially ludicrous to the point of nonsensical. Roe published articles written by himself on a website identified as roeconsulting. DiEugenio finds a deep mystery in Roe's failure to adequately explain what form of business entity "roeconsulting" is. How that question has even the slightest relevance to anything is not explained. There is no mystery as to Roe being the author of Roe's articles. Someone unsophisticated might consider "roeconsulting" maybe is a sole-proprietor LLC (limited liability corporation) set up as a structure for tax purposes as a way to register income versus expenses. Who cares? Why should it be Roe's obligation to explain his tax or business-entity website registration choices to DiEugenio's satisfaction as a condition not to be publicly smeared by DiEugenio in his large-circulation influential online magazine?
If there are errors in the film, it advances discussion to find them and correct for them. Ideally, the correction comes in-house or friendly sources. If those systems fail and errors get published into the public domain, then even hostile criticism, if it improves accuracy by fact-checking errors, should be welcomed, even valued. Indexes of banned books and authors, forbidden reading and lists of persons declared on "ignore" that loyal followers are expected to "ignore" as well, is how cults operate. Ad hominem toward persons as a form of argument, with exceptions only in cases of allegations which are relevant and accompanied by actual proof when aired, should not be happening.
-
19 hours ago, David Josephs said:
That "rifle" was not received until March 1963, right? Fall of 1962?
With them seeing the OSWALDs last in Jan 1963... How is that possible? and how reliable is their story now?
These are the only other people than Marina to claim to have seen a rifle.
A slide from my SF rifle presentation... no doubt all these people are wrong and you MUST be right about the 4 of them, despite Marina claiming they never went, Ruth saying she never took them...
But hey, nice house of cards you built there...
This is a little exasperating David. First, this is not my house of cards but the mainstream view of most researchers of all sides of the LN/CT spectrum. Take your argument to the photographic experts of the HSCA panel or their modern-day successors, and prove to them, or to peer reviewers or those with expertise in those fields, that those experts are idiots. I'm not interested in that debate. But that is where your argument should go, not to me. When you establish your case that the BYP are forged by that means, by a significant number of bona fide experts read your arguments, slap their heads, and say "why didn't I think of that?" and agree you are right, through the peer-reviewed journal process or other informed discussion within relevant expert communities, which is how technical questions and claims should be presented and vetted, then I'll listen more closely.
Turning to your de Mohrenschildt slide above, I am sure you are aware that de Mohrenschildt, in his Warren Commission testimony and in his posthumously published Oswald-sympathetic manuscript I'm a Patsy!, told clearly of he and Jeanne visiting Lee and Marina in April 1963. Now since you know that, as I know you do know that, this raises two questions, and I would like you to answer these two questions before proceeding with one thing further:
First, when you present your slide above to audiences, do you disclose to them that de Mohrenschildt told differently on that date than in this interview report in Haiti? Yes or no? And if not, is that ethical on your part to not disclose that to viewing audiences who may not know, if you do not tell them?
Second, do you even believe the slide you are showing? Do you personally believe it? That de Mohrenschildt's accounts of a date of April 1963 for a visit to Lee and Marina are fabrications of de Mohrenschildt and Jeanne, both of them, never happened? If so, would you state that directly and why?
Peter Dale Scott, Paul Hoch long ago and many others since, have suggested that Oswald's actions and behavior with respect to the BYP photos and the rifle purchase may have been related to informant or undercover work on the part of Oswald related to the Dodd Committee investigation on mail-order firearms, in continuity with Oswald's attempt to infiltrate Bringueir in New Orleans and pretend to have a Fair Play for Cuba branch in New Orleans, etc. Many researchers, myself included, think there may be something to that argument, even though proof in the form of, e.g. a confession from the then-Alcohol and Tobacco Tax intelligence division of IRS under the Treasury Department is elusive ("no files found on that", files which were routinely destroyed after 20 years before AARB 1990s made their inquiries, with ATF simultaneously acknowledging that informant files were kept at home by control agents, not in agency files even if agency files had not been destroyed). Has it occurred to you that your practice of "throwing everything but the kitchen sink" at the rifle-Oswald association evidence could function to deflect from going to actual solution of what was going on there?
-
For any who didn't catch the link (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/12953-harold-norman-on-frontline/, it goes to an earlier discussion of Pat Speer and others showing that Harold Norman's story showed "development", politely put, over the years rendering doubtful any reliability on details claimed by this particular witness in tellings years later.
Harold Norman, Nov 26, 1963, FBI: “He further stated he cannot recall whether he saw Oswald at the Texas School Book Depository during Friday, November 22, 1963."
Harold Norman, Dec 4, 1963, Secret Service: "On November 22, 1963, to the best of my memory, the last time I saw him was about 10:00AM when we were both working on the first floor of the building. I did not speak to him at that time."
Harold Norman, Nov 20, 2003, Frontline documentary "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?": "We were looking out towards Elm Street, so he walked up and asked us, said, 'What is everybody looking for? What's everybody waiting on?' So we told him we was waiting on the President to come by. He put his hands in his pocket and laughed and walked away, so I don't know where he went, or if he went upstairs or downstairs or where."
-
-
On 2/4/2023 at 10:19 AM, Michael Kalin said:
On 11/22/63 Markham told DPD, "I screamed and the man ran west on E. 10th across Patton Street and went out of sight," and the FBI, "The young man ran west on 10th Street to the corner, turned south and disappeared." On 12/2/63 she told the SS, "when he got to the corner of Patton Avenue and Tenth Street...he started running...He ran at an angle across Patton Ave, and the last time I saw him, he was running down Patton Avenue toward Jefferson Street." The 3/16/64 FBI report says pretty much the same thing: "After OSWALD had gotten to the southeast corner of Patton and 10th, he started running diagonally across the street in a southwesterly direction to the west side of Patton. She last saw OSWALD as he was running down Patton Street."
On 11/22/63 Callaway told DPD, "I saw a white man running South on Patton with a pistol in hand." The 12/3/63 SS report adds the details that he "watched the man come south on Patton on the west side of the street" and "I could see the man with the pistol going through the yard of the apartment house at the northwest corner of Jefferson and Patton." On 2/25/64 he told the FBI that "he observed a person running in a sort of trot on the east side of Patton toward Jefferson Avenue," but this must have been a mistake because he also said "the man was across the street from him," which indicates the west side. Continuing with the route description, "He said this person cut through a corner of the front yard of a two-story house on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Patton Street." On 3/17/64 in another FBI interview he reiterated this route, i.e. "OSWALD went from East 10th Street to Jefferson where OSWALD than walked across the corner of the lot at Patton and Jefferson in a westerly direction toward the Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff..."Getting back to the day of the murder the following provided corroboration as to Markham's description of the original DPD flight path:
1. Poe/Jez report: "There were approximately six to eight witnesses, all telling officers that the subject was running west in the alley between Tenth and Jefferson Streets."
2. Barnes' diagram: "W on ally to Crawford left on Crawford to E Jefferson 300 bk."
3. Cimino: "She...stated he had run west on Tenth Street and pointed in the direction of an alley which runs between Tenth Street and Jefferson off Patton Street."No one corroborated Callaway's story of a fugitive proceeding along the west side of Patton Avenue the entire distance to Jefferson. Patterson & Guinyard both specified the east side.
Scoggins' account gets complicated. His 11/23/63 DPD affidavit contains the dubious "He ran west on Tenth to Patton then south on Patton to Jefferson." The same day FBI report reiterates this route ("He ran west on Tenth to Patton then south on Patton onto Jefferson"), but both are undermined by the subsequent 12/2/63 SS report. It states, "The man came west on Tenth Street, cut across the yard of the house on the corner of 10th and Patton and proceeded south on Patton on the east side of the street...He proceeded a short distance south on Patton toward Jefferson when I ran back to the cab..." His 3/16/64 FBI report states, "He looked up from his crouched position through the windows of the cab and observed OSWALD on the sidewalk headed south down Patton Street...He observed OSWALD go south on the west side of Patton Street about sixty feet. He did not observe this man any longer..." He told the WC "that I don't know where he went after he passed the cab and got down a little piece, because then I was busy trying to get my dispatcher, and I never did look and never did get to see him." [3H327]
Both DPD & FBI 11/23/63 statements preclude the excursion across the Davis yard and exit via the shrubbery, elements that appear in the SS (12/2/63) & FBI (3/16/64) reports and rise to an obsession with the WC interrogators. [3H331] Prior to the SS report an early framer figured out that it would prove detrimental to the evolving plot that Scoggins observed the gunman run to the corner of 10th & Patton.
Note that Poe/Jez did not report that anyone witnessed a flight path on Patton extending from E. 10th all the way to Jefferson. Neither did any other DPD officer. Therefore, Markham's description of the route should receive the recognition it deserves for standing on solid ground and Callaway's dismissed because of contradiction by other evidence and general lack of support. About the only way to make the latter stick is to postulate a second fugitive who took the path witnessed by Callaway and nobody else.
Result: round one goes to Markham.
Michael, nothing in Markham's words as reported by you contradicts Callaway. Markham's words quoted by you say nothing about seeing him go down the alley. So I do not understand why you are saying "round one goes to Markham".
Second, you say "no one corroborated Callaway's" route of the gunman going south to Jefferson and then west, but Warren Reynolds did, and another salesman with him across the street from that corner. They followed the gunman on Jefferson until the gunman then turned back toward and into the alley, passing Dean's Grocery and Mrs. Dean told her children for years after that that she saw the gunman go past the front of her store (on Jefferson). So there are three corroborations, not "no one".
On the witnesses speaking of the gunman turning in to the alley off of Patton before getting to Jefferson, I do not believe any witness actually on Patton said that, and the others would probably be misunderstandings not in as good position to see or know, or speaking hearsay (mistakes enter in hearsay).
-
3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:
Oh, dear, Jean Paul, you have no idea what you have asked. I refuse to go down this INSANE rabbit hole one more time.
I'll give you the $0.02 version, and then "lawyer Sandy" can spend 18,000 words, with another 20,000 by David Josephs, explaining the absurdity of my legal reasoning. The First National Bank of Chicago was a member of the Federal Reserve System. The Postal Money Order, duly endorsed by Klein's as the money order regulations required, was deposited into Klein's account at the First National Bank of Chicago. The First National Bank then needed to be reimbursed by the Postal Service for its payment of the money order. Under Federal Reserve regulations and an agreement between the Treasury Department and the Postal Service, Postal Money Orders were processed through the Federal Reserve System as "cash items" - i.e., same as cash. If you deposit cash in the bank, there is no "endorsement" on the bills - duh. Pursuant to the regulations, the First National Bank of Chicago separately packaged cash items and transmitted them to the Federal Reserve Bank that serviced the Chicago region. The regional bank transmitted it to the Treasury Department, and the First National Bank got reimbursed. The paid Postal Money Order eventually made its way to the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, VA, where it was stamped with a File Locator Number to facilitate recovery in case there was ever a need to locate it (for use in a court case, for example). The Postal Money Orders, which were sold in the millions at the time, were retained for six months and then destroyed. The entire purpose of the system was for Postal Money Orders to flow through the Federal Reserve System with minimal fuss. The File Locator Number is the number at the top of the money order, the significance of which I discovered.
There were old Postal regulations, predating the Federal Reserve System, that talked about endorsements. It is POSSIBLE, even after the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, that a non-member bank might accept and pay a Postal Money Order. When that non-member bank transmitted the money order into the Federal Reserve System for payment, it is POSSIBLE the non-member bank, as a "stranger" to the Federal Reserve System, might have been required to stamp the money order. The Klein's money order was in the Federal Reserve System from the get-go. The File Locator Number shows it made its way through the System and into the Records Center.
Enough! I wrote the above from memory and am never commenting on this silly issue again.
But even another Harvey & Lee factoid got blown out of the water in my work on the Postal Money Order: The Harvey & Lee book and website until recently referred to the testimony of a First National Bank official named Wilmouth who supposedly said the Postal Money Order "should have" multiple bank stamp endorsements by the First National Bank of Chicago and the regional Federal Reserve Bank. I DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS WAS TOTALLY FALSE - neither Wilmouth nor anyone else said ANYTHING like this. Whereupon, the Harvey & Lee website was quietly changed. DVP archived at his site my post on this nonsense, to wit:
Without explanation or apology, Armstrong has tap-danced away from the “Wilmouth statement” on which "Harvey and Lee" (and subsequent researchers) had relied as the sole authority for the assertion that the postal money order should have multiple bank stamps. Nothing of the sort is now attributed to Wilmouth.
Indeed, nothing of the sort is now attributed to anyone. Instead, Armstrong’s write-up simply assumes that the money order should have multiple bank stamps. The "failure" of Belin and Waldman to notice the absence of these stamps that the money order “should” have had is deemed “suspicious.” For you fans of logic (there are surely some of you out there, are there not?), this is the fallacy known as “assuming that which is to be proven.”
Armstrong’s write-up completely ignores the File Locator Number – ignores not merely its significance but its very existence. How seriously should we to take a researcher who obsesses over the minutiae that Armstrong presents but blithely ignores the smoking elephant on the face of the money order?
In other threads, we were assured that Armstrong was going to rehabilitate his theory by explaining both his seeming fabrication of the Wilmouth statement and why the File Locator Number does not have the dispositive significance it might appear to have. Moreover, we were assured that Armstrong would soon produce a highly experienced bank executive who would verify that the money order should have multiple bank stamps and explain to us dolts how the process actually works. I failed to note any of this in his write-up.
Armstrong also makes much of the fact that the envelope in which the money order was mailed bears a Zone 12 postmark that places it miles from the post office where the money order was purchased. I happen to have had a recent experience where my sister-in-law mailed my wife a birthday card in an envelope that was postmarked Phoenix, AZ 85012 (and only Phoenix). I didn’t think she'd been anywhere near Phoenix and asked her where she had mailed it. She had dropped it in a mailbox at a small town about 20 miles west of Tucson, more than 100 miles from Phoenix – but the only stamp was for zip code 85012 in the middle of Phoenix. A fair guess would be that Oswald took the money order back to his workplace and put the envelope with his employer’s outgoing mail, as many of us have done, or perhaps dropped it in some nearby mailbox that happened to be processed at the post office in Zone 12.One who is not a certified conspiracy loon cannot help but notice that Armstrong repeatedly fills in the gaps in his latest write-up with his “belief” that items were “fabricated” or are “suspicious.” If one begins with the axiom that one’s theory must be correct, then one will inevitably find everything that doesn’t mesh with said theory to be “fabricated” or “suspicious.” For you fans of logic, Armstrong has committed the fallacy of “proving too much.” He has concocted such a Rube Goldbergian conspiracy that I, at least, was unable to read his latest write-up without laughing out loud. Surely even the most wild-eyed conspiracy theorists don’t really believe that a conspiracy to purchase a rifle by mail using a postal money order eight months before the assassination could possibly involve so many conspirators and elements and make so little sense from start to finish?
READ MY LIPS, JEAN PAUL: Harvey & Lee is one of the most absurd theories this side of "the Queen was a reptilian alien." Going down that rabbit hole is intellectual suicide. Don't do it. David says he "doesn't suffer fools." Oh, yes, he does, in spades.
Thanks for this explanation Lance. It makes good sense. I deposit checks from my business (window cleaning accounts) in an automated bank teller machine every few days and for years have not endorsed any of the checks, no stamp, no signature, nothing. Just put my card in the machine and follow instructions on the screen, put in the checks in groups of 10 at a time, the machine clicks and hums and returns a receipt, smooth as clockwork. As long as the batch is identified there is no need for individual endorsements on each check (and that was told to me explicitly by bank persons).
I don't think you need to worry about Jean Paul Ceulemans going down any Harvey and Lee rabbit hole Lance. He is very astute. I think he asked because he lives in Belgium.
Incidentally on the "12" the idea of that meaning a "zone 12" far from where Oswald was may be a fallacy. I learned this from a discussion of David von Pein, who interviewed a post office veteran who explained it differently, that it was a sorting machine number. The sorting machine would have been located at the main post office in downtown Dallas. At least that was one lifetime postmaster's explanation of that.
The only remaining anomaly I see is the question of how Oswald was able to purchase a money order on March 12 (date of the money order) that went out in the mail at 10:30 am March 12 (postmark on the envelope), when his job record shows him at Jaggers from 8-12 that morning. The main post office in Dallas today opens at 8 a.m., and 8 a.m. I see (from some checking) is a common time for opening of post offices. I have not been able to verify what time the Dallas main post office opened in 1963, but have found no comparative examples of post offices opening earlier than 8. I am not sure of my memory on this (I have used a lot of post offices) but I vaguely recall times when at a side window opening into the outer post office box area, not at the regular counter, a postal employee would sometimes as a courtesy help customers who needed something or other done before formal opening hours (though usually post offices stick to posted hours strictly to the minute). In the case of Oswald and that money order I see two possibilities: either he was able to purchase it at 7 or 7:30 a.m. because that is when that post office opened in 1963, fill it out, put it in the envelope, stamp and mail it and then walk to Jaggers; or else he was at the post office sometime between 8 and 10:30 a.m. that morning no matter what his job hours at work say. Actually I just thought of a third possibility (?--not sure on this): Oswald goes after 5 the day before and buys a money order which the post office machine has now set the date-stamp to the next day (the main Dallas post office today is open until 10 p.m.).
-
3 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:
I don't see on that receipt anything about 3 holes vs 2 holes being drilled?
That comes from the $4.50 drill and tap at the shop price of @1.50, therefore was for 3.
Thanks for the good photo Jean Paul. Incidentally here is a photo of Dial Ryder from 1963: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/79137046/dial-ryder . This photo at some point was wrongly published as a possible photo of Dallas gun dealer John Thomas Masen, and one still sees this photo circulating as a possible photo of Masen, when the photo has nothing to do with Masen; it is Dial Ryder.
-
2 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
Greg will offer some benign explanation as usual... amazing how much a LNer has to dismiss to get their conclusions to make any sense.
I am not a LN. Are you actually so misunderstood and misread of me on that point or is that an intentional attempt to falsely label and name-call (in the context of this forum).
-
1 hour ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:
And I like the paper (going back on topic), it offers an explanation I had not read before and it actually makes sense.
We also see the recurrent themes with people that were somehow involved : "we had nothing to do with Oswald" or "we knew it all along", typical human behavior. Some will try to stay away as far as possible, others are trowing themselves in front of the cameras.
Thanks Jean Paul. That's what I noticed--the way random ordinary human beings zapped by history react in human ways.
-
29 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:
To be fair, the HSCA panel identified a few anomalies in the photos that they couldn’t explain, like the so-called “fine lines” in Oswald’s chin area. The panel proposed I think four different mutually exclusive explanations for the chin lines - so they really had no idea.
I recall at least one other unexplained anomaly, maybe something about “dark spots” - but either way, my point is that the HSCA finding of authenticity was not really conclusive. There are still outstanding technical questions about the BYPs that warrant a new examination with modern technology, but I don’t see that ever happening unless there’s a new investigation.
Yes, on the technical level I am aware of that too--the HSCA panel, of about the top luminaries in the field in existence for analysis of photographs, found overwhelmingly and unanimously that there was no certain indication of inauthenticity in any of the claimed anomalies, also made clear that their finding did not rule out a technically-possible "perfect forgery". In other words, as I read it, they made clear they did not claim to have proven authenticity, only claimed that none of the CT claims of anomalies held up as what CT's claimed they were (proof or indication of inauthenticity).
Also, in terms of numbers so far as I can tell acceptance of the BYP's as genuine is a majority view among CT's, and I suspect a majority view among readers of this forum if a poll were actually taken. There were the 2015 articles by Jeff Carter in Kennedys and King published by DiEugenio accepting authenticity (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3), though David Josephs' counterargument arguing inauthenticity (on grounds rejected by 100% of the HSCA panel of experts) was also published at that time (https://www.kennedysandking.com/content/the-backyard-photographs). Of course truth is determined by evidence not numbers, but at least this is the present standing of this idea.
-
3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
On the other hand, the FBI crime lab reported that Oswald's revolver was defective because the firing pin did not work (McKnight, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, University Press of Kansas, 2013, p. 146).
Michael, page 146 of the McKnight book cited says nothing about the FBI lab finding the firing pin not working on Oswald's revolver. But I found your reference on page 122 of the edition cited, and although that is what McKnight says, it appears to be a serious misreading of the underlying FBI documents.
McKnight:
"Later, when the FBI crime lab examined the four empty .38 hulls retrieved from the Tippit crime scene, none of the cartridges bore firing-pin indentations. Based on the physical evidence, BuLab surmised, 'the firing pin would not strike one or more of the cartridges with sufficient force to fire them.' The FBI was confronted with the strong likelihood that Oswald's pistol was so hopelessly defective that it could not have been used in the Tippit shooting."
The bolded statement: absolutely not so. What the FBI found (in the documents cited in the McKnight footnote which I checked) is that no firing-pin indentations were found on the unfired live cartridges taken from the Oswald revolver. Not the shell hulls found at the crime scene!-- which had been fired and had firing-pin indentations (otherwise they could not have been fired). (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264#relPageId=138). (The "nine" cartridges of that link appear to refer to five from Oswald's pocket plus four of the six claimed taken from Oswald's revolver which were in FBI possession; apparently not including two others claimed taken from Oswald's revolver which had been given to the Secret Service.)
The final sentence of the McKnight passage above is purely a non-FBI later author's (McKnight's) wrong interpretation following logically from the misreading of what the FBI reported, that is: a wrong conclusion logically drawn from a starting mistaken factual claim.
In terms of evidence there is nothing to this idea that there was anything found wrong or suspected wrong with the firing-pin of the Oswald revolver. From all reports the FBI lab found Oswald's revolver in excellent working condition with nothing wrong with it, and never claimed otherwise (compare this from the FBI on the firing pin specifically: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264#relPageId=138).
-
3 hours ago, David Josephs said:
You are kidding, right? Now you're going to start telling us the backyard photos are genuine?
HSCA panel of experts found no indication of inauthenticity. Like you, I don't have the expertise to dispute that.
Here's a suggestion: I offer my paper for anyone interested, and if you don't like it, just don't read it, or put it on ignore.
-
David Josephs, you have suggested that the Furniture Mart and Sport Shop Lee and Marina expedition in Michael Paine's blue-and-white '55 Olds on Nov 11, 1963, that I have shown, was (a) fabricated by the FBI; (b) citizens making up stories to insert themselves into history; and (c) impersonators.
Are you aware that these three explanations are mutually exclusive? It is like a lawyer arguing the client is innocent of the murder because he was fifty miles away from the scene of the crime and besides it was self-defense. You need to pick one and not try to have all three mutually exclusive alternatives at the same time.
Do you think the FBI forged Dial Ryder's job ticket so well that it fooled Dial Ryder into believing it was his handwriting? Or do you think Dial Ryder was in on it with the FBI? But if he was in on it, why bother to have the FBI's top-secret forgers forge it? What exactly are you imagining?
-
15 hours ago, David Josephs said:
Greg,
I hope you don't mind a question or two.... most importantly - Do you have a readable version of the ticket?
No unfortunately I don't.
15 hours ago, David Josephs said:I hope you don't mind a question or two.... most importantly - Do you have a readable version of the ticket?
Holmes claimed they had found the Postal Mail Order stub and THAT was how they found the rifle... but there is no stub so there is no evidence, just Holmes' word. They wrote the name "Oswld" on a bus manifest to "prove" he had taken a certain bus in Mexico except the clerks there admitted adding it to the manifest after the fact... again, useless, forged evidence for the purpose of incriminating Oswald.... How do we show he has a rifle after the fact - a day after he is killed, and 3 days after the JFK assassination when all weekend he is reading about our little Oswald...
There's more to it than that David. Marina said he had the rifle. Photos of him with the rifle. Marguerite saw Marina with a photo of Oswald with a rifle and encouraged hiding and Marina's destruction of that photo on Sat Nov 23. Paperwork at Klein's, Jeanne DeMohrenschildt.
15 hours ago, David Josephs said:After all the contrary evidence you write in part 2, how do you come to that conclusion? Again, my friend... you are aware the FBI created evidence after the fact related to the rifle and getting it into Oswald's possession? Had you not considered this was part of that bogus evidence?
I doubt the Klein's paperwork or the Oswald mail order or the PO money order was fabricated by the FBI.
15 hours ago, David Josephs said:I enjoyed your essay yet knowing what I know about the FBI and that rifle it is much more likely the ticket was created after the fact... how I know? We will never see any other claim tickets from Irving; was this a book, numbered in order as there is no date on my copy? Were they just randomly numbered and pulled from a drawer?
The way owner Greener explained it, although the tags were numbered the numbering was meaningless for establishing date or anything because they were tossed loose in one container then one would be pulled out at random by the person at the counter at writeup.
-
11 hours ago, Gerry Down said:
Looking forward to digging in to this.
Thanks Gerry. I have a cameo appearance of you as well as Jean Paul Ceulemans and Lance Payette in a section of the paper near the end, credited for a recent discussion suggesting possible use of the word "plunger" with reference to a scope installation, which I thought was an advance in making better sense of that detail of the Furniture Mart episode.
-
"The Oswald rifle scope installation at the Irving Sport Shop of Monday, November 11, 1963"
-
Lance (going back to your opening post), agree it is fact that Lee had a revolver and that Lee threw the first punch at officer McDonald. I think the issue of the drawing of the gun and attempting to fire it at an officer is very much disputable. In one interview or video recorded talk of McDonald I have seen (tried to find it just now, can't find it but it was McDonald in a later year telling his story), McDonald--this is McDonald's own description--says as he wrenched the revolver out of Oswald's hand he had the revolver pointed at Oswald and was tempted to shoot and kill Oswald. McDonald said he had opportunity to do so, for a split second considered it, but didn't because he was afraid of injuring the police officer behind Oswald if he did. As McDonald told it it was his concern for his fellow officer that was the reason he didn't do a Jack Ruby right then and there on Oswald. I'm not saying I take that story to the bank. Officers tend to embellish their war stories in later years. But I think it is not at all clear that Oswald intended or attempted murder of a police officer in that scuffle.
But to go to the punch, stipulate uncontested. Oswald so noticeable for coolness under duress even by interrogating officers ... how could he be so stupid? So self-defeating? You suggest suicide by cop.
According to Fritz Oswald admitted that punch, but claimed that was the only thing he had done wrong or illegal.
Mr. FRITZ. He denied it [shooting Tippit]--that he did not. The only thing he said he had done wrong, 'The only law I violated was in the show; I hit the officer in the show; he hit me in the eye and I guess I deserved it.' He said, 'That is the only law I violated.' He said, 'That is the only thing I have done wrong.'
OK, you ask a fair question and I will offer this that would be consistent with a defense argument if a defense argument was otherwise substantial: McDonald reached for Oswald's gun in his waist to take it from him, Oswald was spooked, instinctively reacted/punched (not too bright).
Ironically, the very allegations (credible) that Oswald would at times slap around Marina from jealousy or their arguments could actually support this explanation, in making a basic case that Oswald, normally controlled, had impulse-anger issues and acted impulsively. To put it more simply, he was a "hitter" when provoked. Not too bright to do that to a police officer, but could be the full-stop sufficient explanation for why. Didn't Oswald get put in the brig in the Marines once for throwing a punch at an officer? That's not too bright either. Maybe that is what was going on here. By this interpretation, not necessarily from consciousness of guilt in the Tippit or JFK killings. Just Oswald behaving as Oswald.
On your other question on why he would leave the TSBD evasively and go get a gun before going to the theatre, while that agrees well with the narrative you give on the prior assumption of a compelling case that he shot JFK, that is not the only possibility if you do not start from that prior premise (that LHO shot JFK). There are all sorts of examples and reasons for innocent persons running evasively after crimes other than that they did that crime. The alternative explanation compatible with a different starting point that other evidence indicates or is compatible with innocence (e.g. framed on JFK by means of the rifle as per Pat Speer and Flip DeMay; mistakenly accused in the case of Tippit) could be (a) he was fleeing those who killed Kennedy, mob or gangland types, believed his life in danger, a terrified fleeing endangered witness so to speak; and (b) got his revolver because scared and for self-defense. So that would be what I would see as a reasonable filling in the two blanks of your question from a defense point of view.
-
23 hours ago, Tom Gram said:
I’m not sure this is relevant, and you might know about this, but a clairvoyant gun nut from Ohio named Dwayne Creviston made an anonymous call to the FBI on Nov. 23rd and said he recognized the rifle shown on TV as a MC sold by Klein’s Sporting Goods. Creviston called back around noon on Sunday, gave his name, and suggested that the FBI check gun shops around Dallas to see if Oswald recently had the rifle “zeroed in”, since that would show premeditation.
Update, Tom: the Mary Ferrell Foundation website has a quote from a Nov 24 UPI wire service news story with this excerpt which verifies the Duane Creviston story is legit and was the source; does not look related to the anonymous calls in Dallas. "Pharmacist Says He Gave F.B.I. a Tip on the Rifle. DAYTON, OHIO, Nov. 24 (UPI). Duane Creviston, local pharmacist, said today that he had recognized the rifle used to kill President Kennedy as the same type he had seen in a catalogue advertisement and that ... Creviston said that he immediately recognized the rifle when he caught a glimpse of it on television Friday night. He said that he understood his tip to the F.B.I. had led them to the source of the rifle..." (https://www.maryferrell.org/search.html?q=creviston).
-
12 hours ago, Tom Gram said:
I’m not sure this is relevant, and you might know about this, but a clairvoyant gun nut from Ohio named Dwayne Creviston made an anonymous call to the FBI on Nov. 23rd and said he recognized the rifle shown on TV as a MC sold by Klein’s Sporting Goods. Creviston called back around noon on Sunday, gave his name, and suggested that the FBI check gun shops around Dallas to see if Oswald recently had the rifle “zeroed in”, since that would show premeditation.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=202
I just thought it was kind of interesting since the Irving Sports Shop story popped up just a few hours later.
Well he doesn't say "gun shops". Different state, non-specific generic advice to check for zeroing in, but is the same afternoon as the anonymous calls in Dallas. But its a true name (at least the person by that name was a real person in Dayton). On the other hand, this Dayton caller was anonymous the day before, and how would one know the Dayton caller the next day was the real person by the name given. Thanks Tom.
-
23 hours ago, Gerry Down said:
Oh ok. I wonder if the library where a suspect was seen running into was the same library Oswald used frequent. The library would seem a more natural destination for Oswald rather than the theatre. To the best of my knowledge, the Texas theatre staff had never seen Oswald frequent there before.
On the assumption that his purpose was either (a) to hide, or (b) a meeting, on either proposition, whichever one one prefers, the theatre is more appealing than the library. And on the "meeting", the theatre is overwhelmingly a more favorable venue than a library, and has in its support, in Oswald's case, the Jack Davis inside-the-theatre witness testimony of Oswald moving around like he's looking for someone he is expecting to meet. And I made an argument elsewhere that (a) the driver of the car of Carl Mather seen waiting with a man in it in a parking lot on Beckley, was Carl Mather (I don't believe that identification of the driver of Carl Mather's car had been previously proposed); and (b) that waiting in the parking lot, not far from the Texas Theatre, has the appearance of someone waiting to appear at a certain time for a pre-planned meeting nearby, except in the case of Carl Mather he drove off at about the time Oswald was arrested instead of going anywhere for a meeting in Oak Cliff. But I made the argument that Carl Mather's otherwise wholly inexplicable movements and presence in Oak Cliff that day corresponded to the strange activity of Oswald inside the theatre, opposite ends of both parties to a meeting that did not happen due to Oswald's arrest. My Carl Mather argument: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28004-oswald-tippit-and-carl-mather-connecting-some-dots/.
-
16 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:
What's your evidence Oswald took a bus to the Texas theatre? He had plenty time to get there on foot.
Just reconstruction, the most efficient way to get there on the assumption that that is where he wanted to go.
-
12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
The encounter with Mrs. Reid happened just after the encounter with Baker ... Oswald, who had come up from the first floor SE stairwell intending to cross over and down the NW stairway [as part of] an intended evasive exit of the building but saw Baker through the NW door window and backed up but not quickly enough to avoid catching Baker's eye ... after that encounter as part of evasiveness he takes off his gray jacket (that Baker remembered as a "light brown" or tan jacket), took off his maroon shirt, stuffed them both under his white T-shirt and in his pants, and walked by Mrs. Reid and went back down the SE stairwell the way he had come up. Mrs. Reid also says she saw Oswald with a coke. Although Oswald had been up there earlier before the parade getting a coke for his lunch, this time he was not there for a coke, but when confronted by Baker that's what he said he was there for. So after that confrontation to make his claim consistent he did buy a coke and carried it past Mrs. Reid ... I'm not totally serious here. The far-fetched attempt is prompted by a serious puzzle over the white T-shirt witness claim though. She said that within a day or so of the assassination? Seems clear and specific? Just puzzling.
Please someone humor me here and give back a serious reason for excluding the above as an explanation for how Oswald could be seen wearing a "light brown jacket" in the second floor lunchroom by officer Marrion Baker and then, only moments later, seen by Mrs. Reid walking by her desk in the main office area, coke in hand, wearing a white T-shirt.
This discrepancy is not easily explained by witness error on the part of one of the witnesses on color of that magnitude. Both of these witness reports were in Baker's case same-day, and in Mrs. Reid's case I believe next day, i.e. timely. Both witnesses are credible.
FACT: what Marrion Baker saw Oswald wearing was not a "brown jacket", but a "light brown jacket". Big difference. A light brown jacket is other language for a tan jacket, and a tan color is the color there is plenty of evidence witnesses called a gray colored jacket. And Oswald had a gray jacket, and Oswald had a gray jacket that morning, according to 100 percent of witnesses who spoke to the color of jacket Oswald wore that morning. Not a single witness claimed to see Oswald in a blue jacket that morning in Irving or at the TSBD later that morning. Buell Wesley Frazier, very credible, in close contact with Oswald in his car going both ways from Dallas to Irving, was categorical that Oswald was wearing his gray jacket, the same gray jacket Frazier said Oswald wore all the time and that Oswald's gray jacket was not, repeat not, the near-white tannish-colored (light gray?) jacket abandoned by the Tippit killer near the alley in Oak Cliff. Oswald did have a heavier, warmer blue jacket but no witness claimed to have seen that on Oswald whether in Irving or at the TSBD the morning of the assassination.
CONCLUSION: What Marrion Baker saw had two features in its description: "jacket", and "light brown" (not brown). And the jacket Oswald was multiply witnessed wearing that morning was gray. That jacket Oswald had that morning--a gray jacket, the one Oswald was witnessed wearing that morning--MUST be what officer Baker saw. He saw Oswald's gray jacket. It is the best match to a plausible witness color description between the three items of upper-body clothing Oswald had that morning, the other two of which were not jackets. All that has to be supposed is that Baker got it right that it was a jacket, and got it almost right on the color, seeing or calling gray as tan ("light brown"). A slight miss by Baker on the color but not much, not as much as it has seemed.
FACT: Moments later Mrs. Reid, also credible witness, professional, office manager, says Oswald in a white T-shirt walking by her.
CONCLUSION: On the strength of the credibility of Mrs. Reid as a witness, as disconcerting as it may seem, consider that Oswald was wearing a white T-shirt, moments after he was wearing his shirt and gray jacket over his white T-shirt.
FACT: Oswald was acting evasively from almost immediately after the assassination straight through to his arrest in the Theatre in Oak Cliff. Evasion, as if he fears being followed, feint wrong place and direction at dropoff to a cabbie; change of clothing at the rooming house; feint wrong direction at a bus stop for the benefit of the eyes of housekeeper Earlene Roberts, then out of her sight taking a bus the opposite direction south to the Theatre... evasive.
THEREFORE: it is known Oswald changed his clothing once, and it would be in keeping with that known behavior if Oswald were to change his clothing appearance just prior to leaving the second-floor lunchroom to walk by Mrs. Reid. And based on the two both-credible witnesses of Oswald's upper-body wear only moments apart, it prima facie appears he did change upper-body wear. (Unless one of those two witnesses were wholly mistaken.)
IS THAT PLAUSIBLE? This is where I was stopped before and said I wasn't totally serious, because I had difficulty imagining the logistics of stuffing both a jacket and a shirt in one's pants leaving only the white T-shirt.
Well, I decided to check on myself, see how I would do that if I were wearing a light fleece jacket, a shirt, and a T-shirt underneath, and wanted to be seen only in the T-shirt. (And although Oswald's blue jacket, the one nobody ever saw either on or off Oswald that morning at the TSBD, the one he changed into at Beckley in Oak Cliff and went to the Theatre in, was heavier and warmer, what people such as housekeeper Earlene would more call a "coat", Oswald's gray jacket was described by all witnesses as lightweight.)
I found: (a) it is not possible to stuff the jacket inside my pants. (b) it is extremely easy to stuff a long-sleeved dress shirt into my pants (loose-fitting comfortable light work pants) unnoticeably. Wadded-up shirt, right straight down the front in the front crotch. Open the belt and zipper, stuff the shirt, adjust and spread it out a little, zip back up over it and belt buckle again, good to go. (c) what then to do with the jacket? That would go tied by the arms of the jacket around the waist, all now hanging outside the waist down lower-body, none of it upper-body.
Can be done quickly. All that needs to be supposed is Mrs. Reid (who wasn't observing particularly carefully but the white T-shirt couldn't be missed) missed noticing Oswald had his gray jacket (matching color to gray pants) wrapped around his waist below the level of the white T-shirt. He was wearing a white T-shirt, she remembered that, that was true.
CLOSING QUESTION: is that or is that not a plausible explanation for those two seemingly irreconcilable, but both credible, witness testimonies moments apart as to what Oswald was wearing?
-
44 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:
This encounter was clearly after the assassination, and her recollection was very specific:
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind
of wash trousers. What color I couldn’t tell you.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit,
flrst 157 and then 158, and I will ask you if either or both look like they might
have been the trousers that you saw him wear or can you tell?
Mrs. REID. I just couldn’t be positive about that. I would rather not say,
because I just cannot.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over
his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.This was on the second floor, and I doubt he went back up, so possibly the mystery shirt was downstairs. The clothing issue will forever remain a mystery. I just don't think it goes anywhere. Like so much of the JFKA, it's a Rorschach test for what one wants to believe.
Even Brennan was equivocal, saying something to the effect that if the shirt he saw was white it was a dingy white.
I don't know how many times - lots - I've spent all morning with my wife and lost track of her in some big store. I'll wrack my brain for "What the heck was she wearing?" The many discrepancies with Oswald don't strike me as any big deal unless one wants them to be a big deal.
The encounter with Mrs. Reid happened just after the encounter with Baker. Either Mrs. Reid was mistaken, for reasons you suggest, perhaps influenced by she had seen and always associated Oswald wearing a white T-shirt on previous occasions, or else Oswald, who had come up from the first floor SE stairwell intending to cross over and down the NW stairway in an intended evasive exit of the building but saw Baker through the NW door window and backed up but not quickly enough to avoid catching Baker's eye ... after that encounter as part of evasiveness he takes off his gray jacket (that Baker remembered as a "light brown" or tan jacket), took off his maroon shirt, stuffed them both under his white T-shirt and in his pants, and walked by Mrs. Reid and went back down the SE stairwell the way he had come up. Mrs. Reid also says she saw Oswald with a coke. Although Oswald had been up there earlier before the parade getting a coke for his lunch, this time he was not there for a coke, but when confronted by Baker that's what he said he was there for. So after that confrontation to make his claim consistent he did buy a coke and carried it past Mrs. Reid, with or without his Superman phone booth change of upper shirtwear. Or Mrs. Reid was wrong.
p.s. I'm not totally serious here. The far-fetched attempt is prompted by a serious puzzle over the white T-shirt witness claim though. She said that within a day or so of the assassination? Seems clear and specific? Just puzzling.
-
12 hours ago, David Josephs said:
First off... quoting DALE MYERS as a source for anything is simply folly at best.... the man substantially and materially lied about most every aspect of the case to support his own version.... HOLMES SAID TO MYERS? really?
David is this really necessary? I do not see any indication Myers fabricated any of his interviews and it is irresponsible and shameful of you to just fling around a smear like that with no evidence. Any more than I see any indication Joseph McBride fabricated any of his interviews. Has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the various interpretations or arguments of these authors.
I believe Holmes, Jr. was active and well-known in the assassination research community in Dallas and gave bus tours or something, then died ca. 2012. If Myers had fabricated interviews of him, don't you think he would have said something or somebody else would have? Why not stick to making your arguments and forego the egregious character assassination. And saying someone is not to be cited on anything who has written the most authoritative and comprehensive book in existence on a certain topic is just cult-talk.
A Question of Credibility: Tippit Witnesses Can't Agree
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Greg Doudna
Thanks Michael Kalin for calling this to attention. Bill Brown, do you have any idea why Myers' With Malice, which up to this moment I thought was exhaustive or as close to it as a researcher could reasonably be, on citing and addressing primary sources of the Tippit case, seems to make no mention of, and throughout his massive study seems to show no sign of awareness or knowledge of, the FBI Odum Nov 22 interview of Helen Markham? How could Myers have missed it?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95614#relPageId=89
Everyone including Myers has said all along there is no support from any other witness to Jack Tatum's claim to have seen the shooter run around the back of the Tippit cruiser and put a coup de grace shot into the head of Tippit on the ground. It is objected that Helen Markham should have seen that, if it happened, since she saw the shooting.Well, reading this FBI interview of Markham that afternoon of the event (before she identified Oswald in the lineup), it is pretty clear to me she did see what Tatum later said he saw, and in her distraught state told it or tried to, and Odum writing up his report simply got it garbled in hearing from Markham as to who ran around the back of the cruiser. And it supports what I have come to realize on my own, that it wasn't just one shot into the head when the gunman moved around closer after firing over the front hood (around the back of the car according to Tatum and apparently around the back according to Markham now too), but Markham says "two" and I believe may have been actually two or three, not Tatum's one at the finale. Only one actually went into the head, but two or three were fired into Tippit when Tippit was prone on the ground by his left front tire, one of those shots, perhaps the last, of which went into the right temple.Also the description Markham gives of the gunman may be of interest, occurring before she fixed on Oswald in the lineup and influenced by that. The "tan" jacket agrees with other color descriptions of the gunman's light-colored or near-white jacket (e.g. Callaway). The younger age of 18, the "black" hair and "red" complexion, none of which well describe Oswald, may or may not be significant.
"On the early afternoon of November 22, 1963, possibly around 1:30 p.m., she observed a marked Dallas Police Department patrol car parked in the 400 block of East 10th Street. She saw a young man walk from the sidewalk to the squad car and put his face up to the front window on the right-hand side of the car which was next to the curb and engage the officer in a brief conversation of about ten seconds. Thereafter, the officer got out the left-hand door, drivers side of the car, walked around behind the squad car and on rounding the corner of the car was shot twice in the head by the young man.
"Mrs. Markham immediately ran out to the car and was afraid that this young man might shoot her, but felt that she must go to the aid of the officer. The young man ran west on 10th Street to the corner, turned south and disappeared.
"Mrs. Markham stated that she is sure that she can identify him and described him as a white male, about 18, black hair, red complexion, wearing black shoes, tan jacket, and dark trousers." (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95614#relPageId=89)
[EDIT: I am convinced now that Helen Markham, who knew full well that Tippit had moved toward the front of his cruiser when shot, simply spoke of Tippit going "behind" the cruiser relative to where she was observing, meaning away from her, Tippit intending to go around what actually was the front (but which Helen Markham was calling "behind") the cruiser to get to the man who shot him. Helen Markham is reported using the same telling of Tippit going "in front of the cruiser" in telling officers at the crime scene of what she saw minutes later, according to a separate report of FBI Barrett telling of hearing Helen Markham say that at the scene of the crime, in Barrett's FBI report of 11/22/63 (at p. 641 in With Malice). In Helen Markham's later WC testimony she says the same thing but has now correctly refers to the "front of" Tippit's patrol car.]