Gil Jesus Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Commission Exhibit 2585: http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle. Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Commission Exhibit 2585:http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle. Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed. Gil, a person wiser than me once said that the answer to most of the questions concerning the JFK assassination can be found within the Warren Commission report itself...not in the summaries, not in the text, but in the actual evidence. The difficult part is that most folks are hung up on what the text says, and are less concerned with what the evidence contained there says. The old "hide in plain sight" scenario, as I understand it. I believe that you just proved his theory to be at least partially correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 "...the answer to most of the questions concerning the JFK assassination can be found within the Warren Commission report itself...not in the summaries, not in the text, but in the actual evidence. The difficult part is that most folks are hung up on what the text says, and are less concerned with what the evidence contained there says. The old "hide in plain sight" scenario, as I understand it. Interesting find Gil, it raises questions and needs to be pondered on. _____ The assassination lore is replete with understandable misstatements. I doubt it will change as it's embedded in the vernacular but it would have been good if the Assassination research community had not adopted theses colloquialisms imo as they can be confusing. Most of the Presidential Commission volumes are Large volumes of just documents of various sorts. A thin Compendium is the Report. This is what most at the time read, and it was at a time when Warren was under attack from the right. The Presidential Commission and its Report quickly became known as the Warren whatever. If it should have had a nick, the LBJ report would be better, but that deflects (again) from the other participants, who in fact were at odds on the final Report. The entire Presidential Commissions findings and exhibits, with the Report is in fact a document of a conspiracy, and therefore did not fulfil Katzenbachs carefully worded Memo. His memo still stands imo. Similarly the TSBD is a company that was partially housed in the building that became known as the TSBD. Many other companies had offices there, so this msinomer tends to deflect from the scrutiny of the whole occupancy. Another thing is (and it may be that in the US theory is defined differebtly than elsewhere). The path from a hypothesis to a full fledged Theory is long and painstaking. It would be to the credit of the research community to ditch the use of theory when discussing hypothesis' imo. But I doubt it will happen and unfortuantely imo contributes to openings for discreditation. There are other examples of lesser and greater significance, but as said, the Commissions published volumes should not be scorned wholesale. imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 The WCR already answered this. While I'm dubious of the SBT or LHO's ability to have done all the shooting even IF it were valid Gil's "find" seems to be a red herring. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...eport_0073a.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 The WCR already answered this. While I'm dubious of the SBT or LHO's ability to have done all the shooting even IF it were valid Gil's "find" seems to be a red herring.http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...eport_0073a.htm It's a "Red Herring" all right. If I'm not mistaken, Oswald was living with DeMohrenschildt's daugther and her husband at the time, (Taylor?) whose name he put down as a reference on the PO application and whose address he used. I want to know why, after the assassination, not one Post Office employee could be found who handed the rifle or pistol over to Oswald after Oswald took the little note out of his PO box and passed it over the counter to the PO employee who went in the back and got the gun from storage and handed it to him and probably made him sign for it. Who would not remember handing a gun to Oswald after he is branded the assassin? Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now