Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Josephs a question for you


Recommended Posts

Lee,

Thanks for giving the stuff a read. I will have to look into the FLASH a bit more, do you have a source for information?

No worries on the z and s thing. I wear out my spell check anihoe lol.

Mike

I've given them to you already but I understand how slow you are on the uptake:

James Hosty 'Assignment Oswald'

John Newman 'Oswald and the CIA'

The question I would like you to answer is this. Oswald apparently goes to Mexico City. The information collected by the CIA on this "Oswald" in Mexico City is about to be sent to the FBI. He's visited the Cuban Consulate requesting a visa. He has visited the Russian Embassy requesting a visa. He is denied at both as he wants it immediately. He apparently meets with Valery Vladimirovich Kostikov (Officer in Charge of Western Hemisphere Division 13 that includes assassinations). He leaves and returns to Dallas.

The information that was due to be sent regarding this little excursion from the Mexico City CIA Office to the FBI would have blew the lid on any assassination attempt, because the minute the SS and FBI started planning the Kennedy trip Oswald would have been lifted off the streets and kept in custody while JFK was in Dallas. However, all of this would only happen if Oswald's FLASH remained on his FBI file. It didn't. It was removed on October 9th. The memo from the CIA came in on October 10th. Perfect timing eh Mike?

I'd like to know, from an 'Oswald Did It' mindset, why you think this happened? It could only happen if it was planned and it could only happen if pretty powerful CIA personnel were pulling the strings. Oswald couldn't remove himself from the security watch could he?

How do you reconcile this with the 'Oswald was a madman' approach?

Lee

Rather simply.

He was a madman and deserved a FLASH be attached. Why would anyone drop the ball like this? Its a good thing those men were punished.

Was the slow on the uptake comment really necessary? Check your undies again...they may be bunching.

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee,

Thanks for giving the stuff a read. I will have to look into the FLASH a bit more, do you have a source for information?

No worries on the z and s thing. I wear out my spell check anihoe lol.

Mike

I've given them to you already but I understand how slow you are on the uptake:

James Hosty 'Assignment Oswald'

John Newman 'Oswald and the CIA'

The question I would like you to answer is this. Oswald apparently goes to Mexico City. The information collected by the CIA on this "Oswald" in Mexico City is about to be sent to the FBI. He's visited the Cuban Consulate requesting a visa. He has visited the Russian Embassy requesting a visa. He is denied at both as he wants it immediately. He apparently meets with Valery Vladimirovich Kostikov (Officer in Charge of Western Hemisphere Division 13 that includes assassinations). He leaves and returns to Dallas.

The information that was due to be sent regarding this little excursion from the Mexico City CIA Office to the FBI would have blew the lid on any assassination attempt, because the minute the SS and FBI started planning the Kennedy trip Oswald would have been lifted off the streets and kept in custody while JFK was in Dallas. However, all of this would only happen if Oswald's FLASH remained on his FBI file. It didn't. It was removed on October 9th. The memo from the CIA came in on October 10th. Perfect timing eh Mike?

I'd like to know, from an 'Oswald Did It' mindset, why you think this happened? It could only happen if it was planned and it could only happen if pretty powerful CIA personnel were pulling the strings. Oswald couldn't remove himself from the security watch could he?

How do you reconcile this with the 'Oswald was a madman' approach?

Lee

Rather simply.

He was a madman and deserved a FLASH be attached. Why would anyone drop the ball like this? Its a good thing those men were punished.

Was the slow on the uptake comment really necessary? Check your undies again...they may be bunching.

The "slow on the uptake" comment is now very necessary given your reply Mike.

This is what is so frustrating about trying to discuss these issues with people whose paradigm simply will not shift even in the face of "evidence" and "facts" that you claim to follow "without prejudice."

It really doesn't matter what is presented, you'll simply dismiss it as a single piece of evidence with a overly simple explanation (that isn't really an explanation) and then refuse to add it and merge with other similar pieces of evidence.

If you read your reply to what is one small aspect of a very complex whole, you'll begin to see why "we" do not take your side seriously in any way, shape or form. You answer with a question and an opinion of the consequences and now you'll toddle off and continue talking about "Oswald's" perfectly acceptable scope on "his" perfectly functioning rifle and how "he" fired two perfect shots where one came out reasonably undamaged and the other splintered into a hundred pieces and use the same tactics as you use above to tell us why "his" first one missed by 18 feet. And while you're doing this you'll ignore every anomaly and question about the dubious rifle advert, Oswald "ordering" a different rifle, the money order not going through the correct process, the problem with having it delivered to a P.O. Box in a different name etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

If you would like to discuss thing in the future maybe some ground rules are in order because I refuse to waste any more time playing "evidence" tennis with you...

Lee I can only offer my opinions as thats all I have. After 24 years working for Uncle Sam did you expect me to really be shocked that someone in the US Government dropped the ball on something? Are you kidding me?

Let me share something with you.

When I went to stage for the invasion of Iraq, I arrived and went to draw my issue. Rifle, check. Kevlar Helmet, check. Canteens, check. Pack, check. Pistol, check. Hey wait a minute, where is my ballistic vest?

I was told, with a straight face that the COC (chain of command) determined that scout/snipers were not front line and did not require an issue of a vest, as they were in short supply! Allegedly we would never get close enough to the enemy to need a vest, and yet these morons issued me a pistol! Um........that is Uncle Sam logic.

I had to write home and have my father send me a vest. Good thing I did, my Hummer was a tin side with a canvas top for the invasion! Epic Blunder two.

So if you think for a minute that some yokel dropping the ball on a Flash is at all outside the norm,I assure you it is in no way shocking to me. Do I ignore this "evidence"? Nope, I just chalk it up to a long line of mess ups that I have seen over the years!

Does it have sinister implications to me? Not really, implications of sheer stupidity, of course, but yet, hardly shocking.

As for the issues with the rifle. I see no indication that it was unacceptable at this time, but am still looking into some of the claims made about it. I find most are completely unfounded. I have addressed the issue f the rifle order, as well as some of the other issues you raise, but I have not addressed them with you, so you would not know that.

I also am unsure what you mean by a miss of 18 feet....I am the one who does not believe there was a miss....remember?

What ground rules would you propose?

1) Mike must look at the evidence in the same manner Lee does.

2) Mike must insure that every anomaly be read with a sinister intent.

3) Mike must not, above all else, consider any possibility of Oswald's guilt.

You mean rules like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Mike must look at the evidence in the same manner Lee does.

2) Mike must insure that every anomaly be read with a sinister intent.

3) Mike must not, above all else, consider any possibility of Oswald's guilt.

You mean rules like that?

Excellent. I wasn't expecting you to be so accommodating but gee whizz things will move along swimmingly from now on.

Mike. I simply ask you to look at the timings of the two events. This isn't a "ball dropping" enigma where events are separated by weeks, months or years. It is a very precise and calculated event that was purposefully designed to ensure that the alarm didn't go off on Oswald the DAY BEFORE it was GOING TO. I'm really sorry that you aren't more curious about this kind of thing because deep down I know you're a good guy ( and I like the fact that you can take the stick I give out - well most of the time) but these events define the whole story concerning who Oswald was, who was controlling and manipulating him and who had the power to do these kinds of things to ensure that it looked like he'd been to Mexico, met with a KGB assassination expert, and tried to get visa's through Cuba on his way to Russia. This is the game that was being played. Create a back story for the patsy of horrific proportions, that will ensure that good men will later do bad things, and get rid of "that red haired bastard from Boston" as one of the Dallas Newspaper owners quite eloquently described the former president of the United States.

I'll explain what I meant by ground rules later today but a good shout out from you on the starting point. I believe the real starting point however would be to detail both of our "assumptions" that we are both working from concerning these events we "try" to discuss...

Lee,

I'm not disagreeing that the timing is odd. Not at all. I would just like some further evidence that is was deliberate and sinister in nature and not just a snafu. I have no problem admitting assumptions, and would be glad to show you yours at every opportunity! LOL! I am teasing, and for the record think pretty highly of you as well. Your one of the few who can take is as well as dish it out.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it have sinister implications to me? Not really, implications of sheer stupidity, of course, but yet, hardly shocking.

As for the issues with the rifle. I see no indication that it was unacceptable at this time, but am still looking into some of the claims made about it. I find most are completely unfounded. I have addressed the issue f the rifle order, as well as some of the other issues you raise, but I have not addressed them with you, so you would not know that.

I also am unsure what you mean by a miss of 18 feet....I am the one who does not believe there was a miss....remember?

That's one of your "assumptions" that you work from Mike. You hold an "assumption" that these odd events do not have "sinister implications" and it alters the way you look at the evidence.

I however, work from an "assumption" that these odd events do have "sinister implications." If there were just one or two, or even a handful, I'd possibly look at them, holding in my mind, a different "assumption." There are are far too many for me to do this.

For example, all of the question marks over some of the evidence has you working from an "assumption" that the Dallas Police weren't corrupt but were instead incompetent in certain things. I work from the "assumption" that certain individuals in the Dallas Police Department were corrupt beyond belief. So consequently, we are going to look at Captain Will Fritz's behaviours in completely different ways.

The issue of the ordering of the rifle has never had anyone from the other side give me any explanation that remotely resembles convincing and, I don't want this to sound rude, if yours is as good as what Bugliosi and DVP have to offer then it's best to keep it to yourself.

There are too many questions (hundred upon hundreds) that you would have to come up with some reasonable explanation for in order for me to change the "assumptions" I have structured in my mind concerning the JFK evidence. And up till now you have given me no reasonable explanations for any of them (and I've even read some of your musings on the JFK Assassination Forum.) This isn't because you're nuts and it's certainly not because I am either. It's simply because I look at the evidence differently, with different biases, I put it in a wider historical context with a "master narrative", I form patterns and connections in my mind that you don't, and if you believe Oswald did it then the so called evidence fits, and if you believe he didn't the evidence doesn't.

Simple as that...

I simply refuse to consider something sinister before it is reasonably proven to be so. Take the rifle ordering for example. We know Klein's sold both models. We know Klein's sold both, with scopes. They were the exact same price, nearly the exact same length, and had nearly the exact same order number, one having a "T" in it and the other not. One was C20-750, the other C20-T750. Now I don't know about you, but I have ordered things here in the computer age, and received the wrong item. I wonder if Oswald would have even noticed?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it have sinister implications to me? Not really, implications of sheer stupidity, of course, but yet, hardly shocking.

As for the issues with the rifle. I see no indication that it was unacceptable at this time, but am still looking into some of the claims made about it. I find most are completely unfounded. I have addressed the issue f the rifle order, as well as some of the other issues you raise, but I have not addressed them with you, so you would not know that.

I also am unsure what you mean by a miss of 18 feet....I am the one who does not believe there was a miss....remember?

That's one of your "assumptions" that you work from Mike. You hold an "assumption" that these odd events do not have "sinister implications" and it alters the way you look at the evidence.

I however, work from an "assumption" that these odd events do have "sinister implications." If there were just one or two, or even a handful, I'd possibly look at them, holding in my mind, a different "assumption." There are are far too many for me to do this.

For example, all of the question marks over some of the evidence has you working from an "assumption" that the Dallas Police weren't corrupt but were instead incompetent in certain things. I work from the "assumption" that certain individuals in the Dallas Police Department were corrupt beyond belief. So consequently, we are going to look at Captain Will Fritz's behaviours in completely different ways.

The issue of the ordering of the rifle has never had anyone from the other side give me any explanation that remotely resembles convincing and, I don't want this to sound rude, if yours is as good as what Bugliosi and DVP have to offer then it's best to keep it to yourself.

There are too many questions (hundred upon hundreds) that you would have to come up with some reasonable explanation for in order for me to change the "assumptions" I have structured in my mind concerning the JFK evidence. And up till now you have given me no reasonable explanations for any of them (and I've even read some of your musings on the JFK Assassination Forum.) This isn't because you're nuts and it's certainly not because I am either. It's simply because I look at the evidence differently, with different biases, I put it in a wider historical context with a "master narrative", I form patterns and connections in my mind that you don't, and if you believe Oswald did it then the so called evidence fits, and if you believe he didn't the evidence doesn't.

Simple as that...

I simply refuse to consider something sinister before it is reasonably proven to be so. Take the rifle ordering for example. We know Klein's sold both models. We know Klein's sold both, with scopes. They were the exact same price, nearly the exact same length, and had nearly the exact same order number, one having a "T" in it and the other not. One was C20-750, the other C20-T750. Now I don't know about you, but I have ordered things here in the computer age, and received the wrong item. I wonder if Oswald would have even noticed?

Mike

...and you know what? I'd be willing to hold my hands up and concede that this could have been a mistake on the part of Klein's...

...if it wasn't for the questions marks over many others aspects of this one, single part of the overall story.

The fact that the WC couldn't even get a coupon into evidence that was from the correct copy of the magazine Oswald supposedly ripped it from and had in his belongings. The fact that the money order coupon he bought the rifle with doesn't follow a sequential pattern when he ordered the rifle. The fact that he bought the money order and then posted the order miles apart. The fact that the money order didn't have the correct bank stampings on it, as it should have, when it was cashed by Klein's. The fact that Oswald ordered it in the name Hidell and it was delivered to a P.O. Box in the name of Oswald with no further names included on the application for the box entitling anyone other than Oswald to pick items up - in other words the rifle should have been sent back immediately as Return to Sender as there was no Hidell registered at that box. The list just goes on and on Mike. You take each piece of evidence and you could if you wanted to wave it away as a mistake (as you are doing with the receipt of the wrong length of rifle) but I shake my head in disbelief when you are willing to do this with item after item after item after item...

...all of these things cannot be, and in all likelihood and probability, are not mistakes.

Lee

Lee,

Initially I would say that if Klein's had shipped the wrong rifle, in error, then chances are they would not have known it was an error, and thus the receipt would not reflect the error. I do not find the PO Box issue very significant at all. I have had several over the years and received packages, walked in gave them my number and name and bingo, got the parcel. Most Postal Employees in the US are not really interested in much, besides getting people in and out, and not being bothered. Just my take.

By far the most compelling argument you make is the Money order, and I would like to know a bit more about that, so point me in the right direction. Any articles written on it already? Be glad to look a bit further into it.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it have sinister implications to me? Not really, implications of sheer stupidity, of course, but yet, hardly shocking.

As for the issues with the rifle. I see no indication that it was unacceptable at this time, but am still looking into some of the claims made about it. I find most are completely unfounded. I have addressed the issue f the rifle order, as well as some of the other issues you raise, but I have not addressed them with you, so you would not know that.

I also am unsure what you mean by a miss of 18 feet....I am the one who does not believe there was a miss....remember?

That's one of your "assumptions" that you work from Mike. You hold an "assumption" that these odd events do not have "sinister implications" and it alters the way you look at the evidence.

I however, work from an "assumption" that these odd events do have "sinister implications." If there were just one or two, or even a handful, I'd possibly look at them, holding in my mind, a different "assumption." There are are far too many for me to do this.

For example, all of the question marks over some of the evidence has you working from an "assumption" that the Dallas Police weren't corrupt but were instead incompetent in certain things. I work from the "assumption" that certain individuals in the Dallas Police Department were corrupt beyond belief. So consequently, we are going to look at Captain Will Fritz's behaviours in completely different ways.

The issue of the ordering of the rifle has never had anyone from the other side give me any explanation that remotely resembles convincing and, I don't want this to sound rude, if yours is as good as what Bugliosi and DVP have to offer then it's best to keep it to yourself.

There are too many questions (hundred upon hundreds) that you would have to come up with some reasonable explanation for in order for me to change the "assumptions" I have structured in my mind concerning the JFK evidence. And up till now you have given me no reasonable explanations for any of them (and I've even read some of your musings on the JFK Assassination Forum.) This isn't because you're nuts and it's certainly not because I am either. It's simply because I look at the evidence differently, with different biases, I put it in a wider historical context with a "master narrative", I form patterns and connections in my mind that you don't, and if you believe Oswald did it then the so called evidence fits, and if you believe he didn't the evidence doesn't.

Simple as that...

I simply refuse to consider something sinister before it is reasonably proven to be so. Take the rifle ordering for example. We know Klein's sold both models. We know Klein's sold both, with scopes. They were the exact same price, nearly the exact same length, and had nearly the exact same order number, one having a "T" in it and the other not. One was C20-750, the other C20-T750. Now I don't know about you, but I have ordered things here in the computer age, and received the wrong item. I wonder if Oswald would have even noticed?

Mike

...and you know what? I'd be willing to hold my hands up and concede that this could have been a mistake on the part of Klein's...

...if it wasn't for the questions marks over many others aspects of this one, single part of the overall story.

The fact that the WC couldn't even get a coupon into evidence that was from the correct copy of the magazine Oswald supposedly ripped it from and had in his belongings. The fact that the money order coupon he bought the rifle with doesn't follow a sequential pattern when he ordered the rifle. The fact that he bought the money order and then posted the order miles apart. The fact that the money order didn't have the correct bank stampings on it, as it should have, when it was cashed by Klein's. The fact that Oswald ordered it in the name Hidell and it was delivered to a P.O. Box in the name of Oswald with no further names included on the application for the box entitling anyone other than Oswald to pick items up - in other words the rifle should have been sent back immediately as Return to Sender as there was no Hidell registered at that box. The list just goes on and on Mike. You take each piece of evidence and you could if you wanted to wave it away as a mistake (as you are doing with the receipt of the wrong length of rifle) but I shake my head in disbelief when you are willing to do this with item after item after item after item...

...all of these things cannot be, and in all likelihood and probability, are not mistakes.

Lee

Lee,

Initially I would say that if Klein's had shipped the wrong rifle, in error, then chances are they would not have known it was an error, and thus the receipt would not reflect the error. I do not find the PO Box issue very significant at all. I have had several over the years and received packages, walked in gave them my number and name and bingo, got the parcel. Most Postal Employees in the US are not really interested in much, besides getting people in and out, and not being bothered. Just my take.

By far the most compelling argument you make is the Money order, and I would like to know a bit more about that, so point me in the right direction. Any articles written on it already? Be glad to look a bit further into it.

Mike

Mike

That's not my point. I'm sure certain P.O. Box employees can't be arsed and don't bother checking ID. The point is the rifle should have been sent back. It wasn't addressed to Oswald, it was addressed to Hidell. There was no Hidell with a post office box. RTS straight away. That's the point.

I'll go though the money order in a bit more detail later and give you the steer on some of the better articles and books. Going into a meeting

Lee

That's a good point Lee.

I look forward to hearing back. Have a good meeting.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

minor point. Chicago was the mail hub at the time (Used to be Kansas City.) . From mail hubs extend mail routes of various sorts, desiganated as such. roads, rail, water, air et.c. . perhaps the rapid delivery itself is not a surpise? I don't know. I'm not an expert on the old USPO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

minor point. Chicago was the mail hub at the time (Used to be Kansas City.) . From mail hubs extend mail routes of various sorts, desiganated as such. roads, rail, water, air et.c. . perhaps the rapid delivery itself is not a surpise? I don't know. I'm not an expert on the old USPO.

Hi John

Nor am I an expert and I'm sure there are people old enough to know what USPO deliveries were like in 1963 who may be able to tell us whether a non-air mail letter would arrive in 24 hours. The surprise for me is not the time it took to get there but for it to be also opened and cashed seeing as how Klein's don't ship the rifle until the 20th March. It takes them a day to receive and cash his money and a week to mail his goods. Great service from USPO and poor service from Klein's?

For what it's worth.....

From Bill MacDowall's, "The Great Carcano Swindle" also linked from the same past as Moyer's.

On March 20th 1963, Klein's dispatched a Mannlicher Carcano, apparently bearing the serial no. C2766, to the order of Mr Hidell. whose postal address was P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas.

The case against Lee Harvey Oswald depends entirely upon establishing a solid chain of evidence that links him to the Mannlicher Carcano dispatched by Klein's to the order of A. Hidell and places him (Oswald) on the 6th floor of the TSBD with that weapon at 12.30 PM on November 22nd 1963. It will become clear that no such chain of evidence exists.

Lee Harvey Oswald rented Dallas Post Box 2915 on October 9th 1962 using his own name. Effectively the address A. Hidell, PO Box 2915 never existed. In order to rent a post box, Oswald was required to fill out Form 1093 (Application for Post Office Box). This was a multi-part form. Part 3 of the application form included a section where the applicant could nominate other persons authorized to collect mail from that particular box. Harry D. Holmes, Dallas Postal Inspector, told the WC that:

"Form 1093 includes a place for name of person entitled to receive mail through the box other than the applicant himself."

The ability of Lee Harvey Oswald to collect a package addressed to A. Hidell at Post Box 2915 depends entirely upon A. Hidell being listed as an authorized person in Part 3 of Oswald's application. It should have been an easy matter to verify this by reference to Part 3 of Oswald's application but, as Postal Inspector Harry Holmes told the WC, Part 3 had been destroyed:

"...when the box has been closed, Postal Regulations require that they tear off Part 3 and throw it away."

Box 2915 had been closed by Oswald on May 14th 1963.

Fortunately, Postal Inspector Holmes is not the final authority on Postal Regulations. The Postal Manual, Section 846.53b, states quite unequivocally that "Part 3 of the box rental application, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail must be retained for 2 years after the box is closed."

Harry D. Holmes lied about postal procedures and the WC accepted that lie as fact.

A week after the assassination Harry D. Holmes was quoted in a New York Times article where he stated:

"No one other than Oswald was authorized to receive mail at that box".

Holmes could not have made this statement unless he had seen Part 3 of Oswald's application form after the assassination.

Further confirmation that Part 3 of Oswald's application form existed after the assassination and that A. Hidell was not an authorized nominee can be found in the Warren Report (WR).

To refute claims made by writer Thomas G. Buchanan in his book "Who Killed Kennedy?", the FBI produced a document that specifically addressed 32 different allegations made by Buchanan. Published in the WR, this document CE 2585, contained the following:

12. CLAIM: The Post Office in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept both under his name and that of A. Hidell.

INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an A. Hidell, would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Von Pein, I mean Williams.

What is the evidence that Oswald ever picked up the MC from the post office?

And no one is kidding about the paraffin test. That was used at the time. It was only superseded later.

And evidently you don't know how that the test drove Hoover crazy do you? He did a whole new series and types of tests to discredit it. That whole new series was based on the upcoming technology.

But guess what--it reconfirmed the first result.

So then told his agents to lie to the Commission. (See my Bugliosi series, section on the FBI. I know your bud DVP has read it.)

Again, A pleasure to see you posting here Jim...

Mike and I have had some differences of opinion and I do believe he has areas of expertise... but there are those that he sincerely needs to do quite a lot of reading about, as do I for that matter.

If I could recommend posting the links to your reviews and articles... here let me... http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html

and possibly paraphrasing for us...

Reading, digesting, understanding, putting into context and believing the vast amount of information at your fingertips is a monumental undertaking. As I menitoned elsewhere, your review of Horne allowed me to reread other reviews (ie Mantik's) in a whole new light. and it still takes a few reads to "get" it. and I've read ALOT.

To many DVP can make some sense... problem is he also closes doors to understanding or even searching out more and conflicting views on the subject matter. Mike is no dummy, but we all have a style and we sometimes forget that manners and etiquette are all the more important in places like this. He's just now reading Moyer and it took me years to stumble upon that wonderful piece... we're part time sleuths on this case and try really hard to get up to speed on subjects only to find there are 10 million more pages to find and read....

{sigh}

I have not even had the chance to read your Bugliosi review - all nine parts of it, mostly because most every review of that book focuses on his accusatory and derogatory style. Gets tiresome to read about him... and he's just so wrong. Very sad. But I will... B)

I'd like to respond to your comments

1 - What's the evidence that he didn't pick it up? No one at the PO remembers him picking it up, okay. It should not have stayed at the PO to begin with, okay... but nothing says he really didn't pick it up... or is there? I defer to you on that one

2 - the first result being both hands positive, cheek negative. Guess I'll have to read the review to learn more about the test and Hoover, etc... How possible is it to fire a rifle, get positive results on the hands and none on the cheek with that sort of rifle... that's knowledge I do not have at my fingertips...

Mike and I got off to a bad start but made our way thru it and will hopefully learn a thing or two from each other.

I look forward to your contribution to this forum and hope my little "speech" is recieved in the same respectful manner it was delivered.

Sincerely,

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Von Pein, I mean Williams.

What is the evidence that Oswald ever picked up the MC from the post office?

And no one is kidding about the paraffin test. That was used at the time. It was only superseded later.

And evidently you don't know how that the test drove Hoover crazy do you? He did a whole new series and types of tests to discredit it. That whole new series was based on the upcoming technology.

But guess what--it reconfirmed the first result.

So then told his agents to lie to the Commission. (See my Bugliosi series, section on the FBI. I know your bud DVP has read it.)

Jim,

First off congrats on finding the fortitude to step up and post for yourself. Kudos to you! I do not at all want you to find that as smashing, I am sincere. I have always been of the opinion that if a man has something to say, he ought to say it himself.

This question about Oswald picking up the rifle seems a bit odd to me. It would seem the evidence speaks for itself in this regard. The order is in his hand writing, to his PO Box, with the fake ID in his wallet, not to mention that he was smart enough to allow himself to be photographed with the weapon. I would say that since we have photos of him with the rifle, it is pretty fair to say he picked it up.

Unless of course you can prove the photos are faked, which is highly doubtful.

And no one is kidding about the paraffin test. That was used at the time. It was only superseded later.

The paraffin tests at the very best are inconclusive. I have written on this before. look it up. They certainly are in no way exonerating, now are they?

But guess what--it reconfirmed the first result.

So then told his agents to lie to the Commission.

You would have to prove that to me. I find nothing in this evidence that clears Oswald and as I said it is at best inconclusive.

Thanks for coming out of the woodwork. I look forward to the exchange of thoughts. However, I am Mike, not David, and I ask you keep that in mind. David is someone I have respect for, he has done some excellent work, but there are things he and I disagree on, as I am my own man with my own opinion and thoughts.

Mike

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy Mike... bringing up the backyard photo as proof he picked up the rifle when we don't even fully know that that photo as authentic... Furthermore, if you look carefully at that photo you'll see the ring that holds the (brain fart.. shoulder sling??) at the top of the rifle, is on the bottom (underside) of the rifle...

If you look at photos of the rifle in evidence, the ring is on the side. I'm not convinced they're the same rifle or even Oswald in the photo... another subject, another disagreement... :huh:

DJ

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon Lee! Don't you get it yet? JFK was assassinated by accident! It was all a big mistake. Oswald, acting alone, was attempting to kill James Tague and Jackie Kennedy. He missed them both. Well, not quite, he wounded Tague with peripheral shrapnel from the curb. And, even though he didn't kill Jackie (as he planned), at least he made her suffer by killing her husband. That should teach her...

You, my friend, have a lot more patience with this foolishness than I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy Mike... bringing up the backyard photo as proof he picked up the rifle when we don't even fully know that that photo as authentic... Furthermore, if you look carefully at that photo you'll see the ring that holds the (brain fart.. shoulder sling??) at the top of the rifle, is on the bottom (underside) of the rifle...

If you look at photos of the rifle in evidence, the ring is on the side. I'm not convinced they're the same rifle or even Oswald in the photo... another subject, another disagreement... :huh:

DJ

I have to tell you David I have not read anything that has proven them fakes, the most convincing things I have read/watched seem to authenticate them.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.html

Credentials:

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/cv.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0301/03.html

Most of the alteration crowd seem to be using measurements which Lamson show here to be incorrect.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14138&st=120&p=165186&hl=yardstickentry165186

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon Lee! Don't you get it yet? JFK was assassinated by accident! It was all a big mistake. Oswald, acting alone, was attempting to kill James Tague and Jackie Kennedy. He missed them both. Well, not quite, he wounded Tague with peripheral shrapnel from the curb. And, even though he didn't kill Jackie (as he planned), at least he made her suffer by killing her husband. That should teach her...

You, my friend, have a lot more patience with this foolishness than I.

Greg feel free to visit my site and refute anything I have written on the ballistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paraffin tests at the very best are inconclusive. I have written on this before. look it up. They certainly are in no way exonerating, now are they?

Ummm. I think you might be confused, Mike.

Oswald had NO nitrates on his cheek. NONE at all. Yet, he did have nitrates on his hands. What does this mean? Well, it's quite simple. He could have easily picked up nitrates on his hands from handling the boxes and other materials in the TSBD building as a NORMAL function of his work. Yet, we know that if he fired a rifle that day he would NECESSARILY have had to acquire a nitrate splash pattern on his right cheek at the very least (and possibly beyond). This is not conjecture but well established fact. That's what happens when a person fires a rifle. I know because I've done it and so do you.

The problem is this: He had no nitrates on his cheeks--none at all! I guess he could have washed them off? If he did how could he still have nitrates on his hands then?

Read the FBI and DPD reports for yourself. That's what they say. None on his face, but lots on his hands.

What do you think happened? Maybe he washed his face with his feet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...