Jack White Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 John Armstrong asked that I post this: ....... 1) first, remind readers that every single piece of information relating to the MO and the rifle were photos. There was not a single piece of original evidence. 2) the MO was not the only item that was void of bank samps. Look at the Bank Deposit slip dated Feb 15 (not the tally of the various deposits, but the Bank Deposit slip). It has no Bank Stamp. Have you ever deposited money, check, MO, etc to a bank without the bank teller stamping the date on the deposit slip?? 3) Finally, after the microfilm was taken from Klein's at about 5:00 am on 11/23/63, it was in FBI custody. Now, without showing the microfilm to Klein's or getting any additional help from Klein's on Nov 23, how did the FBI determine that payment to Klein's had been made with a postal money order?? The FBI had no way of knowing if payment had been made by personal check, postal money order, Am Express MO, Thomas Cook MO, cash, etc. In other words before they could try to locate the item used for payment, they first had to determine the METHOD of payment. And how could the FBI, or anyone, have done this by simply looking at the list of deposits (Waldman Ex 10). There is simply no way to determine, from that list or any list in the 26 volumes, how a deposit of $21.45 was made. And until the FBI could determine the method of payment, they could not locate the item used for payment (cash, check, MO, etc). Now, going one step further, a MO issued in the amount of $21.45 by AM Exp, Thomas Cook, etc., or a personal check would involve a third party and could probably not be fabrifacted. And cash could not be traced back to LHO/Hidell. But a postal money order could be easily obtained, stamped, and dated by a friendly Postmaster (Harry Holmes, Dallas). And who would question the US Post Office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) I mean when you have to flash forward a half century to 2010 and online banking, I mean that takes the cake. Sorry I had to use 2010 stuff to illustrate my point, Jimbo (my simple point being: not all PROCESSED checks that are deposited by bank customers have bank markings on them), but all of my 1963 cancelled checks are currently locked up at CIA HQ in Langley until 2039. (Hoover ordered it; I didn't.) Edited March 7, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) The Money Order was not the only item that was void of bank s[t]amps. Look at the Bank Deposit slip dated Feb 15 (not the tally of the various deposits, but the Bank Deposit slip). It has no Bank Stamp. Have you ever deposited money, check, MO, etc to a bank without the bank teller stamping the date on the deposit slip?? That is very likely because that was merely an "extra copy" of the deposit ticket, and my guess would be that that extra copy never made it to First National Bank at all. Or, if it did go the bank, perhaps the bank only stamped the FIRST copy, and not the "extra copy". But if it never went to the bank in the first place, of course it wouldn't have any "First National Bank" markings on it. Finally, after the microfilm was taken from Klein's at about 5:00 am on 11/23/63, it was in FBI custody. Now, without showing the microfilm to Klein's or getting any additional help from Klein's on Nov 23, how did the FBI determine that payment to Klein's had been made with a postal money order?? First off, how does Armstrong know that Klein's provided no "additional help" at all regarding the money order? But even if Armstrong is correct here, it could have merely been an educated, logical guess on the FBI's behalf. By that time on early Saturday morning, the FBI likely knew a whole lot about Oswald's financial state, and they likely knew he had no personal checking account at all. And they certainly knew that the rifle was ordered via MAIL ORDER. That left only CASH and a MONEY ORDER for the most likely methods by which Oswald would have paid for the rifle. (And we know he paid for it, because Klein's wouldn't have had a record of the SALE [Waldman 7] if the rifle had not been paid in full by the purchaser.) So, to the Post Office the FBI went. Pretty simple tracking method, IMO, given what the FBI likely knew about Oswald and his finances as of early on Nov. 23, 1963. But I'd like to also know where Armstrong got the info about Klein's providing the FBI no help at all re the money order on 11/23/63 AM. Can that be documented somewhere in the record? Edited March 7, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Why not just give in? There are soooooo many problems with the order and the delivery that it's getting a bit embarrassing for you to have to defend it all. Because Oswald's handwriting is on the money order. Why that extremely powerful fact isn't good enough for you is a mystery. But it IS good enough for me (and probably for most other reasonable people). Plus--there's the FACT that Klein's positively had that money order IN ITS POSSESSION in March 1963. We know that to be the case, because if they didn't, they would have never processed the sales order for Rifle C2766 to "A. Hidell", as seen in Waldman #7. (Oh, yes, Waldman 7 is yet another fake document, isn't it, Lee?) And Klein's STAMPED the money order with their own company stamp, for Pete sake. Why do you think EVERYTHING is a fake--even that Klein's stamp on the back of the Oswald money order? Nothing is EVER what it seems to be, is it Lee (and Jimbo)? Edited March 7, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Correct David... Nothing is ever what it seems to be... When a third party can buy THE key evidence, represent it fraudulently and then lock it away When originals are mysteriously not available while unsubstantiated copies are used as prima facie evidence When the possibility of forgery is not even considered or investigated When the Standard Operating Procedures are disgarded in numerous instances from correctly processing a Money Order to transfering a prisoner to a county Jail When you think everything supports Oswald's guilt to the exclusion of all others... yes indeed DVP - nothing is ever what IT seems to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) But Lee [Farley] and David [Josephs]--- You CT guys have got SO MANY people who would need to be involved (and remain dead silent afterward) in order to have the kind of "Let's Frame Oswald" conspiracy exist that you imagine did exist...well, it ain't even funny (or conceivable...or logical)...now, is it? I mean, re the paper trail for Oswald's rifle alone, how many people must be "involved" in faking the evidence that shows Oswald did order and pay for that rifle? If you think it was merely one or two people, I think you should probably think again. There are several FBI agents (and Hoover, of course). And Waldman of Klein's (surely). And other Klein's employees who helped search the Klein's records until 4 AM on 11/23. Or do you even believe that a search WAS made at Klein's in Chicago? Was that all a ruse too? Don't you believe that an order form and envelope (microfilm) with HIDELL'S name on it and OSWALD'S Dallas PO Box on it was found by KLEIN'S EMPLOYEES on the morning of Nov. 23? Or was there really a search, with the Klein's people finding a PHONY/PLANTED microfilm copy of this in the KLEIN'S DOCUMENTS in Chicago? (Boy, those evidence-fakers must have been fast that night!): http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0331a.htm It all snowballs out of control if you're a conspiracy theorist. And that's just ONE piece of the so-called "fake" evidence. That's not even including the money order....or the rifle itself....or Waldman Exhibit #7....or Oswald's revolver....or the bullet shells in the TSBD....or the bullet shells on 10th Street....or the paper bag in the Sniper's Nest....or Oswald's fingerprints and palmprint on the rifle....or the backyard photos....or the Mexico City trip....or CE399....or the Walker shooting....or all of the various witnesses who swore under oath that Oswald was involved in the Tippit murder....and on and on and on. ALL of that's fake? All of it? If you want to believe that, knock yourself silly (if you haven't already). As another LNer once said -- It was either Oswald alone...or a whole bunch of people running around trying to make it LOOK like Oswald alone. Now, I wonder which of the above two options is the most reasonable (and believable)? Edited March 7, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 ....It all snowballs out of control if you're a conspiracy theorist. And that's just ONE piece of the so-called "fake" evidence. That's not even including the money order....or the rifle itself....or Waldman Exhibit #7....or Oswald's revolver....or the bullet shells in the TSBD....or the bullet shells on 10th Street....or the paper bag in the Sniper's Nest....or Oswald's fingerprints and palmprint on the rifle....or the backyard photos....or the Mexico City trip....or CE399....or the Walker shooting....or all of the various witnesses who swore under oath that Oswald was involved in the Tippit murder....and on and on and on. ALL of that's fake? All of it? If you want to believe that, knock yourself silly (if you haven't already). As another LNer once said -- It was either Oswald alone...or a whole bunch of people running around trying to make it LOOK like Oswald alone. Now, I wonder which of the above two options is the most reasonable (and believable)? How dare you declare your set of coincidences to be any better than mine, or Gil's, Jim's, Lee's, etc.? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17239&view=findpost&p=217332Federal bar news: Volume 13 Federal Bar Association - 1966 - Snippet view In his address, Mr. Jenner stated that a series of extraordinary coincidences made it seem most likely that the assassination of President Kennedy was the work of one man — Lee Harvey Oswald. .... David doesn't know what really happened, David is incurious or just doesn't care. David is a "salesman". http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=joachim&GSfn=paul&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=in&GSob=n&GRid=49237604&df=all&Chicago Tribune (IL) - October 26, 1962 HUNT SLAYER AT SERVICES FOR JOACHIM Deceased Name: Paul L. Joachim Funeral services were held yesterday for Paul L. Joachim, 50, retired real admiral and art dealer, while police pressed a search for his killer. Detective Sergeant Albert Heitman of the homicide detail attended the services in the chapel at 1035 N. Dearborn st. in the hope Joachim's murderer might, too. Joachim's family attended the services along with about 50 other mourners. Burial is to be in Arlington National cemetery. Joachim was killed by four .22 bullets early Monday fired by a young gunman who struggled with him at Banks street and North Lake Shore drive, just a block from Joachim's apartment at 1400 N. Lake Shore dr. The killer searched Joachim's pockets after he was felled, walked away, then returned to search them again. A money clip containing $35 was untouched. Cozy li'l bubble POV, or is David a "cog" in what Robert Howard touches on, below? Is the "Walker shooting" all that cut and dry, or did the FBI ignore/fail to associate the unsolved, odd, recent murder at the time, of a another former high ranking military officer whose name actually came up in the investigation of De Mohrenschildt? http://www.google.com/search?q=edwin+walker+30.06&hl=en&safe=off&biw=853&bih=519&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&prmd=ivnsob&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=_TR1TdTPDYvQgAe90rjsCQ&ved=0CA8QpwUoBQWalker Moves, Sniper's Bullet Misses By Inch . Evening Independent - Apr 10, 1963 Edwin Walker by a scant inch in his home last night. ... The bullet, from a 30.06 rifle, was fired from an alley behind the Walker home in a fashion able ... Walker Target Of Rifle Bullet .Gunman... - Toledo Blade Attempt To Kill General Fails By Inch . - Gettysburg Times Walker Escapes Assassin's Bullet - New York Times ($3.95) Evening News all 9 news articles » LINK OSWALD TO SHOT FIRED AT WALKER Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Dec 7, 1963 Edwin A. Walker here months ago. Police here and FBI agents in Washington ... labora- tory technicians who weighed it said it "probably was a 30.06 slug. ... OSWALD LINKED TO A SHOT FIRED AT GEN.... - New York Times ($3.95) all 173 news articles » http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=YXT&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&tbs=nws%3A1%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1962%2Ccd_max%3A1962&q=%22murder+early+Monday+of+a+near+north+side+art+dealer.+..*%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= SCRAP ROBBERY THEORY IN ART DEALER KILLING Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Oct 24, 1962 Letter or Photo. Police turned to motives other than robbery yesterday in their Investigation of the murder early Monday of a near north side art dealer. Lt. John Glas of the Damen avenue homicide detail said that the actions of the man who shot Paul L. Joachim, 50, a re- tired rear admiral, four times with a .22 caliber revolver in- dicated that the crime was "not an ordinary street robbery." Witnesses h ave told detec. tives that the murderer-a well. dressed youth about 18 or 19- searched the victim s pockets as he lay dying at Banks street and North Lake Shore drive, turned to wa I k away, and then and made an- other searc h. However, a money clip containing $35 had not been disturbed in a coat pocket. Banks street is 1350 north. "It could have been someone looking for something other than money-a letter or a pho- , ," It. Glas said. Joachim was about a block from his home at 1400 N. Lake Shore dr. when the killer struck at 1:03 am The gunman then ran into a parking lot and es. caped in a car. '. Joachim operated the Joa- chim Gallery, 226 E. Ontario st., three years. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=853&bih=541&tbs=nws%3A1%2Car%3A1&q=%22that+her+opera+date+with+Joachim+was+their+first.%22+krohn&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= SCRAP ROBBERY THEORY IN ART DEALER KILLING Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Oct 24, 1962 Mrs Neva Krohn 47 of 154 E Superior st a widow who also operates an art gallery told police that her opera date with Joachim was their first .. http://www.google.com/search?q=michael+rudi+surrey+drinks&hl=en&safe=off&biw=853&bih=519&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&prmd=ivnso&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=jjZ1TZO2EIWclgftq4j8BA&ved=0CA8QpwUoBQ ART DEALER'S MOVES BEFORE KILLING TRACED Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Oct 23, 1962 At 11:45 pm, Joachim en- tered the Surrey lounge, 154 E. Ontario st. Michael Rudi, owner of the lounge, said Joachim had two drinks there and left at 12;15 ... Was the scenario involving James K. Cogswell III, actually a multi agency effort to deflect the HSCA's attention away from ONI? Too many coincidences... Cogswell had been married to the daughter of Will Farish III's inheritance trustee; Farish became GHW Bush's "best friend." De Mohrenshildt's 1942, Washington DC housemate, later Rear Admiral Harry Hull's wife was Cogswell's first cousin. Their landlord, later retired Rear Admiral Paul L. Joachim was brutally shot to death in Oct., 1962. Joachim's step-father was the designer of US Navy codebreakers' first Underwood Code Machine aka the Kata-Kana Typewriter. Carl A. Joerissen became Paul Joachim's stepfather when Paul was 8 years old. Later four star Navy Admiral William K Phillips became Harry Hull's step-uncle when Harry was 13 years old. Cogswell's sister, Theodora, is referred to as being part of the OP, by the HSCA. One of Cogswell's aunts, wife of his uncle, Capt. Francis Cogswell, retired from the CIA in 1954. His other aunt, Bianca Harrington Cogswell, daughter of Admiral James K Cogswell, I, first married a man named Clement, and then married Capt. Donald C. Bingham. When her daughter, Louisa, married Harry Hull, Cogswell's aunt became Harry's mother-in-law. Cogswell III brought Joseph Dryer and his knowledge of De Mohrenschildt to the attention of Dorothe Matlack. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=853&bih=519&q=+HOUSTON+WEDDING+i+FORJOANR.+FISt{I_%3B+Parents%27+Home+Is&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=HOUSTON WEDDING i FORJOANR. FISt{I_; Parents' Home Is... $3.95 - New York Times - May 31, 1953 Miss Joan Rice Farish, daughter of Ar. and IV[rs. Stephen Power Farish, was married to James Kelsey Cogswell 3d, son of Mr. and Mrs. Cogswell Jr. of Scarsdale, NY, and Cutts Island, Me. http://ajweberman.com/noduleX18-NEW%20ORLEANS%20APRIL%201963%20TO%20SEPTEMBER%201963.htm ANTONIO VECIANA AND MITCH LIVINGSTONE WERBELL ....Gaeton Fonzi asked Veciana if he ever dealt with Mitch Werbell: "No. But he said that you were going to ask him about Masferrer now. (Why?) Because there was a lot of business between Masferrer and Werbell. They say that Masferrer was killed as a result of his dealings with Werbell." A CIA report dated April 25, 1966: a. On the morning of April 17, 1966 before going to the Hudson Institute – R AMRAZZ-1 visited his friend, James Cogswell. The latter will be remembered as being involved in fund raising for the Price Pelaez Plot to kill Castro. b. Cogswell told AMRAZZ-1 that he was expecting Antonio Veciana at that moment. Veciana, Cogswell said, was in on a plan to assassinate Fidel Castro. Details of the plan were lacking. Veciana wanted Cogswell to introduce him to a (deleted) man known only as (FNU) Livingstone, from 'Winston, Massachusetts.' Cogswell's sister, name unknown, who works in Washington, D.C., presented Livingstone to Cogswell about a month ago. .... WALKER AIDE SEIZED WITH ARMS, AMMO Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Oct 2, 1962 Edwin A. Walker, police said today. Dallas police charged the man, ... fully loaded; 2000 rounds of .30-06 ammunition; 3 .22 cali- ber pistols; ... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=853&bih=519&q=edwin+walker+30.06&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy: Stunning ... - Google Books Result Harrison E. Livingstone - 2004 - History - 632 pages The bullet found at Walker's house was a 30.06, according to police, and could not have come from the only rifle thought to have been possessed by Oswald. . ....The ultimate insult to American's in the 1960's [and this is obviously something cannot be effectively communicated in a book, it almost certainly can only be a "lived" experience] is the fact that when the cornerstones of effective Liberal leadership [JFK, MLK, and RFK] were eliminated, we all were treated to the insulting spectacle of the media condescendingly "explaining" that all of this violence was the product of deranged lone nut's......isolated, failed humans, who sought glory by making the ultimate political statement. "I can kill the most powerful man in America," in the case of Oswald. That the political environment in American culture circa 2007, has relegated those who believe the three assassinations were the result of the "C" word; villified residents of la-la land, while those souls who nobly take, nay embrace, the "official" version of history are "good American's," ostensibly. Shades of George Orwell The ultimate reality I am afraid, is the perpetuation of a macarbe status-quo, in which there has developed "two versions of history." One for the masses and one for the seekers of truth, who have discovered the same fact that the Jim Garrison's, spooks who have come clean, and Ramsey Clark's of the world have learned. Which is that politics takes place every day not just every four years. The struggle to reveal the truth about the assassination versus those dedicated to being the keepers of the secrets, or perhaps more accurately the keepers of the skeleton's firmly in their respective closets, illustrates the ultimate analogy to the Biblical story of David vs Goliath....... So as not to end on a fatalistic, bleak summation of the State of the Union of the "JFK saga," I will add that, in relation to the topic thread, the passage of time has seen the dissolution of the "official version of the JFK Assassination."... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share Posted March 7, 2011 ''but here every cheque money order whatever in a deposit, was stamped , as it was also with the stamp of the bank where it was first presented,on the back... fwtw....b Of course, this would be the only way of proving that the Money Order was paid. Whether or not it was deposited in bulk or not--- it had to be stamped. Thank You. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) John Armstrong asked that I post this: ....... 1) first, remind readers that every single piece of information relating to the MO and the rifle were photos. There was not a single piece of original evidence. 2) the MO was not the only item that was void of bank samps. Look at the Bank Deposit slip dated Feb 15 (not the tally of the various deposits, but the Bank Deposit slip). It has no Bank Stamp. Have you ever deposited money, check, MO, etc to a bank without the bank teller stamping the date on the deposit slip?? 3) Finally, after the microfilm was taken from Klein's at about 5:00 am on 11/23/63, it was in FBI custody. Now, without showing the microfilm to Klein's or getting any additional help from Klein's on Nov 23, how did the FBI determine that payment to Klein's had been made with a postal money order?? The FBI had no way of knowing if payment had been made by personal check, postal money order, Am Express MO, Thomas Cook MO, cash, etc. In other words before they could try to locate the item used for payment, they first had to determine the METHOD of payment. And how could the FBI, or anyone, have done this by simply looking at the list of deposits (Waldman Ex 10). There is simply no way to determine, from that list or any list in the 26 volumes, how a deposit of $21.45 was made. And until the FBI could determine the method of payment, they could not locate the item used for payment (cash, check, MO, etc). Now, going one step further, a MO issued in the amount of $21.45 by AM Exp, Thomas Cook, etc., or a personal check would involve a third party and could probably not be fabrifacted. And cash could not be traced back to LHO/Hidell. But a postal money order could be easily obtained, stamped, and dated by a friendly Postmaster (Harry Holmes, Dallas). And who would question the US Post Office. Jack, I would suggest another point that I think is important. That Robert Wilmouth, the official of the First National Bank of Chicago, who was interviewed by the FBI (CD 7, pg. 192 ) was never called to testify before the Warren Commission and identify the "Hidell" money order as having indeed been handled by his bank. And I think its pretty obvious why not. Edited March 7, 2011 by Gil Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) There are problems with the order coupon, which magazine it came from, the length of the rifle ordered and received, the scope issue of one length of rifle versus another, the lack of endorsements on the money order, the problems with the timings of paying for the MO versus posting the MO, the lack of latent prints on the MO, the regulations that were contravened in receiving it, the missing forms required by law, the fact that his post was being opened and reported on, the evidence that Hidell wasn't on the PO Box to receive mail. And on and on and on... And I would add to your observations that in a normal murder case, this doesn't happen. Questions regarding EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE just doesn't happen in a normal murder case. Putting Oswald in a police lineup with two teenagers and a Mexican ? Which witness who viewed that lineup, Scoggins or Whaley, described Tippit's killer as either a teenager or a Mexican ? ANSWER--NEITHER !!!! The lineups were slanted against Oswald, and as I said, this doesn't happen in a normal murder case. No criminal investigator worth his salt would risk losing a "cinched" ( as Fritz called it ) case as high profile as this one, by committing acts of police misconduct. I've already shown on my Youtube channel that the FBI LIED in the reports describing what the witnesses said they saw. I've already shown where one witness, Whaley, testified that he signed an affidavit that described his selection of Oswald from a police lineup BEFORE HE EVEN SAW THE LINEUP !!! Then under pressure from WC counsel he backtracked. If I'm the lead investgator in this case and I have this guy nailed, I'm going to do EVERYTHING I can to see that he sees his day in court. I'm going to make sure that the evidence is solid and the case is air-tight. Everything he says in interrogation sessions will be recorded and transcribed. He will be read his rights and given access to a lawyer. The police station will be in total lockdown until he is transferred. And no one will have access to the prisoner except his immediate family and his attorney. No questions, no doubt, no Jack Ruby. This case against Oswald was a joke and I'm inclined to believe that the reason the Dallas Police let Jack Ruby into the basement to kill Oswald was because they knew that if they had to go to trial with the evidence they had against him, not only would he walk, but the DPD would be the laughing stock of the world. Here's some food for thought: When the criminals control the evidence, ANYTHING is possible. Edited March 8, 2011 by Gil Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 Because Oswald's handwriting is on the money order. Why that extremely powerful fact isn't good enough for you is a mystery. But it IS good enough for me (and probably for most other reasonable people). Plus--there's the FACT that Klein's positively had that money order IN ITS POSSESSION in March 1963. We know that to be the case, because if they didn't, they would have never processed the sales order for Rifle C2766 to "A. Hidell", as seen in Waldman #7. (Oh, yes, Waldman 7 is yet another fake document, isn't it, Lee?) And Klein's STAMPED the money order with their own company stamp, for Pete sake. Why do you think EVERYTHING is a fake--even that Klein's stamp on the back of the Oswald money order? Nothing is EVER what it seems to be, is it Lee (and Jimbo)? 1. And Oswald's handwriting was not forgeable. 2. Waldman 7 says that the rifle shipped was C20-T750, a 36" rifle, not C20-750, the 40" short rifle. 3. What is the name of the person from Klein's who stamped that money order ? 4. Where's the delivery receipt the post office required for firearms ? But it all doesn't matter, does it, David, because we KNOW Oswald killed Kennedy. I think all that circular reasoning is making you dizzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) So, to sum this up, Gil. You'd have to have been born with a cabbage on your head to believe that this "evidence" is actual "proof" of ordering and taking delivery of said rifle? And absent any signs of cabbage being on one's head you can come to no other conclusion that this "evidence" is a giant pile of pig's dung that was "manufactured" after the assassination to lead people (with cabbages on their heads) to believe that Oswald did in fact order and take delivery of said rifle? I would refer you back to the Katzenbach memo which stated that the evidence must be such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial. I believe that although they tried, they failed to attain that. Von Pein and others would like you to believe that people who question the official version are "kooks". He's all over the internet insulting people like me in forums that tolerate such nonsense, but the truth of the matter is that I'm not looking under every rock for a conspiracy. I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist in the general sense of the word. I'm a guy with a degree and background in criminal justice and experience in police and security and I have serious questions with the legitimacy of the evidence in this case. Conversely, Von Pein and others like him, have no credentials in any aspect associated with criminal justice. The problems with the tampering of the evidence, the slanted police lineups, the altered affidavits, the falsified police reports or the witnesses, some who were intimidated by authorities and others who were equally ignored, brings to mind the bigger question of what was REALLY going on in this investigation. What the Von Penis of the world don't tell you that in addition to all of this, events as described by the police were lies. An example of this was the falsehood that Oswald tried to fire his handgun in the theater when grabbed by police. But when the FBI examined the handgun, it never misfired. And when they examined the unfired round that the cops said had a "nick" in it from the firing pin of the revolver, the FBI determined that "There was no indication, from an examination, that that nick had been so caused by a firing pin ". They came to that conclusion for two reasons: " First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin ". In fact the FBI concluded that their examination revealed " no marks that could be associated with the firing pin in Commission Exhibit 143 ( the Oswald handgun ) , OR ANY OTHER WEAPON ". ( 3 H 460 ) IOW, it was manufactured by the police, the only ones who had previously maintained possession of the unfired round. In looking at the investigation in THIS case, it is difficult for me to understand WHY the police would have gone to such extents as to risk getting the case thrown out of court, in order to frame a GUILTY man. Edited March 8, 2011 by Gil Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) I would refer you back to the Katzenbach memo which stated that the evidence must be such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial. I believe that although they tried, they failed to attain that. Von Pein and others would like you to believe that people who question the official version are "kooks". He's all over the internet insulting people like me in forums that tolerate such nonsense, but the truth of the matter is that I'm not looking under every rock for a conspiracy. I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist in the general sense of the word. I'm a guy with a degree and background in criminal justice and experience in police and security and I have serious questions with the legitimacy of the evidence in this case. Conversely, Von Pein and others like him, have no credentials in any aspect associated with criminal justice. The problems with the tampering of the evidence, the slanted police lineups, the altered affidavits, the falsified police reports or the witnesses, some who were intimidated by authorities and others who were equally ignored, brings to mind the bigger question of what was REALLY going on in this investigation. What the Von Peins of the world don't tell you that in addition to all of this, events as described by the police were lies.... Gil, your YouTube channels have been a valuable resource to people that are interested in learning more about President Kennedy's murder. Most of us recognize how much time and effort you have invested in putting it together and keeping it up and running. The primary sources you make easily accessible make a powerful and convincing case for conspiracy. Thanks. http://www.youtube.com/user/JFK63Conspiracy By contrast, one can visit David Von Pein's blogs (who has also invested a lot of time and effort), read the insulting rhetoric and note the circular reasoning, as you aptly describe it, and see who the real kooks are. Although I'm sure it was not David's intention, his sites inadvertently make a strong case for conspiracy and do a great job of illustrating what a poor job the Warren Commission really did. After all, David's views represent the minority fringe of thought as it pertains the the murder of John Kennedy. One of his main and recurring mistakes of logic is painting everyone that disbelieves the conclusions of the Warren Report with a brush that is too broad. It's just a lack of common sense on his part, as evidenced by the following mindset. I like the part where he brags about not reading that many books, despite finding Best Evidence "fascinating." It was a good twenty years from the publication of Best Evidence until the internet began to really be a good source of information. And despite his growing interest, David refrained from reading all that many books on the subject of conspiracy. It's easy to imagine his inspiration coming from You Are the Jury and Portrait of the Assassin and little else. ....Fortunately, I wasn't persuaded by Lifton's book, but I did find it fascinating reading nonetheless. And from that point on, my interest in JFK (and particularly his assassination) grew and grew. I really haven't read all that many physical books on the JFK case, although I have read most of the "lone assassin" books, plus a few conspiracy ones too, with most of my recent information about the case coming mainly from online sources. Mary Ferrell's website and "History Matters" are invaluable resources when it comes to finding documents of all kinds re the assassination. And, of course, I have gathered a lot of (false) information from talking and arguing with the "CTers" (as we LNers call them) on the Internet. I'm sure if you've looked through some of my blogs (where I like to archive just about everything I write online), you can tell just exactly what kind of nutjobs and conspiracy kooks I've dealt with the last few years. Some of these people are just unbelievable in the things they believe. Lightweight stuff for sure. Of course most Forum members are familiar with DVP's ways, but a ninth grader could see the limitations of his arguments, simply by noting the weakness of his rhetoric. They wouldn't even have to consider the evidence. Edited March 8, 2011 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 Gil, your YouTube channels have been a valuable resource to people that are interested in learning more about President Kennedy's murder. Most of us recognize how much time and effort you have invested in putting it together and keeping it up and running. The primary sources you make easily accessible make a powerful and convincing case for conspiracy. Thanks. http://www.youtube.com/user/JFK63Conspiracy By contrast, one can visit David Von Pein's blogs (who has also invested a lot of time and effort), read the insulting rhetoric and note the circular reasoning, as you aptly describe it, and see who the real kooks are. Although I'm sure it was not David's intention, his sites inadvertently make a strong case for conspiracy and do a great job of illustrating what a poor job the Warren Commission really did. After all, David's views represent the minority fringe of thought as it pertains the the murder of John Kennedy. One of his main and recurring mistakes of logic is painting everyone that disbelieves the conclusions of the Warren Report with a brush that is too broad. It's just a lack of common sense on his part, as evidenced by the following mindset. I like the part where he brags about not reading that many books, despite finding Best Evidence "fascinating." It was a good twenty years from the publication of Best Evidence until the internet began to really be a good source of information. And despite his growing interest, David refrained from reading all that many books on the subject of conspiracy. It's easy to imagine his inspiration coming from You Are the Jury and Portrait of the Assassin and little else. Lightweight stuff for sure. Of course most Forum members are familiar with DVP's ways, but a ninth grader could see the limitations of his arguments, simply by noting the weakness of his rhetoric. They wouldn't even have to consider the evidence. Thank you for the kind words about the channel and your recognition of the hard work it takes to put those videos together. Sometimes it takes a whole day and night just to produce one video. I know I've been slacking on those lately, but I am currently working on a series of videos on the problems of the evidence and I hope to begin uploading those soon. Some of the videos from the old channel ( GJJdude ) were copied and translated into Italian by a friend of mine and posted on Youtube as well. When he asked me if he could do it, I agreed because I recognized the need to spread the word to those in other countries who may have an interest in the case. The format in the new channel ( JFK63Conspiracy ) is somewhat different: no narration, no conclusions, no interpretations. Just raw first-hand accounts from the witnesses themselves and in their own words, rather than what the officials said they said. There are a LOT of problems with the tracing of the rifle, the purchase of the rifle and the receiving of the rifle. There's the problem of Crescent invoice 3148, which shows that of the 10 cartons shipped in the February shipment, NINE were marked off with check marks, but the 10th, (3376) which contained the C2766 rifle was never checked. There's the problem that Klein's record shows that Oswald allegedly ordered one catalog number, was shipped the same catalog number, and the Depository rifle contained a different catalog number. There's the problem that the rifle in the backyard photograph and rifle found on the sixth floor had different sling mounts. There's the problem that Oswald bought a money order that should not have been sold until late 64-early 65. There's the problem that Oswald ordered the rifle under an alias and the part of the post office application that would have allowed for that alias to receive the rifle was destroyed in violation of postal regulations. There's the problem that the money order contained no stamp from the bank to which it was deposited. There's the problem that the deposit slip itself contained no stamp from the bank. There's the problem that two postal forms, one to be filled out by the seller and the other to be filled out by the receiver of firearms shipped through the postal service, are nowhere to be found for this transaction. And the list goes on and on and on. IMO, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that something is amiss here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) OSWALD'S writing is on the money order. Therefore, OSWALD ordered the rifle from Klein's via the $21.45 money order (not to mention the Klein's order form) that HE HIMSELF filled out. Believing anything else is pure speculation. (And hogwash.) Case closed. NOT QUITE: The HSCA's handwriting expert McNally testified that OSWALD'S GENERAL WRITING PATTERN IS SIMPLE AND TENDS TO BE RATHER LEGIBLE, and TO TURN OUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT ( re: the "Hunt letter" ) WOULD BE NOT PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT. ( 4 HSCA 360 ) Oswald's handwriting was easily forgeable. Edited March 8, 2011 by Gil Jesus 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