Clearing The Air

[David Lifton]

I am not knowledgeable on the Bledsoe case, but here David Lifton has calmly and rationally presented his case that Bledsoe was on the bus in a manner Joseph Backes can respond in kind. I think that is what forum members like myself who are not researchers but interested readers expect from those who have invested their lives trying to bring the truth of this case to light. I can glean from Lifton's post exactly what supports Bledsoe's being on the bus and the weakness of the position that she wasn't. If all such controversial issues were discussed in the tone and clarity Lifton provides for us here, there would be no need of moderators. Kudos, David, for a well-thought out position, which certainly will promote a well-thought out rebuttal. Regards, Dan

Dan,

your friend goes on and on that no one knew about the FBI interviews before he told us, and this is where we made our mistake.

But as usual, he is talking through the wrong orifice and refuses all efforts to be corrected. Perhaps you will be more forthcoming and admit that - why yes - there it right there. Those guys first mention those FBI interviews on page 4 of a very long thread - and well before DSL joined in.

http://educationforu...pic=17269&st=45

The lawyer who helped get Bledsoe through the interview was not just any lawyer. She was part of a coterie of influential Dallas females who were in LBJ's inner circle and included Sarah Hughes who swore LBJ in and Louise Raggio who was in the same church as Michael Paine, but who represented Ruth Paine in proposed divorce proceedings.

On this page, you've find a picture of the bus transfer which helped place Oswald on McWatters bus. David has thus far resisted all temptation to give us his no doubt brilliant understanding of how it remained in such pristine condition in Oswald's shirt pocket considering the roughing up it, and he, got during the arrest. Maybe you'd like to have a go at explaining it?

The only evidence placing Oswald at Mary's house was a calendar allegedly made by Oswald confirming he paid the rent for the first week. This was offered to the FBI by the young man who had PURCHASED it for $4.00 from Mary's son, Porter. The FBI allegedly took a copy of it and left it that. We do not know what happened to the copy. There is no evidence the handwriting was examined (and in any case, they should have kept the original for that, as well as for an examination for prints) . What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why did not keep it - much less examine it. The kid ended up getting $250.00 at auction for it - which shows any brains Mary may have had, certainly weren't inherited by her son.

Anyhow, here is the news story of the auction sale: http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=737239

Note that the story said Oswald wrote his name "laboriously"? That phrase was actually used by the hand-writing expert used by the auction company (who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie that it was Oswald's writing). But why would Oswald have any difficulty writing his own name? The answer is , he wouldn't. But who would? An elderly lady, or her not-too-bright son, that's who - for the sake of a few bucks.

Mr. Parker,

The evidence you cite only further demolishes the argument you have made, and in fact serves to validate the fact that Oswald roomed at Bledsoe's residence for the week starting 10/7/63.

Yes, the FBI--hearing about the calendar page--called in Porter Bledsoe, and made a copy of the page.

That means there is an FBI exhibit number on that item, and it is surely in the FBI files.

Then, in December, 1965, the son (Porter Bledsoe) took it to Charles Hamilton and there it was sold at auction.

The story about this auction was published in the Dallas Times Herald; and the FBI--being dutiful news clippers--made a copy of that, too, and put it in their files.

All of this is very interesting, but how does any of it invalidate the item as evidence that Oswald roomed there??

The only way it does if one buys into your "analysis" of what this means.

Surely you don't believe that Porter Bledsoe gave fraudulent evidence to the FBI--and then sold his "original" at auction?

I mean really. . . is that your theory??

All I know is what you wrote: "The FBI allegedly took a copy of it and left it at that."

No, they didn't "allegedly" take a copy; they actually made a copy of it--that's a fact--and there's an FBI 302 report about that. (Surely you do know that).

That means that the FBI then sent that item to its lab, which means that somewhere in the FBI files is almmost certainly an FBI Lab report on what the Lab said.

I don't know what that report says, but its something that ought to be located, and/or filed for under the FOIA.

But I soundly reject your argument, which is nothing but a series of unfounded assertions. Here's what you wrote:

QUOTE: There is no evidence the handwriting was examined (and in any case, they should have kept the original for that, as well as for an examination for prints) .

What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why did not keep it - much less examine it.

UNQUOTE

This argument is pure bunk. It is totally unfounded, and nothing more than your unfounded theorizing.

You might recall what Carl Sagan used to say: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Indeed, the fact that the original of this item was sold at auction, and particularly, the fact that it was sold by Charles Hamilton (a respected auction house that will not just sell any old thing, based on specious claims as to what "it" is) constitutes further evidence that (a) the original of this item existed (b ) that it passed muster at the auction house and (c ) that it was sold to some buyer.

So what we have is the following situation:

(a) documentary evidence that existed that established that Oswald roomed at Bledsoe's rooming house

(b ) A copy of the document was made by the FBI, in early December, as I recall, and went into the FBI files (and was probably sent to the Lab, for examination)

(c ) A record of that transmittal, including what the lab said, is almost certainly in FBI files--and probably can be (and ought to be ) located.

(d) THe original item was sold at auction, by Charles Hamilton, in December, 1965

(e) A record exists of the buyer, at Charles Hamilton--i.e., in principle, the buyer could be located, and the original still examined.

(f) The FBI duly noted the sale of this item, in its files--which is a credit to their record keeping system.

And what do you say to all of this?

"I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why [they] did not keep it--much less examine it."

Sorry, my friend, you are really barking up the wrong tree.

I think the evidence indicates exactly the opposite.

Based on Bledsoe's testimony, it is clear that Oswald roomed there. Now, with this news story, it is clear what became of the original calendar page.

Should the FBI have kept the original calendar page? Yes, I think they ought to have.

But. . so what?

IMHO: You have built a hypothesis about the fraudulence of this item which is totally unjustified, and without foundation.

If you are truly interested in pursuing this further, then contact the Hamilton people, and ask two questions:

(1) What was the nature of the "due diligence" that they conducted, before selling this item?

(2) Who was the buyer? (Alternatively, might you communicate with the buyer?)

In addition, search for and locate the actual FBI copy of the item--because you can be sure its in an FBI file, and very likely was sent to the FBI Laboratory, for a routine examination.

I strongly suggest that you reign in your attempt to assert the original was a forgery, simply because it was sold at auction.

I don't see the logic of that--at all.

I also reject your other statement: "Note that the story said Oswald wrote his name "laboriously"? That phrase was actually used by the hand-writing expert used by the auction company (who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie that it was Oswald's writing".

In other words,you've got a "conspiracy theory" that even extends to Oswald's handwriting, on the document that establishes he was there--even though he signed it in Bledsoe's presence!

What kind of "reasoning" is this?

My advice (again): Go find the original, by contacting Hamilton; or locate the copy, in FBI files. And stop theorizing about what you "think it means" before you even examine the evidence.

Oh yes. . and one other thing. . just how long have you known about this Dallas Times Herald news story, showing the dispostion of the original? (And didn't it occur to you, when you located it, that "Uh oh. . there goes my pet hypothesis?" And is that reason you're doing your level best to put this "spin" on a story that in fact clears up a loose end, and consigns the "Bledsoe wasn't his landlady" hypothesis to the dustbin?

DSL

1/4/11; 6 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

[Daniel Gallup]

Dan,

your friend goes on and on that no one knew about the FBI interviews before he told us, and this is where we made our mistake.

But as usual, he is talking through the wrong orifice and refuses all efforts to be corrected. Perhaps you will be more forthcoming and admit that - why yes - there it right there. Those guys first mention those FBI interviews on page 4 of a very long thread - and well before DSL joined in.

http://educationforu...pic=17269&st=45

The lawyer who helped get Bledsoe through the interview was not just any lawyer. She was part of a coterie of influential Dallas females who were in LBJ's inner circle and included Sarah Hughes who swore LBJ in and Louise Raggio who was in the same church as Michael Paine, but who represented Ruth Paine in proposed divorce proceedings.

On this page, you've find a picture of the bus transfer which helped place Oswald on McWatters bus. David has thus far resisted all temptation to give us his no doubt brilliant understanding of how it remained in such pristine condition in Oswald's shirt pocket considering the roughing up it, and he, got during the arrest. Maybe you'd like to have a go at explaining it?

The only evidence placing Oswald at Mary's house was a calendar allegedly made by Oswald confirming he paid the rent for the first week. This was offered to the FBI by the young man who had PURCHASED it for $4.00 from Mary's son, Porter. The FBI allegedly took a copy of it and left it that. We do not know what happened to the copy. There is no evidence the handwriting was examined (and in any case, they should have kept the original for that, as well as for an examination for prints) . What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why did not keep it - much less examine it. The kid ended up getting $250.00 at auction for it - which shows any brains Mary may have had, certainly weren't inherited by her son.

Anyhow, here is the news story of the auction sale: http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=737239

Note that the story said Oswald wrote his name "laboriously"? That phrase was actually used by the hand-writing expert used by the auction company (who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie that it was Oswald's writing). But why would Oswald have any difficulty writing his own name? The answer is , he wouldn't. But who would? An elderly lady, or her not-too-bright son, that's who - for the sake of a few bucks.

Greg,

Except for the parts I've bolded, that was a typically persuasive post. Can't you see how much more effective it would be without the unnecessary nastiness or sarcasm? Don't you understand how much harder it would be for David to respond inappropriately himself, if you stuck to your strong analysis of the evidence?

Don , thank you for the links, and I shall glad to read them. The point of my post was to point out that David's reasoning was clear and accessible to someone like me who is a reader,not a researcher, in the case. In David's post there was no insulting language, just arguments that could be answered with dispassionate reasoning. Your reply to me was, for the most part, in kind, and I thank you. The words about the "wrong orifice" were unnecessary, however, and was just a way of hitting back, but did not nevertheless detract from the rest of your good post, which posited a rebuttal as I expected to hear. I suppose I am detached enough from all the personal animosities that exist on this forum to wonder why insulting language is necessary to convey a point. Isn't it just a lot more productive to produce argments for the reader to chew on? For doing that, I thank you. Best regards, Dan

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

This thread reminds me why I no longer participate in JFK discussions. I enjoy a good relationship with several of the people named in this thread and would describe them as decent human beings, however, when they get involved in a discussion on the JFK assassination, they can become very unpleasant. I am sure they would say somebody else started it, but all I see is the results of the arguments.

John, with all due respect - and I think you know I mean that as more than a nicety - this attitude you’ve just displayed toward those aggrieved by Lifton’s track record on the Forum is at the very heart of the problem.

You seem to be saying that whomever “starts it,” is an irrelevant detail. And that anybody injured by whomever “started it” has no recourse, not even self-defense, lest Teacher find fault. And that whomever “starts it” is in the clear, so long as s/he is allowed to get away with it by authority figures such as yourself, which is what has happened. I doubt very much that you spent your career in the classroom ignoring the provocations of bullies and then telling their victims to “suck it up,” but that is how you are coming across with the above comment.

When the first infractions - Lifton’s bizarrely bilious treatment of fellow members - went unpunished and unchallenged by moderators too cowardly to deal with it, this only emboldened Lifton to commit greater atrocities against decorum, and required the fellow members subjected to his unfair and irrelevant personal attacks to respond in kind.

Read for yourself the offending threads and it’s transparently clear what has transpired on your Forum as a direct result of your moderators not doing what your stated rules require of them. I only became embroiled in this because of the remorselessly shabby treatment dished out to Lee Farley, and wouldn’t have felt compelled to come to his defense had a single moderator made a single objection to such scurrilous childishness. How many aspersions of Lee Farley’s character, integrity and mental competency must he be required to tolerate before he is forgiven for responding in kind? (It has since grown to encompass all others who came to Lee’s defense, irrespective of whether they necessarily believe his hypotheses about anything.)

Now, you seem perfectly happy to wave all of this away as immaterial. You should not be so blithe. The tolerance of such bullying abuse by a Forum member of other members brings disrepute to the Forum. It is better to have no rules than rules that are unequally applied. There can be no justice without equity, yet both have been made sorely conspicuous by their absence. Hence, the howls of outrage

Don Jeffries - whom I’ve “known” in the internet sense of reading his contributions for more than a decade and quite like - has observed something important: “We hear this constantly, that we're biased towards David Lifton.”

If you only “hear this” complaint from those arguing with Lifton, you might despair that it’s a classic case of “he said/they said.” If you are hearing this complaint from members who have no skin in the game one way or the other, you might wish to consider why that perception has gained currency among the membership. If that perception is widespread, how can you deny it reflects directly upon the performance of your own minions here?

Moderators appear to be demanding forgiveness from the victims of the bully’s excesses, while doing nothing to curb those excesses. And you then mock their indignation as a childish matter of “who started it,” as though he who cast the first stone should be considered blameless.

I know for a fact that you do not live your life in such a moral vacuum and would ask that you pay closer attention to what transpires on your own Forum. If it makes you uncomfortable, and you run it, just think of the calumny that is felt by those who are the victims of needless, and irrelevant aspersions allowed daily by your moderators.

Will you now say it’s not your fault because you didn’t start it?

Robert Charles-Dunne,

I am very disappointed you decided to take the approach I've included in the quote box, above. My impression of what happened here on this past 1st of August was that you set an inspiring example of how not to take the bait and reply in kind when you found yourself targeted. In the midst of my repeated attempts to moderate the sustained posting activity aimed at you in a negative way having nothing to do with the topic at hand, you posted just once in response to it all. You resisted fanning the flames, or wading in to mix it up with the offending member.

In contrast to what predictably happens, you seemed like a partner in my effort, which lasted many hours, and would have seemed almost a complete waste of my time, if not for the restraint you extended and the patience you practiced. You ended your post with a reference to my demonstration of patience in the way I was trying to moderate. Kathy Beckett soon followed with a link to an older comment posted by John, which removed even the slimmest doubt that there was any merit to justify the barrage of posts aimed at you, personally.

A moderator is "very disapointed" in me because I critiqued a lack of moderation? How ungrateful of me, when you personally intervened on my behalf!

And, in return for your courtesy in my own regard last August, am I now expected to absolve the Forum moderators for not being similarly courteous to another member when it was his turn to be pilloried? If so, I have no interest in such a quid pro quo and fail to understand why you think the one somehow explains or forgives the other.

By your current argument, I know you recognize that one in your situation, as a target, could have legitimately indulged himself last August, taken the bait, replied in kind to your tormentor, and then blamed him for "starting it". I have the sense from that experience involving you, that you didn't think taking that "out" was legitimate, at least not for you and the standard you set for how you conduct yourself.

Well, Tom, that pattern of behaviour on my part has pretty much been the same since the day I arrived here, which is many years prior to your own arrival. It has nothing to do with working in partnership with moderators (who didn’t exist when I got here;) I simply try to avoid further stoking internecine wars over evidence and its interpretation, let alone fighting hammer and tongs over nothing more than outright stupidity.

I do, however, come with an inherent sense of fair play, which has been repeatedly offended over the years by a few posters here who do indulge in name calling and feces throwing. When their most base instinct kicks into gear, so does mine, and I am inclined to rise to the defense of those being unfairly attacked. It's a lifelong character flaw that often finds me shot by both sides for my efforts. Such is life.

Were moderators to perform their appointed function, I'd feel sanguine about not having to do my part at all. It's pretty simple really. I have never reported to moderators an offensive post directed at me (or anyone else) - the most egregious perhaps being one of some years back whose heading inquired how stupid I was - and have never sought a moderator's intervention on my behalf. So, thanks for your intervention of last August 1st, but that minor matter pales in comparison to what has caused the rift between Lifton and half the choir here, which is where I'd like your focus to remain. That is the issue at hand, so let's not lose sight of it.

I also acknowledge that not all moderators read all posts, so my own ire is directed exclusively toward those who did read the initial offensive posts and did nothing.

So why are you excusing other members who permit a third party to set them off, excusing themselves for responding in kind to juvenile name calling or to catty, taunting barbs intended to trigger a mirrored, ugly reaction? Why do you criticize moderators for not accepting the excuses of "he started it!", "he made me dot it!". From a young age, I instilled in my son the notion that prisons are full of people who absolve themselves of responsibility for their own violent reaction to perceived slights and provocations from others. I taught my son that each of us always has a choice of how to react in anger, and that no one "makes us" do anything; that no one is responsible for the choice we make of raising a fist or turning the other cheek. I can recall all of my boy's feeble arguments against what I was trying to teach him. He is a man now, and he accepts that only he is responsible for the way he chooses to respond to anything anyone else says or does to him....no excuses. Countless times I reminded him that no one could make him do anything, he always had a choice to escalate or to remain composed.

When another member provokes you, either you become a partner of the moderator who becomes involved, or you choose to become another who needs to be moderated. If you post that "I couldn't let him get away with that," why would I accept that as an excuse absolving you, when I never accepted a similar shirking of responsibility from my young son.

Do you accept, Robert, that members who reply in kind are not as responsible for their posted language and tone, as the person "who starts it" is for what is in his preceding (inciting?) post? Are those who declare that they "couldn't just sit there and let him get away with posting that," half as responsible as their tormentor? As a man, now, my son would agree with me that a man takes responsibility for anything that he does; that no one can make anyone do anything.

If you re-read my post, several things might occur to you that clearly haven't upon first reading. You'll note that my chagrin is at moderators not performing their function. This is precisely how and why the feces flinging erupts and escalates. I don't seek to absolve any of the posters of their personal guilt in how they comport themselves, but please don't use this as an opportunity to absolve yourselves (collectively) for the collateral damage done to the Forum when moderators fail to censure a member or members whose behaviour is out of bounds. If you're four-square in favour of accepting personal responsibility, how be you demonstrate it by acknowledging that when one member here attacked another outright - using unparliamentary language to question ethics and sanity and integrity as is clearly forbidden by this Forum's rules - every single moderator here sat on their hands and watched it unfold, rather than tangle with the nasty behaviour of the member who started it? So on the topic of personal responsibility, I couldn't agree with you more. Which is why I invited you moderators (collectively) to accept some.

And I would ask if your sermon also applies to Lee Farley. The reason? When Lee Farley was under a barrage of withering personal criticism that had precisely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, who among the moderators offered to be his "partner" and defuse the situation?

Because I didn't see any of you for dust.

[Stephen Roy]

One of the reasons I believe that on Friday night, November 22, 1963, Commander Humes (et al) could not find a path for a missile through the body of JFK is that that's exactly what he said--and he said it in front of two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, who wrote down his words, and filed a report--known as an FBI 302 report (or, in this case, as the Sibert and O'Neill report).

DSL

1/4/12; 5 AM

Los Angeles, CA.

David: A quick shift back to what you said above. For the record, I am no expert on the JFK medical evidence, I'm going from memory here and playing Devil's Advocate, with a question about it:

As I recall, is it not true that the folks at Bethesda did not know that the front neck wound was, in fact, a wound? That they thought it was just a tracheostomy incision? I seem to recall that Humes only learned this after the autopsy in a conversation with Perry. If so, could that explain (one of the reasons, at least) why Humes thought there was no pathway? That he did not see any possible exit wound?

(I am aware that the wound was also probed with a finger, and that a path was not felt.)

Just wondering.

[David Josephs]

DSL wrote:

Those who mistakenly believe that the Warren Report is simply the result of a pack of lies told by the Warren Commission staff are wrong. If you go to the National Archives and read through the voluminous files of the WC staff, it will become immediately apparent that they proceeded down the garden path because they were led there via falsified evidence.

David...

Curious... how on the one hand do you make this statement that I AGREE WITH completely...

Yet not a few sentences later you hold up three FBI reports as the "Gospel according to Mary B"

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0439-001.gif

NOT possible the FBI simple wrote the same story 3-4 times on different days?

It does not strike you as complete OVERKILL on the Bledsoe/Bus/Oswald issue?

and maybe things have changed in Dallas... but there is no MURPHY & ELM intersection prior to Lamar as the reports state - were there street name changes?

DSL wrote:

The rifle is real; the shells are real; the sniper's nest was "real." What was falsified was the autopsy, via corruption of the body itself; and the films.

Yes, the rifle is real - just not the one ordered or used in any assassination

Yes, the shells are real - yet depending on who you believe they were bunched together, picked up, dropped down, and never properly marked or kept in DPD's possession

Yes, the SN is real - and as the workers there said, they had to move boxes to replace the floor... boxes were moved to the corner, WHEN did Oswald create this and WHY aren't his fingerprints all over the SN boxes.. ALL of them?

To the first quote I posted here of yours... THE EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC David...

What criteria do YOU use to accept one FBI bogus report over another? Weren't there a number of witnesses who said their FBI statements were NOT WHAT THEY SAID?

btw - I respect what you've offered the JFK research community - yours was one of the first books I purchased and read...

and I'd STILL like to know more about the front right AF-1 door that was opened for Jackie to deplane in privacy... Since JFK could not have been in that casket and had to get to Bethesda...

well, you know the rest....

So to understand how you seperate wheat from shaft in the voluminous mountain of "UNAUTHENTICACTED" evidence may help us to understand your supportive reasoning for Bledsoe

Thanks

DJ

[Pat Speer]

This thread reminds me why I no longer participate in JFK discussions. I enjoy a good relationship with several of the people named in this thread and would describe them as decent human beings, however, when they get involved in a discussion on the JFK assassination, they can become very unpleasant. I am sure they would say somebody else started it, but all I see is the results of the arguments.

John, with all due respect - and I think you know I mean that as more than a nicety - this attitude you’ve just displayed toward those aggrieved by Lifton’s track record on the Forum is at the very heart of the problem.

You seem to be saying that whomever “starts it,” is an irrelevant detail. And that anybody injured by whomever “started it” has no recourse, not even self-defense, lest Teacher find fault. And that whomever “starts it” is in the clear, so long as s/he is allowed to get away with it by authority figures such as yourself, which is what has happened. I doubt very much that you spent your career in the classroom ignoring the provocations of bullies and then telling their victims to “suck it up,” but that is how you are coming across with the above comment.

When the first infractions - Lifton’s bizarrely bilious treatment of fellow members - went unpunished and unchallenged by moderators too cowardly to deal with it, this only emboldened Lifton to commit greater atrocities against decorum, and required the fellow members subjected to his unfair and irrelevant personal attacks to respond in kind.

Read for yourself the offending threads and it’s transparently clear what has transpired on your Forum as a direct result of your moderators not doing what your stated rules require of them. I only became embroiled in this because of the remorselessly shabby treatment dished out to Lee Farley, and wouldn’t have felt compelled to come to his defense had a single moderator made a single objection to such scurrilous childishness. How many aspersions of Lee Farley’s character, integrity and mental competency must he be required to tolerate before he is forgiven for responding in kind? (It has since grown to encompass all others who came to Lee’s defense, irrespective of whether they necessarily believe his hypotheses about anything.)

Now, you seem perfectly happy to wave all of this away as immaterial. You should not be so blithe. The tolerance of such bullying abuse by a Forum member of other members brings disrepute to the Forum. It is better to have no rules than rules that are unequally applied. There can be no justice without equity, yet both have been made sorely conspicuous by their absence. Hence, the howls of outrage

Don Jeffries - whom I’ve “known” in the internet sense of reading his contributions for more than a decade and quite like - has observed something important: “We hear this constantly, that we're biased towards David Lifton.”

If you only “hear this” complaint from those arguing with Lifton, you might despair that it’s a classic case of “he said/they said.” If you are hearing this complaint from members who have no skin in the game one way or the other, you might wish to consider why that perception has gained currency among the membership. If that perception is widespread, how can you deny it reflects directly upon the performance of your own minions here?

Moderators appear to be demanding forgiveness from the victims of the bully’s excesses, while doing nothing to curb those excesses. And you then mock their indignation as a childish matter of “who started it,” as though he who cast the first stone should be considered blameless.

I know for a fact that you do not live your life in such a moral vacuum and would ask that you pay closer attention to what transpires on your own Forum. If it makes you uncomfortable, and you run it, just think of the calumny that is felt by those who are the victims of needless, and irrelevant aspersions allowed daily by your moderators.

Will you now say it’s not your fault because you didn’t start it?

Robert Charles-Dunne,

I am very disappointed you decided to take the approach I've included in the quote box, above. My impression of what happened here on this past 1st of August was that you set an inspiring example of how not to take the bait and reply in kind when you found yourself targeted. In the midst of my repeated attempts to moderate the sustained posting activity aimed at you in a negative way having nothing to do with the topic at hand, you posted just once in response to it all. You resisted fanning the flames, or wading in to mix it up with the offending member.

In contrast to what predictably happens, you seemed like a partner in my effort, which lasted many hours, and would have seemed almost a complete waste of my time, if not for the restraint you extended and the patience you practiced. You ended your post with a reference to my demonstration of patience in the way I was trying to moderate. Kathy Beckett soon followed with a link to an older comment posted by John, which removed even the slimmest doubt that there was any merit to justify the barrage of posts aimed at you, personally.

A moderator is "very disapointed" in me because I critiqued a lack of moderation? How ungrateful of me, when you personally intervened on my behalf!

And, in return for your courtesy in my own regard last August, am I now expected to absolve the Forum moderators for not being similarly courteous to another member when it was his turn to be pilloried? If so, I have no interest in such a quid pro quo and fail to understand why you think the one somehow explains or forgives the other.

By your current argument, I know you recognize that one in your situation, as a target, could have legitimately indulged himself last August, taken the bait, replied in kind to your tormentor, and then blamed him for "starting it". I have the sense from that experience involving you, that you didn't think taking that "out" was legitimate, at least not for you and the standard you set for how you conduct yourself.

Well, Tom, that pattern of behaviour on my part has pretty much been the same since the day I arrived here, which is many years prior to your own arrival. It has nothing to do with working in partnership with moderators (who didn’t exist when I got here;) I simply try to avoid further stoking internecine wars over evidence and its interpretation, let alone fighting hammer and tongs over nothing more than outright stupidity.

I do, however, come with an inherent sense of fair play, which has been repeatedly offended over the years by a few posters here who do indulge in name calling and feces throwing. When their most base instinct kicks into gear, so does mine, and I am inclined to rise to the defense of those being unfairly attacked. It's a lifelong character flaw that often finds me shot by both sides for my efforts. Such is life.

Were moderators to perform their appointed function, I'd feel sanguine about not having to do my part at all. It's pretty simple really. I have never reported to moderators an offensive post directed at me (or anyone else) - the most egregious perhaps being one of some years back whose heading inquired how stupid I was - and have never sought a moderator's intervention on my behalf. So, thanks for your intervention of last August 1st, but that minor matter pales in comparison to what has caused the rift between Lifton and half the choir here, which is where I'd like your focus to remain. That is the issue at hand, so let's not lose sight of it.

I also acknowledge that not all moderators read all posts, so my own ire is directed exclusively toward those who did read the initial offensive posts and did nothing.

So why are you excusing other members who permit a third party to set them off, excusing themselves for responding in kind to juvenile name calling or to catty, taunting barbs intended to trigger a mirrored, ugly reaction? Why do you criticize moderators for not accepting the excuses of "he started it!", "he made me dot it!". From a young age, I instilled in my son the notion that prisons are full of people who absolve themselves of responsibility for their own violent reaction to perceived slights and provocations from others. I taught my son that each of us always has a choice of how to react in anger, and that no one "makes us" do anything; that no one is responsible for the choice we make of raising a fist or turning the other cheek. I can recall all of my boy's feeble arguments against what I was trying to teach him. He is a man now, and he accepts that only he is responsible for the way he chooses to respond to anything anyone else says or does to him....no excuses. Countless times I reminded him that no one could make him do anything, he always had a choice to escalate or to remain composed.

When another member provokes you, either you become a partner of the moderator who becomes involved, or you choose to become another who needs to be moderated. If you post that "I couldn't let him get away with that," why would I accept that as an excuse absolving you, when I never accepted a similar shirking of responsibility from my young son.

Do you accept, Robert, that members who reply in kind are not as responsible for their posted language and tone, as the person "who starts it" is for what is in his preceding (inciting?) post? Are those who declare that they "couldn't just sit there and let him get away with posting that," half as responsible as their tormentor? As a man, now, my son would agree with me that a man takes responsibility for anything that he does; that no one can make anyone do anything.

If you re-read my post, several things might occur to you that clearly haven't upon first reading. You'll note that my chagrin is at moderators not performing their function. This is precisely how and why the feces flinging erupts and escalates. I don't seek to absolve any of the posters of their personal guilt in how they comport themselves, but please don't use this as an opportunity to absolve yourselves (collectively) for the collateral damage done to the Forum when moderators fail to censure a member or members whose behaviour is out of bounds. If you're four-square in favour of accepting personal responsibility, how be you demonstrate it by acknowledging that when one member here attacked another outright - using unparliamentary language to question ethics and sanity and integrity as is clearly forbidden by this Forum's rules - every single moderator here sat on their hands and watched it unfold, rather than tangle with the nasty behaviour of the member who started it? So on the topic of personal responsibility, I couldn't agree with you more. Which is why I invited you moderators (collectively) to accept some.

And I would ask if your sermon also applies to Lee Farley. The reason? When Lee Farley was under a barrage of withering personal criticism that had precisely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, who among the moderators offered to be his "partner" and defuse the situation?

Because I didn't see any of you for dust.

While it is not the business of the moderators to write down or publicly review their every decision, I remember the disappointment I felt when first reading the Bledsoe on the bus thread that set up the current situation. I was annoyed that Lifton, who had, years earlier, sent me an insulting email expressing outrage over my recent appearance at a Lancer conference, was now giving the same treatment to others on the forum. As I read through the thread, however, it became clear that Lee and others had chosen to retaliate against Lifton, and had not chosen the high road. The question then became what to do. As the moderators, as a whole, prefer to stay out of squabbles, beyond removing the occasional L word, or F bomb, and as Lifton, who had undoubtedly been insulting to Farley, had undoubtedly gotten the worst of it, I decided to let it pretty much run its course. (I may have removed an insulting post or two, I frankly don't remember.) In any event, I was in contact with Lee shortly after this and told him he shouldn't let such things drive him from the forum.

There is a system in place here, however flawed. The moderators are not the "mean police." We are not the U.S. military, running around the world trying to stop the bad guys before they can be bad. We are for the most part a slow-moving response team, trying to keep the forum from becoming a joke, whilst simultaneously trying to allow open discussion among its members. When forum members respond to a "mean" post with something equally "mean" or worse they pretty much remove the possibility the "mean" guy who started it all will be "punished." That's just the way it is. Those hoping for a more active moderation, where an all-seeing moderator jumps in out of the blue to chastise every "mean" person the moment he says something "mean" are simply on the wrong forum.

I do see some possibility for improvement, however.

Here is Rule iv of the forum.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Many if not most of us have repeatedly violated this rule. At times we question the qualifications of those questioning our favorite theories. At other times we question the credibility of those who've previously espoused theories we find silly or just plain wrong. Now, it's incredibly hard for some to have a discussion with someone they disagree with without questioning that person's abilities or credibility. But we have to try.

And so, I have a suggestion. Whenever ANYONE questions the ability of, let's say, a member who is by trade a gardener, to question the medical evidence, or the over-all credibility of, let's say, a member who once claimed Connally shot JFK at close range, the first MEMBER to read the offending post should simply post something like "Bill, your post appears to be in violation of Rule iv. Please correct asap. Biff,(the offended party) please do not respond until he does so..."

If MEMBERS were to do this, IMO, the most frequent violators of Rule iv would soon tire of having to go back and correct their posts, or of having their posts EDITED or made invisible when they failed to do so. It might make for a boring forum. But it would force people to focus on the message and not the messenger.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

Murphy Street no longer exists. It is now a two block crosswalk that no longer intersects Elm Street.

McWatters said he didn't remember picking anyone up at St. Paul & Elm. He remembers Roy Milton Jones who boarded the stop before.

The reason Henry Wade stated the conversation between the elderly woman and "Oswald" was in his list of evidence on the evening of Sunday 24th was because it actually happened. The hole in the evidence was it wasn't Oswald.

Thanks Lee...

and yes - I agree, the point is NOT whether those offering evidence are being truthful... but whether what/who they saw was authentic or not...

a doctor looking at a faked/altered xray will tell you what the Xray says... NOT whether the xray is authentic - we need Mantik for that...

Let's go down this path for a second please Lee - I'd like your take..

How does Oswald REALLY get from Baker/Truly to the theater... and where does he actually stop?

i.e. Roger Craig's (Ruth's) Station Wagon? - So he NEVER goes to his room or does he make the stop... hears the horn... and leaves VIA the police vehicle which takes him to the theater?

I think if we construct a timeline removing all current knowledge from the equation... we need to get our patsy to the theater ahead of the guy that ducks in, the guy Brewer sees....

So first we need to see if he REALLY went to his room...

In the same vein as Beldsoe... could Roberts here have been coached a bit?

This is once again CLASSIC Ball questioning and leading of the witnesses....

Mrs. ROBERTS. He didn't come home on Thursday night that week.

Mr. BALL. And Friday was the day the President was shot? Had you seen him at any time that Friday before the officers came up and knocked on your door?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. BALL. Hadn't he been home?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, let's see--that was the day.

Mr. BALL. That was on a Friday---

Mrs. ROBERTS. Wait a minute, let me think of it.

Mr. BALL. That's on a Friday.

Mrs. ROBERTS. I had better back up a minute---he came home that Friday in an unusual hurry.

Mr. BALL. And about what time was this?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. BALL. As he came in, did you say anything else except, "You are in a hurry"?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. BALL. Did you say anything about the President being shot?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

[Greg Parker]

I am not knowledgeable on the Bledsoe case, but here David Lifton has calmly and rationally presented his case that Bledsoe was on the bus in a manner Joseph Backes can respond in kind. I think that is what forum members like myself who are not researchers but interested readers expect from those who have invested their lives trying to bring the truth of this case to light. I can glean from Lifton's post exactly what supports Bledsoe's being on the bus and the weakness of the position that she wasn't. If all such controversial issues were discussed in the tone and clarity Lifton provides for us here, there would be no need of moderators. Kudos, David, for a well-thought out position, which certainly will promote a well-thought out rebuttal. Regards, Dan

Dan,

your friend goes on and on that no one knew about the FBI interviews before he told us, and this is where we made our mistake.

But as usual, he is talking through the wrong orifice and refuses all efforts to be corrected. Perhaps you will be more forthcoming and admit that - why yes - there it right there. Those guys first mention those FBI interviews on page 4 of a very long thread - and well before DSL joined in.

http://educationforu...pic=17269&st=45

The lawyer who helped get Bledsoe through the interview was not just any lawyer. She was part of a coterie of influential Dallas females who were in LBJ's inner circle and included Sarah Hughes who swore LBJ in and Louise Raggio who was in the same church as Michael Paine, but who represented Ruth Paine in proposed divorce proceedings.

On this page, you've find a picture of the bus transfer which helped place Oswald on McWatters bus. David has thus far resisted all temptation to give us his no doubt brilliant understanding of how it remained in such pristine condition in Oswald's shirt pocket considering the roughing up it, and he, got during the arrest. Maybe you'd like to have a go at explaining it?

The only evidence placing Oswald at Mary's house was a calendar allegedly made by Oswald confirming he paid the rent for the first week. This was offered to the FBI by the young man who had PURCHASED it for $4.00 from Mary's son, Porter. The FBI allegedly took a copy of it and left it that. We do not know what happened to the copy. There is no evidence the handwriting was examined (and in any case, they should have kept the original for that, as well as for an examination for prints) . What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why did not keep it - much less examine it. The kid ended up getting $250.00 at auction for it - which shows any brains Mary may have had, certainly weren't inherited by her son.

Anyhow, here is the news story of the auction sale: http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=737239

Note that the story said Oswald wrote his name "laboriously"? That phrase was actually used by the hand-writing expert used by the auction company (who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie that it was Oswald's writing). But why would Oswald have any difficulty writing his own name? The answer is , he wouldn't. But who would? An elderly lady, or her not-too-bright son, that's who - for the sake of a few bucks.

Mr. Parker,

The evidence you cite only further demolishes the argument you have made, and in fact serves to validate the fact that Oswald roomed at Bledsoe's residence for the week starting 10/7/63.

Yes, the FBI--hearing about the calendar page--called in Porter Bledsoe, and made a copy of the page.

No, Mr Lifton, they did not. Lack of knowledge never does get in the way of your "expertise", though does it?

As I said, Porter sold it to a friend (Mike Neibuhr) for $4.00. The FBI knew nothing about it until Neibuhr voluntarily took it to them. Did the FBI keep it as they should have as evidence and for forensic examination of prints or any other traces of Oswald? No. Did they keep it knowing that original documents are far more valuable to hand writing experts than copies? No. They photographed it and handed the original back to Neibuhr who, showing far more smarts than Porter, got $250.00 for it.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=693773

There really is only one logical explanation. The FBI knew it was phony, but had to play along with the charade without keeping the original which would give the game away. Porter never expected it to end up with the FBI. To him, it was just a harmless little piece of forgery to skim some pin money from his friend and never thought it would ever be examined by anyone.

That means there is an FBI exhibit number on that item, and it is surely in the FBI files.

Maybe. I can't find it. Why don't you try? As Mr Farley has demonstrated, the copy was allegedly shown to Marina - who was unable to recall it.

Then, in December, 1965, the son (Porter Bledsoe) took it to Charles Hamilton and there it was sold at auction.

Wrong. Porter Bledsoe would have been very nervous after learning that Neibuhr had taken it to the FBI - and then later gutted when his friend pocketed $250.00 for something he sold for $4.00.

The story about this auction was published in the Dallas Times Herald; and the FBI--being dutiful news clippers--made a copy of that, too, and put it in their files.

So?

All of this is very interesting, but how does any of it invalidate the item as evidence that Oswald roomed there??

The only way it does if one buys into your "analysis" of what this means.

Perhaps you can explain why the FBI failed to keep the original document for proper forensic analysis to validate Oswald's stay with Mary, as they would do in any investigation when charged with putting together an accurate and complete history of an alleged presidential assassin, or other major criminal mastermind. Or are you also completely ignorant of the importance authorities placed on piecing together all of Oswald's movements? Are you accusing the FBI of what amounts to - not just a minor slip - but gross incompetence? Not me. They knew exactly what they were doing. Or in this case - not doing.

Surely you don't believe that Porter Bledsoe gave fraudulent evidence to the FBI--and then sold his "original" at auction?

No, I don't. Only someone totally unfamiliar with the evidence could believe that.

I mean really. . . is that your theory??

No. it's just an example of your ignorance of the facts.

All I know is what you wrote: "The FBI allegedly took a copy of it and left it at that."

Then you now have at least one fact at your disposal. No need to thank me. Really.

No, they didn't "allegedly" take a copy; they actually made a copy of it--that's a fact--and there's an FBI 302 report about that. (Surely you do know that).

I have no particular reason to doubt it, but everything is "alleged" in this case until proven. If you can locate the photo, I'll happily drop the alleged.

That means that the FBI then sent that item to its lab, which means that somewhere in the FBI files is almmost certainly an FBI Lab report on what the Lab said.

What??? You're saying the FBI sent a PHOTO they themselves took of the calendar page to their lab for forensic testing? Too funny! Whose prints did they find? Oswald's no doubt! What a crack up you are. Thanks for the laugh. I appreciate it.

I don't know what that report says, but its something that ought to be located, and/or filed for under the FOIA.

You're just the man for the job! Please report back when you find it.

But I soundly reject your argument, which is nothing but a series of unfounded assertions. Here's what you wrote:

QUOTE: There is no evidence the handwriting was examined (and in any case, they should have kept the original for that, as well as for an examination for prints) .

What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why did not keep it - much less examine it.

UNQUOTE

This argument is pure bunk. It is totally unfounded, and nothing more than your unfounded theorizing.

Okay. So you say Oswald's prints should be found on a photo of the calendar page and that a report demonstrating this should be available. Very interesting... can't wait to see it when you locate it.

You might recall what Carl Sagan used to say: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Well, that convinces me. A lab report on a photo the FBI themselves took (and therefore of a photo Oswald never touched ) must exist that proves Oswald wrote on a calendar that Marina did not recognize.

Indeed, the fact that the original of this item was sold at auction, and particularly, the fact that it was sold by Charles Hamilton (a respected auction house that will not just sell any old thing, based on specious claims as to what "it" is) constitutes further evidence that (a) the original of this item existed (b ) that it passed muster at the auction house and (c ) that it was sold to some buyer.

The auction house got some alleged hand writing expert to validate that it was Oswald's writing. Big deal. All we know of his/her findings is that he/she said the penmanship was "laborious". Since when does a healthy young literate individual labor over writing his own name? Maybe you can get in touch with Charles Hamilton 's, obtain the name of this "expert" and perhaps even a copy of his/her alleged analysis - or better yet, details of the purchaser so the original can be tracked down? The FBI, I'm sure, would be most grateful!

So what we have is the following situation:

(a) documentary evidence that existed that established that Oswald roomed at Bledsoe's rooming house

(b ) A copy of the document was made by the FBI, in early December, as I recall, and went into the FBI files (and was probably sent to the Lab, for examination)

Probably. Maybe. Should be. Could be.

Some great analysis there. Now produce the reports.

(c ) A record of that transmittal, including what the lab said, is almost certainly in FBI files--and probably can be (and ought to be ) located.

Great! I await your triumphant announcement that you have found it!

(d) THe original item was sold at auction, by Charles Hamilton, in December, 1965

(e) A record exists of the buyer, at Charles Hamilton--i.e., in principle, the buyer could be located, and the original still examined.

Agreed. That may be possible to accomplish.

(f) The FBI duly noted the sale of this item, in its files--which is a credit to their record keeping system.

And what do you say to all of this?

"I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why [they] did not keep it--much less examine it."

Sorry, my friend, you are really barking up the wrong tree.

I think the evidence indicates exactly the opposite.

What evidence is that? Your supposition that they "probably" did something is not evidence that did it. In any case, that you fail to understand the utter uselessness of sending a photo THEY TOOK of alleged evidence to have it forensically tested is one of the - I'm sorry - I can't think of a kinder, gentler way to put it - one of the strangest, if not dumbest, notions I have yet come across in this whole Bledsoe debate. But you have fun looking for that report, won't you?

Based on Bledsoe's testimony, it is clear that Oswald roomed there. Now, with this news story, it is clear what became of the original calendar page.

Should the FBI have kept the original calendar page? Yes, I think they ought to have.

But. . so what?

IMHO: You have built a hypothesis about the fraudulence of this item which is totally unjustified, and without foundation.

If you are truly interested in pursuing this further, then contact the Hamilton people, and ask two questions:

(1) What was the nature of the "due diligence" that they conducted, before selling this item?

(2) Who was the buyer? (Alternatively, might you communicate with the buyer?)

In addition, search for and locate the actual FBI copy of the item--because you can be sure its in an FBI file, and very likely was sent to the FBI Laboratory, for a routine examination.

I strongly suggest that you reign in your attempt to assert the original was a forgery, simply because it was sold at auction.

I don't see the logic of that--at all.

Because you're deliberately avoiding the WHOLE argument. It is you who should go look for all this. I have no desire to waste a millisecond looking for non-existent forensics reports. The suggestion re Hamilton's is a different matter - but much easier for someone in the US to follow up.

I also reject your other statement: "Note that the story said Oswald wrote his name "laboriously"? That phrase was actually used by the hand-writing expert used by the auction company (who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie that it was Oswald's writing".

In other words,you've got a "conspiracy theory" that even extends to Oswald's handwriting, on the document that establishes he was there--even though he signed it in Bledsoe's presence!

What kind of "reasoning" is this?

Well, you can prove me wrong by tracking down the original. For now, you can just explain why Oswald would labor over writing his own name, why Marina did not recognize the calendar page - why she was not asked, nor even volunteered that the writing was, or even might be, that of her husband, and why the FBI would not keep THE ORIGINAL which every hand writing expert will tell you, and the FBI was fully aware of - is by far, much preferred for examining. Apart from that, as I have said previously, there was also the issue of possible fingerprints (not withstanding your hilarious belief that such prints and/or other forensic evidence could be obtained from a PHOTO of the original).

My advice (again): Go find the original, by contacting Hamilton; or locate the copy, in FBI files. And stop theorizing about what you "think it means" before you even examine the evidence.

Oh yes. . and one other thing. . just how long have you known about this Dallas Times Herald news story, showing the dispostion of the original? (And didn't it occur to you, when you located it, that "Uh oh. . there goes my pet hypothesis?" And is that reason you're doing your level best to put this "spin" on a story that in fact clears up a loose end, and consigns the "Bledsoe wasn't his landlady" hypothesis to the dustbin?

Uh? Words fail me... I mean, what can one say in response to such rubbish...?

DSL

1/4/11; 6 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited January 4, 2012 by Greg Parker

[David Lifton]

Murphy Street no longer exists. It is now a two block crosswalk that no longer intersects Elm Street.

McWatters said he didn't remember picking anyone up at St. Paul & Elm. He remembers Roy Milton Jones who boarded the stop before.

The reason Henry Wade stated the conversation between the elderly woman and "Oswald" was in his list of evidence on the evening of Sunday 24th was because it actually happened. The hole in the evidence was it wasn't Oswald.

Thanks Lee...

and yes - I agree, the point is NOT whether those offering evidence are being truthful... but whether what/who they saw was authentic or not...

a doctor looking at a faked/altered xray will tell you what the Xray says... NOT whether the xray is authentic - we need Mantik for that...

Let's go down this path for a second please Lee - I'd like your take..

How does Oswald REALLY get from Baker/Truly to the theater... and where does he actually stop?

i.e. Roger Craig's (Ruth's) Station Wagon? - So he NEVER goes to his room or does he make the stop... hears the horn... and leaves VIA the police vehicle which takes him to the theater?

I think if we construct a timeline removing all current knowledge from the equation... we need to get our patsy to the theater ahead of the guy that ducks in, the guy Brewer sees....

So first we need to see if he REALLY went to his room...

In the same vein as Beldsoe... could Roberts here have been coached a bit?

This is once again CLASSIC Ball questioning and leading of the witnesses....

Mrs. ROBERTS. He didn't come home on Thursday night that week.

Mr. BALL. And Friday was the day the President was shot? Had you seen him at any time that Friday before the officers came up and knocked on your door?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. BALL. Hadn't he been home?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, let's see--that was the day.

Mr. BALL. That was on a Friday---

Mrs. ROBERTS. Wait a minute, let me think of it.

Mr. BALL. That's on a Friday.

Mrs. ROBERTS. I had better back up a minute---he came home that Friday in an unusual hurry.

Mr. BALL. And about what time was this?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. BALL. As he came in, did you say anything else except, "You are in a hurry"?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. BALL. Did you say anything about the President being shot?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

I don't think there's any mystery as to who ran into the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley around 1 p.m. Earlene Roberts' account--that it was Oswald, who ran in, and then ran out, zippering up a jacket he had donned--is in the accounts published in both Dallas newspapers, the New York Times, carried in all the media, and then documented in FBI reports based on interviews that took place promptly.

Why does it matter that, months later, when under oath, there's a minor glitch when, asked a question designed to permit her to tell her story, there's a brief moment of confusion.

I don't believe the passage you've isolated, from the transcript, in any way undercuts the account she provided multiple times, starting on the afternoon of 11/22/63.

DSL

[David Lifton]

Photograph designated D91:

"Marina Oswald said she cannot identify this photograph of the October, 1963, page of a calendar nor could she identify positively the handwriting which is written on this page."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95864&relPageId=15

I don't think Marina's inability to "identify this photograph" or her inability to "identify positively the handwriting which is written on this page" means very much until we can see just what it was she was looking at. (Nor would I assume that Marina was sufficiently expert on what LHO's signature looked like, to make a legally meaningful "identification".)

Also, according to the FBI transmittal memo at the beginning of this document, this was one of 448 items shown to her on March 19. 1964, and who knows what her reaction was to a situation in which she was asked to view (and identify, or comment upon) 448 items in a single day.

IMHO: The positive development here is that now we know what the FBI Exhibit number is on the Bledsoe Calendar page: its "D-91."

So: with that information, it should be possible for NARA to track down this exhibit, and make a copy. (I can make such a request. that part is easy. But be prepared for NARA to take quite a while to locate the item. And then it would probably cost between $35 and $50 for a print).

I do hope someone contacts Charles Hamilton in New York to see if the buyer of the original can be located. If so, perhaps the buyer can be contacted to see what price he (or she) might want for the item. Possibly, the Sixth Floor Museum might be interested in purchasing it. Certainly, it seems like a relevant piece of evidence). Just speculating: if the price was $250 in 1965, that would be about $1500 in today's money; and any buyer would probably want considerably more than that, to make the transaction worth his (or her) while. So I would assume that for the original to be coaxed out of the original buyer's hands, several thousand dollars might be needed.

As to why the news item says that Oswald's signature was written "laboriously," I don't suppose we'll know until at least a copy can be located. Perhaps Oswald was standing up, when he wrote it, or standing in a doorway, with a suitcase in one hand. . writing on a clipboard. Who knows. . its all speculation until at least a copy of the item can be viewed).

DSL

Edited January 5, 2012 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

Photograph designated D91:

"Marina Oswald said she cannot identify this photograph of the October, 1963, page of a calendar nor could she identify positively the handwriting which is written on this page."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95864&relPageId=15

This exhibit concerns Marina Oswald being shown 448 photographs on March 19, 1964, and asked to identify them (if she can).

On a nearby page of this very long exhibit (which runs 462 pages in all), appears the following item:

B22-1 which carries this description (presumably provided by Marina):

"A photograph of Karl Marx similar to one in possession of Lee Harvey Oswald."

I never heard of LHO possessing a picture of Karl Marx before--either in a wallet, a "family photo album", or in a size that might be affixed to a wall (as LHO did with the photo of Castro).

If anyone knows of any testimony, book excerpt, FBI report, or news account to that effect, please let me know.

Thank you.

DSL

1/4/12 (7:30 PM PST)

Los Angeles, CA

[Greg Parker]

Photograph designated D91:

"Marina Oswald said she cannot identify this photograph of the October, 1963, page of a calendar nor could she identify positively the handwriting which is written on this page."

http://www.maryferre...64&relPageId=15

I don't think Marina's inability to "identify this photograph" or her inability to "identify positively the handwriting which is written on this page" means very much until we can see just what it was she was looking at. (Nor would I assume that Marina was sufficiently expert on what LHO's signature looked like, to make a legally meaningful "identification".)

She could certainly testify to it as someone very familiar with his writing - and was asked to in other cases.

Mr. RANKIN. I will hand you Exhibit 13 and ask you if you recall that?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember this. He did not write this in my presence. But it is Lee's handwriting.

She wasn't asked about the calendar under oath because they already knew she had never seen it before and did not recognize the writing.

Also, according to the FBI transmittal memo at the beginning of this document, this was one of 448 items shown to her on March 19. 1964, and who knows what her reaction was to a situation in which she was asked to view (and identify, or comment upon) 448 items in a single day.

So it's your theory she got bored and just answered with random answers? Do you understand at all how far out on a limb you always put yourself when defending the WC and its rag-tag army of witnesses for the prosecution?

IMHO: The positive development here is that now we know what the FBI Exhibit number is on the Bledsoe Calendar page: its "D-91."

David, I could be wrong - but it is my understanding that the D series (along with Q series designations), are internal FBI exhibit designations. This one is not just "D-91" it is also listed as "Q-484". I'm pretty sure using either won't help in any FOIA requests. It was not made a WC exhibit. With good reason (from the FBI viewpoint).

I have been aware of the D-91 and Q-494 exhibit designations for the photo for over a year and never once thought it was "an important" development".

So: with that information, it should be possible for NARA to track down this exhibit, and make a copy. (I can make such a request. that part is easy. But be prepared for NARA to take quite a while to locate the item. And then it would probably cost between $35 and $50 for a print).

Yes indeed. Quite a while. It's possibly not even in the archives - but even if it is - quoting "D-91" will probably only get you laughed at.

I do hope someone contacts Charles Hamilton in New York to see if the buyer of the original can be located. If so, perhaps the buyer can be contacted to see what price he (or she) might want for the item. Possibly, the Sixth Floor Museum might be interested in purchasing it.

I'm sure it would be. But I would rather it go some place that could be entrusted to have the handwriting analysed professionally, transparently and independently.

Certainly, it seems like a relevant piece of evidence). Just speculating: if the price was $250 in 1965, that would be about $1500 in today's money; and any buyer would probably want considerably more than that, to make the transaction worth his (or her) while. So I would assume that for the original to be coaxed out of the original buyer's hands, several thousand dollars might be needed.

I don't know? How much is Hitler's diary worth? Howard Hughes" will? Do forgeries really fetch that much?

As to why the news item says that Oswald's signature was written "laboriously," I don't suppose we'll know until at least a copy can be located. Perhaps Oswald was standing up, when he wrote it, or standing in a doorway, with a suitcase in one hand. . writing on a clipboard. Who knows. . its all speculation until at least a copy of the item can be viewed).

Maybe he was tap-dancing in a vat of custard while playing the Star Spangled Banner on bagpipes? He was an odd duck according to some...

DSL

Edited January 5, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Guest Robert Morrow]

My vote is both Mary Bledsoe and Oswald were on the bus. And then Oswald got off and took the cab.

Over.

[John Simkin]

There is a system in place here, however flawed. The moderators are not the "mean police." We are not the U.S. military, running around the world trying to stop the bad guys before they can be bad. We are for the most part a slow-moving response team, trying to keep the forum from becoming a joke, whilst simultaneously trying to allow open discussion among its members. When forum members respond to a "mean" post with something equally "mean" or worse they pretty much remove the possibility the "mean" guy who started it all will be "punished." That's just the way it is. Those hoping for a more active moderation, where an all-seeing moderator jumps in out of the blue to chastise every "mean" person the moment he says something "mean" are simply on the wrong forum.

I do see some possibility for improvement, however.

Here is Rule iv of the forum.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Many if not most of us have repeatedly violated this rule. At times we question the qualifications of those questioning our favorite theories. At other times we question the credibility of those who've previously espoused theories we find silly or just plain wrong. Now, it's incredibly hard for some to have a discussion with someone they disagree with without questioning that person's abilities or credibility. But we have to try.

And so, I have a suggestion. Whenever ANYONE questions the ability of, let's say, a member who is by trade a gardener, to question the medical evidence, or the over-all credibility of, let's say, a member who once claimed Connally shot JFK at close range, the first MEMBER to read the offending post should simply post something like "Bill, your post appears to be in violation of Rule iv. Please correct asap. Biff,(the offended party) please do not respond until he does so..."

If MEMBERS were to do this, IMO, the most frequent violators of Rule iv would soon tire of having to go back and correct their posts, or of having their posts EDITED or made invisible when they failed to do so. It might make for a boring forum. But it would force people to focus on the message and not the messenger.

Pat, that seems a very sensible idea.

I would like to put it on record that I fully support the moderators on this forum. It is a terribly difficult job to do and we are very lucky to have so many excellent moderators who are willing to give up their free time for the common good.

[Thomas Graves]

There is a system in place here, however flawed. The moderators are not the "mean police." We are not the U.S. military, running around the world trying to stop the bad guys before they can be bad. We are for the most part a slow-moving response team, trying to keep the forum from becoming a joke, whilst simultaneously trying to allow open discussion among its members. When forum members respond to a "mean" post with something equally "mean" or worse they pretty much remove the possibility the "mean" guy who started it all will be "punished." That's just the way it is. Those hoping for a more active moderation, where an all-seeing moderator jumps in out of the blue to chastise every "mean" person the moment he says something "mean" are simply on the wrong forum.

I do see some possibility for improvement, however.

Here is Rule iv of the forum.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Many if not most of us have repeatedly violated this rule. At times we question the qualifications of those questioning our favorite theories. At other times we question the credibility of those who've previously espoused theories we find silly or just plain wrong. Now, it's incredibly hard for some to have a discussion with someone they disagree with without questioning that person's abilities or credibility. But we have to try.

And so, I have a suggestion. Whenever ANYONE questions the ability of, let's say, a member who is by trade a gardener, to question the medical evidence, or the over-all credibility of, let's say, a member who once claimed Connally shot JFK at close range, the first MEMBER to read the offending post should simply post something like "Bill, your post appears to be in violation of Rule iv. Please correct asap. Biff,(the offended party) please do not respond until he does so..."

If MEMBERS were to do this, IMO, the most frequent violators of Rule iv would soon tire of having to go back and correct their posts, or of having their posts EDITED or made invisible when they failed to do so. It might make for a boring forum. But it would force people to focus on the message and not the messenger.

Pat, that seems a very sensible idea.

I would like to put it on record that I fully support the moderators on this forum. It is a terribly difficult job to do and we are very lucky to have so many excellent moderators who are willing to give up their free time for the common good.

--Tommy