Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Postmark On CE773


Recommended Posts

All the conspiracy theorists can really argue here is semantics. Because that's what it boils down to -- i.e., were Oswald's two arraignments at City Hall on 11/22/63 really "arraignments" after all, or were they merely formal proceedings with a Justice of the Peace to officially inform the prisoner of the charges and of his rights?

Not at all, David. It's just the one thing you chose to respond to. And your response is no more than spin.

Let's look at what you didn't respond to:

Marina by her own admission, couldn't tell a shotgun from a rifle. Her testimony on this is worthless. What we do have is one Dallas cop saying the blanket, though empty, maintained the shape of a rifle... and another saying the same thing about the bag. Given that the shape (according to cops) was unmistakably a rifle, how is it that a former army vet claimed he thought it was camping equipment?

An expert panel for the HSCA also found that the acoustical evidence proved a 4th shot. Do you believe that expert panel, or the next expert panel that disagreed with the HSCA expert panel?

Then why the need [if they had solid evidence that the weapon had been fired] to lie to the media that Oswald failed the paraffin test to his cheek?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Marina by her own admission, couldn't tell a shotgun from a rifle. Her testimony on this is worthless.

Come on. Get real. Marina saw a LONG GUN in that blanket. Admit it. And there's no evidence whatsoever that Lee Oswald owned any rifle, or long gun, other than Carcano #C2766 in the calendar year of 1963.

So you're trying to assert that the gun Marina saw in the blanket was a DIFFERENT gun from C2766. But that, as anyone can see, is merely a desperate attempt by a conspiracy theorist to avoid the obvious -- with that obvious being: Marina Oswald, in late September or early October of 1963, laid her eyes on the weapon that ultimately killed JFK.

An expert panel for the HSCA also found that the acoustical evidence proved a 4th shot. Do you believe that expert panel, or the next expert panel that disagreed with the HSCA expert panel?

The "4th Shot" acoustics evidence is totally discredited now, Greg. You, of course, know this. So this item is yet another attempt by a conspiracist to avoid the obvious, with the "obvious" this time being -- The Dictabelt tape does not in any way indicate the number of gunshots that were fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. And, in fact, the Dictabelt recording very likely (per the NAS) wasn't even recorded in Dealey Plaza at all.

So why do you still want to cling to worn-out and proven-false data, Greg? Any particular reason you think the debunked acoustics evidence is still valid here in the year 2012?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

Then why the need [if they had solid evidence that the weapon had been fired] to lie to the media that Oswald failed the paraffin test to his cheek?

As far as I am aware, the Dallas authorities did not lie to the media regarding the paraffin test done on Oswald's cheek. Please show me a report or article where somebody in officialdom stated that the cheek test on Oswald was positive. I've never seen such a report.

Such a report or statement might very well exist. I don't know. I just don't recall seeing it. But here's a prediction: If such a statement does exist in some media article someplace concerning Oswald's cheek test, it was very likely an error on the part of the "media" in reporting the results of the paraffin tests, with the "media" representative possibly confusing the "cheek" test, which was certainly negative, with the "hands" test on Oswald, which was definitely positive.

In fact, there are live TV reports with Jesse Curry in which the paraffin tests are discussed, and when Curry was asked specifically about the results of the paraffin test done on Oswald's "face", Curry declined to answer one way or the other. He said that he didn't have any results on that test yet.

Curry did overstate the meaning of a "positive" paraffin result, however, when he told the media, point-blank, that the positive paraffin result on Oswald's hands definitely meant that Oswald had "fired a gun", which, as we all know, is not an accurate statement at all. Paraffin tests are wholly unreliable in many instances, with other things potentially being the cause of a positive result other than just gunpowder residue. And surely Curry knew that fact too. But he made this statement -- "It only shows that he fired a gun" -- to the press on live television on November 23 anyway. So, if you want to burn Chief Curry at the stake for making that mistake--feel free.

DVP's Video & Audio Archive / Interviews With Jesse Curry

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did...Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."

--DPD Chief of Police Jesse Curry, 1969, Dallas Morning News.

Ironclad evidence, in DVP's mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Knight, like hundreds of conspiracists before him, has decided to quote Chief Curry after Mr. Curry apparently became enamoured with the "conspiracy kook" crowd. But here's what Curry was saying on November 23, 1963:

BOB CLARK (ABC NEWS): "Is there any doubt in your mind, Chief, that Oswald is the man who killed the President?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "I think this is the man that killed the President."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLAA712DECA2E71AC9&feature=player_embedded&v=htgn-ZH1_oQ#t=162s

I guess Curry didn't start telling the truth until 1969, when he had a conspiracy book to peddle, eh Mark?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on. Get real. Marina saw a LONG GUN in that blanket. Admit it. And there's no evidence whatsoever that Lee Oswald owned any rifle, or long gun, other than Carcano #C2766 in the calendar year of 1963.

Marina said that is what she saw, but as Redlich said, she lied to everyone at some stage or other. She initially said he owned no weapons, then she said what she saw was the "rifle" (actually shotgun) he owned in Russia, before finally coming into line with what officials wanted to hear.

So you're trying to assert that the gun Marina saw in the blanket was a DIFFERENT gun from C2766. But that, as anyone can see, is merely a desperate attempt by a conspiracy theorist to avoid the obvious -- with that obvious being: Marina Oswald, in late September or early October of 1963, laid her eyes on the weapon that ultimately killed JFK.

No. What I'm asserting is that she changed her stories a number of times on a number of matters as pointed out by Redlich who didn't mince words when he called her a xxxx. What I'm asserting is she only claimed to see the "wooden part"

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes,
I saw the wooden part of it
, the wooden stock.

What did she think it was initially?

Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket.
I thought that was part of the bed,
but it turned out to be the rifle.

Mr. PAINE - That is right. I unpacked whatever was remaining in the station wagon to the garage.

So sometime later,
I do remember moving about this package which,
let's say
, was a rifle,
anyway it was a package wrapped in a blanket. The garage was kind of crowded and I did have my tools in there and
I had to move this package several times in order to make space to work
, and the final time I put it on the floor underneath the saw where the bandsaw would be casting dust on it and I was a little embarrassed to be putting his goods on the floor, but I didn't suppose,
the first time I picked it up I thought it was camping equipment. I said to myself they don't make camping equipment of iron pipes any more.

Mr. LIEBELER - Why did you say that to yourself when you picked up the package?

Mr. PAINE -
I had, my experience had been, my earliest camping equipment had been a tent of iron pipes. This somehow reminded me of that. I felt a pipe with my right hand and it was iron, that is to say it was not aluminum.

Mr. LIEBELER - How did you make that distinction?

Mr. PAINE - By the weight of it, and by the, I suppose the moment of inertia, you could have an aluminum tube with a total weight massed in the center somehow but that would not have had the inertia this way.

Mr. DULLES - You were just feeling this through the blanket though?

Mr. PAINE - I was also aware as I was moving his goods around, of his rights to privacy. So I did not feel--I had to move this object, I wasn't thinking very much about it but it happens that I did think a little bit about it or before I get on to the working with my tools I thought, an image came to mind.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?

Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions.
And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees.
No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.

Mr. ROSE. Well, I was the senior detective that was there, and so I was sort of the spokesman for the group, I suppose, and Stovall wen into the bedroom of Marina Oswald--Marina Oswald's bedroom, and I don't remember where Adamcik went first, but I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So, then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is."
Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle.

Mr. BALL.
You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?

Mr. ROSE.
Yes; it did.

Det. Lewis describing the paper bag: "appeared to be a homemade brown heavy paper gun case".

Marina - "bed parts"

Paine - "camping equipment"

Rose - "rifle" (which was AFTER the contents were removed)

Lewis - "rifle case" (after the contents were removed)

So did Marina ever find those crib-bed parts that she seemed certain existed and were wrapped up somewhere in the garage?

The "4th Shot" acoustics evidence is totally discredited now, Greg. You, of course, know this. So this item is yet another attempt by a conspiracist to avoid the obvious, with the "obvious" this time being -- The Dictabelt tape does not in any way indicate the number of gunshots that were fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. And, in fact, the Dictabelt recording very likely (per the NAS) wasn't even recorded in Dealey Plaza at all.

So why do you still want to cling to worn-out and proven-false data, Greg? Any particular reason you think the debunked acoustics evidence is still valid here in the year 2012?

http://jfk-archives....s-evidence.html

You missed the point, David. You made a song and dance about the expert photographic panel findings regarding the photo. My point was (to quote you) "so what?" An expert panel found a fourth shot in the acoustical evidence; another expert panel found the first expert panel to be wrong - and so it goes on and on and on. Experts claim the photos were faked - other experts claimed they weren't. Do you really want to play several rounds of "Choose Your Experts!" at 50 paces, or admit that that route is hopeless?

As far as I am aware, the Dallas authorities did not lie to the media regarding the paraffin test done on Oswald's cheek. Please show me a report or article where somebody in officialdom stated that the cheek test on Oswald was positive. I've never seen such a report.

Such a report or statement might very well exist. I don't know. I just don't recall seeing it. But here's a prediction: If such a statement does exist in some media article someplace concerning Oswald's cheek test, it was very likely an error on the part of the "media" in reporting the results of the paraffin tests, with the "media" representative possibly confusing the "cheek" test, which was certainly negative, with the "hands" test on Oswald, which was definitely positive.

In fact, there are live TV reports with Jesse Curry in which the paraffin tests are discussed, and when Curry was asked specifically about the results of the paraffin test done on Oswald's "face", Curry declined to answer one way or the other. He said that he didn't have any results on that test yet.

He answered that the tests came back "positive". When asked about "powder burns" on his cheeks, re replied "I don't know that" - not that the cheek test hadn't come back yet, and he repeated that the tests proved he fired a gun. It was bollocks. Can you show that the tests were not done at the same time, or were not sent back at the same time?

Curry did overstate the meaning of a "positive" paraffin result, however, when he told the media, point-blank, that the positive paraffin result on Oswald's hands definitely meant that Oswald had "fired a gun", which, as we all know, is not an accurate statement at all. Paraffin tests are wholly unreliable in many instances, with other things potentially being the cause of a positive result other than just gunpowder residue. And surely Curry knew that fact too. But he made this statement -- "It only shows that he fired a gun" -- to the press on live television on November 23 anyway. So, if you want to burn Chief Curry at the stake for making that mistake--feel free.

DVP's Video & Audio Archive / Interviews With Jesse Curry

There is one interesting moment in your Curry footage. At about the 53 second mark he says "He has been charged and will be transferred to the County Jail where he will await..." at that point, he starts to say "arraignment" but then cuts off and changes it to something else which I can't quite make out. Did Curry already know at that early stage that Oswald was going to have "in camera" "arraignments" at City Hall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experts claim the photos were faked.

Name one esteemed "expert" in the field of photo analysis who has gone out on a limb and said the Backyard Photos are fakes? (Jack White, of course, doesn't count.)

And while you're at it, do the same thing for the autopsy photos and X-rays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experts claim the photos were faked.

Name one esteemed "expert" in the field of photo analysis who has gone out on a limb and said the Backyard Photos are fakes? (Jack White, of course, doesn't count.)

And while you're at it, do the same thing for the autopsy photos and X-rays.

LOL. You do want to play "Dueling Experts"?

Why doesn't Jack White count? He was considered an "expert" by the same authority you are citing - HSCA.

Why do get the feeling no expert I name will "count"?

But we'll test out...

Malcolm Thompson, a British forensic photography expert said they were fakes.

Photo technologists from the Canadian Dept of Defense said they were fakes. They had been commissioned for a Canadian JFK documentary made in the 1970s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some cites would be nice, Greg.

Why doesn't Jack White count?

LOL.gif

Just look at virtually any post he's ever made on the Internet. That should be a good enough reason to not count Mr. White. Such as this one:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12420

And this one:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/100957f8ad8bb9ed

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to throw White out, you are calling into question the wisdom and competency of those who hired him as an expert - the HSCA. This is the same HSCA on whose report you wish to rely.

Though not named, I believe the Canadian expert was a Major Pickford

http://jfk.hood.edu/...eau/Item 64.pdf

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to throw White out, you are calling into question the wisdom and competency of those who hired him as an expert - the HSCA.

Good point. Same with Groden too.

But, of course, neither White nor Groden was part of the 20-member Photographic Panel which concluded that the Backyard Photos and the autopsy pictures were genuine.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

I'm commenting on this thread due to what appears to be a very simple way of determining if Oswald ordered and rec'd said rifle...

The FBI and USPS was watching everything that came to and went from Mr. Oswald. 

Is DVP really trying to tell us that Oswald was able to order a rifle and a pistol, pay for them both, have the USPS and REA involved in the shipping and delivery of said rifle and pistol AND Oswald needing to show up at both places to collect his order...

Not a single FBI informant was able to let the FBI know that their Russian defector had just ordered a Rifle?  That a 5 foot carton from Kleins was delivered to the Dallas main Post Office addressed to A HIDELL yet to Oswald's PO Box?

How is it possible the FBI is completely unaware of the order, the shipment and/or the pick-up when they knew which magazines and letters he was receiving, where he lived and received his mail, where he worked, and on and on...  Here is a March 25, 1963 report on Lee and Marina...  The rifle and pistol had been ordered and shipped by now 

If the rifle evidence was not created after the fact... why didn't the FBI or Harry Holmes of the USPS know about the rifle order and subsequent rifle shipment until Nov 22?

 

img_57690_111_300.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI and USPS was watching everything that came to and went from Mr. Oswald.

I think you're greatly overstating the amount of "watching" of Oswald that the USPS was doing.

Do you really think the FBI was aware of every letter and package that Oswald received in 1963?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I think you're greatly overstating the amount of "watching" of Oswald that the USPS was doing.

 

“In the first half of 1963, the CIA's HT/LINGUAL project produced fascinating material on Oswald. The post-assassination context of the intercepted material is the link between Oswald and the alleged murder weapon. This was relevant to one of the most important aspects of the case. The HT/LINGUAL "take" on the Oswalds, however, contains several anomalies. For example, it was a distinction to be put on the CIA's illegal mail intercept program once, let alone twice, like Oswald had been. But then, Oswald's mail was opened even after he was taken off the list.”

Excerpt From: John Newman. “Oswald and the CIA”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...