The Beckley Bunch

[Larry Hancock]

If this place is now just about "ass kicking" its a long way from the forum I used to know and respect....you could just post your facts and analysis and let the reader decide.  Or stick with name calling and chest thumping,, that seems to be the norm in contemporary culture (or a Trump press conference on just abut anything) so why not here too. 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Larry Hancock

[Ed LeDoux]

Agreed.

Lets stick to the evidence or its lack and examine the record.

Truths are self evident and do not need pomp and circumstance, nor pride nor populism.

I shared the stories (plural) and then facts as presented. The disinformation and gaping holes in the narrative by Warren Commission and the Dallas Police department.

Im not in safe waters fishing for compliment. The essay is a shift in how things are viewed. The reasonable doubt exists exponentially about the official account, this is including Beckley. 

I expect pushback from posting a thesis so profound. So be it. 

There is nothing to refute its presence.

The Beckley tales go in the same bin as the other wrongful attributions to Oswald that could not withstand scrutiny. Rifle ranges, gun stores, auto dealerships, or mobbed up restaurants with every shadowy suspect in the Kennedy case converging ... or clubs where all these people meet and everyone is either going to kill Castro or Kennedy ... its quite ridiculous.

ANNA LEWIS comes to mind

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cyberspaceandtime.com/NyN37x3OfHs.video%2Brelated&ved=2ahUKEwipjtS47vDnAhVzHDQIHYKCCo04MhCjtAEwAXoECAAQBA&usg=AOvVaw3HVgk114y6uvOb0AUUmRyK

Gee how'd that turn out?

Not well. Not well at all.

In my humble opinion many in the limelight are equally dubious and cashing in on their snake oil.

Pat Hall is behind a register alright.... one taking cash, not one with evidence in it.

I look at where we were and what has been learned along the way. Heck from the Lancer forums ideas to Bart's paradigm shift with rokc solid support has been about 20 years. (Hosty notes etc.) 

Give this thesis time. Seems a bums rush to not look at Beckley from a devoted few. As expected. Egos and attitudes will be apparent.

I said it before things need a starting point. 

This was the giant leap. Carry on. Thanks for listening.

Ed

[Larry Hancock]

I've got no problems with outing "disinformation and gaping holes",  I think it was about twenty years ago when I started opening presentations with the statement that I had found so much of the crime scene evidence and DPD material unreliable and with so many broken chains of possession that I had to give up on the naive hope that you could get someplace with it.  Being naturally slow it only took me a decade to get to that point.

I do have to say that Oswald and a Beckley presence are not throw a ways in regard to many of the Oak Cliff subjects that routinely get discussed here and elsewhere (in the same form as throwing away Oswald in Mexico City) - at least in terms of studying what supposedly happened in Oak Cliff after the assassination on November 22.  That includes topics from Tippett to Olson to the pistol to the mysterious police car, the wallet. 

The obvious problem is that if you go with the thesis that all evidence is manufactured or planted (apparently after the fact) then you literally have no data at all.  So does that mean we throw away Oak Cliff entirely? Or does Oswald just go the Oak Cliff and the Eight Street area because of the Texas School Book Depository and nothing else? Or possibly none of that is relevant at all and he went directly to the Theater.

Perhaps so if he was never at Becklay at all...but if not where did he pick up the pistol...or did he have it with him at the TSBD..

Are there alternatives that we can consider.  At least with Oswald's movements inside the TSBD there are alternatives and everyone can make their call on first floor, second floor, sixth floor, front inside, front door outside. 

I'm be more than interested to hear thoughts for alternatives to Oswald at Beckley and in Oak Cliff beyond being in the Texas Theater. No problem here with throwing away things, just looking for alternatives once they get pitched.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ed LeDoux]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

then you literally have no data at all.

Yet we do find new data when we review it and are more aware.
Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter was disputed for several reasons early on, timing etc. but the huge pieces we have thanks to Bart and Malcolm are invaluable and only a fresh eye caught this recently. The wait was worth defending the position.
There is evidence that we can verify, rather than loose rubble we are told is solid footings at present.
Its messy but necessary if we really are holding the evidence accountable 
All good work takes some skill and dedication. 
The available mass of data was ignored before by all the academics. They did not care to scrutinize it as they saw it as a logical construct. Lee stops gets an oversized jacket and a murder weapon then goes looking to kill a cop...?
The study of the case makes it illogical.
Perhaps too many have been overtly concerned with 'where to' rather than deciding merits of that presented by the witnesses as they themselves show us "there's no there there."
Its tough to find data where nothing happened. Right Larry?
That Beckley Bus hole is wide, deep and zero data Larry, I have been looking/ looked. 
Any cries before about its absence of evidence by anyone? Nah, I feel I'm a one man justice league on the bogus bus bandwagon.

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Or does Oswald just go the Oak Cliff and the Eight Street area because of the Texas School Book Depository and nothing else? Or possibly none of that is relevant at all and he went directly to the Theater.

He did have the possibility of meeting Ruth and Marina for a shoe shopping expedition they were planning to do that afternoon. (postponed due to Kennedy death)
Recall Lee did ask Marina to buy shoes for Junie.
The shoe store sighting has always said to me Lee checked the store but since his wife wasn't there he went to the theater to waste time... or simply saw what kids shoes they had in the display...?
Then timing and stories told by Brewer are two fold and make little sense. I covered his actions in the Texas Theater Theatrics thread.
Why Oakcliff? Cheap rents and plenty of apartments/rooms/rentals... just look at the Davis sisters. They each had an apartment in the same house on Tenth.
Though its not "close" to work at TSBD.
It would be "close" to Trinity Flooring. Walking distance, and in Oak Cliff, that's close. TSBD was a couple miles, not a leisurely walk at 7:30am across the Trinity River bridge, so bus was the means,,, if he lived at Beckley.
Sans driver for DAILY trips is very odd. Why no interest in that driver. Its beyond odd.
 

 

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Perhaps so if he was never at Becklay at all...but if not where did he pick up the pistol...or did he have it with him at the TSBD..

That's Gladys claim since she searched rooms for liquor. She and Earlene said there was no commie literature, no dishonorable discharge paperwork, no russian works, ... nothing With Lee Harvey Oswald on it. Yet we are shown a floor full of it at DPD (on Nov 23rd not Nov 22!!)

The Tippit murder pistol was a dropped item,... Ex. police carry drop pieces that are untraceable.
Were the police framing Oswald for murder. Yes. There is no other answer to seek here. History proves this is the MO

I say he went to Beckley did not like what he saw and went to Bledsoe's.
For what its worth she lacks credibility. Her "books" are a laugh, not worth a plug nickle, yet Porter sells this calendar page.
Again the evidence submitted after that calendar page is brought to the bureaus attention is telling... the fbi take a photocopy ... a copy of the notation To Oswald and From Oswald.
What did Bledsoe give Oswald... mmmmm a KEY?
What did she get back from Lee..... hmmmmm a KEY!


  What was they key found on Oswald? 

 

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I'm be more than interested to hear thoughts for alternatives to Oswald at Beckley and in Oak Cliff beyond being in the Texas Theater.

I've covered in excruciating detail why there is no evidence for Oswald or anyone firing any shots from the TSBD. 
So no escape necessary. See No Shots Fired From The TSDB
I've covered the Public Transportation Getaway 
I've covered the Beckley Bunch
I've covered the Texas Theater Theatrics. 
The jacket has been done, in Oswalds Technicolor Jacket.

Between Tenth and Patton and the TT is a long walk when your wanted, Jefferson blvd. would be certain death.  
The alley's? No way in hell Oswald goes through alley way to TT. Cops had the block. Then the next down to Brewer's store, not past it, no cop cars tear up Jefferson as they had the area contained and yet they commission just want you Larry to accept a unfathomable trip to the theater.  

I'd ask for my money back if I had paid for the Warren Report.
Its not properly labeled as fiction.

Appreciate your works Larry and questions. (And my Signed copy of SWHT)
Cheers, Ed
 

[Joseph McBride]

I agree with Larry that while much of the "so-called evidence" (as

Oswald called) it is phony, that does not mean that all evidence in the case 

can be automatically discounted, only that every single piece of

evidence offered by any agency or person must be scrutinized

skeptically (a good epistemological exercise in life generally). The pistol may have been planted on Oswald by the DPD at the theater. Armstrong

proved Oswald did not own the pistol that was entered into evidence (and proved he did not own the

Mannlicher-Carcano rifle). The evidence presented by the DPD, FBI, and Warren Commission

in the Tippit shooting fails to link Oswald to that shooting.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Joseph McBride

[Larry Hancock]

I certainly agree that the Second Floor encounter is a good (or great) illustration of a point raised even by first generation researchers that took decades of work in the trenches to really solidify.  That also illustrates the value of very early, first day, statements before anyone has a chance to turn on “auto correct”.  And I’ve pretty well come to the same conclusion about the Tippett shooting, which of course had pretty obvious holes early on, alternatives (much like those in regard to the second floor encounter) have now been proposed for that and that is real progress. 

It may be just me, but I think in these cases its very helpful for those most into a particular area of research to lay out all the alternatives to the official story on a given issue – and then let the give and take proceed, not just forging ahead to pick one solution and campaign for it.  That can come from the process.

I would find that very helpful for the issues you listed in your post Ed, not that you have not dealt with them before but having a topical post offering alternatives to each helps bring us all up to speed. As part of that calling out exactly when and if possible how the false evidence gets into the record is helpful as part of that exposition. And the point for introducing the false information.  For example if Oswald was never at Beckley, when and why does somebody go to all the trouble of creating it from scratch – and so apparently quickly (this from an obsessive time line person).

Enough pontificating from me, but here are two things in your post that I’m confused about (well I'm confused about many tings but):

a)       “I say he went to Beckley did not like what he saw and went to Bledsoe's”  - so why did he go to Beckley if Beckley was not real for him (totally lost here).

 

b)       The pistol as a dropped item; I know that is a thing now, not sure it was in 1963 but more importantly, are all of the remarks from Oswald about owning and taking a pistol to the theater also false (again, totally lost).

[Guest]

 The pistol as a dropped item; I know that is a thing now, not sure it was in 1963 but more importantly, are all of the remarks from Oswald about owning and taking a pistol to the theater also false (again, totally lost).

 

Page 28 of Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's Interrogations.

. Gus Rose took no notes during Oswald’s chat, but in this article in 1998 for D Magazine he said the following about what Oswald said. "The suspect had suffered a small red abrasion over his right eye while scuffling with officers at the Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff. But the young man didn’t seem dazed or confused at all. He was angry and arrogant. "I don’t know what I’m doing here," he said. A homicide detective for only three years. Rose would later gain renown as a skilled interrogator. Blocking out the hubbub, he turned his attention to the hostile suspect. "I don’t own a gun," the man said. "I didn’t have that gun. They planted that on me when they arrested me." "Have you ever owned a gun of your own?" Rose asked evenly. "No," he retorted. "I never owned one."

 

Furthermore from uncle Earl Golz.....

[David Josephs]

27 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

The pistol as a dropped item; I know that is a thing now, not sure it was in 1963 but more importantly, are all of the remarks from Oswald about owning and taking a pistol to the theater also false (again, totally lost).

Couldn't agree more Bart....  once one's mindset is aligned to the proper perspective to absorb this info... (and we remember that Oswald did not kill anyone) the manner in which the evidence was manipulated by DPD and FBI can be a book series on its own

DJ

And then the two paths for the pistol thru the DPD ices it...    

There are obviously two separate and distinct paths the pistol travels once back at the Dallas

Police Station on November 22, 1963:

1. McDonald/Carroll > Hill > (initials from McD, Carroll, Hill, Bentley supposedly etched in handle by screw, yet no photo in evidence shows these initials) > Fritz > T.L. Baker > gone

2. Fritz > Davenport & officers > Doughty/Barnes > SA Vincent Drain > FBI

Could the pistol which Hill gives to Baker in front of Bentley and Fritz be the same pistol which Davenport gives to Doughty?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Couldn't agree more Bart....  once one's mindset is aligned to the proper perspective to absorb this info... (and we remember that Oswald did not kill anyone) the manner in which the evidence was manipulated by DPD and FBI can be a book series on its own

DJ

And then the two paths for the pistol thru the DPD ices it...    

There are obviously two separate and distinct paths the pistol travels once back at the Dallas

Police Station on November 22, 1963:

1. McDonald/Carroll > Hill > (initials from McD, Carroll, Hill, Bentley supposedly etched in handle by screw, yet no photo in evidence shows these initials) > Fritz > T.L. Baker > gone

2. Fritz > Davenport & officers > Doughty/Barnes > SA Vincent Drain > FBI

Could the pistol which Hill gives to Baker in front of Bentley and Fritz be the same pistol which Davenport gives to Doughty?

I still need to see those etchings on the inside of that grip.

[David Josephs]

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

 “I say he went to Beckley did not like what he saw and went to Bledsoe's”  - so why did he go to Beckley if Beckley was not real for him (totally lost here).

Larry/Ed/Bart - aren't we talking about the semantic different between "Living there" and "staying there"... ?

Before the apartment building was put in on Elsbeth, one could see from NEELY to the corner of ELSBETH where an apartment used to be...

As I made the point earlier, Marge is taken from San Saba to 2220 Thomas to pick up some of her belongings.... she appears to have had stuff in a variety of houses including BIRCHMAN and BYERS.....  the point being, the little room used for grandchildren might have simply been a place to store some things so they are not found at Neely or Elsbeth...

It could even go as far as to explain how the rifle stays in Dallas/Ft Worth (if one was to make a LN argument) it was not loaded into the wagon at Neely cause he had moved it to one of the other locations.... 

(edit: and then of course there Ruby at 233 Ewing....)

 

8 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

I still need to see those etchings on the inside of that grip.

The things NOT photographed are as egregious as the evidence gathered.....

Edited February 27, 2020 by David Josephs

[Ed LeDoux]

32 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

The pistol as a dropped item; I know that is a thing now, not sure it was in 1963 but more importantly, are all of the remarks from Oswald about owning and taking a pistol to the theater also false (again, totally lost).

Thanks for highlighting this Bart.

Let me address it this way.

The drop piece is a historical fact.

Not a modern invention.

The Gun

In late 1977, after the grand jury hear­ings, Mary Sinderson asked Lupe Salinas to close out the Randy Webster case. The investigation seemed to be going no­where, and the U.S. attorney’s office was involved with other time-consuming mat­ters. But Salinas asked Sinderson and U.S. Attorney Tony Canales for more time. He told Canales he wanted to trace the gun that had been found next to Randy Webster’s body. Canales gave him the go-ahead, but urged him to do it quickly.

When the Houston Police Department investigated the death of Randy Webster, its information about the origin of the gun came from a report by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire­arms, which said the pistol had been manufactured by a company in Connect­icut and sold to Oshman’s, a wholesaler in Houston. Oshman’s, the report said, had shipped the gun to a Globe discount store in Southwest Houston, and from there it had gone, in 1964, to another Globe store on West 34th Street in Northwest Houston.

In 1974, when Salinas moved back to Houston from San Antonio, he had lived three blocks from the Northwest Houston Globe store, and he remem­bered that the store had opened about the time he had moved into the neighbor­hood. In other words, the federal agency had reported that the gun was shipped to a store ten years before that store existed. That meant the report was wrong.

Salinas asked Robert Ontiveros, a young man doing a criminal justice in­ternship in the U.S. attorney’s office, to go down to the Southwest Houston Globe store and check its gun-sale records. Ontiveros asked to see the records for 1964, and he was given a big, dusty box of index cards. He went through them, checking serial numbers against the serial number found on the gun next to Randy Webster’s body. After he had been through more than eight hundred, he finally found a match. The gun had been bought from Globe in 1964 by a man named Roy Hooven.

There was no Roy Hooven listed in the Houston telephone book, but there was a William R. Hooven, Jr. Salinas called the number, and a Mrs. Hooven answered. She told him William R. Hooven, Jr., was the son of Roy Hooven, and that Roy Hooven had committed suicide in 1964 with a gun he had bought at a Globe discount store in Southwest Houston.

“What happened to the gun?” Salinas asked Mrs. Hooven. She replied that the police department had taken it when the family said they didn’t want it.

Salinas and Ontiveros were closing in. They went to police headquarters to find the suicide report on Roy Hooven and spent days searching through old records in two warehouses before they found it. The report said that a .22-caliber pistol with the same serial number and descrip­tion as the one found next to Randy Webster had been tagged and placed in the police property room in 1964, after Roy Hooven’s death.

Salinas remembers feeling excited, ner­vous, and queasy as he looked at the report. The gun that Randy Webster had allegedly pointed at Officer Mays was the property of the Houston Police Depart­ment.

 https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-throwdown/    

Cheers, Ed

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Larry/Ed/Bart - aren't we talking about the semantic different between "Living there" and "staying there"... ?

Before the apartment building was put in on Elsbeth, one could see from NEELY to the corner of ELSBETH where an apartment used to be...

As I made the point earlier, Marge is taken from San Saba to 2220 Thomas to pick up some of her belongings.... she appears to have had stuff in a variety of houses including BIRCHMAN and BYERS.....  the point being, the little room used for grandchildren might have simply been a place to store some things so they are not found at Neely or Elsbeth...

It could even go as far as to explain how the rifle stays in Dallas/Ft Worth (if one was to make a LN argument) it was not loaded into the wagon at Neely cause he had moved it to one of the other locations.... 

 

The things NOT photographed are as egregious as the evidence gathered.....

I need to see it inside the grip or I will not believe anything on that damn gun, so until then.....

[Larry Hancock]

Good stuff on the pistol guys, thanks!    And the distinction between "living there" and "staying there" is a good one; I'd really like to see you elaborate on that.  Is it possible Oswald himself was using the Beckley address as a type of cover in the same way he sometimes used multiple mailboxes. If so any idea on where he was actually spending most of his time?

To that point Ed, do you see him going back towards the Beckley address at all that afternoon, or was something very different going on....very interested in your view on that as it relates to his movements into and around Oak Cliff.

 

  -- thanks, Larry

[Steve Roe]

The revolver was planted?

Now it's getting more and more bizarre and a total disregard for the evidence. 

 

[Ed LeDoux]

David,

You do know 214 Neely and 602/4 Elsbeth are on different blocks?

Reason I ask is that I just spoke with Jane the owner of Elsbeth and she never recalls seeing Neely from any apartment at Elsbeth...

She seemed to recall being able to see "NEELY STREET" up at the intersection but houses, trees, fences, and bushes were in the way of seeing through all that to the Neely back yard...mid block.

Interestingly Jane did point out that Marina hung out clothes to dry at Elsbeth. Hmmm

Was this subterfuge by Hugh Aynesworth?

Did he get the Neely addy elsewhere or did two lil old ladies have better than 20/20 vision with their xray glasses on?

Who were these human telescopes?

They seemed to know Marina and her movements yet remain anonymous... nah. Hugh Aynesworth was blowing smoke up our backsides and calling us a chimney.

Cheers, Ed