Most Likely Altered Document?

[Tom Gram]

My submission is Holmes Exhibit 3-A. I'll try to make this as concise as possible:

On the night of the assassination, the FBI through Harry Holmes reported that "Mrs. Lee H. Oswald" filed a change of address to P.O. Box 30061 on an unknown date, followed by a forwarding cancellation, dated 10/11/63, that cancelled the forwarding to P.O. Box 30061 and changed her forwarding address to Ruth Paine's house. Neither of these two forms were ever entered into evidence. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57690#relPageId=182

The official story is that Oswald never changed his forwarding address to P.O. Box 30061 with the Post Office. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the official story on this point.

On 7/23/64, Harry Holmes brought with him to the WC a forwarding cancellation form, dated 10/11/63, changing a forwarding address from P.O. Box 30061 to Ruth Paine's house. This form, Holmes Exhibit 3-A, was in the name of "Lee H. Oswald" and had not previously been entered into evidence, examined by the FBI, or ever reported by anyone. Holmes also lied to Wesley Liebeler and said that Oswald changed his address to P.O. Box 30061 on 5/14/63 (7H 529). Oswald did no such thing; the change referenced by Holmes was to 4907 Magazine St.

Hypothetically, if Holmes brought with him an altered copy of Marina's (Mrs. Lee H Oswald) 10/11/63 cancellation form that vanished on the night of the assassination, where would you expect to see evidence of tampering? It would be in the words "Lee H", right? Well, here's Holmes Exhibit 3-A:

Note how much darker "Lee H" looks compared to the rest of the document, other than "5-14-63" which was written in Dallas. There's a lot more, but that's the basic gist. 

What do you think is the most likely altered document in the JFK case?

Edited August 2, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Pat Speer]

When I looked into the curtain rod story, I discovered that a number of documents had been altered.

The first was discovered by Alan Ford and presented on the JFK Assassination Forum. It shows that the WC version of a document regarding the testing of some curtain rods, presumed to have been found in Mrs. Paine's garage, was altered for publication by the WC, as the original in the DPD archives is quite different. Most tellingly, the original proves that these curtain rods were submitted for testing BEFORE any curtain rods were removed from Mrs. Paine's garage. 

 

 

Well, this led me to wonder if these rods weren't in fact some rods found in the depository, and if Oswald had actually brought some rods to work.. Upon further reading I realized that Oswald's landlady had told the FBI that she had in fact replaced a damaged curtain rod in Oswald's room on the morning after the assassination. So this led me to wonder how Joe Ball handled this when he questioned her on 4-1-64. Well, he didn't. Although the FBI was asked to talk to Mrs. Johnson on 3-16-64, the FBI failed to forward their report on their interview with Mrs. Johnson, in which she admitted sh'd replaced a damaged curtain rod on the morning of the 23rd, till 4-2-64. Well, this made little sense. The commission asked the FBI to talk to the Johnsons. Did they really turn around and take their testimony before reading the FBI's report? And, if so, did they really fail to follow up on the contents of the FBI's report, after being told there had been a damaged curtain rod in Oswald's room?

I then realized that every version of the FBI's report, in all the available files, had an anomaly. The date 4-1-64 had been changed to 4-2-64 on all the reports.

 

Well, this made me suspect that Ball knew about the damaged curtain rods when he spoke to the Johnsons on 4-1, and then roped the FBI into covering up his tracks.

 

 

 

Edited January 21 by Pat Speer

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

When I looked into the curtain rod story, I discovered that a number of documents had been altered.

The first was discovered by Alan Ford and presented on the JFK Assassination Forum. It shows that the WC version of a document regarding the testing of some curtain rods, presumed to have been found in Mrs. Paine's garage, was altered for publication by the WC, as the original in the DPD archives is quite different. Most tellingly, the original proves that these curtain rods were submitted for testing BEFORE any curtain rods were removed from Mrs. Paine's garage. 

 

Well, this led me to wonder if these rods weren't in fact some rods found in the depository, and if Oswald had actually brought some rods to work.. Upon further reading I realized that Oswald's landlady had told the FBI that she had in fact replaced a damaged curtain rod in Oswald's room on the morning after the assassination. So this led me to wonder how Joe Ball handled this when he questioned her on 4-1-64. Well, he didn't. Although the FBI was asked to talk to Mrs. Johnson on 3-16-64, the FBI failed to forward their report on their interview with Mrs. Johnson, in which she admitted sh'd replaced a damaged curtain rod on the morning of the 23rd, till 4-2-64. Well, this made little sense. The commission asked the FBI to talk to the Johnsons. Did they really turn around and take their testimony before reading the FBI's report? And, if so, did they really fail to follow up on the contents of the FBI's report, after being told there had been a damaged curtain rod in Oswald's room?

I then realized that every version of the FBI's report, in all the available files, had an anomaly. The date 4-1-64 had been changed to 4-2-64 on all the reports.

 

Well, this made me suspect that Ball knew about the damaged curtain rods when he spoke to the Johnsons on 4-1, and then roped the FBI into covering up his tracks.

 

 

 

Compelling stuff, from a great chapter of your online book. That’s about as blatant as it gets for document alteration - literally a 2 typed over a 1. 

I haven’t read that chapter in a while, but if the rods were tested prior to any rods being removed from Paine’s garage, where the hell did they come from? Where are the reports on their discovery? It seems like a pretty important issue that doesn’t get much attention. 

[Pat Speer]

24 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Compelling stuff, from a great chapter of your online book. That’s about as blatant as it gets for document alteration - literally a 2 typed over a 1. 

I haven’t read that chapter in a while, but if the rods were tested prior to any rods being removed from Paine’s garage, where the hell did they come from? Where are the reports on their discovery? It seems like a pretty important issue that doesn’t get much attention. 

I agree. I think the key is the name of the man submitting the rods, to whom they were then released. It's Secret Service Agent John Joe Howlett. Howlett played Oswald in the SS re-enactment of Oswald's supposed movements within the school book depository. This was filmed on 12-5-63. I suspect he found or was given the curtain rods at this time, and submitted them to the DPD crime lab on 3-15-64. He then accompanied Jenner out to the Paine's garage on 3-23-64, and took possession of the rods that were there. Howlett and Day then conspired to make the first set of rods disappear from the record, by phony-ing up the DPD crime lab report on the rods to make it look like it was for the rods taken from the garage. But Day screwed up and left the submission date as 3-15, 8 days before these rods were recovered. Oops!

Only adding to this possibility is that one of the photos of the rods in the Dallas PD archives records the date of the photo as 3-25-64--the day after the rods were released to Howlett, according to the DPD report in the archives.

P.S. I just re-watched Minority Report, the sci-fi in which cops arrest people based on what "pre-cogs" see them doing. The villain of the piece hires someone to try to kill somebody, who then gets arrested. He then kills that person himself in the exact same location and manner as the man he'd hired was gonna kill that person. The pre-cogs see it again, but it gets dismissed as an "echo." I think that's kinda what happened with the curtain rods. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

Excellent, skeptical but fair treatment of evidence in the JFKA, and I salute the above authors. 

What is revealed herein is what is popularly called "the Deep State" in action. You can call it the security state, or shadow government. 

Keep your JFKA skills honed when researching current events too. 

What the media presented in 1963, and the official WC report---that is what you get when there is "no defense." 

We may loath certain defendants, and many of us loathed LHO in 1963. I did. 

But, unless there is a skillful defense, who challenges evidence, or present alternative narratives...then you get a kangaroo court, a show trial. 

 

 

[Ron Ege]

Ben, your reminders cannot come often enough.   Many thanks for the repetitive perspective.  "Trust but verify" - seems to be always - the way to go - no? 

[Mark Ulrik]

Here's a better scan of Holmes Exhibit 3A:
 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Mark Ulrik

[Steve Thomas]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

When I looked into the curtain rod story, I discovered that a number of documents had been altered.

I then realized that every version of the FBI's report, in all the available files, had an anomaly. The date 4-1-64 had been changed to 4-2-64 on all the reports.

 

Pat,

Look at the dates on the bottom left-hand corner of the first two Crime Scene Search Section documents you provided.

Steve Thomas

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Compelling stuff, from a great chapter of your online book. That’s about as blatant as it gets for document alteration - literally a 2 typed over a 1. 

I haven’t read that chapter in a while, but if the rods were tested prior to any rods being removed from Paine’s garage, where the hell did they come from? Where are the reports on their discovery? It seems like a pretty important issue that doesn’t get much attention. 

Pat's Curtain Rod Story rapidly became one of my favourit essays, and I really like the humor he put's in it here and there in his essays, a true joy to read those articles !

PS : The Curtain Rod Story really deserves it's own chapter, now it's a little hidden behind Shots

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Here's a better scan of Holmes Exhibit 3A:

 

Thank you Mark. You can really see the difference in this scan too. What we really need is a high quality color scan, since Holmes testified that the 5-14-63 notation was written in red. I thought this form had to be altered before I even really looked at it; the apparent ink discrepancy was just the icing on the cake. Here's some more on this form:

1) The initials on the form "RT" are for a postal clerk named Richmond Tankersley. Tankersley's initials appear on every New Orleans Post Office document of Oswald's - and the FBI wrote a report on 11/23/63 stating that Tankersley may have written in the name "A. J. Hidell" on the application for P.O. Box 30061. Despite all this, Tankersley was never interviewed by the FBI, SS, or WC. Jim Garrison interviewed him, and supposedly did a handwriting comparison with a copy of Holmes 3-A, but Garrison's analysis has disappeared. All that remains is a handwritten note where Garrison wrote that Tankersley's handwriting appeared "quite different" (underline in original) to the writing on the form. 

2) The Warren Commission had a problem to solve, since Oswald filed a change of address from P.O. Box 30061 to Ruth Paine's house on 9/24/63. Oswald had arranged for certain mail to be delivered in that box, like The Worker and The Militant, but never made the box his primary mailing address. Thus Oswald's mail that was forwarded from P.O. Box 2915, like his Russian newspapers, should have never been forwarded to Paine's house on 9/24/63 - but Oswald was receiving his Russian publications at Paine's leading up to the assassination. The WC had an explanation, but couldn't use it because it would require acknowledging that Oswald's address had been changed to Paine's on 5/15/63 - and the form reflecting that change of address had been deep-sixed by the Secret Service early on in the investigation. Holmes 3-A combined with Holmes' perjury "solved" the problem by implying that Oswald filed a change of address to P.O. Box 30061 (even though he didn't). Holmes testified that Oswald changed his address to that box on 5/14/63, but the box wasn't even opened until June 3rd. 

[Paul Cummings]

5 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Here's a better scan of Holmes Exhibit 3A:

Typical Oswald. Forgetting to check off the "other specify" for his guns.

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Pat,

Look at the dates on the bottom left-hand corner of the first two Crime Scene Search Section documents you provided.

Steve Thomas

That was kind of the point of my post. I believe this was discovered by Alan Ford over on the JFK Assassination Forum. It sent me on a quest to understand why the date would be changed from the 24th on the actual document--to the 26th on the document as published by the Warren Commission. In time I came to realize that the DPD's photos of the curtain rods were taken on the 25th, AFTER they were officially released to Howlett. This led me to suspect then that there were in fact two sets of curtain rods, one submitted by Howlett on the 15th, and the other submitted after its retrieval from Mrs. Paine's garage on the 23rd. 

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, Ron Ege said:

Ben, your reminders cannot come often enough.   Many thanks for the repetitive perspective.  "Trust but verify" - seems to be always - the way to go - no? 

Ron Ege:

Whoever you are, thanks for a kind word. 

I am concerned that partisan sentiments have become so rank that witch-hunts are now lionized. In both directions.

People forget that the formats of the Warren Commission and the 1/6 committee are nearly the same:

1. Only witnesses called by the prosecution are presented. 

2. Only evidence that is wanted by the prosecution is presented. 

3. The narrative is tightly controlled by the prosecution.

4. There is a generally compliant media. 

5. People with alternative views are marginalized, or dismissed as disloyal to the US or the Constitution, etc. 

In fact, to point out that the WC and 1/6 Committee have identical formats is to be branded  a "Trumper"! 

In truth, the WC was essentially a show trial, a prosecutorial fantasy. That alone does not exonerate LHO. It is possible to frame, or enhance the evidence against ,a guilty party. But it does raise questions.

The 1/6 committee is essentially a show trial, a prosecutorial fantasy. That alone does not exonerate Trump & Co. But it does raise questions. 

Stay tuned. I will soon post on the film-maker Quested, who was star witness for the prosecution, but (unknown to most) has also been a Council on Foreign Relations favorite in the past---and who presented dubious testimony to the 1/6 committee. No one challenged his testimony, so it went into the record as is. People believed Quested, when they should have had doubts. 

That's what happens when there is no defense. 

Ron Ege--please comment more often. I hope there can be space in the EF for reasonable conversations about the Deep State in the present, without a lot negative photoshopped images of Trump or overt partisan ranting. 

We should be skeptical of M$M narratives. 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Ron Ege]

Ben, thank you - again.  I do see you as a voice of reason.

I believe some of us are leery of the government having become too powerful.  If I remember correctly, the Founding Fathers tried their very best to preclude such from eventually coming to the fore.

For some time now, looking back on our history, those of us who've been around a while (80, come Feb.), I do believe often times and with good reason, see things that just don't look right.  Your five points, in part or all, are there for us to witness - when the "picture" seems "off".

[Pat Speer]

22 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Ron Ege:

Whoever you are, thanks for a kind word. 

I am concerned that partisan sentiments have become so rank that witch-hunts are now lionized. In both directions.

People forget that the formats of the Warren Commission and the 1/6 committee are nearly the same:

1. Only witnesses called by the prosecution are presented. 

2. Only evidence that is wanted by the prosecution is presented. 

3. The narrative is tightly controlled by the prosecution.

4. There is a generally compliant media. 

5. People with alternative views are marginalized, or dismissed as disloyal to the US or the Constitution, etc. 

In fact, to point out that the WC and 1/6 Committee have identical formats is to be branded  a "Trumper"! 

In truth, the WC was essentially a show trial, a prosecutorial fantasy. That alone does not exonerate LHO. It is possible to frame, or enhance the evidence against ,a guilty party. But it does raise questions.

The 1/6 committee is essentially a show trial, a prosecutorial fantasy. That alone does not exonerate Trump & Co. But it does raise questions. 

Stay tuned. I will soon post on the film-maker Quested, who was star witness for the prosecution, but (unknown to most) has also been a Council on Foreign Relations favorite in the past---and who presented dubious testimony to the 1/6 committee. No one challenged his testimony, so it went into the record as is. People believed Quested, when they should have had doubts. 

That's what happens when there is no defense. 

Ron Ege--please comment more often. I hope there can be space in the EF for reasonable conversations about the Deep State in the present, without a lot negative photoshopped images of Trump or overt partisan ranting. 

We should be skeptical of M$M narratives. 

 

There are HUGE differences between the WC and the 1/6 Committee.

Oswald was not allowed a defense. Trump was allowed a defense via a bi-partisan committee, but bullied his minions into not participating. WHY? So he could declare it a witch hunt and show trial.

The WC operated in secret. The 1/6 Committee has had public hearings, which have provided Trump and his minions an opportunity to respond.

Oswald was an unknown, who the media could dirty up based on leaks, and their inherent bias towards outsiders and oddballs. Trump is well-known, who pursued the media with gusto. 99% of what the public learned of Oswald was filtered through the media's bias. 90% of what the public knew of Trump prior to his treasonous behavior as President was what Trump wanted it to "learn", and what? 90%? of what it has learned since has come from his public actions. (E.G. "Grab 'em by the p...." "Russia, are you listening"..."There were some very fine people on both sides"..."I need you to find me some votes"...)

You shoot yourself in the foot by using Trump to discuss the "Deep State". It's like using Charlie Manson to discuss the need for Freedom of Speech. (I mean, seriously, didn't he have the right to tell young impressionable kids that they should go out and kill some celebrities? No. Not seriously...)

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Pat Speer