James Richards Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Here's another Lee Henry Oswald document from October of 1963. The description they give of Oswald certainly isn't of the man shot by Jack Ruby although they quote his 201 number correctly. FWIW. James ___________________________________ James, What does the handwritten notation in the left margin of the document say? The arrow seems to be pointing specifically to the bit about the man as having a receding hairline. The fact that the document says that the man was about 35 years old, six feet tall and had an athletic build reminds me of the pictures of the infamous "mystery man" in Mexico City. Saul Sague, perhaps? Thanks, Thomas ___________________________________ Hi Thomas, The description given does indeed fit our Mexico City mystery man. As to the hand written notes, it is difficult to say but is that 'Helms' I see there? Mmm. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Here's another Lee Henry Oswald document from October of 1963. The description they give of Oswald certainly isn't of the man shot by Jack Ruby although they quote his 201 number correctly. FWIW. James ___________________________________ James, What does the handwritten notation in the left margin of the document say? The arrow seems to be pointing specifically to the bit about the man as having a receding hairline. The fact that the document says that the man was about 35 years old, six feet tall and had an athletic build reminds me of the pictures of the infamous "mystery man" in Mexico City. Saul Sague, perhaps? Thanks, Thomas ___________________________________ Hi Thomas, The description given does indeed fit our Mexico City mystery man. As to the hand written notes, it is difficult to say but is that 'Helms' I see there? Mmm. James ___________________________ "Front page" material, IM(H)O. --Thomas ___________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard J. Smith Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 (edited) Here's another Lee Henry Oswald document from October of 1963. ___________________________________ James, What does the handwritten notation in the left margin of the document say? The arrow seems to be pointing specifically to the bit about the man as having a receding hairline. The fact that the document says that the man was about 35 years old, six feet tall and had an athletic build reminds me of the pictures of the infamous "mystery man" in Mexico City. Saul Sague, perhaps? Thanks, Thomas ___________________________________ Hi Thomas, The description given does indeed fit our Mexico City mystery man. As to the hand written notes, it is difficult to say but is that 'Helms' I see there? Mmm. James ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have a clearer copy of this memo, with handwritten note in the margin, as close as I can see says: "As I recall, this description was of the individual (???) Helm's affidavit of 7 Aug. Not Oswald." Then: "WRONG!" Affidavit by Helms dated August 7, 1964 to the WC: http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/...1_Helms_aff.pdf RJS Edited November 24, 2006 by Richard J. Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 (edited) Here's another Lee Henry Oswald document from October of 1963. ___________________________________ James, What does the handwritten notation in the left margin of the document say? The arrow seems to be pointing specifically to the bit about the man as having a receding hairline. The fact that the document says that the man was about 35 years old, six feet tall and had an athletic build reminds me of the pictures of the infamous "mystery man" in Mexico City. Saul Sague, perhaps? Thanks, Thomas ___________________________________ Hi Thomas, The description given does indeed fit our Mexico City mystery man. As to the hand written notes, it is difficult to say but is that 'Helms' I see there? Mmm. James ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have a clearer copy of this memo, with handwritten note in the margin, as close as I can see says: "As I recall, this description was of the individual (???) Helm's affidavit of 7 Aug. Not Oswald." Then: "WRONG!" Affidavit by Helms dated August 7, 1964 to the WC: http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/...1_Helms_aff.pdf RJS _______________________________________ Richard, Excellent work! I think your ??? = "in". So it might read ".... the individual in Helm's affidavit of 7 Aug.... " FWIW, Thomas _______________________________________ Edited November 24, 2006 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 To my tired eyes it reads: As I recall, this description was of the individual in Helm's affidavit of 7 Aug Not Oswald! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard J. Smith Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Here's another Lee Henry Oswald document from October of 1963. ___________________________________ I have a clearer copy of this memo, with handwritten note in the margin, as close as I can see says: "As I recall, this description was of the individual (???) Helm's affidavit of 7 Aug. Not Oswald." Then: "WRONG!" Affidavit by Helms dated August 7, 1964 to the WC: http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/...1_Helms_aff.pdf RJS _______________________________________ Richard, Excellent work! I think your ??? = "in". So it might read ".... the individual in Helm's affidavit of 7 Aug.... " FWIW, Thomas _______________________________________ Thanks Thomas, I believe you're correct. I just didn't want to put in a word I couldn't clearly see. RJS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 James, As to the hand written notes, it is difficult to say but is that 'Helms' I see there? Mmm.James This came up before I think. The memo was prepared for Richard Helms in preparation for his testimony before one of the government bodies. I don't remember if it was the Senate Select or the HSCA. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 (edited) On 11/22/2006 at 5:21 AM, James Richards said: Here's another Lee Henry Oswald document from October of 1963. The description they give of Oswald certainly isn't of the man shot by Jack Ruby although they quote his 201 number correctly. FWIW. James This is a post inquiring of Educationforum Admin or anyone else who has an answer to the following question.... What happened to the document that James Richards apparently posted? There are many EF threads that are gutted due to broken links, Photo hosting accounts gone dead or edits. But in this case, and many cases, particularly of James Richards (which seem so important) there is no longer any hint of a link and there is no notation of an edit at the bottom of the post. I looked way-back to see if, indeed, edit notes were recorded at the bottom of threads (thinking older software or features might account for it) and they are there. Does anyone have a clue? I'll admit that I do hold-out some remote hope that there is a chance of recovery of some of these items. As much as I would like to have James Richards back I would not expect him to take on the chore of restoring all the lost docs, pics and links; but, the larger concern is the slow attrition of the value of this forum as stuff disappears. I've mentioned it before, and Admin has acknowledged this particular problem, but the vast majority of Spartacus links are dead, due to the "schoolnet" element being present in the URL's. The forum is experiencing an anemic entropy, due to these issues. I hope it it doesn't continue, and in some cases it can be reversed, and there are postential solutions to some matters. ........ In any event this is an interesting thread and if my post does not get the attention I'll re-post this elsewhere, in the forum development thread. Cheers, Michael Edited August 5, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 (edited) On 12/21/2009 at 5:11 PM, James Richards said: I post the following purely as a curiosity. The link below is the first part of a most interesting series concerning Mitch WerBell. The other links can be found on this page. The whole thing is a bit cheesy but there is some interesting tid bits including the piece of equipment shown at the 5 minute mark. Over the years, I have had several conversations with many of the anti-Castro guys of the early 1960's and they said that a version of this type of weapon was around at the time. More information regarding this to follow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrtrmeITQNk Cheers, James (The above bolding is mine) Just another example. -Missing reference (link?) -Dead YouTube link (nothing can be done about that) -No indication of an edit Edited August 5, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 This might be the missing youtube. I don't expect many links to last 7-8 years: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 And this might be a the weapon and case that James mentioned: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 That's a deep video on Mitch WerBell. I've read of him before but not in this depth. He might deserve his own thread. I've still got the copy I printed of "What Jane Roman Said" when I first read it thinking this is the Proof, the CIA was involved in the cover up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 (edited) On 8/5/2017 at 6:33 PM, Chris Newton said: And this might be a the weapon and case that James mentioned: Most certainly not the one James Files claimed to use. Not that either one Was used in the assassination. Though WerBell could well have been represented in some capacity. Edited August 21, 2017 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: Most certainly not the one James Files claimed to use. Not that either one Was used in the assassination. Though WerBell could well have been represented in some capacity. Hi Ron, Chris was referring to forum member James Richards, and a missing/broken link of his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 28 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: hat's a deep video on Mitch WerBell. I've read of him before but not in this depth. He might deserve his own thread. There was a "researcher" or "interested party" that went down to Werbel's place and knocked on his door hoping to get a story. The way I heard it was that he was fished out of a nearby lake or pond on Werbel's property a week later. He had told a family member, (maybe his sister?), where he was going and never came back. Apparently he had "fallen" in and drowned. Some leads you should not follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now