Proof that rifle found in TSBD was NOT Oswald's
kaline68
bigdog
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq25loEpBro
Who wants to bet that Chico has created another alias?
curtjester1
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq25loEpBro
What Is The Origin Of The Unused $21.45 Money Order?
It appears that the unused, never-deposited money order was
removedfrom the middle of a stack of postal orders at the Dallas GPO
by apostal employee on the afternoon of November 23 (circa 3:00 pm).
Note: **The serial number of the money order, No.
2,202,130,462,*indicates that it came from money orders that were not
sold by theGPO in Dallas until late 1964 or early 1965. The postal
employee who removed the money order then used acancellation stamp
from the Dalls GPO to stamp the front side "MAR 12,63 DALLAS, TEX
GPO." The money order was then flown to Washington DCand arrived a few
hours later *(which may explain why Harry Holmestold postal inspectors
in Fort Worth the serial number of the moneyorder at 3:30 pm but
waited several hours before advising the moneyorder could be located
in Washington, DC)*. After arriving in Washington, DC the $21.45 money
order was eitherplanted among used money orders at the Federal Records
Center or givendirectly to Robert Jackson, an employee of the National
Archives.Jackson hand carried the postal money order to J. Harold
Marks whothen gave it to Secret Service Agent Parker who gave it to
the FBI. *Who was the Dallas postal employee who could have fabricated
the$21.45 money order? To answer that question we only need to look
atthe facts surrounding the money order and the Dallas postal
employeewho: o Provided the FBI and Secret Service information
following theassassination.o Allegedly found a postal money order
"stub" which disappeared.o Knew the serial number of the $21.45 money
order (circa 3:30 pm).o Advised the money order could be located in
Washington, DC (circa6:30 pm).o Told the WC the delay in finding the
money order was caused by theFBI.o Told several different stories
about finding a Nov, 63' issue of*Field and Stream.*o Never discussed
postal regulations concerning firearms with the WC.o Lied about
statements made during Oswald's interrogation. ** The Dallas employee
was most likely Inspector/FBI Informant HarryHolmes.** 1964 - The
Warren Commision Pieces The Evidence Together (The Seven Points Of
Contention For Proof) We have now learned many of the facts
surrounding the Italian riflethat was ALLEDGELY ordered and paid for
by Oswald using the alias "A.Hidell." We shall now see how the FBI and
Warren Commissionmanipulated and twisted the facts, evidence, and
witness testimony tocreate the illusion that was published in the
Warren Report. The Warren Commission's job was not to investigate the
murder of thePresident, but to evaluate evidence given to them by the
FBI andquestion witnesses. In order to conclude that Oswald *purchased
andreceived a ***40-inch*** Mannlicher -Carcano rifle, SN C2766,
fromKlein's in March 1963* the Commission needed to piece
togetherevidence and "prove the following: 1) There was only one
Mannlicher-Carcano with SN C27662) Klein's had C2766 in inventory in
February 19633) Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's on March 12,
19634) Oswald paid for the rifle with a $21.45 postal money order5)
Klein's deposited the money order into their bank account6) Klein's
shipped C2766 to "A. Hidell"7) Oswald received C2766 1) Prove There
Was Only One Mannlicher-Carcano With SN C2766 The WC needed to prove
there was only one Mannlicher-Carcano withserial number C2766 and
questioned Klein's Vice-President WilliamWaldman. When Waldman told
Commission Atty David Belin thatMannlicher-Carcano's were made by a
number of ***differentmanufacturers*** Belin responded by asking,
"Does the ***samemanufacturer*** give different serial numbers for
each weapon?"Waldman answered, "The gun manufacturers imprint a
different number oneach gun. It's stamped into the frame of the gun
and serves as aunique identification for each gun." *David Belin
obviously asked William Waldman the wrong question. Heshould have
asked if ***different manufacturers could have usedindentical serial
numbers.*** When the FBI interviewed WilliamSuchet, the owner of
International Firearms Ltd. of Montreal, he saidthat different
manufacturers in Italy sometimes used the same serialnumbers on
Mannlicher-Carcano rifles. The Commission, using the testimony they
received from Waldman, wrotein their final report, "..the number C2766
is the serial number."The Commission concluded, "The number 'C2766' is
the serial number ofthe rifle, and the rifle in question is the only
one of its typebearing that serial number." NOTE: **The fact that
David Belin failed to ask Waldman if differentmanufacturers could have
used identical serial numbers clearlydemonstrates the Commission's
willingness to manipulate testimony inorder to frame Oswald.** 2)
Prove That Klein's Had C2766 In Inventory In February 1963 The FBI
probably knew , from advertisements placed in the
***AmericanRifleman*** and discussions with Klein's officials, that
Klein's soldonly ***36-inch*** Italian carbines from February 1962
through March1963. The 10 shipping slips which Feldsott gave to the
fBI (dated6/18/62) were almost certainly ***36-inch*** rifles. The
serialnumber on one of those rifles was C2766 and matched the serial
numberof the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. The problem was
that***C2766 was sold and delivered to Klein's in June 1962 and not
early1963<*** *which is why the 3 FBI agents who reviewed microfilm
recordsat Klein's on the early morning hours of November 23 found no
recordsfor the sale of C2766 in March 1963.* To create the illusion
that C2766 was available for the sale byKlein's in February 1963, the
FBI simply needed to show that C2766 wasin their store on or before
March 1963 when "A. Hidell's" order wasALLEDGELY received. To
accomplish this the FBI and the WC needed tomatch Crescent's 10
***undated*** shipping slips (100 rifles whichincluded C2766) with an
order for 100 rifles placed by Klein's inearly 1963. *This was easy
because the FBI had the 10 undatedshipping slips and Klein's microfilm
in their custody.* The FBI gave the WC a ***copy*** of the Klein's
purchase order for 100rifles from Cresent Firearms dated January 24,
1963 (Waldman Ex. NO1). WC attorney David Belin showed the copy to
Klein's vice presidentWilliam Waldman on May 20, 1964 and said, "Mr.
Waldman, I hand youwhat is being marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit
1 and ask youtostate if you know what that is." Waldman answered, "I
do...Thisconstitutes a purchase order of Klein's directed to Crescent
Firearmsfor Italian Carcano rifles prepared on January, 2, 19-, oh,
waitaminute; hold that a moment, January 24, 1963, calling for 200
unitsat a cost of $8.50." After obtaining testimony that Klein's
ordered 100 rifles fromCrescent Firearms on January 23, 1963, the
Commission needed to showthat ***C2766*** was one of the rifles. They
wanted to track***C2766*** from its origin in Italy, to the dock in
New Jersey, andto Klein's in Chicago and offered as "proof" the
following documents: o A bill of lading which showed that Waterfront
Transfer Companydelivered 520 cartons of rifles (5200 rifles) from the
*ElleetraFascio* to the Harborside Terminal on October 25, 1960 (FBI
Ex.D-178). Carton #3376 contained 10 riles, one of which was C2766.o
Billing copy from Harborside Terminal (dated 11/9/60) whichlisted 520
cartons of "38 E91 I 6.5" calibre rifles (FBI Ex. D-189).o Five
delivery orders (891.38, 14473, 03403, A01640, A0062) whichshowed that
gun dealer Fred Rupp removed cartons of rifles from theHarborside
Terminal from August thru October 1962 (FBI Ex. D-190).**But carton
#3376, which contained ***C2766***, was not listed on anyof these
delivery orders.** NOTE: ** Keep in mind that Crescent Firearms
sold***C2766*** to Klein's on June 18, 1962, ***two months before***
FredRupp began removing the 520 cartons of rifles from harborside. o
An undated shipping order which shows that North Penn Transferpicked
up 10 cartonof rilfes from Fred Rupp (FBI Ex. D-152). **Butcarton
#3376, which contained C2766, was not listed on this shippingorder:**o
A delivery receipt which shows that North Penn Transfer delivered10
cartons of rifle to Lifschultz on February 13, 1963 (FBI Ex.D-169).
**But carton #3376 which contained C2766 was not listed onthis
delivery receipt.**o Lifschultz Fast Freight-Chicago Run Sheet, which
shows thatLifschultz delivered 10 cartons of rilfes to Klein's
Sporting Goods inChicago on February 21, 1963 (FBI Ex. D-170). **But
carton #3376,which contained C2766, was not listed on the run sheet.**
Not one of these shipping documents listed carton numbers or
serialnumbers of rifles. From these documents it is impossible to
know***when*** carton #3376 left the Harborside Terminal or
***where*** itwas delivered. ***The absence of serial and carton
numbers on thesedocuments*** is what allowed the FBI, *and the Warren
Commission, tofraudulently claim that ***C2766*** was shipped to
Klein's in early1963.* After "proving" that ***C2766*** was shipped to
Klein's the Commissionneeded to show that Klein's ***received*** the
rifle. They introduceda ***copy*** of Klein's "receiving record,"
which was purportedly alist of rifles received by the receiving
department on February 21,1963. But instead of questioning J. A.
Mueller, the head of thereceiving department, Commission attorney
David Belin questionedKlein's General Operating Manager, Mitchell J.
Scribor and vice-president William Waldman. Belin handed Waldman the
***copy*** and said, "I hand you what hasbeen marked as Waldman
Exhibit No 4 (FBI Ex. No D-167). and ask you tostate if you know what
this is." Waldman answered, "This is therecord created by us showing
the control number we have assigned tothe gun together with the serial
number that is imprinted on the frameof the gun....Our control number
for that is VC-836." On the upper right side of this document is the
notation "1259" and onthe upper left side of the document is the
notation "RR 1243." The"1259" was not identified by the Commission,
but "RR 1243" wasidentified as "receiving record 1243." The "1243"
matched the Klein'sorder number for 100 rifles placed on January 24,
1963 (1/24/3).*This only one of two documents which the Commission
used to linkC2766 to the January 24, 1963 order (the other document
was a copy ofCrescent form #3178 which contained hand written entries
for 10 cartonnumbers.) NOTE: ** An FBI Airtel of 3/13/64 (FBI Ex. No.
D-167) *states, "Onephotstatic copy of a ***list prepared by Mitchell
Scibor on11/23/63.*** This Airtel suggests that scibor may have
printed a copyof the receiving record from Klein's microfilm on
11/23/63.** In an honest investigation the WC would have deposed J. A.
Mueller,the man in charge of the Klein's receiving department, and
simplyasked him who prepared "RR 1243." Instead, the Commission
interviewdWilliam Waldman and Mitchell Scibor who spent little time,
if any inthe company's shipping and receiving department and had no
idea if thecopy of the receiving record they were shown was authentic.
Commission attorney David Belin then gave ***copies*** of
LifschultzFast Freight bills of lading to William Waldman and said,
"I'm goingto hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition
Exhibit 2 andask you to state if you know what that is." Waldman
answered, "Ido...this is a delivery receipt from the Lifschultz Fast
Freightcovering 10 cases of guns deliverd to Klein's on February 21,
1963,from Crescent Firearms....The February 21 date is the date in
whichthe merchandise ame to our premises whereas the date of February
22,is the date in which they were officially received by our
receivingdepartment." The delivery receipt was signed by J.A. Mueller,
thehead of Klein's receiving department. NOTE: ** Waldman probably
never saw these bills of lading prior tohis testimony. The Lifschultz
documents showed only that 100 rifleswere delivered to Klein's on
February 21, 1963, but listed ***notcarton or serial numbers*** of
rifles. **Readers should remember that the weight of the 10 cartons of
riflesdelivered to Klein's on February 21, 1963 clearly indicated they
were***36-inch*** rilfes. The Commission was trying to prove that
Klein'sreceived a shipment of ***40-inch*** rifles on February 21,
1963 (C2766 was a ***40-inch*** rifle). Belin then handed Waldman
copies of Crescent's 10 ***undated shippingforms*** *(which Louis
Feldsott said were from June 1962)* and said,"I'm going to hand you
what has been marked as Waldman DepositionExhibit 3 and ask you to
state if you know what this is." Waldmananswered, "Yes; these are the
memos prepared by Crescent Firearmsshowing serial numbers of rifles
that were shipped to us and each oneof these represents those rifles
that were contained in a case." Belin then tried to get Waldman to say
the 10 shipping forms ***(from6/18/62)*** represented the 100 rifles
that were delivered to Klein'son February 21, 1963. Belin said, "Now,
you earlier mentioned thatthese (Waldman Ex. No. 3) were packed with
the case." Waldmanreplied, "Well, I would like to correct that. This
particular company(Crescent) ***does not include these with the
cases***, but sendsthese memos separately with their invoice." NOTE:
** At this point the Commission had ***no testimony*** thatlinked
Crescent's 10 undated shipping forms from June 18, 1962 to thedelivery
of 100 rifles to Klein's on February 21, 1963.** David Belin,
obviously unsatisfied with Waldman's answer, THEN TOLDWALDMAN THE
SERIAL NUMBERS LISTED ON THE UNDATED SHIPPING FORMSMATCHED THE ORDER
FOR THE 100 RIFLES. Belin said, "Referring toWaldman Dep. Ex. No. 3,
***which ***ARE*** the serial numbers of the100 rifles which were made
in this shipment from Crescent Firearms toyou,*** and Waldman Dep. Ex.
No. 5, which is the invoice from CrescentFirearms which has stamped on
it that it was paid by your company onMarch 4, is there any way to
verify that this payment pertained torifles which are shown on Waldman
Dep. Ex. No 3?" NOTE: ** The fact that David Belin told Waldman the
undated shippingforms matched the order for 100 rifles clearly
demonstrates theCommission's willingness to manipulate testimony in
order to frameOswald. Waldman did not acknowledge the first part of
Belin's question, but tothe second part of his question answered, "The
forms submitted byCrescent Firearms, showing serial numbers of rifles
included in theshipment covered by their invoice No. 3178, indiciate
that the riflecarriying serial No. ***C-2766*** was included in that
shipment."*This is not true. Waldman Dep. Ex. No. 5, dated February 7,
1963which lists invoice #3178 (FBI Ex. D-165) ***does not list any
serialor carton numbers whatsoever.*** There is, however, a
***handwritten*** form dated February 7, 1963which lists invoice #3178
(FBI Ex. D-172). This is a ***copy*** of adocument which the FBI
ALLEGEDLY obtained from Louis Feldsott andcontains a ***handwritten***
list of the numbers of 10 cartons ofrifles in the middle of the page.
One look at the ***handwriting***on the copy of this form clearly
shows that *the person who filled outthe form originally was not the
same person who wrote the numbers ofthe 10 cartons of rifles.* This
form, *which was not published in the Warren Volumes,* was thesecond
item that linked Crescent's 10 undated shipping forms (fromJune, 1962)
with a Klein's order received on February 21, 1963 *(theother was
Klein's receiving record)*. If this form had been shown toLouis
Feldsott by the Warren Commission he would have immediatelyidentiifed
it as a forgery, *but Feldsott was never interviewed by
theCommission.* The Commission then introduced Klein's check #28966,
in the amount of$850, to rove that payment for 100 Model T-38 rifles
was made on March1, 1963 (FBI Ex. No. D-166). However, there are no
notations on theKlein's check stub that refer to the number of
Crescent's shippingform, carton numbers, or the serial numbers of any
of the 100 rifles-*only Crescent invoice #3178 is listed on the check
stub.* NOTE: ** There is no doubt that Klein's ordered and received
100rifles in early 1963, but these were not the same rifles identified
onCrescent's 10 undated shipping slips from June 18, 1962 (C2766).
************************************************** A Final Thought
About The Crescent Shipping Forms: The WC knew the 10shipping forms
(including ***C2766***) came from Louis Feldscott,*and they also knew
that Feldsott provided an affidavit in which hesaid that Crescent sold
***C2766*** to Klein's in June 18, 1962.*Their failure to depose
Feldsott and resolve this conflict isinexcusable and probably
intentional. Had Feldsott testified he wouldhave indentified Crescent
form #3178 as a forgery and he would havetestified that the 10 undated
shipping forms represented 100 riflessold to Klein's on June 18, 1962,
***and not in early 1963.*** The owner of Klein's Sporting Goods,
Milton Klein, knew something waswrong with the FBI investigation but
no longer had his company'smicrofilm records and was therefore unable
to dispute theirconclusions. Klein told reporters again and again that
Oswald ordereda ***36-inch*** rifle, *but was unable to explain how
the DallasPolice managed to find a ***40-inch*** rifle on the 6th
floor of theTSBD.* In the early 1960's nearly everyone trusted and
admired the FBI and onone, including Milton Klein, believed the Bureau
would manipulate and/or fabricate evidence. But with Klein's microfilm
records in theircustody as of 5:00 am on November 23, 1963, the FBI
could print copiesof any of Klein's microfilm records, alter the paper
copies, and thenre-microfilm the altered copies. One of the best
indications that theBureau did alter Klein's microfilm records is the
fact that Klein'smicrofilm DISAPPEARED ***while in FBI custody.***
With no otherrecords available, there was simply no way that Milton
Klein or anyoneelse could challenge the conclusions of the FBI and the
WarrenCommission. 3) Prove Oswald Ordered A Rifle From Klein's On
March 12, 1963 Commission attorney David Belin questioned William
Waldman about theorder Klein's received from "A. Hidell" on March 13,
1963. Waldmansaid, "We have a-this microfilm record of a coupon
clipped from aportion of one of our advertisements, which indicates by
writing ofthe customer on the coupon that he ordered our catalog No
C20-750; andhe has shown the price of the item, $19.95, and gives as
his name A.Hidell, and his address as Post Office Box 2915, in Dallas,
Tex...Thecoupon overlays the envelope in which the order was mailed
and thisshows in the upper left-hand corner the return address of A.
Hidell,Post Office Box 2915, in Dallas, Tex. There is a postmark of
Dallas,Tex., and a postdate of March 12, 1963, indicating that the
order wasmailed by airmail." Belin next asked Waldman about the coupon
sent with the order andsaid, "Now, I see another number off to the
left. What's thatnumber?" Waldman replied, "The number that you
referred to, C20-T750is a catalog number.catalogue number C20-T750
describes the Italiancarbine rifle with a four-power scope, which is
sold as a packageunit." David Belin had the testimony he needed, and
was careful notto allow Waldman to describe the length of the rifle.
*Belin carefully framed the questions he asked Waldman and
avoideddiscussing the order coupon in detail. He knew the coupon
containedthe notation "Dept. 358," which meant that it came from the
February,1963 issue of ***American Riflemn*** when Klein's sold only
***36-inch*** Mannlicher-Carcano rifles. Belin didn't want testimony
in thepublic record that showed "A. Hidell" ordered a ***36-inch***
riflebut somehow received a ***40-inch*** rifle. NOTE: ** Klein's
assigned catalog number C20-T750 to the ***40-inch*** Italian carbine,
with scope, but not until the summer of1963. 4) Prove Oswald Sent A
$21.45 Postal Money Order To Klein's The FBI obtained US postal money
order No. 2,202,130,462 from theSecret Service and gave it to the
Warren Commission. The money orderwas made payable to the order of
"Klein's Sporting Goods," thepurchaser was listed as "A. Hidell," and
the address was listed as"P.O. Box 2915, Dallas Texas." The first
order of business for theCommission was to show that "Lee Harvey
Oswald" purchased the moneyorder. To "prove" their claim the
Commission asked the FBI for ahandwriting analysis. FBI document
"experts" Alwyn Cole and James Cadigan examined the moneyorder and
gave their opinions to the Commission. Cole testified thatthe writing
on the *money order with the known writing of Oswald.*Cadigan
testified the writing on the money order was done by LeeHarvey Oswald
*but only by comparing the words "Dallas, Texas" withOswald's know
writing.* The Commission then needed to show the money order was
purchased andthe airmailed from Dallas before noon. *If the mony order
was mailedfrom Dallas after 10:00 noon, it could not have reached
Chicago andcould not have been deposited into Klein's bank account the
followingday.* NOTE: ** It is extremely unlikely that a letter mailed
from Dallas in1963 could have reached Klein's office, in Chicago, the
followingday.** Harry Holmes told the WC, "The money order had been
issued ***early inthe morning*** of March the 12th, 1963. *Belin
failed to ask Holmeshow he knew the money order was issued ***on the
morning*** of March12. NOTE: ** There is nothing on the front or
backside of the moneyorder that indicates it had been issued on the
morning of March 12.There was, however, a postmark of 10:30 AM on the
mailing envelopewhich allegedly contained the money order and coupon.
But Klein'sallegedly discarded the envelope when the received
"Hidell's" orderand the only copy of the envelope was on Klein's
microfilm, which hadbeen given to the FBI at 5:00 am on November 23
and was not seen againuntil William Waldman's testimony in Chicago, on
May 20, 1964. Thereis no legitimate way for Harry Holmes to have known
about the 10:30 ampostmark on the mailing envelope. Klein's Vice
President William Waldman discussed the mailing envelopewith the
Commission and said, "This shows in the upper left-handcorner the
return address of a. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas,Tex."
*Waldman apparently never noticed the "12" following, "Dallas,TX,"
*which indicated the letter was mailed in postal zone 12, whichwas
several miles from downtown Dallas.* NOTE: ** David Belin should have
asked Waldman why Klein'smicrofilmed the envelope in which the order
was received, yet***failed to microfilm the postal money order.***
David Belin asked Waldman about depositing the money order intoKlein's
bank account and said, "I hand you what has been marked asCommission
Exhibit No, 788, which appears to be a US Postal moneyorder payable to
the order of Klein's Sporting Goods....And on thereverse side there
appears to be an endorsement....I wonder if youwould read the
endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please." As an experienced
attorney and businessman Belin knew that the stampon the backside of
the money order was a "deposit endorsement." Healso knew that the
money order did not have ***a single bankendorsement or date stamp***
and no indication whatsoever that it wasever deposited into a bank or
financial institution. Belin asked Waldman when the money order was
deposited to the Klein'sbank account and he replied, "I CANNOT
specifically say when thismoney order was deposited by our
company......" Waldman could notdetermine the date of deposit was
*because there was no bankendorsement or date stamp anywhere on the
money order.* NOTE: **Both Waldman and Belin should have realized that
a postalmoney order with no bank endorsement or date stamps could not
possiblyhave been deposited to Klein's bank account, routed through
the USbanking system, or returned to the US Post Office. IT is
difficult tobelieve that neither the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas
Police, WarrenCommission members, their staff attorneys, nor anyone
who examinedthis postal money order noticed that bank endorsements and
dates weremissing.** ** By ignoring the fact that the postal money
order lacked a singlebank endorsement or date stamps, and therefore
could not have beendeposited into any financial institution, the
Commission demonstratedtheir willingness to manipulate evidence in
order to frame Oswald. 5) Prove Klein's Deposited The Money Order Into
TheirAccount David Belin ignored the fact that the $21.45 money order
contained nobank endorsement stamps and asked William Waldman, "Do you
have anyway of knowing when exactly this money order was deposited by
yourCompany?" Waldman said, "I cannot specifically say when this
moneyorder was deposited by our company; however, as previously
stated, amoney order for $21.45 passed through our cash register on
March 13,1963....we show an item of $21.45 as indicated on the
***Xerox copy***of our deposit slip marked, or identified by-Waldman
DepositionExhibit No. 10." Belin added, "And on that deposit, one of
the itemsis $21.45 out of a total deposit that day of $13,827.98; is
thatcorrect? Waldman answered, "That's correct." The item for $21.45
appears in the first column under the heading***"Checks other Chicago
Banks"*** and, if accurately recorded, was a***CHECK*** in the amount
of $21.45 from another Chicago bank. *IfBelin had conducted an honest
investigation he would have wanted toknow why a money order from
Dallas, Texas was listed under "Checks***other Chicago Banks."***
Waldman Dep. Ex. No 10 is a 4-page list of deposits made to
Klein'saccount in which a single entry for $21.45 appears with over
1000entries. The deposit slip contained the following totals: Total on
theBank$28.24Total out of TownBanks$9,992.43Total other ChicagoBanks
$3,804.67Cash send by registeredmail$2.64 total deposit $13,827.98 All
items listed on the First National Bank of Chicago deposit slipwere
taken directly from the entry totals from the 4 pages ofdeposits. *But
there is another list of deposits that appears on page707 of Volume 21
and totals $2116.91. There is a 2nd entry for $21.45on this list of
deposits, but this deposit ***had nothing to do withthe $13,827.98
deposit.*** NOTE: ** On November 23, 1963 FBI agents allegedly
questioned RobertWilmouth, Vice President of Operations for the First
National Bank ofChicago. Wilmouth ***allegedly*** advised that Klein's
made a$13.827.98 deposit on March 13 and said that two depostis in
theamount of $21.45 were included with a deposit of $1536.11, which
inturn was included in a group total of $6178.00 *But ***neither
$1536.11 nor $6178.00 were listed on the First National Bank ofChicago
deposit slip,*** which totals $13,827.98, and this glaringdiscrepancy
remains unresolved.** In addition to the discrepancies mentioned
above, the First NationalBank of Chicago deposit slip of $13,827.98 is
dated ***February 15,1963- a month before the $21.45 money order was
purchased!!*** In order for the Commission to conclude that a postal
money orderpurchased by Oswald in the amount of $21.45 was deposited
to Klein'sbank account in March, they had to ***IGNORE*** the date of
February15 on the First National Bank deposit slip (February 15,
1963),***IGNORE*** the fact statement of Robert Wilmouth, ignore the
list ofdeposits totaling $2116.91, ***IGNORE*** the fact that the
$21.45entries came from "Other Chicago banks, and ***IGNORE*** he fact
that***money order No. 2,202,130,462 was never deposited into
anyfinancial institution.*** *The fact that the Commission made
noattempt to resolve any of these discrepancies clearly
demonstratestheir willingness to manipulate evidence in order to help
framOswald.* Today, it is impossible to verify the date of any of the
entries toKleins' bank account. Klein's microfilm records *DISAPPEARED
WHILE inFBI custody,* Klein's Sporting Goods went bankrupt in
December, 1973,and their bank records were destroyed long ago. But the
fact remainsthat money order No. 2,202,130,462, published on page 677
of Volume17, was never deposited to any bank or financial institution
and***could not have been used to pay for a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
oranything else.*** 6) Prove that Klein's Shipped a 40-Inch Rifle
(C2766) to A.Hidell After "proving" that "A. Hidell" paid for an
Italian rifle theCommission needed to show that Klein's shipped a
***40-inchrifle***(not a 36-inch rifle) to PO Box 2915 in Dallas.
TheCommission knew the Dallas Police found a ***40-inch*** rifle on
thesixth floor of the Book Depository, and also knew that "A.
Hidell"ordered a *36-inch* rifle from the ***American Rifleman*** in
Februaryof 1963. *Butthey wanted to keep the public from finding out
*thatHidell/Oswald ordered a ***36-inch*** rifle.* Commission attorney
David Belin kept references to a ***36-inch***rifle out of the record
by deposing only two of Klein's employees,William Waldman and Mitchell
Scibor, and by carefully framing hisquestions. Belin said, "Now, I
also note on Waldman DepositionExhibit No, 1, under the item number-
some letters here or numbers..."Waldman interrupted and said, "C20-
T749." Belin asked, "What doesthat signify?" Waldman answered, "This
is an identification numberassigned by us for internal operating
purposes," *Belin immediatelystopped questioning Waldman and held a
short discussion OFF THERECORD.* When Waldman's testimony resumed
there was no furtherdiscussion about catalog number C20-T749 or Model
91 TS rifles,*because BOTH were 36-inch rifles.* NOTE: ** The
Commission ws very concerned about keeping allreferences to ***36-
inch*** rifles out of the record. If they hadany interest in
conducting an honest investigation and wanted to knowwhen Klein's
began receiving ***40-inch*** rifles, all they had to dowas ask
Crescent Firearms President, Louis Feldsott. He could haveprovided the
Commission Crescent's shipping records and billinginvoices that showed
the date Crescent first shipped ***40-inch***rifles to Klein's. Or
they could have asked Klein's advertisingdepartment for a list of
advertisments placed in magazines for *36-inch* and *40-inch* rifles
But the Commission did not interviewFeldsott and they did not ask
Klein's about their advertisements. Thesimply chose to keep all
references to a ***36-inch*** rifle out ofthe record. **The Klein's
employees who were the most knowledgeable abut theMannlicher-Carcano
rifles, gun buyer Mitchell W. Westra and gunsmithWilliam Sharp, were
never questioned.** Belin then created the illusion that Oswald
ordered a ***40-inch***rifle by introducing a Klein's advertisement
from the November, 1963issue of ***Field and Stream*** magazine,
**furnished by Dallas PostalInspector Harry Holmes.** On April 2, 1964
Belin interviews Holmesand asked him to read a portion of the
advertisement into the record: "....it says, '6.5 Italian carbine,' in
big black letters, Andunderneath it says, 'Late military issue. Only
***40-inchesoverall.*** Weighs 7 lbs.....And underneath that it says,
'C20-750,carbine with a brand new 4x 3/4" diameter scope (illustrated)
$19.95....." This was the only advertisement for a Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle thatwas published by the Warren Commission, and it showed a
***40-inch***rifle that matched the length of rifle found by Dallas
Police. *TheCommission dared not publish the Klein's advertisement
from theFebruary 1963 issue of ***American Rifleman*** because it
showed a***36-inch*** rifle. Thanks to David Belin and Postal
Inspector/FBI Informant Harry Holmes,the Commission was able to create
an illusion that Oswald ordered a***40-inch*** rifle. *But by failing
to publish the correctadvertisement, the Warren Commission once again
demonstrated theirwillingness to manipulate evidence and testimony in
order to frameOswald. 7) Prove That A. Hidell Received A Rifle At PO
Box 2915 InDallas The WC was very concerned that the name "A Hidell"
did not appear onOswald's application for PO Box 2915. In a memo to
Mr. Conrad FBIofficial W.D. Griffith wrote, "It should be noted that
although Oswaldused the name "A. Hidell" in placing the order for the
murder weapon,this name *does not appear* on his application for the
P.O. Box towhich the gun was shipped." The Warren Commission also knew
that "A. Hidell's" name ***was not onthe application,*** which they
published on page 286 of Volume 19 andidentified as Cadigan Exhibit
No. 13. *But in their final report theCommission ignored this problem
by ***claiming the application hadbeen thrown away by the post
office.*** They wrote: * ***"It is not known whether the application
for post office box 2915listed 'A. Hidell' as a person entitled to
receive mail at thisbox.*** In accordance with postal regulations, the
portion of theapplication which lists names of persons, other than the
applicatn,entitled to receive mail was ***thrown away after the box
was closedon May 1963."*** * After "explaining" how "A. Hidell" could
have received mail at a boxrented by Oswald, the Commission wondered
if any postal employeesremembered deliverinig a large package to box
2915. Harry Holmes toldthe Commission that exhaustive efforts were
made at the Dallas GPO todetermine if postal employees remembered
handling or delivering alarge package to "A. Hidell," **without
success.** *But theCommission did not ask, nor Harry Holmes volunteer,
any informationabout postal form 2162, which required the signature of
the shipperand receiver of a firearm sent through the US mail (postal
regulation846.53a). The Commission was never able to "prove" that
Oswaldreceived a rifle through his post office box.
Harvey and Lee, How The CIA Framed Oswald, J. Armstrong pgs. 467-77
timstter
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq25loEpBro
LOL! What a lying video this is! Gilly skates over the fact that there
are THREE backyard photos, two of which CLEARLY show the sling mounted
on the same side as the rifle taken from the TSBD.
Guess which backyard photo Gilly uses? The indistinct one; the only
one where there is ambiguity as to where the sling is mounted!
It simply sums up his lying and deceitful approach to the case.
I thought Christians were supposed to tell the truth.
Disgusted Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
aeffects
we know shithead...... your game is up......
timstter
Hmmm, nah, I think Gilly's game is up.
Notice how he says the backyard *photographs* (plural) as he
introduces the piece, but then only addresses the backyard
*photograph* (singular) in the body of his work, CE 133A?
This is because CE 133B and CE 133C, the other two backyard photos,
both show side mounted sling swivels, just like the Carcano taken out
of the TSBD by Lt. Carl Day of the DPD.
This sums up the sheer dishonesty of Gil's video presentation, passed
off as fact by him.
Notice in the video how he flinches slightly as he concludes *they are
not the same rifle*, knowing himself that he is lying.
Astonishing behaviour for one who portrays himself as a Christian;
making up lies about the murder of a fellow Christian to exonerate the
murderer of that fellow Christian.
Shocked Regards,
Gil Jesus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave:
Tell Timmy that Marina testified that she "thought" she took only one
photo, then when she was questioned, she "remembered" taking a second.
( 1 H 16 )
And yet, two more photos show up.
One in the possession of George DeMohrenschildt and a fourth in the
possession of Dallas cop Roscoe White.
Ask Timmy how a fourth "backyard" photograph came to be in the
possession of White.
timstter
LOL! Looks like Gilly is pretending that he can't see my post and has
<snicker> *suddenly* decided to respond to David *aeffects* Healy out
of the blue!
Hey Gilly, the photo de Mohrenschildt had matched one already in the
public record, CE 133A, except Lee Harvey Oswald had actually signed
this copy personally:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0078b.htm
And:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0079a.htm
Stop lying and pretending that there are four different backyard
poses.
The only other photo out there should be designated as CE 133D, which
was made by Jack White for Oliver Stone, apparently.
This was published in a completely dishonest way by Groden in TKOAP on
page 168, ie without any comment. Still, hats off to ol' Jack. It is a
very well done piece of work!
The only certified backyard photo fabrication and it's from the JFK-CT
side of the debate, LOL!
Gil Jesus
Marina testified that she "thought" she took only one pic until she
was interrogated and "remembered" taking a second pic.
( 1 H 16 )
Did she "remember" under the threat of deportation ?
( 1 H 410 )
Was the DeMohrenschildt pic the original ?
Was CE 133-A copied from that negative ?
Why is there no negative for CE 133-A Rob ?
Was it a photograph of a photograph ?
You're avoiding the Roscoe White pic.
How does a Dallas cop come to possess evidence in a murder case ?
Was he withholding evidence, or was the picture a fake ?
Were the Dallas cops faking pictures ?
Did they possess a "white sillouette" photo showing the background of
the backyard on Neely St. ?
The plot thickens, fatman.
timstter
Hey Verm,
What's the big deal with the Roscoe White photo?
*How does a Dallas cop come to possess evidence in a murder case?!!*
Presumably because at some point he was investigating it, Verm.
So you believe CE 133C is faked, is that it, Verm?
Just say so, if that's the case.
In fact, given your video presentation, thats the only course open to
you, isn't it?
Lump in CE 133B and that can be your explanation as to why you don't
address them in your video!
What a lying hypocrite you are, Mr Christian, LOL!
Walt
> On Jul 26, 2:43 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 10:54 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 26, 8:39 am, kaline68 <tram84...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq25loEpBro
>
> > > LOL! What a lying video this is! Gilly skates over the fact that there
> > > are THREE backyard photos, two of which CLEARLY show the sling mounted
> > > on the same side as the rifle taken from the TSBD.
>
> > > Guess which backyard photo Gilly uses? The indistinct one; the only
> > > one where there is ambiguity as to where the sling is mounted!
>
> > > It simply sums up his lying and deceitful approach to the case.
>
> > > I thought Christians were supposed to tell the truth.
>
> > > Disgusted Regards,
>
> > > Tim Brennan
> > > Sydney, Australia
> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > we know shithead...... your game is up......- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dave:
>
> Tell Timmy that Marina testified that she "thought" she took only one
> photo, then when she was questioned, she "remembered" taking a second.
>
> ( 1 H 16 )
>
> And yet, two more photos show up.
>
> One in the possession of George DeMohrenschildt
The photo that De Morhrnschildt had was a copy of CE 2133A that Lee
had signed and gave to De M before they staged the shooting at
Walker's house. He and Lee thought that Lee would be a fugitive from
justice and fleeing to Cuba after the staged attempt.... They both
knew that Lee could get himself stood before Castro's firing squad if
he were found to be a spy for JFK. Oswald gave that pic to De m as a
sovereign. There are only THREE back yard photos.... CE 133A...CE
133B ...and 133c ( the Geneva White photo)
I'd suggest that you study up on the three photos... Perhaps you'll
learn that the photos are prima facie evidence that the authorities
were framing Oswald.
and a fourth in the
> possession of Dallas cop Roscoe White.
>
> Ask Timmy how a fourth "backyard" photograph came to be in the
> possession of White.- Hide quoted text -
Robert
Sure it was. Why can't you show us evidence for this claim? The
DeMohrenschildt photo was NO copy as it was printed FULL NEGATIVE!
> He and Lee thought that Lee would be a fugitive from
> justice and fleeing to Cuba after the staged attempt.... They both
> knew that Lee could get himself stood before Castro's firing squad if
> he were found to be a spy for JFK. Oswald gave that pic to De m as a
> sovereign. There are only THREE back yard photos.... CE 133A...CE
> 133B ...and 133c ( the Geneva White photo)
Walt, do you write science fiction or spy yarns in your spare time?
Explain how the DeMohrenschildt photo got in FULL NEGATIVE then if it
is a copy.
> I'd suggest that you study up on the three photos... Perhaps you'll
> learn that the photos are prima facie evidence that the authorities
> were framing Oswald.
OF course they were, but NONE of them is real as they ALL have the
same issues. Show us evidence of where this one photo you claim is
real was developed Walt.
> and a fourth in the
>
>
>
> > possession of Dallas cop Roscoe White.
>
> > Ask Timmy how a fourth "backyard" photograph came to be in the
> > possession of White.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Dear Stupid Bastard.... Both the De Morhenschildt photo and CE 133A
were made from the same negative.... I realize that CE 133A is a
cropped copy of the De Morhenschildt print, but they are both made
from the same negative.
>
> > He and Lee thought that Lee would be a fugitive from
> > justice and fleeing to Cuba after the staged attempt.... They both
> > knew that Lee could get himself stood before Castro's firing squad if
> > he were found to be a spy for JFK. Oswald gave that pic to De m as a
> > sovereign. There are only THREE back yard photos.... CE 133A...CE
> > 133B ...and 133c ( the Geneva White photo)
>
> Walt, do you write science fiction or spy yarns in your spare time?
> Explain how the DeMohrenschildt photo got in FULL NEGATIVE then if it
> is a copy.
When Lee made several copies of the ONE and ONLY photo that Marina
took of him in the back yard he inscribed one for his daughter , and
one for George De Morhrenschildt. He realized that he may not return
from Cuba and wanted his daughter to have the photo. Since George was
his handler he also inscribed a copy of CE 133A for George.
>
> > I'd suggest that you study up on the three photos... Perhaps you'll
> > learn that the photos are prima facie evidence that the authorities
> > were framing Oswald.
>
> OF course they were, but NONE of them is real as they ALL have the
> same issues. Show us evidence of where this one photo you claim is
> real was developed Walt.
Yer dumber than a retarded chicken......
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:f2d02f76-de89-4491...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 6:19 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2:43 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 10:54 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 26, 8:39 am, kaline68 <tram84...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq25loEpBro
>
> > > LOL! What a lying video this is! Gilly skates over the fact that there
> > > are THREE backyard photos, two of which CLEARLY show the sling mounted
> > > on the same side as the rifle taken from the TSBD.
>
> > > Guess which backyard photo Gilly uses? The indistinct one; the only
> > > one where there is ambiguity as to where the sling is mounted!
>
> > > It simply sums up his lying and deceitful approach to the case.
>
> > > I thought Christians were supposed to tell the truth.
>
> > > Disgusted Regards,
>
> > > Tim Brennan
> > > Sydney, Australia
> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > we know shithead...... your game is up......- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dave:
>
> Tell Timmy that Marina testified that she "thought" she took only one
> photo, then when she was questioned, she "remembered" taking a second.
>
> ( 1 H 16 )
>
> And yet, two more photos show up.
>
> One in the possession of George DeMohrenschildt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wally World wrote;
The photo that De Morhrnschildt had was a copy of CE 2133A that Lee
had signed and gave to De M before they staged the shooting at
Walker's house. He and Lee thought that Lee would be a fugitive from
justice and fleeing to Cuba after the staged attempt.... They both
knew that Lee could get himself stood before Castro's firing squad if
he were found to be a spy for JFK. Oswald gave that pic to De m as a
sovereign. There are only THREE back yard photos.... CE 133A...CE
133B ...and 133c ( the Geneva White photo)
I'd suggest that you study up on the three photos... Perhaps you'll
learn that the photos are prima facie evidence that the authorities
were framing Oswald.
Stupid WCR SHILL forgot the Ghost photo. (#4)
(Found with Roscoe White's stuff)
Stupid WCR SHILL forgot the Different 4th pose in Marina's shoe. (#5)
( with both hands on the rifle Horizontally held over his head)
Stupid WCR SHILL even thought the shoe photo was Walker's back yard photo.
With a friend like Wally, Oswald didn't need Arlen Specter.
Seems like Wally World has trouble counting to 5.
Walt
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> Wally World wrote;
>
> The photo that De Morhrnschildt had was a copy of CE 2133A that Lee
> had signed and gave to De M before they staged the shooting at
> Walker's house. He and Lee thought that Lee would be a fugitive from
> justice and fleeing to Cuba after the staged attempt.... They both
> knew that Lee could get himself stood before Castro's firing squad if
> he were found to be a spy for JFK. Oswald gave that pic to De m as a
> sovereign. There are only THREE back yard photos.... CE 133A...CE
> 133B ...and 133c ( the Geneva White photo)
>
> I'd suggest that you study up on the three photos... Perhaps you'll
> learn that the photos are prima facie evidence that the authorities
> were framing Oswald.
>
> Stupid WCR SHILL forgot the Ghost photo. (#4)
> (Found with Roscoe White's stuff)
>
> Stupid WCR SHILL forgot the Different 4th pose in Marina's shoe. (#5)
> ( with both hands on the rifle Horizontally held over his head)
>
> Stupid WCR SHILL even thought the shoe photo was Walker's back yard photo.
>
> With a friend like Wally, Oswald didn't need Arlen Specter.
>
Seems like Rossley doesn't know the facts of the case.
tomnln
Splain to us HOW a "copy" can show MORE horizontal background that the
"Original"????
You're a WCR SHILL ! ! !
Wally sleeps with Arlen/specter ! ! ! !
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:bf546afd-144e-4e9c...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:acda47fa-f0bf-4719...@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WC SHILL Wrote;
Seems like Rossley doesn't know the facts of the case
I write;
I notice you RAN from these WC SHILL>>>
Stupid WCR SHILL forgot the Ghost photo. (#4)
(Found with Roscoe White's stuff)
Stupid WCR SHILL forgot the Different 4th pose in Marina's shoe. (#5)
( with both hands on the rifle Horizontally held over his head)
Stupid WCR SHILL even thought the shoe photo was Walker's back yard photo.
With a friend like Wally, Oswald didn't need Arlen Specter.
Seems like Wally World has trouble counting to 5.-
ps;
The ONLY evidemce/testimony you have is what you got FROM ME ! ! !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert
Lurkers, see how mean and nasty Walt AND Ben are? IF truth is on
their side why do they have to be so nasty all the time?
> Both the De Morhenschildt photo and CE 133A
> were made from the same negative.... I realize that CE 133A is a
> cropped copy of the De Morhenschildt print, but they are both made
> from the same negative.
There is NO evidence for this claim. The authorities found just ONE
negative for two photos. YOU have to show us evidence that CE133A and
133C came from the same negative. Can you?
> > > He and Lee thought that Lee would be a fugitive from
> > > justice and fleeing to Cuba after the staged attempt.... They both
> > > knew that Lee could get himself stood before Castro's firing squad if
> > > he were found to be a spy for JFK. Oswald gave that pic to De m as a
> > > sovereign. There are only THREE back yard photos.... CE 133A...CE
> > > 133B ...and 133c ( the Geneva White photo)
>
> > Walt, do you write science fiction or spy yarns in your spare time?
> > Explain how the DeMohrenschildt photo got in FULL NEGATIVE then if it
> > is a copy.
>
> When Lee made several copies of the ONE and ONLY photo that Marina
> took of him in the back yard he inscribed one for his daughter , and
> one for George De Morhrenschildt. He realized that he may not return
> from Cuba and wanted his daughter to have the photo. Since George was
> his handler he also inscribed a copy of CE 133A for George.
This sounds plausible, but do you have ANY evidence for these claims?
Or is this just YOUR speculation? Speculation is fine IF you admit
that is what this is and NOT FACT as you ususally do. Experts have
looked at these two photos and do NOT agree with you.
> > > I'd suggest that you study up on the three photos... Perhaps you'll
> > > learn that the photos are prima facie evidence that the authorities
> > > were framing Oswald.
>
> > OF course they were, but NONE of them is real as they ALL have the
> > same issues. Show us evidence of where this one photo you claim is
> > real was developed Walt.
>
> Yer dumber than a retarded chicken......
See? YOU get to the nitty gritty and ask for evidence on his claims
and he comes up with THIS instead of PROVIDING EVIDENCE! He is a liar
otherwise he would provide it.
There is NO evidence showing any photos regarding this topic were ever
developed by Marina or LHO and that is a HUGE HOLE in the WC's theory.
Robert
> WALLY WALLY WALLY !
>
> Splain to us HOW a "copy" can show MORE horizontal background that the
> "Original"????
>
> You're a WCR SHILL ! ! !
>
> Wally sleeps with Arlen/specter ! ! ! !
Truer words were NEVER spoken Tom! NOW where is Ben because he said
this:
“When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point
it out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
MY guess is he will be attacking me INSTEAD of Walt who has failed to
support his assertion!
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 27, 4:05=A0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> WALLY =A0 WALLY =A0 WALLY !
>>
>> Splain to us HOW a "copy" can show MORE horizontal background that the
>> "Original"????
>>
>> You're a WCR SHILL ! ! !
>>
>> Wally sleeps with Arlen/specter ! ! ! !
>
>Truer words were NEVER spoken Tom! NOW where is Ben because he said
>this:
>
>it out.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/9/09)
>
>MY guess is he will be attacking me INSTEAD of Walt who has failed to
>support his assertion!
You have indeed failed to support your assertions, Robert.
Several times now you've had the opportunity to provide citations, quotes,
*something* to support your sloppy lies about what I've stated.
And you've ran each time.
But don't worry, it, just like the other post you're afraid of, will continue to
be posted.
>> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:bf546afd-144e-4e9c...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 27, 11:31 am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 27, 8:04 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 27, 6:19 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jul 26, 2:43 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Jul 25, 10:54 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Jul 26, 8:39 am, kaline68 <tram84...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dvq25loEpBro
>>
>> > > > > > LOL! What a lying video this is! Gilly skates over the fact tha=
>t
>> > > > > > there
>> > > > > > are THREE backyard photos, two of which CLEARLY show the sling
>> > > > > > mounted
>> > > > > > on the same side as the rifle taken from the TSBD.
>>
>> > > > > > Guess which backyard photo Gilly uses? The indistinct one; the
>> > > > > > only
>> > > > > > one where there is ambiguity as to where the sling is mounted!
>>
>> > > > > > It simply sums up his lying and deceitful approach to the case.
>>
>> > > > > > I thought Christians were supposed to tell the truth.
>>
>> > > > > > Disgusted Regards,
>>
>> > > > > > Tim Brennan
>> > > > > > Sydney, Australia
>> > > > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > > > > we know shithead...... your game is up......- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > Dave:
>>
>> > > > Tell Timmy that Marina testified that she "thought" she took only o=
>ne
>> > > > photo, then when she was questioned, she "remembered" taking a seco=
>> from Cuba and wanted his daughter to have the photo. =A0Since George was
>> his handler he also inscribed a copy of CE 133A for George.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > I'd suggest that you study up on the three photos... Perhaps you'll
>> > > learn that the photos are prima facie evidence that the authorities
>> > > were framing Oswald.
>>
>> > OF course they were, but NONE of them is real as they ALL have the
>> > same issues. Show us evidence of where this one photo you claim is
>> > real was developed Walt.
>>
>> Yer dumber than a retarded chicken......
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > and a fourth in the
>>
>> > > > possession of Dallas cop Roscoe White.
>>
>> > > > Ask Timmy how a fourth "backyard" photograph came to be in the
>> > > > possession of White.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Walt
> On Jul 27, 4:05 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > WALLY WALLY WALLY !
>
> > Splain to us HOW a "copy" can show MORE horizontal background that the
> > "Original"????
>
> > You're a WCR SHILL ! ! !
>
> > Wally sleeps with Arlen/specter ! ! ! !
>
> Truer words were NEVER spoken Tom!
Splain to us HOW a "copy" can show MORE horizontal background that the
"Original"????
Truer words were NEVER spoken Tom!
Hey Stupid Bastard.... Would you care to explain what you mean by
"original"
CE 133A and The De Morhenschildt print were both made from the same
negative neither is a copy of the other.... they are copies made from
the same negative. CE 133A has been cropped while the DE M print is a
full frame photo.
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:f006f596-605a-47f1...@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 4:01 pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:05 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > WALLY WALLY WALLY !
>
> > Splain to us HOW a "copy" can show MORE horizontal background that the
> > "Original"????
>
> > You're a WCR SHILL ! ! !
>
> > Wally sleeps with Arlen/specter ! ! ! !
>
> Truer words were NEVER spoken Tom!
Splain to us HOW a "copy" can show MORE horizontal background that the
"Original"????
Truer words were NEVER spoken Tom!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WC SHILL wrote;
Hey Stupid Bastard.... Would you care to explain what you mean by
"original"
CE 133A and The De Morhenschildt print were both made from the same
negative neither is a copy of the other.... they are copies made from
the same negative. CE 133A has been cropped while the DE M print is a
full frame photo.
I write;
We already have Enough of your "Speculations".
FOR ONCE; Give us some proof of your SWAG'
(Scientific Wild Ass Guess)
NOW where is Ben because he said
> this:
>
> �When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point
> it out.� (Ben Holmes � 7/9/09)
Walt
Robbie asked:...."Lurkers, see how mean and nasty Walt AND Ben are? "
Psst Robbie....Let me tell you something.... There are very few
lurker's out there, and the few there are, don't give a damn about
taking sides in a personal exchange....... So you're begging for
understanding from someone who doesn't exist. You'd do as well by
begging your door knob to support you and see it your way........
IF truth is on their side why do they have to be so nasty all the
time?
Robbie ....I hope you're sitting down because this might come as a
shock to you....... A persons personality and character have no
influence on the truth. The thruth is the truth...regardless if it is
spoken in sweet words or bitter words. Perhaps if you refrained from
calling people "liars" simply because you don't agree with them you
might not find that the "liars' aren't so "nasty".
> developed by Marina or LHO and that is a HUGE HOLE in the WC's theory.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Robert
> In article <b938c540-6042-447b-b4b3-c8cad10fc...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 27, 4:05=A0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> WALLY =A0 WALLY =A0 WALLY !
>
> >> Splain to us HOW a "copy" can show MORE horizontal background that the
> >> "Original"????
>
> >> You're a WCR SHILL ! ! !
>
> >> Wally sleeps with Arlen/specter ! ! ! !
>
> >Truer words were NEVER spoken Tom! NOW where is Ben because he said
> >this:
>
> > =93When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point
> >it out.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/9/09)
>
> >MY guess is he will be attacking me INSTEAD of Walt who has failed to
> >support his assertion!
>
> You have indeed failed to support your assertions, Robert.
>
> Several times now you've had the opportunity to provide citations, quotes,
> *something* to support your sloppy lies about what I've stated.
>
> And you've ran each time.
>
> But don't worry, it, just like the other post you're afraid of, will continue to
> be posted.
See? Ben is more worried about my "made up lies" than he is about
Walt lying and ignoring evidence! Ben feels strongly about folks who
make assertions and can't back them up -- ALL EXCEPT WALT OF COURSE!
We know this because he told CJ so:
“I stated, quite clearly, that it's *YOUR* credibility at stake. You
make
assertions, then you can't back them up.” (Ben Holmes to CJ – 7/9/09)
Why is Walt's credibility NEVER at stake with Ben when he makes many
claims and assertions he CAN'T back up?
Why is Ben's credibility NEVER at stake when he makes many claims and
assertions he CAN'T back up?
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
Robert
So are you calling Ben a LIAR?? Because he swears there are many
lurkers and that they EMAIL HIM!
“Actually, I get a few emails from time to time from lurkers. They
sometimes offer me information I didn't know." (Ben Holmes)
How much do you want to bet (IF I was a betting man) that these
"lurkers" emailing Ben are Walt and Healy? Maybe Gil?
I agree with you Walt on this one, there are very few, if any, lurkers
out there! I say this as a joke because Ben loves the idea that
people are "hanging on" to his every word. Without an audience, even
an imaginary one, Ben would be unable to go on IMO. See I can do what
Ben does, claim I know how he thinks and feel without evre meeting him
or talking with him.
> So you're begging for
> understanding from someone who doesn't exist. You'd do as well by
> begging your door knob to support you and see it your way........
I couldn't agree with you more, but let's keep the joke going for
Ben's sake, okay?
> IF truth is on their side why do they have to be so nasty all the
> time?
>
> Robbie ....I hope you're sitting down because this might come as a
> shock to you....... A persons personality and character have no
> influence on the truth. The thruth is the truth...regardless if it is
> spoken in sweet words or bitter words. Perhaps if you refrained from
> calling people "liars" simply because you don't agree with them you
> might not find that the "liars' aren't so "nasty".
Wally, you are lying again! I don't call you a liar because I don't
agree with you -- I CALL YOU A LIAR BECAUSE YOU ASSERT AND CLAIMS
THINGS (to the WC's benefit by the way) WITHOUT EVER SUPPORTING THESE
CLAIMS AND ASSERTIONS WITH EVIDENCE!
Why do you lie and act like I do this just because I don't agree with
you when YOU ARE THE ONE THAT DOES THAT? Everything was fine for me
on this board when I let you force your opinions, claims, assertions,
and conjecture on to me and call them FACTS, but as soon as I dared to
ask for some evidence during the clip discussion (I was ganged up on
by Walt, Barb J. and Ben) all the nice stuff went out the window. YOU
got mean and attacked me endlessly with your two WC shill cohorts! I
think we can all agree Barb J is a WC shill, right? I think we can
all agree Walt is a WC shill, right? So how can Ben align himself
with this group and think we will buy he is NOT a WC shill?
YOU can stop the "lie" business anytime you want by producing evidence
that SUPPORTS your claims, opinions, conjecture and assertions! OR,
you can just admit you are speculating and you can't prove any of it.
Do NOT call your speculation FACT and attack anyone who disagrees,
okay?
It's up to you, but knowing you are a WC shill and that you have a job
to do I know you will never do these things.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Jul 27, 3:59=A0pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 1:33=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 27, 11:31=A0am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 27, 8:04=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jul 27, 6:19=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Jul 26, 2:43 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Jul 25, 10:54 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Jul 26, 8:39 am, kaline68 <tram84...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > > > > LOL! What a lying video this is! Gilly skates over the fact t=
>hat there
>> > > > > > > are THREE backyard photos, two of which CLEARLY show the slin=
>g mounted
>> > > > > > > on the same side as the rifle taken from the TSBD.
>>
>e only
>> > > > > > > one where there is ambiguity as to where the sling is mounted=
>!
>>
>> > > > > > > It simply sums up his lying and deceitful approach to the cas=
>e.
>>
>> > > > > > > I thought Christians were supposed to tell the truth.
>>
>> > > > > > > Disgusted Regards,
>>
>> > > > > > > Tim Brennan
>> > > > > > > Sydney, Australia
>> > > > > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>-
>>
>> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > Dave:
>>
> one
>> > > > > photo, then when she was questioned, she "remembered" taking a se=
>cond.
>>
>> > > > > ( 1 H 16 )
>>
>> > > > > And yet, two more photos show up.
>>
>> > > > > One in the possession of George DeMohrenschildt
>>
>> > > > The photo that De Morhrnschildt had was a copy of CE 2133A that Lee
>> > > > had signed and gave to De M before they staged the shooting at
>>
>> > > Sure it was. =A0Why can't you show us evidence for this claim? =A0The
>> > > DeMohrenschildt photo was NO copy as it was printed FULL NEGATIVE!
>>
>> > Dear Stupid Bastard....
>>
>> their side why do they have to be so nasty all the time?
>
>Robbie asked:...."Lurkers, see how mean and nasty Walt AND Ben are? "
>
>Psst Robbie....Let me tell you something.... There are very few
>lurker's out there, and the few there are, don't give a damn about
>taking sides in a personal exchange....... So you're begging for
>understanding from someone who doesn't exist. You'd do as well by
>begging your door knob to support you and see it your way........
>
> IF truth is on their side why do they have to be so nasty all the
>time?
>
>Robbie ....I hope you're sitting down because this might come as a
>shock to you....... A persons personality and character have no
>influence on the truth. The thruth is the truth...regardless if it is
>spoken in sweet words or bitter words. Perhaps if you refrained from
>calling people "liars" simply because you don't agree with them you
>might not find that the "liars' aren't so "nasty".
Or asserting that someone said something you can't quote 'em saying...
>> > Both the De Morhenschildt photo and CE 133A
>> > were made from the same negative.... I realize that CE 133A is a
>> > cropped copy of the De Morhenschildt print, but they are both made
>> > from the same negative.
>>
>> There is NO evidence for this claim. =A0The authorities found just ONE
>> negative for two photos. =A0YOU have to show us evidence that CE133A and
>> 133C came from the same negative. =A0Can you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > > He and Lee thought that Lee would be a fugitive from
>> > > > justice and fleeing to Cuba after the staged attempt.... =A0They bo=
>th
>> > > > knew that Lee could get himself stood before Castro's firing squad =
>if
>> > > > he were found to be a spy for JFK. =A0Oswald gave that pic to De m =
>as a
>> > > > sovereign. =A0 There are only THREE back yard photos.... =A0CE 133A=
>...CE
>> > > > 133B ...and 133c ( the Geneva White photo)
>>
>> > > Walt, do you write science fiction or spy yarns in your spare time?
>> > > Explain how the DeMohrenschildt photo got in FULL NEGATIVE then if it
>> > > is a copy.
>>
>> > When Lee made several copies of the ONE and ONLY photo that Marina
>> > took of him in the back yard he inscribed one for his daughter , and
>> > one for George De Morhrenschildt. He realized that he may not return
>> > from Cuba and wanted his daughter to have the photo. =A0Since George wa=
>s
>> > his handler he also inscribed a copy of CE 133A for George.
>>
>> This sounds plausible, but do you have ANY evidence for these claims?
>> Or is this just YOUR speculation? =A0Speculation is fine IF you admit
>> that is what this is and NOT FACT as you ususally do. =A0Experts have
>> looked at these two photos and do NOT agree with you.
>>
>> > > > I'd suggest that you study up on the three photos... Perhaps you'll
>> > > > learn that the photos are prima facie evidence that the authorities
>> > > > were framing Oswald.
>>
>> > > OF course they were, but NONE of them is real as they ALL have the
>> > > same issues. =A0Show us evidence of where this one photo you claim is
>> > > real was developed Walt.
>>
>> > Yer dumber than a retarded chicken......
>>
>> See? =A0YOU get to the nitty gritty and ask for evidence on his claims
>> and he comes up with THIS instead of PROVIDING EVIDENCE! =A0He is a liar
>> otherwise he would provide it.
>>
>> There is NO evidence showing any photos regarding this topic were ever
>> developed by Marina or LHO and that is a HUGE HOLE in the WC's theory.- H=
>ide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Walt
OK Stupid Bastard..... Carry On....
Robert
I think we got our answer folks -- the WC Shill known as "Walt" will
continue to lie to the benefit of the WC!
Walt
Hey Stupid Bastard.... Most people learn as they go through
life....and the more focused they are on a subject the better their
knowledge becomes of that subject.....You are a rare exception.
I've placed information in front of you time after time and presented
that information in a way that you could look at photos and verify the
information. .....But instead of pulling yer head outta yer ass and
actually LOOKING at the photos you just refuse to get yer head out and
continue to bray like the ignorant jackass you are.