Kleins Sporting Goods
tara
department. Often, when consumers ordered through the catalog and the
merchandise was out of stock, I was ordered to substitute a similar
product typically of more value.
The fact that Kleins Sporting Goods may or may not have shipped the
exact rifle ordered by Mr. Oswald demonstrates absolutely nothing more
than shipping an article of merchandise to make a profit.
Gil Jesus
> The fact that Kleins Sporting Goods may or may not have shipped the
> exact rifle ordered by Mr. Oswald demonstrates absolutely nothing more
> than shipping an article of merchandise to make a profit.
Who said Oswald got a different rifle than the one he ordered ?
I said that they DID ship the exact rifle ordered by Oswald and that
rifle was NOT the depository rifle .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq25loEpBro
Do you even get it ?
tara
Mr. Jesus is apparently feeling paranoid. At no point have I posted
anything referring to Mr. Jesus and the rifle. How embarrassing.
Robert
> department. Often, when consumers ordered through the catalog and the
> merchandise was out of stock, I was ordered to substitute a similar
> product typically of more value.
LOL!! NO wonder Sears went bankrupt!! How about some proof for this
claim? And then show us how this ties into what Klien's would have
done in 1963!
> The fact that Kleins Sporting Goods may or may not have shipped the
> exact rifle ordered by Mr. Oswald demonstrates absolutely nothing more
> than shipping an article of merchandise to make a profit.
ONLY a major liar would say this! LOL!!
Robert
>
> > The fact that Kleins Sporting Goods may or may not have shipped the
> > exact rifle ordered by Mr. Oswald demonstrates absolutely nothing more
> > than shipping an article of merchandise to make a profit.
>
> Who said Oswald got a different rifle than the one he ordered ?
>
> I said that they DID ship the exact rifle ordered by Oswald and that
> rifle was NOT the depository rifle .
Sorry Gil, you are wrong as the WC's own evidence showed he did NOT
list a 40" version, and in fact, Klein's had NONE at that time to ship
"by accident" anyway.
IF he ordered any, it was a 36" carbine. This is what the WC's own
evidence shows. Either way though, the rifle in the TSBD had NO
connection to LHO.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
The rifle in the TSBD had Oswald's prints, matched the bullets and
fragments recovered from the limousine and Parkland Hospital,
contained fibers fromn Oswald's shirt, was found on the floor where
the shots were fired from and the floor Oswald was seen on DURING the
assassination, yet Bobby still maintains it had no connection to
Oswald. How predictable.
So we are supposed to believe Robert that these invisible
conspirators, (none of whom you have the common curtesy to even
identify) were smart enough to get Oswald to behave in EVERY way like
he was guilty both before, during, and after the assassination, but
they were at the same time too dumb to plant a weapon that could be
linked to Oswald himself. Your position is 100% illogical and
indefensible.
curtjester1
question? Don't bullets fit different weapons, and how ballistically
could they tell the rifle was even fired?
CJ
> So we are supposed to believe Robert that these invisible
> conspirators, (none of whom you have the common curtesy to even
> identify) were smart enough to get Oswald to behave in EVERY way like
> he was guilty both before, during, and after the assassination, but
> they were at the same time too dumb to plant a weapon that could be
> linked to Oswald himself. Your position is 100% illogical and
> indefensible.- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
Or that it was even SENT AT ALL.
Creating The Illusion That Oswald Purchased A
Rifle From Klein's
Six days after announcing that Oswald paid $12.78 for the rifle, *the
FBI changed their story* and said that he paid $19.95 for the rifle
with the scope already attached (plus $1.50 for postage).
NOTE: **The author does not know why the FBI changed their story.
It
may have been because Klein's bank records did not show a deposit
that
matched that amount.
In order to create the illusion that Oswald paid $21.45 for the mail
order rifle from Klein's, the FBI had to "locate" a corresponding
deposit in Klein's account at the First National Bank of Chicago.
The
deposit had to be untraceable, which meant that it was made in cash
or
with a US postal money order. *The deposit could not be in the form
of a personal check, or money order issued by a private company such
as a bank , Cooks, or American Express.*
According to FBI reports, Bureau agents began tracking the $21.45
money order at 9:00 am on the morning of November 23, *even though
they announced a few hours later that Oswald paid $12.78 for the
rifle*. They ALLEGEDLY spoke with William Waldman, of Klein's
Sporting Goods, then ALLEGEDLY spoke with Lester Gohr, the Assistant
Cashier of the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago. *These agents may
have interviewed these witnesses, but the information contained in
their reports suggests that they did not.*
At 9:00 am FBI agents Gale Johnson, James Hanlon, and Phillip
Wanerus
ALLEGEDLY interviewd Klein's vice-president William Waldman, who
ALLEDGEDLY told the agents that Klein's records showed that a money
order in the amount of $21.45 was deposited to the Klein's account at
the First National Bank of Chicago on March 15, 1963. *It is
doubtful
that Waldman gave this information to these agents, because he had
not
seen an order from "A. Hidell" on the Klein's microfilm. He did not
know **the price paid for the rifle or the method of payment**. In
addition, Waldman had already given Klein's microfilm to agents
Dolan,
Toedt, and Mahan earlier that morning.*
After ALLEDGELY interviewing William Waldman agents Johnson, Hanlon,
and Wanerus ALLEDGELY interviewed Robert Wilmouth, Vice-President of
the First National Bank of Chicago *(on Sunday morning)*. According
to their FBI report, Wilmouth said that Klein's made a deposit in the
amount of $13,827.98 on Friday, March 15, 1963. This deposit
contained hundreds of entries on 5 pages of adding machine tape, with
*two entries* in the amount of $21.45 (the FBI report was wrong;
there
was only *one entry for $21.45* in he $13,827 deposit). Wilmouth
ALLEDGELY told the agents that one of the entries represented an
American Express money order and the second deposit item represented
a
postal money order, both in the amount of $21.45. *But how would
Wilmouth know if these deposits were made with money orders when
looking at numbers on adding machine tapes? (see Vol 21, p. 706).
Wilmouth, ALLEDGELY told the agents that both deposits were made on
March 15, were processed by his bank on March 16 (Saturday), and were
received by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 18, 1963.
*But the date on the deposit slip reads "2/13/63-a month before the
rifle was ordered (p. 706, Volume 21).* *And how could Wilmouth
possibly know the date that a money order was deposited at the
Federal
Reserve Bank without looking at the cancelled money order, which he
did not have??* Wilmouth ALLEDEDLY told the agents, "Postal money
orders are sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, which in turn
sends them to a central processing center located in KANSAS CITY,
MISSOURI.
NOTE: **If neither the First National Bank nor the Federal Reserve
Board had copies of a $21.45 money order (No. 2,202,130,462), then
Wilmouth could not possibly have known the date the money order was
received by the Federal Reserve.**
After ALLEDGELY interviewing Robert Wilmouth agents Johnson, Hanlon,
and Wanerus ALLEDGELY interviewed Lester Gohr, the Assistant Cashier
of the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago-*on Saturday morning*.
According to the FBI report, Gohr said that records of postal money
orders were only kept for 6 months and that *he had no records prior
to May 29, 1963.*
From the information ALLEDGELY obtained from these bankers, we
realize
that if they were interviewd on Saturday morning it is highly
unlikely
they furnished the information that appears in the FBI reports.
*Also, if they had furnished information about a $21.45 money order
to
FBI agents on Saturday morning, then the Bureau would never have
announced that Oswald paid $12.78 for the mail order rifle a few
hours
later!* It is far more likely that these FBI reports were fabricated
in order to create the illusion that a $21.45 postal money order was
received by Klein's, deposited to their bank account and then sent to
the Federal Reserve.
We have already learned the $21.45 money order published in the
Warren
Volumes was **never deposited into a bank or financial institution.**
*This means the mony order was not deposited to Klein's account at
the
First National Bank of Chicago, nor deposited with the Federal
Reserve
Bank, nor then returned to the Federal Records Center in Alexandria,
VA. It also means that the information contained in the FBI reports
of Johnson, Hanlon, and Wanerus was fabricated in order to create the
illusion that Oswald purchased a $21.45 money order which was
routinely processed through the federal banking system.
The "Official Story" of how the $21.45 money order was found.
At 1:45 pm on Saturday, November 23 Secret Service agent Edward Z.
Tucker arrived at Klein's Sporting Goods and began interviewing
William Waldman. At first Waldman was reluctant to speak with Agent
Tucker, *because he had been told by the FBI agents not to discuss
the
investigation with anyone.* He alledgely told Tucker the price of
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was $21.45, including postage, and payment
may have been made with a money order. Tucker spoke with Secret
Service agent Griffith, who then called Chicago Postal Inspector
Glenn
Knight and requested help in locating a postal money order in the
amount of $21.45.
One of the FBI agents who reviewed the Klein's microfilm, John Toedt,
ALLEDGELY contracted the Post Office in Chicago and also asked for
their assistance in locating a postal money order. Toedt was told to
contract the division headquarters in KANSAS CITY.
After receiving a call from the SS, Chicago Postal Inspector Martin
J.
McGee ALLEDGELY telephoned Dallas Postal Inspector Cox, who in turn
contacted Harry Holmes, who stated he thought *he (Holmes) would be
able to find a record of a $21.45 money order in Dallas.*
NOTE: **Most of the background information relating to the $21.45
money order that is found in the reports of the US Post Office
originated with Harry Holmes and, therefore, should be considered
extremely suspect.**
Holmes told the WC, "I passed the information to the men (Dallas
postal employees) who were looking for this money order 'STUB' to
show
which would designate, which would show the number of the money
order,
and that is the onley way you could find one...within 10 minutes they
called back and said they had a money order in that amount issued on,
I don't know that I show, but it was that money order in an amount
issued at the main post office, which is the same place as this post
office box was at the time, box 2915, and the money order had been
issued **early on the morning of March 12th**, 1963.
NOTE: ** US post offices always kept the end "stub" of all money
orders sold to customers for their records. ***But neither Holmes
nor
anyone else produced the "stub" or any postal records to support his
claim that Dallas postal employees in Dallas located the "stub" for
postal money order No. 2,202,130,462.***
**Holmes told the WC the money order was issued ***early on the
morning of March 12th.***, 1963. Yet there is nothing on a postal
mony order that shows the time of day it was sold. The Commission
should have asked Holmes how he knew the money order was issued
"**early on the morning of March 12, 1963.***"
**The only indication the money order was purchased on the morning of
March 12 was the postmark show on the microfilm copy of the envelop
ALLEDGELY mailed to Klein's which read, "10:30 am." The Kleins'
microfilm was never shown to Holmes and therefore Holmes could not
have known that a postal money order was issued ***early on the
morning of March 12, 1963***. The only way Holmes could have known
about the postmark would be if he had previously seen, or handled,
the
envelope, or if had been told to say that.**
At 3:30 pm (November 23) Harry Holmes contacted Inspector Lloyd H.
Stephens in Fort Worth and told him that postal money order No.
2,202,130,462, in the amount of $21.45, had been used to pay for the
rifle. Stephens then contacted Inspector Duggan in Washington, DC
and
game him the same information.
Postal inspectors at the Federal Postal Money Order in Kansas City
began searching for money order No. 2, 202,130,462, while a
Postmaster
General Staff meeting was held in Washington DC. A summary of the
meeting prepared by the SS stated, "The initial request for the
identification and location of the subject US Postal Money order had
come from Postal Inspector Lloyd Stephens, Fort Worth, Texas.....as a
result of a conference between Mr. Donald Duggan, Deputy Chief,
Postal
Inspection Service, Washington DC, and Postal Inspection Service at
Fort Worth, Texas, **the original US Postal Money Order would be
furnished to this service (Secret Service).**
At 7:30 pm (CST) Chicago Postal Inspector Glenn Knight advised
Secrect
Service Agent Griffith that Postal Inspectors were attempting to
locate the postal money order in Kansas City. **Postal inspectors in
Kansas City had already spent 4 hours looking for postal money order
No. 2,202,130,462, without success.**
The Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City was the same
facility at which 5 other postal money orders were located that had
been purchased by Oswald and used to repay his $435.71 loan from the
Department of State. FBI SA Donald E. Stangel obtained the following
information from the Department of State and the USPS.
He shows a chart with categories Ser # or M.O.; Amount; Issue Date;
Location; and Rec'd by State Dept
The first 5 postal money orders (beginning with series 1,156,417,562)
purchaed by Oswald in Fort Worth and Dallas were returned to the
Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City. The last 3 postal
money ordrs (series 2,202,000,060) were returned to the Federal
Records Center in Alexander, VA. Money order No. 2,202,130.462,
ALLEDGELY purchased by Oswald from the GPO in Dallas, was ALLEDGELY
located at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, VA on the
evening
of November 23, 1963.
According to the serial numbers on these money orders, the GPO in
Dallas sold approxiamtely 1200 money orders per week (3888 from
November 14, 1962-December 6, 1962; 3475 from Jan. 5, 1963-Jan. 25,
1963). Using 1200 money orders per week as a guide, the serial
number
of the money order ALLEDGELY purchased by Oswald on Mar. 12, 1963,
was
2,202,130,462 (***118,527 numbers higher***). This serial number
indicates that this money order came from a stack of money orders
that
should not have been sold by the GPO in Dallas until late 1964 or
early 1965, if sold in numerical order.
NOTE: **The Commission failed to ask the Postal Service when money
orders beginning with 2,202,130 were sent to the Dallas GPO. They
also failed to ask Holmes for the name of the postal employee who
allededly found the "stub" for the $21.45 money order.** While
Postal
Inspectors continued to search for the $21.45 money order in Kansas
City, Dallas Postal Inspector/FBI Informatn Harry Holmes advised the
money ordr could be found in Washington DC. Holmes told the
Commission, "This number (2,202,130,462) was transmitted to the Chief
Inspector in Washington, who immediately got the money order center
at
Washington to begin a search, which they use IBM equipment to kick
out
this money order and sent it oer, ***so they said***, by special
conveyance to the Secret Service, chief of the Secret Service at
Washington now, and it turned out, ***so they said***, to be the
correct money order. **Holmes was the first and only person in
Dallas
to know the number of the money order, and the first to suggest the
money order could be located in Washington, DC.**
NOTE: **The WC could not understand why it took nearly ***16
hours***
to locate the money order. Harry Holmes said the delay was caused
because the FBI provided him with incorrect information. Holmes said
the Bureau advised him the amount of the money order was $21.95
instead of $21.45, which caused him to look for a different money
order, ***but not a single person corroborated Holmes' story.***
In Washington, DC, the Deputy Chief of the Postal Inspection Service,
Donald D. Duggan, insturcted Postal Finance Officer ***J. Harold
Marks*** to indicate a search for the money order in Washington, DC,
at 6:30 PM (CST).
At 7:55 PM (CST), Chicago Secret Service Agent Griffith was told that
postal money order No. 2,202,130,462 had been located in Washington,
DC (8:55 EST). Griffith then telephoned agent Mroz, in Kansas City,
and advised him the $21.45 postal money order had been recovered in
Washington.
NOTE: **Apparently the Dallas FBI office was not aware the money
order had been located. At 9:30 PM (CST) the Dallas office sent an
airtel to the Director and SAC's in Chicago and New York. The
message
said, "Advised inst. money order culd not be located today, but would
be located *Nov. twenty four next."*
Postal money order No. 2,202,190,462 was ALLEDGELY found at the
Federal Records Center in Alexandria, VA by Robert Jackson, *an
employee of the National Archives.*
NOTE: **This $21.45 money order was never deposited into a financial
institution and therefore could not have been routed through the
banking system and returned to the Federal Records Center in
Alexandria, VA. This money order was probably obtained from the GPO
in Dallas in the early afternoon of November 23, hand-delivered to
Washington, DC, and "planted" at the Federal Records Center in the
early evening.**
**It remains unknown whether Robert Jackson "found" the money order
at
the Federal Records Center or it was given to him. There were no
witnesses present and neither Jackson, Marks, Parker, nor anyone from
the National Archives and Records Service were interviewed by the
FBI,
Secret Service, or Warren Commission.**
Robert Jackson hand-delivered the $21.45 money order to the home of
**J. Harold Marks** in Washington, DC, who had been told to locate
the
money order by Deputy Chief Donald D. Duggan. A summary report
prepared by Secret Service Agent Donald E. Burke on November 26, 1963
provided the details of how the money order was given to the Secret
Service:
"At 10:10 PM (EST-9:10 CST) November 23 1963 SA Parker obtained the
original US Postal Money Order from Mr. Harold Marks at Mr. Marks's
home. At that time Jackson was identified as Robert H. Jackson, 2121
Lee Wood Drive, Alexandria, Virginia, telephone, SO 5-7501, and
employee of the National Archives and Records Service....He informed
SA Parker that he obtained subject original postal money order and
surrendered it to Mr. Marks. Both Jackson and Marks initialed and
dated the original money order, after which it was surrendered to SA
Parker, who in turn initialed and dated the money order.
On the evening of November 23, 1963 the $21.45 postal money order was
initialed and dated by Robert H. Jackson (RHJ), J. Harold Marks
(JHM),
and John E. Parker (JEP). A summary report by the SS explained how
copies of the money order were sent to the Dallas office:
"SA Phillips (Secret Service, Dallas) advised, after consultation
with
Inspector Kelley of this service, that two photstats be made of
subject postal money order and that these photostates be placed on
Flight #107, Braniff Airlines, departing Washington, DC, at (9:00 am
on November 24, 1963, and arriving at Dallas, Texas at 11:50 A.M.
SA Parker made five photostats of subject US Postal Money Order and
placed them in an envelope. SA Parker surrendered the envelop to
Captain Davis of Flight #107, Braniff Airlines, departing National
Airport, Washington, DC, at 9 AM on November 24, 1963, for delivery
to
Special Agent in Charge, US Secret Service at Dallas.
The secret service provided the Dallas Police with a copy of the
money
order, which was published among their exhibits in the Warren
Volumes,
CE 2003 (DPD file). The Secret Service summary report explained what
happened to the ***original*** $21.45 money order:
"SA (Max D.) Phillips also requested that a chain of custody be
maintained, and that ***original postal money order be retained by
the
Washington Field Office safe.***
SA Parker then surrendered the original US Postal Money Order to SAIC
Gaiglein, which he had previously placed in a sealed white envelope
after which SA Parker placed the ***original US Postal Money Order
sealed in this envelope in the WFO (Washington Field Office) safe.***
On the morning of November 24, 1963, Deputy Chief Paterni (Secret
Service, Washington), when informed by SA John H. Grimes, Jr., of
this
Secret Service that the Postal Inspection Service, through Postal
Inspector Joseph A. Verant advised that the original US Postal Money
Order ws being sought by the FBI, authorized SA Grimes to surrender
the original Postal Money Order to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Immediately thereafter, while SA Grimes was
attempting
to make telephone contact with SAIC Glenn Gillies, Washington Field
Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation, SA Leslie B. Chisholm, FBI,
telephonicall contacted the reporting agent concerning this original
US Postal Money Order. SA Chisholm was advised that the postal money
order was available and he stated he or an agent of the FBI would
pick
up this money order at the Washington Field Ofice of this Secret
Service).
SA Grimes of this service removed the sealed envelope containing the
original US Postal Money ORder from the WFO safe; removed the
original
money order from this envelope; initialed and dated the money order;
made four photostats of it, and surrendered it to SA Chisholm of the
FBI who executed a receipt."
On November 24, SA Chisholm delivered the original money order to
James T. Freeman at the FBI laboratory in Washington, DC. The
summary
report continued:
"This paid order was located at the Records Center in Alexandria,
Virginia on the early evening of November 23. It was turned over to
a
Secret Service agent in Washington, DC who flew it to Dallas."
NOTE: **The information that a secret service agent hand carried the
original money order to Dallas came from Harry Holmes. As we have
seen, this did not happen and was yet another of Holmes'
fabrications. ***Copies** of the money order were sent to Dallas,
but
the original uncashed and undepostited money order was turned over to
the FBI laborator.**
What is the origin of the unused $21.45 money order?
To be considered later.
Taken from Harvey and Lee pgs 461-67
curtjester1
Or if it was SENT AT ALL cont.. 7 Points of Contention For Proof
(which the WC failed to prove).
*Who was the Dallas postal employee who could have fabricated the
$21.45 money order? To answer that question we only need to look at
the facts surrounding the money order and the Dallas postal employee
who:
o Provided the FBI and Secret Service information following the
assassination.
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 (circa
6:30 pm).
o Told the WC the delay in finding the money order was caused by the
FBI.
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 Harry
Holmes.**
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 rifle
that was ALLEDGELY ordered and paid for by Oswald using the alias "A.
Hidell." We shall now see how the FBI and Warren Commission
manipulated and twisted the facts, evidence, and witness testimony to
create the illusion that was published in the Warren Report.
The Warren Commission's job was not to investigate the murder of the
President, but to evaluate evidence given to them by the FBI and
question witnesses. In order to conclude that Oswald *purchased and
received a ***40-inch*** Mannlicher -Carcano rifle, SN C2766, from
Klein's in March 1963* the Commission needed to piece together
evidence and "prove the following:
1) There was only one Mannlicher-Carcano with SN C2766
2) Klein's had C2766 in inventory in February 1963
3) Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's on March 12, 1963
4) Oswald paid for the rifle with a $21.45 postal money order
5) Klein's deposited the money order into their bank account
6) 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 with
serial number C2766 and questioned Klein's Vice-President William
Waldman. When Waldman told Commission Atty David Belin that
Mannlicher-Carcano's were made by a number of ***different
manufacturers*** Belin responded by asking, "Does the ***same
manufacturer*** give different serial numbers for each weapon?"
Waldman answered, "The gun manufacturers imprint a different number
on
each gun. It's stamped into the frame of the gun and serves as a
unique identification for each gun."
*David Belin obviously asked William Waldman the wrong question. He
should have asked if ***different manufacturers could have used
indentical serial numbers.*** When the FBI interviewed William
Suchet, the owner of International Firearms Ltd. of Montreal, he said
that different manufacturers in Italy sometimes used the same serial
numbers on Mannlicher-Carcano rifles.
The Commission, using the testimony they received from Waldman, wrote
in their final report, "..the number C2766 is the serial number."
The Commission concluded, "The number 'C2766' is the serial number of
the rifle, and the rifle in question is the only one of its type
bearing that serial number."
NOTE: **The fact that David Belin failed to ask Waldman if different
manufacturers could have used identical serial numbers clearly
demonstrates the Commission's willingness to manipulate testimony in
order to frame Oswald.**
2) Prove That Klein's Had C2766 In Inventory In February
1963
The FBI probably knew , from advertisements placed in the ***American
Rifleman*** and discussions with Klein's officials, that Klein's sold
only ***36-inch*** Italian carbines from February 1962 through March
1963. The 10 shipping slips which Feldsott gave to the fBI (dated
6/18/62) were almost certainly ***36-inch*** rifles. The serial
number on one of those rifles was C2766 and matched the serial number
of 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 early
1963<*** *which is why the 3 FBI agents who reviewed microfilm
records
at Klein's on the early morning hours of November 23 found no records
for the sale of C2766 in March 1963.*
To create the illusion that C2766 was available for the sale by
Klein's in February 1963, the FBI simply needed to show that C2766
was
in their store on or before March 1963 when "A. Hidell's" order was
ALLEDGELY received. To accomplish this the FBI and the WC needed to
match Crescent's 10 ***undated*** shipping slips (100 rifles which
included C2766) with an order for 100 rifles placed by Klein's in
early 1963. *This was easy because the FBI had the 10 undated
shipping slips and Klein's microfilm in their custody.*
The FBI gave the WC a ***copy*** of the Klein's purchase order for
100
rifles from Cresent Firearms dated January 24, 1963 (Waldman Ex. NO
1). WC attorney David Belin showed the copy to Klein's vice
president
William Waldman on May 20, 1964 and said, "Mr. Waldman, I hand you
what is being marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit 1 and ask you
tostate if you know what that is." Waldman answered, "I do...This
constitutes a purchase order of Klein's directed to Crescent Firearms
for Italian Carcano rifles prepared on January, 2, 19-, oh, wait
aminute; hold that a moment, January 24, 1963, calling for 200 units
at a cost of $8.50."
After obtaining testimony that Klein's ordered 100 rifles from
Crescent Firearms on January 23, 1963, the Commission needed to show
that ***C2766*** was one of the rifles. They wanted to track
***C2766*** from its origin in Italy, to the dock in New Jersey, and
to Klein's in Chicago and offered as "proof" the following documents:
o A bill of lading which showed that Waterfront Transfer Company
delivered 520 cartons of rifles (5200 rifles) from the *Elleetra
Fascio* 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) which
listed 520 cartons of "38 E91 I 6.5" calibre rifles (FBI Ex. D-189).
o Five delivery orders (891.38, 14473, 03403, A01640, A0062)
which
showed that gun dealer Fred Rupp removed cartons of rifles from the
Harborside Terminal from August thru October 1962 (FBI Ex. D-190).
**But carton #3376, which contained ***C2766***, was not listed on
any
of these delivery orders.**
NOTE: ** Keep in mind that Crescent Firearms sold
***C2766*** to Klein's on June 18, 1962, ***two months before*** Fred
Rupp began removing the 520 cartons of rifles from harborside.
o An undated shipping order which shows that North Penn Transfer
picked up 10 cartonof rilfes from Fred Rupp (FBI Ex. D-152). **But
carton #3376, which contained C2766, was not listed on this shipping
order:**
o A delivery receipt which shows that North Penn Transfer
delivered
10 cartons of rifle to Lifschultz on February 13, 1963 (FBI Ex.
D-169). **But carton #3376 which contained C2766 was not listed on
this delivery receipt.**
o Lifschultz Fast Freight-Chicago Run Sheet, which shows that
Lifschultz delivered 10 cartons of rilfes to Klein's Sporting Goods
in
Chicago 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 serial
numbers of rifles. From these documents it is impossible to know
***when*** carton #3376 left the Harborside Terminal or ***where***
it
was delivered. ***The absence of serial and carton numbers on these
documents*** is what allowed the FBI, *and the Warren Commission, to
fraudulently claim that ***C2766*** was shipped to Klein's in early
1963.*
After "proving" that ***C2766*** was shipped to Klein's the
Commission
needed to show that Klein's ***received*** the rifle. They
introduced
a ***copy*** of Klein's "receiving record," which was purportedly a
list of rifles received by the receiving department on February 21,
1963. But instead of questioning J. A. Mueller, the head of the
receiving department, Commission attorney David Belin questioned
Klein's General Operating Manager, Mitchell J. Scribor and vice-
president William Waldman.
Belin handed Waldman the ***copy*** and said, "I hand you what has
been marked as Waldman Exhibit No 4 (FBI Ex. No D-167). and ask you
to
state if you know what this is." Waldman answered, "This is the
record created by us showing the control number we have assigned to
the gun together with the serial number that is imprinted on the
frame
of the gun....Our control number for that is VC-836."
On the upper right side of this document is the notation "1259" and
on
the upper left side of the document is the notation "RR 1243." The
"1259" was not identified by the Commission, but "RR 1243" was
identified as "receiving record 1243." The "1243" matched the
Klein's
order number for 100 rifles placed on January 24, 1963 (1/24/3).
*This only one of two documents which the Commission used to link
C2766 to the January 24, 1963 order (the other document was a copy of
Crescent form #3178 which contained hand written entries for 10
carton
numbers.)
NOTE: ** An FBI Airtel of 3/13/64 (FBI Ex. No. D-167) *states, "One
photstatic copy of a ***list prepared by Mitchell Scibor on
11/23/63.*** This Airtel suggests that scibor may have printed a
copy
of 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 simply
asked him who prepared "RR 1243." Instead, the Commission interviewd
William Waldman and Mitchell Scibor who spent little time, if any in
the company's shipping and receiving department and had no idea if
the
copy of the receiving record they were shown was authentic.
Commission attorney David Belin then gave ***copies*** of Lifschultz
Fast Freight bills of lading to William Waldman and said, "I'm going
to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit 2 and
ask you to state if you know what that is." Waldman answered, "I
do...this is a delivery receipt from the Lifschultz Fast Freight
covering 10 cases of guns deliverd to Klein's on February 21, 1963,
from Crescent Firearms....The February 21 date is the date in which
the merchandise ame to our premises whereas the date of February 22,
is the date in which they were officially received by our receiving
department." The delivery receipt was signed by J.A. Mueller, the
head of Klein's receiving department.
NOTE: ** Waldman probably never saw these bills of lading prior to
his testimony. The Lifschultz documents showed only that 100 rifles
were delivered to Klein's on February 21, 1963, but listed ***not
carton or serial numbers*** of rifles.
**Readers should remember that the weight of the 10 cartons of rifles
delivered to Klein's on February 21, 1963 clearly indicated they were
***36-inch*** rilfes. The Commission was trying to prove that
Klein's
received a shipment of ***40-inch*** rifles on February 21, 1963 (C
2766 was a ***40-inch*** rifle).
Belin then handed Waldman copies of Crescent's 10 ***undated shipping
forms*** *(which Louis Feldsott said were from June 1962)* and said,
"I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition
Exhibit 3 and ask you to state if you know what this is." Waldman
answered, "Yes; these are the memos prepared by Crescent Firearms
showing serial numbers of rifles that were shipped to us and each one
of these represents those rifles that were contained in a case."
Belin then tried to get Waldman to say the 10 shipping forms ***(from
6/18/62)*** represented the 100 rifles that were delivered to Klein's
on February 21, 1963. Belin said, "Now, you earlier mentioned that
these (Waldman Ex. No. 3) were packed with the case." Waldman
replied, "Well, I would like to correct that. This particular
company
(Crescent) ***does not include these with the cases***, but sends
these memos separately with their invoice."
NOTE: ** At this point the Commission had ***no testimony*** that
linked Crescent's 10 undated shipping forms from June 18, 1962 to the
delivery of 100 rifles to Klein's on February 21, 1963.**
David Belin, obviously unsatisfied with Waldman's answer, THEN TOLD
WALDMAN THE SERIAL NUMBERS LISTED ON THE UNDATED SHIPPING FORMS
MATCHED THE ORDER FOR THE 100 RIFLES. Belin said, "Referring to
Waldman Dep. Ex. No. 3, ***which ***ARE*** the serial numbers of the
100 rifles which were made in this shipment from Crescent Firearms to
you,*** and Waldman Dep. Ex. No. 5, which is the invoice from
Crescent
Firearms which has stamped on it that it was paid by your company on
March 4, is there any way to verify that this payment pertained to
rifles which are shown on Waldman Dep. Ex. No 3?"
NOTE: ** The fact that David Belin told Waldman the undated shipping
forms matched the order for 100 rifles clearly demonstrates the
Commission's willingness to manipulate testimony in order to frame
Oswald.
Waldman did not acknowledge the first part of Belin's question, but
to
the second part of his question answered, "The forms submitted by
Crescent Firearms, showing serial numbers of rifles included in the
shipment covered by their invoice No. 3178, indiciate that the rifle
carriying serial No. ***C-2766*** was included in that shipment."
*This is not true. Waldman Dep. Ex. No. 5, dated February 7, 1963
which lists invoice #3178 (FBI Ex. D-165) ***does not list any serial
or carton numbers whatsoever.***
There is, however, a ***handwritten*** form dated February 7, 1963
which lists invoice #3178 (FBI Ex. D-172). This is a ***copy*** of a
document which the FBI ALLEGEDLY obtained from Louis Feldsott and
contains a ***handwritten*** list of the numbers of 10 cartons of
rifles in the middle of the page. One look at the ***handwriting***
on the copy of this form clearly shows that *the person who filled
out
the form originally was not the same person who wrote the numbers of
the 10 cartons of rifles.*
This form, *which was not published in the Warren Volumes,* was the
second item that linked Crescent's 10 undated shipping forms (from
June, 1962) with a Klein's order received on February 21, 1963 *(the
other was Klein's receiving record)*. If this form had been shown to
Louis Feldsott by the Warren Commission he would have immediately
identiifed it as a forgery, *but Feldsott was never interviewed by
the
Commission.*
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
March
1, 1963 (FBI Ex. No. D-166). However, there are no notations on the
Klein's check stub that refer to the number of Crescent's shipping
form, 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 100
rifles in early 1963, but these were not the same rifles identified
on
Crescent's 10 undated shipping slips from June 18, 1962 (C2766).
**************************************************
A Final Thought About The Crescent Shipping Forms: The WC knew the
10
shipping forms (including ***C2766***) came from Louis Feldscott,
*and they also knew that Feldsott provided an affidavit in which he
said that Crescent sold ***C2766*** to Klein's in June 18, 1962.*
Their failure to depose Feldsott and resolve this conflict is
inexcusable and probably intentional. Had Feldsott testified he
would
have indentified Crescent form #3178 as a forgery and he would have
testified that the 10 undated shipping forms represented 100 rifles
sold to Klein's on June 18, 1962, ***and not in early 1963.***
The owner of Klein's Sporting Goods, Milton Klein, knew something was
wrong with the FBI investigation but no longer had his company's
microfilm records and was therefore unable to dispute their
conclusions. Klein told reporters again and again that Oswald
ordered
a ***36-inch*** rifle, *but was unable to explain how the Dallas
Police managed to find a ***40-inch*** rifle on the 6th floor of the
TSBD.*
In the early 1960's nearly everyone trusted and admired the FBI and
on
one, including Milton Klein, believed the Bureau would manipulate
and/
or fabricate evidence. But with Klein's microfilm records in their
custody as of 5:00 am on November 23, 1963, the FBI could print
copies
of any of Klein's microfilm records, alter the paper copies, and then
re-microfilm the altered copies. One of the best indications that
the
Bureau did alter Klein's microfilm records is the fact that Klein's
microfilm DISAPPEARED ***while in FBI custody.*** With no other
records available, there was simply no way that Milton Klein or
anyone
else could challenge the conclusions of the FBI and the Warren
Commission.
3) Prove Oswald Ordered A Rifle From Klein's On March 12,
1963
Commission attorney David Belin questioned William Waldman about the
order Klein's received from "A. Hidell" on March 13, 1963. Waldman
said, "We have a-this microfilm record of a coupon clipped from a
portion of one of our advertisements, which indicates by writing of
the customer on the coupon that he ordered our catalog No C20-750;
and
he 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...The
coupon overlays the envelope in which the order was mailed and this
shows 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 was
mailed by airmail."
Belin next asked Waldman about the coupon sent with the order and
said, "Now, I see another number off to the left. What's that
number?" Waldman replied, "The number that you referred to, C20-T750
is a catalog number.catalogue number C20-T750 describes the Italian
carbine rifle with a four-power scope, which is sold as a package
unit." David Belin had the testimony he needed, and was careful not
to allow Waldman to describe the length of the rifle.
*Belin carefully framed the questions he asked Waldman and avoided
discussing the order coupon in detail. He knew the coupon contained
the 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
the
public record that showed "A. Hidell" ordered a ***36-inch*** rifle
but 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 of
1963.
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 the
Secret Service and gave it to the Warren Commission. The money
order
was made payable to the order of "Klein's Sporting Goods," the
purchaser was listed as "A. Hidell," and the address was listed as
"P.O. Box 2915, Dallas Texas." The first order of business for the
Commission was to show that "Lee Harvey Oswald" purchased the money
order. To "prove" their claim the Commission asked the FBI for a
handwriting analysis.
FBI document "experts" Alwyn Cole and James Cadigan examined the
money
order and gave their opinions to the Commission. Cole testified that
the writing on the *money order with the known writing of Oswald.*
Cadigan testified the writing on the money order was done by Lee
Harvey Oswald *but only by comparing the words "Dallas, Texas" with
Oswald's know writing.*
The Commission then needed to show the money order was purchased and
the airmailed from Dallas before noon. *If the mony order was mailed
from Dallas after 10:00 noon, it could not have reached Chicago and
could not have been deposited into Klein's bank account the following
day.*
NOTE: ** It is extremely unlikely that a letter mailed from Dallas
in
1963 could have reached Klein's office, in Chicago, the following
day.**
Harry Holmes told the WC, "The money order had been issued ***early
in
the morning*** of March the 12th, 1963. *Belin failed to ask Holmes
how he knew the money order was issued ***on the morning*** of March
12.
NOTE: ** There is nothing on the front or backside of the money
order that indicates it had been issued on the morning of March 12.
There was, however, a postmark of 10:30 AM on the mailing envelope
which allegedly contained the money order and coupon. But Klein's
allegedly discarded the envelope when the received "Hidell's" order
and the only copy of the envelope was on Klein's microfilm, which had
been given to the FBI at 5:00 am on November 23 and was not seen
again
until William Waldman's testimony in Chicago, on May 20, 1964. There
is no legitimate way for Harry Holmes to have known about the 10:30
am
postmark on the mailing envelope.
Klein's Vice President William Waldman discussed the mailing envelope
with the Commission and said, "This shows in the upper left-hand
corner 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, which
was several miles from downtown Dallas.*
NOTE: ** David Belin should have asked Waldman why Klein's
microfilmed 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 into
Klein's bank account and said, "I hand you what has been marked as
Commission Exhibit No, 788, which appears to be a US Postal money
order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods....And on the
reverse side there appears to be an endorsement....I wonder if you
would read the endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please."
As an experienced attorney and businessman Belin knew that the stamp
on the backside of the money order was a "deposit endorsement." He
also knew that the money order did not have ***a single bank
endorsement or date stamp*** and no indication whatsoever that it was
ever deposited into a bank or financial institution.
Belin asked Waldman when the money order was deposited to the Klein's
bank account and he replied, "I CANNOT specifically say when this
money order was deposited by our company......" Waldman could not
determine the date of deposit was *because there was no bank
endorsement or date stamp anywhere on the money order.*
NOTE: **Both Waldman and Belin should have realized that a postal
money order with no bank endorsement or date stamps could not
possibly
have been deposited to Klein's bank account, routed through the US
banking system, or returned to the US Post Office. IT is difficult
to
believe that neither the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police, Warren
Commission members, their staff attorneys, nor anyone who examined
this postal money order noticed that bank endorsements and dates were
missing.**
** By ignoring the fact that the postal money order lacked a single
bank endorsement or date stamps, and therefore could not have been
deposited into any financial institution, the Commission demonstrated
their willingness to manipulate evidence in order to frame Oswald.
5) Prove Klein's Deposited The Money Order Into Their
Account
David Belin ignored the fact that the $21.45 money order contained
no
bank endorsement stamps and asked William Waldman, "Do you have any
way of knowing when exactly this money order was deposited by your
Company?" Waldman said, "I cannot specifically say when this money
order was deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a
money 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 Deposition
Exhibit No. 10." Belin added, "And on that deposit, one of the items
is $21.45 out of a total deposit that day of $13,827.98; is that
correct? 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. *If
Belin had conducted an honest investigation he would have wanted to
know 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's
account in which a single entry for $21.45 appears with over 1000
entries. The deposit slip contained the following totals:
Total on the
Bank
$28.24
Total out of Town
Banks
$9,992.43
Total other Chicago
Banks
$3,804.67
Cash send by registered
mail
$2.64
total deposit $13,827.98
All items listed on the First National Bank of Chicago deposit slip
were taken directly from the entry totals from the 4 pages of
deposits. *But there is another list of deposits that appears on
page
707 of Volume 21 and totals $2116.91. There is a 2nd entry for $21.45
on this list of deposits, but this deposit ***had nothing to do with
the $13,827.98 deposit.***
NOTE: ** On November 23, 1963 FBI agents allegedly questioned Robert
Wilmouth, Vice President of Operations for the First National Bank of
Chicago. Wilmouth ***allegedly*** advised that Klein's made a
$13.827.98 deposit on March 13 and said that two depostis in the
amount of $21.45 were included with a deposit of $1536.11, which in
turn was included in a group total of $6178.00 *But ***neither
$1536.11 nor $6178.00 were listed on the First National Bank of
Chicago deposit slip,*** which totals $13,827.98, and this glaring
discrepancy remains unresolved.**
In addition to the discrepancies mentioned above, the First National
Bank 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 order
purchased by Oswald in the amount of $21.45 was deposited to Klein's
bank account in March, they had to ***IGNORE*** the date of February
15 on the First National Bank deposit slip (February 15, 1963),
***IGNORE*** the fact statement of Robert Wilmouth, ignore the list
of
deposits totaling $2116.91, ***IGNORE*** the fact that the $21.45
entries came from "Other Chicago banks, and ***IGNORE*** he fact that
***money order No. 2,202,130,462 was never deposited into any
financial institution.*** *The fact that the Commission made no
attempt to resolve any of these discrepancies clearly demonstrates
their willingness to manipulate evidence in order to help fram
Oswald.*
Today, it is impossible to verify the date of any of the entries to
Kleins' bank account. Klein's microfilm records *DISAPPEARED WHILE
in
FBI custody,* Klein's Sporting Goods went bankrupt in December, 1973,
and their bank records were destroyed long ago. But the fact remains
that money order No. 2,202,130,462, published on page 677 of Volume
17, was never deposited to any bank or financial institution and
***could not have been used to pay for a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle or
anything 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 the
Commission needed to show that Klein's shipped a ***40-inch
rifle***(not a 36-inch rifle) to PO Box 2915 in Dallas. The
Commission knew the Dallas Police found a ***40-inch*** rifle on the
sixth floor of the Book Depository, and also knew that "A. Hidell"
ordered a *36-inch* rifle from the ***American Rifleman*** in
February
of 1963. *Butthey wanted to keep the public from finding out *that
Hidell/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 his
questions. Belin said, "Now, I also note on Waldman Deposition
Exhibit No, 1, under the item number-some letters here or numbers..."
Waldman interrupted and said, "C20-T749." Belin asked, "What does
that signify?" Waldman answered, "This is an identification number
assigned by us for internal operating purposes," *Belin immediately
stopped questioning Waldman and held a short discussion OFF THE
RECORD.* When Waldman's testimony resumed there was no further
discussion about catalog number C20-T749 or Model 91 TS rifles,
*because BOTH were 36-inch rifles.*
NOTE: ** The Commission ws very concerned about keeping all
references to ***36-inch*** rifles out of the record. If they had
any interest in conducting an honest investigation and wanted to know
when Klein's began receiving ***40-inch*** rifles, all they had to do
was ask Crescent Firearms President, Louis Feldsott. He could have
provided the Commission Crescent's shipping records and billing
invoices that showed the date Crescent first shipped ***40-inch***
rifles to Klein's. Or they could have asked Klein's advertising
department for a list of advertisments placed in magazines for *36-
inch* and *40-inch* rifles But the Commission did not interview
Feldsott and they did not ask Klein's about their advertisements.
The
simply chose to keep all references to a ***36-inch*** rifle out of
the record.
**The Klein's employees who were the most knowledgeable abut the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, gun buyer Mitchell W. Westra and gunsmith
William 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, 1963
issue of ***Field and Stream*** magazine, **furnished by Dallas
Postal
Inspector Harry Holmes.** On April 2, 1964 Belin interviews Holmes
and asked him to read a portion of the advertisement into the record:
"....it says, '6.5 Italian carbine,' in big black letters, And
underneath it says, 'Late military issue. Only ***40-inches
overall.*** 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 that
was published by the Warren Commission, and it showed a ***40-inch***
rifle that matched the length of rifle found by Dallas Police. *The
Commission dared not publish the Klein's advertisement from the
February 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 correct
advertisement, the Warren Commission once again demonstrated their
willingness to manipulate evidence and testimony in order to frame
Oswald.
7) Prove That A. Hidell Received A Rifle At PO Box 2915 In
Dallas
The WC was very concerned that the name "A Hidell" did not appear on
Oswald's application for PO Box 2915. In a memo to Mr. Conrad FBI
official W.D. Griffith wrote, "It should be noted that although
Oswald
used 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 to
which the gun was shipped."
The Warren Commission also knew that "A. Hidell's" name ***was not on
the application,*** which they published on page 286 of Volume 19 and
identified as Cadigan Exhibit No. 13. *But in their final report the
Commission ignored this problem by ***claiming the application had
been thrown away by the post office.*** They wrote:
* ***"It is not known whether the application for post office box
2915
listed 'A. Hidell' as a person entitled to receive mail at this
box.*** In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the
application which lists names of persons, other than the applicatn,
entitled to receive mail was ***thrown away after the box was closed
on May 1963."*** *
After "explaining" how "A. Hidell" could have received mail at a box
rented by Oswald, the Commission wondered if any postal employees
remembered deliverinig a large package to box 2915. Harry Holmes
told
the Commission that exhaustive efforts were made at the Dallas GPO to
determine if postal employees remembered handling or delivering a
large package to "A. Hidell," **without success.** *But the
Commission did not ask, nor Harry Holmes volunteer, any information
about postal form 2162, which required the signature of the shipper
and receiver of a firearm sent through the US mail (postal regulation
846.53a). The Commission was never able to "prove" that Oswald
received a rifle through his post office box.
Harvey and Lee, How The CIA Framed Oswald, J. Armstrong pgs. 467-77
Robert
Boy SteveCon needs to learn what the evidence really is in this case,
huh? The "palm" print was NOT discovered in a normal chain of custody
way, thus it would have been useless in proving LHO's guilt in a court
(the place people are convicted, NOT on the internet). The man who
claimed to find it would NOT even sign a document saying he found it
in the way he said! Lt. Day would claim the print came off when he
did the lift, but this is very high unlikely. IF it could happen it
is imperative to photograph the evidence BEFORE doing something that
could destroy the case, but good old Lt. Day NEVER photographed the
rifle in situ. I wonder why?
Matching bullets to a rifle means nothing IF you can't show they were
the bullets used in the shooting. NONE of the bullet evidence could
ever be shown to have caused the wounds in JFK and JBC, thus it is
worthless. Those bullets and fragments could have been fired at
anytime, by anyone.
Obviously you are clueless about the shirt issue as well. The fibers
that supposedly matched LHO's shirt, was NOT the shirt he would have
been wearing at the time of the shooting!
Where is your evidence LHO was on the sixth floor of the TSBD at the
time of the shooting? I have been waiting for a long time for someone
to produce this evidence since the WC NEVER did.
Face the facts SteveCon, there is NO evidence tying LHO to the
shooting of JFK, JBC and JDT. It doesn't mean he wasn't involved in
some other way, but he was NOT involved in any of the shootings (and
why would he be based on what a horrible shot he was).
> So we are supposed to believe Robert that these invisible
> conspirators, (none of whom you have the common curtesy to even
> identify) were smart enough to get Oswald to behave in EVERY way like
> he was guilty both before, during, and after the assassination, but
> they were at the same time too dumb to plant a weapon that could be
> linked to Oswald himself. Your position is 100% illogical and
> indefensible.
I guess SteveCon doesn't believe in the work our intelligence groups
do, huh? Every move LHO made has been explained from an intelligence
perspective. LHO thought he was doing X and they were using him for
Y. NOW if JFK was hit somewhere else LHO would have gone on being
used and maybe he would never have to be a patsy for something, but
based on his talents he would never have gone high in the intelligence
world. What LHO did NOT know was he was breed to be a patsy for
something.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"tara" <taral...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:585c6d50-de7e-4fdb...@c20g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
tara
> According to their invoice, they DID ship the rifle he ordered.
>
> Martin
>
>
> news:585c6d50-de7e-4fdb...@c20g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > When in college, I was employed by the Sears-Roebuck catalog
> > department. Often, when consumers ordered through the catalog and the
> > merchandise was out of stock, I was ordered to substitute a similar
> > product typically of more value.
>
> > The fact that Kleins Sporting Goods may or may not have shipped the
> > exact rifle ordered by Mr. Oswald demonstrates absolutely nothing more
> > than shipping an article of merchandise to make a profit.
Face the facts SteveCon, there is NO evidence tying LHO to the
shooting of JFK, JBC and JDT. It doesn't mean he wasn't involved in
some other way, but he was NOT involved in any of the shootings (and
why would he be based on what a horrible shot he was).
Excuse me? I have never heard any conspiracy theorist say anything
this patently absurd. Is Robert joking?
David Von Pein
>>> "I have never heard any conspiracy theorist say anything this patently absurd. Is Robert joking?" <<<
Oh, heavens no, Tara. He's not joking a bit.
You apparently haven't read too many posts from the CTers in this
asylum/newsgroup, because nearly all of the conspiracy kooks in this
place think that Oswald was TOTALLY INNOCENT OF FIRING ANY SHOTS AT
EITHER KENNEDY OR TIPPIT in 1963.
That type of retarded Anybody-But-Oswald mindset can, of course, be
summed up in two words -- They're nuts.
And that's why I enjoy propping up this 2003 ABC News poll every now
and then, which illustrates just how far afield from the mainstream
the kooks in this asylum really are:
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
POLL QUESTION -- "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman
in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?".....
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c0189f6da4be3133
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ecfae05e92eaf9f2
curtjester1
>
> Martin
>
Carbines were 36". As far as regulations they were required to save
their part of a Postal Form 2162 for four years as the Post Office
would. They would have files on all the purchases but didn't offer
one up for any A. Hidell. Also, according to the false Postal Money
Order because it was picked out of stack from number sequences that
were years ahead (by Holmes), Klein's would have had to verify that it
was a real order by going through bank processes with stamps and such
on the back of the money order. None of the nomral 3 or 4 processes
were the money goes were found for this so-called money order. It's
obvious it was a total complicit ruse by the postal service, the FBI,
and a few Klein employees to create false evidence to make something
fit to pin on A. Hidell (Oswald).
CJ
> "tara" <taralac...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>
> news:585c6d50-de7e-4fdb...@c20g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > When in college, I was employed by the Sears-Roebuck catalog
> > department. Often, when consumers ordered through the catalog and the
> > merchandise was out of stock, I was ordered to substitute a similar
> > product typically of more value.
>
> > The fact that Kleins Sporting Goods may or may not have shipped the
> > exact rifle ordered by Mr. Oswald demonstrates absolutely nothing more
> > than shipping an article of merchandise to make a profit.- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "Carbines were 36 inches." <<<
Klein's also considered the 40-inch Italian Carcano to be a "Carbine"
as well. And this magazine ad proves that fact:
But all of the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy nuts like to
conveniently overlook the fact that the above November 1963 Klein's
advertisement merges these words -- "40 INCHES" and "CARBINE".
lazu...@webtv.net
postal regulation s require retention of a record regarding shipped
firearms for a period of at least 3 years- nobody at the po remembers
any MC being picked up by anyone, let alone a crazy commie, who had his
mail read by an FBI Informant & thus reprted so, and this
informant-postal Inspector Harry Holmes would have reported to the feds
if Oswald/Hidell had received a gun through the mail.
curtjester1
LOL Laz, the only thing I can see in his print is something that's
going to be $127 bucks in that. The thing is, if there was a rifle
sold, they would have just gone to a file and drawn out the paperwork
and mimeographed it off for everyone. There obviously wasn't and they
couldn't.
CJ
curtjester1
What a dumb poll.
Why don't they have Oswald and Others, Oswald involved but not a
shooter, Oswald involved but only on fringes and a patsy, Oswald
knowing he was a patsy and was going to get off.....endless....endless
nonesense that is.
CJ
Robert
There is evidence in this case and NONE of it ties LHO to either
shooting. YOU have to learn to face the facts, and they are the facts
the government panels gave us. Perhaps you have some evidence that
shows his guilt, huh? Please do share it with us.
Robert
> >>> "Carbines were 36 inches." <<<
>
> Klein's also considered the 40-inch Italian Carcano to be a "Carbine"
> as well. And this magazine ad proves that fact:
Any evidence for this claim?? Even IF they did, which I doubt a gun
dealer would, how does this change the FACT NO other gun dealer or
expert in the world considered the 40" model to be a Carbine? A
Carbine is designed to be short, and the 40" inch model was NOT short
enough. Just look at it. IT does NOT look like a Carbine at all.
Look at the M-1 Carbine and then compare it to the M-1 rifle, you will
see a huge difference.
YOU are lying again DVP.
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/122a.+KLEIN%27S+AD+FEA...
>
> But all of the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy nuts like to
> conveniently overlook the fact that the above November 1963 Klein's
> advertisement merges these words -- "40 INCHES" and "CARBINE".
Who cares? The weapon was supposed to have been ordered in MARCH
1963!! Why would a November ad have any meaning in this case?
tara
Quite simply what is more credible based on the evidence in this
case? A massive conspiracy involving, per conspiracy theorists: the
CIA, FBI, MIC, organized crime, numerous industrial corps., members of
the Warren Commission, autopsy doctors, the HSCA, the Clark Panel,
the Rockefeller Commission, numerous experts in the fields of forensic
pathology and photography and the beat goes on OR a single deranged
societal misfit to whom every piece of physical evidence points? For
me personally, I have tremendous difficulty with two questions asked
of Mr. Oswald after his capture:
1. When confronted with massive evidence he purchased and possessed
the murder weapon of Mr. Kennedy, why did Mr. Oswald lie? Why not
simply claim in was stolen?
2. When supplying the Dallas Police and FBI with his list of
residences, why did Mr. Oswald OMIT the Neely address? Could it
possibly be because that is the address where the backyard photos were
taken?
Conspiracy theorists would rather believe a massive conspiracy
involving potentially hundreds, if not thousands of people rather than
a lone nut to whom every single piece of evidence points.
Remarkable.
curtjester1
correct, and or at least lots of complicity due to pressure and fear
by your agencies listed.
> 1. When confronted with massive evidence he purchased and possessed
> the murder weapon of Mr. Kennedy, why did Mr. Oswald lie? Why not
> simply claim in was stolen?
>
After reading this thread how can you conclude that Oswald possessed
the murder weapon? That's just absurdom.
> 2. When supplying the Dallas Police and FBI with his list of
> residences, why did Mr. Oswald OMIT the Neely address? Could it
> possibly be because that is the address where the backyard photos were
> taken?
>
Maybe he forgot? He lived in SO MANY places. He didn't even have to
say anything. He did comment on the BY Photo! He said it was
somebody else pasted on. He was right!
> Conspiracy theorists would rather believe a massive conspiracy
> involving potentially hundreds, if not thousands of people rather than
> a lone nut to whom every single piece of evidence points.
>
No, I rather take each issue and event one at a time. I like finding
the conspiracy or not first, THEN see how Oswald might fit one way or
the other.
> Remarkable
Remarkable that the LNT'er will always stereotype the JFK case ALWAYS
with the CT with their own same ol' not-well-thought-out, stale
generalizations of theories/statements.
CJ
timstter
Has anyone else concluded that Crapper is probably certifiably
mentally ill?
Curious Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator
tomnln
"Robert" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:364be4c6-0650-48be...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
They lied when they said there was no room for a stenograopher.
They lied when they said there was no tape recorders.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
(Scroll down to 12th photo)
You're promoting the words of people who repeatedly Tampered with Evidence.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"tara" <taral...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9ac59b7d-ee37-46b2...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
It is the usual exaggeration used by the LNers.
Martin
"tara" <taral...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9ac59b7d-ee37-46b2...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
many
details combine to point to conspiracy, that's just too damned inconvenient
for them
to deal with.
Martin
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13502-4A3...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net...
tara
> The LNers always do best when they only deal with one detail at a time--when
> many
> details combine to point to conspiracy, that's just too damned inconvenient
> for them
> to deal with.
>
> Martin
>
>
> news:13502-4A3...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net...
>
> > Good post CJ-David"slick willie" Von Pein can't refute the fact that
> > postal regulation s require retention of a record regarding shipped
> > firearms for a period of at least 3 years- nobody at the po remembers
> > any MC being picked up by anyone, let alone a crazy commie, who had his
> > mail read by an FBI Informant & thus reprted so, and this
> > informant-postal Inspector Harry Holmes would have reported to the feds
> > if Oswald/Hidell had received a gun through the mail.
And these details would be?
Robert
Nice try DUMPSTER, but how about sticking with the case? I realize
this is IMPOSSIBLE given the position you have made for yourself, but
oh well.
Lurkers: This is a TYPICAL LNer response when they know they are
beaten -- shift to the personal attack. Posner did this all the time,
yet we are to believe he represented the truth! LOL!!!
tara
Beaten? The official version is what is accepted. Mr. Oswald shot
and killed Mr. Kennedy. Except for fringe groups as demonstrated by
the conspiracy theorists on this and other internet forums nobody
really cares any longer. When I raise this subject with friends, the
typical response is "who cares". "It was a long time ago".
bigdog
> conspirators, (none of whom you have the common curtesy to even
> identify) were smart enough to get Oswald to behave in EVERY way like
> he was guilty both before, during, and after the assassination, but
> they were at the same time too dumb to plant a weapon that could be
> linked to Oswald himself. Your position is 100% illogical and
>
> - Show quoted text -
They also got Oswald to start doing incriminating acts 8 months before
the assassination and several months before the White House even
planned the trip to Texas. Damn, those guys were good.
tara
Per Mr. Dave Reitzes:
Martin Shackelford once enjoyed a reputation as a knowledgeable and
reasonably level-headed JFK assassination researcher. Unfortunately,
his posts at such venues as the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup have
made him better known for citing nonexistent "evidence" (http://
www.jfk-online.com/judyth-shackelford.html), and advocating the
credibility of individuals who claim to bear witness to everything
from bizarre CIA/Mafia/AIDS-engineering conspiracies (http://www.jfk-
online.com/judyth-menu.html) to the top-secret autopsy of an
extraterrestrial life form. (http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-
shackelford.html)
More than anything, perhaps, Martin's name has become synonymous with
the seemingly endless series of excuses he comes up with when asked to
support the beliefs he so adamantly espouses.
The following list paraphrases many of the excuses he's offered over
the years, mostly at alt.assassination.jfk. It began as a simple Top
Ten list, in the mold of David Letterman's famous lists; but as the
excuses kept on coming, the list seemed to take on a life of its own.
I give you, then:
The Top One Hundred Martin Shackelford Excuses
100. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but you'll have to
ask me again later. (December 25, 1998)
99. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but you should have
asked me sooner. (November 11, 2001)
98. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm sick of you
asking me. (March 31, 2002)
97. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm tired of
being hammered about it. (March 31, 2003)
96. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but your request is
all too familiar. (December 31, 2003)
95. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I find your
questions abusive. (July 14, 2004)
94. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but you assume I
owe you an explanation. How droll. (October 1, 2002)
93. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's not my
responsibility to supply you with information. (March 26, 2003)
92. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but the demand that
I start handing out chunks of documentation at your behest is just
bullshit. (October 3, 2000)
91. I could cite evidence in support of my claims -- if I felt
obligated to provide you with any information. I don't. That simple
enough? (March 27, 2003)
90. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I've never
discussed the evidence, and have no intention of starting to do so
now. (June 23, 2006)
89. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but evidence for
many things is collective, rather than a matter of a single "smoking
gun," and you well know this. Do your own research. (June 23, 2006)
88. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but the government
is suppressing it. (July 2, 2004)
87. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but no one involved
wants details posted. I'll leave it at that. (February 16, 2005)
86. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's none of
your business. (July 1, 2006)
85. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't have it
handy. (March 31, 2002)
84. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it would
require some digging. (April 15, 1999)
83. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it would be
difficult. (December 25, 1998)
82. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I have a ton of
stuff and I'm not going to go through it all. (June 29, 2004)
81. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't
actually have it in my possession. (June 30, 2004)
80. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but the guy who
showed it to me no longer has it. (October 4, 1999)
79. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but, while I have
run across such information, it was some time ago, and I don't recall
the specifics. (May 6, 2003)
78. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but, while I am
aware of some, I am simply not sure of the details at present. (May 5,
2003)
77. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but this is
nonsense. You know that I have a hundred file folders full of stuff,
and that, unless I devote a day or so exclusively to the task, it's
not likely that I can produce your messages "right now." (July 19,
2004)
76. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but that would
require some research. I'll jump right to it. Yes, boss. (June 17,
2004)
75. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but there's no
emergency need to do so. (July 6, 2006)
74. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I have better
things to do. (April 17, 2003)
73. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's not high
on my list of priorities. (March 31, 2002)
72. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's not worth
my time. (March 25, 2002) Screw it. (June 1, 2007)
71. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but your theory
seems to be that any time someone raises a point that you question,
they are obligated to spend whatever time it takes to locate the
specific information for you. (May 6, 2003)
70. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but do you really
think I'm going to spend hours looking through file folders? It's just
not worth it. I'll let somebody else play your games. (July 23, 2004)
69. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but which looking
glass did you pass through to enter a fantasy realm in which I am
obligated to provide you with any information on anything? Not a
snowball's chance in hell. (March 27, 2003)
68. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I already
responded to the degree I could. (June 18, 2004)
67. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but anyone with
access to the evidence could do so just as easily. (November 11,
2001)
66. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but you could look
it up in books yourself. (October 3, 1999)
65. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but why not ask
somebody else? (June 17, 2004)
64. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but someone else
has seen it and it's not my fault he's declined to show it to you.
(November 19, 2003)
63. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I've already
shared it with a good many researchers; why should I share it with
you? (July 20, 2004)
62. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm pretty sure
someone else already has. (December 27, 2003)
61. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but they don't
concern a primary focus of my research. (October 19, 1999)
60. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I voluntarily
choose not to do so. (June 23, 2004)
59. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm not under
any obligation to do so. (November 9, 2001)
58. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's not my
responsibility. (April 8, 2003)
57. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't feel
any need to prove them to you. (June 26, 2004)
56. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's not my
problem. (June 19, 2004)
55. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I won't do it
just to satisfy your curiosity. (July 19, 2004)
54. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm not here to
run errands for you. (March 25, 2002)
53. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't care to
jump to your demands. (January 2, 2003)
52. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't have to
do something just because some LNer asks me to. (June 14, 2000)
51. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't owe you
a thing. Drop the ego trip. (July 2, 2004)
50. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but there's no
reason for me to do a lot of searching to satisfy your demands for
specific citations. No one else is interested, and it's a waste of my
time. (August 11, 2003)
49. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but why should I?
(August 10, 2003)
48. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't see
what further discussion with you would accomplish. So no thanks. I'll
save my breath. (January 21, 2004)
47. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I don't have
the names of any witnesses, nor would I be likely to subject them to
harassment from you. It's not that important to me to prove anything
to you, that I would inconvenience others. (June 7, 2004)
46. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but what makes you
think that my goal is to convert you? (June 18, 2004)
45. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but if you knew me,
you wouldn't make the error of doubting the things I say. (January 2,
2003)
44. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but you don't seem
to understand and there seems no point in trying to explain it to you.
(July 14, 2004)
43. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I find your
request to be tiresome. (August 10, 2003)
42. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but you clearly
have no interest in a genuine response. (March 20, 2002)
41. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, were your request
just a little more sincere. (February 19, 2002)
40. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I simply don't
trust you. (July 2, 2004)
39. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm distrustful
of your agenda. (April 9, 2003)
38. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I am suspicious
of your motives. (November 17, 2001)
37. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm distrustful
of what you'd do with it. (September 19, 2003)
36. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I have no
reason to assume you won't misuse anything you get your hands on.
(June 26, 2004)
35. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but you'd only use
it against me. (November 3, 2003)
34. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but the offer that
I put everything in your gentle hands can't be taken seriously by
anyone in their right mind. (June 28, 2004)
33. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but if you really
cared about the answer, you'd go out and find it yourself. (April 9,
2003)
32. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but a forum for
people interested in the JFK assassination is no place to properly lay
out the evidence. That should be obvious. (December 1, 2003)
31. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm not going
to vomit it all forth on your tawdry little newsgroup. (December 11,
2000)
30. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but no serious
researchers rely on this newsgroup for "information." (July 14, 2004)
29. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I wouldn't want
to put it out piecemeal. (June 18, 2004, et al)
28. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but while
liberating material wrongfully withheld by the government is one
thing, vomiting up evidence piecemeal before it can be presented in
context is quite another. It won't happen. (October 4, 2000)
27. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, if you only showed
more integrity in your newsgroup posts. (December 31, 2002)
26. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but you need to
work on your errors first. (November 11, 2001)
25. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, if you were just a
little more responsible. (March 17, 2002)
24. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but you know better
than to think I'd provide you with any detailed information. (July 9,
2003)
23. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but why would I
share it with you? Your credibility is at about minus 1000. (November
13, 2000)
22. I could cite evidence in support of my claims . . . but not for
someone like you. (April 5, 2002)
21. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but why would
anyone provide you with information? (July 1, 2004)
20. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but this is your
third demand today for names of witnesses. Forget it. They don't
deserve you. (June 7, 2004)
19. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I challenge you
to produce some evidence first!! (October 3, 2000)
18. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but . . . what was
that Biblical quote about the mote in the eye? (May 15, 2003)
17. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I'm not
presently at liberty to discuss it. (October 2, 1999)
16. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's not for
public display. (August 13, 2007)
15. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it's a secret.
(June 28, 2000, et al)
14. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it wouldn't be
very practical. (October 6, 2000)
13. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it would place
human lives in peril. (Private e-mail to author, June 29, 2000)
12. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but you know I
can't do so as long as there is legal action involved. (June 27,
2006)
11. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but your request
that I do so is nothing but a personal attack. (April 10, 2003)
10. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, if your request
that I do so weren't so stupid. (July 24, 2000)
9. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but your demand is
meaningless. (June 25, 2004)
8. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but you wouldn't
believe me anyway. (April 10, 2003)
7. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but believe whatever
you want. I'd rather you did, at this point. (July 1, 2004)
6. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but I think I can
guarantee you right now that no one will ever provide you with
"satisfactory" explanations, from your standpoint. (July 13, 2004)
5. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but it is not always
wise to reveal what one knows. (July 4, 2004)
4. I could cite evidence in support of my claims, but who could argue
with evidence like yours? You have spoken! (July 17, 2004)
3. I already did cite evidence in support of my claims, but the
alt.assassination.jfk moderators are censoring me! (June 23, 2004)
2. I already did cite evidence in support of my claims, but it
vanished into thin air! (November 15, 2001)
And the Number One Martin Shackelford Excuse . . .
1. Why don't you produce the evidence? (September 7, 2007)
Robert
By who? Like 10% of Americans? IF we add in the media, the
government, the military as a whole (I'm sure there are individuals
who know it is a crock) and the education system we are left with a
small population of "regular" folks who believe the official theory.
And I'm sure the majority of these people are ON this board even
though it is a conspiracy board!
I don't have stats but I would guess it is equal or greater in the
rest of the world in terms of the percentage NOT believing the
official thoery because the "lone gunman" angle is an American
invention. The rest of the world, which contains many parts that have
much older civilizations, realize all things that big are
conspiracies!
I guess good old Stauffenberg was a lone nut, huh? I guess the guy who
shot the Archduke of Ferdinand was a lone nut, huh? I guess the men
who tried to kill DeGaulle numerous times were lone nuts, huh? I
guess the Czeck freedom fighters who killed Heydrich were lone nuts,
huh? And of course that is just a small part of the tip of the
iceberg.
> Mr. Oswald shot
> and killed Mr. Kennedy.
I wasn't asking for YOUR opinion! Do you have some evidence that will
show this to be true?? Because what the offiical panels gave us does
NOT show this to be the truth.
> Except for fringe groups as demonstrated by
> the conspiracy theorists on this and other internet forums nobody
> really cares any longer.
I would think this is totally wrong too, it is just that so many
people are entrapped with our way of living they don't have the time
or energy to show how much they care. They are soooo worried about
feeding themselves and their families, or when they will get the next
new gadget they have lost touch with the great principles our founding
fathers gave us.
In a 100 years time, this case, just like Lincoln's and the other
assassinations in our country will matter because we lost much freedom
when the perpetrators go away with the crimes. IT always comes back
to the money. Follow the money and you will know who was involved, it
is really that simple. Each assassinated President was against one
common thing. Do you know what that was?
> When I raise this subject with friends, the
> typical response is "who cares". "It was a long time ago".
So beyond showing us you have friends who don't care what kind of
society they live in, or their kids live in, what does this prove?
This is the same kind of mentality that has lead to JFK's second
assassination. See, they use all these stories of infidelity (without
ever proving them to be correct), drug use, and poor health to say,
"See, he was really not that great anyway, so who cares if he got
whacked?" One history show on the NONHISTORY channel was saying his
chorlestoral was sooooo high the guy was a walking timebomb, so who
would have died anyway! This is all designed to make us NOT care
about the coup de etat that occured on 11/23/63.
I see they scored a perfect 100 with you!
tara
When any conspiracy theorist can present ANY credible alternative to
the SBT, I will listen to them. For now, conspiracy theorists such as
yourself spew nonsense. In general, YOU are the reason people laugh
and giggle at conspiracy theory. Roswell, 9/11, JFK, you people are a
laughing stock. I never understood why until I read the postings on
this forum.
lazu...@webtv.net
personnel? Seems I remember somewhere that Gerry Hemming used them as a
reference? I know he is not particularly reliable....Laz
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15421-4A3...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
Robert
I'm NOT into disproving negatives, when you can show us the SBT is
FACT I will work on disproving it then. Deal?
Robert
I have read Richard Cain (Chicago PD and lackey for Giancanna) used
them and IF some have said he is the one that planted the paperwork at
Klein's tying LHO to the weapon they found. OF course IF he did he
did a horrible job as the paper work shows a 36" Carbine would have
been purchased.