Re: PROOF THE FBI ALYERED DOCUMENTS AND VINCENT BUGLIOSI WAS WRONG
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents,_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong
A devastating article.
Just whack the LNT'ers over the head with the evidence... they run every time...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
aeffects
> In article <28166267-6d9b-481b-8102-9a6efc014...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
> >An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>
>
> A devastating article.
>
> Just whack the LNT'ers over the head with the evidence... they run every time...
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
bump...
Chuck Schuyler
> In article <28166267-6d9b-481b-8102-9a6efc014...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
> >An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>
>
> A devastating article.
>
> Just whack the LNT'ers over the head with the evidence... they run every time...
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Looks like you alyered altered.
David Von Pein
PAT SPEER SAID (IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE THAT APPEARS AT MARY FERRELL'S
WEBSITE):
>>> "Historians, of all stripes and shapes, operate under the assumption the documents they are studying are written on the day they are dated, and are written by those signing the document. If Vincent Drain, when given the chance, had simply admitted he'd screwed up, and that his superiors had forced him to rewrite an inaccurate report, and that this was the only time this happened, perhaps we might still feel confident this holds true of FBI documents. Drain's initials, after all, appear on the revised document. But he did not. He either lied or forgot entirely about what would have to be considered a major mistake on his part. As a consequence, we are left to wonder...did the paper sample have the "same observable characteristics" as the bag, or were the paper sample and bag "found not to be identical"?" <<<
As is always the case when JFK conspiracy theorists get ahold of
something they deem to be "suspicious" or "misleading" or
"conspiratorial", this whole issue about the two different FBI reports
(concerning the paper sample that was taken from the Texas School Book
Depository shortly after the assassination) is another tiny anthill
that conspiracists like Patrick Speer have decided to turn into Mount
Everest.
The two documents, which conspiracy theorists believe are totally
contradictory documents regarding the sample of paper that the FBI
obtained from the Depository on November 22 (not to be confused with
the December 1st paper sample, which was used to construct the replica
"bag"), are not really "contradictory" at all, in my view.
One of the documents (almost certainly the original report filed by
Vincent Drain in late November 1963) states that the sample paper was
"found not to be identical" with the paper bag found in the
Depository's Sniper's Nest (CE142), while the "corrected" document
states that the sample paper exhibits the "same observable
characteristics" as CE142.
But those two statements are not really contradictory at all, IMO. The
sample paper could very well have had the "same observable
characteristics" and yet not be "identical" to the paper in CE142.
To offer up a parallel circumstance -- It's very similar to the
situation that occurred with the bullets that were removed from
Officer J.D. Tippit's body. The FBI's firearms experts couldn't say
that those four bullets had positively been fired from Lee Oswald's
revolver, but the FBI's Cortlandt Cunningham did say that "the rifling
characteristics of Commission Exhibit 143 [Oswald's revolver] are the
same as those present on the four bullets".
So, the "characteristics" are the same, but the word "identical"
cannot be used. And I think the same thing applies to the paper
sample. There were "characteristics" that were the same in both the
sample paper and CE142, but the FBI might have also been correct in
stating that the two paper items were not "identical" to one another.*
* = Although the FBI's James Cadigan DID refer to the 11/22/63 paper
sample as being identical to that of CE142 (the Sniper's-Nest paper
bag) when Cadigan said "Yes" when answering the following two
questions asked by Melvin Eisenberg of the Warren Commission:
MR. EISENBERG -- "In all these cases, did you make the examination
both of the tape and the paper in each of the bag and the sample
[referring here to CE677, not CE364]?"
MR. CADIGAN -- "Oh, yes."
MR. EISENBERG -- "And they were all identical?"
MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes."
But in the final analysis, the second version of Vincent Drain's
report (Commission Document #5, below) is probably the most accurate
of the two reports, because the specific words that appear in Drain's
initial version of the report -- "found not to be identical" -- are
too restrictive and a little misleading. And those words are also
totally at odds with James Cadigan's testimony that I provided above,
as well.
Whereas, the following verbiage that is found in CD5 is probably more
accurate verbiage and is not as misleading (which is undoubtedly why
the change was made in the first place; but a conspiracy theorist's
mileage will, of course, vary on that particular point):
"This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found to have
the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like
a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting on the sixth
floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building." -- Via Commission
Document #5
www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=328890
WAS BUGLIOSI WRONG CONCERNING THE DATES? NOT AT ALL:
As for Pat Speer's complaint about Vincent Bugliosi not recognizing
something shady or suspicious with respect to the DATE on the November
29, 1963, FBI report submitted by Vincent Drain (with Mr. Speer
hinting that the FBI was up to no good because the 11/29/63 Drain
document was dated BEFORE the "replica paper bag" was created by the
FBI on December 1, 1963) --- apparently Mr. Speer is unaware that the
11/29/63 Drain document is NOT referring to the replica paper bag that
was made by the FBI on 12/1/63.
As I alluded to earlier in this post, there were TWO different samples
of paper taken from the Book Depository--on two separate dates--after
the assassination, with the first of these samples being taken on the
day of the assassination itself (11/22/63). And Vince Bugliosi
discusses both of these paper samples in his book "Reclaiming
History".
In fact, the "RH" book excerpts cited by Speer in his article linked
at the top of this post verify that Mr. Bugliosi was aware of (and
discusses in his book) the TWO different samples of paper that were
obtained by the FBI.
The November 29th FBI/Drain document is referring to the sample of
paper (not a "replica bag") that was obtained by the FBI from the
Texas School Book Depository on November 22nd (which is viewable in
CE677).
James Cadigan of the FBI testified about the two different paper
samples in his Warren Commission testimony. Here are some excerpts
from that testimony:
JAMES C. CADIGAN -- "I first saw this paper bag [CE142] on November
23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and
tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963,
which is FBI Exhibit D-1 [aka CE677, linked below]."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0180b.htm
[Later...]
MR. CADIGAN -- "This is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack
similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School
Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in
Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit
142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and
they thought...it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask, "Did you see
a bag like that?", so they went to the Texas School Book Depository
and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0492b.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm
As we can easily determine from the above testimony of James Cadigan,
the paper sample that Vincent Drain refers to in his 11/29/63 FBI
report is obviously NOT the "replica paper BAG" that was fashioned by
the FBI two days AFTER Drain's report was written.
Therefore, Drain's November 29th report MUST be referring to the
sample of paper that was obtained on November 22nd, one week prior to
Drain's report being completed.
FOOTNOTE:
I do want to give Patrick Speer ample credit for one thing in his
above-linked article -- Pat does a fantastic job at providing the
proper citations and links to all of the pertinent documents
concerning this topic. Excellent job on that, Pat.
It's just a shame that all of that research and source citing has been
wasted on something that is so totally unimportant and insignificant
as the two statements repeated below....which are statements that are,
in my opinion, not necessarily contradictory at all:
"SAME OBSERVABLE CHARACTERISTICS" and "FOUND NOT TO BE
IDENTICAL".
David Von Pein
September 2, 2009
aeffects
> www.MaryFerrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Docu...
>
> [Later...]
>
> MR. CADIGAN -- "This is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack
> similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School
> Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in
> Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit
> 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and
> they thought...it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask, "Did you see
> a bag like that?", so they went to the Texas School Book Depository
> and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag."
>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm
>
> As we can easily determine from the above testimony of James Cadigan,
> the paper sample that Vincent Drain refers to in his 11/29/63 FBI
> report is obviously NOT the "replica paper BAG" that was fashioned by
> the FBI two days AFTER Drain's report was written.
>
> Therefore, Drain's November 29th report MUST be referring to the
> sample of paper that was obtained on November 22nd, one week prior to
> Drain's report being completed.
>
> FOOTNOTE:
>
> I do want to give Patrick Speer ample credit for one thing in his
> above-linked article -- Pat does a fantastic job at providing the
> proper citations and links to all of the pertinent documents
> concerning this topic. Excellent job on that, Pat.
>
> It's just a shame that all of that research and source citing has been
> wasted on something that is so totally unimportant and insignificant
> as the two statements repeated below....which are statements that are,
> in my opinion, not necessarily contradictory at all:
>
> "SAME OBSERVABLE CHARACTERISTICS" and "FOUND NOT TO BE
> IDENTICAL".
>
> David Von Pein
> September 2, 2009
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
ever the endorser of nutter-troll liars, way to go DVP! Pat Speer
nailed old Vinnie.... Keep coming back!
David Von Pein
Speer can't even figure out which paper sample is which. The 11/29
report isn't talking about the replica "bag". It refers to something
else entirely.
Walt
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
> >An excellent article by Pat Speer:
>
>
> A devastating article.
>
> Just whack the LNT'ers over the head with the evidence... they run every time...
Ben, this article is way to difficult and confusing for the average
LNer to understand.....
Here's a much simpler idea that even an intellectually challenged LNer
should be able to comprehend..........
Near the end of Pat Speers article he ponders this:.....".As a
consequence, we are left to wonder...did the paper sample have the
"same observable characteristics" as the bag, or were the paper sample
and bag "found not to be identical"?
There is a memo that was written by Lt JC Day of the DPD who was the
lead dectective in the TSBD that afternoon. Day's memo details how
he and Roy Truly were walking on the sixth floor of the TSBD when
Day's trained eyes spotted a paper bag that was shaped like a gun
case. Day picked up the paper bag and turned to Roy Truly and
asked .."Have you ever seen this sack before?" Truly replied that he
did not recognize the bag that Lt. Day was holding out to him.
It's readily apparent that this bag was DIFFERENT than all of the
other paper bags that were scattered about in the TSBD. WHAT caught
Lt Day's trained eye and caused him to pick up that bag?? Was it the
difference in the paper? Was it the way the bag was folded? Or was
it some other distinguishing characteristic??
Day's memo on this incident says that he kept this bag in his personal
possession and never displayed it to anybody else. On that basis we
can know that the bag that Lt Day found is NOT the bag that was
photographed being carried from the TSBD by Detective LD Montgomery.
None of this clears up the mystery, or answers the many questions
surrounding the paper bag....BUT.... it damned sure makes it clear
that anybody who believes the Warren Commission's tale about the paper
bag is just a naive fool.
Walt
Hey Von Pea brain.... WHY is there so much confusion about the paper
bag?? Isn't it because the authorities CREATED that confusion?
David Von Pein
>>> "WHY is there so much confusion about the paper bag?? Isn't it because the authorities CREATED that confusion?" <<<
No, you kooks have created it.
Walt
> >>> "WHY is there so much confusion about the paper bag?? Isn't it because the authorities CREATED that confusion?" <<<
>
> No, you kooks have created it.
You know better than that..... Ct's never had a hand in creating this
controversy and you know it...even if you are too gutless to admit it.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5123f203d3fe4fd0
>>> "It is not I who holds that the two conflicting but identical reports on the paper bag are for two different bags, one being for the original bag and one for the bag created 12-1, it is your hero Bugliosi. This is absolutely clear from reading my article, where I include his thoroughly inaccurate statements regarding this conflict, whereby he tries to pass off the two conflicting documents found by Shaw as references to two different bags. Take off your Bugliosi-colored glasses for a second, will ya? Your hero screwed up big time, and totally embarrassed himself. (Feel free to add this to your list of his mistakes.)" <<<
You're wrong, Pat. You'd better re-read "Reclaiming History" endnote
pages 405 and 406 again, because you couldn't be more wrong on this
point.
Bugliosi made no mistake on this issue at all. And the quoted passages
that YOU, Pat Speer, included in your 4/13/09 article at Mary
Ferrell's website confirm this:
Bugliosi fully acknowledges that the FBI obtained paper samples from
the Book Depository on TWO separate days (11/22/63 and 12/1/63), and
Vince is most certainly NOT contending (in the book excerpts reprinted
below) that the NOVEMBER 22 paper samples were utilized by the FBI to
create the replica bag. In fact, Vince never mentions the replica BAG
at all in these "RH" book excerpts:
"One version [of Vincent Drain's 11/29/63 FBI report] stated
that paper samples obtained from the Depository shipping area on
November 22 were found to have the same observable characteristics as
the brown paper bag recovered from the sixth-floor sniper’s nest. A
second version said that the paper samples were found “not to be
identical” with the paper gun sack discovered at the scene of the
shooting. ....
"The two documents are no doubt examples of a misunderstanding
that was cleared up by the Warren Commission in early 1964. In a March
12, 1964, letter [linked below], Warren Commission general counsel J.
Lee Rankin asked FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to settle the two
ostensibly contradictory FBI reports. Rankin wrote, “We are in doubt.
Please submit a report...as to the tests made and the conclusions
drawn.” ....
www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=745104
"A week later, on March 19 [in a letter to Rankin which can be
seen in CE2723, linked below], Hoover responded that BOTH reports were
correct. The first report, dated January 7, 1964, referred to samples
obtained from the Depository on December 1, 1963 (nine days after the
assassination). By then, the shipping department had replaced its roll
of wrapping paper with a fresh roll, since the fall period was its
“heavy shipping season.” Consequently, the samples obtained by the FBI
in December did not match the characteristics of the paper bag found
on the day of the shooting.
"The second report, dated January 13, 1964, related to samples
taken from the Depository on November 22, the day of the
assassination. These samples were found to be “similar in color to
[the bag recovered from the sixth floor]” and were “similar in
appearance under ultraviolet fluorescence, as well as in microscopic
and all other observable physical characteristics.”" -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Pages 405-406 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(©2007)
CE2723 (Page 1):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0069b.htm
CE2723 (Page 2):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0070a.htm
>>> "Your suggestion that the two conflicting reports are really not in conflict is ludicrous. While you and I might say that something is not identical, but shared the same observable characteristics, and not be contradicting ourselves..." <<<
Yes, exactly. So what's your problem now, Pat? (Let's see...)
>>> "...the FBI uses precise wording. "Found not to be identical" indicates that the two bags did not match. "Has the same observable characteristics" is FBI-speak for saying that their tests are not specific like fingerprints or DNA, but that from what they can determine the paper could be from the same source." <<<
LOL.
OIC! If it's you and I talking about the VERY SAME matter, we would
"not be contradicting ourselves", but if it's the "FBI" doing the
talking, it becomes "FBI-speak" and suddenly the exact same words mean
something that IS contradictory in nature.
Brilliant, Pat!
You're REALLY digging deep to try and save yourself from embarrassment
now, I see. Maybe you should stop right now, while we can still see
the top of your head.
BTW, you're wrong (again) when you keep trying to assert that the
"revised" language in the 11/29/63 Vincent Drain report is referring
to "the two bags". The November 29th report (BOTH versions) is
referring to a small piece of sample paper (which can be seen in
CE677) that was taken from the Depository on November 22 (not December
1).
The 11/29/63 document is most certainly NOT referring to the paper
sample that was used by the FBI to create the replica "bag", with the
replica bag being viewable in CE364.
CE677:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0180b.htm
CE364:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0492b.htm
Pat Speer still seems to think that CE677 and CE364 are the same
thing. And Pat evidently also wants to believe that CE677 and CE364
were obtained on the very same DAY too. But they weren't. So Pat is
wrong.
>>> "BTW, it is not MY subjective impression that the reports are in conflict, and that the first one was officially "inaccurate", it is the determination of the FBI. .... If "not identical" and "same observable characteristics" were just two ways of saying the same thing, don't you think Hoover would know this? Wouldn't Shanklin have known this? .... The FBI changed documents...after the fact...and kept no record of the changes, and made no notations on the documents indicating they'd been changed. Deal with it." <<<
Then how did we ever find out about the change, if no records were
kept of the change? Somebody kept the initial Drain document,
otherwise we wouldn't even know of its existence.
Which brings up another point -- If the FBI was so determined to HIDE
the initial "not identical" version of Vincent Drain's report, then
why in the world didn't they see to it that the original document with
the words "found not to be identical" on it was destroyed? Were they
too lazy to rip up a piece of paper?
In the final analysis, it's quite obvious (to everybody except rabid
conspiracy theorists who want the FBI to be involved in a "cover-up"
of some kind) that the FBI replaced a poorly-worded page of one report
with a more-accurately-worded page of that same report. And James
Cadigan's Warren Commission testimony confirms this as well.
In fact, Cadigan even went a step further than the "corrected" FBI/
Drain document, because Cadigan said that the 11/22/63 paper sample
(not the 12/1/63 sample, keep in mind) was, indeed, "identical" in
appearance to CE142 (the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest):
MR. EISENBERG -- "In all these cases, did you make the examination
both of the tape and the paper in each of the bag and the sample
[referring here to CE677, not CE364]?"
MR. CADIGAN -- "Oh, yes."
MR. EISENBERG -- "And they were all identical?"
MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes."
-----------------
RE: VINCENT DRAIN'S MEMORY CONCERNING THE TWO "CD5; PG. 129"
DOCUMENTS:
If FBI agent Vincent Drain was correct about what he said to Earl Golz
in 1980 (with Drain apparently telling Golz that the ORIGINAL document
was the version with the words "same observable characteristics" in
it, and that the version of his report which said "found not to be
identical" was a "fake"), then we are left to believe something that
is completely ridiculous on its face -- i.e., we're left to believe
that the FBI decided to create a fake version of the document, but
they then decided NOT TO USE that "fake" document in their final
report.
Via such a ludicrous scenario concerning the musical FBI reports, the
FBI decided that Drain's ORIGINAL version of the document (which
included the words "same observable characteristics") would then be
the FINAL and "official" version of that document after all.
So, if the commonly-held belief of many conspiracy theorists is
correct about how the FBI was attempting to paint Lee Harvey Oswald as
the sole assassin of President Kennedy, then why in the world would
the FBI have wanted to create a FAKE DOCUMENT which said that the
sample paper taken from the TSBD was "not identical" to that of the
paper bag that the same FBI has linked to Oswald? That makes
absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Vincent Drain's remarks to Earl Golz in 1980 only serve to demonstrate
that Mr. Drain's memory was almost certainly a bit fuzzy and faulty
when trying to recall the events from 17 years earlier.
I have no idea why Drain wrote "found not to be identical" in what was
quite obviously the "original" version of his 11/29/63 FBI report (and
is a conclusion that is completely the opposite of what the FBI's
James Cadigan told the Warren Commission about the 11/22/63 paper
sample).
I guess that's a mystery that will likely never be solved.
CLOSING NOTE FOR PAT SPEER:
You, Mr. Speer, are doing what all desperate conspiracy theorists do
every day of lives -- you're reaching deep into the Chaff Pool for ANY
sign of "conspiracy" and/or "cover-up" that you can latch onto. And,
as usual, you end up looking silly when some common sense is applied
to your "findings" (just as Vincent Bugliosi makes you look silly via
the book excerpts I cited above).
You, of course, will pretend to not realize you're wrong regarding
this matter (probably because you spent a lot of time researching this
Jack White/Gary Shaw hunk of nonsense concerning the two different FBI
reports for your Mary Ferrell article).
And you, Pat, will also pretend to not realize that I'm right when I
corrected you about Vincent Bugliosi's comments on this topic -- i.e.,
you'll probably still say that Bugliosi was talking about the replica
BAG on pages 405 and 406 of "RH" endnotes, even though Vince doesn't
say the words "REPLICA BAG" or "RE-CREATED BAG" (or something similar)
one single time on those pages at all.
But regardless of your protestations, you will continue to be
incorrect on this matter, Pat.
Deal with it.
David Von Pein
September 3, 2009
David Von Pein
>>> "The original version of the 11-29 document was not discovered until 1977." <<<
Right. But the SECOND conflict (the one that arose in January 1964),
as another poster ("ShutterBun") has rightly pointed out, goes to the
EXACT SAME CONFLICT as the first conflict (with the first conflict,
chronologically, being the Vincent Drain documents dated 11/29/63).
It's the exact same discrepancy -- i.e., it's a conflict which raises
the question that J. Lee Rankin and the Warren Commission wanted
cleared up by the FBI in March 1964: DID CE142 GENERALLY MATCH OR NOT
MATCH THE TWO SEPARATE PAPER SAMPLES?
And Vincent Bugliosi is obviously talking about the FIRST discrepancy
when he uses the exact verbiage from Drain's original (inaccurate)
version -- "not to be identical".
Yes, Mr. Bugliosi then does switch to talking about the January 7 and
January 13 version of the conflict. But it's really ALL THE SAME
THING, which (as VB rightly points out) was cleared up via CE2723 (J.
Edgar Hoover's letter to the WC):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0069b.htm
You, Pat, probably think that Vince Bugliosi was not being totally
above-board and honest because Vince didn't say something like I said
in my last post...right, Pat?
You think Vince should have said something akin to this:
"I have no idea why [Vincent] Drain wrote "found not to be
identical" in what was quite obviously the "original" version of his
11/29/63 FBI report (and is a conclusion that is completely the
opposite of what the FBI's James Cadigan told the Warren Commission
about the 11/22/63 paper sample). I guess that's a mystery that will
likely never be solved." -- DVP; 09/03/09
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1114cd384b8d3d72
Well, you're right, Bugliosi didn't say anything like that on endnote
pages 405 and 406 of "Reclaiming History". So, if you want to call Mr.
Bugliosi a liar and a cheat for not having done so--go ahead.
But in the FINAL ANALYSIS when examining this issue concerning the two
conflicting FBI reports relating to the paper samples and CE142 (the
Sniper's-Nest paper bag), Vincent Bugliosi, in my opinion, cleared up
the "mystery" very nicely. YMMV.
And, BTW Pat, you're still wrong because you seem to think that
Bugliosi was talking ONLY about the second FBI paper sample (the
12/1/63 sample) during VB's entire endnote on pages 405 and 406 of his
book. But he was most certainly talking about the TWO different FBI
paper samples in that endnote.
David Von Pein
September 4, 2009