Challenge # 3 to Buffs

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

There's no evidence that the Depository rifle was the one received in early
1963. All of the documentation--no exceptions--clearly refers to a 36 inch
carbine, whereas the Depository rifle was a 40 inch rifle.

Martin

Brandon Alexander wrote:

> Well, challenge # 2 is still out there, if anyone can deal with it.
>
> Challenge # 3: Oswald was using the alias "A. J. Hidell," and he ordered
> the rifle and the handgun in that name and received them at his PO Box.
> Can any buff refute that?
>
> Al.


Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Brandon Alexander <compo...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Well, challenge # 2 is still out there, if anyone can deal with it.

>Challenge # 3: Oswald was using the alias "A. J. Hidell," and he ordered
>the rifle and the handgun in that name and received them at his PO Box.
>Can any buff refute that?

>Al.
Counter-point:
Was there another A J Hidell in New Orleans? Yes.

Was the post office box still in LHO's name or closed? Closed.

Did the serial number on both weapons match the alleged weapons? No.
AMKW


Cuco del Norte

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Probably no buff can. But some thoroughly non-buffs did a year an a
half ago, man. See Oswald Talked, p. 169. The post office was
required to keep receipts for delivery of firearms for four years.
There was no receipt for delivery of firearms to Oswald or Hidell.

Cuco says check it out, man.
Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:

>There's no evidence that the Depository rifle was the one received in early
>1963. All of the documentation--no exceptions--clearly refers to a 36 inch
>carbine, whereas the Depository rifle was a 40 inch rifle.
>
>Martin
>

Howard Rogers

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Brandon, I have to ask: what's the point of this little ego trip (I mean
this 'series of challenges')? The particular issue you raise in this
'challenge' was just recently done to death here, and very informative it
turned out, too.

Even Mr McAdams will tell you that one of these packages was NOT received at
the PO Box, but had to be collected from the carriers (from memory, I think
this is the handgun).

I will then tell you that he did not necessarily order either the rifle or
the handgun. Again, as far as I can remember from the earlier thread, the
order forms for both items have handwriting on them which has been stated to
be Oswald's, by handwriting experts. But Walt Cakebread told me that in at
least one instance, the handwriting is PRINTED -ie, all uppercase stuff, and
I find it difficult to believe (as did Walt) that an unambiguous
identification of the author can be done from such a sample. Besides which,
key parts of the documentary evidence regarding who *else* was authorised to
receive post at the PO Box is missing.

Anyway, the point is: your agenda in this series of posts is quite clear,
and I'm not knocking you for holding your beliefs. But when you raise an
issue which has been the subject of a huge quantity of informative and
lively debate within the last four weeks, I think you are (sorry to say)
just wasting bandwidth (and everyone else's time).

Regards
HJR

Brandon Alexander wrote in message <343F12...@earthlink.net>...

Blackburst

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

>when you raise an
>issue which has been the subject of a huge quantity of informative and
>lively debate within the last four weeks, I think you are (sorry to say)
>just wasting bandwidth (and everyone else's time).

I disagree. I think it's healthy to debate these things. Not everybody can read
every thread, every post. The idea of posing a potential stumper to those who
have different points of view is a legit one.

We have no consensus on a lot of this stuff. Neither point of view is without
it's inconsistencies of logic, and it's good to zero in on them and fight them
out. There may not be any winners, but all of this serves to focus the debate
and bring us closer to "the truth".

I've made no secret of the fact that I am a passionate centerist on much of
this, and I welcome the intellectual stimulation, in the pursuit of justice.

Let's stop criticizing each other's motives or intellect and try to hammer this
stuff into a form that makes sense.

oo
David

russ_burr

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

In article <19971013061...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, black...@aol.com
says...

David, I couldn't agree more with what you say. There are a lot of folks in this
NG who enjoy the debate simply for the sheer intellectual satisfaction of
learning more about the case. I always thought the purpose of the this NG was to
exchange ideas from any perspective as a means of bringing us a little closer to
the truth. And also to have a little fun in the process:-)

Russ

David Dix

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to


Howard Rogers wrote:

> Russ Burr wrote in message <61tj12$6...@drn.zippo.com>...


> >In article <19971013061...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> black...@aol.com
> >says...
> >>
> >>>when you raise an
> >>>issue which has been the subject of a huge quantity of informative and
> >>>lively debate within the last four weeks, I think you are (sorry to say)
> >>>just wasting bandwidth (and everyone else's time).
> >>
> >>I disagree. I think it's healthy to debate these things.
>

> Agreed ... and this issue has been, just recently.


>
> Not everybody can read
> >> every thread, every post. The idea of posing a potential stumper to those
> who
> >> have different points of view is a legit one.
> >>
> >>We have no consensus on a lot of this stuff. Neither point of view is
> without
> >> it's inconsistencies of logic, and it's good to zero in on them and fight
> them
> >> out. There may not be any winners, but all of this serves to focus the
> debate
> >> and bring us closer to "the truth".
> >>
> >>I've made no secret of the fact that I am a passionate centerist on much
> of
> >> this, and I welcome the intellectual stimulation, in the pursuit of
> justice.
> >>
> >>Let's stop criticizing each other's motives or intellect and try to hammer
> this
> >> stuff into a form that makes sense.
>

> Motives or intellect were not the issue. The fact of re-doing that which
> has only just been done was my point. I'm all in favour of 'potential
> stumpers' - just not one that hasn't stumped anybody in just the past few
> weeks.
>
> Still, I'm obviously in a minority on this one, so I shall gracefully
> withdraw my prior objections, and enjoy the show.
>
> Regards
> HJR


>
> >>
> >>oo
> >>David
> >
> >David, I couldn't agree more with what you say. There are a lot of folks in
> this
> >NG who enjoy the debate simply for the sheer intellectual satisfaction of
> >learning more about the case. I always thought the purpose of the this NG
> was to
> >exchange ideas from any perspective as a means of bringing us a little
> closer to
> >the truth. And also to have a little fun in the process:-)
> >
> >Russ

It's rough democracy on the electronic new frontier. Like all processes, 90%
heat and damned poor light to read by .You always have the ability and the
right, thank the gods, to daydream and not listen to the other guy at all. I
always read John McA, even his idiotic reposts; I never pass up Barb, Tracy,
James, Tony or you; I would be an absolute fool not to read Cakebread or White
and I like -- hell wuith I read almost everyone who posts here. Beck is the
only one I never read and am careful with Stager. It's my choice. There are a
lot of people in the NG who wish it were not so open; fuck 'em. Fuck their
elitism, their arrogance and their beliefs in their omnipotence. They type one
key at time, just like the rest of us.

Dix


Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

Howard Rogers wrote:
>
>
> Not everybody can read
> >> every thread, every post.

For example, I missed your original post. What did it say?

Al.

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

Russ, Burr wrote:

> There are a lot of folks in this
> NG who enjoy the debate simply for the sheer intellectual satisfaction of
> learning more about the case. I always thought the purpose of the this NG was to
> exchange ideas from any perspective as a means of bringing us a little closer to
> the truth. And also to have a little fun in the process:-)
>
> Russ

Russ,

This is why I started these "challenges." My hope was that some of the
people who continually post faulty information will discover that it's
faulty, and I wanted to do it in a way that was not demeaning. But it
could be a long time before that goal is accomplished. There is a quite
unintellectual contingent around this NG, as I am finding out, who don't
seem to be interested in the truth. Of course, that's always been true
in the public arena, too.

Al.

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

Cuco del Norte wrote:
>
> Probably no buff can. But some thoroughly non-buffs did a year an a
> half ago, man. See Oswald Talked, p. 169. The post office was
> required to keep receipts for delivery of firearms for four years.
> There was no receipt for delivery of firearms to Oswald or Hidell.
>
> Cuco says check it out, man.

Yes, I have checked this subject out and this is what I've found:

1. Oswald rented the PO Box 2915 in 1962.
2. Oswald ordered the rifle and pistol under the assumed name of A.
Hidell (for which name he had created faked ID cards) and had them sent
to the PO Box 2915. They were both shipped out to the PO Box by
coincidence on March 20, 1963.
3. Oswald had Marina take pictures of him with the rifle and pistol,
holding a copy of the March 11 Militant and the March 24 Worker, on
March, 31, 1963.
4. The rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD and the pistol was
on Oswald when he was arrested.

Now tell me, does the fact (if it is a fact) that the Post Office cannot
show some kind of receipt negate all this? Hardly. Do you really think
all these things occurred, which make no mistake about it, they did, but
somehow Oswald did not receive the rifle? Of course he received it. That
is exactly what CE 133-A shows us. How in the world can you believe (if
you do) that Oswald didn't receive the rifle when we have pictures of
him, taken with his own camera, by his own wife, holding it? OIC, the
photos were faked. Sheesh. Come on. Those photos are not faked. If they
were, the FBI would have been the first to step up and say it, because
they bungled Oswald's case (in their eyes) and would have been pleased
to prove he didn't do it.

If there is any of this that seems doubtful to you, read the WC's 26
volumes of testimony and exhibits. It's all there. These facts I point
are not just what I say, they are a matter of record for anyone to check
out. "Oswald Talked" is another book by authors, "buffs," who are not
interested in telling the truth so much as they are selling books.

Al.

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:
>
> There's no evidence that the Depository rifle was the one received in early
> 1963. All of the documentation--no exceptions--clearly refers to a 36 inch
> carbine, whereas the Depository rifle was a 40 inch rifle.
>
> Martin
>
> Brandon Alexander wrote:
>
> > Well, challenge # 2 is still out there, if anyone can deal with it.
> >
> > Challenge # 3: Oswald was using the alias "A. J. Hidell," and he ordered
> > the rifle and the handgun in that name and received them at his PO Box.
> > Can any buff refute that?
> >
> > Al.

This is sadly another example of how buffs have to use twisted thought
patterns in order to weave the web of conspiracy which does not exist.
The challenge was whether or not he ordered and received the rifle and
pistol under the name "Hidell." Instead, you want to focus on some
theory about the "depository rifle" being different. The serial number
debunks all that.

Now, I know that Lane or Garrison or somebody claims that there was more
than one rifle issued with that serial number. Even if that's true, why
would someone switch the rifles and use for the switch a rifle with the
same serial number as Oswald's? OIC, to frame Oswald. No. There wouldn't
need to be a switch if the numbers were the same. And what happened to
Oswald's rifle? If it wasn't the one found in the TSBD, the one with his
rifle's serial number on it, what happened to it? How come no one has
ever produced it? OIC. The DPD, or the FBI, or the CIA, or the Mafia, or
the Cubans or whomever else you include in this conspiracy took it. Come
on.

And none of this answers the challenge. Did he or did he not order and
receive a rifle, any rifle, and a pistol, under an assumed name? If you
can refute that do so.

BTW, what documentation are you referring to?

Al.


Al.

Joe

unread,
Oct 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/15/97
to

In article <34441A...@earthlink.net>, compo...@earthlink.net says...

How in the world can you believe (if
>you do) that Oswald didn't receive the rifle when we have pictures of
>him, taken with his own camera, by his own wife, holding it? OIC, the
>photos were faked. Sheesh. Come on. Those photos are not faked. If they
>were, the FBI would have been the first to step up and say it, because
>they bungled Oswald's case (in their eyes) and would have been pleased
>to prove he didn't do it.
>
You mean there's still someone in this world who thinks the backyard photos are
authentic? That strains all credibility. Consider: In all *three* backyard
poses, "Oswald" has the same facial expression, despite changing his
bodily pose, moving the rifle and magazines three times. It is the same facial
photo, folks, grafted onto three different body poses. Who cannot see this? Try
taking three different pictures of a person and getting *no* difference in the
faces. Sheesh. It's state-of-the-art photo-compositing for 1963, but fakery
nonetheless.


Tracy Riddle

unread,
Oct 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/15/97
to

There are numerous "experts" who have claimed the photos are genuine,
but anybody with two good eyes can see that they're not. The shadows are
the biggest problem, and every time I bring them up on this NG, the
lone-nutters start rattling on about vanishing point analysis and
railroad tracks. All you have to do is stand outside at high noon and
see for yourself that all of your shadows will go in the same direction.

Tracy

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Oct 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/15/97
to

Al:

Don't get too tangled up in superior comments about "twisted
thought patterns."
I don't know if it was Oswald who ordered the weapons or not.
They were ordered using the name Hidell. Marina did confirm then, and
still does today, that he owned a rifle and pistol in the Spring of
1963.
That all of the documentation refers to a 36 in. carbine (the
documentation is in the Warren Commission volumes, by the way), and that
the Depository weapon was a 40 inch rifle is fact. You say "the serial
number debunks all that," but this is nonsense, as the serial numbers
were not exclusive--this isn't some Lane or Garrison theory, as you
suggest. It was confirmed in Henry Bloomgarten's book The Gun, in U.S.
government reports on Italian weapons manufacture, and elsewhere--each
factory did its own numbering, they weren't coordinated. Historian
Michael Kurtz has a Carcano with the same serial number, C2766.
I don't think the weapons were "switched." I think the rifle
passed out of Oswald's possession in New Orleans, perhaps along with two
others he was reportedly in possession of when he was evicted from
Magazine Street. There is no evidence of a weapon in the Paine garage,
though its presence was assumed by Marina.
My guess is that someone had access to a record of the serial
number, but didn't realize there were two models of Carcano, and forged
the serial number on the wrong model.
Maybe Kurtz, or some other collector, unknowingly possesses
the original Oswald weapon.

Martin


Tony Pitman

unread,
Oct 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/16/97
to

Blackburst wrote:

> >when you raise an
> >issue which has been the subject of a huge quantity of informative
> and
> >lively debate within the last four weeks, I think you are (sorry to
> say)
> >just wasting bandwidth (and everyone else's time).
>

> I disagree. I think it's healthy to debate these things. Not everybody
> can read


> every thread, every post. The idea of posing a potential stumper to
> those who
> have different points of view is a legit one.
>
> We have no consensus on a lot of this stuff. Neither point of view is
> without
> it's inconsistencies of logic, and it's good to zero in on them and
> fight them
> out. There may not be any winners, but all of this serves to focus
> the debate
> and bring us closer to "the truth".
>
> I've made no secret of the fact that I am a passionate centerist on
> much of
> this, and I welcome the intellectual stimulation, in the pursuit of
> justice.
>
> Let's stop criticizing each other's motives or intellect and try to
> hammer this
> stuff into a form that makes sense.
>

> oo
> David


My sentiments exactly David. Hear Hear.


Joe

unread,
Oct 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/16/97
to

Does anyone know the details about an identical Manlicher-Carcano that was
abandoned in a hotel room in Putnamville, Ind. (near Terre Haute) within a
couple days of the assassination?

Joe W.


Tony Pitman

unread,
Oct 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/16/97
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:


Yes and besides the obvious anomallies in the backyard photos, the
rifle sling looks to be different to that of the TSBD rifle and so does
the forward sling mount.
I wonder if it's possible for Jack or some photography expert to
measure the length of the rifle from the photos to determine whether it
is 36 ins or 40.5 ins.

Tony


Martin Shackelford

unread,
Oct 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/17/97
to

Al:

Maybe DeMohrenschildt was involved in the faking, and the photo he
kept was a souvenier of sorts.
If Marina took the photos "like she said she did," they wouldn't
show the stairs against she has said she steadied herself while taking
them. They were behind her. As I heard her give this account several
years ago in Dallas, I wonder what you can cite that's better than the
account of the photographer herself.

Martin


Martin Shackelford

unread,
Oct 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/17/97
to

Tony: In measuring the length, the angle at which the rifle is being held
needs to be taken into account. Unless it's straight-on to the camera, it
will measure as shorter than it actually is. If Oswald owned a 36 inch
carbine, and the photos put a 40 inch rifle in his hands, that in itself
raises some questions.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Oct 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/18/97
to

Al:

The documentation I'm referring to, which I thought was obvious, is
the ad, the order form, and the shipping invoice, all in the Warren
volumes.
As for the government report on Italian weapons factories, I don't
have the cite handy. Maybe someone else on the group can provide it--as
I recall it was an FBI report, but I could be wrong about that--it has
been a long time since I read it.
Evidence the blanket was in the garage isn't evidence the rifle
was there. Michael Paine DID examine the blanket, and drew a sketch of
what he thought was inside it--looked to me like a folding camp shovel.
The information on other rifles is contained in a New Orleans
newspaper column--the columnist interviewed the bailiff who evicted the
Oswalds. The whole story is in Michael Benson's book.
What isn't a guess:
The ad shows the order codes for Carcanos.
Oswald's order form has the code for the 36 inch carbine.
The shipping invoice identifies the weapon shipped as the 36 inch
carbine, with the correct catalog order number.
So how does any of this, a series of documents fully consistent with
each other and all identifying a 36 inch carbine model, show that Oswald
ordered and received a 40 inch rifle?

Martin


Tony Pitman

unread,
Oct 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/19/97
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:

> Tony: In measuring the length, the angle at which the rifle is being
> held
> needs to be taken into account. Unless it's straight-on to the camera,
> it
> will measure as shorter than it actually is. If Oswald owned a 36 inch
>
> carbine, and the photos put a 40 inch rifle in his hands, that in
> itself
> raises some questions.
>
> Martin

Yes Martin. I'm aware of the effect of angles when things are
reduced to 2D. I design yachts part time. Fast ones if anyone is
interested .
There is a method of taking that into account though I think. I know
virtually nothing of photography but I believe you would need to work
from other objects in the photo which have known measurements and other
things which have a known angle.

Tony


Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/20/97
to

Joe wrote:

>
> Yes, as a matter of fact, I am a photography expert. I work on the photo desk
> of one the 20 largest newspapers in America
>
> But no matter. Anybody who bolsters their argument by saying "the FBI says so"
> isn't ready for a sophisticated argument, so I'll keep it simple and refer back
> to my original point; The face is the same in all three known photographs.

The "FBI says so" is not what I said. The FBI happens to be a
"sophisticated" agency, with at least a modicum of ability to get the
most recent technology and to have the means to conduct a thorough
photographic investigation. That is what I am saying, and that is what I
believe. You do, however, need to keep it simple with me, and I will try
to keep it simple for you. My preference between my eyes, your photodesk
expertise, and the FBI laboratories, is the latter. Have you studied the
negatives and original photos? Of course you haven't, but the FBI has.

That the "face is the same in all three known photographs" is at once
erroneous and scurrilous. First, it's erroneous to say "face is the
same" because that's the one thing I believe the naked eye can
discern...that LHO has three different expressions in the three photos.
However that is my unprofessional opinion. Regardlessly, for you to say
that they are categorically the same is erroneous, because you have no
proof of that. This is just an opinion. Also, the two original negatives
would have to contain these faked elements, would they not? If not, the
negatives we have should show the "original person in the photograph."
If so, the faker left this masterpiece of photography in the Paine's
house, risking that they would be found, which of course, they were.
Simply put, all this makes no sense for a conspirator trying to frame
Oswald. Someone trying to frame Oswald would have made more than two
negatives and certainly would not have let him have the only two
negatives not knowing what he might do with them.

Regardless of this, second, the statement is also scurrilous because you
have to define what "the same" means. If they are "the same," if someone
doctored these photos to implicate Oswald, why would they do that with
all the other evidence available? So what if these photos are phonies?
So what if these "conspirators" had determined that they needed to fake
this photographic evidence to frame LHO? They were wrong. All the other
evidence against LHO is just as or more persuasive. Why would
conspirators fake photographs when some expert could just come in and
detect that they did it, or worse still, some buff could come in and try
to discredit their authenticity the way you are trying to do?

Just
> try to take three photos with three radically different body poses and end up
> with three identical faces. Yeah, you can do it--if you use a motor drive and
> the subject deliberately holds his face unnaturally rigid. Otherwise, it's
> utterly impossible.
>
> Consider the scene. This fellow is supposedly in his backyard showing off his
> rifle and his radical literature, and even as he's shifting his weight and
> moving the gun and magazines from one arm to the other, do you think he's
> reminding himself: "Hold your head absolutely rigid, Lee. Don't deviate one
> centimeter, even as you twist your body."? Forget the FBI and the conflicting
> opinions and just look at the pictures, friend. Yes, a good darkroom artist can
> make a fake look real--but can he make a real series of three poses look so
> utterly fake? Try it yourself.

You see, I disagree that the poses are the same and futher suggest these
photos should not be examined by the naked eye of someone like you or
myself. I would put more veracity in the FBI's ability to examine the
photos than I would my own. On the other hand, again, I see three
different facial expressions on Oswald in the three photos. But that is
just my inexpert opinion. An expert's opinion is more reliable.

We cannot make judgements, if we are to get at the truth, about whether
or not they look fake. There are many photos of Oswald that look fake.
It doesn't mean they are or are not fakes. My question to you here would
be, have you ever seen the re-touched prints that Time magazine made?
Those really are fakes of a sort. Fakes not because someone is trying to
cover up an assassination plot, but because the magazine simply cropped
them and re-touched the barrel, etc., because they didn't have the
original negatives. And if you've not seen these photos (if you think
you haven't you probably have and don't realize it) let me tell you,
they really look fake. That's why we cannot go by our own eyes when we
are not even that sure of what we are looking at, and have not the
expertise to determine anything even if we were.

>
> And I may have missed it here (or elsewhere), but I've never heard anyone
> explain how in 1963 a Dallas policeman was able to re-enact a backyard pose
> from a third photo that wasn't unearthed until DeMohrenschildt "found" it
> several years later.

You did miss this. Again your statement is in error. The photo that Mr.
& Mrs. DeM found didn't contain that pose. Theirs was identical to
133-A. And, BTW, that has been explained. A Dallas policeman, Roscoe
White, had the photograph, but the WC did not.

>
> As a professional photo processor and retoucher, I say everything about the
> backyard photos stinks. But you don't have to be a professional to see that the
> same head is composited on all three poses. Reality doesn't look like that.

Again, I am not a professional photographer and I think they are
different. Tell me, since you are a pro, how do you explain the posts in
the background of 133-A and the would-be 133-C? They don't match up to
Oswald's hairline. IOW, if someone faked these photos, how did they
manage to get the posts lined up so differently, and why would they
knowing that anyone could find this mistake? BTW, in 133-B Oswald's head
is between the posts. Now if one is faked they are all faked, so why
would anyone sophisticated enough to fake these photos risk the
possibility that someone like me, who is no expert, would spot that?

What really continues to bother me about what you are saying is, this
kind of statement; "But you don't have to be a professional to see that
the same head is composited on all three poses." My opinion is that it
does take a professional to determine this accurately. And this debate
should show you that. Your opinion vs. mine. Why not forget both of ours
and look at what a bona fide FBI expert has said?

BTW, why do you think th FBI would lie about this matter? Did they fake
the photos? What possible motive could they have for saying the photos
are genuine if they were faked? Sheesh. And if you believe the FBI is
stupid enough to lie about these photos to cover up their own or
somebody's plot to kill the President at the risk of being found out by
someone's naked eye (as you suggest you can detect that the photos are
fake), I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'll give you a good price on.
Sheesh.

Al.

jack white

unread,
Oct 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/20/97
to

Brandon Alexander wrote:
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, as a matter of fact, I am a photography expert. I work on the photo desk
> > of one the 20 largest newspapers in America
> >
> > But no matter. Anybody who bolsters their argument by saying "the FBI says so"
> > isn't ready for a sophisticated argument, so I'll keep it simple and refer back
> > to my original point; The face is the same in all three known photographs.
>
> The "FBI says so" is not what I said. The FBI happens to be a
> "sophisticated" agency, with at least a modicum of ability to get the
> most recent technology and to have the means to conduct a thorough
> photographic investigation.


THE FBI WAS CONDUCTING A COVERUP, NOT AN INVESTIGATION.


That is what I am saying, and that is what I
> believe. You do, however, need to keep it simple with me, and I will try
> to keep it simple for you. My preference between my eyes, your photodesk
> expertise, and the FBI laboratories, is the latter.


SO, YOU ARE UNAWARE OF THE FBI ROLE IN COVERUP AND FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE?


Have you studied the
> negatives and original photos? Of course you haven't


YES, I HAVE HELD THE ACTUAL SNAPSHOT PRINTS IN MY HAND. FEW HAVE.

, but the FBI has.
>
> That the "face is the same in all three known photographs" is at once
> erroneous and scurrilous.


YOU EVIDENTLY HAVE NEVER EXAMINED THE PHOTOS CAREFULLY.

First, it's erroneous to say "face is the
> same" because that's the one thing I believe the naked eye can
> discern...that LHO has three different expressions in the three photos.


HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF PHOTO RETOUCHING? THE **EXPRESSIONS** ARE OBVIOUSLY THE RESULT
OF RETOUCHING. I AM AN EXPERT ON PHOTO RETOUCHING...ARE YOU?

> However that is my unprofessional opinion. Regardlessly, for you to say
> that they are categorically the same is erroneous, because you have no
> proof of that.


I HAVE DOZENS OF PROOFS OF FABRICATION. YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN MY SLIDE PRESENTATION NOR
MY VIDEO **FAKE**.


This is just an opinion. Also, the two original negatives
> would have to contain these faked elements, would they not? If not, the
> negatives we have should show the "original person in the photograph."
> If so, the faker left this masterpiece of photography in the Paine's
> house,


THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS. IN FACT, THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY.


risking that they would be found, which of course, they were.
> Simply put, all this makes no sense for a conspirator trying to frame
> Oswald. Someone trying to frame Oswald would have made more than two
> negatives and certainly would not have let him have the only two
> negatives not knowing what he might do with them.


HOW CAN YOU KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE MINDS OF THE CONSPIRATORS AND PHOTO FABRICATORS?

>
> Regardless of this, second, the statement is also scurrilous because you
> have to define what "the same" means. If they are "the same," if someone
> doctored these photos to implicate Oswald, why would they do that with
> all the other evidence available?


ASK THE CIA. IT IS OVERKILL, AS YOU OBSERVE. IF THEY HAD ONLY FAKED ONE PHOTO, THE
FAKERY MAY HAVE GONE UNDETECTED...BUT THE MULTIPLE PHOTOS HELP PROVE THEY ARE ALL
FAKES AND HAVE THE SAME EXACT BACKGROUND.

So what if these photos are phonies?


IT MEANS SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO IMPLICATE LHO.

> So what if these "conspirators" had determined that they needed to fake
> this photographic evidence to frame LHO? They were wrong. All the other
> evidence against LHO is just as or more persuasive.


YOU ARE ACCUSING THE CIA OF INCOMPETENCE. YOU PROBABLY ARE CORRECT.

BUT ON MOST OF YOUR WEAK POINTS, YOU NEED TO DO SOME STUDYING.

JACK WHITE

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to

Al:

Bloomgarten's book The Gun may identify the report (it is not a
"buff" book, by the way, in case you wondered).
If the rifle wasn't in the blanket, but Marina thought it was, the
points you note don't mean much. It's not difficult to understand, just
difficult to accept Marina's assumption as evidence. Wesley Liebeler
conceded in a staff memo that there was no evidence the rifle was ever
in the garage. Even Priscilla Johnson MacMillan (Marina and Lee) only
says the rifle "almost
certainly" was in the blanket, but mentions that the Paines were under
the impression the blanket contained camping gear, which is consistent
with Michael's sketch.
Michael Paine's sketch was published by the Warren Commission as
Paine Exhibit One. It has been largely ignored, but was included in Ross
Ralston's self-published 1975 book History's Verdict.
Eviction: New Orleans Times-Picayune columnist Angus Lind did a
1991 interview with former deputy constable Charlie Kertz, described as
the man who evicted Oswald from his apartment at 4907 Magazine Street.
He recalled it as unusual, because it was done on a Friday afternoon. In
the process of moving things out, he and his colleague opened a closet
and found three rifles inside. Underneath a pile of paperbacks were two
handguns. (Michael Benson, Who's Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 235).
The ad: Reviewing ads collected by Gary Nivaggi, who has
published a collection of ALL published U.S. gun magazine ads for the
Mannlicher-Carcano during this period, we find the ad most often cited,
and a DIFFERENT ad from which the Oswald coupon was taken. Both use the
same picture, though the models are different, which adds to the
confusion. Note that the order numbers are coded to the magazine.
1) Oft-cited ad: "6.5 Italian Carbine. Late military issue. Only 40"
overall," etc.,
for $12.78. Then note the order numbers:
C20-1196 for the rifle described
C20-750 for "Carbine with 4x brand-new scope 3/4 in. diameter
(illustrated) $19.95
E20-751 6.5 mm Italian military ammo, 108 rounds (6 shot clip
free) $7.50
2) Ad from which the coupon was clipped:"Late Issue: 6.5 Italian
Carbine. Only 36"
overall" etc. ["How long the rifle is is not mentioned in either
place" you say?]
C20-T1196 Specially Priced $12.88
C20-T750 Carbine with brand-new good quality 4x scope...as
illustrated. $19.95
E20-T751 6.5 mm Italian military ammo with free six-shot clip.
108 rounds $7.50
Which ad Oswald used becomes even clearer from the order blank, which
gives the order number as C20-T750, and the price as $19.95. Note that
in BOTH ads, this is the carbine with the scope, not the rifle, which
isn't even offered in the second ad.
But maybe, you might say, they shipped the wrong weapon to him, so
we had better look at the shipping invoice from Klein's, too. Here's
what it says:
"C20-T750 Italian Carbine 6.5 w. 4x scope $19.95" It also, of
course, gives the
serial number, C2766, the serial number for a Mannlicher-Carcano
carbine. I'm not sure why you think the catalog number C20-T749 is on
any of the Oswald documents--it isn't.
Whether it's on another document from Klein's doesn't tell us much. The
shipping invoice clearly identifies the order number, which the ad
identifies as a 36 inch carbine. Thanks for sending me back to re-check
the documents.
Unless the weapon grew by four inches, the fact that the two
weapons had the same serial number is more a cause for suspicion than
certainty.

Martin


Howard Rogers

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to

Brandon, I've been down this route before, but I'll say it again: there's
very little in this life that is indisputably "fact". Those things which
are facts are usually highly trivial ("Kennedy got shot"). Get much more
beneath the surface than that, and everything is up for grabs and
interpretation -and opoinions start to count.

I'm not going to deal with all the issues you raise, because frankly, the
tone you've used in initiating this series of threads leads me to believe
that you already have your mind made up.

But I will say this. No I am not a handwriting expert. Yes, the HSCA et al
employed experts who testified that the handwriting was Oswald's. And yes,
I'll bet that I could lay hands on at least half-a-dozen similarly qualified
experts worldwide who would testify the opposite. So much for facts:
handwriting analysis is a matter of opinion as much as anything else.
Unless you've got a video or cine movie of Oswald actually writing the damn
things, please don't tell me that the issue is beyond dispute.

Regards
HJR

Brandon Alexander wrote in message <3447E4...@earthlink.net>...
>Howard Rogers wrote:
>>
>> Brandon Alexander wrote in message <3443D1...@earthlink.net>...


>> >Howard Rogers wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not everybody can read
>> >> >> every thread, every post.
>> >

>> >For example, I missed your original post. What did it say?
>> >
>> >Al.
>>

>> Just that I didn't understand why you posted this particular challenge
>> (about the rifle etc), given that it had only recently been discussed at
>> length in a thread about three weeks ago.
>>
>> From memory, it transpired that Oswald would never have received the
rifle
>> at the PO Box (Mr McAdams stated that he would have had to collect it
from
>> the shippers, which seems about right). It also transpired that the
>> evidence that "Hidell" ordered these weapons, and which is stated to be
in
>> Oswald's handwriting, is all in uppercase script -and I find it hard to
>> believe that an unambiguous identification of Oswald as the author of
those
>> orders can be made in such circumstances. It further transpired that the
PO
>> documents (which should have been kept and been available) showing who
>> *else* was entitled to receive post at Oswald's PO Box were 'lost' or
>> otherwise unavailable, and that there is therefore no way of proving that
>> Oswald, and Oswald alone, would have collected the weapon(s) from the PO.
>>
>> In short, the chain of evidence necessary to clearly link Oswald to
Hidell
>> as the person ordering the weapons is weak; the chain of evidence proving
>> that Oswald picked the guns up from the PO Box is non-existent; and
>> therefore the response to your challenge is as follows:


>>
>> "Oswald was using the alias "A. J. Hidell,"

>> He had ID on him in the name of Hidell. That doesn't mean he was using,
or
>> was in the habit of using, the name as an 'alias'.
>
>Of course it doesn't. Are we arguing semantics here? What makes it an
>alias is that he had the name on that card with his own picture. That's
>what I mean by alias. We know, however, that he used the alias. He used
>it on the FPCC membership cards. He used it on the leaflets he passed
>out. He used it when he told the FBI agent and the NOPD officer that
>Hidell was the president of the chapter. He used it to order the rifle
>and pistol. That is his handwriting on the order forms. You seem to want
>to deny that when you say "I find it hard to believe that an unambiguous
>identification of Oswald as the author of those orders can be made in
>such circumstances." Obviously you do. However, doesn't knowing that
>handwriting experts testified to both the HSCA and the WC that the
>handwriting was Oswald's mean anything to you, or are you an expert in
>this area? But unless you have some proof I can verify that that is not
>his handwriting, please refrain from giving your opinion to meet my
>challenge, because opinions won't cut it. Hard evidence is all I'm
>asking for, and I'm asking to see specifically if anyone has any.


>>
>> "and he ordered the rifle and the handgun in that name "

>> Handwriting is not unambiguous on this point, and imho cannot be used to
>> clearly identify Oswald as the man who wrote the order forms.
>
>Thanks for your opinion. That's fine. Simply put however, my challenge
>was to see if anyone had hard evidence to support their opinions.


>
>>
>> "and received them at his PO Box."

>> Not proven (we don't know who else was authorise to collect mail at the
PO
>> Box). And even Mr McAdams states (I think) that the rifle would never
have
>> been collected at the PO Box.
>
>Again, this seems a semantics-based response. I'll accept that the
>challenge here may be poorly worded. It doesn't matter to me whether or
>not he actually picked them up with his own hands, or whether or not he
>picked them up at the shippers, or whatever; what is important to me,
>and what the challenge really means is, that he ordered the weapons and
>subsequently received them.
>
>As I said, the challenge is poorly worded. However, if they didn't go to
>the PO Box, where did they go? Doesn't mail normally go (or attempt to
>go) to where it is addressed? He definitely wound up with the pistol
>because it was on him when he was arrested, so he got it somehow, and
>that is a fact, that is proven. And the rifle is almost as nearly
>certain to have been received by LHO, because Marina says he had one,
>Mrs. De Mohrenschildt said she saw it, there are the photographs of him
>holding it, and it was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD where he
>worked.
>
>What my challenge is to you and everyone is, refute these facts if you
>can, with better ones if you have them, but not with opinion or theory
>or supposition or accusation or innuendo. If there are facts out there
>that I haven't found (and I'm sure there are), I'd like to hear them. As
>of yet, there hasn't been one buff that has stepped up with something
>independently verifiable that refutes my challenge.
>
>Al.

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:
>
> Al:
>
> Bloomgarten's book The Gun may identify the report (it is not a
> "buff" book, by the way, in case you wondered).

When you are sure let me know and stop sending me on wild goose chases!

> If the rifle wasn't in the blanket, but Marina thought it was, the
> points you note don't mean much. It's not difficult to understand, just
> difficult to accept Marina's assumption as evidence. Wesley Liebeler
> conceded in a staff memo that there was no evidence the rifle was ever
> in the garage. Even Priscilla Johnson MacMillan (Marina and Lee) only
> says the rifle "almost
> certainly" was in the blanket, but mentions that the Paines were under
> the impression the blanket contained camping gear, which is consistent
> with Michael's sketch.

How did we get on this subject anyway? I never said the rifle was in the
blanket beyond all reasonable doubt. My point to you is that it's not
difficult to see that it was likely in the blanket. The rifle in the
blanket doubt for you fuels your other doubts, is that it? Is that why
this has become such an issue? Let's assume Martin, for your sake, that
the rifle was not in the blanket. That certainly is no proof that Oswald
never received the rifle, which is my challenge (I think, because I
can't remember what the challenge is now, you've gone so far astray).
Isn't it more reasonable to...well maybe not for you. OK, let's stay on
this until we can come to some kind of closure on it. My instincts tell
me the rifle was there for three reasons:

1) Marina said she knew it was there all along.
2) Both the Paines knew something was in the blanket, and both claim
they did not know what it was.
3) The blanket was empty on November 22, 1963, when the DPD got there.

> Michael Paine's sketch was published by the Warren Commission as
> Paine Exhibit One. It has been largely ignored, but was included in Ross
> Ralston's self-published 1975 book History's Verdict.

OK, I'll check that.

> Eviction: New Orleans Times-Picayune columnist Angus Lind did a
> 1991 interview with former deputy constable Charlie Kertz, described as
> the man who evicted Oswald from his apartment at 4907 Magazine Street.
> He recalled it as unusual, because it was done on a Friday afternoon. In
> the process of moving things out, he and his colleague opened a closet
> and found three rifles inside. Underneath a pile of paperbacks were two
> handguns. (Michael Benson, Who's Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 235).

Martin, Oswald was not evicted from Magazine Street and if you believe
he was from this book you cite, (which, perhaps fortunately, I do not
own) you'd (and he) had better check his sources. See the WR page 650
under appendix XII Biography of LHO-Mexico City para. 2 last sentence:

"The landlord found Oswald's apartment vacant on September 25."


> The ad: Reviewing ads collected by Gary Nivaggi, who has
> published a collection of ALL published U.S. gun magazine ads for the
> Mannlicher-Carcano during this period, we find the ad most often cited,
> and a DIFFERENT ad from which the Oswald coupon was taken. Both use the
> same picture, though the models are different, which adds to the
> confusion.

I'm not confused Martin, you seem to be.

Note that the order numbers are coded to the magazine.
> 1) Oft-cited ad: "6.5 Italian Carbine. Late military issue. Only 40"
> overall," etc.,
> for $12.78. Then note the order numbers:
> C20-1196 for the rifle described
> C20-750 for "Carbine with 4x brand-new scope 3/4 in. diameter
> (illustrated) $19.95
> E20-751 6.5 mm Italian military ammo, 108 rounds (6 shot clip
> free) $7.50
> 2) Ad from which the coupon was clipped:"Late Issue: 6.5 Italian
> Carbine. Only 36"
> overall" etc. ["How long the rifle is is not mentioned in either
> place" you say?]

OK, it does say "only 40 overall." That doesn't really tell you how long
the rifle is, because that is an estimate of the length. The barrels
make the measurement inexact. That's why I made that comment, but it was
erroneous.

> C20-T1196 Specially Priced $12.88
> C20-T750 Carbine with brand-new good quality 4x scope...as
> illustrated. $19.95
> E20-T751 6.5 mm Italian military ammo with free six-shot clip.
> 108 rounds $7.50
> Which ad Oswald used becomes even clearer from the order blank, which
> gives the order number as C20-T750, and the price as $19.95. Note that
> in BOTH ads, this is the carbine with the scope, not the rifle, which
> isn't even offered in the second ad.

Martin, clear something up for me, just answer yes or no. Are you trying
to say that a "carbine" as described here is somehow different from a
rifle?

Since this author or collector you quote "published a collection of ALL


published U.S. gun magazine ads for the Mannlicher-Carcano during this

period," simply find the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman
(because that's where the coupon came from) and stop speculating. You
don't have to.

> But maybe, you might say, they shipped the wrong weapon to him, so
> we had better look at the shipping invoice from Klein's, too.

I'd never say that w/o evidence of some kind to back it up.

Here's
> what it says:
> "C20-T750 Italian Carbine 6.5 w. 4x scope $19.95" It also, of
> course, gives the
> serial number, C2766, the serial number for a Mannlicher-Carcano
> carbine. I'm not sure why you think the catalog number C20-T749 is on
> any of the Oswald documents--it isn't.

The "Oswald documents" related to Klein's were presented by Waldman as I
pointed to you in the last post-it is Waldman Exhibit 1. And, BTW, how
can you ever think the rifle didn't go to Oswald's PO Box 2915 when it
is right there on Waldman 7, the Klein's shipping invoice?

> Whether it's on another document from Klein's doesn't tell us much. The
> shipping invoice clearly identifies the order number, which the ad
> identifies as a 36 inch carbine. Thanks for sending me back to re-check
> the documents.

You evidently didn't check the documents that I asked you to check. You
said in an earlier post that

"all of the documentation refers to a 36 in. carbine (the documentation

is in the Warren Commission volumes, by the way.)"

Well, my point was that it wasn't. This is the first you have mentioned
this collection by Nivaggi. So I'm glad I asked you to do it too.

Now you say the ad, not the WC docs, but the ad, refers to a "36 in.
carbine." Well, OK, I haven't ever seen the exact (or a reproduction of
the) ad from which Oswald ordered this rifle. But he did order the
rifle, according to the evidence we have available, and nothing you say
here shows me any different. Instead of debating whether or not he
ordered the rifle, we're debating how long it was. If you want to know
how long the rifle was that's in the WC exhibits and testimony too.

That, Martin, is why I originally characterized your thought patterns on
this as "twisted," no insult intended. To me it seems that way. You
can't get away from all these little trees to see the forest.

> Unless the weapon grew by four inches, the fact that the two
> weapons had the same serial number is more a cause for suspicion than
> certainty.

Now that's a real leap of illogic. How do you suddenly suggest from the
garbled data you present here that there are two weapons? That's an
oft-used buff tactic, throw mud in the water, then when nobody can see
the fish anymore say 'the fish aren't there,' and quickly hustle them
away from the lake before they get wise. Well, I know there are fish in
them there lakes.

Martin, give it up. There is only one rifle, a 6.5 X 52 mm Italian
Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, sn C-2766, bought through the mail from
Klien's Sporting Goods (who bought the rifle from Crescent) by Lee
Harvey Oswald using the alias "A. Hidell." If you can in any way dispute
or illumine me as to why these things cannot be true, do so.

Al.

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/22/97
to

Howard Rogers wrote:
>
> Brandon, I've been down this route before, but I'll say it again: there's
> very little in this life that is indisputably "fact".

That is why I made the challenge. It wasn't made to solicit innuendo,
unsupported opinion, speculation and undocumented accusation. Please go
ahead and dispute my facts with some facts of your own. After all, any
fact is disputable by misrepresenting it. For instance, if I said,

"this is the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup, and I know that because I
logged into and posted to the group, and when I did, that address came
into my browser's 'newsgroups' panel"

which to me is a fact, anyone could come along and say, "that's not a
fact, because there a two newsgroups called alt.conspiracy.jfk, " and
dispute it. Rather, for me, a more persuasive rebuttal would be "that's
not a fact, because there are two newsgroups called alt.conspiracy.jfk,
here is how to get the one and here is how to get the other." Do you see
my point?

Those things which
> are facts are usually highly trivial ("Kennedy got shot"). Get much more
> beneath the surface than that, and everything is up for grabs and
> interpretation -and opoinions start to count.

But facts are all we have to make good decisions from, and if we ignore
or lessen the importance of facts, we're liable to miss the truth.
That's when opinion takes over, when we lessen the importance of or
ignore the facts. Facts are not highly trivial in assembling truthful
scenarios because facts are the basis from which we can agree and lessen
the unsupported part, the biased part, of any debate.


>
> I'm not going to deal with all the issues you raise, because frankly, the
> tone you've used in initiating this series of threads leads me to believe
> that you already have your mind made up.


Yes I do have my mind made up. However I remain open to reasonable
arguments and/or opinions. You are not going to debate the issues I
bring up because you cannot find any facts from which to base any
disagreement.
My challenge is to anyone who can dispute my assertions, or the way I
have arrived at them, and come up with some fact-based rebuttal. Now, if
you can present some fact or interpolation of fact that can contradict
what I say, then do so. Believe me, I welcome it.

>
> But I will say this. No I am not a handwriting expert. Yes, the HSCA et al
> employed experts who testified that the handwriting was Oswald's. And yes,
> I'll bet that I could lay hands on at least half-a-dozen similarly qualified
> experts worldwide who would testify the opposite. So much for facts:
> handwriting analysis is a matter of opinion as much as anything else.

Sheesh, that's not true. Handwriting identification (not the same as
handwriting analysis) is a scientific system based on the fact that
people's individual writings tend to have characteristics that are
unique to the individual, and it is not just a matter of opinion. It is
a learned system of identifying the authors of written documents. The
quality of their analyses is not determined by the fact that they
disagree. The quality of their analyses is determined by the way they go
about their scientific duty.

Nothing is beyond dispute and that is what is giving life to this forum.
However, it is beyond reason to say that because an expert can be found
to say one thing or another means that there can be no sensible
consensus as to what the truth is. Do you just want to debate, or would
you like to know with some degree of certainty what happened? There are
many of us who have dedicated ourselves to the examination of this
subject to try and do just that, to know with some degree of certainty
what actually happened.

My challenge to you is not to have you simply come up with experts, it
is get you to try to determine from the evidence available which expert
is the more unbiased, thoughtful, and or reliable. Once we do that, we
can come to some conclusions with a degree of certainty. Now, there
probably is someone out there who would say that the handwriting is not
Oswald's, especially if this someone were financially compensated to do
so. The thing we have to do as researchers is to determine which expert
is being the more rational, logical, objective and thorough; which
expert is not motivated by any factors which would make his opinion
biased; which expert has the qualifications to make an opinion worth
examining. This is what the WC and HSCA are all about. That is why, for
instance, I find Shaneyfelt's photographic analyses in this case more
persuasive than Robert Groden's.


>
> Unless you've got a video or cine movie of Oswald actually writing the damn
> things, please don't tell me that the issue is beyond dispute.

> Regards
> HJR


That's baloney. There have been many instances where even video tape is
disputable. Photographs are disputable. As you yourself pointed out, any
evidence is disputable. What we have to do is try to determine which
evidentiary items are most reputable, and not foster our own biased
opinions.

Al.

Howard Rogers

unread,
Oct 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/23/97
to

Brandon Alexander wrote in message <344E2E...@earthlink.net>...


>Howard Rogers wrote:
>>
>> Brandon, I've been down this route before, but I'll say it again: there's
>> very little in this life that is indisputably "fact".
>
>That is why I made the challenge. It wasn't made to solicit innuendo,
>unsupported opinion, speculation and undocumented accusation. Please go
>ahead and dispute my facts with some facts of your own. After all, any
>fact is disputable by misrepresenting it. For instance, if I said,
>
>"this is the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup, and I know that because I
>logged into and posted to the group, and when I did, that address came
>into my browser's 'newsgroups' panel"
>
>which to me is a fact, anyone could come along and say, "that's not a
>fact, because there a two newsgroups called alt.conspiracy.jfk, " and
>dispute it. Rather, for me, a more persuasive rebuttal would be "that's
>not a fact, because there are two newsgroups called alt.conspiracy.jfk,
>here is how to get the one and here is how to get the other." Do you see
>my point?
>
> Those things which
>> are facts are usually highly trivial ("Kennedy got shot"). Get much more
>> beneath the surface than that, and everything is up for grabs and
>> interpretation -and opoinions start to count.
>
>But facts are all we have to make good decisions from,

My point is, the body of indisputable fact in much of life is small and
largely inconsequential. In most of your life, I guarantee, you make
decisions based on what you *consider* to be facts. In other words, your
*opinions*.

and if we ignore
>or lessen the importance of facts, we're liable to miss the truth.
>That's when opinion takes over, when we lessen the importance of or
>ignore the facts. Facts are not highly trivial in assembling truthful
>scenarios because facts are the basis from which we can agree and lessen
>the unsupported part, the biased part, of any debate.
>

I agree, but there are few of them that amount to very much. It's a
philosophical position, I guess. You're obviously not convinced, so I won't
bother you with it again.

Agreed, but you're not claiming (I hope) that so long as everybody carries
out their scientific duty in exactly the same way, they will all come up
with the same answer. It just ain't so!

>
>Nothing is beyond dispute and that is what is giving life to this forum.
>However, it is beyond reason to say that because an expert can be found
>to say one thing or another means that there can be no sensible
>consensus as to what the truth is. Do you just want to debate, or would
>you like to know with some degree of certainty what happened?

I'd love to know with certainty. My point is, I never shall -and neither
will you.

There are
>many of us who have dedicated ourselves to the examination of this
>subject to try and do just that, to know with some degree of certainty
>what actually happened.
>
>My challenge to you is not to have you simply come up with experts, it
>is get you to try to determine from the evidence available which expert
>is the more unbiased, thoughtful, and or reliable.

Sounds like *I* have to do the determining. Which sounds like having an
opinion. Which means my version of what is unbiased, or thoughtful, or
reliable will be *mine* -and, in all likelihood, different from yours.

Once we do that, we
>can come to some conclusions with a degree of certainty.

This just isn't the way it works. "Conclusions" are things we, as
individuals, draw, based on our *perception* of a body of facts. It's all
highly subjective, except in trivial issues.

Now, there
>probably is someone out there who would say that the handwriting is not
>Oswald's, especially if this someone were financially compensated to do
>so. The thing we have to do as researchers is to determine which expert
>is being the more rational, logical, objective and thorough; which
>expert is not motivated by any factors which would make his opinion
>biased; which expert has the qualifications to make an opinion worth
>examining. This is what the WC and HSCA are all about.

And its all about, by your own admission, forming opinions.

That is why, for
>instance, I find Shaneyfelt's photographic analyses in this case more
>persuasive than Robert Groden's.
>
>>
>> Unless you've got a video or cine movie of Oswald actually writing the
damn
>> things, please don't tell me that the issue is beyond dispute.
>
>> Regards
>> HJR
>
>
>That's baloney. There have been many instances where even video tape is
>disputable. Photographs are disputable. As you yourself pointed out, any
>evidence is disputable. What we have to do is try to determine which
>evidentiary items are most reputable, and not foster our own biased
>opinions.

In summary, therefore, we are all enlightened individuals capable of
dispassionately analysing a body of facts, and making an objective decision.
Now *that's* baloney. If I were God, I'd agree with you (somebody in this
Universe must surely be able to determine objective truth). But I'm not,
and neither are you: so we're simply left with "our own biased opinions".
We strive for objectivity if we're honest -but it's never going to be a
battle that you can win convincingly enough to make everyone else shut up
and accept your views.

End of topic. You have your mind made up. It's all black and white, and
you see no shades of philosophical grey.

Regards
HJR

>
>Al.

Howard Rogers

unread,
Oct 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/23/97
to

+
Brandon Alexander wrote in message <344EE6...@earthlink.net>...
>Howard Rogers wrote:
>>
[Snip]

>These are not just my views! And, I don't want everyone to shut up.
>
>The grey is where I came from to see the black and the white, so don't
>preach to me about seeing the grey.

Who was preaching?
I didn't say you *did* want everyone to shut up. I said that people in
general are never going to be in a position of determing the facts of a case
as complex as this so obviously that everyone will just shut up and say,
"Oh, that's the way it was". Similarly, the phrase I used was ambiguous
about "your views" -I was using the second person plural, as the "We" at the
start of the sentence might have implied. Sorry. I see where the confusion
has arisen. I'll try and avoid things like that again.

>
>If your view of things were correct, we would be a sadder world.
>Fortunately, there are many people who don't believe that "we're simply
>left with 'our own biased opinions'." That, if it were true, would be a
>travesty. It's not just our opinions.
>

You might deem it a travesty, but that is the way it is, I'm afraid. I am
sitting on a chair. Fact. It is a comfortable chair. Define Comfortable.
Van Gough was a painter. Fact. He was a great painter. Define greatness.

Historians sum the debate up nicely: 1066 happened (sorry, I'm
English -maybe 1776 would be a better example?). Fact. But utterly trivial
compared to *why* those events happened, what motivated the leading players
and so on and so forth. So Historians try and look at as many documents as
they can to unearth those hidden depths (diaries, treaties, state papers and
so on). They do their best. But at the end of the day, they are working
with what *happened* to get written, or survive the ravages of time. They
are working with incomplete records. What the reconstruct is therefore
incomplete, and shaped by the historian's own biases (opinions, if you
prefer). It's no accident that there's the phrase "History is written by
the victors" -what's left behind is what was intended to be left behind. To
sum up: That which is indisputable fact in this life amounts to a hillock of
beans.

And this JFK business is a classic case: with lord knows how many millions
of documents still sitting in secret vaults, do you *really* think we are in
a position to know the facts of this case? Or, again, if (I stress the word
'if') there had been a conspiracy involving, say, the Vice President, the
FBI and the CIA, those in short with the power and the abilities and
resources, don't you think that they would have taken extreme care to make
sure *their* version of facts was what got 'left behind'?

>
>Once more, do you want to debate, or seek some way of finding out, as
>best we can, what happened in Dallas?

But surely, if the world is made up of facts, no debate is needed? We
uncover the facts, and there's an end to it! Debate implies uncertainty, or
two (or more) differing viewpoints of equal standing and validity.

And, can you refute my challenge
>or not ?

After all this, quite interesting discussion, you avoid the issue
completely! My point all along has been that it is impossible to refute
your challenge because your challenge is based upon the notion of objective
truth that can be tested. My original post to you was along the lines that
most things are up for grabs (such as handwriting experts' opinions) -there
is no objective truth in this matter, in other words.

I don't think you can, because instead of doing that, you are
>attacking my abilities and sensibilities.

I have not attacked you in the slightest. I made a comment that I'd thought
you'd made your mind up on the assassination issue (which might be construed
as an attack) -but you cheerfully admitted this in your reply. Please feel
free to point out (by requoting) where I have attacked you. Apologies will
be free-flowing if you prove your point.


You defray, as best you can,
>any discussion of the facts of this case because you don't have a leg to
>stand on, since you don't know the facts.

Now let's get personal, shall we? Not.

>
>When you can discuss the facts, do so.

God, I like to be bossed around a bit at home -but this is ridiculous <g>!

I'm not any god and I know it.
>That's why it doesn't bother me to accept the facts in this case, and to
>drop my former obsessions to bring my own agenda into it.
>
>Al.

Tony Pitman

unread,
Oct 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/24/97
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:

> Al:
>
> Bloomgarten's book The Gun may identify the report (it is not a
> "buff" book, by the way, in case you wondered).

> If the rifle wasn't in the blanket, but Marina thought it was,
> the
> points you note don't mean much. It's not difficult to understand,
> just
> difficult to accept Marina's assumption as evidence. Wesley Liebeler
> conceded in a staff memo that there was no evidence the rifle was ever
>
> in the garage. Even Priscilla Johnson MacMillan (Marina and Lee) only
> says the rifle "almost
> certainly" was in the blanket, but mentions that the Paines were under
>
> the impression the blanket contained camping gear, which is consistent
>
> with Michael's sketch.

> Michael Paine's sketch was published by the Warren Commission
> as
> Paine Exhibit One. It has been largely ignored, but was included in
> Ross
> Ralston's self-published 1975 book History's Verdict.

> Eviction: New Orleans Times-Picayune columnist Angus Lind did
> a
> 1991 interview with former deputy constable Charlie Kertz, described
> as
> the man who evicted Oswald from his apartment at 4907 Magazine Street.
>
> He recalled it as unusual, because it was done on a Friday afternoon.
> In
> the process of moving things out, he and his colleague opened a closet
>
> and found three rifles inside. Underneath a pile of paperbacks were
> two
> handguns. (Michael Benson, Who's Who in the JFK Assassination, p.
> 235).

> The ad: Reviewing ads collected by Gary Nivaggi, who has
> published a collection of ALL published U.S. gun magazine ads for the
> Mannlicher-Carcano during this period, we find the ad most often
> cited,
> and a DIFFERENT ad from which the Oswald coupon was taken. Both use
> the
> same picture, though the models are different, which adds to the

> confusion. Note that the order numbers are coded to the magazine.


> 1) Oft-cited ad: "6.5 Italian Carbine. Late military issue. Only 40"
> overall," etc.,
> for $12.78. Then note the order numbers:
> C20-1196 for the rifle described
> C20-750 for "Carbine with 4x brand-new scope 3/4 in. diameter
> (illustrated) $19.95
> E20-751 6.5 mm Italian military ammo, 108 rounds (6 shot clip
> free) $7.50
> 2) Ad from which the coupon was clipped:"Late Issue: 6.5 Italian
> Carbine. Only 36"
> overall" etc. ["How long the rifle is is not mentioned in either
> place" you say?]

> C20-T1196 Specially Priced $12.88
> C20-T750 Carbine with brand-new good quality 4x scope...as
> illustrated. $19.95
> E20-T751 6.5 mm Italian military ammo with free six-shot clip.
> 108 rounds $7.50
> Which ad Oswald used becomes even clearer from the order blank, which
> gives the order number as C20-T750, and the price as $19.95. Note that
>
> in BOTH ads, this is the carbine with the scope, not the rifle, which
> isn't even offered in the second ad.

> But maybe, you might say, they shipped the wrong weapon to him,
> so

> we had better look at the shipping invoice from Klein's, too. Here's


> what it says:
> "C20-T750 Italian Carbine 6.5 w. 4x scope $19.95" It also, of
> course, gives the
> serial number, C2766, the serial number for a Mannlicher-Carcano
> carbine. I'm not sure why you think the catalog number C20-T749 is on
> any of the Oswald documents--it isn't.

> Whether it's on another document from Klein's doesn't tell us much.
> The
> shipping invoice clearly identifies the order number, which the ad
> identifies as a 36 inch carbine. Thanks for sending me back to
> re-check
> the documents.

> Unless the weapon grew by four inches, the fact that the two
> weapons had the same serial number is more a cause for suspicion than
> certainty.
>

> Martin


Martin,
It might be interesting to find out what C20-T749 is. I
wouldn't mind betting that it represents the 40.2 inch rifle when fitted
with a scope but which was not ordered and , according to the way bill,
not shipped.

Tony


Martin Shackelford

unread,
Oct 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/24/97
to

Al:

Jack White is the same Jack White who testified to HSCA.

Martin


Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/24/97
to

Howard Rogers wrote:
>
> +
> Brandon Alexander wrote in message <344EE6...@earthlink.net>...
> >Howard Rogers wrote:
> >>
> [Snip]
>
> >These are not just my views! And, I don't want everyone to shut up.
> >
> >The grey is where I came from to see the black and the white, so don't
> >preach to me about seeing the grey.
>
> Who was preaching?
> I didn't say you *did* want everyone to shut up. I said that people in
> general are never going to be in a position of determing the facts of a case
> as complex as this so obviously that everyone will just shut up and say,
> "Oh, that's the way it was". Similarly, the phrase I used was ambiguous
> about "your views" -I was using the second person plural, as the "We" at the
> start of the sentence might have implied. Sorry. I see where the confusion
> has arisen. I'll try and avoid things like that again.
>
> >
> >If your view of things were correct, we would be a sadder world.
> >Fortunately, there are many people who don't believe that "we're simply
> >left with 'our own biased opinions'." That, if it were true, would be a
> >travesty. It's not just our opinions.
> >
>
> You might deem it a travesty, but that is the way it is, I'm afraid. I am
> sitting on a chair. Fact. It is a comfortable chair. Define Comfortable.

Yes, but you are asking me to define and adjective. A chair; a seat with
a back for one person. Don't you agree? Now as to comfortable, that is
opinion; yet there are some chairs (the electric chair, for example)
that most of us would find uncomfortable.

> Van Gough was a painter. Fact. He was a great painter. Define greatness.

That's tough, but defining a painter isn't as tough.

>
> Historians sum the debate up nicely: 1066 happened (sorry, I'm
> English -maybe 1776 would be a better example?). Fact. But utterly trivial
> compared to *why* those events happened, what motivated the leading players
> and so on and so forth. So Historians try and look at as many documents as
> they can to unearth those hidden depths (diaries, treaties, state papers and
> so on). They do their best. But at the end of the day, they are working
> with what *happened* to get written, or survive the ravages of time. They
> are working with incomplete records. What the reconstruct is therefore
> incomplete, and shaped by the historian's own biases (opinions, if you
> prefer). It's no accident that there's the phrase "History is written by
> the victors" -what's left behind is what was intended to be left behind. To
> sum up: That which is indisputable fact in this life amounts to a hillock of
> beans.

Well then dispute my challenge, and let's stick to that.

>
> And this JFK business is a classic case: with lord knows how many millions
> of documents still sitting in secret vaults, do you *really* think we are in
> a position to know the facts of this case?

Yes I do. If you notice, each time more stuff is released, less is
learned from it.

> Or, again, if (I stress the word
> 'if') there had been a conspiracy involving, say, the Vice President, the
> FBI and the CIA, those in short with the power and the abilities and
> resources, don't you think that they would have taken extreme care to make
> sure *their* version of facts was what got 'left behind'?

Yes, yes, yes, but you are failing to consider one point; that this is
an extremely open society, and it would have to be a conspiracy of the
highest magnitude to elude detection for this long. Have you ever
seriously considered how many people would have to be privvy to this
cover-up in order for it to be maintained so well? As you suggest,
suppose "the Vice President, the FBI and the CIA, those in short with
the power and the abilities and resources" were involved. There would
have to be accomplices at every level...the gun maker, the gun seller,
the shooter, his immediate acquaintances, the conspirators families, the
police, the attorneys, oh, it would go on and on. Frankly, I don't think
that, today especially, it could be done. Perhaps, in part due to the
plethora of CT's that abound, no one today is above reproach. Maybe it
would evade discovery for a while, but this JFK thing has been under
scrutiny by thousands of politicians, researchers, media gurus,
sensationalists, detectives, scholars, etc., etc., and no one, I repeat
no one, has ever come up with a credible, reasonable, and/or verifiable
conspiracy theory.

This tells me something powerful, that more than likely there was no
organized conspiracy that resulted in what LHO did in Dallas. Now, this
is not to say conspiracies did not exist. Unfortunately, most likely
there is always one lurking somewhere against every President. But LHO
shot Kennedy, and he was not a part of any conspiracy, though it's
definitely possible that he knew of one.

>
> >
> >Once more, do you want to debate, or seek some way of finding out, as
> >best we can, what happened in Dallas?
>
> But surely, if the world is made up of facts, no debate is needed? We
> uncover the facts, and there's an end to it! Debate implies uncertainty, or
> two (or more) differing viewpoints of equal standing and validity.

No no. Do you want to debate so that I can help you understand this
case? is my question. Or so that you can show me something I was not
aware of. That's what I would like to do. There's a degree of certainty
for me. Not absolute, because who or what can be truly absolute?
However, I started my study of this thinking that Oswald was innocent,
just because the case as I knew it did not make sense. That's why I
studied it in DETAIL. Once I did, I discovered that what the DPD
asserted on 11/22/97 was most probable; that LHO was the lone
assassin.

>
> And, can you refute my challenge
> >or not ?
>
> After all this, quite interesting discussion, you avoid the issue
> completely! My point all along has been that it is impossible to refute
> your challenge because your challenge is based upon the notion of objective
> truth that can be tested. My original post to you was along the lines that
> most things are up for grabs (such as handwriting experts' opinions) -there
> is no objective truth in this matter, in other words.

Yes, I am afraid you are in error there. There are many objective things
in this case; you just fail to see them it seems.

Al.

jack white

unread,
Oct 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/24/97
to

Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Brandon Alexander wrote:
> >
> > Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >
> > > You are aware, aren't you, that Hoover decided the afternoon of the
> > > assassination that there was no conspiracy and Oswald was a "nut."
> > > That's some investigation! We also have interviews with agents (in
> > > Summers' Official and Confidential) who recalled how Hoover kept them
> > > from investigating areas that might point to a conspiracy.
>
> > Summers's work is much less than credible. His record of paying people
> > for interviews is alarming. On the Clinton issue, for instance, I spoke
> > with Corry Collins's widow and she told me that Summers offered him
> > money to say that the person with Ferrie was Oswald. Collins refused,
> > but later accepted Garrison's offer to come to NO all-expenses paid to
> > testify in the Clay Shaw trial. Did you know that? Summers has started a
> > lot of rumors, quite artfully, that still are believed by some people
> > today.
>
> Since I don't know either you or Summers personally,


I DO KNOW SUMMERS PERSONALLY. ANYONE WHO ACCUSES HIM OF PAYING FOR INTERVIEWS IS
UNFAMILIAR WITH STANDARD PRACTICES OF DOCUMENTARY PRODUCERS. HE PAID EVERYONE A STANDARD
$100 FEE IN EXCHANGE FOR SIGNING A PHOTO RELEASE FORM, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAID. ALL
HIS INTERVIEWS WERE FILMED OR VIDEOTAPED, AND THE FEE WAS FOR THE RELEASE, NOT WHAT WAS
SAID.

JACK


I'm in no position
> to know which one of you is telling the truth. But I have serious
> problems with people who believe the WC actually got it right.
>
> > If you think that Hoover was not a reasonable person, you will find many
> > who will disagree, and almost no one in the FBI would claim that he
> > wasn't. They say, almost to a man, that he wasn't anything more or less
> > than zealously patriotic. We know that his view of patriotism sometimes
> > lead to awful results, but I would never discredit his integrity as a
> > law enforcement official
>
> Oh, really? Are you aware that for years Hoover denied the very
> existence of the Mafia? And Johnson & RFK had to force Hoover to
> investigate the murders of the civil rights workers in Mississippi. That
> doesn't sound like an honest law enforcement official to me.
>
> > or believe that the assassination of the
> > President of the United States would be on his agenda or be worth the
> > the risk for him, no matter what he felt he might gain from it.
>
> It was a question of what he had to lose. He was facing mandatory
> retirement right after JFK was re-elected, but LBJ fixed that for him. I
> don't think Hoover was actively involved in the plot to kill JFK, but he
> may have known about one and just let it happen.
>
> > Elimination of King and Malcolm X, on the other, hand, might be
> > something he felt the country needed, and maybe worth the risk of "just
> > allowing it to happen." Even then, I don't think a man in his position
> > would have left many track marks were he involved in anyone's
> > assassination, and he probably would not have been so blatant about his
> > LN theories if he were trying to hide his own involvement. You are
> > talking about a man who brought the FBI from a small police unit to the
> > world's most accomplished LEA. He was very powerful, but greatly envied,
> > and could have been dragged down by just the appearance of involvement
> > in something like the ambush of the President.
>
> And who would have dragged him down? Hoover had files on everybody who
> might have presented a threat to him (including the members of the WC).
> He was arguably the most powerful man in Washington.
>
> > And he didn't get there
> > and stay there by shooting off his mouth on LN theories. Don't be so
> > quick to place him on the level of someone like CIA renegade E. Howard
> > Hunt, who fancied himself an American James Bond, or someone like former
> > AG John Mitchell, who was highly corrupt.
>
> And Hoover wasn't highly corrupt? C'mon, Al, I suggest you read some of
> the bios on Hoover, as well as first-hand accounts by people who worked
> with him.
>
> > >
> > > Then you obviously haven't kept up on the assassination literature.
> >
> > Oh really? Perhaps I could say the same for you and be more correct, but
> > I won't because I don't know what you've read. How about I just don't
> > believe all the authors of books (and posts) who make unsubstantiated
> > claims, or point out errors of commission and omission and immediately
> > try to attach them to some CT? How about I've studied the body of
> > assassination books and researched them as to the source of their claims
> > and the quality of their work and found 85% of them unreliable?
>
> And I've read the pro-LN literature (WR, Belin, Posner, Moore, Charles
> Roberts, MacMillan, Bishop, Manchester, etc.), and I find them 100%
> unbelievable.
>
> > You
> > don't know what I've done, do you? Why don't you find some factual
> > errors in my statements. I'll be happy to point you to any source for
> > anything I might post on this NG, AND YOU CAN GO AND CHECK IT OUT
> > YOURSELF. That comment above exemplifies why you don't understand this
> > case. There you go again, making some statement without a shred of
> > evidence to back it up.
>
> There I go again. Nearly everything I post on this NG is based on some
> government report, memo or declassified document, a news story,
> interviews, the evidence and testimony of the WC, etc. I don't just make
> stuff up here; if you think that's what I do then you haven't been
> reading my posts.
>
> > > It's true that Hoover was trying to protect the Bureau from
> > > embarassment; he was put in a tight spot when the designated patsy
> > > turned out to be someone the FBI knew all about (and who was possibly
> > > one of their informants). Hoover was a close friend of Texas oil baron
> > > Billy Byars, and one day Byars' son asked JEH, "Do you think Lee Harvey
> > > Oswald did it?" Hoover answered, "If I told you what I really know, it
> > > would be very dangerous to this country. Our whole political system
> > > could be disrupted." (Official and Confidential p383, paperback edition)
> > >
> >
> > If Hoover said that, which of course is possible, isn't it fortunate for
> > you that he didn't explain what he meant, because if he had, you
> > couldn't lay it out there for everyone to fill in their own
> > conspiracy-filled blanks.
>
> What do you think Hoover is talking about? If Oswald was really a lone
> nut, how would that possibly disrupt our whole political system?
>
> > Again, this is a well known buff tactic; to
> > point out something and then ask, "Why?" for which the answer implied is
> > some CT, which the buff won't come right out and say, because there's no
> > basis in fact for it.
>
> And if there was no conspiracy, then you lone-nutters shouldn't have any
> trouble giving credible, believable answers to the multitude of serious
> questions the critics ask. Instead, we get fantastic and ridiculous
> "explanations," we are asked to believe in amazing coincidences, and
> trust the word of government-paid experts.
>
> > The CT books are filled with this maneuver; in
> > fact, some entire works are based on this device. Stop implying things
> > if you can't substantiate them. You do us and yourself a disservice by
> > using this approach to discussion.
>
> I'm sorry if you get asked questions you can't answer. Life is tough,
> Al.
>
> > > > The backyard photos don't
> > > > prove anything except that Oswald was armed and probably left-wing.
> > >
> > > Except that he was holding two publications by groups that were
> > > ideological enemies; a genuine communist would know better, but to the
> > > people who fabricated the photos, a commie is a commie.
> > >
> >
> > Ideological enemies? You stretch the truth. Even Oswald knew better than
> > this. Communists are not all the same, but the Marxist-Leninists and the
> > Russian-styled communists were and are not enemies, just different
> > branches of the same base of thought. What you're saying is akin to
> > intimating that Republicans and Democrats are "ideological enemies" and
> > if I, as a loyalist, held up the National Review and Rolling Stone
> > together, I couldn't be a genuine American. Sheesh.
>
> There are many Republicans who would argue that the Democrats are not
> real Americans, and are in fact ideological enemies. The split between
> the branches of communism during the Cold War was a serious one (look at
> the feud between China and the Soviets).
>
> > Again, you imply that the photos were fabricated, and you cannot back
> > that up with facts.
>
> What facts do you have? All you can do is quote from the "experts" who
> tell us not to believe our eyes and common sense: that the shadows
> really aren't inconsistent (though I've never been able to re-create
> them in the real world), that it really is Oswald's chin (even though
> it's too big for his face). Kennedy's head isn't really being driven
> backward by a bullet from the front - it's just a jet effect! (which
> nobody ever heard of until the Z-film came along). CE 399 really can
> smash bones and go through two bodies and emerge unscathed! Oswald
> really was a good shot even though he was too uncoordinated to drive a
> car! Ruby really did shoot Oswald just because he loved the Kennedys
> (though he didn't bother to see them drive by in the motorcade)!
> What do you have to do to your brain, Al, to believe this kind of crap?
>
> > > > You are proving you don't really have a clue about this case. The CIA
> > > > has very little to do with this case, and I certainly am saying nothing
> > > > about them in my comments.
> > >
> > > Very little to do with the case? You mean like when the CIA agent broke
> > > into the HSCA's safe where the autopsy photos were stored? Or when the
> > > CIA wrote a lengthy memo to its employees on how to attack and discredit
> > > WC critics? Or when the CIA lied to the HSCA, claiming they had showed
> > > Blakey all of the files they had on Oswald?
> > >
> >
> > Maybe all this is true. Can you post references as to where I may look
> > to find these items?
>
> I thought you were such an expert on this subject and had read all the
> buff books. You should be aware of these items by now (especially since
> I've posted it all before). But here you go:
>
> 6/1978 The HSCA had a folder and one autopsy photo stolen when someone
> from the CIA broke into their safe. A fingerprint check traced the crime
> to CIA liaison officer Regis Blahut and was not authorised to open that
> safe. Blahut first denied having done it, then explained "There's other
> things involved that are detrimental to other things." The CIA assured
> the HSCA that it was all quite innocent, but the panel was not so sure.
> (Washington Post, George Lardner Jr. 6/18, 19 and 28/1979; New York
> Times 6/18/1979.)
>
> The 4/1/1967 CIA Document ("DISPATCH To: Chiefs, Certain Stations and
> Bases
> Ref: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report") is so well known I'm
> surprised you haven't heard of it.
>
> > I'd like to check these allegations out one by one,
> > except the one about the CIA lying. It's an intelligence agency. They
> > are trained in lying, sabotage, bribery, insurrection, etc., so I don't
> > doubt that they lied to the HSCA.
>
> But why did they need to deceive the HSCA about the files they had on
> Oswald if he's just a lone nut? What is there to hide?
>
> > > > What do you have against the CIA? Why do you take
> > > > pot shots at these agencies?
> > >
> > > Isn't that cute? A genuine CIA apologist! You sound like you just
> > > stepped out of the fifties. Welcome to 1997.
> >
> > Look, I'm not an apologist for anything.
>
> You asked me, "What do you have against the CIA?" Are you at all aware
> of the things the CIA has been involved in over the last several
> decades? How anyone past infancy can ask that question is beyond me.
>
> > > > Why don't you answer the challenges I have posted, if you think I need
> > > > more study, and if you can point me towards something valid that I
> > > > haven't already seen or know about I'll be happy to study it. That's why
> > > > I posted the challenges, to find out if there is something major I'm
> > > > missing here. Right now, I have been on the NG with these challenges for
> > > > two weeks, and not one post has shown or said anything credible that
> > > > refutes the facts I state, the facts that the FBI & WC came up with in
> > > > 1964. This is 1997, 34 years later, and I don't see a thing in your
> > > > comments or any other proponent of a conspiracy on this NG that is as
> > > > persuasive as the Warren Commission.
>
> > > Then you are truly blind, Brandon. Again, have you actually read any of
> > > the conspiracy literature (Meagher, Weisberg, Roffman, Hurt, etc.)? If
> > > so, then you haven't learned anything from it.
> >
> > What an understatement! You are so right. (not about me being blind) I
> > haven't learned a damned thing from Meagher (her index leaves out many
> > of the references I need as a truth-seeker, and is so circular that it
> > renders itself useless to serious research)
>
> But have you read Accessories After the Fact? If you didn't learn
> anything from it, then you obviously approached the book with a closed
> mind.
>
> > Weisberg (never in my life
> > have I strained my eyes so much trying to read his typewriter fonts, and
> > never in my life have I read any author who surpasses his ability to
> > talk a lot and say nothing)
>
> I agree that his books can be difficult to read, but he has unearthed a
> treasure trove of damning memos, documents and transcripts.
>
> > Roffman (this man seems genuine enough but
> > does not do a thorough, complete, scholarly study of Oswald)
>
> Presumed Guilty wasn't meant to be a life history of Oswald, only a
> study of the evidence against him as the gunman. Can you find anything
> factually wrong with his book?
>
> > Two things I have learned; one is how they all feed and nurture
> > themselves on the same false premises. Do you know what I mean? For
> > instance, (and this is just an imaginary scenario, but I have actually
> > done this on some authors and issues and I'll look up a true path if you
> > want) try checking out something the La Fontaines say; and you could
> > find it came from Groden, who got it from Marrs, who got it from
> > Garrison, who got it from Summers, who heard it second hand from the
> > widow of the brother of the source, who is dead also, whose lawyer was
> > Mark Lane, who says "this story cannot be corroborated, but I have a
> > source who wishes to remain anonymous that guarantees its veracity."
> > The other is, how utterly speculative, fictitious, and unfounded 85% of
> > these books are.
>
> Wrong. Only the careless researchers do that. Weisberg and Roffman (and
> to a lesser extent Meagher), and many others base their work entirely on
> the government's own evidence.
>
> But, of course, the LN literature is written by true scholars, isn't it?
>
> We have David Belin, who likes to see himself as the hero of the Warren
> and Rockefeller Commissions, and who said in a public debate that Cab
> Calloway was a Tippit murder witness.
>
> There's Jim Moore, who believes JFK is reacting in fright to a missed
> bullet when he raises his arms in the Z-film. Moore also reconstructed
> the sniper's nest as he believes it originally was, and feels that
> somehow that proves Oswald's guilt.
>
> Then we have Gerald Posner, who misrepresented himself to Weisberg to
> gain access to his files, made numerous errors and omissions in Case
> Closed, and claims to have read 2000(!) books on the assassination, plus
> the WC & HSCA volumes in a little over a year.
>
> And Charles Roberts, Jim Bishop, and William Manchester all make too
> many errors to even try keeping track of.
>
> I can assure you, Al, that I have no need to believe in a conspiracy if
> there was no evidence of one. I have much better things to do with my
> time.
>
> Tracy

Tracy Riddle

unread,
Oct 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/24/97
to

Brandon Alexander wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> > You are aware, aren't you, that Hoover decided the afternoon of the
> > assassination that there was no conspiracy and Oswald was a "nut."
> > That's some investigation! We also have interviews with agents (in
> > Summers' Official and Confidential) who recalled how Hoover kept them
> > from investigating areas that might point to a conspiracy.

> Summers's work is much less than credible. His record of paying people
> for interviews is alarming. On the Clinton issue, for instance, I spoke
> with Corry Collins's widow and she told me that Summers offered him
> money to say that the person with Ferrie was Oswald. Collins refused,
> but later accepted Garrison's offer to come to NO all-expenses paid to
> testify in the Clay Shaw trial. Did you know that? Summers has started a
> lot of rumors, quite artfully, that still are believed by some people
> today.

Since I don't know either you or Summers personally, I'm in no position

Alexander Eichener

unread,
Oct 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/25/97
to a...@southern.co.nz

Tony,
I must express slight bewildermnent. This is a question which has
already been answered, and I gather that you are well informed about
it :-). So, let me just repeat it:

> > Yes and besides the obvious anomalies in the backyard photos, the


> > rifle sling looks to be different to that of the TSBD rifle and so does
> > the forward sling mount.

The rifle sling is clearly different, yes. The photos were taken shortly
after the gun came into LHO's possession. He did presumably not have a
sling at that time (the rifle was ordered without one) and used a piece
of rope or something similar, whatever he had at hand.
The forward rifle sling swivel is not different. You are mistaking a piece
of brush (from the vegatation in the background) for a sling swivel. See
also Richard Hobb's answer to this one.
You may argue that Oswald's face was somehow mounted into the photography
(the minute HCSA photo analysis seem to to have rebutted this doubt
conclusively, but I am no expert here); however, please take into
consideration that the short rifle pictured on the photographs showed
characteristic marks which were matched to the real "C 2766" rifle found
in the Texas School Book Depot.

> > I wonder if it's possible for Jack or some photography expert to
> > measure the length of the rifle from the photos to determine whether it
> > is 36 ins or 40.5 ins.

Sorry, no need. The rifle on the photograph clearly is a M 1938 or M 91/38
short rifle with a length of 40 inches. It is this _model_. The 36 inch
long two carbine types (Moschetto per cavalleria and Moschetto per truppe
speciali) are different models and phenotypically different enough,
although the Moschetto TS can be confused at a brief glance if one
doe not know where to look for the differences.

Best regards,
--
Alexander Eichener, Heidelberg
Main address: c...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
Secondary address: c...@oink.rhein.de (a bit slower)

Alexander Eichener

unread,
Oct 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/25/97
to Martin Shackelford

Martin, it seems you have just argued your own case away ?

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Martin Shackelford wrote:

> The ad: Reviewing ads collected by Gary Nivaggi, who has
> published a collection of ALL published U.S. gun magazine ads for the
> Mannlicher-Carcano during this period, we find the ad most often cited,
> and a DIFFERENT ad from which the Oswald coupon was taken. Both use the
> same picture, though the models are different, which adds to the
> confusion. Note that the order numbers are coded to the magazine.
> 1) Oft-cited ad: "6.5 Italian Carbine. Late military issue. Only 40"
> overall," etc.,
> for $12.78. Then note the order numbers:
> C20-1196 for the rifle described
> C20-750 for "Carbine with 4x brand-new scope 3/4 in. diameter
> (illustrated) $19.95
> E20-751 6.5 mm Italian military ammo, 108 rounds (6 shot clip
> free) $7.50
> 2) Ad from which the coupon was clipped:"Late Issue: 6.5 Italian
> Carbine. Only 36"
> overall" etc. ["How long the rifle is is not mentioned in either
> place" you say?]
> C20-T1196 Specially Priced $12.88
> C20-T750 Carbine with brand-new good quality 4x scope...as
> illustrated. $19.95

Excellent. So the vendor used the same order number all throughout,
because "those cheap Italian carbines" were all the same to him and to his
presumptive customers. It is equally common to use "some photograph at
hand", although it does not excatly depict the opffered model. Still
happens every other day in the Surplus market. In one ad, the same order
number was used for a Moschetto TS (Mod. 91, Mod. 91/24, Mod. 91/28,
maybe even Mod. 91/38), and in another ad, for a Fucile Mod. 91/38. They
all are close enough to each other (although a sharp look will distinguish
them), and the model differentiations were no no great concern; why, the
seller did not even mention them in the ad itself. When one shipment was
sold, the next one was used to fill the remaining orders, and nobody
cared about 4 inches difference with these resembling guns.

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/28/97
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:
>
> Al:
>
> Misstatements of fact don't get us very far. You asked for
> factual errors in your statements. Here are a few:
>
> 1: "Summers offered him money to say that the person with Ferrie was
> Oswald. Collins refused,but later accepted Garrison's offer to come to

> NO all-expenses paid to testify in the Clay Shaw trial."
> FACT: Summers was active a decade AFTER the Clay Shaw trial.

Martin, perhaps you have something here. I'm just relating to you what I
was told by the widow. Maybe she's lying, or doesn't remember. Summers's
book was published in 1980, but I don't know when he went to Clinton or
even if he did. Perhaps it is was the other way around, Garrison then
Summers. The point though, that Collins was offered money by both of
them, and that he took Garrison up on it, is the one she stressed.


>
> 2:" If you think that Hoover was not a reasonable person, you will find


> many
> who will disagree, and almost no one in the FBI would claim that he
> wasn't."

> FACT: Most books by former FBI personnel describe Hoover as FAR from
> reasonable, including that by former Assistant Director William
> Sullivan,
> and agents like Norman Ollested, William Turner and many others.

"Most books" is not a fact. Sullivan doesn't ever say Hoover was
unreasonable. I've not read these others so I don't know what they have
said. However, notice I said "almost no one."

>
> 3: Don't compare Hoover to some corrupt officials?
> FACT: Hoover was investigated by the Justice Department, which found
>
> that he had used government funds and personnel to remodel his home
>
> and for other illegal purposes.
>
What do you mean by "other illegal purposes?" My memory tells me that
some of the spending Hoover did was approved. However if what you say is
true, that is no more corrupt, in fact is less so, IMO, (if it was
really proven of course), than the fact that Mitchell OKed (and that has
been proven) a petty break-in for political purposes and created along
with Colson, a clandestine intelligence unit to disrupt the American
political process, which is both corrupt and treasonous. Most of what
Hoover did was, in his eyes, for the glorification of the FBI and
himself, not for money and/or political power, and there are many FBI
agents who agree with that assessment.

Al.

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Oct 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/30/97
to


Tony Pitman wrote:

> Brandon Alexander wrote:
>
> > jack white wrote:


> > >
> > > Brandon Alexander wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Martin,
> > > > > It might be interesting to find out what C20-T749
> > is. I
> > > > > wouldn't mind betting that it represents the 40.2 inch rifle
> > when fitted
> > > > > with a scope but which was not ordered and , according to the
> > way bill,
> > > > > not shipped.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tony
> > > >

> > > > Tony,
> > > >
> > > > It's the MC carbine
> > >
> > > ISN*T THE CARBINE THE ONE THAT IS 36 INCHES, NOT 40.2?
> > >
> > > without the scope. (Waldman Exhibit 1)
> > > >
> > > > Al.
> >
> > No. There is only one rifle, carbine is just the way the ad read. It's
> >
> > just like some people used to call the Volkswagon "Beetle" the "Bug, "
> >
> > or the way all facial tissue, no matter who makes it, is called
> > "Kleenex."
> >
> > The ad allowed you order with the scope, or without. If there is
> > anything documented about two different rifles with two different
> > lengths, I wish somebody would post it or point us to it. My guess is
> > it's not there and these guys are speculating.
> >
> > Lee Oswald ordered the rifle that killed Kennedy using the name
> > Hidell.
> > Don't believe this other crap.
> >
> > Al.
>
> There is plenty of documentation. There was a 40.2 inch short rifle
> which is the type found in the TSBD and there was the 36 inch carbine
> which is what was ordered by Hidell and which was specified on Kliens
> waybill when the rifle was shipped to Dallas.
> Martin has the relevent documentation and posted info on it here
> recently.
>
> Tony

Quite true, Tony, I was quoting the texts of the Kleins ads verbatim.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Oct 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/30/97
to

Tracy:

Blahut didn't steal an autopsy photo. He took them out of the
safe, and laid them out on a table. He removed some from their plastic
covers, and when someone approached the secure room, he hastily put them
all back in the safe, forgetting to put one of the photos back into its
plastic cover. When there is reference to a photo being "removed," it
refers to being removed from the safe or from its plastic cover.

Martin


WCAKE

unread,
Oct 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/30/97
to

>Subject: Re: Challenge # 3 to Buffs
>From: Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz>
>Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 01:09 EST
>Message-id: <345824AF...@southern.co.nz>
Oh Groan...... Not this Again..............

The rifle sent from Kleins was a 40 inch long Mannlicher Carcano Model 91/38
short rifle. Generically and incorrectly called a carbine.

Walt Cakebread


Tony Pitman

unread,
Oct 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/31/97
to

WCAKE wrote:


How do you know that Walt. The add in the magazine specified the 36
in model with scope. It's catalogue number was not C20-T749 but
C20-T75?. Martin posted the correct numbers. This 36 in model was the
same as that sent to Hiddel according to the catalogue number on the
waybill.
In that thread someone had posted that there is evidence of something
with the catalogue number C20-T749 but we don't know what it signified.
I was speculating that it may have been the number for the 40.2 in
version since either the C or the T represents the attached scope on the
36 in version and the numbers are in sequence with the 36 in scoped and
unscoped catalogue numbers.
With luck Martin will see this and post a clearer explanation.

Tony

Alexander Eichener

unread,
Oct 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/31/97
to

On 30 Oct 1997, WCAKE wrote:

> Oh Groan...... Not this Again..............
>
> The rifle sent from Kleins was a 40 inch long Mannlicher Carcano Model 91/38
> short rifle. Generically and incorrectly called a carbine.
>
> Walt Cakebread

Indeed so, Walt.

http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~c96/carcano/models.html

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/31/97
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Quite true, Tony, I was quoting the texts of the Kleins ads verbatim.
>
> Martin

Martin, you are doing nothing but going in circles. You don't even seem
to fully understand what you've said. Really, can you say anything that
refutes the original challenge?

Al.

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/31/97
to

WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Challenge # 3 to Buffs
> >From: Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz>
> >Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 01:09 EST
> >Message-id: <345824AF...@southern.co.nz>
> >
> Oh Groan...... Not this Again..............
>
> The rifle sent from Kleins was a 40 inch long Mannlicher Carcano Model 91/38
> short rifle. Generically and incorrectly called a carbine.
>
> Walt Cakebread

Right. And they keep going to this because they have no where else to
go. They cannot meet the challenge, so they just keep going in circles.

Al.

John McAdams

unread,
Oct 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/31/97
to

Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote:
: Martin Shackelford wrote:
: >
: > Tracy:

: You're right. Who knows what he was going to do with them if he hadn't
: been interrupted, though. But do you agree that this is suspicious?


Well it pretty clearly indicates that Blahut was curious and wanted to see
the things!

Are you actually saying that The Conspiracy turned un-tampered with photos
over to the HSCA -- photos that showed a conspiracy -- but then sent
Blahut along to "fix" them without any sophisticated photo equipment,
darkroom, etc, but rather just his greasy little fingers?

.John

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Oct 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/31/97
to

That's crap and you know it is. Post the documentation and I'll debunk
it for you again. Of course, I did that before, but you CT's don't
believe in reviewing and verifying documentation, so when I showed that
that your "documentation" was in error, and debunked it, you just came
back with more speculation.

Al.

Haizen Paige

unread,
Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97
to

Hoover and Johnson among other choice tidbits:

SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
Copyright 1993, San Jose Mercury News

DATE: Saturday, February 6, 1993
PAGE: 16A EDITION: Morning Final
SECTION: Front LENGTH: 12 in. Medium
ILLUSTRATION: Photo
SOURCE: Boston Globe
DATELINE: Washington

HOOVER, BLACKMAILED BY MAFIA,
HAD DIRT ON JFK, AUTHOR SAYS

Blackmailed by the Mafia into denying La Cosa Nostra's existence, the
late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was an extortionist himself, using
information about John F. Kennedy's womanizing to help Lyndon B. Johnson
obtain the 1960 vice-presidential nomination, according to a new book and
an upcoming edition of public television's ''Frontline.''
In ''Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover,''
journalist Anthony Summers portrays Hoover as a gay man and a transvestite
who once strutted about a New York hotel suite in black dress and lace
stockings. Hoover became a political captive of organized crime after
underworld sources obtained photographs of the FBI director engaged in sex
with a man, Summers writes.
And both Summers and Tuesday's edition of ''Frontline'' present a
sinister version of Johnson's selection as Kennedy's running mate in 1960.
Summers writes that Evelyn Lincoln, Kennedy's trusted secretary, told
him Hoover had provided Johnson with information on Kennedy's womanizing.
''It was the information J. Edgar Hoover passed to Johnson -- about
womanizing . . . and anything he could dig up,'' Summers quotes Lincoln as
saying. ''Johnson was using that as a clout. Kennedy was angry . . . boxed
in a corner.''
Through secret files and personal dossiers on various government
officials and politicians, Summers said, Hoover was able to remain as
director for nearly 50 years, under eight presidents, including a few who
wanted to replace him.
The author quotes Laurence Silberman, a former acting attorney
general, as saying: ''J. Edgar Hoover was like a sewer collecting dirt. I
now believe he was the worst public servant in our history.''
In the book, Summers depicts Hoover dressing up as a woman in a Plaza
Hotel suite in New York City in 1958.
''He was wearing a fluffy black dress, very fluffy, with flounces, and
lace stockings and high heels and a black curly wig,'' Summers quotes
Susan Rosensteil, a New York socialite and wife of a Hoover friend. ''I
couldn't believe it, that I should see the head of the FBI dressed as a
woman.''
''Frontline'' quotes John Dowd, chief of the Justice Department's
Organized Crime Strike Force from 1972 to 1978, as saying: ''Four years
after Hoover died, I was assigned to conduct an investigation of 40 years
of fraud and corruption by J. Edgar Hoover. . . . Had Hoover been alive
when this probe had taken place, I believe he'd have been indicted and
prosecuted and convicted.''

--

In article <345AC6...@earthlink.net>, compo...@earthlink.net wrote:

> Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> > Agree on what? That Hoover and LBJ faced the end of their careers if
> > Kennedy lived? That gives both of them a good motive for allowing an
> > assassination plot to happen.
>
> You've been watching too many movies and bad TV. The assassination of
> the President is not something Hoover or LBJ would have ever sanctioned.
> They didn't need to that kind of drastic measure to achieve whatever
> their goals might have been. Before you call out LBJ read his biography
> by Caro. A different view of this man might develop for you. And, even
> if Hoover and LBJ did what you suggest, there is no proof of it. When
> are you going to stop making unfounded accusations against these
> people?
> >
> > LBJ & Hoover were old friends (read their letters to each other to see
> > how close they were); they lived right next to each other in Washington.
>
> But not that friendly. Johnson was more friendly with FDR than he was
> with Hoover.
> >
> > I would say that many of the things Hoover did were a lot worse than
> > Watergate (like trying to drive MLK to suicide, for example).
>
> Again I personally do not sanction Hoover in any way. Simply I can draw
> a line between what he did against King, who Hoover thought was a
> communist-inspired/backed (and he was wrong to believe this) civil
> rights leader, and assassinating the President of the U.S. or trying to
> disrupt the process of free elections. If you think that what he did
> against King was worse, you are entitled to you opinion. For me, I'd
> take an FBI head that is trying to eliminate Communist influence in our
> society over anybody trying to prevent us from being able to choose our
> leaders freely. The right for all of us to vote in free elections is
> more sacred to me than one man's right to speak out against prejudice.
> That's a tough distinction to draw I know, because both are important.
>
> > Belin was an assistant counsel on the Warren Commission, so he can
> > hardly be considered "unbiased."
>
> How can you assert that just because he was on the commission staff that
> he is biased? Bias is prejudice; what Belin had was belief in the some
> of the work he had done. Bias would be if he had made his mind up
> regardless of the evidence. You are showing bias by submitting that he
> could not have unbiased views regardless of what the commission says.
> You are showing bias when you ignore the hard evidence in this case and
> cling to conspiracy theories that have no factual basis. Some commission
> members did not believe that the commission was correct in everything it
> did (including Belin, BTW, but never mind that). Are they showing bias
> because of that? No, of course not.
> >
> > I agree; and it's in the 26 volumes that the WR falls apart. Remember
> > that Earl Warren originally didn't want to publish the volumes of
> > evidence and testimony.
>
> No, no, no. The report doesn't "fall apart." It's just not that
> representative of all the testimony, and tries to condense and put a
> spin on the 26 volumes. By and large, the report itself is very
> informative. What I'm saying is to even understand the report you have
> to go to the 26 volumes. It's there that you can get an idea of how the
> authors of the report came up with their conclusions.
>
> > >
> >
> > That's exactly what the plotters wanted: to make it appear that Castro
> > had been behind the assassination, and provoke a new invasion of Cuba,
> > this time with US troops. This is why a patsy was chosen who had a
> > pro-Castro public image. But LBJ didn't want to start WWIII, and so the
> > Feds didn't look for any conspiracy (foreign or domestic, right or
> > left). Right after the assassination, many in the exile/CIA community
> > were running around saying, "Castro did it!" Frank Sturgis fed stories
> > to the Miami press that Oswald had been in that city and had ties to
> > Cuban intelligence.
>
> What plotters? Who are they? Why do you insist on believing this junk?
> You cannot name the name of one person who is a part of this plotting
> team.Who chose the patsy? What is so important about Cuba or invading
> Cuba that anyone would go to such elaborate subterfuge? The state of
> Florida could probably invade Cuba successfully. One US division could
> wipe out the entire Cuban army. Why all this crazy, hair-brained,
> superfluous plotting to kill Kennedy, so that we can invade Cuba, and
> possibly start a war with Russia? This is such patent nonsense. You
> really need to sit back and think about what you are saying here. Have a
> drink and relax, Tracy, there is not a conspiracy around every corner.
>
> You try to build a conspiracy house and use jello as the foundation. It
> won't stand up to scrutiny, Tracy. That's why the WC still stands today,
> because it is based on solid ground.
> >
> > I've already explained in detail in other posts on this NG how the
> > conflicting shadows are impossible to re-create in real life (and I've
> > asked many lone-nutters to give a believable explanation for the FBI's
> > attempt to duplicate the shadows: the photo where the man's head is cut
> > off.)
> >
> The FBI was not trying to recreate shadows. They were doing their job,
> which was to try and check out every possibility, to follow every lead
> no matter how ridiculous, and the head crop rumor, which Oswald himself
> promulgated , (did you realize that if you adhere to this photo
> fabrication nonsense that you are actually following a rumor started by
> the alleged assassin himself?) was something they had to try to see if
> it could be done. BTW, this is why Warren did not want the 26 vols.
> published. He had the foresight to know that amateurs like you and me
> would perhaps not understand what we were looking at.
>
> What irritates me about your thinking is, you ask the question about
> "believable explanations" of things, but you never believe them. Anyhow,
> the FBI was proving whether or not the photo fabrication could be done,
> and what the result would look like. And they realized immediately that
> it could be done, but that it wasn't done in 133-A and 133-B.
>
> Also, I read your "explanation" in another post, and it's ridiculous.
>
>
>
> > I've worked in the defense industry for much of the last 10 years, Al,
> > and I've seen many "experts" lie through their teeth to tell the
> > government what it wants to hear. I've heard some of the most ridiculous
> > explanations given, the most outrageous B.S. spouted in meetings, the
> > most non-sensical theories floated. You put far too much faith in the
> > experts; you really have to think for yourself and rely on your common
> > sense.
>
> Experts lie just like anybody else. That's doesn't mean they always do.
> And you have to prove someone is lying with alternate facts which
> support another conclusion. Just saying "'experts' lie through their
> teeth" is not sufficient to prove the FBI is lying about the
> photographs, and that is common sense. And sure, I put more faith in FBI
> experts under oath than a I do a bunch of CT's running rampant in
> cyberspace. That too, is common sense.
> >
> > DP witness Phil Willis was a deer hunter too: "I don't care what any
> > experts say. They're full of baloney. I've shot too many deer. I've hit
> > a deer in the head and his horns fly 20 feet with the direction of the
> > bullet. No one will ever convince us that the last shot did not come
> > from the right front, from the knoll area." (Trask interview, Pictures
> > of the Pain p177-81)
>
> You talk about common sense. Doesn't your common sense tell you that
> this kind of debate, trying to prove that a shot came from the front by
> the way the head moves, is an exercise in futility? It should, because
> CT's have been trying to do this almost from the beginning and never
> have been able to. The reason is the head motion could have gone either
> way. There is no scientific maxim that says that any object hit by a
> bullet will always react in the same way under all circumstances. That
> is why CT's will never be able to prove a shot came from the front using
> as "evidence" the way Kennedy reacted to the shot.
>
> > What other explanation is there?
>
> That the bullet was semi-lodged in Connally and fell on the stretcher.
> That is more likely than it being planted as part of a conspiracy.
>
> >It's likely that when the conspirators
> > planted it, they had no idea it would eventually be required to perform
>
> > That's the favorite lone-nut explanation. The problem is, the officers
> > in the basement were not supposed to give the all-clear signal to bring
> > Oswald down until everything was ready. Instead, Ruby arrives, and word
> > is sent up that all is ready; except that it wasn't: the car they meant
> > to put him in was not backed into position yet. Oswald is then brought
> > out, with no frontal protection, and is easily shot. Later, the girl who
> > gave Ruby the telegram-alibi (Karen Carlin) was deathly afraid to talk
> > to the FBI because she thought Ruby and the police were involved in a
> > conspiracy.
> >
>
> One thing I'll say for you, you never miss a chance to ascribe
> conspiracy to anything that is the least bit out of the ordinary.
>
>
>
> > I understand that they would want to protect info that really does
> > pertain to the national security, or might risk the lives of agents in
> > foreign countries. But was does a lone nut have to do with any of that?
>
> Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
>
> > Oswald had no motive. Roffman examined the sixth floor evidence against
> > Oswald and found that it didn't add up.
>
> Yes. I got that book off the shelf, where it was rightfully collecting
> dust. Let me point out a few things fallacious about Mr. Roffman's text:
>
> 1) on page 216, there is a reproduction of CE 517, and in the caption
> the author says ,"...reveals how carefully the rifle was concealed amid
> clusters of boxes." This is not a statement of fact, and is rather an
> attempt to put a "spin" on a picture that backs up something in the
> text, a favorite tactic of revisionists.
> 2) on page 73, he states "Oswald was officially thought to be Kennedy's
> sole assassin." He cannot prove that, because "officially" is a relative
> term and may or may not be the case.
> 3) Roffman claims there are "strong indications that (Oswald) returned
> to Irving the (next) Thursday October 31." He uses as a basis for that
> statement Meagher's reference to CE 1165, p6. In that exhibit a clerk
> states that to the best of her recollection LHO was in her A&P store on
> Halloween night, 1963 to cash a check. She says also that she called her
> superior to OK the check, but the man had no recollection of the event
> and did not initial the check. Two items make this most unlikely. One is
> the fact that the next day, Hosty went to Irving to try to locate the
> Oswalds and neither Ruth nor Marina mentioned anything about Oswald
> being there the night before, to Hosty or to the WC, and Ruth Paine even
> told Hosty that Oswald came on some "weekends" to visit his wife and
> children, and this is corroborated by Marina's statements everywhere.
> Second is the fact that Oswald did go to Irving the next day, and also
> on that Friday was at the main Post Office in Dallas mailing letters and
> filling out change of address cards.
> 4) on page 162 Roffman states "There is no reason to believe that Oswald
> knew anything about the November 22 motorcade." Yes there is. Marina
> said she told him about it the morning of the 22nd. Also, everyone that
> knew Oswald for more than a day or so knew he read a lot. Many, many
> people have testified they saw him reading newspapers. Anyone trying to
> claim that Oswald did not know about the motorcade would have to prove
> that Oswald did not read the newspapers, and they would be quite unable
> to do that with the many witnesses who testified that he did read them
> staring their efforts in the face. Granted, just because he read
> newspapers does not mean he read of the motorcade, but that is a far cry
> from stating there is no reason to believe he did. That Oswald read
> newspapers is quite certain.
> 5) on page 156 he admits that Marina said she saw the stock of LHO's
> rifle in the blanket in the garage, then just below that says there's
> "no evidence" that the rifle was there. This is blatant subterfuge, and
> shows his bias. He ignores the facts and his own text to try to
> exonerate Oswald.
> 6) on page 173 he days, "All the pieces of the disassembled Carcano were
> carried in this bag" under a picture of the rifle and its parts. There
> is no commission assertion of that.
> 7) on page 174 he says, "There is not the slightest suggestion in any of
> the evidence that Oswald carried his rifle to work the morning of
> November 22." Yes there is. There is testimony of Frazier and Randle,
> who saw the bag. Also, when questioned about whether or not he told
> Frazier that he had "curtain rods" in the bag, Oswald denied even
> telling Frazier that. Now you tell me, why, if they were curtain rods,
> didn't LHO just say that and show the police where they were? That would
> have cleared up a big subject, and would have shown perhaps he didn't
> bring a rifle into the TSBD. Nope. He lied, Tracy, and he lied because
> he wanted nothing to do with any bag because he knew the rifle had been
> brought there in it. But Roffman skirts this by saying it was
> "apparently" a fabrication.
>
> My main problem with Roffman is he tries to debunk the Report, which
> isn't that difficult to do anyhow, and then after "proving" what he is
> saying, makes broad generalizations about what he has "proven," when he
> really hasn't "proven" anything. That's a lot like propaganda. He is
> simply another revisionist trying to grind an Oswald-didn't-do-it axe.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > Who the heck is Charles Roberts?
> >
> > He was a reporter who wrote "The Truth About the Assassination" (1967);
> > he was in the motorcade in DP.
>
> Oh, yeah, I remember that thing now. That's a piece of junk, even though
> it's essentially correct.
>
> >> I have; I really don't think Hosty has told everything he knows.
> There you go again. Why do you think that? Because he's ex-FBI? BTW, I
> don't think he has either, but I don't attach anything sinister to it.
> And, if he does know something else that is sinister, I'll bet it just
> makes the case against Oswald stronger.
>
> > So, as a "Hunter of Fascists," he decided to kill the anti-fascist JFK?
>
> Yes, as silly as it seems, to Oswald, Kennedy wasn't so much
> anti-fascist as he was anti-Castro.
>
> > If he wanted to frame someone else, then he shouldn't have left such a
> > pile of evidence leading directly to him.
>
> You're right about that. Really, that LHO was trying to frame anyone
> else is highly unlikely.
>
> > There are very few things in this case that are reasonably well known.
>
> We disagree on that. There are many, many, things that are, but you deny
> it.
>
> > When you were a buff, did you ever believe that Oswald was framed? If
> > so, what exactly made you change your mind?
>
> Yes I did believe that once, mainly because of LHO's infamous "I'm just
> a patsy" admonition.
>
> What made me change my mind was I looked at the evidence objectively and
> stopped trying to connect every unlikely, difficult to understand (or
> accept) aspect of this case to a conspiracy.
>
> The main eye opener was CE 1, the Russian note. When I realized that
> Oswald had tried to kill General Walker, the first thing I thought was,
> "There was a conspiracy! The WC has tried to pin the wrong assassination
> on Oswald!" Also I thought "why would Oswald try to kill Walker, an
> ultra-rightist, and Kennedy, a self-styled moderate?"
>
> It was when that question was answered that I began to see that Oswald
> was the lone assassin. The answer is; they both were outspoken opponents
> of Fidel Castro. When I began to see that, I discarded the Report and
> began to study the 26 volumes of testimony. One by one, I read the
> testimonies of the major players. What emerged was a different picture
> of Oswald, a clearer, more lucid picture. That's when 133-a and 133-b,
> the backyard photos, assumed their true meaning in my buff-infested
> mind. That's when the meaning of the New Orleans antics of Oswald
> became clear. That's when Marina's flip-flopping was explained. That's
> when the Tippit murder became more meaningful to me. That's when
> Oswald's defection, his return, and his trip to Mexico started to make
> sense. That's when I realized that Oswald was a Marxist, and that the
> killing of Kennedy was a purely political one, carried out by a
> calculating, disturbed young man all by himself.
>
> From there it was simple. All the pieces fell into place, not because of
> me, but because they were in place, and I realized that all of the
> information that explained the so-called mysteries of the "crime of the
> century" was right before my very eyes! I just had not seen it because I
> was hell-bent on proving a conspiracy which did not even exist.
>
>
> Al.

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97
to

If curiosity about the autopsy photos is suspicious, then there are a lot of
suspicious characters on this newsgroup, myself included. Blahut's violation
was a violation of HSCA security, combined with removal of photos from their
plastic cases. Had it been a CIA operation, he would have worn gloves, and not
left his fingerprints all over everything--that's how he was identified.

Martin

Tracy Riddle wrote:

> Martin Shackelford wrote:
> >
> > Tracy:
> >
> > Blahut didn't steal an autopsy photo. He took them out of the
> > safe, and laid them out on a table. He removed some from their plastic
> > covers, and when someone approached the secure room, he hastily put them
> > all back in the safe, forgetting to put one of the photos back into its
> > plastic cover. When there is reference to a photo being "removed," it
> > refers to being removed from the safe or from its plastic cover.
> >
> > Martin
>
> You're right. Who knows what he was going to do with them if he hadn't
> been interrupted, though. But do you agree that this is suspicious?
>

> Tracy


Martin Shackelford

unread,
Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97
to

Walt:

If Klein's never had the 36 inch Carcano, why did they advertise it in the
ad from which Oswald ordered?

Martin

WCAKE wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Challenge # 3 to Buffs
> >From: Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz>

> >Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 23:21 EST
> >Message-id: <34595CBA...@southern.co.nz>


> >
> >WCAKE wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Challenge # 3 to Buffs
> >> >From: Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz>
> >> >Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 01:09 EST
> >> >Message-id: <345824AF...@southern.co.nz>
> >> >

> >> Oh Groan...... Not this Again..............
> >>
> >> The rifle sent from Kleins was a 40 inch long Mannlicher Carcano Model
> >> 91/38
> >> short rifle. Generically and incorrectly called a carbine.
> >>
> >> Walt Cakebread
> >
> >

> > How do you know that Walt. The add in the magazine specified the 36
> >in model with scope. It's catalogue number was not C20-T749 but
> >C20-T75?. Martin posted the correct numbers. This 36 in model was the
> >same as that sent to Hiddel according to the catalogue number on the
> >waybill.
> > In that thread someone had posted that there is evidence of something
> >with the catalogue number C20-T749 but we don't know what it signified.
> >I was speculating that it may have been the number for the 40.2 in
> >version since either the C or the T represents the attached scope on the
> >36 in version and the numbers are in sequence with the 36 in scoped and
> >unscoped catalogue numbers.
> > With luck Martin will see this and post a clearer explanation.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
>

> Tony I don't have the all of information about this in front of me at the
> moment, But I assure you I researchedthis quite thoroughly and traced the
> C2766 and the rest of the rifles in a large shipment of rifles all the way
> back to Riva gun shop in Italy. All of the Mannlicher-Carcanos sold by Kleins
> were the 40 inch long model 91/38. Kleins never carried the 36 inch carbine.
> It may interest you to know that Jack Rubenstein was importing rifles from
> Italy through a New York clearing house in 1961.
>
> Regards .......... Walt


John McAdams

unread,
Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97
to

Haizen Paige <hai...@sedona.net> wrote:
: Hoover and Johnson among other choice tidbits:

: SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
: Copyright 1993, San Jose Mercury News

: DATE: Saturday, February 6, 1993
: PAGE: 16A EDITION: Morning Final
: SECTION: Front LENGTH: 12 in. Medium
: ILLUSTRATION: Photo
: SOURCE: Boston Globe
: DATELINE: Washington

: HOOVER, BLACKMAILED BY MAFIA,
: HAD DIRT ON JFK, AUTHOR SAYS

Let me urge you to be a bit skeptical of Summers on this and other issues.

My colleague in Marquette's history department, Athan Theoharis, has a
long history of writing books critical of Hoover, but he thinks Summers
stuff is nonsense.

.John

John McAdams

unread,
Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97
to

Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
: If curiosity about the autopsy photos is suspicious, then there are a lot of

: suspicious characters on this newsgroup, myself included. Blahut's violation
: was a violation of HSCA security, combined with removal of photos from their
: plastic cases. Had it been a CIA operation, he would have worn gloves, and not
: left his fingerprints all over everything--that's how he was identified.


I'm afraid that what conspiracy books do here is to try to make the
utterly banal seem somehow sinister. That's the thing about this case:
so much of it is so utterly banal that we have trouble accepting it.

.John

Todd Wayne Vaughan

unread,
Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97
to

Listen, this is quite simple.

The 36 inch Carcano's are the carbines.

The 40 inch Carcano's are the rifles.

The C2766 Cacano is 40 inches, and thus a rifle.

End of story.

Todd

--
Todd Wayne Vaughan

Tracy Riddle

unread,
Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97
to

Brandon Alexander wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> > Agree on what? That Hoover and LBJ faced the end of their careers if
> > Kennedy lived? That gives both of them a good motive for allowing an
> > assassination plot to happen.
>
> You've been watching too many movies and bad TV. The assassination of
> the President is not something Hoover or LBJ would have ever sanctioned.
> They didn't need to that kind of drastic measure to achieve whatever
> their goals might have been.

You have a much higher opinion of the character of these two men than I
do.

> Before you call out LBJ read his biography
> by Caro. A different view of this man might develop for you. And, even
> if Hoover and LBJ did what you suggest, there is no proof of it. When
> are you going to stop making unfounded accusations against these
> people?

Caro? You mean the guy who detailed how LBJ stole the Senate election?
You're right, I feel a whole lot better about Johnson now.

> > LBJ & Hoover were old friends (read their letters to each other to see
> > how close they were); they lived right next to each other in Washington.
>
> But not that friendly. Johnson was more friendly with FDR than he was
> with Hoover.

FDR was also friendly with Hoover; in fact, Roosevelt was the one who
gave Hoover his greatly-expanded powers during WWII.

> > I would say that many of the things Hoover did were a lot worse than
> > Watergate (like trying to drive MLK to suicide, for example).
>
> Again I personally do not sanction Hoover in any way. Simply I can draw
> a line between what he did against King, who Hoover thought was a
> communist-inspired/backed (and he was wrong to believe this) civil
> rights leader, and assassinating the President of the U.S. or trying to
> disrupt the process of free elections. If you think that what he did
> against King was worse, you are entitled to you opinion.

I think they are