Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 590 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Veni, Vidi & Vidor......
[Read the article: Chris Matthews gets it wrong -- again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]vidor 1 wrote::
But, to review,
*It was Oswald's gun. Matched the serial number.
False - the serial no. was never corroborated. Patricia Dumais attempted to do so, in a visit to the National Archives, but the serial no. couldn’t be clearly discerned. It appeared, according to Dumais, to be scratched off. When Dumais made a written request to the National Archives custodian to be able to examine the rifle more closely (out of its prop case) she was refused by letter and informed “this action might be destructive to the object.'"
A representative of the Sporting Goods Store, Mitchell J. Scibor,
himself testified (on May 20, 1964) that "VC836 was the inventory
control number for the rifle purchased by Oswald", though a subsequent
Archives communique to Dumais asserted "they had examined the rifle 'but did not locate the identification VC836.'
*Oswald's prints found at the sniper's nest.
Another WC fable. The only prints found there could not be definitely matched - to either the prints on the rifle or any olther objects, as S.F. Latonia noted.
*The bullets were tied to Oswald's gun.
N. The original neutron activation analysis killed that canard. In the newsgroup a.c.jfk Walt Cakebread finished the job that showing the differences (in photos) between four groove and six groove bullets.
Wm Dolcet performed tests using the alleged Oswald bullets and all were misshapen badly in firings simulating the target attributed to Oswald. Thus, it's clear not only the rifle was a prop or plant but the WC bullet CE 399 was too. (It was fond in near pristine condition on Connelly's stretcher at Parkland)
Oswald was seen firing the weapon by a witness, Howard Brennan. (I don't know who this person is that the poster above is talking about,
Not one person, but three. Arnold Rowland et al. I provided all their names. Brennan's testimony was discredited by all three of those named witnesses, but of course, true to form of the Warren agenda - the other witnesses' testimony were not allowd.
"but if the super-shocking evidence is that this witness said the shooter was 5-7 as opposed to 5-9, color me unshocked).
That was Aquilla Clemmons, not the same person who reported TWO shooters at the Texas School Book Depository. She witnessed the Tippett killing, and killer, from her front porch. The point of Clemmons was not so much the height difference, but the BUILD - Oswald being thin and lanky, the actual shooter being short and "stubby". On no account - in any photo- does Oswald appear "short and stubby"
"Oswald was seen by four eyewitnesses murdering a policeman in broad daylight a half-hour after the shooting.
NONE of those four witnesses were as close as Aquilla Clemmons was. The closest other witnesses was more than three times more distant than Clemmons, and hence it is doubtful her witness testimony can be called credible. Sorry, but I will take someone who sees a shooting from forty feet any day and twice on Sunday, compared to a person 160' or more distant. Color me suspicious of eyesight that powerful!
But lone nut advocates like vidor are all too willing to believe the more distant witnesses over the closest one!
*On the morning of the assassination, Oswald left his wife his wedding ring, almost all his life savings, and instructions on what to do if he were arrested.
Marina, in a 1993 interview, disputed most of that. She insisted that Lee “feared arrest”, in her opinion, because he felt the conspiracy would backfire on him, when he was the one trying to warn authorities. (This is in reference to the 18 word teletype received by the FBI some days earlier from Big D)
Under interrogation, Oswald lied about never owning a gun and about the photograph of him with the rifle.
The Dallas PD never kept any notes or records of any of its interrogations of Oswald, though it conducted several- so none can be trusted. More than likely what we have is the word of mouth passing on of defective memory that has become accepted as equivalent to a formally documented statement.
Three witnesses in the window immediately below the sixth-floor window heard the rifle going off above them.
And, as I noted, THREE witnesses - Arnold Rowland et al, noted that TWO men were in the 6th floor window, one swarthy, the other foreign in appearance. Neither matching Oswald's description.
*Analysis of the wounds in Kennedy's neck and Connally's back showed that they were caused by the same bullet, which was fired from the sixth-floor corner window.
The single bullet foolishness was formally disproven by Dr. Randolph Robertson in his published x-ray study (previously cited) as well as Dr. David Mantik in his optical densitometry analysis. Both showed that a single bullet could not have made all the seven wounds that the WC atributed.
Mantik in his analysis wrote:
"The x-rays appear to have been fabricated by superimposing images on authentic x-rays to create composites, rather like double exposing a film in a camera."
In the same report he also notes:
"The discovery that they have been constructed to conceal a large defect at the back of the skull has the effect of completely discrediting the Warren Report.
As I noted from the earlier HSCA records, most of this can be attributed to inaccurate wound placement by the appointed autopsists, Humes and Boswell. This is despite the fact that they DID correctly record the wound positions in their original Autopsy Body charts. But for some reason, they tore up those originals and produced a fictitious version. (Yet another fabricated version of evidence to add to the collection of others by the WC).
A check of the wound description clearly shows the misplacement once one references the mastoid and acromion process using Gray's Anatomy. Do you have or own a Gray's Anatomy, vidor? How about consulting it?
You'd be amazed how far you can get once you can access facts as opposed to fiction.