text:
You finally did it. You've left me speechless.
You sound much better that way too. Maybe you should make it a habit.
The only evidence you have is a bus ticket that was found by ole' kind hearted Priscilla [McMillan].
Lee Farley thinks the bus ticket inside a book is "the only evidence" for Oswald being in Mexico City.
That is hilarity at its finest.
I'm actually agnostic on LHO being down there, my instinct tells me he wasn't...
That's because you have conspiracy instincts in your genes. No reasonable person, however, can possibly believe that Oswald was NOT in Mexico City in September and October of 1963.
...but I'd be willing to change my mind if there was any cast iron evidence.
No, you wouldn't. That's obvious. Because there is plenty of "cast iron evidence" to prove Lee Harvey Oswald visited Mexico City in September '63. [Click here to see it.] You just want to ignore it all. (As usual.)
You WANT to believe in shady goings-on in Mexico City. You have no intention of following the real evidence where it leads--to Oswald actually being in Mexico City.
You want to believe somebody faked the hotel register. And you want to believe that all of the bus witnesses talked to an "imposter" Oswald on the busses to and from Mexico.
And you want to believe Marina is a liar when she talked at some length about Lee going to Mexico.
And you want to think that Oswald's 11/9/63 letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington is some kind of fraud too, even though that letter [Commission Exhibit No. 15] is SIGNED BY LEE H. OSWALD.
But for you to honestly say that he wasn't impersonated is complete garbage.
The REAL Lee Harvey Oswald was positively in Mexico City. So why would anybody want to impersonate LHO when the real McCoy was already down there? You're nothing but silly.
So it was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald down there then?
Sure was. Just take another quick gander at CE15. Oswald HIMSELF admitted he went to Mexico. What more proof do you need--Silvia Duran's fingerprints all over his johnson?
Eddie Lopez and Dan Hardway were nuts and unreasonable people, eh Dave?
Damn straight.
Whilst David Slawson was above reproach and totally reasonable?
Maybe you should go back to being speechless again, Farley. Because your junk about Mexico City is pathetic.
David Von Pein
September 16, 2010
MY YouTube CHANNELS:
DVP's JFK CHANNEL
DVP's OLD-TIME RADIO CHANNEL
DVP's CHANNEL #3
DVP's JFK ARCHIVES:
DVP's VIDEO & AUDIO ARCHIVE:
Attempting to resurrect that fraud of a New Orleans prosecutor named Earling C. (Jim) Garrison (with respect to the JFK assassination case and Garrison's bogus prosecution of Clay Shaw) is enough to make anybody laugh so hard, they are likely to bust wide open.
But Jim DiEugenio seems to enjoy endorsing an obvious fraud (Garrison) who decided to prosecute his own "patsy" named Clay Shaw on a charge of conspiracy to murder the President of the United States, despite the fact that the fraud named Garrison had zero pieces of evidence to prove Shaw's complicity in the crime he was being charged with.
To show just how much of a fraud Garrison was, when Garrison boldly announced to the world on February 24, 1967, that he and his staff had "solved" the JFK case, Garrison's "star" witness, Perry Russo, had not even come forward to tell his tale of lies to Garrison and his prosecution team.
Quoting from "Reclaiming History":
"On February 24 [1967]...Garrison...announced that "my staff and I solved the case weeks ago. I wouldn't say this if I didn't have evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. We know the key individuals, the cities involved, and how it was done . . . There were several plots . . . The only way they are going to get away from us is to kill themselves . . . It's a case we will not lose, and anybody that wants to bet against us is invited to, but they will be disappointed." Garrison said, "There is no doubt that the entire thing [alleged plot to kill Kennedy] was planned in New Orleans."
For good measure, Garrison told the press, "I have no reason to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed anybody in Dallas on November 22, 1963." Garrison said that "the key to the whole case is through the looking glass. Black is white. White is black. I don't want to be cryptic, but that's the way it is."
Of course, Garrison was just bluffing. In fact, Perry Russo, Garrison's star witness and the one around whom he virtually built his entire case, hadn't even been interviewed by Garrison's staff yet. That took place the following day, February 25, when they spoke to him for the very first time.
Not one scrap of evidence has ever emerged that on February 24, the day Garrison announced that he and his staff had "solved the case," he had any evidence connecting anyone, in any way, with the assassination. If there were nothing else at all, this alone, by definition, would be enough to prove beyond all doubt that Garrison had no personal credibility with respect to this case.
No assassination theory, many originating with the Dealey Plaza Irregulars and bought by Garrison, was too wild or far-out for Garrison's taste. .... It is said that no other people love fantasy more than the people of New Orleans, and their elected DA intended to give them as much as their girths could hold.
Before he finally settled in on elements of the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans working for "war-oriented elements of the American power structure" as being behind the plot to kill Kennedy, the fertile-minded Orleans Parish DA saw many other different villains behind the plot and had screwy visions of how it was pulled off.
In her book about Garrison and the Shaw trial, 'False Witness', the best book on the case, Patricia Lambert chronicles, with citations, Garrison's progression of fantastic and bizarre theories, all of which he shared with the media." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1365-1366 of "Reclaiming History"
To hear a quick overview of the kind of "fantastic and bizarre theories" that Vince Bugliosi was referring to in the above book quote, check out Jim Garrison's January 31, 1968, interview with Johnny Carson on "The Tonight Show".
At the link provided below, Carson provides the audience with a rundown of some of the various theories that the Jolly Green Crackpot named Garrison had placed on the table within just the previous eleven months prior to his 1/31/68 appearance on Carson's late-night NBC-TV program.
David Von Pein
September 6, 2010
MY YouTube CHANNELS:
DVP's JFK CHANNEL
DVP's OLD-TIME RADIO CHANNEL
DVP's CHANNEL #3
DVP's JFK ARCHIVES:
DVP's VIDEO & AUDIO ARCHIVE:
MY YouTube CHANNELS:
DVP's JFK CHANNEL
DVP's OLD-TIME RADIO CHANNEL
DVP's CHANNEL #3
DVP's JFK ARCHIVES:
DVP's VIDEO & AUDIO ARCHIVE:
Clint Hill is a fraud...
That's a lousy thing to say, Vince.
Among other things, you seem to like the idea that Agent Hill has said "the back of the head was gone", and yet you still feel comfortable labelling him as a "fraud"? Sounds a little inconsistent to me.
I had never heard this story about Jackie clipping a lock of Kennedy's hair. But why in the world would he [Clint Hill] wait 53 years to reveal this in a book he's trying to sell? And why would he reveal such a personal moment?
Because don't you know...it's the dollars. Always the dollars.
That information about Jackie Kennedy snipping off a piece of JFK's hair in the East Room isn't a new revelation by Clint Hill. It's been out there for almost 50 years. It was revealed in William Manchester's 1967 book "The Death Of A President" (on page 517) and in Jim Bishop's book "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" in 1968 (page 678) and in Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (page 199). So it's certainly not brand-new information coming out for the first time in 2016.
Thank you, David. I had no idea this was an old / regurgitated story about the hair snipping. In TDOAP, whose POV was the story told from? Just curious.
Here are the exact quotations from the book:
"Together, the President's widow and brother knelt by the open coffin. This was the first time Mrs. Kennedy had seen her husband since Parkland. It isn't Jack, it isn't Jack, she kept thinking; and she was so glad Bobby had agreed to keep it shut. She put the three letters, the scrimshaw, and the cufflinks in the coffin. Bob Kennedy took off his PT tie pin. He said, "He should have this, shouldn't he?" "Yes," she whispered. Then he drew from his pocket an engraved silver rosary Ethel had given him at their wedding. Bob placed this with the letters. Then, with a lock of her husband's hair, she went out with Bob. To all of those awaiting the motorcade's departure for the rotunda, it was clear that the widow was in agony. Mary Gallagher, standing with Dr. Walsh, thought that "I had never seen her look worse. Bobby was leading her by the arm, holding her up; she was limp, with her head down, weeping. She looked as though she were ready to fall." She was swaying visibly; Clint Hill was afraid she might faint. She didn't." *
-- Page 517 of "The Death Of A President: November 20—November 25, 1963" by William Manchester (1967)
* Two necessary commas added by DVP due to Mr. Manchester's inexplicable lack of proper punctuation in various portions of his book.
Here's the related passage concerning the hair-snipping done by Mrs. Kennedy that appears in Jim Bishop's book:
"Robert Kennedy held her elbow and whispered to her. They started slowly across to the center of the room. General McHugh barked an order: "Honor guard, leave the room!" There was a hesitation. Each man did an about-face and started to walk away. "No," Mrs. Kennedy said, holding up a hand. "No. They can stay." They stopped but did not turn back. One man was in midstep, and remained in that attitude. Robert led her to where Clint Hill stood. The Secret Service man lifted the lid high and stepped down. The Attorney General helped the lady up the step. She stood looking in, still wearing his dried blood on her strawberry dress and on her stockings. She stared at the image and asked for scissors. Hill got them. She reached in and snipped a lock of hair. Robert Kennedy glanced at his brother and turned his glance down. Mrs. Kennedy held the snip of hair and the scissors. Then she turned away. "It isn't Jack," she said."
-- Page 678 of "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop (1968)
See? That wasn't even new. Thanks for proving that, David.
I don't understand, Vince. Are you saying that Clint Hill is saying that the hair-snipping incident is being revealed for the very first time in his (Hill's) book(s)?
If that is what you are implying, Vince, can you show me where within this Esquire article Clint Hill says that he's revealing the hair-snipping event for the first time? I don't think Hill is saying any such thing.
BTW, for the record....
Somebody has made a mistake concerning WHEN that hair-snipping incident took place. I just now noticed the discrepancy when comparing the various book excerpts I previously cited.
William Manchester's book has Jacqueline Kennedy performing the hair-snipping on Sunday, November 24th between 12:30 and 1:00 PM (EST), which aligns with Clint Hill's version of when that event transpired via the excerpt in the Esquire article linked above.
But Jim Bishop's book claims the hair-snipping occurred shortly after JFK's body arrived back at the White House from Bethesda in the early morning hours of Saturday, November 23rd. (Vince Bugliosi, in his 2007 book, agrees with Bishop's account.)
Since Clint Hill was actually there at the time and was a witness to the hair-snipping event as it was occurring, I think it's pretty safe to say that the November 24th date is the correct one.
Wow, that sure is a mixed bag of messages between Manchester and Bishop. Both of their writings seem a little hackneyed, full of hyperbole, and somewhat hysterical.
McHugh "barked" - yeah right.
And other stuff. Whew.
Oh, come now, Michael. You know what that is --- it's called "dramatic license". Some "over the top" license is always used when an author is writing in narrative style like that.
Think maybe you can cut Manchester and Bishop some slack in that "license" regard? :)
BTW - who in the hell wrote that book review on TDOAP [linked below]? Jesus, talk about one-sided.
It's my review (of course), which is quite obvious since I "signed" it at the end.
Sorry you disapprove, Mike. (Should I have pretended Oswald was innocent because he never went to trial, like most Internet CTers keep telling me I should do?)
David Von Pein
November 25-26, 2016
MY YouTube CHANNELS:
DVP's JFK CHANNEL
DVP's OLD-TIME RADIO CHANNEL
DVP's CHANNEL #3
DVP's JFK ARCHIVES:
DVP's VIDEO & AUDIO ARCHIVE:
I'm 100% convinced that there are saner people than you locked away.
I guess that must mean that I share a padded cell with Vincent Bugliosi, Dale Myers, John McAdams, Gerald Posner, Dave Reitzes, Larry Sturdivan, Jean Davison, Jim Moore, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and many other "LNers" who hold the same opinion I hold about Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in JFK's murder. Right, Lee?
Boy, it sure is crowded here at the insane asylum.
Will you please "prove" the speculation in the points I have made?
Every single one of the points you made is nothing BUT speculation [as Farley attempts to "connect" the assassination of JFK in Dallas to the Chicago incident involving Thomas Vallee in early November of 1963].
Let's review your points:
"Point 1. The first connection is that there was a plot to assassinate the president. Pretty basic connection you've missed there."
No. It's not a "pretty basic connection" at all. And that's because you haven't proven that "Oswald/Dallas" was a "conspiracy" plot at all (i.e., a plot involving more than just Lee Harvey Oswald).
That's your first big mistake right there. You think that a conspiracy has been PROVEN in the Oswald/Dallas case. But it hasn't. Not even close, in fact. To this day, there is still not one SOLID piece of evidence that connects the assassination of JFK to anyone but Lee H. Oswald.
And that's because Oswald acted on his own on 11/22/63, and every single piece of physical evidence indicates that lone assassin fact, plus every single thing Oswald did and said (and lied about!) on Nov. 21 and Nov. 22 indicates that lone assassin fact as well.
"Point 2. The second connection is it was covered up. The American public didn't hear much about it. Probably wasn't that important eh, Dave?"
The President's life is threatened on a regular basis. And JFK was no different. There are unquestionably many, many threats made against various Presidents that the public is never made aware of.
The Chicago threat by Thomas Vallee was a bit different (and certainly more serious) due to the fact that Vallee was caught with a large amount of weapons and ammunition in his car and in his apartment on the very day that JFK was scheduled to visit Chicago (November 2, 1963). This resulted in the President's trip being cancelled, because the Secret Service and other authorities had no way of knowing whether Vallee might have had any accomplices.
"Point 3. Thomas Arthur Vallee was stationed at Atsugi. Big CIA recruitment centre from what I hear. Have you heard?"
You're now implying that Thomas Vallee was connected to the "CIA" via Atsugi, which is more pure speculation, of course.
"Point 4. The plot was designed to patsify TAV [Thomas Arthur Vallee] while the assassination was going to be executed by others unknown. Get it?"
More pure speculation, of course. You have absolutely no PROOF of anything you've said in Point 4.
And your next hunk of speculation is....
"Point 5. No one knows what happened to the men who were arrested. Do you?"
Hilarious, Lee. Something that "no one knows" about is considered PROOF of a tie-in between Chicago and Dallas.
You're a speculation-filled howl, Mr. Farley.
"Point 6. Abraham Bolden's life was ruined in the most disgusting manner for attempting to speak out. Sound familiar?"
No. Not really.
Who else had their lives "ruined" by attempting to speak out about conspiracy regarding the JFK assassination? Are you referring to people like S.M. Holland? Or Jean Hill? Was Jean's life "ruined" by her book deal in 1992 and her association with Oliver Stone?
Or maybe you mean Jim Garrison. Was Jim's life "ruined" after he prosecuted an innocent man for conspiracy to kill JFK? Hardly.
The life of Garrison's "patsy", Clay Shaw, was certainly ruined, however. That's for sure. But Garrison was re-elected as New Orleans District Attorney by the largest margin ever. And Jim then went on to be elected twice as a judge.
Or maybe you're referring to Lee Bowers, who was killed in a car crash in August of 1966, AFTER he had already spilled his guts to Mark Lane ON CAMERA for Lane's film "Rush To Judgment".
So, it's just like I said, Lee -- You've got nothing but speculation on your pathetic list of half-a-dozen items above. And the very first item on your list pretty much makes all five of the other points completely moot right off the bat--because you can't even prove the case for conspiracy in the Dallas/Oswald shooting.
Well, I'll go back to my insane asylum now. I've got a date to play checkers with Bugliosi through the bars of our adjoining padded cells.
David Von Pein
September 5, 2010
MY YouTube CHANNELS:
DVP's JFK CHANNEL
DVP's OLD-TIME RADIO CHANNEL
DVP's CHANNEL #3
DVP's JFK ARCHIVES:
DVP's VIDEO & AUDIO ARCHIVE:
Come on, Dave, you can do better. That last post [linked here] was a total embarrassment.
That's odd. I just now re-read it and thought it was quite good, lucid, and reasonable. (Especially considering the fact I am up against an ABO CTer [i.e., an Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorist]; and those people can be knocked down without even trying.)
I think Martin is right, and that the heat here [at The Education Forum] is too hot for you.
LOL. What heat, Pat? All I'm hearing is Jim DiEugenio's usual Anybody-But-Oswald take on everything from Hoover, to Warren, to Specter, to the SBT, to the HSCA. And he relies almost exclusively on other conspiracy authors for his sources. (And no conspiracy-promoting authors would ever have an agenda, would they Pat?)
And, btw, yes, Vince Bugliosi DID have an agenda from Day 1 of writing "Reclaiming History". He knew by the time he started writing his book in 1986 that Oswald killed two people and very very likely had acted alone. So, yes, that IS an "agenda". I don't deny that fact.
So, if you want to toss Vince and his huge tome of rock-solid evidence and facts under the bus because of his Oswald-was-guilty "agenda", well, then, I guess you can do that if you want. But I'll hang on to my copy of "Reclaiming History", because in my opinion it contains the truth about the way John F. Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963.
It certainly appears that you're trying to get yourself booted so you can crawl back to aaj complaining about how all those kooks over on the ED Forum teamed up on you....waaa!
You're wrong about that, Pat. I'm just passionate about my position. And I get a little testy and irritable when confronted with someone like Jim DiEugenio, who believes in two things that are just not supported by ANY of the evidence in this case -- 1. Oswald was innocent of shooting Jack Kennedy; and 2. Oswald was also innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit.
Dr. Lattimer said that the bullet entering Kennedy's back entered at the level of his chin. He also said that he thought the autopsy measurements were correct, and that the back wound was roughly 14 cm below the bottom tip of the right mastoid process. Do you agree?
I agree with the autopsy measurements, of course. After all, that's one of the few precise measurements regarding the wounds that we've actually got to rely on. The back wound was certainly 14 cm. below the mastoid (although the HSCA said it was 13.5 cm.). But I can live with either of those measurements, to be honest. And either measurement most certainly places the back wound anatomically higher than the throat wound.
As for Lattimer's "chin" reference -- The diagram Dr. Lattimer uses on page 180 of his book [pictured below] appears to me to have an angle through JFK's body that is too steeply downward. It looks steeper than 17.72 degrees [17 degrees, 43 minutes] to me anyway.
If the angle were to be lessened to the correct 17.72-degree figure, then the back wound would be LOWER than where Lattimer shows it to be on page 180.
Of course, via Lattimer's diagram, if the back wound were to be lowered, it would likely mean that a bone in Kennedy's back would be hit. But since we know no bones were hit in JFK's upper back, then I have no choice but to conclude that Lattimer's illustration is flawed in a "bone structure of the human body" regard as well.
David Von Pein
September 1, 2010
MY YouTube CHANNELS:
DVP's JFK CHANNEL
DVP's OLD-TIME RADIO CHANNEL
DVP's CHANNEL #3
DVP's JFK ARCHIVES:
DVP's VIDEO & AUDIO ARCHIVE:
David, I have asked this question a few times on here, but as yet no one has dared to give an answer. Even a ridiculous one! Maybe you could tell me when YOU think Oswald first made the decision to kill Kennedy.
The answer to that question can never be known. You know that. Everybody knows it's an unanswerable question, and different people will have different opinions about it.
My own "opinion" is that he probably made the decision to try to make an attempt on JFK's life sometime on Wednesday evening, November 20th. He then asks Wes Frazier for the unusual ride to Irving on Thursday morning and LHO invents his "curtain rod" lie at that time.
So it's pretty clear that by Thursday AM, he had it in his mind to make an attempt on JFK's life.
But on Thursday night, per Marina, LHO says that he would get an apartment in Dallas "tomorrow" if she would agree to come back to Dallas with him to live right away. So it's highly unlikely he would have taken that rifle to work with him on Friday if Marina had said "Yes".
The rest is history, of course. LHO took his rifle to work on Nov. 22 and got extremely lucky when he found himself completely alone on the sixth floor at exactly 12:30.
If Bonnie Ray Williams (or other employees) had been up there on the sixth floor at 12:30, there is no way, IMO, that Oswald would have fired a single shot at JFK.
So, yes, Oswald was one LUCKY Presidential assassin on November 22, 1963. No question about that. But he WAS a Presidential assassin that day. There's no question about THAT either.
In the immortal words of John McEnroe:
Lee Oswald never harmed anyone.
Good grief! Von Pain [sic] is back.
Yes, David, of course patsies have incriminating evidence on them. If not they wouldn't be patsies, would they?
Oh, sure. And the police in the Texas Theater just shoved the Smith & Wesson .38 into Oswald's hands in the theater and whispered to him --
"Hey, Lee, would you be kind enough to go along with this patsy plot we're undertaking today, and take this gun and act like you want to shoot a bunch of us cops with it? How 'bout it, buddy? Will you help us out with this thing? I'll buy you a beer (or a Dr. Pepper) if you do."
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
DVP likes to make up unlikely scenarios that he can then ridicule. All the time ignoring much more likely ones that he cannot.
Oh, sure. It's much MUCH more "likely" for the revolver to have been "planted" on Oswald in the theater than it is to believe Johnny Brewer and all of the cops who were there (who all said Oswald pulled the gun out of his waist and tried to shoot some people with it) -- right Jim?
Jim, please stop! You know my bladder is a very weak one!
BTW, on John McAdams' moderated forum at alt.assassination.jfk, one of my very favorite "LNers" chimed in today with this excellent message about The Education Forum that I wanted to share:
[Quote On:]
"Hey David, good to see you back stirring up the retards on the Education Forum. It's unbelievable the type of responses your return is generating. One stupid idea after another offered, they've created this image of Oswald and just plug in everything into this mythical creation.
A lot of things said in the one post you started about Oswald's room had me shaking my head, but this one by Bernie Laverick has to be the topper...
"Yes, David, of course patsies have incriminating evidence on them. If not they wouldn't be patsies, would they?"
Mind-numbingly retarded on many different levels. How can you tell innocent people from guilty people if not by incriminating evidence (in fact, it seems the incriminating evidence is seen as an indicator of Oswald's innocence)?
Who carries things that they don't know the "whys" about? Oswald was taken alive, why isn't he making any effort to set the record straight about this incriminating evidence he is caught with? [The] kooks just have a flawed way of looking at things, and nothing anyone can do is going to change that."
-- Bud; August 3, 2010
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
See, unlike the world of Reclaiming History, we all know that the FBI lied, distorted, manipulated and manufactured evidence in this case. It started the very day of the assassination with the FBI call to Tomlinson telling him to shut up about the bullet he found.
I don't believe for a single solitary second that the FBI called up Darrell Tomlinson on the night of the assassination and told him to "shut up" about the bullet he found. I find it impossible to believe that the FBI actually said those two words ("shut up") to Tomlinson.
My guess is that the conspiracy author who wrote about that FBI phone call to Tomlinson was putting a nice healthy layer of "conspiracy spin" on the whole thing. And it's possible that Tomlinson himself was putting a layer of CT spin on the story too. Tomlinson, after all, is a man who told the Warren Commission no fewer than TEN TIMES that he was "not sure" which stretcher he had taken off of the elevator at Parkland, and yet Darrell's memory improved greatly in the 24 years following his 1964 WC session, when he told the PBS-TV cameras in 1988 that he was absolutely positive that the stretcher he took from the elevator was the stretcher that did NOT have a bullet on it.
What very likely happened is this:
The FBI called up Darrell Tomlinson (which, I'll admit, is a telephone call that the FBI could have possibly made), and since it was very late on Nov. 22, it probably meant that Oswald had already been formally charged with the murder of President Kennedy (LHO was officially charged with the assassination at 11:26 PM CST on Nov. 22).
The FBI, knowing that Tomlinson had found a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, then told Tomlinson it would probably be a good idea not to discuss the details of his finding that bullet with anyone until Oswald's court trial could take place.
Yes, the above scenario is just a guess on my part. But it makes a lot of (common) sense to me. And I certainly don't believe for a minute that the FBI was involved in any kind of a cover-up or a conspiracy in connection with the stretcher bullet that Tomlinson found at Parkland. And I'd bet the farm that the words "shut up" were never uttered by any FBI agent during the course of any telephone call between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Darrell C. Tomlinson.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
DVP [in this post] is actually using the Klein's money order to prove that Oswald used the alias Hidell.
LOL. Of course I am. And any rational, sensible, reasonable person would do the very same thing.
Jim apparently thinks a key piece of evidence like the money order Lee Oswald made out to Klein's Sporting Goods is supposed to be IGNORED and/or DISMISSED.
How nice and convenient for you, Jim, that you feel so comfortable merely dismissing the testimony of the handwriting experts.
Of course, as we all know, Jim and his fellow Anybody But Oswald groupies don't have the slightest hesitation whatsoever in throwing ALL of the evidence that points to Patsy Oswald out the nearest window.
My, how convenient.
It means NOTHING to Jim D. and the ABO crowd that every official investigative committee who has ever looked into JFK's murder has determined that LEE HARVEY OSWALD killed President Kennedy.
The irrevocable fact that has BOTH the Warren Commission AND the House Select Committee coming to the same conclusion about OSWALD being the only person in Dealey Plaza who hit any victim with any bullets on November 22 is a fact that people like Jim DiEugenio will totally ignore.
Mind-boggling....isn't it?
[Lee] Farley is citing passages from John "Two LHOs & Two Marguerites" Armstrong to bolster his claims about the wallet.
VonPain [sic] obviously does not know how many Marguerites there were.
Ohhhh, my poor, poor bladder!
William Whaley claims his reenactment took him 9 minutes to get from where he picked Oswald up to the rooming house and that was when the lights went his way.
Yes, cab driver William W. Whaley did say it took "nine minutes" to perform one of the re-enactments from Greyhound to Beckley and Neely [at 2 H 259]. But you're leaving out the other re-enactment, which was performed on the same day Whaley gave additional testimony in front of the Warren Commission (April 8, 1964).
In that second re-enactment with Whaley and Warren Commission counsel member David W. Belin present, the cab ride was reconstructed from the Greyhound bus terminal to the intersection of Beckley Avenue and Neely Street in Oak Cliff (which is where Whaley said Oswald got out of the taxicab).
That 4/8/64 re-creation was timed by stopwatch at 5 minutes and 30 seconds [see 6 H 434 and WCR Page 163].
DAVID BELIN -- "When we went out there today, when we started the stopwatch from the Greyhound bus station to the 700 block of North Beckley, do you know about how many minutes that was on the stop watch?"
WILLIAM WHALEY -- "A little more than 5 minutes, between 5 and 6 minutes."
MR. BELIN -- "Would your trip that day, on November 22, have been longer or shorter, or about the same time as the trip we took today?"
MR. WHALEY -- "It would be approximately the same time, sir, give or take a few seconds, not minutes. Because the man drove just about as near to my driving as possible. We made every light that I made, and we stopped on the lights that I stopped on."
MR. BELIN -- "Let the record show that the stopwatch was 5 minutes and 30 seconds from the commencement of the ride to the end of the ride."
So Dave,
Why do you think Oswald had Whaley drive him FIVE blocks past his rooming house, so then he had to walk back?
Simple, Bill. The reason was very likely two-fold on Oswald's part:
LHO didn't want the cab driver to know exactly where he lived. And #2 (which is even a better reason IMO), he wanted to see if any police or strangers were lurking near 1026 Beckley. After all, he had just killed the President, and he had to know that the cops would be hot on his trail very soon.
Yes, he could, of course, have checked the immediate area around his roominghouse for cop cars and "strangers", etc., and then have Whaley let him out just a few yards beyond the roominghouse, which would have made the walk back to his room much shorter. But he didn't do that. And since nobody can read his mind on this issue, we'll never know for sure exactly why Oswald did all of the things he did on November 22. But we know he DID do them.
And: Oswald also knew that nobody at the TSBD had his Beckley address, so that fact would buy him some extra time to go get his revolver (and, no, I don't know why he would not have taken his Smith & Wesson revolver with him to work on 11/22; the reason there, IMO, is likely because he would have needed to take the revolver into work at the Depository Building TWICE [and transport the gun in Wes Frazier's car TWICE too], because of his unusual Thursday trip to Irving; perhaps he thought Frazier might see it and start asking questions, with Frazier possibly putting 2 & 2 together and then saying something to somebody about LHO having a gun; I really don't know).
I also think it's quite possible that Oswald just simply forgot his revolver when he left for work on Thursday, the 21st. His plan to murder JFK was, indeed, slipshod and half-assed in some ways. And it certainly reeks of being "last minute" (or nearly so, relatively-speaking).
But, hey, it's hard to argue with success, isn't it? He achieved his primary goal of killing the President, despite a slipshod getaway plan.
Too many people criticize the way Oswald did things on Nov. 21 and 22, 1963. But, as mentioned, it's hard to knock perfection. And Oswald achieved "perfection", from his point-of-view -- he assassinated the person he was attempting to assassinate.
BTW, Oswald was driven only THREE blocks past his roominghouse, Bill. Not five. LHO had Whaley drop him off in the 700 block of N. Beckley, instead of travelling all the way to the 500 block, which LHO originally told Whaley was his destination.
Now you are saying that you want to use the official Whaley reenactment time of 5 minutes, 30 seconds. That's fine. Use the official WC timing. Will you also be using the official Warren Commission timing of Oswald's walk from Beckley to Patton? 17 minutes and 45 seconds. Are you going to use this in your timeline, Dave?
You obviously cannot read. Because David Belin fully explains at 6 H 434 that the 17:45 timing was the "LONG WAY AROUND ROUTE". Taking a more direct route (plus moving a little faster than the "AVERAGE WALKING PACE" that was utilized during the Commission's 17:45 trip) would have shaved considerable time off of that 17-minute journey.
Who's cherry-picking now, Lee? You seem to leave out quite a few important addendums when talking about the evidence (like Belin's "Long Way Around Route" verbiage).
Why are you showing me a picture of a brand spanking new bus ticket? Oh, wait. That's "THE" bus ticket, isn't it? The one that had a fight with 10 police officers? I forgot about the third tactic that you and your ilk use, didn't I? I defined two. The "Who shot JFK then?" fall back position. The "How many people were involved in the massive conspiracy?" fall back position. And now we add the "So how many people were liars then?" fall back position.
If it wasn't so predictable, it would be somewhat amusing.
All three of those "fall back" positions are perfectly reasonable. You only mock them because you have no reasonable answers to combat them.
Your silly Anybody-But-Oswald theory requires the coordination of dozens upon dozens (maybe hundreds) of people, cutting across all walks of life (both civilians and otherwise), working in concert to frame your innocent, snow-white patsy named Lee Harvey.
So, now the bus ticket is a plant too. Great. What's next? Oswald's brown shirt which was consistent with the fibers found in the rifle's butt plate? Was that shirt planted right on his back on November 22?
BTW, please prove to the world that a paper bus transfer that was in a person's shirt pocket MUST be mutilated beyond recognition after a brief scuffle with police officers in a theater. I'd like to see that proof.
If you ABO nutjobs weren't so predictable....you'd still be predictable (and really, really silly, to boot).
How long does Oswald have to walk the distance to kill Tippit at 1:09 PM? I've walked the distance myself. It took me just under 20 minutes.
But granted, I didn't know the area very well and it wasn't the best of neighborhoods, so I didn't want to draw attention to myself by walking too quickly. Hey, a bit like Oswald.
The trip from 1026 Beckley to the Tippit murder scene has been done in about 11 minutes, Lee. You know that.
And the most important re-creations are the ones that can determine (if possible) the MINIMUM amount of time that these things can be done in -- like the cab re-enactments. We've got two conflicting times, yes. No doubt about that. We've got a nine-minute trip and a 5.5-minute trip.
But since we know beyond all doubt that the trip can be made in 5-and-a-half minutes, why on Earth would the Warren Commission assume that the nine-minute trip is more reasonable, even though they also knew darn well that maybe Oswald and Whaley made the cab trip in just 5.5 minutes?
Another LNer at another forum pointed out a similar line of thought regarding the re-creations of Oswald's alleged movements when he went from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest to the second-floor lunch room.
The other LNer made a good point in asking (in essence): Why in the world didn't the WC and FBI do a reconstruction of Oswald's movements AT THE FASTEST SPEED POSSIBLE by Secret Service agent John Joe Howlett (who is the SS man who performed two such re-creations in the TSBD in 1964 for the Warren Commission)?
But the Warren Commission and Howlett didn't perform a "FASTEST TIME POSSIBLE" re-creation. If they had, Howlett would certainly have been able to shave quite a few seconds off of his two "walking" times.
Howlett did one reconstruction at a "normal walk", which was 78 seconds; and he performed another re-creation at a "fast walk", which only shaved four seconds off his time, with the "fast walk" re-creation clocking in at 74 seconds.
But an out-and-out RUNNING re-creation would have resulted, quite obviously, in a much quicker time on the stopwatch -- probably well under 60 seconds.
But, even though the WC did not perform such a "fastest time possible" test, Howlett (even while WALKING) was able to get to the second floor in only 78 seconds, which was a few seconds ahead of Marrion Baker's average of 82.5 seconds for his two re-creations of his November 22 movements.
I wonder why more conspiracy theorists never bother to take note of the raw FACTS that I just mentioned in my last paragraph? (Maybe it's because such raw FACTS would shoot to hell their silly notion that they've embraced for decades, and that is the notion/myth that Oswald could not possibly have made it from the Sniper's Nest to the lunchroom in under two minutes.)
David Von Pein
August 2-21, 2010
November 21, 2016
MY YouTube CHANNELS:
DVP's JFK CHANNEL
DVP's OLD-TIME RADIO CHANNEL
DVP's CHANNEL #3
DVP's JFK ARCHIVES:
DVP's VIDEO & AUDIO ARCHIVE:
It was at 11:50 PM on 11/22/63 that the FBI lab in Washington received the first bullet fragments from Dealey Plaza that were large enough to be matched up with the bullet that Daryl Tomlinson [sic] found, which they had received earlier that evening.
Of course, they would have been eager to analyze them to determine whether they came all from the same rifle.
Obviously, they did not.
This is from the recorded 1967 [sic] interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The interview is also documented in the HSCA records:
Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me, that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to keep my mouth shut.
Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?
Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…
Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk about it period?
Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it--period.
Darrell C. Tomlinson (Parts 1, 2, and 3):
http://jfk-archives/Part 1
http://jfk-archives/Part 2
http://jfk-archives/Part 3
The only remotely relevant statement in those blogs, among all those ugly ad hominem attacks on your adversaries, was the one in which you pointed out that in 1967 [sic] Tomlinson said that the bullet he found did come off of Connally's stretcher.
But that was NOT his original, earliest recollection, which is all any honest researcher should care about. He originally told both the Secret Service and the FBI that it came off a different stretcher.
After being worked over by Spector [sic], he then said he wasn't certain.
So, why would he have changed his story 4 years later?
Well, put yourself in his shoes. How many times do you suppose this conversation took place between Tomlinson and Spector [sic] or other govt. advocates?
T: That bullet didn't come off of Connally's stretcher.
G: But Daryl [sic], the FBI examined it and concluded that it came from Oswald's rifle! You don't think the FBI would lie do you? Haw, haw, haw.
How does he reply, David? At some point, he has to conclude that his memory must be faulty. If only he knew what we know now. :-)
David, you know very well that there is NOTHING in those blog articles that address what matters on this issue. Posting links to totally irrelevant articles is just a pathetic attempt to evade the evidence.
Talk about Wade, Nolan, Bell and how they corroborated John Connally.
Talk about the absence of the initials of agents Johnsen and Todd on CE399.
Talk about how the FBI tried to silence Daryl [sic] Tomlinson after they discovered that the bullet he found didn't match large fragments found in the limo.
Talk about why, within one week after receiving those bullets, Hoover was telling LBJ that Connally came between a sniper and [JFK].
CE399 was NOT the bullet that wounded Connally. It wasn't even involved in the assassination. That was PROVEN by hard evidence.
And maybe you should learn how to properly spell Mr. Tomlinson's first name, Bob. Among many other things, you never get that right either.
Regarding the topics that Bob Harris mentioned above, I have talked about all of those subjects in the past at some length, and I've archived many of those discussions at my website. (See links below.) For some reason, though, Mr. Harris thinks I've totally ignored those topics altogether. ~shrug~
http://jfk-archives/Audrey Bell & Bobby Nolan
http://jfk-archives/The Secret Service & CE399
http://jfk-archives/Assassination Arguments (Part 1146)
http://jfk-archives/Darrell Tomlinson & The FBI
http://jfk-archives/Assassination Arguments (Part 737)
http://jfk-archives/The FBI's Early Mistakes
And why do you suppose that on Saturday, 11/23, the FBI didn't hold a press conference, gleefully announcing that they had PROOF that Oswald fired the bullet that Tomlinson found?
You must be joking. The FBI would not want to reveal to the public and the potential jury pool any specific details concerning the physical evidence at that point in time on November 23, which was a time before Oswald was shot and his trial was pending.
Even the talkative members of the DPD and the D.A.'s office (Curry, Wade, and Fritz) wouldn't reveal any details to the press concerning the bullet evidence on November 23rd. But you think the FBI would (or should) have done such a thing? I kinda doubt it.
After being worked over by Spector [sic], he then said he wasn't certain.
Pat Speer found the Secret Service's Dec. 4, 1963 interview of Tomlinson and that's not what it says. First page here says he found the bullet on the elevator stretcher:
I can't find the FBI interview of Tomlinson. Do you have a link or are you relying on memory?
Specter apparently had these documents in front of him when he questioned Tomlinson and was surprised when the witness contradicted himself. No wonder Specter seemed to "work him over." In later interviews Tomlinson continued to switch between which stretcher he thought the bullet was on.
Yes, but HE didn't say that and the Secret Service didn't claim he did. That was their conclusion, not his.
[More of Robert Harris' reply is HERE.]
No. The conclusion was based on what Tomlinson told them. The document continued:
"At the time he arrived at the elevator, a stretcher was on the elevator. The stretcher contained some bloody sheets rolled in a ball, some medical tools, two bandage pads, and a glove. Mr. Tomlinson stated that he removed the stretcher from the elevator and placed it in a foyer...."
Also interviewed were witnesses who saw Connally's stretcher upstairs. Nurse Jane Wester, who helped move Connally to the OR [Operating Room] table, said she "rolled up the sheet on which the Governor was lying which was covered with blood, along with several pieces of paper and placed it on one end of the stretcher. She then placed some tools, which she cannot identify, on the other end of the stretcher" and asked orderly Jimison to take it to the elevator. Jimison said he saw the nurse roll up the bloody sheets and put them on the stretcher.
There were no bloody rolled-up sheets on the other stretcher.
Tomlinson repeatedly told Specter he wasn't sure which of the two stretchers came off the elevator. Understandable, since he had no reason to pay attention to either one until he found the bullet. But he did remember what else was on that particular stretcher:
Mr. TOMLINSON -- I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet rolled out that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat.
Mr. SPECTER -- And that was from which stretcher?
Mr. TOMLINSON -- I believe that it was "B".
Mr. SPECTER -- And what was on "B", if you recall; if anything?
Mr. TOMLINSON -- Well, at one end they had one or two sheets rolled up; I didn't examine them. They were bloody. They were rolled up on the east end of it and there were a few surgical instruments on the opposite end and a sterile pack or so.
It follows that the one with the bullet had to be Connally's stretcher, since this was the only one with rolled-up bloody sheets and various medical items. It was the one Tomlinson took off the elevator, whether he remembered it or not.
I'm relying on Tomlinson's statements that he discussed the same things with them that he did with Spector [sic].
So you don't actually know what Tomlinson told the FBI. You assumed you knew, and stated it as fact. Shouldn't do that, Robert.
And the FACT that the bullet that wounded them was recovered by a nurse....
I hope you noticed that in the same Secret Service document an OR nurse named Standridge "stated she did not see or hear any bullet fall from the Governor's clothes at the time she was undressing him..."
Robert, ...I'm not going over all this old ground again. I only wanted to know what you were referring to when you wrote, "[Tomlinson] originally told both the Secret Service and the FBI it came off a different stretcher."
BTW, if that were true, why would Specter even bring up these earlier interviews? That doesn't fit your theory that he was trying to hide the truth. It fits my theory that Specter was trying to jog Tomlinson's memory.
Jean, you seem to have lost track of the conversation. Your original assertion was:
"First page here says he found the bullet on the elevator stretcher..."
I replied:
"Yes, but HE didn't say that and the Secret Service didn't claim he did. That was their conclusion, not his."
You then cited the SS report in which they said the stretcher bore:
"some medical tools, two bandage pads, and a glove."
And nothing else.
You were supposed to site them claiming that Tomlinson said the bullet was on that particular stretcher. But you did not; you only misrepresented your own citation by claiming it did.
Didn't you read it? Only one stretcher is ever mentioned -- "THE stretcher" that "Tomlinson stated" he removed from the elevator.
".... This area was secured by the Secret Service and only hospital personnel and officers were allowed inside. Mr. Tomlinson stated *the stretcher* was left unattended for about an hour, then he walked to *the stretcher* and moved it by shoving *the stretcher* against a wall. At that point he noticed the bullet come rolling out from under the pad on *the stretcher*...." [my emphasis]
There is no doubt that Tomlinson brought Connally's stretcher down on the elevator. But there was no bullet on it.
Then how do you explain the stretcher with rolled-up sheets and medical instruments that OR witnesses said Connally was on? It was put on the elevator and sent downstairs, so what happened to that one, Robert?
My argument is that memories change over time, which is a proven fact. By the time he testified Tomlinson mis-remembered which stretcher came off the elevator, but he could still describe the articles on it.
As you know all too well, the bullet from that "gurney" was recovered on the second floor by a nurse, who showed it to DA Wade and gave it to officer Nolan, who delivered it to the DPD that evening.
Connally confirmed that fact himself, and nurse Audrey Bell put the lie to the FBI's claim that she gave tiny wrist fragments to Nolan.
Connally was very specific that the bullet fell as he was being transferred from his stretcher to an operating table on the second floor. His clothing was removed on the first floor.
Sorry, I should've said "ER nurse," not "OR." Standridge testified that she helped remove his clothing in Emergency Room #2 on the first floor and:
Mr. SPECTER -- Did you notice any object in Governor Connally's clothing?
Miss STANDRIDGE -- Not unusual.
Mr. SPECTER -- Did you notice a bullet, specifically?
Miss STANDRIDGE -- No.
Mr. SPECTER -- Did you hear the sound of anything fall?
Miss STANDRIDGE -- I didn't.
It is critical to understand that Tomlinson couldn't have found a bullet on Connally's stretcher, since it was already recovered by that nurse. It is predictable that he would deny that he did.
He denied he found a bullet???
In my view, Specter read the FBI and SS reports and probably wasn't expecting Tomlinson to tell a different story, whether during their initial discussion or in his testimony.
I do not try to read the minds of the dead, Jean. And Spector's [sic] motivations are irrelevant. All that matters is what Tomlinson did and saw.
Perhaps the most important part of his testimony was when he pointed out that the bullet fell when he was pushing the stretcher, which had been moved by someone using the rest room, back in place....
Mr. TOMLINSON -- Well, sir; I don't recall how long it had been exactly, but an intern or doctor, I didn't know which, came to use the men's room there in the elevator lobby.
Mr. SPECTER -- What happened when that gentleman came to use the men's room?
Mr. TOMLINSON -- Well, he pushed the stretcher out from the wall to get in, and then when he came out he just walked off and didn't push the stretcher back up against the wall, so I pushed it out of the way where we would have clear area in front of the elevator.
Mr. SPECTER -- And where did you push it to?
Mr. TOMLINSON -- I pushed it back up against the wall.
Mr. SPECTER -- What, if anything, happened then?
Mr. TOMLINSON -- I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet rolled out that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat.
That was the stretcher which held the bullet that Tomlinson found. That's why he said that the only way he could be wrong was if someone rearranged them, but why would anyone do that?
Please cut and paste Tomlinson saying the only way he could be wrong was if someone rearranged them:
Good luck with that, you're gonna need it.
Any stretcher with a bullet on it is probably going to be accompanied by bloody sheets, for obvious reasons.
When Darrell Tomlinson was interviewed by Ray Marcus in July of 1966 [Click Here], Tomlinson said that the stretcher he took off the elevator had "some surgical instruments" and "sheets rolled up" on it. But he told Marcus he didn't remember if the sheets were bloody or not (Page 1).
Do some conspiracy theorists now contend that BOTH of the stretchers Tomlinson saw in the Parkland corridor on 11/22/63 had bloody sheets AND surgical instruments on them? I suppose that is, indeed, a possibility, but I don't recall any CTer ever making that claim in the past. ~shrug~
David, this is a hospital for god's sake, in a city that's full of rednecks who ride around with rifles mounted in the cabs of the pickups. :-)
Of course, Connally's stretcher had bloody sheets on it. But so did the one that held the bullet that Tomlinson found, as he testified.
Parkland treats an average of 2-3 gunshot victims per day. There are probably days when they treat none and other days when they treat half a dozen or more.
And that elevator was right next to the ER on the second floor, so it's not at all surprising that there was another stretcher that held a gunshot victim.
Are you actually going to argue that the "B" stretcher never existed???
No. You don't get it. There was no reason to mention the other stretcher if he found the bullet on the one he took off the elevator.
This is the important point: Tomlinson told Specter that the stretcher with the bullet had rolled-up sheets at one end and medical tools at the other, like the one nurse Wester sent downstairs:
"Miss Wester then rolled up the sheet on which the Governor was lying which was covered with blood, along with several pieces of paper and placed it on one end of the stretcher. She then placed some tools, which she cannot identify, on the other end of the stretcher and asked orderly Jimison to take it to the elevator."
Here's Tomlinson's 1964 description again:
Mr. SPECTER -- What, if anything, happened then?
Mr. TOMLINSON -- I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet rolled out that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat.
Mr. SPECTER -- And that was from which stretcher?
Mr. TOMLINSON -- I believe that it was "B".
Mr. SPECTER -- And what was on "B", if you recall; if anything?
Mr. TOMLINSON -- Well, at one end they had one or two sheets rolled up; I didn't examine them. They were bloody. They were rolled up on the east end of it and there were a few surgical instruments on the opposite end and a sterile pack or so.
What an amazing coincidence -- a stretcher that sounds just like Connally's.
The stretcher he *thought* he'd taken off the elevator didn't have the same items on it:
Mr. SPECTER -- Was there anything on the elevator at that time?
Mr. TOMLINSON -- There was one stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER -- And describe the appearance of that stretcher, if you will, please.
Mr. TOMLINSON -- I believe that stretcher had sheets on it and had a white covering on the pad.
Mr. SPECTER -- What did you say about the covering on the pad, excuse me?
Mr. TOMLINSON -- I believe it was a white sheet that was on the pad.
Mr. SPECTER -- And was there anything else on that?
Mr. TOMLINSON -- I don't believe there was on that one, I'm not sure, but I don't believe there was.
The simplest and best explanation is that he got the two mixed up when he testified. Otherwise how do you explain that the items he told Specter were on opposite ends of the bullet stretcher were the same items Wester had said were on Connally's when the SS interviewed her four months earlier?
If you're about to say there was a third stretcher from another victim, please read on....
Big hospitals like Parkland treat thousands of patients, and they standardize their procedures. The odds are high that the stretchers from two gunshot victims will have the same items on them, including the bloody sheets.
There were only two stretchers in that small room, according to Tomlinson's drawing [Tomlinson Exhibit No. 2]. Only two in every account he gave, including some on YouTube.
Plus, Jimison testified that no other stretcher was placed on the elevator later that day (he got off at 3:30).
Also, Connally and JFK were the only two GSW (gunshot wound) patients admitted to the ER that afternoon [see Price Exhibit No. 5].
[Parkland nurse Audrey] Bell was always consistent that she never gave her tiny fragments to officer Nolan or anyone else in uniform. She gave them to plain clothed agents, almost certainly from the FBI.
That's why the memo that she sent to Price, signed by her and one of the agents, has disappeared. Even the ARRB couldn't locate it. Guess who was the last agency to have it. :-)
The FBI lied, Jean, not only about Bell saying she gave anything to Nolan, but that she gave only a single fragment. They had to lie about that too, because they had already acknowledged that Nolan's envelope only contained ONE ITEM.
Sorry, I'm not going down that rabbit hole again. You're relying on the weakest possible evidence: hearsay and years-old memory, plus suspicion, which isn't evidence at all.
Neither the FBI or the Secret Service ever CLAIMED that Tomlinson told him that the bullet came from Connally's stretcher.
The SS document clearly says that*, and you've never seen what the FBI claimed (that document may exist somewhere too, like the SS one that went missing until Pat Speer found it).
[* The photo below shows an excerpt from pages 1 and 2 of the December 5, 1963, Secret Service report.]
Standridge was nowhere near Connally when he was being transferred to the operating table and the bullet fell.
Standridge wasn't in the OR area but many other people were.
In April 1964, Dr. Gregory testified:
"I first saw Governor Connally after Dr. Shaw had prepared him and draped him for the surgical procedures which he carried out on the Governor's chest...."
"....I would like to add to that we were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather."
I searched the online Dallas Morning News archive for Tomlinson and didn't find much, but I did find this in a 4/22/77 article by Earl Golz:
After ID-ing Bill Stinson as a Connally aide who was in the OR, Golz wrote that Stinson "was with the nurse when she placed several bullet fragments from Connally's wrist into an envelope." The nurse is ID-ed as Audrey Bell. The article continues:
"There was more than one fragment (placed in the envelope)," Stinson said. "I don't remember how many." [the phrase in parentheses was in the article, not an addition by me]
Mystery nurse identified! Mysterious second bullet goes poof!
Notice the similarity to your FBI document on Stinson in that no whole bullet is mentioned, only "a fragment." Stinson was there with Nolan, who told you [Robert Harris] that he never saw what was in the sealed envelope, so he didn't know what was in it.
There's also this DPD document listing where various items of evidence came from. It says:
"Bullet fragments taken from body of Governor Connally
Mrs. Audrey Bell, operating room nurse, to Bob Nolan, D.P.S., to Capt. Fritz, to Crime Lab, to FBI"
To Jean Davison:
Thank you (once again), Jean, for providing hard, documented facts (and a whole lot of common sense, to boot) concerning topics associated with the JFK assassination. Your posts never fail to inform and enlighten.
Bob Harris might not ever recover after reading that DPD document posted earlier by Jean Davison, who seems to possess a built-in radar that leads her directly to relevant items relating to the JFK case.
Let's now compare these two statements (the first one by Robert Harris and the second one from this DPD document, which is a document that can also be found here in Warren Commission Volume 24):
"[Audrey] Bell flatly denied the FBI's claim that she said she gave the fragments to Nolan. Nolan was in full dress uniform that day and she was adamant that she gave the wrist fragments to two plain clothed agents, who were undoubtedly with the FBI."
-- Robert Harris; July 7, 2014
"Bullet fragments taken from body of Governor Connally. Mrs. Audrey Bell, operating room nurse, to Bob Nolan, D.P.S., to Capt. Fritz, to Crime Lab, to FBI" -- Dallas Police Department Document
Yet another conspiracy myth down the drain.
Thank you, Jean D.
[Note -- Jean imparts additional facts and common sense here, here, and here.]
Jean Davison looked at this blowup from WC exhibit CE-842 and determined
that the cause of:
1. the faint, partially erased "FF" in the upper left
2. the "b-" (unintelligible) in the lower left area
3. the partially erased cartoon kitty face in the lower center
4. and a multitude of other character fragments
Are all caused by those damned ballpoint pens!!
Her exact words:
"Looks like normal ballpoint pen skips to me."
And then she looked at this high contrast scan that John Hunt made.
She concluded that the heavy creases in the envelope were the product of normal handling over the years.
Of course, normal "handling" would never have caused the deep creases we see on this envelope, and Hunt scanned it after it had been laying flat in the archives for over 40 years.
The creases are not straight, so they were not the result of it being folded. They are the very clear result of this envelope having once been wadded up and tossed into a waste basket.
This was not a fresh, unused envelope like [Audrey] Bell used to hold those tiny wrist fragments. It was also not initialed by Bell, something she had done hundreds of times before, and as she testified that she did that day. Only an inexperienced nurse would have forgotten to initial a foreign body envelope - just as only an inexperienced nurse would wander out into the hallway, asking who she should give her envelope to.
And of course, Bell also testified that she never gave her envelope to Nolan or anyone else in uniform that day.
And the hard evidence of that battered, scribbled-on, and partially-erased envelope proves that it was not in pristine condition as it would have been if Bell had processed it. Wade must have been angry that this nurse had been carrying the most important evidence of his career around in her pocket all afternoon. He demanded that she get it to the police by yesterday.
So she rummaged around in the wastebasket and found an envelope, flattened it out as best she could and then hastily erased as much of the scribbling as she could before dropping the bullet into it and giving it to the cop she saw in the hallway.
ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE supports the fact that Bell was not the nurse who gave an envelope to Nolan. Nolan confirmed it, Wade confirmed it, Connally confirmed it and Bell, herself, confirmed it.
Pretending that all of those people suffered nearly identical delusions is so spectacularly ridiculous that it's only worthy of a good laugh.
As Bob Harris knows, there are two sets of initials that are upside down when we view the picture of CE842 (Bobby Nolan's "BMN" initials and Captain J. Will Fritz' "JWF" initials); see the 2010 discussion here.
FWIW....I said this in the above-linked 2010 discussion:
[DVP Quote On:]
"I was going to postulate the notion that three of the oddball markings that surround Captain Fritz' initials on CE842 were merely large "periods" to punctuate each of his three initials (J.W.F.), because the location of three of those marks are just about in the proper locations on the envelope that would make such a suggestion a possibility, similar to the rather large-sized periods that Bobby M. Nolan utilized when he initialed the very same envelope (B.M.N.), which are bigger than just the pinpoint type of periods that usually accompany a person's initials....but I doubt I could convince any of the conspiracy-seeking individuals in this Internet locality that those markings are, indeed, "periods". (But maybe Captain Fritz was nervous that day when he initialed CE842, and all of his punctuation mushroomed into lines, instead of dots for his periods.) ~grin~ [See the arrows in the photo below.]
Anyway, the fact obviously remains that J. Will Fritz positively did place his initials (JWF) on Commission Exhibit No. 842.
I'd rather continue to verbally poke Robert Harris in the eye a few more times for his willingness (even eagerness) to label additional unnamed members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as "liars" and evidence-tamperers with regard to Warren Commission Exhibit No. 842.
This quote from the electronic lips of Robert Harris—culled from one of his posts at The Education Forum on April 19, 2010—will stand forever as a good example of the level of a conspiracy theorist's willingness to grab at any straw he can invent, in order to smear the authorities who handled the evidence connected with John F. Kennedy's assassination:
"The FBI...altered the evidence envelope that held the bullet and forged the name of nurse Audrey Bell, to make it appear that the envelope held the fragments from Connally's wrist, instead of the bullet from his leg." -- Robert Harris; 04/19/2010"
[End Quote]
-- DVP; May 19, 2010
Back to 2016....
Even though I can't prove that the six separate markings that appear on CE842 following each of the six initials (JWF and BMN) are punctuation marks (periods), I do find it kind of interesting that there are exactly six such marks located in precisely the areas following the "JWF" and the "BMN" that would normally be areas where a person would write such punctuation if they wanted to place periods after each of their initials.
Funny coincidence, huh?
David Von Pein
November 9—December 7, 2016
December 8, 2016
December 20, 2016
MY YouTube CHANNELS:
DVP's JFK CHANNEL
DVP's OLD-TIME RADIO CHANNEL
DVP's CHANNEL #3
DVP's JFK ARCHIVES:
DVP's VIDEO & AUDIO ARCHIVE:
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Why not show the actual mail-in coupon [for the revolver], Dave?
I did, Jim. Maybe you missed this post, where I not only linked to CE790, but I also show the composite picture below. I'll ask you, Jim: Notice any similarities in the words "Dallas, Texas" here?:
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
You just got taken to the cleaners on this issue and you want everyone to forget about it.
You made up every excuse in the book for there not being any signed receipt, initialed paper, or bank transaction.
You even postulated one of the dumbest scenarios I ever saw, ie. the post office was a fiduciary for REA! Ridiculous. And you still couldn't make it work.
You then completely reversed yourself on it, and you can't make that work either.
I was only going by what Heinz Michaelis testified to--and that was that THE GUN ITSELF was mailed to THE POST OFFICE BOX. That's what his testimony says. And even the Warren Commission seemed to be confused by Michaelis' testimony in this regard, as even you pointed out by bringing up WCR Page 174.
And Jimmy D. will conveniently forget (or ignore) these words that I wrote in a previous post, which I wrote 2 to 3 days before getting what I deem to be the final word on this matter, via Dale Myers' 8/5/10 blog post:
"I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong about how these types of "COD" transactions worked when companies shipped merchandise to P.O. Boxes, but if the PHYSICAL ITEM itself was actually shipped to P.O. Box 2915 (and Heinz Michaelis said it was in his WC testimony), then it means that the post office employees would be initially handling the money from Oswald (since, quite obviously, Oswald didn't set up camp and live right there inside his post office box as he waited for the delivery truck to show up with his pistol). But, then too, only conspiracy theorists actually believe that all of this chaff about the REA paperwork is the slightest bit important. Reasonable people, however, can easily determine that Lee Harvey Oswald received revolver #V510210 from Seaport Traders in March 1963 and he killed Officer J.D. Tippit with that gun on 11/22/63 (regardless of any paperwork and red tape that might be missing from the official records of the Railway Express Agency)." -- DVP; August 3, 2010
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
If you believe Gerald Hill. Many of us, due to the man's record, plus his famous fast frisk confession, plus his magic in making both the Tippit automatic shells and the shells signed by Poe disappear, do not. Easily one of the most corrupt cops on a corrupt force.
Of course, Jim. Of course. All the cops were out to frame your favorite patsy named Lee. (Or was it "Harvey" they were framing that day? With you CTers, it's hard to tell which hunk of silliness you're going to go chasing after next.)
As a point of FACT: There were no "automatic" shells to make "disappear" on November 22. Jim's making up evidence out of whole cloth (again).
And Poe's initials were probably never on the two shells that he was given by Domingo Benavides at all:
JOE BALL -- "Did you put any markings on the hulls?"
J.M. POE -- "I couldn't swear to it; no, sir."
Plus: There is also this information from Dale Myers' 1998 book, "With Malice" (pages 263 and 265):
" "Poe did not mark them," Detective James Leavelle said. "There was no reason to mark them. There is an evidence bag that is marked with the offense number along with your initials. The evidence goes to the crime lab where it is checked and returned to the bag and kept there until trial. I have run hundreds through that way with no trouble and have never been contested on it," says Leavelle. Leavelle continues: "I talked to Poe. He said he didn't remember marking them. But, that is something we didn't do back then." "
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Where did Oswald ever admit that that particular revolver was his?
LOL. Does this stupid question REALLY need to be answered?
1.) Oswald fills out an order form from Seaport Traders for one revolver.
2.) Seaport Traders mails a gun with the serial number V510210 to the name and address on the order form FILLED OUT BY OSWALD.
3.) A revolver with the serial number V510210 is IN OSWALD'S HANDS when LHO was arrested on 11/22/63.
Now, tell me how any reasonable person can add up #1 through #3 above and come to the conclusion that Revolver V510210 did not belong to Oswald? No reasonable person could perform such cockeyed math.
Jim DiEugenio, as usual, wants to pretend that his favorite patsy was totally innocent of shooting anyone on November 22nd. Unfortunately for Jim, however, the actual evidence in the case is making him look like a fool in this "innocent patsy" regard.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey, did the WC call anyone who worked at the REA office in Dallas to the stand? If not, why not?
Probably because the Warren Commission knew that the question of "How Did LHO Pick Up His Revolver?" was merely a side/peripheral matter (at best).
In other words -- Who cares how he got the gun? The WC knew for a FACT that Revolver V510210 was Oswald's gun and that that same gun was in Oswald's hands at 1:50 PM on Nov. 22 and that that same gun was the gun that killed Tippit.
Case closed on this issue. And it doesn't make a damn bit of difference which precise method was utilized by Oswald to obtain that gun in March. And it also doesn't make a bit of difference WHERE and WHEN he purchased the four bullets that he pumped into Tippit's body with that V510210 revolver.
Only in the world of "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy mongers is such trivial information the slightest bit important. But to reasonable people--no.
Yes, Steve, the two items I mentioned above are, indeed, trivial when it comes to the Tippit case.
The two trivial items (questions) being:
1.) Where did Oswald pick up his S&W revolver--the post office or the Railway Express office?
2.) Where did Oswald get the bullets for his S&W revolver?
We do not need to know the answer to the above two questions in order to solve the Tippit murder (and in order to figure out that Lee Oswald was guilty of that murder).
If Ruby hadn't shot him, you would have been waiting outside with a rope and a posse of L/N's. Innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I would bet money you own a white Stetson.
Why not try following the ACTUAL EVIDENCE in the case to where it leads sometime, instead of following the pack of Anybody-But-Oswald evidence manglers?
And if there was ever a case where the ACTUAL EVIDENCE has been mangled and misrepresented beyond all tolerance by conspiracy theorists, it's certainly the JFK/Tippit case.
Heavens to Murgatroyd--some people in this forum are actually suggesting Oswald never sent in EITHER one of his order forms for the rifle and revolver!
The people who suggest such a ridiculous thing must certainly realize that they have to say that KLEIN'S in Chicago is "in" on a plot to frame Oswald too. The CTers who take this stand have no choice BUT to believe the Klein's people are conspirators, because the Klein's records indicate that they received an order from HIDELL in March '63 and they shipped a rifle to HIDELL in March '63.
I wonder how the Warren Commission got William Waldman to tell lie after lie about KLEIN'S OWN RECORDS regarding the sale of Rifle C2766 to HIDELL?
And the same type of allegations of misconduct have to be directed toward Seaport Traders too, because Seaport has records of THEIR OWN that indicate they received a mail order from HIDELL for a revolver and that they mailed Revolver V510210 to HIDELL at OSWALD'S Dallas post office box.
According to these silly conspiracy kooks who think Oswald never even ordered his guns, there is evidently no end to the number of people that the police and/or Warren Commission were able to get to tell lie after lie in their never-ending desire to paint Lee Oswald as the murderer of both JFK and J.D. Tippit.
David Von Pein
August 12, 2010
August 16-17, 2010
MY YouTube CHANNELS:
DVP's JFK CHANNEL
DVP's OLD-TIME RADIO CHANNEL
DVP's CHANNEL #3
DVP's JFK ARCHIVES:
DVP's VIDEO & AUDIO ARCHIVE:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
LONDON • Laurent Koscielny is a doubt for Arsenal's opening Champions League group game against Paris Saint-Germain today after suffering an eye injury during the climax of Saturday's dramatic stoppage-time 2-1 win over Southampton in the English Premier League.
The defender was unable to complete training on Sunday with his right eye almost completely closed. He will be assessed by Arsenal's medical team before going to Paris.
Koscielny's absence for Arsenal's most difficult game in Group A would be a huge blow for Arsene Wenger and leave him with little alternative but to hand a Champions League debut to Rob Holding in daunting circumstances.
PSG have made a stuttering start to their Ligue 1 campaign, but remain formidable at home and have only been beaten once at Parc des Princes since April last year.
Arsenal are eager to make a strong start to this year's competition after two opening defeats 12 months ago left them struggling to qualify for the knockout stage.
Koscielny suffered the injury when he was kicked in the face at full speed by Jose Fonte, with two studs believed to have made an impact with either side of his eye.
The Frenchman has been captaining Arsenal in the absence of Per Mertesacker this season and would be badly missed against PSG, as Wenger conceded, particularly given the lack of alternatives.
Mertesacker will be out until next year with a knee injury, Gabriel Paulista has just returned to training after sustaining ankle ligament damage and Calum Chambers joined Middlesbrough on loan at the end of the transfer window last month.
Holding performed well enough in Arsenal's first three league games to ensure it was his England Under-21 team-mate Chambers sent out on loan. But the Champions League would represent another big step up for the 20-year-old.
Kieran Gibbs could make the squad for Paris after being left out on Saturday, which would give Wenger the option of moving Nacho Monreal to centre-back.
"Koscielny is a concern," Wenger said. "It's already very swollen and the eye is closed up. It's difficult. He is one of the most experienced players we have and I think one of our best players."
Koscielny is a concern. It's already very swollen and the eye is closed up. It's difficult. He is one of the most experienced players we have and I think one of our best players.
ARSENE WENGER, Arsenal manager fretting over the condition of his defender.
The manager has more options elsewhere on the pitch and will make several unforced changes.
Olivier Giroud, Alexis Sanchez and Granit Xhaka are all expected to return to the starting line-up after being rested, with Lucas Perez, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Francis Coquelin likely to miss out.
PSG were also involved in late drama last weekend, with visitors St Etienne scoring in the final minute to force a 1-1 draw. That left the champions three points behind Monaco, who had beaten them 3-1 in the previous league fixture.
New coach Unai Emery, who arrived from Sevilla to replace Laurent Blanc, lost important players to the Premier League in Zlatan Ibrahimovic and David Luiz but managed to keep influential midfielder Blaise Matuidi.
One of those he recruited will be familiar to Arsenal. Hatem Ben Arfa spent four years in England with Newcastle United and Hull City.
"It's a squad that has won a lot and that has developed while winning," Emery told Uefa's official website. "I've arrived at a club that want to keep on winning and kick on to the next level."
In a section also featuring Swiss side Basel and Bulgaria's Ludogorets Razgrad, nobody at PSG is envisaging anything other than progress to the knockout stage for a club that have reached four successive quarter-finals.
Singtel TV Ch112 & StarHub Ch212, tomorrow, 2.40am

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Times are changing. There is a need to change with the dynamically changing times, to cope with the modern world. All experts in whatever field have felt the urge to simplify their way of doing things. Teachers are not left out, either. Google for teachers is a technological platform that makes instructors able to gain easy access to transparent or open technology, to ease their lifestyles and improve their general performance. For this reason, Google docs for educators professional development has been rendered an imperative, especially because it is not limited to the size of the particular institution, neither its financial capabilities.
Classroom matters are simplified and also a lot of valuable time is saved using Google services like Gmail, Docs and many more. Class content is provided online, through authenticated and teacher-approved applications and books. The devices used can be either affordable laptops or also tablets, which can also be easily managed.
These services and Google products, also give their users and instructors a divine opportunity of connecting, integrating and sharing with fellow teachers and educators from elsewhere. They get to share new ideologies and expound on the acquired skills. This is a very progressive move, and also best advises may arise from such integration.
The Google also provides the educators with a way of providing programs for students and also educators. They have the opportunity to join others who are also exploring their various interests and passions, hence making a difference in their lives and consequently, dynamic changes in the world.
Over the years, the globe has been experiencing vibrant changes in the technological landscape. The world is swiftly making notable progress with regards to the levels of internet access and other online services, and it is imperative for people to keep up to speed with the ascending trends of technology. Teachers have not been left out either, and have utilized the Google products like docs, with the general intention of improving the way they deploy their services.
Due to the pressure and sophistication that are encompassed in the employment of these services, a number of tricks to dodge through the inter webs have since come up. The tricks go a long way in saving on precious time, on top of simplifying the online-related activities like doing researches, and other activities. Some of the tricks that have been credited for their help include providing solutions on how one can easily get through blocked sites, how one can search within specific sites, how to make timeline searches easily, how to get definitions quickly, how to make calculations using Google, and many more shortcuts and tricks which act as time saving techniques.
There are uncountable reasons on why using Google docs helps improve professionalism to educators and teachers. The Docs are usually a perfect replacement for Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint and also Word. This amplifies the need to even learn the uses of these products even more ideally and effectively.
In addition, these products are ideal replacements for PowerPoint, Word and Excel. This even further motivates the need to learn and internalize their various uses. Conclusively, Google has made immense contributions in the upgrading of the learning process hitherto, which ensures better professionals, for tomorrow.
If you'd like to create Google docs for educators professional development, there is no better place than our teacher's academy. Log on to this website now and get the important info at http://www.theteachersacademy.com.


text:
|+0 (0% positiv)
|December 3, 2018 at 8:49 am
|⚙ Open in Build Planner
This build focuses on being low life which can be tricky at times but since you run Blocker and Serendipity it makes it really easy to fight Melee enemies like Ghouls,Deathclaws etc. You want do run Unyielding armor so you get the +3 to stats except Endurance or Bolstering if you want the extra 35+ to resists when you're low hp not all mutations are necessary but I manged to get them all on my character by mistake so I kinda went with it and it is working just fine since. Since you're low life 99.9% of the time you want to have a unarmed weapon since it uses the perk for unarmed damage so you want to run with like a Power Fist, Deathclaw Gauntlet or Knuckles even or any other fist weapon of your choice and this build is extremely beefy without the use of power armor so you move very fast but at the cost of being low life you can die alot to bullets.. which if you're fast enough wont be an issue but can be at times id suggest playing in a group with this I do with mine and it works out just fine I can kill everything by myself except the Scorchbeast Queen but that obvious. when I have full buffs and am at low HP I have around 30+ to all my stats except PER and EDU per hit I do 1500-1800 DMG with my Bloodied Lvl 40 Power Fist this build is extremely fun and has brought me joy since it was just meant for a joke but somehow works I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
December 3, 2018 at 8:49 am


text:
This is how liberals parent: Like good Trump-hating, fascists they teach their children to physically assault anyone with whom they have a political disagreement — and it was all caught on video.
The recently posted video shows a hairless left-winger betting his daughter $100 that she won't approach a Trump supporter in a shopping mall and knock his "Make America Great Again" hat off his head.
This is, of course, assault. It is illegal to attack someone even just to knock a hat off his head.
But, liberals don't care about genteel society. They are all hardcore fascists who want no less than to seriously harm anyone with whom they disagree.
Trending: What's Wrong with Liberals?
Here are is a still shot of this braying jackass laughing with his daughter about assaulting a Trump supporter:
And here is the video… and I note that this guy wasn't just "caught" on video accidentally. He made the video himself showing that he was proud of his actions and thrilled to be teaching his slowwitted daughter how to assault people.
This is just one more incident of the left purposefully and gleefully working to tear down our society.
You'll recall recently that conservative activists Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens — the latter a black woman — were physically assaulted for the crime of having breakfast in public when another unhinged, criminal liberal attacked them by throwing a drink at them.
To be clear: ANTIFA, an all-white fascist organization, just grew violent and attacked an all-black and Hispanic police force.
Because I, a BLACK woman, was eating breakfast.
Is this the civil rights era all over again? pic.twitter.com/piJfnopniW
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) August 6, 2018
Then there was the teen who was innocently sitting in a Texas Whataburger restaurant when another criminal Democrat attacked the boy because he was wearing a MAGA hat.
You'll recall that the creep stole the teenager's hat, then poured a drink on him as he cursed the boy out. The man was later arrested and charged with assault, and rightfully so.
There have been dozens of other incidents where liberals have physically assaulted Trump supporters, but no reports of incidents where Trump supporters attacked a liberal.
Recently, Daily Caller put together a list of some two dozen of these incidents.
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


text:
Construction Interest Expense – Investopedia – What is 'Construction interest expense'. construction interest expense is interest that accumulates on a construction loan used to construct a building or other long-lived business asset. Typically, interest paid on a loan is immediately expensed and is tax deductible. However, construction interest expense that is incurred during.
The Case Against The mortgage interest deduction – Even the mortgage interest deduction. A new report from the OECD. does not fully offset the impact on home ownership because higher prices also encourage construction of new homes, but the effect.
Is construction loan interest Tax Deductible? | Sapling.com – Interest on Construction of Second Homes. The deduction limits are cumulative, however. If you have a $600,000 mortgage on your primary residence and a $500,000 mortgage on your second home, the interest on only $1 million of the .1 million mortgage debt is deductible.
The Rules for Claiming a Property Tax Deduction in 2018 – These taxes were previously deductible in the year you paid them, not necessarily the year they technically came due. For example, you might have paid your spring property tax installment in advance in December before the current year ended.
Claiming Home Mortgage Interest As a Tax Deduction – The total interest you paid for the year was $60,000. You would only be able to claim a mortgage interest deduction for $50,000 of that, the interest on the first $1 million of home acquisition debt. The remaining $10,000 is the result of loan value that exceeds the $1 million limit so you can't claim it.
Build a rental, is it tax deductible during construction – The interest should be deductible once construction work commenced. As a general rule expenditure is not deductible if it is incurred prior to the commencement of the actual business or income earning process but s DB 6, provides specifically for the deduction of interest incurred.
Mortgage-interest deduction could be on the table in fiscal cliff' debate – which has defended the tax break for decades as a driver of home construction and a key motivator of home ownership. "It has always been NAR's position that the [mortgage-interest deduction] is vital.
Is a construction loan tax deductible? – propertytalk.com – Construction loan interest tax deductible? By epoh in forum Finance, legal and tax (nz) replies: 10 Last Post: 20-08-2013, 11:57 AM. Build a rental, is it tax deductible during construction. By nintiger in forum Finance, legal and tax (NZ)
find out how much home you can afford
Under-construction House: How to Claim Tax Deduction on Home. – Any interest paid during the financial year towards interest of home loan will attract this tax deduction. In India all home loans for under construction property is structured such a way that the installed is released by the bank according to the construction stage of the property.


text:
A new villain appears!
This episode also did a lot a focusing on the dynamic between Tsubomi and Erika. While Erika is catching on quickly and adjusting to being a precure, Tsubomi is still struggling, causing her a great deal of insecurity in this episode. It was actually fairly realistic idea, and felt fairly natural, though her reaction at first seemed over the top, when she explained she didn't want to hold Erika back, it made sense. It's funny how dramatic the titles are, yet the episodes are well written.
Duel transformation scene was just freaking awesome.
I'm still appreciating the fact that not everything goes perfect in their battles, and that the girls are still stumbling and getting use to their roles. I think it's the little touches such as these that are making the series work for me.
I still want to strangle those faries, and am now getting really creeped out by fact they poop heart seeds. At first, it was just a little bothersome, but the more episodes were I get a fairy butt shoved in my face, the weirder it gets.


text:
Here's an Idea
I think everyone would agree that traffic congestion in metro Atlanta is so complex that it will need multiple options to make significant reductions in travel time. The existing and under construction toll lanes, bus rapid transit and other public transit, staggered work hours, car pools and a host of other ideas will work in concert if our metro area is to stave off gridlock.
So I found what I thought was a new idea from Benita Dodd over at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation only to discover it was actually conceived in 2000.
"Fifteen years ago, the Foundation published a paper proposing SyncTrans, a system with "small family-sized cars that travel non-stop on an elevated guideway between stations. The quiet, electric-powered system and its cars require no drivers and can operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The elevated guideways are cost effective and can be erected quickly. Since the system is fully automated, labor costs are minimal."
Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But at this point we need every idea to get a fair hearing if we are ever going to work out of the morass that being a successful, desirable site has wrought. After all Dick Tracey's wristwatch was a fantasy years ago and now we are working on the 2nd and 3rd generation of that technology. For more on this Jetsonesque concept read the full article.


text:
At least 58 people are dead and 515 injured after a 72-minute shooting by a lone-wolf gunman who unleashed thousands of rounds of ammunition onto a Las Vegas music festival from a hotel room 1,200 feet away – and more details are still coming out.
Police say 64-year-old Stephen Craig Paddock used automatic weapons to rain down gunfire on a crowd of 22,000 people attending the Route 91 Harvest Festival Sunday night, from his room across the street in the Mandalay Bay hotel. Headliner Jason Aldean was in the middle of his set just after 10pm when a rumble of gunfire rang out, the sounds of screams and stampeding humans cutting through the country music.
It took police an hour and 12 minutes from the first 911 call to locate Paddock in the building. They were able to figure out that the shots were coming from the Mandalay Bay, so they worked their way from the bottom up. Once they reached the 32nd floor, authorities say they knew they were in the right place. Why remains unclear, but they could have possible smelt or heard gunfire. They used explosives to blow the door off his room, but by then it was too late – Paddock had shot himself dead. It's unclear how long after he first started shooting that Paddock committed suicide.


text:
Friday on my Mind 180: A Scene In-Between
Posted in 1960s, Friday On My Mind, Music at 12:00 on 28 June 2019
I've not had a piece of psychedelia for a while. This is a USian take on the form that wasn't a hit there – or here.
Stained Glass were originally called The Trolls. I suppose they were about thirty years ahead of the time with that. There might have been some sort of Scandinavian connection though.
Tags: A Scene In-Between, Friday On My Mind, stained glass, The Trolls


text:
From George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 6 November 1783
Rocky Hill Novr 6th 1783.
Dear Sir,
The enclosed is a letter which I had written, & was about to dispatch at the date of it; but upon second thoughtsdetermined to Postpone it, & try, if from the importance of the matter, I could not bring forward the Peace Establishment previously.
I have tryed it, in vain—Congress after resolving on the [ ] of last Month to adjourn upon the 12th of this, did, equally unexpectedly & surprizingly to me, finish their Session at this place the day before yesterday; without bringing the Peace Establishment, or any of the many other pressing matters, to a decision.
Finding this was likely to be the case, I showed your letter to some of your particular friends & consulted them on the propriety of making known your wishes; with my testimonial of your Services to Congress;but they advised me to decline it under a full persuasion that no discrimination would, or indeed could be made at this late hour as every other Officer from the highest to the lowest grade (not in actual command) were retiring without the retention of Rank—and that the remainder upon a Peace establishment (if a Continental one should ever take place) would come in upon the New System, under fresh appointments; so that unless you wished to come into actual command again, (which none supposed) they saw no way by which you could preserve your Rank.
I have the pleasure to enclose you a Brevet; giving you the Rank of full Colonel,and with best respects to Mrs Hamilton & General Schuyler & family I am Dr Sir Yr Most Obedt Servt
Go: Washington
DLC: Alexander Hamilton Papers.


text:
Halloween-themed dolls are showing up at Targets, Kmart, and grocery stores. Yes, Barbie witches and the Twilight dolls are out. I am tempted by two of the Twilight dolls, Victoria and Alice. (God, I am tired of the ubiquitous smiling face blond Barbie witches. Can't Mattel find another face sculpt for the Halloween dolls?) If you are a fan, you might want to buy sooner rather than later to avoid disappointment. I haven't seen any of the Kelly Halloween bunch yet. Has anyone else?
Brotherly love in playscale: finding diversity in fashion dolls and action figures from the 1960s to now: Barbie, Fashion Royalty, Momoko, Susie, GI Joe, Power Team, Mixis.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Halloween Previews - Themed Dolls
2 comments:
- ModernWizard said...
I've seen the Victoria and the Alice dolls in person. They are quite striking.
- October 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM
- D7ana said...
I just LOOVVEE Victoria's hair. Even if they aren't new face sculpts, they are so well painted, they *pop.*
- October 1, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
28ct. red unknown linen w/WDW and DMC
finished into a pillow
I started another BOAF design. I thought I took a photo, but I can't find it now
so will add it in the next post
I added a button to the sidebar, if you would like to donate a ornament for breast cancer
I still have the Garden of Eerie for trade if anyone is interested.
Frances, I am sorry I have the chart you suggested for a trade, I tried to find your email
Happy Valentine's Day!!!!


text:
Regardless of your age you are sure to find a treat on this page!
Whether you like sweet or savoury, Bio Living has a product to suit your tastes.
Many of our products meet the standards of being Certified Organic, Kosher and suitable for Vegetarians and Vegans. All of our product listings include an ingredients list so that you can be sure that the products you purchase are suitable for your needs.
As an added bonus, many of our products also meet desireable dietary benefits such as being whole grain, high in fibre and low in salt (sodium).
Make your health and well being a priority and choose from our extensive range of natural and organic products specifically selected for their quality, taste and value.


text:
The AEA provides rebates of up to $50,000 for energy upgrades. The rebate amount you receive will be the lower of:
- 50% of the total eligible costs of your project
- A calculation based on the amount of money and greenhouses gases that your project will save (see the program guidelines for more information)
First Steps
We encourage you to contact us to discuss your potential energy-saving project and the rebates you can receive from the AEA. This conversation will help you determine whether to go through the process of having a yardstick energy audit done or the simpler process of submitting receipts. You will then complete your paperwork and submit it to us.
Investigating Savings
The AEA will analyze your utility bills to see where energy savings might be possible. (This is called a yardstick energy audit.) If there is energy to be saved, and you want to save some of it, we will ask you to confirm you have money available for the energy upgrades, that you won't apply for other GNWT programs to pay for the energy upgrades, and that you will let us document and showcase your energy savings work.
An AEA energy advisor will then meet with you at your building and audit your building's heating equipment and controls, ventilation equipment and controls, air leakage, equipment that uses water, and your building's lighting and lighting controls, and let you know how to get the most energy savings for the least amount of money. You then use the audit report to help you decide what work you want to do.
Cost Estimates
Once you've decided what kind of building upgrades you want, get an estimate of how much the upgrades will cost and work with your energy advisor to fill in a rebate pre-approval form. We will let you know what rebate you can expect once the work is done. You will not get a rebate if you do not have a pre-approval form signed by the AEA. We want to guarantee your rebate, so please do not start any work until you know your work is eligible for a rebate and that the AEA has rebate money available. If you do not start work on your energy upgrades within three months of pre-approval, we will notify you that we are withdrawing our rebate pre-approval.
Receive Rebates
Once you send AEA all your receipts and additional paperwork, AEA can calculate your rebate. One year after you've completed your energy upgrades, AEA will provide, free of charge, a follow-up yardstick energy audit so that you realize your energy and financial savings.
If you already know what energy upgrades you want to undertake, how much they will cost and your anticipated energy, water and money savings, get in touch with AEA to pre-approve the building energy upgrades, then send AEA a copy of all your receipts to process your rebate.


text:
Corey Fogelmanis Dishes On How He Turned Into a YouTuber for New Series 'Prank Me'
Corey Fogelmanis's new show on Fullscreen is probably the scariest thing you'll see at the moment.
Prank Me, centers on YouTube prankster Jasper Perkins, who goes to the extremes and dangerous lengths to entertain his subscribers
Corey spoke with J-14 about the series and just how he immersed himself into the YouTube world.
"I think probably a month before I started shooting, I started watching stuff and saturating my brain with this sort of persona that's typical to find on social media," Corey says. "The energy levels were the first things, then I started to think about where he lived and that sort of thing."
He adds, "I got a lot of references from our director, Hazel Hayes. I got a lot of references just from Youtubers I watched, specific movies, and things like that…It was definitely a process, but that's what was super fun about it."
Corey, who has next to nothing experience wise on YouTube, turned to Hazel for direction and inspiration about his YouTuber character.
"It all comes back to Hazel, really. She has a Youtube channel for film stuff, so she's part of that world," he explains. "Specifically, because I'm not part of the Youtube world, it was super helpful to have her as a reference."
"While we were shooting and in rehearsal and everything, she kind of just filled me in on little, small things Youtubers do from the little transitions that they do while they're shooting to thinking about � being present in the moment to thinking towards the future, like towards the edit."
"There's a lot of small, little things, but there was not a main thing. It was exciting to learn about something I'm not a part of really."
Prank Me is airing on Fullscreen now.
Posted to: Corey Fogelmanis