22-02-2016, 07:09 AM
Armstrong's detective work is quite brilliant and is courtroom quality. On re-reading it again I realized Armstrong's interpretation breaks my previous understanding of the Whitworth/Dial Ryder Testimony. A whole new context arises where the Liebler interview is designed to connect the Whitworth event with the Dial Ryder event. Armstrong's interpretation made me realize my previous belief in the Liebler version is something that was intended as a deception on the Commission's behalf in order to cover-up the fact the Dial Ryder event was a completely separate event just like the Money Order. As Armstrong describes, the Dial Ryder event was a fabricated situation solely designed to account for the Money Order failing to list the price of a scope.
What this means is the event that was designed to make it look like Oswald left Whitworth's shop looking for a shop that would do his work was one that never happened on the same day as the visit to Whitworth's. Armstrong's scenario means that the driving Oswald went to Whitworth's shop and only Whitworth's shop that day. I realized the key to this is the fact Oswald only tried to order a repair on his 'plunger' (firing pin?) at Whitworth's. He didn't order any scope. Nor is there any firing pin repair order at Ryder's. This leaves the very likely possibility that in his attempt that day the driving Oswald somehow became aware of Ryder's shop and that is how the framers were made aware of it, since Ryder's shop wasn't far from Whitworth's. The driving Oswald didn't need to go to Ryder's after Whitworth's. He had succeeded in sheep-dipping Oswald enough with the intent to prepare a gun - family in tow.
Armstrong's article on the rifle evidence puts a whole new interpretation on the Whitworth/Dial Ryder Testimony. It shows a flagrant attempt to link the two in order to justify the scope order. The Commission went to damage control mode and ended up rejecting both events. This is a good example of how the evidence was made up on the fly which in turn makes the fabrication of the Money Order much more likely. If Armstrong is right the alleged scope order ticket at Ryder's didn't exist until the 23rd of November. And the Liebler Whitworth/Dial Ryder Testimony was deliberately connected and spun to make it look like Oswald had gone to Ryder's after Whitworth's in order to cover-up the fact the Ryder incident never happened.
Wow!
What this means is the event that was designed to make it look like Oswald left Whitworth's shop looking for a shop that would do his work was one that never happened on the same day as the visit to Whitworth's. Armstrong's scenario means that the driving Oswald went to Whitworth's shop and only Whitworth's shop that day. I realized the key to this is the fact Oswald only tried to order a repair on his 'plunger' (firing pin?) at Whitworth's. He didn't order any scope. Nor is there any firing pin repair order at Ryder's. This leaves the very likely possibility that in his attempt that day the driving Oswald somehow became aware of Ryder's shop and that is how the framers were made aware of it, since Ryder's shop wasn't far from Whitworth's. The driving Oswald didn't need to go to Ryder's after Whitworth's. He had succeeded in sheep-dipping Oswald enough with the intent to prepare a gun - family in tow.
Armstrong's article on the rifle evidence puts a whole new interpretation on the Whitworth/Dial Ryder Testimony. It shows a flagrant attempt to link the two in order to justify the scope order. The Commission went to damage control mode and ended up rejecting both events. This is a good example of how the evidence was made up on the fly which in turn makes the fabrication of the Money Order much more likely. If Armstrong is right the alleged scope order ticket at Ryder's didn't exist until the 23rd of November. And the Liebler Whitworth/Dial Ryder Testimony was deliberately connected and spun to make it look like Oswald had gone to Ryder's after Whitworth's in order to cover-up the fact the Ryder incident never happened.
Wow!