John Armstrong blasts the mail order rifle "evidence"

[David Josephs]

I think you guys might have missed the joke. Someone DID send this off to Stephen King. It's gonna be a mini-series starring James DeFranco?

I just watched trailer - time travel, torrid love affairs, outlandish inexplicable events - was it written by Stephen King or Judy Baker?

::coolrock::


And it will be this FICTION that the LNers will latch onto to say."See... it was Ozzie all along" yet call Stone's JFK stretching the truth too far.......

::doh::

[Albert Doyle]

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!

[Drew Phipps]

Albert: How can the Whitworth event be both fabricated and support the 2 Oswald theory at the same time?

[Albert Doyle]

Albert: How can the Whitworth event be both fabricated and support the 2 Oswald theory at the same time?

Wrong question drew. I am saying that Armstrong is claiming the Dial Ryder event is fabricated, not the Whitworth event. That's what spurred me to post this because after reading Armstrong's rifle article again I realized he trimmed the claim down to just the fabrication of the Dial Ryder ticket order to compensate for FBI's claiming the purchase price for the rifle was only $12.78. That's exactly the point, that Armstrong himself is now limiting the event to just the fabrication of the ticket for the scope repair that only became a need on the 23rd when FBI had trapped itself into identifying a scope-less rifle. In other words, it had nothing to do with the Harvey & Lee theory. So the only conclusion you can then make about Liebler interviewing Mrs Whitworth and Ryder in one testimony is that Liebler did it intentionally in order to back-build a false story that would create the illusion that the Dial Ryder event occurred on the day of Mrs Whitworth's sighting. The premise being the driving Oswald went to Ryder's after being unable to get his repair at Whitworth's. They key to all this is Oswald wanted a repair for a firing pin, but no scope, at Whitworth's, and a scope but no firing pin at Ryder's. That doesn't make sense and confirms the Ryder event was a fabrication solely designed to compensate for the fatal flaw in the FBI's rifle order evidence. If Oswald needed a scope why didn't he order one at Whitworth's? And if he needed a firing pin repair why didn't he order that at Ryder's? - It doesn't confirm the twin Oswalds. It confirms the fraud in the Money Order evidence.

The driving Oswald alone at the Whitworth event confirms the Harvey & Lee theory completely separate from the non-existent Dial Ryder event.


I hope someone brings this to Jim D or Hargrove's attention since this is significant breakthrough evidence.

[Drew Phipps]

I just don't understand what sort of motive Liebeler had to fabricate this event. I get it that the Dallas PD might have thought they needed to get from "scope-less" to "scoped" in the early hours, but long before Liebeler is questioning Whitworth, the FBI has fully developed their documents and theory. Why is Liebeler drawing attention to this red herring Ryder (since Whitworth allegedly sent Oswald to Ryder), or as you put it, "back-building a false story to create an illusion," when the official position is that neither are involved?

[Albert Doyle]

It is simple to understand. Read Armstrong. Dallas police detective Fay Turner and Channel 8 reporter Ray Johns both got anonymous calls tipping off the Dial Ryder scope order ticket. They never traced the source and the timing was impossible because Ryder had not divulged the information about the ticket until Monday. This was something that exposed the event.


Liebeler aided in covering-up this deliberate attempt to create false evidence by normalizing it into a casual event that all happened on the day the driving Oswald visited Mrs Whitworth's. He was trying to create an assumption in the public's mind that after being denied at Mrs Whitworth's Oswald then went to Ryder's and ordered the scope. But at the same time Liebeler used that testimony to deny both events. In the process he managed to hide the fact the Dial Ryder event was a wicked fabrication created by FBI to compensate for flaws in the rifle evidence.


Liebeler did this because they were afraid someone like Armstrong would figure out what he did about the Dial Ryder evidence.


This is explosive.

[Drew Phipps]

Instead of all that, why wouldn't Liebeler simply not call the witnesses at all?

[Albert Doyle]

Instead of all that, why wouldn't Liebeler simply not call the witnesses at all?

Because they had exposed themselves too badly by anonymously tipping-off the Dallas police and Channel 8 - not to mention Dial Ryder himself who was a witness to the planted tag on Saturday morning the 23rd. If Liebeler ignores this it could blow back on him from Channel 8 sources or other sources that then created a controversy over why such incriminating evidence was ignored. What Liebeler did was bold damage control designed to casually dismiss a very dangerous issue that Armstrong has now exposed. By ignoring it and getting caught Liebeler would have risked a John Armstrong popping up at the time and figuring out it was ignored because of all the reasons Armstrong has now exposed. Safer to do a pretend review and dismiss it than risk attracting attention to it by ignoring it.

[Tom Scully]

Instead of all that, why wouldn't Liebeler simply not call the witnesses at all?

...Safer to do a pretend review and dismiss it than risk attracting attention to it by ignoring it.

Safer, still, not to speculate. What a vivid imagination combined with such unquestioning admiration for
an actual researcher.

[Drew Phipps]

If it was safer to review it and dismiss it, why didn't the Warren Commission call any of the Grassy Knoll witnesses? Orville Nix? The Neumans? The... Well, I'm not going to try to name them all. Why bother hiding the school records? The tax records? Why would Gerald Ford have to change the location of the wound on the back? They ignored far more evidence than they actually wrote about.

Surely, if it was less risky to "confront-then-belittle" the holes in the case against Oswald, we would have had 52+ volumes of exhibits. And three bullet hits (as planned by the FBI and SS) instead of one plus one magic bullet. You cannot assume that in one incredibly minor part of the overall Commission theory, they had to acknowledge a discrepancy, when all the other stuff was simply swept under the rug.