The Oklahoma City Bombing

Ian Goddard tries to sell the Ivy Theory.




------------------------------

Date: Wed Apr 30 22:52:45 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Army Base Ryder Truck
Reply-To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com (The okcbomb mailing list)

Army Base Ryder Truck: http://members.aol.com/bardsquill/truck.htm

I find the apparent photographs of the Ryder truck at Camp Gruber-
Braggs, Oklahoma quite interesting to say the least. Here we have 
what is the same kind of truck that blew up in OKC, which was 
driven by an Army agent, photographed at an Army base in OK 
in some kind of  special operations area only days before 
the OKC blast. Here are some questions and observations:

1) Why would the Army need to rent Ryder trucks
since the military has more hardware and equipment,
which one would assume includes trucks, in its 
inventory that it knows what to do with? The 
Army also has better trucks than Ryders.

2) No entrance is visible to the area cordoned 
off by a white wall approx. 15 feet high.

3) The truck would appear to be involved in some
kind of special operation that requires that it 
be placed in this cordoned-off area.  It would 
seem that it's a special loading area.?? 
Looking at the wide-area view: 
http://members.aol.com/capnkent/picture3.gif
it's clear that the enclosed area is very special 
and fairly remote with little sign of an access 
path, which suggests that it was recently constructed
relative to the taking of the photo, which suggests 
further that the truck is involved a very special 
and apparently (with high-walls) secret operation.

4) What function do the tent-like structures 
in front of and around the truck serve?

5) It seems unlikely that a private plane could
just wander over a military base, particularly
(assuming for the moment that the photo and its 
implications are real) a base loading up a truck 
planned to blow up a building.

This suggests either that the photo is rigged, and 
upon close but cursory inspection I see no evidence 
of that, or that the photo was from the inside and 
has leaked out. That possibility, which means the 
photo was taken by military personnel, adds weight 
to the validity of the photos. If the photo was 
fake, the con artist would have put blue barrels
next to the truck, which would clinch the case.

6) What appears to be tarps covering several
large things in the area suggests either 
weather protect or secrecy.

7) It seems clear that this is an Army base 
as one can see many Army vehicles tents.

8) The wide area view shows terrain not 
inconsistent with Oklahoman terrain, or
is it? Actually the trees remind me of
California terrain with much spruce.

Well, that's what comes to mind at the moment.

***********************************************************************
 IAN GODDARD (igoddard@erols.com)  Q U E S T I O N   A U T H O R I T Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe   ----->   http://www.erols.com/igoddard
_______________________________________________________________________

  TWA 800: THE FACTS -->  http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm

    WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm

--- 
For list service help, send a message to okcbomb-request@mars.galstar.com with a subject of HELP.

------------------------------

Date: Thu May  1 05:16:57 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: Re: Army Base Ryder Truck

Careful inspection of the wide-view photo 

http://members.aol.com/capnkent/picture3.gif

clearly indicates that all trees in the woods 
around the Ryder truck enclosure that are not
evergreens are without leaves, this, along with 
the color-saturation of the grassy areas sug-
gesting sudden lush growth, indicates that the 
photographs were taken in early spring, like 
perhaps, as the anonymous photographer claims, 
early April... but not much later.

The trees defined as "without leaves" are seen 
as large areas of grey in which trunk-type 
formations and branches can just be seen.

Notice also that within the enclosure there 
is a large pile of a yellowish material that 
could be sand,  but is in fact more similar 
to the color of ammonium-nitrate fertilizer.

This ammonium-nitrate-fertilizer-like material 
is seen in the photo shot from the angle in 
which "Ryder" is not visible. I cannot get 
the URL since the page at this time states:

"The requested URL was not found on this server." 


In light of (a) proof of government foreknowledge 
of the OKC bombing, in light of (b) the fact that 
primed bombs were found inside the building, which 
(c) munitions experts who were defusing the bombs 
inside were heard to say over police radio that 
the bombs were military bombs (Veritas, 05/09/95),
and  (d) the fact that the person who drove the 
a Ryder truck-bomb up to the Murrah building that 
is identical to the Ryder truck seen at the Army 
base was himself an Army agent, it follows that 
this evidence is very compelling and even shocking 
to say the least. Indeed, so shocking you can be 
sure never to hear about it in the major media.

------------------------------

Date: Thu May  1 10:37:25 1997
From: Jon Roland  
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Army Base Ryder Truck 
To: The okcbomb mailing list  

I have downloaded the image for further analysis.

It appears that, contrary to a previous message, the deciduous trees are 
not lacking leaves, but have small, intensely green leaves of the kind 
they would have in early April in Oklahoma.

Also note the car parked next to the yellow material scattered on the 
pavement. Could it be the same make and model as the one McVeigh was 
driving? This would suggest that McVeigh himself might have been a 
government operative, trying to set up the people at Elohim City for what 
he was told was a sting, but which his handlers intended should go off.

Keep up the good work, guys. We are doing the kinds of investigation that 
the FBI won't. With a little luck we may blow this thing wide open.

--Jon

===================================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM         Date: 05/01/97  Time: 08:28:42
http://www.constitution.org/         mailto:jon.roland@the-spa.com
===================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Thu May  1 11:08:08 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Army Base Ryder Truck 

 At 08:28 AM 5/1/97 -0800, Jon Roland wrote:

 > Also note the car parked next to the yellow material scattered on the 
 > pavement. Could it be the same make and model as the one McVeigh was 
 > driving? This would suggest that McVeigh himself might have been a 
 > government operative, trying to set up the people at Elohim City for 
 > what he was told was a sting, but which his handlers intended should 
 > go off.

Jim Keith's book OKBOMB says that Tim was driving a 1977
yellow Mercury Marquis. I don't think that's the car. 

I've been told that the coordinates found in my post
"Army Camp Gruber exists" and another cite from a web 
page indicate that Gruber is on the OK/AK border, in OK.
That's where Elohim City is, which is where Tim McVeigh 
and Strassmeier were hanging out before the bomb. I've 
not been able to see how close yet on a map, but the 
proximity is nothing short of shocking.

Notice further that next to the ammonium nitrate fertilizer
looking stuff there are what someone suggested appears to 
be long cylindrical fuel tanks. Fuel + fertilizer = ANFO. 

GEEZ!!! Everything is ringing right.


 >I have downloaded the image for further analysis.
 >
 >It appears that, contrary to a previous message, the deciduous trees are 
 >not lacking leaves, but have small, intensely green leaves of the kind 
 >they would have in early April in Oklahoma.

A lot of the trees are bare, but consider that different 
varieties of trees spring out their leaves in spring at
different times, some sooner than others. Suffice it
to say it seems the time of year is consistent with 
the claim of the photographer. But now, how do we
determine the year??? Probably impossible, but I 
we may be able to exlude this year. Why did it 
take to long for the photo to get out?

In told by the website owner that the original 
photos were given to the Militia of Montana (MOM).

------------------------------

Date: Thu May  1 04:01:14 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Army Camp Gruber exists

Several people notified me to say they cannot find any Army Base 
named Camp Gruber, Braggs Oklahoma,  where a Ryder truck has been 
photographed in some kind of special operations enclosure, allegedly 
only a few days before the Murrah building was blown up by a Ryder
truck driven by Army agent Tim McVeigh. Well I found that it 
does exist... I even got a couple phone numbers for it.

At this website: http://www.speedtrap.com/speedtrap/oklahoma.html
which tells people where to expect speed traps in OK, I found this:

 BRAGGS 
 town
 Additional Info: This is the mother of all traps if your from out of town
 you will get caught no matter what. The trap is located right next to Camp
 Gruber at the first convience store and the cop is always there. He uses K
 band on the radars. I once got stopped twice in one day and got tickets
 both times!!!


At this US Army site: http://www.atsc-army.org/dev/itsd/VTCL.HTM

I found this: 

        U.S. ARMY TELETRAINING
        NETWORK (TNET) CLASSROOMS

        LOCATION SPONSOR PHONE

        OK: Camp Gruber, Braggs FAS (918) 487-6042


At this FAA site: http://www.faa.gov/arp/okpri.htm

this:

                                              OKLAHOMA PRIVATE USE AIRPORTS

ST  CITY                  FACILITY NAME                   MANAGER                       OWNER                        MANAGER'S PHONE
    SITE NUMBER           USE                             MANAGER'S ADDRESS LINE 1      OWNER'S ADDRESS LINE 1       OWNNER'S PHONE 
    IDENTIFIER            LATITUDE       LONGITUDE        MANAGER'S ADDRESS LINE 2      OWNER'S ADDRESS LINE 2       

OK  BRAGGS                CAMP GRUBER                     LTC JIM HUMPHREY              OKLAHOMA MILITARY DEPT.      918-487-6001   
    18833.3*H             PR                                                            3501 MILITARY CIRCLE, NE     918-487-6001   
    59OK                  35-40-25.350N  095-12-19.861W   CAMP GRUBER, OK               OKLAHOMA CITY, OK  73111     

------------------------------

From: ron@schwarz.nethawk@com (Ron Schwarz)
Newsgroups: alt.illuminati,alt.conspiracy,alt.journalism,alt.politics.org.batf
Subject: Re: PICTURES: Ryder truck at Army Base in early April?
Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 02:24:28 GMT
Organization: NetOne Communications Inc.

On Sat, 03 May 1997 01:20:14 -0500, Son of ATF  wrote:

>Dan wrote:
>> 
>> It would be appreciated if someone capable of determining if pictures
>> are fake / fraudulent can determine if the pictures at
>> 
>> http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/truck.html ,
>> allegedly pictures of the Ryder truck at Camp Gruber-Braggs, Oklahoma
>> in early April of 1995, are real or not.
>
>Well, I can't do a photoanalysis, but I can tell you as a National
>Guardsman who drills at Gruber on an irregular basis, that I've never
>seen a locale on Gruber that looks like that.

The pictures look faked to me.  In one, the putative explosive is
yellow, in the next, it's brown.  And the "Ryder" lettering is just
*too* damn sharp; it has higher contrast and resolution than anything
else in the photo.

>-- 
>          --Son of ATF
>__________________________________________________________
>Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to 
>    combat it.
>          --T. Jefferson:  First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
>
>Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing
>     your  temper.
>     --Robert Frost
>
>"What ever is, is not," is the maxim of the anarchist, as often as 
>     anything comes across him in the shape of a law which he happens
>     not to like.
>     --Richard Bentley

--
Swap dots and ats to reply.

Former postal worker.  Go ahead, push.

Due to a bug in my mailer, flames and unsolicited commercial email
will be returned to sender and sender's administrator one hundredfold.

------------------------------------

Date: Sun May  4 22:24:23 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: PICTURES: Ryder truck at Army Base in early April? (Fwd)

> The pictures look faked to me.  In one, the putative explosive is
> yellow, in the next, it's brown. 

  Different incident angle on a particulatre substance. The reason the
full moon is 9 times brighter than the quarter moon instead of just
double. 

> And the "Ryder" lettering is just
> *too* damn sharp; it has higher contrast and resolution than anything
> else in the photo.

  On the contrary, the lettering is "within" the film grain, not
overlayed. The contrast is consistant for the luminosity range defined by
the white screen to the dark shadow and a fourier transform shows the
spatial resolution to be consistant across a line from the tent, through
the truck and onto the dirt to the left. 

  Film fakery is what I do for a living, and while I wish I had a true 24
bit image to work from, so far (emphasis on "so far") I don't see anything
to suggest that the photo is not exactly what it seems to be.

----------------------------------

Date: Sun May  4 13:27:15 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: [Fwd:Ryder Truck Photo: pilot to come fow

On Sun, 4 May 1997, Gary Hunt wrote:

> This same post was recieved in another list, but had an authors name
> attached. The response is mine gh
> 
> snetnews@world.std.com wrote:
> 
> 
> > A truly astounding alleged aerial photo taken by a private pilot in early
> > April of 1995 (2 weeks before the Oklahoma bombing) over what then appeared
> > to have been a make-shift military-type encampment within the U.S. Army CAMP
> > GRUBER, north-east of Braggs, Oklahoma, has surfaced (2nd generation color
> > photocopy), and can now be seen at:
> > 
> > http://members.aol.com/bardsquill/truck.htm
> > 
> > The pilot is now getting ready to identify himself, despite fear of possible retribution.
> > The photo was taken approximately 2 weeks prior to the Oklahoma bombing.
> >  Approximately one week later, the pilot flew over the same area and the 
> > encampment was gone.  You can tell that the camp had just been built.
> There > are also two large portable chemical tanks located on site.
> [snip]
> > ->  Posted by: Dan 
> 
> 
> I've always been amazed at the reliance on future events that some will
> go to. The encampment was there, then it was gone. The pilot is going to
> come clean, but who did he tell this to?
> 

  Nobody's pinning much hopes on the pilot. If he comes forward, great.
Until then the claim that the photo was taken near Oklahoma City in April
95 is unsourced. 

  However, what the photo DOES show is intriguing. We have a temporary
military encampment, from the wide area view in a remote area, behind a
screen that sheilds the camp from casual ground level observation. At the
very center of the camp are four MORE screens, and inside the screens are
four vehicles, one of them a 20 foot Ryder truck identical to the 
one the government claims is the sole cause of the Murrah Building
bombing (said "lone bomb" claim disproved by the Air Force's Eglin Blast
Effects Stufy).

  Great pains have been gone to to place the truck in the most protected,
most secret part of the camp. If the truck were there to support the camp,
it would be parked outside with the other trucks to the northeast outside
the perimeter. So the reverse is true. The camp exists to support whatever
that Ryder truck is being used for. 

-------------------------------------------

Date: Sun May  4 23:41:02 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: hafreepr@telepath.com (David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press)
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

>Date: 04 May 97 09:22:11 EDT
>From: "William C. Roberts" <71574.3311@COMPUSERVE.COM>
>To: David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press 
>Subject: Re: Truck @ Braggs
>Status: U
>
>Dave,
>
>I know who took the photo.  I saw it within days of the taking.  He's a local
>guy.  He sent it to Trochman and Trochman got all excited about it.  It was
>taken in November 94, just five months before OKC.  The only big thing about it
>that worries me is that we don't know what the long cylindrical object is (a
>mixer?), and why it was such a top secret DOD project.  I never said the photo
>(taken at Camp Gruber, not "Fort Braggs"--Braggs is the little town outside the
>gate) was bogus...only that I don't know if there's any link between it and OKC.
>I still think an adequate explanation from DOD is now in order, however.
>
>It's worrisome to note that the DOD had to come to a national guard base in the
>outback of Oklahoma to do a "project" that was top secret.  I can't figure out
>why they picked this place and think an explanation is overdue now that these
>photos have come out.
>
>Gordon Novell, who works for Ramsey Clark, is now investigating and has
>formed a partnership with the guy who took the photo.  We'll have to see what 
>comes of their inquiries.
>

David Hoffman, Publisher
Haight Ashbury Free Press
6118 N. Meridian, #621
Oklahoma City, OK 73112
http://www.webcom.com/haight
(405) 948-1330 (temorarily in Oklahoma City)

-------------------------------------------

Date Mon May  5 01:20:26 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: PICTURES: Ryder truck at Army Base in early April? (Fwd)

At 08:20 PM 5/4/97 -0700, Michael Rivero wrote:
>> The pictures look faked to me.  In one, the putative explosive is
>> yellow, in the next, it's brown. 
>
>  Different incident angle on a particulatre substance. The reason the
>full moon is 9 times brighter than the quarter moon instead of just
>double. 

 IAN: In fact, that could even tell us about the nature 
 of the material. Exactly what, I don't know, but it 
 might make or break the case that it's sand.

>
>> And the "Ryder" lettering is just
>> *too* damn sharp; it has higher contrast and resolution than anything
>> else in the photo.
>
>  On the contrary, the lettering is "within" the film grain, not
>overlayed. The contrast is consistant for the luminosity range defined by
>the white screen to the dark shadow and a fourier transform shows the
>spatial resolution to be consistant across a line from the tent, through
>the truck and onto the dirt to the left. 

 IAN: The whole image shows high-clarity. It suggests that 
 this photo was no casual fly-by snap shot by some amateur.
 Note that the wide view shot indicates that the plane was
 pretty high up and a telephoto was being used. Whoever took
 the photos went up in the air with the plan to take some 
 photos, which suggests it's an inside job of some kind.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Mon May  5 01:49:39 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

At 11:37 PM 5/4/97 -0500, David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press wrote:

 >>From: "William C. Roberts" <71574.3311@COMPUSERVE.COM>
 >> ...
 >>It was taken in November 94, just five months before OKC.  

IAN: I believe that the condition of the trees is not 
suggestive of winter but early spring.  Note that the 
individual does not seem to be heavily dressed as one
would be in Nov. There are clearly some leaves on the
tree in the foreground that stands in front of the 
coverup encampment. We could call the little base
"Camp Cover-up," since the purpose of the walls
is ipso fact to cover up the contents inside.

-------------------------------------------

Date; Mon May  5 07:54:21 1997

On Sun, 4 May 1997, David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press wrote:

> >Date: 04 May 97 09:22:11 EDT
> >From: "William C. Roberts" <71574.3311@COMPUSERVE.COM>
> >To: David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press 
> >Subject: Re: Truck @ Braggs
> >Status: U
> >
> >Dave,
> >
> >I know who took the photo.  I saw it within days of the taking.  He's a local
> >guy.  He sent it to Trochman and Trochman got all excited about it.  It was
> >taken in November 94, just five months before OKC. 


  Look at the wide angle view. 
http://wwwwhatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif
The foliage is inconsistant with November. Not all the trees are
evergreens, and they still have their leaves (Immediate east of the
compound). There are no autumn colors present in the scene.

  Someone is feeding you disinfo, to distance the photo in time from
OK City.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Tue May  6 21:03:29 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: hafreepr@telepath.com (David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press)
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

>Date: 06 May 97 13:55:53 EDT
>From: "William C. Roberts" <71574.3311@COMPUSERVE.COM>
>To: David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press 
>Subject: Re: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

Dave,

I have a copy of the original photo, 8X11 glossy, and there are NO leaves
on the trees and the grass is brown.  I can copy and send it to you.  I
don't know what they've scanned on the internet, but you can take it from
me that this was in the fall.  You can also see for yourself.  A companion
photo of a different
site, taken on the same day, also shows brown grass and trees with no leaves.


To all, Craig sent me a JPG of the original photo. I can send it to anyone
who wants it, but it takes about 5 minutes to download.

David Hoffman, Publisher
Haight Ashbury Free Press
6118 N. Meridian, #621
Oklahoma City, OK 73112
http://www.webcom.com/haight
(405) 948-1330 (temorarily in Oklahoma City)

-------------------------------------------

Date: Tue May  6 21:50:23 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

On Tue, 6 May 1997, David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press wrote:

> >Date: 06 May 97 13:55:53 EDT
> >From: "William C. Roberts" <71574.3311@COMPUSERVE.COM>
> >To: David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press 
> >Subject: Re: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs
> 
> Dave,
> 
> I have a copy of the original photo, 8X11 glossy, and there are NO leaves
> on the trees and the grass is brown.  I can copy and send it to you.  I
> don't know what they've scanned on the internet, but you can take it from
> me that this was in the fall.  You can also see for yourself.

  In the wide angle view at
http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif there is a
white concrete rectangle at lower right, possibly an old foundation from a
fueling station. In the center, a tree grows upwards and the newlly
emergant green foliage can be clearey screen against the white concrete
backdrop. 

  I request that everybody verify this for themselves.

  Immediatly after I send this letter I will add an enlargement of the
tree to the webpage at
http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/truck.html..

  One can only speculate why Mr. Hoffman missed such an obvious clue.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Tue May  6 22:05:50 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com (The okcbomb mailing list)
From: hafreepr@telepath.com (David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press)
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

>  One can only speculate why Mr. Hoffman missed such an obvious clue.

Well, perhaps you should look at the original photo before you make your
judgements. I am not that interested in the matter, I am just passing on
e-mail from Roberts.

David Hoffman, Publisher
Haight Ashbury Free Press
6118 N. Meridian, #621
Oklahoma City, OK 73112
http://www.webcom.com/haight
(405) 948-1330 (temorarily in Oklahoma City)

-------------------------------------------

Date: Tue May  6 22:37:52 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com (The okcbomb mailing list)
From: hafreepr@telepath.com (David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press)
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

>> >>
>> >> I have a copy of the original photo, 8X11 glossy, and there are NO leaves
>> >> on the trees and the grass is brown.  I can copy and send it to you.  I
>> >> don't know what they've scanned on the internet, but you can take it from
>> >> me that this was in the fall.  You can also see for yourself.
>> >
>> >  In the wide angle view at
>> >http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif there is a
>> >white concrete rectangle at lower right, possibly an old foundation from a
>> >fueling station. In the center, a tree grows upwards and the newlly
>> >emergant green foliage can be clearey screen against the white concrete
>> >backdrop.
>> >
>> >  I request that everybody verify this for themselves.
>> >  One can only speculate why Mr. Hoffman missed such an obvious clue.
>>
>> Well, perhaps you should look at the original photo before you make your
>> judgements. I am not that interested in the matter, I am just passing on
>> e-mail from Roberts.
>>
>
>  Robert claims that there are no leaves on the trees. This statement is
>so easily proven a lie it just seems strange that you, ostensibly with the
>press, forwarded that claim without the cursory examination required to
>discover you had been lied to. You didn't fact-check. It calls into
>question the accuracy of the other statements you've made Did you bother
>to fact check them?


First of all, Roberts told me the original photo has no leaves, and that he
believes the photo you have have seen has been retouched, which, as a
Photoshop operator, I know is quite easy to do.

Second, Craig is my partner, a 20-year Tulsa Police veteran, and an active
military intelligence officer. I know him and trust him with my life. He
has done much to expose governmental corruption.

I do not know you, except as someone who posts messages on this list.

When you decide to work for 20+ years as a law-enforcement officer, attain
the rank of Colonel in military intelligence, or work for the newspapers
for seven years as I have, then come out to Oklahoma for over a year and
investigate the case 10-12 hours a day, seven days a week, as I have, then
you will be in a position to argue the relative merits of particular
evidence with me, such as the Middle Eastern connection and other things.

I do not mean to sound condescending, but I really have no interest in
bantering back and forth with you.

I read this list for potential useful information, and occassionally post a
note or two. That's all.

David Hoffman

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 08:14:26 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

On Tue, 6 May 1997, David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press wrote:

> >
> >  Robert claims that there are no leaves on the trees. This statement is
> >so easily proven a lie it just seems strange that you, ostensibly with the
> >press, forwarded that claim without the cursory examination required to
> >discover you had been lied to. You didn't fact-check. It calls into
> >question the accuracy of the other statements you've made Did you bother
> >to fact check them?
> 
> 
> First of all, Roberts told me the original photo has no leaves, and that he
> believes the photo you have have seen has been retouched, which, as a
> Photoshop operator, I know is quite easy to do.

  I'm a special effects expert. My credits include some of the Star Trek
features, Stargate, Coneheads, Brainscan and more commercials than I can
recall.

  The image of the foliage and the lettering on the Ryder truck is
"within" the film grains. It is not a fake. 

> Second, Craig is my partner, a 20-year Tulsa Police veteran, and an active
> military intelligence officer. I know him and trust him with my life. He
> has done much to expose governmental corruption.
> 
> I do not know you, except as someone who posts messages on this list.

  I do not know you, except as someone who posts messages on this list,
and quotes an active military intelligence officer.

> When you decide to work for 20+ years as a law-enforcement officer, attain
> the rank of Colonel in military intelligence, or work for the newspapers
> for seven years as I have, then come out to Oklahoma for over a year and
> investigate the case 10-12 hours a day, seven days a week, as I have, then
> you will be in a position to argue the relative merits of particular
> evidence with me, such as the Middle Eastern connection and other things.

  I am an 18 year veteren of film effects. I've won 5 Cleos, a Hugo, gold
medals at tye New York Film Festival, a Bronze Lion at Cannes and been
nominated once each for an Emmy and an Oscar. 

  But that's not the issue. The issue is that Robert has made, and you
have echoed without checking, a claim that is directly contradicted by the
the photos at Norio Hayakawa's site. Robert has stated, and you echoed,
that there were no leaves on the trees, and yet anyone who visits Norio
Hayakawa's site can see that this is simply not true. 

  Norio Hayakawa has put the photos he has up in a website. I've mirrored
them ( and anyone who wants to can verify that the mirror is identical to
the originals). You and this military intelligence officer (hardly an
unbiased source) come along claiming the photo has been retouched but I
don't see your website. I don''t see the pictre you claim is so much
clearer and sharper that shows no leaves at all. Show us the version of
http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif that you
claim doesn't have the leaves on the trees. Show us where Norio Hayakawa
has run photoshop on the picture. Why not attach the photo you claim you
have to your next email so we can all see it?  In the meantime, I will be
adding more enlargements from the Hayakawa images to my website, focusing
on leafy trees.

  Maybe Robert is just using you. All of histories betrayals involve a
trusted friend. But you bear the responsability for having repeated
Robert's claims without even a cursory examination of the facts, and that
is a bad sign in a journalist with seven years experience. 

  The claim that the photos do not show leaves in the trees is a lie, and
a clumsy one at that.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 10:38:15 1997
From: Rickie.A.Slater@dartmouth.edu (Rickie A. Slater)
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com, watch-men@netcom.com

--- Forwarded Message from "Randy L. Trochmann"  ---

>Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 09:18:51 -0700
>From: "Randy L. Trochmann" 
>Organization: Militia of Montana
>To: "Rickie A. Slater" 
>Subject: Re: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

Rickie,

As far as I am aware there has not been any testing done on the photo.

In the originals that we have it is very difficult tell by the trees to
determine the time of year. From the photo that we have I would have to
say Spring.

There is only one leaf bearing tree with leaves that is clearly visible.
And it only has half of it's leaves. This would lead one to believe that
it must be fall. However, this single tree does NOT have any leaves that
have turned color. On the left hand side of the photo are dead
evergreens bushes mixed in with live evergreen bushes. The tree with the
leaves also appears to be dying seeing as the left hand side of the tree
is absolutely barren and the right hand side of the tree is full of
leaves.

Again, if it were fall there would be some semblance of leaf color
change.

I do not know who the two gentleman are that you referred to. 

Yes, we originally released the photos. The photographer has since
copywrited the pictures and has signed a contract with with a book
publisher and video producer.

However, before the copywrite was issued we were able to complete our
newest video release, "America's Judgments, What Lies Ahead". Within
this video John Trochmann (host) discusses the OKC Bombing and shows the
original photograph, which was professionally edited into the film. This
video is available for a donation of $20.00 + $3.00 for shipping. Also
available with the video is a 191 page documentation packet, which
contains all of the information used by John in the video production.
This packet is available for $20.00 + $3.00 for shipping. The video and
the packet together are available for a donation of $35.00 + $3.00 for
shipping. 

Sincerely,

Randy L. Trochmann

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 11:53:25 1997
From: "Bob Hall" 
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
Subject: okcbomb] Leaves, truck, second bomb, et al..

Unless the damned leaves can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 
the truck was used in the damned bombing, I have heard all I want to 
hear about the damned truck, the damned leaves.... etc.

There is:  a picture.  It has some green in the background, and there 
is a Ryder truck highly protected in the middle of a semi secure 
area.  Investigate, don't speculate, at least not in here any more.

You can take 100 authorities on bombs, put them in a room, and ask 
for one single decision.  Won't happen.  You can take the 
same 100 authorities, and ask for a single decision on where to eat 
for lunch, and that won't happen either.  So far, the only people 
allowed to examine any evidence, are the feds.  If anyone is aware of 
any indpendent studies of the evidence, please bring forth the 
knowledge to this list, and lets do something with it.  We are all 
aware of the report on the federal labs, and investigative 
techniques, and that changes nothing, they have the evidence, tainted 
and all.  

Get a new topic.

Bob Hall
Listowner.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 12:18:51 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: bobhall@telepath.com, The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Leaves, truck, second bomb, et al..

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Bob Hall wrote:

> Unless the damned leaves can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 
> the truck was used in the damned bombing, I have heard all I want to 
> hear about the damned truck, the damned leaves.... etc.
> 
> There is:  a picture.  It has some green in the background, and there 
> is a Ryder truck highly protected in the middle of a semi secure 
> area.  Investigate, don't speculate, at least not in here any more.

  Part of that investigation is to "out" the obvious lies. By virtue
of the original purported time and location that the photo was taken, 
this photo has a possible bearing on the Oklahoma bombing, and just as
we should not over-commit to claiming there is a connection, we dare not
discard it out of hand. 

  There does not seem to be a legitimate explanation to explain the
circumstances recorded in the photo. There DOES seem to be a deliberate
attempt to discredit the photo by claiming it was taken in November
instead of early April. 

  If there is nothing to this photo, why the obvious lie about it?

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 12:42:26 1997
From: Rickie.A.Slater@dartmouth.edu (Rickie A. Slater)
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Leaves, truck, second bomb, et al..
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com (The okcbomb mailing list)

--- You wrote:
  If there is nothing to this photo, why the obvious lie about it?
--- end of quote ---

I didn't interpret it to be an obvious lie. The photo doesn't lend itself to
strict interpretation from what I can gather. I do not care to analyze it on my
screen and I trust Randy Trochmann's judgement that it just doesn't make much
sense that it looks like fall except for the green leaves on part of a tree. It
may be worth a trip out to the base to look at the site if it were possible to
get permission, if someone lives close enough to do it. Some evergreens are
broadleaf and not needles.
Anyone live near there that can try to see what the site looks like before it
turns to summer?
Rick

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 20:10:14 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: hafreepr@telepath.com (David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press)
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

>Date: 07 May 97 10:33:43 EDT
>From: "William C. Roberts" <71574.3311@COMPUSERVE.COM>
>To: David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press 
>Subject: Re: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs
>
>Once again....I KNOW when the photo was taken!  I KNOW who took it!  I saw it
>right after he took it...the same week!
>
>The .gif photos are NOT representative of the actual photos as the pixels tend
>to enlarge into "leaves" when there are none. I can guarantee that the only
>"green" trees there are evergreens, which are numerous.  The oaks, elms and
>etc. are barren and the grass is brown.  I'll make copies of the photos and
>send them to you when I get back from out of town.  You can see for yourself.
>
> - William C. Roberts

David Hoffman

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 20:22:59 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com (The okcbomb mailing list)
From: hafreepr@telepath.com (David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press)
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

I love a good conspiracy as much as the next fellow, and I don't mean to
bust anyone's bubble, but has anyone ever considered the fact that the Army
has a contract with Ryder. What that means is that they use Ryder trucks to
move stuff around.

I don't think anyone should get too terribly exicted simply because there
is a Ryder truck sitting behing a secure military compound somewhere in
Oklahoma around the time of the Murrah bombing.

It may be... and then again... it may not.

David Hoffman

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 22:19:41 1997
From: Lynn Wallace 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

Son of ATF claims that there is no place at the camp similar to the 
photograph.

The US Dept. of Agriculture has photographed most if not all of the 
Continental US by aircraft.  The resolution is approximately 1 meter, 
and the photographs range in age from one to five years or so.  I 
suspect they do not cover all military installations, but Fort Douglas 
and Fort Williams in the Salt Lake area, installations that seem similar 
in security requirements, are covered.

The Eros Data Center http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/dsprod/prod.html
can provide such a photograph.  The fee would be smallish, I think 
around $30, and the wait would be on the order of six weeks.  (There is 
the additional complication of giving them a roll and photo number, 
which might require the additional step of them sending you a locator 
sheet, and you placing your order with the requisite information.)

If there is a USDA public service office in your city, you can walk in 
and order right off the index sheet.

Doing this would allow one to match the topography and construction of 
this installation with that depicted in the "photograph."

This would be a simple first step to validate this "photograph," but 
only first step.  If there is no place in the USDA/USGS photograph that 
matches the web "photo," the latter is shown to be a fake.

I'll leave this to a freelance investigator.

-- 
Lynn Wallace       || Practice random kinds of senseless acts.
           Specializing in depictions of the real world:  
                 http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 22:32:05 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

David

  Thanks for the photo, but it came through as greyscale only. No color
at all. 

  The tree at lower right still shows the outline of the foliage against
the concrete behind it. 

RANCHO RUNNAMUKKA | Special Effects / Documentary Films
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/ 
RYDER TRUCK AT ARMY BASE 4/95 http://members.aol.com/bardsquill/truck.htm

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 22:33:58 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

On Wed, 7 May 1997, David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press wrote:

> >Date: 07 May 97 10:33:43 EDT
> >From: "William C. Roberts" <71574.3311@COMPUSERVE.COM>
> >To: David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press 
> >Subject: Re: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs
> >
> >Once again....I KNOW when the photo was taken!  I KNOW who took it!  I saw it
> >right after he took it...the same week!
> >
> >The .gif photos are NOT representative of the actual photos as the pixels tend
> >to enlarge into "leaves" when there are none. I can guarantee that the only
> >"green" trees there are evergreens, which are numerous.  The oaks, elms and etc.
> >are barren and the grass is brown.  I'll make copies of the photos and send them
> >to you when I get back from out of town.  You can see for yourself.
> >
> > - William C. Roberts
> 

  The comment about pixels enlarging into leaves is totally without
foundation. If such a claim were true, why is it seen only one half of the
tree?

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 22:39:33 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

On Wed, 7 May 1997, David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press wrote:

> I love a good conspiracy as much as the next fellow, and I don't mean to
> bust anyone's bubble, but has anyone ever considered the fact that the Army
> has a contract with Ryder. What that means is that they use Ryder trucks to
> move stuff around.
> 
> I don't think anyone should get too terribly exicted simply because there
> is a Ryder truck sitting behing a secure military compound somewhere in
> Oklahoma around the time of the Murrah bombing.

  If the Ryder truck is just there to move things around, then why isn't
it parked outside the compound with the other trucks to the northeast?
Why hide the presence of the Ryder truck? It's not only inside the screen
around the camp, it's surrounded by it's own ecreen which would have to be
moved to use the rear loading door. In other words it's not the cargo
that's being kept secret, it's the presence of the Ryder truck (and the
other three vehicles) thats being kept secret. The Ryder truck isn't there
to support the camp, the camp supports whatever the Ryder truck is being
used for. The Ryder truck and those other three vehicles are the focus
of the camp; everything else is set up around them.

  I've used Ryder trucks to move myself, and never once did I feel the
need to keep the presence of the truck a secret. Those screens around
those trucks didn't appear by magic. Someone had to build them, and set
them up, and they were built and set up for a rwason and the reason is to
conceal the trucks. 

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 22:42:18 1997
From: Gary Hunt 
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

I'll start from scratch on this one. We all know the issue/controversy
over the photos of the trucks at Gruber.
  First, a little background. Some thirty years ago I was a
photogrammatrist in the Army (Intelligence). My training was aerial
photography, from black-white, color to infra-red and SLAR (airborne
radar). I graduated first in my class, and was in charge of a secure
section. 
  Years later, I was a photogrammatrist in private sector. Again, view
aerial imagery on a daily basis, and interpreting that information to a
useful format. 
  In my present work, I have occasion to work with aerial imagery,
although not to the extent that I did years ago.
  The benefit, and why I point this out, is that there are
characteristics that can be utilized to isolate features, assisting in
formulating valid conclusion. 
  Finally, I have been provided a black/white version of "Truck3).
Although the grain is slightly better then the color version, the
consistency of the imagery is much better. Not being familiar with
electronic means, but having worked with various software in developing
images for my own page, I see that the color is exaggerated, and that
color assignments have been made which begin to destroy the 'smoothness'
of many of the black-white textures. This is, from my work on my page, a
characteristic common to various "low density" electronic images.
  Another feature to be observed is the shadow of the tree brought into
question, and the density of the foliage, itself. What appears as two
branches with dense foliage, the remainder being barren, is more
characteristic of fall than spring. Springtime brings consistent, even
growth to tress. Fall allows leaves to fall, varying, sometime, on sun
facing sides of trees. Another possibility is that there are growths of
cudzo vines on the two branches. If you look around the site, you will
see what appears to be carpeting in the trees. This is indicative of
cudzo vines, and is very common on military installations, where no
effort is made to remove this growth, and there is a retardation of any
natural process of removal.
  As far as the site being temporary, the building near the tree appears
to be concrete, and on a concrete pad. This paid has a distinct pattern
of mud track at the lower right corner, which tend to be obscured, and
green, in the color version.
  The power pole at the lower left is clear in the b/w, difficult to
determine what it is in the color.
  The black/white also shows that there is a paved (so much for remote,
hidden) immediately adjacent to the site. 
  I suppose this is sufficient, for now. There are other characteristics
I could bring forward, if anyone is interested.
  Finally, however, I would like to make a few observations, not of the
photo bu of the discussion.
  There is a tendency to conclude as we wish, especially if we have
self-serving motivation to that end. Objectivity is not the most common
asset on the board. What has happened with regard to this photo, which
validity has never been claimed, directly, by the photographer, as least
to the extent suggested hereon, reminds me of a problem I had as a
Surveyor. A bench mark is an established point with a known elevation.
Frequently, the physical description is a "railroad spike in a tree (or
power pole). We were setting up a topographic survey and I had asked the
crew to keep there eyes open for benchmarks (which, sometimes, have
elevations written nearby). They came in very excited, for having a
bench mark near the site might save them running a couple of miles of
levels to bring an elevation in from a more distant point. I asked Wayne
why he was so excited, and he exclaimed that he had found a bench mark
right at the corner of the property. "What was the bench mark?, I asked.
He replied, a railroad spike in a pine tree. I asked him what the
elevation was, and he said he didn't know, but that he had a bench mark
at the site. It took a few minutes to explain to him that what he had
was a railroad spike in a tee, not a benchmark. As in this photo, all of
the criteria has to be met before it becomes anything more than a Ryder
truck in what appears to be a military setting.

-- 
Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom
opf@azi.com
"when the government is pointing its guns in the wrong direction!"
http://www.azi.com/opf

-------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May  7 23:16:15 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Lynn Wallace wrote:

> This would be a simple first step to validate this "photograph," but 
> only first step.  If there is no place in the USDA/USGS photograph that 
> matches the web "photo," the latter is shown to be a fake.

  Do you still look exactly like your high school photo? Then either the
present you or the high school you is a fake. 

  Unless the USDA/USGS took a photo of the site at the exact same time
that our mystery photographer did, you'll not see a match in the scene. 
The camp was temporary and was reported to be gone shortly after the photo
was taken. Vehicles move and it can be assumed they did so. Add seasonal
changes and yearly growth and the only items that will likely match over
any significant time are the roads and the utility poles ands the one
concrete foundation and they will hardly show clearly with the resolution
of the USDA/USGS photographs.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Thu May  8 01:11:30 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

I think we need to wait until we hear from the photographer 
at length before we put any more into this photo. It seems 
that since the photographer has emerged to claim (c) that we 
can count on hearing from him/her sometime soon. We also need 
to see the photos taken a week or so later that allegedly show 
the area cleared out. If it's spring time, those photos should
show evidence that leaves have developed over that time. Then 
we need independent confirmation that the location is at Gruber, 
which we should be able to determine even with the encampment 
removed.

But even with all that in hand, how do we prove that it was 
THE truck that drove up the Murrah building and exploded?

There needs to be more evidence to link that truck to OKC,
there needs to be some eyewitness accounts... someone or 
something needs to link the Gruber truck to the Murrah truck 
in some plausible fashion other than that they are both Ryder 
trucks. However much we may feel it is THE truck (and I tend 
to have that feeling), the rules of evidence must prevail, 
and I don't see the links happening, at least not now.

There needs to be much deeper research to make the links, and 
this research cannot come from the photos or the photographer,
yet I can't think exactly how, short of a video of it traveling 
from Gruber to the Murrah, those links can be made. Figuring 
out how they can be made would be the best thing to do now.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Thu May  8 01:59:19 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com (The okcbomb mailing list)
From: hafreepr@telepath.com (David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press)
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

To believe the truck was the bomb truck, one would have to dismiss the
evidence that the bomb truck was rented at Elliott's. Assuming the FBI's
information is correct (and no, I don't trust the FBI), then that would be
pretty hard to do. Remember, they traced the VIN number to a Florida Ryder
dealer, then to Eliott's in Junction City.

There was another Ryder truck used, but it was an older, privately-owned
truck without the Ryder logo, seen at Lady Govida's in Tulsa on April 8.
There may have been a third truck somewhere, but so far, no evidence of
that has emerged to my knowledge.

I would like to ascertain how often the Army (and I've heard the ATF and
FBI does this to) used Ryder trucks to move ordinance and other material,
whether classified material, projects, or whatever. If they do it a lot,
and I suspect they do, then you can simply go by the odds that this photo
business may be nothing more than that.

Of course, I would like nothing better then to link this business with the
bombing, but one must be reasonable and explore all the possibilities.

I think all this banter is amusing, and admit, I am somewhat drawn into the
possibilities. But since it seems to be of so much concern to Rivero and
others, why don't you get off your armchairs and keyboards and act like
real investigators. Make a few calls. Call the Army Public Relations Office
at the Pentagon. Ask them how often Ryder trucks are used in top-secret and
other operations. See if they'll respond. Don't automatically assume they
won't.

It's at least a start.

David Hoffman

-------------------------------------------

Date: Thu May  8 08:21:54 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

>   Another feature to be observed is the shadow of the tree brought into
> question, and the density of the foliage, itself. What appears as two
> branches with dense foliage, the remainder being barren, is more
> characteristic of fall than spring.

  Then why is it green? Leaves turn color before they fall. Where are the
fallen leaves?

  How convenient that you start with a black and white image to make your
argument.
  

>  Another possibility is that there are growths of
> cudzo vines on the two branches. If you look around the site, you will
> see what appears to be carpeting in the trees. This is indicative of
> cudzo vines, and is very common on military installations, where no
> effort is made to remove this growth, and there is a retardation of any
> natural process of removal.

  It's spelled "Kudzu". 

>   The black/white also shows that there is a paved (so much for remote,
> hidden) immediately adjacent to the site. 

  You may find this very hard to believe, but there are paved roads in
remote rural locations. I know it may be comething you don't encounter as
a military intelligence alumni, but it's true. Harry Truman first rose to
fame in Missouri by making sure there was a paved road within 1 mile of
every farm, even way out in the boonies. That was how the Pendergast
machine made it's money from the government, building roads in remote
locations. 

>   Finally, however, I would like to make a few observations, not of the
> photo bu of the discussion.
>   There is a tendency to conclude as we wish, especially if we have
> self-serving motivation to that end. 

  Never more clearly demonstrateted than when the green-dominated color
image is discarded for a black and white, then pronounced as an autumn
scene.

  Where are the autumn colors? Where are the fallen leaves? 

-------------------------------------------

Date: Thu May  8 08:30:23 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Lynn Wallace wrote:

> Michael Rivero wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 7 May 1997, David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press wrote:
> > 
> > > I love a good conspiracy as much as the next fellow, and I don't mean to
> > > bust anyone's bubble, but has anyone ever considered the fact that the Army
> > > has a contract with Ryder. What that means is that they use Ryder trucks to
> > > move stuff around.
> > >
> > > I don't think anyone should get too terribly exicted simply because there
> > > is a Ryder truck sitting behing a secure military compound somewhere in
> > > Oklahoma around the time of the Murrah bombing.
> > 
> >   If the Ryder truck is just there to move things around, then why isn't
> > it parked outside the compound with the other trucks to the northeast?
> > Why hide the presence of the Ryder truck? It's not only inside the screen
> > around the camp, it's surrounded by it's own ecreen which would have to be
> > moved to use the rear loading door. In other words it's not the cargo
> > that's being kept secret, it's the presence of the Ryder truck (and the
> > other three vehicles) thats being kept secret. The Ryder truck isn't there
> > to support the camp, the camp supports whatever the Ryder truck is being
> > used for. The Ryder truck and those other three vehicles are the focus
> > of the camp; everything else is set up around them.
> 
> Trucks have been known to carry items other than bombs.
> 
> Some of these items call for strong security.
> 
> For example, a vendor might use the truck to ship a secure item to the 
> Army, say, a bunch of missile guidance circuits.  However, using a 
> plain-as-day cover for something really important is more at home in the 
> movies than real life.

  You see, but you do not percieve. The screen that surrounds the Ryder
truck prevents the use of the loading door. If it was the cargo being
protected, they would back the truck into the enclosure so that the
loading door went right up to whatever tent the cargo was going in or out
of. Instead, the truck is parked nose in, and the screen is set up in such
a way that the truck rear cargo door and ramp cannot be used.

  Once the truck is loaded and the cargo door is closed, the cargo is
concealed. But here we have a Ryder truck with the cargo door closed,
inside a screen, inside a screen.

  It's the presence of the truck that's being concealed. Whatever is
inside the truck is already concealed; we don't know what's there.
We can't see it inside the truck. What is being hidden behind the screens
is the truck itself.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Thu May  8 09:08:45 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

On Thu, 8 May 1997, David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press wrote:

> >
> >  I've used Ryder trucks to move myself, and never once did I feel the
> >need to keep the presence of the truck a secret. Those screens around
> >those trucks didn't appear by magic. Someone had to build them, and set
> >them up, and they were built and set up for a rwason and the reason is to
> >conceal the trucks.
> 
> At the risk of pissing off Bob, I think you're making a lot of speculation here.
> 
> >The Ryder truck isn't there to support the camp, the camp supports
> >whatever >the Ryder truck is being used for.
> 
> How can you know that? Perhaps the truck was just pulled into the compound
> at that particular moment to load something on to it. Perhaps some guys
> pulled it into the compound and sat in the back and had a few beers. The
> point is, there are a number of possibilities; you don't know what all of
> them are.

  And now YOU'RE speculating.

  If the truck was pulled into the compound "at that particular moment to
load something on to it", why is it surrounded with a screen that makes
loading the truck impossible? 

  Same with sitting in the back having beers? Why the screeen when the
entire camp is screened. Those screens aren't standard issue with the army
tents (or they would be camo). Those screens were built and transported to
that camp for a purpose and the purpose being demonstrated in the photo is
to keep the truck out of sight of passers by.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Thu May  8 09:31:49 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

On Thu, 8 May 1997, David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press wrote:

> To believe the truck was the bomb truck, one would have to dismiss the
> evidence that the bomb truck was rented at Elliott's. Assuming the FBI's
> information is correct (and no, I don't trust the FBI), then that would be
> pretty hard to do. Remember, they traced the VIN number to a Florida Ryder
> dealer, then to Eliott's in Junction City.

  Remember how Oswald's fingerprints turned up suddenly on the rifle after 
two different police labs said the rifle was clean?

  Remember how Lisa Foster was shown a silver gun and told it was the gun
found with Vincent Foster's body (when that gun was actually dark blued
steel)?

  Remember how the FBI lab has been found to routinely bias it's results
to favor the desired outcome?

  On what do you base the assumption that the Ryder in the photo isn't
from Elliot's given that the exact date of the photo is in dispute? The
puirported location of the photo isn't all that far from Oklahoma City and
it had to go _somewhere_ to get loaded with ANFO. 

  But, let's assume for the moment that we are looking at a different
truck, being loaded with explosives. When the patsy rents the truck from
Elliot's he doesn't have to worry about loading it with explosives, he
just drives it to the camp and swaps it for the truck with the bomb in it.
The team at the camp now has the rented Ryder truck and a few days to
either swap axles (to get a plantable VIN)  or fudge somebody's paperwork
(more likely).  The truck from Elliot's then goes back to where the the
first truck was acquired from. 

  Hypothetically, of course. The photo still lacks provinance.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Thu May  8 10:53:57 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Ryder Truck @ Gruber Photo: Null

Something one must do is to try to find the best theory
against your own theory.  My theory has been that the 
"Ryder truck at Camp Gruber, OK," photo shows springtime,  
which is consistent with the claim that it is early April, 
but not necessarily consistent with springtime 1995 as 
claimed. The spring time theory hinges on the green leaves 
in one tree in the foreground which has about half of its
limbs bare. A furor has been raised over this one detail 
that makes the spring theory. See the key tree here:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/truck.html

But I have come up with a theory that blows 
my former springtime theory out of the water:

The leaves on the foreground tree are EVERGREEN IVY 
that has crawled up a dead tree. Notice how tightly 
the foliage clings to the contour of the branches. 
Leaves on deciduous trees tend to be dispersed out 
and away from branch core, however, these dark leaves 
seem to cling to the contour of the limbs in a thick 
mass, just like ivy, which remains deep green year 
round, just like the color of the leaves seen here.

This counter theory explains the evidence more 
effectively than any other theory, therefore as 
I see it,  the spring theory is now dead in the 
water and the value of the photo is next to null. 
Consider further that the leaves are dark green, 
not indicative of spring-time growth. Furthermore, 
it is the only deciduous tree that displays such 
foliage, if it was spring growth, we should see 
more evidence of new growth on other trees, but 
there is in fact NO evidence of any new growth 
as the only leaves are deep green, like ivy. 

The tarp coverings over the objects, rather than 
being a sign of clandestine activity, are better 
explained as being protections against snow, or 
to allow for quick removal of snow, further making
the case for a non-spring-time scene. The pile of 
yellow stuff is probably sand for needed traction 
during the winter. Ammonium nitrate must be dry to 
be explosive,  and dumping it out like we see 
would destroy any explosive value in it. 

The Ryder truck is not hidden behind the white 
fencing because a good 40% of the truck exceeds
the height of the white fences. If the aim was to 
hide the truck, it would be covered fully, not 
partially. The plane would also never have 
got the shot that it did.

These counter points I cannot dispute and therefore
I have to say the photo's value is for me null, 
unless some new information comes to light.

-------------------------------------------

Date Thu May  8 12:24:52 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Ryder Truck @ Gruber Photo: Null

  I'm surprised that you think so. Ivy, when it crawls up any surface,
maintains a constant distance from that surface. In the tree in front of
the concrete, the lower limbs are devoid of any of the foliage seen higher
up. This is inconsistant with the way that Ivy grows. In fact, it's almost
inverse. Ivy tends to concentrate on the trucks of trees, not the upper
limbs. And if it is ivy, why only one side of the tree? Ivy doesn't care
if the tree is dead or not. Ivy will grow on walls, after all.

  In any event, it is presumptuous to claim that the ivy theory "blows"
any other theory out of the water, because you are assuming it's ivy.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Thu May  8 15:10:07 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: "Bob Hall" 
Subject: okcbomb] **********************************************

Ok folks, it is obvious to me, this truck picture issue is not going 
to go away, nor is the constant bickering back and forth.

I have requested it stop, not necessarily the topic, but the 
bickering.

It is perfectly clear to me, no one respects my wishes regarding the 
bickering, so therefore, I simply refuse  respect anyone's damned 
right to be here.  I am sick of this bickering.

Consider this a final notice, regarding the bickering back and forth, 
filling up the lists with lengthy messages filled with bickering 
quotes, etc.

I won't ask again, for this stop.  You will simply be deleted, no 
notice, if no respect is give to my request, then you certainly do 
not deserve the respect of being notified you have been deleted.

I believe there is a truth behind this truck, but the madness going 
on now, can serve no purpose, other to prove as Americans, we still 
have the freedom and the God given right to be stupid.

I thank you for your time and consideration, well in advance.  

If you don't like me putting a stop to this, then simply get the hell 
off this list.


Bob Hall

-------------------------------------------

Date: Thu May  8 15:59:13 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Cc: bobhall@telepath.com
Subject: okcbomb] Re: **********************************************

On Thu, 8 May 1997, William G. Kraemer wrote:

> I think the bickering should be done off the list by those who believe it
> is an important topic. Some differences in opinion can not be reconciled.
> Posts about differences that can not be settled can distract a listerv and
> sometimes destroy it. I support Bob Hall's move to move the truck picture
> photo discussion off the list.

  Bob  didn't say he wants the truck picture moved off of the list, he
wants the bickering to stop. 

  At Norio Hayakawa's web page, the claim is made that this photo
was taken in Oklahoma just two weeks before the Murrah Federal Building
bombing. 

  Now I agree that there is insufficient data to confirm that this
Ryder truck is connected to the Murrah bombing, but at the same time, it
would be imprudent to discard this photo out-of-hand until more is known.

  What IS known is that some patently absurd claims have been made about
the photo, and that alone raises even more questions about what the photo
means.

  I agree the bickering has to stop. But the photo may well be important,
and an examination of the FACTS is germane to this discussion group.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Thu May  8 16:26:53 1997
From: "Bob Hall" 
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
Subject: okcbomb] Re: **********************************************

On  8 May 97, Michael Rivero said something like this:

>   Now I agree that there is insufficient data to confirm that this
> Ryder truck is connected to the Murrah bombing, but at the same
> time, it would be imprudent to discard this photo out-of-hand until
> more is known.

Don't discard the photo....by all means.

>   What IS known is that some patently absurd claims have been made
>   about
> the photo, and that alone raises even more questions about what the
> photo means.

And they are being discussed, cussed, hashed, and re-hashed over and 
over and over and over in this list. 

>   I agree the bickering has to stop. But the photo may well be
>   important, and an examination of the FACTS is germane to this discussion group.
 
At this point, examination has ended up as bickering and debate.

Examination is germane to the list.

No debate here.

I agree with you 100%.

This bickering will, however, stop.

BOB

-------------------------------------------

Date: Thu May  8 18:13:59 1997
From: ewolfe@involved.com (Ed Wolfe)
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
Subject: okcbomb] Re: **********************************************

If the photo of the truck wasn't designed to take people's attention
away from the trial and the weak case the government is putting on, it
*could've* been.

That's about all I've seen on this list lately and the quality of the
list has suffered.

How about those who have the resources and inclination do whatever
investigating is necessary and then posts some *facts* that will be
discussable. In the meantime, we can discuss the trial maybe.

Just a thought.

Ed
--  
 "The Constitution is a radical document... it is
 the job of the government to rein in people's
 rights."  - W. J. Clinton on MTV - 1992
***
"These militias represent America's worst enemy" -
Janet Reno - 1995

---------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 09:15:05 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

On Fri, 9 May 1997, Ian Goddard wrote:

>  At 05:45 PM 5/9/97 -0700, Michael Rivero wrote:
>  >
>  > Ergo, the presence of the screen is to conceal 
>  > the presence of the truck itself, not the cargo.
> 
> IAN: How can the purpose of S be said to 
> conceal R when S covers only 60% of R
> from angle Z and 3% of R from angle X?

  From ground level, the truck is masked from view, and as I pointed out
to Lynn, it is only an assumption that the Ryder was never tarped like the
other vehicles. 

> It does not follow. Call the camp and see 
> if they have some reason for the screens 
> that are shorter than the truck.

  Why don't you come up with a reason? The screens are not normal military
issue. They were built and transported to the site for a reason. NOt only
is the compound behind a screen, the lack of a regular gate shows that the
screen is a temporary setup. 

>  >  That's if you assume that a tarp was never over the top 
>  > of it, as is the case with so many of the other vehicles.
> 
> IAN: If it was wintertime, as the trees dictate, the tarps
> could be explained as a means of protecting that which is
> covered from possible snow and ice. During the winter there 
> can be a buildup of ice on the surface of cars and the like. 

  It's not winter. See any snow? See any ice? See any red or yellow
leaves?  I'm aware of your theory that the foliage in the tree at lower
right of http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif is
just ivy, but for ivy to be in the branches it would have to be on the
truck as well and it's just not there. Check the shadow of the tree to the
left of the tree itself. I've got ivy growing on trees where I live and
it's growing on the truck ONLY, not the branches and I will have a photo
of same in my website later today when the photo store opens and I get the
pictures back. 

> Removal of this ice can be a painstaking process. But throw
> a tarp on top, and then just pull it of and presto, the ice 
> is gone in a second when it would have taken half an hour 
> of laborious scraping to remove.
> 
> The tarps not only do not suggest secrecy, they 
> suggest, like the trees, that it's not April.
> 
>  >  All of which come with witnesses. This camp is set up away 
>  > from such facilities. Privacy is the desired commodity here, 
>  > or why set up a camp at all?
> 
> IAN: There is a highway in the bottom left of the wide angle
> view. The claim that the encampment covers the truck is as 
> false as the claim that it is in a remote location. That's
> now obvious to me. Why hang on to it? It's debunked.

  It's not debunked. Your entire explanation hangs on the assumption that
the foliage in the tree to lower right of
http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif is ivy, and
the nature of the growth is inconsistant with ivy.

---------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 11:14:58 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

At 07:11 AM 5/10/97 -0700, Michael Rivero wrote:
>
>> IAN: How can the purpose of S be said to 
>> conceal R when S covers only 60% of R
>> from angle Z and 3% of R from angle X?
>
>  From ground level, the truck is masked from view, 

IAN: Covered by only about 60%. That's not 100%. 
It's clear to see that the height of the truck 
exceeds that of the fences.  The best measure 
is to look at the rear of the truck relative 
to the fence up against it.

>I'm aware of your theory that the foliage in the tree at lower
>right of http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif is
>just ivy, but for ivy to be in the branches it would have to be on the
>truck as well and it's just not there. Check the shadow of the tree to the
>left of the tree itself. I've got ivy growing on trees where I live and
>it's growing on the truck ONLY, not the branches and I will have a photo
>of same in my website later today when the photo store opens and I get the
>pictures back. 

 IAN: I was hoping you'd see the ivy proof: look to the 
 left of the ivy covered tree, notice a wire that runs 
 from the ground and rises up to a pole next to the 
 highway, notice that the same variety of ivy is 
 covering that wire, which is covered with leaves.

 The fact that the ivy does not cover the trunk, 
 does not alter the fact that what is seen of it 
 conforms to the nature of ivy,  not deciduous 
 tree foliage. It's not being on the trunk could
 be due to deers eating the lower leaves during
 the winter. A common phenomena that leaves 
 lowers areas of foliage without leaves.

 My OKC video footage shows trees in OKC on the 19th 
 in advanced states of leaf growth.  99% of deciduous 
 tree branches in the Ryder photo are barren. Those that 
 are not, are like ivy covered branches. So the case for 
 it being April is less than 1%, that means the chances 
 that the April claim is false is 99%. 

 At this site you'll see a photo where such a tree is just 
 peaking over the white tent: http://www.jbs.org/okc/atfinfrm.htm

>> It does not follow. Call the camp and see 
>> if they have some reason for the screens 
>> that are shorter than the truck.
>
>  Why don't you come up with a reason? The screens 
> are not normal military issue. 

 IAN: I don't know that. Can you prove that?

 >They were built and transported to the site for a reason. NOt only
 >is the compound behind a screen, the lack of a regular gate shows 
 >that the screen is a temporary setup. 

IAN: The screening is temporary, therefore that 
Ryder truck is THE Ryder truck that blew up the 
Murrah building. It does not follow for me.

>>  >  That's if you assume that a tarp was never over the top 
>>  > of it, as is the case with so many of the other vehicles.
>> 
>> IAN: If it was wintertime, as the trees dictate, the tarps
>> could be explained as a means of protecting that which is
>> covered from possible snow and ice. During the winter there 
>> can be a buildup of ice on the surface of cars and the like. 
>
>  It's not winter. See any snow? See any ice? See any red or yellow
>leaves?  

 IAN: There are many winter days where there is 
 no snow, no ice and all the leaves have fallen.

>  It's not debunked. Your entire explanation hangs on the assumption that
>the foliage in the tree to lower right of
>http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif is ivy, and
>the nature of the growth is inconsistant with ivy.

 IAN: Show us a tree that sprouts leaves in a 
 carpet like fashion from its main branches, and 
 your claim will have some supporting evidence.
 Short of that, it's more like ivy.

 I think there's a lot more important issues 
 to OKC other than the ivy at Camp Gruber.

----------------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 16:56:13 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] The Ivy Leagues :)

  I have just added a new page at my website which specifically addresses
the claim that the foliage seen in the tree at lower right of
http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif is not
the trees own foliage but ivy.

  Direct URL is
http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/IVY/ivy.html

RANCHO RUNNAMUKKA | Special Effects / Documentary Films
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/ 
RYDER TRUCK AT ARMY BASE 4/95 http://members.aol.com/bardsquill/truck.htm

-------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 17:23:18 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

On Sat, 10 May 1997, Ian Goddard wrote:

> At 07:11 AM 5/10/97 -0700, Michael Rivero wrote:
> >
> >> IAN: How can the purpose of S be said to 
> >> conceal R when S covers only 60% of R
> >> from angle Z and 3% of R from angle X?
> >
> >  From ground level, the truck is masked from view, 
> 
> IAN: Covered by only about 60%. That's not 100%. 

  Again, you assume that the truck does not have a tarp like the other
vehicles most of the time. The screens are there for a reason. 

> It's clear to see that the height of the truck 
> exceeds that of the fences.  The best measure 
> is to look at the rear of the truck relative 
> to the fence up against it.

  A better indicator is to see by how much the shadow of the top of the
truck exceeds the shadow of the screen. Yes, the truck is taller, but not
enough to reveal the Ryder name to a ground level observer. Even from the
high angle of the airplane, the bottom of the logo is just visible. 

  And again, considering that many of the other vehicles are tarped, it's
imprudent to assume that the Ryder truck is always uncovered.

>
> >I'm aware of your theory that the foliage in the tree at lower
> >right of http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif is
> >just ivy, but for ivy to be in the branches it would have to be on the
> >truck as well and it's just not there. Check the shadow of the tree to the
> >left of the tree itself. I've got ivy growing on trees where I live and
> >it's growing on the truck ONLY, not the branches and I will have a photo
> >of same in my website later today when the photo store opens and I get the
> >pictures back. 
> 
>  IAN: I was hoping you'd see the ivy proof: look to the 
>  left of the ivy covered tree, notice a wire that runs 
>  from the ground and rises up to a pole next to the 
>  highway, notice that the same variety of ivy is 
>  covering that wire, which is covered with leaves.
> 
>  The fact that the ivy does not cover the trunk, 
>  does not alter the fact that what is seen of it 
>  conforms to the nature of ivy,  not deciduous 
>  tree foliage. It's not being on the trunk could
>  be due to deers eating the lower leaves during
>  the winter. A common phenomena that leaves 
>  lowers areas of foliage without leaves.

  "Could be"? This is pure supposition on your part. The greenery seen in
that tree is not consistant with the typical growth patterns of ivy. The
"nature" of ivy is to concentrate lower down near the ground, then extend
upward.

  Where I live (and where I took the photos of ivy seen at my new web
page) we have deer. Indeed the wife and I saw two of them grazing just
this morning, feeding on grass. 

  The fact is that ivy requires a root system in the soil to feed and if
the deer have eaten the ivy from the trunk it cannot exist in the upper
branches. I strongly urge everyone reading this to go out and find ivy
covered trees for themselves to establish the typical growth pattern of
ivy. It concentrates on the lower truck before reaching into the upper
branches. Ivy cannot exist in the upper branches without also existing on
the trunk. The photos at the new page on my website illustrate this.

  Even IF the greenery seen were ivy, it is still a logical fallacy to
insist that this proves the photo was not taken in the spring. Ivy exists
year round, as you earlier pointed out.

  The bottom line is that the greenery in the upper branches of that tree
is consistant with the tree's native foliage and inconsistant with the
typical ivy growth pattern, and all the "could be" nonsense is unsupported
and unprovable speculation.

  I have provided numerous examples to demonstrate that the growth in the
upper branches in that tree does not match the typical growth pattern for
ivy, and those examples were photographed in deer country, which argues
against the claim of the "common phenomenon".

  On top of which, careful measurement of the tree shows that the bare
section of the center trunk extends almost 30 feet into the air, well out
of reach of deer.

  Like I said, I urge everyone to take a walk in th country and check out
the ivy growth patterns for themselves.

----------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 18:46:22 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: The Ivy Leagues :)

At 02:53 PM 5/10/97 -0700, Michael Rivero wrote:
>
>  I have just added a new page at my website which specifically addresses
>the claim that the foliage seen in the tree at lower right of
>http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif is not
>the trees own foliage but ivy.
>
>  Direct URL is
>http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/IVY/ivy.html

IAN: Good examples. Of course not all ivy in all 
places and conditions grows the same. While these 
leaves are confined to the truck, your examples 
demonstrate how ivy foliage conforms to the contour 
of the surface it clings to, just like the foliage 
seen in the Ryder truck photo, whereas deciduous 
tree foliage is dispersed away from the contour 
of the tree's limbs, just like the deciduous 
foliage seen in your examples. 

You've not addressed the ivy covered wire to the 
left of the tree, that I see as the ivy proof.  
The wire has exactly the same variety of foliage, 
and wires don't sprout leaves, ergo: ivy.

So that proves that ivy is the the area external
to the tree in question, yet there is no deciduous 
leaves to be found in the area external to same.
So only ivy is known to inhabit the area.

But even if you could prove it's April, your a
long way off from putting that truck in front of 
the Murrah building. It's also not fully covered 
and the highway means the camp is not isolated.
I fear your wasting your valuable time. 

------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 19:09:01 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

At 03:20 PM 5/10/97 -0700, Michael Rivero wrote:

>> >> IAN: How can the purpose of S be said to 
>> >> conceal R when S covers only 60% of R
>> >> from angle Z and 3% of R from angle X?
>> >
>> >  From ground level, the truck is masked from view, 
>> 
>> IAN: Covered by only about 60%. That's not 100%. 
>
>  Again, you assume that the truck does not have a tarp like the other
>vehicles most of the time. The screens are there for a reason. 

 IAN: Why assume what you cannot see?
 To say the truck is hidden because maybe
 it is hidden when we're not looking 
 is a null argument. There are blue
 barrels there because maybe there
 are when the camera was not looking.
 Please!!!  Knock it off!!!

>> It's clear to see that the height of the truck 
>> exceeds that of the fences.  The best measure 
>> is to look at the rear of the truck relative 
>> to the fence up against it.
>
>  A better indicator is to see by how much the shadow of the top of the
>truck exceeds the shadow of the screen. Yes, the truck is taller, but not
>enough to reveal the Ryder name to a ground level observer. Even from the
>high angle of the airplane, the bottom of the logo is just visible. 

 IAN: Even if the Ryder is not visible,
 the idea that the encampment is made 
 for concealing the truck is disproven
 by the fact that it fails to do what
 it was allegedly created to do.

>  And again, considering that many of the other vehicles are tarped, 
>it's imprudent to assume that the Ryder truck is always uncovered.

 IAN: It's just silly to assume 
 it's ever covered 100%. Give it up.
 That is a null argument. Can you 
 imagine throwing someone in jail 
 because they may have committed 
 the crime when the camera was not 
 looking?  Mike, this is dreadful.

 If you want to believe it's April and that the 
 truck is THE truck,  I'll have to live with it.
 But it seems to me your only convincing yourself.
 And if not, I'll have to live with that too,
 because I'm not convinced. So I'll just have 
 to leaves you out on your ivy covered limb ;)

------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 19:41:36 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Let's Leave the Leaves

 At 03:20 PM 5/10/97 -0700, Michael Rivero wrote:
 >
 > The greenery seen in that tree is not consistant with 
 > the typical growth patterns of ivy. The "nature" of ivy 
 > is to concentrate lower down near the ground, then extend
 > upward.

IAN: I cannot deny that, however, there's an explanation
that's as easy as it is obvious: to make sure we spend 
forever arguing over wether it's April or not,  gov't 
agents clipped off the lower leaves, making it both
like ivy and not like ivy, ensuring endless wheel 
spinning. A clever plan, but not clever enough.
Now that we've blown their Leaf-Op, let's 
leave the ivy leaves behind and grow
into some new avenues of inquiry.

-----------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 19:43:12 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: The Ivy Leagues :)

On Sat, 10 May 1997, Ian Goddard wrote:

> At 02:53 PM 5/10/97 -0700, Michael Rivero wrote:
> >
> >  I have just added a new page at my website which specifically addresses
> >the claim that the foliage seen in the tree at lower right of
> >http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK3.gif is not
> >the trees own foliage but ivy.
> >
> >  Direct URL is
> >http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/IVY/ivy.html
> 
> IAN: Good examples. Of course not all ivy in all 
> places and conditions grows the same. 

  Ian, all ivy requires it's own root system in the soil. That's why it
can grow on walls and dead trees.

  For there to be ivy in the top branches of a tree, there must be ivy
on the trunk. Period. The lack of such greenery on the tree trunk is
inconsistant with the ivy theory.

  There is no proof that the greenery seen in the tree is anything other
than the tree's natural foliage. 

  One more thing. I spoke to a local forest service officer who tells me
that deer don't eat ivy because it tastes bad to them. 

----------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 19:46:23 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Truck @ Braggs

On Sat, 10 May 1997, Ian Goddard wrote:

> At 03:20 PM 5/10/97 -0700, Michael Rivero wrote:
> 
> >> >> IAN: How can the purpose of S be said to 
> >> >> conceal R when S covers only 60% of R
> >> >> from angle Z and 3% of R from angle X?
> >> >
> >> >  From ground level, the truck is masked from view, 
> >> 
> >> IAN: Covered by only about 60%. That's not 100%. 
> >
> >  Again, you assume that the truck does not have a tarp like the other
> >vehicles most of the time. The screens are there for a reason. 
> 
>  IAN: Why assume what you cannot see?
>  To say the truck is hidden because maybe
>  it is hidden when we're not looking 
>  is a null argument. There are blue
>  barrels there because maybe there
>  are when the camera was not looking.
>  Please!!!  Knock it off!!!

  The screens are there for a reason. That is inescapable. What do screens
do? They screen. These conctructions are too flimsy to serve as
protection. Light passes through, so their shade value is limited, and
they have no roof so they are not there for the rain. 

  The only function they serve is to block the view of the trucks from
ground level passers-by.

----------------------------------------

>From daemon@mars.galstar.com Sat May 10 19:53:06 1997
Errors-To: okcbomb-owner@mars.galstar.com
From: ewolfe@involved.com (Ed Wolfe)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: The Ivy Leagues :)
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com (The okcbomb mailing list)
Errors-To: okcbomb-owner@mars.galstar.com
X-Bmw: Black Marble Wombat Version 5.1 Galstar Secure Hack

Michael Rivero wrote:

[snip]

>   One more thing. I spoke to a local forest service officer who tells me
> that deer don't eat ivy because it tastes bad to them.

This begs the question: How does a forest service officer know what ivy
tastes like to a deer?  :)

But seriously, I can't believe you guys are going on about this. Is this
the most relevent, discussion-worthy topic you can come up with on the
OKC bombing?

Do either of you find it odd that McVeigh was made a suspect after they
traced an axle vin number to a Ryder rental agency where McVeigh is
alledged to have used a fake name, a fake social security number, (and
possibly Nichol's address - I can't find what address was put on the
application) and the FBI said the numbers "both" belonged to McVeigh,
and then the prosecution said the SSA never issued such a number?

How did they ever come up with McVeigh's name?

Was the gov't lying at the hearing for probable cause, or in the trial?

Lynn? Do you have a guess as to *when* they were lying?

Ed

-------------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 19:57:37 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Let's Leave the Leaves

On Sat, 10 May 1997, Ian Goddard wrote:

>  At 03:20 PM 5/10/97 -0700, Michael Rivero wrote:
>  >
>  > The greenery seen in that tree is not consistant with 
>  > the typical growth patterns of ivy. The "nature" of ivy 
>  > is to concentrate lower down near the ground, then extend
>  > upward.
> 
> IAN: I cannot deny that, however, there's an explanation
> that's as easy as it is obvious: to make sure we spend 
> forever arguing over wether it's April or not,  gov't 
> agents clipped off the lower leaves, making it both
> like ivy and not like ivy, ensuring endless wheel 
> spinning. A clever plan, but not clever enough.
> Now that we've blown their Leaf-Op, let's 
> leave the ivy leaves behind and grow
> into some new avenues of inquiry.

  Ian, that's a real stretch. The only people arguing about whether the
photo was taken in April or not are you and Hoffman. You've made the claim
that the greenery is just ivy (without proof), then claiming that said ivy
proves the photo was not taken in early spring (which is a logical fallacy
by the way. It could be ivy and the photo could still be taken in the
spring).

  But it's not ivy. The comparisons with real ivy show that. So you
suggested that deer ate the lower leaves, and now you have this theory
that government agents trimmed the ivy to make it look like a spring tree. 
Plus, your suggestion requires that they prune all the autumn foliage off
of every other tree in the scene, then swept up every single fallen leaf
from the ground. 

  Why? If they wanted an April scene there have been enough Aprils to
shoot it in without all that work. Why fake a photo that makes themselves
look bad? The implications of the photo far outweigh the value as a
confusion device. There's a real motive problem there.

--------------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 20:27:11 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: The Ivy Leagues :)

On Sat, 10 May 1997, Ed Wolfe wrote:

> Michael Rivero wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >   One more thing. I spoke to a local forest service officer who tells me
> > that deer don't eat ivy because it tastes bad to them.
> 
> This begs the question: How does a forest service officer know what ivy
> tastes like to a deer?  :)

  Best way to defeat a predator. Taste terrible!

> 
> But seriously, I can't believe you guys are going on about this. Is this
> the most relevent, discussion-worthy topic you can come up with on the
> OKC bombing?

  The photo raises some disturbing questions. Part of the process of
finding out what the photo means is to sort through ther claims made about
it for what is true and what is false. The photo originally claims to have
been taken in early April. The date the photo was taken is germane to the
analysis of just what the photo shows. Therefore, when it has been
suggested that the photo was actually taken in November, that suggestion
should be examined closely. Foliage was found in a tree. It's suggested
that the foliage is really ivy. It's shown that ivy growth doesn't match
that of the greenery in the tree. It's suggested that deer ate the ivy or
that government agents deliberatly falsified the tree. 

  It's not known that the photo has a connection to the Murrah bombing.
But it would be imprudent to assume that it does not. 

> 
> Do either of you find it odd that McVeigh was made a suspect after they
> traced an axle vin number to a Ryder rental agency where McVeigh is
> alledged to have used a fake name, a fake social security number, (and
> possibly Nichol's address - I can't find what address was put on the
> application) and the FBI said the numbers "both" belonged to McVeigh,
> and then the prosecution said the SSA never issued such a number?

  I have had major problems with the axle numb er from day one. Mostkly
because the manager of the North Hollywood Ryder agency and I crawled all
over several trucks and didn't see it. Normal vehicle VIN is the one on
the dash and possibly the engine number. Those trucks do break axles when
overloaded (happens a lot with rentals) and it seems like a lot of extra
paperwork to track an axle.

> How did they ever come up with McVeigh's name?

  That's a real good question. Given the way McVeigh was arrested, with no
license plate, concealed weapon, Jefferson T-shirt, it does seem a staged
arrest. 

  The Eglin Blast Effects Study makes it clear that there had to be
additional bombs inside the Murrah Buiding. The photo, if it shows what it
appears to show, raises serious questions about the true scale of the
operation. 

-------------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 21:01:34 1997
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
From: Ian Goddard 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Let's Leave the Leaves

 At 05:54 PM 5/10/97 -0700, Michael Rivero wrote:

 >> IAN: I cannot deny that, however, there's an explanation
 >> that's as easy as it is obvious: to make sure we spend 
 >> forever arguing over wether it's April or not,  gov't 
 >> agents clipped off the lower leaves, making it both
 >> like ivy and not like ivy, ensuring endless wheel 
 >> spinning. A clever plan, but not clever enough.
 >> Now that we've blown their Leaf-Op, let's 
 >> leave the ivy leaves behind and grow
 >> into some new avenues of inquiry.
 >
 >  Ian, that's a real stretch. 
 > ...now you have this theory that government agents 
 > trimmed the ivy to make it look like a spring tree. 

IAN: It was a joke for crying out loud.

-------------------------------------------

Date: Sat May 10 22:48:57 1997
From: "Bob Hall" 
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
Subject: okcbomb] \\\\\\\\\ --N O T I C E-- //////// 

Last and final notice.  Drop the leaves and the truck, go on with 
something new.....

I have had it with the leaves, the ivy, the deer, the screens, the 
time of year, the truck itself...  etc.

This is really pushing my patience.

It only cost about 10 bucks a month for a mailing list, depending on 
your traffic.  So much traffic for 10 bucks, then extra charges there 
after.  I refuse to pay extra for these damned leaves around this 
damned truck.  So if the leaves & the truck are that important, for 
God's sake, somebody start the Leaf&Truck Mailing List!!!!!!

You pay for the debate!!!!!!

If I have not made this clear, please feel free to email me, 
directly, and I will attempt to make it where you understand that I 
am sick of trees, leaves, screens, and trucks!!!!!

Bob Hall
Listowner

---------------------------------------

Date: Sun May 11 08:26:00 1997
From: Michael Rivero 
To: bobhall@telepath.com, The okcbomb mailing list 
Subject: okcbomb] Re: \\\\\\\\\ --N O T I C E-- //////// 

On Sat, 10 May 1997, Bob Hall wrote:

> Last and final notice.  Drop the leaves and the truck, go on with 
> something new.....
> 
> I have had it with the leaves, the ivy, the deer, the screens, the 
> time of year, the truck itself...  etc.

  Bob

  What makes you so certain that the Ryder truck photo isn't connected to
the Murrah Building bombing?

  At the moment, we cannot prove that the photo is connected to the
bombing, but at the same time, it cannot be proven that it isn't and
hasn't been proven that it isn't (despite an ernest effort to do so). It
would be reckless in the extreme to discard this photo and it's potential
connection, especially in light of some very serious efforts to discredit 
the photo. 

  I understand your wanting to eject the bickering, but I question the
arbitrary banning of what may well be a germane piece of hard data. We
have here what may be hard evidence of a covert military operation
involving a Ryder truck in Oklahoma just 2 weeks before the Murrah
Building Bombing, and you want to declare it off limits?

  Let me put it this way. The Eglin Blast Effects Study states in no
uncertain terms that there had to be additional explosives inside the
building. This is supported by the CNN reports of additional bombs being
found and the two audio records. Now, somebody had to plant those
additional bombs, and that implies a larger group of men than just McVeigh
and Nichols. That group had to stage out of someplace, and the compound in
the photo is perfectly consistant with such a clandestine operation, Ryder
truck and all. 

  Why is it such a problem to pursue this matter? What is it about the
photo that so bothers you? 

  Unless you have proof that the photo has absolutly no connection to the
Murrah bombing, I question the banning of it.

  And if you do ban it, then I guess I will start a new Oklahoma bombing
mailing list as you suggest. One that does not exclude the photo.

------------------------------------------

Re: Latest on OKLAHOMA (Ryder truck) PHOTO!!
>From           rawles@oro.net (James & Linda, Rawles)
Organization   Clearwater Trading Company
Date           Sun, 11 May 1997 08:32:24 +0100
Newsgroups     misc.survivalism
Message-ID     

In article <19970510230000.TAA20568@LADDER01.NEWS.AOL.COM>, 
norioa51s4@aol.com (NorioA51S4) wrote:

> An aerial photo allegedly taken by a private pilot in early April of 1995
> (2 weeks before the Oklahoma bombing) over what then appeared to have been
> a make-shift military-type encampment within CAMP GRUBER, northeast of
> Braggs, Oklahoma, has surfaced (2nd generation color photocopy), and can
> now be seen at:
> 
> http://members.aol.com/bardsquill/truck.htm
> 
> The pilot is now getting ready to identify himself, despite fear of
> retribution.
> The photo was taken approximately 2 weeks prior to the Oklahoma bombing.  
> Approximately one week later, the pilot flew over the same area and the
> encampment was gone.   You can tell that the camp had just been built.  
> There are also two large portable chemical tanks located on site.
> 
> CAMP GRUBER is a military site, northeast of Braggs, Oklahoma.

To be more precise, Camp Gruber is an Oklahoma Army National Guard
(OKARNG) camp.

My $.02 worth:
I am a former army intelligence officer. (An O-3 35A(5M). I was involved
in a LOT of command post exercises (CPXs) and field training exercises
(FTXs.) In my 6 years in army intelligence, I NEVER saw a rental truck
used INSIDE an exercise area like this. I also never saw temporary
fencing  put up block off public gaze.  Keep in mind that most of the
exercises that I was involved in used classified (TS codeword)
SIGINT,IMINT, and crypto equipment.  The standard security precautions we
took were conducting our activities in closed metal "shelters" that were
on the back of trucks, and putting those trucks inside a "field SCIF." 
(Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility.) This consisted of 24-hour
armed guards and a continuous perimeter of three strands of concertina
(razor) wire.  This was per army regulations. 

Given the nature of the precautions shown in the photographs, and the
timing of the observation (assuming that we are being told the truth about
the date/place the photographs were taken),  I am VERY suspicious.  If we
are indeed being shown photo that was taken in Oklahoma before April 19,
1995, then someone should launch a formal investigation, as soon as
possible. 

The bottom line:  Were there TWO Ryder rental trucks at Oklahoma City?

 James Wesley, Rawles              "No man's life, liberty,
 Clearwater Trading Co.             or property is safe
 c/o P.O. Box 642                   when the legislature
 Penn Valley, Calif. [95946]        is in session."
 voice: (916)639-1999                - Judge Gideon J. Tucker
 e-mail: rawles@oro.net

   Let me know if you'd like my updated and expanded catalog of
   shootable antique guns (primarily pre-1899 production "No FFL"
   Mausers and Winchesters), books, gun accessories (mainly clips and
   magazines), ammunition, and outdoor gear. It will be sent via e-mail.

   You can also read my shareware novel, Triple Ought. It is a piece of
   speculative survival fiction about a socio-economic collapse and its 
   aftermath. Hard copies are *NOT* available, but you can download a soft
   copy of the entire text free of charge from the web site at: 
            http://www.teleport.com/~ammon/gn/cover.htm

------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May 14 12:57:36 1997 
From: Robalini@aol.com
Subject: A Konformist Special: Oklahoma Ryder Truck Photo

A Konformist Special:
Oklahoma Ryder Truck Photo

Well, I've been holding off on this one, since I wanted to see if there were 
any big revelations on this one.  There really haven't been any.

Without drawing any conclusions, I get the sneaky feeling that the whole 
thing is a fraud, a piece of disinformation to discredit internet investigators.  
After all, just how did someone get pictures over an Army base?

Of course, I could be wrong.  And I appreciate Norio Hayakawa and Ian 
Goddard for their always helpful work and investigation.

Stay tuned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun Jun  8 08:18:22 1997 
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list  
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Oklahoma Questions Galore (Fwd)
Reply-To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com (The okcbomb mailing list) 
Errors-To: okcbomb-owner@mars.galstar.com

On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Tony Sgarlatti wrote:

> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 19:35:38 -0600 > From: videoguy@flinet.com
> Subject: Oklahoma Questions Galore > Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
> 
>   There are So Many questions about this case that remain unresolved. > 
> 
> 
>  *  Two trucks , where is the truck seen at the Dreamland on Easter > Sunday ?


Don't forget that the Ryder truck seen at Dreamland was towing a trailer
covered with a blue tarp. Now look at the photos at http://members.aol.com/bardsquill/truck.htm (or at http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/truck.html )and notice the numerous blue tarps and trailers.


RANCHO RUNNAMUKKA | Special Effects / Documentary Films
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://whatreallyhappened.com/~rivero/ RYDER TRUCK AT ARMY BASE 4/95 http://members.aol.com/bardsquill/truck.htm


--- 
For list service help, send a message to okcbomb-request@mars.galstar.com with a subject of HELP.

---------------------------------------------------------

Many Militia Groups Scale Back,
Distance Themselves From McVeigh 

By Richard Leiby
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 14, 1997; Page A08

[....]

Tony Sgarlatti of Hopkins, Minn., is selling an "Oklahoma City
Bombing Fact Pak" ($29.95) via a site on the World Wide
Web. It offers alternative theories on the April 19, 1995, blast,
including allegations that the explosion came from bombs
planted inside the Murrah building. His latest theory is that an
"electromagnetic pulse weapon" was involved. Other Web sites
carry photos of a Ryder truck parked at a military installation in
Oklahoma, where conspiracy-minded investigators contend the
fertilizer bomb was assembled.

The Oklahoma National Guard confirmed Friday that the aerial
photos were indeed taken above Camp Gruber in the fall of
1994 and said the classified project involved weapons sensors
and was overseen by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency. The National Guard's statement said the
truck "had no association whatsoever with the tragedy at the
Alfred P. Murrah Building." 

[....]

     (c) Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company

--------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 1997 19:21:11 GMT
From: norioa51s4@aol.com (NorioA51S4)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Pilot Snaps Photo of "Extra" Rental Truck (OKLAHOMA)

How many Ryder trucks were cruising around Oklahoma City prior to the
tragic terrorist bombing?  That's a question the government prefers to
ignore.
(Mike Blair, on SPOTLIGHT - July 14, 1997)

    Long before the trial of Timothy J. McVeigh, the possibility of a
second Ryder rental truck being involved was being discussed by
investigators and others close to the case.
    A photograph, taken by a private pilot, has emerged as a potential
wrinkle in the government's story of how the bombing occurred and even
suggests the involvement of government entities in the tragedy.
   (See the photos at:   http://members.aol.com/bardsquill/truck.htm    
or just click: THE
TRUCK )
   Recently released by the Militia of Montana and appearing in one of
their videos, AMERICA'S JUDGMENTS: WHAT LIES AHEAD, two photographs of a
Ryder rental truck and a white Corsica shown in a concealment enclave at
Oklahoma's Fort Gruber, an Army National Guard training center, are
clearly depicted.  Initially, when the photograph surfaced, it was claimed
that it was taken in April, 1995, about the same time as the bombing of
the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, where 169
persons were killed.
   However, a spokesman at Camp Gruber, who was most reluctant to discuss
the concealment enclave, told the SPOTLIGHT that it (the enclave) was
located there during the fall of 1994 and was dismantled and removed by
December of that year.
   "If this has something to do with the bombing, I am not authorized to
discuss it", the spokesman said before being asked a question.
    Sources have told the SPOTLIGHT that the temporary concealment area
was part of the Army's Project DARPA, which stands for Defense Advanced
Research Project Agency.   Exactly what the agency was involved in at Camp
Gruber, the sources would not say.
    In addition, the photograph reveals what appears to be a white
Chevrolet Corsica automobile, located dozens of feet from the concealed
trucks, and a single figure is shown walking in the general direction of
the trucks, carrying what appears to be a briefcase and may be wearing
some type of identification tag on his left chest.
   The vehicle identification is significant because several witnesses,
who appeared at McVeigh's trial in Denver, have stated under oath that a
"white Corsica", probably bearing two individuals, visited McVeigh at the
now famous Dreamland Motel, located in Junction City, Kansas, where the
now-convicted man supposedly stayed for four nights before the bombing.
   Specifically, however, several witnesses- some who were called to
testify and some who were not - have placed the Ryder rental truck,
supposedly driven by McVeigh, in the motel parking lot on Easter Sunday,
April 16, 1995.  That's most peculiar since McVeigh is not supposed to
have rented the Ryder truck until the following day, April 17.

Norio Hayakawa
--------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon Dec  1 18:38:34 1997
From: garmar1914@webtv.net (Mark Harp) 
To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com
Subject: okcbomb] Light & Shadow
Reply-To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com (The okcbomb mailing list) 
Errors-To: okcbomb-owner@mars.galstar.com


The attached URL offers a good picture of what may well have been 
McVeigh's Ryder truck. The photo was said to have been taken several 
days before the Murrah Bombing.  The truck is parked at the now defunct 
U.S. Army Base of Camp Gruber, Oklahoma.  Click on the small picture to 
enlarge it to screen size.

Mark

Restore the United States Constitution!
probably the most important movie ever: AMERIKA (eleven hours)

Barkayren's Page
http://members.tripod.com/~Barkayren/index-2.html

--WebTV-Mail-2004586896-2933
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; X-URL-TITLE="Light & Shadow"; 
CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

http://www.teleport.com/~sweenfam/lightshadow.html

--WebTV-Mail-2004586896-2933--
--- 
For list service help, send a message to okcbomb-request@mars.galstar.com with a subject of HELP.

--------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue Dec  2 09:25:58 1997 
From: Michael Rivero 
To: The okcbomb mailing list  
Subject: okcbomb] Re: Light & Shadow
Reply-To: okcbomb@mars.galstar.com (The okcbomb mailing list) 
Errors-To: okcbomb-owner@mars.galstar.com


On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Mark Harp wrote:

> The attached URL offers a good picture of what may well have been
> McVeigh's Ryder truck. The photo was said to have been taken several
> days before the Murrah Bombing.  The truck is parked at the now defunct 
> U.S. Army Base of Camp Gruber, Oklahoma.  Click on the small picture to 
> enlarge it to screen size.
> 

I've also had these photos at my website for some time. What's
interesting to note is that when they first appeared, several known 
spooks tried to plant the suggestion that the scene was actually autumn, 
in order to distance the photo time wise from the OK bombing. The absence 
of autumn coloring was explained away by the claim that the scene is 
entirely evergreen. When it was pointed out that there is a deciduous
(non evergreen) tree in the scene with foliage in the upper branches, 
several people "blew their cover" trying to argue that it was just ivy in 
the upper branches. A comparison with real ivy growth patterns showed that 
claim to be a lie, and a rather desperate one at that.

One thing is clear. That camp exists to support the Ryder truck, not the
other way around. There are two sets of barriers to prevent the truck from 
being seen. The truck cannot be loaded or unloaded without moving the 
inner screen. Most of the vehicles are tarped to keep them from being 
clearly seen from overhead. The Ryder is uncovered at the time of the 
photo, but more than likely was kept covered along with the other vehicles 
the rest of the time (maybe the paint was still wet; the lack of the
usual "ad copy" text outside of the Ryder logo itself suggests that 
this might not be a real Ryder truck).

The whole camp is temporary. Indeed, the outer barrier
doesn't even have a real gate; there is a makeshift gate at one corner.

Other trucks, apparently used for normal transport purposes, are seen 
parked outside the barrier under nearby trees. Had the Ryder truck been 
used merely to haul supplies for the camp, it would be left with those.

But from the layout of the camp and the Ryder truck, it's clear what the
Ryder truck plays a central role in whatever the purpose of the camp is.

This photo seems to terrify the intelligence agencies.

--- 


Back To The Political Page.

Back To The Oklahoma Page.

Back To The Ryder Truck Page.

Back To The Ivy Page.


Mail to:

drupal statistics