• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Robin Ramsay

Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

1,654 posts in this topic

This is a side by side comparison of a section of the PS 44 records. On the left is from MFF. On the right is what David Josephs uses.

ps44compare.jpg

I put it to members here that the Josephs document has a slightly darkened area around the height and weight section and that some of the numbers within it have a slightly different appearance to the MFF document. Both these aspects of the document are indicative of it having been tampered with. I am aware that distortions may be present, but even with that taken into account, those indistinct 5's have been transformed into 6's while the 5 in 115 has been made look more 5-like to distinguish it and perhaps allay any chance of comparison.

If you weren't being such a jerk (i'm refraining from calling YOU a jerk, for Kathy's sake) I'd actually be interested in taking a look at this. Case: "...WITHOUT recourse to fact checking and you've already made it clear that you have an aversion to that."

abjectly false. I stated that 'research' meant just that - my attempts to investigate the facts with my own mind. You simply cannot not be rude when making a point, it seems. The fact is, as a coder and analyzer, my mind works best with black and white facts (digitally, if, then - either, or, and not so much analog - and I am very cautious about things that others say are true, without first verifying the assertions. You wouldn't know that because you've probably not read half the posts i've posted in here. I will challenge any here whose logic eludes me until i'm satisfied that the mistake is either theirs or mine. This will shock you, but some of the more mature in here can accept my challenges as an interest in facts, and not a personal bias.

I've never once doubted your intellect or research skills. I've only spotlighted your social deficits. It's your rudeness to which I'm admittedly biased.

If Steven was inappropriate in a thread, get over it. First graders seek recompense down the road for such trivial sh**. And yours wasn't even relevant. Face it, you blindsided Steven because he posted links to that woman researcher (forgot her name) who happens to be pretty damn sharp and hard working, as an "alternative" to something of yours and you took it personally when it was nothing of the kind. And even if it was, he has every right to post that - I'm delighted that he did, because she's not mainstream and she's got some TERRIFIC material.

/** Then how can you claim I am here pushing a theory, as you did? How can you claim I have no understanding of the "evidence" being presented by the 3 amigos, as you did? Every time you address me, you display your bias making claims about me you won't and can't substantiate. **/

Let me explain what some people mean by the phrase "selling something." I mean, in this context, which is i guess a kind of colloquialism, that someone is pushing an ideology, or agenda, above and beyond its actual value or integrity. It's the approach you get on a used car lot. Almost makes a person want to go take a shower. If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression?

In this case, it's your approach that makes clear what you're doing, and not the theory itself. THAT's why I can say that i don't really know what your thoughts are within your theories - it doesn't matter. it seems to me that your insistence on someone believing your theory is more important than the theory itself. A lot like Paul Trejo's approach, except that he's not nearly so personally insulting. I don't know what you mean that i asserted that you don't understand some evidence. I didn't mean to imply that, i don't think. I'm not going to waste more time looking it up. I don't think you're deficient.

Look, Greg - one of the first posts i saw of yours in here was rudeness to someone in an attempt to make a point, and you and I have had some civil exchange since then because i was still thinking that you had some 'intel' to offer. But i continued to see rudeness for such little reason and i REALLY don't like that. So i lost any interest in what you had to offer. I'm not sure why ANYONE would think that people will listen to them more when they pack their words with explosives. Makes no sense to me. How can you really think people respect your intellect if you're constantly belittling them? Because you've written a book? I don't know.

I'm dead solid in here to LEARN - i'm soaking up what i read, and i cannot afford to muddy my own waters with anything other than reputable material. In my opinion there's an awful lot of fantastically wasted words and time - on ALL fronts, including my own - but much of it is because of a few people who were so well described by David Healey. Healy. whichever.

When I vocalize my objections to you and others for being 'mean' and distracting, then you guys get personally insulting to ME - you, and Cliff (esp. Cliff :) ) - proving my point. i'm certainly gruff in my statements, and i've lowered myself to personal insult at times in response to others'. And I recognise it and am not happy about it. It's COUNTERproductive, and besides it's not nice (call me old-fashioned). But i'm going to remain productive, and i'm going to support those others who are. I want reputable literature to read, and WAS interested in what you've teased with some "new" evidence, but surely you can't expect me to read your book after you've warned me of the dangers of trusting books.

Bet you wished you had that one back.

Greg. Effin' chill. The idea is to FIND a path to the answer, NOT cover it up.

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went back to Armstrong Baylor Records SEP 1952 thru Jan 1954 Box 7 Notebook 5 tab 6 PDF file (AKA PS 44 notebook).

=

http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/18326/rec/ click on download button on the right. PDF file pages 1 to 79

=

  • Page 27 of said PDF file has FBI REPORT WRITTEN OUT .. >> "SIXTY FOUR INCHES, ONE HUNDRED FIFTEEN POUNDS" With obvious highlighting by Armstrong. You are not saying alteration on this FBI report. Armstrong highlighted throughout his notebooks.
  • On page 64 PDF file is the Health Card has for " 7/7 box 64 H " and " 8/8 box 64" . (twice this is not a typo. gaal)
  • Just go to page 77 of this PDF file and see major highlighting. Gigantic bracket with question mark. There is no alteration ,but a researcher (Armstrong) highlighting obvious signs of TWO Oswalds in tens of thousands of documents. Highlighting was a type of organization method Armstrong used to keep all the conflicting data more accessible for later lectures and his tome Harvey and Lee. NO FRAUD ,sorry. , gaal

see link >>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/25792994@N04/5424377128

I haven't been paying much attention to the H&L Hit Squad lately, but if I'm reading the above right, they're getting funnier by the day.
Presented with page 8 of an FBI report reproduced at the National Archives about Oswald at PS #44 which states, in part:
OSWALD'S HEALTH CARD INDICATED THAT HE WAS SIXTY FOUR
INCHES, ONE HUNDRED FIFTEEN POUNDS, NORMAL VISION
the Hit Squad now wants us to believe that Mr. Armstrong altered the public school record so that it would match the "faulty" FBI reading of it!
Good Golly, Miss Molly, that's damned funny! If you doubt how low the Hit Squad is sinking, just follow Mr. Gaal's instructions above and look at page 27 of the downloaded PDF file, which reproduces page 8 of the FBI report in question.
Steven and David Josephs should get medals for taking the time to try and reason with these guys. No doubt the Hit Squad will see the truth Real Soon Now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression?

Hi Glenn, that's a very forthright statement to make regarding freedom of speech and beliefs. Please note though that freedom of speech does NOT mean others don't have the right to criticise or challenge what you say. In fact, that is the essence of free speech. Yes you can say what you want (within reason) but likewise, anyone can then, using their right of free speech, respond in a manner they see fit. We have this in England anyway...

Say I were to make a horrible personal verbal attack against a loved member of your family Glen, with gritted teeth you may accept my 'right' to say it, but you too would then have every right to respond in kind. Wouldn't you? And quite right too. There's a price to pay for freedom of speech. Too many people these days truly believe freedom of speech means freedom to speak without any one else's opinion on what was said. It isn't.

So why the surprise when on a public forum dedicated to the most complex murder in the history of humanity some theories and beliefs are questioned and not just left unanswered? Does DVP get this easy ride? Of course he doesn't. There must be theories on this subject that you now know are so impossible they can and should be ruled out, ridiculed even, with better reasoning and research. Do you simply let them go unchallenged? And if so, why does that mean others should too?

Those who attack the H&L story do so because they truly believe that it is an impediment to finding out what really happened. They believe it to be a huge red herring that tells us absolutely nothing about the assassination of JFK. Nothing! DVP's conclusions also tell us nothing about what really happened, but should his Lone-Nuttery go unchallenged too?

So why shouldn't those who believe H&L is a tenuously knocked together string of admin errors and witness fallibility rolled into a complex espionage story straight from some awful B movie express that doubt? This is Don Jeffries territory. He too simply cannot understand why on a public forum those promoting a certain theory should be questioned on it, even if it can easily be proved to be bogus. "If you don't believe it, read another thread!" is his summarised advice.

Well, actually, no. David Josephs often posts on issues where he strongly disagrees with the originator's premise. So does practically everyone else on here. Someone makes a post, others point out possible errors. That's really the whole point isn't it?

But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members. My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal. Very personal! Only a few days ago Steven Gaal started a thread basically accusing Greg of anti Semitism. I complained about the legal ramifications of this and it was taken down. This is the type of tactics Greg deals with all the time.

You clearly dislike him intensely yet you turn a blind eye (again, as does Don Jeffries) to the constant baiting (going back years) from this group that has all the hallmarks of a cult. Not once in the ten years I have followed this forum has anyone of them ever admitted that they are, or have been, wrong at any time and not one new piece of 'proof' has emerged that in any way even slightly backs up their basic premise.

Such a theory needs to be felled to the ground Glenn. That you don't like the method being used is not a reason to believe in any of this nonsense though. Check what has been said. But more importantly check what is always ignored and always unanswered.

Best regards,

Bernie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean this p 49. showing the same white out usage as in David's version?

http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/18295

You mean high lighted. No evidence of white out except in your own mind. . ,gaal

Highlighted after being traced over to form the numbers needed or white out used. Only looking at the document in real life could you say for sure.

But either way, the numbers inside those darkened areas have been tampered with.

ps44compare.jpg

See, now this is why he does not link to the MFF page with this document... Not sure where he found it, or if he had someone create this terrible image... but both the MFF version and History Matters version all look like this:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=721&tab=page

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0361a.htm

MFF%20CE%201384_zps731tu1zm.jpg

The "white-out" the 'Oswald expert' here refers to is actually what highlighter looks like when copied. While going thru the docs at the archives John highlighted what he found appropriate AFTER the copies were made... the Baylor notebooks are full of these highlights... Yo mate, need two hands and a flashlight?

Amazing that both locations showing CE1384 do not have this "white-out" highlight... why is that?

Why is the version you posted so different from two of the main sources for WCE's on the internet and the photocopy of the original from the archives by Armstrong sans highlight?... what did you have done to this or maybe you could find an ever worse version hiding on the internet somewhere... provide the link from where you pulled this if you can....

Parker%20edits_zps1tmwpm3y.jpg

So a heartfelt THANK YOU Parker... please keep posting so more and more of our readers can see your true faith-based self in action ....

Can I have an "amen"?

Add 25 pounds and lose 4 inches between the zoo image of AUG 53 and his health record of SEPT 53.

Unless that's not LEE in the zoo image as confirmed by Myra and Jon Pic and some impostor is using Lee's name...

You're doing so well so far ... but still can't get those 200 days to fit into 125 without his going to summer school.

Do you offer proof Oswald went to summer school that year?

And amazingly, the boy's hearing problems drastically reduce by NOV 1953. But nothing to see here, right? everyone just keep moving along...

:up

Zoo%20photo%20-%20FBI%20report%20-%20NYC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members.

Of course we want that - not being in this camp yourself, how and why would you speak for us?

We're all sorry that Greg can't count or post an honest source to support his posts and faith-based conclusions...

What have YOU done to refute anything - from my POV a great big nothing.

PROVE something BL... When you were able to find a 6% chance in 5 year old's for tonsil regrowth within 30 months I posted that using the word "impossible" in H&L - while acceptable to most given these odds and circumstances - did shut the door to this remote possibility. Sorry you didn't read that.

As for the FBI reports of the NYC records... that's what they say. That's what they wrote. I didn't claim it was 200 days of attended or missed school from 3/23/53 to 1/8/54, the school records and the FBI did. So how do 127 days of attend-able school fall between 3/23 and 6/29 1953? They don't and the significance of this is completely lost on you.

The provably don't and can't. Period. And nothing you or anyone else has offered has changed this. So we are to assume that a school administrator wrote these numbers which should include a 17 day absence at Youth House... gone. The #'s simply do not work for the Spring semester of the 1953-54 school year. A year fraught with conflict and controversy. You want to argue they are simple mistakes... fine. But that's not what you do.

Is it possible for you to ever stop whining like a little child with every post? You sound like an 11 year old claiming the teacher doesn't like you... when I bet if you did ANY of the work, that outlook changes... you'd be prepared to discuss the topic and stop attacking the messengers.

My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal.

Really? Link us to anyone who has taken on refuting H&L without the personal attacks on us and with more than rhetoric where we in turn STARTED the attacks.

You're blowing smoke and making generalities again...

It is possible for the three of you to bring up H&L without adding your anger and disappointment at not being able to offer evidence to refute the actual Evidence supporting the H&L theory. If you could, it would be obvious. You have people here not wanting to take a position for fear of having to deal with your never-ending faith & belief-based attacks.

You can't figure out Ping Tung, El Toro v Santa Ana, Harvey's buddies v Lee's and how they were handled or the absurdity of the FBI needing to debunk Palmer and obtain Jr High school records so quickly. If this was just a fanciful flight, easily refuted... what was the rush?

Judy Baker was debunked in 5 minutes cause the evidence she offers is not authentic... Parker did his job on her, I did mine. We agree that total BS stories told as fact should be questioned and evidence authenticated. The H&L group did not fabricate this stuff - it's in the EVIDENCE, left there to find like the rest of the conspiracy due to the overwhelming arrogance of those who perpetrated it and then proceeded to cover it up.

Why is it that the three of you don't simply take that route and PROVE the evidence wrong with authentic corroboration,

rather than getting here and posting just about everything but... ??

:idea

Do you see my posts? The contain the evidence, the links and comparisons so everyone can see and make their own minds up.

(even when y'all post links they are to the wrong years and about the wrong subjects)

You don't think something is right... show us why... don't only TELL US as nothing the three of you has done gives you the credibility necessary to trust what you're claiming.

All we ever get from your trifecta is whining and faith-based assumptions and beliefs... and then you attack us for defending ourselves from your baseless conclusions.

I didn't write that FBI report stating these things, the FBI did.

Is what the FBI wrote authentic related to Oswald and his schooling - does it jive with corroborating evidence or does it conflict. DO YOUR OWN WORK for once.

John & Myra alone, the height/weight alone, the images alone, the USMC records alone are but pieces of a puzzle.

How can you claim to know the picture is wrong when you don't bother taking the time or putting in the effort to understand the pieces?

======

For those who have asked... I continue dealing with these fanciful believers since none of this has anything to do with BELIEF but strictly the evidence provided and subsequently obtained outside the government by a variety of researchers. That Lifton and Parker, you and TG feel they must emptily attack another's research for years on end without getting anywhere rather than focus on their own work, their own accomplishments and their own presentations is pathetic.

I post evidence y'all post rhetoric... I'm not going anywhere as long as the work from people like you, TG, Parker, Von Pein, Posner, Bugs and others remain mouthpieces for pure speculation presented as confirmed fact. You make this too easy and too obvious.

You have any idea what the significance of 3830 W. 6th Street in Ft Worth is? It's pretty important in the H&L situation...

Any ideas or do you just KNOW there's something wrong, will tell us there's something wrong but have no clue or supporting evidence as to why you think so?

:up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. I'm going to eat humble pie on this and take my kicks.

Here is the version I found https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10765&search=%22school_records%22#relPageId=8&tab=page

That, combined with Josephs' version of the Baylor document - which for whatever reason, is less distinctly highlighted, giving it more of a white out appearance, was what brought me to my conclusions - that and the certainty that the 64" figure is wrong.

So on this particular point, I apologize. It was not Josephs or Armstrong who altered it (apart from the highlighter). The apology extends to Tommy who wrongly accepted my original points on it.

The bottom line remains: the document was altered to match the FBI report. It's possible that the FBI simply misread the copy I found, and when that document was selected to go into the 26 volumes, someone (probably quite innocently) made the figures match more clearly, the figures as given in the report.

But here is why it can't be right.

From John Pic's testimony:

Mr. JENNER - What was your nickname?

Mr. PIC - Pic.
Mr. JENNER - What was your brother Robert's nickname?
Mr. PIC - In Chamberlain-Hunt we referred to him as "Mouse". I think that hung on a while after that.
Mr. JENNER - What nickname did he have before that?
Mr. PIC - None that I recall.
Mr. JENNER - Why did he get that? Was he a quiet boy?
Mr. PIC - He was the littlest one in Chamberlain-Hunt and that was why they called him that.
Mr. JENNER - I see, size.
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

From volume 2 of my book:

Today, the average 13 year old male is 61.5 inches tall. It is known that the average height has increased gradually for the past 150 years by a total of 4 inches. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the average 13 year old boy in the early 1950s was no more than 61 inches. Yet we are now expected to believe that Oswald was about 3 inches taller than the average boy of his age. Clearly the totality of the evidence makes a nonsense of that.

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

It is possible, but very unlikely, that the same gene pool produced a mouse and a giraffe. His later increase in height is explicable through normal teenage growth spurts, which can be up to 4" per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Steven was inappropriate in a thread, get over it.

Nothing to get over. It's what I expect from them when they are desperate. I mentioned it merely to highlight that all I do is give back (sometimes with interest) what I get, and to highlight your own penchant for wanting to raise my perceived rudeness while ignoring the other side's far worse personal attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line remains: the document was altered to match the FBI report. It's possible that the FBI simply misread the copy I found, and when that document was selected to go into the 26 volumes, someone (probably quite innocently) made the figures match more clearly, the figures as given in the report.

But here is why it can't be right.

From John Pic's testimony:

Mr. JENNER - What was your nickname?

Mr. PIC - Pic.

Mr. JENNER - What was your brother Robert's nickname?

Mr. PIC - In Chamberlain-Hunt we referred to him as "Mouse". I think that hung on a while after that.

Mr. JENNER - What nickname did he have before that?

Mr. PIC - None that I recall.

Mr. JENNER - Why did he get that? Was he a quiet boy?

Mr. PIC - He was the littlest one in Chamberlain-Hunt and that was why they called him that.

Mr. JENNER - I see, size.

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

From volume 2 of my book:

Today, the average 13 year old male is 61.5 inches tall. It is known that the average height has increased gradually for the past 150 years by a total of 4 inches. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the average 13 year old boy in the early 1950s was no more than 61 inches. Yet we are now expected to believe that Oswald was about 3 inches taller than the average boy of his age. Clearly the totality of the evidence makes a nonsense of that.

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

It is possible, but very unlikely, that the same gene pool produced a mouse and a giraffe. His later increase in height is explicable through normal teenage growth spurts, which can be up to 4" per year.

So, your proof that LEE Harvey Oswald couldn't possibly be 64" tall (5'4" tall) at Public School 44 is that his brother Robert was short at Chamberlain-Hunt??? Really?

Siblings may share the same parents, but they don't have identical genes or growth environments. Even identical twins can have different heights.

In his 6th Grade classroom photo at Ridglea West Elementary School in Fort Worth, American-born LEE Harvey Oswald stands in the very back row, obviously taller than the other kids. Classmate Richard Garrett told the FBI that this Oswald was the "tallest, most dominant" boy in his class.

But all may not be lost... if you're putting up John Pic as an expert in the Oswald family, will you please explain why he failed to recognize photos of Lee HARVEY Oswald at the Bronx Zoo and handing out FPCC literature in New Orleans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No kicks Greg... Just make your arguments fairly, with links and let people look for themselves.

btw - Harvey was not Robert. Lee was not Robert. Harvey was not Lee.

I forget that those arguing against have not seen many of the images and documents on the accompanying CD, or even bothered to look at Baylor for themselves.

I posted Queens June '53 for a reason Greg - maybe this image, one I thought with which you were familiar, explains it.

This is Lee Oswald '52 and he's not 4'6" (which you are claiming a 13 and 7-11 month old is)... that little dude with the white's on his pockets might.... or the girl on the end

Also posted Queens to corroborate my statement of fact... there were 3 PS44's in NYC.

(I went to a PS school in Queens in 1968 & 69.)

52-27_zpsmpnjdrwi.jpg

From volume 2 of my book:

Today, the average 13 year old male is 61.5 inches tall. It is known that the average height has increased gradually for the past 150 years by a total of 4 inches. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the average 13 year old boy in the early 1950s was no more than 61 inches. Yet we are now expected to believe that Oswald was about 3 inches taller than the average boy of his age. Clearly the totality of the evidence makes a nonsense of that.

{sigh} These 5 sentences represent you to a "T". Since you cannot accept that Lee was a large kid in 6th grade, did his growing earlier than others, you have to revert to what you do best...

#1 - Today, the average 13 year old male is 61.5 inches tall. OK. What's the rest of that quote? At thirteen the average male is 61 & 1/2 inches (156cm) at 14 he is 64&1/2 inches (164 cm). how old was Oswald when measured in May and Sept 1953? Wouldn't he be 14 in Oct 1953?

#2 - It is known that the average height has increased gradually for the past 150 years by a total of 4 inches. OK... a link would be nice though

#3 - It is therefore reasonable to assume that the average 13 year old boy in the early 1950s was no more than 61 inches. OK .

"Reasonable to assume" or easily proven with math. Why assume when you can offer authenticated proof?

It's 60 years of a 150 year statistic or 60/150 or 2/5 or 40% of the increase in average height discussed.

So the AVERAGE Greg, not the maximum, minimum, or standard deviations, but the AVERAGE has gone from 57.5 to 61.5 over 150 years. what's 40% of 4? 1.6 inches if it was a straight line gradual change.

So 60 years ago boys AVERAGED 1.6 inches shorter or about 60 inches, than today; the average was indeed "no more than 61" for a 13 year old and 64.5" for a 14 year old... how old was Oswald when measured for this discussion again?

#4 - Yet we are now expected to believe that Oswald was about 3 inches taller than the average boy of his age. No "expected to believe" anything here mate....

Back to standard deviation Greg... you Googled it while reading this right? for a 13-14 year old it's about 2 inches.

Using your logic here, is it reasonable to assume that between 13 and 14 they grow from 60 to 63 inches in the 50's?

That a boy who was say 13 and 7 months would be more than 60 but less than 63 inches on average?

2 standard deviations is 4 inches where 13.6% of the population falls (34.1% is Deviation #1) . This has nothing to do with Robert's genetics...

13.6% of the population will be 4 inches greater and less than average... Lee, as easily seen from that photo, falls closer to that 13.6% in 6th grade than the average - but we are not saying he was 64" tall in 6th grade or June 1952.

The records refer to MAY and SEPT 1953

#5 - Clearly the totality of the evidence makes a nonsense of that.

"Totality of the evidence" Greg?

You presented only this evidence Greg... today's 61.5" ave height after 4" of growth over 150 years.

Did I miss something?

Then you said something about expecting to believe.... which I proved using math

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

What evidence did you present which made it "nonsense" that a 13 7/12 thru 13 11/12 year old could be 64 inches tall in 1953?... :mellow:

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

Now Greg, what about your claim that it really said 54" ??

That is clearly the only nonsense here - even at 2 standard deviations which cover 95% of the population, you can't get to a 54" kid but only a 56+" kid from a 60" average. Only 2.5% of the population are 56" or less at this age. There are 5-6 times more kids 64" than 56" in any representative population sample

How did you put it? Clearly. :up

As for the beginning of your reply... is grasping at straws a new Olympic event?

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't the Social Security Administration count any of Oswald's employment income prior to the time he joined the U.S. Marine Corps?

According to SSA and IRS records, Oswald's income in 1962 and 1963 was as follows:

Employer: William B. Reily & Co., Earnings: 422.25 and 191.25

Employer: Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Inc., Earnings: 727.80 and 945.69 and 121.67

Employer: Leslie Welding, Earnings: 636.50

Employer: Texas Book Depository, Earnings: 261.68

Add them all up, and you get and Grand Total of $3306.85

So, less than a month after receiving a completed "Application for Survivors Insurance Benefits" form filled out by Marina, the SSA office in Dallas had completed a "Determination of Award" form.

According to the Social Security Administration's “Determination of Award” form, the lifetime earnings of "Lee Harvey Oswald" amounted to $3306.85, exactly the amount of his 1962 and 1963 income. But what about Oswald's earlier income from Dolly Shoe, Tujague's, J.R. Michaels, and Pfisterer Dental Lab? Why isn't it included by the SSA? There are supposedly legitimate W-2 forms showing Social Security information for those employers as well. (You can see ALL the documents referred to here at: http://harveyandlee.net/Unraveling/Unravels.htm)

On May 15, 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations chief counsel Robert Blakey wrote to the Social Security Administration requesting "access to all files and documents concerning or referring to Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald." On July 28, Social Security Administration associate commissioner Robert P. Bynum formally responded. In a three-page cover letter to Ms. Jackie Hess, an HSCA employee, Bynum cited 36 different documents that were being forwarded from the Social Security Administration to the HSCA.

Item 23 in the letter from the Social Security Administration to the HSCA states: "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps."

Why didn't the Social Security Administration include any of Oswald's income from his first four employers in his lifetime earnings report? And why on earth was the Warren Report offered as an explanation?

The pre-Marine income reports of "Lee Harvey Oswald" are fraudulent. Why?

More about this topic, including all the documents referenced above, can be found HERE.

Hey... this grade school stuff is important to me too, but I'm STILL waiting for someone... ANYONE... to explain why the Social Security Administration failed to count ANY of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" teenage employment income in his lifetime earnings report. After all, the FBI told us there were perfectly good W-2 forms from Dolly Shoe, Tujague's, J.R. Michaels, and Pfisterer Dental Lab for those LHO formative years. And then they showed us fine copies of the W-2 forms, which certainly would have been forwarded to the Social Security Administration regardless of anyone's opinion of Lee HARVEY Oswald and his teenage angst.

So why didn't the SSA include that income in "Oswald's" final earnings report? And why were "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps." offered by SSA as an explanation?

Is there a cover-up going all the way back to "Oswald's" teenage years?

Of course there is.

Read the proof here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Unraveling/Unravels.htm

And please don't worry... if no one can explain this, I'll keep asking!

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim... elephant in the room, no?

the point is proven. Two different men on two similar but different paths. The time frames for these jobs would conflict with where the official record places little Lee cause there was a Lee and Harvey

He can't be at Tujagues and Easton, Tujagues and Pfisterer's, did he not actually work at Dolly?

You get no answer Jim cause John was right.

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy.... as the Evidence decides the case and is left to us to find.

How many conclusions in he WCR begin with,

"Based on the evidence presented....." when 90% of the evidence never got there.

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, DJ....

John A. is right, and, as you keep saying....

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy!!!

What a great and honest phrase!!!

Let's keep presenting EVIDENCE! I'm thinking STRIPLING SCHOOL AND ALL JA's STRIPLING EVIDENCE should be next. What do you think? I've got JA's Stripling write-ups lined up, complete with YouTube interviews of Kudlaty and Schubert, ready to post.

Should I pull the trigger, or should we do something else first? Your opinion is most appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The Beauregard school records do NOT show any conflict with the PS 44 records - no matter how badly you need that (and you do badly need them to).

2. The Ridglea photo gives no indication of how tall he is - except in relation to those around him. He is far from the tallest in the back row, and a hell of a lot shorter than his teacher. Additionally, no one has a head of hair that is so perfectly flat. I maintain that marker pen has been used on it to give him a different appearance to the Bronx Zoo photo - which itself has been tampered with to again, give a different appearance (yes, that's right, the nose).

3. The ONLY evidence you've got of a 5' 4" inch Lee in NYC is that school record and FBI report based on a (mis)reading of that record. Carro, for example, in late April, 1953, described Lee as being of "average height and weight" - not tall for his age as in your Lee and not short for his age as in your "Harvey" (as indicated in this article "Tall Lee and Short Harvey--School Daze" at the Harvey and Lee site).

He also described this boy as having had a mastoid operation.

4. Mrs Clyde Livingston - one of Lee's teachers at Ridglea, described him as "quiet and rather shy" - which is how you guys portray "Harvey" not Lee - yet according to you, "Harvey" never went to Ridglea.

5. The "Tall Lee and Short Harvey" article states "In an FBI report dated June 5, 1964 (CE 2221), SA Earle Haley described his interview with one of Oswald's Ridglea West Elementary School classmates, Richard Warren Garrett. The report indicated that Oswald and Garrett had played together at school, and Garrett had once been in Oswald's home. Garrett described Oswald as "the tallest, most dominant member of our class." But as anyone who bothers to check can see, CE 2221, has no such claim in it. I'll be generous and allow the possibility that the quote has been attributed incorrectly to CE 2221 instead of Life Magazine. Where does that leave us? In CE 2221, Garrett claimed when he next met Lee at Arlington High a few years later and now describes him as "hesitant, a little more quiet, and did not talk too much..." Sounds more like the Lee recalled by Mrs. Livingston, no? I put it to you, that even if Garrett did describe Lee has the tallest kid etc to Life, he was getting Lee confused with someone else, but correctly recalled him from Arlington.

6. Dr. Kurian, who claims to have interviewed Lee in March, 1953 estimated his height as 4' 8" - in line more or less, with Carro's estimation almost two months later that Oswald was of average height and weight.

You have nothing propping this up EXCEPT your misreading of the Beauregard record and the heights showing in the copy of the PS 44 records supplied for the WC's 26 volumes. The copy that copy must have come from is contained in Commission Document #364 and it shows the numbers as being nowhere near as distinct as we see in the volumes version. I say it must have come from that copy because the commission chose from all the Commission Documents which ones it would place into the volumes -- so CD 364 preceded any other version.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, DJ....

John A. is right, and, as you keep saying....

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy!!!

What a great and honest phrase!!!

Let's keep presenting EVIDENCE! I'm thinking STRIPLING SCHOOL AND ALL JA's STRIPLING EVIDENCE should be next. What do you think? I've got JA's Stripling write-ups lined up, complete with YouTube interviews of Kudlaty and Schubert, ready to post.

Should I pull the trigger, or should we do something else first? Your opinion is most appreciated!

The Harvey and Lee Credo:

"No innocent mistakes were made by witnesses. No innocent mistakes were made by the FBI, DPD, Sheriff's Department, etc., in recording witnesses' statements. It was all intentional and proves that the bad guys chose two boys (and their mothers) in the early 1950's whom they somehow knew would grow up looking very much alike, when appropriate, but very different when necessary. You know, like when a person smiles in one photo taken from a certain angle and wearing certain clothing in certain lighting conditions, with a certain camera and a certain lens, etc., and tries to look "tough" in a different photograph, taken at from a different angle while wearing different clothes, etc, etc. They must be different people, right????? Especially if their being different people fits perfectly in my wacky, paranoid theory, right??? They must be different people, gosh darn it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

"Golly, this is fun!" --T. Graves

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Harvey and Lee Credo, continued--

"The bad guys started planning and implementing all of this long before JFK was elected President. Harvey's and Lee's families, friends, and acquaintances were in on it from the beginning, and for whatever reason have decided to not spill the beans, just proving that the bad guys are all powerful and try to control everything we do and think, and we don't even know it. So if you want to make sense out of this chaotic, evil world that we live in, just start thinking like we do -- NO INNOCENT MISTAKES WERE MADE BY THE WITNESSES OR THE REPORTING AUTHORITIES.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression?

Hi Glenn, that's a very forthright statement to make regarding freedom of speech and beliefs. Please note though that freedom of speech does NOT mean others don't have the right to criticise or challenge what you say. In fact, that is the essence of free speech. Yes you can say what you want (within reason) but likewise, anyone can then, using their right of free speech, respond in a manner they see fit. We have this in England anyway...

Say I were to make a horrible personal verbal attack against a loved member of your family Glen, with gritted teeth you may accept my 'right' to say it, but you too would then have every right to respond in kind. Wouldn't you? And quite right too. There's a price to pay for freedom of speech. Too many people these days truly believe freedom of speech means freedom to speak without any one else's opinion on what was said. It isn't.

So why the surprise when on a public forum dedicated to the most complex murder in the history of humanity some theories and beliefs are questioned and not just left unanswered? Does DVP get this easy ride? Of course he doesn't. There must be theories on this subject that you now know are so impossible they can and should be ruled out, ridiculed even, with better reasoning and research. Do you simply let them go unchallenged? And if so, why does that mean others should too?

Those who attack the H&L story do so because they truly believe that it is an impediment to finding out what really happened. They believe it to be a huge red herring that tells us absolutely nothing about the assassination of JFK. Nothing! DVP's conclusions also tell us nothing about what really happened, but should his Lone-Nuttery go unchallenged too?

So why shouldn't those who believe H&L is a tenuously knocked together string of admin errors and witness fallibility rolled into a complex espionage story straight from some awful B movie express that doubt? This is Don Jeffries territory. He too simply cannot understand why on a public forum those promoting a certain theory should be questioned on it, even if it can easily be proved to be bogus. "If you don't believe it, read another thread!" is his summarised advice.

Well, actually, no. David Josephs often posts on issues where he strongly disagrees with the originator's premise. So does practically everyone else on here. Someone makes a post, others point out possible errors. That's really the whole point isn't it?

But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members. My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal. Very personal! Only a few days ago Steven Gaal started a thread basically accusing Greg of anti Semitism. I complained about the legal ramifications of this and it was taken down. This is the type of tactics Greg deals with all the time.

You clearly dislike him intensely yet you turn a blind eye (again, as does Don Jeffries) to the constant baiting (going back years) from this group that has all the hallmarks of a cult. Not once in the ten years I have followed this forum has anyone of them ever admitted that they are, or have been, wrong at any time and not one new piece of 'proof' has emerged that in any way even slightly backs up their basic premise.

Such a theory needs to be felled to the ground Glenn. That you don't like the method being used is not a reason to believe in any of this nonsense though. Check what has been said. But more importantly check what is always ignored and always unanswered.

Best regards,

Bernie

Bernie, I appreciate the candor. I understand our first amendment better than you think, though. I never intimated that i had a problem with his verbally disagreeing with another theory.

i have a problem with how he talks to people in general. If you read more than that last post of mine, you'd see that i said that very thing. also, if you'd read more than you clearly read, you'd see that i also stated more then once that I bet he has some good intellect and research to offer, but that i'd lost interest in it once i saw how he "rolls." in fact, that's how i started this little string, saying that his point about that mimeographed form might be interesting, but i'll never know cause i don't care to read his stuff ...

missed that too, did ya? of course...

your logic is flawed. i've done nothing to lead anyone to think i dislike Greg - "intensely." it's his rudeness i dislike intensely, and if i'd seen anything resembling a good reason to act the way he does, then i'd feel differently. but i haven't. (How long have i been active in this forum, um - Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see what you're talking about? do you even know how long? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now - i've only seen Cliff show his arse to Pat, and i said the same thing to him. Rudeness is for children. period.)

that sentence you quoted was probably more in response to something Greg said to me, and not in response to his approach to this H&L thing.

I am quite capable of making sound judgement on available information. i don't need any of these fellows "thoughts" or biases to urge my direction. The funny thing is, the ones who i respect the most are the ones who are NOT trying to pull me away from their detractors, whereas Greg - and now you - seem to be concerned with my ability to form my own opinions

do you not see the um, "irony" in that?

do not be so condescending as to tell me who to listen to, Bernie. I'm an adult now. I've been thinking all by myself for quite awhile.

go read ALL the things i said to Greg, you'll see where you may have jumped the gun. It's nothing to do with H&L or any theory. You just made that assumption all by yourself.

look ma, no hands!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.