Steven Gaal Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) Wow! Who got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, cob? Look, it's quite simple. Armstrong - for what ever reason - decided that the father and uncle were not Weinstock and "Kardos". But the report states that "she knew Oswald's father and uncle..." Are you seriously suggesting that she knew them, went to the trouble of phoning someone to report them, but didn't actually know their names, or decided to with-hold them, and just gave out the names of two random communists? Armstrong is entitled to believe the above scenario, even tho it defies logic. As for the rest, it is your usual MO when you have nothing. Ignore it. Stay away for a while. Come back. Attack me. Project your own shortcomings at 4000 lumins - all while picking one point out to address or completely changing subject. You are as predictable as day following night. I thought GARDOS WAS DEPORTED FROM THE COUNTRY BEFORE 1950 ??.,gaal. http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/united-states-congress-senate-committee-on-the/communist-activities-among-aliens-and-national-groups-hearings-before-the-subco-tin/page-51-communist-activities-among-aliens-and-national-groups-hearings-before-the-subco-tin.shtml" " Emil Gardos, 217 East Eighty-sixth Street, New York, N. Y. Amalia Gardos, 217 East Eighty-sixth Street, New York, N. Y. Beatrice Smoliga, Clifton, N. J. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11th day of August 1949 at Clifton, N. J. [seal] Loretta O. Schleich, A Notary Puhlio of New Jersey, My commission expires October 1951." ============== [PDF]Categories( click to retract ) - The Vault - FBI https://vault.fbi.gov/.../solo-part-109-of-1... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ⦁ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Qm1CnU-sE3UJ:https://vault.fbi.gov/solo/solo-part-109-of-114+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us "Federal Bureau of Investigation that in regard to the negotiations concerning GRACE GARDOS' release, he had on ... band voluntarily acceptéd deportation from the United States. Up to the present ... communist newspaper, 'udE est, Her husband Emil is living in Budapest in ..." =================== https://vault.fbi.gov/solo/solo-part-109-of-114 GARDOS RETIRED IN HUNGARY 1966,gaal ========== ================= https://archive.org/stream/FBI-Operation-Solo/100-HQ-428091-Serial5916-5985_djvu.txt " CGairtel 10/24/66 entitled ^50L0._ IS-C" furnished information indicating that the imminent' return^ of the subject to the United States is anticipated* Chicago should furnish details to Milwaukee and Springfield* Milwaukee and New York should determine if the , subject has returned to the United States. Also determine whether she is working for the Communist Party an<3 in what capacity . Springfield should contact SI 131-S to determine if he has received any information concerning the subject's return but this contact must be made cost discreetly in order to protect CG 5324-S. The Bureau desires to consider some counter- intelligence action against the subject. In this connection, Milwaukee is requested to prepare a blind memorandum setting out all public source data ■ concerning the subject. Handle promptly in order that any counterintelligence action approved by the Bureau will be timely, MA <? A<0h^ £ - Cnlcago NOT Br '"ORBED .X, ig ^55 2 - New York (100-7409) 98 NOV 18 1966 ™ 1 - Springfield (100-9497) _ KOTK : The subject is married to Emil Gardos, a long-time CP member who was deported from the United States in the , 1940* s for communist activity* Subject was also a CP member in the United States and left to join her husband in Hungary in 1948. She has lived in Hungary since that time with the exception of a visit in 1964 during which she visited her relatives in Los Angeles and Milwaukee, all of whom are active CP members. Her brother is Fred Blair, Milwaukee CP leader. Arrangements were made in late 1964 to take some counter- " ######################################################################################################################### http://sortedbybirthdate.com/pages/19051022.html " EMIL KARDOS was born 22 October 1905, received Social Security number 090-07-2878 (indicating New York) and, Death Master File says, died February 1981. For more information, click here (free), then check Archives and PeopleSmart " Edited August 20, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Wow! Who got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, cob? Look, it's quite simple. Armstrong - for what ever reason - decided that the father and uncle were not Weinstock and "Kardos". But the report states that "she knew Oswald's father and uncle..." Are you seriously suggesting that she knew them, went to the trouble of phoning someone to report them, but didn't actually know their names, or decided to with-hold them, and just gave out the names of two random communists? Armstrong is entitled to believe the above scenario, even tho it defies logic. As for the rest, it is your usual MO when you have nothing. Ignore it. Stay away for a while. Come back. Attack me. Project your own shortcomings at 4000 lumins - all while picking one point out to address or completely changing subject. You are as predictable as day following night. You assuming again Gregsteramundo... He didn't "decide" - he read the report. You saying the FBI could not simply write that she said the father was Weinstock and Uncle was Gardos or vice versa - cause they didn't. From their report it's quite obvious these were separate descriptions about separate concerns. "They were both unemployed" means to most people that they did NOT work but were both in the US at the time. Weinstock has a promanent job and Gardos isn't even here... Show us where it says in that report that she claimed these two men were Weinstock and Gardos (and what about Steve's claim that Gardos was not in the US at the time?) So you found him (an proudly announced how it was only you who did) yet did not know he wasn't in the US at the time little Harvey (name unknown) was in NYC with his dad and uncle? Well done research Gregarillo Are we now going to be treated to your faith-based belief he secretly was in NYC at the time and related to Weinstock? KOTK : The subject is married to Emil Gardos, a long-time CP member who was deported from the United States in the , 1940's for communist activity* Subject was also a CP member in the United States and left to join her husband in Hungary in 1948. She has lived in Hungary since that time with the exception of a visit in 1964 (from Steve's links) Show us ANY analysis or data where these two people/concepts are connected... Your assumptions are not facts Gregzilla until you prove them, and your arguments remain tautological. In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22151&page=4#entry312628 is the post. It has the report and exactly what it says, not what YOU say it does. That you have Faith and BELIEVE she was referring to them as the father/uncle in the story is cute an all, but only you and your faith sees it that way.... again. Can you not offer proof of anything, ever? Waiting on Bobby Newman's proof - none coming Waiting on this proof - and all we get are more of your faith-based assumptions. boring and repetitive Gregski.... Time to put up or shut up already.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) He didn't "decide" - he read the report. You saying the FBI could not simply write that she said the father was Weinstock and Uncle was Gardos or vice versa - cause they didn't. From their report it's quite obvious these were separate descriptions about separate concerns. Okay, so it says in the report that "Kardos" and "Weinstock" were not his relatives, just communists thrown into the mix for no known reason, and this obviated any need to decide that they were not the relatives referred to earlier. Now just point that part of the report out, sport. "They were both unemployed" means to most people that they did NOT work but were both in the US at the time. Weinstock has a promanent job and Gardos isn't even here... What "time" frame does the FBI report refer to? Kindly point it out in the report? The editor of a two-bit commie paper is a "prominent" job? I guess it is if you desperately need to it to be. But in the real world, the best you could expect by way of payment, would be having some basic living expenses recompensed to you. You know... like the caller said...."they got their money from communists". Show us where it says in that report that she claimed these two men were Weinstock and Gardos (and what about Steve's claim that Gardos was not in the US at the time?) "she knew Oswald's father and uncle" ...."stated she had two names to give..." For that, and other reasons already explained, I believe she was naming the alleged father and uncle. You keep claiming that the report is clear that the names are in relation to other matters. Don't just claim it. Show me. As for Steve's claim that Gardos was not in the US "at the time"... what's your point? Show me where it specifies a time-frame as to when she knew these people. Acording to Stevo, Gardos was deported in the 1940s. Oswald was born when... 1939 ring a bell? You can't even say he never returned. It was under the Smith Act which, if memory serves, had little success at being upheld when appealed. As for the rest of your spleen-fest,,, you are simply losing the plot in a very public setting. Again. Your attempts to turn the tables are simply sad projections, David. Edited August 20, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) He didn't "decide" - he read the report. You saying the FBI could not simply write that she said the father was Weinstock and Uncle was Gardos or vice versa - cause they didn't. From their report it's quite obvious these were separate descriptions about separate concerns. Okay, so it says in the report that "Kardos" and "Weinstock" were not his relatives, just communists thrown into the mix for no known reason, and this obviated any need to decide that they were not the relatives referred to earlier. Now just point that part of the report out, sport. "They were both unemployed" means to most people that they did NOT work but were both in the US at the time. Weinstock has a promanent job and Gardos isn't even here... What "time" does the FBI report to? Kindly point it out in the report? The editor of a two-bit commie paper is a "prominent" job. I guess it is if you desperately need to it to be. But in the real world, the best you could expect by way of payment, would be having some basic living expenses recompensed to you. You know... like the caller said...."they got their money from communists". Show us where it says in that report that she claimed these two men were Weinstock and Gardos (and what about Steve's claim that Gardos was not in the US at the time?) "she knew Oswald's father and uncle" ...."stated she had two names to give..." For that, and other reasons already explained, I believe she was naming the alleged father and uncle. You keep claiming that the report is clear that the names are in relation to other matters. Don't just claim it. Show me. As for Steve's claim that Gardos was not in the US "at the time"... what's your point? Show me where it specifies a time-frame as to when she knew these people. Acordint to Stevo, Gardos was deported in the 1940s. Oswald was born when... 1939 ring a bell? You can't even say he never returned. It was under the Smith Act which, if memory serves, had little success at being upheld when appealed. As for the rest of your spleen-fest,,, you are simply losing the plot in a very public setting. Again. Your attempts to turn the tables are simply sad projections, David. LINK INFO BELOW https://archive.org/stream/FBI-Operation-Solo/100-HQ-428091-Serial5916-5985_djvu.txt "CGairtel 10/24/66 entitled ^50L0._ IS-C" furnished information indicating that the imminent' return^ of the subject to the United States is anticipated* Chicago should furnish details to Milwaukee and Springfield* Milwaukee and New York should determine if the , subject has returned to the United States. Also determine whether she is working for the Communist Party an<3 in what capacity . Springfield should contact SI 131-S to determine if he has received any information concerning the subject's return but this contact must be made cost discreetly in order to protect CG 5324-S. The Bureau desires to consider some counter- intelligence action against the subject. In this connection, Milwaukee is requested to prepare a blind memorandum setting out all public source data ■ concerning the subject. Handle promptly in order that any counterintelligence action approved by the Bureau will be timely, MA <? A<0h^ £ - Cnlcago NOT Br '"ORBED .X, ig ^55 2 - New York (100-7409) 98 NOV 18 1966 ™ 1 - Springfield (100-9497) _ KOTK : The subject is married to Emil Gardos, a long-time CP member who was deported from the United States in the , 1940* s for communist activity* Subject was also a CP member in the United States and left to join her husband in Hungary in 1948. She has lived in Hungary since that time with the exception of a visit in 1964 during which she visited her relatives in Los Angeles and Milwaukee, all of whom are active CP members. Her brother is Fred Blair, Milwaukee CP leader. Arrangements were made in late 1964 to take some counter- " )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) NO < reading the full text he ,GARDOS< never came back, the FBI would have said so. ,gaal Edited August 20, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 Thank you, Stevo, for showing you can make a sane response. Now maybe someone can explain how that negates him being related to a kid born before he (Gardos) was deported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 He didn't "decide" - he read the report. You saying the FBI could not simply write that she said the father was Weinstock and Uncle was Gardos or vice versa - cause they didn't. From their report it's quite obvious these were separate descriptions about separate concerns. Okay, so it says in the report that "Kardos" and "Weinstock" were not his relatives, just communists thrown into the mix for no known reason, and this obviated any need to decide that they were not the relatives referred to earlier. Now just point that part of the report out, sport. "They were both unemployed" means to most people that they did NOT work but were both in the US at the time. Weinstock has a promanent job and Gardos isn't even here... What "time" frame does the FBI report refer to? Kindly point it out in the report? The editor of a two-bit commie paper is a "prominent" job? I guess it is if you desperately need to it to be. But in the real world, the best you could expect by way of payment, would be having some basic living expenses recompensed to you. You know... like the caller said...."they got their money from communists". Show us where it says in that report that she claimed these two men were Weinstock and Gardos (and what about Steve's claim that Gardos was not in the US at the time?) "she knew Oswald's father and uncle" ...."stated she had two names to give..." For that, and other reasons already explained, I believe she was naming the alleged father and uncle. You keep claiming that the report is clear that the names are in relation to other matters. Don't just claim it. Show me. As for Steve's claim that Gardos was not in the US "at the time"... what's your point? Show me where it specifies a time-frame as to when she knew these people. Acording to Stevo, Gardos was deported in the 1940s. Oswald was born when... 1939 ring a bell? You can't even say he never returned. It was under the Smith Act which, if memory serves, had little success at being upheld when appealed. As for the rest of your spleen-fest,,, you are simply losing the plot in a very public setting. Again. Your attempts to turn the tables are simply sad projections, David. Whatever you say, mate.... you got it all figgered out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 Whatever you say, mate.... you got it all figgered out What a dropkick. Still can't locate any other giant-hootered Oswald pics, I see. Keep looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Whatever you say, mate.... you got it all figgered out What a dropkick. Still can't locate any other giant-hootered Oswald pics, I see. Keep looking. Yo Mate... speaking of drop kick... Nothing yet on Bobby Newman - right? (Weren't you proving that the Mardi Gras picture was Bobby Newman as well... whatever happened to that supporting evidence mate?) Nothing to connect father/uncle to Weinstock/Gardos other than your poor language skills and beliefs Can you even FIND any image of LEE Oswald between the Aug 1953 zoo photo and Voebal's photo... We realize you have no photographic skills whatsoever so I'll help you out, again. You let us know when you find ANY photo of Lee during this period. Looks to me that the little nose of Lee is dramatically different than the schnoozes on Harvey's photos... but then again you and your rose-colored faith-based conclusions will most definitely argue the point regardless. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - There is a young fellow in the foreground-everybody else is facing the other way. He is in a pantomime, or grimace. Do you recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir; looking at that picture and I have looked at it several times--that looks more like Robert than it does Lee, to my recollection. John Pic does not see his brother from 1952 until 1962. He does not recognize the zoo image as his brother. That the classroom photo looks more like Robert than Lee is no big stretch as most of us would agree that Harvey and Robert were very similar in appearance... In fact, so was Robert Webster... In either case the boy changes drastically between 1952, at 5'4" and 115lbs to Aug 1953 at 4'10" 90lbs... You want to keep claiming these two kids are the same person... have at it Since you know and have everything there is related to Oswald - given the title of that series of books - why don't you post something to explain how the boy entering 7th grade shrinks 4-6 inches and loses 20+ pounds over the next 2 years. How the biggest of the children in the grade are put in the back row of every school photo from the beginning of time... or how Lee was known as the leader of the boys who was rough, tough, strong, large... The boy on the right went to Youth House while our boy Lee attended one of the three PS44's in either Queens, Manhattan or the Bronx... probably Manhattan on the West Side at 100 W 77th since it wasn't the Queens PS44... Notice the TALL Boys & Girls at the back... You were aware there were 3 NYC PS44's in 1953, 54, 55 - Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Greg, Isn't it interesting that all of the pairs of photos that Jospehs and his buddies provide, purporting to show "Lee" in one and "Harvey' in the other, show the same individual (Lee Harvey Oswald) smiling in one and trying to look "tough" in the other, photographed from a low angle in one and from a high angle in the other, etc? Everyone looks different when they are smiling or are viewed from a different angle. D'oh! --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) Greg, Isn't it interesting that all of the pairs of photos that Jospehs and his buddies provide, purporting to show "Lee" in one and "Harvey' in the other, show the same individual (Lee Harvey Oswald) smiling in one and trying to look "tough" in the other, photographed from a low angle in one and from a high angle in the other, etc? Everyone looks different when they are smiling or are viewed from a different angle. D'oh! --Tommy Became friends with a US Vietnam Photographic Intelligence Officer. Vietnam Communists would use disguises and also be seruptisiously photographed by the US side. After capture or death of said disguised Communist a comparison was made of ear structure to previous seruptisiously made photographs. To find identity of disguised or doubles assets >> it is best to check ear structure.,gaal ....>>>>>>>> D'oh !! Edited August 21, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 Greg, Isn't it interesting that all of the pairs of photos that Jospehs and his buddies provide, purporting to show "Lee" in one and "Harvey' in the other, show the same individual (Lee Harvey Oswald) smiling in one and trying to look "tough" in the other, photographed from a low angle in one and from a high angle in the other, etc? Everyone looks different when they are smiling or are viewed from a different angle. D'oh! --Tommy Yes, Tommy - that is interesting. It's also interesting that the nose and hair have been tampered with on some. But beyond merely interesting - it is bewildering that he can show a pic of Queens PS 44 - point out the tall boys at the back - then admit Oswald never went there. Public meltdowns don't get much more obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) Those who can't do, criticize... Those who remain as confused as this pair simply keep posting faith-based crap and avoid proof at all costs on forums like these... One writes articles including Radionics as a key theme to explain the situation yet has the gall to attack others when presented with evidence he can't refute... Did the FBI say 200 days of school between those dates? yes Are there 200 days on which he could have attended during this period? no prove otherwise mate. Here - I did most the work for you yet again. When and how did Lee shrink during those years? Edited August 21, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) The copy of the school report as seen at MFF shows the figure nowhere as clearly as this. It could be read as 54" or 64", but the figure as shown has to be 54" because of the manner in which it has been written. This copy has a dark area around the height and weight --- you know - like it's been whited out and redone. The 64" in the FBI report is simply them misreading the indistinct copy. I give other reasons for believing it is 54" (4' 6") as opposed to 64" (5' 4") in my upcoming book. It puts the issue beyond dispute. ------ but let's talk about shrinking. When and how did that hooter on the Bronx Zoo photo of LEE shrink? Edited August 21, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 The copy of the school report as seen at MFF shows the figure nowhere as clearly as this. It could be read as 54" or 64", but the figure as shown has to be 54" because of the manner in which it has been written. This copy has a dark area around the height and weight --- you know - like it's been whited out and redone. The 64" in the FBI report is simply them misreading the indistinct copy. I give other reasons for believing it is 54" (4' 6") as opposed to 64" (5' 4") in my upcoming book. It puts the issue beyond dispute. ------ but let's talk about shrinking. When and how did that hooter on the Bronx Zoo photo of LEE shrink? Desperation now? Explain how he was 54" Greg. I did so at the other thread. It has to do with standard deviation and population statistics. You ready to state that the boy in 6th grade at the back of the photo is in the 2% of the pop range for SHORTNESS 18 months later? As for the Zoo photo... that's Harvey, that's how. Just as his brother John or his teacher Myra said. ROBERT is the one you should be questioning and investigating here mate, not H&L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 23, 2015 Author Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) The copy of the school report as seen at MFF shows the figure nowhere as clearly as this. It could be read as 54" or 64", but the figure as shown has to be 54" because of the manner in which it has been written. This copy has a dark area around the height and weight --- you know - like it's been whited out and redone. The 64" in the FBI report is simply them misreading the indistinct copy. I give other reasons for believing it is 54" (4' 6") as opposed to 64" (5' 4") in my upcoming book. It puts the issue beyond dispute. ------ but let's talk about shrinking. When and how did that hooter on the Bronx Zoo photo of LEE shrink? Desperation now? Explain how he was 54" Greg. I did so at the other thread. It has to do with standard deviation and population statistics. You ready to state that the boy in 6th grade at the back of the photo is in the 2% of the pop range for SHORTNESS 18 months later? As for the Zoo photo... that's Harvey, that's how. Just as his brother John or his teacher Myra said. ROBERT is the one you should be questioning and investigating here mate, not H&L. Your calculations were based on an assumption of even rates in the increased average. That assumption may or may not be accurate. It is obvious that Robert was in your 2.5% - not 2 as you have now changed it to (the smallest out of 100+ kids) but he obviously caught up during his teen years. I see no reason why the same could not apply to Lee. You are now trying to base everything on a photo of Lee where you can't see what he is standing on - let alone accurately judge his height except to say he appears to be shorter than others in the back row and much shorter than his teacher. In any case, your whole thesis of overlap between Beauregard and PS 44 is dead in the water. You admitted it in 2012 but then recanted after being threatened with excommunication by your guru. Edited August 23, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now