It's time to play.... Pick That Nose!

[Greg Parker]

" In the spring of 1954, while HARVEY was in Myra DaRouse's eighth grade homeroom class in the basement cafeteria, LEE Oswald was in homeroom 303 on the 3rd floor of Beauregard, according to school records.

No. That's according to Darouse recalling the wrong kid, and Armstrong misreading the school records.

[Greg Parker]

She looked at the photo a long time and then said, "That's not HARVEY. That's not the boy from my homeroom. Look at this boy. He looks like a football player and HARVEY was skinny." Myra saw HARVEY Oswald every day at Beauregard, before school, in her homeroom, in the school library, and after school, during the spring semester of 1954. Ed Voebel and HARVEY were good friends, and were always riding their bicycles together after school.

Further proof that she was remembering the wrong kid. The kid she remembers was indeed a little skinny kid. It just wasn't Oswald. It was the same skinny kid who was only 4' 6" to 4' 8" was Bobby Newman. It was Bobby who hung out at the library. The librarian was interviewed by the FBI. She stated that Oswald never went there on his own - only with his class.

[Thomas Graves]

She looked at the photo a long time and then said, "That's not HARVEY. That's not the boy from my homeroom. Look at this boy. He looks like a football player and HARVEY was skinny." Myra saw HARVEY Oswald every day at Beauregard, before school, in her homeroom, in the school library, and after school, during the spring semester of 1954. Ed Voebel and HARVEY were good friends, and were always riding their bicycles together after school.

Further proof that she was remembering the wrong kid. The kid she remembers was indeed a little skinny kid. It just wasn't Oswald. It was the same skinny kid who was only 4' 6" to 4' 8" was Bobby Newman. It was Bobby [Newman] who hung out at the library. The librarian was interviewed by the FBI. She stated that Oswald never went there on his own - only with his class.

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Excellent work, Greg.

And another Harvey and Lee fallacy goes down the porcelain fixture.

--Tommy

Edited August 25, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

"Jeans for him at this stage is actually a intel training exercise ....the art of disguise."

Ha ha ha!! Are you a night club Comic Steven?

For the 100th time of asking...Where was 'Lee' and what did he tell his friends and family while 'Harvey' was in Russia?

To his friends and family "Lee" was in Russia played by a small eastern European man

When Anna Lewis says repeatedly she met Lee Oswald in New Orleans in Feb 1962 - the same month Harvey is with Marina while giving birth to June in Russia. She says this twice with Baker sitting right behind her. The film stops a number of times yet not once in that interview does Judy's cooroboration place her with Oswald in the summer of 1963.

Any ideas?

LEE entered the Marines ahead of Harvey

LEE left the Marines in March 1959.

The last photo we have of Lee Oswald is his 1959 Passport photo. When Harvey came back from Russia - NONE of his relatives recognized him and could not believe it was the same man.

Good thing it was 1960 when the speed of news and info traveled slowly.

So where was he? What address did 'Lee' live at during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia?

Can you prove that 'Lee' was definitely somewhere in the USA during that period? And the onus is on you to do that, not the other way round. You're the one trying to sell this dud, so let's see some proof for once.

Presumably 'Lee' would have been ordered underground because the very fact of his existence would blow the whole scheme wouldn't it?

So let's see your chops, and quit with the tittle-tattle already...

Golly gosh, this H&L lingo is contagious

Why would Anna Lewis lie? Is there a motive to incorrectly place Lee in N.O. when even she should know he was in Minsk? Even if a year off... It wasn't until April 63 that Harvey gets there.

Ruby had rented an apartment for Lee...

I've posted these docs a few times already... That Lee and Ruby were a "thing" was implied and reported on in Dallas. We know Clay and Ferris ran in that circle...

What exactly do you want Bernie? I've posted a ton of evidence showing they were different kids. Plenty of evidence that Lee was taken care of by Ruby and lived in the Dallas area and knew different people than Harvey. It's actually in my first piece on Mexico, the reports of their being together and of Ruby getting Lee an apartment. People even came looking for Lee at these locations.

When the gov't said it went down one way, most just figured they saw it or heard wrong. That's one if the reasons this case us so important. We finally began questioning the BS and simply haven't stopped.

What exactly is so horrible if John and others in this conclusion are right? Just something that was hidden. Makes Oswald an even greater mystery.

Why so much anger and hostility over a fairly well documented theory? John run over your dog or something?

The attacking just seems so disproportionately strong to the effect of the book on the community.

During this same time I've written 300 pages on Mexico, a Baker piece and a 70 page article proving things about the rifle, microfilm and money order most were not aware of.... Not to mention posts on a variety of subjects.

H&L is an interesting corner of this monster topic... But for Pete sakes already, get a life, read a different book, write a song... Disproving H&L can't be the only reason you get up in the morning...

Right?

[Greg Parker]

"Jeans for him at this stage is actually a intel training exercise ....the art of disguise."

Ha ha ha!! Are you a night club Comic Steven?

For the 100th time of asking...Where was 'Lee' and what did he tell his friends and family while 'Harvey' was in Russia?

To his friends and family "Lee" was in Russia played by a small eastern European man

When Anna Lewis says repeatedly she met Lee Oswald in New Orleans in Feb 1962 - the same month Harvey is with Marina while giving birth to June in Russia. She says this twice with Baker sitting right behind her. The film stops a number of times yet not once in that interview does Judy's cooroboration place her with Oswald in the summer of 1963.

Any ideas?

LEE entered the Marines ahead of Harvey

LEE left the Marines in March 1959.

The last photo we have of Lee Oswald is his 1959 Passport photo. When Harvey came back from Russia - NONE of his relatives recognized him and could not believe it was the same man.

Good thing it was 1960 when the speed of news and info traveled slowly.

So where was he? What address did 'Lee' live at during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia?

Can you prove that 'Lee' was definitely somewhere in the USA during that period? And the onus is on you to do that, not the other way round. You're the one trying to sell this dud, so let's see some proof for once.

Presumably 'Lee' would have been ordered underground because the very fact of his existence would blow the whole scheme wouldn't it?

So let's see your chops, and quit with the tittle-tattle already...

Golly gosh, this H&L lingo is contagious

Why would Anna Lewis lie? Is there a motive to incorrectly place Lee in N.O. when even she should know he was in Minsk? Even if a year off... It wasn't until April 63 that Harvey gets there.

Ruby had rented an apartment for Lee...

I've posted these docs a few times already... That Lee and Ruby were a "thing" was implied and reported on in Dallas. We know Clay and Ferris ran in that circle...

What exactly do you want Bernie? I've posted a ton of evidence showing they were different kids. Plenty of evidence that Lee was taken care of by Ruby and lived in the Dallas area and knew different people than Harvey. It's actually in my first piece on Mexico, the reports of their being together and of Ruby getting Lee an apartment. People even came looking for Lee at these locations.

When the gov't said it went down one way, most just figured they saw it or heard wrong. That's one if the reasons this case us so important. We finally began questioning the BS and simply haven't stopped.

What exactly is so horrible if John and others in this conclusion are right? Just something that was hidden. Makes Oswald an even greater mystery.

Why so much anger and hostility over a fairly well documented theory? John run over your dog or something?

The attacking just seems so disproportionately strong to the effect of the book on the community.

During this same time I've written 300 pages on Mexico, a Baker piece and a 70 page article proving things about the rifle, microfilm and money order most were not aware of.... Not to mention posts on a variety of subjects.

H&L is an interesting corner of this monster topic... But for Pete sakes already, get a life, read a different book, write a song... Disproving H&L can't be the only reason you get up in the morning...

Right?

Giving a whole new level of meaning to special pleading...

and yet another way of evading answering pertinent questions.

[Bernie Laverick]

"Jeans for him at this stage is actually a intel training exercise ....the art of disguise."

Ha ha ha!! Are you a night club Comic Steven?

For the 100th time of asking...Where was 'Lee' and what did he tell his friends and family while 'Harvey' was in Russia?

To his friends and family "Lee" was in Russia played by a small eastern European man

When Anna Lewis says repeatedly she met Lee Oswald in New Orleans in Feb 1962 - the same month Harvey is with Marina while giving birth to June in Russia. She says this twice with Baker sitting right behind her. The film stops a number of times yet not once in that interview does Judy's cooroboration place her with Oswald in the summer of 1963.

Any ideas?

LEE entered the Marines ahead of Harvey

LEE left the Marines in March 1959.

The last photo we have of Lee Oswald is his 1959 Passport photo. When Harvey came back from Russia - NONE of his relatives recognized him and could not believe it was the same man.

Good thing it was 1960 when the speed of news and info traveled slowly.

So where was he? What address did 'Lee' live at during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia?

Can you prove that 'Lee' was definitely somewhere in the USA during that period? And the onus is on you to do that, not the other way round. You're the one trying to sell this dud, so let's see some proof for once.

Presumably 'Lee' would have been ordered underground because the very fact of his existence would blow the whole scheme wouldn't it?

So let's see your chops, and quit with the tittle-tattle already...

Golly gosh, this H&L lingo is contagious

Why would Anna Lewis lie? Is there a motive to incorrectly place Lee in N.O. when even she should know he was in Minsk? Even if a year off... It wasn't until April 63 that Harvey gets there.

Ruby had rented an apartment for Lee...

I've posted these docs a few times already... That Lee and Ruby were a "thing" was implied and reported on in Dallas. We know Clay and Ferris ran in that circle...

What exactly do you want Bernie? I've posted a ton of evidence showing they were different kids. Plenty of evidence that Lee was taken care of by Ruby and lived in the Dallas area and knew different people than Harvey. It's actually in my first piece on Mexico, the reports of their being together and of Ruby getting Lee an apartment. People even came looking for Lee at these locations.

When the gov't said it went down one way, most just figured they saw it or heard wrong. That's one if the reasons this case us so important. We finally began questioning the BS and simply haven't stopped.

What exactly is so horrible if John and others in this conclusion are right? Just something that was hidden. Makes Oswald an even greater mystery.

Why so much anger and hostility over a fairly well documented theory? John run over your dog or something?

The attacking just seems so disproportionately strong to the effect of the book on the community.

During this same time I've written 300 pages on Mexico, a Baker piece and a 70 page article proving things about the rifle, microfilm and money order most were not aware of.... Not to mention posts on a variety of subjects.

H&L is an interesting corner of this monster topic... But for Pete sakes already, get a life, read a different book, write a song... Disproving H&L can't be the only reason you get up in the morning...

Right?

Ruby had rented an apartment for Lee... Where? What address?

That Lee and Ruby were a "thing" was implied and reported on in Dallas... Implied? Reported? By who?

of evidence that Lee was taken care of by Ruby and lived in the Dallas area and knew different people than Harvey...Where are these people? Why haven't they talked like Kudlaty did?

People even came looking for Lee at these locations... Who and where are these people?

These are not unreasonable questions to ask of a theory that states one man was in Russia whilst his doppelganger was in the USA. Showing the proof of his whereabouts is level 1 for this theory. Without that you have absolutely nothing.

[David Josephs]

"Jeans for him at this stage is actually a intel training exercise ....the art of disguise."

Ha ha ha!! Are you a night club Comic Steven?

For the 100th time of asking...Where was 'Lee' and what did he tell his friends and family while 'Harvey' was in Russia?

To his friends and family "Lee" was in Russia played by a small eastern European man

When Anna Lewis says repeatedly she met Lee Oswald in New Orleans in Feb 1962 - the same month Harvey is with Marina while giving birth to June in Russia. She says this twice with Baker sitting right behind her. The film stops a number of times yet not once in that interview does Judy's cooroboration place her with Oswald in the summer of 1963.

Any ideas?

LEE entered the Marines ahead of Harvey

LEE left the Marines in March 1959.

The last photo we have of Lee Oswald is his 1959 Passport photo. When Harvey came back from Russia - NONE of his relatives recognized him and could not believe it was the same man.

Good thing it was 1960 when the speed of news and info traveled slowly.

So where was he? What address did 'Lee' live at during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia?

Can you prove that 'Lee' was definitely somewhere in the USA during that period? And the onus is on you to do that, not the other way round. You're the one trying to sell this dud, so let's see some proof for once.

Presumably 'Lee' would have been ordered underground because the very fact of his existence would blow the whole scheme wouldn't it?

So let's see your chops, and quit with the tittle-tattle already...

Golly gosh, this H&L lingo is contagious

Why would Anna Lewis lie? Is there a motive to incorrectly place Lee in N.O. when even she should know he was in Minsk? Even if a year off... It wasn't until April 63 that Harvey gets there.

Ruby had rented an apartment for Lee...

I've posted these docs a few times already... That Lee and Ruby were a "thing" was implied and reported on in Dallas. We know Clay and Ferris ran in that circle...

What exactly do you want Bernie? I've posted a ton of evidence showing they were different kids. Plenty of evidence that Lee was taken care of by Ruby and lived in the Dallas area and knew different people than Harvey. It's actually in my first piece on Mexico, the reports of their being together and of Ruby getting Lee an apartment. People even came looking for Lee at these locations.

When the gov't said it went down one way, most just figured they saw it or heard wrong. That's one if the reasons this case us so important. We finally began questioning the BS and simply haven't stopped.

What exactly is so horrible if John and others in this conclusion are right? Just something that was hidden. Makes Oswald an even greater mystery.

Why so much anger and hostility over a fairly well documented theory? John run over your dog or something?

The attacking just seems so disproportionately strong to the effect of the book on the community.

During this same time I've written 300 pages on Mexico, a Baker piece and a 70 page article proving things about the rifle, microfilm and money order most were not aware of.... Not to mention posts on a variety of subjects.

H&L is an interesting corner of this monster topic... But for Pete sakes already, get a life, read a different book, write a song... Disproving H&L can't be the only reason you get up in the morning...

Right?

Ruby had rented an apartment for Lee... Where? What address?

That Lee and Ruby were a "thing" was implied and reported on in Dallas... Implied? Reported? By who?

of evidence that Lee was taken care of by Ruby and lived in the Dallas area and knew different people than Harvey...Where are these people? Why haven't they talked like Kudlaty did?

People even came looking for Lee at these locations... Who and where are these people?

These are not unreasonable questions to ask of a theory that states one man was in Russia whilst his doppelganger was in the USA. Showing the proof of his whereabouts is level 1 for this theory. Without that you have absolutely nothing.

Bernie.. a thought. Go to Google images and type in 'Ruby gets apartment Lee Oswald' and see what comes up. Do the same for the other questions.

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know in any case. Why waste my time spoonfeeding you when all you ever do is choke on it and spit it out?

Nothing in it for me any longer. You truly don't want to know. Nor do you care even to open yourself to the possibilities.

Get back to the family BL.... This is just not for you.

[Bernie Laverick]

David, why is it you are capable of writing 1,000's of posts using millions of words copied from some other person's work, yet become very coy when asked basic questions about gaping holes in the theory.

Surely for H&L to have any credibility there needs to be some firm solid proof of 'Lee's' two and a half years spent in the USA whilst 'Harvey' is in Russia. Where was this apartment Ruby had rented for Lee? Who were all the people who came "looking for Lee at these locations" (so, more than one apartment then?)

You throw stuff into the mix and sell it off as fact. You're very tough on calling Greg out when you demand proof of his rebuttals but very shy when it comes to doing it yourself. "Google it!" "Do your own homework!" "Why waste my time?!" and so it goes. That tells me you don't have an answer because if you did you would take great pride in explaining it.

Come on David, admit it, if this was JVB you would be demanding similar levels of proof: the onus would be on her, not you. If she refused to answer any of your salient points because it would incriminate her fantasy, and fobbed you off with a "do your own work!" instead, you would certainly accept that as proof that she has nothing!

Likewise.

[David Josephs]

Any proof of that?

I'm sure it's "in the book", just like his wearing southern clothes as part of his duties as an "asset" to blend. Not.

Funny but I could have sworn I was told before that the zoo photo was taken because the fake Marguerite was told to fake being a "normal" mother and do "normal" things. No. Apparently not. Apparently not. Apparently it was part of the planning all along.

His "rebellion" is kinda weird though. Seems the only person at Beauregard who he told to call him "Harvey" was Darouse.

That's not a rebellion: that an identity crisis.

And all of the proof is as imaginary as "Harvey" is.

Yup... read the book and maybe you'll be able to discuss this without repeatedly reminding us you haven't the first clue...

Polly want a cracker?

[Steven Gaal]

She looked at the photo a long time and then said, "That's not HARVEY. That's not the boy from my homeroom. Look at this boy. He looks like a football player and HARVEY was skinny." Myra saw HARVEY Oswald every day at Beauregard, before school, in her homeroom, in the school library, and after school, during the spring semester of 1954. Ed Voebel and HARVEY were good friends, and were always riding their bicycles together after school.

Further proof that she was remembering the wrong kid. The kid she remembers was indeed a little skinny kid. It just wasn't Oswald. It was the same skinny kid who was only 4' 6" to 4' 8" was Bobby Newman. It was Bobby who hung out at the library. The librarian was interviewed by the FBI. She stated that Oswald never went there on his own - only with his class.

12-12-2013, 05:34 PM DEEP POLITICS FORUM https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?12071-John-Armstrong-s-Harvey-and-Lee/page35

David Josephs

"

Going back to this most interesting time period... 1953.

Bruce, ask yourself who is attending PS44 during the time HARVEY is at YOUTH HOUSE? From April 23 to May 8 1953..

and to step back even more... In early Nov 1953 an event occurs that is denied by Robert, told by Pic and represents a HUGE CHANGE in little Oswald's behavior...

Up to that point L/H had been living with John and his wife but were asked to leave due to problems with the MO caretaker (I am not sure whether this is the mother or caretaker... my gut tells me it MUST have been LEE and his mother until they move to 1455 Sheridan or 825 E. 179th and that on that Nov day the REAL MO and HARVEY are at the apartment when they are visited... LEE's, now HARVEY's behavior, is a 180 degree change... This MAY have been onpurpose to estrange himself from John... Since John feels this boy WAS LEE yet had changed behavior so drastically... it MAY have been HARVEY already in the process of switching over...

Mr. PIC - Just a minute, sir. That is where I began my notes. August 1952, my

mother and Lee came to New York. They brought with them quite a bit of luggage,

and their own TV set. On my way home I had to walk about 8 to 10 blocks to the

subway, and Lee walked up to meet me as I was walking home, I told my wife and

Lee decided to go up and meet me. We met in the street and I was real glad to

see him and he was real glad to see me. 'We were real good friends. I think a

matter of a few days or so I took my leave. Lee and I visited some of the

landmarks of New York, the Museum of Natural History, Polk's Hobby Shop on 5th

Avenue. I took him on the Staten Island ferry, and several other excursions we

made.

Mr. JENNER - Did your brother's wife accompany him?

Mr. PIC - He wasn't married at that time, sir.

Mr. JENNER - He wasn't married?

Mr. PIC - I think this was, his leave was probably in October or November 1952, a matter of a month or two after they had moved out. We visited their apartment in the Bronx.

Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, where did your brother stay?

Mr. PIC - I think he stayed at the Soldier-Sailor-Airmen Club in New York.

Mr. JENNER - In any event he did not stay with you.

Mr. PIC - No, sir; he may have stayed with my mother also. I don't think so. Maybe for a night or two. We went out, my wife fixed him up with a date with one of her girl friends and we went out together a couple of times. So, we were invited up there for this Sunday dinner. So it was my mother, Lee, Robert, my wife, myself, and my son.

Robert was already there when we arrived. When Lee seen me or my wife he left the room. For dinner he sat in the front room watching TV and didn't join us whatsoever

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; we were corresponding infrequently, I would say--not very many letters between I and Lee direct when I was in the service, especially the first part of my tour in the service.

In 1952, after traveling from Camp Pendleton, Calif., to Jacksonville, Fla. I did have a 10-day leave. They were in New York City at that time.

Mr. JENNER. This was then some time in 1953, I take it?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir--1952.

Mr. JENNER. 1952?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. This was----

Mr. JENNER. You mean your mother and Lee that is the period of time they were in New York City?

Mr. OSWALD. That's correct.

Mr. JENNER. Living there.

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see them?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not at that time. I spent my leave in Fort Worth, because I did not feel I had enough time to travel to New York and down to Jacksonville, Fla. After completing metalsmith school at Millington, Tenn., I took a 10-day leave

Mr. PIC - .......When Lee seen me or my wife he left the room. For dinner he sat in the front room watching TV and didn't join us whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER - He did not join you for dinner?

Mr. PIC - No, sir. Didn't speak to me or my wife.

Mr. JENNER - That put a kind of pall on the visit, did it not?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER - Did you--he didn't speak to you. Did you attempt to speak with him?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. JENNER - Did he answer you?

Mr. PIC - He shrugged his shoulders a couple of times maybe. He wasn't interested in anything I had to say.

Mr. JENNER - He was definitely hostile to you and to Mrs. Pic?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

Mr. PIC - That is right. So in February 1953, (this is in the middle of the Jan-March WHERE's LEE period when HARVEY is truant and sent to YOUTH HOUSE) my wife and I were again invited to their apartment. This may or may not have been the same apartment we originally visited. I don't remember, sir. I know it was up in the Bronx. I think it may have been a different apartment. Is that right?

Mr. JENNER - Yes.

Mr. PIC - As my wife and I walked in, Lee walked out and my mother informed us that he would probably go to the Bronx Zoo. We had Sunday dinner, and in the course of the conversation my mother informed me that Lee was having a truancy problem and that the school officials had suggested that he might need psychiatric aid to combat his truancy problem.

She informed me that Lee said that he would not see a head shrinker or nut doctor, and she wanted any suggestions or opinions from me as to how to get him to see him, and I told her just take him down there. That is all I could suggest.

(this would be the last time he sees his half brother until 1962, Thanksgiving.)

Mr. JENNER - How did he look to you physically as compared with when you had seen him last?

Mr. PIC - I would have never recognized him, sir.

Mr. JENNER - What did you notice?

Mr. PIC - He was much thinner than I had remembered him. He didn't have as much hair.

Mr. JENNER - Did that arrest your attention? Was that a material difference? Did that strike you?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; it struck me quite profusely.

Mr. JENNER - What else did you notice about his physical appearance that arrested your attention?

Mr. PIC - His face features were somewhat different, being his eyes were set back maybe, you know like in these Army pictures, they looked different than I remembered him. His face was rounder. Marilyn had described him to me when he went in the Marine Corps as having a bull neck. This I didn't notice at all. I looked for this, I didn't notice this at all, sir. "

[David Josephs]

David, why is it you are capable of writing 1,000's of posts using millions of words copied from some other person's work, yet become very coy when asked basic questions about gaping holes in the theory.

Bernie - this thread is huge. There are other threads here and other forums that are easily found if you knew how to use Google. I'm not coy my friend, you are simply not willing to grasp the evidence regardless of how many times it's presented. Can you actually say you've asked me this with an open mind? That If I once again point you to this evidence it would actually make a difference?

To date you offer nothing to suggest this. You simply want to argue a topic for which you are woefully uninformed. And when the docs and links and corroboration is offered... you don't even take the time to consider it and how it works with so much other evidence.

Surely for H&L to have any credibility there needs to be some firm solid proof of 'Lee's' two and a half years spent in the USA whilst 'Harvey' is in Russia. Where was this apartment Ruby had rented for Lee? Who were all the people who came "looking for Lee at these locations" (so, more than one apartment then?)

You wear clueless so well BL... Are you truly that poor a researcher that you can't even begin to search for an answer yourself? I even told you exactly where the doc and story was...

You throw stuff into the mix and sell it off as fact. You're very tough on calling Greg out when you demand proof of his rebuttals but very shy when it comes to doing it yourself. "Google it!" "Do your own homework!" "Why waste my time?!" and so it goes. That tells me you don't have an answer because if you did you would take great pride in explaining it.

Whatever you say BL.... Suffice to say - I'm really not here to teach you anything. Take it or leave it - you want to keep this fake "Play dumb" tactic up for months or years on end... that's your problem, not mine.

I wrote a 70 page piece of the Rifle. Go tell me what I got wrong - that is MY work. No H&L to be seen in that text at all. If you are truly interested in learning something. Read the piece: http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf I even include a timeline which traces the PMO search process to show three of the 4 times the PMO was found. http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsMOTimeline.pdf

I wrote about things that I have not seen mentioned anywhere... no big thing but it shows once and for all the charade the SS, FBI and Postal Services performed to get THAT rifle connected to Oswald.

Or don't... I could care less. H&L may be your reason for living and arguing here but to me it's one piece of a giant puzzle that simply illustrates the "late to the party" spycraft the USA was attempting.

Come on David, admit it, if this was JVB you would be demanding similar levels of proof: the onus would be on her, not you. If she refused to answer any of your salient points because it would incriminate her fantasy, and fobbed you off with a "do your own work!" instead, you would certainly accept that as proof that she has nothing!

I already did that with Judyhttp://www.ctka.net/2015/JudythBaker-DJ.pdf - and I spent 2 years with John going over all these details of H&L, the sources and the corroboration. He's not writing a Vol 2 while Jim H is helpiung update info that 15 years later has not proven out. When you write a 1000 page non-fiction and get it all right - throw your stones... until then respect the work for what is it, study it and find the weaknesses and or conflicts on your own Bernie... or don't and stop asking rhetorical question as if you have any sincerity or desire to learn anything.

You don't and it's painfully obvious - and IMO what bothers most here is this attitude of closed minded aggitation. Like the US government, if you were innocent of playing games you would be sincere with your Q&A.

You're not.

Bu-bye now.

Likewise.

[Bernie Laverick]

David, why is it you are capable of writing 1,000's of posts using millions of words copied from some other person's work, yet become very coy when asked basic questions about gaping holes in the theory.

Bernie - this thread is huge. There are other threads here and other forums that are easily found if you knew how to use Google. I'm not coy my friend, you are simply not willing to grasp the evidence regardless of how many times it's presented. Can you actually say you've asked me this with an open mind? That If I once again point you to this evidence it would actually make a difference?

To date you offer nothing to suggest this. You simply want to argue a topic for which you are woefully uninformed. And when the docs and links and corroboration is offered... you don't even take the time to consider it and how it works with so much other evidence.

Surely for H&L to have any credibility there needs to be some firm solid proof of 'Lee's' two and a half years spent in the USA whilst 'Harvey' is in Russia. Where was this apartment Ruby had rented for Lee? Who were all the people who came "looking for Lee at these locations" (so, more than one apartment then?)

You wear clueless so well BL... Are you truly that poor a researcher that you can't even begin to search for an answer yourself? I even told you exactly where the doc and story was...

You throw stuff into the mix and sell it off as fact. You're very tough on calling Greg out when you demand proof of his rebuttals but very shy when it comes to doing it yourself. "Google it!" "Do your own homework!" "Why waste my time?!" and so it goes. That tells me you don't have an answer because if you did you would take great pride in explaining it.

Whatever you say BL.... Suffice to say - I'm really not here to teach you anything. Take it or leave it - you want to keep this fake "Play dumb" tactic up for months or years on end... that's your problem, not mine.

I wrote a 70 page piece of the Rifle. Go tell me what I got wrong - that is MY work. No H&L to be seen in that text at all. If you are truly interested in learning something. Read the piece: http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf I even include a timeline which traces the PMO search process to show three of the 4 times the PMO was found. http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsMOTimeline.pdf

I wrote about things that I have not seen mentioned anywhere... no big thing but it shows once and for all the charade the SS, FBI and Postal Services performed to get THAT rifle connected to Oswald.

Or don't... I could care less. H&L may be your reason for living and arguing here but to me it's one piece of a giant puzzle that simply illustrates the "late to the party" spycraft the USA was attempting.

Come on David, admit it, if this was JVB you would be demanding similar levels of proof: the onus would be on her, not you. If she refused to answer any of your salient points because it would incriminate her fantasy, and fobbed you off with a "do your own work!" instead, you would certainly accept that as proof that she has nothing!

I already did that with Judyhttp://www.ctka.net/2015/JudythBaker-DJ.pdf - and I spent 2 years with John going over all these details of H&L, the sources and the corroboration. He's not writing a Vol 2 while Jim H is helpiung update info that 15 years later has not proven out. When you write a 1000 page non-fiction and get it all right - throw your stones... until then respect the work for what is it, study it and find the weaknesses and or conflicts on your own Bernie... or don't and stop asking rhetorical question as if you have any sincerity or desire to learn anything.

You don't and it's painfully obvious - and IMO what bothers most here is this attitude of closed minded aggitation. Like the US government, if you were innocent of playing games you would be sincere with your Q&A.

You're not.

Bu-bye now.

Likewise.

So you won't answer any questions because you consider that I don't really want any answers. Neat and cosy eh?

LN Carlier did that to me once. He made a ridiculous statement, I called him out on it and asked him a pertinent question I knew he couldn't answer. He blatantly came back with "No, I'm not answering you because I don't like your attitude!"

I have asked you a pertinent question and similarly you have no proof to back up your answer. So your response, like Carlier, is to attack my motive. Who cares what my motive is anyway? If this theory is so rock solid you would have humiliated me with reams of evidence and proof that 'Lee' was in USA while 'Harvey' was in Russia. You've chosen not to do so and instead play coy and attack my motive for questioning. Neat.

In all the time it took you to write the above you could have simply provided the proof that Ruby had rented Lee an apartment and citations for all the "people that came looking for him there."

But once again...you didn't! You never do.

What does that say?

[David Josephs]

So you won't answer any questions because you consider that I don't really want any answers. Neat and cosy eh?

No - I'm done spoon feeding morons who are here only to play dumb and ask serious questions rhetorically to maintain some image they have of their self worth. Present company excluded of course...

Go read the book if you want to know. Too much trouble?

Got to H&L.net and read Not tech savvy enough to find it?

Go to Baylor, pick a subject and read Even aware of what Baylor is?

If you were truly interested in the subject you wouldn't spend your time staring blankly at the screen - you'd be looking into it... but you don't and never have.

How serious do you suppose we are to take the two of you? Greg's writing a book which, if H&L is accurate, does not help his cause, so he fights it.

Why wont you go to the sources and see what all the fuss is yourself?

Why? - Cause you're simply not as interested in the subject as you are in interupting this thread using some of the following:

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit. (or in your case "you got nothing")

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. (Tautologies)

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist - DJ: Just a FYI for those following along... any resembleance to persons alive or dead is purely coincidental

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

Would you give anyone any credibility if they said the song you wrote is complete crap, goes against the very fabric of all muscial intelligence and should not be considered music at all, just noise strung together - when I had never even heard it?

of course not.

------

Is there a subject within H&L on which you are well-versed? One where you do not agree and can present the evidence which you found to contradict it in an intelligent manner? So far, not so much.

Where Parker rides Armstrong's coat tails, you seem to play the little genuflecting parrot to Greg's FAITH, arms a waving screaming "Amen" whenever you're told.

Is that any way to learn something?

You have any idea what it's like to be asked a question - supposedly with sincerity, honesty and a true interest in learning about the subject.... only to be told after I post it that you THINK it's wrong since you couldn't find the relevance or understanding with a flashlight, two hands and a group of friends? How would you even KNOW if I was right or wrong if you don't know the subject matter?

All you do is whine, ask for it to be explained AGAIN and then insult the poster, wait a few days and do the same thing all over.... Your desire to learn about the evidence which backs H&L is disingenuous Bernie.

Question is, are you man enough to admit

1) you could not possibly care less about Harvey and Lee and the evidence which illustrates it

2) that you believe what you do and

3) nothing anyone will ever show you or that you will ever read will change that ?

This way you can stop asking these questions and spend more time with the family

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

DISINGENUOUS - lacking in candor; also: giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating ; not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does

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

For those of you here to learn about H&L....

are you aware of John Ely and what he did? (Page 56 of H&L)

Ely had to compile Oswald's History - he was a WC lawyer, not investigator so he had to rely on the FBI for his info. His memo below is from MARCH 1964...

Notice the "Reproduced at the National Archives" stamp.... not everything is at MFF Bernie.

There are hundreds of notebooks with thousands of pages about which you remain completely clueless... (which is also why, like "who killed JFK" - there is no simple answer that makes sense on its own... it's a BIG conspiracy to unravel.

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/39280 is Ely's memo to Jenner and Leibeler about his interviews with those who knew OSwald in the Marines.... the variety of descriptions, locations and stories is quote interesting...

You'll notice that the men GORSKY names are not interviewed at all and are foreign to Ely...

Seems to me a little strange that this LONE NUT, this unconnected single assassin without a single tie to intelligence, 544 Camp, Ruby or any of the other players would have something in his History that requires ALTERATION and OMISSION.

Is this The Evidence IS the Conspiracy smoking gun you were looking for? I know it was for me... like Redlich's April 27, 1964 memo to Rankin.

Edited August 25, 2015 by David Josephs

[Steven Gaal]

DAVID JOSEPHS SIR

This El Toro vs Santa Ana problem .....did Mr. Parker or Mr. Purnell ever address that H & L confirming data ?

Wait wait ....I guess no . ,gaal

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

As to disinformation Eddowes was some type of deep asset to muddy the waters.

As to the Donald Norton , I recall he was pushed on Jack White (when Jack and Armstrong were working together) by a fellow from Nevada.

Said place where this fellow lived was (per Jack White) a mortgage house from a bank connected to the Walker family (As in George Herbert Walker Bush)

Armstrong spent a great deal of energy looking into said Norton and concluded that he was not a Oswald Double. Yet he did have a Russian wife !!!

(I found that they were both at some type of real estate event or some such)

Was this done to muddy the waters ??? Maybe the H & L crowd was to think of a double MARINA !! HA !!

I am very suspicious of the anti H & L crowd via the above info. ,gaal

Edited August 26, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Greg Parker]

No - I'm done spoon feeding morons who are here only to play dumb and ask serious questions rhetorically to maintain some image they have of their self worth. Present company excluded of course...

This response to a request for citations from the person who continually complains that I don't cite every sentence I write.

If you were truly interested in the subject you wouldn't spend your time staring blankly at the screen - you'd be looking into it... but you don't and never have.

Translation: I can't answer your questions because Armstrong never addressed the issues so I'll just send you off on a wild goose chase instead.

How serious do you suppose we are to take the two of you? Greg's writing a book which, if H&L is accurate, does not help his cause, so he fights it.

Why wont you go to the sources and see what all the fuss is yourself?

Wrong. My work is not harmed by Armstrong being right. I fight it for the same reason I do JVB, Cinque et al. It is simple-house cleaning in the so-called CT community. The garbage has to be cleared from the table as much as other work needs deeper exploration.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit. (or in your case "you got nothing")

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. (Tautologies)

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist - DJ: Just a FYI for those following along... any resembleance to persons alive or dead is purely coincidental

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

The projection and lack of personal insight involved in writing the above is mind-blowing.

This thread is about the nose stuck onto the Bronx Zoo photo. No one made you join the thread. You did of your own choice. Yet in doing so, you have assiduously avoided discussion of the nose and have changed subjects more times than I can count. And when you're not changing subjects, you're attacking the messengers.

As for the memo at the end of your latest tantrum... you've simply taken it out of context, as I have demonstrated in the past.