Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • 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

Recommended Posts

it's not MY bias, Greg. i don't adhere to any of the prevalent theories floating around in here, for the mere reason that I'm working on my OWN ideas. An understanding of Dallas, and of the politics and of the motives and of some of the moving parts is but a glimpse into a very complex organism. i have no "theory" - i have several "theories." some line up with some of these in here, but it's not because of any loyalty, it's because two people came to similar conclusions by thinking on our own.

I left my mind open to the idea of two O's in order to weight the many pieces and decide on my own what works and what doesn't, but you failed to either notice this or acknowledge it. You immediately accused me of collusion with others for the sake of being lazy and possibly attacking you. You have some idea that I'm unable to think for myself, or think at all, when I happen to be more and more convinced that much of my intellect is a good bit superior to yours, mainly because I don't berate others' in order to strengthen my own, and i'm not trying to sound the battle cry that I've discovered the solution, boy you just wait and all that bullxxxx. All because i didn't do exactly what you're accusing me of and fall in line behind you.

i have no idea what you think in theory because i don't place enough value on your posts to remember them. When you said what you said to Steven, i confirmed what i already knew about what kind of person you are.

You have nothing positive to offer anyone here. The others for some reason want to argue with you in hopes of changing your mind, but I'd rather go watch Ishtar all night than listen to your drivel.

the sad thing is, you probably have some good ideas, some quality research that would find some interest if you weren't such an -

I'm thinking I'll never know. For about 6 more seconds I'm thinking that. Then I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not MY bias, Greg. i don't adhere to any of the prevalent theories floating around in here,

Who said anything about the theories you adhere to? You have a personal bias against me.

I left my mind open to the idea of two O's in order to weight the many pieces and decide on my own what works

That's BS because it is IMPOSSIBLE to weigh this theory up WITHOUT recourse to fact checking and you've already made it clear that you have an aversion to that.

i have no idea what you think in theory because i don't place enough value on your posts to remember them.

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.

When you said what you said to Steven, i confirmed what i already knew about what kind of person you are.

And you ignore what they say to me.

Gaal sank so low as to start a thread accusing me of being anti-Semitic because of my work on members of the Straus family. Meanwhile Josephs tries to smear me every chance he gets by trying to connect me to witchcraft and the occult because I mentioned it in one article - that because someone of interest in this case had an interest in the occult. That becomes the coward's invitation for smears. There is no other way to describe that kind of behavior except cowardice.

You have nothing positive to offer anyone here. The others for some reason want to argue with you in hopes of changing your mind, but I'd rather go watch Ishtar all night than listen to your drivel.

Yet here you are...

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Greg,

OMG. This reminds me of when I used to change my grades on my report card, but I did a better job! LOL

Yes, I see the dark area you're talking about and I can see that the first number in the second row of both columns has been reworked to make it look like a "6," and a "5" has been "improved."

Whoever did that was a very sneaky son of a gun.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Greg,

OMG. This reminds me of when I used to change my grades on my report card, but I did a better job! LOL

Yes, I see the dark area you're talking about and I can see that the first number in the second row of both columns has been reworked to make it look like a "6," and a "5" has been "improved."

Whoever did that was a very sneaky son of a gun.

--Tommy :sun

This is why you rarely, if ever, see these people use documents and photos direct from the archives or MFF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget Tommy... this "community" is diminished by me wanting to clear the table of such fraud - not by the fraud itself. I am supposed to play nice with these hucksters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Greg,

OMG. This reminds me of when I used to change my grades on my report card, but I did a better job! LOL

Yes, I see the dark area you're talking about and I can see that the first number in the second row of both columns has been reworked to make it look like a "6," and a "5" has been "improved."

Whoever did that was a very sneaky son of a gun.

--Tommy :sun

This is why you rarely, if ever, see these people use documents and photos direct from the archives or MFF.

I went to BAYLOR ARMSTRONG RECORDS LINK looking up in the search PS 44

====================

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

====================

"SEPT 1952 to JAN 1954

TAB TITLE PS 44 "

  • on page 27 p FBI REPORT WHICH HAD WRITTEN OUT HEIGHT SIXTY FOUR INCHES ,WEIGHT 115 POUNDS
  • on page 49 the Health Card showing HEIGHT 64 inches and weight 115 lbs.

################################################################################################

" I am supposed to play nice with these hucksters." ( PARKER QUOTE RE Harvey and Lee pro posters on PS 44 height and weight records see post # 1336)

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

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Steve. I've already addressed the FBI report. The figure is indistinct. They misread it. You guys are quick to trash FBI reports when they go against you, but boy the love that pours out when they support you is just plain scary.

Now address the evidence of tampering that shows on the copy of the school report used by 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.

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

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

The height figures in the MFF version could be debated - but there is other evidence and other aspects regarding his height which are in volume 2 coming soon. He was 54" without doubt, so that is what it must say.

The 5 in the 115 weight figure is the real undebatable proof of tampering. In the MFF version, the top stroke of the 5 is pointed to the left of the top right corner. In the Armstrong version, it is pointed directly to the corner. This is not a product of ratio, stretching or anything else, since nothing would change the direction of the stroke in relation to the corner.

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

The height figures in the MFF version could be debated - but there is other evidence and other aspects regarding his height which are in volume 2 coming soon. He was 54" without doubt, so that is what it must say.

The 5 in the 115 weight figure is the real undebatable proof of tampering. In the MFF version, the top stroke of the 5 is pointed to the left of the top right corner. In the Armstrong version, it is pointed directly to the corner. This is not a product of ratio, stretching or anything else, since nothing would change the direction of the stroke in relation to the corner.

Seem that some time back you didn't fair well in the height debate at the deep politics forum.

see >>

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13299.html You will need other evidence than your MFF conjecture.

_________________________________________________________________________

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

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why no link to the MFF doc mate?

You have any idea what a 115# 54" kid looks like?

And this is you guessing again. If he was 54" entering 7th grade, How is he the largest boy in his 6th grade class? You have seen his 6th grade class photo with him standing in the back, right?

The crap images you offer cause you can't improve their readability is your problem.

Prove it was a "5" geniuses... Rather than keep guessing.

Do some work already... Corroborate your faith-based assumptions. Otherwise they are what they appear. Vapid speculation while hoping no one notices.

You both should be ashamed of yourselves for the junk you post here.

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


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

×