Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

It's actually printed twice as Cunningham exhibits. p399 & p397

While I'd like to think this helps illustrate there being an Oswald in Ft Worth in April 1962... Cunningham #2 suggest this is in June, (p401) yet this piece of the card has no name on it.

The only thing tying them together is the recording of all those #'s circled... and the words of Anna Lewis climing that Oswald was in New Orleans from Jan-Apr 1962 then left.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0209a.htm

TEC%20SATB%20test%20taken%20in%20April%2

deleted

Smartest thing you've posted in years Tommy...

:sun

Why exactly do you need to be such a :rant to others when at the slightest provocation you whine to the moderators?

Hume has some ideas which are obviously so over your head as to make you dizzy.. but you being you MUST try some witless comment to let others know how lost you are in so many areas.

I don't have to agree with him to be courteous... obviously you do.

As for you being a lawyer... :rip ... obviously you have trouble enough putting on briefs let alone writing one.. thanks for staying out of the law...

Regarding my post, the sheet places the taking of this test in April 1962...the "62" even looks exactly like the 10/10/"62" next to it..

Without Greg here to have your back, not so interested in posting actual thoughts on a topic - are ya mate?

Better off keeping at that "wit" thing you fail so miserably at each and every time...

Much love and affection Tommy.. you know it's all in fun... ;)

:up

David,

What do you think Helen Cunningham meant when she wrote "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" in the "comments" section next to his test scores?

Do you think she should have written "GATB in Fort Worth -- April, 1962," instead?

(Bearing in mind that "GATB" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery," the series of aptitude tests which Oswald took at the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission.)

--Tommy :sun

PS Perhaps you should delete your [deleted] posts more often. Or at least proof read them before and after.

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

From one of my earlier posts on this thread:

Stephen [Gaal],

As Greg Parker pointed out after I asked the above question, a 10/10/62 Dallas office Texas Employment Commission document about Oswald says, "Date in Fort Worth -- June, 1962," indicating either that that was when Oswald and family moved to Fort Worth from Minsk, USSR, or that that was when Oswald had taken a TEC test at the Fort Worth TEC office. Regardless, June of 1962, can also be written "6/62". Dallas TEC worker Helen P. Cunningham probably wrote "4/62" by mistake twice, meaning to write "6/62," instead.

How else would you interpret "Date in Fort Worth -- June 1962" on Oswald's 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document, Stephen?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm

--Tommy :sun

CORRECTION. MY BAD:

The 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document doesn't say "DATE IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 1962." It says "[G?]ATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 62" (The last letter is definitely a "B," not an "E.")

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm

"ATB" was the partial acronym of the TEC test Oswald took in Fort Worth, as we can see from Donald E. Brooks' Warren Commission testimony.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brooks.htm (press Ctrl and "F" simultaneously and then type in "ATB" to find it)

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether you made inquiry of the Fort Worth office as to whether they had what you call this ATB?

Mr. BROOKS. This is something--oh, you mean, test records?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. BROOKS. No, sir; I didn't, I am sure of this. The other office, Mrs. Cunningham, might have, but I didn't.

(It's obvious to me now that Jenner was looking at "[G?]ATB" on the document and wasn't sure what the first letter was, so just referred to it as "ATB." Brooks didn't know what Jenner was referring to at first because he knew it as the "GATB" test.

From an affidavit by Helen p. Cunningham, we can see the "[G?]ABT" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery."

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunning1.htm

Also note that "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" is written on the part of the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document called the "Test Record Card" which also includes the broken-down results from Oswald's GATB test. Note also that in bold print in the upper right hand corner of the document are the words "APTITUDE TEST BATTERIES."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually printed twice as Cunningham exhibits. p399 & p397

While I'd like to think this helps illustrate there being an Oswald in Ft Worth in April 1962... Cunningham #2 suggest this is in June, (p401) yet this piece of the card has no name on it.

The only thing tying them together is the recording of all those #'s circled... and the words of Anna Lewis climing that Oswald was in New Orleans from Jan-Apr 1962 then left.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0209a.htm

TEC%20SATB%20test%20taken%20in%20April%2

deleted

Smartest thing you've posted in years Tommy...

:sun

Why exactly do you need to be such a :rant to others when at the slightest provocation you whine to the moderators?

Hume has some ideas which are obviously so over your head as to make you dizzy.. but you being you MUST try some witless comment to let others know how lost you are in so many areas.

I don't have to agree with him to be courteous... obviously you do.

As for you being a lawyer... :rip ... obviously you have trouble enough putting on briefs let alone writing one.. thanks for staying out of the law...

Regarding my post, the sheet places the taking of this test in April 1962...the "62" even looks exactly like the 10/10/"62" next to it..

Without Greg here to have your back, not so interested in posting actual thoughts on a topic - are ya mate?

Better off keeping at that "wit" thing you fail so miserably at each and every time...

Much love and affection Tommy.. you know it's all in fun... ;)

:up

David,

Perhaps you should delete your [deleted] posts more often.

By the way, what do you think Helen Cunningham meant when she wrote "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" in the "comments" section next to his test scores?

Do you think she should have written "GATB in Fort Worth -- April, 1962," instead?

(Bearing in mind that "GATB" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery," the series of aptitude tests which Oswald took at the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission.)

--Tommy :sun

Now you're just being silly, Tommy. If you don't understand that the FBI changed that on the paperwork which they confiscated illegally at 10 am on Nov 22, then you are not a researcher. This is a rock solid fact. I have interviewed Mabella Flubblobski and she told me she remembers like it was only 52 years ago. She was ordered by her boss, Calhoon McSpool, to get the Oswald Project file for the FBI; no court order required. She thought that was strange, but not nearly as strange as the barbed wire around the file. That struck her as particularly odd. She had seen something like that once before - barbed wire and detonators around the file of some guy named Harvey...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually printed twice as Cunningham exhibits. p399 & p397

While I'd like to think this helps illustrate there being an Oswald in Ft Worth in April 1962... Cunningham #2 suggest this is in June, (p401) yet this piece of the card has no name on it.

The only thing tying them together is the recording of all those #'s circled... and the words of Anna Lewis climing that Oswald was in New Orleans from Jan-Apr 1962 then left.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0209a.htm

TEC%20SATB%20test%20taken%20in%20April%2

deleted

[...]

David,

What do you think Helen Cunningham meant when she wrote "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" in the "comments" section next to his test scores?

Do you think she should have written "GATB in Fort Worth -- April, 1962," instead?

(Bearing in mind that "GATB" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery," the series of aptitude tests which Oswald took at the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission.)

___________________________________________________________________________

From one of my earlier posts on this thread:

[...]

The 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document [...] says "[G?]ATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 62" (The last letter is definitely a "B," not an "E.")

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm

FWIW, "ATB" was the partial acronym forf the TEC test Oswald took in Fort Worth, as we can see from Donald E. Brooks' Warren Commission testimony.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brooks.htm (press Ctrl and "F" simultaneously and then type in "ATB" to find it)

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether you made inquiry of the Fort Worth office as to whether they had what you call this ATB?

Mr. BROOKS. This is something--oh, you mean, test records?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. BROOKS. No, sir; I didn't, I am sure of this. The other office, Mrs. Cunningham, might have, but I didn't.

(It's obvious to me now that Jenner was looking at "[G?]ATB" on the document and wasn't sure what the first letter was, so just referred to it as "ATB." Brooks wasn't sure what Jenner was referring to at first because he knew it as the "GATB."

From an affidavit by Helen p. Cunningham, we can see the "[G?]ABT" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery."

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunning1.htm

Also note that "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" is written on the part of the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document called the "Test Record Card" which also includes the broken-down results from Oswald's GATB test. Note also that in bold print in the upper right hand corner of the document are the words "APTITUDE TEST BATTERIES."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm

EDIT:

I've just looked at the document again and realized that Cunningham's "G" in "GATB" was written in longhand style whereas the "A" and the "T" and the "B" were printed in block letters.

Look for yourselves:

WH_Vol19_0210b.gif

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm

So I've now proved that Lee Harvey Oswald took the General AptitudeTest Battery tests in Fort Worth in June of 1962, not April, 1962, as the Harvey and Lee crowd are desperate to believe.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

What proof do we have that "back in March, 1963, Roscoe White clearly hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald?"

BTW, whenever a member of a JFK assassination forum uses a word like "obviously" or "clearly," I become very apprehensive and skeptical.

--Tommy :sun

Well, Tommy, the "evidence" that I find convincing was provided by Jack White in a 1991 "Special Report" which demonstrated with painstaking accuracy that the body of the person in Lee Harvey Oswald's backyard photographs was always of Roscoe White.

That is, the face was indeed Oswald's, but the chin, the neck, the shoulders, the right wrist and the stance, all belong to Roscoe White.

Now, Oswald and White were at Atsugi together in the 1950's. Also, in the 1960's Roscoe White ran with some of the same people that Oswald ran with in New Orleans -- including David Ferrie and Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Also, since Lee Harvey Oswald signed one of these Fake Photographs and sent it to George De Mohrenschildt, this confirmsthat the ownership of Lee Harvey Oswald -- although the body is of Roscoe White.

IMHO, Oswald made the Backyard Photographs at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall when he worked there in early 1963. That's how he knew that the Photo was a "Fake" when he was shown a copy at the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/1963. He said he could prove it was a Fake. Of course he could -- because he was the one who Faked it.

Since Roscoe White was part of the Backyard Photographs -- as Jack White ably demonstrated -- that suggests the real possibility that Roscoe White was also the accomplice of Oswald in the attack on General Walker.

If all this is true, then even though Roscoe White joined the DPD in October, 1963 -- back in March, 1963 Roscoe clearly hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now -- here's the rest of my theory. The identification of Roscoe White as the body-double of Oswald in the Backyard Photographs practically breaks the JFK murder case wide open. The solution -- a Dallas rightist plot -- was not far from the finish line with Jack White's discovery.

THEREFORE -- IMHO Jack White was prevailed upon by Disinformation Agents inside Dallas (not the CIA) to stomp on his own discovery, and cancel it by using this ridiculous Harvey & Lee theory.

So, Jack White, under pressure, published the H&L theory, and then Disinformation Agent John Armstrong has built upon it ever since. Not that Armstrong was a member of the Dallas pressure group -- it's only that he knew a great business opportunity when he saw it.

That's my current theory.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

What proof do we have that "back in March, 1963, Roscoe White clearly hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald?"

BTW, whenever a member of a JFK assassination forum uses a word like "obviously" or "clearly," I become very apprehensive and skeptical.

--Tommy :sun

Well, Tommy, the "evidence" that I find convincing was provided by Jack White in a 1991 "Special Report" who demonstrated with painstaking accuracy that the body of the person in Lee Harvey Oswald's backyard photographs were always of Roscoe White.

That is, the face was indeed Oswald's, but the chin, the neck, the shoulders, the right wrist and the stance, all belong to Roscoe White.

Now, Oswald and White were at Atsugi together in the 1950's. Also, in the 1960's Roscoe White ran with some of the same people that Oswald ran with in New Orleans -- including David Ferrie and Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Also, since Lee Harvey Oswald signed one of these Fake Photographs and sent it to George De Mohrenschildt, this confirms that the ownership of Lee Harvey Oswald [sic] -- although the body is of Roscoe White.

IMHO, Oswald made the Backyard Photographs at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall when he worked there in early 1963. That's how he knew that the Photo was a "Fake" when he was shown a copy at the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/1963. He said he could prove it was a Fake. Of course he could -- because he was the one who Faked it.

Since Roscoe White was part of the Backyard Photographs -- as Jack White ably demonstrated -- that suggests the real possibility that Roscoe White was also the accomplice of Oswald in the attack on General Walker.

If all this is true, then even though Roscoe White joined the DPD in October, 1963 -- back in March, 1963 Roscoe clearly hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now -- here's the rest of my theory. The identification of Roscoe White as the body-double of Oswald in the Backyard Photographs practically breaks the JFK murder case wide open. The solution -- a Dallas rightist plot -- was not far from the finish line with Jack White's discovery.

THEREFORE -- IMHO Jack White was prevailed upon by Disinformation Agents inside Dallas (not the CIA) to stomp on his own discovery, and cancel it by using this ridiculous Harvey & Lee theory.

So, Jack White, under pressure, published the H&L theory, and then Disinformation Agent John Armstrong has built upon it ever since. Not that Armstrong was a member of the Dallas pressure group -- it's only that he knew a great business opportunity when he saw it.

That's my current theory.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

That's tantalizing and fascinating and fine and dandy, but unfortunately it doesn't show that "Roscoe White clearly hung out with Oswald in March, 1963."

Why would Oswald put together a photo of himself like that at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, anyway?

Why not just have Marina take some photos of him brandishing a rifle, wearing a pistol, and holding some contradictory Communist literature in the air?

Ahhh. I get it. So he could point to the photo later and say it was faked.

If that's the case, then it sounds like Oswald was planning on assassinating somebody, and was preparing his defense. But why incriminate himself so badly in the first place? Who was he trying to impress? George DeMohrenschildt? Roscoe White? Guy Banister?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2zqehef.jpg

Different lighting. Different lenses. Different ages.

Which one was killed by Jack Ruby, the one on the left or the one on the right?

"Both" of them are so young that "neither" of them looks like "Marina's husband."

LOL

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different curvature on the nose openings, now that's hard to change, regardless of age and timing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not "LOL", unless you're just jesting. Bottom lip thickness is different, as well. Or do a better job yourself than Gaal at comparing extant likenesses and show it to us. I imagine that it's a bit of work, but if you're looking for credibility, deal with the issue, not LOL, or perhaps start a new topic titled "LOL" and post there. I, for one, am tired of posts that have no competing substance, just sarcasm and time (and bandwidth, though I think mine is nearly infinite) wasting obfuscation. The issue, sir, is not the credibility of the poster, but the credibility of his/her post. Deal with it.

Do you and DVP communicate regularly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not "LOL", unless you're just jesting. Bottom lip thickness is different, as well. Or do a better job yourself than Gaal at comparing extant likenesses and show it to us. I imagine that it's a bit of work, but if you're looking for credibility, deal with the issue, not LOL, or perhaps start a new topic titled "LOL" and post there. I, for one, am tired of posts that have no competing substance, just sarcasm and time (and bandwidth, though I think mine is nearly infinite) wasting obfuscation. The issue, sir, is not the credibility of the poster, but the credibility of his/her post. Deal with it.

Do you and DVP communicate regularly?

"Do you and DVP communicate regularly?"

Only on these threads, Bruce.

Why? Do you think DVP and I are conspiring with each other? Haven't you been reading our exchanges on a couple of the other current threads?

If you are insinuating that DVP and I are in private communication with each other and conspiring against "you," then you're not only paranoid but you're also casting aspersions against other two EF members, me and DVP (whom, just between you me, I'm coming to loathe), which happens to be against EF rules. So if that's the case, then why don't you just go uhhh... obfuscate yourself, Sir.

Are you a H&L groupie and have I hurt your feelings by pointing out some of the H&L inaccuracies?

Tough beans, Bruce.

The point I was trying to make above, Sir, is that I don't recognize the young man in either of those photos as "Marina's husband" / the man Jack Ruby killed on 11/24/63. Probably mostly because of the person's youth in the photos. The different lighting conditions, the possibility that different focal-length lenses were used, and the different head tilts would also explain why they look different from each other. In the photo on the left, his head is tilted up a little compared to the photo on the right, and the lighting is obviously different, too. The different head tilts create different perspectives of the bottom of his nose, and the different lighting conditions make his lower lip look thicker in the left photo because said photo doesn't have as much shadow hiding the bottom of his lower lip as the right photo does. The upward tilting head in the left photo also makes his head look shorter and rounder than it really was.

Is that substantive enough for you, Bruce?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make above, Sir, is that I don't recognize the young man in either of those photos as "Marina's husband" / the man Jack Ruby killed on 11/24/63. Probably mostly because of the person's youth in the photos. The different lighting conditions, the possibility that different focal-length lenses were used, and the different head tilts would also explain why they look different from each other. In the photo on the left, his head is tilted up a little compared to the photo on the right, and the lighting is obviously different too. The different head tilts create different perspectives of the bottom of his nose, and the different lighting conditions make his lower lip look thicker in the left photo because said photo doesn't have as much shadow hiding the bottom of his lower lip as the right photo does. The upward tilting head in the left photo also makes his head look shorter and rounder than it really was.

Is that substantive enough for you, Bruce?

--Tommy :sun

Very good analysis here Tommy. Most people don't consider how much factors such as lighting and tilt of the head will effect the photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Jack White, under pressure, published the H&L theory, and then Disinformation Agent John Armstrong has built upon it ever since. Not that Armstrong was a member of the Dallas pressure group -- it's only that he knew a great business opportunity when he saw it.

And the potentially libelous statement above comes from a man who seems anxious to shift blame for the Kennedy assassination away from American Intelligence. And what have the insiders said over the years about “Lee Harvey Oswald” and the CIA? Let's take a brief look:
* In 1978, CIA accountant James Wilcott testified as follows: “The specific incident was soon after the Kennedy assassination, where an agent, a Case Officer--I am sure it was a Case Officer--came up to my window to draw money, and he specifically said in the conversation that ensued, he specifically said, 'Well, Jim, the money that I drew the last couple of weeks ago or so was money' either for the Oswald project or for Oswald.”
* Richard Sprague, chief counsel to the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations said, if he had it to do over again, he would begin his investigation of the Kennedy assassination by probing “Oswald's ties to the Central Intelligence Agency."
* Sen. Richard Schweiker said, "We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there're fingerprints of intelligence."
* Victor Marchetti was the former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA. Marchetti said, "The more I have learned, the more concerned I have become that the government was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."
* Dan Hardway (co-author of HSCA's so-called “Lopez Report”) said to Len Osanic, “I still think that he was killed by a conspiracy, I still think that he was killed by a conspiracy that involved both mobsters and rogue elements of the Central Intelligence Agency, whether or not the agency itself was complicit in it I don’t know.”
* CIA Agent Donald Norton said, "Oswald was with the CIA, and if he did it then you better believe the whole CIA was involved."
* Former CIA agent Joseph Newbrough said, "Oswald was an agent for the CIA and acting under orders."
* CIA Agent John Garrett Underhill told friends, just before he died, "Oswald is a patsy. They set him up. They've killed the President. I've been listening and hearing things. I couldn't believe they'd get away with it, but they did."
* CIA Agent William Gaudet said, "The man who probably knows as much as anybody alive on all of this... is... I still think is Howard Hunt"----CIA Agent and Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt.
* CIA employee Donald Deneslya read reports of a CIA agent who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child--that agent could only have been Oswald.
* CIA officer David Phillips provided the Warren Commission with information that Oswald was at the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City, then later admitted that the information he had provided was false.
* Marvin Watson, an adviser to President Lyndon Johnson, said that Johnson had told him that he was convinced that there was a plot in connection with the assassination. Watson said the President felt the CIA had something to do with this plot.
* HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum in 1996 told the ARRB, "the major area, and I can't overemphasize this, focused on the government and what the government knew about Lee Harvey Oswald... and what the CIA was doing with Lee Harvey Oswald. And what he was doing in New Orleans with anti-Castro Cubans, rabid anti-Castro Cubans, and to get everything you could get from the government with respect to it. And how this government today could want to hold that information and feed the kind of anti-government feeling that results from non-disclosure is really beyond my comprehension.
The idea that John Armstrong gave up more than a decade of his life as a custom home builder and petroleum distributor to research the Kennedy assassination because he saw a "great business opportunity" to write a book is laughable on its face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that John Armstrong gave up more than a decade of his life as a custom home builder and petroleum distributor to research the Kennedy assassination because he saw a "great business opportunity" to write a book is laughable on its face.

Not quite as laughable as the theory he came up with on its face.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...