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
David Josephs

If Oswald was 5'11" why show him 5'7" ??

Recommended Posts

I've had to acknowledge too many mistakes a LOT bigger than that in my legal career and personal life to think the one here qualifies as "humiliating" or qualifies David for the label "loser."  I would just like to see, throughout the conspiracy community, more care with the evidence before leaping to conclusions to support pet theories.  This is especially true when the pet theory is one as wild as H&L.  I had never heard of an engineer's (or surveyor's) rod myself before noticing that the feet on the stick had only ten segments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your information, David has been booted and can’t respond. I miss the days on this forum when researchers treated each other with respect and dignity regardless of their hypothesis. Who among us are 100% correct? In this field, If any of us turned out to be 50% right, that would be pretty damn good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUMP

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lance Payette said:

I've had to acknowledge too many mistakes a LOT bigger than that in my legal career and personal life to think the one here qualifies as "humiliating" or qualifies David for the label "loser."  I would just like to see, throughout the conspiracy community, more care with the evidence before leaping to conclusions to support pet theories.  This is especially true when the pet theory is one as wild as H&L.  I had never heard of an engineer's (or surveyor's) rod myself before noticing that the feet on the stick had only ten segments.

When you have been at the receiving end of that man's endless aggressive taunts, and subject to his insufferable and chronic superiority complex, it is indeed humiliating that he could make this childish error. I believe it has done more to discredit H&L than a 1,000 posts by its critics. At least now we can see crystal clear how this bunch operate.

Maybe one of the mods may want to help him out and remove it.

Don...? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

For your information, David has been booted and can’t respond. I miss the days on this forum when researchers treated each other with respect and dignity regardless of their hypothesis. Who among us are 100% correct? In this field, If any of us turned out to be 50% right, that would be pretty damn good.

 

Hi Tom, you may call me a cynic but you don't think he has deliberately made himself unavailable so as to not have to face up to his humiliating mistake do you?

It wouldn't be the first time he has done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tracy,

I might have caused us to drift into the realm of rumors here, and maybe someone else will clear this up. I exchanged emails with David today, on a completely different topic, and he said that he had been “...booted from the EF....” But maybe that was just a figure of speech on David’s part, I don’t know. The term "economical" could be used to describe some of David's discourse, and it's certainly possible that David's current forum problem is more nuanced than I understand. 

At any rate, one might want to re-read the entire thread and notice the tone of the responses to David’s apparent mistake. 

There are some sterling people on this forum, and some no longer here, that, had they caught the apparent fact that the thread’s signature photo depicted a relatively obscure and unexpected measuring stick, a surveyor’s stick divided into tenths of a foot as opposed to inches, would have come up with a better, more helpful response:

Fill in the blank....

But "good catch", Lance.

I'll bow out of this discussion.

Happy Holidays all.

Tom

 
Edited by Tom Hume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance,

In my CT, the key reason that Lee Harvey Oswald was selected by the JFK Kill Team as one of its prize Patsies is that he was so thoroughly framed as an FPCC Communist.

Though he was selected at the latest in September, 1963, i.e. the Mexico City drama, I suspect a far earlier selection date.

In my CT, Lee Harvey Oswald actually did participate in a plot to assassinate General Walker in April, 1963.   General Walker's personal papers claim that Walker found out about Oswald's participation only a few days later.

This dating is confirmed by Dick Russell in his excellent book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1993), from Mrs. Natasha Voshinin, who admitted to Russell that George DeMohrenschildt told her on Easter Sunday (four days later), and she called the FBI right away.

In my CT, she got FBI agent James Hosty on the phone -- not knowing that James Hosty's bridge partner for years was Robert Alan Surrey, who was the publisher for General Walker.  Nor did she know that James Hosty was a secret supporter of General Walker.   So, Walker found out from James Hosty on Easter Sunday, 1963.

So, in my CT, General Walker's motive for selecting Lee Harvey Oswald as the first-string Patsy was to get revenge.

I realize that this is an entirely new CT in the past 50 years.   Even Jeff Caufield doesn't hold this particular view.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

Hi Tracy,

I might have caused us to drift into the realm of rumors here, and maybe someone else will clear this up. I exchanged emails with David today, on a completely different topic, and he said that he had been “...booted from the EF....” But maybe that was just a figure of speech on David’s part, I don’t know. The term "economical" could be used to describe some of David's discourse, and it's certainly possible that David's current forum problem is more nuanced than I understand. 

At any rate, one might want to re-read the entire thread and notice the tone of the responses to David’s apparent mistake. 

There are some sterling people on this forum, and some no longer here, that, had they caught the apparent fact that the thread’s signature photo depicted a relatively obscure and unexpected measuring stick, a surveyor’s stick divided into tenths of a foot as opposed to inches, would have come up with a better, more helpful response:

Fill in the blank....

But "good catch", Lance.

I'll bow out of this discussion.

Happy Holidays all.

Tom

 

Thanks Tom for the reply. I have had my battles with David, but he has contributed a great deal of research here and would undoubtedly be missed by many. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

When you have been at the receiving end of that man's endless aggressive taunts, and subject to his insufferable and chronic superiority complex, it is indeed humiliating that he could make this childish error.

Well, let's see:  In the space of accumulating a mere 220 posts, I have been (1) repeatedly accused of not being a lawyer, even though I have been a licensed practicing attorney for more than 35 years and this fact can be verified in 30 seconds on Google (that particular pest was banned); (2) assured by people who repair tractors for a living (figuratively speaking) that I don't know how to read court decisions, statutes and regulations even though I've been making my living doing so for more than 35 years; and (3) accused of being some sort of CIA plant / disinformation agent because one of my remote relatives (I haven't even been able to nail down the precise genealogy) was among the founders of the United Fruit Company and my grandmother, a Kansas City socialite I met perhaps ten times and who died 50 years ago, had occasional social contacts with the Dulles brothers.  So, yes, I do know a bit about the lunacy that infects the fundamentalist sects of the JFK assassination research community.  The H&L crowd is one of those sects, in my opinion, but I was merely tweaking David for diving so deeply into a "mystery" that Little Old Me was able to solve in less than a minute.  It was eerily reminiscent of the File Locator Number on the Klein's postal money order that was conveniently overlooked for decades until Little Old Me asked myself, "I wonder what that means?" and solved it in a couple of hours.

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Lance,

In my CT, the key reason that Lee Harvey Oswald was selected by the JFK Kill Team as one of its prize Patsies is that he was so thoroughly framed as an FPCC Communist.

Though he was selected at the latest in September, 1963, i.e. the Mexico City drama, I suspect a far earlier selection date.

In my CT, Lee Harvey Oswald actually did participate in a plot to assassinate General Walker in April, 1963.   General Walker's personal papers claim that Walker found out about Oswald's participation only a few days later.

This dating is confirmed by Dick Russell in his excellent book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1993), from Mrs. Natasha Voshinin, who admitted to Russell that George DeMohrenschildt told her on Easter Sunday (four days later), and she called the FBI right away.

In my CT, she got FBI agent James Hosty on the phone -- not knowing that James Hosty's bridge partner for years was Robert Alan Surrey, who was the publisher for General Walker.  Nor did she know that James Hosty was a secret supporter of General Walker.   So, Walker found out from James Hosty on Easter Sunday, 1963.

So, in my CT, General Walker's motive for selecting Lee Harvey Oswald as the first-string Patsy was to get revenge.

I realize that this is an entirely new CT in the past 50 years.   Even Jeff Caufield doesn't hold this particular view.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I agree that as one moves down the chain from the Deep Politics theories to those that are more plausible, the likelihood of LHO as a patsy or even a willing participant increases.  I have purchased and read The Man Who Knew Too Much and, while much of it was interesting, I didn't find myself shouting "Eureka!"

The sheer number and diversity of elaborate, ostensibly well-researched assassination conspiracy theories surely has to be disconcerting to anyone who is not yet a card-carrying CT True Believer.  How many are there - 20? 30? more?  I must have been sucked into at least ten of them over the years.  There is some overlap, of course, but they involve diametrically opposed views of who and what LHO was, who the conspirators were, and what the purpose of the conspiracy was.  And yet they are all their own little fundamentalist sects.

To me, the evidence and Ockham's Razor say:  Start with the Lone Nut theory and modify it only as absolutely necessary to account for undeniable evidence (if any) that unquestionably doesn't fit.  Do not start with supposed "motives" and your own notions of how you think a conspiracy might have worked and then view every shred of evidence and non-evidence through that warped lens.  (I'm not talking about you personally, but about all of those who hold fundamentalist views of elaborate conspiracy theories - and especially those who have books and videos to sell and are so clearly enjoying their odd little versions of fame as Assassination Gurus to a cadre of True Believer groupies.  Every one of these elaborate conspiracy theories is a cottage industry competing with the others.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

...

To me, the evidence and Ockham's Razor say:  Start with the Lone Nut theory and modify it only as absolutely necessary to account for undeniable evidence (if any) that unquestionably doesn't fit. ...

Why start with the Lone Nut Theory?

To be truly objective, why not start with a blank slate, and let the chips fall as you do your research?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

...I agree that as one moves down the chain from the Deep Politics theories to those that are more plausible, the likelihood of LHO as a patsy or even a willing participant increases.  I have purchased and read The Man Who Knew Too Much and, while much of it was interesting, I didn't find myself shouting "Eureka!"

The sheer number and diversity of elaborate, ostensibly well-researched assassination conspiracy theories surely has to be disconcerting to anyone who is not yet a card-carrying CT True Believer.  How many are there - 20? 30? more?  I must have been sucked into at least ten of them over the years.  There is some overlap, of course, but they involve diametrically opposed views of who and what LHO was, who the conspirators were, and what the purpose of the conspiracy was.  And yet they are all their own little fundamentalist sects.

To me, the evidence and Ockham's Razor say:  Start with the Lone Nut theory and modify it only as absolutely necessary to account for undeniable evidence (if any) that unquestionably doesn't fit.  Do not start with supposed "motives" and your own notions of how you think a conspiracy might have worked and then view every shred of evidence and non-evidence through that warped lens. 

(I'm not talking about you personally, but about all of those who hold fundamentalist views of elaborate conspiracy theories - and especially those who have books and videos to sell and are so clearly enjoying their odd little versions of fame as Assassination Gurus to a cadre of True Believer groupies.  Every one of these elaborate conspiracy theories is a cottage industry competing with the others.)  

Lance,

The following is my opinion.

I agree fully with your characterization of the JFK CT Community -- it is a disunited band of tribes fighting for territory and minions.

The CIA-did-it CT is by far the most popular, although even this CT is shattered into a dozen sects -- the H&L sect being only one of the more bizarre.

As for Dick Russell's landmark, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1993), it was a landmark a quarter-century ago -- but not any more.  Yes, even that well-researched book was not a proposed Solution to the JFK Assassination mysteries, but only an exhibition of the Plurality of sources that one could find if one bothered to scratch the surface in 1993. 

No, I'm not including Probe Magazine of the 1990's in that scratching, because Dick Russell was bold and honest enough to go into the world interviewing the principals back in the late 1980's and early 1990's.   The Probe Magazine writers merely made spit-wads to spit from the balconies.

Yes -- I count well more than 30 CT's out there on amazon.com, begging for readers.  The better ones came from the 20th century, although in the 21st century we have a few cooler heads.  Also, Bill Simpich's eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) is available FREE on the Mary Ferrell web site -- completely bypassing the amazon.com commercial obsession.  In the 21st century, that may be the best; followed by Jeff Caufield's, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015) and the foundation of them both, The Lopez Report (2003).

Yet I declare that not all CT's are created equal.  David Lifton's Best Evidence (1981) may be the best CT book of the 20th century.  His genius still resounds today as way back then.  This is the place to start -- not the "Lone Nut" theory, IMHO, because David Lifton's Best Evidence cancels the Lone Nut theory so quickly and so scientifically.

I don't agree with every word that David Lifton ever wrote -- yet his Best Evidence in 1981 was so cool-headed that he actually asked himself multiple times in his quest if there might be some benign explanation for all the FBI fabrications.

The complexity of the CT literature is that some of it is quite good in half its chapters, and then quite daft in the other half of its chapters.  For example, Robert Morrow's excellent book, First Hand Knowledge (1992) started out brilliantly, I thought, and then fell into the rut of mere guesswork, presented as a "must have been" which became a dogma.

I truly believe Robert Morrow when he says that David Ferrie personally asked him to upgrade three Manlicher-Carcano rifles to superb quality, that could be quickly dismantled as needed.  I truly believe that these rifles were made available to shooters in Texas for the JFK Assassination.  I disbelieve, however, when Robert Morrow claims that David Ferrie was the "mastermind" of the JFK Assassination.  Robert Morrow was only reporting based on the little bit that he knew.  So, that was his conclusion.

For just one more example, FBI agent Don Adams' excellent book, From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle (2012) starts out brilliantly, by showing the FBI insight into Joseph Milteer as provided by WIllie Somerset, and how close he came to solving the JFK Assassination -- only to be shut down abruptly in an authoritarian manner.  I truly believe that Don Adams told the truth as he knew it.   I disbelieve his conclusions that the US Government (the JFK Cover-up Team) was therefore involved with the JFK Kill Team.

And so on.  You get the picture.  I agree with you that the chaos of JFK CT's may easily lead a reasonable person to despair of ever finding the needle in this haystack.  Yet I am convinced on material evidence -- material exhibits and artifacts from General Walker's personal papers -- that the Walker-did-it CT is the closest of all to the Solution of the JFK Assassination mysteries.

I expect to find the FINAL ANSWER in the JFK Records Act Releases of 10/26/2017 -- not among the CIA records -- but among the FBI Records about the US Radical Right.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received an e-mail from David Josephs. He wrote:

"The (5 + 7/10th) feet = 68.4" is still not 71" which it says on the Marines release form.

"Why the victory dance when Mike/Bernie are the ones telling us the man lost 2.6 inches (71" - 68.4") of height in 3 years?

While this thread means little to me (because people do tend to be loose with their figures), I am in support of David regarding the two heights that dominated in Oswald's Marine Corps records, 5' 9" and 5' 11". Some of these recorded heights would have been measured, not merely filled in by Oswald. 2 inches is a significant difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Some of these recorded heights would have been measured, not merely filled in by Oswald. 2 inches is a significant difference.

I disagree Sandy. Go to my very first post in this thread where I  mention the various heights in State Secret.

But the more relevant point here is this all ties back to the Hardly story, how the height discrepancy is "proof" that two Oswald clones we were running  around  in each other's shadows.

There weren't. It's  as simple  as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×