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

The title of this thread is:

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

 

In light of the revelation that the measuring stick is in decimal feet, the title should be changed to:

If Oswald was 5' 11" why show him as 5' 8.4" ??

 

That is a valid question, is it not? David Joseph's didn't notice that the measuring stick is a decimal feet one, but his question is still valid.

In my opinion, the Oswald killed by Ruby was indeed around 5' 8.4". And it was the other Oswald who was 5' 11".


I've had a change of heart about this thread... it is more meaningful than what I'd earlier considered it. I didn't think of it as being that important because I've thought for some time now that HARVEY was in reality 5' 8". So I didn't think David's original post was a big deal... it (supposedly) showed him at 5' 7", only 1" different than his true height. By that time I'd forgotten about the 5' 11" in the title.

Anyway, David is right to point out that Oswald's discharge paper shows his height to be 5' 11", whereas he is shown in the photo to be significantly shorter than that, at 5' 8".

 

Share this post


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

Anyway, David is right to point out that Oswald's discharge paper shows his height to be 5' 11", whereas he is shown in the photo to be significantly shorter than that, at 5' 8".

It's  all one big reading of the minutiae that adds up to zero Sandy. And by the way about an hour ago you were saying "so what if Dave was wrong."

So are you  now going to be Dave's  mouthpiece without really understanding  what's  going on?

This is actually  an outstanding  example of what Lance said earlier about zealots blindly sticking to a fake theory without  thinking  for yourself.

You told me recently  that you're  still analyzing  the evidence  which I  thought  was encouraging. But now it appears you're  just going  along with Dave because  he's  a  member  of  Team Hardly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:
2 hours 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.

 

LOL, you're just plain wrong, Mike. Of course they actually measure your height in the Marines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Anyway, David is right to point out that Oswald's discharge paper shows his height to be 5' 11", whereas he is shown in the photo to be significantly shorter than that, at 5' 8".

It's  all one big reading of the minutiae that adds up to zero Sandy.


I've never said that the height issue proves anything. It's just another thing supporting the strong evidence.

 

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

And by the way about an hour ago you were saying "so what if Dave was wrong."


I never said David was wrong regarding the topic of the thread. I said he got the height wrong because he didn't notice the type of ruler being used.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existing documents in the National Archives on "Lee Harvey Oswald" are almost evenly divided on his height: Roughly half indicate he was 5' 9" tall and the other half show he was 5' 11" tall.  Hardly any show his height as 5' 10", suggesting these are not mere measuring errors.  For example....

Oswald was 5' 9" on a slab in the Dallas morgue:

Autopsy.jpg

 

But Oswald was 5'11" (a total of 71") in his surviving Marine Corps records:

Height_9-3-59%20height.gif

 

Height_23:74_Discharge.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Richard Hocking said:

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?

That's a fair point.  However, 54 years after the assassination it is difficult to start with a blank slate.  Since the Warren Commission (boo! hiss!) concluded LHO was the lone assassin, and the HSCA reached essentially the same conclusion apart from the dictabelt confusion, and since virtually every conspiracy theory has LHO as a central figure of some sort, I think it makes sense to start with the Lone Nut theory and work from there.

16 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

It's  all one big reading of the minutiae that adds up to zero Sandy. And by the way about an hour ago you were saying "so what if Dave was wrong."

So are you  now going to be Dave's  mouthpiece without really understanding  what's  going on?

This is actually  an outstanding  example of what Lance said earlier about zealots blindly sticking to a fake theory without  thinking  for yourself.

You told me recently  that you're  still analyzing  the evidence  which I  thought  was encouraging. But now it appears you're  just going  along with Dave because  he's  a  member  of  Team Hardly.

This, I gather from past experience, is what Sandy conceives his role to be: He Who Bravely Goes Down With the Ship.  In a fundamentalist sect, continuing to insist the earth is flat is what distinguishes the True Believers from the mere zealots.

Now we see Sandy and Jim following the absolutely predictable approach:  The issue is not the slightly laughable screw-up that exposes how quick the zealots are to reach theory-supporting conclusions without closing examining the evidence.  No, the issue is not why CE 1311 suspiciously shows LHO as 5'7" (gee, I thought that WAS the issue).  No, the issue is not why we of the H&L sect leaped to this dark conclusion when the answer was right in front of us and was spotted by a non-True Believer (that would be moi) in a matter of seconds.  Forget all that - it's not important.  The issue, as you should have gleaned from the original post (really?), is why certain Marine Corps records show LHO as 71".  Well, that certainly is an issue, but it wasn't the issue here until we of the H&L sect once again got caught with our investigative pants down and had to move the goalpost.  Perhaps uniquely on this forum, I have actually debated with Flat Earthers, Young Earth Christians and other religious equivalents of the H&L sect.  I know the game.

Share this post


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

That's a fair point.  However, 54 years after the assassination it is difficult to start with a blank slate.  Since the Warren Commission (boo! hiss!) concluded LHO was the lone assassin, and the HSCA reached essentially the same conclusion apart from the dictabelt confusion, and since virtually every conspiracy theory has LHO as a central figure of some sort, I think it makes sense to start with the Lone Nut theory and work from there.

This, I gather from past experience, is what Sandy conceives his role to be: He Who Bravely Goes Down With the Ship.  In a fundamentalist sect, continuing to insist the earth is flat is what distinguishes the True Believers from the mere zealots.

Now we see Sandy and Jim following the absolutely predictable approach:  The issue is not the slightly laughable screw-up that exposes how quick the zealots are to reach theory-supporting conclusions without closing examining the evidence.  No, the issue is not why CE 1311 suspiciously shows LHO as 5'7" (gee, I thought that WAS the issue).  No, the issue is not why we of the H&L sect leaped to this dark conclusion when the answer was right in front of us and was spotted by a non-True Believer (that would be moi) in a matter of seconds.  Forget all that - it's not important.  The issue, as you should have gleaned from the original post (really?), is why certain Marine Corps records show LHO as 71".  Well, that certainly is an issue, but it wasn't the issue here until we of the H&L sect once again got caught with our investigative pants down and had to move the goalpost.  Perhaps uniquely on this forum, I have actually debated with Flat Earthers, Young Earth Christians and other religious equivalents of the H&L sect.  I know the game.

Brilliant!

What will the response be? Silence? Info dump? Abuse and name-calling?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2017 at 5:22 PM, Lance Payette said:

"impugn" is too soft a word for what I would like to do with the H&L lunacy


Name-calling doesn't change the EVIDENCE.

There was a 5'9" "Lee Harvey Oswald" in the Marines and a 5'11" "Lee Harvey Oswald" in the Marines.  These two heights for the adult "Lee Harvey Oswald" are shown in a dozen or two documents now in the National Archives.

From DJ's original post:

58cc1835adb23_Oswaldheightinandoutofthem

 

By all means chalk it up to clerical errors, call us all the names you can conjure, but that doesn't explain why there is no 5'10" "Lee Harvey Oswald" in the records. Instead, the H&L critics will just talk endlessly about DJ's mistake indicating the shorter Oswald was 5'7" instead of the correct 5'9".  Pay no attention to the 5'11" Oswald, men.  Maybe the evidence will just disappear!
 

Edited by Jim Hargrove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Hargrove said:

By all means chalk it up to clerical errors, call us all the names you can conjure, but that doesn't explain why there is no 5'10" "Lee Harvey Oswald" in the records. Instead, the H&L critics will just talk endlessly about DJ's mistake indicating the shorter Oswald was 5'7" instead of the correct 5'9".  Pay no attention to the 5'11" Oswald, men.  Maybe the evidence will just disappear!

Any idea, Jim, as to WHY the people involved in the "Dual Oswalds" scheme/charade decided to use a guy for their duplicate Oswald who was TWO INCHES TALLER than the real Lee Oswald?

Was it stupidity?

Or were BOTH "Oswalds" really only 5-feet-9 when the ruse began---and then one of them grew another 2 inches later on? (Was he still a growing boy?)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren’t stupid.  The Oswald Project (CIA accountant James Wilcott said it had the cryptonym RX-ZIM) was just intended to fool any Russian operative who might look into “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” background in the U.S. after he “defected” to the USSR.  Intense scrutiny didn’t come until after RX/ZIM got entangled in the Kennedy assassination, a process that didn’t even begin until the summer of 1963.


RX-ZIM.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where to start? The only times LHO was photographed with a height chart, he was either 5-9 or 5-8. At autopsy he was 5-9. When he was exhumed, his height was estimated at 5-8 1/2 from a measurement of the femur. The times he was listed at 5-11 could have resulted from him orally reporting his height (which despite what Sandy Larsen says could have happened), footwear, posture, human error and so on. By the H&L logic, if I were able to find a report of any individual that showed his height was different from what was usually mentioned, it would prove that individual had a double. Of course other explanations exist in the real world.

For about the thousandth time, James Wilcott was asked under oath what the alleged cryptonym was and he said he couldn't remember. In other words, he was not willing to risk a perjury charge. The cryptonym Jim cites is from the apparent notes of an HSCA staffer (probably Harold Leap) after interviewing Wilcott. Also, the cryptonym mentioned by Wilcott has never been verified by any source to have even existed including the Mary Ferrell website and John Newman who have definitive lists available. Finally, a list was discovered in the newly released files that also does not mention the cryptonym. The HSCA, who Jim and his mentor Armstrong cite whenever it supports the H&L theory, found Wilcott to be not credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

James Wilcott was asked under oath what the alleged cryptonym was and he said he couldn't remember. In other words, he was not willing to risk a perjury charge. 

HSCA staff notes indicate that Wilcott had to agree "to not reveal specifics of specific questions," such as CIA cryptonyms relating to the "Oswald Project."  But don't believe me.  Believe the HSCA staff notes below....

RX-ZIM_2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

HSCA staff notes indicate that Wilcott had to agree "to not reveal specifics of specific questions," such as CIA cryptonyms relating to the "Oswald Project."  But don't believe me.  Believe the HSCA staff notes below....

CIA cryptonyms are not specially mentioned. All this section indicates is that the HSCA did not want certain classified information that might be mentioned in his testimony (such as the name of the station he worked at) to become public which is why it was given in executive session. They specifically asked Wilcott if he had anything to add at the end of his testimony and he said no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracy,

I always try to offer some EVIDENCE backing up my statements.  Will you offer some EVIDENCE... any EVIDENCE... backing up your statements?   For example, I back up my statements about James Wilcott and the HSCA with these HSCA docs.... 

RX-ZIM.jpg

RX-ZIM_2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Will you offer some EVIDENCE... any EVIDENCE... backing up your statements? 

No, I have no specific evidence per se for my statement. It is, however, a reasonable explanation I believe.

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

×