David Josephs

3 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

You've done plenty of attacking too, Dave.  You're no innocent babe.

You done whining yet?

And if you and Tracy are so blind that you cannot see what your own overlay shows... that remains your problem not the rest of ours.

Change the size so it matches Mike...  or do you only have "overlay" skills?

If the left eyes are sized and overlaid correctly, the rest of the man's face doesn't fit....  fix the position of the mouth, ears and eyes and the rest wont be anchored...

2 different men:   sorry boys... back to the drawing board for youse....

Just now, Michael Walton said:

You're taking two photos that I took and merely overlaid. That's all.  And now look how desperate you are - it's contrast!  It's this! It's that! Talk about desperate!

Stop being a jerk Mike... 

You did not create that gif to try and prove they were the same?  You say so in your post... or are you so addle-minded that you forgot what you wrote?

 ===========================

"Meanwhile, I also put up a head shot comparison.  Keep in mind the young Oswald photo is supposed to be the HL crazies' clone and then the mug shot is the other.  Birds tweet...crickets chirp.  Not a single reply except Larsen saying "You do know that that's a line drawing."  I was like - WTF?!  Anyone with sense and decent eye sight can tell these photos are of the same person.

Nope.  Not for the crazies."

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

3 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

You're taking two photos that I took and merely overlaid. That's all.

But anchoring on the left eye and making sure it was sized correctly was NOT something you did?  It just magically aligned to the left eye?

You've become so full of it you can't see thru the blinders.  and now you're denying something you just did... 

Now you've just lost it buddy.  

Is this an attack of the info or of the man?  Moderators?

2 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Yes I've read plenty.  Plenty where I've seen you support weirdness like the films were faked, this was faked, that was faked, and this story. In your mind everything is faked. Do you even believe what you see in the mirror or do you think it's a big boogey man staring back at you LOL

You think that just because you've been published on Kennedys and King you're somehow an expert.  The only thing I think you wrote well about is how LHO was not in MC.  That's all. Then I saw you supporting the 67% solution, this goofy xxxxing story and many more and I thought - whew...this guy's a paranoid.

6 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Ha funny Dave - funny how you made an LHO photo green...as in the little green monsters you see running around under your bed at night in your tinfoil covered walled bedroom.

LOL

It's called contrast buddy... it's used to illustrate the point you made about the images not being different...

Sadly for you and your rebuttal, they are.  and here they are with more color contrast so even you and Tracy and Bernie's bad eyes can see the difference...

It's truly sad that grown men like yourself cannot admit they're wrong - especially since it was your own photoshop work which proved the point...

So go ahead and try to resize Harvey to match Lee...  the left eye no longer matches...  bummer, right? 

2 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

For crying out loud, Dave! It's the same person! Or have you found a few more little monsters running around under the bed in your tinfoil covered walled bedroom!

LOL

You truly cannot be blind to your own work...  can you?

Do you not even bother reading posts with which you disagree?   Your own GIF proves they are not the same person...  - duh.

This is the first and last frames of your GIF with 50% transparency...  

If they're the same person why don't the features line up?

On ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 3:23 PM, Michael Walton said:

Sigh...it's the same person Jim.  For crying out loud!

and now, just for fun, we can compare LEE in the Marines with the BYP of Harvey...  shadow analysis

In these images the shadow thrown to the ground is virtually identical in terms of angle from the body yet the shadows on the noses betrays the composite nature of the BYP...

Ya see?  a little H&L will take you where you're going... 

yeah, it kinda sucks when you make the case for the other side as you did Mike...

especially since you were trying to prove the opposite...

at least it shut the anti-H&L crowd up for a few hours...  now explain how what you did was not really what you did

On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 7:13 PM, Michael Walton said:

Once again as Tracy pointed out, a woman back then gets a little insurance money, buys and sells some homes, profiting on them - a perfectly reasonable and plausible event in one's life - but it's still not enough for the HL crazies to look at it for what it is.  Their cult leader Armstrong even wrote these very numbers in HIS research - haha!  OMG!

And yet they keep whaling away with bits and pieces of testimony to show she was destitute.  What a joke.  You can go to any inflation calculator online and punch in $10k for 1947 and it comes to $92k in today's dollars.  A week's worth of groceries back then cost $15 bucks.  Do the math!

But nope.  The crazies keep at it - "Oh look!  Someone in the WC testimony said this or that."  Want to hear something funny?  The HL crazies believe EVERYTHING has been faked in this case.  Everything!  And yet, here they are cherry-picking the very testimony that the government put up - and NONE of them believe in - to suit this absolutely ridiculous and funny (yet sad too) theory.

Meanwhile, I also put up a head shot comparison.  Keep in mind the young Oswald photo is supposed to be the HL crazies' clone and then the mug shot is the other.  Birds tweet...crickets chirp.  Not a single reply except Larsen saying "You do know that that's a line drawing."  I was like - WTF?!  Anyone with sense and decent eye sight can tell these photos are of the same person.

Nope.  Not for the crazies.

Thank for proving the point Mike! 

Here's the overlay with some transparency...  While the left eye lines up (which I do too btw) the rest of the man does not...
Mouth, ears, other eye, skull shape...  nothing is the same.

Well done Mike!

Harvey arrested, Lee in the Marines...  That T-shirt reveals a lot...  Harvey barely fills it out, the man on the right is larger, wider, taller and more muscular..

The gif on the right shows how these two people also do not match.... same as yours Mike

Putting this to bed now... one of the Parker minions illustrates above how these two people are not the same...

Next stop?  6th floor: back-peddling, excuses and rationalizations for having proven the point...

Let's talk "homes" for one minute then...

101 San Saba remains the greatest problem for deniers. 

Mr. PIC - When we returned home I seen this house and my first impressions were that we are back to where we were. Lee had a dog that a woman had given him, I think it is the same dog we have pictures of, and I kind of had the feeling that our days at Chamberlain-Hunt were ended even though it didn't come officially. Then sometime in the summer of 1948, the divorce took place in Tarrant County, city of Fort Worth. I had to testify. I think they attempted to put Lee on the stand but he said that he wouldn't know right from wrong and the 'truth from a falsehood so they excused him as a witness being he was trader age. 

I don't remember my testimony completely. I dc remember that my mother had made the statement that if Mr. Ekdahl ever hit her again that she would send me in there to beat him up or, something which I doubt that I could have done. 
I was told by her that she was contesting the divorce so that he would still support her. She lost, he won. The divorce was granted. I was also told that there was a settlement of about $1,200 and she stated that just about all of this went to the lawyer. Right after this is when she purchased the house in Ben-brook, Tex., the little house. 
Mr. JENNER - Describe that house. 
Mr. PIC - It was an L--shaped house, sir, being the top of the L was her bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, and living room with a screened-in porch. She and Lee slept together. My brother and I slept in the living room in the screened-in porch on studio couches. When we moved into this house and after the divorce and everything became final, I was-- 
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, was that 101 San Saba? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't know nothing about 101 San Saba. 

(Jim - I literally was g3etting ready to hit post when yours pops up!)

Tarrant county records show the purchase of said home in 1947
Marge was divorced from Ekdahl in June 1948.

Robert's testimony leaves off at SUMMER 1947...  yet when he returns to testify he is skipped ahead to summer 1947 1948...  All events related to San Saba and those who saw them there are removed from consideration....  

The replacement Marge lives at 101 San Saba per Georgia Bell.  Believe it or not... it gets weird from here...  lol.

Mr. JENNER. That would be 1947? 
Mr. OSWALD. That would be 1947, Christmas 1946. He was showering us with candies, cokes, and so forth. And mother thought that he was overdoing it. And we argued the other way. We was on Mr. Ekdahl's side. 
Mr. JENNER. But your relations with your mother, as you recall them now, during this period were pleasant, normal, and you were having no difficulties with her? 
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; pleasant memories to me. 
Mr. JENNER. Anything other than the difficulties two lively boys have when they are naughty? 
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. 
Mr. DULLES. Were you conscious at that time of the growing difficulty between your mother and Mr. Ekdahl? Was that apparent at that time? Or did that only come later? 
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. At that time, it was not apparent to me. 
Mr. DULLES. At no time was that a factor in your life, particularly? 
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. I would say at no time it was. In moving up perhaps there to the time of the divorce and everything, I don't remember when Mr. Ekdahl moved out of the house. At that time we were living on Eighth Avenue in Fort Worth. This was during a summer period there. And I think this was the summer after the second year that we attended there this would be the summer of 1947. 
Mr. DULLES. If it is agreeable, I think we will adjourn for just a minute. It is now 11 o'clock. 

Mr. JENNER. At the recess, Mr. Oswald, we were dealing with excuse me. We were dealing with the period of time that you and your mother and your two brothers lived in Benbrook, Tex. This brought us through the summer of 1948, I believe. Am I correct? 
Mr. OSWALD. That is correct, sir. 
Mr. JENNER. Mr. Liebeler has determined that the divorce of Mr. Ekdahl and your mother took place in 1948. We cannot give you the month and the day in 1948, but it was during the year 1948.
We had reached the point in which you related to us that, I believe, following the divorce of Mr. Ekdahl and your mother, she purchased a small home. 
Mr. OSWALD. That is correct. 
Mr. JENNER. And refresh my recollection, please--was that in Benbrook, Tex.? 
Mr. OSWALD. That was in Benbrook, Tex. 

When I was researching for the Mexico City series I put every document I had in digital chronological orders so the file name starts with the date.  WCD#1 and how the WCR parallels it really needs to be read/seen.  Just look at the Table of contents or how "the assailant" subsequently "identified" as Oswald, despite Oswald being the one and only person  for which they looked.

I came upon that Dec 12th memo from Hoover....  IMHO, Hoover, knowing Oswald was a paid informant, wanted to spread the blame especially back to Cuba and Castro...  I see him reluctantly going along and then being leveraged to go along once the CIA placed his asset in a compromising albeit fictitious, position.

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

The only film in DC that night was - IMHO - 0184 which was flown to Rowley.

They had over 15 hours before Dino sees in Saturday night at NPIC.

Dino did not see a complete film either - again, IMHO.

It always strikes me as very odd, the lack of detailed description of what was seen on ANY film that weekend... sure we get snippets like Rather's head movement and Dino's cloud of blood lasting longer than a frame or two...  but nothing like "wow, the limo stopped"  or "that looked like well more than 3 shots...

And then there's the "OTHER" film a handful saw which includes the turn, the stop, the chaos, etc....

==========

FWIW, one has to wonder about CE884 and the changes to the analysis Shaneyfelt, Frasier and the FBI introduced.  If the film was real, Shaneyfelt would not have to have done what he did with CE884 and complete destruction of anything accurate related to the motorcade.

On 10/15/2017 at 6:39 PM, David Lifton said:

I disagree with this assessment. Completely.  I've read all the detailed memos Hoover wrote on Friday afternoon, 11/22 (and beyond); and listened to most of the available taped conversations he had with Johnson.  Where do you get this idea that Hoover "never subscribed to the LN angle."  That's absurd. 

IDK about Jim, this is where I get it:

Hoover wrote in a memo on Dec 12th to those named, that he did not think Oswald was the "only man".
WCD #1 is the FBI report from Dec 9th which specifically stated he acted on his own.

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan              December 12, 1963

page 2

it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

Well done Jim...  

This just in from the obvious department...

Swaying public opinion using "social" media - newspapers - so that an otherwise horrible event would be more acceptable and even welcomed... should it "somehow" occur

hmmmm, now WHERE have we seen that happen in the last year??

2 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

I think the Dinkin affair is CIA disinformation

I'll have to disagree with you George...  like claiming Bolden was CIA to give Chicago more credibility...  no dice.

Plus he was right...  CIA disinfo usually only has a shred of truth to support the lies...

"Lack of reports?

You think the FBI will report "Oswald's vault tampered with - all evidence within tainted"

??

We've got eye-witness reports of Oswald in Ping Tung and in Japan at the same time... backed by marine logs and marine sick bay records...
We've got Lee's CO informing us he left the marines in March 1959 and all his records were sent to DC.

We've got 2 entire sets of marines who knew one man and didn't know the other... and provable so.

We've got an iceberg and all you bring to the party is 3 ice cubes and old fritos...

Don't bother me anymore with your lack of evidence and opinionated doubts...

You've got a mountain to climb and it's obvious you have no rope...

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 2:17 PM, Glenn Nall said:

this is in the book, David? I've only read the first few chapters - and not because I lost interest or discounted it, but because I distract easily.

I'll have to get back to it to read about this...

From the Norton Report:

Tracy, you suggest that nothing nefarious happened to the casket in 18 years... nothing to the contents...

The condition of the casket and vault suggests otherwise.

If you can eliminate any other explanation for YOUR rebuttal, in a timeline that removes that possibility, provide it...

if not, you have your arguments and H&L ours...  A destroyed vault and cracked open casket does not bode well for "undisturbed"...

Readers - once again - can decide for themselves.

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Can anyone suggest an innocent interpretation of this apparent collusion by the FBI and CIA to set up a patsy for the assassination of JFK?

I would suggest the POV that the CIA was the instigator of "Oswald in Mexico" which puts Hoover on the immediate defensive.

I don't think "Patsy" was the thought when Oswald starts working with Bannister... but "infiltration and intel" - just so happens that the bona fides for THAT job put Oswald squarely in the crosshairs for patsy status....

Real question...  Were Chicago and Tampa real or part of the set up in Dallas?

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 7:13 AM, Michael Walton said:

The point is - it's very disingenuous and paranoid of you to think that just because the vault was broken that you say - YEP! They snuck down and swapped bodies or took the head in the middle of the night and drilled a mastoid hole in it. I mean are you really THAT paranoid and suspicious of EVERYTHING?! Wow!

Not that paranoid Michael...  just have a realistic view of history and the things men did....

All I asked for was a chronology.  you are 100% sure nothing nefarious happened to that vault, casket or body...  good for you in your certainty.

What I have found to be axiomatic is Blum's prophetic American Watergate laws, one of which states:

“No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.”.

You describe a personal experience as if it bears on this one...  Vaults USUALLY do not break, they might lose a seal and the insides get wet but crushed from above?
Vaults USUALLY last tens if not hundreds of years - according to funeral home directors.  So the FACT the vault is not intact does give one pause...  it does not make
the possibility, impossible at all...

You really don't know how spycraft works.... do you?  may want to brush up on that history before you make declarations as if you KNOW something to be true; when all you're doing is expressing an uneducated opinion...

Learn what spies do Michael...  how and why...  try a library or the internet...

Obviously plenty for you and Bernie and Tracy to learn

Basic flaw?

Simply question then Tracy...

What occurred at that gravesite between 1963 and the exhumation?

You can start the chronology in Jan 1964...  Show us how, despite there having been a vault of concrete poured as if usual practice, this casket didn't last but a few years.

Alex Hoyt, Family Service Manager, Funeral Director

What do you suppose it was that cracked the vault and exposed the corpse inside the casket???
When do you think that happened?
Do you see it as an impossibility that "something" could have happened to that body during that time?
 

Is it beyond the CIA or FBI to CYA in this situation?  Tracy, if this was the one and only thing supporting H&L we'd have a discussion... it's not.
When you finally come to grips with 1000 pages and tens of thousands of source documents supporting H&L... then add in first person testimony that you and others can only frown at and claim "mistakes"...

You understanding or not this is no skin off my nose...  Bernie pretending to have contributed here in some way remains the real joke.
The little mouse in the corner yelling "ME TOO" so as to maybe get some of the credit ??  IDK.

And by far the worst of all is this belief that something like this could not have happened...  like thinking political assassination doesn't occur in the USA...

Thank goodness for there being at least 2 sides to every story...  you guys can post your dribble forever and not worry about ever being close to the truth...

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

"your cultish fantasy"

Stick it Tracy....  Bernie can't help but throwing in barbs even when not an ounce of the work here is his...

At least you do the work....  BM remains a waste of breath, time and effort.

My pleasure Pat...

Mr. BAKER - We had to walk up another flight of stairs to get up to the top floor.
Mr. BELIN - To get up to the roof?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - When you got off on the seventh floor or the top floor--
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Did you notice whether or not the other elevator was there?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BELIN - You didn't notice. You got off the east elevator and then what did you do?
Mr. BAKER - We walked up the flight of stairs to the top.
Mr. BELIN - To the top. What did you do when you got to the top?
Mr. BAKER - We went out on the roof.

Mr. BAKER - At that time I went on back. Mr. Truly was standing over here on this northwest corner and we descended on the stairs there.
Mr. BELIN - You went from the stairs to the roof to where, to the top floor of the building?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do when you got to the top floor of the building?
Mr. BAKER - We walked on down one more flight of stairs and then we caught the same elevator back down.
Mr. DULLES - The top floor was the seventh floor, is it not?
Mr. BAKER - Well, you have one flight of stairs going from the top floor on up.
Mr. DULLES - Yes.
Mr. BAKER - And then we caught the elevator back down, the same elevator that we took up.
Mr. BELIN - When you referred to one flight of stairs, are you referring to the flight of stairs from the roof to the top floor that you took or the flight of stairs from the top floor to the next to the top floor?
Mr. BAKER - Well, there are two flights of stairs there. The one from the roof down to the top floor and then there is another one there.

Mr. BELIN - Officer Baker, I am going to hand you what the court reporter, what the Commission reporter, has marked as Exhibit 507 which purports to be a diagram of the seventh floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building and on that diagram you will see at the top the marks of two elevators and then, what looks to be the south, a stairway marked "Ladder to the roof."
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - What is the fact as to whether or not this stairway marked "Ladder to the roof" is the stairway that you took to go to the roof?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; it would be.

Mr. TRULY. We ran up a little stairway that leads out through a little penthouse on to the roof. 
Mr. BELIN. What did you do on the roof? 
Mr. TRULY. We ran immediately to the west side of the building. There is a wall around the building that you cannot see over without getting your foot between the mortar of the stones and, or some such toehold. We did that and looked over the ground and the railroad tracks below. There we saw many officers and a lot of spectators, people running up and down. 
Mr. BELIN. Did the officer say to you why he wanted to go up to the roof? 
Mr. TRULY. No. At that time, he didn't. 
Mr. BELIN. Did he ever prior to meeting you again on March 20th tell you why he wanted to go on the roof? 
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. 
Mr. BELIN. Where did you think the shots came from? 
Mr. TRULY. I thought the shots came from the vicinity of the railroad or the WPA project, behind the WPA project west of the building. 
Mr. BELIN. Did you have any conversation with the officer that you can remember? About where you thought the shots came from? 
Mr. TRULY. Yes. When--some time in the course, I believe, after we reached the roof, the officer looked down over the boxcars and the railroad tracks and the crowd below. Then he looked around the edge of the roof for any evidence of anybody being there. And then looked up at the runways and the big sign on the-roof.
He saw nothing.
He came over. And some time about then I said, "Officer, I think"--let's back up.
I believe the officer told me as we walked down into the seventh floor, "Be careful, this man will blow your head off."
And I told the officer that I didn't feel like the shots came from the building.
I said, "I think we are wasting our time up here," or words to that effect, "I don't believe these shots came from the building." 

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

How did 'Lee's' head turn up in 'Harvey's' grave?

Now Jim has specifically ruled out those involved in the exhumation as being responsible for faking the findings, maybe you would like to take a stab at trying to figure out how and why the skull of LHO was found in the grave of LHO. Until you answer this everything else is totally meaningless.

So where is 'Harvey' buried? Or, did he live and it was 'Lee' who was shot by Ruby? That would explain the exact mastoid scar right? But where does that leave the H&L story?

Dead and buried. Problem is... you keep exhuming it! And each time you do the smell becomes worse as the soft tissues of your cultish fantasy rot before our eyes and nose.

Please, show yourselves some self-respect and bury this for good.

 

Jerry Vale is back... 

Hmmm, let's see.  Spy stuff and your understanding remains mutually exclusive BM....

You simply aint gonna learn what you don't wanna know...

la--la--la....  

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

And each time you do the smell becomes worse as the soft tissues of your cultish fantasy rot before our eyes and nose

LMAO....  if anyone would know the smell of a rotting cultish fantasy Bernie, each time you take the stage...

Stay with the music you pathetic little lost boy...if you suck as bad at that as you do this, that rotting smell of your "offerings" are surely horrendous by now... 

Now run back to your little sandbox, ROKC, and get a few expletives and zingers from the boys... we know you and original thought are also mutually exclusive...

bu-bye now... 

This old image matches the newer one for detail Pat...

Hope it helps

DJ

From that notebook we get the name JAMES MALLEY...

From a reading of MALLEY's testimony...  He was in charge of the FBI investigation despite them having sent Rogge and Thompson...

Malley in control of evidence - given the work of the other FBI agents in Dallas - seems to imply duplicity again... 

J. Edgar Hoover's testimony does not include the name James MALLEY while Hosty is of course mentioned numerous times

FWIW

Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Malley, regarding Rogge and Thompson, you just said that they worked closely with you on the case. 
Mr. MALLEY. They did in the early stages. They were the two individuals who were sent to Dallas to write the first two memorandums that I told you about
 

Mr. MALLEY. As far as the actual assassination is concerned, it was definitely in the General Investigative Division. When you say who is responsible, are you referring to what section it was being handled and what supervisor was primarily responsible? 
Mr. MCDONALD. Which person was primarily responsible at the top to begin with? 
Mr. MALLEY. Well, because of what happened when I got back from Dallas I would say that I had to be. 
 

Mr. McDONALD. You were asking for additional agent personnel, and as reflected in these memos, at the top level, at least there was an opinion being formed that the case essentially was wrapped up. 
Mr. MALLEY. I won't agree with you because I don't know what they were doing in Washington. I know where I was and I know what had been done, and I think you may be interpreting remarks about wanting to get something out to the public to let them know what had been developed up to that time as a misinterpretation of what the Bureau intended to do later. 
Mr. McDONALD. I will quote one more memorandum to you, and that is dated 29 November 1963, which is found in the Senate Intelligence Committee's, the Church Committee's, Book 5 Report on page 34. In it, the memorandum is by Mr. Hoover, recounting a telephone conversation he had that day with President Johnson. And he says, "I advised the President that we hoped to have the investigation wrapped up today but probably won't have it before the first of the week, as another angle had developed. Again we are getting an example of at the top level the case being in a sense completed. 
Now, again, from your Dallas perspective does this jibe with what you were doing in Dallas? 
Mr. MALLEY. Well, again, I say that when people say that they hoped to have it completed and so on, I don't think for a minute they were talking about having every facet fully and exhaustively investigated. I think what they are saying is that, based on the information that was available at that time, the essential facts of the investigation had been developed. It doesn't mean it was over by any means.