David Josephs

Yet we are removing just short of 2/3 of the frames, not 1/3. ?? And your math is simply stating the same thing in different ways. There are 3 frames shown on the board for 188-206 and 16 missing frames with 1 second coming at 18.3 frames or the middle of 206. Multiplying both sides of the equation by 3 to get to 48fps resulting in the 5/8ths and 3/8ths %'s. And why do you keep using 1/3? Finally, these frames are simply not shown... whether there are 48 frames to a second or not, the board show 18.3 fframes for each second... the rest of the boards have missing frames as well... ??

"X" = Bronx under the heading "Borough" I grew up in the borough of Queens. There's also Brooklyn, Manhattan and Staten Island In the row below 117 the record of the xfer is shown. On 1/16/53 this boy is moved to PS44 in the Bronx as shown on the map I posted. I don't think the record for PS44 relates to the same child as from PS117. (edit: I see you meant the middle incomplete record. Yet since these are "Pupil Perm Record in JR High School" he is transferring within the same Boro... this record would not start over or end... and if it did, we'd not see any info prior to PS44 on the form... There is simply no reason for this middle copy to exist.

Sandy, Your curiosity and persistence is greatly appreciated. I do believe it most likely the FBI had the ability to recreate documents and had access to the earliest machines. That really isn't the point. A "PERMANENT CUMULATIVE RECORD" is a singular item added to over time and would follow the child as they moved to different schools. The item in the center should not exist at all, unless that boy simply stopped going to NYC schools. *If it was only one mention that would be one thing, yet between Robert and Carro LEE was in PS44 and doing well. The record for PS44 is all LEE's I believe. That way Marge is able to tell us how he changed and was not class president and attending as expected... Little Harvey was not part of this miraculous change. One thing that never gets tired for me is the inability to add by those trying to prove these records legit. Look closely - from March 23 thru the end of the semester June 29, this boy was supposed to have attended 109 3/2 days of school. This is important because it is very hard to imagine an actual school administrator filling out this form and showing 109 3/2 + 15 3/2 = 127 days of school Here are all the school days from March 23 on. You want to help show them how 127 days of school fits between March 23 and Sept 14. and no, Oswald did not go to summer school. Summer 1953 is North Dakota time... And as shown, he returns and enters 9th grade in Sept 1953... That's Lee, not Harvey.

Sandy, With Tracy et al, every single instance of duality must be addressed and explained away. In so many cases, their only reply is "they got it wrong".. (just like John Ely got it wrong) The 3 different PS44's for example. Here is the relevant page along with reports from John Carro, Oswald's school probation officer. From Robert: "During the summer Mother looked around for another apartment, so Lee could make a fresh start in a new school in the fall" This would be the famous "North Dakota summer"... yet the NYC school records do not support Robert's comment. Lee had already transferred from PS117 to PS44 on Jan 16, 1953. He doesn't show up until March 23rd. You can see from the TRUANT REPORT (bottom right of collage) that Oswald and mom had already moved to E179th street by March 1953. They did not move again before the 53/54 school year so there was no fresh start... Unless he was referring to LEE who attended a different PS44 and did very well according to the records... the 2 mixed into one is truly not that hard to see. "Mother and Lee" did not look for an apartment during the summer 1953 "Mother and Lee" had moved to E179th street by April 1953 Robert gives us the Manhattan address of PS44 while Pic adds yet another wrinkle It got toward schooltime and they had their foothold in the house and he was going to enroll in the neighborhood school, and they planned to stay with us, and I didn't much like this. We couldn't afford to have them, and took him up to enroll in this school. Mr. JENNER - You did? Mr. PIC - No, sir; my mother did. I think this is a public school in New York City located on about 89th, 90th Street between Third Avenue and Second Avenue. Lee didn't like this school. I didn't much blame him. This might have been the East Side Middle School at 91st between 1st and 2nd, Mrs. Marge Oswald: I enrolled him in the Lutheran school which took him approximately an hour or longer by subway to get there. It was quite a distance. That is when we first arrived in New York. I believe that Lee was in that school a very short time, 2 or 3 weeks The Trinity school he, and then she, speaks of is at 2130 Watson in the Bronx and is indeed quite a trip for a 7th grader, alone, in NY. Ave On Sept 14, 1953 they were living in the Bronx at 829 E 179th after having been to 1455 Sheridan after leaving the Pics. Just below the bottom of this map is where PS44 in Brooklyn is. You are correct Sandy in questioning EVERYTHING about NYC, and 1952-1954. Robert appears to have transitioned to Harvey with the zoo photo and his apartment location yet with all the time in the world to be correct, Robert tells us LEE is going to school at PS44 in Manhattan which was at 100 West 77th. I believe him. LEE did go to PS44 in NYC while little Harvey was in the Bronx at the other PS44. Two records were combined into one... except as usual for the FBI, mistakes were made.(see bottom image) These three "permanent records" are supposed to be ONE RECORD with all that occurs to a child recorded within. Not only are there 3. But there is no progression, they are of the same data but rewritten each time. They are net even the same form... 1st and 2nd are the same, yet once the 1st adds info beyond the first year, the 2nd record should no longer exist... unless something out of the ordinary happened between PS117 and PS44 besides the YOUTH HOUSE (Apr/May 1953). Only the 3rd image is the CE which is written on a form that isn't the same as the first 2. How many different PERMANENT RECORDS is a child supposed to have?

yes... his work adds so much joy to the journey. Best wishes for a speedy recovery...

if a 48fps film was used to create the 0183 original by cutting out key sequences... there are films to be accounted for. How? The film to Dina at NPIC from SA Smith from Hawkeyework Saturday night was already altered to some extent, (possibly the first 24fps cutdown version ?? ) So those first boards were not preserved. only the Homer boards of the extent Zfilm... done deal by Sunday. How... with some corroborating evidence if possible - the existing evidence I've seen only hints at it. Great work and thanks for keeping me reaching with this

It would have to be... I don't know if Zapruder was involved prior to that day... has anyone looked deeply into the 3-4 months of Abe's life prior to 11/22? My point being he'd have to purposefully change to 48fps and turn it off again if we are talking only of 171-334... makes more sense that it was all filmed at that speed.. It would be hard to tell on the 16mm preview projector Chamberlain used at 4x speed.. ... wait, just dawns on me that at 4-6x or 64-96fps the film would actually look only slightly fast compared to what would normally be seen. yet the problem remains the FBI is looking at a 16mm film at Kodak on the 23rd... which appears to be already cut down. I know you prefer to stay away from what the math suggests... the "how"... yet if it was done this way, there is a "how", whether we can conceive of it is another question entirely. Chamberlain swears repeatedly he only gave Zapruder 2 rolls of IIA film... another discussion for another time DJ

I'm agreeing with you wholeheartedly about the initial 24fps cut down for any running film taken at 48fps. And by obvious observation all frames = those removed plus those that remained I'm not as inclined to accept that they simply did that again due to the choppiness even when seen stabilized. What I am leaning toward is the relationship between the slope and the camera speed. By syncing them as they did, 1 second of film equated to 1 foot of vertical height, and how important the various changes in measurements were based on the correct heights involved. Cutting it all the way down to 16fps would not have been that much more difficult and would have matched with the specs of the camera... so why 18.3? It served their needs. I don't think we need to be 100% in agreement on the process despite how much easier a 24fps 1st pass would be. Bottom line - we both know that those 6 seconds were not what originally came out of that camera, that day, as a result of Zapruder filming.

Works for me Tracy... Enjoy the weekend if you're somewhere not hitting 107... as I am

So whether Pic believes it or not - or says it unprovoked - remains the linchpin top your conclusion? Arguing about what people DIDN'T say is a terrible way to make a point Tracy. Because someone did not ask a question YOU think they should have is non sequitur. Here's a thought - stick with what is actually said, what the evidence actually shows... instead of repeatedly trying to explain it to us weighted down with the inaccuracies of your one sided approach to research. Besides, you want to compare how many time the WC did not accept the testimony offered? "Oswald couldn't have been at Odio's since he was on a bus to Mexico City" is a classic WCR conclusion. "Bowen/Osborne tells them the man on the bus with him was not american nor even looked like Oswald" - the WC decided he was wrong. So don't preach to us about what people DIDN'T say... stick with what they did say. and what he did repeated say is the image the rest of us know as HARVEY OSWALD was not recognizable to his step-brother, as well as a number of people/relatives he sees upon his return from Russia. Finally, it is exactly the HARVEY you were talking about. In every case where he said NO, or looked like Oswald in 1962, we both know he was talking about Harvey. The image on the left is the last verifiable photo of LEE OSWALD. and that too may have been a composite Let's look at this real quickly... The man supposedly creates an application for a Passport .. As described in CE950, on Sept 4 he is in LA executing a passport application. "In support of the application he furnished a paper from the separation Section...." and right there on the application is the reference to the card he used... yet those two images are not even close to each other. We also know that image on 4271617 is from Russia and could not possibly have been on the original Lee Oswald card... but the application proves the card existed in reality and probably had Lee's photo which was similar to the one on the passport. Furthermore, the identical photo and signature is pasted into the Passport book... yet the staples are gone. The signatures are in the same place, the image "almost" matches but not exactly... I have to run right now but will finish this thought later...

Excellent progression Chris. With the recreation film at 24fps your idea of an initial cut-down to 24fps makes sense. You think they 1st created a complete 24fps cut-down then took that film and created the final version by removing frames in selective locations, (ie between 303-305 & 314-317 for example). Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334. Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171? Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. One thought is he did not switch to 48fps until after the limo's brush with the Elm curb which is why everything between 132 and 133 is removed. There are at least 80-90 frames based on the earlier frames of a motorcycle going into that corner and then emerging again. Bringing us to Position A 334 - 171 = 163 frames @ 18.3fps = 8.9 seconds of film x 48fps = 427 frames @ 48fps between z171 & z334 427 / 2 = 213.6 @ 24fps (1st pass = 213.4 frames removed) - 50.6 frames (just under 25% of the 213.6 @ 24fps) = 163 frames @ 18.3fps We are also to remember that the only other speed for the camera was 16fps. If he was not filming at 48fps then it had to be 16fps despite what the FBI claims occurred when they wound the camera. It would be easier to just film the entire thing at 48fps. The calcs are the same just with longer frame ranges.

Indeed. When you cherry-pick out of context to make your point you wind up missing quite a lot. He mention's "Harvey" quite a bit Edward Pic repeatedly and accurately points out "Harvey" as not being someone he'd recognize as his brother. As well as accurately pointing out his brother Lee Harvey when shown his photo: . All the photos of Lee are also correctly identified by Edward as his brother. Do you recognize either of those persons? Mr. PIC - He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him. "Appears": seem; give the impression of being." The answer to the questions showing Harvey are not "Yes, that's my brother"... the sentence implies that the person presented himself as LH Oswald in 1962. His use of the word APPEARS is important, he even give his own synonym - "how he looked to me" while those images of Lee he is shown are answered directly as well... "I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald" is that really too hard for you to see? At this point even you can say confidently that these two images are who the WCR understands to be Lee Oswald. The top one is a pretty good image of the man, no? The man's brother looks at this same image and says no, he does not recognize this man as his brother Lee, but more like Robert. He SEEMS to remember what his brothers looked like their whole lives...

So Tracy... witnesses are on your hook for things they DIDN'T say? You see Tracy, Edward here correctly identifies the images of Lee as a child and correctly says that HARVEY - who is actually in all of the adult images - is not recognized as his brother. His expressing the opinion that this man did it does not remove from the table any ideas of this man NOT being his brother.. Not once does Edward identify Lee as his brother as he remembers. You honestly believe he would offer, out of the blue, that this person was not his brother? Anyone reading the testimony (except you obviously) can see that the boy on the fence thru the man at Thanksgiving - was someone he would not recognize as his brother... while in the same breath easily identifies his brother as a young boy. What you, one person, concludes does little to change the understanding the rest of us easily see by simply reading. CE 281 - Page 68B of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 125 K) CE 282 - Page 69 of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 119 K) CE 283 - Page 68A of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 104 K) CE 284 - Page 70 of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 96 K) CE 285 - Page 71 of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 150 K) CE 286 - Page 72 of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 160 K) CE 287 - Page 74A of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 162 K) CE 288 - Page 74B of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 154 K) CE 289 - Page 75 of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 146 K) CE 290 - Page 76 of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 170 K) CE 291 - Page 78 of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 181 K) CE 292 - Page 80 of the February 21, 1964 issue of Life Magazine. (PDF: 162 K) Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 being some spread pages of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your attention first to the lower left hand spread at .the bottom of the page. Do you recognize the area shown there? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother? Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow. Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow? Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir. Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is. Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture. Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee. Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - In the upper portion there are a series of photographs spread from left-hand page across to the right-hand page. Take those on the left which appears to be a photograph of three young men. Do you recognize the persons shown in that photograph? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize ,this photograph, the people from left to right being Robert Oswald, the center one being Lee Oswald, and the third one being myself. This picture was taken at the house in Dallas when we returned from New Orleans. Mr. JENNER - You mean from--when you came from New Orleans after being at the Bethlehem Orphanage Home? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - And you went to Dallas? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - It was taken in Dallas at or about that time? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - The next one is prominent; in front is a picture of a young boy. There is a partially shown girl and apparently another boy with a striped shirt in the background. Do you recognize that picture? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Do you have any impression as to when and where that was taken? Mr. PIC - Just looking at the picture, I would guess first, second grade, maybe. I would have to guess at it. Mr. JENNER - Then there is one immediately to the right of that, a young man in the foreground sitting on the floor, with his knees, legs crossed, and his arms also crossed. There are some other people apparently in the background. Mr. PIC - I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Does anything about the picture enable you to identify as to where that was taken? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Is he the one to which the black arrow is pointing? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - There is a young fellow in the foreground-everybody else is facing the other way. He is in a pantomime, or grimace. Do you recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir; looking at that picture and I have looked at it several times--that looks more like Robert than it does Lee, to my recollection. Mr. JENNER - All right. On Exhibit No. 286, the lower right-hand corner, there is another picture. Do you recognize that as your brother Lee in that picture? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; that is about how he looked when I seen him in 1962, his profile. (despite the fact the image is taken a number of years earlier) Mr. JENNER - Do you recognize the person, the lady to the right who is pointing her finger at him? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them? Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir. Mr. JENNER - All right. Exhibit No. 288, there is ill the lower left-hand corner, there is a reproduction of a service card and a reproduction, also, of a photograph with the head of a man. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - That looks to me approximately how Lee Oswald looked when I seen him Thanksgiving 1962. Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them. Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 290, the lower left-hand corner there is a photograph of a young lady and a young man. Do you recognize either of those persons? Mr. PIC - He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him. Mr. JENNER - And the lady? Mr. PIC - She is his wife, Marina, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother? Mr. PIC - That is correct. (Tracy - I'm at a loss for how you can look at this image, listen to that answer and still believe Pic did not believe that man was his step-brother Lee... and surprisingly to none, I'm inclined to believe Ed's word against your attempts to "explain" what he means.) Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 292, in the upper right-hand corner, is a picture of a lady, a young lady with a child. Do you recognize either of those persons? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Marina Oswald. Mr. JENNER - And the baby? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize the baby. Mr. JENNER - Below that is a picture purporting to be that of your brother with a pistol on his right hip, and with a firearm, a rifle in his left hand holding up what appear to be some leaflets. Do you recognize that as your brother Lee? Mr. PIC - That is how he looked to me in 1962 when I seen him, sir. Tracy - Somehow you can read these words and not understand that "looked to me in 1962" is not answering the question, "Yes that's my brother as I know him"... you know, the same he answered this: "Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Marina Oswald."

We've discussed it. Didn't make as huge an impact as it did on you... yet I think that one thing is very consistent DJ Whatever you say buddy... For any other person's reading of this one gets the idea that Pic does not recognize this man as his brother despite recognizing photos of his brother when much younger. Only you and a couple others can look at the sky and call it red... Still doesn't make it red, though, to anyone but you. Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother? Mr. PIC - That is correct. Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 290, the lower left-hand corner there is a photograph of a young lady and a young man. Do you recognize either of those persons? Mr. PIC - He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him.

And John Pic?

I only found one where I added a few more examples to the other one I posted. John never did speak to me of this, it was something I noticed as I continued to create these collages. I'll keep looking yet I think we'll find the same thing in all the Lee v Harvey photos.

Neither Sandy, I do not think that photo represents either Oswald. But yes, the guy in the audience would most closely resemble LEE. Something to keep in the forefront of your mind when you ponder on this: Nobody sees these two people together. When LEE is presented as "the" Oswald, people couldn't say "Ok Google" and see a photo of Mr. O. They were told this person is Lee Harvey Oswald. When Harvey was presented as "Lee Harvey Oswald", virtually everyone who knew LEE questioned Harvey's appearance. He was smaller, shorter, thinner, more bald, much more quiet, somewhat political where Lee never was... and on and on. But they accepted this person as Lee. One of the reasons the Ft Worth Star photo of Lee is so bad is the thought that people in Ft Worth would recognize this as not being little Harvey Oswald. It's also why we do not see a photo of Lee after his 1959 Passport photo. You and I see these photos side by side daily... the images are burned into our minds. In that day and age, creating a persona was simply not that hard as there was little avenue to do serious checking up. People tended to question their memories more than the authorities... my how things have changed. There is a discrepancy regarding when Oswald left the Marines. Gorsky tells us in March 1959, the records from the WCR say Sept 1959. We do not know where Lee went after the Marines, most see him in Florida, New Orleans and Texas. Which also why we see no photos from the training camps. Myrtle Evans: When we were walking down the steps, I looked at him real hardlike, and I didn't recognize him, but something made me ask him, "I know you, don't I?" and he said, "Sure; I am Lee Oswald; I was just waiting to see when you were going to recognize me." I said, "Lee Oswald, what are you doing in this country? I thought you were in Russia. I thought you had given up your American citizenship and gone behind the Iron Curtain," and he said, "No," he said, "I went over there," he said, "but I didn't give up my citizenship." Marge seemed to have drastically changed as well: Mr. JENNER - I understand. Now, was Marguerite happy, or would you say she was resentful to any extent about anything, or what was her attitude and demeanor, as you recall it? Just tell me about her personality. Mrs. MURRET - No; I don't think she was resentful in any way. She was a very pretty child, a very beautiful girl, and she doesn't look today at all like she used to, you know. You wouldn't recognize her. Mr. JENNER - I think she's nice looking. Mrs. MURRET - Well, not like she was years ago. She was a very pretty girl, and I don't think that she was resentful of anybody.

The man known as Harvey Oswald, the man Ruby killed, did not drink or smoke, nor did he "beat his wife"... Lee, on the other hand, was bigger, bull necked, fighter, drinker, leader... There is also very good evidence that Lee was gay along with Clay, Ferrie and Ruby... I doubt he'd be ogling lady dancers or even sitting in the audience.... In my work with H&L I've come to find a pattern... Harvey's shoulders are squared off, while Lee has sloped shoulders I believe you will find this to be the case in every instance. Even relaxed, Harvey's shoulders are much higher than Lee's. just how I see it DJ

Some truth, some not in that sentence Tracy. Lee and his mother did go to NY, to Pic's home, summer 1952. From my POV, Robert is not one of the sheep in this western. Prompting and coincidences, I know, I know.. Have a nice weekend.

Thanks for sharing that Doug.... A question... The DPD surely knew about Clay, Ferrie, Ruby and Oswald. Do you believe the gay aspect helped protect them from within the DPD? I mean, if the DPD, Bill Alexander et al started to disclose this side of things, of even hinted at them - do you think there was something in place to counter or emphasize this? Thanks again, DJ

Read more carefully Tracy... it's JENNER who makes the mistake and by proxy, Robert... it is the WC that is mistaken, and you who chooses to cherry-pick the sentence that helps you and fails to offer the very next words which render your argument moot... In OCTOBER 1952 he would already be in the 52-53 school year... Even you can't argue your way around that. Stripling for 2 years: 52-53 & 53-54... You stake your entire rebuttal argument of Robert agreeing to JENNER's mistake? When the very next sentence clears it up... "And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School. " Yet of course you'd stop there... Testimony continues: Seems to most anyone reading that little Ozzie here would enter Stripling after 6th grade which he graduated from in JUNE 1952. Yet a Lee H Oswald attends schools in NYC starting in Sept 1952.... Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school. Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard, continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Robert also lies about his being in NY in 1952 by moving forward a year to 1953... and then stating the BRONX ZOO photo is August 1953... Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. That's because a 5'4" 115lb 7th grader in Sept 1953 does not become a 4'10" 90lb 8th grader in Aug 1953. You must remember that class pictures had the tallest in the class standing in the back with the shortest kids sitting in front. Will you look at that... a year earlier Oswald is one of the largest kids in class... Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; we were corresponding infrequently, I would say--not very many letters between I and Lee direct when I was in the service, especially the first part of my tour in the service.In 1952, after traveling from Camp Pendleton, Calif., to Jacksonville, Fla. I did have a 10-day leave. They were in New York City at that time. Mr. JENNER. This was then some time in 1953, I take it? Mr. OSWALD. No, sir--1952. Mr. JENNER. 1952? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. This was---- Mr. JENNER. You mean your mother and Lee that is the period of time they were in New York City? Mr. OSWALD. That's correct. Mr. JENNER. Living there. Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER. Did you see them? Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not at that time. I spent my leave in Fort Worth, because I did not feel I had enough time to travel to New York and down to Jacksonville, Fla. After completing metalsmith school at Millington, Tenn., I took a 10-day leave. Mr. JENNER. Fix the time. Mr. OSWALD. This was July or August of 1953. Mr. PIC - I think this was, his leave was probably in October or November 1952, a matter of a month or two after they had moved out. We visited their apartment in the Bronx. Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, where did your brother stay? Mr. PIC - I think he stayed at the Soldier-Sailor-Airmen Club in New York. Mr. JENNER - In any event he did not stay with you. Mr. PIC - No, sir; he may have stayed with my mother also. I don't think so. Maybe for a night or two. We went out, my wife fixed him up with a date with one of her girl friends and we went out together a couple of times. So, we were invited up there for this Sunday dinner. So it was my mother, Lee, Robert, my wife, myself, and my son. Robert was already there when we arrived. yet you can still write: "Robert was simply off in his calculations by a few months. LHO never attended Stripling despite witnesses to the contrary such as Robert Oswald." oh my... excellent research Tracy... in your world, do the WC lawyers EVER do anything underhanded and nefarious? My goodness. Seems to me JENNER here wants it so badly to be the year previous... Mr. JENNER. And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arlington Heights High School? That would be 1952?Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.

Robin, I can appreciate what you are saying and the telephoto lens and all, yet this image from Hughes shows that figure closer to the left wall than center handrail. It's as if he moves to his left throughout. The bottom right corner of the image is Lovelady not very long after the Hughes image - yet no one stated that he moved from the corner to the middle, only Wesley who claims he was a few steps below him.. It would also appear that Prayerman is directly behind Lovelady in Hughes, or that person is not Lovelady but Oswald/Prayerman, and he simply steps back into the shadows... Thoughts?

"reasonable proficiency" ok Tracy... you're aware of the Gregory boys and how Oswald secures a letter related to his "reasonable proficiency" On June 19 Oswald met Peter Paul Gregory in his office at the Continental Life 398 Building in Fort Worth. Gregory spoke with Oswald in Russian and then wrote a "To whom it may concern" letter which stated that Oswald had "a good knowledge of the Russian language" and was "capable of being an interpreter and perhaps a translator." Gregory said that Oswald spoke Russian fairly well, but with somewhat of a Polish accent. 53 footnote 53: WC Exhibit 1792 This exhibit explains how the FBI first interviewed Marina at the Six Flags Inn on Nov 27th without an interpreter yet these men were able to explain Marina's feelings in pretty good detail with no one speaking Russian in the room. The next day Mr. Peter Paul Gregory is called by the FBI reporting agent asking Peter to work with Marina telling her the reporting agent was NOT FBI, so she might cooperate more fully. ========= Mr. Gregory claims that after that June day with Oswald he did not hear of Lee Oswald again until Nov 22... yet for some reason Mr. Gregory, whose main line of work is that of "Oil-Consultant" is the interpreter contacted. The FBI in Dallas TX had as its only Russian interpretation resource an Oil Consultant who had coincidentally certified the "reasonably proficient" Oswald as an interpreter and possibly a translator. One has to wonder of the value of this letter from a "consulting petroleum engineer" beyond more of the dog and pony show trying to connect Harvey Oswald to "learning" Russian rather than already having that ability. One more thread of "coincidence" is that Paul Roderick Gregory went to STRIPLING JR HIGH in 1953/54, Robert Oswald claims his brother went to Stripling that year. Numerous witnesses describe the Oswald boy who lived across from the school. Marguerite, in 1947, is driven to 2220 Thomas to pick up furniture by Lucille HUBBARD Marguerite, in 1963, is living at 2220 Thomas 2220 Thomas is owned by a friend of FRED KORTH, who Marguerite claims "handled Lee's discharge" Just so many Coincidences - right ?

Thanks Pam... I found this http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/JudyandLeeinNewOrleans.pdf Do you recall anything different about this story of her eviction? Nothing from Murret claims Oswald was contacted and/or gone the night of the May 3 or where he and Judy would/could have gone... Can you shed any light there? Judyth and Lee in New Orleans John Delane Williams and Kelly Thomas Cousins With Comments by Judyth Vary Baker "Abandoned by her new husband, who immediately left town after their marriage without providing contact information, and with Ochsner and Sherman still unavailable, on May 4, 1963 Baker turned to Oswald after she was evicted in the middle of the night due to a police raid from her rented room. Baker told witnesses of her plans to enter Tulane Medical School in New Orleans in the Fall, unaware that she would spend the summer helping to develop a biological weapon using cancer under Ochsner’s and Sherman’s direction. " On May 4, a Saturday, Oswald is still staying at 757 French in New Orleans - Lillian Murret's, his mother's sister and husband, until he found the place on Magazine via Myrtle Evans... How could Oswald know the night of May 3 where his apartment on Magazine was going to be? He doesn't speak to Myrtle Evans until the 9th ??? May 4: By afternoon, Lee helped Judyth move into an apartment at 1032 Marengo, within walking distance from an apartment he said he was going to take for himself soon thereafter. On May 4 Oswald had been in New Orleans at Lillian Murret's place since April 26. Baker claims she was evicted due to police raids and had been working at Royal Castle (what this article doesn't say is that Royal Castle was a CIA front and JVB was "given" this job" until her Oschner time started...when she supposedly goes to work for another CIA front, Reilly Coffee) Why would police raid "her rented room"... and where was this room in the first place given that JVB claims she meets up with Oswald on the 26th... Where were Oswald and Judy between April 26 and May 3? If JVB has a room, why isn't Oswald just visiting her there during that week? Yet on May 4 a SUNDAY, she is able to rent an apartment without a job? Does she have any money to stay at a cheap hotel? Instead she calls Oswald - where, at Lillian's? The whole episode with Robert Baker feels contrived to me... your thoughts Pam? DJ April 20: Judyth arrives in New Orleans. April 26: Judyth meets Oswald in front of the post office when Judyth went there to get a letter from her fiancé, Robert Baker. May 3-4 Midnight: Judyth was evicted from her rented room due to a police raid and found herself on the streets. [Times-Picayune articles for May 4-5 describe these raids] May 4: By afternoon, Lee helped Judyth move into an apartment at 1032 Marengo, within walking distance from an apartment he said he was going to take for himself soon thereafter. Prior to May 9: Judyth worked at a fast food restaurant, Royal Castle. She worked a total Dealey Plaza Echo Judyth and Lee in New Orleans Page 9 of 21 8/7/2006 of 24 hours at Royal Castle. She states that her stipend for her summer internship did not start with Ochsner for another two weeks (she’d come 2 weeks early to New Orleans due to the University of Florida being on the trimester schedule, unbeknownst to Ochsner). Therefore, she had to earn some money to pay for her rent at the YWCA, where she initially stayed. May 9: Judyth and Lee were interviewed by A.T. Prechter at 640 Magazine;

That claim I don't accept. The homosexual aspect of the key men: Ferrie, Clay, Ruby, Lee, Banister? and not sure which Cubans was IMO simply a vein running thru the situation. The stigma of homosexuality was on par with being a communist in those days... but if you were a homo fighting commies, you were given a pass in most cases. I get the impression that many of the strip clubs of the day were to cover for the homosexual relationships cultivated in the male dominated crime and anti-crime careers. I'd venture to say that well more men were gay at the time than we could ever know....