David Josephs
-
Posts
6,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
3 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Jim and Dave,
We have made or arguments and I am happy to let the reads here decide for themselves on this point.
Thanks
Works for me Tracy...
Enjoy the weekend if you're somewhere not hitting 107... as I am
-
3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Not the "Harvey" you're referring to.
And for the final time, Jenner asked him point blank if he had anything to add to his testimony including mere opinions. Do you really expect us to believe that he was only hinting about two Oswalds when he could right out and say "Mr. Jenner it is my opinion there were two Oswalds at different times"? And why not take the opportunity when he was on the phone with Armstrong, the creator of the two Oswald theory, to report to him his belief in that very theory? Maybe because he believed no such thing.
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...
-
16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:
48fps stepped down to 18.3:
Starting at Z133 through the end, the percentage missing is approx 61.87 %
A sample of this 61.87% overall frame removal process below:
If you want to include the frames missing from Z1 - Z133 also, the percentage of total frames missing would be approx 72.3%.
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 @ 18.3fpsWe 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.
-
22 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
John Pic mentioned "Harvey"? Yes, I must have missed that!
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:QuoteMr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald
QuoteDo you recognize that picture?
Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald.
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:Do you recognize either of those young people?
Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey OswaldAll the photos of Lee are also correctly identified by Edward as his brother.
QuoteDo you recognize that as your brother Lee?
Mr. PIC - That is how he looked to me in 1962 when I seen him, sir.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?
1 hour ago, David Josephs said: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.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.
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."
-
2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:
Have you shown this to John?
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
2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:He thought a couple photos did not look like LHO and wanted to be careful under oath.
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.
-
6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Neither Myrtle or Julian Evans ever stated, insinuated or implied that the LHO and Marguerite they saw in later years were different individuals from the people they had know years before. They only said they had changed as people do. Armstrong uses things like this as well as mistaken witnesses to promote his discredited theory. In some instances, such as with Myrtle Evans, he uses selective quotes to make his point. See:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html
And John Pic?
-
5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:
David,
Do you have more visual comparisons of the shoulders? I seem to recall you’ve posted one or two other montages before. Could you post them all again if you have some others at hand? I’d like to take a more careful look.
This may be a real tell to distinguish the Terrible Twosome. I can't recall John ever talking about this, and so it may be your discovery.
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.
-
13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you doubt that LEE would be that guy sitting in the audience. If so, are you saying that that person is HARVEY? Or are you saying it is neither?
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. -
1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:
The conflicting testimonies are incredibly intriguing and even more so because of their numbers.
I hardly ever gave the "two Oswalds" story much thought and consideration but when one reads all the testimonies it is much harder to dismiss.
Regards the Carousel Club photo of a possible 2nd Oswald, this fellow looks a bit heftier ( stronger ? ) than the Oswald we all saw on national TV starting 11,22,1963. And his right ear seems to stick out farther and differently than the arrested Oswald.
And wasn't Oswald known as a total teetotaler? The Carousel Club Oswald looks like he's knocked back a few beers and has booze stupid eyes as he ogles the stripper on the stage.
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
-
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
David,
Not much else I can add here. It is a fact that the one and only LHO left with his mother for NY in August, 1952. Robert assumed LHO went to Stripling but he did not.
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
-
2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
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?
-
2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
By the time he arrived in the US, he had a reasonable proficiency in reading and writing the language.
"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 ?
-
2 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:
I just remembered that Judyth said Susie's apartment was on Marengo Street in NOLA.
Here is an article about it:
http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/a3F7TTf2/other-residents-at-1032-marengo-street
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....
-
Thanks for clearing all that up Pam....
I for one am not a proponent of para-phrasing others... invariably it gets done like a game of telephone and misrepresents the original sentiment.
Maybe you can help me and the others out as well...
Here is the entire bus route to Reilly from 4907 Magazine.... Does JVB ever say where her apartment is and which busline she took with Ozzie?
"19-year-old Baker arrived in New Orleans two weeks early due to UF’s new trimester system, but to her dismay, both Ochsner and Sherman were out of town. Her fiancé, who only knew that Baker had “plans to work” in New Orleans, was not due to arrive until May, at which time an elopement was planned, but in the meantime, Baker needed emergency funds. Unwilling to ask for help from her parents, she began temporary work at a Royal Castle near the airport. This restaurant was then being used by a government surveillance team to spy on the powerful Mafia leader, Carlos Marcello, whose office behind the Town & Country Motel was just next door. Robert Kennedy had forcibly deported Marcello, who had defiantly returned to the US and was now involved in a deportation court case that he would win on November 22nd, the same day Kennedy was shot."
and
"Abandoned by her new husband, who immediately left town after their marriage without providing contact information, and with Ochsner and Sherman still unavailable,<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[vii]<!--[endif]--> 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... What did Oswald do for Judy in the middle of the night on May 4? He didn't bring her to the Murrert's or the Evans'. This is how Lillian remembers it.
When we were walking down the steps, I looked at him real hard like, 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." He said he had been back in the States for quite a while, and that he had brought his Russian wife back with him ; so I told him I would help him look for a place; so I rang up this friend of mine, and I asked her, I said, "Vickie (Mrs Charles Maynard), do you happen to know where I can rent an apartment for a young couple with one little baby?" and she said, "Yes; Myrtle, I will take children. This is a little duplex," she said, and she said, "This is a nice little apartment, and I think they will like it," and I said, "How much?" and she said, "$65," and I said, "Well, he can't spend too much ; he is just getting a new job
Judy's "bio" continues
Baker documented how cover jobs were arranged for herself and Oswald, where they spent approximately half their time. Though she was a slow typist, Baker said arrangements were made to hire her as a secretary for former FBI agent William I. Monaghan, Wm. B. Reily Coffe Company’s Vice President of Security, Finance and Field Sales. After moving into nearby apartments the same week, Baker and Oswald rode the same bus to and from work together the next eleven weeks. Both Baker and Oswald began their employment on the same day, at a (then) small subsidiary company, Standard Coffee, owned by Reily, where their background reports were laundered and Baker was taught how to handle the Vice President’s secretarial duties. A week later, the two new employees were transferred together to Reily’s main company. WC documents support these facts
-
Thanks for posting this Doug... there was most definitely a LGBT angle to all this...
-
2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
Though I can't remember what parts of JVB's story she repudiates and which she supports.I certainly don't begrudge you and I don't consider it a waste of time for doing your due diligence.
Didn't mean to ignore you Kirk...
I appreciate the simple act of not begrudging me my faults until you can show me how they may be detrimental to my health..
Regarding 30 years... is O'Connor's story really that less amazing or believable... or any less necessary?
I don't find the timeframe to be the problem if the evidence checked out. It doesn't, so for me end of story.
Continually putting these events into CONTEXT helps me for one see connection better. Add timeline and context becomes conspiratorial planning or just happenstance...
Mike says I see everything as a conspiracy. "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful" is an accepted definition of the word.
All of World History is defined by the success or failure of conspiracies.
The profound naivete it takes to accept the randomness of life.
That's absurd, unless Mike, you can site examples.?What profound events have occurred in the past 200 years, or 5000 years that you believe were NOT the result of some conspiracy.
That things just "happened" that way.I'm sorry that the concept of how humans created history scares you, it should.
======================
Look around Mike... you believe what's going on in the world is just "happening"... with no forethought or planning?
I don't know buddy... I don't paint you as thinking there are NO conspiracies, don't paint me the opposite....
but you can be pretty sure if there are humans and a possible distinct advantage involved, you can be dam sure a conspiracy is in the works.In Hardin's classic piece "The Tragedy of the Commons," a commons is a natural resource shared by many individuals.1 In this context, "shared" means that each individual does not have a claim to any part of the resource, but rather, to the use of a portion of it for his/her own benefit. The tragedy is that, in the absence of regulation, each individual will have a tendency to exploit the commons to his/her own advantage, typically without limit. Under this state of affairs, the commons is depleted and eventually ruined. (But only to the detriment of those who failed to usurp the shared resource)
At the root of the tragedy is the unrestrained self-interest of some individuals. The underlying reasoning is that if the commons is eventually going to be used up, whoever effects the greatest use stands to benefit the most. Under this circumstance, it is seen that the benefit/cost ratio is astronomical: While the benefits accrue solely to the user, the costs are spread among all others sharing the commons
Even with regulation - we find the regs are usually drawn up by those being regulated and to their best interest while to the detriment of all others...
I see our problems today coming from the lack of awareness to the industrial corporate state and the concepts of private property, sovereignty and international banking. The law and banking has reached a level where no one other than bankers and lawyers know the workings. So while the rich get the best doctors, they also get the best bankers and lawyers with direct access to the world's money supplies.
Not seeing this ongoing and simple plan come to fruition is understandable... it's sold relentlessly as being in our best interests.
Pssst... it's not.
.
-
I'm with you George...
This entire discussion is a stretch. Believe what you like. JVB was never in Clinton with Lee Harvey.
What "boatload" by the way George... if you can link to it please or be specific that would be helpful... if that was the case, this Copy B W-2 was the one she choose to represent her working there.Her form did not exist George. It comes from a book of forms that also does not exist. (Much like Harry Holmes' Postal Money Order stub that never existed, from a book that never existed) I see that as directly pertinent to her credibility...
Michael - it's not worth getting into it. But I will leave you with this example
In college a friend of mine was a music major. I just loved music.
When we listened to music together, while we heard the same sounds, what we thought of them and at what level was very different.
My friend saw the repeating phrases and the counter-play of musical keys and how that overlaid into a larger musical pattern..I just heard good music. I never questioned why he heard it that way and thought it cool when he explained some of it to me because of the math involved.
We hear the music differently Mike...
Sometimes you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right....
-
You mean this thing?
"WHO" has M Directive. Angleton?
-
On 6/4/2017 at 10:33 AM, Joe Bauer said:
Maybe JVB did not file her taxes that year, since she obviously didn't owe the IRS anything. Maybe that is why she still had the copy "B?"
I didn't file when I was young and only making a few hundred dollars a year.
Interesting thought Joe, yet she provided this herself. To prove she worked at Reilly coffee in 1963 with Oswald..
No one dug this up, this was proudly offered. and it's obviously not "normal".Besides, it's filled out. The IRS would have to send her back her original tax return with original COPY B for her to have it... they don't do that.
In 1963, as in 1959... a few hundred dollars a year was enough to live on. Oswald made $1000 in '59 as a marine.
Below that are some calcs from when Marina applied for Social Security and they added up Oswald's life work.. suffice to say there are alot of problems with tax returns in this case
Besides, this is only one straw on this camel's back... many, many more
-
5 hours ago, Michael Walton said:
And yet, older people - not 16 year-olds - continue to fall for Harvey and Lee, the faking of the Zapruder film, and all the other silly stories. But to think a serious researcher will fall for a woman's creative writings when we never heard from Baker until 30 years - yes, that's right 30 years - after the assassination and support her loony stories for seven years is mind-boggling.
But I digress
Sir, you remain a mystery.
Do you hear your argument? Because you cannot wrap your mind around the concepts and the arguments which support them, IOW your mind is obviously boggled by these presentations... you find the only conclusion to your liking instead of learning about the subject and respecting the directions of others is to criticize with demeaning adjectives and snide little remarks...
"Older people" take the time to do the work necessary to speak with some authority on a topic. Your only argument is "why would they?" which in itself not an argument at all. So the fall back must be the subject at had is stupid and silly (look up COINTELPRO Mike, this is a classic tactic for those on the wrong side of a debate to change to topic)..
What do you do to prepare to have a serious discussion Mike? Do you read the work itself or only the para-phrased criticisms of others?
Do you look at the sources or just trust your instincts - you know better cause you can feel it?Whether a person waits 5 minutes or 30 years is of no consequence... You must never experience fear of a machine so much larger than you your insignificant crushing would be of no consequence... many of us know better. We all deal in our own way...
time does not degrade an argument, logic and authenticity does.
So please Mike, is it too much to ask you bring one, the other, or both instead of this repeated whining about your inability to comprehend others time well spent according to them? I truly do not need you telling me what is or isn't of interest to me...
and I doubt anyone else does either...
Splice in Tina Towner Film
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.