David Josephs

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 5:50 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

For example, one of the central elements of the theory is that the 'Harvey' character, who survived the assassination weekend, had undergone a mastoidectomy operation at the age of six, and that the 'Lee' character, whose body was buried in Oswald's grave, had not undergone the operation.

HARVEY was buried since it was HARVEY who Ruby shot.

LEE has a record of a Mastoidectomy.  There was also a bullet wound to LEE that was not seen on Harvey...  Dr. Rose made no notation of a Mastoid scar on the Fact sheet either.

It truly is not that hard...  While similar, these two are not the same men

If you're going to "mock" the author - maybe read his book first?... maybe take a little time to learn about the subject?  maybe extract foot from mouth and start over?

As we've learned in this case - you can just as easily defend one side or the other if you know enough about the evidence and case.

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 8:24 PM, David Von Pein said:

Every single entry seen in Waldman #4 looks identical on all pages. You think the evil-doers faked EVERY line on all pages of Waldman 4? Please, Jim, tell me WHY they needed to fake EVERY serial number on those pages, when only ONE shows "C2766"?

They didn't NEED to fake every line... there are 100 rifles listed, there are 10 international packing slips with 10 rifles each...  This shipment of rifles DID come from Italy and DID arrive at Harborside...  But that's the last place you or anyone else can prove C2766 was.  Rupp offers no evidence he removed any of those 100 rifles, cleaned or serviced any of them or found that any of these 100 rifles needed replacement - which would have been noted on the packing slips... if you read the work.

Try to follow Dave...

1960 - 100 rifles, Fucile Corto rifles are shipped from Italy to the US as part of a 5200 rifle shipment.
Oct 1960 - 5200 rifles are placed at Harborside from which Rupp pulls rifle when Crescent (Feldsott) sends him the orders
January 1962 - an order for 400 91TS rifles is changed to FC rifles (The C20-T50 ad which comes out in April 1962 advertises the 36" carbine w/adjustable sights 91 TS; not the 91/38 TS)
June 1962 - FBI records state that FC rifle # N2766 was shipped to Kleins in June 1962
August 1962 - the first batch of rifles is pulled from Harborside by Rupp.  The carton with C2766 is not among them.
Aug 1962 - Feb 1963 Kleins still advertises a 36" Carbine (91 Troope Special) with scope for $19.95.  
February 1963 - 100 rifles are supposedly received by Kleins.  The rifles are inventoried by removing the rifle, speaking the serial number and assigning it a VC #.
March 1963 yet another shipment of FC rifles is referred to in an FBI report having C2746 within it...  Why isn't this shipment relfected on the Order form as a subsequent delivery after Feb 1963?

When we match the rifles on the VC list to the cartons we find no rhyme or reason for how they were removed from cartons and inventoried.  Like colored arrows are the same carton, highlights the same size are the same carton.  From this created sheet it certainly does not suggest that a carton was opened, inventoried and VC'd and then they moved on to the next one...   This is just random.  Which someone who was creating this doc may do if they didn't know any better.

What I'm saying which you refuse to hear is that the documents related to the Feb 1963 shipment MAY have been an actual shipment to Kleins at some point in time.  All that was done was THIS SHEET copied from the 10 packing slips the FBI had gotten from Feldsott that night.

Dave - simply prove any one of these listed rifles EXISTS or ever existed, other than C2766.  If that cannot be established, there is no proof this shipment ever existed as it was offered by the FBI.    

One last thing... notice how the rifles are referred to:  "T-38", not the "38 E" as written on the international packing slips...   Ooops!

Just now, David Von Pein said:

But it was employees of KLEIN'S and SEAPORT TRADERS who did the actual "digging up" of the "Hidell" documents. It wasn't the FBI who did that digging. They wouldn't have had the slightest idea where to look. So, do you think some of the Klein's & Seaport employees were part of a cover-up plot too?

As for Ruth Paine's "No" answers....

She simply did not see the rifle when it was unpacked from her car. Why is that impossible? She had no reason to take INVENTORY of every last item owned by Lee and Marina. You're expecting too much from Ruth.

But we KNOW, via Marina's testimony, that there WAS definitely a rifle in that blanket in Ruth's garage in October of '63. (But you don't believe a word uttered by Marina, do you?)

BTW, if Ruth was REALLY out to frame Oswald, then why on Earth didn't she attempt to FRAME him further by saying "Yes, I saw the rifle" when she was asked? Any idea why her patsy-framing efforts were so anemic in this regard, David?

 

No Dave...  it was Waldman and Scibor at Kleins.  The FBI was there until 4am.  I posted the conflicting reports - despite what you think, one says one thing whiole the other says the opposite.    Marina did NOT prove there was a rifle anywhere... and Ruth/Michael contradict her statement in any event...  

Ruth framed Oswald?  who said anything about that in this thread?  That's a different story entirely...  

Back to Marina's statement...  if Marina is going to be used for what she says... she contradicts Jeanne's account completely...  so who's lying here, Marina or Jeanne?

Mrs. OSWALD. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried, and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the rifle? What did you do with it?"
He said, that he had left it somewhere, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell. I don't know---I am not a criminologist.

Gee Dave, how much BS from Marina's mouth will you believe?

1 minute ago, Michael Walton said:

Back to those records showing the whited out portions and numbers written in.  Does anyone have the records that show perhaps a month or two before and after those records? I would absolutely LOVE to see what those records look like. If those records are neatly typed in or look legit with a complete underline for each entry compared to the whited out ones, that would definitely show something amiss IMO.

That's the entire point Michael...   only evidence which corroborates itself was kept or even reviewed...  the master VC list, the copies, records which would prove of disprove the SOP for shipping an order with different merchandise.   We don't get to see ANYTHING which would establish Standard (& historical) Operating Procedure.

We don't EVER get to see another C20-T750 order for a 36" carbine and what was shipped prior to Feb 1963
We don't EVER see any one of the other 99 rifles from that phantom shipment...
We don't EVER see any of the 903 other orders on the microfilm
We don't EVER see the orders producing a June 1962 and March 1963 shipment to Kleins....

There is so much we don't ever get to see, while what we do is easily shown to not be authentic.

I'd LOVE to see those records too... and when Armstrong went to the Archives to print from that microfilm, he found the film canister was empty.

Finally, let's look at Jeanne's statement and what Marina claims

JD claims that on a "showing" of their new place Marina takes her into a room with an open closet where she supposedly see the rifle and asks about it

Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there? 

So one would think that while on Magazine, the Ozzie kept his rifle in a room in a closet...

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle later placed in a closet in the apartment at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was always either in a corner, standing up in a corner or on a shelf.

What? Is this Marina conflicting with Jeanne's recollection?  How can she have forgotten the one and only time Jeanne was shown around her new apartment only to stumble across the rifle in a closet...  I wonder why they conflict so on their memories??  Much like forgetting the process of using the box camera and Ozzie's upside-down image in the viewfinder...  how can Marina forget something so glaringly out of the ordinary?

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever show that rifle to the De Mohrenschildts?
Mrs. OSWALD. I know that De Mohrenschildts had said that the rifle had been shown to him, but I don't remember that.

Does she mention anything specific to the rifle and where Ozzie kept it?  Boy there Dave, she can't seem to get anything right...

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.

No Dave, the evidence was not PLANTED... it was CREATED AFTER THE FACT.  I'm so sorry you cannot figure out the difference...

AFTER THE FACT the FBI created/altered/removed/destroyed evidence so that which incriminated Oswald stayed, that which didn't disappeared or was buried and the evidence needed was created.  Some may have already been created... but the great bulk of it was done as needed by the FBI and SS.

That you cannot understand or fathom the means by which the FBI accomplished this is not an indication of it begin impossible to do but only of your inability to see beyond the blinders you've placed over you eyes.  The FBI materially changed evidence during this investigation...  Again, I'm sorry you keep your head stuck in the ground - doesn't change how wrong and completely unsupported your conclusions remain.  

The reality is you simply don't know the evidence that well.  If you did you'd realize that you can't explain away the FACT both FELDSOTT and WALDMAN are credited with submitting the 10 packing slips.  These slips only designate the rifles " 38  E " which is the INTERNATIONAL designation reflecting these were shipped from Italy using these packing slips...  

How in the world then can they also be submitted by Waldman in March 1964 as proof of a shipment to Kleins in Feb when they are still the original international slips?    

Dave... how many "no's" does it take?

Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise? 
Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you drive them to your home? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. 
Mr. JENNER - Were the materials and things in your station wagon unpacked and placed in your home? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; immediately. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you see that being done, were you present? 
Mrs. PAINE - I helped do it; yes. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you see any weapon on that occasion? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - Whether a rifle, pistol or-- 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - Or any covering, any package, that looked as though it might have a weapon, pistol, or firearm? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 

Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home? 
Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no. 
Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one? 
Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November. 

Mr. LIEBELER - I now show you Commission Exhibit 139, which is a rifle that was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building, and ask you if you at any time ever saw this rifle prior to November 22, 1963? 
Mr. PAINE - I did not

15 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I just had a quick scan through the first couple of pages of that thread to find out who 'altered' it - did I read it right that it was 'altered' by Jack White? Or by someone else?

'gigantic head' indeed compared to what the 'average' size of head is... lol

Was it Lee or Harvey that was 2 inches taller than the other?

Regards

I seem to remember Jack having something to do with it, but I don't think he originally changed it from the John Woods image...  IDK

Harvey was shorter than Lee by a couple of inches and was a few dozen pounds lighter...

Here are "some real gems" from the testimony of Oswald's brother Edward...  where Mom and little Ozzie lived when they first came to NY.

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. 

Or how about in New Orleans in 1963?

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. 

Edward tried to play along...  but was quickly corrected

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. 

48 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

The 3rd row #4 looks really weird indeed - especially the size of the nose. lol

Anyway,

specifically, is number 20 (2nd row, 9th from the left) and number 66 (6th row, 11th from left) both Lee, or both Harvey, or one and the other.

Regards

#20 is of LEE entering the Marines with the gigantic head...

#66 is Harvey's arrest photo from New Orleans in Aug 1963

Row 3 #4 is the "after" of an altered photo.  At this post you can see what I'm talking about.   

I know of no photo of Lee after 1959 in the JFK records.  

Alistair,

The last photo of LEE is the 1959 Passport photo...  3rd row #7 from the left

3rd row, #'s 1, 3, 7  (#4 has been retouched...  I have a version which shows what's underneath...  it's not Harvey.)

2nd row - #'s 2, 8, 9,10 from left to right

1st row is all Lee.

Thanks Jim...  you'd think the fact Oswald's mail and activities were being monitored was obvious.

This is from the week the rifle and pistol were supposedly delivered...  The "blacked out name" is a source from whom the FBI received Intel on Oswald...

On the right we have a report on his FPCC activities from April 21, 1963...  AFTER he supposedly went to the USPO, saw the postcard in his PO Box, handed it to a clerk who in turn fetched a 5 foot cardboard carton from Klein's.  He then... 

...what Dave?  When Oswald leaves the USPO with his package... what happens next?  how did he get the rifle home? why didn't he keep the carton to transport the rifle? where did the carton go?  

In the bottom doc we see an account of Oswald mailing the Worker about the FPCC...  in June.

I'm curious Dave...  all the FBI reports between March 1963 and Nov 1963 and not one mention of a rifle...  or Judyth Baker for that matter...  both figments of an overactive imagination.  The FBI does not mention a rifle during that time because there was no rifle to talk about...

Prove otherwise.

Yes Dave, let's all trust Mr. Ball...   like listening to Bugliosi...

As I asked before - you never replied....

With the FBI watching Oswald all thru 1963...  how is it that they do no know about the order and delivery at the time it was supposedly created, in March 1963?

The FBI has assets in the USPS & got cooperation from Kleins.   How is it the USPS does not inform the FBI that Lee Oswald had not only ordered a rifle, but a pistol AND where and when he picked it up...?

In fact, can you show us any single FBI report prior to Nov 22 which includes mention of Kleins, a rifle, REA, a mail order coupon, a 5 foot carton delivered to Oswald's PO Box and on and on Dave...  How does the FBI miss this from March thru Nov?

No Michael...  no clip, no ammo, no rifle...   REA pretty much destroys all that...

And no David, if it was mailed, it was picked up and not by Oswald... and not at REA where it should have been picked up.

One last question...  Sept 24 1963 Oswald supposedly takes 2 small suitcases and leaves the Magazine apartment.
The rifle was not packed into Ruth's wagon, or unloaded at the other end
Oswald obviously did not take it with him wherever that may have been.

The Rifle is never actually seen at the Paine's...  Both Ruth and Michael claim they do not see a rifle until Nov 22nd.

If this rifle is in Oswald's possession, how does the rifle get from New Orleans to Dallas, Dave?

Of course not Dave...  your ears, eyes and mouth continue to work just fine...

Read the reports again buddy...  you can't both TAKE and LEAVE the same roll of film.   Waldman says to subpoena him if they need the microfilm from his safe.

Ok Dave...  help us out....

Which FBI report are we to trust?  The one signed by all FBI agents saying the microfilm stays with Waldman... or the one only by Dolan who claims he took the film?

These reports are back to back in the WCD's.

Quote

Why would they have even TRIED to locate any of those other 99 rifles? Why would they even CARE?

The FBI claimed that Klein's had substituted the longer, heavier FC rifle for the one ordered, a TS 36" carbine.

Klein's has the 100 rifle shipment from Feb 22, 1963 until Nov 22, 1963 while advertising a 36" TS carbine from mid '62 thru Feb '63 when the ad is changed to 

From April 1963 on, this ad runs with the hopes of selling some of the 100 rifles they supposedly just received.

The only rifle in inventory to satisfy orders for this ad - and the only order offered as evidence from Kleins, is the FC 40" rifle.

Any order for a C20-T750 between April 1962 and Feb 1963 was shipped WHAT Dave?

One last thing...  each of the ads up to April 1963 says "Rear sight adjustable for elevation"  
The rifles from Crescent - either the FC or TS - were REAR OPEN SIGHT rifles.

The revised order from Kleins' for "91 TS" rifles is the "Adjustable sight" model....    So basically for a year and right up to Feb 1963, rifles shipped for a C20-T750 order were not only heavier and more expensive but an entirely different rear sight as well...   

Dave, the FBI didn't look because there was nothing there for them to see...  as a result, their search would have disproved their story about the FC shipped for the TS.  Furthermore, the microfilm would also hold the key to destroying the bogus Klein's story...  In true FBI fashion, the film is gone.

If the evidence told the story needed, it would have been offered.  Instead, they created evidence which proves itself... yet fizzles away in the light of anything outside the closed loop of evidence.

You ever wonder how all the copier noise disappears only behind the serial numbers?

Along the same lines as taking CIA documentation for what it is, Phillip Agee - Agee obit - tells us that
CIA 201 files are divided into a CLEAN “operational” part for public consumption and a SECRET “true 
name documents” part.  Excerpt from Inside the Company, by P. Agee:

“Files are maintained on all agents and they always begin with the number 201 -- followed by a 
number of five to eight digits. The 201 file contains all the documents that pertain to a given 
agent and usually start with the PRQ and the request for POA. But the 201 file is divided into two 
parts which are stored separately for maximum security. One part contains true name documents while 
the other part contains cryptonym documents and operational information. Compromise of one part 
will not reveal both the true name and the operational use of the agent.”)
 

An example of a 201 clipping/report from his 201 is the investigation into "Bill & Elaine Allen" of Miami, who instead are referred to as Steve and Elaine Brill..

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95613#relPageId=147    CIA's 201 file Vol 3 folder 8 p147...  yet another bogus report related to Oswald's imaginary trip to Mexico...

One only need to see what Scibor did at the time and then later on to get a feel for what may have transpired that night.

btw - Scibor claims there was a MASTER LIST of serial #'s related to VC #'s.  That list would also have those 100 rifles...

Dave, you just keep right on guessing...  not a single person with a rifle from that 100 lot - as was attributed to Oswald - has ever come forward...

The FBI cannot find or possess any of these 100 rifles...  while Waldman claims they were all removed...  to where?

And finally, the FBI refers repeatedly to a June 1962 and March 1963 shipment of FC rifles to Kleins.  We have the FC order from Kleins with only the Feb shipment shown...

How does Kleins have 2 shipments of FC rifles from Crescent NOT recorded on that order Dave?
Rupp first removes rifles in AUG 1962...  yet the shipment discussed was rec'd in June 1962 - could not have been from Crescent or Rupp...

Dance around all you like Dave...  you can't get away from the evidence left behind

Why would you, David Josephs, EXPECT the FBI to have saved or extracted from Klein's files any OTHER orders that WEREN'T for the "C2766" rifle they were specifically searching for?

I wouldn't.  I would expect the microfilm to have the other few hundred orders from that time period... or any of the other films Kleins had to store their orders...

Finding a C20-T750 order, shipped and received as a 41" FC rifle supports their assertion, that it was happening that way.

Again Dave...  not a single of the other 99 rifles has ever been SEEN, let alone shipped on a real order.

And, as we both know, the microfilm is gone from the canister at the archives...  Waldman was given a copy in early December, according to the FBI.

You think that still exists?

7 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

David,

 

Technologically speaking, a photograph wouldn't bleed through to a carbon copy would it, seeing as how carbon paper works?

It would on a Xerox copy, but not carbon paper right?

Maybe that's a negative of a Xerox copy instead of the carbon copy second page of an original. 

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

I hope I did not imply it was the photograph which was carbon copied...

Each photo and signature is supposedly original.

Regarding the carbon not matching - I refer to the "779" which appears on both and how if one lines that up, nothing else on the carbon matches the original in terms of placement.  If you line up the text "779" is not even on the page and the rest of the text implies an amazingly sloppy line up the carbon and backsheet...

The "negative image" is what I do to contrast the two for easier viewing...  the text on p349 and p350 seems to be backward... 

I'm saying 

1) the signatures themselves are not the same, not even close;  Sylvia claims the signature is original on both forms

2) this was supposed to be a carbon copy.  Except there does not appear to be a way to line this up so the carbon and original are in sync

I've tried - maybe I haven't tried hard enough... but if we assume the "779" was written on the original and copied via the carbon (which I lined up on the right) the rest of the form doesn't line up...  

More significant is the mismatched signatures and the lack of a location to acquire those photos.  Does it not seem strange that he expects to get a visa quickly yet does not bring photos.

Finally, the blurb under page 349 suggests THIS is the original while the other is the copy (it's vice versa).  Only on page 350 are we told this is an original signature of Lee Oswald - on the original or copy?

CORNWELL - Just one. The ... I believe I asked you this, but just to be sure, although the application was typed with a carbon to make two copies with one typing, did he have to sign both independently? Or did you allow them to use a carbon to sign the paper?
TIRADO - No, no. It was the original.
CORNWELL - Two original signatures. All right.
TIRADO - Yes.

One of the Lopez report's biggest shortcoming is its acceptance of the WCR conclusion that Oswald was actually in Mexico City

despite the evidence being so heavily tainted by FBI/Gobernacion hands...

When they start with that accepted assumption, even though they acknowledge the impossible conflicts, it certainly changes the approach.

They conclude based on the signatures on the original and carbon copy of the application, that he was most likely there on Sept 27 - I find that conclusion inadequately defended within this report and the greater likelihood he was in Dallas...

First off the signatures don't match, and secondly, the carbon does not match the original... and the FBI could not find any location where Oswald would have had those photos taken, in Mexico City.

8 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

David,

 

If you read the FBI Report of an interview with William Chambers here:

http://jfkassassinationfiles.com/fbi_124-10179-10312

 

it looks like the three were, in fact, arrested twice that day. See pp. 2-3 of Chambers' interview. That would account for their various stories about  whether they were sleeping or awake, men in different colored uniforms, whether they were in a boxcar or laying on sheets of steels, etc.

 

What I can't account for is why they were held by the DPD after being told they were "free to go". 

A "fall-back" position in case Oswald didn't work out perhaps?

They were released and signed out by Beck on the 26th as part of a general house cleaning along with John Elrod, Daniel Wayne Douglas, etc.

 

Steve Thomas

 

2 different sets of people Steve....

The men arrested were not the men photographed in DP..  the link you provide is the tip of the iceberg - a great collection of files

Is that what you are getting at here?

From what I could tell from the evidence...

The three "tramps" in DP were indeed let go by Decker while the three records of arrest for Gedney, Abrams and Doyle refer to three other people who spent a couple days in Jail that weekend...  the 2 separate stories of the two sets of tramps leads me to the question - why parade these three thru DP at all and why lie about who the DPD personnel were?

Ofc Harkness is the only one who acknowledges more than just those three were taken from the trains that day - last paragraph

Middleton was named as one of the arresting officers - except he wasn't at work, according to him

And neither Bush or Chambers recalls being involved with these three reports that weekend - I believe they were created and found well after the fact...

On 11/21/2016 at 2:11 PM, Larry Hancock said:

I know Ian Grigg's explored that and I was with him when he questioned one DPD officer on the patch; as I recall the officers  response was that it related to emergency medical assistance training/qualification of some sort.  Its something that has come up over and over again through the years, wish I had a more concrete reference to offer. Its been bandied about for a long time

I recall the same thing Larry

Without a doubt the most absurd thing I've seen today is our dimwitted Mr. Trejo not even playing in the same state let alone ballpark as Jim continually open mouth and insert foot.

Paul - you're a disgrace to thinking people everywhere.  Whereas everything you offer is opinion, the rest of us prefer to find supporting evidence before posting.

At least you serve as a great example of how not to behave on a forum dedicated to EDUCATION.  It's posters like you who drive quality people away.

you must enjoy being that gnat on the bull's a$$...  maybe write an essay or two on your own and put them up for review...  see how you do

y'know?