David Josephs

Quote

This is why I like the Lopez Report.  It relies on data and not assumptions.

Except for the assumption that the WCR got his travel to and from correctly so they did not even bother looking into it.

The one part of their investigation with physically altered evidence and a chain of info..  

My guess is even they had to be very careful with what was investigated about Mexico City.

Does the Lopez report offer any evidence of his actually being there?  (as I ran thru it all I see as proof is the transcriptions which had already been shown not to be Oswald's voice...

No photo, no direct corroboration that the person using the name was actually Oswald, in fact contradiction that it was Oswald while both Azcue and Duran state it was not the man Ruby killed at their office...

What part of the report proves he was there Jim?  Piccolo?

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Hi David,

I'm really glad I haven't heard from you in awhile, months.  Have you been saving up your venom and spite?  I can see the Mary Moorman notion is still bothering you.  You must have seen my ideas as really bothersome.

Cointelpro agent?  I can see whose losing control here. Do you really think there are such people on this site?

What's to learn about a faked frame such as the one in my last post.  You guys whip out camera angles and focus like a six-shooter when someone doesn't agree with you.  Or, you see something that is threatening to your position. 

Go talk to Robin Unger about "FAKE" composites?  your really have just fallen off the banana-boat, haven't you...  ".   Maybe you can start helping him warp and distort things that I post.  Oh, you have already done that.

The moderators are not powerless.  They can shut me down at anytime they choose for any reason and I won't complain.  You and Unger prove the "fake composite" charges to them.  Your an old hand here.  Report it.  And, while your at it report yourself for breaking the forum rules.  I've decided not to do that anymore.  People need to read posts such as yours so that they can clearly see what type of person you are

Your gush of vituperative invective is something I dealt with many times with middle school children.  They grow out of it.  Seems you haven't.

 

 

 

Not sure what you're trying to say here Robin...

A 48fps film with the 2nd and 3rd frame of each 3 frame set removed = 16fps movie.

Frames 1  2  3  4  5  6  at 48fps becomes 1  4 at 16fps when shown at 16fps.  Ratio is 3:1

To get 18.3 fps we remove enough frames so there is a 2.62:1 ratio.  486 * 2.62 = 1275 frames if all were taken at 48fps.

I think you will notice the limo take 21-22 frames to cover it's length of 21.4 feet - the point being what we see on the film is not CE884 yet it is also not a ride that appears at a constant rate of speed...  It slows considerably as it goes around Elm and as Greer stares at JFK from z300 until he is shot.

This is how the FBI converted 168-171 into 161-166.  The limo took a slightly more Northerly path than the FBI's dots on the plat.  

By doing this the LOS for 161 (at CE884's 3+29.2) we find that 166 cannot possibly be only .9' farther at 3+30.1.  Z166 is actually 3+35.1 or 5.9' farther down Elm on Robert West's marked path along the station #'s.  

I tried to superimpose the two limo positions (166 and Shaneyfelt's 171) and JFK's position is noted... the LOS thru the corner of the limo doesn't change.

Mr. Butler,

You have reached a level of ignorance and stubbornness I truly never thought possible.

Your lack in understanding the physical realities of filming moving objects while the camera moves as well has spread out across this forum like a plague.

We have thread after thread where you attempt to prove or question what you see before you bother doing a simple "reality" check yet you continue on as if you're the only person to have ever seen an anomaly which was never there and contradicts the bounds of reality...

In some areas of the films and photos that indeed does happen...  yet the kinds of "error" you believe you spot are only in your mind's eye.  The rest of us see perfectly well, well enough in fact that your presentations actually make me physically ill they are so poor.

I honestly can't tell if you're playing with yourself here too much and we're all not in on your little joke... or you truly are this deaf, dumb and blind.  Only a complete idiot keeps up with the sell job you are trying to pass of as your "work" and believes a contribution is being made.

"FAKE" composites?  your really have just fallen off the banana-boat, haven't you...  

I know the moderators are powerless.  You simply can't fix stupid and your Mr. Br have taken that to a whole new level.

====

Here's a thought.  When those with years and years of experience question your pitiful opinions with logic, sense and image maybe you'd consider LEARNING a little something rather than keep pi$$ing into the wind and covering yourself with your own excrement...

Then again, maybe you're just too ignorant to know how stupid your presentations are.   You actually try to convince me that the woman with grey hair becomes Hill and the woman in blue without white pants becomes Moorman.

And then you get insulted when your betters show you differently...   You're either a great COINTELPRO agent for continuously interrupting these threads with complete nonsense... or you're too lost to know any better...  I'm thinking the latter, even agents know better than that...

Please give it a rest JB.  Regroup maybe and learn about film, light, speed, aperture, and cameras...  LEARN first, open mouth and insert your foot later...  Please.

Robin....

18.3 is claimed by the FBI and ONLY the FBI... even NPIC couldn't understand by 18.3 was used when the camera settings are 16 & 48...  

One of the things Chris D and I have worked on is the transition from 48fps down to 18.3fps.  We've shown thru math that the ce884 distances and the speed ratios work.  The infamous 161-166 as 5 frames moving .18' each times 5 frames = .9' = the distance from 168-171 BEFORE Shaneyfelt moved the limo path.

From my observations and work the film was taken at both 16 and 48fps... it was then altered to remove, add, conceal as needed and then filmed again using Zapruder's camera.  What we see at 303-304 for example, the quick head turn of Greer, is the end result of removing 4-6 frames from a 8-10 frame sequence @ 48fps.  

As a rule of thumb you'll find the limo moving at an averaged speed of 1' = 1 frame (12.47 mph; .897' per frame = 11.2 mph) between 171 and 313, the range of frames they claim they had and at which the film "began" - although ce884 was changed from 168-171 to 161-166.  We should also note that Elm's decline works out to 18.3 horizontal feet for every 1 vertical foot so that every second of film = 1 vertical foot.

Both the frames and the distance are incorrect...  which makes reconstruction impossible.  Making the assumption that every second contained 18.3 frames will surely lead us down the wrong path...

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an album that I prepared of black and white photographs made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder film---- 
Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number? 
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. This was an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back to include the area that we wanted to study. 

This was done on purpose... the moving...

Yet 2220 Thomas remains constant.  Finding out why as well as reviewing the evidence of Oswald living at this address across from Stripling helps shed quite a bit of light on the subject.

Armstrong goes into the Deeds of Trust and how this destitute woman bought and sold homes while playing the pauper at every turn.

Under the "too close for comfort" file,  2220 Thomas - Where Marge was interviewed on Nov 22, was owned by the McCarthy's; friends of Fred Korth.
During the Garrison investigation Marge claimed that "FRED KORTH played a part in LEE's life"... but did not elaborate.

2220 Thomas across from Stripling

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

That sure does seem to be the way it appears.

Hoover did not know what was going on in Mexico City.  He then decided to go along with the cover up there.  

And to do so he had to do what he could to discredit the Odio story. And he helped put together a jerry rigged paper trail for Mexico City.

BTW, many years ago, before I gave my files to Bill Davy, I had a letter from Helms to Hoover.  It essentially said that Dick did not want Edgar doing any more research on Oswald's activities in Mexico City.  Probably because everything the FBI was digging up indicated he was not there.

"Probably because everything the FBI was digging up indicated he was not there"   

Even the Hoover asset at Gobernacion couldn't find anything on 11/8...  yet that's where ALL the Mexican Immigration evidence on the FBI trip comes from...

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 10:10 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Nice one David.

When I see this kind of record, its really puzzling hat Danny and Eddie said that the WC trail from N Orleans to Mexico City was pretty solid.  Because that is the last word I would apply to it.  I guess they could claim in self defense that back then in 1978 some of this was not available.  The other thing is that maybe Blakey or Mickey Goldsmith advised them to write that since the contents of the report was so incendiary.

But from just those few documents, it seems to me some kind of disinfo trail is being set up.  And you have to wonder, if this is happening this early, then something really bizarre must have been the endgame.

In my heart of hearts I see Hoover CYA for Oswald in Dallas with Odio.  If he supports the CIA 10/10 cable and creates a bus journey, as the WCR states

"The commission concluded Oswald could not have been in Dallas on the eve of either Sept 26 or 27" based on the FBI's evidence of a bus trip from New Orleans to Houston.

The commission concluded this after a report on MAJOR GREEN from Dec 16, 1963 was found to now have a bus that could take Oswald to Houston... except the report was from 9/21/64, 10 months later which they simply backdated to Dec 16.  The original Dec 16 GREEN report only offers 2 buses for Ozzie to take 4:40pm and 8:15pm - neither bus would get Oswald to Houston in time for the next leg of the journey...  so they found a bus NOT going thru to Mexico City, but going from New Orleans to Houston at 12:20pm.

Add this to the altered Frontera bus manifest which attempts to place Oswald on a 3:20pm bus on the 2nd of Oct...  with the report his photo was taken on the afternoon of the 2nd... with the fact the bus was changed to an 8:30 bus on a different line - Del Norte.

Nothing about the Mexico tripo evidence adds up and for good reason, it was created for the purpose.

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 8:16 AM, James DiEugenio said:

From Destiny Betrayed, second edition, page 352:

"Odio twice told the Commission that, to her best remembrance, the men were where on a Thursday or Friday in the last week of September. This would mean either the twenty sixth or twenty seventh."  (p. 352, italics added)

Strike 1

The FM card said Oswald entered Mexico on the 26th.  But does not record his means of entry.  (Armstrong, p. 615)

Strike 2

No one today believes that Hall, Howard or Seymour was at Odio's door. For the simple reason that the best witness, Odio, did not recognize any of them when shown their photos. (Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation, p. 115)

Strike 3.  You're out Paul.

 

The famous FM card application is also wrong...  It applies for a 6 month FM-5 while the evidence attempting to place him there is considered a fifteen day FM-8.

Strike 4

The FM-11 which records all the info is also very suspect...  the man's name on the VISA is H.O. LEE yet is alphabetized as LH Oswald.  Oooops.

Strike 5...    incase 3 strikes was not enough

On 3/8/2017 at 6:32 AM, Paul Trejo said:

LHO was at the home of Sylvia Odio about September 23, 1963, along with two men.

Sylvia Odio says one looked Cuban and did most of the fast talking, and the other looked Mexican.

That describes Loran Hall, a Cuban-American, and Larry Howard, a Mexican-American.  Harry Dean, who  knew both men, will confirm that.

The three men entered Mexico by car the next day .  See Mexico Immigration records.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Mexican Immigration records were created by one person PT.

I will assume you don't know of what you post so I will clarify.  

Helio Tuexi Maydon was identified as the man who stamped the entrance Visa for the man carry Harvey Oswald Lee's visa.

Mr. Maydon was asked by a key and central figure in this charade, Harvey CASH of the American Consul at Nuevo LAredo.

The attached shows Maydon's stamp and another FBi player, SA Robert Chapman's report about what Maydon actually said.

In my articles I discuss the "Allen's/Brill's"  

Where in the evidence YOU have does it claim he entered with 2 Cuban men? 

The very bottom image discusses how MAYDON says it was 2 women and 1 man...

You're up Paul....  

On 3/8/2017 at 7:53 AM, Alistair Briggs said:

What about the 'zoo photo' is that meant to be 'Harvey'?

Regards

yes Alistair... the boy at the zoo is not the large 6th grader we, and Edward Pic know as Lee Oswald.

Furthermore, these multiple side-by-sides should help with differentiating the two.  Try to remember there was no internet, the fact they look similar is only apprrent when you see them together...  no one ever sees these two together and the last LEE photo we have is the small passport photo showing a man with a bull neck and very sloped shoulders.

The physical evidence along with direct testimony from those who knew him is simply not the kind of evidence the detractors prefers.  It amazes me the number of researchers who will call McBride's memory into question.  Below is a reply from Palmer to Lifton after Lifton also called his memory into question.

Maybe the impetus for his book was mistaken?  Then one would wonder why there remains so many conflicts and so much evidence for the duplicity.  Those like Tracy will call into question anything and everything yet offer nothing to contradict the stories other than "mistakes were made"

Fair enough.  Like the 30% of those out there who still hold that Oswald shot 3 times and killed JFK, the freedom to be wrong extends in all directions.  After years with the book, following the sources and ongoing investigation, I find credible evidence for John's thesis.  Wouldn't be the strangest thing our government has done by a long shot so that argument is empty.  All the "Why's" and "How's" don't change the evidence, they just confuse the issue.  Like the assassination... Why or How multiple shooters killed JFK and got away with it will be debated forever... doesn't change the fact or truth that it happened.

13 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I don't need to convince anyone of these things-you do. I know they are false, if others want to believe them that is their right.

The issues at hand? You mean like the scientific proof that refutes the H&L theory that you guys will not discuss?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html

Or are you talking about common sense concepts that you also won't discuss?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/common-sense.html

I am perfectly willing to admit that except for a few trips to libraries, I have never left the house to do any research. But I do have 33 kindle books on the subject and probably another 30 in hard copy. And I do have some documents on order from the National Archives as we speak. I congratulate Armstrong for the work he did and the money he spent. Unfortunately, witnesses are another matter with him. As David Lifton has written about right here at the EF, Armstrong went on a "witness recruitment program" that involved befriending people and convincing them they wee witnesses to history. Not an objective way to approach the situation. He also talked to people 35-40 years after the fact-not the best time to do so.

EDIT: BTW, I interviewed Vincent DiMaio, Gary Mack, Jack White and a few others via email-it is a new world now you know.

You are using the HSCA experts as your supporting evidence?

Yeah, that;s what I figured.  You and Blakey should get along fine...  

bu bye now!  

On 2/24/2017 at 3:57 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Good write-up Jim, none of it is true of course, but artfully done anyway. A couple questions:

Where did the photo from 126 Exchange St. come from?

What happened to the "real" Marguerite? At least we have a firm date on the switch now.

Also you guys are still using the 6 foot height for Ekdahl even though I have shown he was 5' 11" at best and probably closer to 5' 10". A lot of material to work with but I am busy on another project right now so I'll just leave a link to my series for those interested:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html

This was your first post Tracy.

How do you not know these things from the reading of the book?

Where did a photo come from?  Where do you think it came from Tracy?  your 2 part article does not address the question or the address for that matter.

From a search of those 2 articles you also haven't a clue about 2220 Thomas Place either I see.  All you seem to care about is how you can't understand how MO can be both 5'5" and 5'1"....  but keep trying, you'll get it.

Why ask all these question about a theory you don't believe?  

MO lived at 2220 Thomas in 1947 and on Nov 22, 1963... amazing, right?   Across the street from Stripling JHS.

Tracy, it is painfully obvious you've not read the book, acquired the CD, read any of the hundreds of Baylor notebooks or done anything more than create and tear down your own STRAW MAN arguments.... or if you did read it you have not retained a thing.  You do it repeatedly throughout this thread.

How about you answer some questions...  What's so important about 126 Exchange?  2220 Thomas?  101 San Saba?  

Why do you suppose we do not have a single letter from Marge to Lee while in the Marines... in evidence?

...offer something concrete to defend your position or move on already... you're failing miserably here and I for one will bow out and let you continue with your foot in mouth disease...

Sir, the "They will say" crap was the specific crap I was referring to....  I don't tell you what you "are saying" and while it may not be against any rule

those with some sense of how to engage in discussion and debate don't put words in their opponents' mouths.

They do something called "mirroring" by repeating back what was said to ensure mutual understanding.

All you've posted to date is how mistakes are the root cause of all these conflicts.  Mistakes in interpretation, in creating the record in the first place and mistakes after mistakes... unless the interpretation relfects your own beliefs and then the interpretation is correct.

No matter how hard you try Tracy, you cant get 127 school days into the space between 3/23 and 6/26...
No matter how hard you try, the boy in the bronx zoo photo is up to 6 inches shorter and 15-20 lbs lighter than the boy pictured from 18 months earlier.
No matter how hard you WANT Ed Pic to be wrong... we'll let others make up their own minds by reading the testimony themselves

No Tracy, I will not buy into your Straw man efforts to change subjects and avoid addressing the issues at hand.

You want to believe all these are coincidence and try to convince others... have at it buddy...  

keep the discussion moving along...  maybe more will actually read the book (have you really read it Tracy or do you just cherry-pick as you see fit?) 
follow the footnotes and sources and learn for themselves.  Maybe not.

Keep posting STRAW MEN and knocking them down... those are COINTELPRO tactics to a T....  have you actually posted any evidence which refutes anything? Not that anyone here can see... it's all mistakes, a massive all involved conspiracy, or impossible... and we're to take your word for it... a word with ZERO credibility established or from what anyone can tell even attempted.

Post YOUR interviews with the main players Tracy.  Post about your trips to the archives for 10 years doing the research.  Post about all the traveling you did to speak with witnesses first hand.  Let us know about the info from your DoD visits that supports your contention.  

Is there anything you can actually offer in the way of proof that makes it plain to the reader this scenario is not possible...  or you just going to keep throwing tactics at us?

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

Eight Traits of the Disinformational-ist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility

45 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

"They will say..."   ??

Why is it always so necessary for the "opposition point" to tell us what we're going to say?

It's usually because what they offer never accomplishes the purpose.

If anything I said about Thanksgiving 1962 is a misrepresentation of your position, please let us know.

    This is just pure crap Tracy... you stick to stating what YOU think and we'll take care of our end. K?

Quote

They will say Robert and Marina and Vada were in on it. Pic became aware of the plot, perhaps right here at Thanksgiving, and said nothing but gave clues during his testimony.

Tracy, how can he be with his brother, shooting and also go for medical attention in Florida at the same time?

How come there is an entire group of soldiers who claim to have been with Lee who have no relationship at all to Harvey and his military time?

Two more examples of mistaken witnesses, records etc. Professional investigators realize these things happen in real life.

    Again and again Tracy, your only answer is that everyone but you is making a mistake...  you sound like Trump.

What kind of data do you think "needs material alteration .. or omission" with regards to poor little Ozzie's life?

This is taken out of context and simply refers to the fact that John Hart Ely’s memorandum may not have been entirely accurate and needed changes, Nothing sinister but it does give H&L people more ammunition.

    You truly have no idea what you're saying, do you?  The man who just finished researching Oswald's past is confronted by a list of Marines as told by one Allen Graf which are not part of Harvey's history...  what context would you need to be in for you to comprehend it?  

Seems the man living with Oswald in Feb 1957 has nothing to say about his being gone during that time period - and we're saying the man in the photo is Lee.
Hey, maybe you do have the right year - in Feb 1957 Lee would have been on leave and Harvey would have been ... where was he Tracy?

There was no Harvey and the one and only LHO was on leave.

    Not according to the records Tracy.  This is like the trip to Ping Tung.  He's on the leaving ship's manifest, he's seen and talked about while in Ping Tung and is on the manifest for the returning ship...  yet all the while he is treated in Atsugi for a STD...  as badly as you'd like this not to be, it is.  "Everyone else is wrong" is one helluva paranoid way to go thru life buddy.

The FBI even found the wrong Felde  1615775, Robert Allen Felde is NOT Allen R Felde #1641924, so of course 1615775 would have no knowledge of Oswald.

The whole Felde thing is a puzzle but you don’t need two Oswalds to explain it even if the explanation is just misinterpreted records or witness memories.

    You're a riot Tracy...  When the evidence is placed in front of you, you claim blindness.  The Felde with Oswald was with someone who did not follow the same path as what was offered by the Marines in the WCR.  Folsom and Donabedian Exhibits.  In relation to this we have Rose's autopsy diagram of Oswald.  On Oct 27, 1957 Oswald was diagnosed with a .22 shot just above the elbow requiring a surgical procedure and a 2" scar just above the left elbow...

    Rose's sheet shows nothing above the left elbow, front or back...   Just another mistake ?   As stated, so many need to be so wrong for you to be right even once... 

Wonder why the FBI would not want to interview a marine who knew LEE....

Not sure what you are referring to but the FBI, although they conducted 25,000 plus interviews couldn’t see everybody.

     What I refer to is the desire to remove from the record anything related to LEE Oswald's past, from school friends to Marine friends, right down to LEE being released in March 1959 from El Toro and Harvey in Sept from Santa Ana...  

    Fact of the matter is your only and best argument is that all these records and all these people are mistaken.  that Anna Lewis stating she met Oswald in the early months of 1962 - with JVB in the room - and repeating it twice, was still not corrected for the Apr/May 1963 JVB claims it was..  all during summer  of 63 Oswald was seen in both New Orleans and Dallas w/Ruby.  Ruby rents him a room in fact.  Yet since no relationship existed between the two, that was not possible...

    I truly appreciate your attempts at explaining away these conflicts by claiming either 1) everyone was wrong (straw man)  or 2) everyone was in on it (straw man again)  makes the work here so much easier.   It's truly amazing that not one of these conflicts ever breaks in Oswald's favor.  Not one item of evidence is questionable, it all points to our man Harvey...  Another thing in the history is LEE liked to be called "Oz" his marine nickname and HATED being called Harv or Harvey and was big enough to convince you not to use it.  Harvey, on the other hand, was NEVER called OZ by anyone...

 

Mrs. PAINE - My recollection is that he was present most of the weekend. He went out to buy groceries, came in with a cheery call to his two girls, saying, "Yabutchski," which means girls, the Russian word for girls, as he came in the door. It was more like Harvey than I had seen him before. 

 

Talking about photos of our Oswald in MC when there is simply no credible evidence that he ever went to MC that weekend, when there is very credible evidence he was in Dallas with 2 Cuban looking men at Odio's and then at the shooting range that weekend.

The voice is not Oswald's
The photo is not Oswald
Duran says it was not Oswald
Azcue says it was not Oswald
Scott and Mann both know of no evidence of Oswald in MC OTHER THAN the CIA transcript of the Russian related calls
Hoover had over 20 FBI assets in MC try to find any evidence of Oswald being there - none was found
Hoover asked his asset at the Gobernacion whether there was any evidence - none

The FBI concludes that Oswald leaves on Oct 2nd at 8:30am via Del Norte bus line after the 3:20pm departure on Frontera which Bosch created did not work and was scrapped.

Except this states that on the 2nd they photographed Oswald coming out of the Russian Embassy...

Nice trick!

Don't you suppose if there was a photo of Oswald leaving the Russian or Cuban buildings they would use them to PROVE he was there.  Dropping Alvarado's story could still occur and he would still be a lone nut looking to escape justice.

When one finally stops with the micro-analysis and starts to see how one thing after another adds together to a conclusion which is corroborated by the evidence - the conclusion that the FBI created a trip and did so only partially well... they too are humans, they too made mistakes.  Those mistakes remain the only portal into the reality of the situation...  the Evidence IS the Conspiracy.  Always was and always will be.  We can only see the shadows of the cover-up and never the details of the action.

"They will say..."   ??

Why is it always so necessary for the "opposition point" to tell us what we're going to say?

It's usually because what they offer never accomplishes the purpose.

Tracy, how can he be with his brother, shooting and also go for medical attention in Florida at the same time?

How come there is an entire group of soldiers who claim to have been with Lee who have no relationship at all to Harvey and his military time?

What kind of data do you think "needs material alteration .. or omission" with regards to poor little Ozzie's life?

Seems the man living with Oswald in Feb 1957 has nothing to say about his being gone during that time period - and we're saying the man in the photo is Lee.
Hey, maybe you do have the right year - in Feb 1957 Lee would have been on leave and Harvey would have been ... where was he Tracy?

Maybe has something to do with that list of names Ely gets from Graf?  Don't look too close though, wouldn't want you to learn anything new or nothing...

The FBI even found the wrong Felde  1615775, Robert Allen Felde is NOT Allen R Felde #1641924, so of course 1615775 would have no knowledge of Oswald.

Wonder why the FBI would not want to interview a marine who knew LEE....   

You may wish to read John Ely's interview notebook at Baylor's Armstrong collection...  These who were with "Oz" aka Lee are shown while the list of military peers HARVEY was with is completely different.

Ely interviewed: Donald Camarata, Henry Rousel Jr, David Murray Jr, James Botelho, Allen D Graf (as opposed to Allen Felde),  who mentioned all those men who were unknown to Ely... since they were all LEE's peers, not Harvey's;  Paul Murphy, Peter F Connor, John R. Heindell,  Richard Call, & Mack Osborne

-----

Regarding the leave now...  As we've said all along - 2 men's records combined into one.

In Folsom Exh we are shown his leave which states from 27Feb57 to 13Mar57 he was "on leave"

In his Military service summary it states he was at Camp Pendelton from 1-20-57 to 3-18-57 for Infantry Training.

So you are claiming that during those 4 weeks Oswald was on leave for 2 weeks. 

Except his MEDICAL RECORDS show he was in JAX Florida on March 15 for medical treatment     

and finally there's FELDE.

Bottom Line Tracy, the records conflict and for very good reason.  Those who knew LEE were not follow-ed up upon while those who knew HARVEY were.

It's called a PLAN tracy.  Those with the skill and position to create a plan did so in order that they create spies who could tell us a few things about Russia - a place we were at Cold War with yet had little if any accurate information about...

No idea was too out there, no discussion off the table.  I truly do not think you grasp the time period as you should.  This is the height of the Cold War and you're trying to tell us that the CIA, that Dulles, Angleton, Helms, Bissell, King, and on and on were not capable of such a plan?

You sir need to read a bit more about our history... and maybe read or re-read Hancock's Nexus.  The argument that what happened was too far beyond what we should believe is a very poor way to continue this discussion and efend your position.

Just now, W. Tracy Parnell said:

David,

That is just another misreading of a record.

yes - I see you doing that quite often - in fact with virtually every post...

23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

David,

The differences in physical appearance you mention are not based on Kurian?

no Tracy, they are based on the 7th grade NYC schools entry physical given Lee with the FBI spelling it out, literally.

The rails at the Bronx zoo are 18" & 36" - yes I did call them to find out.

The boy in the zoo photo is not 5'4" and not 115lbs.  He does not have the neck of Lee Oswald, the largest kid in the class and natural leader of the others.

Harvey Oswald, as the boy on the left in the photo was now called, was small, scrappy, and smarter than Lee.

THIS is Harvey, compared to the 5'10" 165 lb Lee.

On 3/7/2017 at 9:20 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

I've been meaning to ask about that (but have been preoccupied responding to posts.) It states the following on the Beauregard record:

Originally Admitted:  1954-1-13

Isn't that a fly in the Beauregard School ointment? It seems to be stating that Oswald began attending class there the second semester of 53/54. Yet we see he took classes during the first semester.

What gives?

 

Myra DeRouse, DOROTHY DUVIK, ED VOEBEL, & the CUMULATIVE RECORD is the ONLY evidence of his attending SPRING 53-54 at BJHS.

Myra remembers very well and is sure that Oswald was not in homeroom 303 as his grade cards show.

The FBI took all originals and provided photocopies of the school records - all of them.  The items offered in evidence are copies designed to support the story of one Oswald.

Problem being there are many conflicts that only begin in 1952.  Google "John Ely" and get a flavor for what it was to do a bio on Lee Harvey...

It is my understanding of the evidence that LEE attended a different PS44, in Manhattan while Harvey attended in the Bronx..  here is an annotated map showing the relationship between these locations.

Robert Oswald tells us in his book that in Sept 1953 Lee entered 8th grade at PS44 on Columbus and 76th..  this is in Manhattan, not the Bronx.

We must remember that they took the records of 2 children and created 1 record that satisfied the evidence.  Carro claims he is in 9th grade in Sept 1953, not 8th as his brother claims.  In the highlighted article next to Carro's photo it states Oswald went to PS44 at 1825 prospect in the Bronx.

2 different apartments, 2 different schools, 2 different children attending PS44 at the same time.  Only Harvey's mother moved him often enough to make tracking him virtually impossible.

=====

On 3/7/2017 at 9:06 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Wow, David. I've read that line ("Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald") many times. What I didn't know is that Pic could recognize the one picture but not the other, when the two were roughly the same age. That gives Pic's response greater significance, IMO.

Agreed... and if you go to his testimony and the LIFE images, he correctly picks Lee from Harvey every time....

Here is Pic and Harvey at Thanksgiving 1962.  The famous jacket/rifle photo is offered...

that jacket and the Westbrook jacket look extremely similar right down to the button at the cuffs...  but that's just my old eyes talking...

On 3/7/2017 at 8:34 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

No you didn't. You didn't show how Oswald took and completed two classes at Beauregard while taking classes full time at PS44.

What he attempts to show is the meaning of "Re-Ad" and the fact that record only shows 2 complete classes on the FALL 53-54 line.
He suggests, as the record shows, that Oswald started January 13, 1954.

On 3/7/2017 at 8:48 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

This is based on the statements of Dr. Milton Kurian. I maintain that even though Kurian apparently worked at Youth House, he never saw LHO and is one of hundreds of people who came forward after the assassination honestly believing they saw him but were just mistaken. Like the other witnesses, Kurian has no documentation to support his claim. If Kurian did see LHO, which is doubtful and can never be proven one way or the other, he was simply mistaken about his remembrances regarding LHO's physical appearance. Eventually, I plan to do an article on Kurian and his story.

No sir it is not.

If you cannot trust your own eyes to see the difference, I feel for you.  If I had meant the time at Youth House which is not reflected anywhere on his PERM record (not strange to you, we know - no absences or mention of Youth House once this child starts school again on March 23, 1953) I would have considering how much more fluent I am with the evidence

If you were a teacher Tracy, and a child started in your class on 3/23/53, and then on April 10th is sent to Youth House and does not attend your class again until May 8th or 11th how would you record that time period?  

• ATTENDED ?
• ABSENT ?

Furthermore, this record claims there were 127 days of potential school for this child from March 23rd.

From March 23rd until June 26th - the last possible day of school - is only 70 days TOTAL, minus Youth House and Spring break leaves barely 50 days to attend school
The following line on this record is the start of the 54-55 school year at PS44 (of which there were 4 different ps44's within NY City at the time, Lee attended in Manhattan)

Maybe they are counting back to January 16?  That would add 44 more days of school to the 70 possible days making 114 yet wouldn't the days from 1/16/53 until 3/23/53 be listed under DAYS ABSENT?  109 3/2 + 15 3/2 = 127  if and only if you include all the days he did NOT attend as days he attended...

Sorry boys, doesn't work that way - never did and never will.  Unless you;re the FBI.

{sigh}

This isn't about one instance, one school year, on set of conflicting facts... the duplicity permeates the evidence.

Does John nail each and every minute detail... in my opinion, no.  John and I talked thru many of these conflicts.  

The book was published 20 years ago taking ten years prior to that to research and write.
There is information offered in H&L not offered anywhere due to the repeated visits to the archives.

At the end of summer of 1952, Lee Oswald moved to NYC and entered 7th grade a 5'4" 115lb boy.
The Bronx zoo photo was taken in August 1953 supposedly by Robert Oswald.

A full 18 months later the "Lee" Oswald is now barely 4'10" and weighs 90-95 lbs.

I'm truly sorry for those who use the rebuttal WHY? or NOT POSSIBLE when in truth you have no idea of what craziness these people are capable of.  That you or anyone else cannot fathom such an act does not refute or negate the act act all...  it just shows how little you know of history and the depravity of human beings.

What I find most amusing is that EVERYONE needs to be mistaken for over 11 years.  Records MUST be wrong, the DoD MUST be mistaken about their conflicts.  Everything about Oswald and the world around him was dull, boring and normal - as you would hope to have us believe...  

There are simply too many specific items of evidence which support the existence of both of these men.

IMO from the evidence I've reviewed, Robert Oswald helped to set-up the person pretending to be his brother, knowing full well he was not incriminating his family.

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. 

It appears the name is UPSTREAM and was written about in a number of different books starting with Weisberg.

This is "Not In Your Lifetime"...

and here is the CHOADEN memo...