David Josephs

This is Ozzie copied and placed by Ferrie and Ferrie copied and placed by Oswald...

You want to believe this is how big the boy was... no surprise given all you do is faith-based belief....

You want to prove something, prove it... ask one of your minions to work out the calcs - even they are going to ask you about perspective focal distance, lens size and depth of field.

Throwing out excuse after excuse for why it appears that way rather than understanding the Occum's razor answer only continues to make you look foolish on top of deceiptful...

thanks tommy... nose brown enough for you yet or do you need a few more hours up there?

So what was the answer to Greg's pertinent question "How far back from the group do you think LHO was?" One foot? Two? Five? And you think that will make a tall husky lad appear smaller than everyone else there? Even the ones stood right beside him?

But of course. You HAVE to believe it. If not you will look like an idiot who has wasted his life on a ridiculous premise when he could have used that time to enjoy it and not be the butt of everyone's jokes.

You fundamentalist freaks scare the bejesus out of me.

Bernie, go home. With each post you show how unprepared and foolish you are.

You've gotten to be such a sad little thing when once you actually had your own voice.

When your leader finally stops posting faith-based opinions and finds a fact or two - snowballs will fly in a very hot place....

How is it that you still refuse to look up how perspective works in photography? Ignorance must be bliss - right little man?

One more example to illustrate PERSPECTIVE and DEPTH OF FIELD...

with a higher mm lens the distances between front and back are highly skewed... you cannot use objects within the photo to judge distance since the size of objects is completely relative to its position in the image.

Obviously, the baby's head is not larger than Lovelady's. In the original image it APPEARS that they are much closer to each other than they really are

and with this copy-paste of the baby's head next to Lovelady's you hopefully understand a bit about how photography works.

Every time with you Bernie... you keep coming to this knife fight with rubber bands and chewing gum... and expect to be taken seriously.

tommy - deception is still deception.

I don't need to muck up the image to prove why distance changes the size relation of things in a photo...

This is yet another failed attempt at refuting evidence with which you never aquainted yourselves to start....

And the arrogance involved in not even wanting to Google the terms "perspective" and "depth of field" to learn how wrong it was is even more of an example of the hubris this little group exhibits.

You little boys want to be right SOOOOO badly you'd resort to just about anything including deceiving the members here... and then patting each other n the backs for doing so

Well done!

edit: you say something parker?

How far behind everyone else do you claim Oswald is standing?

I'm not claiming anything. I am informing you that the image in which you claim Oswald is but some tiny little guy is due to perspective and focal distances.

That when you copy from one part of the image and move to another - either closer to the camera or farther away - the size comparison becomes even more obvious.

Since I am not a photogrammetry expert, and that is the only way to tell distances in a 2d representation of 3d space, we cannot know where he is standing in relation to Ferrie until much more is known about the photo.

We do know he is farther away. We do know that if this image was taken with a 35mm lens the distances would be much different than a 150mm lens from farther away.

We also know that the camera is much closer to the left side of the image than the right, which also distorts the distances.

You simply picked the wrong image with which to try and prove your argument and then acted the fool when told so....

Now, instead of being a man... you have to play the disgruntled fool.

whatever Greg... you're so transparent you might as well not even be there.

That you bore us all to death with one poor argument after another which requires me at least to leave for a little bit soas not to deal with your poisonous BS - AND that you are waiting and watching for me - is just the way it is.

You've deceived others by posted an altered image after you already posted the actual one... and the post of the fake image has no text... hmmm

You cant seem to understand how perspective works so you will post ANYTHING and EVERYTHING but your admitting you are clueless when it comes to photographic analysis - almost if not as bad as your document analysis.

That you need to resort to Lamson-like trickery just to make a point which you couldn't to begin with is just, so, YOU.

So I understand you don't get photography - that you've made obvious. But you can read about how perspective works, right - you still know how to do research...

You get the basic concept that distance and focal length will distort the sizes and shapes of objects in different parts of the image.... I posted the example above.

Is changing the subject and doing the same song and dance all we're ever going to be getting from you anymore?

Kenneth... Zapruder had 2 films on the morning of the 23rd, not 1.

Sorrels has one and he gave one to the FBI

Phillips also sends a copy.

When Phillips says the THIRD PRINT IS FORWARDED he assumes that Zapruder only has the master...

Either Sorrels or Rowley has an extra copy the night of the 22nd.

My point is, it's as valid as YOUR collage.

NO . You put up a distorted image. Mr. Joseph only transferred one section of the photo to another (WITHOUT enlargement) to show that objects closer to the camera appear bigger.,gaal

++++++++++++++++

I think you have violated the spirit (if not the letter) of Forum rules by deliberately posting false information. When Jack White's poster was talked about ,you Mr. Parker, screamed FRAUD again and again.

What should we speak of you ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????. gaal

Greg was in effect arguing your case for you, photographically speaking.

You should be grateful.

After all, Greg didn't make Oswald look smaller than he really was.

He made him look larger than he really was.

--Tommy

So you are aware that it was Greg who tried to decieve us with that skewed image?

Do you not understand how depth of field and perspective works either? Sad.

Do you not see that the quadrilaterals at the back are smaller than at the front?

Gee... MAGIC, right? How can they all be the same size yet look so different in size in the same image...

Look at the bottom Steve... Greg has left the discussion as most creatures who fear the light tend to do when the switch is hit...

Scamper scamper little greg.... find a way to turn these lemons into lemonade

My "collage" both explained "depth of field" and how Oswald looks like his younger self.

I did not skew the image to make it appear Oswald was bigger than he was... I explained it correctly - DEPTH OF FIELD.

That you choose to cheat your way into a poor argument is your problem.

Now one last time Greg, can you tell us the distance and focal length of the image so you can then give us a scaling factor based on the depth of field of the image - or not?

Do you understand that images farther away from the camera and the higher the focal distance and doeth of field, the smaller objects in the background will appear... - or not?

Here is the "collage" without the extra images yet with Ferrie and Oswald copy-pasted against each other to illustrate the concept.

Try Google Greg, you might learn something. As for your dishonest attempt at an argument... I expect nothing more from you, always.

No need to bump Tommy... Either Greg is trying to show off what little Photoshop skills he has, someone at ROKC who does know how to manipulate images did it for him or he found it already on the internet... either way, he should know how it doesn't come close to the original at all...

My bet is he knew that and posted anyway... and it was probably done by one of the minions on the island.

You can even see the skewed boundaries. Well, YOU can... Bernie and Greg not so much

Here you go Tommy, Greg and Bernie... now everyone is the same height and Ozzie is bigger and wider than Ferrie...

Yo Greg... how about telling us what was done to manipulate the image they way it was? Or did you find it manipulated that way somewhere and think it looked like the actual photo?

When we match these two, supposedly identical photos, by sizing Ferrie correctly in both... WTF Greg...?

You posted the correct photo in your first attempt... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=105#entry313831

so we know you have the correct image... why distort it to make your wrong assumption and question appear not as ridiculous as it was?

edit - so tweedle dee shows up to show off his intelligence as well... maybe learn the first thing about photography before you open your yap..? That you cannot even tell how skewed and resized and distorted Greg's follow-up image is only shows how little you understand.

Go back to sleep.

Illustrating you don't understand photography is appreciated...

Once again... distance to the camera and focal length - any clue?

So the assumption here is a boy's height in 7th grade determines his size a few years later... It's your contention that a 5'4" 13 year old could not be a 5'7" 16 year old. (yes Bernie, 'your' is not the same as 'you're' - speaking of linguistic skills).

And then become a 5'11' 20 year old.

You can show how that's not possible or just keep asking questions with that lost look on your faces like you're making some amazing point here.

Tell us how tall that boy is please. You know how tall Ferrie was?

Sometimes boys will grow up before filling out. But since you are so sure that's not Lee, I guess it's down to your words versus Palmer.

I'll take the guy who was there every time over witless speculation & your faith-based beliefs.

But at least now you are trying harder to see the differences between the two people. There's hope for you boys yet.

Pay attention David please. It was Greg who wrote a few posts earlier in #1801..."You're the one claiming he went there..." Which is perfectly correct English grammar. GAAL decided to use his expert language skills and correct him in post #1802...

"CAP photo small LEE people. Your the one claiming he went there he (LEE) saw smallish , The burden of proof is on you to show when it was he was smallish." Gaal (#1802)

Oops! You just don't seem to care how many times you come on here and thoroughly humiliate yourself do you?

So, who is the smallest little man in the photo David? Is it 'Harvey' or is it 'Lee'?

A straightforward answer would be just dandy.

I think the little diddy one looks like LHO. Do you?

So when I show you and Greg how foolish this attempt is, I don't see either of you rushing to post how WRONG you both are or how poor you both remain at interpreting what a photograph shows or how they work.

C'mon Greg, where's the righteous indignation now that you're shown to not have the first clue related to photography?

I post a "straighforward" answer Bernie...what do you do?

Yep, just as we thought...

Nada. not even the class to admit how wrong you are... or how clueless you remain when it comes to the simplest of analysis.

Well done little boys... you're batting .000 so far with these rebuttals... but hey, rock on ...

We were told that Zapruder had in his possession the original and a best copy since we know that LIFE first takes the original and comes back for the best copy which Zap also supposedly had... 1 copy

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, Mr. Zapruder, after you had the film developed I understand Mr. Sorrels from the Secret Service came over and helped you get the films developed and you gave two copies of your films to Mr. Sorrels, is that correct?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes. One we have sent to Washington the same night and one went over for the viewers of the FBI on Ervay Street.
Mr. LIEBELER - That's the Secret Service?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - The Secret Service--I brought one roll there and they told me to dispatch it by Army plane or I don't know what they had done with it but it was supposed to have gone to Washington and one of them, I believe, remained here with Mr. Sorrels. He came to my office quite a few times to show them to different people.

2 more copies

All this would be fine if Philips told us that 1 of the 2 Sorrel's copies was sent to Rowley... but that's not what he says...

He says "The THIRD PRINT is forwarded". Yet according to numerous timelines offered Zapruder either keeps the "best" copy or Stolley takes it... either way at the time Philips sends the film Zapruder has the original and a copy, and Sorrels has 2 copies since "The third print is forwarded"

Question is - if Philips sent one of Sorrels' copies, he would not be sending a "third print" which according to the # of copies admitted to, is in Zapruder's possession. The only THRID PRINT available is 0184 which for 50+ years we've somehow accepted the excuse that 0184 was simply skipped over for some unknown reason... If that doesn't ring alarm bells, what will?

I contend that 0184 was already in DC on the night of 11/22, was seen by the FBI and SS (and commented upon as seen by the FBI in the early morning hours of 11/23) and it was this copy which Hawkeyeworks changes before it gets to Dino

Dino was adamant with Peter Janney, as he had been with David Wrone, that the film delivered to NPIC for processing by the Secret Service was an 8 mm home movie, and he recalled this clearly and without any doubt whatsoever because Bill Banfield had to awaken the owner of the CIA’s favorite commercial photo outlet (Fuller and d’Albert), and ask him to to open his downtown shop, so that Banfield could purchase an 8 mm home movie projector. While Banfield was procuring the 8 mm projector in downtown WashingtonD.C. in the dead of night, Brugioni, Pearse, and the two Secret Service agents were examining individual frames of the film on a light table with a stereomicroscope. About midnight, when Banfield returned with the 8 mm home movie projector, the film was viewed at least 4 or 5 times, and at different speeds, by the two Secret Service agents, Brugioni (the duty officer), Pearse (the lead photogrammatrist), and Banfield (the production supervisor).

By definition, 0184 would have been the FIRST COPY of the film. Sadly, imo, that film and its contents are no longer available yet WCD298 gives you some glimpse as to what was on it... a shot 40 feet down Elm and more shots at locations which are not seen or identified in the films. I am doing an article on WCD298 as definitive proof that what we see in the films and photos is not representative of what happened....

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...

DJ

The quality of the National Archives' photographic copy of this hand written report is so poor that many of its words cannot be made out in a scanned copy. Consequently, we have provided below a typed copy ]

CD - 87 Folder 1
CO2 34030 11/22
9:55

To: Chief Rowley
From: Max D. Phillips
Subject: 8mm movie film showing President
Kennedy being shot

Enclosed is an 8mm movie film
taken by Mr. A. Zapruder, 501 Elm St., Dallas
Texas (RI8-6071)

Mr.. Zapruder was photographing
the President at the instant he was shot.

According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of
the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder.

Note: Disregard personnel scenes
shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder
is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints
were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date.
The third print is forwarded.

Max D. Phillips
Special Agent - PRS

Max D. Phillips
Special Agent - PRS

SS SA Max Phillips wrote to Rowley

Thanks Roy... appreciated.

So tell me since you seem to be at least reasonable enough to have a serious discussion...

Do you understand Depth of field? That objects farther away from the camera appear smaller due to the vanishing horizon concept and depth of field.?

By copying and pasting Oswald from his position to next to Ferrie we can see how UNTRUE his size is compared to the others.

And in reverse, by copying and pasting Ferrie next to Oswald we can see the true effects of photographic depth of field. (I did not resize either copy)

What bothers me most is that seemingly intelligent people want so bad to "Catch us" doing something wrong or being dishonest about H&L and the Evidence that

they'll forget some of the most basic rules of reality.

They will make up stats and offer faith-based theories about real events with real evidence.

Does that boy in the back look like all the LEE childhood photos? Same cheeks and smile to me.... but then again I have so much bias...

Anyway, posting this photo with that question just shows how desperate these boys are and how willing they are to go to any lengths to confuse the issues.

So tell us boys, what focal length, lens and distances are we talking about in this image which you used to prove your point? It appears to be a higher mm lens making the distances look smaller than they are...

Thoughts?

So the assumption here is a boy's height in 7th grade determines his size a few years later... It's your contention that a 5'4" 13 year old could not be a 5'7" 16 year old. (yes Bernie, 'your' is not the same as 'you're' - speaking of linguistic skills).

And then become a 5'11' 20 year old.

You can show how that's not possible or just keep asking questions with that lost look on your faces like you're making some amazing point here.

Tell us how tall that boy is please. You know how tall Ferrie was?

Sometimes boys will grow up before filling out. But since you are so sure that's not Lee, I guess it's down to your words versus Palmer.

I'll take the guy who was there every time over witless speculation & your faith-based beliefs.

But at least now you are trying harder to see the differences between the two people. There's hope for you boys yet.

If you read SS Philips note to Rowley and remember that Zap had original and a best copy, 2 to SS, and a final copy to Rowley, it looks like an original and 4 copies.

Maybe this will add some clarity?

CE1988. Whether this is what Oswald said or what needed to be written is best revealed by the "stood around 5 or 10 minutes with Bill Shelley" who was no longer standing at the front door.

Mr. BALL - And who was out there?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she's with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes.

Mr. BALL - What did you and Billy Lovelady do?
Mr. SHELLEY - We walked on down to the first railroad track there on the dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there in the parking lots for a little while and then we came in through our parking lot at the west end.
Mr. BALL - At the west end?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes; and then in the side door into the shipping room.
Mr. BALL - When you came into the shipping room did you see anybody?
Mr. SHELLEY - I saw Eddie Piper.

Mr. BALL - Now, did the police come into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; they started coming in pretty fast.
Mr. BALL - Did you go with them any place?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes; Mr. Truly left me guarding the elevator, not to let anybody up and down the elevator or stairway and some plainclothesmen came in; I don't know whether they were Secret Service or FBI or what but they wanted me to take them upstairs, so we went up and started searching the various floors.
Mr. BALL - Did you go up on the sixth floor?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Were you there when they found anything up there?
Mr. SHELLEY - I was, I believe I was on the sixth floor when they found the gun but we were searching all parts of that floor.

So much for guarding the elevator - somebody in this threesome of Bookout, Shelley and Oswald is not telling the truth here.

Hi Ramon...

This shows the xray, JFK's actual skull pre-shooting and his face. I am of the opinion that what we see here is the result of Humes' pre-autopsy surgery, coupled with the covering of the right rear hole after the fact....

Ron is right, kind of. IMO, The MICC is not really the government. The government is a facade like so many others for the MICC at this point.

What you're saying is that the MICC is the real government, with our so-called Constitutional government being a facade. So still the government (the real one) did it. But to avoid confusion I would say that yes, the MICC did it.

This was a Military Industrial Congressional Complex backed assassination to retain the status quo... the "I" makes the stuff, the "M" buys the stuff and the "C" pays for the stuff.

I would change that (as I believe John Simkin once did) to the Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Complex. The "I" makes the stuff, the "M" buys the stuff, the second "I" arranges for the stuff to be used, and the "C" pays for the stuff.

Jon - The Military did it. The Military did the autopsy. The Military flew the body to DC. The Military was the background of 99% of those on the ground around JFK.

How much the Military reached out to the CIA et al is the question yet no one else could facilitate both the operation and the cover-up as effectively as the Military.

They do it quite oftne throughout history as well.

Hi Ron...

I've not gone that way since I believe that "CIA" was just another way to say "Military Intelligence" but by dropping the "Military" part it presents the illusion they are separate.

Specific agent action may run off course... but the CIA was, is and will always be a Military instrument and was one of the main reasons the FBI's SIS was ended in 1945.

It was one if not the only one of its kind - an intelligence gathering machine run by the FBI outside of Military involvement and not to interfere with Mil Intel where it operated, in the Western Hemisphere.

To DVP once again... it is not our role to prove alternate possibilities or innocence. It is your responsiblity to prove guilt.

Proving Guilt requires authenticated Evidence as would be accepted by a court of law.

IOW you need to PROVE C2766 was ever in Oswald's possession with authenticated and corroborated proof.

C2766 must have been at 4905 Magazine on September 23rd when Ruth takes Marina and June to Irving along with all their possessions save a couple of small suitcases Oswald is seen with by a neighbor. The Rifle, to have gottento that Garage MUST have been transported during this trip.

PROVE IT.

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.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did it occur to you at that time that there was a rifle in the package?

Mr. PAINE - That did not occur to me.

Mr. PAINE - I don't remember whether the date was September. I remember that was the date they came back from New Orleans and I do remember that my wife asked me to unpack some of their heavy things from their car. I only recall unpacking duffelbags but any other package, that was the heaviest thing there and they were easy also.

Mr. LIEBELER - You must have moved the duffelbags from the station wagon into the garage?

Mr. PAINE - That is right. I unpacked whatever was remaining in the station wagon to the garage.

Mr. LIEBELER - Can you tell us when the last time was that you saw that package in the garage prior to the assassination?

Mr. PAINE - No; I am afraid I can't.

Good to see tommy and BL more concerned with any other subject but learning about the one at hand...

the concepts of metaphor and simile eludes you as badly as the concept of source backed responses not based on what you think but what you know...

if you knew 1/10th about H&L as it appears you do about language, you'd be worth talking to about it... but you don't...

So yes, please keep on posting these terrible responses which illustrate the extent of your abilities and knowledge...

nothing makes you three look more foolish than any one of your posts...

Like free advertising... priceless

...

But more importantly, one can only wonder why more of his "supporters" have not come to his rescue on this thread! Could it be that most members agree with us, i.e. that the premises and conclusions of Harvey and Lee are ... hogwash?

--Tommy

LMAO! You're sounding more like Dave Reitzes did 20 years ago Tom.

What is amazing here, in my eye at least, an example: David Lifton's much herald and planned book on LHO went to the scrap heap 15 or so years ago, because, in my estimation (and many will agree) John's H&L. Now Greg has a lot invested in his present LHO work (which is in progress). In fact, you might say, he has a lot to lose if he can't discredit H&L in its entirety.

David needs no online/forum support here, in fact, I'm amazed he even bothers with you and those few peanut gallery responses you put forth... in my estimation ya need that H&L hogwash Tom, without it, Greg's book(s) fail. Such a strange way to promote a new work sales... whatever floats one's boat! I'll buy Greg's books (I did buy H&L at Jack White's insistence, it was an expensive yawn for me... I already believed LHO was a patsy, the rest was details. End of story for me!

(update: rumor has it, there is a new LHO book in the works by a NYT best-selling author, how is that for timing?)

Dear David,

Harvey and Lee fail? How in the world could such a paranoiac theory fail when it's based on 1 ) two (hopefully) similar-looking boys' and their (already!) similar-looking mothers' being chosen by the bad guys to participate in a double doppelganger project which doesn't come to fruition until some ten years later, 2 ) one of the boys (both of whom are young men at this point of the "theory") was kinda (and, well, kinda not) hidden away in a safe house in the U.S. during the 2 1/2 years that the other one was living in Russia, and 3 ) both of their families were "in" on the project from the get-go, but have somehow managed to keep the secret for some sixty years so far (even though "Harvey's mother" -lol- complained early on that she thought her son might have been on some kind of intelligence mission in Russia)? How in the world could a paranoiac "theory" like that fail? I mean, with so many gullible people around who really really wanna believe the bad guys are not only really really bad, but also really really omniscient and really really really really really ... powerful?

I mean, really.

--Tommy

Amazing how many times the trifecta has to explain to us what H&L is... when even the first 100 pages remains outside their reach...

Your parroting BL is cute and all tommy as you and originality have yet to meet... but at some point along the way do your own brain cells offer anything but copy-paste-chuckle-Post?

And speaking of syntax and grammar... "theories" do not fail... "theories" are proven or not... people presenting the "theory" may fail at convincing others...

If you're going to play grammar nazi at least don't look so foolish in your own writing... or at least read what you copy before you past it

What you posted is gibberish tommy... I already posted what the THEORY was and is... that you can't accept it is your own problem. Guessing what something says or represents without bothering to honestly investigate it screams hypocrisy. But you already knew that.

You sound like Bugliosi arguing the WCR conclusions as fact... damn be what it actually shows tommy G has the answers since he's done the work to arrive at it..

the double edge of this sword is so completely lost to you... if you prefer we paraphrase anything you post and then tell you what YOU THINK, fine. but I doubt that would fly for a second yet that's all the trifecta seems to ever do... maybe stop telling us what WE KNOW and post what it is YOU KNOW and how - we realize this means you must take responsibility for yourself but hey... by this time in your life it's time already.. right tg? (a bit of an inferiority complex there buddy... "he didn't capitalize my name, what an ogre... how will I make it thru the day now?" Grown up little man.

Due respect to Steve and Jim... other than when they post the actual text, they are proceeding from their understanding of the work and like the WCR everyone has their individual take - the core of the theory and evidence remains the same.

So again tg... thanks for the recap. you can go back to sleep now

When you wake up, please go and do some study on the T informant designations. Thanks.

I'll help since you need your nanny nap.

The report states: “A supplementary T symbol (SF T-2) was designated for SF 2496-S (Richard Matsui Aoki) for the limited purpose of describing his connections with the organization and characterizing him. Because of the top level position of this informant this additional designation is considered necessary to insure protection of his identity.” (T symbols are temporary code numbers assigned to sources in reports. The report misstates his middle name.)

https://www.revealnews.org/article/new-fbi-files-show-wide-range-of-black-panther-informants-activities/

Or... in the alternative universe you inhabit, the informant on Ruby moved to SanFran and began informing on the Black Panthers in '67 and "T" stands for THERE IS TWO OF EVERYTHING and is used exclusively for reporting on doppelganger activity.

That's interesting Greg... I believe Lee Farley posted this at one time - I also have the WCR doc that describes Dallas T-2 as Harry Holmes... yet gives no name for T-1 other than his being a Royal Canadian Mounted Policeman...

DL T-1 was FELIX BOTELLO

DL T-2 was MARGARITA LANDIN (Her husband Joe Landin was also an active informant of the Dallas FBI Office)

DL T-3 and DL 6-S are concealed but I'd hazard a guess that Joe Molina/William Lowery/Joe Landin could be one of them

DL T-4 was RUTH LOWERY

So your point was that in the 2 reports I posted the homosexual informant, T-1 mentioned in both, are different people?

The FBI list (DL 100-10461) shows Charles Steele Jr as Dallas T-14 and just goes on and on.....

Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion...

But this is a thread about the H&L theory, the onus is on you to prove it. As a member of the forum I am simply exercising my right to question a theory and a method used by a section of the research community I don't agree with. Like you do on other people's work.

You wrote: You refuse to admit that 'they' looked "very very similar" because you know that that alone kills the story stone dead.

Is this not you assuming to know the "story" or the "plot" and it's intended results? All I said is I don't know why the plot was created, who else was involved, who oversaw it, etc...

Different witnesses claim similarities & differences depending on who you ask. Pic knew the difference, Myra did too. So did a who host of others...

More importantly Bernie... you've never been in a position to tell us what the "H&L theory" is in the first place. How would you know but from the info you don't bother to read or give any credibility to?

From my POV - The Theory from Harvey and Lee is that the evidence shows conflicts is the location and relationships of the man we call Lee Harvey Oswald which when presented to Jenner and Leibeler by John Ely resulted in the need to ALTER OR OMIT information which was conflicting with the ongoing investigation. That upon compilation and analysis, this evidence resulted in the theory that two men's lives were combined into a single man's history when presented thru the WCR as his life story.

WHY this was done can only be speculated upon. What can be done thru analysis is the authentication of these conflict points. GP want to say the Riots of Ft Worth date Oswald with Palmer in 1956... Palmer and the Pfisterer's staff say otherwise. It is up to an impartial observer to take in the discussion, check the info for themselves and make a decision...

Speculating about WHAT IF this or that, if some other set of cirsumstances existed, is nice for a brainstorming roundtable... but without some justification that YOU BERNIE know why this was done in the first place... I fail to see how we can have constructive hypothetical conversations.

How about taking a little time and learning what H&L actually shows before we start guessing about it...

No one said they "looked nothing like" each other...

The witness Jim implored us all to read, presumably because it strengthens the theory that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia, also said that they were "very very similar". Personally I think she is referring to the same person. But you HAVE to believe her because she is one of the witnesses you rely on for the story to fit.

So you'll accept it was definitely 'Lee' that she saw. She was right about that. But you discard her observation that they were "very very similar" because that is now inconvenient.

Can you see why people get irritated with you David?

Bernie - you, tommy and Greg being irritated is your own fault... the other "people" you speak of are fine with me dealing with the trifecta and are only irritated by your inability to take responsibility for you own ignorance about the subject matter.

As for PRESUMING Jim saying Kittrell was a witness related to Oswald's time in Russia - you'll need to link me to that post since Kittrell had to do with Oswald's whereabouts during the faked trip to Mexico and thru the month of October 1963... how did you come to that presumption?

Again, the "irritation" comes from members such as you who think they know a little about something and post/argue/attack as if they know a lot...

Oh, here it is.... this: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=100#entry313426 is the post were you reply to Jim related to Kittrell in Oct 1963... did you forget already?

From H&L..."She interviewed the two Oswalds in 1963 in Dallas. She remembered they looked remarkably similar." "The two Oswalds were very, very similar"

FBI report (boooh!!!) of interview with Kittrell: "Miss Kittrell also said she could not be certain the man was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald; she said her recollection of the person is that he seemed to fit the description later published concerning the real Oswald." http://jfk.hood.edu/...on 227/227e.pdf

How did you presume this become about Nov 1959 - June 1962?

Yet you then go on to make a big deal about a letter she wrote - from what I remember you're a musician/artist - what qualifies you to make that determination? I mean imagine the mindset of a woman who sees a man claiming to be Oswald, a different man claiming to be Oswald and then one of them killed on TV....- if you'd stop assuming the unknowable and focus on the mountain of info we already have at our disposal maybe we'd get somewhere with this thread beyond our posting evidence and y'all posting guesswork.

Why would they do that? What possible advantage is there having both of them appear at the same office to be interviewed by the same person only weeks apart?

This story sounds great, exotic almost, but when you scratch the surface, on every issue, it's nothing more than a bag of smoke.

See, now we get back to the WHY again... one possible answer is: to cause the exact confusion which makes people like her sound a little off, not only to us but to themselves so they question everything they seem to know and remember... making witnesses sound crazy and confused, believe it or not, is part of spycraft planning... And yes, I do know a bit about this as I continue to research for another project. Doubles allow for honest replies to questions which create conflicts that reduce the witnesses' credibility. Planning the reactions of the witnesses and the impact of the evidence to be acquired is an intrigal part of a successful covert operation... Kinda like magic - have them looking over here while doing the real activities over there...

Now if you actually scratched the surface... infact if you overcome the preconceptions and dig just a bit deeper you may begin to see that these instances are not alone on some island... they interrelate so that one builds upon the next.

Are you aware of an article called "Oswald in Aliceland" http://www.jfklancer.com/Courtwright1.html just more bricks in the wall...

Among the myriad of Oswald sighting reports which do not fit in with the official timeline handed down by the Warren Commission is one which actually hit the Associated Press wire on November 28, 1963. Just days after being interviewed by the FBI, a radio station manager in Alice, Texas, told the AP that Oswald on the afternoon of Friday, October 4, had driven up to the station in a battered 1953 model car to inquire about a job. It also turns out that our job seeker had appeared at the station the previous evening, on Thursday, October 3, at about 6 p.m., and was told he needed to return the next day to speak to the manager. (1) Upon returning on Friday, Oswald was said to have left a woman and a two-year old girl in the car and refused an offer to bring them inside the station with the explanation that, *She doesn't speak any English.* (2)

(2) AP story appearing in a number of newspapers, including Dallas Morning News, on 11/28/63.

FBI Record Number 124-10178-10458, Agency File Number 89-67-173, 11/27/63.

On October 3rd at 6pm Oswald was checked into the YMCA in Dallas - he was supposedly on a bus for the past 2 days, alone.

On October 4th he hitchhikes to Irving as Marina refuses to ask Ruth to go get him... or so the story goes.

I'm sorry you feel it's "a bag of smoke" Bernie but just lighting the cigarette and setting it down (your "scratching the surface") gives you no indication at all what the cigarette tastes like, you need to breathe deeply and concentrate on what's going on if you're to get anything from it. And not just stop at one puff either... you want to experience of H&L but none of the work getting there... Sadly this book and topic requires more from the reader than that.

Not sure if you do this elsewhere in your life, this attitude towards H&L does not qualify as an unbiased look at the evidence before making a decision. 2+ years ago I began discussing this with Greg and I made many mistakes being led to understand he knew of what he spoke - So I stopped commenting on H&L and went to work for a while.

Now that I feel qualified to discuss the book and evidence presented, I do.

When will you be getting around to the work necessary so you can provide an informed analysis - or is all we're going to get is this hit and miss guesswork presented as conclusive fact?

----

I'm all for ending the hostility as evidence from these posts. I know what I know and also know what I don't... WE can't know the WHY... so mabe WE should stop trying to guess and stay focused on what the FBI and others left for us to look at and see what it tells us...

If you can interpret Ping Tung another way, please do... Common sense tells us that if the records show two men with the same name in two places at the same time... something is wrong. Much like the basic common sense that says if the Oswald in our analysis had a tonsilectomy... and then contracts tonsilitis later in life it shows consistency with the H&L theory. Nitpicking it to claim that there is a remote chance of regrowth is grasping at straws. If you believe that sways the overall weight of the evidence, so be it. Not my job to take off your blinders, just offer the evidence as it was found and let those following us to make their own minds up.

Therein lies the biggest difference between the camps... Y'ALL have decided it isn't possible and proceed from there attacking US for being wrong, rather than proving the evidence inauthentic.

You don't like the evidence, fine, dismantle it... SHOW how it's not right... WE, on the other hand, simply point to the evidence and let the reader decide. Who in that equation is disingenuous and who isn't?

You claiming to know the mind of a witness, or the details of ANY of Angleton's or the CI group's plans enough to know the WHY behind activities is not possible unless you are privy to evidence and info the rest of us are not... I doubt you interned as a spy in the summers of your youth... but maybe you did... I can only talk generalities.

Bottom line Bernie, do you know what the plot in 1952 was or not? Do you know what other plots and plans were carried out during this time period by those you think plotted this?

If so... why haven't you said so?

If not... how are you qualified to comment at all on these details being right, wrong or otherwise?