David Josephs

Not true, Mr. Josephs. I found at least one individual who has written more than a single word about Volume 1: "Of note is Greg Parker's account of the 1948 assassination in Bogota of Gaitan by a hypnotized patsy as John Foster Dulles attended a Panamerican conference in that city. "The assassination was. . .blamed on communists." http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/283-alliance-for-progress-alianza-para-el-progreso/ "Greg Parker in his first of a trilogy, The Cold War of Lee Harvey Oswald, treats the 1948 assassination of Colombian leader Gaitlan as the archetypal lone nut architecture so common in subsequent years. Foster was in Bogota when it went down." http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/122-jfk-assassination-cia-and-new-york-times-are-still-lying-to-us-by-david-talbot/ Yes Randy, Phil is a good friend... These were posted almost 18 months ago... "Posted 31 March 2014 - 10:28 AM" "Posted 15 May 2014 - 02:31 AM" 2 post in 18 months... the interest and discussion about the work is overwhelming. The Harvey and Lee thread here - only one of them - started in 2004, readdressed in 2012, & again with the 29th post in May 2015... over 1400 replies since. No wonder he has grabbed JA's coat tails... a few more people may look his direction now... only now it will be with the understanding of how much contempt a person can have for a fellow researcher to create controversy to garner the littlest bit of attention. You don't suppose Greg used any of the JA ARchive info, Baylor info or anything else John brought to light... nah, never happen. 1,444 replies 54,096 views You mean you don't even have a few threads at the new ROKC from this year discussing his work among yourselves? Nobody is even bothering with it in his own backyard - you have to go to yet another forum to find these old posts... Nothing here at all? Yet they have time to create hate threads against the members here and post repeatedly - the attack on Glenn started Aug 1 and already has 28 posts... while no one is discussing either of the books Guess that gives you all a good idea of the priorities there and why they need to come here to find something to talk about and someone to make fun of - it's what little boys do. Glenn Nall by steely dan August 1, 2015 at 8:48 PM Posts 28 Views 917 Last post 7 hours ago LOL. At least they know how to stay on topic, What exactly did you enter this topic for, David? Doesn't appear to have been to address the issue raised, since all you've done is continually try and change topics and attack the messenger. Guess I thought I was you for a minute... Why? Cause your topic here is tautological crap and you can't seem to remember the first few pages of this joke when I did address the thread's title and did continue to show you how wrong you are about this.... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22151&page=1#entry311101 is the post where YOU ask me why this is the only photo with the large nose and then http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22151&page=2#entry311639 is you telling me everything you've proven - nothing at all to do with the topic... just you puffing out your chest. and yet, you've proven none of these.... you CLAIM to have proven them, but nothing you've posted is anything but your faith-based beliefs and speculation. And I addressed that... I also addressed why there are no other photos of Oswald like that http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22151&page=2#entry312526 (I was on vacation thru the 18th) When you finally reply http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22151&page=3#entry312554 it is you going off the reservation as you put it. It is you who brings Gardos and Weinstock into this thread, claiming you ID'd them as "father and uncle" when we both know you only guessed based on your poor reading of the report. Look in the mirror old man. Throw stones when you've cleaned up your own house... As for staying on topic... yup - beating up Glenn or me is all you seem to do there. Seems your little group is much more interested in HATE than in even discussing your own work... Good thing H&L is here so people find some of what you post worth scanning albeit completely wrong and misguided in its presentation and content. You're remain incredibly transparent in your attempts to garner a little attention on the coat tails of Armstrong. Amazing how little conversation there is across the forums about your work while H&L continues to be discussed, reviewed, analyzed and understood. Doesn't seem to be much interest about your work at all here. http://gregparke4.wix.com/hardlyleedotnut# remember that? 1 post in April and none since... You have such a following! Then there is http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21911&hl= Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold WarStarted by Greg Parker, May 20 2015 02:33 PM Yet you seem to be the only person to have posted anything... ??? But then there is your STRAUS Family thread... which proved more what you were NOT talking about than what you were... and was summarily abandoned ------------------- You've got one helluva track record GP... You can't even muster up interest in your work from your own group of friends while spending months on end with H&L to at least be read and heard on some subject. Really looking forward to that vol 2

Thanks for making my point BL... You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know. Yet you sure make a big deal of WANTING to know, post after post... So why should we care enough to answer you?

What is this Dave? Has it been declassified since? I don't think its the one that CIA is still holding back. BTW, in relation to your other post, Dulles was so determined to trick Kennedy on the feasibility of the plan that he would not let him take the designs with him to study overnight. After the meeting, he rolled them up and put them under his arm and told JFK they could not risk him taking them with him. What utter crap. Dulles knew that as an ex navy guy, if JFK actually studied these by himself for about an hour, and then called in someone like Red Fay, he would have cancelled the whole thing the next day. But in my view, all these discussions about the plan get too bogged down in the air conflict. As Kirkpatrick wrote in his excellent report, so what? Even if Castro's Air Force had been neutralized, the operation would have failed due to bad planning, lack of surprise, failed defections, and overwhelming odds, See, the CIA told JFK they would be able to get into the beach undetected. Not so. There was a very small patrol there that night since Castro had gone to high alert 48 hours earlier. And they saw the flotilla coming in. As Kirkpatrick writes, within 10 hours of the landing, Castro had the invasion force out manned and outgunned--he had tanks, cannon and mortar. I don't know if this is that last part of the IG report... Don't think so. I will email you the doc if you like... Here is the TOC and Helms' note.

Pretty sure it was not Lodge who told the Military/CIa to kill Diem but the Military telling Lodge to set Diem up by reasuring him if he resigned he wouldn't be killed... http://www.ctka.net/2015/chapter6_3c.pdf NOVEMBER 1st – 22nd On November 1st Diem is assassinated in Vietnam after Ambassador Lodge tells him at 4:30pm local time that if he resigns he and his brother would have safe passage out of the country - Diem-Lodge last phone call http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn23.pdf . On November 2nd Diem does just that. Saigon radio broadcasts that Diem had committed suicide with his brother at 10:45am local time. The SITUATION in Saigon. http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn24.pdf Yet I do see where you are going with that... Bundy, Harriman, et al: "staff" imo was on the same level as those in the Military making these decisions... That Facilitator/Sponsor crossover level which is hard to define. But one can see where Bundy would be at both conversations - the Sponsors decisions and the Facilitators planning....

Not true, Mr. Josephs. I found at least one individual who has written more than a single word about Volume 1: "Of note is Greg Parker's account of the 1948 assassination in Bogota of Gaitan by a hypnotized patsy as John Foster Dulles attended a Panamerican conference in that city. "The assassination was. . .blamed on communists." http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/283-alliance-for-progress-alianza-para-el-progreso/ "Greg Parker in his first of a trilogy, The Cold War of Lee Harvey Oswald, treats the 1948 assassination of Colombian leader Gaitlan as the archetypal lone nut architecture so common in subsequent years. Foster was in Bogota when it went down." http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/122-jfk-assassination-cia-and-new-york-times-are-still-lying-to-us-by-david-talbot/ Yes Randy, Phil is a good friend... These were posted almost 18 months ago... "Posted 31 March 2014 - 10:28 AM" "Posted 15 May 2014 - 02:31 AM" 2 post in 18 months... the interest and discussion about the work is overwhelming. The Harvey and Lee thread here - only one of them - started in 2004, readdressed in 2012, & again with the 29th post in May 2015... over 1400 replies since. No wonder he has grabbed JA's coat tails... a few more people may look his direction now... only now it will be with the understanding of how much contempt a person can have for a fellow researcher to create controversy to garner the littlest bit of attention. You don't suppose Greg used any of the JA ARchive info, Baylor info or anything else John brought to light... nah, never happen. 1,444 replies 54,096 views You mean you don't even have a few threads at the new ROKC from this year discussing his work among yourselves? Nobody is even bothering with it in his own backyard - you have to go to yet another forum to find these old posts... Nothing here at all? Yet they have time to create hate threads against the members here and post repeatedly - the attack on Glenn started Aug 1 and already has 28 posts... while no one is discussing either of the books Guess that gives you all a good idea of the priorities there and why they need to come here to find something to talk about and someone to make fun of - it's what little boys do. Glenn Nall by steely dan August 1, 2015 at 8:48 PM Posts 28 Views 917 Last post 7 hours ago

I know why you wrote... It was as stupid the first time as the second. And it is only a few posts up.. Why repeat the entire thing? Afraid people didn't bother reading it the first time?.. You're truly not that witty or funny but I'm sure you entertain yourself just fine. You question reads like a Parker post... Complete nonsense. One thing I wouldn't do is spend a year debating how right/wrong Green Cheese was... I couldn't care less about it so why spend time on it? As opposed to you and the amazing trifecta here who admittedly don't care, did not read or learn the material and keep telling me the cheese ain't green as if you knew any better. As for your assumptions. Shove em. You remainone of the least prepared people on this forum... Ignorance must surely be bliss

Ya know what Greg, How about shutting the expletive up already. Nobody here cares what you have to say or offer. There was a time when you almost had something to say years ago... But that time has passed. Put that next volume up mate... Like you with JA, I too can play this game... I too belong to Amazon and can review the book, unread as you've done to H&L. You ever wonder why no one here has written a single word about vol 1 while you've spent the last year opening up the world of H&L to all sorts of people who want to know what could be so volitile to engulf your time and how you can be so wrong all the time. So we come to find, bottom line, your books rest on H&L not being true... Cause you say so. Your, 'reasonable to assume' junk that reflects those faith-based conclusions which you cling to like a life raft. No worries sport. When and if you ever get around to your own work... We'll all have some fun. Btw, you want to debate H&L anywhere anytime you let me know. John needn't dirty his hands... As you like to say... You got nothing. Hugs and kisses mate...

I'll buy some of those books Jon... the Horne volumes for sure (I have #4) You want an address and SS# of the killers? The Angleton/Dulles Memo counter signed by Helms stating "we did it"? 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. Jon - just ask yourself one question - Who could tell 2 Rear admirals and a 4 star AF general what to do with the body of the POTUS so it appears the kill shot was fired from behind even though it was not while - under threat of court martial - made sure nothing was said to anyone for as long as possible? You honestly believe that LeMay would listen to Dulles or Helms? to Hoover or Johnson? 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. Send me a list of the books you want to sell in a PM - I'm completely serious

Yo, genius... how would you know if you are not familiar with the information? How can you even begin to entertain any thoughts based on your preconcieved conclusions which are, in turn, not based on the material... Imagine you know nothing about the JFK murder and I tell you that Oswald wasn't at the window, never owned the rifle or pistol and that the films and photos have been altered to cover up a government conspiracy... And the proof is in this book. In 1964 that sounded pretty crazy. but lo and behold... if you read the work that shows this to be true you can actually form an educated opinion. Are you normally in the habit of providing others your completely uninformed opinions and expect them to be given any credibility? When JVB claimed to do what she did, she offered proof which at every turn, at every look - FELL APART. When JA points to and goes the extra mile to acquire the info our gov't wouldn't, and over and over again the conflicts rear their head... you, Bernie and Greg... ....might consider not repeatedly looking the fool and read up on it. Or at least admit you're so out of your league related to the info and evidence that you CAN'T come to an opinion - that you'd reserve it until you did some work. Is this how you approach other subjects tommy? Decide BEFORE you do the research what you're going to think and then stubbornly refuse to consider the source materials which are easily available. then stand on a soap box and proclaim your ignorance? Sure looks that way to everyone here... and your attempts to cover this ignorance with "wittiness" are almost as bad as your dedication to NOT learning the subject. I now know a great deal about H&L. I studied it and continue to discover new things all the time, just like the JFK assassination. What do YOU know a great deal about Tommy?

No - I'm done spoon feeding morons who are here only to play dumb and ask serious questions rhetorically to maintain some image they have of their self worth. Present company excluded of course... Go read the book if you want to know. Too much trouble? Got to H&L.net and read Not tech savvy enough to find it? Go to Baylor, pick a subject and read Even aware of what Baylor is? If you were truly interested in the subject you wouldn't spend your time staring blankly at the screen - you'd be looking into it... but you don't and never have. How serious do you suppose we are to take the two of you? Greg's writing a book which, if H&L is accurate, does not help his cause, so he fights it. Why wont you go to the sources and see what all the fuss is yourself? Why? - Cause you're simply not as interested in the subject as you are in interupting this thread using some of the following: 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit. (or in your case "you got nothing") 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. (Tautologies) 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.' Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist - DJ: Just a FYI for those following along... any resembleance to persons alive or dead is purely coincidental 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. 4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength. Would you give anyone any credibility if they said the song you wrote is complete crap, goes against the very fabric of all muscial intelligence and should not be considered music at all, just noise strung together - when I had never even heard it? of course not. ------ Is there a subject within H&L on which you are well-versed? One where you do not agree and can present the evidence which you found to contradict it in an intelligent manner? So far, not so much. Where Parker rides Armstrong's coat tails, you seem to play the little genuflecting parrot to Greg's FAITH, arms a waving screaming "Amen" whenever you're told. Is that any way to learn something? You have any idea what it's like to be asked a question - supposedly with sincerity, honesty and a true interest in learning about the subject.... only to be told after I post it that you THINK it's wrong since you couldn't find the relevance or understanding with a flashlight, two hands and a group of friends? How would you even KNOW if I was right or wrong if you don't know the subject matter? All you do is whine, ask for it to be explained AGAIN and then insult the poster, wait a few days and do the same thing all over.... Your desire to learn about the evidence which backs H&L is disingenuous Bernie. Question is, are you man enough to admit 1) you could not possibly care less about Harvey and Lee and the evidence which illustrates it 2) that you believe what you do and 3) nothing anyone will ever show you or that you will ever read will change that ? This way you can stop asking these questions and spend more time with the family --------------------- DISINGENUOUS - lacking in candor; also: giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating ; not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does --------------------- For those of you here to learn about H&L.... are you aware of John Ely and what he did? (Page 56 of H&L) Ely had to compile Oswald's History - he was a WC lawyer, not investigator so he had to rely on the FBI for his info. His memo below is from MARCH 1964... Notice the "Reproduced at the National Archives" stamp.... not everything is at MFF Bernie. There are hundreds of notebooks with thousands of pages about which you remain completely clueless... (which is also why, like "who killed JFK" - there is no simple answer that makes sense on its own... it's a BIG conspiracy to unravel. http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/39280 is Ely's memo to Jenner and Leibeler about his interviews with those who knew OSwald in the Marines.... the variety of descriptions, locations and stories is quote interesting... You'll notice that the men GORSKY names are not interviewed at all and are foreign to Ely... Seems to me a little strange that this LONE NUT, this unconnected single assassin without a single tie to intelligence, 544 Camp, Ruby or any of the other players would have something in his History that requires ALTERATION and OMISSION. Is this The Evidence IS the Conspiracy smoking gun you were looking for? I know it was for me... like Redlich's April 27, 1964 memo to Rankin.

David, why is it you are capable of writing 1,000's of posts using millions of words copied from some other person's work, yet become very coy when asked basic questions about gaping holes in the theory. Bernie - this thread is huge. There are other threads here and other forums that are easily found if you knew how to use Google. I'm not coy my friend, you are simply not willing to grasp the evidence regardless of how many times it's presented. Can you actually say you've asked me this with an open mind? That If I once again point you to this evidence it would actually make a difference? To date you offer nothing to suggest this. You simply want to argue a topic for which you are woefully uninformed. And when the docs and links and corroboration is offered... you don't even take the time to consider it and how it works with so much other evidence. Surely for H&L to have any credibility there needs to be some firm solid proof of 'Lee's' two and a half years spent in the USA whilst 'Harvey' is in Russia. Where was this apartment Ruby had rented for Lee? Who were all the people who came "looking for Lee at these locations" (so, more than one apartment then?) You wear clueless so well BL... Are you truly that poor a researcher that you can't even begin to search for an answer yourself? I even told you exactly where the doc and story was... You throw stuff into the mix and sell it off as fact. You're very tough on calling Greg out when you demand proof of his rebuttals but very shy when it comes to doing it yourself. "Google it!" "Do your own homework!" "Why waste my time?!" and so it goes. That tells me you don't have an answer because if you did you would take great pride in explaining it. Whatever you say BL.... Suffice to say - I'm really not here to teach you anything. Take it or leave it - you want to keep this fake "Play dumb" tactic up for months or years on end... that's your problem, not mine. I wrote a 70 page piece of the Rifle. Go tell me what I got wrong - that is MY work. No H&L to be seen in that text at all. If you are truly interested in learning something. Read the piece: http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf I even include a timeline which traces the PMO search process to show three of the 4 times the PMO was found. http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsMOTimeline.pdf I wrote about things that I have not seen mentioned anywhere... no big thing but it shows once and for all the charade the SS, FBI and Postal Services performed to get THAT rifle connected to Oswald. Or don't... I could care less. H&L may be your reason for living and arguing here but to me it's one piece of a giant puzzle that simply illustrates the "late to the party" spycraft the USA was attempting. Come on David, admit it, if this was JVB you would be demanding similar levels of proof: the onus would be on her, not you. If she refused to answer any of your salient points because it would incriminate her fantasy, and fobbed you off with a "do your own work!" instead, you would certainly accept that as proof that she has nothing! I already did that with Judyhttp://www.ctka.net/2015/JudythBaker-DJ.pdf - and I spent 2 years with John going over all these details of H&L, the sources and the corroboration. He's not writing a Vol 2 while Jim H is helpiung update info that 15 years later has not proven out. When you write a 1000 page non-fiction and get it all right - throw your stones... until then respect the work for what is it, study it and find the weaknesses and or conflicts on your own Bernie... or don't and stop asking rhetorical question as if you have any sincerity or desire to learn anything. You don't and it's painfully obvious - and IMO what bothers most here is this attitude of closed minded aggitation. Like the US government, if you were innocent of playing games you would be sincere with your Q&A. You're not. Bu-bye now. Likewise.

I'm sure it's "in the book", just like his wearing southern clothes as part of his duties as an "asset" to blend. Not. Funny but I could have sworn I was told before that the zoo photo was taken because the fake Marguerite was told to fake being a "normal" mother and do "normal" things. No. Apparently not. Apparently not. Apparently it was part of the planning all along. His "rebellion" is kinda weird though. Seems the only person at Beauregard who he told to call him "Harvey" was Darouse. That's not a rebellion: that an identity crisis. And all of the proof is as imaginary as "Harvey" is. Yup... read the book and maybe you'll be able to discuss this without repeatedly reminding us you haven't the first clue... Polly want a cracker?

To his friends and family "Lee" was in Russia played by a small eastern European man When Anna Lewis says repeatedly she met Lee Oswald in New Orleans in Feb 1962 - the same month Harvey is with Marina while giving birth to June in Russia. She says this twice with Baker sitting right behind her. The film stops a number of times yet not once in that interview does Judy's cooroboration place her with Oswald in the summer of 1963. Any ideas? LEE entered the Marines ahead of Harvey LEE left the Marines in March 1959. The last photo we have of Lee Oswald is his 1959 Passport photo. When Harvey came back from Russia - NONE of his relatives recognized him and could not believe it was the same man. Good thing it was 1960 when the speed of news and info traveled slowly. So where was he? What address did 'Lee' live at during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia? Can you prove that 'Lee' was definitely somewhere in the USA during that period? And the onus is on you to do that, not the other way round. You're the one trying to sell this dud, so let's see some proof for once. Presumably 'Lee' would have been ordered underground because the very fact of his existence would blow the whole scheme wouldn't it? So let's see your chops, and quit with the tittle-tattle already... Golly gosh, this H&L lingo is contagious Why would Anna Lewis lie? Is there a motive to incorrectly place Lee in N.O. when even she should know he was in Minsk? Even if a year off... It wasn't until April 63 that Harvey gets there.Ruby had rented an apartment for Lee... I've posted these docs a few times already... That Lee and Ruby were a "thing" was implied and reported on in Dallas. We know Clay and Ferris ran in that circle... What exactly do you want Bernie? I've posted a ton of evidence showing they were different kids. Plenty of evidence that Lee was taken care of by Ruby and lived in the Dallas area and knew different people than Harvey. It's actually in my first piece on Mexico, the reports of their being together and of Ruby getting Lee an apartment. People even came looking for Lee at these locations. When the gov't said it went down one way, most just figured they saw it or heard wrong. That's one if the reasons this case us so important. We finally began questioning the BS and simply haven't stopped. What exactly is so horrible if John and others in this conclusion are right? Just something that was hidden. Makes Oswald an even greater mystery. Why so much anger and hostility over a fairly well documented theory? John run over your dog or something? The attacking just seems so disproportionately strong to the effect of the book on the community. During this same time I've written 300 pages on Mexico, a Baker piece and a 70 page article proving things about the rifle, microfilm and money order most were not aware of.... Not to mention posts on a variety of subjects. H&L is an interesting corner of this monster topic... But for Pete sakes already, get a life, read a different book, write a song... Disproving H&L can't be the only reason you get up in the morning... Right? Ruby had rented an apartment for Lee... Where? What address?That Lee and Ruby were a "thing" was implied and reported on in Dallas... Implied? Reported? By who? of evidence that Lee was taken care of by Ruby and lived in the Dallas area and knew different people than Harvey...Where are these people? Why haven't they talked like Kudlaty did? People even came looking for Lee at these locations... Who and where are these people? These are not unreasonable questions to ask of a theory that states one man was in Russia whilst his doppelganger was in the USA. Showing the proof of his whereabouts is level 1 for this theory. Without that you have absolutely nothing. Bernie.. a thought. Go to Google images and type in 'Ruby gets apartment Lee Oswald' and see what comes up. Do the same for the other questions. You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know in any case. Why waste my time spoonfeeding you when all you ever do is choke on it and spit it out? Nothing in it for me any longer. You truly don't want to know. Nor do you care even to open yourself to the possibilities. Get back to the family BL.... This is just not for you.

To his friends and family "Lee" was in Russia played by a small eastern European man When Anna Lewis says repeatedly she met Lee Oswald in New Orleans in Feb 1962 - the same month Harvey is with Marina while giving birth to June in Russia. She says this twice with Baker sitting right behind her. The film stops a number of times yet not once in that interview does Judy's cooroboration place her with Oswald in the summer of 1963. Any ideas? LEE entered the Marines ahead of Harvey LEE left the Marines in March 1959. The last photo we have of Lee Oswald is his 1959 Passport photo. When Harvey came back from Russia - NONE of his relatives recognized him and could not believe it was the same man. Good thing it was 1960 when the speed of news and info traveled slowly. So where was he? What address did 'Lee' live at during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia? Can you prove that 'Lee' was definitely somewhere in the USA during that period? And the onus is on you to do that, not the other way round. You're the one trying to sell this dud, so let's see some proof for once. Presumably 'Lee' would have been ordered underground because the very fact of his existence would blow the whole scheme wouldn't it? So let's see your chops, and quit with the tittle-tattle already... Golly gosh, this H&L lingo is contagious Why would Anna Lewis lie? Is there a motive to incorrectly place Lee in N.O. when even she should know he was in Minsk? Even if a year off... It wasn't until April 63 that Harvey gets there. Ruby had rented an apartment for Lee... I've posted these docs a few times already... That Lee and Ruby were a "thing" was implied and reported on in Dallas. We know Clay and Ferris ran in that circle... What exactly do you want Bernie? I've posted a ton of evidence showing they were different kids. Plenty of evidence that Lee was taken care of by Ruby and lived in the Dallas area and knew different people than Harvey. It's actually in my first piece on Mexico, the reports of their being together and of Ruby getting Lee an apartment. People even came looking for Lee at these locations. When the gov't said it went down one way, most just figured they saw it or heard wrong. That's one if the reasons this case us so important. We finally began questioning the BS and simply haven't stopped. What exactly is so horrible if John and others in this conclusion are right? Just something that was hidden. Makes Oswald an even greater mystery. Why so much anger and hostility over a fairly well documented theory? John run over your dog or something? The attacking just seems so disproportionately strong to the effect of the book on the community. During this same time I've written 300 pages on Mexico, a Baker piece and a 70 page article proving things about the rifle, microfilm and money order most were not aware of.... Not to mention posts on a variety of subjects. H&L is an interesting corner of this monster topic... But for Pete sakes already, get a life, read a different book, write a song... Disproving H&L can't be the only reason you get up in the morning... Right?

Jon - please excuse me, there are times I think you have a grasp and other, like this post, which confirms we need to keep talking about this. Cuba was inherited. Nixon and Dulles and the military had to deal with a potential communist force which, IMO, would have been dealt with directly had Nixon won. When JFK won and 8 years of Nixon was to be undone, the BOP became something else - a way to back this new president into a political problem which would make him look bad no matter the outcome. (If we had been successful you can be sure "US invovlement" would be front and center and JFK would need to eat crow again) He allowed the existing players to convince him. It was the JCS and their evaluation that wasn't forceful enough for they too needed to see what this president was made of. This occurs within 4 months of his inauguration Jon... Not like it was his to say no to since he'd look so soft on communism... JFK wanted Castro gone too if the CIA/Military were right - but they played him. I'm sorry but Diem was RFK/JFK also being played. Lodge, as some say, may have even been taking orders from someone else. Lodge played Diem and JFK. There was nothing he could do to stop a then treasonous staff doing the bidding of the CIA/Military. If it wasn't for JFK the world would probably have ended that week in October. "Pretty well" doesn't even scratch the surface. A true rendering of that period should account for the way his government dismissed him and simply ran their plans around him until they couldn't anymore... so he was killed.... Worst thing for this county in its history, imo. And RFK would be a close #2

To his friends and family "Lee" was in Russia played by a small eastern European man When Anna Lewis says repeatedly she met Lee Oswald in New Orleans in Feb 1962 - the same month Harvey is with Marina while giving birth to June in Russia. She says this twice with Baker sitting right behind her. The film stops a number of times yet not once in that interview does Judy's cooroboration place her with Oswald in the summer of 1963. Any ideas? LEE entered the Marines ahead of Harvey LEE left the Marines in March 1959. The last photo we have of Lee Oswald is his 1959 Passport photo. When Harvey came back from Russia - NONE of his relatives recognized him and could not believe it was the same man. Good thing it was 1960 when the speed of news and info traveled slowly.

You gonna read this post and respond to it Greg - or just start in again playing cointelpro tactics? 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit. (or in your case "you got nothing") 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. (Tautologies) 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.' Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist - DJ: Just a FYI for those following along any resembleance to persons alive or dead is purely coincidental 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. 4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength. Did you not state repeatedly that 168 + 12 is 180 and that 12 represents the absences for 1954-55 school year? The cards for the 54-55 school year DO NOT SHOW 12 ABSENCES.... again more slowly... DO.... NOT..... SHOW.... 12..... ABSENCES. If I got 2-A's, 2-B's and a C for a semester's grades and yet the Perm Record for that year shows 3-D's and 2-F's - even a moron can see something is wrong. The 1954 - 1955 Grade cards simply do not support the Permanent Record - so the Perm Record's totals for that year, which are not broken down like the 53-54 year - ARE A FRAUD --- Why is this important? Mr. JENNER - Well, we appear from our records to have them living on St. Mary Street in New Orleans in May or June of 1954, until about February 1955. Mrs. MURRET - Well, I don't know anything about that. I know Myrtle Evans was managing that apartment where she lived. You see Greg, HARVEY worked at Dolly shoe with the short MO while LEE was living at 1454 St Mary's in March 1955 and is one of the reasons the SS records for this time period is not included in his life's earnings. Lee - Loud and living at Evans' on St Mary's was not HARVEY who lived on Exchange and was small and quiet. That so much of the connectivity in this case continues to elude you is quite amusing, you writing a book series on Oswald and all... These are all blocks in the same wall Greg... a wall of Conspiracy and Cover-up which includes the hiding of a number of operations - H&L and all that represented being one of them. ------- Mr. JENNER - On the occasion that she came from New York and stopped off in New Orleans, did she stay with you for a few days? Mrs. MURRET - Well, she stayed with me until she found an apartment. Mr. JENNER - That was in your home at 757 French Street? Mrs. MURRET - Yes, sir; and that address was changed to 809 French Street. Mr. JENNER - How was that? Mrs. MURRET - Well, it was the same house, but they changed the numbering of that block, but it was the same residence. They changed it to the 700 block. Mr. JENNER - And how long did she stay with you on that occasion? Mrs. MURRET - Well, that must have been 2 weeks, 3 weeks. She was looking for a place to stay, and Robert was coming out of the service, and so that's when she found this place over on Exchange Alley before Robert came in, and she met Robert at my house, and they went right over to the apartment at Exchange Alley that she had found, but Robert left. He wouldn't stay in New Orleans. Mr. JENNER - How many days were you looking for an apartment for her? Mrs. MURRET - Oh, I would say about a week. Mr. JENNER - Until she found this place on Exchange Alley? Mrs. MURRET - That's right. At this point Jenner reminds Murret of 1454 St Mary's and completely changes the course of her testimony Mr. JENNER - Well, they left New York City, I think, either on the fifth or the seventh of January 1954. Now, we have an address here in New Orleans of 1464 St. Mary Street. Mrs. MURRET - Oh, that was before the Exchange Place. She rented that from this lady who was a friend of hers. Mr. JENNER - Was that Myrtle Evans? Mrs. MURRET - Yes; Myrtle Evans. She was a friend of hers. Mr. JENNER - I believe she also lived for a time at 1910 Prytania, didn't she? Mrs. MURRET - I think that's right. I'm not sure about those different places, I mean, how she would move from one to the other, but she was at several places up in there before she went to Exchange Place. Mr. JENNER - Well, we appear from our records to have them living on St. Mary Street in New Orleans in May or June of 1954, until about February 1955. Mrs. MURRET - Well, I don't know anything about that. I know Myrtle Evans was managing that apartment where she lived. Mr. JENNER - Do you know how it was that she went to live at 126 Exchange Place in New Orleans? Mrs. MURRET - Yes. Mr. JENNER - Was that 1954 or 1955? Mrs. MURRET - I don't know--whatever you have down there probably is the right year, but they lived at Myrtle's house first. Mr. JENNER - Could it have been that Myrtle Evans lived, in the spring of 1954, at 1454 St. Mary Street? Mrs. MURRET - I don't know. Maybe that's right. I know this was a very old house where she lived. I was told that she had a family home---Myrtle and that she had renovated it into a lot of apartments for tenants. Mr. JENNER - How long did they stay at your house? Mrs. MURRET - At my house? Mr. JENNER - Yes. Mrs. MURRET - Well, like I said, 2 weeks or 3 weeks at the most, somewhere in there. Mr. JENNER - And you are pretty sure that they moved directly from your house into this place on Exchange Alley? Mrs. MURRET - Well, either there or to Myrtle's apartment. I don't know which, to be truthful with you. At this point we have Harvey at 126 Exchange and Lee at 1454 St Mary's... the rest of the evidence corroborates the one quiet small child versus the one loud large child... Mrs. EVANS - Well, he would yell, "Maw, come and fix my supper," and he had a loud voice, and I could hear him more and more up there, and it got to be quite disturbing, actually. It seemed to be a situation that was getting worse all the time; so I thought maybe it would be better if I didn't have them around; so, since the apartment wasn't fixed up anyway, and she wasn't very happy next door, she up and moved, and that's when she went to Exchange Alley. Mr. JENNER - O.K. That was in April of 1955; is that right? Mrs. EVANS - Yes, and I never saw her after that. Mr. JENNER - You never saw her again? Mrs. EVANS - No; I didn't. ----- From H&L: When "Marguerite Oswald" was hired, she filled out an employee withholding form (W-4) and listed her address as 126 Exchange. Lee Harvey Oswald also filled out a W-4 form for Dolly Shoe on the same day, February 5, 1955, and listed his address as 126 Exchange Place. 2 The following day, February 6, Lee Harvey Oswald applied for a social security card (SS #433-54-3937), although he was not hired until a month later. 2 - WC Exhibit 1951, p3 (as you can see, Harvey's SS# appears to be added in after he was hired - in writing that does not match any of Oswald's) Maury Goodman remembered that Marguerite "pestered him for several weeks" to hire her son. Goodman told the FBI, "Marguerite asked him to employ her son so as to keep the boy off the street and give him something to do."4 But according to the Warren Commission 15-year-old Oswald was a full time student in the 9th grade at Beauregard Junior High. If young Oswald was in school, there was no need to "keep the boy off the street and give him something to do. " Rita Paveur's memory agreed with Mr: Goodman. She said, "Lee Harvey Oswald was hired a month or so after the store opened. ....he was very thin, very quiet, and spent most of his time upstairs in the stockroom." Rita described Oswald's physical appearance and said, "He came to my eyes .... .l am 5-foot-2, so I would guess he was about 4-foot-10."5 Rita's memory is in sharp contrast to Lee Oswald's height of 5- footS, (3" taller than Rita), which he listed on a Beauregard information form two months later.6 In the spring of 1955 it appears that Harvey was 4-foot-10, while Lee was 5-foot-5. ------ After obtaining the work permit Goodman hired young Oswald, who he described as a "nice, pleasant, short little boy, but with not much sense."7 He recalled that Oswald worked for him during the day and sometimes on weekends, but said that he was not a very good worker. In a tape-recorded telephone interview in 1995, Goodman recalled, "Young (Harvey) Oswald was extremely quiet and whenever I spoke with him, I had to literally put my ear next to his (Oswald's) mouth in order to hear his reply ..... he worked for me during the day, sometimes on weekends, and seemed to always be hiding out in the stockroom." 7 - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10803#relPageId=3&tab=page

Seems to me that JFK could have picked any number of reasons to fire the top CIA brass - since the Ike/Nixon years I believe he knew he'd be on the short end of the CIA stick. To conclude that the BoP was specifically sabotaged to remove a few CIA men, is to me, a bit too far-fetched. There are never reasons to assume anything when one wants to Cliff... Others here assume and then proceed as if something was proven as fact - ready to knuckle it out over the refuting of a faith-based assumption of fact, rather than taking the time to prove it. Scores of people had the motive to kill JFK, doesn't mean they did it either. so why are you arguing speculation rather than doing more to prove it?

FYI - another great source for the original documents is here... https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v10/comp1 Other's reports of the situation are fantastic, yet I also like to see the docs themselves... Fantastic research site. Not sure how much coloring the other reports might have, but these memo would have been part of what was investigated... right? As for Lovett and Joe, BOP and Dulles.... Seems to me the military, Bundy and a number of others were advocating such a course and asking the CIA to keep coming back with a better plan... or am I reading that initial doc #19 from the Dept of Def incorrectly? (see bottom document) The docs from the last 6 months of Ike's term including the CIA's assessment of the Cuban situation in April 1960. How can you not include Nixon and others related to these Bay of Pigs plans? https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d486 OTHERS PRESENT Vice President Nixon, Secretary Herter, Mr. Merchant, Mr. Rubottom, Secretary Anderson, Secretary Irwin, Admiral Burke, Mr. Allen Dulles, Mr. Richard Bissell, Colonel J.C. King, Gordon Gray, Major Eisenhower, General Goodpaster After Mr. Herter gave a brief comment concerning use of the OAS in connection with the Cuban situation, Mr. Allen Dulles reported to the President an action plan2Document 481. provided by the “5412” group for covert operations to effect a change in Cuba. The President told Mr. Dulles he thought he should go ahead with the plan and the operations. He and the other agencies involved should take account of all likely Cuban reactions and prepare the actions that we would take in response to these. Mr. Irwin said the main Defense concern is how we would get our people out. We have contingency planning, but it would involve military action. The President said he would like some ground work laid with the OAS to let the Latin American countries know that if the Cubans were to start to attack our people in Cuba we would be obliged to take action ----------------- Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume X, Cuba, January 1961–September 1962 Cuba, 1961-1962 64. Memorandum From the President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy) to President KennedySourceSource: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Cuba, General, 1/61-4/61. Top Secret.Washington, March 15, 1961. SUBJECT Meeting on Cuba, 4:00 PM, March 15, 1961 CIA will present a revised plan for the Cuban operation.1See Documents 65 and 66. They have done a remarkable job of reframing the landing plan so as to make it unspectacular and quiet, and plausibly Cuban in its essentials. The one major problem which remains is the air battle. I think there is unanimous agreement that at some stage the Castro Air Force must be removed. It is a very sketchy force, in very poor shape at the present, and Colonel Hawkins (Bissell's military brain) thinks it can be removed by six to eight simultaneous sorties of B-26s. These will be undertaken by Cuban pilots in planes with Cuban Air Force markings. This is the only really noisy enterprise that remains. My own belief is that this air battle has to come sooner or later, and that the longer we put it off, the harder it will be. Castro's Air Force is currently his Achilles' heel, but he is making drastic efforts to strengthen it with Russian planes and Russian-trained pilots. Even the revised landing plan depends strongly upon prompt action against Castro's air. The question in my mind is whether we cannot solve this problem by having the air strike come some little time before the invasion. A group of patriotic airplanes flying from Nicaraguan bases might knock out Castro's Air Force in a single day without anyone knowing (for some time) where they came from, and with nothing to prove that it was not an interior rebellion by the Cuban Air Force, which has been of very doubtful loyalty in the past; the pilots will in fact be members of the Cuban Air Force who went into the opposition some time ago. Then the invasion could come as a separate enterprise, and neither the air strike nor the quiet landing of patriots would in itself give Castro anything to take to the United Nations. I have been a skeptic about Bissell's operation, but now I think we are on the edge of a good answer. I also think that Bissell and Hawkins have done an honorable job of meeting the proper criticisms and cautions of the Department of State McGeorge Bundy #65 According to summary notes prepared by General Gray, CIA officials returned to the White House on March 15, 1961, to present a revised plan for the operation against Cuba; see Document 64. The President's appointment book indicates that the meeting took place from 4:30 to 5:45 p.m. The meeting was attended by Vice President Johnson, McNamara, Rusk, Mann, Berle, Dulles, Bissell, McGeorge Bundy, William Bundy, and Gray. (Kennedy Library, President's Appointment Book) Although not listed in the appointment book, it is likely that at least one member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, probably General Lemnitzer or Admiral Burke, also attended. According to Gray's notes on the meeting: #66 “At meeting with the President, CIA presented revised concepts for the landing at Zapata wherein there would be air drops at first light with the landing at night and all of the ships away from the objective area by dawn. The President decided to go ahead with the Zapata planning; to see what we could do about increasing support to the guerrillas inside the country; to interrogate one member of the force to determine what he knows; and he reserved the right to call off the plan even up to 24 hours prior to the landing.” (Summary notes prepared on May 9, 1961, by General Gray; Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Cuba, Subjects, Taylor Report) On March 17 Admiral Burke provided the JCS with additional details about the discussion of the revised Zapata plan. According to Burke, the President wanted to know what the consequences would be if the operation failed. He asked Burke how he viewed the operation's chance of success. Burke indicated that he had given the President a probability figure of about 50 percent. President Kennedy also inquired what would happen if it developed after the invasion that the Cuban exile force were pinned down and being slaughtered on the beach. If they were to be re-embarked, the President wanted to know where they could be taken. According to Burke's account of the meeting: “It was decided they would not be re-embarked because there was no place to go. Once they were landed they were there.” In the course of the discussion, it was emphasized that the plan was dependent on a general uprising in Cuba, and that the entire operation would fail without such an uprising. (Review of Record of Proceedings Related to Cuban Situation, May 5; Naval Historical Center, Area Files, Bumpy Road Materials) ---------------------------- Some initial discussion points... #19 Staff Study Prepared in the Department of Defense Washington, January 16, 1961. EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE MILITARY COURSES OF ACTIONIN CUBA (S)1 The Problem 1. To evaluate possible military courses of action to overthrow the Castro Government in Cuba in the event currently planned political and paramilitary operations are determined to be inadequate. Facts Bearing on the Problem 2. The basis of the problem was a request by the Department of State for an evaluation of the following possible military courses of action in Cuba. a. U.S. unilateral action with U.S. Air, Naval, and Army forces. b. Invasion by a U.S. trained and supported volunteer Army composed of Cubans and other anti-Castro Latin Americans. c. Invasion by a combination of a and b above. 3. The estimated strength and capabilities of Cuban Armed Forces are as follows: a. Ground (1) Revolutionary Army—32,000; capability low, except for guerrilla type operations. (2) Revolutionary National Police—9,000; capable of security only. (3) Militia—200,000 to 300,000; capability low except for guerrilla type operations. b. Naval (1) Strength, 4 to 5,000 personnel; 3 PF, 2 PCE and 43 smaller craft; capabilities very low. c. Air Force The Revolutionary Air Force, from which almost all the rated pilots were purged by Castro, has almost no combat capabilities at this time. However, reports indicate that as many as 100 pilots are undergoing flight training in Czechoslovakia. Also, the Air Force has received several Czech trainees and 6-10 helicopters recently. 4. In the military field, the Soviets have delivered to Cuba in the past five months, at least 20,000 tons of arms and equipment, including small arms, armored vehicles, personnel carriers, helicopters, trainer aircraft, a variety of artillery, and large quantities of ammunition. So far, the U.S. has no evidence of the Soviets providing Cuba with sophisticated weapons such as missiles or nuclear devices, or MIG jet fighter aircraft. 5. There are fifteen airfields in Cuba which are capable of handling jet aircraft. 6. The U.S. has available on the East Coast of the U.S. the following combat forces. a. U.S. Atlantic Fleet, including at least two attack carriers, a Marine Division, and a Marine Air Wing. b. The Strategic Army Command. c. Elements of the U.S. Air Force Tactical Air Command. 7. Mr. Tracy Voorhees, Special Advisor to the President on Cuba, has reported that approximately 40,000 anti-Castro refugees have entered the U.S. in 1960. 8. From 1950 through 1959, approximately 70,000 Cubans entered the U.S., 10,000 of whom have been naturalized. 9. The CIA estimates that there has been a total of 65,000 anti-Castro Cuban exiles of all classes of which 3,000 are Cuban males capable of performing military service. Of these 3,000, CIA estimates that 750 are willing to perform military service in a Volunteer Army. 10. That an adequate number of troop age (18-65) physically able male Cuban exiles are available in the U.S. to form a Volunteer Army of sufficient strength to have the capability of establishing and holding a lodgement on the Island of Cuba. 11. That it is impossible to train covertly, in the Free World, a force adequate to assure a successful permanent lodgement in Cuba. 12. Massive internal popular support by the Cuban people of action to overthrow the Castro Government cannot be assured. 13. That the Soviet Bloc will continue its assistance to Cuba, but will not openly intervene on behalf of the Castro Government. Discussion 14. U.S. Unilateral Action: a. The Commander in Chief, Atlantic Command, has a contingency plan2(not found) prepared and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff which provides for the employment of Army, Naval and Air Forces for the overthrow of the Castro Government in Cuba. This contingency plan is currently undergoing revision in view of increased capabilities of the Cuban Armed Forces and militia. This revision generally reflects only an increase in U.S. Military Forces to be employed. b. If U.S. unilateral action were directed the forces assigned for commitment to this operation are considered adequate and on an emergency basis could begin commitment within a matter of hours. If circumstances prove this force to be inadequate the proximity of Cuba to the U.S. simplifies the problem of rapid reinforcement of the Task Force from other U.S. based forces. This reinforcement would be directed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as required. c. Unilateral action in Cuba by the U.S. would have a tremendous impact on U.S. prestige in the Caribbean and Latin America (as well as the rest of the free world) unless it had strong support of Latin American public opinion and, preferably, token Latin American participation. It would therefore be desirable that, prior to the implementation of this course of action, a concerted effort be made either through the OAS or through selected Latin American countries, to obtain condemnation of the Castro regime and open Latin American support for action to eliminate that regime. d. This course of action could also be justified if Castro attacked Guantanamo Bay or if such an attack were “staged”. With prior propaganda effort by the U.S., Free World opinion could be sufficiently swayed, or the facts sufficiently “muddled”, that U.S. unilateral action in response to such an attack, actual or “staged” would have less impact on U.S. prestige in the Free World. 15. A second possible course of action would be invasion by an overtly U.S. trained and supported Volunteer Army, adequate in size and capability to assure a successful lodgement in Cuba. a. This force would be trained in both guerrilla and battalion type tactics. It would not be organized above the level of reinforced battle group combat teams. b. The training would be conducted at bases presently on a caretaker status, in Southeastern United States or Puerto Rico, and which could be made available. c. It is believed this force could be trained to minimum standards in seven months with time phases as follows: 8 weeks for the initial planning, assembly of equipment, instructors and trainees; 8 weeks basic; 6 weeks advanced individual training and small unit training; and 6 weeks unit training. During the 2 months basic training phase potential leaders and technicians would be identified. Their training, to a minimum acceptable level, would be conducted during the five months remaining in the basic training period outlined above. d. Refresher and/or advanced flying training, to minimum acceptable standards, can be provided former Cuban pilots on bases in Southeast United States during the seven month training period envisioned above. e. Dependent upon the size of this force, and the degree of direct U.S. participation, provision of adequate amphibious lift would be a problem. Crews necessary to operate these craft can be trained during the seven month training period at bases in Southeastern United States or on Islands in the Caribbean. f. A force adequate in size to assure a lodgement in Cuba would require a sustained source of supply in such quantity, and by such means, that it would obviously be beyond the capabilities of Cuban exiles and beyond U.S. capability to provide covertly. Consequently, logistic support would have to be provided overtly by the United States unilaterally, or in conjunction with one or more Latin American countries. In either event, adequate logistic support would be assured. g. In training and committing a Volunteer Army certain problems arise which are beyond the present resources and purview of the Department of Defense. For example: (1) The pay of the Volunteer Cuban Army; (2) The costs of the training, equipment, and logistic support; (3) Care for the dependents of these forces; (4) Hospitalization facilities and costs, and (5) Indemnities for casualties. These problems are not insurmountable but must have early consideration in planning. h. The problem of maintaining the lodgement and assuring supply would be complicated somewhat if the Castro regime obtains jet aircraft prior to the invasion by the Volunteer Army. Once jet aircraft are seen in Cuba, a jet capability must be assumed. However, this problem could be reduced to manageable proportions if prior to the invasion a limited number of B-26 aircraft made a surprise attack on the fifteen Cuban airfields capable of handling jet aircraft. It is believed such an attack would destroy all, or nearly all, of their aircraft, and render their airstrips inoperable. On the basis that such a surprise attack did not destroy Castro's jet capability, it would be desirable to have the immediate participation of jet aircraft from Latin American countries as part of the OAS contribution. If used these aircraft would have to operate from U.S. bases. i. The capabilities of this Volunteer Army to take and hold a lodgement in Cuba would be dependent on opposition to Castro within Cuba, and the popular attraction of the leaders of the Volunteer Army, and of the provisional government. Both of these factors will be subject to change before and after the envisaged invasion. Unless extensive internal popular support is received, a force based upon the personnel availability estimate in paragraph 9 could hold a lodgement for only a very brief time. To hold a lodgement for any appreciable period without massive popular support would require a minimum force of 5,000. 16. Invasion by a combination of possible courses of action a and b. a. The possible third course of action would involve the employment of a U.S. trained Volunteer Army and U.S. Army, Naval and Air Forces for invasion. Such a course of action would have as its objective the overthrow of the Castro Government and control of the Island of Cuba. This U.S. participation could range in scope from the provision of Army, Naval and Air Force combat units to logistical support only. b. This course of action from the viewpoint of operational planning would involve only a downward revision of forces allocated to CINC-LANT's contingency plan comparable to the strength and capability of the Volunteer Army. c. As in the case of unilateral U.S. action this course of action would accomplish its objective; for, if circumstances indicate a requirement for additional forces, the proximity of U.S. military bases to Cuba and the availability of additional U.S. based forces simplify the problem of rapid reinforcement of the Task Force. Such reinforcement, as required, would be directed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. d. The problems facing the employment of this course of action are a combination of those for courses of action a and b. Conclusions 17. Courses of action a and c are the only courses of action which assure success. 18. Course of action b will require, as a minimum, U.S. logistic support and will not necessarily accomplish the mission of overthrowing the Castro Government. 19. Course of action c will be subject to the same objections as course of action a, however would have a better chance of obtaining Cuban popular support. 20. Since courses of action b and c could not be accomplished covertly and would take at a minimum 7 months to prepare, the U.S. would have to face a long period of world condemnation, as compared to course of action a which could be accomplished expeditiously without prior world knowledge of U.S. intentions. Recommendations 21. It is recommended that the above conclusions be considered by the Group in any further evaluation of plans for action aimed at the overthrow of the Castro Government. *Source: Central Intelligence Agency, DCI Files: Job 85-00664R, Box 1, Source Documents-DCI-8, Vol. I, Part III. Top Secret. The source text has a handwritten date of January 16 on a cover sheet. A handwritten note on the cover sheet, in an unknown hand, confirms that the evaluation was discussed on January 16 by the Interdepartmental Working Group on Cuba; see Document 20. 1 According to a chronology prepared in the office of the Chief of Naval Operations, General Gray received informal approval of the evaluation on January 19 from General Lemnitzer and Joint Staff Director General Earle Wheeler. (Chronology of JCS Participation in Bumpy Road; Naval Historical Center, Area Files, Bumpy Road Materials) On January 22 General Lemnitzer used the evaluation in a briefing on the Cuba project at the Department of State for several members of the new Kennedy administration. (Memorandum No. 1 from the Cuban Study Group to the President, June 13; Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Cuba, Subjects, Taylor Report)

Jim - what are your thoughts on this document? 179 pages

The 6th grade photo is not the point here Greg. The measurements were from May and Sept 1953. Livingstone you keep envoking is 4th grade - also not related. Robert also has nothing to do with this discussion. Nice of you to look up Standard Deviation - maybe could of done that first? This discussion has to do with the size of Lee in NYC, the Zoo photo, what you said about Carro and Youth House. Lee was not the same size as Harvey who was small, sickly, skinny and truant, defiant and in no way resembled Lee. It's okay though Greg. John's coattails are long enough for you to hitch a ride out of obscurity... Just keep writing faith-based lies and speculation - your readers will figure it out..

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10530&search=%22re_ad%22#relPageId=10&tab=page 53-54 - days absent 5 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&search=%22beauregard_junior+high+school%22#relPageId=841&tab=page 53-54 days absent 5 Days present in 53-54 179 less unknown number of days not enrolled Days present in 54-55 168 less 0 days not enrolled. Get over it. Your theory of overlap with PS 44 has no legs and never did. 54-55 Parker... concentrate. 12 absences - You've only posted this 100 times Grade cards do not show 12 for that year. Why doesn't the source material for this record match the Perm record? Simple... right? (I think your tapdancing shoes are a little too tight, cutting circulation off to your head) Why are you pretending to be a complete moron when we both know you're just not that lost... or are you?

Like I said, you misattributed the quotes to CE 2221. For some reason, you seem reluctant to actually admit it. All you've proven once again is that memory is fallible - both by your own misattribution and by Garrrett's recollections for LIFE. Lee's teacher Mrs Livingston correctly remembered Lee exactly as Garrett describes him in High School. Why do you ignore Mrs Livingston? Cherry picking, that's why. As I did not write the article at harveyandlee.net which states this, but instead found the source of the quote in Harvey and Lee the book, I guess we should thank you so we can now attribute the correct source. It turned out that Garrett grew to be 6'4" and towered over Harvey. 5. The "Tall Lee and Short Harvey" article states "In an FBI report dated June 5, 1964 (CE 2221), SA Earle Haley described his interview with one of Oswald's Ridglea West Elementary School classmates, Richard Warren Garrett. The report indicated that Oswald and Garrett had played together at school, and Garrett had once been in Oswald's home. Garrett described Oswald as "the tallest, most dominant member of our class." But as anyone who bothers to check can see, CE 2221, has no such claim in it. In fact, that entire quote even adds yet another person noting the difference in Oswald from 6th grade to 9th... hmmm, maybe it was a different boy the 2nd time... ya think? I have nothing at all against his 4th grade teacher, Mrs Livingston's description of the boy. I even posted her photo and the entire class... wich I'm sure you downloaded and saved since you are not interested in the book or CD themselves... smooth Greg, real smooth. Why do you feel a 4th grader and a 6th grade who has matured early and grown to be a bigger than average boy is so hard to understand? Why do you not address your 54" theory and your total misunderstanding of standard deviation and statistics like Fetzer/Cinque and the doorway crap... As for the grade cards... I'm sitting here watching over a very ill wife who is sleeping on and off entertaining myself by showing the rest of the readers how you, like Von Pien are performing the same task. I open Photoshop and the image I posted above and create a quick image to illustrate my point. Taught myself Photoshop when it was windows 3.1 anyway, I find it important to illustrate my point even if only for Jon and Glenn and Ken who follow along. While I know many more enjoy my taking the time to deal with you. Why would I go to all that effort to illustrate the point about the 12 days if I wasn't sure these were from the correct year? Unlike you I prefer my sources match my statements. So let's ask once again Greg. You've state emphatically that the 180 day school year of 54-55 was divided into 168 and 12 days. 12 being the # of absences which would correspond to the cards for grades the teachers kept - since this was supposedly the "Permanent" record. The aggregate of the individual records. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=92#entry313030is the post above with that link... So I did this quickly. Open that image in a new tab opens the Photobucket. Then enlarge... kinda obvious if it was something you REALLY wanted to know . So my wife is up again and I need to go... you take care now Greg... maybe take a few days and collect yourself... You were saying....

Who knows about the grade cards. Maybe they got lost in the shuffle? If that's all you've got, you've got nothing. For the thousandth time, the 168 figure is not meant to be the days of attendance. It is the balance of the days in the school year after days absent. That is why it works as also being the total days in attendance -IF- the student has been enrolled the whole school year. If the student has NOT been enrolled for the whole school year, it CANNOT be used as the total attendance days. You need to subtract the total number of says NOT enrolled. What are you jabbering on about? I posted the grade cards right there... nothing is lost but your mind mate. Quite a number of conditions on that analysis of yours... IF... THEN... and the tautologies continue (Glenn and Kenneth - I didn't realize it, that really is his entire debating style - create a false premise and then assume if correct to produce the THEN portion of the statement... nice call!) You've become found of saying "You've got nothing" yet show up at every gunfight without bullets or a pistol ... well done! Go back to your little ROKC playground where you belong little boy... You've lost at every point along the way and now simply look foolish and desperate with your IF..THEN's and convenient lapses of memory. Take Bernie, Tommy and Paul with you... This forum's ave IQ would jump 50 points and the place would become enjoyable once again rather than having to contend with your ongoing attempts at creating the ROKC's cesspool environment here seeing you seem to miss it so much spending so little time there anymore and all.... You're a disgrace Parker... and riding the coat tails of Armstrong's H&L to get the attention you'd never garner alone is the ultimate in pathetic...

no worries Glenn... And I have to say, either read Best Evidence or Vol 4 of Horne's work which also includes the Zfilm analysis... Great volume to own... as are the rest. General Wehle and Lipsey are very interesting... Lipsey claims the hearse was a decoy and that he and Wehle choppered the body in... yet he never explains how the body gets from the loaded coffin in Dallas to the helicopter at Andrews.