David Josephs

I'm down-sizing. I went today to a resale store in Canton, Connecticut. And dropped off most of my books on the JFK assassination. I still need to drop off "Hit List" and Doug Horne's volumes and some others. I'm down-sizing.

The guy who owns the resale store asked me, who did it? I said, "No one knows."

No one knows.

If you know, please post here.

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

Now, to answer your question, [Jim Hargrove], heck no, I haven't read Harvey and Lee!

To tell you the truth, Jim, I'm starting to entertain the idea that H&L is nothing but an elaborate CIA "disinfo project," designed to divide and confuse the JFK assassination research community.

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?

So you won't answer any questions because you consider that I don't really want any answers. Neat and cosy eh?

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.

Any proof of that?

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?

"Jeans for him at this stage is actually a intel training exercise ....the art of disguise."

Ha ha ha!! Are you a night club Comic Steven?

For the 100th time of asking...Where was 'Lee' and what did he tell his friends and family while 'Harvey' was in Russia?

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.

"Jeans for him at this stage is actually a intel training exercise ....the art of disguise."

Ha ha ha!! Are you a night club Comic Steven?

For the 100th time of asking...Where was 'Lee' and what did he tell his friends and family while 'Harvey' was in Russia?

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?

Comments here reinforce my belief, which dates to the BOP debacle, that JFK was a rookie at foreign policy and the use of the U.S. military. JFK was not clear and forceful on the BOP. He allowed for ambiguity. He should have forbade the BOP or gone whole hog; and everyone having a dog in the fight should have known his expectations and orders exactly.

JFK and RFK completely blew it with the Diem assassination. Yes, I've read the transcript. Blew it.

The 1962 Cuban missile crisis JFK handled pretty well. Except for keeping from the American people his agreement to pull the missiles from Turkey. That should have been made public. It wasn't for political reasons.

Full disclosure: I've been a fan of JFK's for one reason -- he demonstrated he could not be bought or sold. I believe that was his undoing. And I loathe that the U.S. Government withholds from Americans materials bearing on his murder.

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

"Jeans for him at this stage is actually a intel training exercise ....the art of disguise."

Ha ha ha!! Are you a night club Comic Steven?

For the 100th time of asking...Where was 'Lee' and what did he tell his friends and family while 'Harvey' was in Russia?

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.

According to YOU, Kurian accurately guessed "Harvey" to be about 4' 8" (or 56") which puts "Harvey" inside the 2.5% of the population you claim to be so unlikely. That's fine with me. Except there was NO "Harvey" - it was Lee.

As for the cards -- the 5 days absence matches the absences for 53-54 and that is also what the FBI reported. You know - the same FBI who you stick by religiously when they write something that suits YOUR argueemnt - like the 200 days BS you rabbit on and on about every time you're trapped.

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.

I see no reason to assume that wasn't the idea all along especially when Joe Kennedy called it a "lucky thing."

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.

Did Robert Lovett and Joe Kennedy have a motive to get rid of Dulles?

The historical fact is yes, they had a motive to get rid of Dulles.

Doesn't mean they did 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?

But Dulles was the only direct connection to JFK.

How could he reasonably expect JFK to take military action when there was no one there to advocate for such a course?

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

-----------------

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 plan^{2(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.

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..

You were saying....

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?

Richard Garrett

There was a poignant reunion with a grammar school acquaintance, Richard Garrett. “I remember I had to look down to him, and it seemed strange because he had been the tallest, the dominant member of our group in grammar school. He looked like he was just lost. He was very different from the way I remembered him. He seemed to have no personality at all. He couldn't express himself well. He just hadn't turned into somebody. He hadn't turned into anybody. I've read where a lot of people say he was a loner. Well, he wasn't in the sixth grade but he sure was in high school.”

--LIFE Magazine, February 21, 1964, p. 72

Richard Garrett met American-born LEE Oswald in the sixth grade, and Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald in high school. Like many people who met both Oswalds, Garrett went to an early grave. On August 10, 1969, while waiting at a stoplight with his fiancee at the intersection of Oakland and East Lancaster in Fort Worth, he was shot five times. (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 1/10/70)

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...

Show where it says that card is for 54-55 and not 53-54.

There is no tautology. Never has been. You need to go and study language some more.

As for looking foolish... throwing barbs is okay - if it is accompanied by actual logical rebuttal... otherwise it's pretty obvious you've got nothing.

You were saying....

why are there no 54-55 grade cards showing the "12" that you added to the "168"...? and if "168" is the attendance... 179 must be his attendance for the 53-54 year.

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.

The copy of the school report as seen at MFF shows the figure nowhere as clearly as this. It could be read as 54" or 64", but the figure as shown has to be 54" because of the manner in which it has been written.

This copy has a dark area around the height and weight --- you know - like it's been whited out and redone.

The 64" in the FBI report is simply them misreading the indistinct copy.

I give other reasons for believing it is 54" (4' 6") as opposed to 64" (5' 4") in my upcoming book. It puts the issue beyond dispute.

------

but let's talk about shrinking. When and how did that hooter on the Bronx Zoo photo of LEE shrink?

Desperation now?

Explain how he was 54" Greg. I did so at the other thread. It has to do with standard deviation and population statistics.

You ready to state that the boy in 6th grade at the back of the photo is in the 2% of the pop range for SHORTNESS 18 months later?

As for the Zoo photo... that's Harvey, that's how. Just as his brother John or his teacher Myra said. ROBERT is the one you should be questioning and investigating here mate, not H&L.

This is great Greg... when wrong, let's go back and discuss all your other guesses....

1. The Beauregard school records do NOT show any conflict with the PS 44 records - no matter how badly you need that (and you do badly need them to).

With as much conviction as the last ironclad conclusion...

why are there no 54-55 grade cards showing the "12" that you added to the "168"...? and if "168" is the attendance... 179 must be his attendance for the 53-54 year.

2. The Ridglea photo gives no indication of how tall he is - except in relation to those around him. He is far from the tallest in the back row, and a hell of a lot shorter than his teacher.

That's what I wrote Greg. We are talking about May and Sept 1953. That he is in the back row of the photo IS INDICATION that he was taller than most everyone in the class

Additionally, no one has a head of hair that is so perfectly flat. I maintain that marker pen has been used on it to give him a different appearance to the Bronx Zoo photo - which itself has been tampered with to again, give a different appearance (yes, that's right, the nose).

Prove it. You SAY a lot of stuff - but prove next to nothing. And what does the nose have to do with it being August 1953 and that boy is barely 4'10" (still much more than that 54" guess you threw at us - also without proof)

3. The ONLY evidence you've got of a 5' 4" inch Lee in NYC is that school record and FBI report based on a (mis)reading of that record. Carro, for example, in late April, 1953, described Lee as being of "average height and weight" - not tall for his age as in your Lee and not short for his age as in your "Harvey" (as indicated in this article "Tall Lee and Short Harvey--School Daze" at the Harvey and Lee site).

"You've" got? This is evidence in the WC records. CE1384. We all got. and it is very clear despite your best efforts. 64" in May and Sept 1953.

You really want to go to battle over what the Youth House and Truant system said about little Lee?
According to his report Oswald did not attend PS44 prior to Youth House (3/23 - 4/16). Yet the School records show he started 3/23... and does not show a single word about Youth House - how dat?

At 58" he falls into the 1st standard deviation. almost 70% of students are within this range most people would call "normal". Carro sees Harvey, not Lee Greg.

He also described this boy as having had a mastoid operation.

Yes he does Greg... from what source does he get this information?

4. Mrs Clyde Livingston - one of Lee's teachers at Ridglea, described him as "quiet and rather shy" - which is how you guys portray "Harvey" not Lee - yet according to you, "Harvey" never went to Ridglea.

You really can't be serious here - or is this "grasping at straws" training?
Now we're back in 4th grade. How do you relate the personality of a 4th grader to the size/disposition of a 6th grader as they advance in a new school?

Here's another image you may not have ever seen. That's little Lee in the 2nd row center. In 4th grade very few boys or girls have hit puberty and started growing

Isn't this now the graduated 6th grader arriving at the Pic home? (The same winter Robert says he did not visit while the Pic he and dates went out together. Something seems amiss with the winter of 1952... what an amazing coincidence... right?) The little shy guy who was a good fighter (equate "quiet and shy" to not being a good fighter for us Greg) and not something faith-based... PROVE something.

Mr. JENNER - Well, at this point, yes, I would like to ask you this: You hadn't seen them from October of 1950 until the summer of 1952. Did you notice any change in him, his overall attitude, his relations with his mother, his demeanor, his feelings towards others, his actions toward others?
Mr. PIC - He was definitely the boss.
Mr. JENNER - Now, tell us on what you base that?
Mr. PIC - I mean if he decided to do something, regardless of what my mother said, he did it. She had no authority whatsoever with him. like had no respect for her at all. He and my wife got along very well together when they were alone, when she wasn't present, she and Lee got along very well. She always reminded me of this.
Mr. JENNER - Your wife reminded you of that?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Without my mother present she could make it with Lee.

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. I'll be generous and allow the possibility that the quote has been attributed incorrectly to CE 2221 instead of Life Magazine. Where does that leave us? In CE 2221, Garrett claimed when he next met Lee at Arlington High a few years later and now describes him as "hesitant, a little more quiet, and did not talk too much..." Sounds more like the Lee recalled by Mrs. Livingston, no? I put it to you, that even if Garrett did describe Lee has the tallest kid etc to Life, he was getting Lee confused with someone else, but correctly recalled him from Arlington.

I bet even you, with a little digging, could find his 5th grade photo... (in most cases when everyone stood, the tallest was in the back... sometimes the biggest kids sit on the floor in the front row.

So where did he make this statement Greg? If you had any integrity you would have looked first, oh, that's right. You don't have the book, haven't read the book and have no idea that researchers will look at more than just one source when researching a topic. The difference between you and John is that he likes to be complete where you're just lazy... he'll talk directly with the witnesses and look into whatever else they may have said along the way....

47 Interview of Richard Garrett, LIFE Magazine, 2/21/64, p. 72.

Must have missed that section in your not reading of the book...

6. Dr. Kurian, who claims to have interviewed Lee in March, 1953 estimated his height as 4' 8" - in line more or less, with Carro's estimation almost two months later that Oswald was of average height and weight.

Classic Parker tautology... I already proved to you that by 1953 in NYC LEE was 5'4". only Harvey went to Youth House mate... which is why Lee's altered PS44 records do not show it.

Prove otherwise - or is this in your vol 2 of the faith-based speculation and unproven assumptions tome you're into?

You have nothing propping this up EXCEPT your misreading of the Beauregard record and the heights showing in the copy of the PS 44 records supplied for the WC's 26 volumes. The copy thatcopy must have come from is contained in Commission Document #364 and it shows the numbers as being nowhere near as distinct as we see in the volumes version. I say it must have come from that copy because the commission chose from all the Commission Documents which ones it would place into the volumes -- so CD 364 preceded any other version.

Parker... you're projecting again. My "You have nothing" has been posted in this thread and makes you back-peddle and side-step using rhetoric and tautology.

Does it not dawn on you that WCD364 p8 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10765#relPageId=8&tab=page are copies of copies.

You do understand that multiple generations will degrade an image, right?

Side by side these look identical except for the degradation.. Do we really need to do an exhaustive comparison of the same document in a variety of quality? Do you not see this for yourself when looking for docs? There are many, many versions of the same doc spread all over the records... The one John has was from the Archives... You think this version with a cover letter about copies compares to a copy of the one in the Archives?

And in my last response - do you not understand that a 54" 13-14 year old is at the smallest end of the deviation spectrum? He nor Harvey were that small.

So rather than repeating "you have nothing" as if it means something... show us what YOU have and prove your points. Whenever you finally get to that, you wind up proving yourself wrong in every case...

"I say it must have come from that copy because the commission chose from all the Commission Documents which ones it would place into the volumes -- so CD 364 preceded any other version. ":

"You say"? so what?. WCD364 offers COPIES genius. If you bothered reading the first page of that report you'd know that these original records were given to SA Malone of the FBI to turn over to the WC. Malone's office said they did yet there is no record of that occurring. These are NOT the earliest versions of anything. Why would CE1384 be a better version than this? Why would what John copied from the Archives be a better version than this?

Cause WCD384 is yet another layer of copies which degrade the image. What happened to this doc in the hands of the FBI is left to history and us to find out.

Greg - we're all sorry you have such a hard time with this over and over again... You make good guesses yet that's all they are. When you ever get around to proving one of these guesses we'll go from there. Until then you're just air and faith hoping no one notices. I will forever run circles around your knowledge of Oswald's past and the H&L presentation until you do some work... Which I am fairly sure will never happen...

Hey, DJ....

John A. is right, and, as you keep saying....

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy!!!

What a great and honest phrase!!!

Let's keep presenting EVIDENCE! I'm thinking STRIPLING SCHOOL AND ALL JA's STRIPLING EVIDENCE should be next. What do you think? I've got JA's Stripling write-ups lined up, complete with YouTube interviews of Kudlaty and Schubert, ready to post.

Should I pull the trigger, or should we do something else first? Your opinion is most appreciated!

The Harvey and Lee Credo:

"No innocent mistakes were made by witnesses. No innocent mistakes were made by the FBI, DPD, Sheriff's Department, etc., in recording witnesses' statements. It was all intentional and proves that the bad guys chose two boys (and their mothers) in the early 1950's whom they somehow knew would grow up looking very much alike, when appropriate, but very different when necessary. You know, like when a person smiles in one photo taken from a certain angle and wearing certain clothing in certain lighting conditions, with a certain camera and a certain lens, etc., and tries to look "tough" in a different photograph, taken at from a different angle while wearing different clothes, etc, etc. They must be different people, right????? Especially if their being different people fits perfectly in my wacky, paranoid theory, right??? They must be different people, gosh darn it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

"Golly, this is fun!" --T. Graves

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Harvey and Lee Credo, continued--

"The bad guys started planning and implementing all of this long before JFK was elected President. Harvey's and Lee's families, friends, and acquaintances were in on it from the beginning, and for whatever reason have decided to not spill the beans, just proving that the bad guys are all powerful and try to control everything we do and think, and we don't even know it. So if you want to make sense out of this chaotic, evil world that we live in, just start thinking like we do -- NO INNOCENT MISTAKES WERE MADE BY THE WITNESSES OR THE REPORTING AUTHORITIES.

--Tommy

Nice Rant TG

Your righteous indignation is duly noted... yet you still do not PROVE anything with these little tirades.

Amazing how you can define what it is we do and represent but can do nothing to refute any of it other than just talk and talk and talk.

When you finally do try and prove something, it winds up being wrong.

Well done boys

Ummm... okay. Still not how I read Glenn's post. No worries.

For the life of me I couldn't find the funny in that org & timing chart

Jim... elephant in the room, no?

the point is proven. Two different men on two similar but different paths. The time frames for these jobs would conflict with where the official record places little Lee cause there was a Lee and Harvey

He can't be at Tujagues and Easton, Tujagues and Pfisterer's, did he not actually work at Dolly?

You get no answer Jim cause John was right.

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy.... as the Evidence decides the case and is left to us to find.

How many conclusions in he WCR begin with,

"Based on the evidence presented....." when 90% of the evidence never got there.

^{So who did Dr. Ebersole answer to?}

Pretty sure it was Osborne Chief of Surgery as well as Humes for this Autopsy and then anyone above them.

I did this a while back to better understand the scene at Bethesda. hope it helps.

DJ

edit - PS - reading Ebersole's HSCA interview sheds a great deal of light... then see what Custer and Reed and even O'Connor has to say about Ebersole's abilities. He was about as good at Xrays as Humes was at performing an autopsy

if that's your idea of some kind of humor at an otherwise nationally sobering catastrophe, then i'm liking you more and more every time i read your stuff.

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

yay

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

Yeah, it is, but it's not stated correctly.... How did you know I would read that?

Hang on here... dead serious

Those are the connections at Bethesda and surrounding that night...

Humes claimed the autopsy started with body at 6:45.

FBI/SS bring in a casket at 7:17

The actual start is 8pm...

This is how all these people were actually connected.... and who ordered who to do what, to sign what, to go and be here and there.

Sorry, but what's so funny?

(Have you read Best Evidence? my bad if not... I did this while reading it to remember who everybody was)

No kicks Greg... Just make your arguments fairly, with links and let people look for themselves.

btw - Harvey was not Robert. Lee was not Robert. Harvey was not Lee.

I forget that those arguing against have not seen many of the images and documents on the accompanying CD, or even bothered to look at Baylor for themselves.

I posted Queens June '53 for a reason Greg - maybe this image, one I thought with which you were familiar, explains it.

This is Lee Oswald '52 and he's not 4'6" (which you are claiming a 13 and 7-11 month old is)... that little dude with the white's on his pockets might.... or the girl on the end

Also posted Queens to corroborate my statement of fact... there were 3 PS44's in NYC.

(I went to a PS school in Queens in 1968 & 69.)

From volume 2 of my book:

Today, the average 13 year old male is 61.5 inches tall. It is known that the average height has increased gradually for the past 150 years by a total of 4 inches. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the average 13 year old boy in the early 1950s was no more than 61 inches. Yet we are now expected to believe that Oswald was about 3 inches taller than the average boy of his age. Clearly the totality of the evidence makes a nonsense of that.

{sigh} These 5 sentences represent you to a "T". Since you cannot accept that Lee was a large kid in 6th grade, did his growing earlier than others, you have to revert to what you do best...

#1 - Today, the average 13 year old male is 61.5 inches tall. OK. What's the rest of that quote? At thirteen the average male is 61 & 1/2 inches (156cm) at 14 he is 64&1/2 inches (164 cm). how old was Oswald when measured in May and Sept 1953? Wouldn't he be 14 in Oct 1953?

#2 - It is known that the average height has increased gradually for the past 150 years by a total of 4 inches. OK... a link would be nice though

#3 - It is therefore reasonable to assume that the average 13 year old boy in the early 1950s was no more than 61 inches. OK .

"Reasonable to assume" or easily proven with math. Why assume when you can offer authenticated proof?

It's 60 years of a 150 year statistic or 60/150 or 2/5 or 40% of the increase in average height discussed.

So the AVERAGE Greg, not the maximum, minimum, or standard deviations, but the AVERAGE has gone from 57.5 to 61.5 over 150 years. what's 40% of 4? 1.6 inches if it was a straight line gradual change.

So 60 years ago boys AVERAGED 1.6 inches shorter or about 60 inches, than today; the average was indeed "no more than 61" for a 13 year old and 64.5" for a 14 year old... how old was Oswald when measured for this discussion again?

#4 - Yet we are now expected to believe that Oswald was about 3 inches taller than the average boy of his age. No "expected to believe" anything here mate....

Back to standard deviation Greg... you Googled it while reading this right? for a 13-14 year old it's about 2 inches.

Using your logic here, is it reasonable to assume that between 13 and 14 they grow from 60 to 63 inches in the 50's?

That a boy who was say 13 and 7 months would be more than 60 but less than 63 inches on average?

2 standard deviations is 4 inches where 13.6% of the population falls (34.1% is Deviation #1) . This has nothing to do with Robert's genetics...

13.6% of the population will be 4 inches greater and less than average... Lee, as easily seen from that photo, falls closer to that 13.6% in 6th grade than the average - but we are not saying he was 64" tall in 6th grade or June 1952.

The records refer to MAY and SEPT 1953

#5 - Clearly the totality of the evidence makes a nonsense of that.

"Totality of the evidence" Greg?

You presented only this evidence Greg... today's 61.5" ave height after 4" of growth over 150 years.

Did I miss something?

Then you said something about expecting to believe.... which I proved using math

--------------------

What evidence did you present which made it "nonsense" that a 13 7/12 thru 13 11/12 year old could be 64 inches tall in 1953?...

-------------------

Now Greg, what about your claim that it really said 54" ??

That is clearly the only nonsense here - even at 2 standard deviations which cover 95% of the population, you can't get to a 54" kid but only a 56+" kid from a 60" average. Only 2.5% of the population are 56" or less at this age. There are 5-6 times more kids 64" than 56" in any representative population sample

How did you put it? Clearly.

As for the beginning of your reply... is grasping at straws a new Olympic event?