David Josephs

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.... Commission attorney Albert Jenner asked John Pic to identify his brother in the 6th grade class photo from Fort Worth. Pic immediately identified a tall, healthy-looking, well-built 12-year-old boy in the photo as his brother. This was the same boy who was remembered by classmate Richard Garrett as, "The tallest, most dominant member of our group."47 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...

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.

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.) {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?

Of course we want that - not being in this camp yourself, how and why would you speak for us? We're all sorry that Greg can't count or post an honest source to support his posts and faith-based conclusions... What have YOU done to refute anything - from my POV a great big nothing. PROVE something BL... When you were able to find a 6% chance in 5 year old's for tonsil regrowth within 30 months I posted that using the word "impossible" in H&L - while acceptable to most given these odds and circumstances - did shut the door to this remote possibility. Sorry you didn't read that. As for the FBI reports of the NYC records... that's what they say. That's what they wrote. I didn't claim it was 200 days of attended or missed school from 3/23/53 to 1/8/54, the school records and the FBI did. So how do 127 days of attend-able school fall between 3/23 and 6/29 1953? They don't and the significance of this is completely lost on you. The provably don't and can't. Period. And nothing you or anyone else has offered has changed this. So we are to assume that a school administrator wrote these numbers which should include a 17 day absence at Youth House... gone. The #'s simply do not work for the Spring semester of the 1953-54 school year. A year fraught with conflict and controversy. You want to argue they are simple mistakes... fine. But that's not what you do. Is it possible for you to ever stop whining like a little child with every post? You sound like an 11 year old claiming the teacher doesn't like you... when I bet if you did ANY of the work, that outlook changes... you'd be prepared to discuss the topic and stop attacking the messengers. Really? Link us to anyone who has taken on refuting H&L without the personal attacks on us and with more than rhetoric where we in turn STARTED the attacks. You're blowing smoke and making generalities again... It is possible for the three of you to bring up H&L without adding your anger and disappointment at not being able to offer evidence to refute the actual Evidence supporting the H&L theory. If you could, it would be obvious. You have people here not wanting to take a position for fear of having to deal with your never-ending faith & belief-based attacks. You can't figure out Ping Tung, El Toro v Santa Ana, Harvey's buddies v Lee's and how they were handled or the absurdity of the FBI needing to debunk Palmer and obtain Jr High school records so quickly. If this was just a fanciful flight, easily refuted... what was the rush? Judy Baker was debunked in 5 minutes cause the evidence she offers is not authentic... Parker did his job on her, I did mine. We agree that total BS stories told as fact should be questioned and evidence authenticated. The H&L group did not fabricate this stuff - it's in the EVIDENCE, left there to find like the rest of the conspiracy due to the overwhelming arrogance of those who perpetrated it and then proceeded to cover it up. Why is it that the three of you don't simply take that route and PROVE the evidence wrong with authentic corroboration, rather than getting here and posting just about everything but... ?? Do you see my posts? The contain the evidence, the links and comparisons so everyone can see and make their own minds up. (even when y'all post links they are to the wrong years and about the wrong subjects) You don't think something is right... show us why... don't only TELL US as nothing the three of you has done gives you the credibility necessary to trust what you're claiming. All we ever get from your trifecta is whining and faith-based assumptions and beliefs... and then you attack us for defending ourselves from your baseless conclusions. I didn't write that FBI report stating these things, the FBI did. Is what the FBI wrote authentic related to Oswald and his schooling - does it jive with corroborating evidence or does it conflict. DO YOUR OWN WORK for once. John & Myra alone, the height/weight alone, the images alone, the USMC records alone are but pieces of a puzzle. How can you claim to know the picture is wrong when you don't bother taking the time or putting in the effort to understand the pieces? ====== For those who have asked... I continue dealing with these fanciful believers since none of this has anything to do with BELIEF but strictly the evidence provided and subsequently obtained outside the government by a variety of researchers. That Lifton and Parker, you and TG feel they must emptily attack another's research for years on end without getting anywhere rather than focus on their own work, their own accomplishments and their own presentations is pathetic. I post evidence y'all post rhetoric... I'm not going anywhere as long as the work from people like you, TG, Parker, Von Pein, Posner, Bugs and others remain mouthpieces for pure speculation presented as confirmed fact. You make this too easy and too obvious. You have any idea what the significance of 3830 W. 6th Street in Ft Worth is? It's pretty important in the H&L situation... Any ideas or do you just KNOW there's something wrong, will tell us there's something wrong but have no clue or supporting evidence as to why you think so?

You mean high lighted. No evidence of white out except in your own mind. . ,gaal Highlighted after being traced over to form the numbers needed or white out used. Only looking at the document in real life could you say for sure. But either way, the numbers inside those darkened areas have been tampered with. See, now this is why he does not link to the MFF page with this document... Not sure where he found it, or if he had someone create this terrible image... but both the MFF version and History Matters version all look like this: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=721&tab=page http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0361a.htm The "white-out" the 'Oswald expert' here refers to is actually what highlighter looks like when copied. While going thru the docs at the archives John highlighted what he found appropriate AFTER the copies were made... the Baylor notebooks are full of these highlights... Yo mate, need two hands and a flashlight? Amazing that both locations showing CE1384 do not have this "white-out" highlight... why is that? Why is the version you posted so different from two of the main sources for WCE's on the internet and the photocopy of the original from the archives by Armstrong sans highlight?... what did you have done to this or maybe you could find an ever worse version hiding on the internet somewhere... provide the link from where you pulled this if you can.... So a heartfelt THANK YOU Parker... please keep posting so more and more of our readers can see your true faith-based self in action .... Can I have an "amen"? Add 25 pounds and lose 4 inches between the zoo image of AUG 53 and his health record of SEPT 53. Unless that's not LEE in the zoo image as confirmed by Myra and Jon Pic and some impostor is using Lee's name... You're doing so well so far ... but still can't get those 200 days to fit into 125 without his going to summer school. Do you offer proof Oswald went to summer school that year? And amazingly, the boy's hearing problems drastically reduce by NOV 1953. But nothing to see here, right? everyone just keep moving along...

Not a matter of taking his word but the positions and effect these men had on the world. I read the book knowing he'd color the events, doesn't change the events themselves though. Without Keenan's writings finally getting thru and convincing the US leaders that the USSR (under Stalin or whoever) would never stop trying to expand. Of course there are many other areas of the world... I simply feel that the chained attack dog that was the CIA was still fenced in even when the collar was removed. Military Intel and even the FBI were light years ahead regarding intelligence - which is why we don't so much see the CIA as an INTEL agency rather the attack dogs and first line of defense for activities sanctioned by, financed by, and supported by the Military. Bottom Line Jim is as Greg posted a split second before I concurred... Allen, IMO mostly took orders related to policy and implemented them as if the CIA originated them so they could protect the true sponsors of these operations - the MICC. He, like Bundy were IMO Sponsor/Facilitators... connected to both groups but more facilitator than sponsor. You think he'd have been as effective without a Secretary of State brother whose main purpose was to ask the nations of the world if they were with them or against them related to Communism? Even the group of "Wise Men" had others appoint them to their positions... The six "wise men" of the title are Dean Acheson, Secretary of State under President Harry TrumanIn 1944, Acheson attended the Bretton Woods Conference as the head delegate from the State department. At this conference the post-war international economic structure was designed. The conference was the birthplace of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the last of which would evolve into the World Trade Organization. (DJ: In terms of control of the world's population and nations, these entities, imo, represent the pinnacle of strong arm banking expansion and control tactics.) Charles E. Bohlen, U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, the Philippines, and France W. Averell Harriman, special envoy for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt George F. Kennan, ambassador to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia Robert A. Lovett, Truman's Secretary of Defense John J. McCloy, a War Department official and later U.S. High Commissioner for Germany. I truly can't wait until I can get into this subject deeply within a book format... Ever since reading about the Evica-Drago "Sponsors" concept I have been trying to create a narrative that can identify and authenticate the people who qualify - and what they did. I'll probably need all of Scully's work and links and ability to know and show who was with who and why. So a thankful shoutout to the work he's done over the years.

Why no link to the MFF doc mate? You have any idea what a 115# 54" kid looks like? And this is you guessing again. If he was 54" entering 7th grade, How is he the largest boy in his 6th grade class? You have seen his 6th grade class photo with him standing in the back, right? The crap images you offer cause you can't improve their readability is your problem. Prove it was a "5" geniuses... Rather than keep guessing. Do some work already... Corroborate your faith-based assumptions. Otherwise they are what they appear. Vapid speculation while hoping no one notices. You both should be ashamed of yourselves for the junk you post here.

Those who can't do, criticize... Those who remain as confused as this pair simply keep posting faith-based crap and avoid proof at all costs on forums like these... One writes articles including Radionics as a key theme to explain the situation yet has the gall to attack others when presented with evidence he can't refute... Did the FBI say 200 days of school between those dates? yes Are there 200 days on which he could have attended during this period? no prove otherwise mate. Here - I did most the work for you yet again. When and how did Lee shrink during those years?

How's the 'research' going on it, Glenn? Has it verified that they are correctly reading the school records? Has it found any 1958 FW riots which vindicate that Oswald wrote to McBride that year? Has it uncovered the relevance of a 1953 Queens PS 44 class photo? Let me know. I have a lot more questions on your 'research' after that. We are all so sorry you remain so terribly confused over these issues mate... How again do they discuss Sputnik, the term itslef, prior to the launch? Why does the management of Pfisterer's confirm Palmer's info? Why did the FBI need to debunk Palmer the week after the assassination when the rest of these investigations into ciritcal facts and evidence does not begin for months? Have you ever proven that these 1956 riots are what they refer to? Have you still forgotten that you can't add ? 200 days in 125 available school days genius... make it work As for Queens' PS44 class of June 1953... it was an example of how school photos are taken, that Oswald was not in this PS44 and that there were indeed 3 of them at the time. All you ever have are questions mate... that you don't like or accept the answers only makes them wrong in your eyes... the rest of us can see just fine. We also see that all your support has left.... Tommy, Bernie, Tracy have left you to your own devices while Paul T now tries to have your back .... and then there's that ever deepening hole of faith-based crap you shovel at us. Still no proof about your statements concerning Bobby Newman or your father/uncle confusion... and your song and dance about the 200 days of school the FBI counted from the NYC records THEY created being fit into only 125 days of actual school as shown above is always good for a laugh Am I running a psywar ops on you as well mate? Paranoia runs deep, into your heart it will creep....

Reading The Wise Men, James, I came to feel that McCloy and Harriman were above Dulles in the governmental food chain. On the WC - another story - that was the Dulles/Ford show for the most part. Hide and confuse Compared to the worldwide direct power McCloy and Harriman wielded, Dulles was IMO, told what to do more than decided what to do. Not trying to pick a fight either... I see McCloy and Harriman closer to Bundy and the top levels of power than Allen who at the end of the day was supposed to do what he was told by the military and this circle of global movers/shakers. Allen, IMO, did not have this kind of clout other than in influencing the Warren Commission and keeping secrets. These two, on the other hand, influenced virtually everything. McCloy: The State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee (SWNCC, "swink") was a United States federal government committee created in December 1944 to address the political-military issues involved in the occupation of the Axis powers following the end of World War II. SWNCC was an important precursor to the National Security Council, and represents perhaps the most successful integration of military and civilian assets in the history of U.S. foreign policy. As a result, it has received renewed scrutiny in the wake of the Iraq War as the U.S. government attempts to overhaul its interagency national security system. During World War II, interagency coordination had been largely informal and mediated by president Roosevelt, but recognizing the need for deeper integration, the Secretary of State, Secretary of War, and Secretary of the Navy began holding weekly meetings to work through shared problems. However, the so-called "Committee of Three" had no specific mandate or authority, and this weakness became apparent as the war moved toward its conclusions and the details of occupation planning began to occupy the various departments.As soon as he became Secretary of State, Edward Stettinius sent a letter to War Secretary Henry Stimson and Navy Secretary James Forrestal proposing that they create a jointly managed secretariat to plan the occupations and achieve full integration of U.S. foreign policy. The secretariat was headed by Roosevelt favorite, Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy John Jay McCloy (March 31, 1895 – March 11, 1989, was a Wall Street lawyer and banker who served as Assistant Secretary of War during World War II, where he made many major decisions. After the war he served as president of the World Bank, U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, and chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. He later became a prominent United States presidential advisor, served on the Warren Commission, and was a member of the foreign policy establishment group of elders called "The Wise Men." ------- William Averell Harriman (November 15, 1891 – July 26, 1986) was an American Democratic Party politician, businessman, and diplomat. He was the son of railroad baron E. H. Harriman. He served as Secretary of Commerce under President Harry S. Truman and later as the 48th Governor of New York. He was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1952, and again in 1956 when he was endorsed by President Truman but lost to Adlai Stevenson both times. Harriman served President Franklin D. Roosevelt as special envoy to Europe and served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union and U.S. Ambassador to Britain. He served in numerous U.S. diplomatic assignments in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. He was a core member of the group of foreign policy elders known as "The Wise Men". Using money from his father he established W.A. Harriman & Co banking business in 1922. In 1927 his brother Roland joined the business and the name was changed to Harriman Brothers & Company. In 1931, it merged with Brown Bros. & Co. to create the highly successful Wall Street firm Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. Notable employees included George Herbert Walker and his son-in-law Prescott Bush. Harriman's main properties included Brown Brothers & Harriman & Co, Union Pacific Railroad, Merchant Shipping Corporation, and venture capital investments that included the Polaroid Corporation. Harriman's associated properties included the Southern Pacific Railroad (including the Central Pacific Railroad), Illinois Central Railroad, Wells Fargo & Co., the Pacific Mail Steamship Co., American Ship & Commerce, Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Aktiengesellschaft (HAPAG), the American Hawaiian Steamship Co., United American Lines, the Guaranty Trust Company, and the Union Banking Corporation. He served as Chairman of The Business Council, then known as the Business Advisory Council for the United States Department of Commerce in 1937 and 1939

You sometime wonder if they don't have a "Pounce" button on their keyboards which kicks in their "Post faith-based beliefs without proof once again" auto-reply functionality...

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

Tom Waits - very inspirational. or the thesis of their upcoming book series proven worthless.... keep on shoveling mate.

One more thing about this list. If I were to pick just one topic that few people understand but simply cannot even be argued against with any honesty, I'd pick # 8 above, which is, "The refusal of the Social Security Administration to corroborate the official story of 'Oswald's' pre-1962 income, offering instead 'Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report regarding employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps'." For MUCH more information on this topic, see: http://harveyandlee.net/Unraveling/Unravels.htm . This is what a psywar op looks like, folks. Enjoy. I was under the impression that calling another member here an agent provacateur - as in "this person running a psywar ops against us" - was frowned upon? He's calling Jim here exactly that. Can you imagine if anyone accused Parker of the same thing? Someone asked for examples. I offered a few, Jim offered more. Now, unlike you - we can prove these conclusions with evidence. Your hollow rebuttals simply digs you deeper in that hole of crap you keep shoveling and posting as research. So rather than try to explain how 1) you even know the mechanics of a psywar-op to claim you can recgionize one, or 2) that you weren't claiming Jim is something that you'd need to prove you might as well go back to posting those vapid posts containing rhetoric, faith and belief. That you think Jim's post constitutes a psywar op is very revealing mate. Gives us all some idea of how you approach this forum, the members and the topics discussed. To you it's a war - MY view against YOURS - not a colloaboration. Guess that's why your little place on the internet is so barren. (For Glenn and others - a more clear explanation and visual is offered here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22151&page=4#entry312833 ) Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR), or the basic aspects of modern psychological operations (PSYOP), have been known by many other names or terms, including MISO, Psy Ops, Political Warfare, "Hearts and Minds," and propaganda.[1] The term is used "to denote any action which is practiced mainly by psychological methods with the aim of evoking a planned psychological reaction in other people."[2] Various techniques are used, and are aimed at influencing a target audience's value system, belief system, emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. It is used to induce confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator's objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or false flag tactics. It is also used to destroy the morale of enemies through tactics that aim to depress troops psychological states.[3][4] Target audiences can be governments, organizations, groups, and individuals, and is not just limited to soldiers. Civilians of foreign territories can also be targeted by technology and media so as to cause an effect in the government of their country

What a dropkick. Still can't locate any other giant-hootered Oswald pics, I see. Keep looking. Yo Mate... speaking of drop kick... Nothing yet on Bobby Newman - right? (Weren't you proving that the Mardi Gras picture was Bobby Newman as well... whatever happened to that supporting evidence mate?) Nothing to connect father/uncle to Weinstock/Gardos other than your poor language skills and beliefs Can you even FIND any image of LEE Oswald between the Aug 1953 zoo photo and Voebal's photo... We realize you have no photographic skills whatsoever so I'll help you out, again. You let us know when you find ANY photo of Lee during this period. Looks to me that the little nose of Lee is dramatically different than the schnoozes on Harvey's photos... but then again you and your rose-colored faith-based conclusions will most definitely argue the point regardless. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - There is a young fellow in the foreground-everybody else is facing the other way. He is in a pantomime, or grimace. Do you recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir; looking at that picture and I have looked at it several times--that looks more like Robert than it does Lee, to my recollection. John Pic does not see his brother from 1952 until 1962. He does not recognize the zoo image as his brother. That the classroom photo looks more like Robert than Lee is no big stretch as most of us would agree that Harvey and Robert were very similar in appearance... In fact, so was Robert Webster... In either case the boy changes drastically between 1952, at 5'4" and 115lbs to Aug 1953 at 4'10" 90lbs... You want to keep claiming these two kids are the same person... have at it Since you know and have everything there is related to Oswald - given the title of that series of books - why don't you post something to explain how the boy entering 7th grade shrinks 4-6 inches and loses 20+ pounds over the next 2 years. How the biggest of the children in the grade are put in the back row of every school photo from the beginning of time... or how Lee was known as the leader of the boys who was rough, tough, strong, large... The boy on the right went to Youth House while our boy Lee attended one of the three PS44's in either Queens, Manhattan or the Bronx... probably Manhattan on the West Side at 100 W 77th since it wasn't the Queens PS44... Notice the TALL Boys & Girls at the back... You were aware there were 3 NYC PS44's in 1953, 54, 55 - Right?

Okay, so it says in the report that "Kardos" and "Weinstock" were not his relatives, just communists thrown into the mix for no known reason, and this obviated any need to decide that they were not the relatives referred to earlier. Now just point that part of the report out, sport. What "time" frame does the FBI report refer to? Kindly point it out in the report? The editor of a two-bit commie paper is a "prominent" job? I guess it is if you desperately need to it to be. But in the real world, the best you could expect by way of payment, would be having some basic living expenses recompensed to you. You know... like the caller said...."they got their money from communists". "she knew Oswald's father and uncle" ...."stated she had two names to give..." For that, and other reasons already explained, I believe she was naming the alleged father and uncle. You keep claiming that the report is clear that the names are in relation to other matters. Don't just claim it. Show me. As for Steve's claim that Gardos was not in the US "at the time"... what's your point? Show me where it specifies a time-frame as to when she knew these people. Acording to Stevo, Gardos was deported in the 1940s. Oswald was born when... 1939 ring a bell? You can't even say he never returned. It was under the Smith Act which, if memory serves, had little success at being upheld when appealed. As for the rest of your spleen-fest,,, you are simply losing the plot in a very public setting. Again. Your attempts to turn the tables are simply sad projections, David. Whatever you say, mate.... you got it all figgered out

You're working backwards. The evidence is the evidence, From that, the conspiracy is the conspiracy, regardless of size. How you, as a former army intel officer, can support this fallacious mediocrity, is beyond me. He butchers the evidence and manipulates witnesses and FBI reports while rejecting any FBI report as fake which goes against him. It is ahistorical claptrap incorporating the same gestalt that goes into the creation of urban myths. You quite rightly reject Veciana's claims about Oswald and Philips because you know that is not how intelligence agencies operate. The same applies to this. Someone wiser than I am said once that there is a good book in Armstrong's archives. it's just not the one he wrote. Everyone is wiser than you mate... And you claiming someone else butchered evidence is the last of all great jokes to be heard... And then you go on to tell Jon what to think while not having proven a single one of you ridiculous arguments... The Evidence IS the Conspiracy... you got any to offer that relates to what actually happened that day? - or do we once again get the faith-based sermon with a request to believe you? you couldn't be more wrong if you set out to be... but please keep on jabbering away... your hole deepens... that shovel in your hands cause blisters yet?

You conveniently skipped over the Military Jon... Look at EVERYONE involved. Name a few who were not active or ex Military? The question that needs answering is who could tell AF 4-star general LeMay and Navy Rear Admirals Galloway and Burkley to make sure the autopsy proved a shot from above and behind? Who could tell the FBI, Hoover, to bury/discredit all non-Oswald evidence. Who was so powerful that no one from any walk of life or anywhere on the planet could hide from them - and they were skilled already at killing. Anyone honestly think that LBJ and the Warren Commissions and lawyers were afraid of the Mafia or the Russians? It's important to remember that the CIA was at the time an extension of the Military... the covert arm that could do what overtly could not be done. Their budget, their arms, their training... Military. The CIA grows out of the OSS, not the FBI's SIS. The OSS was a Military-based entity run by the rich and elite of the US Military Industrial Congressional class. The SIS was Hoover's. 'nuf said? Whoever was ultimately used to pull triggers is not who Sponsored the action, they Facilitated it with Mechanics on the ground and were protected from above. Military operation thru and thru... This is of course only my opinion based on the evidence and research I've done. I am in the process of researching for a book I'd like to write one day on the Creation of US Intelligence Entities. The reading there also leads me to believe the Military, who originated Intelligence, was not about to give it away to the newly created CIA - who I might add had WHO for their first few directors followed by a world class WWII spy? 1) Rear Adm Souers, 2) Lt. Gen Vandenberg, 3) Rear Ad Hillenkoetter, 4) Gen Smith... Navy, Army, Navy, Army.... hmmmm. On March 23, 1882, the Department of the Navy issued General Order No. 292, which established an office of intelligence within the Bureau of Navigation. In 1885 the Division of Military Information was established as part of the Military Reservations Division, Miscellaneous Branch, of the Adjutant General's Office. This step gave the U.S. Army a permanent intelligence organization for the first time in a century

You assuming again Gregsteramundo... He didn't "decide" - he read the report. You saying the FBI could not simply write that she said the father was Weinstock and Uncle was Gardos or vice versa - cause they didn't. From their report it's quite obvious these were separate descriptions about separate concerns. "They were both unemployed" means to most people that they did NOT work but were both in the US at the time. Weinstock has a promanent job and Gardos isn't even here... Show us where it says in that report that she claimed these two men were Weinstock and Gardos (and what about Steve's claim that Gardos was not in the US at the time?) So you found him (an proudly announced how it was only you who did) yet did not know he wasn't in the US at the time little Harvey (name unknown) was in NYC with his dad and uncle? Well done research Gregarillo Are we now going to be treated to your faith-based belief he secretly was in NYC at the time and related to Weinstock? KOTK : The subject is married to Emil Gardos, a long-time CP member who was deported from the United States in the , 1940's for communist activity* Subject was also a CP member in the United States and left to join her husband in Hungary in 1948. She has lived in Hungary since that time with the exception of a visit in 1964 (from Steve's links) Show us ANY analysis or data where these two people/concepts are connected... Your assumptions are not facts Gregzilla until you prove them, and your arguments remain tautological. In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22151&page=4#entry312628 is the post. It has the report and exactly what it says, not what YOU say it does. That you have Faith and BELIEVE she was referring to them as the father/uncle in the story is cute an all, but only you and your faith sees it that way.... again. Can you not offer proof of anything, ever? Waiting on Bobby Newman's proof - none coming Waiting on this proof - and all we get are more of your faith-based assumptions. boring and repetitive Gregski.... Time to put up or shut up already....

1 - can someonedescribe THE one, or maybe two, most powerful item(s) that support(s) thistheory? Like proving Oswald a Patsy, it’s the aggregation of these small conflicts which proves the point. Some thoughts though: John Pic picking Lee from Harvey in every photo Lee in Japan while Harvey is in Ping Tung The FBI ignoring everyone who interacted with Lee and only gathering info from Harvey witnesses Gorsky claiming Lee left the Marines in March 1959, not September The boy with a NORTHERN accent sitting next to negroes in New Orleans and Texas and not knowing any better (the same boy the FBI’shousekeeper Robertson claims called her a n###er) Anna Lewis claiming more than once to see Lee in New Orleans in Feb 1962 with JVB in the room and not correcting her. One man is 5’11”, the other barely 5’9”. Not a single one of Lee’s letters when in the Marines to his mother is in evidence even though she claims he wrote once or twice a week from theMarines. Marg could not produce a singleone for the WC… (hint for Parker… thisis where 3830 W. 6th comes into play) Red Cross records inFort Worth show that (the tall, nice looking) Marguerite Oswald wasinterviewed at their office on November 18, 1957: "She (Marguerite Oswald)stated that the serviceman (Lee Oswald) has always been good about writing to them,writing at least once a week, and often twice. However they last heard October10." Two days later Red Cross records show that Marguerite Oswald telephoned theiroffices and advised, "She received two letters from the serviceman today." So you see Glenn, taken alone it is difficult to say that there is one or two things, there are hundreds which add up, like Oswald's innocence of the crimes. and 2 - in as much of anutshell as possible: in a given that that there are 2 Oswalds and 2 Marg.s, in what direction would this likely take the investigative focus? more toward theCIA? more away from the Secret Service (of course...)? how about the anti-Castros?what about the Russians (pre-war and post-war)? this would obviously put the Mafia into a much lesser 'role'... the theory couldexplain a lot of curiosities. and it proposes an enormous amount of - issues -with our US Government. it's very interesting. There is nothing much to do but speculate on that answer Glenn… there can’t be a right or wrong answer . The investigation did in fact come acrossquite a bit related to two Oswalds… Hoover himself even says that it was notOswald in Mexico based on the evidence but someone impersonating him, a “second man down there”. Yet he did not dismiss Oswald from being there. (I think fromthe available evidence that Hoover knew Oswald was at Odio’s and not in Mexico) Even in the face of conflicting evidence as to his location,the FBI et al simply did not acknowledge the possibility that these impersonations were something more nefarious… or they KNEW it was more and madesure not to stir the pot. The investigation would always find Oswald guilty and alone,regardless. Even in the face of painfully obvious evidence to the contrary. The Evidence IS the Conspiracy, not an explanation of whathappened and will always be. I do not think there is anything left which could accurately describe what happenedother than the witnesses who were there. The very thing counted upon to make “proof” impossible and doubt run rampant.

yeah... exactly as I thought... nothing to say when you're wrong but a flipping mountain when you think someone else is... Have you finally figured out that your arguments are worthless, baseless assumptions which you believe are facts? Then you proceed as if you've proven them as facts and ask us to refute them... You only post Tautology Gregarino... and then have no idea what the word means... like your use of "irony". In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion. I see you posting elsewhere, so related to this topic, You must be busy praying at the alter of your faith-based beliefs and assumptions rather than actually look for supporting evidence or learning how to read (or post for that matter) a FBI report. Take your time... Faith sometimes requires sacrifice... but no worries - it also means never having to explain yourself in the real world again. Just believe and all your assumptions become facts and all arguments against become heresy... Nice new cointelpro tactic Greggie-O... You've established quite a rep for yourself... The old "hit 'em with unfounded Faith and Belief, then run" ploy... Agent 99 would be so proud of you Max...