David Josephs

But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members.

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.

My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal.

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 this p 49. showing the same white out usage as in David's version?

http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/18295

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...

David, as per The Wise Men, I would never take someone like Isaacson as the last word on something like that since he himself is the MSM ultimate insider.

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 Truman

  In 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?

i asked for some highlights with which i can 'research.' They offered some. You and Parker tried to xxxx it up.

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

i asked for some highlights with which i can 'research.' They offered some. You and Parker tried to xxxx it up.

everyone did their job.

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...

^{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

"Ignorance is bliss every godamn time..."

Tom Waits

Tom Waits - very inspirational.

or the thesis of their upcoming book series proven worthless....

keep on shoveling mate.

For Glenn Nall....

I can't stop at one or two examples, but here are ten of my favorite "smoking guns" demonstrating the truth of the Harvey and Lee thesis. Feel free to chose one or two and dig in, but the only way to really see the depth of this evidence is to read all thousand plus pages of Harvey and Lee.

10. The IMPOSSIBLE 1953 school scenario: Harvey at Youth House for truancy followed by Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while Lee has good attendance both semesters at PS 44 in NYC.

9. John Pic's inability to recognize clear photographs of his own brother.

8. 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."

7. The Marine Corps records are a gold mine: my favorite chronicles Harvey Oswald's trip to Formosa (Taiwan) while Lee was being treated for VD in Japan.

6. The Bolton Ford incident while Harvey was in Russia.

5. Marita Lorenz's secret testimony describing Lee Oswald with anti-Castro operatives in Miami and the Everglades while Harvey was in Russia.

4. Lee Oswald visiting the Texas Employment Commission, filling out forms and taking tests, while Harvey was in Russia.

3. The impossible answer(s) to the simple questions: Could Lee Harvey Oswald drive a car? Did he have a drivers license?

2. The well documented appearance of Lee Oswald in the balcony of the Texas Theater soon after the murder of J.D. Tippit with the simultaneous arrest of Harvey Oswald on the main floor of the same theater.

1. The behavior of the FBI in the first 48 hours of the "investigation," during which the Bureau confiscated many of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" school records and employment histories. Six months later, the Bureau decided to test for fingerprints on boxes in the so-called "sniper's nest."

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

Whatever you say, mate.... you got it all figgered out

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?

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.

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.

"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...

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".

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?)

"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

Rejecting John Armstrong's work wholesale, IMO, is conspiracy-lite.

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

Wow! Who got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, cob?

Look, it's quite simple. Armstrong - for what ever reason - decided that the father and uncle were not Weinstock and "Kardos".

But the report states that "she knew Oswald's father and uncle..." Are you seriously suggesting that she knew them, went to the trouble of phoning someone to report them, but didn't actually know their names, or decided to with-hold them, and just gave out the names of two random communists?

Armstrong is entitled to believe the above scenario, even tho it defies logic.

As for the rest, it is your usual MO when you have nothing. Ignore it. Stay away for a while. Come back. Attack me. Project your own shortcomings at 4000 lumins - all while picking one point out to address or completely changing subject.

You are as predictable as day following night.

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....

following some brief peeks at some of the supporting evidence, I'm beginning to take an interest in this theory - just an "openness," mind you... I plan on looking through this long thread and I hope to at least discover something convincing of either its legitimacy or of ya'lls lunacy. preferably the former...

2 quick questions, with hopefully quick answers:

1 - can someone describe THE one, or maybe two, most powerful item(s) that support(s) this theory?

and

2 - in as much of a nutshell 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 the CIA? 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 could explain a lot of curiosities. and it proposes an enormous amount of - issues - with our US Government. it's very interesting.

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. 6^th 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...

O the the irony and lack of self-awareness...

That's it? Ain't it great Grego... Your Faith-based conclusions don't require you to prove anything... just like religion.

And once again your command of the english language is awful...

Take a minute and learn what it actually means please.

I mean what I say

I have no reversal of expectations when I say it

And I'm not getting into another argument with you over your inability to understand the simplest of things

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony

Learn the language already Gregster, maybe it will help you understand that Tippit call report you butchered so badly

Okay then Greg-O... let's take a look at your supporting evidence.

Davo,

1. The name of the two gentlemen were Louis Weinstock and Emil GARDOS. It was not Armstrong who discovered the ID of the second man. It was me,

So what Greg... Gardos had nothing at all to do with these men, unless you can post something that connects them

2. You don't know what she said. We are both interpreting her words through the FBI.

Yes we are... that you can't undestand what is written in plain english remains our problem as you continue to push your poor understanding of the evidence at every chance.

3. Yes, I can read, I can also research. Give it a try some day! Despite what the FBI report states, Weinstock was the editor of WORKER'S WORLD not Woman's World.

Again Greg-O... so what? Connect Weinstck to either "father" or "uncle" with evidence... since this report does no such thing.

4. She did use their names. Weinstock and Gardos. She then explained that they were Oswald's father and uncle.She also said the father and uncle lived in Yorkville... a Jewish enclave. Weinstock and Gardos were... what David.... Jehovah's Witnesses?

Please point out below or with some new evidence where she "explains" that these two men are "father" and "uncle"... this report says no such thing

5. Yes, she claims both were unemployed. Do you believe the editor of a newspaper with a circulation of three is getting paid? What are they putting in the water in Sacramento? It's barely possible he received a small annual stipend, but I would doubt that as well.

Connect the editor to THIS report about dad and his brother... or post another document that does. At this point, like all points, you are guessing again. Speculating based on incorrect reading of the material...

well done mate...

6. You don't like qualifiers like "I believe" but then attack when you think something is presented as a fact if you disagree with it. Heads you win, tails I lose, eh, China?

You qualify with "I believe" since you have nothing to PROVE IT. You "believe" since the report tells us something completely different so you must believe, you must have FAITH. Only way to avoid having to prove anything.

I guess you are going to have to phone Armstrong and give him the lecture too.

Yes grego... as a result of the EVIDENCE OFFERED IN THE BOOK, he believes... when and IF you post the evidence from which YOU BELIEVE we always find you've either misinterprested it or the evidence does not say what you claim it does. why is that?

His belief on the other hand is evidence based versus yours which is FAITH based....

Problem being you don't know the difference nor it seems will ever learn there is a difference.

"crucial piece of evidence is reason to believe "

Tell us Greg-O... where are your crucial pieces of evidence as YOUR reason to believe... you don't ever seem to post those... why is that?

"John Armstrong believes the FBI and the Warren Commission distorted..."

"But it is easy to believe the FBI, through their undercover..."

"time was of the essence and this material, I believe, was returned ..."

"crucial piece of evidence is reason to believe that Westbrook was the person..."

therealhardlyleedotnutsitenotthedoppelgangersiteputupbyparker

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

I take this as a concession on every other point -- otherwise I'm sure you would have had plenty to say. Not about anything of course. And certainly not directly addressing anything. Just more loud yabber.

Of course you do Greg. That's what Faith-based believers do. You assume victory since there is nothing evidentiary with which they can defend yourself. And then you go about claiming what you've done is establish FACTS when all you've done is BELIEVE something to be true and present it as such... then get all indignant when confronted with the truth of the situation. So we wind up discussing your faith-based conclusions as if they were ever proven..

And yet, you never seem to actually PROVE anything... do you?

Concede this mate... Can provide your rationale for concluding the two names mentioned and the father/uncle are connected?... or we just supposed to have faith in your analysis and word?

as well as understanding why you don't post links to the source materials you "explain" to us. Too afraid they'll see you for the "faith-based" researcher you are?

Well done Greg-O... two names are given, two relations are mentioned so they MUST be connected, even though that's not what it says on paper, but only in your narrowly focused, preconcluded thought process which pits you against the Evidence at all costs.

Well done mate. You've dug a perfectly good and deep hole for yourself here. Keep shoveling it Greg-O, as I BELIEVE from your posts that's all you know how to do...

Shovel away.

if you forgot already - you're going to offer us the evidence which connects Weinstock and Gardos to the father/uncle mentioned by this report of what she said.

Have at it

Unlike Armstrong, I was able to identify the two described as "father" and "uncle". Since they were not related, I tend to think the caller had been drinking too much of the cooking sherry. But I don't entirely dismiss her (though I DO dismiss what Armstrong tried to make of it)/ I explain here http://reopenkennedy...ppit-phone-call

I wanted to return to this pile of misunderstanding Parker once again fosters on everyone as FACT... unlike Armstrong, you can't read a report correctly.

The two names you get into at your link, "WEINSTOCK" and "(edit M KARDOS"), have nothing to do with the "father" or "uncle". Weinstock as you can read, is an editor at Woman's World while Mardos is the "head of the communists"... she doesn't say that these two are the "father and uncle" she is describing at all... she claims "both were unemployed" kind of eliminates Weinstock, no?

you wrote at your link: "The mystery woman mentioned two names, "Weinstock" and "Emile Kardos", said to be Oswald's father and uncle who were Hungarian Communists. She also kept mentioning, without clarification, the term, "brother-in-law"."

So once again you go off half-cocked with your assumptions about what is said, when what is actually said has nothing to do with your explanation which you now will forever present as FACT...

The reference to "Woman's World" is probably a resullt of two distinct memory lapses (or one memory lapse and one mishearing)

Key word being "PROBABLY" as in another of your assumptions without proof.

(edit M Kardos), head of the communists, could not be the one supplying these men money... right? At least in her mind? If she knew their names, can we assume she would use them when discussing these two men?

Disgraceful Greg. Every time anyone looks at your "sources" or your interpretation of the actual evidence, it's a joke. You then head off into the wrong direction with more assumptions and beliefs which become your "facts to be refuted" - yet still prove nothing. Maybe this woman and the Oxnard woman are related - what with your belief in Radionics and all

Assuming that the phone call has any validity at all, I believe this may have been a reference to one of John Pic's brothers-in-law, either George Clifford Parishor John Ebel.

"I believe" Greg? and you then offer a silly closed loop corroboration of the info by claiming there are connections where none exist.

Link your reader to the document you are paraphrasing so they can see what you are doing Greg... you don't like doing that since you are wrong every single time...

Can others read this and come to the conclusion the caller is stating that these two names are the father and uncle... iow your conclusion.... ??

Guess we'll see.

reposting

So what up ... You chastise then disappear? I addressed your assumptions again... May need to go back a page since Dave wants to talk shadows and stance...

Your story never changes. Assumptions and belief become your facts and then you want these facts addressed.

Ya gotta prove something for it to even be considered a fact... When do you get to the substance after all your fluff?

Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos:

So glad you brought that up Dave...

Check the shadows on the nose... why so different with identical shadows on the ground?

Prove something? Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance.

I have proved that Lee's letter to McBride was written in early September 1956.

Bull... You proved no such thing... what, your "riots" thoughts proves something? only in your mind mate... both you and Lifton are so tied to your beliefs that the corroborated statements of the Pfisterer's employees hold no weight... only what YOU think counts... right mate?

I have proved that the alleged "father" and uncle" of "Harvey" are no such thing.

You "posted" some words, but offered nothing to prove what you claim...

I have proven that tonsils can grow back.

And I showed that only 6% of 5-7 years-olds showed tonsil regrowth within 3 years. I also specifically agreed with you that a 0% chance of regrowth does not exist.

I also showed that the regrown tonsils are tiny by comparison... In Russia, Harvey's tonsils were quite normal... how dat?

I have proven that you guys have completely misread the school records.

Greg - the only thing you've shown here is you can't add or know what the months of a school year look like.

You argue that 12 absent days added to 168 days equals the entire school year... but that 168 is not the # of days he attended? That in the same column as "168" is "89" and "90" and per your own argument, when added back to the 5 (4 + 1) 53-54 absences give us 184 total school days in that year... it was YOU who made this argument yet "89" is now NOT the # of attendance days... ok, whatever.

I have proven that Voebel hung around a kid named Bobby Newman who fits Myra Darouse's description of "Harvey" and that she alone claimed that kid preferred to be called "Harvey"

So what? You claimed it was Bobby under the piano and Bobby in the photo... did we miss your evidence supporting that belief? You claimed John led Myra when both Myra and John Pic ID the same boys as Lee and NOT Lee. What again have you offered in support of your Bobby claims?

Why are you avoiding addressing the schnozz issue? Shouldn't all photos of Oz have a conk like we see in the Bronx Zoo photo?

The Voebel classroom photo shows a pretty honking nose - how about posting the images of Oswald YOU have between the Aug 1953 zoo photo and the Voebel photo or the CAP photo from 55-56. The difference between a 13 year old and a 15 year old is usually pretty significant...

and yet you claim these are the same men... 5'11" husky and muscular versus 5'9" 135 lb soaking wet

whatever...

You see Greg... this remains your MO. Claim a belief is a fact then never back away from this remaining a fact even though you never proved anything .

We've offered mountains of proof that Lee and Harvey existed simultaneously... and none of which you've been able to refute with FACTS, only your personal beliefs

and vapid statements based on assumptions growing out of these unproven beliefs.

But that's great greg... the more you post of what you represent, the more you reveal yourself... too obsessed with John's work to contribute or substantiate your own.

yeah, we know, all will be revealed in your volumes in due time...

----