David Josephs
-
Posts
6,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
-
To be clear... I am of the opinion the CIA is simply a military firewall put in place to take the brunt of inquiry and stifle it before it reaches military intelligence...
In those days everyone was military or connected...
And his removal was for well more than Vietnam as Jim writes. Nixon not winning was much more devastating to this group than most perceive.
-
Bump... Key thing again in that post...
"In my opinion". Prove something, once
-
Greg... This is still just you saying it...
Your beliefs, speculated upon, are not facts. They remain your assumptions until proven. Voebel not being asked about it does not mean it did not happen.
You've proven nothing related to this Bobby, nothing. But you repeatedly make claims as if you did.
When do you post the support for your beliefs so they can be taken seriously?
You conclude... so what? What does the evidence state? It states that both Myra and Pic do not recognize that as Lee... Prove otherwise
-
But since I believe
Once you believe Greg... you can reasonably claim anything you like.
The same thing is still missing from your post... anyone saying that was Bobby...
I think I can reasonably claim it is actually a photo of Bobby until proven otherwiseYou making a "claim" is not proof of a fact "until otherwise proven". you did not "prove" anything in that post Greg... you BELIEVED in that post.
And once again the terms tautology and disingenuous are lost on you.
That Myra said that was Harvey is FACT... that Myra recognized certain photos as Harvey and others as not is FACT... that John Pic remembers the images the same way only in reverse for his brother Lee is FACT which corroborates Myra's memory and identification of those images.
So far only you alone has mentioned Bobby Newman. you. alone. backed by belief.
===
and here we have this entire thread in a single post, a single sentence:
Greg's "claims", based on his "beliefs", are to be accepted as "Fact" until otherwise proven.
-
1 - resources within and at the disposal of the US Military and its intelligence operations
2 - see #1. Rinse and repeat.
The history of US intelligence begins with the Navy's ONI well after the Civil war. the Army who had spies under Washington also got organized again for intelligence at this time.
In between, the wealthy had their own spy networks as they were the only ones who afforded traveling the world and wanted the information... the governments were not paying for the services... until much later when the wealthy learned more about other people's money.
To believe that the Fathers of US Intelligence, who were then connected to captains of industry and members of congress, would ever allow it to fall outside of their own control is to not understand the role of the military in any nation's history.
-
And I'm with you up to the Middle East not being serious talking point especially within this context. What we did in Israel after JFK is very telling, no?
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/arab-israeli-war-1967
And a little history from the Jewish perspective https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/roots_of_US-Israel.htmlwhich is a great site as well to see the actual letters between JFK and Ben-Gurion The JFK section of this site is quite deep and is very helpful in coming to one's own opinion about the time and context.
Emotions pro/con Israel were as high as for communism, as I see it. One compelling reason support for Israel was always so strong was that family banking conglomerates remained sympathetic to Israel and in charge of much of the US economic base. I'm not saying that his stance one way or the other was a critical factor in his demise... but it can't be dismissed as a minor factor.
I truly believe that our ability to understand the tensions and fears and the stakes involved at this time in history cannot be understated.. Stories and understanding handed down the generations cannot account for this mindset switch. The only ideology that repeatedly wins appears to be the spending of other people's money while simultaneously saddling debt on the population... Most the -ism's, from my readings of history keep coming around to this one thing - who gets to spend the money, how do I/We get to keep as much from this spending of other people's money and by God we better be defending the right to live this way and get others to see it too.
Look at the 2 top Republicans... Funny thing, the Bush family is probably worth 10x Trump... but you still don't spend YOUR money, you spend other people's and make a lot of friends. and you never let 'em know how much you got...
At the core of the question asked of this thread must be cooperation among some very key people to accomplish the How. Galloway & Burkley at Bethesda basically create the evidence to support Oswald from behind and above. Who could have influenced 2 rear admirals in the Navy to do such a thing?
The Evidence is the road map to this How.
I'm throwing this scribble up for those who may not know the connections within that Naval base that night. Cut off at the Top is JCS Naval Admiral Anderson
There are a lot names, some very familiar and some not... this helped me see that evening more clearly and enjoy Best Evidence that much more.
Some of the people in that room HAD to be involved in this amazing cover-up... If Oswald did not pull the trigger. {edit - if I got something wrong let me know... thx}
-
As I said about the Middle East when we started. I didn't know why anyone would consider it important in the context of why JFK was assassinated. If it was even an item, I think it would have been minor. There were certainly much hotter political spots going on around the world at that time and it's not an issue that I have considered important within that context. Cuba, Viet Nam, Berlin, Laos, were hot spots and seem to have been higher on the agenda. I hope that these items were not the primary cause of his death, but then I suspect that the agenda was to get rid of him and they just found a reason.
As i said on one of the comments above, I didn't even think about the fact that I was in the middle east in 58-59-60-61 until I started discussing it. Strange.....(Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, amongst others)
With all due respect Kenneth... These other hot spots did not control a large portion of the world's oil.
There is a larger context than the movement of leaders in and out of power. Israel and the US are linked, period... JFK was all for relieving tensions and de-escalation everywhere on the planet.
How does that bode for business and the spread of democratic capitalism when we are supposed to adopt a live and let live mentality with the world's emerging nations while our #1 enemy WAS INDEED looking to turn any and all nations toward communist rule centered in Moscow...
To the majority of America's defenses and offenses related to this equal yet opposite spread of ideology, JFK's hopes and energies pushed in that direction meant either a drastic shift in how control, power and fortune was made... or the removal of this one man and his voice in favor for what we've seen since... and it's disgraceful that we could have lead the planet towards peace but due to justified paranoia and timing it was not to be.
Why was any leader who pushed for equality in the use and benefits of the world's (or that nation's) resources seen as a threat? Kinda of answers itself, no?
Nations were/are created to give sovereignty (and therefore the right to defend itself) to the lands of the wealthy against those who would take them,domestic or foreign.
IMO the desire of the "sponsor" level of this tragedy was to keep the world's duality going. Us against Them from both sides - you think if the KBG believed they were winning, which they were, they'd want to give up their lead for peace?
IMO JFK was killed to solidify the hold on the government these sponsors gained in the 8 Ike years after planting the seeds from about 1935. JFK was strong enough a leader to stir the people to action... revolutionary action in the eyes of the Sponsors and the Facilitators who enabled them
(btw Sponsor-Facilitator-Mechanic is a model to identify those involved, developed by Drago and Evica)
To conclude that he was killed for any one reason is to, imo, miss the larger context of those who run things within the Mil Ind Cong Complex
-
DJ, tried to PM you, can't get through...
that's fixed now....
-
How could I possibly top this, though, Mr. Healy? .....
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB
WARNING: tautological oxymoron ahead... back-peddling may cause injury..
"20 pieces of solid evidence" is where this falls apart Dave...
List a few and then show how s-o-l-i-d they are... you CAN defend your own convictions and conclusions with logic and authentication....
Here Dave, start with solid evidence backing these 12 WCR conclusions - see, giving you 8 free passes...
1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor
Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast
corner of the Texas School Book Depository.
2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots
fired.
3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission
to determine just which shot. hit Governor Connally, there is
very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same
bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s
wounds.
4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded
Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald
5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately
45 minutes after the assassination
6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the
Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to
shoot another Dallas police officer.
7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning
Oswald’s interrogation and detention by the Dallas police :
(a) Except for the force required to effect his arrest, Oswald
was not subjected to any physical coercion by any law enforcement
officials. He was advised that he could not be compelled
to give any information and that any statements made by him
might be used against him in court. He was advised of his right
to counsel. He was given the opportunity to obtain counsel of
his own choice and was offered legal assistance by the Dallas Bar
Association, which he rejected at that time.
(
Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were alloweduninhibited access to the area through which Oswald had to pass
when he was moved from his cell to the interrogation room and
other sections of the building, thereby subjecting Oswald to harassment
and creating chaotic conditions which were not conducive to
orderly interrogation or the protection of the rights of the
prisoner.
© The numerous statements, sometimes erroneous, made to
the press by various local law enforcement officials, during this
period of confusion and disorder in the police station, would have
presented serious obstacles to the obtaining of a fair trial for
Oswald. To the extent that the information was erroneous or
misleading, it helped to create doubts, speculations, and fears in
the mind of the public which might otherwise not have arisen.
8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning
the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963
9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey
Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign,
to assassinate President Kennedy
10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence
of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by
any Federal, State, or local official
11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes
that. Oswald acted alone
12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds
that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s
safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD.
-
."The Truth doesn't give a sh** what your opinion is."... unless it contradicts what's in this report....
or has to do with what LBJ did while sitting waiting for the delivery...
DJ, i hope you didn't take that out of context - i value your input. the quote was just that, a quote, and appropriate as referred to other contributors, not yours.
sorry about that.
I didn't at all Glenn... I was twisting it into an example and didn't make my point...
ie if your opinion went against the truth... you were targeted, not not cared about...
as for Jackie and the Magazine.... IDK, just kinda slipped into the post... {rewind... delete...} lol
-
I dare you or Armstrong top prove me wrong
Not how it works mate....
You prove what you have is authentic and correct. John already spoke with Myra and got an answer... went to the archives and got the photos.
What have you done to prove it's Bobby Newman... other than just say so?
-
BTW, in the above, it really does look like the FBI blanked out the paper and then wrote down the serial numbers at random.
That was likely done to cover up the fact that the serial number of the rifle in evidence was not shipped when the FBI says it was.
Also something new: Why are there two stories about who had the microfilm last?
One says the FBI has it, the other says Waldman does.
The serial # thing is strange... Instead of unloading a carton and giving the 10 rifles sequential VC #'s... it appears that all the rifles are put in a pile and recorded randomly... Westra I believe even states that they look at each serial # to confirm the pacing slip.
Rupp ALWAYS included these slips inside and outside the cartons... but for the Feb 63 shipment, Waldman recants and claims these were mailed to him separately... the same slips Feldsott gave up.
There's no reason to make any of the other rifles traceable as they would never be traced.
As for the microfilm... do we even know that NOT filming the payment with the order and coupon and envelope was SOP for Klein's. Sure would be nice to see ANY other roll of those films or the copy DOLAN gave back to Klein's...
-
Yes I am Jim...
Let's see Jon:
There are five main sections - The Klein's internal Rifle records, The MicroFilm, the Money Order, shipping the rifle and retreiving the rifle by getting it home from Dallas to New Orleans to Irving.
The evidence which attempts to connect C2766 to Oswald is terribly inauthentic in that it's provenance is offered in conflicting reports and pysical evidence.
The physical evidence includes: the packing slips, the Klein's VC=Serial # sheet and the Order Blank. C2766 appears on 1 of 520 packing slips for 520 10-rifle cartons in the gun wholesaler Crescent's inventory which were sent from Italy arriving in the US in Oct 1960. On the evening of Nov 22, the FBI claims to have contacted Crescent's President Mr. Feldsott in NYC and learned from him that C2766 was sent to Kleins in June 1962. He provides documentation for this June order and the FBI states that
"Mr Feldsott advised that rifle number C2766 was among this shipment"
Feldsott's affidavit is in Vol 11 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=45#relPageId=215&tab=page
The report and affidavit make it appear that the FBI took with them 10 packing slips for a June 1962 order on Nov 22nd, the evening of the assassination and prior to the FBI arriving at Klein's that evening.
These 10 packing slips become a Waldman exhibit since in March 1963, the FBI claims it received these slips from WALDMAN at Klein's and claims they are the slips for the Feb 1963 delivery of rifles. These are supposedly the same slips from Feldsott for June which have noew been repurposed for Feb. We are to remember that Waldman #1 - the order to Crescent - only shows the Feb 1963 shipment and the cancelled 36" TS rifle order replaced by "Beretta Terni M91/38" which in the world of Carcano is meaningless since those are two manufacturing locations and a generic description of a class of rifles, not a specific rifle.
To compound matters, there is no evidence available that shows that carton or that rifle were ever removed from it's storage although 434 cartons of rifles were removed after Aug 29th. So how do we know there really was a June 1962 shipment to Klein's?
The FBI refers to a conflict again in the evidence by stating that although they conclude that "C2766" was the rifle Klein's supposedly shipped to HIDELL, the records the FBI has found states that "N"2766 was sent in June, not "C". The FBI referring to a June order detail such as the serial number's prefix not matching means there was at one time June 1962 evidence (handed to the FBI by Feldsott according to his affidavit)
Not only is there no proof the rifle was ever removed and prepared for shipment, what records Klein's does have for June contradicts the serial number of the rifle found on the 6th floor. So how does it get related to the FEB shipment?
The second item of evidence is the Klein's internal document that matches incoming orders of rifle's serial numbers to Klein's VC# system. At least that is what we are told for we do not ever see another sheet of paper from Klein's which lists VC#'s and their matching Serial #'s.
Jon, it is my conclusion based on the analysis of this copy and the information available to the FBI that this docuemnt was created by the FBI by removing the numbers that originally appeared and randomly writing in the serial #'s of the 10 cases of rifles from the June 1962 order and replaceing "N" with "C"...
This is where I coined the term "Closed-loop corroboration". By writing C2766 and VC836 on the order blank at some point along the way and offering this page and the packing slips it APPEARS that the slips from Waldman represented the Feb shipment and this single page equates that rifle to the VC# also on the order. While these three pieces of evidence corroborate each other... they only represent the 100 rifles in question.
We never see another VC page for anything other than these 100 rifle
We never see another order for which one of these other 99 rifles was shipped
We never know what rifles Klein's used to ship C20-T750 orders prior to Feb 23, 1963
We never know what rifles Klein's used to ship C20-T750 orders starting with the April 1963 ads which run thru Sept at least
All we have are these three pieces of paper with C2766 on it and no recourse to the other day to day records of Klein's rifle inventory and shipping records. If any other 40" rifle was sent for a 36" carbine order, the FBI proves their point - but that never happens.
The Microfilm...
WCD7 p187, 188, 189 are a 2 page report and a 1 page report which are virtually identical except for one HUGE difference.. in the first the FBI leaves the Microfilm with WALDMAN in a safe under his control to be subpoenaed should the film be needed as evidence.
In the second, only over FBI SA DOLAN's name, the FBI - Dolan - takes the microfilm and gives Waldman a receipt. In later reports we learn that it is 2 weeks before this film is reproduced for the FBI with an extra copy given to Waldman.
What was originally on that microfilm is now impossible to tell since the roll of film has been removed from it's cannister at the Archives - John Armstrong specifically went one visit to find and copy what he could from it... this was in the mid 90's.
Since the same roill of film cannot be taken and left simultaneously... the chain of evidence related to what is pulled from that film does not exist.
The Money Order...
When I did a timeline based n the available evidence offered by the FBI, Postal Services and Secret Service (and Harry Holmes' story of how it was found) I come to find that the EVIDENCE tells us this one Postal Money Order was found no less than 4 times. Once in Kansas City in a SS report, Holmes' find by noon Dallas time, The first finding of it by the Postal Service at 10pm Washington DC time and finally a last time at 11:10 DC time when two men who have never been called to testify are involved in producing the PMO from the Federal Records Center in Alexandria VA.
We come to find that this slip of paper has no related stud int he book from which it was taken at the General Post Office,
No name of the man who finds the stub for Holmes or who Homes speaks to who tells him an hour later it was found.
No processing marks from either the 1st National in Chicago were it was deposited, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago which would process their member bank's deposits or the Postal service who would cancel said item and forward to Kansas City (per a Postal Inspector).
All we have is a stamp which almost completely matches Klein's' onthe back and the initials of the 3 men in VA who produce the PMO (a 4th signature is added on the 24th when the PMO is given to the FBI by the SS)
It never being processed cannot be dismissed by any means available. If it was never processed yet is produced 4 times in the evidence at 4 different locations... how can anything about this Money Order be authentic?
Futhermore, the evidence which would allow Oswald to purchase this PMO at one place and take a 2 hour walking round trip to mail it from a mailbox in another zone when he could have simply mailed it after he bought it brings even more difficulty to the Money Order legend.
The Shipping and Receiving of the package....
This can get a bit detailed - suffice to say, there is literally nothing in evidence to support that rifle ever being picked up from Klein's, or delivered to the Post Office with Oswald's Box. No notice of delivery, no form 2165 which is required to pick up firearms, no postal employee remembering Oswald or the package, no FBI reports between Jan and April 1963 informing them about a package sent to HIDELL at Oswald's box even though the FBi postal assets inform them of his move to Neely, his move from Neely, his new PO Box in New Orleans, and the kinds of magazines he was receiving.
What we do know is that he'd have to pick it up the week of March 25th and get it back to his Neely apartment (if that's where they really were) When Marina and June are picked up in Sept to go back to Irving leaving Oswald to be set up for Mexico City they pack the car and drive off.
After repeatedly asking Ruth and Michael who unloaded the car, about a rifle being unloaded, both state that they did not see a rifle first hand until they were shown it the night of Nov 22nd. How the rifle gets from Neely to Magazine to Irving is yet another mystery which cannot be explained.
The piece is significantly large and delves deeply into the Evidence's conflicts and lack of authentication.
That the rifle exists and is found on the 6th floor does not in itself prove it was ever anywhere else, let alone in Oswald's possession. This Closed-loop Corroboration is used repeatedly in the WCR evidence and at first glance appears sound until the desire to compare to any other "everyday rifle order for the same thing" is raised.
It seems that on Nov 25th Waldman claims he had the remaining inventory of identical rifles removed from inventory.
There are 86 cases of rifle in storage we never see or know what happens to
and finally there is a shipment from Canada of 1300 rifles which includes mention of "2766". Thess same inventory sheets for the 1300 rifles does not show a single prefix for a single rifle's serial #
There's more detail of course in the 75+ page piece as well as a link to the Money Order Timeline I created
http://www.ctka.net/ I am convinced that none of these 100 rifles was ever at Klein's as there is simply nothing offered to prove so.
I am convinced that none of these other 99 rifles was ever sent to anyone, used for any orders or given to anyone like the FBI.
That the FBI claims "N" 2766 was from the June shipment and there was no evidence of a "C"2766 ever received at Klein's.
If that is the case... how can C2766 be the rifle shipped to Hidell?
-
As you said Dave, it's not just one thing that proves the evidence is crap, it's ALL of it.
Yeah, yeah, Dave. We all know you think all of the evidence is fake. You made that quite clear recently when you bellowed this to me....
"Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC." -- D. Josephs
So what else is new? Oswald was a patsy?
~Yawn~
~Stretch~
~Snooze~
You'll have to excuse me Dave... I thought you had the ability to present corroborated evidence and then Authenticate it' as real evidence.
"~Yawn~
~Stretch~
~Snooze~"
I realize this is your best effort to defend the indefensible... but I'm thinking those here who are looking to you to be their voice are a bit disappointed by your inability to address the simpliest of rebuttals...
Who again saw him enter the TSBD with a 4 foot rifle in a package and where did you store it until he retrieved it when? Where did he reassemble it Dave? Why would he trust the scope when it had not yet been sighted in? BEFORE you reach conclusions you have some work to do.
The FBI knew via their postal contacts that Oswald had been receiving communist Magazines for months/years and moving his mailing address repeatedly since his return from Russia... yet not a single FBI report is generated in March or April when a 5 foot carton from Klein's Sporting Goods arrives at his PO Box in the name of HIDELL?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57690#relPageId=112&tab=page is a link to a FBi report of a postal employee asset who states that the Oswalds moved to Neely (at least their mail was being sent there) and that the FBI went to Neely and see the M/M Oswald nameplate on the mail box... This is March 11, 1963.
And now you are going to claim that this same postal asset does not inform the FBI that a 5 foot carton from Kleins arrived in the wrong name? That there is no record of anyone filling out the paperwork to pick up such a mail order rifle...
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57690#relPageId=119&tab=page is a link to the August 23, 1963 report stating that Oswald and family moved from Neely... and he has a PO Box in New Orleans based on a July New Orleans FBI report...
Seems to me they were keeping tabs on this man... and neither a rifle or pistol mail order is mentioned during this entire time?
And when they try to find anyone who remembers the Money Order, who picks up the rifle, who puts a note in Oswlad's POBox to pick up the rifle, ANY REA paperwork, who finds the Stub, who Holmes calls, who finds the PMO by Noon Dallas time, who finds it in Kansas City, and the two different sets of people who find it twice later that evening.
This is work I posted in my Rifle Article at CTKA.net if you'd like to see what real research and evidence authentication looks like.
Thanks again for the sleepy cat impression - maybe you can post a youtube video? but for here it is woefully inadequate and completely commensaurate with your POV.
-
."The Truth doesn't give a sh** what your opinion is."... unless it contradicts what's in this report....
or has to do with what LBJ did while sitting waiting for the delivery...
-
Sun Tzu... nice Steve... the basis for all battle strategy
Since I addressed the Myra photo question, it sure would be interesting to hear from Greg about
3830 W 6th #3 in Ft Worth in 1956 versus 4936 Collinwood...
and why not a single letter Oswald wrote to his mother while in the Marines is in evidence.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, except for that correspondence, you don't have any other correspondence from him while he was in the Marines?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I did have several letters.Except the only one in the WCE is from Sept 59 just before he comes home for a few days before he goes to Russia...
Marguerite Oswald was interviewed at their (Red Cross) 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 October 10." Two days later Red Cross records show that Marguerite Oswald
telephoned their offices and advised, "She received two letters from the serviceman today."
12 Not a single letter written by Lee Oswald to his mother has ever been found.
These are the WCE up to that Sept letter CE200 from Oswald... UP TO 11/18/57 he has written fairly consistently according to MO and Lee's USMC buddies... Where are all the LEE to MOM letters Greg? (Hint, it has to do with those 2 addresses)
Page Exihibit No. Description Mo Day Year
67 10 and 10 A-B Letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to John Pic August 8 23 1950
25-26 1 Copy of a letter addressed "Dear Sirs" from Lee Harvey Oswald October 10 3 1956
633 234 Letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to the Albert Schweitzer College June 6 19 1959
814 294 Letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to Robert Oswald November 11 8 1959
815-823 295 Letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to Robert Oswald November 11 26 1959
580 200 Undated letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to Marguerite Oswald September 9 1959
-
Dave... we all appreciate you being able to quote the company lines... but you never take the next step and PROVE anything. We must have FAITH in what you say... and sorry, you simply do not carry that much credibility to take your word for it... So when you can not only offer the evidence which supports your conclusions, but AUTHENTICATE this evidence as factual and real... you've made your point.
the following is just your "I wish these were all fact" list... Saying the earth is the center of the universe is true, until proven false. Here is the proof that what you offer here is minor league fluff easily discredited by a simply look at the evidnece offered...
------------------
Reprise.....
"I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G.,
...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.So did many ,many people Dave... they all guilty? and what evidence are you using to prove such a thing Dave?
Bledsoe describing the arrest shirt before he's gone home to change?
Whaley who after 37 years driving a cab in Dallas drops him off at Beckley and Neches... a corner that doesn't even exit?
The CHAIRMAN. The witness has been driving a taxicab in Dallas for 36 years.
Mr. WHALEY. Thirty-seven, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-seven.
Mr. WHALEY. You name an intersection in the city of Dallas and I will tell you what is on all four corners.
Mr. BALL. Did you stop and let your passenger out on this run on the north or south side of the intersection?
Mr. WHALEY. On the north side, sir.
Mr. BALL. North side?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. That would be--
Mr. WHALEY. Northwest corner.
Mr. BALL. Northwest corner of Neches and Beckley?
Mr. WHALEY. Northwest corner of Neches and Beckley....He dashes in and out of his rented room to get a gun.How about the Baker affidavit... who is the unamed employee Truly and Baker run into on the stairs between the 3rd and 4th floors...
"I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."
If that was Oswald and he was closer to the 6th floor window here than in the lunchroom, why did Baker not ID this man as Oswald?
You mean another man was coming down the stairs as Baker/Truly were running up? Who?
Finally, after the police take the names and addresses of the people in the TSBD, they are told they can leave... who is FIRST on the list and why does it say Elsbeth? and listed as HARVEY LEE?
...He acts "funny" and "scared" in Johnny Brewer's shoe store entrance.
Based on the expert Johnny Brewer who we come to find did not see Oswald at all but another employee at the store did... A friend of Jack Ruby named Tommy Rowe claims it was he ooops
...He pulls a gun on the police in the theater and fights with them. (And if this isn't a sure sign that Mr. Oswald had done SOMETHING against the law that day, then what would be?)Maybe Dave, his is not so stupid as to believe if the plan he has been hearing about with JFK went down, he may be in danger for his life... if we're allowed to guess what his state of mind is, it is not necessarily in line with the WCR's pre-conceived conclusions... when you can prove he ever had the rifle or that pistol in his possession we can proceed with this tidbit
...He lied to Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods".Wesley is the SOURCE for that lie... not Oswald. Oswald denies ever saying anything to Welsey about curtain rods. Prove who's right. There are no witnesses to Oswald bringin anything into the TSBD that morning, in fact the evidence states the opposite. We can't talk about a bag in a car until you show how and when this bag was made and transported...
As you said Dave, it's not just one thing that proves the evidence is crap, it's ALL of it.
...He carried a long paper package into the Depository on the day of the President's assassination (and lied about the contents of that package)." -- DVP; 8/4/15So not only does the only witness to his walking in the door not see anything in his hands, he confirms that Oswald was on the 6th floor possibly touching boxes as he was removing stock...
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.Mr. BALL - Did you see him again that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; just one more time.
Mr. BALL - Where was that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was on the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL - On the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - About what time of day?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - It was about 11 o'clock-that was the last time I saw him.
Mr. BALL - What was he doing up there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, as far as I could tell, he was getting some stock---as far as I could tell.
Mr. BALL - What were you doing there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I was getting some stock also.
Mr. BALL - And were there some other workmen up there at the time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Not that I know of.
Mr. BALL - Well, do you remember Shelley, Dan Arce, Bonnie Williams, Bill Lovelady, and Charlie Givens who were working up there that morning---laying floor on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes; they were laying floor---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And were they there at the time you were there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes, sir; they were there---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Is that the same time you saw Oswald?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir; just about that time.
Dan Rather was 5'10"
-
Just this one LNer, and no other person in the assassination community? Now I understand.
That your new motto Steve? Up to NOW you've been unable to understand? That's what you seem to be saying since NOW you understand me as well. Lol
We all use some of these..
human nature.. LNers only more so since they have to defend the WCR & HSCA and no matter how hard they try The Evidence let's them down every time
-
Look at the largest boy in 6th grade Greg. The side by side Marine photos I've posted and will when I get back to a computer... That 13 year old is not the same as that 6th grader.
At least from my POV.the boy on the left is BACK ROW confriming one of the tallest/largest in the class...
In May 1953 he is 5'4" and 115 lbs... At the zoo in July/aug 1953 he is barely 4'10"
In Sept 1953 he is 5'4" 115lbs again...
Nor are they the same when older
He exists the marines 5'11" and dies 4 years later 5"9'
And yet this remains an contested issue...
Whatever.
-
Assets are often sacrificed for the bigger picture. I would have a hard to accepting this too if it wasn't for the completely separate sets of people whr knew the different men. Lee's set ignored while Harvey's are interviewed.
Donovan and Gorsky knew diff Oswalds. Felde knew Harvey, not Lee. Anna Lewis is sure she met Lee when Harvey is in Russia... And there's more...
It's not a matter of belief but of explaining the evidence another way.
3830 6th street #3 Greg. Any significance? Or 120 Telemachas. Do you know what their importance is or not?
-
B Ft. Worth Star image of Lee
C looks like Jimmy Durante
D Harvey Bronx zoo
A FrankenOswald by White
??
-
Keep guessing Greg....
Assumes the existence of the purported doppelganger
How so Greg? Myra is shown a stack of photos of "LEE" just as Pic is shown the photos in LIFE - they are not labeled HARVEY and LEE... so once again you ASSUME without thought since it supports your BELIEFS
The LIFE photo layout of Oswald includes the image at the bottom: Pic and Myra were not TOLD these were two different boys but that they were the same. They volunteered, when questioned, whether they knew the image as Lee Oswald, brother or student.
Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that?
Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
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? (the toothless photo)
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.Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 being some spread pages of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your attention first to the lower lefthand spread at .the bottom of the page. Do you recognize the area shown there?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother?
Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow.
Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow?
Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir.
Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother?
Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say--
Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that.
Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is.
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture.
Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee.
Mr. PIC - No, sir.Mr. JENNER - Then there is one immediately to the right of that, a young man in the foreground sitting on the floor, with his knees, legs crossed, and his arms also crossed. There are some other people apparently in the background.
Mr. PIC - I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald.http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0413b.htm
Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people?
Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. JENNER - Is he the one to which the black arrow is pointing?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.This last question has to do with the top part of the image... the beginning of my quoted testimony for him refers to the bottom image on the same page in LIFE...
Claiming that John did anything to lead Myra to say one was Lee or Harvey is low even for you Greg. But you're not arguing.
And I am not distancing myself from Gaal... he has his understandings of the work as I have mine. He has his style of presentation as do any of us. The funniest thing is that you believe there MUST BE a right and wrong to every issue when it has always been only about the evidence. You interpret it one way, others a different way.
Why is it that you ask "How did you come to that" of us yet you in turn don't need to show how YOU arrived at your conclusions? Then, when you do post a reason, we find you make a point which conflicts with your own premise...
i.e. you posted: 168 + 12 = total number of days of school since 168 was NOT the total number as we both agreed but the number of attendance days added to absences.
The grade cards do not support 12 absences - why? you have no clue and just shrug them off as the wrong YEAR... which you got wrong as well and never addressed.
Finally, when 168 + 12 is exactly the same concept as 89 + 1 in the first semester of 53-54 at BJHS... you have no answer other than 179 + 5 = 184. Which is the same thing all over again for the 53-54 school year.
If 168 is the # of days of attendance in 54-55... why again is 179 not the total days of attendance in 53-54 - per your own argument?
-----
That last one sentence you wrote is wonderful... I even had to show you how the grade cards went with the perm record... (bottom image)
GP quotes from this thread:
1)
You really ought to stop breathing in the fumes over at the Bates Motel (aka the DeepFoo).168 + 12 is for the 54-55 school year.
The 53-54 school year is (as I have already said!) is 179 + 5.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=78#entry310401
2)
5 days absence pertains to the 53-54 school year12 days absence pertains to the 54-55 school year.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=78#entry310402
3)
All you did was made a fool of yourself again by claiming that the 5 days absence and the 12 days absence pertained to the same school year. They don't.
(DJ: GREG - AS SHOWN BELOW, THE GRADE CARDS MATCH TO 54-55. THEY EVEN SAY 54-55 ON THEM AT THE TOP. YOU WILL ARGUE ANYTHING, REGARDLESS, WONT YOU
YOU DID POST THE FOLLOWING AS PART OF YOUR BOOK, YES? YOU DO COMPARE HEAD'S STATEMENT ABOUT "ATTENDED" AND CLAIM IT WAS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF "DAYS IN THE SCHOOL YEAR" RIGHT?YOU THEN ADD BACK "ABSENCES" TO THIS NUMBER AND ARE AMAZED THAT IT IS THE "TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS IN THE SCHOOL YEAR"... WE NEED NOTHING ELSE TO KNOW ALL THREE #'S... ABSENCES, ATTENDANCE AND TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS IN A YEAR... WHEN HE STARTED OR WHEN SCHOOL ENDS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT... BUT YOU KNOW BETTER, RIGHT?
THE EMPHASIS IN HIS POST IS MINE, NOT GREG'S... SO GREG IF YOU CLAIM THE SCHOOL YEAR WAS 180 AND 184 DAYS AND ABSENCES PLUS "RE-AD" EQUALS THESE NUMBERS... WHAT DOES "RE-AD" STAND FOR OTHER THAN DAYS ATTENDED?)
In fairness, they have been aided and abetted in this misunderstanding by the contradictory advice given to the FBI by the Assistant Principal of Warren Easton High, Wilfred Head, whose help they had sought in interpreting the records. In regard to attendance, Head stated that the abbreviation “Re Ad” usually represented “Re Admitted” and that the numbers listed opposite represented the total number of school days for a given school year.The advice given above by Head is not entirely correct, but then he compounds the error by stating contradictorily that 180 days was the usual number of days in a school year and in any event, state law mandated that the total number of school days must not fall below 170. Given that the figure shown as “Re Ad” for 1954-55 was 168, Head surmised that the figure must represent the total number of days Oswald actually attended.It is a little surprising that neither an educator, nor the author of Harvey & Lee (let alone any of his many acolytes and proselytizers) could not do the simple math involved.The number 168 does indeed fall below the mandated 170 days. That tells us it cannot be the total number of days in the school year. What we need to do is add the number of days listed as “absent”. In the case of the 1954-55 school year, we see 168 + 12 = 180 days – the exact number of days Head claimed to be the “regular”! If we do the same for the previous school year, we get 184 – more than the “regular”, but the term does imply occasional variation. The important point is that nowhere in the record does it show Oswald’s total number of attendance days. To work that out, we need to also know the dates Oswald commenced and finished at the school, along with the start and end dates of the school years involved.(SO YOU SEE GREG, YOU ARGUE THAT HEAD IS WRONG... 168 IS NOT THE # OF TOTAL DAYS. (I AGREE) YOU THEN SAY TO ADD BACK "ABSENT" TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT # OF DAYS IN THE SCHOOL YEAR, 184 (53-54) AND 180 (54-55). YET THEN YOU GO ON TO SAY WE DO NOT KNOW HIS ATTENDANCE ????. WHAT THEN DOES THE # 168 IN YOUR EQUATION 168 + 12 = 180 SUPPOSE TO REPRESENT?)
And we will also get to 3830 W. 6th #3 versus 4936 Collinwood which I am pretty sure you haven't the first clue about... prove me wrong.
-
Paul...
Aren't you the one who keeps pushing uncorroborated evidence as FACT related to Hoover. And when repeatedly shown how this was false you STILL post with that as FACT...
Your MO appears to be to post something you have no clue as to whether it is true or not, supported with evidence or not and then go 15 pages round and round while you do what you can NOT to find the evidence.
When you finally do get shown you're wrong... you shrug it off as no big thing and go back to the same MO...
Greg and I are debating. We have strong personalities and are passionate about our positions.
Go back over this thread and jot down every post Greg has posted supporting evidence to his conclusions... then do the same for my posts. We both have our share of outbursts... the difference is Greg simply doesn't BELIEVE in something regardless of the evidence whereas I expect those with a contrary position to present authetnic evidence in their support.
The records could not be more clear. 127 + days of attendance and absence in what amounts to no more than 70 days of potential school days WITHOUT going to Youth House from mid-April to May. I'm sorry he doesn't BELIEVE yet math is math.
There are simply not enough days from 3/23/53 to 6/29/53 to attend 105 days of school. Sorry.
Why the FBI chose 3/23 thru 1/12/54 to say there were 200 days of combined school comes from them putting 127+ days into 3 1/2 months of school. It comes from them counting 55 summer school days. It is a construct andnothing offered by Greg refutes this. You will notice his replies are all "I've done the math and it's correct" without showing anything.
I HAVE a solution Paul... Read the book... I know, radical idea but rather than hoping Greg or I have it right... do your own work.
Do you trust what the WCR says without checking the footnotes and sources to see how disingenuous they are? of course not.
Why would you accept any less from posters here?
Another suggestion... don't like the thread... leave. Go to harveyandlee.net and READ. Check the sources. Find the proof of something BEFORE you post it Paul... maybe then people would take you seriously.
by the way Greg, simply because the moderators don't look up "spit the dummy" to see what an offensive insult that is and hold you to task for it does not mean I don't find you funny in a juvenile sort of way. I'm sorry you don't understand tautologies or how you're disingenuous as you present them as your arguments... the rest of us do and find your lame attempts at H&L attack - even so far as to put them in your book - to be motivated by some need for attention.
Greg Parker gets so much more attention when he attacks H&L, John, me, Steve and Jim H. Like a politician trying to shift the focus by running attack ads... until we find that your own presentation is so lacking you have no other choice but to hitch your wagon to a topic that people are actually interested in.
Is a positive campaign focused on your own work and it's sources not within your abilities? People are tired of this bickering and thread since you offer nothing for them to hold onto when reviewing H&L but your unsupported opinions and even worse math skills.
SHOW US Greg... if you can. So far on this long thread you've not been able to even accurately count to 200 or explain the problems found in the records... all due to your BELIEF there was no Harvey... your pre-conceived conclusion that regardless of what the evidence shows, you BELIEVE it not possible.
Just like DVP BELIEVES the SBT to be real... Belief is great Greg... Faith allows you never to have to prove anything...
or listen to anyone else about possible problems within the FAITH... Lucky you.
The rest of us use evidence, research and authentication to come to our conclusions. Belief and Faith are for religions, not logic and corroboration which is the antithesis of Faith...
I focus on the evidence, what it says and whether it is authentic and how it is or isn't. No belief or faith involved.
When and if you post something other than faith and belief, it will be obvious. As obvious as your current arguments being grounded in pure faith, belief and hope that no one notices you have no idea what you're talking about.
To wrap up Paul (and mods) - I put images in my posts. Images of evidence and their corroboration, their connections and the reasons why I conclude certain things. You can make up your own minds based on the actual data itself, not the tautological para-phrasing of those who never have bothered to read the work in the first place.
If Greg had something with which to refute Ping Tung (or any of the H&L evidence), he would post it rather than another tautology which makes it appear he has a clue about what we are discussing. He was wrong about the ship's doctoring, wrong about the med records, wrong about the DoD/HSCA/Blakey fiasco and wrong about Oswald being in both places at the same time... yet he still claims he is right that there was only one person in either place.
that's pure blind FAITH. Like the FAITH that the WCR is correct in its conclusions. Amusing for sure, but tiresome when you expect more from someone claiming to know so much about our man Oswald....
Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were allowed
Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Once again we are so very thankful you are here to tell us what every post and sentence ACTUALLY means.... helps in understanding what you are doing here at all..
Did you forget about your posts stating that your BELIEFS entitle you to ASSUME something is a fact that needs refuting... when you are only basing your "facts" on your beliefs and assumptions...
Very transparent Greg... when and if you ever get around to offering the supporting evidence for you belief-based facts, snowballs will be thrown around in hell.
You post these statements and then proceed as if they are facts... just like the WCR - and like the WCR your sources have nothing to do with the conclusions.
it's a very poor way to fashion an argument as they have proven... but as you say,
"Why am I not surprised?"
============================
As for "they are beneath me" - you having an inferiority complex and needing to lash out against your betters is very juvenile Greg. Makes you look desperate for attention and very insecure about your own position... then again, what your position is exactly and how you go about proving it is amazingly suspect and unbelievably self-centered... cause you know everything there is to be known about Oswald... yet you offer nothing to support this knowledge but assumptions and personal belief...
(case in point... who the piano fell on and who that photo is which Myra claims was her Harvey during Mardi Gras... you make claims, but offer nothing to support them... you are refuting a direct eye witness with nothing but air, rainbows and hopes... your "belief" that they are wrong and somehow your "belief" you are right...
Damn the evidence or proof... "you gonna believe me or your lying eyes" argument - now where have we seen that used repeatedly ?? Von Pein, Judy Baker, Posner, Bugliosi, Myers...
you're in good company mate....
How about sticking to what YOU have to say and proving it - you know...how 200 days fits into 125 or how 168 + 12 is not the same concept as 179 + 5... info you've posted to prove your points...
(ever figure out what significance 3830 W. 6th St has or is that still lost to you? - maybe if you read the work you'd have a clue)
So I guess we'll have to continue to suffer thru you and your buddies trying to refute the evidence presented by focusing on NOT reading the work offered and spending post after post whining about the use of color or font size or the number of words being too much for your little minds to handle... all this when you have nothing with which to counter the evidence,
As I said before - transparent tactics boys and girls.. and easily refuted by just asking to "provide supporting evidence", leaving them lost and confused once again... and the cycle begins anew.