David Josephs

Except the order was sent March 12th. Klein's deposit is March 13 and only on the Order Blank do we see the date March 20, 1963. We have no idea what day the rifle was supposedly picked up and transported home. Does anyone have any proof that the date MARCH 20, 1963 was broadcast related to the rifle purchase date? I can't imagine them broadcasting THAT date this given the timeline and who had what info. Only the FBI had access to that item of evidence until later in the afternoon on the 23rd when the SS arrives at Klein's. I will continue looking yet some of you are very intuned with what was broadcast - if you could help out, I think we can prove here that Ruth knows something on the 23rd that no one could know... But I'm not sure DJ ps... if you look at all the other days like the 19th and 21st which are filled with info, claiming she did not have the room to write "LHO - purchase of rifle" is a bit far-fetched... Mr. JENNER - Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then "LHO" followed by the words "purchase of rifle." Would you explain those entries? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. This was written after. Mr. JENNER - After? Mrs. PAINE - This was written indeed after the assassination. Mr. JENNER - All right. Mrs. PAINE - I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle. Mr. JENNER - When? Mrs. PAINE - I heard it on November 23. Mr. JENNER - Yes. Mrs. PAINE - And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar. Mr. JENNER - That is to the entry I have read? Mrs. PAINE - Put the star saying "LHO purchase of rifle." Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life and I was off by a month as to what day it was. Mr. JENNER - That is you made the entry October? Mrs. PAINE - October 23 instead of November. Mr. JENNER - It should have been November 23? Mrs. PAINE - It should have been November 23. Mr. JENNER - And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by "LHO purchase of rifle" and likewise the date you made an entry? Mrs. PAINE - On the 20th. Mr. JENNER - This is the square having the date March 20? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Mr. JENNER - Is that correct? Mrs. PAINE - I might point out that I didn't know Lee had a middle name until I had occasion to fill out forms for Marina in Parkland Hospital. Mr. JENNER - That is when you learned that his middle name was Harvey and his initial was H? Mrs. PAINE - Right.

I'll love ripping it a new one Great rebuttal. Tells me you got nada. You being an expert on "NADA" ... I'm sure the work will be extraordinary... and well done Tommy... Can always count on you for that elevated wit, and nose in the arsenal replies... nice view for ya buddy?

I'll love ripping it a new one

Ultimately you were wrong about those records Greg, as you are wrong about most all things you've ever posted related to H&L... Believe what you wish and insult whoever you want... you're a legend in your own mind.

Fair enough Tracy... again, appreciate the manner in which you go about this... One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist... all depends on the POV. Funny thing is I started this project on H&L and ultimately got with John to disprove the theory... I even entertained Greg's arguments and felt he had made some good points - until I kept reading and looking at the source docs... and found that like me, he only had a cursory understanding of the evidence yet did not go any further.. I went alot further. I don't have to agree (and don't) with every detail and every day in the timeline... some speculation was necessary since the sources were either gone or never there to begin with... Speculation is also needed when we become aware that the evidence is not as it originally was - or there is no chain of evidence established AND the FBI or SS has their hands on it every step of the way. I hope you don't equate JVB with John's attempt at bringin evidence he either found or tracked down to light in the context he does. Much like Lifton not necessarily being correct about every detail and occurance does not change the core idea he presents... Bethesda injuries are not the same as Parkland injuries. There were most definitely a variety of Oswalds leaving evidence around There are most definitely conflicts in the 1952 thru 1963 records of this man... I subscribe to the H&L explanation... others do not and I can respect them for not if they so choose and do so without being offensive about it. Others attack the messenger and have no care at all what the subject is - I've moved on to the Rifle and am finding the same level of evidence manipulation as I did in Mexico... Jim and Steve can carry the H&L torch and present counterpoint... My next focus is 0184 and how the Zfilm Evidence IS the Conspiracy.... but I need to finish the Rifle and Pistol work first... Take care Tracy... as you find more to contest H&L I'd be happy to see where it goes DJ

I was able to dubunk JVB easily,using her own supplied evidence... http://www.ctka.net/2015/JudythBaker-DJ.pdf That's what we do Tracy... we take the EVIDENCE and debunk IT, we do not attack the person unless attacked first. When I asked JVB to address some of the points in that essay, she shut me down and banned me from all her groups.. I can appreciate you disagree that H&L is the "best" explanation... but so far a few isolated attempts to discredit the work has not exactly been overwhelming. As to the exhumation... is was the man who Ruby killed... they were not digging him up to see if he was LEE but if he was a Russian spy... it's the same closed loop evidence trick the FBI used with the rifle. Compare the HARVEY records to the HARVEY records and all checks out. How he went from 5'11" to 5'9" is never addressed since you seem to agree that the USMC does not know how to measure a person's height or weight, know where their Marines are at any point in time and contradict themselves repeatedly as to where and when Oswald was here or there.... When you can address the DoD conflict and Oswald in Taiwan, maybe we'll get somewhere. As for handwriting.. if you're going to pull out the HSCA I can shoot holes in that charade of a report all day long. So instead of concentrating on the little things... address the BIG ones... Felde, Gorsky, Donovan, Palmer all put him places he could not have been if he was only one person... And still no one adequately addresses how Anna Lewis has Oswald in New Orleans in Feb 1962... when he does not get there until Apr 1963. If you are willing to chalk up every one of these conflicts during his life since 1952 as "adminstrative mistakes" or "FBI ineptness" more power to ya Tracy. At some point Coincidence becomes suspicious... no?

If Oswald was GUILTY would he not have had to assemble the rifle after retrieving from wherever he put it earlier that day? Would he not have had to be at the window at the right time ready to fire? Would he not have had to leave the gun as he walked across the 6th floor unheard... walk down the steps, unseen, get to the mechanical door ahead of Truly who was ahead of Baker and have the door close behind him? Would we have found were this lone nut bought his ammo and clip and when and where he made the bag he brought the rifle to the TSBD in the back of Wesley's car? Would we find out that Ruth and Michael remember this rifle being transported to their home in Sept 1963 in the back of Ruth's wagon - since it was an innocent rifle at that point... for target shooting like boys do.... But the Paine's do NOT see this innocent rifle in a blanket in their garage or have any idea how it got there... So Dave... while his behavior when surrounded by and grabbed by police may not meet your standards for "innocent until proven guilty"... for him to actually be GUILTY of something, there needs to be proof he did it, not the supposition of an armchair QB 50 years after the fact about how he looked or acted or the compilation of FBI junk evidence which cannot be traced beyond the FBI itself. Asking your own "If..then." question is a set-up... St Thomas Aquinas can prove the existence of God if allowed to assert his own conditions and understandings... In each of the 5 we find at some point a needed assumption in fact... yours is that if you act guilty you must be guilty, regardless of the actual evidence. with that assumption (much like Specter asking if an exit wound is an exit wound of Dr Perry) there is not arguing your argument.. but only to get you to understand that your argument is tainted from its inception. Maybe instead of disproving his innocence, prove his guilt. St. Thomas Aquinas: The Existence of God can be proved in five ways. Argument Analysis of the Five Ways © 2004 Theodore Gracyk The First Way: Argument from Motion Our senses prove that some things are in motion. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another). Therefore nothing can move itself. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world. Nothing exists prior to itself. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings. Assume that every being is a contingent being. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being. Therefore not every being is a contingent being. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God. The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest). The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. The Fifth Way: Argument from Design We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Most natural things lack knowledge. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

you always inspire a reply Jon... the federal (and many state) government which the people "elect" is not really in charge of the really big stuff. JFK came along after 8 years of Republicans run amok and were ready for another 8 under Dick "I'm not a crook" Nixon JFK said enough of this... we need to be bigger than this... the "secret" is that 99% play along to get along and do not represent the core interests of the multitude of people they represent but only the interests of those to whom they are beholden. The "secret" is that we COULD have created the world's finest example of a society which had the best schools, hospitals, day-care and opportunities to contribute for all involved... the lowest death rates, cleanest air and water... and on and on... and now we simply can't any longer. Tragedy of the Commons... we plan and scheme and blah ditty blah Di dah...

Nicely done Brian... We would be remiss to even consider that these and many more layers were not envisioned as this was planned... Although Hemming, to me at least, personifies JFK evidence... 95% bs with just enough truth to be believable, yet at the core simply not how it went down but how those who did it want history to remember it.... --- One area to ponder... JFK is killed in Chicago and Vallee = Oswald. Or it happens in Tampa and ??? = Vallee = Oswald Or they miss in Dallas and it happens down the road... how does the planning for Patsies and layered cover stories account for a success? (Oswald was involved in non-assassination stuff all along, would he just gone on being an infiltrator of groups and disrupt for the FBI) I truly think we here mere mortals forget that there are those whose job it is 40, 50, 80 hours a week to plan and test the contingencies of these things, to rank to prospective outcomes and have plans for each of these... Nagell was under the impression JFK was going to be assassinated in mid Sept. From Sept 17/18th (when Alvarado originally said Oswald was in Mexico) thru Nov 22 is mind boggling - How anyone can look at that period and the events and claim Oswald was a "Lone" anything isn't paying attention.

Yes, he could have. But the point I am making is Armstrong did not say this-he just ignored it. And my early work was from 1998-2003 so he was aware of the problem. And if he comes out now and says Harvey had the operation it will not look good so he continues to ignore it. Everybody once in a while ignores something.... So no answer to the fact that there are discrepancies in the Marine Military record indicating the existence of two Oswalds ?? ,gaal No, I certainly do not have all the answers to the discrepancies. I would say that your interpretation of the records indicates two Oswalds to you. Others understand that these disparities exist in the real world and will because of the nature of the human beings who create the records. Offer another realistic and documented explanation then Tracy. Donovan, Gorsky, Felde, Marines with Lee, Marines with Harvey never knowing each other or the other Oswald, the DoD lying to the HSCA, Anna Lewis' Feb in NOLA ID, Lee at McKeown's, the Sports Drome while Harvey is in Irving or at Beckley, Sylvia Odio, Mexico City, Kudlaty, DaRouse, Palmer, Pfisterer's, 2220 Thomas, 120 Telemechas... Tip of the iceberg Tracy... I greatly appreciate your calm approach... JA will not be 100% correct with every fact and every source... no one can be... but until a better explanation is offered to address EVERY conflict, some of the key ones are obviously related to covering SOMETHING up... the H&L thread of evidence stretches a long way.. I look forward to a well presented rebuttal to this evidence... Start with who was at Youth House and howhe then became "class president" - that would be interesting... DJ

Again Tracy, you are entitled to conclude whatever you like from the evidence offered... People with that mentality decided in 1964 that Oswald did it alone based on the evidence, their interpretation skills and the need not to buck the system. What amazes me is you all would rather spend all this time critiquing and so very little time coming up with explanations on your own to account for all these conflicts... Voebal says, Myra says, Smith Says, Murret says... The man in the grave was the man who Ruby killed... so what? Why do you have such a hard time with the DoD and USMC records... of course they could be wrong... prove them wrong. simple. Oswald is on the ship BACK from Taiwan on the 6th of Oct.... is the USMC so lost that they place a man left behind and receiving medical attention in Japan on a ship back from Taiwan? along with witnesses who worked with him in Taiwan and stated so, along with CE1961 which puts him in Taiwan... Which records are the mistaken ones? Amazingly convenient that the records which show Lee and Harvey conflicts are wrong - based on your say so... Felde was just wrong too? and everyone else witnessing the duality of the situation... wrong, wrong wrong... So you tell us boys, what did they get right? anywhere, in any record? You've read the book Mr. LeDoux ? followed up on the sources yourself as you call Steve out? I have... and sourced every single one... took 2 years and I compiled a side by side timeline to illustrate the conflicts... I know exactly when and where the problems occurred and what the WCR and HSCA did to try and cover them up. What have you done? edit: as for Steve's posts.. quite whining already. If you dont have the attention span to read for 15 whole minutes in a row WTF are you doing here? Hoping for fortune cookie one liners to explain the complexity of our history is a lazy, simple and unimaginative way to go about things boys.... is it really so tough for you to read an essay? or you simply dont want to be bothered trying to learn anything new from someone you disagree with for the simply joy of disagreeing? It's one thing to present rebuttals and evidence and discuss where interpretation may be right or wrong... it's another to pull these "Bernie" posts out after asking idiotic rhetorical questions about what a twin is... grow up already and stop whining about long posts... If they are too much for ya start a "explanations of the JFK situation in 10 words or less" thread and have at it... for the rest of us, we understand it takes a little time, effort and work to study this case... grow up already little boys... or find another sandbox to sit and cry in while the adults use the big words and write more than 3 rhetorical stupid lines of tautology and non-sequitur...

and yet another raising of the bar Tracy? Where would one begin to accumulate the kind of data made available about Oswald's life - for no apparent reason other than to bury in a mountain who Oswald was and was involved in. ?? the purpose of this program having nothing to do with the JFK assassination at all. An operation involving decades and cold war spies ... and yet from what you've read along the way, the CIA is not capable of any of a hundred things we cannot fathom their planning and implementation. ? My imagination is not so limited. And if I can imagine it, what's to say those whose job it was/is to think of these plans all the time would not consider an unassailable history for a spy to accomplish whatever was necessary. If Lee remained as be believe,he was the recruited super spy not Harvey... Harvey, in my opinion, was a refugee, eastern Europe, who the CIA thought it could use to keep an eye on other commies in this or other countries. He would grow to infiltrate these groups and report back to the FBI or whoever needed the info... he was doing his new country a valuable service. the record of those who saw the little Harvey was pretty consistent with his attitude as a trouble maker and wise ass... always with a "I know something you don't" smirk.... The concept of looking at every available resource is something I believe Angleton mastered at and was the architect of this program. Are there more? I would guess so... deep cover is something I can't fully comprehend... especially to get assets against such a closed society as Russia. how about you? you think you know enough of the world of spycraft to state 100% that this was not only possible but done and one of the reasons a cover and switch to lone nut was so necessary. again.. in my opinion from what I've learned so far... You guys could be right... but I've seen so very little which undoes the basic premise or the evidence left behind... If it is something else, no one has offered a comprehensive explanation - starting with the DoD and Taiwan...

For someone who claims to have all the Oswald answers - you sure ask a lot of clueless, pointless and rhetorical questions. Terribly sorry for more than a handful of words and many of them multi-syllabic... I'll try not to tax your limited capabilities any longer... Hey, here's a thought... go read the book as you would expect anyone attacking your work to have done... I know... 1000 pages is simply too much for you to be able to handle in one lifetime.... Sure does seem that ROKC refugees whine an awful lot about everything they don't understand and then resort to insults when the whining doesn't work... is that a class you offer over there? Here's a thought, divide our long posts up among you and then when you can huddle up and trade insights before you come here and whine some more...

Only says you Greg... the rest of us have eyes. and yes, Voebel says it might have been knocked out... You wrote: "There is too much counter evidence for him going. I will adopt your position regarding the FBI. It is a lie and a cover-up. But not for any doppelganger program" To the rest of us, this means you're agreeing that the evidence of his going to Taiwan COUNTERS the DoD lies about his not going. That he went and during this time a Lee Oswald was treated in Japan... Resolve the conflict Greg. (edit - as I read your statement again I see you mean the opposite - that there is actually too much evidence that COUNTERS his going - then POST some. I've posted the evidence showing he went and others have posted the evidence showing the med records are from Atsugi.. you've done nothing so far to show he stayed and was not in Ping Tung but speculate... {buzzer} Fail! The statement also suggests you supposedly know something that you simply don't while not offering anything to support your speculation... it was the records which reached the WC/HSCA that matter in our analysis of the conspiracy which was perpetrated. If you've uncovered evidence of SEA programs which can explain how the Folsom and Donabedian Exhibits do not show 2 men with the same SN# in two places at the same time... give us your best shot. You see Greg, you just saying so means ZIP, NADA, ZILCH. You BELIEVE one thing or another, you have FAITH that records showing his leaving and coming from Taiwan and the DoD and HSCA going out of their way to try and FIX the USMC records so it did not show this conflict was some SEA related thing... IOW if it was not a SEA thing as you claim, your book and work is not as accurate and revealing as you'd originally thought -kinda puts a damper on volumes 2 and beyond.... All you need to is offer the supporting evidence for these speculations - simple. Can you Prove it was Bobby and not Harvey? You are aware there was the Neumeyer boys fight a few days before the tooth fight with Riley, both Lee, not Harvey... This is standard double-speak Greg... you know what a tautology is, mate? That was NOT why he did not mention a piano incident (assuming you mean his testimony)... he was never ASKED about anything about it as it was not anything they would have known about... Even if Myra told the FBI about the incident it was not in anything the FBI offered the WC... Why would Voebal bring up some random event from 7 years before if he was never asked about it? Until you can prove it was not Harvey, anything that follows is pure guesswork on your part. And then that house you build upon your guesswork is on a sinking foundation.. PROVE something that you offer is authentic Greg... and not just you guessing. As for the trustworthiness of FBI reporting - All the FBI reports do is state information which may not be entirely representative of what was said. When you show me the signed statement from the person they interviewed (like Palmer) as to what they said and published is correct, then we are getting somewhere. When all you offer are FBI paraphrases with no connection to the witnesses themselves, sorry Greg, but the FBI does not get a free ride simply cause they're the FBI - in this instance they have proven themselves unreliable... THEIR evidence incriminating Oswald or removing conflicts needs to be ironclad... That's just not what we see. The FBI can't get away from Palmer other than just saying he was mistaken and leaving it at the FBI v Palmer - in 1963 the FBI won that battle. But since Palmer insisted on signing his statement the FBI report could not say whatever if wanted to claim he said... did you know if they ever spoke with Larry Williamson? or did they avoid Pfisterer's corroboration at all costs? "I have read and initialled each page and all corrections on this six page statement. I declare that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. /S/ PALMER EDWIN McBRIDE McBRIDE stated that Mr. LAWRENCE WILLIAMSON, Bookkeeper, and Miss AMELDA (Last Name Unknown), Secretary at Pfisterer Dental Laboratory Company, would probably recall remarks made by OSWALD favoring Russia and Communism Greg, Did you personnally ask Myra if the boy in Voebal's photo was Harvey? the boy in the Zoo photo? in 1995 John did... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwUsZ8RjIqg What have you done and what do you offer to substantiate what you claim?

Interesting how you can accept defeat in a subject while throwing a jab on your way to the canvas... The USMC records put him both in Taiwan and Atsugi at the same time. The records show events that occurred both in Taiwan and Atsugi at the SAME TIME to the same Oswald #1653230. The DoD lies about his never leaving in the face of his being in Ping Tung and proveably so. How many times do we need to hear "in the next volume" when you can't even bother to post a tidbit so you dont sound like your pulling it out of your arsenal. Bottom line: two men, two places, same name and # according to the USMC. Not possible unless there are two Lee Harvey Oswalds merged into one record. -------------- Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out. Page 92 H&L Oswald's aunt, Lillian Murret, remembered this event well. She told the Warren Commission, "They were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and one of them called his name, and he said, 'Lee,' and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she (Marguerite Oswald) had to go over to the school and take him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself ..... " Mrs. SMITH. One fight really impressed me, I guess because there was this boy--he wasn't going to Beauregard, this boy he had the fight with, and he was a little guy. I think his name was Robin Riley. He hit Lee, and his tooth came through his lip. Mr. LIEBELER. Through the upper part of his lip? Mrs. SMITH. Oh, gee, I don't know whether it was a bottom---- Mr. LIEBELER. But it actually tore the lip? Mrs. SMITH. Yes; it actually tore the lip, and I remember--what is that boy's name?--the blond fellow that was on television that knew him so well? Mr. LIEBELER. Are you thinking of Edward Voebel? Mrs. SMITH. That is him. Mr. LIEBELER. V-o-e-b-e-l? Reading thru H&L I find "broken front tooth" and "missing front tooth" and all in relation to the larger LEE OSWALD. When Myra was shown this photo she stated this was not the HARVEY she knew. When shown the Bronx zoo photo, she recognized Harvey. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10407#relPageId=427&tab=page is the link to the man corroborating that this was a photo taken by Voebel at BJHS. The photo does indeed appear as if the tooth is missing... and that there is no scarring or bandages related to running a tooth THRU the lip... Since we do not have records of the dentist he was taken to, all we can go by is the witness testimony and this photo. The middle two teeth are usually out and grow back between 6 and 8 years old. Can you PROVE the tooth did not get knocked out or, like us, only can go by what was said. It appears just as lilkely it was knocked out given this photo, than running thru his lip... The POINT that you completely butcher is that MYRA sees this and knows it is not the Harvey Oswald she knew. If the tooth was not knocked out, this photo is strange, no? Whether the man in the coffin was the southern born 5'11" 150lb LEE or 5'9" 135lb HARVEY remains a debate and would not be concluded simply because of the tooth in question here. The photo does seem to be worth a 1000 words though... as for the whole rash of stuff you have... most has been covered already here... Seems to me your admitting there were two Oswald's in the records and the DoD lied about the one never leaving does not change the situation from 2 to 1 person. Donovan stating he was with Oswald in Taiwan at the same time Lee is getting medical treatment does not seem to be something you can refute... Will you be offering your explanation backed by evidence, or you just accepting that the Evidence shows two men with one record?

And once again we see David Josephs palpably seething with jealousy... It must be awful seeing your nemesis with his own ideas and his own research making exciting new inroads into this puzzle while your role is reduced to delivery boy for someone else's. You Dawn and Jim used to go on about "minions" but you just cannot see the irony can you? None of what you promote is your own work David. You do know that don't you? Just because you are being used as a conduit does not therefore make it YOUR research. As I said, you are merely the delivery boy. With that in mind maybe a more humble and less aggressive approach would more befit your small time status in the promotion of H&L. I'm not holding my breath... You and Parker spend the lion share of your time here posting about H&L ... YOU chose to view the H&L threads, YOU choose to comment on them with opinion and Parker-parrot-speak and then YOU get all uppity about my presenting the H&L evidence and not hawking my work here? Why is it when we go to your profile and look for topics YOU'VE started the answer is ZERO... NONE, NADA, ZIP yet you can lecture me on the focus of MY work? When we look at your posts, 95% of them are on H&L threads... seems to me you're a bit obsessed with the topic and the members who support it... and then you lash out at me and Jim and Steve cause you are so terribly bad at rebutting the evidence... but then again you kiss Parker's artillery pretty regularly so he does your heavy lifting... When you actually write something original, or start a thread on something YOU think - let us know. Go take any of my 6 Mexico articles www.CTKA.net and critique them... Tell me what is wrong with my Judy Baker essay and evidence analysis. Let me know what you've done in regards to my Rifle posts, the timing of the assassination timeline or any one of a dozen different topics I've started or the scores of threads my posts appear within.. It is so obvious that you are "projecting" again. You find yourself in this thread MOST of the time, getting all worked up over not being able to counter anything on your own, with your own work... it certainly appears as if you don't do any of your own work. With people who understand that it requires a little time and effort to read thru the work offered by H&L, or any one specific topic, before they chime in about how wrong it is, my approach is much less aggressive. When the time comes you enter a H&L conversation without guns blazing and present a coherent argument, the skys will part and angels will sing... and you can be taken seriously. But first you might considering learning even just a little bit about the subject matter. Your repeatedly need to demean the work and my contribution to it appears to me to come from a great insecurity on your part in your own inabilities to cobble together an organized rebuttal to anything that's been offered. Tracy sure seems to spend the majority of his time focuses on H&L... when does HE start "promoting their own work" - or is that only my irony? That deer-in-the-headlights look you must have as you wade thru real work and real evidence comes shining thru your posts every time Bernie... and that you're PROUD that you can comment on something you haven't bothered to even read or aquaint yourself with is even more appalling... why would anything posted from such a self proclaimed uninformed member have any bearing on what others think of H&L? you ever wonder what that does to how people read any of your other work - if there is any.... btw - Parker and I can take care of ourselves Bernie... I'm actually finding his banter more and more amusing ... At least he has different interests within the case although from his time on H&L threads you'd barely know it. I'm more than willing to drop any and all aggression or hostility if you and the boys agree to present the EVIDENCE which supports your posts and not get personal with ever uttered word... Start cordially with the DoD letter to Blakey about Oswald never getting on that ship to Taiwan... and the evidence which shows him leaving and returning as well as the evidence which establishes his presence at Ping Tung... And how Gorsky can have Oswald leaving the USMC in March 1959 while Donovan is Harvey's CO in the Summer and Fall of 1959... Any proof you can provide which substantiates the DoD "Fact Sheet" of his not sailing on Sept 16th would be a great start... then there's Donovan, the guard duty shooting, etc... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0415a.htm is the link to CE1961 which shows him leaving the 14th of Sept and returning the 6th of Oct... Isn't that a conflict with this: while being corroborated by the rest of the evidence? LEAVING for South China Sea Sept 14th Coming BACK on OCT 6th Donovan with Oswald in Taiwan hidden until the HSCA...

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. IOW you're just a thug with a vocabulary and a sense of history. Nice. No doubt you have the inside scoop on the testicle controversy, you being such a putz and all... Let us know a year or two in advance of when that revelation will come out... The marketing hype will barely be palpable...

well done Greg... No facts about the false defector program in any other book around? interesting Lee's recruiter huh... Nazi connections, then we add in Radionics & Witchcraft and we have the basis for your novel. perfect. The arrogance of your believing you are privy to that which has not been discussed is amazing. It takes a very select group to KNOW they have info others don't... of course I'll plug your books Greg... if you're right - more power to you mate... Break it wide open for us... lay it out so your work can also be picked apart if anyone cared to take the time to do so... and be substantiated. You see Greg, it's not about you and me...it's about the evidence and what it says about the investigation. Maybe someday you'll get that and stop being such a "dunny" - isn't that what you called me in trying to get your local insults past the moderators? what was that other thing? I forget but I'm pretty sure it was yet another 2nd grade insult that you and the kids at ROKC laugh about... so witty! Dunny or dunny can is Australian slang for toilet, either the room or the specific fixture, especially an outhouse or other outdoor toilets

I believe the entire Alba situation was used to suggest the sling was made for Oswald as opposed to provided and atached to the rifle by whoever it was that left it on the 6th floor. I'd suggest that either no sling was sent and this other thing was used - some say it looks like a rope, I think it may be the cloth standard sling that Klein's says they send with rifles tha do not request a specific sling.... Point remain.. The BYPs are composites... the black clothing seen in the image was never found in Oswald's possessions... I've seen the original, as have a few people who do the looking. While Roscoe White may have helped create the final product, I do not think it is he in the photo... there are other names to consider - but since the sources are unconfirmed I'll just leave it at that. THAT rifle - I do believe I am in the process of proving via this essay I'm trying to finish - was never at Klein's along with the other 100 rifles in that shipment. In fact, there is not one shred of evidence which support that Klein's ever shipped or had in inventory these rilfes... only that 10 of 520 packing slips - one of which with C2766 listed - were used to create the evidence that Klein's rec'd that shipment. I will prove otherwise. It's called "closed loop evidence" . As long as the evidence corroborates itself it can be believed. If it does not corroborate with any other process or order of shipment received (or that info is never offered to corroborate) we have a tautological presentation of evidence... Slip #3620 with carton #3376 = Feb shipment = VC document = Blank Order = Hidell = Oswald Except the only shipment related by the man who originally offered the slips is to June 1962 not Feb 1963. And as much as DVP and other LNers cannot fathom it, each and every item in Evidence IS the conspiracy, NOT the investigation of the event... except for JFK's shirt and JAcket - there is no way to spin that to incriminate Oswald.

Nice Find Vitali !! Thanks for that. DJ

You mean a little issue like how you're wrong about the application versus driver's license... Greg, all you do here is grasp at the brass ring but you keep falling off your little horsey... You're great at excuses and diversion as long as you don't have to deal with the USMC or any of the actual evidence since you seem to always get it wrong. But at least this keeps you busy ... all those little wheels churning away, all excited about maybe finding something which refutes or negates the evidence for H&L and you always come up short... story of your life? On top of it all you can't even remember the arguments you've made... which come back around to who you wrong yet again... like you were about the Jiffy store... Yates, and just about everything else Now you claim that Donovan puts Oswald in the Taiwan to HELP the WC's case? what a joke.. Get all your stories straight and keep trying mate... the more you post the more foolish you look and the more those reading your work see you for who you are... yet another wannabe H&L critic who barely knows the evidence and even less about the work. Keep promising those big new things and amazing discoveries... the build up, oh the build up. If book #1 is any indication... {yawn}

Are you sure Ray? I found this - a vintage cloth Carcano sling which Klein's gunsmith claims would have been sent with the rifle if anything was sent at all... Does look like what was on there a bit... Did the rifles come equipped with straps? A- No, because they were very cumbersome to pack. if some_ one would specifically order a sling with the rifle, a military strap would be sent. This would not necessarily mean a strap that was made especially for the 6.5 mannlicher-carcano. Magnifying the photos, David, it still appears to me that the strap is a piece of thick cord rather than the strap you illustrate. (No appearance of any flat area in the strap) However, I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Definitely not saying it is this sling.. but it may be a real cloth sling instead of just a piece of rope... as it appears to have some dimension to it... Found these as well which is even closer to it... who knows what they would have sent with the rifle.

Are you sure Ray? I found this - a vintage cloth Carcano sling which Klein's gunsmith claims would have been sent with the rifle if anything was sent at all... Does look like what was on there a bit... Did the rifles come equipped with straps? A- No, because they were very cumbersome to pack. if some_ one would specifically order a sling with the rifle, a military strap would be sent. This would not necessarily mean a strap that was made especially for the 6.5 mannlicher-carcano.

Appreciated Jon... the funny thing is it's the WCR and HSCA argument for H&L, all we are doing is showing one of many things which was covered up... and taking that extra step that so many others have done in so many other areas of the case. As for Lee... Another great mystery Jon.... The Donald Norton stories come to mind for Lee must have changed his name after 11/22... or as you say, he like so many others met an early and unplanned demise. Almost as good a question as who Harvey was...