David Josephs

Thomas Graves @post #72:

I've not changed my mind about Marina's husband. He was a walking, talking patsy all by himself.

The fact he was selected as patsy by the perps is consistent with his behavior.

There was no set up. Oswald was chosen in advance because, all by himself, he was the perfect patsy.

Mr Tidd - IMO, you could not be farther from the truth with this post... nobody behaves like a "perfect patsy" all on their own... no one who is truly innocent says they are a Patsy, they say they are innocent... A Patsy denotes an understanding of a planned set-up which did not kick into gear until needed.

FPCC chapter set-up and cards and handbills etc... was not an original Oswald thought one day... he was put in a position to perfomr these tasks which at the time where not related to JFK - UNLESS IT BECAME NECESSARY - as all assets which are expendible ultimately become.

The behavior you claim to be identifying all occurs AFTER the USMC and his Russian stay... .in fact only after he meets the Dallas/Irving White Russian community thru the Paines and DeMor's...

If you believe he went to Russia on his own, cause he felt like it... there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale with a small downpayment I'd like to show you.

His behavoir was orchestrated Jon... all the "patsy" behavior you claim was not a set-up was indeed part of other, ongoing plans as an informant/asset.

When JFK did not die in Tampa or Chicago, Dallas appears to be next on the list.

While snipers are being arrested in Chicago the FBI is trying to prove Oswald was in Mexico without success.... he is removed from the FBI Watch list...

The I&NS is at a loss for how he came and went into and out of the USA without record. Where IS Oswald???

From the time he returns from Russia in June 1962 until April 1963 Oswald does little if anything that could be considered "setting himself up as a Patsy"

In April 1963 Ruth invites the Oswald's to dinner and has Michael go to Dallas to get them from the Neely Street address...

On April 24th Oswald leaves Dallas for New Orleans.... (Wilcott tells us the "Oswald Project" begins in April 1963)

He starts work at a CIA front around the corner from 544 Camp on May 10th

the New Orleans credit bureau provides a credit report to Reily/Standard Coffee on May 16th stating

""Lee Harvey Oswald is employed as a Maintenance Man for the Standard Coffee Company (Reily Coffee), and has been so engaged in this occupation for the past one week and enjoys a favorable business reputation. Previous to this, he was in the US Marines for some three years ..... his prospects for the future appear to be favorable."."

Except in 1963 he had not been in the Marines since 1959... was in Russia as a defector for 2 years and worked at two jobs before New Orleans. How does a report like this even exist given his SS# and past?

"Osborne" places his order for FPCC flyers on May 29th. and for the rest of that summer Oswald is both doing the FPCC/FBI bidding as well as creating the incriminating evidence on which he will be presumed guilty.

If you can illustrate the actions you believe he performed on his own prior to May 1963 which set himself up as an incriminated Patsy, please share them. That which happens after the Oswald Project begins looks to me as an orchestrated plan to accomplish a variety of objectives with the option of using the man as a Patsy for a crime in the works.

DJ

You are taking it through to the transfer which is different to the date he stopped attending PS 44. If he stopped, as I suspect he did, Mid to late December, the figures total up just fine.

The real problem appears to be simply that you have a different "accounting" method than everyone else. I don't know - yours may well be the one that should be used.... but it's still not the one used by everyone else on this.

Semesters don't end cause YOU want them to Greg. They end when they're done.

They usually run from Sept thru Jan - and Feb thru June for a total of 180-190 days.

Nothing here is me versus you Gerg... it's a calendar for pete's sake. It's a standard school year.

You can't get 127 days into the SPRING 1953 semester. End of story. that these records exactly match the FBI's terrible report is no coincidence Greg.

WAKE UP ALREADY !!!! the problem is your inability to find yourself incorrect about anything and even worse, that you can't admit it if you finally do.

These years are only critical to the H&L switch and have ZERO to do with the JFK assassination investigation...

There are no mistaken identities prior to this time and nothing but conflicts since...

As I said before Greg... that you are "Playing Dumb" and refuse to show you can add is only a reflection on who you are mate....

The rest of us know how to count...

We both know that the boxes making up the barricade did not have his fingerprints "all over them"... they found prints much later on ONE box - in fact since the crime scene was not kept clean at all we have no idea what transpires from the time Day leaves and returns later to dust for prints... and even that palm print is suspect.

Turns out that by the time he returns the DPD has multiple, fresh palmprints and fingerprints from Oswald fromhis arrest...

Mr. BELIN. Could you relate what transpired to cause 649 to be torn from 648?
Mr. DAY. After I returned to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository after delivering the gun to my office, we processed the boxes in that area, in the area of the window where the shooting apparently occurred, with powder. This particular box was processed and a palmprint, a legible palmprint, developed on the northwest corner of the box, on the top of the box as it was sitting on the floor.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.
Mr. BELIN. Is there any other processing that you did with the rifle?
Mr. DAY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. At what time, if you know, did you release the rifle to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. 11:45 p.m. the rifle was released or picked up by them and taken from the office.
Mr. BELIN. Was that on November 22?
Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.

Also turns out that these vital pieces of evidence are left there for days, positioned and repositioned, photographed as the "At the time of shots" window when it was nothing of the sort.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know when that was placed on there?
Mr. DAY. That was placed there November 26. The box was not removed, just the cardboard was removed on November 22 excuse me, November 25 I should say that he put his name on there. I returned to the School Book Depository on November 25 and collected this box.

The rest of that BS about it being his rifle, ... you can't prove. As proven repeatedly and again in my next essay, the trail of C2766 stops at Harborside... there is no proof other than for a June 1962 shipment, that C2766 ever left that depot.

Point to one other box in the SN barricade where they supposedly found his prints....... the boxes "on the window sill" as mentioned above, cannot even be authenticated as the same...

"OSWALD'S rifle.
OSWALD'S shells. (From his gun, I mean.)
OSWALD'S bullet fragments IN THE LIMOUSINE.
OSWALD'S prints all over the Nest where we know THE KILLER WAS SHOOTING FROM.
OSWALD'S prints on the paper bag (CE142)."

Since no one can physically get that bag into and out of that corner that day... you'll need to do much better than CE142... There is no proof that bag was ever even there, no proof that it's the same as the one CLAIMED to be carried by Oswald ala Wesley and his sister... but helluva nice try Dave

Between the last time Oswald was seen, 12:10 on the first floor without a 3+ foot paper bag in his hands and the shots, Mr. W here is on the 6th floor.

Without tools and without being seen, Oswald retrieves the bag and assembles the weapon

WHERE and HOW David?

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.
Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.
Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Facing on what street?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Sixth floor.
Mr. DULLES. You ate your lunch on the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. And you were all alone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you sit on while you ate your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first. Then I began to get a little impatient, because there wasn't anyone coming up. So I decided to move to a two-wheeler.
Mr. BALL. A two-wheeler truck, you mean?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I remember sitting on this two-wheeler. By that time, I was through, and I got up and I just left then.

Mr. DULLES. I would like to ask one question here. When you were on the sixth floor eating your lunch, did you hear anything that made you feel that there was anybody else on the sixth floor with you?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I didn't hear anything.
Mr. DULLES. You did not see anything?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not see anything.
Mr. DULLES. You were all alone as far as you knew at that time on the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. During that period of from 12 o'clock about to--10 or 15 minutes after?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I felt like I was all alone. That is one of the reasons I left--because it was so quiet.

T

hru January 12, 1954 Greg... Both the school records and FBI report extend thru 1/12/54 when he supposedly went to Beauregard...

why you stop at at 9/11/53 is where you are falling short. The semesters ends june 29th as you pointed out... there is nothing to count in the summer... no school in the world counts unattended summer vacation as potential school days attended... call your own board of Ed and check your local school records officials... they will tell you the same.

Asking for other student's private records will not happen and is yet another FBI tactic .. I've made the same argument about the rifle records...

I dont need to show you records for summer when common sense or a call to your school board will do... You yourself argue there are 180-190 days of school to attend in any given year...

That's without summer school Greg. you're grasping at straws and you keep coming up with the short stick...

The excel table with all the dates is not hard to follow and counts EVERY day... even WITH summer it does not add to 200 of 210 days...

nice try though...

I stop there because that is the end of the school year.

The 53-54 school year - or the PS44 start to it shows...

73 days attendance and absences from 9/14/53.

I count the number of available school days between then and the end of of December as being 81. I could be out because I might be missing one or two holiday days.

I can't locate anything giving the date he last attended, but really all it means to me is that he actually stopped going around mid-December - and I believe that may actually have been the case. I checked the manuscript of my first volume to see if I found it then, but what i wrote was that he left in December or early January. That was based on Lana Greenberg's memory of taking a note to school for Marguerite saying they had left. She couldn't pin down the exact time - only saying it was Dec or Jan.

Forget the godamn FBI report,. You are just using it to support that some sort of hocus-pocus happened with the records - but can't even explain what your alleged discrepancy means.

The figures for 52-53 add up correctly. The Figures for the balance of his time at PS44 probably do, but without having an exact end date, it's impossible to be 100% certain.

Wrong.. plain and simply wrong Greg.

We are not talking only about the 52-53 year on these records. We have 3 total semesters here Greg... Fall 1952, Spring 1953 and Fall 1953.

He only starts attending regularly on March 23, 1953.

His last day of NYC school is Jan 8, 1954 according to the records

He did not attend summer school in 1953 (or any other year for that matter)

The records for the SPRING 1953 semester are completely FUBAR and would have been filled in prior to the start of the 53-54 school year on Sept 14, 1953.

No administrator in their right mind would enter 127 days of attendance since 3/23... there are simply not enough days to count

So, Let's start with the Sept 30, 1952 thru the end of the 65 days of attendance/absences recorded and take that off the plate

Seems pretty close Greg... start on Sept 30th with records taking us thru the January transfer

From Jan 19 - Mar 23 1953 there are 45 weekdays to attend school which are not recorded anywhere as either TRUANT, ATTENDED or ABSENT (as shown highlighted below in reddish)

Now, let's forget the FALL 1953 semester of the 53-54 school year which has the correct number at 65 + 8/2 days = 69 days to take us thru Jan 8 1954 - the last day of school supposedly attended in NYC

=============================

What we are focusing on is the record of attendance between March 23, 1953 and June 26, 1953... the time this boy attended ANY SCHOOL.

The records have him there 109 3/2 + 15 3/2 days for a total of 127 actual, physical weekdays this boy was involved with school.

Show us how 127 days fits in the time frame from March 23 to June 26 which offers only 70 TOTAL days of possible school INCLUDING Youth House and Spring break.

"Attendance" does not include when he was not at school be it for Truancy, Youth House or Summer Break. (although we are giving him PS44 credit for Youth House in this calculation)

There are only 70 days of school available from 3/23 to 6/26 - the remainder of the SPRING 1953 7th grade semester. The above record is a forgery as no school administrator would keep attendance in this manner... after the transfer to PS44 (Manhattan and/or the Bronx) the records go off the rails and are returned to normal starting in Sept 1953...

To be remembered, these NYC records are all copies of copies while the originals are gone. The FBI lied about providing the "originals" to the WC... after corroborating that they did acquire them from the school district.

No matter how hard you want to continue to confuse the issue Greg... you can't get this round peg into the square opening... but you just keep on banging away ...

David, your mention of the FBI and records falsification brought something to mind....I have read Armstrong's book, at the moment it is on loan and I surely can't pretend to remember the bulk of its detail. But your remark made me wonder about the following - does John address the issues below:

Assuming that there was an intensely secret and covert dual identity project launched by the CIA it would surely be extremely compartmentalized even within the Agency. And I have no doubt any such secret would be even more closely kept after the assassination. We know that on even comparatively minor things such as a relationship with Kostikov, CIA officers lied internally, refusing to acknowledge it - when caught on it later they claimed legal authority given Agency secrecy rules, even to an internal investigation, and that was accepted. Also, we know that generally the CIA was less than likely to share important intel with the FBI, as Hoover well knew.

So the question is,

why would the FBI care about falsifying records relating to two Oswald's,

why, how and when would they even know there were two Oswalds and if they were informed about that following the assassination,

are there any indications that they were actually directed to cover up a top secret CIA activity?

Hoover had been perfectly ready to bust CIA chops on things like the Roselli/Castro plot, even alerting RFK to it - so did Armstrong find any indication of how the FBI was brought in to cover for the CIA following the assassination?

Good morning Larry,

I'll do the best I can here... and will talk with John to see how I can improve upon it.

From what I can tell we do not have a "reason" in the evidence, from Hoover... in fact we have that statement by him in Jan 64 where he acknowledges their double dealing in Mexico... and yet still helped cover it all up.

If there is no Harvey/FBI connection there is no need to cover for the CIA (but then again Larry, how much did the FBI expose ANY CIA activities to the CIA's detriment in this case?) unless we are talking much bigger issues and agreements... Can we agree that the FBI/CIA were not making the important decisions but simply carrying them out?... if we agree that orders came from higher up, Hoover would simply have to go along to keep his job, power and influence - at least what they would let him keep.

The FBI was focused on removing any historical conflicts... yet they left little evidence related to the info they gathered... no word on Stripling, Pfisterer's, etc...

no word on the conflict between PS44's. OR why he would have even been entered into PS117 after their move... etc...

John Ely on the WC was given the task of compiling info on Oswald's background... p56* of H&L discusses how he finds out by March that the FBI has done virtually nothing in their reporting to show they investigated anything about his childhood... that Life is in the lead on this info as they've been in virtually every area...

As he proceeds with his task he discovers that all the NYC school records are copies - while the trail of the originals ends with SAIC Malone

As John says through out the book, as well as the HSCA handwriting experts, copies are the easiest way to forge documents since they cannot be examined for many of the key identifiers originals offer. When the FBI has originals which disappear in favor of copies which are in conflict with the real world... further investigation is warranted.

Whether the FBI discovered H&L possibilities after the fact or knew at some point along the way, back to the inception... is one of those mysteries that will be most difficult to unravel. Hoover seems to be hinting about it... and wouldn't the FBI be watch-list agency #1 on a commie defector returning with a wife and child and settling back into the US?

The FBI could know every little thing about a citizen... it's not until March 64 that his life story is investigated yet they are Pfisterer's the week after the assassination...

*After the assassination the Warren Commission assigned a young staff attorney,

John Hart Ely, to locate, gather, and organize information on the background of Lee

Harvey Oswald and his family. Ely, like so many US citizens in the early 1960's, trusted

our government and the FBI.

Ely was a young attorney, not an investigator, and depended upon the FBI to

interview Oswald's friends, classmates and relatives, and furnish their reports to the

Commission. A few months into his work, after receiving only a handful of FBI reports

relating to Oswald's background and early life, Ely became concerned. He communicated

his concerns about the FBI's apparent lack of investigation into Oswald's background

with fellow Warren Commission attorneys.

A short while later John Ely read articles in Life Magazine and found that reporters

had interviewed Oswald's grammar school classmates in Fort Worth. He could

not understand why the FBI had not interviewed those same people and began to realize

that the FBI had not conducted a thorough investigation into Oswald's background.

Ely compiled a list of 13 people who had been interviewed by Life Magazine

and, on March 20, 1964, wrote a memo to Wesley J. Liebeler. Ely wrote, "once again let

56

me urge that we should not have to rely upon Life Magazine for such a list. The FBI

should undertake a systematic investigation and interview of Oswald's closest school

friends."26 Copies of the memo were sent to Warren Commission Attorneys Rankin,

Willens, Jenner and Meek. 53-02

Ely continued to gather FBI reports, Warren Commission testimony, Commission

documents, Secret Service reports, etc. in an attempt to piece together the life and

background of Lee Harvey Oswald and his family. Ely wrote hundreds of pages of

memorandums which were used in preparing the Warren Report, that are now located

in the National Archives.

Assembling, sorting, analyzing, and writing memorandums and a final report on

Oswald's background left Ely little time to resolve discrepancies. From his memorandums

it is apparent that Ely was aware of certain discrepancies in Oswald's life, but it

is not known if he realized their significance or made any attempts to resolve them.

One discrepancy known to Ely is contained in a letter written by Dr. Milton

Kurian, a New York Psychiatrist and former president of the American Psychiatric Association,

to Jackie Kennedy after the assassination. 53-03 Dr. Kurian told Mrs. Kennedy

that while working with the New York Court system, in March 1953, he interviewed

young Oswald in his office. When John Ely reviewed the letter, he realized that Dr.

Kurian had interviewed Oswald several weeks before Oswald appeared in court and was

remanded to the Youth House.

Ely wrote, "he (Kurian) states that the interview (with Oswald) occurred toward

the end of March, 1953; however, in view of the fact that he refers to a report from Youth

House which had been prepared prior to his seeing the boy, it must have been later in

that year."27 Ely, without ever contacting or interviewing Dr. Kurian, concluded the

doctor must be in error and did no further checking. Had Ely telephoned Dr. Kurian,

the good doctor could have told him about his meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald. Ely

should have made the call.

NOTE: If Ely did not have the time to interview Kurian, he could have asked the FBI

to interview him.

In 1964 Ely wrote a 26-page memorandum about Oswald's life from 12/26/42 to

9/28/56.28 The memorandum contained information from Oswald's interviews with probation

officer John Carro, Psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs, social worker Evelyn Strickman,

psychologist Irving Sokolow, and staff reports from Youth House, but did not mention Dr.

Kurian.

It is difficult to understand why Ely would not be interested in the professional

opinion of a New York psychiatrist who was the past president of the American Psychiatric

Association, and had interviewed young Oswald in 1953. Ely never bothered to

telephone or contact Dr. Kurian, even though Kurian's letter, stating clearly that he had

interviewed Oswald, was in his file

added together we also get 200 days of school according to the school records above as presented by the FBI.

how GP can turn that simple fact into weeks long crusade is to be commended.

The FBI report has you all confused. Again, who gives a rats about the maths used by the FBI. What the hell do you think it means anyway?

I am saying to you (again) that if you just look at the source material, and do some counting with a calendar, the school documents tally correctly.

The 52-53 School year. Sept 1952 - June 1953.

Trinity

9 days attendance + 6 days absence (period of enrolment 9/8/52 - 9/26/52 = 15 school days which matches total of both figures)

PS 117

15 days attendance + 47 days absence + 2 part days attendance and 2 part days absence (period of enrolment 9/30/52 - 1/10/53 = 64 school days which matches total of all figures)

PS 44

109 days attendance + 15 days absence at Youth House + 3 part days attendance + 3 part days absence (period of enrolment 3/23/53 - 9/11/53 = approximately 127 to 129 depending on number of festive days off - less 55 summer recess = approximately 72 school days. That is where the confusion is coming in. They have simply included summer recess in days attended column. If you want to posit that they should not have done this unless he attended Summer School, please provide the records of another child from New York circa 1953 where those 55 days are accounted for differently.

Thru January 12, 1954 Greg... Both the school records and FBI report extend thru 1/12/54 when he supposedly went to Beauregard...

why you stop at at 9/11/53 is where you are falling short. The semesters ends june 29th as you pointed out... there is nothing to count in the summer... no school in the world counts unattended summer vacation as potential school days attended... call your own board of Ed and check your local school records officials... they will tell you the same.

Asking for other student's private records will not happen and is yet another FBI tactic .. I've made the same argument about the rifle records...

I dont need to show you records for summer when common sense or a call to your school board will do... You yourself argue there are 180-190 days of school to attend in any given year...

That's without summer school Greg. you're grasping at straws and you keep coming up with the short stick...

The excel table with all the dates is not hard to follow and counts EVERY day... even WITH summer it does not add to 200 of 210 days...

nice try though...

ok... source materials...

200 days is exactly what the "source materials" say...

Jon...

""171 + 11 1/2 days plus 18 + 11 1/2 days 11+11 1/2 days = 11 TOTAL days,"

If you read the FBI report highlighted in yellow this it what it says... 171 and 11 half days attended, 18 and 11 half days absent for a total of 200 days of school.

11 half days plus 11 half days is 11 whole days on which that occurs

Greg says to use the source materials which I posted above which I believe is a WCR version...

109 and 3 half days plus 62 and 8 half days = 171 and 11 half days

15 and 3 half days plus 3 and 8 half days = 18 and 11 half days

added together we also get 200 days of school according to the school records above as presented by the FBI.

how GP can turn that simple fact into weeks long crusade is to be commended.

At the exact moment when other facts offered in the evidence suggest the existence of a smaller version of Lee Harvey who gets into trouble and has no southern accent to be heard

these records contradict on which PS44 he may have attended, and whose attendance all these jumbled numbers represents.

You see, once the FBI acquired original school records all bets are off... there is simply no way to know whether a copy of an original that is now gone, is authentic.. Sadly, by 1963 the FBI's evidence could not be trusted.

.

Greg... I don't think these are the "original" source materials either.. you need to consider that the 109 days and such from 3/23 to 6/29 was entered by a NYC school administrator prior to the next year's numbers.. in the real records.

No NYC educator/record keeper in their right mind puts a number like that to explain that semester's attendance for that boy... no mention of his having been to Youth House yet Trinity and a PS school farther from his home than was PS44 is written in. Huge gaps of none attendance and confusion in the courts

So why Greg... the more important question is why are these records important enough in the first place they need to be forged?.... .

you contend these records are those of a single boy... again, why are they needed in the first place. The FBI could easily have looked back into a "citizen's" history and get their school records.

It is not until testimony, photographs, and evidence contradicts the records acquired and provided. Just like everywhere else. that many little things becomes a bigger thing.

I'm done with the hostilities with you Greg... you want to make it your mission, great, the more attention, the more minds posting and researching the better.

I see things you don't and you see those I don't... let's see if we can cease hostilities with the same zeal as we entered into them.

Happy Father's Day anyone and everyone in that role

Parker... We understand you are still trying to find a way to get 200 days to fit into 123... all that time rolling on the floor must have affected your counting skills

As I am unable to locate my past calculations I assume they were removed. I guess I have to keep a copy this time...

After doing this for the second or third time, I expect you will reciprocate and finally give me your opinion on Bennierita Smith's testimony and why Armstrong avoided her like the plague. Then when move on to the FW riots and - and for those at the DeepFoo who only seem to be familiar with what Armstrong claims about the evidence - we can revisit what McBride actually said about the Soviet Program. Fair enough?

The 52-53 School year. Sept 1952 - June 1953.

Trinity

9 days attendance + 6 days absence (period of enrolment 9/8/52 - 9/26/52 = 15 school days which matches total of both figures)

PS 117

15 days attendance + 47 days absence + 2 part days attendance and 2 part days absence (period of enrolment 9/30/52 - 1/10/53 = 64 school days which matches total of all figures)

PS 44

109 days attendance + 15 days absence at Youth House + 3 part days attendance + 3 part days absence (period of enrolment 3/23/53 - 9/11/53 = approximately 127 to 129 depending on number of festive days off - less 55 summer recess = approximately 72 school days. So here, the days attendance column + days absent + part days = 127 - and that is where the confusion is coming in. They have simply included summer recess in days attended column because if you take 55 away from 127, you get 72 - the actual number of available school days. If you want to posit that they should not have done this unless he attended Summer School, please provide the records of another child from New York circa 1953 where those 55 days are accounted for differently.

Moreover, this is yet another example of you not thinking your position through to a logical conclusion because here - what your maths leads to in terms of your theory is that "Harvey" did indeed go to Summer School while Lee didn't (or the other around, as if it matters).

Now it's your turn.

Address the things I have asked you to address countless times.

Except the report does not stop at 9/11/53 Greg... it includes the Fall semester at one of the PS44's.

The FBI says there are 200 days of attendance between 3/23/53 and 1/12/54... All your previous month's info is not involved in this discussion.

Stay on topic Greg... focus. 171 + 11 1/2 days plus 18 + 11 1/2 days 11+11 1/2 days = 11 TOTAL days, 11+18= 29 29+171=200 days between 3/23 and 1/12/54

The FBI says there are 200 days of school in THAT time period which Oswald either attended or was absent.

We are not talking about PRIOR to 3/23 Greg... we are authenticating the report below.... which includes the 9/14/53 thru 1/12/54 (62 8/2 + 3 8/2) added to the 109 3/2 and 15 3/2.

There are only 210 TOTAL weekdays during that period. Now one last time, show us how 200 days of records fit into these 210 days of possible attendance...

Got it, mate?

Dawn...

Little boys playing games... the less they know about the subject, the more against it they can be...

Oxymorons the lot of them...

And no Cliff, H&L is not a red herring... it permeates the evidence...

but people aint gonna learn what they dont wanna know

I'd like to ask you David...

1. What could actions performed by Oswald prior to 11/22/63 having to do with pro-Cuba, pro-Castro groups

in order to illicit names of supporters be later turned into evidence incriminating Oswald as a Castro sympathizer

and/or Castro directed to kill JFK so the US military could justify invading Cuba, be considered... ?

2. If you could direct the actions of Oswald, in the name of the protection of the USA, to put himself in contact with these pro and anti Cuban groups, as he obviously did,

how are we to know whether this was the plan related to JFK in Dallas all along or a contingency serving dual purposes, planned all along, in case Chicago or Tampa was successful

Chicago, Tampa, Dallas... ?? 1963. JFK dies in Chicago, Lee Harvey continues to infiltrate Cuban groups as an XYZ informant wherever he goes for spending money and the lifestyle.

(and maybe to get away from Marina... lol)

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

David, I don't know either. but to believe what those men told us happened, as they said it did is simply too far a leap of faith for a thinking person to be asked to give for that time and those people.

Faith is wonderful. It makes you right, regardless.

No hard feelings

DJ

David,

Before I address your comments, let me clear up one thing. You are not saying that this still is in any way from the video tape of the LHO exhumation are you? This is merely included as an example of an exhumation. I ask because the caption says "Lee open coffin".

Most assuredly not Tracy... are you aware of any photos or films showing the contents as they were discovered in the casket or the head during autopsy?

I am reading the Norton report and doing some due diliogence so I can discuss this with some level of knowledge... give me a little time

DJ

Parker... We understand you are still trying to find a way to get 200 days to fit into 123... all that time rolling on the floor must have affected your counting skills

Steve Gaal wrote:

this post unaddressed by ANTI H & L side

Speaking of unaddressed issues, when is the H&L team going to address the 1981 exhumation? Oswald or "Harvey" according to H&L was dug up and he had a mastoid operation that he wasn't supposed to have. Also, in Russia "Harvey" was examined by doctors and again he had the mastoid scar that wasn't supposed to be there (CE 985). Armstrong just ignores this in H&L.

Paul Groody had a theory about what happened. For years, I didn't realize this-I just thought Groody was playing devil's advocate and saying something was not right. Then I listened to his 2006 appearance of Coast to Coast and it turns out he thought the head only was switched prior to the exhumation. Now Groody was always adamant that the body was the one he buried in 1963 as he recognized the clothes, rings and even the viscera bag which contained the internal organs. But he believed the body was that of a double (who had been shot by Ruby) and had been dug up (even though he said in 1963 it would be almost impossible to do that) at some point and the real Oswald's head (which was somehow readily available) was somehow reattached to the double's body. This explained, in Groody's mind, the fact that he didn't see the craniotomy incision on the skull (even though photos show it and witnesses remember it), rather than his own mistaken memory. This is all detailed here:

http://wtracyparnell.com/paul-groodys-theory/

But the question is how does the H&L team explain the exhumation? Do they think "Harvey" was dug up and "Lee's" head attached to "Harvey's" body? And how was this accomplished? That would also get rid of "Lee" although Armstrong has always said he could still be alive. But what of CD 985? A head switch wouldn't explain that. Do they agree with Jack White who said on the JFK Research forum there were multiple "Harveys"?

These issues need to be addressed as they kill H&L as it stands today.

A simple request then Tracy... as you seem to be very close to this issue and most knowledgeable about it

Please provide a timeline of activites between burial and exhumation that takes an intact and sealed casket and produces what we see when dug up...

If the casket was still sealed and complete there would be less of a question... but from what I remember it wasn't. In fact is was only damaged above the man's head area... hmmmm.

Are we to believe the coicidence of "natural causes" destroyed that casket and that the question of craniotomies and a detached spinal column or not...

I've read your work on the subject http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/lhox2.htm

In 2002 Groody appeared in a documentary entitled Infamous Grave Sites on the Travel Channel to discuss his allegations. In Groody’s first quote he states, “Who was this man? I don’t know and like I’ve always said, I don’t care-none of my business, I only buried the guy.” Groody stayed with his basic story even when confronted with photos of the head, “That head that was now on that body was not the head that I embalmed. I know that the body had not been changed, because I recognized various things about the body that I had done.” But Groody seemed to offer no explanation for how a head switch could have occurred. When asked if a conspirator could have been disguised as a policeman or security guard he unequivocally stated, “No sir, no possible way that could have been done because all the security was around it and there was no way that anybody could carry a head in a sack or anything and do a head change at that time.”

In the same vein as Dulles claiming that we MUST have an explanation for what actually happened to be able to refute the WCR, Tracy here suggests that because Groody does not know how it happened, he is somehow wrong about the head. That is was not possible that by inserting something about cutting mummified tissue completely negates the possibility that THAT was the lie and not that the head was already detached...

Hard to tell from here - and just because they cut between vertibrea didn't mean they had to... or that the head was actually still attached...

Re H & L:

Those who planned and plotted JFK's murder were highly sophisticated, IMO. And also were and are able to wield great power in the United States. To posit anything humanly possible as being beyond these persons' capability is to deny their insider knowledge and their power.

So Jon... they have you in the infamous poll as AGAINST the H&L theory being even possible and that the evidence presented by some of the members here refutes with corroboration some of the issues I've put forward as proof.

Are you of a mind that H&L is not possible given the evidence - you know, just to get it straight....

and YES Steve... there is so much not addressed... like how they get 200 days of school out of 123 possible days to attend... must be trickle down Reaganomics math

Fair enough, but OTOH, I have seen CTs who will not view a video or read an article or a book by an LN.

BTW,I have seen the same behavior CT to CT. So is it fair to say that some CTs promote a theory because they are not really CTs, but are just posting or writing because they wish to divide the community, or is it because there are a lot of various theories which folk believe?.

(PS to Glenn: I am a Democrat, and was not aware that what you wrote was the way we/they respond. Good to know. )

Kathy... what LNer book is better than the WCR and a reading of the WCDocs to learn and understand what the Lone Nut Theory is all about?

Just to be clear here... THESE 12 conclusions are what these LNer shills and authors have to work with along with 26 volumes and 1553 WCD totaling 10's of thousands of pages to support these conclusions...

Does Myers, Posner, Manchester or Bugs PROVE any of these points in any more depth or with any more dishonesty than the docs and references named above? (and those pages are only a drop in the proverbial bucket when it comes to the total doc counts....) They MUST use the same batch of evidence we do... I'm the "Evidence IS the Conspiracy" guy... how can anyone defend and use the evidence in this case to prove what happened when all it does is prove what DIDN'T and how it was covered-up ??

THE 12 CONCLUSIONS (abbreviated) of the Warren Commission Report. and some comments.

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.

(put Oswald in that window)

2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.

(the HSCA proved that wrong plus there are numerous “marks” in DP from that day to prove well more than the 4 shots the HSCA found (they actually found 6, 2 were not fired from the only two locations they test- fired from… they were still gunshot sounds… just not from the GK or SE window)

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.

(please present said evidence – show how an 11 degree UPWARD angle needed to connect back to front can be accomplished from 70 feet above the target)

And then turn to WCD298 for the FBI's explanation to the Warren Commission in Jan 1964. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=26&tab=page

4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald

(any evidence that shows he fired a rifle or THAT rifle was fired would be appreciated)

5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination

(please connect this with the killing of JFK and the evidence presented by Markham and Bowley)

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.

(and this has to do with JFK how?)

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. (This is terribly untrue)

Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were allowed

uninhibited 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.

(explain what this has to do with Oswald's interrogation and the fact that one of the largest homicide departments in the county did not have a tape recorder or stenographer available to record this evidence which would need to be used at his trial... seems they knew there'd not be a trial, huh?)

8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963

(this has what to do with proving Oswald’s guilt or the killing of JFK as opposed to indicating that there was a conspiracy for which he was silenced?)

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

(it was right there, in a pile in the corner… they didn’t even bother to look at it… what exactly are Duran and Alvarado? What was he doing in Mexico or why was he FRAUDULENTLY placed in Mexico? please address the evidence that DOES indicate a connection and was presented in the WCR… it was found, it was ignored…. Just another FLAW?)

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

(there’s “found” again do we really need to cover the mountain of evidence that DOES support this and the indutrial scale blinders these men wore?)

11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone... (begging the question, what evidence was not placed before the commission?

Hoover on Dec 12, 1963: in a letter to his senior staff:

"I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man."

The FBI report from Dec 9^th:

On the contrary, the data developed strongly indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little advance planning.

This will address the "plan" which had to be in place for Oswald to have done this alone... check it out http://www.ctka.net/2014/Theevidenceistheconspiracy.html

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.

with regards to this last one... Wouldn't GREER be the SS agent who was the agent "most immediately responsible for the President's safety?"

This is the WCR definition of "reacting promptly" 2-5 seconds after the first shot(s) had been fired... is Greer simply waiting and making sure here?

gee was I counted ??

16 - 7 GAAL

Yes you were: David has already tried to pull that little stunt. You guys just can't be trusted with the evidence, any evidence, without first trying to manipulate it can you?

It's interesting that you both thought your vote should count twice. Everything in your world is duplicated isn't it?

Gee Bernie... maybe a little more cheese with that whine?

How much of the book have you read? How many of the 250 CD files have you reviewed? How many of the 2000+ notebooks have you gone to to check references or locate unavailable documents?

My comment that was reposted without credit or reference has to do with those without an agenda looking at this information and seeing Parker and others repeatedly misrepresent the evidence in their zealous attempts to discredit conclusions from the evidence provided by the WCR/FBI/CIA/SS..... if you haven't taken the time to do the work and still can feel that the rebuttal arguments are valid based on what, exactly, is truly the reader's prerogative. If my presentation of the information does not convince... so be it... not my care here - only the ongoing blatant misrepresentation of what was actually said, what the evidence actually shows...

One last time... the evidence is right where I posted it (and again below)... 210 total school days with generously allowing 125 days during that time period which Ozzie could have attended - why can't any of you simply point to the 200 days he attended/was absent to arrive at that number? I've done 95% of the work already for you - all that's left is to COUNT.

Must we really assume that is beyond all your capabilities?

Below is an easy to read list of every weekday between 3/23/53 and 9/14/53... show us how we get 200 days of attendence/absence (spelled out in the FBi document below) over these 210 days and I will freely admit these records are not indicative of a serious conflict at the most interesting time in our Oswald story... the zoo photo is from July/Aug 1953, just a couple months prior. That FBI report also confirms the FBI's counting of days...

point 2 from the same time period.... Would ANY of you care to address how the boy in this zoo image is 5'4" and 115lbs when everyone at Youth House only a few more months before describe him as about 4'9" of 10" and very thin... and is obviously not that big a kid months later... even better is that they have him entering the BRONX PS44 as a 5'4" 114lb boy... They are describing LEE her, not the boy who takes his place in the world.

These are not OUR guesses - this is evidence offered by the FBI from 10 years earlier in order to "leave no stone unturned" in their raping of the Oswald name and of the evidence left to history which repeatedly leads to their being a Harvey and Lee Oswald.

Here's a thought boys - DO SOMETHING TO PROVE THESE TWO ITEMS WRONG... can't make it any easier than that. (and then we can talk about why Robert puts him in 8th grade at PS44 in Manhattan and Carro puts him in the 9th grade at PS44 in the Bronx.

Consider one main thing Vitali

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...

Ponder it a bit. The EVIDENCE says no one sees Oswald... who wrote all the evidence? Who translated it for the Commissioners? Who took what it said in total and para-phrased it for the WCR? Who punished people who contradicted the evidence?

How does the evidence prove the conspiracy as opposed to telling us what actually occurred? http://www.ctka.net/2014/The%20evidence%20is%20the%20conspiracy.html is an essay I did assuming Oswald planned the assassination and what he would need to know and do to be successful... Tell me what you think.

One perfect example is what Rankin tells us he is reading in the autopsy report. "That's what they FIRST said"

Vitali - go to the autopsy in the records and see if you can find reference to "an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck" Since I know you wont find it - what was Rankin referring to in Jan 1964 that is no longer part of the existing autopsy report?

Mr. Rankin:

Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

As to your conclusion assumptions

The film "Twelve Angry Men" At the start, Eleven for conviction, one against. At the end, twelve for acquittal.

12-5

Citing fiction in defense of fiction.

So says the expert on fiction...

12-6

Who? McAdams (6th Floor museum, Posner, Bugliosi & Myers followers a close second)

For what purpose? To slow, stop or simply interrupt discussion about new theories, evidence, corroboration, etc among Conspiracy Realist researchers and authors in favor of the Warren Commission Report conclusions which in themselves are laughable on their won, let alone the evidence which supposedly supports them.

Is their purpose nefarious? http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm depends on how you see it.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

This is one of the most effective LNer shill tactics employed followed by these two:

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Bruce... IMO, the reality of what occurred is beyond the understanding or comprehension of the ordinary person... even some of us have a hard time fathoming the extent of depravity required to do what they were doing starting in the late 30's and what the suggested consequences were for not "looking the other way" re:JFK - Just ask Bolden, Yates, Craig, and a host of others.

William Blum, http://williamblum.org/, presents these two laws, which, if you watch the news with #2 in mind, it certainly makes more sense... C.Rice - "no way we could imagine them using airplanes as missles" while the pentagon is conducting exercises regarding that specific thing against the same building that were hit"

For our purposes the reason behind all the shilling is to keep people away from #1 and wanting to uncover, stop the evil.

Sadly, from my POV, the time for revolt has come and gone... 9/11 was an " in your face, what are you gonna do about it anyway" event with its roots from the JFK killing and cover-up. Those that do these things do not reinvent the wheel each time. they take what works and repeat it over and over... the names and places change, but the operational details remain the same. 9/11 had 19 patsies, Kissinger, Zelikow, and NIST producing a report as fraudulent as the WCR ever was.

There are over 6 billion people on this little planet - some are simply not going to learn what they don't wanna know - no matter what.

The First "Watergate" Law of American Politics states: “No matter how paranoid you are,

what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.”

The Second "Watergate" Law states: “Don’t believe anything until it’s been officially

denied.

Let us know how you fare with the important stuff...

1. Who visits McKeown to buy rifles?

2. Who visits Odio?

3. Who does Anna Lewis meet in Feb 1962 in New Orleans?

4. Who is having a scope mounted

5. Who does Craig see?

6. How is Oswald in Dallas and New Orleans during the summer of 1963 simultaneously?

Well, David, since you asked the Forum:

1. McKeown himself said that Jack Ruby contacted him.

2. Lee (Leon) Harvey Oswald, along with Loran Hall and Larry Howard, met Silvia Odio.

3. Anna Lewis got her dates wrong.

4. A random person with the common name of Lee Oswald had a scope mounted on a rifle.

5. Roger Craig indeed saw Lee Harvey Oswald getting into a Green Rambler by the TSBD as a passenger,

6. Oswald had transportation that the FBI could never admit, without breaking its "Lone Nut" theory.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Thanks Paul... I appreciate your enthusiasm yet you may want to reread some of the text related to these comments before offering solutions....

1. you obviously haven't read the evidence about Oswald and "Hernandez" - it's not easy to find... the HSCA interview of McKeown.

(whether it happened or not isn't the issue, that the story is told about Oswald when he is elsewhere is the point)

2. You're just plain wrong here - Hall and Howard themselves as well as Odio say it was not them

3. Repeatedly? There is no time Jan-Apr of 62 or 63 when Oswald was in New Orleans.. watch the video please

4. so you've read the story of this encounter? Doesn't sound like it

5. Lee or Harvey? Then who was in Whaley's cab?

6. That's just plain poor Paul. It's ok not to know the material... but then don't throw out any old thing and think you've offered anything more than a guess

He can't be with Ruby in Dallas while in the company of his family in New Orleans or at work at Reily...

He can't be at the Sports Drome when he is with his family in Irving

He can't be at the Sports Drome when the FBI puts him in Mexico City on Sept 28th...

Just a few examples of Ozzie here and there at the same time:

So you've read the work on Alice Tracy?

I hear you, Tracy. Even Woods is starting with the "Frankie" version and not the FWST one.

I have no idea why it would be described as the "AP" photo when it was not.... or why it would be created in the first place to depict that photo...

but it was... and in the absence of another image... seems Woods shows it was obviously painted over... but it matches very well...

(As you go thru the book, write down two lists, the marines with LEE and those with HARVEY... see where that takes you.)

If you start with the presumption that there is a "Harvey", it is no surprise that you will find one. It is the same logical fallacy you employ over and over again.

How about you sort that out in your own head, and then start your own investigation with no such presumptions. Instead, look for alternatives to your conundrums. If you can positively rule out all other alternatives in each case, you're on your way to a possible real live "Harvey". But here's a clue. Blanket or cover-all statements that the FBI covers up stuff and changes documents cannot be allowed without specific evidence supporting each contention. Same goes for accusations that the FBI put perfectly sane witnesses into mental asylums and murdered them. Allowable only if there is specific evidence in specific cases.

New found witnesses cannot be counted where contemporaneous accounts tell a different story and there is no valid reason OTHER than the new witness to discount the old witness/es.

Old friends of those close to the Armstrong investigation cannot be used where there has been no disclosure of said friendship.

Photos that are represented as being of two different people need to be verified as such by external experts (i.e. not Jack White or any other "expert' already with a dog in this fight)

School records need to be explained by someone actually familiar with the school systems involved. Let those chips fall where they may.

Do all of that and see where it takes you...

I've done all that Greg... and placed it on a spreadsheet side-by-side to illustrate these conflicts...

No you haven't.

You have started with your conclusion that there was a "Harvey" and then put all the anomalous records into a spreadsheet, using those conflicts as your evidence. Not once have you explored alternative possibilities for any of them.

And this reply is yet another in your arsenal of logical fallacies. Proof by verbosity ( submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details)

I'm not going to even attempt to deal with all of it because I do not have unlimited time.

But to deal quickly with a few items...

I did account for the 55 days and time in Youth House, The numbers came out close to your magic 180 figure. I suggested getting someone actually familiar with such records on the basis that you disagree with me. I am quite confident that my figures would be shown as correct by anyone familiar with such records. I would further suggest someone not involved in this locate such a person. Not sure what your objection could possibly be to that.

You say "You want to believe that you know more about the Kudlaty-White relationship than is offered" No. See, this is just another example of how you skew things.

I DO NOT know MORE than what has been offered. I only know WHAT has been offered.

And what has been offered has been 2 contradictory stories to me from White about his relationship to Kudlaty and a third story from White to Armstrong which contradicts BOTH of those stories. If this had been an FBI agents giving 3 different stories about a witness, you'd be screaming blue murder. But because it is Jack White, you dance around it like a prima ballerina.

You ask "Was Anna Lewis lying when she met Oswald in Feb 1962?" when the question should be, is she mistaken in her memory, is she lying or is she telling the truth with the aid of an accurate memory? In trying to determine that, you need to amass all of the available data about Oswald's whereabouts during the timeframe given, look at Anna herself to determine her credibility and also look at those behind this interview and their possible motives. When you do all of that, it doesn't look very promising.

You ask, "Where was Harvey when the FBI/CIA/State/I&NS make up the fraudulent evidence for the Mexico trip?" Again putting your conclusion into the question. The correct answer is... nowhere. He was yet to be born via John Armstrong's vivid imagination. See... the idea is that you prove the existence of something prior to asking where it might be found at a given point in time. Logic 101.

You ask, "Who is the Alice TX radio station job hunting Oswald?" No idea. Never looked into it. When I get a chance, I will and I will get back to you.

You ask, "How many people does it take to have seen Ruby and Oswald together in the summer of 1963 while he and his family are in New Orleans?" List names, dates, places and again I'll get back to you.

You're the best Greg...

but I'm done now. I've made my point to those who pay attention.

Have a nice life.

If the WC report is falsification why is there problem with nitrates on LHO hands and not on his face and why is there problem with Tippit bullets?

Also there is a problem with the bullets holder out of the rifle. There are many questions need to be answered.

May be a lot of people was involved in WC falsification and only some of them did their job truthfully.

Nitrates on the hands can be accumulated in many ways... especially with all the ink and boxes that Oswald handled... there were none on his face as he did not fire a rifle.

The problem with the Tippit bullets are manyfold... but lead back to the delay in acquiring them from Oswald in the first place, that the different shell manufacturers don't match the # of bullets attributed to each..

That and these bullets all appear as if they've spent time in a leather ammo holster... the .38 he is accused of using is standard issue for the Dallas Police Department as well as most of ther PD's around the country.

The clip is definitely a problem in a number of ways. It was never seen or photographed in the TSBD - like the paper bag.

It would have to be loaded with only 4 instead of 6 bullets and for the story to be true it was either in the rifle as it was transported that way or loose in the bag...

Day wrote a note about what was found and added the clip as an after thought.. Every item of evidence was taken by the FBI Friday night - ALL of it... what was there before and after they took evidnece does not match...

As for many people being in on it... that really needn't be the case for the evidence to have been fashioned in such a way as to lead others down the wrong paths...

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

Think of it this way... The WCR defenders tell us to have faith in the commissioners, that you needn't read millions of pages of evidence to know Oswald did it.

Those who do not defend the WCR have to say that we MUST read thru millions of pages and STILL not know exactly what happened because the evidence does not support any of the conclusions and does not represent the actual conclusions of the investigation.

Not sure if you've seen this but it gives you some idea of what was possible... This testimony was simply crossed out and his answer provided for him. If you go read his testimony, the provided text is how the final printing looks...

This is but one page found... can you imagine how many changes could have made it into that Report and Evidence to materially change what we understand of the event?

Dulles here did not want the report to show that the FBI took everything on the 22nd and returned it the next week only to take it back again, and lose the photos that were taken in Dallas of all the evidence...

Amazing.. right?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is true.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know why Exhibit No. 820 was not reprocessed or desilvered?

Mr. CADIGAN. No, this is a latent fingerprint matter.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why the signature, "Lee Oswald" or rather "L. H. Oswald" is apparent, while the signature "A. J. Hidell" is not?

I was finally able to get a large version of the White Oswald poster which shows what the captions are - no I hadn't forgetten...

Most telling to me are the two photos 11 days apart in Sept 1958 at the right end... and Robert trying to tell us that #28 is from '59 and not '57... Difference between age 18/19 and 21...

David, thank you for detail explanation.

I have two controversial versions. One version is in accordance with report. And another is not.

I have not yet decided how much truth in the report of WC. Now I become more and more confident that not a lot.

What is your opinion on PM shirt: long or short arms?

Always a pleasure Vitali

btw - nothing in the WC report can be used to illustrate anything related to the crimes committed... the Evidence IS the Conspiracy as you will continue to find out. All we can do with it is to show how the conspiracy worked, not the killings and resulting investigation... when we stop trying to connect the evidence to the crime and rather to the ensuing cover-up, it begins to make sense very quickly.

From all the images I've looked at it appears to me that the sleeve is rolled up, that there is a watch on his right hand (which usually means this person was left handed, but not necessarily)

Let's PLEASE remember that everyone who wrote notes from the interrogatiopn states that he said he went home, changed his shirt and britches, put them in his drawers as laundry and left.

The Button-down Briarloom shirt and the slacks were found in the dresser and were inventoried by the DPD...

(whether the button-down could have easily been folded up at the sleeves is unknown... but it seems possible.

The shirt in this image, if Oswald, does not need to match the arrest shirt for good reason... it's not the same. (Case in point - Bledsoe describes the torn buttons and elbow of the arrest shirt on a bus he supposedly took before he went home... not possible. Either he was never on the bus and Bledsoe was told what to say, or he was and she was also told what to say about that shirt....

As you can see, the arrest shirt is not button down

And here is the shirt and pants in the inventory... yet after the numbered 455 items....