David Josephs
-
Posts
6,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
Good deal Tracy...
Thanks for taking up the cause and offering real work... Maybe you can tell us why Anna Lewis places Lee Oswald with her husband, Bannister and Martin in New Orleans in Feb 1962... repeatedly.
In the room is Judy Baker who is trying to have her friend corroborate "Lee & Me" from the summer of 1963. When that subject finally does come around she says Oswald came in to where she worked, did not talk to her or acknowledge her and left... This is JVB and her friends witnessing their love affair... You'd have thought she could lie a little for her friend for the sake of the book... but no such luck.
What do you make of it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyN37x3OfHs
-
Coming from the expert flogger... still can't figure out how they got 200 days - right GP?
Wonder why Robert states his brother went to PS 44 in Manhattan as opposed to the one on Prospect by his apartment...??
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=37#entry305786
The poll's life cycle:
-
To me it is just common sense he would travel downwards from the 6th floor to the 2nd to get the coke and then to the 1st and then the steps outside. Instead of going back inside and upstairs after he'd eaten, to get his drink.
Hi, Vanessa!
I have one more version. LHO would travel downwards from the 6th floor to the 1st to take his jacket in domino room. But policeman Baker interrupted this plan. Hide and seek in the lunch room was forced improvisation. LHO decided to leave the jacket and went out.
I think you'd be hard pressed to prove Oswald was on the 6th floor after 12pm that day... but it would be good to see what you have.
PM being Oswald
Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me (Ball cuts Lovelady off right here - PM is right behind Lovelady at this point, he moves to his left later)
Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.
Mr. BALL - What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
In the Hughes film, as the limo turns the corner we see a blurry version of the overshirt and Tshirt in front of the black man in blue in the west corner of the opening.
At the bottom right we have Lovelady and PM in the same shot VERY soon after Hughes... so we know PM is there during the shooting.
Either this is Lovelady, who moves to the east or Hughes captured PM since we know that Lovelady was farther EAST than the person in Hughes' frame.
Vitali - maybe help us understand then, from your conclusion, if Baker were to write an account of what happened that very day instead of months later in testimony, I wonder what he would have written and signed hi name to within let's say, an affidavit... why no door, no window in the door, no coke, no lunchroom... nothing.
As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
s/ M. L. Baker
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
Since Fritz arrives at the TSBD around 1pm, proceeds in and within 20 minutes the rifle is found... Mooney ascending the stairs is taking place between 12:35 and 12:50pm. Sawyer and gang takes the elevator up to the 4th and back down...
There are no records of who the men Mooney bumps into might have been, coming down from above at this point in the game...
Any thoughts on why the lunchroom story is not relayed in Baker's affidavit or who these men may be?
Mr. MOONEY -
It was a push button affair the best I can remember. got hold of the controls and it worked. We started up and got to the second. I was going to let them off and go on up. And when we got there, the power undoubtedly cut off, because we had no more power on the elevator. So I looked around their office there, just a short second or two, and then I went up the staircase myself. And I met some other officers coming down, plainclothes, and I believe they were deputy sheriffs. They were coming down the staircase. But I kept going up. And how come I get off the sixth floor, I don't know yet. But, anyway, I stopped on six, and didn't even know what floor I was on.
Mr. BALL - You were alone?
Mr. MOONEY - I was alone at that time.
Mr. BALL - Was there any reason for you to go to the sixth floor?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir. That is what I say. I don't know why. I just stopped on that particular floor. I thought I was pretty close to the top.
Mr. BALL - Were there any other officers on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - I didn't see any at that time. I assume there had been other officers up there. But I didn't see them. And I begin criss-crossing it, round and round, through boxes, looking at open windows---some of them were open over on the south side.
And I believe they had started laying some flooring up there.
I was checking the fire escapes. And criss-crossing back and forth. And then I decided--I saw there was another floor. And I said I would go up. So I went on up to the seventh floor. I approached Officers Webster and Vickery. They were up there in this little old stairway there that leads up into the attic. So we climbed up in there and looked around right quick. We didn't climb all the way into the attic, almost into it. We said this is too dark, we have got to have floodlights, because we can't see. And so somebody made a statement that they believed floodlights was on the way. And I later found out that probably Officers Boone and Walters had gone after lights. I heard that.
And so we looked around up there for a short time. And then I says I am going back down on six.
At that time, some news reporter, or press, I don't know who he was--he was calming up with a camera. Of course he wasn't taking any pictures. He was just looking, too, I assume. So I went back down ahead of Officers Vickery and Webster. They come in behind me down to the sixth floor.
I went straight across to the southeast corner of the building, and I saw all these high boxes. Of course they were stacked all the way around over there. And I squeezed between two. And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon
-
John's most recent work on Landes(berg). The discovery and learning process never ends...
Curiously, this is the same time period that Anna Lewis says she mets Lee Oswald in New Orleans - Feb 1962.
I hope this helps clarify the line of thought and manner in which John accumulates and presents information... Evidence is offered, options are considered, more research needs to be done...
===============
A number of JFK researchers, including author Carleton W. Sterling, Professor Stan Weeber (UNT, Denton, TX), attorney Carol Hewitt, and myself have written about Steve Landesberg's real or imagined involvement with LHO in late 1961 or early 1962. If Landesberg was involved with (LEE) Oswald during this period it is very significant, because during this time (HARVEY) Oswald was living in the Soviet Union with his wife, Marina.
Steve Landesberg (alias Rizzuto and L'Eandes), born Stephen Harris Landesberg on Sept., 24, 1940, was from Queens, NY, graduated from Forest Hills HS in 1957, dropped the German/Jewish "berg" from his name and thereafter used the name to "Landes," and attended Rutgers University from June, 1957 thru Feb., 1960 (where he was enrolled as Steve Landes and made the Dean's honor roll). According to attorney Carol Hewitt, who's practice is limited to social security, Landes/Landesberg received social security number 126-30-3500 between 1955 and 1957. This number was subsequently used by ex-Nazi Wersh, who was born in Germany in 1900, lived in NYC, and died in 1985. Landesberg then began using ss number 126-30-3503--only one number ("3") different from his original ss number. During the first 20 years of his life, there was no indication that Landes/Landesberg had mental issues. In Feb, 1960 he dropped out of college. His mother was concerned and asked him to visit a Park Ave. psychiatrist, Dr. Efhraim, which he did to appease his mother. For the next few months he travelled, and finally returned home on July 13. Four months later, on Nov 12, 1960, Landes/Landesberg joined the marines. Five days after joining he was interviewed by the Provost Marshall after refusing to sign a statement confirming that he had read and understood the Uniform Code of Military Justice. During the interview he continually stammered and stuttered profusely. The Provost Marshall referred him to the Psychiatric Unit where he made very revealing statements during interview. Landes/Landesberg told the psychiatrists, "I don't take stimulants or depressents. I don't believe in drugs, they are not right. You don't have to use me for a guinea pig." Guinea Pig? Landes/Landesberg was observed to be "suspicious of the physician's motivations and extremely apprehensive." They sedated him with thorazine, found him to have psychiatric issues, and had him committed to the US Naval Hospital in Philadelphia. Seven months later, in June, 1961 he received an honorable discharge (for physical disability, diagnosed as a schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, chronic) and returned home where he was treated by another Park Ave psychiatrist, Dr. Kalmanoff. In the fall of 1961 Landes/Landesberg moved into an apartment on East 84th St, with no known employment. He later moved into an apartment at 165 E. 49th St, with roommate Michael Dunn, again with no known employment. It was during this time, according to statements given to the FBI, that he was acting as a paid agitator for the purpose of attending Jewish and liberal rallies in order to create disturbances. By Sept, 1962, it appears that his days as a paid agitator were over, and he returned to Rutgers. A year later, in Sept. 1963 he began attending Columbia and may have received an MBA in 1967. In 1978 Steve Landes was living in Florida. Information from the 1991 edition of Standard & Poor's Register of Corporations, Directors and Executives shows that "Stephen Landes," employed as Secretary of Rocky Mountain Undergarment Co., Inc., was living at 1259 N.W. 16th St. in Boco Raton. In 1998 he was living at 9775 Boca Gardens Circle, Boca Raton, and in 2000 he was living at 533 W. Gulf Beach Dr., in Eastpoint, FL. In the early 1990's Landes/Landesberg's parents (George and Edna) were living at 6100 S. Falls Circle in Ft. Lauderdale. A check with the Social Security database showed his SS number in 1993 to be 126 30 3503 (the last digit is now shown as "3," while the original SS number assigned to Landes/Landesberg in 1955-57 was 126 30 3500.
Barry Gray was a radio announcer for WMCA radio in NYC. In late 1961 Gray interviewed a man who identified himself as "Steve L'Eandes" on one of his programs, but who was this man? During the radio interview there was no indication of speech impairment or stuttering on the part of L'Eandes. Two years later, within hours of President Kennedy's assassination, a man who identified himself as "Jim Rizzuto" called Barry Gray at WMCA radio. This man said that "Steve L'Eandes" had been seen with Lee Harvey Oswald in Greenwich Village in late 1961 and early 1962. Gray invited Rizzuto to their station for an interview, and then telephoned the FBI at 1:30 AM (11/23/63) to advise the bureau of his conversation with Rizzuto. While Rizzuto was en route to the radio station, FBI agents Leonard McCoy and Wayne Morse were dispatched to the radio station. Rizzuto arrived at the station at 3:00 AM and was interviewed by Gray, while the FBI agents listened (Rizutto would soon tell the FBI his real name was Steven H. Landesberg, aka "L'Eandes" and he stuttered profusely during the interview). It is very possible that the man who identified himself as "L'Eandes" (who had a southern accent and did not stutter) to Barry Gray in late 1961-62 , was NOT the same person who identified himself as "Jim Rizzuto" (aka L'Eandes and Steven Landesberg) two years later on Nov 23, 1963 The fact that Barry Gray did not recognize "Jim Rizzuto" (aka L'Eandes) as the same man he previously interviewed as "L'Eandes," is reason to believe these were two different people. Readers should remember that when interviewed by the FBI on 12/5/63, L'Eandes/Landesberg said the information pertaining to Lee Oswald and Earl Perry was furnished to him by someone else. In other words, the L'Eandes interviewed by Barry Gray in 1961-62 could have known and associated with Oswald, but the L'Eandes/Landesberg (aka Rizzuto) was paid to furnish this information during the radio interview with Gray. So, who was the "L'Eandes" who knew and associated with Oswald?
During the radio interview with Barry Gray "Rizzuto" said that he met Steve L'Eandes and Lee Oswald in the Marine Corps at Camp LeJeune in the summer of 1956 (L'Eandes/Landesberg was only 15 year old in the summer of 1956-too young to join the Marines). After his Marine Corps service he kept in touch with L'Eandes, Oswald, and a man named Earl Perry. In 1961 he saw L'Eandes at the Hotel Tamiana, in Florida, who said that Oswald had gone back to Texas. In the fall (1961) a man who identified himself as "L'Eandes" appeared on the Barry Gray radio program in NYC. In December he ("Rizzuto") and L'Eandes attended a political rally for Mark Lane. In January, 1962 he (Rizzuto), L'Eandes, and Earl Perry attended a rally of the American Jewish Congress. Posing as right-wing activists they created a disturbance while Oswald took photos, one of which was allegedly published in the "Thunderbolt" magazine. Their disruptive behavior at liberal rallies was reported by the Village Voice, who said that L'Eandes was connected to Pro-Facist and anti-Semitic groups. But these same reporters could not understand why L'Eandes/Landesberg, who they believed was Jewish, would want to wreck havoc among Jews in NYC while posing as a southern bigot from Mississippi. L'Eandes was quoted as describing himself as "a former US Marine who is trying to be heard on vital American issues." On March 7, 1962 L'Eandes attended a Democratic Party rally in the Village where he heckled Hubert Humphrey. A few weeks later L'Eandes attended a meeting of the NAACP in Greenwich Village, where he made anti-segregation remarks and a fight ensued. During the interview "Rizzuto" described L'Eandes as a close personal friend of Oswald and said they were both professional agitators who attended meetings of the American Jewish Congress and other organizations and tried to disrupt meetings. Rizzuto said that he last saw L'Eandes on Tuesday, November 19, 1963 at a bar on west 10th St., who told him that Oswald and Perry were together in Texas.
From information provided during the radio interview the FBI launched a manhunt in NYC for Steve L'Eandes and also searched for Earl Perry. From a photograph taken at one of the rally's, the FBI soon learned that "L'Eandes" was actually Steven Harris Landesberg, who lived at 66 W. 10th in NYC. On Dec. 5 Landesberg was interviewed at the NYC office of the FBI, and spoke with a severe stutter and became coherent. He admitted that he was the "Rizzuto" interviewed by Barry Gray, and also used the name "Steven Yves L'Eandes." He told the Bureau agents that the activities he had attributed to L' Eandes were actually his own activities. Landesberg's use of the name "L'Eandes" was a cleverly disguised version of the name "Landes," which he had adopted (dropping the "berg" from Landesberg) in 1957. However, L'Eandes/Steven Harris Landesberg told the FBI that the information pertaining to Lee Oswald and Earl Perry was furnished to him by someone else. He also told the FBI that he was a "paid agitator" (NY Times, 12/6/63), but declined to say who was paying him. It is worth remembering that somehow, within hours of the assassination, L"Endes/Steven Harris Landesberg said that he was given detailed knowledge about Oswald's life. And, within hours, he was disseminating this information thru a NYC radio station. But this was before information related to Oswald's background began to appear in newspapers and the media. In the weeks following the assassination reporters at the Village Voice could not understand why the information provided by L'Eandes/Steven Harris Landesberg showed Oswald to be a rightist, denouncing liberal causes, and a member of the "States Rights Party" when the government and media were proclaiming Oswald to be a Communist. This author cannot understand how anyone could have known much of anything about Oswald's background within hours of the assassination, unless they had previous contact with Oswald. Regarding Earl Sheldon Perry, the Bureau was advised that in order for his records to be released they would have to receive permission from TAG, the Pentagon. On Nov 26 those records were released to the FBI, and showed that Perry actively served in the Marines from April 24, 1954 to January 23, 1956 and then served in the US Army reserve until Jan 23, 1962. His military occupation while in the Marine Corps was listed as "chaplain's assistant."
L"Eandes/Steven Harris Landesberg was charged with providing false information to the FBI and was committed by Federal Judge John Cannella to 10 days at Bellevue Hospital for psychiatric observation. Being locked up for providing false information to the FBI is understandable. But what is not understandable is the FBI's apparent reluctance to question Steven Harris Landesberg about any involvement he may have had with Oswald, especially in late 1961 or 1962, and who paid him to support right-wing causes. In an attempt to learn more about Landes/Steven Harris Landesberg's possible involvement with Oswald the author travelled to the US District Court House for the Southern District of NY at 40 Foley Square in NYC. After locating an index card titled "USA vs. Stephen Harris Landesberg" I requested the court file from Rosemarie Fugnetti, supervisor of the Records Control Division. Mz. Fugnetti soon discovered that the microfilm file record had disappeared, and said that she would request the original "paper" file from their archives/warehouse. After learning that the paper file had also disappeared, she told the author this was the first and only time that she knew of a microfilm case record, and the original "paper copy," disappearing. If Landesberg was questioned by the FBI about his knowledge or involvement with Oswald in 1961-62, or about those who paid him to be an "agitator" at liberal rallies, those records disappeared. All federal records relating to his arrest and incarceration have disappeared.
L'Endes/Steven Harris Landesberg's 10 day commitment to Bellevue makes it appear as though he was mentally unstable, just as the FBI tried to do with numerous troublesome JFK witnesses. When confronted with witness testimony that conflicted with the government's "official story," the bureau would often claim the witness was "incoherent, mentally unstable, delirious, confused, etc." This became the FBI's cover for leads the Bureau did not want to pursue. But L'Endes/Steven Harris Landesberg was an honor role student, attended Rutgers, received an MBA from Columbia, and became a successful businessman in Florida--very different from the man the FBI had committed to Bellevue in an apparent attempt to suppress his statements about Oswald or identify the people who paid him to make those statements or identify the people who paid him to cause disturbances at liberal political rallies.
The FBI successfully avoided Steven Harris Landesberg and any connection he may have had with (LEE) Oswald in 1961-62. Throughout their investigation of JFK's assassination the Bureau repeatedly avoided numerous "inconvenient" eyewitnesses to the double lives of LEE and HARVEY including Sylvia Odio, Marita Lorenz, and Ralph Leon Yates. Odio met one Oswald, who visited her home in Dallas at a time when the other Oswald was allegedly boarding a bus to Mexico. Lorenz knew LEE Oswald in Florida at a time when HARVEY Oswald was residing in the Soviet Union. Yates gave LEE Oswald a ride to the TSBD at 10:00 AM two days before the assassination, while HARVEY had been working in the same building since 8:00 AM. Desperate attempts were made to discredit these witnesses and expunge the documentary record. These people were treated with utter contempt by the Warren Commission and the HSCA, and their stories were nearly lost to history. As FBI official William Sullivan said, "If Hoover decided there were documents that he didn’t want to come to the light of the public, then those documents would be destroyed and the truth would never be known." Our national security network, including FBI, CIA, and the Warren Commission, selectively drew upon eyewitnesses and documents that suited their purposes in order to craft the biography of one "Lee Harvey Oswald."
There is a distinct possibility that L'Eandes/Steven Harris Landesberg was a paid informant in 1961-62. This possibility is enhanced when we consider:
* Both Oswald and Landesberg were interviewed by radio stations concerning their political views-Oswald in New Orleans, and Landesberg in NYC.
* Both Oswald and Landesberg were involved with radical organizations-Oswald with the "FPCC" and Landesberg with the "Magnolia Rifles"
* Both Oswald and Landesberg had created "staged" confrontations in both New Orleans and NYC, designed to attract media attention
* Both Oswald and Landesberg used alias's.
* Both Oswald and Landesberg appear to have been used to take blame for the actions of others.
* Both Oswald and Landesberg had a second person who was using their name, in the same city, and at the same times.
* Both Oswald and Landesberg's actions were so similar that one must consider the possibility that both were government agents.
In the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's there was another "Steve Landesberg" living in NYC. This was Stephen Richard Landesberg, the actor ("Barney Miller" TV show). He was born Nov. 23, 1936, grew up in the Bronx, and graduated from DeWitt Clinton HS in 1954. According to social security attorney Carol Hewitt he received his social security number between 1952 and 1955. After graduating from high school in 1954, at age 17, the future actor could have joined the military, attended college, found a job, or attended acting school. But the future actor's whereabouts and activities for the next 15 years, from 1954 thru the late 1960's, are and remain unknown. When 15 years of a young man's life are unaccounted for, especially after becoming a celebrity in later life, these missing years are highly suspicious. What was Landesberg (the actor) doing from age 17 thru 33? Why did he hide, continue to hide, and refuse to provide any information whatsoever for these missing 15 years? Why did Landesberg (the actor) continuously provide various birth dates until 1989, when he finally provided his correct date of birth? And why, to this day, has he never publicly provided his middle name (Richard)? Landesberg's acting career began 15 years after he finished high school in 1969, with the NY Stickball Comedy Team, and he continued acting throughout his adult life. Landesberg was a life-long die-hard Yankee fan and in later years became good friends with Phil Rizzuto, a former Yankee shortstop. Curiously, this was the same surname used by L'Eandes/Steven Harris Landesberg when interviewed on the radio station and when interviewed by the FBI.
At first glance it seems as though the actor, Steven Richard Landesberg, had no connection with Steven Harris Landesberg/L'Eandes, the paid agitator who was paid to report that "L'Eandes and Oswald were together in 1961-62. But the future actor's complete disappearance from age 17 thru 33, his continual refusal to provide his correct date of birth, his continual refusal to acknowledge or use his middle name, and his admission during an interview that he "was sorry he ever got mixed up with Oswald" is problematic. It remains unknown if the actor (Steven Richard Landesberg, using the name "L'Eandes") was interviewed by Barry Gray in 1961, as does the extent of his involvement with Oswald, if any, in 1961-62. In 1993 I wrote to the actor (address obtained thru voter registration in Calif), identified myself and my interests, and asked him for a response. I (and fellow researcher Jack White) soon received phone calls from a man who identified himself as Tom Walker, and said that he was head of security for Mr. Landesberg. Mr. Walker, or whoever made the call (could have been the actor Landesberg), told me and fellow researcher Jack White to stop researching Landesberg "or else." "OR Else?" What about this man's past was so important to keep hidden that threatening JFK researchers was necessary? What is it about this man's past that has he been hiding for so many years, and for what reason?
Whatever connection there may have been between Steven Harris Landesberg the agitator, Steven Richard Landesberg the actor, and LEE Oswald in 1961-62 (while HARVEY Oswald was in the Soviet Union) remains unknown. But the similarities in character between Landesberg the agitator and Landesberg the actor are worth remembering:
* Both Steve L'Eandes/Landesberg and Steve Landesberg (the actor) were close to the same age
* Both Steve L'Eandes/Landesberg and Steve Landesberg (the actor) had very similar physical characteristics (height, weight, hair color, etc.)
* Both Steve L'Eandes/Landesberg and Steve Landesberg (the actor) had the ability to speak with a convincing southern dialect.
* Both Steve L'Eandes/Landesberg and Steve Landesberg (the actor) were born, grew up, and lived in the NYC area.
* Both Steve L'Eandes/Landesberg and Steve Landesberg (the actor) made comments relating to involvement and/or knowledge of Oswald.
* But there are very distinct differences between these men. L'Eandes/Landesberg (the agitator) had a life-long speech impediment, while Steve Landesberg the actor did not. L'Eandes/Landesberg's (the agitator) biographical history is well known and documented, while Steve Landesberg the actor's biographical history from age 17 thru age 33 is entirely and completely missing. L'Eandes/Landesberg (the agitator) always gave his correct birth date, while Steve Landesberg the actor gave multiple birth dates throughout his life.
Clearly the story of the two "Steve Landesbergs" and their relationship with Oswald, whether real or imagined, raises more questions than it answers. But the intriguing questions it raises are not easily forgotten, and perhaps some day these questions may be answered by further research. We may never fully understand the identities and activities of Steven Harris Landesberg/Steven Richard Landesberg/Landes/L'Eandes/Rizzuto. But one point is clear beyond any doubt: one or both of the Landesberg's were inconvenient eyewitness because their experience suggested and/or demonstrated the existence of the two Oswalds in late 1961 and early 1962.
-
(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...
You can hold onto whatever little tidbits of info you think discredits the work you like, mate. First you explain the NYC school records incorrectly a few times THEN you suggest we talk to an expert.
The 55 days of summer are counted to reach the 200 day total... Ozzie did not attend summer school, nor does the record account for Youth House... as you freely admit.
Not hard from there Greg...
You want to believe that you know more about the Kudlaty-White relationship than is offered... great! How does that change his account of what happened or what he saw and what proof do you offer that they actually knew each other other than your word about a discussion with a man who cant refute you? or how it changes the witnesses who saw Oswald at 2220 Thomas during that time period? or why the FBI refused to ask a single witness from BJHS about the 53-54 school year, only the following one?
Finally - and a big thank you to Larry - how about focusing on the meat and potatos of the issue...
Was Anna Lewis lying when she met Oswald in Feb 1962?
Where was Harvey when the FBI/CIA/State/I&NS make up the fraudulent evidence for the Mexico trip?
Who is the Alice TX radio station job hunting Oswald?
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?
Here's another interesting tidbit from the Robert Oswald file:
On Sept 14, 1953 (the day thru which you and the FBI can't understand is not 200 school days from March 23) Robert tells us where Oswald is going to school after they have moved to 825 E 179th Street in the Bronx.
PS 44 in the Bronx (the "x" in the school records youposted Greg) is located at 1845 Prospect in the Bronx
PS 44 on Columbus and 76th street is in Manhattan.
Hmmm. TWO different PS 44's being referred to as the school Oswald went to in NYC... hmmmm
So what does Carro #1 tell us?
on page 317 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0168a.htm
Carro let's us know that on Sept 1953 when Lee Oswald would be entering 8th grade at PS44 in the Bronx, he is actually entering 9th grade at PS44 - in Manhattan or the Bronx I wonder....?
Help us out here Greg... what's with all the conflicts between the correct schools, # of days, grade level, etc.... in 1952-3 he was supposedly just another kid... yet a "veteran PO" doesn't know what grade he's in?
His brother doesn't know which school he is attending while writing a book with the time to check these little facts out...
THIS is the crux of the H&L creation... 1952 and 53 in NYC and then the return to New Orleans. THIS is where the early records are most confused and very conflicting... and they continue this way from then on... John Pic chooses the correct Lee up to NYC and then the photos conflict for him
What are your alternative circumstances for these conflicts? Does Asperger's account for the incorrect school records and Carro's 9th grade statement too?
The map at the bottom lays out where all these places are and their relation to each other...
Enjoy!
This comes less than a month or so after Robert's photo of Oswald at the Zoo - which compares terribly to the actual physical attributes of Lee at 5'4" 115lbs...
These are obviously two different children - who and where LEE was living when attending PS 44 in Manhattan is unknown at this point. Neither mentions 9th grade while Carro, whose job it is to know, places him in 9th grade, skipping an entire year and fairly obvious is he has any of the school records...
-
I have to say, you've all made some very valid points about a few of the thousands of bits of info contained in the work...
Little of which having to do with the evidence of duplicity... but good examples of the perils of writing a 1000 page book from 100,000 pages of research on your own.
I am sure you will find many more inconsistencies and a license to conclude from his POV working with the evidence so closely.. at least you;re reading it and looking stuff up... the entire point of the book in the first place... so even when you're "winning", we're all winning by separating fact from fiction...
Let us know how you fare with the important stuff...
Prove Allen Felde, the correct Felde, is wrong about his timeline CE1962 compared to CE1961
(As you go thru the book, write down two lists, the marines with LEE and those with HARVEY... see where that takes you.)
Who visits McKeown to buy rifles?
Who visits Odio?
Who does Anna Lewis meet in Feb 1962 in New Orleans?
Who is having a scope mounted
Who is at the Sports Drome while in Irving with his family?
Who does Craig see?
How is Oswald in Dallas and New Orleans during the summer of 1963 simultaneously?
Who did they take out the back of the theater?
Why are his years at Pfisterer's and a potential conflict with the "official record" a problem at all...the first week after the assassination?
I know... inconvenient but much more important to the H&L issue than than the name of a cameraman... and whether 92% or 99% of those there were connected to intelligence.. they were ALL connected and it was ALL staged... IMo had nothing to do with anything but building street cred for Harvey to get closer or deeper with Cuban groups. Instead he was played.
Whatever... point is it would sincerely be great to see a rebuttal to something that matters to the H&L issue...
-
The FBI gave the Warren Commission photographic copies of documents rather than originals, and the HSCA's own expert witnesses explained how copies can be manipulated to "prove" whatever is wanted. Now the question becomes, Would the FBI lie and cheat to prove whatever it wanted? And the answer, then and now, is a resounding yes.Look at the evidence from this year alone...."Pseudoscience in the Witness Box: The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science," is the headline from the April 22, 2015 online edition of Slate Magazine.The same Slate article quoted a Washington Post story of a few days earlier, which stated: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”Things look pretty bad for the FBI recently, but how about in earlier days? Surely they were better then, right?Of course not.... Remember the Frederick Whitehurst scandal from the 1990s? Whitehurst was one of the Bureau's top scientists, and he complained for more than a decade toward the end of the last century about the FBI's vaunted crime lab faking evidence and slanting it toward the prosecution. According to the Feb. 27, 1998 edition of CNN:--------------------------------------For 10 years Whitehurst complained mostly in vain about lab practices. But his efforts finally led last April to a scathing 500-page study of the lab by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.Bromwich blasted the famed lab for flawed scientific work and inaccurate, pro-prosecution testimony in major cases, including the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings.Bromwich recommended major reforms, discipline for five agents that is still under consideration and transfer of Whitehurst to other duties.------------------------------------Whitehurst, of course, was pilloried endlessly by defenders of the FBI, eventually resulting in the award of more than a million dollars to Whitehurst as compensation, and a new federal law protecting whistleblowers!So... for a quarter century and probably more, the FBI has clearly been cooking the evidence to favor the prosecution. But that didn't happen back in the good ole' days, right? Not when J. Edgar was in charge.William Sullivan (a top-ranking FBI official) said, "Hoover did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence. He showed a marked interest in limiting the scope of it and taking any action which might result in neutralizing it."* He added, "If there were documents that possibly he (Hoover) didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those documents no longer exist, and the truth will never be known."**NOTES:* Interview of William Sullivan by Robert Fink, November, 1975; Memo from James P. Kelly to G. Robert Blakey, 11/18/77; HSCA 108-10112-10133, Numbered Files 003406** Ibid.For detailed information on how the FBI cooked the books in the case against "Lee Harvey Oswald", CLICK HERE.
None of this, and also Armstrong's article points to actual fabrication/falsification of LHO signature. I really find all this stuff rather manipulative in making people believe something happened when there is zero evidence in place that directly supports what you state..
That page you link to is terrible, and I mean terrible...
there is good reason to believe that FBI Director Hoover learned about the CIA's “Oswald project” show me
For example, LEE Oswald would not have approached Robert McKeown, a former gun-runner and close friend of Fidel Castro, and attempted to purchase rifles from him without orders (probably from the CIA's David Phillips). show me
The orders probably originated with his CIA handlers (David Phillips, Mexico City), and were given to someone with close connections to the FBI, perhaps Guy Bannister in New Orleans show me
HARVEY may have been told that he could help the FBI by starting a local FPCC chapter and recruiting new members, while working for the Bureau as an undercover confidential informant. show me
If Oswald was working undercover for the FBI this could explain why, after arrested in New Orleans, he spoke with FBI agent John Lester Quigley for an hour and a half. show me that BIG IF
Oswald may have thought his assignment as an undercover confidential informant was to identify and report Castro sympathizers to the FBI show me
But the real reason for the CIA to initiate (HARVEY) Oswald's undercover assignment was to have him working for the FBI on November 22, 1963. show me
Hoover knew that HARVEY Oswald was working for the CIA when he “defected” to the Soviet Union. show me
And now, on the day President Kennedy was assassinated, HARVEY Oswald was not only a CIA asset but was also probably working undercover for the FBI. Probably? Show me!
I stopped reading for obvious reasons, you know people read these threads and it is time they understand that H&L is filled to the brim with speculation and conjecture and the whole thing is sexed up.
No offence but you guys are getting pushed further and further in the corner, and it is not a pretty sight.
Bart...
Not sure it is fair to go see one page of thousands related to H&L and make these claims. This is not some neat little box which can be wrapped up for you... this is akin to studying the WCR and finding its conflicts - which is the basis for the H&L book to begin with....
For example, "Showing You" that the Kleins evidence is a fraud takes some undersatanding of the background info...
"The answer was likely because ...." Is how the last sentence from that paragraph begins before you turned on your quotes. "LIKELY" along with words like, "Possibly" "Probably" & "IF" tell people who read them that the following is speculation based on the evidence found and reseach done... that the author, like the Parker Radionics assumptions, are his best explanation for what he is explaining.
So when evidence such as the following surfaces - the assumption one can make after authenticating the evidence is that Oswald was doing work via Bannister for the FBI - where it is then speculated that as a CIA connected asset, his being associated with the FBI would virtually guarantee cooperation from the FBI. Hoover hated the CIA yet still provided them CYA via the evidence related to Mexico... why would he do that if he had a choice?
Bannister's investigator, George Higgenbotham, told Bannister that he saw Oswald and another young man handing out FPCC leaflets in front of the Trade Mart. Bannister replied, “Cool it. One of them is mine.” Bannister told his secretary, Delphine Roberts, “He's with us, he's associated with this office.” Mrs. Roberts said, “I presumed then, and am now certain, that the reason for Oswald being there was that he was required to act undercover.” Oswald's leaf-letting was filmed by an FBI agent with a 35 mm camera. WDSU-TV cameraman Orvie Aucoin, an active FBI informant, filmed Oswald as he passed out leaflets. CIA agent William Gaudet watched Oswald hand out literature from his office in the Trade Mart. If Oswald was working undercover for the FBI this could explain why, after arrested in New Orleans, he spoke with FBI agent John Lester Quigley for an hour and a half.
Can you say with 100% certainty how many bullets hit JFK? JC? How many fired from the front versus the rear? Or can we only speculate based on the evidence available to us...
"The Throat was an entrace wound" then becomes a speculative statement regardless of how crazy the SBT sounds since the evidence for a frontal shot remains speculative... we can try and SHOW YOU why this is true, but there is nothing definitive, nothing which cannot be argued against... it's just an accepted speculative FACT of the case from a Conspiracy Realist's POV... like Oswald being connected to Intel be it Military, CIA or FBI.
Whether you believe Jean Hill or not... her EVIDENCE suggests that shots came from the Knoll... as did the evidence of a large number of witnesses...
WCD298 is the FBI lying about that and all the other evidence related to the shooting while CE884 is the SS doing the same.
So I ask in all sincerety for which of the above statements would you like me to SHOW YOU the supporting evidence ? Pick one and then we can move on...
I think the above related to Bannister gives some indication that Oswald was working with Intel in New Orleans and was representing himself to be one thing while working with those representing another...
At the same time there are multiple sighting os Lee Oswald and Ruby together in Dallas all that summer...
I'll do whatever I can to help people understand were and how H&L was derived and post the evidence which points us in that direction... take it or leave it.
There are those who still believe that the Parkland wounds and Bethesda wounds are the same AND there was a conspiracy... to each their own Bart.
Unlike JVB, John could care less about selling books... H&L is a launching point - if you find it to be supportive of a way to view the events, fine. If not, fine as well...
The only thing I take issue with is the rebuttal posting of speculation without a hint of supporting evidence or outright misrepresentation of the info.
No matter how hard anyone tries, they cannot get 127 days of school into less than a semester when an entire school year is 180-190 days... in the one year in which all these changes and switches are occurring...
Bart, I have a quesation for you
Can you explain how a 5'4" 115lb boy in Sept of 1953 can be this same 4'10" little runt of a boy in a photo from just a month earlier - Aug 1953 - which his brother Pic tells us he cannot ID this boy as his brother?
David this is a very dangerous smoke and mirrors game you are playing here and so does Hargrove, I'd like you to stay on topic and show me what I asked for! And yes it is only one page, but it is very telling of how Armstrong strings things together and manipulates the whole story for his own 'scenario'.
Regarding your photographic evidence, I already mentioned this a month ago. It is worthless.
Drawing a line and putting some numbers next to it doesn't mean it is actually true.
You measure that fence, you tell me what camera/lens that was taken with, and do some heavy duty math and then I might be convinced until then this is just make it up as you go along....
You see Bart, I called the Bronx zoo instead since you can't measure 3d objects in a 2d image without photogrammetry...
Funny thing Bart.. you can't do it yourself so you think criticizing is your only other option...
Talk about worthless... what a child you are that you believe a little bully tactic is going to have an effect... Insult and run Bart, I've read you other "work" if you can call it that...
seems to me if you know I have a body of photographic work you take the time to look... amazingly, I have found nothing of your photographic work... care to point some out which justifies your opinion having any value in the first place?
And his brother....ever considered the thought of how hard the govt got down on him, like they did with Marina?
Now that would be worth exploring instead of leading the many peeps here to believe in fairy tales instead.
"Thoughts" are nice Bart... I deal in Evidence... ever read the Pic testimony? ever do anything without Parker's okay first?
And with that I am done since I do not get the answers I asked for but instead am being led around anywhere near the actual subject matter.
Thank God... another wanna be critic toddles off ... yet you don't ever really go away do you?
You can't help yourself - interjecting your baseless opinions as if they have value while offering and proving nothing...
yes Bart... this is without a doubt your "Best"
Best
B
PS: Among all these veteran researchers (at 49 I am the youngest there!) at the last DPUK meeting Saturday gone, out of 15 people only one subscribed to the H&L theory.
Go figure.
Yet all 15 of them have heard about it... what have you written that anyone cares to comment on? No one seems to gives a 2nd thought to Parker's work enough to discuss it anywhere...
Sure sounds like a bunch of disgruntled little boys whining about being ignored in favor of a presentation they barely understand which seems to garner all sorts of attention, even after all these years...
Let's see how long BK can be "gone" and "done" with this - my experience is they just can't help themselves to comment, yet can't bring themselves to show up with anything more than rhetoric and air...
Let's watch and see, shall we?
-
They polled some of the most respected and influential men of the time and found that they agreed with and signed the report claiming that Oswald was solely guilty of the murder of both JFK and Tippit. Well most of them did.
You actually think any of your minions would vote against you.
and yes, please make this all about "winning and losing"... your lack of depth and understanding is monumental.
Grasping for straws Greg will not change how you misrepresented the evidence related to Odio, don't undertand how statistics work related to tonsil regrowth, and can't count the number of days in a school year, to name just a few.
Admitting who you are, what you are doing and then owning up to it is obviouly not in your nature Greg.
So get out the petitions, start waving signs on the street corners and ask everyone you can... like LBJ's '48 election, let's see if you can stuff this ballot box with enough shills to make you feel all warm and fuzzy..and WIN!!.
It can't change how you've misrepresented the evidence at every opportunity, but it might make you feel a little better about yourself
-
Jim,
They aint gonna learn what they dont wanna know...
Our efforts do allow those not overly familar with the H&L situation to see more than just a bad series of rebuttal arguments offered without corroboration or authentication (and no mention of speculation).
When the argument is that the attendance was counted from March 53 thru the summer to Sept 14th even though no summer school was attended or even mentioned in any of the evidence - all we can do is shake our heads.
When we post the actual testimony of the woman, Odio, and the rebuttal misstates what she said and then builds from there, all anyone can do is shake their heads.
Those who dont want to get it, wont.
Those who do will continue to work at it...
Those who are unsure will not be helped by listening to others... they need to do some of the work themselves... and that scares a lot of them off.
Anna Lewis repeatedly says "I met Lee Oswald in February 1962" at Lafayette park around the corner from 544 Camp when Oswald was in Minsk with Marina while having their first child.
She doesn't seem to be lying about it... but maybe she is, just like Palmer, Kudlaty, Rouse, Felde, Gorsky, Odio, Donovan and witness after witness who met a Lee Oswald who was not the same as the man Ruby killed in some cases, or specifically not the man Ruby killed in others... but it's not likely.
Let's try to put this simply: THEY DON'T CARE ... anything we do after that understanding is for our own edification and for those who do. We've stood up to these bullies and have won... all they have left is to repeat the same tired old arguments about tonsils and bad math and look as foolish as anyone supporting the SBT/Ozzie did it theories ad nauseum.
If this forum has accepted the current situation as the new "normal" then it's just a waiting game again. They come and go.... I will address serious questions from serious people... but no longer from a group which can't seem to add or understand anything about statistics or research. They're just not worth the time.
Take care Jim... you know I will help whenever I can.
-
No way to know if its the same "session" but it's the same place - btw the image youposted is reversed..
and from what I can tell, the expression on his face is different as well... which CNN special is that from?
-
In other words...you have no idea where he allegedly called Oswald...is that correct?
Therefore, you don't REALLY know that part of the evidence...but it's another big part of your theory nonetheless.
So, Mark, you're saying that A.J. Weberman's interview with Gerry Patrick Hemming should be disqualified as evidence in JFK murder research?
Again -- shouldn't you be taking this up with A.J. Weberman?
After all, he's the one who reported this important confession by Gerry Patrick Hemming.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
As with anyone Paul... Authenticate the evidence.
If all we have is Gerry's word then that's all we have. Hemming had something to say about everythin and everyone - whether he knew or not...
He was a master of mixing some truth into a pile of assumptions for some credibility... yet from all that I've followed up on from his words, it never seems to pan out...
You trying to fit Hall into the Odio story is really too bad... the FBI was doing all it could to discredit her, so they decided who it must be and went with that... they were wrong from the start and knew it.
When fully investigated they too learned they were wrong - but made little fanfare in owning up to that fact.
Do any of the Hemming personalities corroborate his words? if so, please point it out or just say that you believe Hemming becasue you do... and for very little other reason
-
The FBI gave the Warren Commission photographic copies of documents rather than originals, and the HSCA's own expert witnesses explained how copies can be manipulated to "prove" whatever is wanted. Now the question becomes, Would the FBI lie and cheat to prove whatever it wanted? And the answer, then and now, is a resounding yes.Look at the evidence from this year alone...."Pseudoscience in the Witness Box: The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science," is the headline from the April 22, 2015 online edition of Slate Magazine.The same Slate article quoted a Washington Post story of a few days earlier, which stated: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”Things look pretty bad for the FBI recently, but how about in earlier days? Surely they were better then, right?Of course not.... Remember the Frederick Whitehurst scandal from the 1990s? Whitehurst was one of the Bureau's top scientists, and he complained for more than a decade toward the end of the last century about the FBI's vaunted crime lab faking evidence and slanting it toward the prosecution. According to the Feb. 27, 1998 edition of CNN:--------------------------------------For 10 years Whitehurst complained mostly in vain about lab practices. But his efforts finally led last April to a scathing 500-page study of the lab by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.Bromwich blasted the famed lab for flawed scientific work and inaccurate, pro-prosecution testimony in major cases, including the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings.Bromwich recommended major reforms, discipline for five agents that is still under consideration and transfer of Whitehurst to other duties.------------------------------------Whitehurst, of course, was pilloried endlessly by defenders of the FBI, eventually resulting in the award of more than a million dollars to Whitehurst as compensation, and a new federal law protecting whistleblowers!So... for a quarter century and probably more, the FBI has clearly been cooking the evidence to favor the prosecution. But that didn't happen back in the good ole' days, right? Not when J. Edgar was in charge.William Sullivan (a top-ranking FBI official) said, "Hoover did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence. He showed a marked interest in limiting the scope of it and taking any action which might result in neutralizing it."* He added, "If there were documents that possibly he (Hoover) didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those documents no longer exist, and the truth will never be known."**NOTES:* Interview of William Sullivan by Robert Fink, November, 1975; Memo from James P. Kelly to G. Robert Blakey, 11/18/77; HSCA 108-10112-10133, Numbered Files 003406** Ibid.For detailed information on how the FBI cooked the books in the case against "Lee Harvey Oswald", CLICK HERE.
None of this, and also Armstrong's article points to actual fabrication/falsification of LHO signature. I really find all this stuff rather manipulative in making people believe something happened when there is zero evidence in place that directly supports what you state..
That page you link to is terrible, and I mean terrible...
there is good reason to believe that FBI Director Hoover learned about the CIA's “Oswald project” show me
For example, LEE Oswald would not have approached Robert McKeown, a former gun-runner and close friend of Fidel Castro, and attempted to purchase rifles from him without orders (probably from the CIA's David Phillips). show me
The orders probably originated with his CIA handlers (David Phillips, Mexico City), and were given to someone with close connections to the FBI, perhaps Guy Bannister in New Orleans show me
HARVEY may have been told that he could help the FBI by starting a local FPCC chapter and recruiting new members, while working for the Bureau as an undercover confidential informant. show me
If Oswald was working undercover for the FBI this could explain why, after arrested in New Orleans, he spoke with FBI agent John Lester Quigley for an hour and a half. show me that BIG IF
Oswald may have thought his assignment as an undercover confidential informant was to identify and report Castro sympathizers to the FBI show me
But the real reason for the CIA to initiate (HARVEY) Oswald's undercover assignment was to have him working for the FBI on November 22, 1963. show me
Hoover knew that HARVEY Oswald was working for the CIA when he “defected” to the Soviet Union. show me
And now, on the day President Kennedy was assassinated, HARVEY Oswald was not only a CIA asset but was also probably working undercover for the FBI. Probably? Show me!
I stopped reading for obvious reasons, you know people read these threads and it is time they understand that H&L is filled to the brim with speculation and conjecture and the whole thing is sexed up.
No offence but you guys are getting pushed further and further in the corner, and it is not a pretty sight.
Bart...
Not sure it is fair to go see one page of thousands related to H&L and make these claims. This is not some neat little box which can be wrapped up for you... this is akin to studying the WCR and finding its conflicts - which is the basis for the H&L book to begin with....
For example, "Showing You" that the Kleins evidence is a fraud takes some undersatanding of the background info...
"The answer was likely because ...." Is how the last sentence from that paragraph begins before you turned on your quotes. "LIKELY" along with words like, "Possibly" "Probably" & "IF" tell people who read them that the following is speculation based on the evidence found and reseach done... that the author, like the Parker Radionics assumptions, are his best explanation for what he is explaining.
So when evidence such as the following surfaces - the assumption one can make after authenticating the evidence is that Oswald was doing work via Bannister for the FBI - where it is then speculated that as a CIA connected asset, his being associated with the FBI would virtually guarantee cooperation from the FBI. Hoover hated the CIA yet still provided them CYA via the evidence related to Mexico... why would he do that if he had a choice?
Bannister's investigator, George Higgenbotham, told Bannister that he saw Oswald and another young man handing out FPCC leaflets in front of the Trade Mart. Bannister replied, “Cool it. One of them is mine.” Bannister told his secretary, Delphine Roberts, “He's with us, he's associated with this office.” Mrs. Roberts said, “I presumed then, and am now certain, that the reason for Oswald being there was that he was required to act undercover.” Oswald's leaf-letting was filmed by an FBI agent with a 35 mm camera. WDSU-TV cameraman Orvie Aucoin, an active FBI informant, filmed Oswald as he passed out leaflets. CIA agent William Gaudet watched Oswald hand out literature from his office in the Trade Mart. If Oswald was working undercover for the FBI this could explain why, after arrested in New Orleans, he spoke with FBI agent John Lester Quigley for an hour and a half.
Can you say with 100% certainty how many bullets hit JFK? JC? How many fired from the front versus the rear? Or can we only speculate based on the evidence available to us...
"The Throat was an entrace wound" then becomes a speculative statement regardless of how crazy the SBT sounds since the evidence for a frontal shot remains speculative... we can try and SHOW YOU why this is true, but there is nothing definitive, nothing which cannot be argued against... it's just an accepted speculative FACT of the case from a Conspiracy Realist's POV... like Oswald being connected to Intel be it Military, CIA or FBI.
Whether you believe Jean Hill or not... her EVIDENCE suggests that shots came from the Knoll... as did the evidence of a large number of witnesses...
WCD298 is the FBI lying about that and all the other evidence related to the shooting while CE884 is the SS doing the same.
So I ask in all sincerety for which of the above statements would you like me to SHOW YOU the supporting evidence ? Pick one and then we can move on...
I think the above related to Bannister gives some indication that Oswald was working with Intel in New Orleans and was representing himself to be one thing while working with those representing another...
At the same time there are multiple sighting os Lee Oswald and Ruby together in Dallas all that summer...
I'll do whatever I can to help people understand were and how H&L was derived and post the evidence which points us in that direction... take it or leave it.
There are those who still believe that the Parkland wounds and Bethesda wounds are the same AND there was a conspiracy... to each their own Bart.
Unlike JVB, John could care less about selling books... H&L is a launching point - if you find it to be supportive of a way to view the events, fine. If not, fine as well...
The only thing I take issue with is the rebuttal posting of speculation without a hint of supporting evidence or outright misrepresentation of the info.
No matter how hard anyone tries, they cannot get 127 days of school into less than a semester when an entire school year is 180-190 days... in the one year in which all these changes and switches are occurring...
Bart, I have a quesation for you
Can you explain how a 5'4" 115lb boy in Sept of 1953 can be this same 4'10" little runt of a boy in a photo from just a month earlier - Aug 1953 - which his brother Pic tells us he cannot ID this boy as his brother?
-
Not playing this game, David. It's all been posted already.
Can't play cause you've already lost... Odio's words and the evidence which follows is fairly easy to follow Greg... why you continue to make it so hard by misstating what she said, repeatedly, is a mystery.
I can post example after example of how you twist the evidence to suit your assumptions... you do it on every virtually every... then you build on a base of wrong conclusions and then bring your grown-up voice when challenged.
no matter how hard you try though mate, you can't change what the evidence says or reveals... or how badly you misinterpret it...
But it sure is fun to watch you keep trying....
You never did address why you cherry-pick one sentence and exclude the very next which completely negates your conclusion in order to promote an opinion... (oops, the question is its own answer)
Can't stand it when you're called on your bluff to post examples of your work twisting the facts and evidence as requested? Stay on topic Greg, you asked and I delivered... You slink away. (Cointelpro tactics)
That's what bullies who are called on their "toughness" do... every time.
So where is your pithy and witty reply to the count of days you did, including the summer, to arrive at the same totals as the FBI who created this doc in the first place?...
Still can't wrap you head around the fact the records are a poor representation of an attempt to combine school records into one person... and you simply can't understand what happened...
How could the FBI be so stupid, right? Cause in 1963 no one thought anyone would bother looking... the entirety of the WCR is based on the assumption no one would read it or bother to...
They were wrong.
It is STILL not possible to have 125+ days of school in a semester let alone less than a semester... so you keep adding and subtracting till you find something that works while anyone else who can add
sees the inherent problems with these records...
-
I'd like to add a few things about Oswald's Mexican tourist Visa application and the actual visa itself.
What is offered in the WCR are two images of the application... one with only the top and one with the bottom... I've over laid them to show what each of these images is missing of the whole application:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0354a.htm CE2481
The signature is cut of the first imatge while the #24085 and his name is cut off the 2nd.
Not really a major thing until we notice that the 15 day FM-8 he was given was a result of his applying for an FM-5 180-day visa...
In my work on Mexico I came to find that this "original" document was also provided by the same man who provided most of the other fraudulent evidence, the Lawyer OCHOA.
The only things which corroborate Oswald having #24085 is this application for a different Visa type and the visa itself with "Valida por 15 diaz" typed on it.
Since I am of the opinion that Oswald never did travel to Mexico City, I am also of the opinion that this Visa was also created after the fact - stamps and all
(On pages 19 of http://www.ctka.net/2015/Part%203_Section%20B.pdf I do an analysis of the stamps on this visa and how they do not match the stubs related to them... nor do they have the name of the men they are supposed to have on them)
My point being that either Gaudet having the previous number is a complete coincidence, or Gaudet may have helped create this application document so it coincides with the created Visa which was used to promote the false travel story...
In either case, the problems with the FM-5 and FM-8 switch is strange since the Mexico Oswald is quoted as saying he HAD to leave due to his Visa expiring - which was also false even if it was a 15 day visa... the 15 days starts when the person arrives in the country, not on the day it was purchased. A minor slip up in the story yet a slip up none the less. If the story was created after the fact as I suspect, not being aware of this minor date issue becomes more of an indicator of this fraud than anything else.
D-52, the FBI # for this visa application is described in WCD735 p77 as "XEROX copy of application to visit Mexico" FBI and xerox copies... the easiest way to fabricate any end result document you want - at least according to the FBI and the HSCA handwriting experts in their reports.
Gaudet knows Bannister, knows Oswald, witnesses the ITM leafletting and had done extensive work for the CIA (the Gaudet notebook at Baylor has docs from the mid 50's praising Gaudet - and are heavily redacted see below) He went to Mexico for a single day, by airplance, on Sept 19th... One day after Alvarado's original dates for the Oswald sighting...
Alvarado was a proven CIA asset... seems to me the connections are there - albeit a bit hazy
DJ
bump
-
How do we know that Gaudet knew Oswald?
He tells us he did. He sees Oswald and Banister together...
It's all in his HSCA testimony and summary report from 1/18/78... in the GAUDET notebook at JA's Baylor archive
Harold Leap and Robert Buras wrote the report
-
Did you not post: "Are you claiming that a man of the cloth lied to the authorities when he told them that she never heard the name Oswald used by the men?" when the evidence is right there... (all these quotes are from your posts on the Odio thread)This is obviously a misleading statement since that's not what Odio said and we've told you this numerous times... yet you continue like the FBI and WC - as if nothing was said and your conclusion supercedes the facts... nice try, but simply not true.And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice
David, I think you may have just invented a whole new logical fallacy.
What Odio told the Warren Commission about how "Leon" was introduced to her has no bearing on what she did or did not tell the padre about that.
It wasn't JUST the padre, it was also her psychiatrist and her uncle - all saying the same thing - Odio did not claim to them that the person was introduced to her as "Leon Oswald".
So were they all lying, or not?
ps
Please please please go and take a course in logic! And take the others with you...
So basically what Odio says in her testimony when asked whether she told Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used, she said it was not EXCEPT for to introduce me and the time they left.
Below this testimony excerpt is CE2943 regarding the interview with Father McChann where Oswald is mentioned both times in reference to what Odio tells him verbally and in a letter
Where do you get the impression or the evidence which states that the Father said she did not mention the Oswald name?
What you actually claim is that "he told them that SHE NEVER HEARD THE NAME OSWALD USED BY THESE MEN... " which assumes she said to the Father she NEVER HEARD THEM USE THE NAME OSWALD which we both know is not true.
So, where do you get that impression ? From what evidence does that originate?
This is the evidence I have which states exactly what Odio told the Father... where's your evidence for why his interview summary report mentiond that "ODIO INFORMED HIM (father McC) THAT A GROUP OF CUBANS HAD BROUGHT OSWALD TO HER APARTMENT" and then repeats it in a letter?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used in your presence by any of these men?
Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald.
Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him.
Part 2 - Where would David Slawson get the idea that she was introduced to and knew the name "LEON OSWALD" if it was never mentioned?
Finally, She says the same thing in her testimony about what she told the FBI as what McChann said she told him about meeting LEON OSWALD,,,,
Mr. LIEBELER. My record indicates that on December 18, 1963, you were interviewed by two agents of the FBI, Mr. James P. Hoary and Bardwell D. Odum. Do you remember that?
Mrs. ODIO. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER It is my understanding that they interviewed you at your place of work, is that correct?
Mrs. ODIO. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER Do you remember approximately what they asked you and what you told them?
Mrs. ODIO. I think I remember. Not exactly, but I think I can recall the conversation.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would you give us the content of that conversation, as best you can recall
Mrs. ODIO. They told me they were coming because of the assassination of President Kennedy, that they had news that I knew or I had known Lee Harvey Oswald. And I told them that I had not known him as Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald. And they showed me a picture of Oswald and a picture of Ruby. I did not know Ruby, but I did recall Oswald. They asked me about my activities in JURE. That is the Junta Revolutionary, and it is led by Manolo Ray. I told him that I did belong to this organization because my father and mother had belonged in Cuba, and I had seen him (Ray) in Puerto recently, and that I knew him personally, and that I did belong to JURE. They asked me about the members here in Dallas, and I told him a few names of the Cubans here. They asked me to tell the story about what happened in my house.
And this line has never changed either....
And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice
Greg - if you have any evidence which shows what she told the psychiatrist and her uncle which proves what you are claiming, post it. Your post about your amazement over whether a man of the cloth would ever lie about such a thing assumes you know what she said to him... which from your posts you obviously had no idea, or do have an idea and chose to hide it - again.
PROVE any of what you offer as a conclusion is true to begin with... as I posted, you make assumptions about what the evidence MIGHT have said and then run with it as if you've found some FACT when in reality it has been only a fact in your mind which comes with no supporting evidence... only the Faith Factor...
Until you actually post a single thing that supports any of your "factual conclusions built on a foundation of assumed facts rather than proven ones" why should anyone believe a word you post?
-
CE 985, page 455 states clearly:
Left Ear: Behind the ear there is a stable post operational scar.
This is the same mastoid scar observed at autopsy. This is supposed to be "Lee" who has the scar but it is clearly "Harvey" in both cases. The "very superficial 3/4 inch scratch" has nothing to do with anything. It is just that, a little scratch that he could have received a million ways. Rose missed scars including the mastoid scar. He stated at the time of the exhumation that he could have missed the mastoid scar. If he could have missed one, he could have missed others. In a perfect world he would have been informed of the mastoid operation and every known scar so he would have been on the alert.
Groody was there to embalm the body, not to make an identification. Just because he didn't see a particular scar doesn't mean it wasn't there. Same with the Parkland doctors-they were trying to save his life not look for scars. The craniotomy scar was observed and photographed by the forensic pathologists at the exhumation. The photo is on my website in the post "Paul Groody's Theory".
Yes Tracy, that's why I mentioned it. CE985 is from his stay in Russia.
what I am more curious about is the rest of the information... no Left arm scars at all... nothing from the suicide and nothing from the gunshot wound...
there is also nothing noted on the fact sheet about the left side mastoid scar... If they observed a scar behind the left ear - why not notate it on the autopsy sheet?
Not proof in itself it was not there... but an indication it wasn't.
A grain of sand for sure, but accumulate enough of them and you have the Sahara.
Not saying this is the tablets from the mountain, just that there are some serious conflicts with the information the USMC states and what this autopsy does...
From the USMC height and weight which they supposedly just pulled out of thin air or asked Oswald and wrote whatever he said...
to the descriptions of the wounds... to the inaccessibility of all the Rose and intern photos of the autopsy...
-
I'd like to add a few things about Oswald's Mexican tourist Visa application and the actual visa itself.
What is offered in the WCR are two images of the application... one with only the top and one with the bottom... I've over laid them to show what each of these images is missing of the whole application:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0354a.htm CE2481
The signature is cut of the first imatge while the #24085 and his name is cut off the 2nd.
Not really a major thing until we notice that the 15 day FM-8 he was given was a result of his applying for an FM-5 180-day visa...
In my work on Mexico I came to find that this "original" document was also provided by the same man who provided most of the other fraudulent evidence, the Lawyer OCHOA.
The only things which corroborate Oswald having #24085 is this application for a different Visa type and the visa itself with "Valida por 15 diaz" typed on it.
Since I am of the opinion that Oswald never did travel to Mexico City, I am also of the opinion that this Visa was also created after the fact - stamps and all
(On pages 19 of http://www.ctka.net/2015/Part%203_Section%20B.pdf I do an analysis of the stamps on this visa and how they do not match the stubs related to them... nor do they have the name of the men they are supposed to have on them)
My point being that either Gaudet having the previous number is a complete coincidence, or Gaudet may have helped create this application document so it coincides with the created Visa which was used to promote the false travel story...
In either case, the problems with the FM-5 and FM-8 switch is strange since the Mexico Oswald is quoted as saying he HAD to leave due to his Visa expiring - which was also false even if it was a 15 day visa... the 15 days starts when the person arrives in the country, not on the day it was purchased. A minor slip up in the story yet a slip up none the less. If the story was created after the fact as I suspect, not being aware of this minor date issue becomes more of an indicator of this fraud than anything else.
D-52, the FBI # for this visa application is described in WCD735 p77 as "XEROX copy of application to visit Mexico" FBI and xerox copies... the easiest way to fabricate any end result document you want - at least according to the FBI and the HSCA handwriting experts in their reports.
Gaudet knows Bannister, knows Oswald, witnesses the ITM leafletting and had done extensive work for the CIA (the Gaudet notebook at Baylor has docs from the mid 50's praising Gaudet - and are heavily redacted see below) He went to Mexico for a single day, by airplance, on Sept 19th... One day after Alvarado's original dates for the Oswald sighting...
Alvarado was a proven CIA asset... seems to me the connections are there - albeit a bit hazy
DJ
-
quote Tracy Parnell ( http://http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/3key.htm )
3. Oswald Exhumation.
In 1981, the body of LHO was exhumed in order to disprove the theory of Michael Eddowes whose book, The Oswald File, postulated a Soviet look-alike was buried in the LHO grave. The body was positively identified primarily by dental records as that of Oswald. That killed Eddowes' theory but interestingly once again Armstrong's theory was defeated by an event that predated it.
Although the Norton team's primary charge was the use of dental records, they could not help but notice the obvious presence of a mastoidectomy defect on the left side of the head that corresponded with the one LHO was known to have. The team noted the defect in their report and also photographed it for the record. The problem for Armstrong is that the body Norton looked at was supposed to be "Harvey" while it was "Lee" who had the mastoid operation. So once again the Armstrong theory is shown to be wrong and totally disproved.
close quote
KK
Karl,
That's very easy to explain.
The bad guys killed Lee and substituted his corpse for Harvey's several years later.
That would also explain the broken coffin.
Uhh oh. I might have just opened up a big "can of worms," literally and figuratively.
LOL
--Tommy
Let's take a look at what occurs on the autopsy table when we know the person on the table was the man Ruby killed...
The autopsy report states:
"At the upper end of his right sternocleidomastoid over the skin is transverse very superficial 3/4 inch
scratch with some reddish antiseptic type of paint surrounding this."
First off the mastoid operation was on the LEFT SIDE of Oswald's head, not right. In Russia Harvey did have something done to the right side of his head... CE985 p450
Secondly, the description of this right side wound suggests it was a fresh wound and not a healed scar.
Diagnosis when admitted : Chronic otitis media purulenta at the
right side, complicated by granulations
Clinical diagnosis : Chronic otitis media purulenta at the right
side, complicated by graulations and
cholesteatoma. Adenoids 1 .5
The Donabedian Ex p582 tells us on Sept 11th when discharged this man has a 1" mastoidectomy scar on the left side of his head.
In fairness, it also states that there is a healed scar behind the LEFT ear... this Russin note is the only mention of the left side scar.
Regarding the suicide attempt scar - also in Donabedian - There is nothing shown on the lower LEFT arm..
Furthermore, the self inflicted gunshot wound according to the same discharge document is "S gunshot, left elbow"
The wounds shown on the autopsy sheet do not coincide with these descriptions... and the 27 photos Rose took plus the 9 rolls of film another doctor mentions taking - of which shot #11 is the "Back of the head" do not seem to be available to be reviewed.
On. February 26, .1964, Mr. Paul J. Groody, Embalmor and
Funeral Director; Charles B. Miller, owner, and Allen S. Baumgardai-,
Apprentice-Embalmer, Miller. Funeral Home, 5805 Camp Bowie Blvd.,
Fort Worth, Texas, all advised that at the time the body of Lee
Harvey Oswald was embalmed they did not observe any type of scar
on the left wrist of Oswald.
Part of CE985:
"In order to delay his departure he inflicted wounds on the lower third of his left forearm and put it into hot water."
"On February 25, 1964, Mr. C. J. Price, Administrator,
Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas, advised he was unable to
recall seeing or reading any report or observation on the part of
any person who attended Lee Harvey Oswald after his fatal shooting':
on November 24, 1963, that commented on a scar on Oswald's inner
left wrist. He stated he observed Oswald while he was in the
Trauma room and during the time he was sent to surgery at Parkland
Memorial Hospital on the day of the shooting and he failed to
observe any scar on Oswald's wrist.
Not only nothing on the left wrist, but nothing on the left forearm where the Russians placed this wound.
This sheet also does not show a scar behind the left ear. Given the state of the coffin when exhumed... seems to most of us that anything is possible once the seal is broken... Besides didn't the doctors also state that tere was not craniotomy scar on the exhumed body - I may be recalling this incorrectly...
Seems to me there are quite a few conflicts with the boy's childhood record, USMC record, the Russian record and this autopsy... but of course that's just me.
DJ
-
If you are a H&L devotee, you must draw the conclusion, that
Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along withRobert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of themhas ever breathed a word about it!Omerta eh?KKIt's nice that you are so sure of this Karl... yet us H&L devotees MUST not do anything of the sort - the Evidence does not support your assumption, unless you'd care to post some ??...
What leads you to believe they KNEW as opposed to possibly suspected there was something wrong with the returning Oswald?
From Dutz's testimony he assumed it was the same person...
Mr. MURRET - Yes. That's when Lee came to town, and wanted to look for an apartment, and said he was going to get a job, and that he would like to stay with us until he found something.
Mr. JENNER - All right; now, tell us about that.
Mr. MURRET - Well, when I walked in the house, he was standing in the kitchen.
Mr. JENNER - That was after you came home from work?
Mr. MURRET - That's right.
Mr. JENNER - You were surprised to see him?
Mr. MURRET - Yes; that's right. I was surprised all right.
Mr. JENNER - All right. What happened then?
Mr. MURRET - My wife said, "Do you recognize who this is?" and I said, "Yes," and I said, "It looks like he has grown up or something." Of course, he looked older, but he hadn't changed too much in appearance, I don't think.
Mr. JENNER - Of course, this was Lee Oswald?
Mr. MURRET - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - The same boy, but you say he had grown up a little more, is that right?
Mr. MURRET - That's right.
Mr. JENNER - Physically, at least?
Mr. MURRET - Yes, sir
Mr. JENNER - Did Lee seem to have that propensity, that when you did things for him, that he didn't seem to want you doing anything for him?
Mrs. MURRET - I don't think he seemed to be very appreciative for anything you did for him. Now, I will say this, at the time he was receiving something, like these clothes, he seemed to be very happy about it, but it didn't last any time, and he never would put it in words at least anyway. We were probably the only people that he knew as relatives. I don't think he knew anyone else in the family.
(I couldn't find anything that gives the impression she thought there were two men - have you?) I did find that Myrtle Evans did not recognize him - but you did not mention Myrtle.
Mr. JENNER - Tell me the circumstances that led to his renting that apartment, Mrs. Evans.
Mrs. EVANS - Well, the doorbell rang, and my husband hadn't gone to work. He says he recognized him then, but I don't remember it that way, but anyway this young man was at the door, and he said he wanted an apartment, and did I have an apartment to rent, and I didn't have anything in this building, but I told him about another building I was fixing up, and I told him I might be able to find something for him, and he told me he had a wife and child over in Texas, and that he was going to bring them over here as soon as he could find an apartment. and that he had to find something right now. He said, "I want something right away."
When we were walking down the steps, I looked at him real hardlike, and I didn't recognize him, but something made me ask him, "I know you, don't I?" and he said, "Sure; I am Lee Oswald; I was just waiting to see when you were going to recognize me." I said, "Lee Oswald, what are you doing in this country? I thought you were in Russia. I thought you had given up your American citizenship and gone behind the Iron Curtain," and he said, "No," he said, "I went over there," he said, "but I didn't give up my citizenship." He said he had been back in the States for quite a while, and that he had brought his Russian wife back with him; so I told him I would help him look for a place; so I rang up this friend of mine, and I asked her, I said, "Vickie, do you happen to know where I can rent an apartment for a young couple with one little baby?" and she said, "Yes; Myrtle, I will take children. This is a little duplex," she said, and she said, "This is a nice little apartment, and I think they will like it," and I said , "How much?" and she said, "$65," and I said, "Well, he can't spend too much; he is just getting a new job."
Pic did not know both men yet was pretty clear about picking Lee from Harvey in all the Life photos
Robert MAY have known about both, MAY have been one of the Oswalds leaving incriminating evidence... but there is little direect evidence other than the striking resemblence.
Marina never met LEE so I don't know how she would be aware of both men.
Anna LEWIS on the other hand MAY have seen both men when she says she met Lee Oswald in Feb 1962 when Harvey was in Russia... and then again in the summer of '63 when it was Harvey in New Orleans - yet she states that this time around Oswald did not acknowledge or seem to recognize her. Which dovetails into JVB who also may have know both yet again, the evidence is not there.
LEE Oswald's USMC supervisor Gorsky tells us that he processed Oswald's discharge in March 1959 and all that paperwork was sent to Washington DC. Not evidence of BOTH men, but certainly a conflict with the Sept 11, 1959 dicharge date of JFK's accused killer.
If you could just post the evidence which leads to these conclusions maybe we can have a frame of reference from which to discuss this... If all this is are your impression and assumptions, say so and we can speculate to our hearts content.
-
You know better than to make allegations like that without providing examples. If you had any, I assume you would have provided them.
This entire thread and the Odio thread provides example after example... anyone reading either thread sees how you craft an argument...
Did you not post: "Are you claiming that a man of the cloth lied to the authorities when he told them that she never heard the name Oswald used by the men?" when the evidence is right there... (all these quotes are from your posts on the Odio thread)
This is obviously a misleading statement since that's not what Odio said and we've told you this numerous times... yet you continue like the FBI and WC - as if nothing was said and your conclusion supercedes the facts... nice try, but simply not true.
And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice
With regards to Odio and Father McKann - you don't bother posting the actual testimony, only your absurd question in which YOU assume what she told the Father and present it as factual... when the testimony is right there...
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that one of the men--did you tell him the names of the men who were there?
Mrs. ODIO. I told him what I knew, the names of the men that I knew.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used in your presence by any of these men?
Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald.
Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, a report that we have from Agent Hosty indicates that when you told him about Leopoldo's telephone call to you the following day,
that you told Agent Hosty that Leopoldo told you he was not going to have anything more to do with Leon Oswald since Leon was considered to be loco?
Mrs. ODIO. That's right.
Wonder why Liebeler would use the name OSWALD when it supposedly NEVER came up...
Another example includes your chery-picking the testimony to support you argument when the very next sentences illustrate what you are hiding:
You wrote: Odio was all over shop.
Mr. LIEBELER. After looking at this picture, are you more convinced, or less convinced, or do you still have about the same feeling that you had before you looked at it that the man who was in your apartment late in September was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?Mrs. ODIO. I have to be careful about that, because I have the same feeling that it was, but at the same time I have been looking at papers for months and months of pictures, and these help you to remember too much. I wish I could isolate the incident without remembering the other pictures. I have a feeling there are certain pictures that do not resemble him. It was not the Oswald that was standing in front of my door. He was kind of tired looking. He had a little smile, but he was sunken in in the face that day. More skinny, I would say.--------------------Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?I included the "----" and the next section of your post to show that you did not include the very next 2 Q&As: wonder why???
(Your post)
Mr. LIEBELER. After looking at this picture, are you more convinced, or less convinced, or do you still have about the same feeling that you had before you looked at it that the man who was in your apartment late in September was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. I have to be careful about that, because I have the same feeling that it was, but at the same time I have been looking at papers for months and months of pictures, and these help you to remember too much. I wish I could isolate the incident without remembering the other pictures. I have a feeling there are certain pictures that do not resemble him. It was not the Oswald that was standing in front of my door. He was kind of tired looking. He had a little smile, but he was sunken in in the face that day. More skinny, I would say.
Yet all we need do is keep reading... you attempt to prove that Odio was not sure about whether it was Lee Harvey by posting the excerpt above... what follows...?
(the next line)
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, do you have any doubts in your mind after looking at these pictures that the man that was in your apartment was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. I don't have any doubts.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any doubt about it then?
Mrs. ODIO. I kept saying it can't be to myself; it just can't be. I mean it couldn't be, but when my sister walked into the hospital and she said, "Sylvia, have you seen the man?" And I said, "Yes." And she said, "That was the man that was at the door of my house." So I had no doubts then.
Wow Greg, if one was to read only what you posted and then the entire passage one might get the impression you were hiding the fact that Annie and Sylvia both identified and were sure that the man Ruby shot had been at their house. No wonder you decided not to include that part... it's exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are trying to say...
-------------------- one more?
would say.
--------------------Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?Mrs. ODIO. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is true. I mean, even though she said she thought I had mentioned the name very clearly, and I had mentioned the names of the three men.Mr. LIEBELER. But she didn't remember it?Mrs. ODIO. No;So here was the next section of your reply trying to prove the surname OSWALD was never used..
But please don't post the sentences just prior to this statement or just after explaining that by the time Annie arrives at the door they are talking about him as "the/an American"... and that she too was sure who it was.
These are but a few examples of how you cherry pick data and sources to support your POV yet each and every time a source if checked - it says exactly the opposite of what you are tying to prove...
And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice. Then my sister Annie by that time was standing near the door. She had come to see what was going on. And they introduced him as an American who was very much interested in the Cuban cause.
(now you turn your quote machine on)
Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is true. I mean, even though she said she thought I had mentioned the name very clearly, and I had mentioned the names of the three men.
Mr. LIEBELER. But she didn't remember it?
Mrs. ODIO. No; (OFF IT GOES)
yet Odio continues:
she said I mentioned it, because I made a comment. This I don't recall. I said, "I am going to see Antonio Alentado," which is one of the leaders of the JURE here in Dallas. And I think I just casually said, "I am going to mention these names to him to see if he knows any of them." But I forgot about them.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister see the men?
Mrs. ODIO. She saw the three of them.
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this with her since that time?
Mrs. ODIO. I just had to discuss it because it was bothering me. I just had to know.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did she think it was Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. Well, her reaction to it when Oswald came on television, she almost passed out on me, just like I did the day at work when I learned about the assassination of the President. Her reaction was so obvious that it was him, I mean. And my reaction, we remember Oswald the day he came to my house because he had not shaved and he had a kind of a very, I don't know how to express it, but some little hairs like if you haven't shaved, but it is not a thick moustache, but some kind of shadow. That is something I noticed. And he was wearing--the other ones were wearing white dirty shirts, but he was wearing a long sleeved shirt.
So please Greg... if you want to take the high road, your posting and behavior needs to reflect that... these "omissions of info" which turn your arguments on their head is how you operate.
We can also post your NYC school day argument which has fallen apart since you assumed that counting the summer months when no school is in session is SOP. Sorry mate, not here.
When we discuss the 53-54 school year at BJHS you post 7 sources to info on the 54-55 school year and get all indignant when it is poointed out that these are two completely different years...
But that does not curb this behavior either...
So how about we back off the accusation of he said she said about JA and his sources when you post info which cannot be refuted by dead men along side evidence which shows the level of dedication you offer in regards to substantiating evidnece in support of a theory.
You make this way too easy Greg... thanks
=======================
And then you make these terribly uniformed comments about disappearing records as if the only set of records missing in this case are Stripling's.
Seems to me if you actually look Greg, the evidence which could exhonerate Oswald is gone where as the FBI 's incriminating evidence has the most dubious of pasts.
Greg, your tactics are easily uncovered your agenda really quite obvious to all.
You and the others keep making your accusations and offering your assumptions yet when it gets down to the evidence, there is really very little you can do to change their meaning...
The Evidence IS the Conspiracy IS the Evidence... your evidence-twisting cherry-picking attacks do nothing to change this and only reflect on the kind of researcher and writer you are.
All we need to continue to do here is watch you implode.
---------------------------------------
Karl... when you find a book on the JFK situation that does not have any errors or speculative offerings you let us know. When the blind man feels the elephants leg and calls it a tree trunk, it does not make the bliond man correct, only sure of HIS impression of the facts... take the blinders off and even the blind man can see he was wrong to come to conclusion when only having been exposed to the smallest part of the situation...
-
Comments by someone other than G Parker would be appreciated.
First, because of the chaotic lifestyle of the Oswald and his family, parts of the chronology of LHO's early life (and even his later years) may be unknowable. Of course, Armstrong uses this confusion to his advantage.
As for Kudlaty, the first point here is the methodology of Armstrong when interviewing his witnesses. He employs what David Lifton has referred to as a "witness recruitment program". That is, instead of asking impartial fact finding questions, Armstrong befriends the person and convinces them they are a unique witness to history and in several cases made them "stars" at JFK conferences. Also, Armstrong's effective co-author, Jack White, was a personal friend of Kudlaty, a fact that he revealed to Greg Parker and then tried to minimize. All of this does nothing to build confidence in the ability of the Armstrong team to find the true uncolored facts on the Kudlaty situation.
Armstrong, as he has shown over and over, is perfectly willing to rely on the decades old memory of a witness when constructing his theory and such is the case with Kudlaty. By his own admission, Kudlaty, who "thinks" LHO was in the ninth grade at Stripling, only briefly viewed the records yet amazingly he was able 33 years later to recall considerable detail. Armstrong gives no credence to the concept that Kudlaty could be mistaken or lying, as people are known to do for various reasons, one of which could be that they have been informed they are a part of history. Another explanation for the Kudlaty story is that he is remembering Robert Oswald rather than Lee, as Robert did in fact attend Stripling and although Kudlaty remembers both brothers, it is a possibility.
However, it is possible that LHO briefly attended Stripling in 1951-52 as Robert believed. If he did, it would jibe with Kudlaty's recollection that LHO's attendance was short in duration. In any case, as Greg Parker has pointed out, you don't need a parallel universe to explain this.
None of what you are saying here is first-hand or factual Tracy.
What David Lifton has to say about other researchers is a matter of opinion, no? I've posted Palmer's reply to Lifton and HIS tactics... you can find on this forum if you search.
Parker, as usual, expands on any little tidbit he believes he hears and adds his own spin to create "facts" which are nothing of the sort. Is there anything to support these statements other than his word Tracy?
Are you now going to tell us the revelations of the ARRB and Doug Horne are not worth the paper they are written on due to the time which passed for the witnesses who spoke out?
That Kudlaty completely invented being called to his school on a saturday for the FBI? That's up to you Tracy. Are you saying that Robert attended only for those 6 weeks in 1954?
One of the options you do not mention in your "Another explanation" scenarios is that Kudlaty is telling the truth, which his reputation suggests, versus Parker whose posts and offered supporting documentation here do not support the same conclusion.
I mentioned to John all the guessing going on related to the writing of the book and what John did when finding information that required follow-up. The "Stripling #" references are to images he sent me and which can be found at Baylor http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/tabs/collection/po-arm - there are 3 notebook with "Stripling" the two larger ones have the info while some of these docs are still on microfilm and are printed as needed.
You can go with what others say about the situation or you can read this letter and the Palmer reply and hear it from those who did it. When anyone offers their writing to be scrutinized we are not in the business of GUESSING what the motivation was, or GUESSING that the authors behavior was suspect or leading or anything else without some proof.
So how about we stick with FACTS as offered by the authors and authenticating/corroborating THEM, rather then these disgruntled attacks on the book, the process and the man from what I see as "the cheap seats" with barely a view of what is actually happening on the field..
Those assumptions would seem to me beneath you Tracy.
David,
If and when anyone questions how and why I became involved with Oswald attending Stripling JHS in Ft. Worth, please refer to the following documents from Baylor and my explanation. Or, if you want to start a thread and show the supporting documents, be my guest.
1) After reading Robert Oswald's WC testimony, wherein he said that his brother attended Stripling JHS in Ft. Worth, I was curious and wrote a letter to the current Principal at Stripling, Mr. Ricardo Galindo on Dec 27, 1993 (see Stripling 1). I then met with Mr. Galindo who said that had talked with several teachers who remembered that LHO had attended Stripling, but none were currently teaching at the school, Mr. Galindo suggested that I contact Ralph Waller at the Ft. Worth Independent School District.
2) During my visit to the FWISD I met Billy J. Sills, who was in charge of setting up archives for the district. I explained my interest to Mr. Sills and he soon provide a handwritten list of teachers who taught at Stripling during the 1950's (see Stripling 3 & 4). It was from this list that I met and spoke with teachers who remembered Oswald (Mark Summers, physical education) and the assistant principal of Stripling in 1963, Frank Kudlaty (interview can be seen on U-Tube). After filming the interview with Mr. Kudlaty, at his home in Waco, TX., I asked Jack White to make a copy of the videos for both Robert and myself. As we were watching/copying the videos for the first time Jack said, "I think I know that guy. I think we attended the same college in the 1940's." Jack said that he did not know Kudlaty personally, but knew his name as a fellow student. I don't know if Jack had any contact with Kudlaty after viewing the interview.
3) Robert Groden was scheduled to appear on the Kevin McCarthy radio program in Dallas. I asked Robert if he would ask the listening audience if anyone had attended school with Oswald at Stripling JHS (see Stripling 2). Several people called the station and said they had attended Stripling with Oswald, but only one person left their name and phone number- Francetta Schubert/Tubbs, who then worked at the AAA office in Ft. Worth (see Stripling 3). Fran allowed us (myself and Groden) to film an interview and she provided me with a Stripling Student directory. It was from this directory, and from Francetta's memory, that I was able to learn the names of several students who also remembered that Oswald had attended Stripling in the fall of 1954. The interview with Francetta can be seen on U-Tube. The names of the students, and their memories of Oswald, can be found in my book.
4) From the Stripling Student directory I learned that Paul Gregory had also attended Stripling the same time as (Harvey) Oswald, the fall of 1954 in the 9th grade (see Stripling 5). FBI agent John Fain also lived within a few blocks of Stripling JHS.
I learned from Francetta that Oswald lived directly across the street from Stripling at 2220 Thomas Place. As Fran sat outside the school and ate lunch she watched Oswald, sometimes with his friends, walk across the street to his home during lunch. Fran also remembered that Oswald's mother wore a white nurse's uniform. 2220 Thomas Place was probably the same house where the MO impostor was storing furniture and clothing in 1947, while living across the street from Georgia Bell in Benbrook, TX. This was also the same house (actually a duplex) in which the MO impostor was living on 11/22/63.
5) The house at 2220 Thomas Place belonged to Mrs. Mary McCarthy,a close friend of Fred Korth (see Stripling 6). The MO impostor likely lived at 2220 Thomas Place before moving to Benbrook (across from Georgia Bell), lived there with Harvey in 1954, and was living there on 11/22/63.
I wrote to the FBI (FOIA request) and asked for copies of any and all documents they had relating to Stripling JHS in Ft. Worth, but was told there were no documents.
The importance of Stripling is simply that when Harvey was attending Stripling, in the fall of 1954 (or anytime for that matter), Lee Oswald was attending Beauregard where he got into a fight with Johnny Neumeyer (fall of 1954).
The fact that Hoover sent FBI agents to confiscate LHO's attendance records at Stripling within 20 hours of the assassination is a good indication that someone knew the importance of confiscating and destroying these records. And that someone knew about Harvey and Lee and the inexplainable conflict that the Stripling school records could create.
John
==========================
I Googled "Jack White Frank Kudlaty" and this was on the first page....
Greg Parker guessing about John Armstong, Jack White and Frank Kudlaty
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t702-harvey-lee-the-early-years
Quick response which I will expand on later if needed...
......
7. The alleged collection and destruction of evidence is extremely questionable around Armstrong's claims. One example - Stripling. Did you know that the star witness here - Frank Kudlaty - was an old college friend of Jack White and that Jack White was one of the creators of this theory? You won't find that out in "Harvey and Lee" because that relationship is not declared. It only came to light at all because I questioned Kudlaty's story and the late JW sprung to his defense by declaring he had been a friend since college and he could therefore vouch for his honesty. When I told Jack I thought that the relationship should have been declared in the book because it creates a kind of "conflict of interest" situation, JW backtracked at a hundred mile an hour and suddenly changed his story. Kudlaty was now transformed into a mere acquaintance who JW hadn't actually seen in 50 years. So I then asked, if this second story was true, how he could vouch for his honesty? I don't think I ever got a straight answer to that - just abuse.
Since this is only on a forum post, the freedom to say whatever one wants is understood. Like DVP, he can state and defend whatever he likes regardless of the reality of the situation or the number of times he is exposed to the evidence involved.
Does Greg have anything to prove White says all this... or are we simply to believe whatever GP offers ?
What did Greg find out when he asked White what he meant by "Friends since college" - do we get any proof of this?
Did anyone else witness this "back tracking" you claim occurred or is this just your story of what was said between you and someone who cannot now defend himself?
Why exactly would Kudlaty (who was superintendent of schools in Waco, TX at the time) risk being caught lying about the FBI's actions knowing it would be in a book with his name and all...? Kudlaty was not a nobody Greg... he was fairly accomplished in his circle. (the FBI never did have him arrested for liable or slander nor was JA ever sued for making false statements)
At some point along this line we need to begin separating what GP believes or creates as facts and what the facts of the situation really were.
If one was writing their own series of books one would think it more important to prove their own sources and facts are legitimate and authentic rather than spend so much time trying and failing to prove whether another's work is or not. (note: debunking Judy Baker comes with easy to understand problems with the evidence offered... so far all that GP offer are opinions and interpretations which are continually wrong like his take on the NYC school dates)
Something about glass houses and throwing stones comes to mind.
Again... if readers choose to accept the info he offers as factually authenticated, fine. Please then stay away from the book and materials themselves as the actual facts of the situation would only cause confusion.
-
And here's another question: How does "Harvey and Lee" theory help us solve the JFK assassination?
Let me guess -- "Well, I guess it proves that the CIA did it."
--Tommy
First off Tommy - no one is going to SOLVE the JFK assassination... any records that would give any real indication of what occurred are long gone..
All we have related to the actual event is the word of those who were there as told to researchers outside the US government. Hermanio Diaz telling someone he did it who tells another,etc...
Circumstantially he may have pulled the trigger and was connected to the CIA/Military/Cuban trifecta (at a minimum) who facilitated the crime.
The only solution is that he was killed as the result of a conspiracy which itself was covered up by yet another conspiracy.
You think learning about George J. will shed light on solving the crime? Does showing the FBI created the fraudulent Klein's and Mexico City evidence help SOLVe anything factual related to the assassination?
IMO, no. It simply shows the extent of the conspiracies involved.
----------
Regarding your specific question... H&L is a study of the EVIDENCE provided by and covered up by the FBI/SS/CIA etc and how that differs from the what independent reseach found.... just like most every one of the JFK books.
The Evidence shows a shot to the back which makes the SBT impossible. Salandria saw that immediately.
The Evidence shows the autopsy in total was altered and tampered with and then lied about... Lifton
The WCR was torn apart by Meager for the pile of lies it is:
If closed minds continue to open, to receive and evaluate objectively the
facts which are on the record, we may yet proceed to pursue the truth to its
ultimate reaches-regardless of attendant dangers and doubts-so that history
will know with certainty what happened in Dallas, and why. - Meager
It is with this is mind that we look at the Evidence related to Harvey and Lee's existence.
One needs to ask how a brother does not recognize his own - and yet is correct when telling H from L in all the photos
One needs to ask why a USMC buddy Felde - tells one story while the WC CE1961 offers a differnent one
One needs to ask how Lee is seen in the company of Ruby and related characters in Dallas while Harvey is in New Orleans with his family
Is all the Evidence planted there to give us the impression there was an H&L?
Is the Evidence indicative of someone simply playing the part of Lee Oswald yet helping Ruby and cronies with weapons, gambling and drug running while alos involved with the anti-Castro movement?
Was Lee turned into a spook or informant for some group or groups?
Why is McKeown talking about an Oswald with an Hispanic looking to buy scoped rifles for an absurd amount of money in early Sept while Harvey is on New Orleans?
Seems there was quite a trail of incrimination related to Oswald left behind to be found should the situation warrant.
-
David Josephs,
I don't have the mental acuity to understand the disagreement you and Greg have over the number of attendance days, and I want to understand both sides of the disagreement.
Will you please lay out your argument both conceptually and in detail? And also lay out Greg's competing argument in the same manner?
Thanks for your patience in attending to my request.
Can you explain what is confusing you in my calculations?
Jon... it's really quite simple. The FBI took the originals of all the school records and submitted copies as evidence (as if the boys Jr High school records were necessary to solving the case)
We find this SOP in every aspect of the evidence.
The Permanent Record, which I've posted, as well as the FBI report above tells us that after starting PS44 on March 23, 1953 he attended 171 & 11 1/2 days
and was absent for 18 & 11 1/2 days for a total of 171 + 18 + 11 (22 1/2 days) = 200 total days either attended of absent from 3/23/63 thru 1/12/54
The 200 and change is derived by adding the 3/23/53 - 6/26/53 dates to the 9/14/53 - 1/12/54 dates on the copied school record.
Attended = 109 + 62 + 11 1/2 days = 176.5 days
Absent = 15 + 3 + 11 1/2 days = 23.5 days
Total = 200 days of actual school on which our student COULD have attended.
The problem with Greg's math is a mystery to me... so I decided to spell it all out so it was easier to visualize.
There are 210 weekdays between 3/23/53 and 1/12/54
There are 55 weekdays of summer on which our Oswald did not attend any school...
That leaves 155 days on which to attend school (the FBI offers a total of 200 days)
Students are neither absent of attending school during winter and spring break - usually 2 weeks in the winter and 1 week in spring = remove 15 school days
Leaving 140 total days this child COULD have attended school
Youth House is not mentioned in the records for this child even though he was out of school for 17 days there.(green)
While I subtracted in down below let's assume that this is included with the "attended" days of 171 & 11 1/2 days.
I did not highlight any of the 1 or 2 day holidays of which there are about 8-12 every school year which brings the total potential days to attend down even further.
If Greg can show us how the FBI and NYC school records can fit 200 days of attendance and absences into less than 140 days of school..
maybe the mystery of his math will be solved.
The contention discovered by Armstrong here is that the FBI needs to go back into history and reconstruct the man's past while hiding the facts related to there being two Lee Harvey Oswalds.
If Greg is wrong about the June 26th date and the year ended 2 weeks earlier on the 12th as I think it did, the 210 days becomes the 200 days we see totaled above.
Whoever created this record for the WCR did not remove the summer days from the count... It is most likely that LEE's attendance is described starting 9/14/53 while the attendance prior to that is a mixture of the two boys. LEE never went to Youth House, Harvey did. The point remains... the NYC school records showing a 5'4" 115 lb boy attending school in 1952 while a 4'10" 95lb boy is photographed in July/August at the Bronx Zoo.
At the end of the day we are offering example after example of the eveidence found in the collection of evidence to hide the existence of one of these boys 10+ years after the fact.
That question "why does the FBI need any of these old records after the man is already dead?" seems to be continually ignored.
Why go to Stripling on the 23rd? (Across the street from where Marg is living) or Pfisterer's the following week other than to nip a problem in the bud.... they failed.
While Robert Oswald claims the boy on the left is his brother, John Pic tells us about the boy at the zoo:
Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that?
Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
the boy onthe left is not a 5'4" 115 kid... and looks little if anything like the real Lee Oswald on the right.
As for Greg's argument against - he has posted what he has which speaks for itself. If he has provided a compelling argument against these boys being different people yet can still offer analysis of 200 days fitting into less than 140 actual school days in that time period - then it remains up to you to decide. I've done what I can to illustrate the areas in which he presents conclusions which differ drastically from the evidence they are based upon.
I hope that answers your questions Jon...
DJ
Harvey & Lee poll
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Josephs
So in a book where he is given the time to check facts - he gives the EXACT ADDRESS of PS 44 in Manhattan when he knows they were living in the Bronx?
And then Carro, his PO, writes a report placing him in the 9th grade in Sept 1953. Only off by a year, I know, yet are you going to ascribe the same carelessness to the boy's PO whose reports are all pretty accurate if you take the time to read them.
Maybe go over and see the articles and exhibits I posted at that link and let me know how every single record puts him in "X" - the Bronx, while his brother has him in Manhattan... and then states in 1959 that they must have moved back to Fort Worth to attend Stripling... when they instead were supposedly in New Orleans at BJHS.
NONE of this is correct, and it appears that Jenner leads the charade... Jenner must know that 51-52 cannot possibly be Jr High School... he was finishing 6th grade as the records show.
To reply to Robert about being 13 in 1952 and then to call it the 51-52 years (which ends in June 1952 when Ozzie was still 12) is either a simple mistake or a leading one...
How can Robert make a statement like that when he knows they moved to NYC during the summer of 1952?
Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.
In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.
Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school.
In 1952, after traveling from Camp Pendleton, Calif., to Jacksonville, Fla. I did have a 10-day leave. They were in New York City at that time.
Mr. JENNER. This was then some time in 1953, I take it?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir--1952.
Mr. JENNER. 1952?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. This was----
Mr. JENNER. You mean your mother and Lee that is the period of time they were in New York City?
Mr. OSWALD. That's correct.
Mr. JENNER. Living there.
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. Did you see them?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not at that time. I spent my leave in Fort Worth, because I did not feel I had enough time to travel to New York and down to Jacksonville, Fla. After completing metalsmith school at Millington, Tenn., I took a 10-day leave.
Mr. JENNER. Fix the time.
Mr. OSWALD. This was July or August of 1953. I had my orders to go to Miami, Fla. I took a 10-day leave and left Millington, Tenn., by car and came to New York City and spent 10 days in New York with Lee, mother, John, and his family.
Mr. JENNER. Where did you stay?
Mr. OSWALD. At mother's apartment, with Lee, in the Bronx some place I do not recall the address.
Tracy... why would Robert be trying to hide his visit to NYC in 1952 and lie about seeing his brother in 1953? Amazing circumstances and conflicts keep popping up during these 2 fateful years...
but nothing to see here, move along...
While also saying Ozzie was at Stripling in 7th grade at the same time Pic places him in NYC on double dates...
Mr. PIC - At this same time in February 1953, I received orders to go aboard ship again, so from the time period February 1953, until September 1953, I was in and out of New York at sea.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see either your mother or Lee during that period of time?
Mr. PIC - I did not see Lee after the February visit, sir. I had seen her on several occasions
Mr. PIC - So they moved out in about September 1952, maybe it was late September, early October, somewhere around there, so from about somewhere between September of 1952 and January 1953, my brother Robert came to New York on leave, and we were all invited up to the Bronx.
Mr. JENNER - To visit whom?
Mr. PIC - Sir?
Mr. JENNER - To visit whom?
Mr. PIC - To visit my mother and my brother.
Mr. JENNER - Your brother?
Mr. PIC - That is correct.
Mr. JENNER - Did your brother's wife accompany him?
Mr. PIC - He wasn't married at that time, sir.
Mr. JENNER - He wasn't married?
Mr. PIC - I think this was, his leave was probably in October or November 1952, a matter of a month or two after they had moved out. We visited their apartment in the Bronx.
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, where did your brother stay?
Mr. PIC - I think he stayed at the Soldier-Sailor-Airmen Club in New York.
Mr. JENNER - In any event he did not stay with you.
Mr. PIC - No, sir; he may have stayed with my mother also. I don't think so. Maybe for a night or two. We went out, my wife fixed him up with a date with one of her girl friends and we went out together a couple of times. So, we were invited up there for this Sunday dinner. So it was my mother, Lee, Robert, my wife, myself, and my son.
Robert was already there when we arrived. When Lee seen me or my wife he left the room. For dinner he sat in the front room watching TV and didn't join us whatsoever.
Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?
Mr. PIC - No, sir
Amazing the number of things they are mistaken about for these records NOT to be indicative of two different kids... The kid who leaves the room is the same that used to run up to his big brother, collect stamps with him, and as Pic puts it: .... the strange knife incident is cited as the dividing line when these relationships all changed....
When Lee visited us in New York he came there a friendly, nice easy-to-like kid.
Mr. JENNER - This is 1952 in the summer?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; he had the interest of boys at that age, the Museum of Natural History, sightseeing excursions and so forth. Until the incident where I talked to him we never had a bad word between us other than maybe joking or playing around. I tried to interest him in a hobby of building boats or collecting stamps again while he was--
Mr. JENNER - Had he been interested in those two hobbies?
Mr. PIC - Yes; he and I, all three of us collected stamps. I played chess with Lee quite a bit and Robert, too. We all did this. Played monopoly together, the three of us