David Josephs

Just like you Greg, the FBI counted all the days including July, Aug and Sept... problem is he didn't go to summer school - unless you can provide some proof he did.

They simply counted the days from March 23 1953 until Jan 12, 1954 and created a fraudlulent document which makes no sense.

The total of the days offered here is virtually the same as the attendance from March 23 forward - except the summer should not be included.

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I do so identify that picture. That was taken at the Bronx Zoo--a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald, takes during my 10-day leave in New York City in 1953, approximately July or August of 1953.
Mr. JENNER. Was school in session at that time?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir, school was not in session at that time. This was during the summer months.
Mr. JENNER. So there was no obligation on the part of your brother to have been in school at this particular time?
Mr. OSWALD. That's correct, sir.

The School system would know the difference. The FBI agents tasked with creating this document evidently didn't.

Ok then Greg...

how about we just illustrate the misrepresentation of evidence that has become your signature here

From earlier in this thread:

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.

(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.

your next one?

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.

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.

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; 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.

You see Greg, you hide the info that does not suit your answers in hopes no one would look.

You continue to make absurd comments like: "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 this thread)

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.

On the follow-up day's phone call she repeatedly said they did not refer to him as Oswald... but that they only introduced him as such at the front door. Once again you must twist the woman's words to fit your square peg in the round hole. While making your point with cherry-picking right down the the sentence right before the contradiction to your conclusion.

Shabby amateurish work Parker...

Your points are so poorly supported by the evidence you have to resort to this?

But that's not lying or misrepresenting the evidence... it's NOT I'm saying.

that 's just you speculating about why she said what the evidence says she did in a manner which supports your view of things... without exposing all the pertinent facts... or that the gist of the sources of your supporting evidence mean the exact opposite of what you show in your posts...

That's what you do and what you've been doing since you've returned to attack anything not to your liking.

Half-truths you post as facts and build upon as if a solid foundation had been established and yet even the most cursory of looks shows them for the house of cards they are...

And you honestly believe you're fooling anyone...

ok... shhhhh! I'll keep your secret.

bump (Parker - you just like to forget about this stuff, don't ya?)

Ok then Greg...

how about we just illustrate the misrepresentation of evidence that has become your signature here

From earlier in this thread:

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.

(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.

your next one?

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.

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.

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; 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.

You see Greg, you hide the info that does not suit your answers in hopes no one would look.

You continue to make absurd comments like: "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 this thread)

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.

On the follow-up day's phone call she repeatedly said they did not refer to him as Oswald... but that they only introduced him as such at the front door. Once again you must twist the woman's words to fit your square peg in the round hole. While making your point with cherry-picking right down the the sentence right before the contradiction to your conclusion.

Shabby amateurish work Parker...

Your points are so poorly supported by the evidence you have to resort to this?

But that's not lying or misrepresenting the evidence... it's NOT I'm saying.

that 's just you speculating about why she said what the evidence says she did in a manner which supports your view of things... without exposing all the pertinent facts... or that the gist of the sources of your supporting evidence mean the exact opposite of what you show in your posts...

That's what you do and what you've been doing since you've returned to attack anything not to your liking.

Half-truths you post as facts and build upon as if a solid foundation had been established and yet even the most cursory of looks shows them for the house of cards they are...

And you honestly believe you're fooling anyone...

ok... shhhhh! I'll keep your secret.

I said before that the sum of those days was an approximation because the end date for the school year was unknown.

The end date CURRENTLY in New York is 6/23.

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/32DF8AD8-D1E0-4228-A919-818C6B12D8C3/0/201516SchoolYearCalendarFamilyFriendly.pdf

If it was the same or similar in 1953, you can have your 40 days, back but you need to subtract all days between 23/6 and September - about 49. I think that brings it back to approximately 192. You have also doubled up on the 15 days at YH. Those are the 15 days absence. You can't count it twice. So take off another 15 = 177 (again -it's approximate).

So... in summary... I may have been wrong about the 40 days not being counted - but only if the school year in 1953 ended around the same time as it currently does.

The bottom line is that there is a logical explanation that doesn't need a parallel universe to explain it.

bump.

pathetic.

Thru the 23rd of June, if they went that long, would be another 17 SCHOOL days genius.

There are over 40 school days from Jan 16 thru March 23...

The days in the Spring of 1953 in green represent the days which match the attendance record (inset) - there are 50 days there including his stay at Youth House on which he did not attend PS44 yet is somehow credited with the attendance with no mention of Youth house -

Let's add the 17 days until June 23rd for Parker. Total 67 days.

What does the evidence show? Reversed out overlaying Jan-Mar is the record... 109 + 15 + half days.

Let's add the 46 days back to Jan 16th - the day he was xferred thru March 23rd when he started school for a total of 67 + 46 = 113 school days. Still not the 124 + half days and we both know that the SPRING semester did not start on the 16th of Jan since we know the start date of the FALL semester and need about 90 school days.

It is 74 school days from Sept 1st to Jan 16th (and they did not start Sept 1st). Appears by basic math that the SPRING semester would not start until Feb.

You simply do not have enough days to account for the attendance.

So Parker... while you want to dance around throwing insults... it's all right here. Can't hide it, can't confuse it.

All you have left is your "go to": The FBI just made a mistake when they copied the originals onto the copies provided and proceeded to lose the originals... so trust us... it's just a simple mistake... hurry along, nothing to see here.

David, those are some good comments about the 'outright lies'. The reason I think it is so useless to comment on 'outright lies' is that there is so little in the WC that is based on truth, that leaves 'almost everything' else to be commented on. One simple example, look at your discussion above about the angle of the shots from the TSBD. We all know that there is absolutely no evidence of any shot having been fired from the snipers nest, so any comments on angles are all hypothesis or just plain fabrication. Another discussion, about LHO ordering a rifle. There is clearly NO evidence that LHO ordered a rifle. Just because there was 'supposedly' evidence that LHO used the alias A HIdell, there is no proof that he actually did. But shipment of a rifle ordered by an unknown, paid for by someone with a money order mailed from somewhere that LHO did not frequent and would have been way out of the way for him to have been there during a time when the timeclock at his employers showed that he was on the job far away from the post office. And then to try to prove that the rifle, initially a Mauser, later changed to a Carcano that was not the same carcano that was in the photos that were faked as evidence that LHO really did own a Carcano by using a totally different rifle as that proof. In other words, Warren Report is a Keystone Kops Kaper in writing. They were all thumbs and got little or nothing right. I know of no Nutter that has ever proven any part of the Lone Nut scenario.

Agree of course Kenneth - and I hope to post that article on CTKA re: the rifle and pistol within the next couple weeks

One needs to ask about the evidence related to a shot from that spot...

The three men closest to this shot were Norman, Williams and Jarman who, by the window beneath the 6th floor were no more than 15 feet from the open muzzle of that rifle - if we assume it was there.

The easiest of searches finds that a rfiel of that sort produces about 150 dB's at the muzzle and about 120-140 dB at 15 feet.

This is enough to deafen someone for a short term at least and produce serious ringing in the ears.... and that would be one of the shots, not three.

"thought it came from above"

"believe it came from above"

Mr. JARMAN - Hank said, Harold Norman, rather, said that he thought the shots had came from above us

Mr. NORMAN - but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President,"

I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."

but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me"

We are expected to believe that these men were doubtful about where the shots came from and that they could hear shells clinking and a bolt working...

That simply stretches the bounds of common sense and logic a bit too far David... unless there was little if any sound from a silenced weapon.. Euins does make a convincing claim of seeing a barrel protruding and firing...

One thing is for sure though, the C2766 found on that floor and any shots fired have nothing to do with each other.

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

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy. The WCR & HSCA is the government's way of wrapping it up as an eternal EFF EWE for all of history to marvel at the blatant manner the US people were and remain fooled about the workings of the world around them.

DVP argues in a vacuum of 1950's Leave it to Beaver optimism and collective ignorance. It's cute and all, but terribly antiquated and hopelessly naive.

It's hard to "prove" a conspiracy when the facts of what actually occurred during the assassination are in question.

There is no question in relation to the extant physical evidence in the case.

None.

There are endlessly repeated conclusions to the contrary, but no actual challenge to the facts:

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

That location is too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Now, there will be any number of contentless claims to the contrary....

Spot on Cliff... and here's the visual proof

"David's crap" is about the only truth here. Are you really surrendering this whole site to Greg Parker and his minions? Will you NEVER stop the BLEEDING?

Really? then you better put your website back to what it looked like a few years ago before my work forced changed to it.

David's latest crap can be found on the other H & L thread where he is soon to be busy trying to defend the most stridently assassine decronstuction of a school report imaginable.

Someone get the popcorn.

Yes Greg... let's send people over to your explanation that a school year is over 240 days and that the boy's perm record does not show a stay at Youth House for 17 days...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=30#entry305028

Popcorn? You're not entertaining anyone GP, you're just making a fool of yourself... I stand corrected - very entertaining.

Good luck ain showing PS 44 had any responsibility for a non-enrolled kid.

Yes, it should be entertaining. I should run a book on which logical fallacy you'll did into this time.

Really Parker... that's the best you have now that you've backed off the actual evidence, and counting, with the reality that you've not got one thing correct in a single rebuttal you've offered except for the 6% chance of tonsil regrowth in 5 year olds...

The fact that those days from Jan to March are actually school days is the point. That there are at least 40 of them while he does not attend school... so no, they did not include those days in his attendance since he was not in school... if they were part of the 109 + 15 it might be a little closer... buyt then the spring semester needed to start before the fall ended for that to work... ooops

But those days don't simply disappear - they get added to the other days for a total potential # of days at school.

Did you explain how a 180 day school year has over 225 days in it according to the records posted or how there are 125+ days from March 23 to May 30th in the spring semester?

Not anywhere here - all I see are more excuses for why you can't admit a mistake.... or cant count very well.

Are you truly that immune to social graces as to not be able to admit when you've made a mistake - even when it is glaring and obvious to everyone? this is how you were taught?

David Josephs,

As I said before, I haven't the foggiest idea what the "Detective Brown" stuff is all about.

But let me once again stress the importance of the following two facts. And these are two facts that a certain number of conspiracy theorists will apparently forever label as "fake" or "phony" or "lies", but these two quotes are still going to be there for CTers to ignore until the cows come home....

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Volume 6

and...

"Jack Duffy asked Marina if she had taken the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did"." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007)

And if you'd like to hear Marina herself say that she took the backyard photos, here she is doing so in this HSCA audio from September of 1978....

https://app.box.com/s/hf7yp5ctenxvgjttuq7jwtuuv57eagb7

In additional, during the same 1978 HSCA testimony, Marina Oswald made the following comments concerning Lee leaving their apartment in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 to go out to "target practice" with his rifle....

Mr. JAMES McDONALD -- "Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?"

Mrs. MARINA OSWALD PORTER -- "Yes, he did."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And what did he do?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that."

Mr. McDONALD -- "This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "It is several occasions, maybe more than once."

Mr. McDONALD -- "He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on...and the rifle under the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "Yes."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And how long would he be gone?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "A few hours."

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

AUDIO VERSION OF ABOVE TESTIMONY -- https://app.box.com/s/wyh0qnvas7pkmkahcldp3omfjsxotmqq

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found on Page 231 of HSCA Volume 2.

I guess LHO was supposed to be walking around outside his house with the rifle for hours, since he didn't have a car to drive anywhere

I can't understand anyone believing anything in the WCR. So many things are known to be outright lies and fabrications. Once you know the WC itself fabricated evidence then you know that the rest was very selectively chosen just to amplify their side. Such as the SBT. Everyone except DVP and his pigpen playmate are still laughing at that one.

Can you please site the "outright lies" contained in the WCR, or should your simply alleging it suffice?

And who is this "pigpen" guy?

I'd like to address your question Curtis...

There are so many it's almost hard to narrow it down to just posting a few... but these are some of the most egregious

Here's the ryberg/ford/bullet hole composite to show how they lied about the placement of the entry wound on the back - this is an "outright lie"

Both the FBI and Secret Service place the final shot 40 feet further down Elm than the conclusions of the WCR allow.

Z313 is acknowledged as the final shot.

This is WCD298's measurements for where the limo was when each of the three shots were fired... with an inset of the location with a string back to the 6th floor... That's 40 feet past z313

Seems to me Z313 as the last shot head shot is an "outright lie" based on their investigations and results

The SS gives us this: Z313 at 4+65 is not the same as placing the last shot within 4 feet of 5+00, 35 feet down Elm.

And finally Curtis - the 12th of the conclusions of the WCR states:

12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds

that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s

safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD.

I would say that Greer and Kellerman are the SS agents most responsible for JFK's safety... here they are reacting "promptly" at the time of the shots.

At one if not two shots had already been fired - So Greer slows down, and turns to stare at JFK as his head is blown off

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to see anything of President Kennedy as you glanced to the rear?

Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't see anything of the President, I didn't look, I wasn't far enough around to see the President.

uh, right.

I have only been talking to GP here, not an entire country. IF GP is "down-under's" representation to the world... that's their problem, not mine.

That he trusts anonymous FBI reports as a source for his replies is par for the course Looney...

He believes the evidence is indicative of the crime and not the conspiracy... his results from that assumption will always be wrong.

This thread is about GP misrepresenting the evidence to forward a conclusion.. Odio most definitely was introduced to the man by name, twice per her testimony.

Who she repeats the name to is of no consequence

The details of the following day's phone calls have no bearing on the introduction at the door of LEON OSWALD

And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice.

Mrs. ODIO. She said, "Sylvia, you know that man?" And I said, "Yes," and she said, "I know him." "He was the one that came to our door, and it couldn't be so, could it?"

Recognizing Oswald immediately and the FBI trying the bait and switch with a substitute trifecta and the burying of her evidence is also of no consequence to you or your conclusion that - how did you put it? "they NEVER used his surname Oswald..."

He may indeed have a career at the FBI yet - his misrepresentation of the evidence will surely push him straight to management

No David, you may have been debating with Greg but as part of an attempt to goad him you are making broad-brush insults against people from 'down under' which I'm sure you know are completely unacceptable.

Mods, really he should be banned for these comments about Australians. Would you have allowed it about any other nationality? If you're not going to uphold standards on racism on here then where does it stop?

As for the swipe directed at me David, all I can say is, is that really the best you can do?

You're not in grade school any more David - this is where the adults play. So you're really going to have to lift your game on the name calling. Put some brains and initiative into it.

But I have a feeling that whatever you come up with, it's going to hurt you a lot more than it's going to hurt me. (Because to tell you a secret David, I'm pretty much impervious to the games that go on over the internet. I've been insulted by experts on other sites who are professionals and it doesn't bother me a bit.)

And do you know why? Because I figure that sort of name calling says a heck of a lot more about you than it does about me.

So bring it on, David. Let's see what you've got.

Believe it or not, that's how I thought it was spelled when I replied... there was no intent at all... I apologize for having inadvertently offended you, Ms. Loney.

on the flip side, If you've spent any time at ROKC (as they have) and can come here with a straight face to talk about being adults -

If you have not been to that forum and read the childishness that goes on every day with grossly insulting racial slurs, demeaning nicknames and threats... you can't understand how toned down their rhetoric is here compared to there..... then again, having 5 people doing all the posting does narrow down the options.

The beef is not with you, it's with the crap evidence the FBI (and Parker) uses to make their case. According to GP's work, the FBI info is golden... yet when that same FBI offers info contrary to his conclusions - it's crap again.

From the very beginning Parker has claimed Odio was NEVER given Leon's last name. That's not what the evidence shows. His repeating it on multiple thread and posts does not change what she said or how wrong Parker remains on the subject.

So repeatedly misrepresenting the verbatim evidence is okay... only the US Government's investigation will agree with that... we here know better.

He was introduced as Leon Oswald and Sylvia immediately recognizes the man as the same... there is very little wiggle room on this Parker... so please stay with the doctors and next call calls for your arguments... your track record of pointing to the wrong time, wrong testimony and wrong evidence has become expected.

Ms. Loney - if you actually have an argument to put forth, do so and let it stand on its own... "bring it" as you say....

"David's crap" is about the only truth here. Are you really surrendering this whole site to Greg Parker and his minions? Will you NEVER stop the BLEEDING?

Really? then you better put your website back to what it looked like a few years ago before my work forced changed to it.

David's latest crap can be found on the other H & L thread where he is soon to be busy trying to defend the most stridently assassine decronstuction of a school report imaginable.

Someone get the popcorn.

Yes Greg... let's send people over to your explanation that a school year is over 240 days and that the boy's perm record does not show a stay at Youth House for 17 days...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=30#entry305028

Popcorn? You're not entertaining anyone GP, you're just making a fool of yourself... I stand corrected - very entertaining.

Stick to the evidence Parker and deal with IT, All I'm doing here is posting it and watching you and your brigade stumble over yourselves trying and debunk it with nothing but the air in your lungs...

Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...

Did you ever stop and wonder how it is that you, Armstrong and the rest of the klan are the only ones who can see the problem... er... "problem"?

Have a think about that, David and get back to me about how brilliant you are for reading a full school year into a single semester.

Wow... you really are this bad.

March 23, 1953 to May 30, 1953... is to you a full school year? The Fall semester and Jan/Feb do not count.

Yet if you look only a few lines above

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=29#entry304931

It shows Sept '52 and that semester's (defined as the first half of a school year in the english language) attendance (15 3/2 attend 47 3/2 missed) until he skips and does not go to any school for over 2 months.

There are at least 40 school days in the 2 missed months... so 40 + 15 + 47 + 109 + 15 = the total # of days in this boy's record's school year.

180 days in a school year Greg... this adds to 226 and Youth House is still not counted.

I'm exceedingly brilliant Greg... just getting back to you.

If drawing utterly rancid conclusions from various types of evidence is brilliant. You're a died-in-the-wool genius.

school record is talking about a whole school year - not a semester.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10765&search=%22school_records%22#relPageId=14&tab=page

Note just after data for PS 44 it states: Year beginning | 9 - 52 | 3 - 23 -53 | 9 - 53 |

9/52 was the start of the school year. 3/23/53 was when he started at PS 44. 9/53 is the start of another school year.

So the calculation is 15 + 47 + 109 + 15 + part days. This is still only approximate due to the fact that we don't know the exact date the school year finished. There was also a spring break in there.

Are you really going to continue to argue that the paperwork says he did 109 days in one semester?

Sorry Greg but you're wrong... Semesters do not start in March. They run, in this case, from Sept-Jan, Feb -June. Each semester is approx 90 days for a 180 day school year. (When he starts in 9/15/53 he attends 65 (62 + 8 1/2 days) and is gone 7 (3 + 8 1/2 days) and leaves in Mid Jan.. see how that adds up to a semester - the semester would be ending by the end of Jan beginning of Feb for a total of approx 90 days)

From 3/32/53 thru the end of the semester adds to 124 6 1/2 days in that record. A semester is 90 days.

Semester do not start over for a child in the middle of one just because they transfer... there are only so many days in a school year, period.

The following is simply a recap of what the record, the evidence says... and how it conflicts with a real school year.

The semester started 9/8/52 when he attends Trinity until 9/26/52 which is also part of the 52-53 school year and is 15 (9+6) more days of school to be added to that year

15 + 47 is his time at PS117 from 9/30/52 (each month has about 20 school days - Oct, Nov Dec Jan with holidays is the 62 + 6 1/2 days)

he transfers to PS44 on 1/16/53 (BEFORE THE END OF THE FALL SEMESTER) yet does not attend until 3/23/53 (AFTER THE START OF THE SPRING SEMESTER) - that's still part of the school year yet is not counted as potential days he attends on this record... the 109 days begins 3/23)

from 1/16-3/23 is 40 school days he DOES NOT ATTEND yet are part of the semester and are not counted

from 3/23/53 - 5/30/53 he completes the semester with an attendance record of 109 3 1/2 days and absent 15 3 1/2 days 124+ days

Sept 1953 has nothing to do with the 52-53 school year.

According to this record for the 52-53 year the boy could have attended 20 days at Trinity, 62 & 6 1/2 days at PS117, Missed 40 days from Jan to March 53, could attend up to 124 & 6 1/2 days to bring us to the end of the 52-53 years

15 + 15 + 47 + 40 + 109 + 15 = 241+ potential days of school according to this record for the 52-53 school year - that's over 3 months too many Greg... sorry, but that's not how the school year works.

9/8 thru 9/26 + 9/30 thru 1/16 + 1/16 thru 3/23 + 3/23 thru the end of spring 52-53.

The YOUTH HOUSE occurs between 3/23 and 5/30 (4/15-5/7) - wonder why does the record not reflect this?

Greg, you can hold your breath and turn blue if you like but you're wrong about how a semester works and how many days a school year was.

This record is a combination of two children into one.. it is predominantly the 5'4" Lee's record once at PS44 yet it's our Harvey up to that point at Trinity and being truant for over 2 months out of 3 in the FALL SEMESTER. The large, southern Lee Oswald never went to Youth House.

Thanks for finding the worst possible copy of that record too btw... try this, it's a bit more clear.

The 3/23 semester start date is HIS start date, not the semester's... the calendar is included again for you assistance, just point and count

you can do THAT right mate?

But hey, nice try in any case..

I'm only talking to you, mate. not the whole country.

It is beyond you to see a problem with this strange little event... once again at a time when the FBI knows an Oswald is in one place and is somehow leaving evidence in another...

It remains beyond you to apply the history of deception the FBI enjoyed at that time and understand that an anonymous call was just as likely an FBI asset as anything else.

That the membership of most right or left groups were heavily filled with FBI assets that their activities were more orchestrated than occurring naturally.

You think the FBI just turned it off for a while related to the evidence of Oswald in places he was not known to have been and every single one of them is benign.

Is it that you cannot fathom that level of corruption from your POV so it's not possible? Yes Greg, the FBI was that corrupt and that free to be so.

I actually think the root problem here is that you still believe the FBI conducted a real investigation and was an honorable group.

Greg... you need to let that go. The FBI were architects of the conspiracy's cover-up by being the conduit for the evidence.

Now I am not saying that the FBI was covering for the fact that LEE or someone playing Lee was up there watching JFK as Nagell had predicted... but it remains very possible.

I can't put my faith in the evidence of the FBI - it has proven to be misleading and wrong at every turn. That you chose to is your right I guess...

At least now I feel there is no need to engage with you any longer... your arguments are all FBI pixie dust strung together by hope and faith...

So ok Greg, the anonymous caller explains it all... nice work everybody... time for beer

Stick to the evidence Parker and deal with IT, All I'm doing here is posting it and watching you and your brigade stumble over yourselves trying and debunk it with nothing but the air in your lungs...

Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...

Did you ever stop and wonder how it is that you, Armstrong and the rest of the klan are the only ones who can see the problem... er... "problem"?

Have a think about that, David and get back to me about how brilliant you are for reading a full school year into a single semester.

Wow... you really are this bad.

March 23, 1953 to May 30, 1953... is to you a full school year? The Fall semester and Jan/Feb do not count.

Yet if you look only a few lines above

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=29#entry304931

It shows Sept '52 and that semester's (defined as the first half of a school year in the english language) attendance (15 3/2 attend 47 3/2 missed) until he skips and does not go to any school for over 2 months.

There are at least 40 school days in the 2 missed months... so 40 + 15 + 47 + 109 + 15 = the total # of days in this boy's record's school year.

180 days in a school year Greg... this adds to 226 and Youth House is still not counted.

I'm exceedingly brilliant Greg... just getting back to you.

For example, [David] Josephs misrepresents when the third pose was found by saying "NYE 1976." I guess that's code for New Year's Eve? Anyway, that third pose was known to exist in November 1963. Det. Bobby Brown was interviewed for local TV back in the early 90s and described how and why Fritz sent him out to duplicate the poses (plural) to look into Oswald's claim that CE134 (the blowup) was fake.

So yes, DPD had at least three poses and it's fair to wonder what the heck happened to the missing negative. But the poses were evidence when Brown made his test studies.

Gary... what exactly does "known to exist in Nov 1963" supposed to mean?

If the DPD's own Detective and Chief would not tell the truth about it - who CAN we trust then.... right?

And didn't the Warren Commission go to great lengths to have Marina tell us she took two and not the one photo that day she told the FBI... while holding the camera to her eyes - an incorrect statement for the woman who NEVER took photos and would have to look down into an inverted image of her husband with a rifle and pistol and take amazingly focused images... now 3 times? and that causes you no concern of course.... those blinders are amazingly effective... don't stray from the course boys.

Uh, right... time for a reality check Larry. The fox telling you he didn't eat the hens it not very reassuring.

WCR:

Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures.I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.

Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.

Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.

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

HSCA:

Mrs. PORTER. Well, first of all, I refused to take picture because I did not know how to operate camera, and he told me, he insist that I will take it, and he said he will show me how, if I just push the button. So I took one picture, I think, and maybe he changed the pose, I don't recall. Maybe I took two pictures, but I was very annoyed by all the incidents.

Mr. McDONALD. Did you use a tripod at all?

Mrs. PORTER. Did I use what?

Mr. McDONALD. A tripod. In other words, was the camera attached to a stand?

Mrs. PORTER. No.

Mr. McDONALD. OK. You held it in your hands.

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. Now, Mrs. Porter, can you recall how many photographs you took, how many poses? What we have here are two, two poses. Can you recall whether you took any others?

Mrs. PORTER. No, I don't.

Mr. McDONALD. So as you look in front of you, you have three photographs, each one with a slightly different pose.

Mrs. PORTER. Well, I never compared them before. Since you ask me, you know, I have to compare.

Mr. McDONALD. As you will see, A has him holding a gun, holding the rifle in his right hand--left hand, B, the rifle in the right hand, and then, C, in the left hand again, slightly to the front.

So with these to refresh your memory, can you say, can you recall if you took any additional pictures?

Mrs. PORTER. No, I cannot remember how many exactly. To me it looks like all of them. It looks like Lee.

Mr. McDONALD. That is correct.

Mrs. PORTER. That is the only thing I can say, but I do not remember how many pictures I was taking.

And here all is the crux of the matter - what and how is the next question asked - think about Specter's "if it exits the throat would that be considered an exit wound, in your opinion"... The now have three photos... not once in the last 13 years has this other photo surfaced "but it was known to exist in Nov 1963"

How leading a question is this Mr. Tidd?

Mr. McDONALD. But since we have three in front of you, we know now that you at least took three; correct?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. Three different occasions?

Mrs. PORTER. I mean it was one occasion.

Mr. McDONALD. Right.

Mrs. PORTER. But I could take three pictures, I could take two pictures. I cannot be definite about how many.

Mr. McDONALD. Let me ask you if you can remember, was there a pose? Did Lee pose holding the rifle over his head, in two hands?

Mrs. PORTER. I don't remember that at all.

So y'know GMack... these are the standards of evidence and moral surety about how 133-C comes to be "known to exist in Nov 1963" and disappears - while it appears as if it was never taken - that you adhere to in this case?

Common sense and logical deduction not allowed

.

On Sunday, Nov 24, a drunk in a party of six saw a blank space in the guest book and filled it in with the name "Lee Oswald" - Dallas, Texas. If there had been no assassination, the same drunk would probably have written "Donald Duck c/- Disneyland" in that same blank space.

So on Nov 24th, after the assassination, this group just leafed thru the registry until they found a blank space in SEPT and wrote in Lee Oswald in a similar fashion as his real signature.

Is this you on Radionics again Parker? You give us grief for the basis of our conclusions and yet you will buy most anything the FBI says hook line and sinker ?

IOW - between Nov 22 and Nov 30 someone had to contact the FBI and report the incident. And then those at the restaurant are told to keep quiet about this event that you now claim was innocuous.

If you had done the work on this you should have done, you'd know the answers. Here I am doing your work for you again.

The local cops found out about it on Nov 27 and immediately contacted the FBI. The FBI went straight out the remote Fox and Hound, confiscated the entry and had it examined. It was not Oswald's writing. Then on the 30th, the FBI got a tip from an anonymous caller on Nov 30 who explained that one of her drunken party made the entry in a blank space in the guest book. That's it. That's all there was to it, People do that kind of stuff. Get over it.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10437&search=%22unknown_caller%22#relPageId=5&tab=page

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10437&search=%22unknown_caller%22#relPageId=6&tab=page

The newspaper story was published on Nov 29 or 30 because it states the "assassination was a week ago Friday". Whatever the case, it went to press before the FBI made public anything about the final disposition of the episode.

Your attempt to paint the FBI telling the Fox and Hound employees not to talk about it as somehow "sinister" is exactly the kind of thing I expect from you and your loony friends. Hands up anyone here who was unaware it is standard law enforcement practice to ask people not to comment on something that is a matter of ongoing investigation.

Nicely done Greg... you got everything except who did it and why... and then we add in the call from the 30th and you assume it must be authentic - anonymous callers are usually so reliable - right?

So how did the signers of that book know to put Oswald in Dallas and how is it that the forged signature bears a striking resemblence to Oswald's actual signature down to the looped L and O?

Just a benign coincidence... That you wil believe anything and everything the FBI puts in print without corroboration is simply astounding...

How again does a group of nobodies even know about Lee Oswald let alone the problem you'll have with writing "Dallas" on Sept 14th.

By the way - I've dropped the name calling and am asking simple straigh forward questions... why do you suppose it was even important for the FBI to bother with something written in a book in Milwaukee

and when did you say the article was published - BEFORE the phone call. No chance someone called the "Milwaukee office" as a prank after reading the article and claimed anonymously it was her party and her friend...

the FBI simply believes whatever anyone might say when they call?

I see you lurking there Parker.... we all do.

Can you count or not?

There are 180 days in a school year - we've had that discussion

The record shows 109 + 15 + half days days from March 23 to end of the semester... with a 17 day stay at Youth House...

How dat?

Seriously, Dave, both brother and sister make separate and independent estimations of the length of the bag, both are mistaken and, incredibly, both estimate the length to be 24-27" inches? Not sure I'd be calling anyone else's theories stupid, little man.

Bob... there was no paper bag in Oswald's possession that day. There was no rifle in the garage and no evidence it was ever there. There was no opportunity for Oswald to have unassembled the rifle, packed it into a bag and gotten it out of the house.

We can't have a discussion about a bag until someone can show Oswald made it, when he made it, how he made it, how he got it home how the rifle gets into it, how Oswald leaves with it in the morning and some corroborating evidence for the siblings. Wesley was arrested and his 30.06 and ammunition was also brought in the night of Nov 22nd. His sister was there too. Given the choice between being charged for the president's murder or an accessory (he drove the man to get his rifle and brought him back with it knowingly) and telling a little white lie about a bag in Oswald's possession... I believe he choise the latter.

Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.

Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.

Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

For the rifle to be in the garage, it needs to have been brought from New Orleans on Sept 24, 1963 when Ruth picks up Marina and kids.

Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise?

Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature.

Mr. JENNER - Did you drive them to your home?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Were the materials and things in your station wagon unpacked and placed in your home?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes; immediately.

Mr. JENNER - Did you see that being done, were you present?

Mrs. PAINE - I helped do it; yes.

Mr. JENNER - Did you see any weapon on that occasion?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Whether a rifle, pistol or--

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Or any covering, any package, that looked as though it might have a weapon, pistol, or firearm?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home?

Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no.

Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one?

Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November.

Mr. JENNER - Then, I would ask you directly, did you see him in the garage at anytime from the time you first saw him on the lawn until he retired for the night?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Until you retired for the night?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Was he out on the lawn after dinner or supper?

Mrs. PAINE - I don't believe so.

Mr. JENNER - Did you hear any activity out in the garage on that evening?

Mrs. PAINE - No; I did not.

Mr. JENNER - Any persons moving about?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - The only thing that arrested your attention was the fact that you discovered the light on in the garage?

Mrs. PAINE - That is right.

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

Jon - even a judge has to follow the rules of Real Evidence in determining whether to admit an item as evidence... I realize we are not judges yet there does remain some common sense involved. If we can show that an item of evidence is neither unique (due to false testimony or any other reason), or made unique, or we can illustrate a break or hole in the chain of custody, a judge may still admit it as evidence yet it's evidentiary value is greatly diminished.

I think for our purposes here, discussing whether evidence is Authentic has to be our first line of analysis.

Authenticating evidence for a court of law creates what’s called “REAL EVIDENCE”: Evidence

Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case

To be admissible, real evidence, like all evidence, must be relevant, material, and competent.

Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways—1) by identification of a unique object, 2) by identification of an object that has been made unique, and 3) by establishing a chain of custody.

I think the following blows "uniqueness" out of the water and we know that no photos are taken of this bag where it was found... hours later Monty emerges with his bag being help up by something inside it. (Monty claimed it was a venetian blind in a 6th floor statement). The bags below are all in excess of 3 feet and had been made with materials found at the TSBD. Another bag is found in an undelivered parcel supposedly addressed to Oswald but held for non-delivery. The testimony related to bringing this bag down is amazing... most specifically Montgomery's - the man photographed with the bag as he exits the TSDB

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.

Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long piece of paper?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.

Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?

Mr. BALL. The paper sack?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?

Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. You picked it up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.

Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over.

Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know.

Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures.

Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.

Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?

Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent.

Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?

Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?

Mr. HICKS. Paper bag?

Mr. BALL. Paper bag.

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.

Mr. BALL. Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it?

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it.

Mr. BALL. I believe that's all, Mr. Hicks.

Mr. HICKS. All right.

So there we have it... Monty did not take it, Hicks did not see it, Studbaker claims he dusted it and "they" took it and Day has the FBI with it....

Montgomery is never officially asked how it is he has that bag in his possession in the photos - and whether the bag supposedly found yet no photo'd is the same.

This bag has 2 CE#'s 142 & 626. The Replica is CE364 and then there are a multiple of other views and photos of this bag...

CE2444 tells us the replica and original are not the same paper or tape

WCD5 p129 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=132&tab=page tells us a very different FBI story... Drain says that DAY found and kept the bag until giving it to Drain the night of 11/22 with everything else. That TRULY also saw this bag and furnished paper - yet not a word is spoken of this in his testimony... one page prior is the FBI report on Studebaker.

One doesn;t need to be a judge to see right from wrong, deviation from standard. the Evidence IS the Conspiracy while the FACTS remain a matter of opinion and POV. The accepted "facts" in this case can only shed light on the conspiracy...

In reality, there are few if any "facts" which can be stated with confidence in this case. Evidence is plentiful.

David J.,

I plead total ignorance on the "Detective Brown" matter. I haven't the slightest idea what it's all about.

That's fair Dave...

How about using some plain old common sense?

The photo was given to the HSCA on Dec 31, 1976 by Roscoe White's widow

The Det Brown image is from Nov 29, 1963

The ghost cutout was found in the DPD archives before Dec 31, 1976

Det Stovall provides yet another copy of 133-C in 1978

How can the DPD position the man and make a cutout of a pose no one was aware of when they have in their possession two photos of the same scene which they could just as easily placed Det Brown in?

Don't over think it Dave... try some logic.

What are the possibilities?

- The photos existed as a set well before 11/22

- The cutout and Brown pose are two of the most amazing coincidences ever

- 133-C was found with the other photos yet like the 133-A negative, simply disappears from evidence. For 13 years

- ???

Can you offer any benign explanation regarding the 13 year foreknowledge of an image used as the basis for a recreation AND a cutout which does not fit back into the 133-C itself?

And if you can't Dave... it's time to admit that the BYPs are simply not what the WCR wants them to be... plus the shadows don't work: This is something I created for my next CTKA article.

As you can see, the body shadows on the ground behind both men go in the same direction yet just look at the faces and the anatomical left side of the neck... the face in the BYPs does not belong.

The article was obviously written before the FBI received the phone call. If you knew about the phone call, you wouldn't have included anything about this episode since it is a non-event, Or maybe you did know about it but kept it from your readers in order to bolster whatever point the episode was supposed to prove?

Put it this - what good does the guest book entry do you now? None. Whatsoever.

If the article was written BEFORE the call on the 30th how would the FBI know where to go in the first place?

"Mrs Stanley declined to comment on how the FBI learned that the registry contained the name of "Lee Oswald"

I'm not at liberty to say anything," Mrs Stanley said. "I just can't... I was advised not to say anything."

Asked whether the FBI instructed her not to comment, Mrs Stanley replied, "There were others, too, but I just can't say."

The connection to JFK is that spoke at Ashland on Sept 24th. Nagell's warning included JFK's assassination "during the latter part of September (1963), probably the 26th, 27th, 28th or 29th"

IOW - between Nov 22 and Nov 30 someone had to contact the FBI and report the incident. And then those at the restaurant are told to keep quiet about this event that you now claim was innocuous.

I'm sorry you don't see the connection or the need to investigate or finally the real possibility that the FBI created some ficticious caller reportto explain away the strange placement of Oswald in Dallas.

Why can't you post the source of that "FBI Report" related to the 11/30 call?

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

How do the unknown people in Wisconsin know to put Oswald "from Dallas" on Sept 14th if there is no connection and no way to know where he would be, or be from, at all? Why "Dallas" when there were actual newspaper accounts of his arrest in New Orleans in August?

You are prepared to conclude that this incident was completely benign on the word of an FBI report about unknown people making an anonymous claim...

and you wonder why your work is so hard to take seriously... between Radionics and a call from any crazy woman to be used as the basis for your uncorroborated conclusions - all you seem to be doing is hoping no one looks closely at the snake oil side show you present as research...

Let's see,

Do we know of any incident where the FBI put one thing in a report or statement to incriminate Oswald only to learn that what was said never happened?

Case in point: to get Oswald into the corner building the rifle and sniper's nest they need to get Williams off the 6th floor sooner than later. (for Bernie and those who think I am changing the subject - this is a simply an example of the FBI saying one thing to add incriminating evidence to the mix in place of reporting what was actually said.)

Why in the world would the FBI lie about Williams being 10 feet from the SE corner for 3 versus 15 minutes I wonder ????

Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes.

Mr. BALL - Were you on the sidewalk or curb?

Mr. JARMAN - On the sidewalk.

Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?

Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25

Mr. BALL - What did you do when you got to the fifth floor?

Mr. JARMAN - We got out the elevator and pulled the gate down. That was in case somebody wanted to use it. Then we went to the front of the building, which is on the south side, and raised the windows.

Mr. BALL - Which windows did you raise?

Mr. JARMAN - Well, Harold raised the first window to the east side of the building, and I went to the second rear windows and raised, counting the windows, it would be the fourth one.

Mr. BALL - It would be the fourth window?

Mr. JARMAN - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Did somebody join you then?

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir; a few minutes later.

Mr. BALL - Who joined you?

Mr. JARMAN - Bonnie Ray Williams.

Mr. DULLES. I would like to ask one question here. When you were on the sixth floor eating your lunch, did you hear anything that made you feel that there was anybody else on the sixth floor with you?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I didn't hear anything.

Mr. DULLES. You did not see anything?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not see anything.

Mr. DULLES. You were all alone as far as you knew at that time on the sixth floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. During that period of from 12 o'clock about to--10 or 15 minutes after?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I felt like I was all alone. That is one of the reasons I left--because it was so quiet.

Curious Dave...

you never did bother to address 133-C and the Det Brown recreation.

Unless White and Stovall hid this third image and negative it was only acknowledged to exist on NYE 1976.

How can the ghost image and Det Brown be in the 133-C pose when that image's existance had not yet been discovered?

And why, when we paste Ozzie in from 133-C does the image not work and is all skewed?

btw - the Det Brown image was taken on Nov 29th 1963

"After all, Occam's razor would suggest that if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck--rather than something else masquerading as one or trying to somehow become one..." - Jim Hargrove

Talk about irony. Here is a JCB load to add to the mountain.

Apply the above sentence to those successfully debunking the whole H&L edifice - and you will understand your detractors better.

The lack of insight by the H & L Brigade continues apace.

First off you'd need to find someone who is actually successfully debunking anything... Parker runs whining from a direct posting of the actual evidence related to the correct years and what was actually said along with what it meant.

I posted the calander Parker... show us by counting there are over 125 school days in less than half a semester... and where exactly the stay at Youth House - which was not any of the three PS44's in NYC - is reflected in this PERM record...

Maybe also address why there are multiple copies of the same record which do not match each other...

Stick to the evidence Parker and deal with IT, All I'm doing here is posting it and watching you and your brigade stumble over yourselves trying and debunk it with nothing but the air in your lungs...

Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...

A day or two later one of the Cubans called her on the phone & stated that the American "Leon Oswald was a former Marine and an expert shot.//// She didn't take the bait and her "LEFT" wing anti-Castro group was left out (escaped really ,out) of the plot/blame // Gaal

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

The Cuban also told her that Oswald said that Kennedy should be shot for abandoning the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs Fiasco.

They could NOT have Oswald talking about Killing Kennedy in advance while with Anti-Castro Cubans. So, They Invented the Mexico City Scenario

Who are "they" and wasn't it "they" who sent Oswald to Odio's place to start with?

So they had to do the Mexico City thang because they didn't really think the Odio plan through properly?

Another problemento!!!!

Why wasn't Oswald calling himself LEON in Mexico City? Remember those dumb Latinos thought he might be from outer space with a strange name like "Lee"!!!!

ANSWER David Josephs on the Mexico City Trip: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.

start here http://www.ctka.net/2014-Josephs/Josephs_Mexico%20City_Part%201.html !!! gaal

If this is indicative of the rest of it, I don't think I'll bother reading any further:

Josephs states: While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September when Oswald was in New Orleans with Marina (who was 8 months pregnant) and his first child June.

What follows is a either a figment of my imagination or Josephs is maintaining his usual standard:

Now what, David? Go from claiming they never tried to explain it to... they invented the phone call above? I guess that will have to be it, You've got nothing else to fall back on.

Maybe it's just that you speak a different English down under?

While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September

Would you provide the source for this quote please and then show how it is contained in the article I refer to above... as I never mention anything about an FBI follow-up report... you going to offer the source of this report or do we have to just take your word?

When someone uses a noun "this article" followed by a pronoun, "it never hints at why or who" most people understand the sentence refers to the article which I posted in the essay. I'm glad you found an FBI report of a phone call from an unknown woman about an unknown man and unknown reasons... but the ARTICLE as I state, does not hint at this. Additionally, the article goes on to state that the woman at the Fox and Hound was told that she was not to say a word, "I was advised not to say anything" by the FBI.

And if we are just going to believe any phone call then your Radionics call from Oxnard and the Tippit call regarding Oswald's real relatives in NYC must also be accepted as authentic evidence... ok.. fine with me.

So you see, once again in your effort to find fault in work you barely comprehend you twist the meaning of the words to suit your purpose. You are once again wrong in your analysis of what is very simple to follow.

This is the Evidence as it was offered. I do not state that I or anyone believes Oswald was actually there yet even you have to admit that a random call from a unknown person owning up to writing "Lee Oswald Dallas, Texas" in Wisconsin on Sept 14th when Oswald lived in New Orleans seems a bit more than a simple prank. But since all we have are anonymous calls and that article I include the real article in the presentation as opoposed to some FBI explanation which may or may not have any further corroboration.

Harvey and Marina Oswald did not live in Dallas all that summer... but Lee did. How would these unknown people know to put DALLAS when our Oswald in only in Dallas from October 1962 thru April 1963 and then again from October 1963 on....

Nice try though Greg...

I do not now believe that there has been one scintilla of any credible or empirical evidence of a conspiracy of any kind, in any direction, or which in any way sheds even a faint or whispered doubt on the singular and ultimate truth - that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely alone in the planning, execution, and assassination of JFK.

Welcome Mr. Berkley... I appreciate your candor in being able to declare with such certainty that there is no "credible or empirical evidence of conspiracy of any kind"

With regards to Oswald acting alone - I did an article assuming he did do it alone and what that plan of action might look like...

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

One of the few things I can say is an original argument of mine is the questioning and examination of the timing of events and the PLAN OIF ACTION that needed to occur for Oswald to have even been considered as involved in the assassination at all.

Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that Oswald was indeed at the SE 6th floor window at 12:30, and shots from there are fired by him, AND that he planned to kill JFK with the Mannlicher Carcano rifle. He surely could not have killed JFK with a rifle that was not there in the first place. Oswald has a few items of information he MUST have in order to pull this off, the most important being the knowledge that the motorcade and JFK's limo would pass within shooting distance of the building. Where would he get such information, and what would that info say specifically?

Commission Exhibit 1362 is the Nov 19th Dallas Times Herald article revealing the route the motorcade would take... "The motorcade will pass thru downtown on Harwood and then west on Main, turning back to Elm at Houston and then out Stemmons Freeway to the Trade Mart" AHA! Oswald, if he read or was aware of this article would now know that the motorcade would pass directly beneath the TSBD... in essence the motorcade was bringing JFK to his doorstep... Good thing he decided to take the lower paying TSBD job in October, right?

This is TUESDAY Nov 19th. The article prefaces with the fact that the formal announcement of the trip was made in Washington DC at 4pm... Could Oswald the Lone Nut have known that JFK would pass by the TSBD before that? I don't see how. Security according to Chief Curry was not even planned until Tuesday the 19th. This must have been the evening edition of the paper.

Is there any evidence from anyone in the building or anyone close to Oswald that he knew about the motorcade route that day?

According to Marina, on the night before the assassination, she asked him about Kennedy's upcoming visit the next day. Oswald seemed totally in the dark about when or where the motorcade would pass. (WC Vol. 18, p. 638)

Junior Jarman told the Commission that he did not learn about the motorcade passing in front of the Depository until that morning at about 9 AM. About an hour later, Oswald was standing near a window looking out at the gathering crowd. He asked Jarman what the people were there for. After Jarman told him, he asked which way the motorcade was coming. Which reveals, unlike the Commission assumption, that Oswald did not read the November 19th Times Herald (WC Vol. 3, p. 201).

Between the evening of Nov 19th and Thursday Nov 21 Oswald decides to get to the home of Ruth and Michael Paine to get his rifle out of the garage and bring it to work on Friday so he can do the deed. Does he make sure to ask Texas School Book Depository colleague Wesley Frazier for a ride home that day? For if he doesn't get home by Thursday night how can he get the rifle to work Friday?

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, we were standing like I said at the four-headed table about half as large as this, not, quite half as large, but anyway I was standing there getting the orders in and he said, "Could I ride home with you this afternoon?"

And I said, "Sure. You know, like I told you, you can go home with me any time you want to, like I say anytime you want to go see your wife that is all right with me."

Good thing Wesley was so accommodating... Asking Thursday for a ride home, a ride that would make or break his plan to kill JFK Friday seems cutting it a bit close... And he'd have to bring that paper bag he made to hold/hide the rifle with him... yet the man who sits by the paper dispenser never leaves his desk, eats his lunch at his desk and testifies to not being away from that area... yet somehow Oswald accomplishes this construction project with no one seeing him do it... and gets it home that Thursday in the car with Wesley... maybe hidden in his pants, or shirt, or jacket, or sweater, maybe???

Marina and Ruth are very surprised to see Oswald on that Thursday as he usually gives them fair warning...

Mr. JENNER - Let's proceed with the 21st. Did anything occur on the 21st with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald, that is a Thursday?

Mrs. PAINE - I arrived home from grocery shopping around 5:30, and he was on the front lawn. I was surprised to see him.

Mr. JENNER - You had no advance notice?

Mrs. PAINE - I had no advance notice and he had never before come without asking whether he could.

Mr. JENNER - Never before had he come to your home in that form without asking your permission to come?

Mrs. PAINE - Without asking permission; that is right.

It is here we are treated to Ruth Paine's story about the garage door and light being left on... she never sees Oswald in the garage, never hears him... and even goes on to tell reporters:

Mrs. PAINE - I said I did not see how he could have taken the gun from the garage without my knowing it.

As noted researcher Carol Hewett pointed out, evidently Ruth did not know that Marina said Lee was with her that night in her room and fell asleep. Yet somehow, he got into the garage, into the blanket, disassembled the rifle, placed it in the paper bag and made it ready for his leaving the following morning... if the OSWALD PLAN to kill JFK can even occur... maybe all this happened in the morning?

Mr. JENNER - You heard no moving about on his part prior to your awakening?

Mrs. PAINE - No moving about on his part at all when I looked when I awoke.

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He then stopped talking and sat down and watched television and then went to bed. I went to bed later. It was about 9 o'clock when he went to sleep. I went to sleep about 11:30. But it seemed to me that he was not really asleep. But I didn't talk to him.

In the morning he got up, said goodbye, and left, and that I shouldn't get up--as always, I did not get up to prepare breakfast. This was quite usual.

So the entire household was awake at 9pm when Oswald goes to sleep... and there is no mention of the time or sounds involved in what Oswald needed to do to get his 40" rifle into that bag...

But he must have at some point as he walks to the Frazier's with this large bag in his possession... which we come to learn must be at least 34" long to hold the largest piece of the broken down rifle. Also in this bag are the clip, the ammo, the scope and the barrel with firing mechanism... Metal and wood adding up to 7.5 lbs, with nothing to keep it from banging into itself, tearing this bag, or anything else.

Surely the people at the Frazier household see this bag? And they do and testify to it...

Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.

Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

(this 5'9" man holding his arm at his side carrying the bag, and this 34" piece did not touch the ground...ok)

...

Mr. BALL. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?

Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.

...

Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27" last time.

Mr. BALL. You measured 27" once before?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Hmmm... maybe she didn't get a good look... what does Wesley say about this bag?

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.

So it appears that Oswald is able to carry a 34"-40" rifle in a bag quite a bit smaller... yet measurements can be deceiving... maybe they underestimated; they MUST HAVE since the Lone Nut Oswald did get the rifle from the garage; where it had never been seen by anyone in the house; to the TSBD on the morning of the 22nd in the back seat of Wesley's car. And was able to tuck this rifle under his arm and carry it into the TSBD... Did anyone see Oswald when he arrived that morning?

One man, Edward Shields, claims he is told by his "friends" that they see Wesley drop Oswald off at the back door... yet this is 2nd hand hearsay and virtually impossible to prove... Luckily Mr. Dougherty was not only at the back entrance when Oswald arrives, but see whether or not anything is in his hands at the time...

After the same question about Oswald is asked and answered a number of times we finally have as evidence:

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

Is there anyone other than Wesley and his sister that claims they see Oswald with a package, bag, rifle or anything in his hands that morning? Nope. Yet he MUST HAVE since his plan was to kill JFK as he passed by later that day... and we get back now to the timing from that day.

After slipping by everyone with the package he stows it... where? Where does Oswald place this 27 to 40 inch bag with rifle parts in it so that it is undisturbed and available when he is ready to execute his plan. Maybe behind some boxes on the 6th floor? Since he knows there is work being done up there and the place is in disarray, no one would notice it... Maybe the 1st floor domino room? A hall closet? Well, no matter, it had to have been somewhere since this same rifle (supposedly) is found on the 6th floor, fully assembled at 1:22pm.

Back now to his knowledge of the motorcade route and the timing. What information is available to this Lone Nut master planner of JFK's death as to WHEN the motorcade would pass by the TSBD? He'd have to know this to at least be looking out a window at the time so as to take a shot... right?

We come to find that Secret Service agent Winston Lawson tells Chief Curry that the luncheon was to begin at 12:15... that the plane was to land at 11:30 and after a 45 min motorcade thru Dallas, arrive at the Trade Mart. VIP invitations had been sent and received which stated the Luncheon was to start at 12 NOON.

So basically even if he was able to know about what Lawson said to Curry, or had seen an invitation to the event, to this LONE NUT KILLER the motorcade would have to pass by the TSBD between 11:55 and 12:10... well before 12:30 in any case. At the same time he knew he had to retrieve the bag with the rifle in it, reassemble the rifle and be at some window facing Elm when he drove by or miss out on his chance for immortality. We make the assumption that Oswald MUST determine a time for the limo and JFK to pass by his place of work; otherwise how can he carry out his plan?

So, is there any corroborated sightings of Oswald during this time? It seems that Eddie Piper, who was with Junior Jarman and Harold Norman, sees Oswald on the 1st floor around noon... no bag, no rifle. Oswald even mentions seeing these 2 men in statements attributed to him. Carolyn Arnold claims to have seen him around 12:15 also on a lower floor... all the while Arnold Rowland eventually testifies that a man with a rifle is in the SW 6th floor window around 12:15... SOMEONE knew when to expect the motorcade... Concurrently Bonnie Ray Williams is eating his lunch 10 feet from the SE corner of the 6th floor sometime between 12 and 12:15.

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.

Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.

Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.

Why would the FBI lie about that? According to them, no one sees Oswald between 11:50 and 12:30. If Williams is on the 6th floor only a few yards from the sniper's window, surely he would hear the assembling of a rifle or the moving of boxes to encircle the "nest." With Williams leaving at 12:15 or just after, and leaving via the elevators next to the stairs, Oswald, whose only knowledge of the motorcade timing can come from those he is in contact with between 11:30 (when the plane was supposed to land) and 11:55 (when the plane actually lands), MUST have passed him either on the stairs, on the 6th floor, or was already on the 6th floor at 12:00 with the bag and rifle. Yet we've already proven that he was on the first floor around 12:00... Maybe he arrives at the 6th floor just as Williams arrives at the windows of the 5th floor?

Williams finally meets up with pals Harold Norman and Junior Jarman on the 5th floor since, as he put it:

Mr. DULLES. You were all alone as far as you knew at that time on the sixth floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. During that period of from 12 o'clock about to--10 or 15 minutes after?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I felt like I was all alone. That is one of the reasons I left--because it was so quiet.

The man who finds out about JFK passing by his window just 3 days before and goes through a variety of activities to insure he is at ANY window facing Elm when he KNOWS JFK is passing by... appears completely unconcerned about the motorcade and timing as late as 12:15... and most definitely not involved in preparing for this event PRIOR to 12:00. He has gone home, out of the ordinary; walked to Frazier's rather than get picked up, out of the ordinary; is carrying a bag which has to contain a 34" piece of rifle with other rifle parts/ammo, out of the ordinary; find a place to stow this weapon for later retrieval, out of the ordinary; and has an idea as to when the limo carrying JFK will be within range so he can be ready.

Between 11:50 and 12:20 there are people on the back elevators and stairs either coming down for lunch, retrieving cigarettes, going up for lunch, going up to view the parade, coming down to join friends. While the plan may be sound, the opportunity simply never presents itself. From all the available evidence, Oswald is either in the 1st or 2nd floor lunchrooms at around 12:00 and must be concerned that his plan to kill JFK requires him to vanish unnoticed only to appear ready to fire at the correct time. The correct time... one of the largest holes in Oswald's plan for immortality. From the time, 3 days prior, that Oswald learns that JFK is passing by his workplace, until he places the bagged rifle in a safe hiding place for retrieval at the appointed time, there remains little if any evidence to support any of the actions necessary were ever carried out. And now, at 12:00 on the fateful day, this small, never-amount-to-anything man with the US intelligence community swirling around him for the past 2-4 years, is just sitting calmly eating his lunch.

When WAS the limo going to pass by, for real?

We come to find that Mrs. Reid talks to her husband who is listening to the radio which states that the plane arrived late and the limo did not leave Love field until 11:55... how fortuitous for the assassin who is obviously pressed for time to get to a window when he BELIEVES, when any information available to this loner tells him the limo should pass by.

Mrs. REID. Well, I left, I ate my lunch hurriedly, I wasn't watching the time but I wanted to be sure of getting out on the streets in time for the parade before he got there, and I called my husband, who works at the records building, and they had a radio in their office and they were listening as the parade progressed and he told me they were running about 10 minutes late.

Yet how would Oswald know this? There is not a single bit of evidence that is shared by anyone who claims to have told Oswald anything about a radio broadcast and the delay in the motorcade... it is also not until 12:20 at the very least that Mrs. Reid finally decides to leave the lunchroom and attend the parade.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Do you know about what time it was that you left the lunchroom, was it 12, 12:15?

Mrs. REID. I think around 12:30 somewhere along in there

Is it possible that Oswald was still in the same lunchroom as Mrs. Reid? Did she see any men in the lunchroom when she finally decides to leave, KNOWING that the parade is running a bit late...?

Mr. BELIN. Were you the last person in the lunchroom?

Mrs. REID. No; I could not say that because I don't remember that part of it because I was going out of the building by myself, I wasn't even, you know, connected with anyone at all.

Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there?

Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that.

Up to this point in the questioning, and for the rest of the questioning, Mrs. Reid has remained calm and answered directly and easily... and then she is asked if she is the last person in the room... "No," she claims and rather than finally answering the question about any MEN in the room when she left... she states:

Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mrs. REID. I can't remember the time they left.

If indeed Oswald was in that lunchroom; and there is evidence he was for his lunch around 12:00; then he was there when Mrs. Reid leaves the room... If this is NOT Oswald... where is he given his plan to have the rifle ready to fire from a South facing window between 12:00 and 12:30.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt... at a little after noon on the 22nd Oswald has to accomplish the following: Retrieve the rifle, assemble the rifle, assemble the sniper's nest in the SE 6th floor corner without leaving a prints on any of these 20+ 40 lb boxes, hope that no one is on the 6th floor at the time, and do so without being seen or heard by anyone... for as we have the testimony... no one hears any of this happen or sees any of this occurring...

What is seen are men on the 6th floor at 12:15, one on the SW with a rifle and one on the SE looking out a window... neither of these men are Oswald... and both of these men are seen by a number of witnesses.

But no matter... since he MUST HAVE been able to accomplish all this within 15 to 20 minutes without actually knowing any of the timing details... we have to give him kudos for a good plan, even though there is virtually nothing to prove that any of these necessary steps were taken by Oswald.

Within 2 minutes of the shots being fired he is supposedly stopped in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor... yet that's not what Officer Marrion Baker writes on 11/22 and signs on 11/22 in his AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT.

"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."

No 2nd floor, no door to the lunchroom, no window in the door, no pulling of his pistol, none of this story to be is recorded on the afternoon of the killing by the Officer who stopped someone coming down the stairs 1-2 flights higher up and from where the shots were supposedly fired... the lunchroom scene does not materialize until the testimony of Roy Truly and Officer Baker, and in fact takes what would have been a much shorter time period for Baker's affidavit; "we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway." The content of this first hand first day recollection is ignored by the WC, which creates a scenario to avoid identifying whoever it was that Baker and Truly intercept coming down the stairs.

Despite all this we still have Oswald firing 3 times from this window with "that" rifle. For Oswald to have accomplished this amazing feat of shooting and to corroborate with witnesses, the barrel of the rifle was protruding from the window...

Mr. EUINS. The man in the window. I could see his hand, and I could see his other hand on the trigger, and one hand was on the barrel thing.

Mr. SPECTER. All right. Now, at the time the second shot was fired, where were you looking then?

Mr. EUINS. I was still looking at the building, you know, behind this--I was looking at the building.

Mr. SPECTER. Looking at anything special in the building?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. I was looking where the barrel was sticking out.

Mr. SPECTER. And how long was the piece of pipe that you saw?

Mr. EUINS. It was sticking out about that much.

Mr. SPECTER. About 14 or 15 inches?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.

...

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?

Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.

Mr. BELIN. How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?

Mr. BRENNAN. I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.

Three men, Norman, Williams and Jarman where positioned on the 5th floor directly beneath the SE corner not 15 feet from the muzzle of the rifle. These three men just feet below the SE window are subject to a rifle blast that produces over 150dB of sound/shockwave. Studies show that this level of sound, even down to 120dB, will render a person temporarily deaf, cause ringing in the ears and be quite painful for some time afterward... and not only does it happen once but 2 more times... yet one of these men claims to be able to hear the working of the bolt and clinking of the shells on the floor above... A sound this loud, repeated twice more from the same location and these men can only "think" or "believe" someone is shooting at the president... It stretches the bounds of credibility... but it MUST have happened that way...

Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."

Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.

Given what we now know about what Oswald could have known, and that we agree that he must have had a plan, even if only created three days before on Tuesday once he learns JFK is coming to Dallas and passing under his place of employment... It stretches the bounds of credibility to accept that this plan includes not knowing when the limo is to pass by and in turn having to be in a position to use the rifle he took such pains to bring to as well as hide in the TSBD. None of Oswald's necessary activities are offered by the WCR to support such a plan. It's all tautological: He must have been there because he had to be in order to fire the shots.

The Evidence is the Conspiracy...

when I originally offered the concept in August of 2010 on this forum it was well received and completely blows the WCR scenario out of the water... it remains impossible for the events to have happened the way they were described and not even possible to be considered by any thinking person.

As Vince Bugliosi says, although he wishes you conclude the opposite, this is indeed the most complicated murder of all time, and the WCR proves it to be so. Talking about the "evidence" as if it indicates anything related to the assassination is a hoax and a cruel joke on anyone who continues to play the game... The magician's trick of getting you to look here while the deception is happening over there...

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

Curtis - as for visual evidence of a conspiracy to implicate Oswald as the Lone assassin Gerald Ford had the rear bullet hole moved up above the collar bone when Burkely confirms a T3 entry.

The SBT - if debunked - makes it impossible for and single shooter from the rear to accomplish the shooting feat attributed. There was a reason these men did not see the clothing or the xrays or the photos and relied on verbal desrciptions to create illustrated representations of what occurred rather than show what really happened.

This is empirical evidence that the WC changed the evidence in order to remove speculation of a potential conspiracy to kill JFK. Senator Schwieker tells us that the CIA withholding information about their Castro assassination attempts remains on the most egregious examples of the conspiracy to implicate Oswald as an unconnected Lone Nut...

This is the Ryberg illustration with Ford's replacement of the hole - along with the actual shirt and an actual skeleton. Why did the WCR lie about the location of the entry wound that suppoedly exits the throat, when the real wound is well below the supposed "exit" ?

Mods, can one of you please move David's crap out of this thread and start another thread with it?

Thanks.

Poor you. The mods have nothing to do with your inability to address the actual evidence with anything but bad analysis and wishful speculation.

The result of you not really knowing the material and guessing...

You need to defend yourself buddy. Address the questions rather than cry to mommy, k?