David Josephs

No one answering you at the other thread so maybe here Bernie? Let's look at your question a little... Does the man in the FWST photo look ANYTHING like a man who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald? Bernie - that is the photo the FWST used to illustrate Lee Harvey Oswald the defector even though there are journalists and photographers in Russia at the time of this interview. Why use a old photo of a Marine when you can take a current photo of a defector to go hand in hand with the story? As i posted earlier - these are the photos of Oswald in Russia - does the FWST image look anything at all like our Oswald? does our Oswald look at all like the 2 photos of this Oswald at Atsugi or the altered FWST image ? You can conclude whatever obtuse thing you want Bernie.... just like the question. FWST looks more like the real LEE Oswald than the man playing the Harvey married to Marina part... and is why no photo was taken for that story - written by a CIA asset and submitted with an obviously altered photo... wonder who could have done that ???

Aren't you the guy who said they had a family and better things to do? They can't take any of your obtuse behavior either so you've been banned back to posting non sequitor. You keep working on that FWST image - you'll figger it out eventually... Don't bother Jim... you lost him at "Don't you get it"... minions can only do what the master tells them to do... Engaging with intelligent, corroborated sources and info is not in the game plan for the brigade... just look at each and every one of their posts...

So you simply have nothing to say and no way to confuse the issue regarding the questions I asked Dave? Regarding the BYP - 133-C. How does the DPd know to put Det Brown into the 133-C pose if that photo is not seen until 1977? Stop the side show and address the questions posed Dave... Why is what Rankin says is in the autopsy report - is NOT in the report? What were they referring to Dave? WCD298 - where did the info on the "5 feet from 5+00" come from so that the FBI could show a shot hitting JFK at Z375? Try to stay focused Dave... this is what the evidence shows... not what I say or they say or we think... this is the Evidence and the Evidence IS the Conspiracy. Good luck with all that... (you're obvious avoidance is transparent Dave... "Change the subject" is a tactic, not a solution.)

This following is posted toshow that the medical records do designate where the Marine is at the time.. San Diego CA Infirmary when in SD, The US Naval Hosp #3923 in Yokosuka and finally MACS-1 #3835 in Atsugi.... Are you claiming that any of the medical evidence shows treatment on the ship and/or in Ping Tung while all the other med records entries are related to exactly where CE1961 claims he was. Can you can you not put him on the ship Parker? and if you claim he was on the ship why did you offer the DoD letter of his NOT GOING TO PING TUNG as proof he stayed back and it was he who was treated in Atsugi - in the face of the Oswald in Ping Tung evidence? And now finally to the Ship to Ping Tung - The 16 Sept 1958 entry says: "MAS NAVY 3835 to mainside for Smear" - yet he has been on the ship since the 12th of Sept ??? Under that is a slip taking him to the MACS-1 ward for tests... is the "medical facility" on that ship called MACS-1? And finally the "P"ersonal "H"istory of the marine states he has had VD Previously - can you please show us any other medical record for the man Ruby killed that shows he already had VD? or you gonna send Bernie to confuse the issue with obtuse comments about anything but the questions asked? This is actually beginning to get fun watching the brigade crumble before our eyes. Each and every argument they offer is either worse than the one before or has nothing at all to do with what is being asked.... C'mon boys - keep posting - each becoming a heavier lead weight sinking your terribly unsourced and uncorrobrated arguments.

And one more from the HSCA

Just some confirmation of Odio's statement about how he was introduced

John has a 130 page notebook on Odio that I'm reviewing as well... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/odio.htm Mrs. ODIO. They (the FBI) told me they were coming because of the assassination of President Kennedy, that they had news that I knew or I had known Lee Harvey Oswald. And I told them that I had not known him as Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald. And they showed me a picture of Oswald and a picture of Ruby. I did not know Ruby, but I did recall Oswald. They asked me about my activities in JURE. That is the Junta Revolutionary, and it is led by Manolo Ray. I told him that I did belong to this organization because my father and mother had belonged in Cuba, and I had seen him (Ray) in Puerto recently, and that I knew him personally, and that I did belong to JURE. They asked me about the members here in Dallas, and I told him a few names of the Cubans here. They asked me to tell the story about what happened in my house. Mrs. ODIO. No; I unfastened it after a little while when they told me they were members of JURE, and were trying to let me have them come into the house. When I said no, one of them said, "We are very good friends of your father." This struck me, because I didn't think my father could have such kind of friends, unless he knew them from anti-Castro activities. He gave me so many details about where they saw my father and what activities he was in. I mean, they gave me almost incredible details about things that somebody who knows him really would or that somebody informed well knows. And after a little while, after they mentioned my father, they started talking about the American. He said, "You are working in the underground." And I said, "No, I am sorry to say I am not working in the underground." 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. And let me see, if I recall exactly what they said about him. I don't recall at the time I was at the door things about him. I recall a telephone call that I had the next day from the so-called Leopoldo, so I cannot remember the conversation at the door about this American. Mrs. ODIO. The next day Leopoldo called me. I had gotten home from work, so I imagine it must have been Friday. And they had come on Thursday. I have been trying to establish that. He was trying to get fresh with me that night. He was trying to be too nice, telling me that I was pretty, and he started like that. That is the way he started the conversation. Then he said, "What do you think of the American?" And I said, "I didn't think anything." And he said, "You know our idea is to introduce him to the underground in Cuba, because he is great, he is kind of nuts." This was more or less--I can't repeat the exact words, because he was kind of nuts. He told us we don't have any guts, you Cubans, because President Kennedy should have been assassinated filter the Bay of Pigs, and some Cubans should have done that, because he was the one that was holding the freedom of Cuba actually. And I started getting a little upset with the conversation. And he said, "It is so easy to do it." He has told us. And he (Leopoldo) used two or three bad words, and I wouldn't repeat it in Spanish. And he repeated again they were leaving for a trip and they would like very much to see me on their return to Dallas. Then he mentioned something more about Oswald. They called him Leon. He never mentioned the name Oswald. Mr. LIEBELER. He never mentioned the name of Oswald on the telephone? Mrs. ODIO. He never mentioned his last name. He alway. s referred to the American or Leon

Figures... So tell me Bernie, in between the whining can you tell me where I embellished anything. Odio says they introduced him as Leon Oswald, twice. Greg claims the surname "Oswald" was NEVER used This is a simple thing Bernie... and incase you haven't figured it out... you're both minion and a sheep trying so hard to be taken seriously - at least you went thru the post and showed your character manipulation skills Well done !!

Von Pein... you did not answer any of the questions posed... 1. Where in the autopsy did Rankin read this? And if you cannot find it in the existing autopsy - what was Rankin referring to? 2. How can the autopsy have come to a conclusion: "The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." in Nov when in January the info is still inconclusive? 3. WCD298 is a model of the shooting by the FBI delivered in early January and was part of the hiding of the survey legend which shows the WCR explanations impossible. This model, created in Dec 1963 using every FBI resource, shows three shots hitting the occupants of the limo with a final shot 40 feet down the road where the SS recreation also puts the final shot (4 feet from 5-00) Which resources did they use to determine a shot 40 feet past Z313 David? And why was the SBT not even a thought at this point? The WCD gives us specific measurements with the disclaimer that this model will assist those who have never been to DP to "gain a full and clear understanding of the happenings surrounding each event." From what sources could the FBI have gotten their conclusion so incredibly wrong when compared to the physcial evidence available? (For those who don't know.. 4+65 refers to a point 65 feet past station 4 which in turn is 35 feet from station 5 further down Elm. The hidden legend puts the "third shot" at 4+65, not 5 feet from 5+00 like the SS report and FBI model. Where do you suppose they got the info to place the third shot 40 feet further doen Elm Dave? https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=6&tab=page

Dave... please point to this passage Rankin describes in the autopsy. or is Mr. Rankin lying ? Mr. Rankin: Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that how it could turn, and -- Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length. Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said Rankin's comment is from the Exec Session on January 22, 1964... and they STILL dont know if it was an entrance or exit... then how could Humes have written and delivered an autopsy report which states: Date 11/22/63 1300 (CST) Prosecter: CDR J.J. Humes, MC, USA (497831) Assistant: CDR "J" Thornton Boswell, MC, USN, (439878); LCOL, Pierre A. Finck, MC, USA (04 043 322) Full Autopsy The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body. Once again Dave... in the existing autopsy, please point us to the section that described a fragment exiting the throat... Also like to know what anatomy class or book you've seen which places the throat below the scapula... Using the following, can you show us where the bullet went in the back? And this one to show right to left as well as up and down Thanks

David - you remain the only person posting on this forum who has that "thick layer of myth and misinformation" you speak of.... Continually referring to outdated and debunked government investigations and conclusions as if they are the tablets from Sinai continually makes you sound like a grazing sheep willing to be happily led to slaughter. I applaud your persistence though... for someone to remain as wrong about everything as you are and keep going back to the well as if the water wasn't poisoned is, well, the role of the WCRHSCA defender. The real problem is that discussing the case with you is akin to having a conversation with a parrot - you only have one channel and you present it as if you haven't given the topics a single thought since it was put on paper in 1964. What I'm wonder is what you are most scared of... the reality of the conspiracy involved and the depth of evil required or that you have so much invested in defending the government's position (ala Dunkel) you've left yourself no room to have a doubtful thought. The simplist of questions Dave... to connect the back and front wounds the bullet must RISE 11 degrees within the body. The shot, if from the 6th floor, would be traveling DOWNWARD at almost 20 degress (angle plus incline) The WCR says it did not hit anything that would change it's course and goes on to hit Connally... Kinda obvious from the image below that the bullet went in well below the throat - for it to RISE in the body, JFK must be tying his shoes when it happens... Is this what you are now claiming? or is there another explanation for themovement of the bullet hole and the impossibility of a bullet rising when shot on a downward trajectory?

There is an exhibit which shows a photo of the microfilm which had the envelope and orders from which they were supposedly printed. That roll of microfilm is not longer in the archives... even though it was indeed deposited there back when. There was alos a matter of who had it - in one report Waldman gives it to the FBI, in another he places it in a safe from where it is removed and provided later... There is of course a little problem of Authentication David... if there is no original to look at there is no way to confirm they are the same other than taking someone's word for it. The FBI's word - which has a terrible record of messing with evidence. If they hadn't been manufactured there would be no need to lose the originals. Kinda like losing the negqative to 133-A. It was found, recorded and inventoried at the DPD - and then disappears either before it gets to the FBI or after... but it disappears as did the Kleins microfilm. That you can't see a legal problem with not having originals to authenticate the copies is par for the course Dave... And without a shred of June 1962 shipment evidence, how does Chapman know the serial number is wrong?

and no, the rifles are not the same

Let's try this from a different POV Waldman here tells us that the FBI knows the serial number of the rifle C2766 and that it was shipped from Crescent to Kleins. Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, were you ever contacted by any law enforcement agency about the disposition of this Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that had the serial number C-2766 on it? Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; on the night of November 22, 1963, the FBI contacted our company in an effort to determine whether the gun had been in our possession and, if so, what disposition we had made of it. Mr. BELIN. Do you know how the FBI happened to contact you or your company? Mr. WALDMAN. The FBI had a record of a gun of this type and with this serial number having been shipped to us by Crescent Firearms. Mr. BELIN. Do you mean that Crescent Firearms gave the FBI this information? Mr. WALDMAN. Well, I--I must assume that's the case. I don't know it for a fact. The only place this information is offered is on one of the 10 packing slips. "38 E" is the international designation for the rifle and has no direct relationship to the rifles Rupp sends to Kleins which are "T-38" - also non-indicative of the model or length. There is no evidence that DVP can produce that shows Rupp and carton 3376 were ever associated. Waldman also tells us that these slips were sent as memos after the fact and not with the shipment of rifles. Therefore, the information about: “C” 2766 in carton #3376 on packing slip #3620 on November 22, 1963 can have only come from Feldsott who in turn specifically states they were from evidence related to the JUNE 18, 1962 shipment . https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=45#relPageId=215&tab=page On p10 of WCD881 Waldman tells us he provides these to the FBI in March 1964 p3 of WCD790 tells us that Feldsott gave the FBI these 10 slips when interviewed on Nov 22nd. Both men cannot give the same exact slips, becoming Waldman exhibit #3 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0361b.htm There could not be a June 1962 shipment without Rupp removing cartons from Harborside prior to August 1962... so where did Crescent/Rupp get these rifles to begin with? Furthermore, SA Chapman tells us that while Kleins' ORDER records state "C" 2766, the Kleins shipment RECEIPT records show two close but different rifles were rec'd. In essence, there are no records that Kleins ever rec'd "C" 2766 as we've been saying all along. and the FBI knew if that evening as well... Conclusion: The FBI took the June 1962 evidence provided by Feldsott and claimed the packing slip information from Crescent to Kleins (Waldman #3) was for the Feb 1963 delivery. We do not know what Feldsott provided related to the June shipment but it was surely not these 10 slips which are the original slips from Italy with the international Item # "38 E". We are once again pressed with the problem that not a single rifle is crossed out as replaced by Rupp - this reinforces these cannot be packing slips related to an "in USA" shipment of these rifles and also makes it possible that both Feldsott and Waldman provide packing slips to the FBI. The only other item of evidence with #3376 listed is the Crescent to Kleins document "Via Lifschultz" where #3376 is the only carton not checked off. So unless DVP can offer a different source for the SERIAL # info the FBI has at Kleins that night, the entire Kleins evidence trail is connecting a Feb order to a batch of Italian packing slips possibly provided by Feldsott relating a completely different shipment. Unless of course he can show any direct connection betwen the evidence discussed

The answer is he didn't change heights, it is only discrepancies in the record. I find it believable that someone would ask him his height, as long as it wasn't too far off and a couple inches qualifies in my book. Of course, they are not going to do that with something like a shooting score for obvious reasons. I go by Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is usually correct. In the case of anyone's records there will be discrepancies because people make mistakes. In all cases where LHO was photographed with a height chart or such as at autopsy where accuracy was needed he was 5' 9" tall, in other words instances where we know he was measured. As others have said here previously, men will lie about their height-I have done it myself, although I only added an inch. I don't pretend to know the answer to every discrepancy in the record. But I am unwilling to accept the H&L theory to get my answers. Earl Rose stated that he could have overlooked the mastoid scar and IDed the body through fingerprints and x-rays. It is a different thing to not find a scar and to say it doesn't exist. As for witnesses, it is a known fact that after a publicized event people will say they have seen someone somewhere when it could not have happened. I would say the number of sightings of LHO that have any merit at all are maybe 3 or 4 and I am not saying they happened, only that they could have such as Odio and a couple others. Alice Texas I don't buy at all. I am unaware of any autopsy photos that are missing for Oswald. The key point with Landesberg is that they found something and tried to make it fit the scenario they had developed rather than letting the evidence guide them. And that is one of the problems with H&L is square pegs in round holes. There is always an alternate explanation for any of the discrepancies in the record other than the H&L theory. Thanks Tracy... appreciate the response... isn't the real point about the mastoid scar and his autopsy that the photos that were taken cannot be seen to prove it one way or another... like so much of the "original" evidence? (You may want to google the discussion about the 30 or so photos taken by another doctor at the time to record the autopsy process... taken away, cataloged yet gone to history) There are a few out there but they are mostly poor - as if a doctor not a photographer took them http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/02/JilM.html and many of course are missing... Do we really need to contact the USMC to see if they ever simply took the word of the marine for their vital stats documentation? And we are of course talking about more than just the marine records related to his height discrepancies... Was it the same "take your word for it" problem between 1951 and 1953 when he goes from 5'4" to 4'10" while Robert says he took the photo while Pic says that's not his brother... Kids usually don't shrink by 6 inches between ages 12 and 14.... while witnesses/documentation along the way that tells us of this scrawny, loner which conflicts with Lee, the class president and leader of kids... the little one also did not speak with a southern accent when he returned to New Orleans, and Ft. Worth... while Lee was teased for his accent while in NYC... This to me, remains one of the more difficult to resolve conflicts... since Pic goes on to correctly choose H from L in every case. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir.

Bernie - are you so severely adle-minded that you don't realize you just described the last 50 years of JFK analysis and research? If you even did 1% of the work you just described you'd at least have some frame of reference from which to comment... but you didn't. Your Objection is simply that... an woefully uniformed opinion about that which you refuse to study in any detail... kinda pathetic, thinking that kind of approach will result in agreement from those who have not yet concluded anything... those that already agree with you...agree with you. Those that don't are obviously not convinced... Can you imagine what you would say to a poster who claimed what you just did about the JFK analysis... Why bother with the autopsy boys... he died, case closed Why bother with 486 frames... Why bother with the actual evidence at all - the FBI says Oswald did it alone... why are you questioning this so obvious a conclusion? Do us all a favor and go back to that life you thankfully have... the one you offer here is terrible pathetic, uninformed and woefully inadequate for supporting a word you utter.... Yet here you remain, worthlessly debating... you see Bernie, it's only worthless to you because you lose so badly every time... to those who have sent me the emails of support and reassurance of how lame you and the other's present your case, it is completely worthwhile for you to continue to be exposed for the rolling, trolling forum disruption you've all decided to become here. Anyone can look back over these few threads and see you and the others being painfully beaten over and over again - 6.1% of 5 years old within 30 months Bernie... you do understand that means 93.9% AGAINST what you claim... that's more than a 15 to 1 difference... even at the lottery that's a bad bet. and yet rather then offer a different study with real facts, you whine about it... Can you even begin to address the height difference from 1959 to 1963? How does a man grow 3 inches to then shrink 2 all before he's 24?

what is this a "bump" the posts you don't like out of the way campaign? Bumps - and moderators correct me if I'm wrong - are usually reserved for topics which have not been addressed for a while... this topic has plenty of activity... It is not necessary to "bump" it for any other reason than to try and push my post farther down... I was aking Tracy a question, he is fully capable of addressing it. so how about "bumping" yourself off... and leave the heavy lifting and addressing of question on the topic to others

To Mr. Parnell Can you explain the height changes? 68" upon entry October 1956, 71" upon leaving 3 years later, 69" at his death 4 years later. The USMC provided documents expressing these figures. They also said he scored a 212 and 191 at shooting tests... did the USMC just ask the marine how they did and write a number down? Unit Diaries... when a group of US Marines boards a ship or is transfered somewhere... do they keep records of such a thing? Can you prove any other USMC records are so badly in conflict with the men who accompanied him as those of Oswald's? We all appreciate you finding the handful of items which you feel are questionable and exploring them... there are thousands of points being made in that work... but why do you never address those which are not questionable, like the height and scar issues? the multiple witnesses to Ruby and Lee together in Dallas while Oswald is in New Orleans with Bannister and friends? The entire Alice Texas and related trip sightings... Making this about an accurate or inaccurate statement about Landes specifically is really not the point now it is. It's not a matter of why ROSE didn't see it, it's why have all his autopsy photos disappeared so it cannot be verified? Why has the Klein's microfilm disappeared when we could use it to check the original order blanks for accuracy as well as SOP for other C20-T750 orders...? Why are so many records that should not be missing, missing, and wind up being some of the easiest to use evidence to support the FBI's conclusions... ?? Address the MEAT AND POTATOS of the argument, not the fringe supporting ideas and theories... I posted a list of a couple dozen conflicts in the H&L evidence without once mentioning Landes... will the anti-H&L group ever get to addressing those? A 5'4" boy in 1951 becomes a 4'10" boy in 1953... how does that happen Mr. Parnell?

We really must also remember that the FBI, DFS, Mexican presidential intel staff, other latin american countries, CIA, Military intel, State Dept and I&NS all had a presence in Mexico City and wanted to know what everyone else knew and/or to learn and convey to others what their spying uncovered. The Mole Hunt Bill describes does not necessarily mean they were looking for CIA officers at all... but that the CIA was doing the hunting possibly trying to find infultration moles from any one of these entities... at least that's what I got from the reading of State Secret. "Here’s the center of the intrigue. It looks like someone in Cuba operations was a prime suspect in an investigation of the impersonation of Oswald. It had to be handled carefully, as SAS had several of its officers embedded at the Mexico City station under Scott’s command. Another prime suspect was the Mexico City branch of the FBI. Even the CIA’s Mexico City station itself could also have been the source of the mole. It is important to note that not only the FBI, but the Navy and the State Department were also included in the investigation. This was because all three of them had responsibilities for Oswald, and hence all three of them had to be examined for signs of penetration by enemy spies." The FBI's SIS was THE intelligence service in the Western Hemisphere from the early to mid 40's... Assets from those operations would not be squandered by Hoover, imo.

Well, David Josephs, I said it before, and I'll say it again: Bill Simpich's 2014 discovery of a high-level CIA Mole Hunt in the summer of 1963 in Mexico City on the subject of Lee Harvey Oswald, marks a new starting point for JFK Research. IMHO, nobody's opinion matters anymore until they give their opinion about Bill SImpich's scholarly discovery. You’re entitled to your opinions Paul… but defining the playing field is not within your purview. That work, like most everything within JFK-world requires quite a lot of attention and analysis before it is understood well enough to express an educated and informed opinion. But I do agree that it does change the way we will look at those events... just as the presentation of the fraudulent travel evidence hopefully gets people to stop assuming the man Ruby killed was ever there. It's very interesting to me that you have personally worked with Bill SImpich, David, because IMHO his work is so central to the future of JFK Research. What is your interpretation of the Simpich Mole Hunt, David? I think, that given the way the FBI assisted the CIA & State Dept by creating a false evidence trail, even in the face of Hoover’s first-hand knowledge that it was not Oswald in any evidence the CIA/State provided (not his voice, not his photo, not on the buses, maybe not even there at all) that some operation was being run using the marked “HENRY” 201 card to find out who knew what about the goings on at the embassies. We don’t agree on everything yet I must defer to his knowledge of the inner workings down there. If we all agree that Tampa and Chicago would require its own levels of planning and cover-up, the use of Lee HENRY Oswald appears to have a dual if not triple purpose. 1) mole hunt, 2)FPCC credibility for Oswald, 3)incriminating “patsy” evidence when presented in that light… all depending on what was needed. The Mole Hunt aspect is in no way related to the assassination other than for the use of LHO… in my understanding of it at this point… “sometime you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right” the looking at right part - the POV – is very critical. Here are my follow-up remarks about that question: (1) The Double-Oswald branch of the CIA-did-it JFK Conspiratorial writers seems to be the logical result of a consistent CIA-did-it hypothesis. Y'all make more consistent use of more testimonial artifacts, and consistently find a CIA plot inside each and every one, than anybody. In fact, it sometimes seems that every CIA-did-it writer will eventually gravitate to your direction in the long run. (2) The only alternative will then be to subordinate the CIA-did-it findings to some other Conspiracy -- perhaps a Civilian Conspiracy. Yet that may be just what the second half-century of JFK Research needs. (3) IMHO, Bill Simpich's Mole Hunt can be easily interpreted to show that the CIA high-command was unaware of the Oswald Impersonation -- and therefore the CIA had no clue that Oswald was being set-up to be the Patsy for a Conspiracy. (4) Finally, all this minutia about tonsils doesn't distract me in the slightest -- because what you're really fighting about is your primary operating principle, namely, that the CIA has to be to blame for every detail of the Mexico City episode of Lee Harvey Oswald. Prove me wrong? Paul – my work did just that, proves you wrong. Every detail of the Mexico Episode is told in mostly FBI and some State and I&NS docs… the CIA kept Mexico info very close to the vest and was one of the main reasons Sprague was fired. Even the CIA’s info appears instead in the FBI reports, not in original CIA reports. In fact, the CIA did a lot of summaries of what was supposedly know when… in light of this the CIA never shared this info with the FBI... IMO Mexico starts out as one thing and fast becomes another - IMO Phillips is the cause of Alvarado's story... and everyone in the CIA and State Dept knew it... The tonsils argument is simply a very lame attempt at being annoyed that John wrote “impossible” as opposed to allowing for some remote chance they grew back. Hurray for the minions, they got one 6.1% right. Whatever. But really, David, please answer my main question: what is your interpretation of the Simpich Mole Hunt? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Nope, it's your job to remain consistently wrong about every bit of rebuttal theory you offer and STILL never offer a shred of supporting evidence. We don't have to prove anything - YOU claim he was treated on the ship - YOU prove it or are you really that bad at this that we need to do that work for you as well? oh, wait, we DID do that work for you... can't see the forest for the trees again? We've proven our case - you and the brigade staring wide-eyed into the headlights does nothing to prove yours. Two men, one in Ping Tung, one in Atsugi.. proving other wise is your job, not ours. And so far, like the marines just taking the word of the soldier, you have proven nothing, offered nothing and can't seem to wrap your head around the fact all you have are theories about Asperger's and tonsils... and even those are not proven, only some small percentage of possibility... and yet y'all continue to post as if you've accomplished something other than show you have nothing to offer... Well done ------------------------------------ I posted the medical records with that location number along with other identifiers and said that the records seem to show that he is consistently at Atsugi.. Steve picked up the ball and confirms this. and rather than the minion brigade admit they were wrong about the records and your conclusions you once again whine about us providing evidence when you provide none, consistently. I also posted that numerous people report seeing and interacting with Oswald in Ping Tung, yet the DoD and HSCA tries to claim he never went. And that remains the central theme to their argument... As usual, wring again. Donovan, ex-FBI, tries to distance himself from Oswald overseas by claiming he was his superior only in CA... and we find that to be false. Wonder why the FBI and the WC never called all these people stationed with LEE, yet gets statements from those with Harvey at every turn... hmmmm The ball remains in the doubters court... we'll see if they ever show up with actual proof of any of their "alternate theories" - the expectation to "trust them" has worn exceedingly thin

If I remember correctly Robert does not mention providing that photo... In fact - what I am realizing now is that Warren Comm Doc 443 is a collection of photos or a variety of sizes and shapes most attributed to Oswald as photographer... a few with Oswald in them in Russia yet no other photos of Lee in Japan, just those 2. What we do not find are any other photos of Oswald The middle photo shows the same building in the background as the Oswald photo https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10877#relPageId=26&tab=page and is listed as "Marine friend of Oswald" on page 2. (This is the same batch of photos which includes Roscoe White (p25) So maybe he handed the camera to his friend and had that photo taken... yet we'd have to go thru all the photos to find one similar to the published one with the square behind his head. It also seems that after page 27 or so the photos are all from Russia or afterward... with a few mixed in from an earlier time it appears. I'm pretty sure that the photo originally given to the FWST had that square and the newspaper simply cropped it down to his face... yet they do not offer a source either... As I say, Robert discusses the FWST article yet makes no mention that he supplied the photo. DJ

When I checked into the JVB story and offered evidence it was easily shown that her evidence was inauthentic... he corroboration simply fell apart when looked at closely. I don't believe that a 93.9% chance that tonsils DON'T regrow invallidates the claim that one Oswald had the operation while the other did not... but it's not 100%. Unfortunately for detractors the tonsilitis in the marines is not the end of the story. The activities of the US investigatory bodies suggest they are trying to remove/alter/recreate information from Oswald's childhood between 1952 and 1956 from the record and from consideration. The evidence which is offered is fraught with contradiction and begs the question, WHY? Why does the FBI need to deal with 5-10 year old background info as if the case hinged upon it? If the recruitment does not happen until adulthood... in the Marines for example... the conflicts in childhood were either created after the fact or were actually there at the time... again, given what I've seen the FBI create in the way of evidence - this option is not so far fetched and is once again reflected in the evidence. Is the hiding as one person from these two individuals, somehow picked out to be involved with intelligence operations of the US, so beyond the pale or ability of the CIA, specifically Angleton's area, as to be impossible? I believe the evidence reveals that it is not and that the CIA in their war aginast the KGB and commies would do ANYTHING they could conceive of. Who recuited who and who was a single, double or even triple agent is again, unproveable yet possibly knowable. I wish I had a better answer for you Jon... it's akin to the rifle evidence... If Oswald never had that rifle - which many believe to be the case - then all the rifle evidence had to be created (including the BYPs) and is the reason we never see any other Kleins paperwork to confirm anything offered as standard operation procedure (which would easily show that a bigger rifle was shipped for the smaller one ordered - the FBI had the records in their possession). When we dig into the evidence we find it woefully inadequate and terribly inauthentic - yet accepted as a WCR conclusion. It seems to me that it would take some pretty amazing planning and execution to get the Ruby crowd to all confirm that Ruby was with Lee throughout the summer of 63 while Harvey is in New Orleans... either they ALL are lying together - but for what end? or they are ALL telling the truth about Lee and Ruby... I have posted this evidence many, many times including the Doctor in the apartment next to Ruby who tells of Oswald coming to that door looking for Ruby when Harvey is in Irving. If these people are in the know, why would they give this away? Which is why, in the face of all the investigation the FBI still claims that Ruby and Oswald did not know each other... We don't know if all these are the same imposter or many men... just that the evidence continues to pile up showing that it is not possible for the evidence to be accurate, or even close as to where Oswald was and with whom. Do we simply have to accept in the absence of all the other potential evidence that only OSWALD's records are so messed up and it's just the "way it is" ? If one is to believe this, one would expect the FBI to produce this incriminating evidence to further solidify the case against Oswald... yet not in one instance does the FBI show what SHOULD be, only what Oswald did and the claim that mistakes are made and his was the same standard operating procecures for all... then they ask that you trust them on this one... ============ It's like answering the simple question - Who killed JFK? There is no simple, reader's digest version. It's a very complicated puzzle. Same with H&L. Both issues have to deal with the FBI's influence on evidence and what is left for us to see. Those like John who have gone to the sources to learn the real story allow us to see a world the WCR et al kept hidden. Also, at some point it needs to be said that John did not spend 10 years and self-publish expecting to make a single dime... he was very wealthy already - so one can only imagine the impetus to fight on other than what he told me... as he dug, the information was simply found (he'd spend 3 weeks at a time with a firend at the Archives pouring daily over the info). He in turn felt it necessary to compile these findings into a book which gave others the impetus to look deeper. That's all he ever cared about - prompting others to take it a step further. I did that and found that what he uncovered is very revealing of what actually occurred as opposed to what the books tell us... I didn't cherry-pick one thing or another... I investigated all of it, subject by subject over a 2 year period and we still explore and learn... If people want to believe it can be explained away as simply as Parker tries, fine. The arguments offered usually only come with theory and speculation... very little evidence... If you;ve followed my work at all, you'd have to admit that evidence of H&L is not something that goes wanting... I post links, passages, conflicts and images... What again do we get in rebuttal but lots of air, insults, nicknames, and very little else... I tend to meet force with force, fire with fire... forum bullies hate it when those they attack are prepared to call them on their bluffs and look especially foolish posting opinions in response to evidence. Take care Jon DJ

Yes indeed, thanks Larry... I believe it is most revealing to learn that it is Anne Goodpasture is at the center of much of this, and to understand the close relationship between she and Win Scott and Dave Phillips/Michael Choaden (Dave would write himself reports in Mexico and send them for only Choaden to receive in DC where he would then travel back, receive the docs and confirm the information within... this is a link to a doc from Oct 2 or 12 1963 asking that CHOADEN bring the "AMMO" if WAVE unable to comply... the ammo requested to be brought from DC (or the WAVE station?) to Mexico is .38 Special Ammo - the same used to kill Tippit... but that's just a coincidence) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43903#relPageId=2&tab=page From my next article related to Mexico City: One of Anne Goodpasture’s pseudonyms was “Robert B. Riggs”. In an effort to conceal the existence of the tapes which Win Scott eventually plays for WC Investigators* Anne, writing as Riggs claims the tapes of the 28th had already been destroyed by the 1st of October. LIENVOY were the voice recordings from the Soviet Embassy and were kept for a minimum of 2 weeks. Thanks to David Slawson’s comment* we must now assume that Win Scott kept copies of the tapes for himself. *In a letter dated December 4, 1992 (published in The Investigator), W. David Slawson wrote: Yes, I listened to the tape of Lee Harvey Oswald s telephone conversations with the Soviet Embassy In Mexico City I did not feel that the voice sounded any different from what I expected his would sound like. – Slawson does not go to Mexico City until the mid-70’s for the HSCA Bill Simpich provided me with the documentation links showing that Goodpasture, working with LADILLINGER (Soviet Desk officer Barbara Murphy Manell), took what was obviously a photo from 12:22 on Oct 2nd and represented it as Oct 1 to match the call transcript. What follows from this switch is the Bosch created passenger manifest for the Frontera bus departure at 2pm on Oct 2nd. As I wrote... when this "conclusion" does not work the bus routes are revised and this evidenec along with the testimony that "presidential staffers" picked up all the potentially Oswald related manifests and documents "shortly after the assassination" is buried away in favor of what becomes the Del Norte departure on Oct 2nd at 8:30am... which I go deeply into and show that too was not possible. Bill has been invaluable in my research and I recommend everyone read every bit of State Secret.

The real point of the matter was whether Oswald was ever in Ping Tung Taiwan, Phillipines at all, since the argument against is that he did not go... while the backup argument is that the medical records show the treatment were done in transit... Neither of these appears to have any corroboration while Oswald's CO in CA, an ex FBI employee from '53-'56 "remembers" that they both were in the Phillipines together... On Dec 1, 1963 Donovan contacts the security branch at his academy to report he knew Oswald and had not yet spoken to the FBI or SS. None of this is in the book or CD but is in the 35 page notebook on Donovan at Baylor... Donovan, ex-FBI man, begrudgingly acknowledges he knew Oswald and knew him in Taiwan. Yet the HSCA and the DoD attempt to say that Oswald never made the trip - even in the face of the footnote which states that the book Donovan consulted on says that Lt. Rhodes confirms he did indeed travel to Ping Tung where he has a guard duty incident resulting in his being sent back to Atsugi on Oct 6th. He is in the "hospital" from Oct 7th to the 13th.... yet there is no record of this hospital stay in the medical record. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0125b.htm While Harvey Oswald is in Ping Tung... Lee is being treated in Atsugi for a STD. The two different sets of men who knew one or the other man is very revealing, especially since those that knew Lee were not called. Zack Stout did not know who Harvey Oswald was... only big, southern Lee.