David Josephs

To make a long story short, David, I completely reject this political viewpoint, and I completely reject the theory that the CFR and the NSC have ever operated outside the rules of the US Constitution. Naturally, then, I reject any theory of the JFK murder that is based on this old John Birch Society ideology.

As is your right Paul. I simply cannot agree given the amount I've read proving the opposite.

You can cherry-pick the JBS aspects or you can read what the book is really telling us. You might also read Rockefeller's Drug Wars for a taste of how the elite works around the rules created to keep everyone else in line.

Appreciate the discussion... take care

DJ

To put in fonts and colors that the H & L crowd can understand - It is FRAUD.

Deal with the FRAUD, David, instead of attempting to change the damn subject.

You appear to be giving it your best shot...

Get in touch with White's estate and John Armstrong and sue them...

What exaclty constitutes your pound of flesh on this one Greg - looks to me like there is no one on this forum or even the internet who you desire to speak to about the subject.

White is gone and JA doesn't care who you are... you're just spitting into the wind...

maybe, just maybe if you worked on your own stuff and posted it for others to rip apart there would be a little balance here.

Randy..

Unless you are going to use photogrammetry these illustrations of Stan's measuring distances on a 2d surface representing 3d space are woefully inadequate to form any real conclusions. I do not offer measurements since we do not know the scale of each photo - I simply show the slope of shoulders or the differences when overlaying the faces...

One with a hat and one with a beard is what makes conluding these images are the same person so hard. The images I posted do not have those differences -

Photogrammetry is as old as modern photography, can be dated to the mid-nineteenth century, and its detection component has been emerging from radiolocation, multilateration and radiometry while its 3-D positioning estimative component (based on modeling) employs methods related to triangulation, trilateration and multidimensional scaling.

In the simplest example, the distance between two points that lie on a plane parallel to the photographic image plane can be determined by measuring their distance on the image, if the scale (s) of the image is known. This is done by multiplying the measured distance by 1/s.

Algorithms for photogrammetry typically attempt to minimize the sum of the squares of errors over the coordinates and relative displacements of the reference points

Can you tell us the distance from the camera in each, the focal length, the lenses used, etc...? Without them it's just a matter of resizing the photos to match and placing some lines on the images.

2d images of 3d life cannot be reconciled with pixel counts and same length lines... simply does not work that way.

I take the subjectivity out of it by not making measurement claims - just observational claims and overlays.

I took your two images and lined up the red and green vertical lilnes and then put black bars at the top of each line.

As you can see, the yellow lines do not remain in the same place - this is not indicative of them being different people but of the impossibility of using 2d lines to measure 3d space.

I can resize the image from the right to match - but that's the whole point.. we do not know the history of the photos or how they relate to each other... The BYP are a little better since it's the same camera yet the focal lengths are different, slightly, so there is no way to get the photos to match exactly.

It is these "quick and dirty" methods of comparison that winds up leading to incorrect conclusions.

That's amusing Bernie - I thought you were not interested in what I wrote and was not going to engage...

Just can't help yourself I guess. I am far from cornered - Only those with very limited sight can't see how so much of these issues are connected.

I posted everything there was not know about that image. The original and why it was not on the H&L.net site and what was done to create that clear final image.

It obviously did not appear in the paper like that.

That it was pasted atop the actual image in that paper is the result of someone's work to understand what was going on - (like the image of Ozzie and Robert with the baby - Robert was added in after the fact)

What you still have not bothered addressing is the bone in GP's throat - that the CIA was the LIKELY SOURCE for the image used in that article. (That the website has the pasted version up is a situation Jim is changing... at the core though the overlay IS the same image as in that paper... as John Woods' images I posted shows.

DSL claims it was Robert in possession of his brother's photos from the Marines... but there is no proof for that at all. Furthermore, the image is obviously not our little Oswald, not even close.

The photo in Sept 1959 of LEE holding a rifle comes from that time before Harvey leaves for Russia (top right in collage) and when Lee was with Robert.

If Robert has any photos they are of LEE and not the man in Russia or who Ruby killed.

So it is your contention that the man at the top right and the top left are the same person.... Shoulders, size and all...

"There was a period of time when the method used to remove the tonsils made it more likely for them to grow back. This method, which involved leaving the outer portion of the tonsils intact in order to reduce pain and decrease the risk of bleeding, is no longer used."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/tonsilsandadenoids.html

Thanks Mark....

Do you know when "no longer used" began?

Do you know how much of the tonsil grows back?

"Given the amount of time it takes for tissue to regenerate and a naturally limited growth period, it is unlikely that, should your tonsils grow back, they will ever grow back to their original size"

http://ent.about.com/od/entdisorderssu/f/Can-Your-Tonsils-Grow-Back-After-A-Tonsillectomy.htm

Were you aware of this study with REAL stats... seems regrow occurs in the first 2.5 years after removal... did Oswald's history show signs of regrowth and Tonsilitis between age 7 and 16?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24388693

We investigated the long-term effects of partial tonsillectomy, and potential risk factors for tonsillar regrowth in children with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS).

Children affected by OSAHS with obstructive hypertrophic tonsils underwent partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy with radiofrequency coblation. Polysomnography was performed prior to and 5 years following surgery. Blood samples from all participants were taken prior to and 1 month following surgery to assess immune function. All participants were interviewed 5 years following surgery to ascertain effects of the surgery, rate of tonsillar regrowth, and potential risk factors.

All parents reported alleviation of breathing obstruction. Postoperative hemorrhage did not occur in the partial tonsillectomy group compared to 3.76% in the total tonsillectomy group. Tonsillar regrowth occurred in 6.1% (5/82) in children following partial tonsillectomy. Palatine tonsil regrowth occurred a mean of 30.2 months following surgery, and 80% of children with tonsillar regrowth were younger than 5 years of age. All five patients had a recurrence of acute tonsillitis prior to enlargement of the tonsils. Four of the five had an upper respiratory tract allergy prior to regrowth of palatine tonsils. There were no differences in IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, or C4 levels following partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy.

Partial tonsillectomy is sufficient to relieve obstruction while maintaining immunological function. This procedure has several post-operative advantages. Palatine tonsils infrequently regrow. Risk factors include young age, upper respiratory tract infections, history of allergy, and history of acute tonsillitis prior to regrowth.

Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

I didn't see your response Greg...

In the Russian hospital Oswald was taken to, he is shown to have "tonsils not enlarged".

Even if the operation did not remove all the tonsil tissue, IF they regrow they do not come close in size to the originals - or will you be arguing that too?

Seems to me they are saying his tonsils were normal yet you claim they grew back enough as to be the cause of all sorts of problems.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0308a.htm is the first page of a number addressing the Cold/Sore Throat/Tonsillitis.

So let's keep arguing about a 1945 operation to remove tonsils which you say 1) was not done by a real doctor and 2) slightly grow back yet the man in Russia appears to have normal tonsils, the USMC record has this man treated for tonsillitis

Talk about "moronic - adjective: So senseless as to be laughable:"

Did tonsillitis cause him to shrink those 2 inches as well?

Oswald was 68" when he entered the USMC on Oct 24, 1956 (WH V19 - Folsom Exhibit page #1)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0337b.htm

yet is 71" when he is discharged on Sept 11, 1959

Rose's autopsy sheet has him at 5'9"

I have yet to get an answer from GP on how he shrinks 2 inches from age 20 to 24 other than GP's claim the USMC does not know how to use a tape measure - he claims that there is no official document that does not use Oswald's own words related to his height...

Gorsky seems to be talking about someone else entirely... was Gorsky a personal friend of Amstrong too?

Well, David, basically you're right about this.

I was pushing too hard that the hours before 3pm CST were the crucial hours for the FBI position on the "Lone Nut" theory -- and now I do have to take those words back.

So, OK, I was mistaken. Appreciated Paul – theories are best presented here just for that purpose, proof or not. Maybe in the future you acquire the docs and evidence first then state a theory based on them. Makes it easier for everyone

I still think that Bill Simpich's State Secret (2014) absolves the CIA high-command from a JFK murder plot -- but now I cannot absolve Hoover as quickly as I expected. Simply because a mole-hunt was potentially in process in Mexico, there is no connection to the absolution of the CIA in JFK’s death? How do you make that connection? The actions Oswald was either steered toward or fabricated in the evidence were easily duplicitous. Had Vallee been Oswald, Ozzie’s FPCC infiltration and other “intel” duties would have continued. But since that did not happen, these same actions which could be seen as benign to self-incrimination at the time could easily be turned against him.

My new focus for Hoover will be the events leading up to the 11/23/1963 FBI mandate to stop looking for other suspects because, "they have the man." If you’re in a position to offer what Hoover and gang did during the evening of 11/22 I’d be very interested. I do know that Rowley had a Zfilm and that a top FBI staffer claims to have seen the film after midnight in DC. The FBI is at Kleins all night where in one doc Waldman puts the microfilm into a safe, in another he gives it to the FBI at that time, the FBI printing the “order blank and envelope” themselves.

You and Larry have both focused on calls from LBJ later on 11/22/1963 as important factors in that decision. Please be more specific regarding your sources. Does the Mary Ferrell web site also host those documents? What were the exact hours of the day you had in mind?

Yet I still think you must answer the question -- if Hoover ordered the FBI to stop looking beyond Oswald on 11/23/1963, then why did Hoover himself express doubts (as you claim) weeks later?

This is not a claim Paul – YOU claim the letter he writes on the 12^th was for cover yet you offer nothing to substantiate this. Until you do, it means what it says – Rankin says THEY want a conclusion in the FBI report that it was Ozzie alone – Hoover says he did not want to do this and LBJ could not help him. What else do you want?

That is, insofar as Hoover by 11/23/1963 mandated a "Lone Nut" theory of Oswald -- why would he contradict this in writing unless this was a trick on his part to manipulate subordinates? I still think that must be answered cogently.

You are making stuff up again Paul. You have yet to prove “as Hoover by 11/23/1963 mandated a "Lone Nut" theory of Oswald” all he did was pull back on all the other bush beating since they had their man “according to the DPD”. But something definitely happens over the night of 11/22 to stop him from pursuing a conspiracy – the Katzenbach memo maybe?

I have always said that we have "knowledge of the inner workings of Hoover’s mind" only by reading his own words in his own memoranda. I never claimed to be a mind-reader. I'd always based my argument on memoranda -- and Dr. Wrone's interpretation of that same memoranda.

As for "looking deeply into documents," Americans have been doing this for 50 years -- and myself, 20. It is not enough to put in the time -- one must also develop the logic. Lots of folks have put in more decades than I into this reading -- but some of them don't work enough with the logic.

So, David, this round goes to you. Congratulations. I will no longer say that Hoover created the Lone Nut solution by 3pm CST on 11/22/1963, and called McGeorge Bundy about it at that time to tell LBJ on AF-1. You have my word. I do believe until proven that this is a more accurate statement of what occurred.

Nevertheless, I now with to dig more deeply into those specific 11/22/1963 and 11/23/1963 documents. My first question is -- what was the EXACT content of the Bundy phone call to AF-1 -- does anybody know with exactitude?

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/03/off-tapes-whats-missing-from-af1-radio.html

Theodore.H. White, author of the The Making of the President series of books, who first described Jackie Kennedy’s “Camelot,” wrote in The Making of a President 1964, "There is a tape recording in the archives of the government which best recaptures the sound of the hours as it waited for leadership. It is a recording of all the conversations in the air, monitored by the Signal Corps Midwestern center ‘Liberty,’ between Air Force One in Dallas, the Cabinet plane over the Pacific, and the Joint Chiefs’ Communications Center in Washington….On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy, learned the identity of Oswald and his arrest; and the President’s mind turned to the duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick."
2) White, T. H. Making of a President 1964.

Once that is clear, then I'd like to see all documentation that happens after 3pm CST on 11/22/1963, for the next 36 hours. Get in line – lol. There are complete lists of communications but who knows how complete. I too would like to find the first use of LONE NUT but my gut tells me it was a Media thing…

Finally, David, as for your theory that LBJ and Hoover were "toeing the company line" of masters above them who were pulling their strings -- I feel justified in my skepticism -- and I now ask for your sources.

A while back I needed to get away from “JFK assassination all the time” thinking and look at things from a different POV. I went into the history of spying, intelligence, banking and lawyers… I found that the first spies were all from very wealthy families since they could pay their own way. These “elite” – the sons of the wealthiest, created their own networks throughout the world and did their best to keep the Military, Industry and Congress (who was run by their families) informed.

As I searched the fringe of JFK I remembered the Bell helicopter situation and felt that the buying of Bell MAY lead to the “Sponsor” level to use a DPF term.

I came to find and research a company called TEXTRON which bought Bell in June 1960 after the VP of the Bank of Boston speaks with CIA general Cabell (yes, his brother) about the prospects of helicopter use in SE Asia. (Nixon was the presumed next POTUS at this point).

TEXTRON was formed by Arthur Little’s nephew Royal Little to disrupt the US NE Textile industry by buying up the companies and tearing them apart to open the way for UK imports. The players involved are at the top of the food chain: Bank of England, Sun Life of London/Montreal, Bank of Boston, Boston Fabians, Prudential Life, John Hancock Life (JP Morgan), Cravath-Swaine-Moore, Choate-Hall-Stewart, Dillon-Reade, G. William Miller….

TEXTRON was the world’s first conglomerate and moved from textiles to defense with the formation of American Research and Development Corp in 1946 (the year after the FBI’s SIS was disbanded in favor of the OSS). With the recommendation of General Cabell, and a most unusual loan from Prudential Life (6-year grace period on payments, unsecured loan).

At the time of purchase, Bell was in the red by $100M yet the Textron chairman stated their objective from this purchase was a 25% pretax profit – from Day 1. While business boomed in ’61 & ’62 as SE Asia heated up but did not burst out until after 11/22/63.

This in turn led me to the key players of the game of MICC influence. When a Senator, LBJ may have been more in tune with the MICC and might have been one of the reasons he was added to the ticket – MICC representation (remember he was stepping down from the most powerful Congressional position to the least powerful spot in DC).

Hoover had never been a MICC insider. Even the CIA is a major step below the Military in this equation and in my opinion the CIA is the Military’s watchdog and frontline protector while the FBI performs the same function inside the US.

Have you or have you not read “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” Paul? If you have not then the 80 pages and couple hours it will take will change your world view. If you have, then I fail to see how you are not somewhat in tune with the CFR and NSC players .

Bundy (After World War II, during which Bundy served as an intelligence officer, in 1949 he was selected for the Council on Foreign Relations. He worked with a study team on implementation of the Marshall Plan. He was appointed as a professor of government at Harvard University, and in 1953 as its youngest dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, working to develop Harvard as a merit-based university. In 1961 he joined Kennedy's administration. After serving at the Ford Foundation, in 1979 he returned to academia as professor of history at New York University, and later as scholar in residence at the Carnegie Corporation)

Cravath-Swaine-Moore partners: John McCloy (brought firm lawyers to Germany to run Occupation) & Roswell Gilpatrick (#2 at DoD under McNamara)

Textron expanded into computers, aviation and defense with gusto firmly entrenching the owners of the MICC within the revolving door of Military to Industry to Congress and back around again. When one begins to see this virtual line between the “Sponsors” (those in a position to influence/create policy without approval and the power to remain unscathed by any back-lash) and the Facilitator (those on the ground creating/facilitating the plans to the perceived desired end of the Sponsor while not really knowing the purpose behind it) and the Mechanics who just do the work.

There is nothing offered that places Hoover or LBJ into this company of leaders of the world but as top level Facilitators carrying out the wishes of the Sponsor/Facilitators who run things on the ground. Bundy, Harriman, (the other 5 Wise Men), Senators/Congressmen, CEO’s and owners of Industry, and the JCS ( and other key assets) who can give orders and CYA.

There is no “source” for all this other than books that try: None Dare & The Wise Men help give a glimpse – I accumulated over 500 files and a gig of data as I prepped for a book I want to write on the History of Bankers and Lawyers – How the World is Run. During this I see over and over the taking advantage (as well as guiding and creating) of world events to their best interest.

Sorry for the long winded explanation Paul. The subject is near and dear to me. There remains a façade that most simply do not perceive. Our government, its institutions and policies are guided by the needs of the MICC and their successful future. JFK was given the opportunity to go along to get along yet that simply was not his way.

Do you honestly believe that Hoover was in a position to decide on MLK’s death?
That if he was so powerful and connected LBJ would not have stayed on in 1968 – against Nixon – when we both know that Nixon was the MICC;s golden boy. Look at his VP’s.

Paul, it will remain up to you to show a connection between Hoover and the real power in the USA/World. I don’t see it. I see a man fighting communism while ignoring the evils of everyday crime and having his department actually performing criminal activity daily in the name of “protecting the US citizen”. He was a bulldog for his masters, nothing more.

With respect, please prove me wrong
DJ

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Stan Dane posted this over at ROKC a few weeks ago. It shows how the "Frankenstein" Oswald doesn't fit with other images of Lee Harvey Oswald. And I think he also did a nice job of showing how the various images of Oswald do fit together, meaning they are of the same person.

Playing around with this a little more. (Had to postpone my exit today, but I'm being careful!) I added two more pictures to the mix, #1 & #2.

Using the same approach (distance between pupils as a sizing reference) I note that #2 – #5 match up very well. (We need to keep in mind these are just images taken off the Internet and for all we know, they could have been tweaked with themselves.) I added #1 (the Jack White "Frankenstein") because we've had discussions in that past on how unnatural this image looks and how it was inserted by White to bolster the Harvey & Lee fiction. I added #2 for another data point.

If #1 is an image of Lee Oswald, it is a distorted one. The shape/appearance of the ears in #2 – #5 look the same to me, but the ears in #1 do not (besides being much wider apart). The mouth is wider in #1 too (but that might be because he is smiling). #1 clearly doesn't fit with the rest.

Bottom line: #1 was consciously inserted in place of the original one in the news article. We know why.

Thanks for reminding me about's Stan's work on this.

David

In post # 39 there looks like a wooden board behind LHO's head and in another photo the board is missing. ????? THANKS gaal

Indeed Steve - one is the original and the other the published image. Maybe part of the "touch up" process? IDK but that square behind his head has always been kinda weird just hangin there - like the black sharpie square covering the back of JFK's head at Z323.

DJ

David, I think it was actually something like "conspiracy to deprive an individual of his legal rights" and Hoover was taking the position that murder would do that... Now the really interesting part of it if I'm remembering the statute correctly (and yes I could look it up in my book but...) Hoover was actually justifying a federal investigation based on a "conspiracy" violation...sort of ironic...

In true WCR format... conspiracy? "that was what they FIRST said"

The original from the file image on the left, enhanced as best I could to bring out some detail on the right, and the "White" improvement overlay

I get the impression that the Lee Oswald photo in the woods collage top right was not Oswald - Oswald's nose was NEVER that wide..

The idea here Greg, is that the CIA or someone provided this photo in such poor resolution on purpose. The woods collage alos suggests this image was created and is why it looks so strange when White isolated and improved it.

But the overlay is obviously from THAT image.... At some point it seems there was a much better version....

Not really sure why Jim H did not go with the image that is found in one of John's notebooks of the original Ft Worth paper..

And also thanks to John Wood who years back sent me the image with what looks like the emulsion over the face is removed...

Nothing nefarious, just a better version of the paper's image - but I would suggest it side-by-side, not superimposed.

panties can be unbunched now Greg...

Um, David, Frankenstein has clearly been posted over the top of the original photo in an attempt to "differentiate" "Lee" from "Harvey"This is from the book:

Origin Of The FWS-T Photo

The first reporter who attempted to interview Oswald in Moscow was Abe

Goldberg, early in the afternoon of Oct. 31, shortly after Oswald left

the U.S. Embassy. Goldberg told the FBI that he did not take a

photograph of Oswald. Robert Korengold spoke briefly with Oswald at

the door to his room at the Hotel Metropole, but took no photographs.

Aline Mosby was the first person to actually interview Oswald in mid-

afternoon of Oct. 31, but there is no indication from her notes or

testimony that she tok a photograph of Oswald. Priscilla Johnson was

the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and

there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald.

The photo of LEE Oswald that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

on November 1, 1959 appeared again in the November 26th issue of the

Evening Star in Washington D.C. This time the photo was credited to

the the Associated Press (AP), yet they claim to have no record of

it's origin. The origin of this photo, published within 24 hours of

Aline Mosby's interview with Oswald in Moscow remains unknown. (Once

again information about Oswald, in this case a photo, was given to the

media by an unidentified source only one day after his "defection."

The most LIKELY souce was a CIA media asset.

Why weren't you aware that Armstrong claims the photo came from the CIA?

Which is just rubbish.

It has to be the work of Jack White.

Re the statement: "Priscilla Johnson was

the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and

there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald."

Priscilla Johnson's interview with Oswald was on Monday evening, November 16.

Re the photograph: I don't believe that the CIA provided any photographs of Oswald at the time of his defection. It has always been my understanding that Mosby took a picture of Oswald on either 10/31 when she first called upon him, at his hotel; or on Saturday, 11/14, when she met with him a second time (and which was the basis for the next day's article ("Fort Worth Defector Confirms Red Beliefs"--doing this from memory). The picture of Oswald dressed in a nice suit is currently owned--I believe--by UPI. They have the wrong date on it (11/17, as I recall).

I believe I have seen the picture of Lee Oswald (hands on hips) standing against the background of the frame house, and that it was associated with the original publicity concerning the defection (i.e., 10/31 or in the days immediately following).

DSL

5/15/15 - 8 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

DSL -

The photo taken on Oct 31, if there was one, would not be the same as one taken in Japan while in the marines, right?

The Marine photo had to have been acquired somewhere... from Oswald? the photographer? how would that photo have gotten to that newspaper?

Did Oswald bring his USMC clothes to Russia?

Hey there Greg...

On page 455 of CE985 is the translation for Oswald's visit to a Russian Hospital.

It includes the words: "tonsils not enlarged".

If what you claim is true, and the small amount of tissue that was left allowed a tiny version of the tonsils to regrow (we both read the same articles that said they don't grow back anywhere near the size of the originals)

wouldn't the observation be "tonsils undersized" or "small regrowth tonsils"... they were checking for the normal enlargment that may occur...

So LEE has them removed yet HARVEY in Russia has a full set... and dies at least 2 inches shorter than the man the USMC measured in Sept 1959...

Do tell.....

From Harvey and Lee:

Lee Oswald could not possibly have contracted tonsillitis because his tonsils

were surgically removed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas 12 years earlier, on January

17, 1945, by Dr. Philben. 2 57-02

Is what I've highlighted above a true statement or not? Just a simple "yes" or "no" is all that is required.

No Greg...

given that there is a possibility that the tonsils can grow back, there is a chance that Lee Oswald's did just that enough to cause him the pain we see treated in the USMC record.

I don't speak for John, I speak with him. Does the chance that they did grow back negate the one and only thing which suggests the existence of the two men?

do we agree that this is not the only conflict in who-what-where-when-how stated within the USMC/FBI/CIA/etc records and

it was these same USMC Discharge documents which state he was 71" and 150 lbs in Sept 1959.... is that not official enough?

do we agree the man ruby killed was not 71" nor 150 lbs - or do I need to post the autopsy too...

See, you posted the first half argument already - the photo of the marine getting bigger after basic... Ozzie gets bigger in the marines and from 17 to 20 as any man would... but the getting smaller part over the next few years, you don't seem to say much about that Greg.

Your argument is that there is no official measurement of Oswald at 71"... I posted the image.

What else ?

===========

You're definitely right, by reading that passage one would think the conflict was a slam dunk...two men. not quite and thank you for posting it.

Will your response to the height issue will be based on a better probability of occurring then tonsil regrowth?

"You're definitely right, by reading that passage one would think the conflict was a slam dunk...two men. not quite and thank you for posting it."

Greg - why do you go back and ask me again about this passage when I replied and asked you how to reconcile the height reduction after the USMC measured him at 71"... to his death height of 68"-69"

How did he get shorter in those 4 years?

LOL... no mixed results Paul... you were simply mistaken about Hoover being the sole originator of the "Lone Nut" theory in this case. His actions and those of his agents do not begin to remove others from consideration until the 11/23 memo to STOP looking - they have the man.

The calls from the WH on the 22nd to discourage "conspiracy" allegations is much more telling than anything Hoover offers... and in fact we see Hoover claiming 2 weeks later that the FBI report states conclusions against his will and desire... that the DOJ/WC/?? has more to say about it than Hoover and POTUS. (no surprise to me, Hoover and LBJ were allowed to stay since they could be counted upon to cooperate - toe the company line... which is what they did. THEY got to choose very little if anything IMO)

Dec 12th - 3 days after the FBI report is delivered:

Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed.

They took it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

Please don't back-peddle all over yourself to change what you first said. The assumptions you need to make in your “rationale for my statement” post assumes you have a knowledge of the inner workings of Hoover’s mind you simply do not have.

“Looking more deeply into the documents” is something I’ve been doing for 15 years. If/When you find something to support your theory, I’m sure you will post it. Until then, please don’t try and bury the fact there is no evidence to support your conclusion in the same manner as the WCR – mountains of unrelated yet “close” statements which have no bearing on the conclusions offered.

Hoover did NOT create the Lone Nut solution, did NOT tell Bundy to tell AF-1 and did NOT proceed under that “conclusion” until Nov 23rd when he was told that Mexico is not in play and that Oswald is the only accused.

“THEY”, as Hoover mentions above, is not part of Hoover’s “US”

(Larry - assaulting a federal officer?)

Paul...

I hope you realize how we've been more than patient and nothing you've posted suggests that Hoover had concluded anything in time to inform Bundy to inform AF-1 or that Hoover was at the apex of that decision pyramid.

I truly believe you overestimate Hoover's influence in all things domestic.

We need to look at what the SS is doing at the same time as the FBI and DPD.. key members of the DPD who appear to knwo what needs to be done (Hill, Westbrook, Sawyer, Stringfellow, Lumpkin, Boone, Stovall/Rose/McCabe)

Key members of the FBI though do not seem to be on the same conspirial page as SS and DPD - at least not for the first few hours when the FBI/DPD is shuttling Zap around.... but it's the SS that gets a film to DC that night, not the FBI.

The more I read, the more I see the SS and CIA keeping the FBI in the dark. The FBI are TOLD what is going on, they don't discover much of anything on their own... they are TOLD I think to take all the evidence on the 22nd and return incriminating evidence that was not in Dallas to begin with.... this is what the FBI excelled at, and I believe this is what they did. The DPD key personnel were playing their part as many were already involved with Military intelligence..

I'm not looking to you to eat crow Paul, just acknowledge that Wrone and you may have jumped to far for that conclusion - and that most of the supporting documentation leads us in a different direction.

DJ

EDIT: can you post the earliest document you know of using the term "LONE NUT"?

His book has been sold as "speculation free" and only evidence with multiple sources used.

Really? Where Greg.... please show us the Ad or whatever it is you think offered that description ...

Not at harveyandlee.net and not at Amazon... back your accusation up with something real so it can, for once, actually be believed.

Is this like you stating that JA says the Star photo was supplied from the CIA, when what he wrote was it was "LIKELY"... which in our world equates to speculation...

xxxxx

Nevertheless, it is what he wanted his readers to believe.

As for the "speculation free" part, here is what Jack White said in 2010 at the foo forum.

If it is not supposedly speculation free, why throw away a years worth of research for lack of more than one citation? If he can speculate without any evidence whatsoever that the CIA was the source of the Frankenstein photo that he claims was what was published (even tho he had a copy of the story showing it was NOT what was published), then why throw away research that has at least one source for it?

I don't know Greg, I'll ask him, ok?

If he can speculate without any evidence whatsoever that the CIA was the source of the Frankenstein photo

you see, "without any evidence" is simply not true. YOU posted the passage. We all know the CIA is the go to when it came to manipulation of images, video, words...

In literally no time this image is printed with the story, Oswald would be in Russia for international intel, no one else. The Military doesn't create images. The FBI wouldn't do it.

With no evidence as to where it came from, LIKELY it was the CIA is that far out on a limb? OK Greg. if you say so. Have you found out where it came from ?

again... the normal, default understanding of things when the CIA is literally running amok out there...is that these people are working the angles in every direction in order to stem the tide of communism... the image is so bad that you cannot even say what he looks like - which has to be the point since a simple photo or negative with the story and the paper prints a picture of what that man in Russia looks like, not some Marine from who knows when who looks more like Lee than Harvey, if you believe that sort of thing...

I'd lay odds it came from Angleton's group but who knows? LIKELY is the correct word to use Greg.

I also posted the page from John's notebook on the subject showing the unaltered newspaper... Jim explains that files sometimes get mixed up... what is posted, if Jack's work, is an enhancement of that terrible image to show the lengths taken to hide the face. May not be perfect but it's close. And I showed you Woods' contribution which adds even more mystery to it and IMO makes it more LIKELY it was CIA sourced. But then I have a very suspicious mind... as did everyone else in that world in 1960,1,2,3

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

John is a good man with good intentions and did an amazing job compiling the info from which we can even be having these conversations.

We enjoyed two years discussing and working to quantify the conflicts raised by the evidence and while I did not accept quite a lot for it being speculative and prematurely conclusive, I cannot ignore there are conflicts that simple answers cannot address. I find there to be more compelling proof in the conflicts, evidence, testimonies, accounts as well as the actions of the intelligence services to hide this strange fact than can be simply dismissed.

Greg... why did it matter to the FBI where Oswald worked in 1957 at all? So what some guy says he worked with him 6 years before... why is following up on Palmer so terribly important to the FBI within a few days of the killing and now Oswald is dead too... why?

From Harvey and Lee:

Lee Oswald could not possibly have contracted tonsillitis because his tonsils

were surgically removed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas 12 years earlier, on January

17, 1945, by Dr. Philben. 2 57-02

Is what I've highlighted above a true statement or not? Just a simple "yes" or "no" is all that is required.

No Greg...

given that there is a possibility that the tonsils can grow back, there is a chance that Lee Oswald's did just that enough to cause him the pain we see treated in the USMC record.

I don't speak for John, I speak with him. Does the chance that they did grow back negate the one and only thing which suggests the existence of the two men?

do we agree that this is not the only conflict in who-what-where-when-how stated within the USMC/FBI/CIA/etc records and

it was these same USMC Discharge documents which state he was 71" and 150 lbs in Sept 1959.... is that not official enough?

do we agree the man ruby killed was not 71" nor 150 lbs - or do I need to post the autopsy too...

See, you posted the first half argument already - the photo of the marine getting bigger after basic... Ozzie gets bigger in the marines and from 17 to 20 as any man would... but the getting smaller part over the next few years, you don't seem to say much about that Greg.

Your argument is that there is no official measurement of Oswald at 71"... I posted the image.

What else ?

===========

You're definitely right, by reading that passage one would think the conflict was a slam dunk...two men. not quite and thank you for posting it.

Will your response to the height issue will be based on a better probability of occurring then tonsil regrowth?

His book has been sold as "speculation free" and only evidence with multiple sources used.

Really? Where Greg.... please show us the Ad or whatever it is you think offered that description ...

Not at harveyandlee.net and not at Amazon... back your accusation up with something real so it can, for once, actually be believed.

Is this like you stating that JA says the Star photo was supplied from the CIA, when what he wrote was it was "LIKELY"... which in our world equates to speculation...

Pathetic

Your shameless self-promotion on virtually every post and every forum to try and sell volumes of your work betrays your agenda...

What poppycock and piffle!

I wasn't the one who rebooted this thread urging people to go read HardlyLee.nut, the website selling Armstrong's theory and his book, was I?

Moreover, when I was a member at DeepFooFoo.orgy, you guys were urging - nay - BEGGING me talk about my book so I would stop humiliating you over the hardlylee theory. When I REFUSED to talk about my book unless someone asked a specific question about it, and continued replying to the garbage being spouted about the historical figure of Lee Harvey Oswald, I was booted.

To quote Carmine S. "Keep trying".

Best laugh I've had today... Can't believe we have to keep having this conversation

how could they possibly see you as anything but sincere over at FooFoo... especially after reading anything posted on your forum...

We get it Parker... as long as you stay with H&L you don't have to explain that pile of kindling you call a book - which winds up being mostly other people's words that you just agree with and reprint.

Brilliant !!

btw - in every article you linked to the consensus is that regrowth of tonsil tissue is not commom at all

From the NIH link you provide they mention that: PARTIAL tonsillectomies - increase the rate of tonsillar regrowth and the test subjects that did show regrowth were all less than 6 years old.

Did the records specify a "partial" ??

From another site: http://ent.about.com/od/entdisorderssu/f/Can-Your-Tonsils-Grow-Back-After-A-Tonsillectomy.htm which links directly to the nih web page on the subject

Given the amount of time it takes for tissue to regenerate and a naturally limited growth period, it is unlikely that, should your tonsils grow back, they will ever grow back to their original size.

If you had your adenoids removed at the same time as your tonsils, it is more likely that they will grow back than your tonsils. While I have cared for patients who are having a second adenoidectomy, I have never cared for someone, or even known someone, who has had to have their tonsils removed more than once in a lifetime. If you know someone whose tonsils have grown back, they probably had their tonsils removed many years ago.

There was a period of time when the method used to remove the tonsils made it more likely for them to grow back. This method, which involved leaving the outer portion of the tonsils intact in order to reduce pain and decrease the risk of bleeding, is no longer used.

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

So Parker, does a 50% chance of regrowth mean the other 50% of no regrowth is not possible? or just not allowed to be considered by your probabilities.

What if it was 75/25 or 90/10 for regrowth - still a better chance THAT is the explanation because H&L is simply not allowed in your universe...

Bottom line - your explanation carries with it a probability of occurance. What it does not do is take into account the other 5000 items of conflict that make up the entire story...

Like trying to explain the WCR conclusions by saying Brennan saw Oswald in the window so it had to have been him. When you get past that one little mistake - like you assuming the tonsils grew back, end of story - we come to find that, and all the other support for "Ozzie did it" is not so trustworthy.

As I've said... you got tonsils and Asperger's to hang your rebuttal upon... oh, and a fort worth high school riot.

You only have 4996 other things to to address

Keep on Truckin'

The most pertinent question asked on this thread so far is this. Of all the coincidences, sightings, discrepancies, and 'confusing' documents...are there ANY that can be innocently explained? Or does EVERY single example fit into the Harvey Lee paradigm?

Here's a non confrontational way of asking John Armstrong's supporters to lay out any doubts they may have with this or that portion of his story. Don has already said he can't see how it could possibly fit into what we now know about Oswald's means of escape. That's an honest admission Don. Maybe others have similar niggling doubts about one or two of the witnesses/documents etc... Or are we saying that not one single iota can be construed in any other way than that laid out by Armstrong

Of course there are Bernie (I guess Greg needed more ROKC help so he called in the big guns)

As predicted...I saw this and refused to read any further. First line in and the insults start, just as I had pre-warned. You're on your own David. I was hoping Jim may have wanted to engage. He seems a lot more knowledgeable about H&L than you and he doesn't have that abrasive aggression you import into all these discussions. I'm not biting!

So I'd like to address the question directly to John Armstrong's 1st lieutenant and most eloquent exponent if that's ok? Jim is there any part of JA's work, which made it into the book, that in the light of new research may contain errors? If so, which?

I hope you can respond with courtesy. I genuinely want to know whether you have ANY doubts whatsoever. Surely it would be highly unusual for someone to write a 1,000 page book on a subject of this complexity and over a 25 year period find that not one error has emerged that could offer a different explanation, wouldn't it?

So what bits, with the benefit of hindsight, did JA get wrong?

Okay - if calling you a "big gun" in the research community is an insult, fine.

Believe it or not I was agreeing with you - the question you don't like is - are you of the opinion that 100% of H&L is wrong... That JA did not get a single thing correct in all the documents and interviews... and that each and every instance of conflict has a benign explanation.

If not, then please post what you see as NOT incorrect about H&L - where the conflicts cannot be explained by anything other than two men... I posted a handful in the post you refused to read...

No matter... pretty sure that all of us aint gonna learn what we dont wanna know... nor is any of this discussion going to convince either side the other has merit... at the end of the day though, we post authenticated evidence and the speculation based on it.

You can't seem to get around to posting anything which actually supports your case...

Wonder why that is ???

Jim Hargrove can handle you and what little you bring to the H&L table just fine. that you miss the entire point of the book and research is what's most disappointing...

ta-ta

Not really sure why Jim H did not go with the image that is found in one of John's notebooks of the original Ft Worth paper..

And also thanks to John Wood who years back sent me the image with what looks like the emulsion over the face is removed...

Nothing nefarious, just a better version of the paper's image - but I would suggest it side-by-side, not superimposed.

panties can be unbunched now Greg...

Um, David, Frankenstein has clearly been posted over the top of the original photo in an attempt to "differentiate" "Lee" from "Harvey"This is from the book:

Origin Of The FWS-T Photo

The first reporter who attempted to interview Oswald in Moscow was Abe

Goldberg, early in the afternoon of Oct. 31, shortly after Oswald left

the U.S. Embassy. Goldberg told the FBI that he did not take a

photograph of Oswald. Robert Korengold spoke briefly with Oswald at

the door to his room at the Hotel Metropole, but took no photographs.

Aline Mosby was the first person to actually interview Oswald in mid-

afternoon of Oct. 31, but there is no indication from her notes or

testimony that she tok a photograph of Oswald. Priscilla Johnson was

the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and

there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald.

The photo of LEE Oswald that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

on November 1, 1959 appeared again in the November 26th issue of the

Evening Star in Washington D.C. This time the photo was credited to

the the Associated Press (AP), yet they claim to have no record of

it's origin. The origin of this photo, published within 24 hours of

Aline Mosby's interview with Oswald in Moscow remains unknown. (Once

again information about Oswald, in this case a photo, was given to the

media by an unidentified source only one day after his "defection."

The most LIKELY souce was a CIA media asset.

Why weren't you aware that Armstrong claims the photo came from the CIA?

Which is just rubbish.

It has to be the work of Jack White.

So you're not REALLY sure it was Jack White, if it just "has to be"...

LOL

What he says Greg is that the CIA is the LIKELY source after explaining that there is no evidence a photo taken prior to the story by those in Russia.

The sentence would read, "The CIA provided this photo of LEE to cover for Harvey" if Armstrong CLAIMED it came from the CIA... you do understand the english word "LIKELY" don't you... It has to do with uncertainty, a guess using an informed opinion that has good chances of being correct.

At the core of this, maybe it's just a language problem you keep having and your ability to distinguish speculation as stated and fact as offered... ??

If we had a good version of the newspaper's photo (which is what Jack seems to have been trying to accomplish if it was him) MAYBE it would look like the images Wood sent me including Jack's clean-up... the photo of Oswald at the top right of my composite appears to be the BASIS for the Ft Worth image yet Woods shows something was done to it...

1. Can you offer anything to prove a photo was taken of Oswald to accompany the article?

2. Where do you think a photo of Oswald in the Marines came from for the Star image along with the story?

3. Who do you think TOOK this image of Oswald in the marines in the first place and when?

You remain so ready to jump on anything you believe can be capitalized upon that you forgoe things like facts and reading with comprehension.

That and the CIA NEVER provided anything to a newspaper to get a story out that THEY wanted... Never ever.

I have another question: Quoted in the post is the report of one of the Soviet doctors who is quoted as saying "A 'show' suicide,' since he was refused political asylum, which he had been demanding."

I have never seen that quote before, and--as I recall--I examined the Soviet medical records as turned over by the USSR to the US Government in December, 1963.

Does anyone know the source of the ". . 'show' suicide..." quote?

DSL...

I could not find that exact quote either yet there are over 3000 page hits for "suicide" at MFF so it could take some time to find it...

Seems to me from these notes of other Doctors in Russia, the statement is not so far fetched.