David Josephs

Yes indeed... Bill has been extremely helpful in so many ways related to Mexico City and the Evidence... the mole-hunt was more concerned with FBI, Mexican and/or Cuban infultration of the CIA "LI" programs than anything related to JFK... But ask yourself why a CIA asset goes to the local authorities to tell his Sept 18, no Sept 27/28th story - is polygraphed with Phillips in the room, is discredited and is sent away. All after the assassination. THAT is a key to how the evidence was used to implicate Oswald as a Commie and Castro related.

FWIW - the Textron purchase of Bell with the help of CIA general Cabell had much more to do with the Bank Of BOSTON, Sun Life of MONTREAL, the Boston Fabians, Arthur Little, Prudential Life (a Morgan Co therefor a Rothschild co) and the Bank of England than with anything related to "New York Establishment" Seems to me more of the Lawyers, like Cravath, Swaine and Moore are from NY - with ties back to London While the NY Banks seem more tied to Boston, Canada and England than to the NY elite. Choate, Hall and Stewert also played prominently and is a Boston law Firm. I believe that due to limited thinking these international business men and women were categorized as "Eastern Establishment" when in reality the "Eastern" part had it's hand in it at the beginning but the Establishment, or New New Establishment as the New Yorker calls it, has no geographical boundaries and were only headquatered in NY...there is as much "Establishment" in TX, CA, and a variety of other states. The MICC extended everywhere and involved those in the Establishment deemed worthy of inclusion. Conflict is the substance of the MICC's success. JFK was a larger threat to ongoing "conflict" than any president ever was... While these elite - the "sponsors" will always make their money and grab their power regardless of the political climate, JFK was basically the first of the presidents in the modern era to challenge the status quo. To me the 25th Amendment says it all... it basically legalized the influential in the MICC to insist on the removal of a president and be able to accomplish it. JFK could not be allowed to be re-elected. http://nymag.com/news/features/establishments/68510/ The first secular invocation of the Establishment dates to 1841, when Ralph Waldo Emerson employed the term in a lecture at the Masonic Temple in Boston, but its entry into the modern vernacular came more than 100 years ­later—thanks, tellingly, to a journalist. The year was 1955 and the scribe was Henry Fairlie, the puckish, young conservative political columnist for the London Spectator. “By the ‘Establishment,’ I do not mean only the centers of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised,” he wrote. Fairlie’s coinage spread quickly to America, which, of course, had developed its own incarnation of the same phenomenon—with New York at its very center. During the Cold War, the city was home to many of the paragons of the Eastern Establishment: Averell Harriman, John McCloy, David Rockefeller, Brooke Astor

What I had noticed was that in most every image of Oswald his arms are bent and he is usually just holding his own arm or hand... I can appreciate the line of analysis yet the image is so very poor... even at the ROKC images one would expect to see something of substance in the hand area.. I tried all the Photoshop tricks I could to bring out something that may be in his hands.

Thanks for the post Caddy - this is some severely nauseating stuff perpetuating the Oswald myth... Marina is going to shed light on the man she called her husband.... please.

Paul... at some point don't you have to take a breath and stop guessing? "Ms Tirado described Lee Harvey Oswald as approximately five foor six, with sparse blond hair, weighing about 125 "?" pounds" TIRADO - No. I read yesterday, an article in the Reader's digest, and they say he was at the Consulate on three occasions. He was in Friday, Saturday, and Monday...That's not true, that's false. CORNWELL - All right. Let's try a different hypothetical. If the one in the Reader's Digest is definitely wrong, is it possible that he first came on like a Thursday, and then came back on a Friday? TIRADO - No, because I am positively sure about it. That he came in the same day. CORNWELL - During this period was your normal work week, did it include Saturdays? TIRADO - Yes. CORNWELL - Is it possible that, in addition to his visits on Friday, he also came back the following day on Saturday mourning? TIRADO - No. CORNWELL - How can you be sure of that? TIRADO - Because, uh, I told you before, that it was easy to remember, because not all the Americans that came there were married with a Russian woman, they have live(d) in Russian and uh, we didn't used to fight with those people because if you, they came for going to Cuba, so apparently they were friends, no? So we were nice to them with this man we fight, I mean we had a hard discussion so we didn't want to have anything to do with him. CORNWELL - Okay. I understand that but I don't understand how that really answers the question. In other words, the question is, what is it about the events that makes you sure that he did not come back on Saturday, and have another conversation with you? TIRADO - Because I remember the fight. So if he (come) back, I would have remembered. CORNWELL - Did Azcue work on Saturdays? TIRADO - Yes, we used to work in the office but not for the public. CORNWELL - Was there a guard, was there a guard out here at the corner near number seven on your diagram on Saturdays? TIRADO - Excuse me? CORNWELL - Was there a doorman out near the area that you marked as number seven, on the diagram? TIRADO - Yes, but on Saturday he never let people ... CORNWELL - Never let people in. TIRADO - No. CORNWELL - And what did you do at that time? TIRADO - I filled out application. CORNWELL - You personally typed it, and did you type it in duplicate or triplicate or just one copy? TIRADO - Duplicate. CORNWELL - And was the second copy a carbon? TIRADO - Carbon? CORNWELL - Did you have it twice or did you type one and make two copies? TIRADO - Only one. CORNWELL - And made two? TIRADO - Yes. Except these two copies typed at the same time do not match - the pages when placed on top of each other with the text lined up results in nothing else lining up... The signatures are not the same The "10 OCT 1963" on the original supposedly comes from Cuba The HSCA reverses the descriptions of "copy" and "original" Neither signature is significantly similar to Oswald's The FBI looked and could not find a place anywhere close to the Cuban Embassy that could have taken these images.... If we are to believe that this person at the Embassy was the same as the photos, per Duran, then why is she wrong about his not being back after the 27th? Duran was of course, NOT shown these same photos or this exhibit during her testimony CORNWELL - Would you have ever allowed a person to take all of the applications outside and attach the photos or sign them themselves? TIRADO - Yes, because you may come, ask for the application and you may keep it. CORNWELL - You, on occasion, would allow someone just to have a blank copy. Is that correct? TIRADO - Yes.

Paul, Who do you think was the Oswald who took a bus to Mexico City, sitting next to Albert Osborne and talking with two British and two Australian tourists? Good question, Ron. In my opinion, most of the "sightings" of OSWALD were fictitious boastings by nut-cases. The others were largely cases of mistaken identity. Take John Howard Bowen (alias Albert Alexander Osborne), for example, a classic pathological xxxx. How many people enjoyed their "fifteen minutes of fame" which might never come again, just by claiming that this or that look-alike was really OSWALD? I won't go into "conspiracy" mode when I learn that the bus records fail to register any Lee Harvey Oswald on board. I won't go into "conspiracy" mode when I learn that some Mexican border guards reported Lee Harvey Oswald entered Mexico as a passenger in a car. Most of their accounts have problems of exaggeration, mistaken identity or just fiction. We must remember that Lee Harvey OSWALD was the single most famous (infamous) person in the Western world after the death of JFK, for perhaps a solid year. It's a scenario just begging for nut-cases to come out of the woodwork. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul and Ron... I can understand if you'd prefer to just jockey back and forth without the evidence in front of you... yet if you want to know WHY the FBI created the entire bus trip, and how it was accomplished you might want to read the work which has taken me the last 8 months.... Mexico City Trip: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6 Do you know who the Lawyer Ochoa was and how he helped the FBI with the Mexican Evidence? Are you aware of what Arturo Bosch did to the Frontera bus passenger mainfest? (when it was found that a 2pm departure could not get him to connecting buses in time to get back to the TEC for his Oct 3rd appointment... it was dropped and no longer considered evidence of the trip... as it had been for quite some time) They knew who did it and when yet there was no followup to the Mexican President, his staff or Bosch for falsifying evidence... they just found another bus which leaves at 8:30am - Del Norte - while other FBI reports put him on the Anahuac bus line... Did you know that the Aussie girls and McFarland were not on the bus the FBI claims Oswald was on? At some point don't you need to actually go to the work and evidence and stop spreading incorrect information about this trip? The documents are part of the paper... The "Oswald" character is a composite of a number of different passengers a number of different witnesses claimed to have seen... Yet when you get to the evidence, none of it is true. There was no "Oswald" on any of these buses... the evidence shows that "LEE, Harvey Oswald" or H.O. LEE is the name on the travel documents. That all the after the fact info created alphabetizes Mr. LEE between N and P, never as Mr. Lee as all the evidence shows. Reports talk of Lee HENRY Oswald traveling as shown by the Mexican records yet there is not one piece of evidence that uses HENRY... State Consul Harvey CASH lies to the I&NS about what the evidence handed to him actually says by removing reference to "Vieja en Auto" and letting the FBI and I&NS create a badly pieced together bus trip. If you can actually read thru the work and still believe that Oswald was on a bus or even in Mexico, that the FBI bus Oswald is the CIA's embassy Oswald, or that any of the evidence supporting the FBI's story is authentic, please post it... Nothing I have found to date supports the FBI's version of the story. No one to date has taken a look at this evidence as I have... it started as a request from Jim D to do a write up when the signature on the Hotel registry and the name on the fake Visa - LEE, HARVEY OSWALD - are written exactly the same way while the signature on the visa itself is "Lee Oswald" (btw - the visa application with Oswald's name, as I posted before, was not a 15 day FM-8 but for a 180 day FM-5) What we learn is that OCHOA has the hotel registry, had already added notes to aid the investigation on the FM-11 and provides copies - NEVER originals - of these pages along with virtually every other piece of Mexican evidence for this falsified bus ride. Say or feel whatever you want towards me... the evidence is all there and presented for you to decide. So are most of the links to the sources. Paul - you specifically have a very narrow view of what the evidence shows. More than just Osborne talks about there not being other english speaking people on the bus... The FBI puts Oswald on the Flecha Rojas bus into Mexico City (and also the Anahuac bus into Mexico City)... The Flecha Rojas bus leaves Monterrey at 3:30 pm, the DEL NORTE bus leaves Monterrey at 7:30pm The problem here is that the FBI puts Oswald on a 2pm Flecha Rojas bus leaving Neuvo Laredo and a Flecha Rojas bus leaving Monterrey only 1.5 hours later... it's a 4 hour 135-mile trip from Neuvo Laredo to Monterrey. And the Aussies put themselves on a Del Norte bus.... the McFarlands are on the bus with the Aussies. Since no Oswald took a bus, what we find is that these two statements are the ONLY EVIDENCE for Oswald having been on a southern traveling bus from Monterrey (I also have the Flecha Rojas passenger manifest from Monterrey showing only passengers who got on in Monterrey (the Aussies).. they of course are not listed... (this is page 2 following the doc below) McFarland affidavit: Q. Did you see Oswald speaking to any other persons? A. Yes. We observed him conversing occasionally with two young Australian women who boarded the bus on the evening of September 26th at Monterrey, Mexico. He also conversed occasionally with an elderly man who sat in the seat next to him for a time... We spent one day in Monterrey and left by bus at 7:30 p.m. at Monterrey, and it was on that bus that we met Lee Harvey Oswald Miss MUMFORD. Well, the ticket we had on this deal enabled us only to travel in the States, not in Mexico. So, we bought the ticket on the bus at Laredo and that enabled us to stop off in Monterrey. But the ticket was from Laredo to Mexico City. Mr. BALL. And from what company did you buy the ticket? Miss MUMFORD. As far as I can remember, it was a bus company called Transporter del Norte. Mr. BALL. Now, you got on the bus at Monterrey on the evening of September 26 at 7:30 p.m., you just told me? Miss MUMFORD. Yes. Mr. BALL. And what was the company that operated that bus, do you know? Miss MUMFORD. That was also Transporter del Norte.

The tired old argument that no other comparable orders or inventories or shipments would be of any benefit to the evidence is obviously a tactic to deflect the question. The rifle is one of the most important pieces of evidence and yet the limiting of the FBI investigation to that one order and no other context is yet another example of the conclusion dictating the investigation. When the FBI has prime, original evidence in its possession for months before evidence is offered as Exhibit and then the source materials disappear (like oh so many films, right Gayle?) how can the evidence then offered be considrede anything but junk? - or solely indicative of a conver-up? Bob... you know the rifle evidence - has anyone ever come forward with a 40"FC rifle they got from ordering C20-T750? Come forward with the 36"TS? Are is it that only the rifle attributed to Oswald has such a detailed and specific past? Amazing how incriminating evidence is easy to find, while in so many cases the FBI can find everyone and anyone to circumstantially corroborate evidence against Oswald, they just cant find evidence directly from Oswald.

it is truly not as questionable as it is being presented. She told her doctor and her father about this well before the assassination... Mr. Valenti... talk to me directly... man-up already and learn the material. You post as if you haven't the first clue what was actually said or what the evidence actually looks lilke. If anything I write is "unsettled and highly questionable" - do what you can to show I'm wrong. Your work on the tramps falls terribly short of convincing anyone that the two separate sets of men being described were really only one set of men who stayed in jail until the 26th... Wise and Bass do not agree with Chambers and Jones... espcially since Jones asks Chambers to release the men BEFORE Oswald is even at the station, which is BEFORE the photos of the DP tramps were even taken. To the matter at hand.... The FBI wanted it to be Hall, Howard and Seymour... and right up to the day before the publication of the WCR they were finding out it was NOT them... and still refusing to change their minds about Odio... Her info was hidden... the WCR says it could not have been Oswald since he was on the way to Mexico - citing the FBI evidence of a bus ride which never took place... over which I go into deep detail in other writings. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0173b.htm The WCR does not say she was not telling the truth but that since the FBI had determined that Oswald was not in Dallas rom the beginning of Sept until October 3rd, he couldn't have been at Odio. If it can be shown that Oswald was not actually in Mexico City at the time, or even traveling to Mexico... what does that do to the WCR conclusion about who Odio sees? Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Dr. Einspruch about it? Mrs. ODIO. Yes; but the things you talk with a doctor in an office, he will tell you before that he is going to say it. He would have told me, "I am going to tell the FBI." You have to trust a doctor, especially a psychiatrist. I know they talked to him later, but I don't think it was him that called the FBI Mrs. ODIO. Before you start, let me give you a letter of my father's which he wrote me from prison. You can have it. It was very funny, because at the time he wrote it, the FBI incident happened a week later. I told my father this man had been in my house and he introduced himself as your friend; and he wrote me back in December telling me that such people were not his friends, and he said not to receive anybody in my house, and not any of them were his friends, and he didn't know those people. At the time I did give the names of one or two, and he wrote back, "I actually don't know who they are." Mrs. ODIO. At first, I thought he was just trying to get fresh with me. The second time, it never occurred to me until I went to my psychiatrist. I used to go to see Dr. Einspruch in the Southwestern Medical School, and I used to tell him all the events that happened to me during the week. And he relates that I mentioned to him the fact that these men had been at my door, and the fact that these Cubans were trying to get in the underground, and thought I was a good contact for it, they were simply trying to introduce him. Anyhow, I did not know for what purpose. My father and mother are prisoners, and you never know if they can blackmail you or they are going to get them out of there, if you give them a certain amount of money. You never know what to expect. I expect anything. Later on I did establish opinions, because you can't help but establish opinions. Mr. LIEBELER. Did you establish that opinion after the assassination or before the assassination? Mrs. ODIO. This first opinion that I mentioned to my psychiatrist, I did not give it a second thought. I forgot to tell Alentado about it; except 3 days later I wrote to my father after they came, and mentioned the fact that the two men had called themselves friends of his. And later in December, because the letter takes a long time to get here, he writes me back, "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."

You now need to answer a question Jon.... Why can you not allow for duplicitous activity prior to the assassination which the "planners" could use as needed should the occasion arrise. I refer back to Vallee. If this was a true patsy set-up for the attempt that was thwarted I am sure we would have learned about activities that MAY have been innocent at the time but under this new POV of assassination, their innocence comes into question. Oswald is basically placed at the TSBD JFK is basically placed in front of the TSBD... the killed brought to the accused. and the same set-up is seen in Chicago... JFK passes right by Vallee on his way. I truly do not believe that his activities since coming back from Russia were all leading to the killing of JFK... possible but unlikely. Was Oswald TOLD to flaunt his Marxism (which was "commie" to the masses) to create the association for JFK, or for FPCC infultration... why not both? That he was set-up ahead of time is not hard to see. That the real killers actions were covered up by the investigation with Oswald as the focus is a given. How are we to tell an advance activity as set-up versus not until it is used against him? He was being set-up as a commie with co-conspirators possibly connected to Castro (specifically so by the CIA asset Alvarado), not a Lone Nut Who he really was and what really happened was completely covered up using a mixture of pre-assassination duplicitous activities and post assassination cover-up. Why again is the distinction so important? You tell us you know your CI. Are you saying that creating mutiple reasons for the same "set-up" activity is not to CI's advantage or not CI SOP?... to SPIN things one way or another and still offer the shadow of truth. To answer the thread's question, again. Yes, there was a Set-Up distinct from the Cover-up since the cover-up had to also include undoing the "Castro-commie" set-up in favor of the "Lone Nut" conclusion... Mexico City is a perfect example. To the CIA and State Dept he had traveled with others by car. To the FBI and I&NS he had come and gone by bus, alone. Set-up v Cover-up. Doesn't get much simplier than that.

Classic Von Pein... Can you or anyone prove what we see printed as that order was what was actually on the microfilm - now that the cannister remains yet the film is gone? Do you understand that the only thing that relates THAT rifle to THAT order is Waldman's own pencil writing in of the VC # and Seriel #.? Kleins does not need to be part of the "plot" at all... they just needed to have given the FBI the evidence before it was authenticated. We also have the VP of the bank of Chicago stating that the MO deposited on this order would have been sent to and processed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago... as we all know, there are no processing mark or stamps on the Money Order, only the stamp Waldman THINKS is the same as the one they use... It's close, but not the same stamp... and as we can see, this is a KLEINS stamp. The Banking processes were never performed on this piece of paper. Let's see what else Waldman has to say.... So basically, before we have any idea what is actually on this roll of film, the FBI has it in their possession. We do not know anything about the state of Klein's inventory of C20-T750's as of March 1963. There is no way to connect C2766 from Riva in Italy to this order. Feldsott already told us about C2766 from an order shipped to Kleins in June 1962, not Feb 1963. The microfilm with this and any other order form which can be used to compare SOP at this time is no longer in the Archives... the cannister is empty. As to Waldman being the "proper individual" from Kleins... Mr. BELIN. Do you know who the person is that filled out this order? Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; his initials are so indicated as "M.W." Mr. BELIN. Would that be the name at the lower lefthand corner of Exhibit 1? Mr. WALDMAN. It is. Mr. BELIN. And that is who? Mr. WALDMAN. Mitchell W. Westra. Mr. BELIN. At that time was he an employee of your company? Mr. WALDMAN. He was. Mr. BELIN. Was he under your jurisdiction and supervision? Mr. WALDMAN. He was not under my direct supervision, no. He was under the supervision of Sam Kasper Westra nor Kasper were interviewed... the man who filled the order and his boss were not consulted... Waldman was. And Waldman does not know his own inventory as evidenced by this stated regarding a non-existent Model 91/38EFF Mr. WALDMAN. As for example, the different manufacturers making the Springfield rifle. Basically, the weapons were of the same general design, but as I say, there were details that were different. We originally had ordered one style of Carcano rifle, one that was known as the Model 91TS. As time went on, we changed to another model known as the Model 91/38EFF, this on April 13, 1962. Waldman testified on May 20, 1964. The microfilm in question had been in the possession of the FBI since the day they took it, Nov 23, 1963. Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number. Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is? Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope The TS rifle was a 36" scoped carbine The FC was not. C20-T750 had been advertised as a 36" carbine with a scope for $19.95 since March 1962. It was waht the Hidell Order refers to. Even the Secret Service told us the rifle found was a TS carbine. So the question remains. All the evidence points to the rifle ordered and shipped on the microfilm receipt as a 36" scoped carbine 91/38TS rifle. LNers like you claim that Kleins was shipping the larger rifle yet you provide nothing to support such a speculation. That a 40" FC rifle is found on the 6th floor does not equate to this having anything at all to do with that Hidell order unless you can show it was standard practice to replace one rifle with another... simply done too - just so us one other C20-T750 order and call it a day. But you can't give us anything but excuses for WHY we would need to do that in the first palce. Because, as BA posted, it would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the order for C20-T750 was either the ONLY one where a different rifle was shipped, or was part of many 40" FC rifles shipped for that order number... That Kleins had been selling the C20-T750 since March 1962 and was on ad every month until Feb 1963... unchanged as to description for all those months - a 36" scoped TS carbine. Yet you are trying to get us to believe that not a single other C20-T750 was ordered during that entire year. Which would also be proven if we could see the other orders from that film or ANY of the Kleins film. The entire point von Pein is to see other orders with one of the other 99 seriel numbers on it. There are 100 rifles listed here... does the FBI show us that any one of these is a 40" FC rifle? Does Kleins offer any evidence related to these 99 OTHER rifles? Of course not because they like we know these are from the June 1962 shipment of 36" rifles We know that Riva removed the seriel number of all the rifles he worked on - except, says the FBI, this one batch... but they offer no proof of a single other rifle. At the end of the day von Pein, the evidence you and the WCR uses to implicate a man of murder is woefully inadequate and terribly inauthentic. We have breaks in the custody at an agency known for altering, creqating and destroying evidence when it suited them. (the entirety of the Mexico evidence was created with the help of an FBI asset named Ochoa) So it is really left up to you to connect the dots... and again - the evidence you choose to use falls terribly short and in reality shows the conspiracy of evidence thru the FBI that permeated this case... If the WCR/FBi could convict using real evidence that said what it intended we have to assume they would have. Instead we constantly see the FBI bending in every conceivable way to get the evidence to conform to the accusation and conclusions... while never offereing corroboration or authentication of said evidence. The man was dead - they just needed to make their case.

So you're as confused by that model and WCD298 as the rest of us.... The DPD also made sure Oswald was killed... sorry but the DPD does not get much kudos for that weekend, other than from those who actually did the crime. And I see you continue to avoid anything with substance for then you'd have to defend it. Pein, it took Salandria 15 minutes to see it was a conspiracy. It's taken 50+ years for our governemnt to make sure that fact was hidden and remains so. If feel so sorry fo your inability to see 10 years past JFK to 1953 and what occurs in the world over the next 10 years... You pop into existence with your tiny little sayings, chuckle at being out numbered 1000:1, and play these games.... Great to see you again Pein... you remind me how truly deep heads are stick in the sand to avoid having to even THINK of the evil which existed and exits today... Don't worry buddy, your honey-boo reruns are coming on soon...

Funny thing The name Lee Harvey Oswald does not appear on this order A C20-T750, a 36" carbine with a scope did not exist at Kleins. That order was never shipped. Where is the evidence that the $1.50 in postage was ever sent on? What happened to the C2766 rifle Feldscott says was shipped to Klein's in June 1962 right after the ads for a C20-T750 had been running a couple of months and they needed rifles to fulfill C20-T750 orders thru Feb 1963? Why is there no federal banking stamp on the back of the MO? Why was it found in VA and not KS? How, if there is no specific evidence of what Rupp took out of Harborside to send to Kleins, can you connect a rifle from Rupp thru Kleins and to Oswald when all the orders from that time period are gone? Why is there no proof that Oswald or Hidell ever got the rifle from the Post Office or that it ever arrived at a post office? Why wont the FBI or Kleins let us see another order for C20-T750 to see what was shipped? Why has not a single person EVER come forward claiming to have ordered a C20-T750 36" scoped carbine and say they got the same rifle Oswald used? That would be pretty exciting and there should be tens if not a hundred of these floating around...? What about the rest of the inventory from that shipment... did the FBI ever check the remaining stock to see if the other 99 rifles were also 40" FC rifles and not TS and/or where they were shipped? When the rifle is supposedly in New Orleans on Sept 23, 1963 with the rest of the Oswald belongings and Ruth takes Marina and childred back to Irving... they see the loading and unloading of her car and repeatedly tells us that she does not see that rifle until shown to her on at the DPD. Did he take it with him to Mexico? to Odio? was it ever seen at the Paine house? No. So what happened to it? How did it get from Magazine to Irving? When he arrived at the TSBD - where do you say he put the rifle to retrieve it later? http://www.ctka.net/2014/The%20evidence%20is%20the%20conspiracy.html you might want to read thru this... if he had a plan THIS is the plan he had to follow... When did he have time to disassemble the rifle? Make the paper bag? Get the bag home - (he only asks Wesley for a ride Thursday afternoon) Get the rifle into the bag before going to sleep at 9pm? Get the rifle and bag in the morning? Get a 34" piece of rifle into a 27" bag with clip, bullets, and trigger mechanism - and still not leave a trace inside said bag? Mr. Pein... your attempts at offering WCR evidence and WCR conclusions with the same tired old fraudulent evidence from 50 years ago is terribly lame for someone with your skills. Fashion a paper as I did at that link that illustrates the PLAN your Lone Nut had to employ to accomplish this amazing feat. PROVE he did it since he is INNOCENT until proven guilty... No one including you have been able to offer a convincing argument supported by facts which is not destroyed just by looking at the Evidence of the Conspiracy left behind. Posting a single doc and proclaiming King of the Hill is premature Dave... even you can follow that. Post an argument that isn't so easily pulled apart... you have all the evidence - same as I do... If you;re going to waste our time and offer an argument - can you at least make it worth looking at?

where did you read he had? maybe a 2nd day 5:00 shadow after driving from New Orleans to Dallas? we remember Oswald the day he came to my house because he had not shaved and he had a kind of a very, I don’t know how to express it, but some little hairs like if you haven’t shaved, but it is not a thick moustache, but some kind of shadow

What DVP does not come and do is try to prove any of the WCR conclusions offered.. he'd rather we answer his tired old question, "if not Oswald, who?" as if that automatically makes the WCR okay... So which of these 12 can even be considered an accusation against Oswald? 1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository. (put Oswald in that window) 2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired. (the HSCA proved that wrong plus there are numerous “marks” in DP from that day to prove well more than the 4 shots the HSCA found (they actually found 6, 2 were not fired from the only two locations they test- fired from… they were still gunshot sounds… just not from the GK or SE window) 3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot. hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds. (please present said evidence – show how an 11 degree UPWARD angle needed to connect back to front can be accomplished from 70 feet above the target - OR THAT THE WOUNDS ARE CONNECTED AT ALL) 4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald (any evidence that shows he fired a rifle or THAT rifle was fired would be appreciated) 5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination (please connect this with the killing of JFK and the evidence presented by Markham and Bowley) 6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to shoot another Dallas police officer. (and this has to do with JFK how?) 7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning Oswald’s interrogation and detention by the Dallas police : (a) Except for the force required to effect his arrest, Oswaldwas not subjected to any physical coercion by any law enforcement officials. He was advised that he could not be compelled to give any information and that any statements made by him might be used against him in court. He was advised of his right to counsel. He was given the opportunity to obtain counsel of his own choice and was offered legal assistance by the Dallas Bar Association, which he rejected at that time. (b.. Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were allowed uninhibited access to the area through which Oswald had to pass when he was moved from his cell to the interrogation room and other sections of the building, thereby subjecting Oswald to harassment and creating chaotic conditions which were not conducive to orderly interrogation or the protection of the rights of the prisoner. © The numerous statements, sometimes erroneous, made to the press by various local law enforcement officials, during this period of confusion and disorder in the police station, would have presented serious obstacles to the obtaining of a fair trial for Oswald. To the extent that the information was erroneous or misleading, it helped to create doubts, speculations, and fears in the mind of the public which might otherwise not have arisen. (explain what this has to do with EVIDENCE against Oswald for the murder of JFK) 8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963 (this has what to do with proving Oswald’s guilt or the killing of JFK?) 9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy (this has what to do with proving Oswald’s guilt or the killing of JFK?) 10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official (this has what to do with proving Oswald’s guilt or the killing of JFK?) 11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone What evidence shows that he did anything on the 6th floor at all? Hoover on Dec 12, 1963: I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man. The FBI report from Dec 9th: On the contrary, the data developed strongly indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little advance planning. 12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD. So here is a photo of Greer "reacting promptly" at the time of the shots to protect POTUS... You think this is indicative of the other conclusions these esteemed men found? The DVPs of the world want us to believe we live in Utopia... Snowden, reflecting the activities of these men for the past 80 years, is not to be believed... he must have made it all up the US GOV'T could not possibly be organized enough, competent enough or what ever other descriptive term DVP wants to throw out - to have pulled this and all the other covert activities off. He would have us believe that a man who wasn't there, with a rifle that wasn't there, firing bullets that weren't there, missed once and yet hits twice causing all the damage to these men. That the witnesses were all mass hypnotized into saying the same things and signing the same statements... That Truly forgets he saw OSwald, supposedly, with Baker on the 2nd Floor... yet within 20 minutes is able to say he, and he alone is gone. You see Jon, by making it an open discussion, he believes that his end of the argument is still valid. That there is still some mystery related to the conspiracy that took place and the OPTION that Oswald did it alone, did not know Ruby or Ferrie or Shaw or Bannister is still viable. So every once in a while we need to post the simple stuff. The conclusions above which are so poor and have nothing to do with proving anything. Or the FBI's report which has chapters on BEFORE the Assassination.. and AFTER the Assassination... just not a whole lot ABOUT the assassination. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10402

Guess he picked a real good time to leave... Fonzi's The Last Investigation: Based on background and character alone, Silvia and Annie highly were highly credible. Nevertheless, the subsequent heavy checking I did of their story absolutely convinced me they were telling the truth. One of the major factors was that Silvia Odio had told more than one person of the incident before the Kennedy assassination. She wrote to her father in prison and told him of the visit of the three strangers. The Warren Commission obtained a copy of his reply warning her to he careful because he did not know them. I spoke to Amador Odio himself. He and his wife were released from Cuban prison a few years ago and are also living in Miami now. No longer wealthy (he was working at night in a low manager's job for an airline),but still proud and idealistic, a handsome old gentleman who exudes a quite dignity, he confirmed receiving the letter from Silvia and his reply. More specifically, Dr. Burton Einspruch, the psychiatrist who was counseling Silvia at the time, recalled that she had him prior to the assassination of the visit of the two Latins and the American and that he remembered calling her on the day of the assassination. He said she mentioned "Leon" and in what he called "a sort of histrionic way," connected he visit of "Leon'- to the Kennedy assassination

In what way is it twisted? Be specific. In what way is directly quoting testimony only giving my "impression". Be specific. She never claimed she fainted because she recognized Oswald. Her sister was the one who fainted from believing she recognized him. Here is more from Odio's testimony Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann [sic] that the name Oswald was never used in your presence by any of these men? Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald. Her answers to the question regarding the name Oswald are at best, confusing and contradictory. Are you claiming that a man of the cloth lied to the authorities when he told them that she never heard the name Oswald used by the men? No - I'm claiming that your interpretation skills are speculation-based at best... When speaking english the word EXCEPT means that a condition exited OTHER than what was described... They did not refer to him as Oswald EXCEPT 1) when they introduced me and 2) when they left. How many times do you use a full name of someone once introduced... "Hello this is Greg Parker" "Greg here wants to kill JFK and get paid for it" "Greg says he's a crazy ex-marine" No need to keep repeating the last name... and when they call the next day - and say nothing but specifically incriminating things about LEON OSWALD who they introduced to two Odio sisters the day before, who do you think they are referring to other than Leon Oswald, the man at their door, the man they immediately identify as the man Ruby killed. Only confusing and contradictory to you Greg Parker... The man of the cloth told the truth... EXCEPT FOR INTRODUCING HIM AND WHEN THEY LEFT, they only used his first name... "she never heard the name Oswald used by the men" is simply not true... these men may not have used the name OSWALD over the phone, yet she and the men talking knew exactly who they were referring to - the man introduced and as he was leaving was known to Odio as LEON OSWALD... Only you seem to be confused here Greg Parker... for according to you if I was to post "only you Greg" - you and I would have no idea who we were talking about... and as usual - you cherry-pick a sentence out of context and conveniently drop the next question and answer: Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used in your presence by any of these men? Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald. Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald? Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him. Can you not offer anything without trying to hide something which easily contradicts your "analysis"? And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice. 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. Mr. LIEBELER. Did he mention his last name the night before? Mrs. ODIO. Before they left I asked their names again, and he mentioned their names again. Mr. LIEBELER. But he did not mention Oswald's name except as Leon? Mrs. ODIO. On the telephone conversation he referred to him as Leon or American. He said he had been a Marine and he was so interested in helping the Cubans, and he was terrific

I hope though Jon, that you continue to see the duplicity in these "non set-up activities" in which Oswald was conveniently placed and conveniently steered to perform. I'm not sure how you can be so definitive about his not being the object of a set-up as a contingency at the very least... That he was being set-up as a Castro sympathizer which is then changed to Lone Nut does not change the set-up process... only what parts are to be made public. The CIA and State dept knows that an Oswald travels to and from Mexico by car but literally creates the story that the evidence does NOT say anything about a mode of transportation. The FBI is then enlisted to create a bus trip... which, with the help of a well placed Gobernacion asset, the FBI does, even though it knows the details could not possibly be related to Oswald. There is both pre and post assassination incrimination going on, but from activities which were not directly related until 11/22. JA makes a strong case that Ruby was connected, enough so to not be charged or jailed for his gun-running, drugs or other illegal activities. and Lee is with Ruby. Most of the framing happens when Commie killer turns to Lone Nut... great example is Alvarado in Mexico and how his story evolves, and is then dismissed... As for the two boys... NYC 1952-53 will always remain a most interesting and highly contested time period. Why those who knew Harvey said he did not talk with a southern drawl as Lee did before he left... is one small indication of what was going on. How his brother Pic tells Lee from Harvey is ever case... But H&L is not the point (although this is an H&L thread)... that Oswald and those around him lived in the world of spies is not arguable... that his movements and activities do not describe an innocent bystander is also not arguable. What his purposes were... the existence of the two of them, the relationship to 11/22... is interpretation of the evidence available and how it corroborates the thesis. I'm not sure again how you can see he was not set-up in advance when so much of the incriminating evidence is a result of activities he was guided to perform, or were performed for him with the purpose of incrimination or leverage at some point.

The "real" Oswald of the Warren report and the "real" Lee H. Oswald are not the same person. The way you wrote it is absolutely correct. As for tax records... I posted the Reily W-2 which was on a form not used by the IRS thru employers to employees in any year let alone those around 1963. Saying that the IRS, it's information of the process it takes getting data from point A to B cannot be corrupted after what we know of the record is what sounds absurd. This piling on of JA regarding theories which are offered and subsequently questioned or even changed is mind-boggling. Do you realize how many notches you fall David when you attack ideas and theories that evolve and adjust to the information as it becomes available... As a valued leader, author, researcher, spokesperson for the cause, it's enough already. You don't have to kiss his toes yet you also don't have to throw out pointless zingers to accomplish what? that you know more about his research than he does - would you stand for that if directed towards you? I know... tough hides... we should be able to take it... but from each other.? From your POV David, which is not as extensive as his, or mine for that matter, the analysis is mis-interpreted. Do unto others David... seems appropriate at this point. Take care. DJ

Obvious. In response for having posted some of the things said about me and others on his forum, GP finds it appropriate to go eye-for-an-eye. So do I. But I was wrong for posting specific posts themselves from his place. All one need do is go and jump in anywhere and start reading posts. I am disappointed that GP, who has contributed much to many of our understandings of the events related to that 30 seconds, cannot see that while his rebuttals may indeed be valid, they are not provably so and in fact require some bending and twisting to see how all the difference actions and activities are caused by the excuses he makes. GP in turn feels the same need of contortion to see H&L as a viable theory which fits the facts... If the evidence was not so repeatedly contradicting in so many different areas of their lives, that it could not work would be more apparent. It isn't. The conflicts are there... so while we are willing to explain away the conspiracy and cover-up to daring and expert planning at a level that leaves a patsy killed and people asking questions for 50 years... you are so sure about the inner workings of Angleton's CI unit or something (Military) intelligence related that you can say all these conflicts are benign? That during the height of the cold war with plans like Northwoods being offered, the Oswald Project, or a defector program, or a Soviet plant that is turned back on them.. is not part of brainstorming?. if done well, there would be no evidence... or that would still be buried. I can't see all these activities and conflicts as benign Greg. And neither can you. H&L requires more effort than most will even take to follow and yet you work so hard to try and negate it with generalities and percentages One can feel the hairs on your neck standing on end - why all the hostility??? Obvious? Is it beyond subjective... like a badge, or a test to stay leader of the group who create nicknames. IDK. Seems to me you're better than that. How about some positive ads for what Parker thinks is going on and why? Shed some light using evidence and example and see how it does on its own... Oswald is an enigma... you're working on him extensively... yet your arguments are same ole... seems you have nothing to share with us but "you're wrong" rinse and repeat =============== So, is the excuse for this following info that she is making it up and never saw a Lee Oswald? or what? Anna Lewis says Feb 1962 is when see meets Lee Oswald... with ample opportunity to cut, retake, and get it right... she repeats, Jan-Apr 1962.... How wrong do we need her to be? 1963 doesn't work either. this is evidence offered for the existence of Marina's husband in New Orleans in Feb 1962. Oswald was in Minsk with his wife who was giving birth to their first child. ===============

From my understanding of the book and the records... the records refer to LEE OSWALD (original entry records with identified scars that are not seen on Harvey) yet they do not accurately reflect the activities of HARVEY OSWALD who was in the Marines yet about 6 months behind LEE - CE1961/2 and Allen Felde's evidence is an account of the two different men. While LEE was going to Jacksonville Harvey was with Allen and finally in May he goes to Jacksonville when Lee moves on to Biloxi... The two men were also at El Toro and Santa Ana at different locations yet the WCR interchanges them as if they are the same... That LEE was being treated on Atsugi while Harvey goes to Taiwan is a result of the records left behind being cherry-picked... the Med record also does not show that Hospital stay from Oct 7 to the 13th since that was most likely Harvey... CE1961 is an FBI combination of both men's info but mostly LEE... From H&L: Harvey was discharged in Sept 1959. In 1959 Major William P. Gorsky was the Assistant Provost Marshall at the Marine Corps Air Station (the jet base) at El Toro. According to Major Gorsky's files, Lee Harvey Oswald was discharged from the Marine base in March 1959.

The records are of the one man who stayed in Atsugi. Harvey goes to Taiwan. Keep trying Parker. Maybe one day you will understand but I highly doubt it. Reading the book is a start but why have facts get in the way of your opinions... Cue rant....

Reading Parker's twisted explanation of what Sylvia said about who she was introduced to and who her sister recognized is nice and all... but it's just his impression of what he thinks Odio means... He would have us believe that calling someone back the VERY NEXT DAY after introducing someone as LEON OSWALD, and then calling this person LEON or THE AMERICAN.... what? they no longer referred to this person Sylvia knew as LEON OSWALD? That's what he is trying to sell here. I do not agree with Don if he said that LEON was not HARVEY OSWALD the man Ruby killed. It was. And there is simply nothing Parker has or can offer to change this... as badly as he'd like to. Testimony of Sylvia Odio: 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. that it was something very brief and I could not recall the time, exact date. I still can’t. We more or less have established that it was the end of September. and, of course, my sister had recognized him at the same time I did, but I did not say anything to her. She came very excited one day and said, “That is the man that was in my house.” And I said, “Yes; I remember.” It either was a Thursday or a Friday. It must have been either one of those days, in the last days of September. And I was getting dressed to go out to a friend’s house, and she was staying to babysit. And he said, “We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald.” He repeated it twice. Mrs. ODIO: Well, her reaction to it when Oswald came on television, she almost passed out on me, just like I did the day at work when I learned about the assassination of the President. Her reaction was so obvious that it was him, I mean. And my reaction, we remember Oswald the day he came to my house because he had not shaved and he had a kind of a very, I don’t know how to express it, but some little hairs like if you haven’t shaved, but it is not a thick moustache, but some kind of shadow. That is something I noticed. And he was wearing-the other ones were wearing white dirty shirts, but he was wearing a long sleeved shirt.

Paul, I'm not familiar with the Mexican border guards evidence. Could you elaborate? Thanks, Tom Sure, Tom. John Armstrong wrote in his book, Harvey and Lee (2003), in the chapter, "Mexico City - Pandora's Box": The FM-8, issued at the Mexican Consulate in New Orleans, recorded that Oswald was 23 years old, married, a photographer, resided in New Orleans, and listed his destination as Mexico City. Maydon's supervisor, Raul Luebano, advised, "Our inspector said that his best recollection was that Oswald was traveling with two women and a man in an automobile..." Also, on 12 March 1964, J. Edgar Hoover sent a cable to the LEGAT, Mexico City. Part of that cable says: "The mode of travel on FM-11 was shown as 'auto.' As you know it has not been established how Oswald left Mexico on October 3, 1963. Until we can prove Oswald was on a bus, this possibility will always exist that he left by automobile as indicated in Mexican Immigration records." I'm currently looking for those Mexican immigration records. Regards, --Paul Trejo You will find them all in my Mexico series at CTKA Paul... You will also learn that the FM-8 was applied for on an FM-5 application. That it was the impression of Maydon, the inspector, who THINKS he remembers this person with others yet the report only mentions Bill & Elaine Allen From part 7 in process: Yet this following CIA report from Oswald’s 201 file appears to be the only one offered which is even close to the names offered: CIA 201 file Vol 3 Folder 8 p147 – the report on STEVE ALLEN BRILL and ELAINE ESTERMAN BRILL did not drive over the boarder but walked across and took a bus to Monterrey and that the difference in the name MUST have been a typographical error You will also find if you take the time, that the State department's consul in Laredo HARVEY CASH lies to I&NS Kline about what the records even say. He tells them and in turn the FBI that there is no mention of a mode of transportation on the FM-8. The FM-11 created from these FM-8's DOES have him leaving on Oct 3rd by car. The CIA and State Dept kept that info to themselves and put the FBI on the task of creating a travel plan for Oswald out of New Orelans thru Mexico City and back to Dallas... except as I show in the first 4 articles... none of what they did was authentic... it was all created a little at a time and when found to be incorrect, was scrapped. All the Mexico Evidence was taken "soon after the assassination" by agents of the Mexican President. One Arturo BOSCH created the fake FRONTERA bus manifest in the presence of these workers and the reports to corroborate it are discussed in my work. The work I've done and will complete with #7 has already been earmarked for a book which already has interest from publishers... the work is all from publically available documents. Outside of the one visit of a man that Duran and Azcue both say are not Oswald, there is no evidence for the existence of Oswald in Mexico that does not come from a single FBI source at the Gobernacion or the CIA. The work is available free to everyone, at this point. I've learned so much along the way about this Mexico trip's deception, what happens DURING the visit as told by the CIA is best looked at thru Bill Simpich's work... the lies related to getting and proving Lee Oswald ever went to Mexico (including the lies of MacFarland and the two Aussie girls) are explored more deeply in my work than in any other work available. Even Lopez stated that the WCR got the travel portion "correct" and the HSCA was not going to look into that aspect of the trip. With the CIA running the HSCA, it's no wonder they took that stance. I hope you take the time to check it out as it might save you some of the 8 months it has taken me to find, organize and present this information. DJ David Josephs on the Mexico City Trip: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

As usual Parker, you're wrong. These are all from the WCR Donabedian Exhibit #1 It is your job now to prove that the treatments he rec'd from Sept 16 thru Sept 29th were performed in transit or at the base in Taiwan since he was not in Atsugi at the EAST CAMP between Sept 14th and Oct 5th. Did the ship's med records and Taiwan use "EAST CAMP MACS-1" forms? All you need do now is offer something to PROVE IT. Oh, and why does it say he was in the hospital in Atsugi from Oct 7 to the 13th yet the Med records show no such thing?

Hey there Brad... I'd like very much to discuss this with you yet I have to head out. this is a composite of the key Altgens photos... please notice how different #7, the one with the lost negative, looks compared to the others.. And maybe ask why the top right of the image is cut off - the men on the bridge are much higher than the missing right side of the image... what's that about? I added that area back using Cabluck just to see what might be missing... Any ideas?