David Josephs

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?

Your lack of understanding of this situation is monumental Tommy... Yet... Your lack of familiarity with the evidence does not preclude you from jumping in and showing this lack of knowledge off... Follow please: How is Oswald both in New Orleans returning books on the 3rd and elsewhere? According to the evidence he is on a bus from San Antonio to Dallas... He was a LONE NUT... who would be returning his books and why? He is in Dallas for the evening of Oct 3rd... We DO have a Del Norte Passenger list though... as prepared by "agents of the presidential staff who took all these documents soon after the assassination" The FBI still cannot understand how the FM-11 says "left by Auto" when the source docs provided by Ochoa do not have this notation... since it is not possible, not allowed that Oswald be in a car... especially with others. So we thank you for your pithy, self-grandizing, uninformed comments... they add so much to the thread... Dear David, I will ignore your insults for now and simply restate my earlier point, but this time I'll spell it out for you: Isn't it possible that somebody returned the books for Oswald, with Oswald's knowledge? Or did the New Orleans Library have a rule that only the person who borrowed a book could return it? Jeez. Question: Have you always been obnoxious and defensive? --Tommy Answer: Only for as long as you've been offering Dan Quayle in the headlights type of responses while we are trying to have a serious conversation... As to your question whether someone else could have returned it... PROVE IT. Why don't you go try and figure it out. DO some work and you tell us. Maybe Parker's secret stash of Oswald info has the answer? But the real problem is that you can't seem to be able to take it to the next level... If someone else was returning his books... who? why? when did this person get the books if they were not at Magazine when Oswald left and he was gone? You fail to see how something this simple indicates that other people were involved with Mr. O. So who did it? The WCR says that Shaw, Bannister, Ruby and Ferrie had no relationship whatsoever with Oswald. You mean they were not being honest? and then here is one of many reports which try to convince us that there was no connection. It's called "corroboration of a statement made in a post based on real evidence"... the FBI did not want to learn that ANYONE might have helped Oswald do ANYTHING since that creates connections which have other connections... CE1414 is the FBI helping the SS confirm this report... and it's a LIE. Extrapolation of thought Tommy - give it a try... If you could prove that FERRIE returned the books then we can move on to how Oswald and Ferrie were involved with each other and how the LONE NUT BS is just that... but you can't see that far - you want so bad to be funny and insightful that you lose track of what we're doing here... Heck... maybe is was Oswald who returned the books? What does that do to the FBI's bus trip info getting him to Dallas on the afternoon of Oct 3rd? Finally, I do all this work so people like you can challenge it while being so woefully uninformed... right? I've got 250 pages in 6 articles on the Mexico trip at CTKA... Have you read ANY of them? If not.. WTF do you have to say about my work, without corroboration, over and over here? If you have... can you not offer a rebuttal with the same level of source material I offer so it doesn''t just sound like another baseless opinion? I dont give a darn about your or anyone else's uneducated and uninformed opinions... I care about the EVIDENCE and what it shows - and it shows the Conspiracy at every chance... NOT what occurred. Don't like my line of inquiry and analysis - leave. Turn the channel. Dont' just post crap and think you're making a difference to me... maybe others will buy it, but from the responses I've seen of oh so many worth respect here... they're tired of it too. TEACH US something with documentation that anyone can look at and see your point, NOT so when we go look at the sources offered we find the exact opposite of the conclusions posted... Bottomline TOMMY Suffering fools here has become a full time job ever since a few people decided to come back and try arguing evidence with nothing but undocumented opinion. that you can't see how OBVIOUS it is.... has become the real joke.. But please keep going... the more you post the easier seeing the difference between WHEAT and SHAFT becomes.

Paul - I appreciate what you seem to be trying to do... but you don't accomplish it. 1) Ms Odio proved that Hoover's Mexico Trip lies were just that. It had nothing to do with riots in the streets... Hoover was aware that he was creating an entire fabricated trip - he used one of best Mexico City assets... a Lawyer named Ochoa. He also knew that the CIA, State Dept and I&NS were promoting an entirely different story that he had to help bury in favor of his FBI's bus trip. Sylvia Odio proves that Oswald had traveled with these Cubans who envoked her father's name for credibility - until she checked and found they didn't have any... we do not know WHY Oswald was at Odio's... but we do know he was. 2) I'm terribly sorry Paul... but if you don't understand the role of Marina nd Ruth by now, I can't help you. 3) The Quzkers and "Friends" had been used by Dulles and the intelligence services for decades. Again, your inability to see Ruth's connection is not something I can help you with at this late a date. 4) Judyth was inthe room with her Paul. She was asked repeatedly and the film stops repeatedly as she fashions her answers. LEE OSWALD was not in New Orlean until after April 1963. and NEVER between Jan-April 1962 or 1963. Is it so hard to grasp that the real LEE OSWALD was in New Orleans at this time? Maybe you need to revisit the evidence? 5) "This shows..." needs to start with "I conclude then..." since it is only your opipnion related to Oswald's state of mind.. you don't know, you can only guess. And we are not talking about Ferrie's card... we are talking about books that were taken out by Oswald on Sept 19th ... he leaves New Orleans on the 25th or sooner... and shows up in Dallas on Oct 3rd for a TEX meeting at about 4pm before checking into the YMCA... It's a real question about what the Evidnence actually shows... I make no conclusion, just that it happened and until explained with some cooroboration, it conflicts with what the FBI says happened. Re: your last point - Marina, Ruth and George said what was needed to add to the incrimination of Oswald. He was in the garage taking his rifle apart and stuffing it into a paper bag because Ruth claims the light was on and she didn't remember leaving it... so it had to be Ozzie doing his rifle thing - without making a sound, when the rest of the household is still awake... then he goes to sleep leaving the light on and the work... where? I appreciate your "LONE NUT" declaration related to Hoover... yet it was Bundy in the Situation room who is quoted as first having put forth this idea... it was Hoover who tells his staff that he did not want to say it was only Oswald yet that's exactly what the report says... Why would he say that if he was the LONE NUT author pushing it from the very first second? Would he not want a document in history which supported his view of the LONE NUT theory and not contradicted it? Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963 page 2 Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan 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. 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.

All we need to do is what we're doing... go check the 2 Oswalds thread - I post some simple questions whcih should be so very easy for them to answer Thanks for your support... Wheat from Shaft Don... and we see who gets the shaft. DJ

This is yet another good one... The unit diary showing the return of Oswald from Ping Tung CE1961 puts him on this boat starting Sept 14th... and returning on the same day he is at the Dr... and has numerous visits in between... How can he be both in Ping Tung and Atsugi at exactly the same time?

Anna Lewis repeatedly informs us that she met LEE OSWALD in FEBRAURY 1962 at Lafayette Park across from 544 Camp. That her husband worked with Jack Martin and Bannister. That Lee and Judy were together and that Marina, calling in English tells her she knows Lee is there and with that woman... Anna relates that Marina comes into the place she works and in english tells Anna off... All you need do at this point is explain who ANNA met? In February 1962 June was born in Minsk with her father and mother there. Oswald does not get to New Orleans until the end of April 1963.

Your lack of understanding of this situation is monumental Tommy... Yet... Your lack of familiarity with the evidence does not preclude you from jumping in and showing this lack of knowledge off... Follow please: How is Oswald both in New Orleans returning books on the 3rd and elsewhere? According to the evidence he is on a bus from San Antonio to Dallas... He was a LONE NUT... who would be returning his books and why? He is in Dallas for the evening of Oct 3rd... We DO have a Del Norte Passenger list though... as prepared by "agents of the presidential staff who took all these documents soon after the assassination" The FBI still cannot understand how the FM-11 says "left by Auto" when the source docs provided by Ochoa do not have this notation... since it is not possible, not allowed that Oswald be in a car... especially with others. So we thank you for your pithy, self-grandizing, uninformed comments... they add so much to the thread...

Paul - I thought this question was on a different thread - this is what I posted: I don't think it's too much to ask that the evidence supporting one's position actually say what the person posting says it does... That the poster does not omit enough of the source to make their position appear supported and when shown the conflicts in the source, they deal with it rather than kill the messenger. All one need do is to look at the posts - who provides sources that support the post... and who offers opinion backed by air - and indignantly at that? Just because someone is somewhat articulate about a rebuttal does not make it right... until it is supported with something tangible... When a witness says "about a month before the assassination" and the poster's argument is that she was wrong or misremembered by an entire month because they want the witness to support the theory offered - we have the WCR. We have the HSCA... When the poster uses the account of one person and neglects to show that from the same investigation and at the same time there is no corroboration for said single witnesses testimony - and actually shows that it conflicts with more of the evidence that was not even offered... seems to me the poster is hiding something rather than offering an honest rebuttal with all the related facts since the source is not offered to begin with and if one doesn't know the details one may assume the poster is correct... But we, but I know better. Is it not a surprise to many that some posters must enter into areas where their knowledge is terribly limited and become indignant when they are shown they only offered a fraction of the story rather than ask a few question and allow those who have done the work to offer it up... to see the source docs... to make connections and consider more than one FBI report when the mountain of reports from this incident are easily proven to be frauds. To not insult our intelligence and offer up Marina and Ruth as prime sources of incriminating info on Oswald... Paul... I expect better than what Parker offers. and then I expect him not to import his forum's style of attack-posting so we MUST deal with it here. For those who have not, please follow some of his links and read thru some of the thread... If I'm wrong about the Lord of the Flies I will apologize... but where else do you go to learn about the JFK case and find a select group of members who have created derogatory names for those in the research world they don't like... y'know, like 5 year olds... and then slap each other on the back when referring to them in the negative. I'm "Fez"... I think... and since Mr. P has decided to rejoin our group here... his behavior has been consistent. At some point as a group, as moderators, don't we deserve better than that? Are we really not astute enough to know wheat from shaft? -------------- Did I not end a post recently with the forecast that Parker would behave exactly as he did? Mini-rant... lack of evidence... accuse the messenger... here's an idea... I will keep posting the way I do with the background and sources so those with their own minds can come to their own conclusions... what others do is up to them and what's tolerated.

Paul - you had asked about the problem here, yet your posts seemed to have disappeared... I don't think it's too much to ask that the evidence supporting one's position actually say what the person posting says it does... That the poster does not omit enough of the source to make their position appear supported and when shown the conflicts in the source, they deal with it rather than kill the messenger. All one need do is to look at the posts - who provides sources that support the post... and who offers opinion backed by air - and indignantly at that? Just because someone is somewhat articulate about a rebuttal does not make it right... until it is supported with something tangible... When a witness says "about a month before the assassination" and the poster's argument is that she was wrong or misremembered by an entire month because they want the witness to support the theory offered - we have the WCR. We have the HSCA... When the poster uses the account of one person and neglects to show that from the same investigation and at the same time there is no corroboration for said single witnesses testimony - and actually shows that it conflicts with more of the evidence that was not even offered... seems to me the poster is hiding something rather than offering an honest rebuttal with all the related facts since the source is not offered to begin with and if one doesn't know the details one may assume the poster is correct... But we, but I know better. Is it not a surprise to many that some posters must enter into areas where their knowledge is terribly limited and become indignant when they are shown they only offered a fraction of the story rather than ask a few question and allow those who have done the work to offer it up... to see the source docs... to make connections and consider more than one FBI report when the mountain of reports from this incident are easily proven to be frauds. To not insult our intelligence and offer up Marina and Ruth as prime sources of incriminating info on Oswald... Paul... I expect better than what Parker offers. and then I expect him not to import his forum's style of attack-posting so we MUST deal with it here. For those who have not, please follow some of his links and read thru some of the thread... If I'm wrong about the Lord of the Flies I will apologize... but where else do you go to learn about the JFK case and find a select group of members who have created derogatory names for those in the research world they don't like... y'know, like 5 year olds... and then slap each other on the back when referring to them in the negative. I'm "Fez"... I think... and since Mr. P has decided to rejoin our group here... his behavior has been consistent. At some point as a group, as moderators, don't we deserve better than that? Are we really not astute enough to know wheat from shaft? -------------- Did I not end a post recently with the forecast that Parker would behave exactly as he did? Mini-rant... lack of evidence... accuse the messenger... here's an idea... I will keep posting the way I do with the background and sources so those with their own minds can come to their own conclusions... what others do is up to them and what's tolerated.

My use of Marina and Ruth in this instance is based on what they said ORIGINALLY -- you know -- before Marina was "convinced" she need to change her story about what Oswald told her in regard to where he was going and what his purpose was. .No. I didn't forget. It's right here. Hammett did come across as a good, solid witness. There was no question he had sold the ticket to someone. But was that someone Oswald or a look-alike? Marina Oswald was interviewed on January 29, 1964 in regard to the clothing description given by Hammett. She stated that to the best of her knowledge, Oswald owned no clothing or footwear matching the description. In a prior FBI interview on November 29, 1963, Marina had said that she and Lee had agreed that he would stay in New Orleans to look for work, and that if he was unable to find any, he would return to Dallas. Lee, she added, had also told her that he had a friend in "another city" and that he might contact this friend to see if he could help find work, although she herself doubted such a friend existed.[1] In no less than five subsequent interviews, Marina denied any knowledge that Oswald had gone to Mexico. Then came her Warren Commission testimony on February 3, 1964. Suddenly she knew of Oswald's intentions from August to not only go to Mexico, but also to visit the Soviet Embassy there in the hope of getting to Cuba. To the eternal shame of Rankin, he did not ask for any explanation regarding the past multiple denials to investigators. Such questions did finally come though, at the HSCA hearings. Marina responded by saying, "At that time I did not really have the country to go to....I thought if I tell them that I knew about Mexico. I would be responsible just as well for what he did." This implies that she ad-libbed a story to the FBI in order to avoid being held partially responsible for Oswald's actions. What is not clear from this statement is just what Marina thought Mexico had to do with events in Dealey Plaza (since the act of going to Mexico itself was far from illegal, let alone indicative of a pending assassination). Yet if her story about looking for work was merely a cover story, she was already connecting Mexico to later events as early as Nov 29 and possibly sooner! And how did it come about that Marina concocted a cover story that was essentially the same story told by Ruth Paine – who had no reason to supply any “alibi” for Oswald? http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t6-the-houston-problem-pt-1 I don't recall if it was mentioned and I'm not about to check for you when you can do that yourself. You only want to know because of your idiotic belief that the photos show two different people. You can do your own research to try and prop your idiocy up. As for her getting the month wrong.... so what? She either misremembered, or the evil FBI changed what she she said in an attempt to nullify her. Nah.. Sorry... you'd never believe such a thing about the FBI, would you, David? When the WC didn't like an answer.. They just say the witness was wrong, misremembered or not believeable... Like Osborne/Bowen on the bus who tells us that MacFarland and the Aussies were wrong... that there were no other english speaking people on the bus... and then when you find out whcih bus they were on... we find out Bowen was right... they were no even on the same bus as the FBI claims Oswald took... but they were able to confirm his being on the bus... amazing, right? Can you possilbly ignore any more of my post in your response - too much heavy lifting to address everything that was wrong with your original statements? Parker... you don't get to pick and choose which of Marina's lies are closer to the truth... she's a xxxx. Ruth was a xxxx. both in efforts to help incriminate Oswald... So sorry that remains lost on you. And it's not about the photos - it's about your assumption that "about a month ago" gives you license to assume she was talking about the month before that... and then to CONCLUDE from all these assumptions that Oswald was in Houston... When you offer NOTHING to get him there, no corroborating evidence to Hammett (Cause we all know that ONE FBI witness saying the right thing is much better that 12 saying the opposite) You probably have no clue who or what Twiford is about or what she says about the call... but no matter, If Parker doesn't say it, it must not exist... until you go look at the source. So you have "statistical probablity" of a subjective matter... good The testimony of Marina and Rtuh... better and the dropping of any evidence that contradicts your conclusion... BEST! You and the WC lawyers and commissioners seem to be on the same page... well done! Oh wait... didn't Anna Lewis say she met Lee Oswald near 544 Camp in Feb 1962? a few times? This while Harvey and Marina are in Russia with Marina giving birth in mid-February... Is this misremembered of simpy unimportant and unnecessary to your stated conclusions about there only being one Oswald? There being a second Oswald is simply too much for you to comprehend... so like most bullies who don't understand something... BASH IT WITH A STICK! On Oct 3rd someone returned 4 library books of Oswald's at the New Orleans Public Library... but Oswald was in Dallas... you gonna tell us he was really in New Orleans.. please, show us. Did Oswald take these library books on the trip with him since if you read the evidence - the apartment on Magazine was empty - yet the books were returned... who would have returned Oswald's books I wonder? So now we'll get another mini-rant... some opinion... some "exact text" without a source document so we have to go search to find that you ommitted just enough of the source to support your conclusions and most of the source which proves the opposite of what you are stating... all the while throwing insults or accusations because that adds to your growing reputation and credibility... Prove me wrong.

Okay - so now your sources are Marina and Ruth... well done - very reliable sources of info incriminating Oswald So let's use Marina and CE2191 which you refer to and see what it actually says: Hemmett describes this man's clothes yet Marina - who use use to prove you case - says he never owned those clothes... Mr. Hammett describes this man resembling OSWALD yet not a single other soul does... why did you forget to mention that in your linked article? Mrs. Holiman claims this to occur "about a month before the assassiantion" - what was your response? "Take it back a month though, and you have the original date the FBI believed Oswald had left New Orleans" But she did not say "two months prior", or "at the end of September"... and the ID she makes was due to the similarity of the man to the photos - WHICH photos wa she shown Parker? Do you get Oswald to Houston in your explanation or offer any means for him to do so? Not that I saw The 12:20 bus per the FBI's backdated Sept report? Maybe the bus ticket he bought in New Orleans? Do you discuss the call to the Twifords and what that means related to HOUSTON and his time there. How exactly do you write an entire piece on Houston and Oswald and not include Twiford or the manner in which he got there... SA CHAPMAN wrote about the Oct 4th call in a report... they knew Oswald called from the YMCA.... why did Ruth not notify the FBI about Oswald when he moved in, or when he got the job? Why not until Oct 31st/Nov 1st? And then you quote the WASHINGTON POST? as your source for Oswald having done some job hunting in Houston... when every bit of the FBI's story about that time period was a lie - BEN BRADLEE and the Washington Post is what you use as "EVIDENCE" - uh, ok - if you feel that the Post was an unbiased source of info on Oswald... It also appears that your other sources are purely MEDIA OUTLETS - so Newspapers fo om1963 are authentic sources for facts related to the Oswald case... I rest my case regarding the sources used by this man.. You wrote: 3. The statements Mrs Holiman denied making: - That she was in any way certain that the person had been Oswald - That the person had mentioned staying with friends in Houston - That he had mentioned how long he had been in Houston and your conclusion from these denials? "The first option would appear to be a statistical improbability. What militates against the second option is even harder to get around......" "In short, the original story given by Marina and confirmed by Ruth Paine is exactly what appears to have transpired." Thanks for playing and posting a link to your work so it can be used to show how short you fall when it comes to your analysis and sourcing. Good thing you have your minions though - they think this is a quality argument... which proves Oswald was in Houston.. Well done Parker... well done

"Do you believe that Bogard" The Bogard incident explained. It was a guy called Louis Oswald (or Oswalt) - and imo was not a deliberate impersonation. http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13172470-meet-the-oswalts-another-nail-in-the-coffin-of-harvey-lee?next= You simply have nothing better to do... what an immense joke... Why not post, "PLEASE COME TO MY FORUM since if I post the same crap here I might get an argument I wont be able to insult my way out of.. and my minions wont be able to shout it down." Quite happy to debate here, David. Have you actually got an argument? I've got plenty of them and they're backed by actual sources which apply to the time period and people discussed.... Anyone can find them here or on other forums. These same anyone's can find your work and how you go about it. I've said/written all I'm going to related to you... good luck selling your ebook and with the remaining chapters... I look forward to you getting to 1952-53 in Oswald's life. Later...

OK, and I have another suggestion. The alleged Mexico City Bus Ride of September 25th failed to pass cross-examination, and yet you include a conversation on that bus, as if it was historical fact. I think that you should have admitted that. Not only are the words of OSWALD paraphrased, but also based on impeached evidence. IMHO, OSWALD rode in an automobile to Mexico City. Your book states as fact that he rode in a bus -- and fails to acknowledge the other side. Regards, --Paul Trejo My preface and my afterword state clearly that these dialogues are based on what people claim LHO said. Guess it's just too much for you to go read the articles yourself.... There was no OSWALD on any bus... sorry. The 15 day visa (FM-8) comes from an application for a 180 visa (FM-5) and does not have the same info as what was recorded on the FM-11 record of travel by border location. If an Oswald did arrive via car he had nothing to do with the hotel or the embassy stories since whoever it was that was with Duran and Azcue on the 27th, was not the Oswald Ruby killed nor did he return the rest of the supposed "trip" to Mexico - the Mystery Man photo in the WCR is from Oct 4th... The same man in Mexico is the conduit for the FBI for all the evidence... even the faked FRONTERA bus manifest which turned out to leave too late for the things they DID know about where Oswald was... Then there's the Del Note bus manifest - crossed out - and the knowledge that Del Norte did not KEEP or MAKE manifests of passengers... and that initial searches for these records turned up nothing. That staff of the President of Mexico was at ALL 4 bus line terminals and TOOK every bit of evidence related to these days. But I'm sure you've done all the work I have these last 7 months and therefore have nothing left to know or learn about the FBI's creation of the bus trip... Great Job!

"Do you believe that Bogard" The Bogard incident explained. It was a guy called Louis Oswald (or Oswalt) - and imo was not a deliberate impersonation. http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13172470-meet-the-oswalts-another-nail-in-the-coffin-of-harvey-lee?next= You simply have nothing better to do... what an immense joke... Why not post, "PLEASE COME TO MY FORUM since if I post the same crap here I might get an argument I wont be able to insult my way out of.. and my minions wont be able to shout it down."

That's exactly it. David. Makes sense once it is coloured properly.. Which side of the central railing was Lovelady on? Is he holding onto something with his left hand? I always thought Lovelady was standing just to the left of the center railing. If he's holding onto something with his left hand in Altgens 6, he must be holding onto the railing on the left wall with it, which seems kind of awkward. --Tommy sun Great question Tommy... I thought that too yet he is not in the middle in Hughes... but later, much later... I think he was just behind the black man there... and moves over by Couch/Darnell which is after Altgens6 That's him at the top right in a Hughes frame blowup... or that's PM

Jon... There is the possibility that the FBI removed reports from that time period on purpose... once the CIA, State and I&NS reports start talking about Oswald having been in Mexico the FBI/Hoover either knows immediately this is wrong since they DO know where he is... or they are caught off guard and didn't know where he was... and that's almost worse to Hoover. Chapman knew about the call on Oct 4th to "irvin or irvine" TX. It's hard to believe that it's not until the 1st of Nov that the FBI knows where Ozzie is... So in classic CYA they did not challenge the CIA's information about Oswald in Mexico, they help create the story... so if Hoover knows Oswald was not in Mexico, what repercussions does this have with STATE and I&NS as well as CIA? The FBI reports keep coming back negative - the tourist visa does not say AUTO yet everything else does. The evidence has to be changed from one bus to another, one time to another, while the fraudulent evidence just thrown away is not revealed for the fraud it is... i.e. FRONTERA's 2pm Oct 2 departure ... the "presidential staff" is helping secure these documents... OCHOA is helping secure them while adding "notes" to the docs to help the investigation... meanwhile the president of Mexico and Mexican ambassador to Cuba have an interesting convo... about what Duran has to say about money changing hands... Alvarado's story about the 17th/18th of Sept, then the 28th of Sept, then no story... RYBAT GPFLOOR "..... If ERTHYROIDS can give him something useful and non-sensitive to do for a few months it will help." That Oswald has a Minox which was not available to the general public is a little telling, no? But money in and out and his life are not easy to pin down. Ruth virtually paid for everything... his expenses were low and Marina's and the baby couldn't have been too much. but it is very hard to know. It had always been my contention that the Military was the biggest gorilla in this room. Nagell was MID... virtually every CIA/FBI/STATE employee was military at one time in their lives... no reason not to opine that Oswald was too and that CIA was as usual, the front designed to maintain confusion. Thanks for reading it... DJ