David Josephs

I think we missed the point Mark.... Georgia was shown a picture of Marg when she lived on San Saba from 1945 - if anything she would be MORE familar with the 1945 Marg than the 1961 version.: But when I showed Georgia a photo taken of the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald on the day of her marriage to Edwin Ekdahl in 1945 she said, "I don't know who that is. " 52-13 The woman on the left worked at retail stores and is the older version of the woman in the center - in the center is LEE's mother in 1945 when Georgia knew her - on the right is the practical nurse/barmaid/maid/home nurse (Lee's mother was never a nurse) Georgia remembered another occasion when Mrs. Oswald obtained a job as a practical nurse and needed a car to pick up some of her clothes. 52-14 She said, "Lucille Hubbard gave Marguerite a ride in her car and took her to a house that Marguerite had rented 'next to the Stripling School.' Mrs. Hubbard was surprised to find not only a lot of clothes, but also a lot of furniture in the house." Mrs Oswald was at 2220 Thomas across from Stripling on Nov 22, 1963 as well. Whether of not we think they appear the same or not wasn't the intent of the post - a woman who lived across the street from her claims it's not. This is the follow-up research JA did to investigate the actual story not just rely on the FBI's timeline taken from Life magazine. Even though there are witnesses who claim to have seen Mrs. O with 3 children John Pic specifically states: Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, was that 101 San Saba? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't know nothing about 101 San Saba. Mr. JENNER - Do you recall the street you were on in Benbrook; this first house? Mr. PIC - There were no streets. We used a post office box number up at the post office there. Because I was sending away for stamps at the time from different companies, and I was collecting stamps and I would go pick up the mail at the post office. Mr. JENNER - The first house in Benbrook was on Granbury Road, that is your recollection? That is the one you have already mentioned heretofore? Mr. PIC - Granbury Road is familiar, sir, if that is the one that is way far south of town on Granbury Road, then that is it. Mr. JENNER - Well, there is a letter in the file at the Hunt Military Academy in October of 1945 informing them that a new address would be Granbury Road, Route 5, Box 567 in Benbrook. Mr. PIC - That is the one further south of Fort Worth. Mr. JENNER - That is the first one? Mr. PIC - Right. Mr. JENNER - The house you are now mentioning in Benbrook was the summer of 1948 is different from the first one? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; it is. The "first one" is from 1945 when Lee was in 1st grade at Benbrook common school the second one, in 1948 is at a time when their address was 3300 Willig and then 7408 Ewing while Lee was in 2nd & 3rd grade Mr. PIC - After the divorce she bought the house in Benbrook, Tex and then she was either working at or just got the job at Leonard Bros., Fort Worth, department store, Fort Worth, Tex. On July 7, 1947 Marguerite C. Ekdahl, with a $1500 cash down payment, purchased a new home at 101 San Saba in Benbrook for $3950.74 Tarrant County land records show that Marguerite Ekdahl leased her house to Buster L. Murray on August 1, 194 7 for one year at $50 per month. 75 This is the only Tarrant County record relating to Buster Murray. Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, was that 101 San Saba? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't know nothing about 101 San Saba Do you think yo could recognize a picture of your mother or father from 40 years ago? How about a neighbor you drove around and bought groceries for who was rude and cheap - not paying anything for the help offered? Is there a reason not to believe Georgia when the records corroborate her words? This like so much of the case, is not a 100% lock. It's some high % with the need to correlate it with all the other info... when one does that I believe the picture becomes more clear DJ

Hi Jon, I'm not sure if you did this already but if you PM me with an email address I will send you the spreadsheet I created which shows the conflicts, locations, and happenings with H&L from 1939 thru Nov 1963 side-by-side and is searchable and sortable... Case in point - Georgia Bell was interviewed by John in 1996. (the 52-12 refers to images on the CD which comes with the Book) He went thru the land records to find who was supposed to be there and he talked to the people who actually did live there - Now, info on "Buster Murray" never living where records related to Marg say he did is not going to blow the case wide open - but is another in a long line of conflicts that seem to follow Mrs. O. On July 7, 1947 Marguerite C. Ekdahl, with a $1500 cash down payment, purchased a new home at 101 San Saba in Benbrook for $3950.74 Tarrant County land records show that Marguerite Ekdahl leased her house to Buster L. Murray on August 1, 194 7 for one year at $50 per month. 75 This is the only Tarrant County record relating to Buster Murray. Buster Murray and his wife, Doris, lived at 1617 Hemphill in 1947-48 and at 1919 W. Vickery in 1950, according to Fort Worth City directories. None of the neighbors who lived on San Saba during that time remember anyone named Buster Murray. Georgia Bell, who lived directly across the street from the Oswald's at 100 San Saba, remembered Marguerite very well, but said nobody by the name of Murray ever lived in the house. Walter and Georgia Bell finished building their new home at 100 San Saba in early July 1947. A few weeks before they moved into their new home, Marguerite Oswald moved into her new house across the street at 101 San Saba. Georgia Bell lived the next 49 years of her life at 100 San Saba, and knew each and every one of her neighbors very well. I met Georgia Bell in early 1996 and visited with her at 100 San Saba on several occasions. When I met Georgia she was 82 years old and had a very good memory. Georgia remembered Marguerite Oswald well and said that she did not have much furniture, few clothes, and no car when she moved in. Marguerite, who Georgia described as "short and fat," often visited her as did Marguerite's neighbor to the east, Mrs. Lucille Hubbard. Georgia and Lucille often picked up groceries for Mrs. Oswald and chauffeured her around Benbrook. NOTE: When I showed Georgia Bell a photograph of "Marguerite Oswald" standing in a kitchen washing dishes (circa 1961) she said, "That's her, short and fat just like I remember her." 52-12 But when I showed Georgia a photo taken of the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald on the day of her marriage to Edwin Ekdahl in 1945 she said, "I don't know who that is. " 52-13 this is 52-12 and 52-13 It's more than just that he had tonsils when he was re-examined. The Donabedian Ex #1 p599 shows that Oswald had tonsillitis in January, 1957. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0309a.htm This same exhibit describes a 3" mastoid scar on the left side in a number of places along with "STDs contracted in the line of duty", and a gunshot wound just above the elbow... Compare the medical logs to the travel and we find him being treated for STDs at the same time the records put him on a boat to Ping Tung. CE1961 states that Oswald went to Ping Tung on the 14th of Sept..http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0415a.htm while Donabedian Ex #1 p603 has him receiving STD treatment... There's a DoD letter that claims he was flown back to Japan yet both the Sept 14 and Oct 6 logs show him on the ship to and from Ping Tung... another story has him not leaving at all - yet somehow he is on the Oct 5-6 ship back: These logs are found on the CD. He is supposedly treated in Japan on the 16th, 22nd, 23rd & 29th of Sept while he is also in Ping Tung. The Folsom Ex http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0338b.htm p658 shows nothing between Aug 13 and Oct 5th... On p661 of the Folsom Exh we see that from the first to second weapons test Oswald gets worse using an M-1. These bits of Evidence added to each other betray the building blocks of the conspiracy - they do not accurately reflect the history of this man and in fact illustrate the conflicts. Shall we ala McAdams or DVP try to explain away each and every one of these conflicts under the assumption that two Oswalds is foolish and not possible - or do we evaluate each item for what it represents and how it fits in the overall puzzle. (Note: this is not the same as JVB where a simple search proves the evidence offered does not support the conclusion - the infamous W-2 is not on a form the IRS used during this or any other period that I could find) The tonsilectomy was recorded on a life insurance policy that Marg buys on Lee. The men who embalmed Oswald stated that the did not see the craniotomy scars on the "head" removed from the casket. http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/lhox2.htm#_ednref9 That the casket had been broken from the bottom and that a number of other events related to Oswald's remains also may have occurred. All we have are the stories and evidence... the Norton report and the men who performed the services are in conflict. How many times do we come across official reports which conflict with the people they are supposedly written about? Asking what H&L is all about, in a nutshell - is the same as asking what the cover-up was all about... in a nutshell. Can a few sentences or paragraphs do justice to what we now know about the conspiracy? Here we go: Assassination? Oswald didn't do it H&L? The evidence and supplemental research done shows that the evidence offered is hiding the existence of two separate men using the same identity by combining these records into a single one. http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/tabs/collection/po-arm is the index to the Baylor notebooks. The source materials for the book. Not everything here made it to the book. It represents over 10 years of work traveling the world on his own dime to uncover what he saw as an explainable mystery embedded in the evidence itself. I hope I've done your question some justice - and will continue to address any H&L questions and concerns posted. DJ

This is a verbatim post from a thread pulled towards H&L that needn't have been. I find these points to be some of the more direct to show conflict between the FBI's reporting of the situation and the actual situation. The fact remains that records exist of a small boy being reviewed at Youth House - no where near the boy Lee was. These days on the NYC perm record need not be exact, but they ought to make sense. In a 180 day, 2-90 day - 4.5 month per semester school year, can a portion of one semester be 127 days? and not ANY 127 days but a time that the Pics and Oswalds describe in such contrasting detail as to what happens to Lee, where and when they visit, who they see, where they live, what Marg does... and on and on. Please be clear - H&L from 1952 thru early 1963 had nothing to do with JFK's assassination. What the CIA was doing and why is hard to see, let alone understand. If they can fire a dart which leaves no trace, contemplate and execute some of the grossest atrocities to justify an elusive end... H&L is really so far from the path as to be ridiculed? then shout out to Jon Tidd and from where this post came - the cover-up does indeed continue to this very second. and thank you Steve and Don for having my back.... ampersands and all.. ===================== Lee - I respect your POV and the manner in which you present it. If a certain researcher did not explore the autopsy as completely as he did we may still be accepting the fraudulent xrays and photos as authentic. We may never have gotten around to fathoming that Rear Admiral Galloway would ORDER the doctors to destroy this Best Evidence in favor of evidence that was needed... Could we ever expect to contemplate that JFK's body arrived 90 minutes before it did officially, that he may have even been operated on in the belly of AF-1. That the damage as we now get to see it has literally nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza - yet researchers will still refer to these autopsy conclusions as if they represented the crime and not the conspiracy. Do I need to agree with every page, every speculative conclusion? of course not and I don't. If you've gone to all the work to understand what was offered and conclude it not to be supportive of the final conclusion - BRAVO! That's the beauty of the case and imo the intent of the Conspiracy. Many explanations can be correct. The Evidence offeres a view into history yet only a partial view - the non-governmental efforts of individuals like Lifton and Armstrong adds immeasurably to the knowledge base and to the testing of the theories. I find the wholesale exclusion of marines who would have stayed with LEE in favor of those who were with Harvey very compelling. I find the conflicts in the timelines along with glaring evidence of the same man in two places simultaneously more than "minutia" The acceptance and understanding of H&L requires one to drop their preconceived notions of right and wrong and enter the world of spies, military black ops and the MilitaryIndustrialCongressionalComplex. To firmly conclude it as an "absurdity" with the thinnest of rebuttals does everyone a disservice. I do not happen to subscribe to much of the POST assassination travels of Lee and Harvey as offered by John. Some of it makes sense, most does not TO ME. What that has to do with 10 years prior and the events in NYC, IDK. The boy looking like a scrawny 4'9" at the end of the summer of 1953 when he was 5'4" 115lbs in the winter of 1951 in 6th grade. These are not the same boy: (edit/correction: the 5'4" 115lbs comes from the entrance physical to PS117 in Sept 1952) And John is simply too stupid to know his brother. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. When I started my Mexico work I believed it was LEE who had traveled to Mexico for a number of compelling reasons. Over the past months I come to find that it is possible that LEE was in a car with others going to and from Mexico City - it is alos possible it was not Lee and possible that no one took this trip. It is also most likely that the person the travel is attributed to is not the same person pretending to be Oswald on Sept 27th. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0418a.htm at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother? Mr. PIC - That is correct. So okay Lee, you can point to minutia that you say does not support the H&L conclusion. I feel like I can point to and show mountains of significant evidence which proves it correct. I ask people like Greg to read the book so he can address the topic with some credibility and intelligence, not to spout off ideas he has about doctors in 1945 or school records he cannot comprehend. I do not dismiss his arguments for lack of reading the book - but for lack of substance and source. Whenever he does offer a source - it's wrong and/or does not address the rebuttal he offers. (the boy had a tonsilectomy while the dead man has intact tonsils... did they grow back? well, maybe, if that was the one and only singular piece of evidence which creates a conflict between the boy born Lee Oswald and the man Ruby killed - but it's not. and just like PM by the doorway possibly being Oswald, we use ALL the evidence, not just Brennan's who supposedly puts him in the window and then we call it a done deal) Lee - NYC - he starts school on March 23, 1953 and ends in June. He is at YOUTH HOUSE from April 15 to May 8: 18 school days he is not at PS44 (which btw there were 3 of in NYC at the time, Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx - do you know which one Oswald went to?) The school records show he attends 109 3/2 days and is absent 15 3/2 days. Total 124 6/2 or 127 days. Count forward 127 school days from March 23rd Lee. Count backward from June 26th 127 school days. The most important and controversial time in Oswald's young life - he is just picked up and moved to NYC - and this big, gregarious, leader of boys becomes someone totally different. Shorter, meaner, a loner, a thinker. I will consider any alternative that is supported by some level of evidence or fact... One final word and I'd like to hear your thoughts... CE1384 p699 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0365a.htm is the Permanent Record of Oswald's NYC school career. Except the CE1384 sticker is not on this copy... Below are the three PERM records from NYC schools for Oswald offered as evidence. CE1384 does not match the initial "Perm" record in the middle either. The one on the right is the copy Armstrong found at the Archives...Any reason we have an exhibit in the WCR which not only does not have its designation as an exhibit but is not even on the same form - even though all the information appears to have been copied verbatim. A reasonable explanation with some supporting info would be appreciated. That "mistakes are made" does not account for the wholesale copying of a perm record. More interesting to me is that the middle record would have simply been added to over time - yet the copy on the left side's first column of info is not written in the same hand and the teacher's names from form to form are not the same - among a number of differences. What's much more important are the conflicts with the multiple Oswalds later, after 1962 when they return from Russia. During the summer of 1963 an Oswald is in New Orleans and in Dallas - one has a paper trail, one does not. One also wonders why the kid from the South has completely lost his twang while only having lived in NY for 18 months and the rest of the time back in the south. One wonders.

You should definitely get Vince Palamara's book then if you want to dig deeper into the SS. (I've had it since it was a group of free pdfs many, many moons ago) Something worth remembering Jon - when the trail of CE399, the magic bullet, was rechecked, they asked each person who handled the bullet to identify it since no one at the SS, DPD, Parkland Security or FBI thought it important enough to authenticate this evidence by marking it as they got it. but that did not happen. The first mark is that of the three FBI analysts - Frasier, Cunningham and Killion - after the bullet is provided them. Yet in every case until SS Chief Rowley hands a bullet to Elmer Todd to bring to Frazier CE399 was NOT IDENTIFIED AS THE BULLET HANDLED... CE399 only comes into existence when Secret Service Chief Rowley, working for Treasury Sec Clarence Dillon, hands a bullet to Todd. Rowley claims that the bullet he was handed by Agent Johnson was not CE399 - yet Todd, who the evidence says handed Frazier bullet C1 which becomes CE399, did get that same bullet from Rowley. Rowley also recieved a print of the Zfilm from Max Philips during the evening of Nov 22 a full day before it hits Dino at NPIC. Without the SS getting out of the way, offering the all clear "no threats in Dallas" ok, and stealing the body from Parkland, the cover-up does not occur. If Rose does the autopsy - the cover-up is over. Greer basically abandons the ambulance with the empty casket and runs to the morgue just before 7pm. It's another hour before the autopsy officially starts. The SS keeps the FBI out of the anti-room for over an hour. and by the way - both the SS and Immigration & Naturalization Service are under the Dept/Sec of the Treasury. just sayin. PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss: I, Charles L. Killion, Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, do hereby state that I have reviewed the testimonies of Robert A. Frazier on March 31 and May 13, 1964, and testimonies of Cortlandt Cunningham on March 11 and April 1, 1964, ,before the President's Commission on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and I agree with the conclusions stated therein. I do hereby state that I conducted independent examinations of the items which were the subject of Mr. Cunningham's and Mr. Frazier's testimonies and that on the basis of these independent examinations, I reached the same conclusions reached by Mr. Frazier and Mr. Cunningham. Signed this 31st day of July 1964, at Washington, D.C . (S) Charles L. Killion, CHARLES L, KILLION Speaking of the SS, FBI, Bullets and a cover-up. This is during the autopsy... Where IS that other bullet that was lodged behind his ear?

First off there were others even before John who considered the idea of two Oswalds. Secondly - it's not "my theory" - it's the result of looking at the evidence, 10 years of independent research and correlating the two. Finally - the entire CT community cannot answer the question - WHO SHOT JFK yet you want chapter and verse on how a potential CIA/Angleton-based long term plan was initiated and carried out. Maybe they knew these two boys would look alike for some other reason... after 1957 the only photo of LEE is the 1959 passport photo... the 1962 Thanksgiving photo among a host of others did not convince his brother that he was visiting with his brother LEE. The truly do not look that much alike Tommy - they look more like their younger selves than each other. The shoulders give it away... Lee's were much more sloped than Harvey's. Again Tommy - I have yet to see you post anything that resembles work related to your conclusion that they looked so much alike - and how did they do it... When I do work on it I repeatedly find that basic bone structure does not match

One of the more famous examples of being "handled" is the FPCC leafing at the ITM in New Orleans... Everyone involved had intelligence backgrounds... the man Oswald pays a few dollars to hand out flyers is an informant Charles Steele Jr The office where the flyers were kep - Bannister and Ferrie The men who fake the fight - Cubans associated with Bannister - all anti Castro while their man Oswald hands out FPCC flyers to garner names of sympathizers - classic FBI. Reily coffee was a CIA front Mexico City. Period. Ruth and Michael Paine are so "associated" as to be nauseating - Quaker Friends and cabinets of Cuban sympathizers DeMohren and friends as Brian notes. Shelley at the TSBD - Manager of the Misc. and ex intel Oswald the cuban/soviet commie was imo designed to scare the piss out of anyone wanting to dig. If Johnson says it was a commie plot let's go get Castro - they may have. That they didn't and never again bothered with Cuba, that the Russians did not return missles to the island is pretty indicative that the plan all along with to keep prying eyes away and get rid of JFK. A study of what occurs in the USA since then should convince anyone that CUBA had little if anything to do with what the MICC needed to have happen to JFK and what wealth and propserity followed - completely without the need to remove a communist from the Western Hemisphere

Jon, John doesn't care what you think of his conclusions either - he only cares that you look closely at the Evidence and see what it tells you - as a whole. Oswald does not hand out FPCC flyers on his own. He is used by Bannister and associates along with friends at Reily Coffee around the corner. You make a most important point: "those who offed JFK were sure of the cover-up" Being "sure" requires some very key people to be in on it or being so strong that it simply didn't matter. If JFK dies in Chicago and Vallee is the Patsy - how does that affect the "set-up" of Oswald and what it meant? The got rid of Bolden, Yates, Craig, and a slew of others who somehow had touched upon the conspiracy. Why Oswald as opposed to any number of people working at the TSBD? In the face of these obvious lies, Oswald was guilty, then killed so all we'd ever get is one side of the story. He was positioned to be acceptable as a patsy should the occassion arise while insuring a level of cooperation via the leverage of knowledge. One of the real questions to ponder is why Cuba as a target was dropped so quickly in the Johnson administration if one of the main points of using Oswald was to facilitate invasion - IMO that was NEVER part of the equation unless they were lucky enough for it to have gone that way - yet he was switched to LONE NUT so fast and Cuba was dropped for Vietnam so fast that it seems to me the one and only reason for all of this was to remove JFK from office. Those in charge would never be caught, and they never were.

Dear Mr. Jon G. Tidd, I asked a Marine Corps Captain this very same question just last week as our vehicles were being worked on at the same shop. He said it all depended on what the recruit was doing before he signed up. If he was playing football, there wouldn't be much change. On the other hand if he was a couch potato, there would be a big change. Was Oswald playing high school football when he enlisted? Baling hay? Doing landscape labor? Working on the docks? He also said that they got an unlimited amount of "chow" while in boot camp. --Tommy The real trick is getting the 5'11" 165 lb LEE to become the 5'8" 135 lb Oswald

I came across this memo from months after the WCR is published stating that the FBI was furnished a copy of the Zfilm "by Zapruder" before negotiations with Life. We know that on the 23rd, Sorrels of the SS gives Kelley a copy who gives it to Bookout of the FBI. We also know that Stolley supposedly takes the "original" and a copy (per Thompson) We also know that Zapruder supposedly kept "the best copy" We also learn from Max Phillips that Zapruder has the "master", Sorrels has 2 copies and a third is forwarded to DC (Rowley) on 11/22... I fail to see how Zapruder has 2 films to give to Stolley in the morning of the 23rd, Sorrels has 2 copies, Zapruder keeps a copy and yet another copy is sent to DC. From the chronologies I have seen there are no FBI agents with Zapruder... and they are only aware of the film that night, they do not get a copy until Kelley gives them 0186. When would the FBI have gotten a copy prior to his virtually immediate discussion with Life ??

REPORTS of what Oswald supposedly said, claims he was in the building. As we both have seen, these REPORTS become the EVIDENCE which in turn is the CONSPIRACY.... If, and I say IF that is Oswald, the evidentiary record MUST remove him from that spot - hence the "I did not see Oswald at all that day" line to most of the witness statements. It could also explain why BALL redirected Lovelady before he could tell us who was standing behind him and Shelley. If you realized what was happening to Oswald witnesses who saw the wrong thing would you be opening your mouth to say he was standing outside - even if you don't see him until you turned around when the limo left and see him? Carmine - I appreciate your reservations. Yet the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "to a moral certainty" and I think these threads has done virtually all they could to show that being Oswald "beyond a reasonable doubt" DJ David I would suggest you watch Len Ocieanic's 50 Reasons series number 1. Just after 2:25. Oswald states "Naturally if I work in that building..." in response to a question about his location. In my view this corroborates most evidence. I do not always find Oswald reliable, however some verifiable evidence supports his statement in my view. This by no means proves the official case, it actually is another problem with some official ideas. If he admits being in the building yet still does not admit guilt, then it makes no sense to say he did it for fame or historic renown. Additionally, since he never had a trial Oswald retains the presumption of legal innocence. All that can be feasibly proven. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df_JH36skBk&list=PLAu2-ycDOaN1yyNHT8FiG9FlYZ-rL9k80&index=2 "Did you shoot the president" "Well I work in that building" "Were in you in that building at the time?" "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir..." So Carmine - you are 100% positive that "at that time" is interpreted by Oswald as "when the shots were fired" to the exclusion of anything else? - that's pretty good mind reading, I dont come to that conclusion - I don't know what Oswald was thinking at the time he answers this question. But I know I would not hang my hat on this statement being the declarative proof that Oswald was not standing outside yet within the confines of the TSBD... To each their own DJ

Food for thought...

REPORTS of what Oswald supposedly said, claims he was in the building. As we both have seen, these REPORTS become the EVIDENCE which in turn is the CONSPIRACY.... If, and I say IF that is Oswald, the evidentiary record MUST remove him from that spot - hence the "I did not see Oswald at all that day" line to most of the witness statements. It could also explain why BALL redirected Lovelady before he could tell us who was standing behind him and Shelley. If you realized what was happening to Oswald witnesses who saw the wrong thing would you be opening your mouth to say he was standing outside - even if you don't see him until you turned around when the limo left and see him? Carmine - I appreciate your reservations. Yet the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "to a moral certainty" and I think these threads has done virtually all they could to show that being Oswald "beyond a reasonable doubt" DJ

Unlike the others I happen to agree that the Evidence will ultimately bear it out IF and only IF that evidence can somehow be authenticated. If a finer detailed image can be had - it ought to be. Again though, in lieu of a photo of someone shooting JFK from the Grassy Knoll or Southern Knoll or anywhere else we still do not conclude that it must have been Oswald in the window with a rifle. There are numerous bits of conflicting evidence which makes that conclusion impossible. So, if he was not on the 6th floor and was seen by Arnold on the other side of the doors leading to this area 5-15 minutes before and the fact that OSwald's name appears first - as HARVEY LEE OSWALD on Elsbeth on the Police Roster of employees (which Lt Revill also uses in his report to Gannaway about Hosty talking to him in the basement about Oswald http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/27/2778-001.gif) makes if very likely that Oswald was encountered in the lobby - or Revill knew of Oswald and he was listed first with the wrong address. Carmine - Do you believe Ms Arnold and take into account the WCR/FBI refusal to allow her "evidence" to be heard or considered when determining the whereabouts of Owald between 11:50 and 12:30? (the WCR lied and says he was not seen from 11:50-12:30)

More food for thought - the man's posture sure looks similar as well... also the height comparison to Wesley who I think was over 6'

In lieu of an identifiable photo of Oswald in that corner we can and have looked at the other evidence and the statements of most everyone it COULD have been and none appear to equate themselves with that corner - the closest anyone comes is Shelley, yet Shelley is in a white shirt, tie & jacket. I would remind you of Carolyn Arnold and the fact that the FBI did not publish either of her statements nor did they call her to testify. Oswald was wearing a darkish brown button down button front shirt over a t-shirt, no glasses, bracelet on left hand and grey pants. Since I too do not believe that Lunchroom scene ever happened - or at least not with Oswald - his being "out front with Shelley" and Bookout's explanation that it was after the fact may be a CYA on his part. It's not that Lovelady is really Oswald - it's that Oswald is set back, like Shelley. The ONLY thing that keeps me from accepting it outright is that not a single person claims they said he was there in any of the 50 years of independent research that's been done.. While so many other areas of error have been pointed out by witnesses. Until we find a reasonable alternative to it being Oswald (aint it strange that we are doing everything we can to prove it was NOT him, just to cover all bases?) I think we have to start accepting the probability that it's really him out there and the lunchroom charade was to move him from these steps into the building. If it was Oswald coming down the stairs in Baker's affidavit - I'd think it would have said so.

Hi Vanessa, I'm sure you are right. There must be someone on here who is competent in the art of upgrading the Prayer man frame. Unfortunately, it's not me. If you haven't read "A Deeper Darker Truth" by Donald T. Phillips, about the computer work of Tom Wilson, i recommend it. (It's available on Amazon.) If, as I believe, Tom's system works as he said it did, then he has shown the problems with the Zap film, the autopsy photos, the Moorman polaroid photo and others. Been working on this for a while and I just don't think there is enough image data to bring out features of this person I'm by no means an expert at enhancement yet I've put a decent amount of time in learning and trying. As you say, maybe a better source image DJ

Jon, You know agree with Bundy being in the right direction - and while he could get things done I have a hard time connecting his leadership to Bethesda. Getting the Military leadership to initiate Bethesda's cover-up work required imo someone even more influential than Bundy.. We can look at this as pure opportunist reactions to an impending not so secret secret. JFK had stuck himself into everyone's side with an ice-pick. There were few if any in the administration who bothered to even listen to him anymore. What Lodge did in Vietnam was basically treason against JFK. It remains my opinion supported I believe by the Evidence that it was a Military operation thru and thru with CI and propganda handled by the CIA. The FBI imo was cornered into framing Oswald or be implicated themselves. My estimate is that over 90% of those touching the assassination had military and/or Military intelligence backgrounds. Bundy, like the CIA is fairly easy to point to - which in my book means he was part of the facade, the implementation of the aftermath, not the actual planning of the removal of a president. DJ

Good stuff Pat - thanks. Seems to me that if I was "tieman" behind Lovelady in Atlgens I too would say I wasn't in the picture. Requires quite an enlargement to see there is a person back there. Shelley is wearing a suit and tie - right? We see him escorted to a police car and then later without his coat serving coffee... Doesn't appear to me that PM is wearing a white shirt and tie so I don't see how PM is Shelley. By the way - from what I've learned MOLINA is the man in front of the guy with both his arms up (Otis Williams - Yellow)... Molina (peach) is shielding his eyes with his right hand. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/17/jfk-who-was-in-the-book-depository-doorway/ (I use this link only for Molina and William's position - the rest of the speculation is just that imo) With very few other options, Tieman appears to be Shelley... and PM being Oswald is getting more and more likely. If the Lunchroom scene never occurs and Oswald lingers on the 1st floor long enough to get his name listed first on the roll sheet - AND Ms Arnold claiming he was just inside the front doors near the time of the assassination (12:25 or so) - someone's gonna need to come up with some other alternatives

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0413a.htm Exh 284 ? Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - There is a young fellow in the foreground-everybody else is facing the other way. He is in a pantomime, or grimace. Do you recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir; looking at that picture and I have looked at it several times--that looks more like Robert than it does Lee, to my recollection. (yet the Hallmark show on the card on the board is dated in the Winter of 1954 - it could not be Robert) 281? Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 being some spread pages of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your attention first to the lower lefthand spread at .the bottom of the page. Do you recognize the area shown there? Mr. PIC - No, sir. 282? (Other than the ZOO photo, these photos across the UPPER PAGE are all LEE) Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture. Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee. Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - In the upper portion there are a series of photographs spread from left-hand page across to the right-hand page. Take those on the left which appears to be a photograph of three young men. Do you recognize the persons shown in that photograph? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize ,this photograph, the people from left to right being Robert Oswald, the center one being Lee Oswald, and the third one being myself. This picture was taken at the house in Dallas when we returned from New Orleans. Mr. JENNER - You mean from--when you came from New Orleans after being at the Bethlehem Orphanage Home? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - And you went to Dallas? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - It was taken in Dallas at or about that time? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - The next one is prominent; in front is a picture of a young boy. There is a partially shown girl and apparently another boy with a striped shirt in the background. Do you recognize that picture? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Do you have any impression as to when and where that was taken? Mr. PIC - Just looking at the picture, I would guess first, second grade, maybe. I would have to guess at it. Mr. JENNER - Then there is one immediately to the right of that, a young man in the foreground sitting on the floor, with his knees, legs crossed, and his arms also crossed. There are some other people apparently in the background. Mr. PIC - I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Does anything about the picture enable you to identify as to where that was taken? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Is he the one to which the black arrow is pointing? (5'4" 115lb LEE Oswald in 6th grade) Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. 286? (Taken in Highschool) Mr. JENNER - All right. On Exhibit No. 286, the lower right-hand corner, there is another picture. Do you recognize that as your brother Lee in that picture? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; that is about how he looked when I seen him in 1962, his profile. In CONTEXT it is quite obvious who he knows to be his borther and who he doesn't - he's right every time. {sigh} My self-respect... earth to GP.... Thank goodness we all have YOU to help us see so clearly and para-phase everybody else. As opposed to what he actually said and what he actually meant. Well done!

Operation Mockingbird Jon.... he was more than just a servant - kinda like an associate architect At the time I would venture to say that most people considered the press independent yet respectful of political decorum and necessity. With hindsight we know better. Cracking Watergate would not be seen as an "Establishment" move - right? It's quite the opposite... "defender of the people" "publisher of the truth behind the conspiracy" IMO the most difficult thing we have to do is think with a 1963 mind - I have a difficult time seeing how we can consistently do this... Most people still trusted the government - can't unbreak that egg Cheers DJ http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmockingbird.htm

PS - the NYC school records state that little Ozzie attended or was absent a total of 127 days from March 23, 1953 until the end of the semester - June 30th... He spent a couple weeks at Youth Camp (April 15 - May 8) during this time which is not noted in the attendance.... 127 school days from March 23rd bring us to the beginning of September 1953. The FBI, in forging this document SEEMS to have added all the school days necessary to get to Sept 14th, the start of the next semester instead of to the end of the Spring semester. If you can count and add - I believe even you can get this one correct. How does a child attend 109 3/2 days and miss 15 3/2 days of school between 3/23 and 6/30 (if the school year even lasted that long.) Oh wait, the summer of 1953 is the North Dakota summer... Maybe they tried to put little Ozzie in summer school all that time to counter act that claim? Yet little Lee did not attend summer school. OK Tommy, you can wait for your hero GP to come to your aid, use your fingers and toes, or find a calculator. He transfers to PS44 on 1/16/53 yet does not attend his first day until 3/23. Besides 15 3/2 absent days does not account for 1/16 - 3/23. Good luck

The photo being referred to is one from the Marines... that was another piece of evidence I relied upon for speculation about who the Star Telegram photo depicted. Good to see this post was completely lost on you Greg. Reinforces the fact that your entire world is based on speculation in turn based on cherry-picking the wrong information out of context and then building upon it. As I post here - how do you so completely miss the point of this exchange? The man who is obviously the man Ruby killed is NOT MY BROTHER. Yet you think his stating the lower one "aapears" to look more like Robert - as it actual being Robert. Now THAT's some quality research and speculation corroboration.. Maybe its finally time to go back to your yes-men so they can pat you on the back, call us all sorts of vile names and yuk it up... Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them? Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir. See, now that's the difference between us Greg. You highlight the speculation while I would have highlighted the FACTS he was conveying. The DEFINITIVE statements. "No sir, those men do not look like my brother Lee"... "one appears more like Robert You would take this one line, out of context, and claim then that it is ROBERT in the Star photo, and then claim to have corroborating evidence? Please. That's quite the standard on which to base conclusions. A decent speculation, definitely, but nothing on which to build a case, yet. The point of the exchange is that the UPPER IMAGE, the one we'd all agree is the man Ruby killed, is not his brother by his own account. How exactly is that central theme lost to you here?

Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them? Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir. See, now that's the difference between us Greg. You highlight the speculation while I would have highlighted the FACTS he was conveying. The DEFINITIVE statements. "No sir, those men do not look like my brother Lee"... "one appears more like Robert You would take this one line, out of context, and claim then that it is ROBERT in the Star photo, and then claim to have corroborating evidence? Please. That's quite the standard on which to base conclusions. A decent speculation, definitely, but nothing on which to build a case, yet. The point of the exchange is that the UPPER IMAGE, the one we'd all agree is the man Ruby killed, is not his brother by his own account. How exactly is that central theme lost to you here?

this is what I mean Greg... It was a housekeeper, Louise Robertson, who supposedly called the FBI and told that story... not John. I helped impeach Ms Robertson by pointing out that Jacobi did not open until 1955 so please, give credit where it's due and get your facts straight. http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/18246 should be the link to John's notebook with her report (you need to go to page 2) Wow are you something... your link shows that John asks a question as to whether Oswald could have been at Jacobi instead of school... except this is not John's work but Jim H's. I know that MO actually said that her son NEVER went to Jacobi. It should say that LOUISE said that MO said... blah blah I will let Jim/John know that this is a misquote of the book and the EVIDENCE that was offered. Not everything is as nefarious as you would make it. Sometime simple mistakes are made... DJ

Speculation - yes - "wild" no. Robert did indeed give a previous reporter a photo of Lee. I was giving the benefit of the doubt that the the photo used by the Star Telegraph wasn't Lee. That being the case, the simplest explanation is that Robert gave a photo of himself. I'm more than happy for the original photo to depict Lee Harvey Oswald. Talk about switcheroos... here I am giving your theory some leeway and you're the one saying "no".... The substantive issue is the Frankenstein Oswald created by Jack White. Essentially, you don't know who is in that photo and simply can't post a link or evidence which substantiates your, "Robert did indeed give a previous reporter a photo of Lee" statement. You can guess based on Occum's razor... yet in this case that cannot be treated as an axiom we can hang our hats on - it's just a generality. No offense Greg, it's just that you or anyone just saying it is not the same as offering anything to assist in proving it. It doens't really matter who that photo is or where it came from unless you can prove it... The "substantive issue" is that none of this is my work. You want to know why Jack or John A did something you should have talked to them when you had a chance and when you have one. The ISSUE is the EVIDENCE... taken as a whole. When the time is taken to corroborate and authentic the huge variety of Evidence and the info subsequently found via research and direct interview, the EVIDENCE holds within it clues that point to the existence of these two boys/men. Do one or two of your rebuttals destroy the presentation and mountian of evidence to consider? Sorry Greg, but to me the answer is no. You try to be reasonable in these rebuttals yet they are predominantly your opinion as it applies to the Evidence... not Evidence to impeach other evidence. You don't have to subscribe to the explanation - yet just as I would assume you'd rather not have others disparage your work unless they could PROVE YOU WRONG - I think you might want to offer 1) a bit more respect for the work done & 2)a more complete rebuttal which includes some sort of real evidence that counters the claims and corroborations found rather than what you believe is the simpliest or easiest answer, and that's it so obivous I'm an #@!%$% for not seeing it. This situation is neither simple or easy and your lack of investigation into the rest of the corroborating evidence (the book, notebooks and images) for the existence of H&L just makes you look disgruntled and your responses half-assed. WCR tells us FELDE was with Oswald FELDE's chronology does not match the USMC The FBI/WCR went out of its way not to present information from people who knew LEE - that man who did not complain about politics, did not sat alone and had friends The FBI/WCR went out of its way to stay away from 1954-55 The WC lawyers skipped completely over 1947 with Robert - the year of 101 San Saba Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. I would say at no time it was. In moving up perhaps there to the time of the divorce and everything, I don't remember when Mr. Ekdahl moved out of the house. At that time we were living on Eighth Avenue in Fort Worth. This was during a summer period there. And I think this was the summer after the second year that we attended there this would be the summer of 1947. Mr. DULLES. If it is agreeable, I think we will adjourn for just a minute. It is now 11 o'clock. Mr. DULLES. Very well. Mr. JENNER. At the recess, Mr. Oswald, we were dealing with excuse me. We were dealing with the period of time that you and your mother and your two brothers lived in Benbrook, Tex. This brought us through the summer of 1948, I believe. Am I correct? Mr. OSWALD. That is correct, sir. Mr. JENNER. Mr. Liebeler has determined that the divorce of Mr. Ekdahl and your mother took place in 1948. We cannot give you the month and the day in 1948, but it was during the year 1948. We had reached the point in which you related to us that, I believe, following the divorce of Mr. Ekdahl and your mother, she purchased a small home. Mr. OSWALD. That is correct. Mr. JENNER. And refresh my recollection, please--was that in Benbrook, Tex.? Mr. OSWALD. That was in Benbrook, Tex. Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, was that 101 San Saba? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't know nothing about 101 San Saba. Mr. PIC - During Christmas vacation of 1945 Robert and I received money to go home for the Christmas holidays. We were to take the train from Vicksburg, Miss., to Shreveport, La. These were instructions and when we arrived at Shreveport, we were to wait for Mr. Ekdahl to pick us up. We arrived and he wasn't there. So I think we waited around, I have an estimate of between 1 and 2 hours, and then he showed up. He then drove us to Fort Worth, Benbrook, Tex., and we had a house about 15 miles below Fort Worth in Benbrook, it was way out. It wasn't the same Benbrook house, it was further. This was a brick house. Mr. PIC - It was rather isolated on one of the main highways. In fact, I just drove that way recently and I couldn't find the place. When I went up to Fort Worth in 1962 I was looking for the house, I couldn't find it. Mr. JENNER - Was it Granbury Road, Box 567, Benbrook, Tex.? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; that sounds familiar. Mr. JENNER - He (Lee) entered in September 19, 1946, and continued to January 23, 1947, old Covington Grammar School. (In New Orleans) PIC: ...During the school year 1947--48 I was informed about divorce proceedings. Christmas holidays, 1947, Robert and I returned 'to the house on Eighth Avenue in Fort Worth and those are the pictures of Lee sitting on the bike, it is in that time period. John Pic does not know about San Saba since it was not his family who lived there. The discussion on San Saba is on page 26 of H&L and involves Georgia Bell and Tarrant County Land records which JA dug up. That San Saba is unknown to John and Robert's testimony specifically skips this year is at the very least an interesting coincidence - yet winds up being much more - when one does the digging and sees how these elements fit together. Could everything we know about H&L and the JFK assassination be complete BS? of course. I don't have to agree with everything Mr. Armstrong claims, yet at the same time I dont dismiss his research simply because I dont agree with some of the conclusions he reaches just as I would never dismiss yours if it too was supported with Evidence. Take care Greg.... DJ