David Josephs
-
Posts
6,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
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 ??
-
Yet Oswald placed himself in the building thus my opposition to the current claims. I attempt to stack the evidence against each claim and let it decide.
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...
-
Yet Oswald placed himself in the building thus my opposition to the current claims. I attempt to stack the evidence against each claim and let it decide.
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,
As I stated prior I disagree, but I could be wrong, the evidence will decide.
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 Ray
Is there no-one else at all in the research community that has a computer that could do this? Is it worth posting a thread on Ed Forum asking for someone with that technology to help out?
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
-
Tommy,
For sure, the CIA was snookered by the framing of Oswald. The CIA had been tracking him.
Bundy was a very smart guy. He understood the whole panoply of the U.S. Government.
Tommy, he was smarter than anyone else in the government.
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
-
I don't remember if this info has already been discussed, but I think it's pertinent. When shown the Altgens photo by the FBI, Shelley said he was on the steps but wasn't in the picture.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10786&relPageId=14
Someone asked Frazier about Shelley in Dallas at the Lancer Conference, for that matter, and he said Shelley was a small man with red hair. Could Prayer Man be Shelley? If Prayer Man was Shelley, it might put the "out front with Bill Shelley" notes in a different context. Perhaps, even, Oswald was on the first floor just before the shooting, and saw Shelley out beyond the doors, but never went outside. Perhaps he then doubled-back after missing the motorcade, walked across the second floor to the lunch room, and arrived there about the same time as Baker and Truly arrived there after running up the back stairs. If I recall, the only obstacle to this possibility is Geneva Hine. And I believe Groden claims she said something about seeing Oswald around the time of the shooting. Maybe there's something to that, after all.
P.S. I spoke to Buell Frazier's son in Dallas and asked him to show his dad photos of prayer man to see if he could figure out who it is, whether Stanton, Shelley, Oswald, or someone so far unnamed. I hope he responds.
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!
-
David,
Ben Bradlee was a person who a 1960s student such as I would have called part of the Establishment.
At the time and today, I would not regard him as a servant of the truth. He was a servant of the society to which he belonged and to which he served.
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
-
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
-
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.
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?
-
http://reopenkennedy...jacobi-hospital Proof that Jacobi hospital - where Armstrong claims LHO was tested psychologically - didn't exist until 1955 - after Lee Oswald had left NYC
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
-
Wild speculation without a shred of evidence... your "guess" ....do you ever get to the point where your speculation is supported by any evidence?You ASSUME Robert did something then you accuse him of taking MONEY for it too boot. All without a lick of evidence...So the nose of person also changes drastically over time - goes from that braod flat nose to a pointed one in less than a couple years... - must be that Asperger's thing again or a black ops nosejob...
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
-
Boy, look at the nose on the boy John Pic says is not his brother while Robert claims to have taken the photo...
They do seem kinda similar don't they?
-
Well Tommy - I've seen the Jack White work and another version of the photo with that same blocked background but without "Jack's" work.
Sure would have been nice to see the actual photo in context - with the Star Telegram heading and other columns...
Seems Robert gave a reporter a photo of Lee and then when the Star-Telegram reporter turned up, he had no more, so he passed off one of himself. My guess is money changed hands as the motivation.
Wild speculation without a shred of evidence... your "guess" ....
do you ever get to the point where your speculation is supported by any evidence?
You ASSUME Robert did something then you accuse him of taking MONEY for it too boot. All without a lick of evidence...
So the nose of person also changes drastically over time - goes from that braod flat nose to a pointed one in less than a couple years... - must be that Asperger's thing again or a black ops nosejob...
Why? The before/after composite is EXACTLY the same as your "Harvey/Lee" composite.
You mean Jack White's H&L composite? The three photos I used for Oswald are not composites... The image on the right is Oswald's arrest. that photo deos not appear in Jack's work.
Try to keep who you're attacking straight GP... you appear to have insulted quite a few people here. Maybe if you kept a card file or something?
-
Tommy -
Your attitude and predetermined conclusions preclude me from wanting to engage with you any longer.
If it's too much trouble to go do some work to come to your own conclusions you simply are not being sincere in your interest for an answer.
Go play your condescending games with someone else...
I'm done engaging with you on any level until you can show some maturity.
"How did the bad guys choose two young boys knowing they would grow up looking sufficiently alike to be able to fool so many witnesses several years later?"
They chose very well Tommy.
-
And as I answered the first time...
What's to be found, racing around,
You carry your pain wherever you go.
Full of the blues and trying to lose
You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know.Take care Tommy...
-
Thanks for setting me straight Greg....
and Tommy, please don't exert yourself over silly things like fact checking, reading or research... like the WCR & HSCA, it only got in the way of the predetermined conclusions
Regarding your question - like "who killed JFK" the answer is a result of your investigation into the matter - some believe one thing, others believe something else and both have evidence to support them.
again Tommy: "you aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know" and you definitely do not want to know in this case... so maybe learn the vocabulary so you can put the answer in context.
You might as well ask why Nagell was trying to rob the bank - if you dont understand the context, you're not going to understand the answer.
I have my theories from the work I've done. yet there is no point in sharing them with you - you're neither open or receptive to the info, nor care about its history or context.
So let's keep our "discussions" to the simple stuff that does't require anything beyond opinion... that way neither of us can ever be wrong.
Opposing POVs have been offered - readers here can make up their own minds and use the following to dig deeper - y'know if "fact-checking" is important to them.
These notebooks contain documents straight from the Archives and not available anywhere else convering topics well in excess of H&L. There is a wealth of "Evidence" in there.
What it means and how it fits is an ongoing process. Enjoy http://www.baylor.edu/lib/poage/jfk/index.php?id=72484
-
Saw this on Consortium News and I asked Jim if I could post it here...
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/10/ben-bradlees-not-such-a-good-life/
Ben Bradlee’s Not Such ‘A Good Life’
March 10, 2015
Special Report: Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee, whose memoir was entitled “A Good Life,” is remembered by many as a tough-talking, street-smart journalist. But that reputation was more image than truth as the real Bradlee was an Establishment insider who knew which secrets to keep, writes James DiEugenio.
By James DiEugenio
When Ben Bradlee died last Oct. 21 at age 93, his widow Sally Quinn and his protégé Bob Woodward dutifully made the media rounds. They both lavishly praised his long tenure as executive editor of the Washington Post, which was predictable, since it was Bradlee who first hired Quinn at the Post (before marrying her) and Bradlee was influential in hiring Woodward, who then received much support from Bradlee.
The Post treated Bradlee’s death something like the passing of a former president, putting the story on the front page, above the fold, accompanied by a huge close-up picture of the man – despite the fact that Bradlee had stepped down from the editor’s position more than two decades prior and although the Post had passed from the Graham family, which had hired Bradlee as editor and made him rich, to Internet entrepreneur Jeff Bezos who bought the paper in 2013
-
Jon
Isn't a set-up by default a series of actions designed to incriminate someone who did not do the deed he is being set-up for?
Oswald's actions are at the very least duplicitous. If he was part of a program to use aliases to purchase mail order rifles for Dodd (Kleins was a target of the Dodd investigation btw) and does order a rifle under HIDELL which is later used to "set him up" - did he does this to paint himself as JFK's killer or did the plotters use this to aid in his incrimination.
He did not go to Russia as part of the plan to kill JFK
He did not start the FPCC chapter as part of that plan
He did not go to Mexico at all - yet the "set-up" used a proven imposter's voice and photo to satisfy the evidence needed to place him at the Cuban embassy attempting to get to Russia... at the time it may have had other purposes - for the assassination that happens in Dallas, it was very useful for the "set-up"
The "set-up" ID's the patsy and the official story
The "cover-up" insures those who had a part in it are not caught and that none of the evidence required to understand what really happened EVER becomes available.
I find it very hard to separate the "set-up" from the "cover-up" since the components of the set-up must be known to accurately provide the cover-up...
What are they covering up? The fact that Oswald never pulled the trigger, bought the rifle, bought the hand-gun or was where they claimed he was to accomplish what he accused of.
Mr. Harvey Oswald was used as an asset, an expendable asset who was maneuvered into various positions based on some over-arching plan.
These positions were used to his disadvantage as needed and to his handler's advantages as needed.
I firmly believe that plans such as these do not move forward unless a scapegoat is in place... Vallee was in place and loaded to the teeth and my gut tells me that the same batch of duplicitous events surrounded him which could and would have been paraded out to "set-up" this patsy as they were to set-up ours.
============
Hey Tommy - if you're that interested, go read the book, examine the CD-ROM and plow thru the notebooks - took me 2 years WITH Armstrong's help -
or take the word of those who have put the time and effort in and maybe consider stop being so condescending to lines of thought you have not bothered to research in any depth.
Sure, ask questions. But don't tell us we are wrong when you simply do not know any better... k?
Was There a Set-up Distinct from the Cover-up?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
The real trick is getting the 5'11" 165 lb LEE to become the 5'8" 135 lb Oswald