David Josephs

Len... with the amount of insulting that goes on, i guess my hide has gotten much tougher - (all you need do is read any of the Lamson/Paul May crap I constantly dealt/deal with)

If a MOD insulted me I would trust that the other MODS would be more instrumental in affecting change or censure, than I would directly.

You're not exactly and innocent angel Len... the only accountablility is to leave the forum and take your expertise elsewhere... or let those that insult stand alone - they make their own beds...

After the last couple years, I doubt Mr. Lamson, Mr. May and now Ragu are taken seriously anywhere they go....

The MOD is accountable to the rules... and to any request by membership to adhere to those rules... they are not accountable to me, imo.

DJ

Oh, I'm with you on the Z346 call... that's exactly when JFK himself is about 15 feet from Altgens...

and when Altgens tell us that Matter flies out of the LEFT side of his head in Altgens' direction.

To be clear, you are keeping Towner at 18.3fps... Myers speeds up the frame rate to create the 3/4 ratio and reduce the number of frames during the sequence.

Are you saying there was there another shot at 346, or is the 313 shot the 346 shot renumbered (the STARTING POINT for LIFE and NPIC is 312... and then everything is worked backward from there.)

Obviously the headshot, the FIRST headshot or the simultaneous headshots occur at 313 of THIS film - Altgens is nowhere to be seen.

Do you have any conclusions to share based on your calcs?

Thanks

DJ

then excuse me Len...

I prefer not to get into an argument over this.... your situation, you deal.

My mistake for even posting.

DJ

Hey there Chris...

Question then..

Towner does not show a severe wide turn and almost stop at the corner of Elm... or as they continue down Elm...

and this distance is part of what takes us from 100 to 161.

Chris, if they are SYNCING to 161... they have to lose the wide turn (why we don't have Zap's turn) AND the limo stop....

What makes Altgens so sure he is only 15 feet from JFK at the headshot unless there was another one... or ??

Thanks buddy... great work, ESPECIALLY cause Lamson simply can't understand it ...

DJ

Mr. TRULY. That is right.

And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.

Okay Tom... thanks.

"Stupid is as stupid does" - Forrest

David, I moved your last two posts and also Rago's. Since I posted the following, yesterday, Mike Rago has proceeded to flood this thread in a second "wave" and has posted in every recent thread in the forum, probably excess of thirty posts, a guess since I can't justiify wasting my time counting he'll post past any count before it can be tabulated. I'm attempting to moderate his flood of posts until a consensus about what to do about his abuse of posting access is reached.

http://educationforu...120#entry261068

.....I will continue to split off any flood of Rago's posts fouling threads he has not authored. Who knows, someone who posts with the the intent to discuss a thread's topic and not to instigate, antagonize and to "set up' other members may actually appreciate a split off from a Rago deluge.

Mike Rago has been provided a place to flood with his posts:

That place is at:

http://educationforu...showtopic=19573

uh.... isn't that the other way around Len...

YOU and I are accountable to the moderators and each other.... if the MEMBERS followed the rules there'd be little need for Moderation.

If we RESPECTED each other's right to be wrong, or atleast try, there would be NO NEED for moderation.

my .02

It should work both ways, think of them as the forum's cops. You and I are accountable to cops if we break the law or if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting we have or in other situations when their orders to do or not do certain things are legally binding. OTOH Cops are answerable to the public especially if they abuse their authority or if there is reasonable grounds for suspecting they have.

In that same vein Len... we've given the cops the POWER to carry a gun and MAKE US do the right thing or be removed...

They are accountable to US and the same code of conduct they enforce (this is what most power hunger cops forget... THEY are bound by the same rules)

We, the people, do the right thing for fear of the consequences, or for the personal satisfaction of doing things "right".

When the MODS or COPS are seen doing anything against either 1) the standards of the group/community/city or 2) the standards set for themselves... then they are accountable... and supposedly FIRST to their peers for breaking the laws of the "group" and then second to the people.

When the peers condone the poor behavior of the "cops" and rally agains the people's need for fairness... okay, problem. but until that time, the people, imo, are more accountable to EACH OTHER, than to the mods and THEN to the mods...

Whereas for the mods it's the other way around.... the MODS say "come play on our street, but we've got rules to play by...." THEIR RULES. You wanna play, know the rules.

One Mod says to another, "Hey, you can't let them do that on YOUR street corner, take care of that!"

as oppsed to a group of "people" getting together and deciding that the MODS are not moderating the people WE want them to in the manner WE want.

MODS are not accountable to the people HERE... unlike cops, who are placed there BY US for OUR protection against those that REFUSE to follow the rules - they ARE accountable to us.

Mods, in general, are accountable to each other and the common sense laws of respect.

DJ

Mr. Ragu

I could care less who you are...

more important to us here is the BS you post and the fact you believe it and are interested in convincing others....

What you are doing is obvious and planned.... you seriously believe that the people working on this for the past 10-20 years MISSED THAT BIG GUY WITH A PISTOL BEHIND BDM you seem to see in Betzner, Willis and Moorman.

And you will hear no more about it. He MUST be there since YOU see him.

That is not research, or accountability.... it reeks of someone being paid to take a fringe CT stance and make it look as foolish as possible while remaining serious about it.

Or someone who specifically does not want to take the time to RESEARCH and AUTHENTICATE

but rather POST and HOPE.

MAYBE, just maybe, if you posted a question, "Is this here? Does anyone else see this? Could there EVER have been a person here?"

and get open feedback from the forum, your posts might not be thought of so poorly... and avoided at all costs

just a thought

DJ

uh.... isn't that the other way around Len...

YOU and I are accountable to the moderators and each other.... if the MEMBERS followed the rules there'd be little need for Moderation.

If we RESPECTED each other's right to be wrong, or atleast try, there would be NO NEED for moderation.

my .02

David,

my apologies. I scanned the document looking for the key words "pfisterer" or "w2" and didn't see them.

I believe you referred to this at some stage

http://www.history-m...Vol21_0311b.htm

"Miscellaneous papers and work receipts" looks like it to me. Did he carry his W-2's around the world and back? I don't know. He either did, or he left a bunch of stuff in storage at the Murret's or somewhere else before heading off and retrieved on his return. Your objection that the description is more vague than with other items doesn't work because though some items are indeed fairly specific, not all of them are.

Just some examples:

"bag containing some old jewelry" (such as?)

"Pamphlet for Fair Play for Cuba Committee" (what title?)

"Miscellaneous photographs and maps"

The bottom line is that you need to find a problem with them (or more accurately, Armstrong needed to) because if they are not fakes, the house of cards collapses. But it already got burned by riots in Ft Worth in '56. This isn't the JC of all theories and it can't be resurrected.

No worries Greg... and yes, that one line is the ONLY reference that may make sense.... and they were just pieces of paper at the time... I get it.

What qualifies them as either FAKES or NOT?

The evidence in the hands of the DPD was intialed, and described as initialed, yet when re-examined AFTER the items are returned from DC, many, many items do NOT have these initials on them... (Poe's Tippit hulls for example)

Do we agree that if evidence does NOT have DPD marks on them as remembered, they are DIFFERENT from those that DO have the DPD initials on them and were returned from DC for the 11/26 gathering?

Do we agree that if Stoval/Rose/Moore did not specifically call it out on the inventory, that specific item MAY or MAY NOT have been there... yet if it was found initialed, as all individual pieces of evidence should be, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY that it was indeed found in Irving?

Do we agree, If there are no markings on a piece of evidence from the moment it is found, by those who found it, it becomes much more difficult to authenticate that evidence as having been WHERE it is said to have been? (HERE is that "problem" you said I needed to look for.... without Rose/Stoval or anyone else marking the evidence BEFORE it leaves for DC...

there is simply no way to authenticate it as ever BEING in Dallas) So it becomes incumbent on you to prove the AUTHENTICITY of the evidence Greg... not me to prove innocence, you MUST PROVE those items were indeed found in Irving and not simply created and returned from the FBI for the charade of the 26th.

The only way to know if they are real is to compare them to the records kept by the employer, the IRS, the actual Originals in evidence and what was attached to the tax return.. any other ideas?

Do we agree that if one of the items is missing - it shouldn't be... (something about a lost negative, Stovall and Rose comes to mind) I can only find 2-1956 forms and 1-1955

#168 = 2 for 1955/56 yet all we have is 1956 for Pfiester (there's a Dolly shoe for 1955 yet no "168RF" on the copy I have

#169 = 2 for 55/56 and we have 1955 & 56 -Tujague

This inventory is found Box 9 Folder 5 #22

Let me get this straight, David.

I ask for evidence that anyone ever claimed that the W-2 for Pfisterer was found among Oswald's possessions... and you reply that it is not listed in any evidence list or shown in any photo (repeating what you've already said)? So you're saying that because they're not listed as found there - that proves they must have been found there? David, that's not outside the box - it's off the planet.

Please try and see where your claim logically leads.... if the form was found there as you claim, but is not among the evidence lists or photos, then one of the following must be true: ( a ) The DPD knew that this item was a problem and therefore deliberately kept it off the lists and out of photos; ( b ) they somehow accidentally left it out or; ( c ) it was not left out and the FBI later recreated the lists and photos without that item.

It is your claim that the form was indeed among Oswald's possessions. Surely you can provide at least a single piece of evidence to back that up?

It is not MY CLAIM at all Greg...

It is the claim of the DPD.... I posted the evidence page that supports that DPD SAYS they were found at the Paine residence... the notebook with TAX related items listed and numbered on the "T" page above.... # 168, 169, 175 ??? you did see that right? and it says (IRVING) yes?

Does this not mean to you that these forms were found in IRVING and subsequently given #168 and turned over to the FBI with all the other items that had been to DC and back.

This page was SUPPOSEDLY created from lists of evidence collected by the DPD... Stoval/Rose/Moore.... yet the W-2's are not specifically listed on any of the inventory forms as being found at the Paine house. Unless YOU have something?

Since the DPD should have what ultimately becomes Item #168 in their possession from the search of the Paines.... they sould have the DPD intials on them... ITem #168, has "168 RF" written on it.... I am saying that WHEN THE ITEMS WERE RETURNED FROM FBI DC... they included this W-2 and a couple others - THAT WERE LOST IN THE PHOTO INVENTORY taken of the items returned to FBI on the 26th....

So please follow -

Irving is searched...

items are recovered and brought to DPD on both Friday and Saturday.

Items are sent to DC... there is by no means a complete list of these items... but in every case DPD gathered items they intitialed them for evdience (yet these marks are mysteriously gone on key items including the Poe shells)...

the W-2's were either in this batch of items recovered from Irving or not - but they do exist and are numbered and initialled by RF

the question remains "why, if the DPD's initials are on all of the evidence THEY collected and turned over to the FBI, are they NOT on these forms?.. and at what point did "168RF" get on there?.

Days later when items are once again at DPD begin prepared to be sent to the FBI they are numbered and photographed... except the photos of the W-2's did not come out...(wallet photos as well btw) FBI says DPD error.

There is no proof that these W-2's were ever in Dallas other than that one notebook page of evidence Kinda what I've been saying all along...

...

This is not about my NEED for anything Greg... follow the trail of the evidence... there are two types in this case... those that were initialed by the DPD and those that were not. Those that WERE and AUTHENTICATED can at least be said to have been in Dallas at some time...

Those that do NOT have DPD markings have to be considered very suspect... like CE399. Like these W-2's....

The re-inventoried LISTS of evidence going back to DC far exceeds the # that what was taken prior to 11/26

There is simply nothing other than the markings of the evidence BY DPD to prove they were ever in Dallas...

the Tippit shells are marked AT the DPD station Greg... NOT at the scene, other than by POE... and POE's initials are no longer there...

same here Greg... it is NOT wishful thinking that puts those items on master evidence inventory lists

So I am sorry if I do not understand where you are going here... The whole question is whether these forms were in Oswald's possession... DPD says they were found in IRVING as I posted... you keep asking me to show you proof they were found in Oswald's possessions - I've DONE THAT... problem is, like the claim that CE399 was found at Parkland, there is nothing to AUTHENTICATE that claim... with nothing to do so, it cannot be proven that these W-2's are AUTHENTIC and actually found there...

What is so hard to follow?

I don't know the chain of custody for it because I don't have a desperate need for the FBI to have forged the form. I have already demonstrated that Oswald worked there just as the official record shows. I have also provided a possible alternative explanation as to why the item is absent from your lists: The WC did, from time to time, request the FBI to obtain affidavits, or particular documents. Maybe this was one of those times when such a request was made?

We cannot start from a starting point that you're merely assuming from wishful thinking - otherwise we end up going down blind alleys. Provide actual evidence to back up your claim that it was in Oswald's possessions, or admit that you can't. If you provide - great! Then you have me engaged. Until then, like I said... this isn't enough to prop up a theory.

and one more from MOORE:

"....and work receipts" is the only thing I've found that MIGHT be related to the W-2's....

Please notice the detail on most of the item descriptions, not just negative... 35mm negative

not just a PO Notice, but a specific notice to LHO...

Finally Greg, which of the FBI photos of evidence turned in do NOT show an image... I believe they start with item # 164... in that there is not a photograph of these documents at DPD at any time... they APPEAR with Frazier's initials after the 26th....

To make "us" all look even worse... with the 50th coming...

regardless of the validity of OUR presentations of the info (DPF, ED, Lancer, CTKA, etc, etc...) these will be the ones brought to the attention of the people by the mass media... THESE will be what 60 minutes showcases...

my.02

My pleasure Zach... I keep reading To Kill aPresident... and am finally getting to the Hosty/Shanklin stuff - which to me he should have the most info on...

The whole Ramon thing is understood, protect a source, but this man seems to have info on everything or Swearingen is simply attributing most everything to him as a source....

You did get that one of his key facts is that Roselli shoots from the sewer drain (how he knows I haven't read yet... but I seem to remember a post about one of the Cubans having maps to the sewers in his possession....

That and how Greg B described the zfilm he saw, JFK was "lifted up out of his seat" when shot.... as others also said... that it looked like he stood up in the limo...

Cheers

DJ

I believe the colorized version comes from my digital version of Groden's TKoaP

and one more from MOORE:

"....and work receipts" is the only thing I've found that MIGHT be related to the W-2's....

Please notice the detail on most of the item descriptions, not just negative... 35mm negative

not just a PO Notice, but a specific notice to LHO...

Finally Greg, which of the FBI photos of evidence turned in do NOT show an image... I believe they start with item # 164... in that there is not a photograph of these documents at DPD at any time... they APPEAR with Frazier's initials after the 26th....

By the way...at the end of Stovall Ex A says something about DPD initials

"ALL PROPERTY HAS BEEN INITIALED AND MARKED FOR EVIDENCE BY STOVAL AND ROSE"

Care to show us their marks on the W-2's Greg?

My replies in BLACK

Let me ask you a question Robert asked me today... who in the world keeps W-2 forms (from 7-8 years ago from the age of 15/16) with him as he moves around the country, goes into the marines, halfway around the world and back...

Someone with Asperger's might, David - they're collectors of all sorts of xxxxe. But then so might anyone. It's the sort of question that leads nowhere and doesn't have any particular answer that can be deemed probative. DJ:OK - anybody can do anything.... it is just not very likely.

yet when needed to prove he worked at Pfiester in 55... his W-2's are "found" to be among his possessions although not listed on a single inventory of items taken from him from any location?

This is what you are reduced to. Sorry David. It's not good enough to prop up a theory.

So sorry you feel that way Greg... did you happen to find where they listed finding his W-2's in the DPD inventories from 11/22 or 23?

(note: I am going thru the Dallas Archives to retrieve every piece of evidence related to the collection of Oswald's possessions... from John's work we find that the W-2s came back from the FBI... just not sure if they were ever sent to them)

You claim they were found among Oswald's possessions - yet also claim they are not in any DPD evidence list or photo. So my question to you is - if they were not on any list or in any photo, how do you know they were alleged to be found among Oswald's possessions? Is it in a DPD memo that they were found there? Did someone give testimony that they were found there?

Let's assume that they were found there. How is it that the DPD knew not to list them and not to photograph them? Or were those lists and photos ALSO faked later by the FBI?

DJ: Greg - either he has them in his possession or not....I am not claiming anything. if NOT then they were ADDED to his possession at some subsequent time (in RF's hands), if they WERE FOUND by DPD then we SHOULD be able to see WHEN it was found, and WHEN it was turned over to the FBI... It should also have, like the other DPD evidence - the initials of the men who found it and entered it into evidence... if they were NOT found in his possession, please explain how they came to be......

No one thought that through very well, did they?

I'm guessing that you say they were found in Oswald's possessions because Armstrong assumed they were and as always, his assumptions morph into facts.

I don't pretend to know the circumstances of the chain of possession, but my own assumption right now is that the WC requested the FBI to obtain the forms. Furthermore, since I have already established Oswald was in Ft Worth from Aug '56, I see no reason for the forms to be faked. They are genuine because the evidence puts Oswald at the dental clinic exactly as the records indicate.

I have another point though... we are both aware that the FBI took a couple hundred items that night... and that these items ALL had DPD intitials on them....

Yet when returned for the "official" taking of the evidence on the 26th, there was over twice as much with all those NOT taken from Dallas WITHOUT DPD initials....

I'm sorry, but I have little idea of what you're talking about here in that last sentence.

DJ: 200 items or more were taken to DC by FBI on the 22nd... agree? 455 items are returned yet when photographed before going back to the FBI AGAIN, hundred of the photos do not come out. Of the items returned there are half that have DPD initials for a COE, and half that do not have anything to identify that item having ever been in Dallas... Oswald's W-2's for example and CE399.

If an item of evidence cannot be traced back to the location it was found, what if any value does it have as AUTHENTICATED evidence?

Even if the FBI only really took half the items - the remaining would have been inventoried and initialed in Dallas... Except maybe they DID take all the items??

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know why Exhibit No. 820 was not reprocessed or desilvered?

(DULLES CROSSES OUT ACTUAL TESTIMONY AND REPLACES IT WITH HIS OWN ANSWER)

Mr. CADIGAN. No, this is a latent fingerprint matter.

Do we understand that ALLEN DULLES SIMPLY WROTE IN CADIGAN'S RESPONSE and THAT'S HOW IT WAS PRINTED IN THE REPORT?

Can you tell us Greg, how many other bits of testimony were summariuly changed to suit the Commissioner's purposes... wasn't Dulles at more WC sessions than anyone else?

There was insuffieienct time, with the resources of the FBI in DC, to fingerprint and de-silver the LARGE VOLUME of evidence... does that sound like a couple hundred or almost 500?

Any reason you can think of for Dulles not to want to publish that the FBI had the evidence, ALL THE EVIDENCE, that weekend?

Back to Oswald's W-2s

The ONLY initials on the W-2's are "168RF"... Robert Frazier and those are on the BACK of the COPIES of the W-2s.

You'll be able to show us a Chain of Custody for these W-2's - right?

You know like all the other COC's that are so reliable like CE399 and those shells POE marked that disappeared.

I'm terribly sorry that a little critical thinking is outside the box for your Greg... I simply asked a question....

It's a question that appears to be based on assumptions made by someone without any critical thinking skills. See above for why.

Does it sound logical to you that a 16-19 year old who then travels the world would YEARS LATER still have the W-2's from part time jobs from which he already - supposedly - filed returns for?

And if you are convinced this is possible and likely... prove they were found in Oswlad's possessions..

LOL. Provide the evidence suggesting that officials ever claimed they WERE found in Oswald's possessions and we''ll proceed in a logical and orderly manner from that starting point. Fair enough?

DJ: ok.... here is a page from the alphabetized list of evidence, where found and what FBI item # it becomes.... Please see if you can find these on ANY inventory of items taken from Irving... I believe they may be Stoval A&B exhibits.... I haven't seen them on those lists other than "Personal papers".. You?

Thanks

DJ

On 10/6/2012 at 8:42 AM, Zach Robertson said:

David,

That is a great collage. You are doing some fantastic work here lately; so thanks for all that.

Not to divert the thread, but do you have any other blown up images from the corner of Main and Houston?

Zach

Thanks Zach... means alot

I actually do.. the man we see crossing Elm afterward in a trenchcoat and hat looks so much like Howard Hunt, I tried to work back from where he might have walked from:

Here is what I found..

DJ

You keep believing that Greg...

EVERYBODY has their correct height and weight on the Driver's license too - right?

Luckily, you not buying it is not the end of the road for the rest of us... I appreciate your input and will continue to re-analyze... in fact - it was you who showed me the records for FALL 1953 at BJHS were really LEE's

so thank you for that if I hadn't already posted that (believe I did)... that doesn't make Myra's story any less interesting or the other details of H &L both being in NOLA in 54, 55....

I informed Armstrong and have discussed 1953 and HARVEY... he too is reconsidering that one section as it all hinged upon those grades and the 89 days.... so pat yourself on the back IN THIS ONE AREA and keep on bringing it elsewhere...

I started this new one for MO alone...

You'll notice I started one for H&L as well.... you proved you point about the FALL 1953 in that other post... but you haven't done so well with Sept/Oct/Nov 1958... just to name one area

Again, thanks for bringing the counter to all this... as we are supposed to do... we don't need to convince each other, just present what we have...

btw - I am hoping to visit Palmer McBride in the next few weeks and am in contact with the woman who investigated Oswald's time at Pfiester....

Cheers and have a great weekend... chat again soon

DJ

Let me ask you a question Robert asked me today... who in the world keeps W-2 forms (from 7-8 years ago from the age of 15/16) with him as he moves around the country, goes into the marines, halfway around the world and back... yet when needed to prove he worked at Pfiester in 55... his W-2's are "found" to be among his possessions although not listed on a single inventory of items taken from him from any location?

This is what you are reduced to. Sorry David. It's not good enough to prop up a theory.

So sorry you feel that way Greg... did you happen to find where they listed finding his W-2's in the DPD inventories from 11/22 or 23?

(note: I am going thru the Dallas Archives to retrieve every piece of evidence related to the collection of Oswald's possessions... from John's work we find that the W-2s came back from the FBI... just not sure if they were ever sent to them)

I have another point though... we are both aware that the FBI took a couple hundred items that night... and that these items ALL had DPD intitials on them....

Yet when returned for the "official" taking of the evidence on the 26th, there was over twice as much with all those NOT taken from Dallas WITHOUT DPD initials....

Even if the FBI only really took half the items - the remaining would have been inventoried and initialed in Dallas... Except maybe they DID take all the items??

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know why Exhibit No. 820 was not reprocessed or desilvered?

(DULLES CROSSES OUT ACTUAL TESTIMONY AND REPLACES IT WITH HIS OWN ANSWER)

Mr. CADIGAN. No, this is a latent fingerprint matter.

Do we understand that ALLEN DULLES SIMPLY WROTE IN CADIGAN'S RESPONSE and THAT'S HOW IT WAS PRINTED IN THE REPORT?

Can you tell us Greg, how many other bits of testimony were summariuly changed to suit the Commissioner's purposes... wasn't Dulles at more WC sessions than anyone else?

There was insuffieienct time, with the resources of the FBI in DC, to fingerprint and de-silver the LARGE VOLUME of evidence... does that sound like a couple hundred or almost 500?

Any reason you can think of for Dulles not to want to publish that the FBI had the evidence, ALL THE EVIDENCE, that weekend?

Back to Oswald's W-2s

The ONLY initials on the W-2's are "168RF"... Robert Frazier and those are on the BACK of the COPIES of the W-2s.

You'll be able to show us a Chain of Custody for these W-2's - right?

You know like all the other COC's that are so reliable like CE399 and those shells POE marked that disappeared.

I'm terribly sorry that a little critical thinking is outside the box for your Greg... I simply asked a question....

Does it sound logical to you that a 16-19 year old who then travels the world would YEARS LATER still have the W-2's from part time jobs from which he already - supposedly - filed returns for?

And if you are convinced this is possible and likely... prove they were found in Oswlad's possessions..

Thanks

DJ

In my attempt to bring H&L to life for those interested in researching more... sometimes illustration is the best avenue...

Why Nagell would have an Identical form of Oswald ID in his possession, yet with a different photo and different signature is puzzling to say the least.

Why Oswald looks so different in virtually the same time periods is puzzling

And finally a gif anchored in size to the right eye... the rest of the body SHOULD match... it doesn't

I am NOT presenting this as difinitive evidence of anything other than to use your own eyes and see for yourself

Cheers

DJ

Thought I'd put together what I've found regarding MO...

H&L:

The FBI conducted a thorough investigation into the background of the real

Marguerite Oswald from the early 1940's to the mid-1950's. But after interviewing Lee

p.196

McCracken at 3830 W. 6th in Fort Worth, her neighbor in 1957-58, their investigation

stopped. They never interviewed co-workers who knew and worked with the real Marguerite

Oswald at Clyde Campbell's Men's Store (1957, spring), the City of Fort Worth

(1957, fall), Paul's Shoe Store - Ft. Worth TX (1957-58, Christmas), Family Publications (1958), or Cox's

Department Store ( 1958).

http://www.history-m...H25_CE_2217.pdf (12/2/63)

She (a friend of the REAL MO's) informed that she had seen MARGUERITE OSWALD

only once since they moved from Covington 16 years ago, and this was about three years ago (1959/60/61) when she saw her in Eriegers Department Store in New Orleans, where she was working in the Ladies Lingerie Department . They spoke only briefly, she stated .

MO: Because of Lee's so-called defection, and my accident, the way I was treated, left destitute, without any medical or compensation, I decided to devote my life to humanity, and I became a practical nurse. And I have worked for $5 a week, living in the place.

As you can see from the photos, while LEE's MO was in the department stores, HARVEY's was a nurse and continues to be a nurse (photo 1975)... LEE's MO disappears from the radar after her firend's comment above... there is no record of LEE's mother after NOLA 1960/61.

Cheers

DJ

Do I have this right?

Armstrong's theory has it that the "fake" Marguerite was under 5' 1" in 1963 (5' 1" being the height given for Marina in most of the internet chat about this photo), but then grew to be 5' 2 1/2" by 1965 when her passport was issued.

No Greg, you don't.

Armstrong and others are saying the 5'7" woman who was LEE's mother is not the same as the 5'2" caretaken of HARVEY.

There are other photos of the sisters together and sorry, those are not flats that Lillian is wearing... the bend in the ankle would be straight, not angled down for say 1-2" heals versus the2-3 heels MO is wearing....

Basically the retail sales lady who was never a nurse a day in her life becomes a nurse

just like LEE who never studied a day of Russian in his life, suddenly is not only fluent, but extremely fluent in reading, writing, speaking and understadning one of the toughest languages in the world.

Let me ask you a question Robert asked me today... who in the world keeps W-2 forms (from 7-8 years ago from the age of 15/16) with him as he moves around the country, goes into the marines, halfway around the world and back... yet when needed to prove he worked at Pfiester in 55... his W-2's are "found" to be among his possessions although not listed on a single inventory of items taken from him from any location?

and the FACT that when over laid, the address is in the identical location on differently laid out forms...

DJ

On 10/4/2012 at 1:14 PM, Bernice Moore said:

Chris, i found i believe a very clear hughes frame, that at least shows what windows were open, and a floor plan of the 7th floor, but nothing other..fwtaw..b

Hi Bernice - hope all is well with you...

Here I have Hughes compared to Dillard... there is DEFINITELY someone in the SE window and possibly in the one two over...

The BIG question... is where are Williams/Norman/Jarman in WEAVER or Hughes... plus WHAT is that at the 5th floor SE window?

http://www.jfkassass...ic,7025.24.html

GREAT photos of the inside of the TSBD... thank you Martin H.

Here is the 7th floor SE corner looking out

DJ

Unfortunately, I have found almost the exact opposite to be true. The secret conspiracies that have been perpetrated by "the cabal", "the secret government", "the power control group", call then what you will, are much more horrific and shocking than my worst imagination of what was possible. Indeed, the actual history of the United States in the last 60 years if filled with so many nefarious plots that the truth seems unreal to most people. I have always thought of myself as a skeptical person who did not trust government. But it turns out that I was not nearly skeptical enough. The level of criminality and immorality of top government officials continues to shock me. What started as curiousity about the Kennedy assassination has expanded and expanded as I have followed the threads of corruption through different levels of government and through time.

This summer I read "Defrauding America" by Rodney Stich. I highly, highly, highly recommend this book. It is filled with one mind blowing example of corruption after another. If only 1/4 of what is in "Defrauding America" is true, it would blow most people's minds. If I had read "Defrauding America" 5 years ago, I might have dismissed its stories as implausible, but the more I learn, the more these stories have proven to be true and consistent with other historical threads. It seems unreasonable to think that anyone would pay the Iranians money and ship the Iranians arms to hold the hostages longer. I have never met anyone that evil and immoral. But it does seem like George H.W. Bush did exactly that. A good part of the reason that the governing criminal class is able to get away with such terrible crimes is that most regular people could not imaging anyone being so evil.

In fact, the David Corn quote about 9/11 is a very good example of the unthinkably evil act being self protecting. For 11 years after the 9/11 attacks, I, like most Americans, believed I knew most of the story. But as I learned of the long, deep and evil criminal history of the Bush family, the thought that the 9/11 attacks might be a false flag attack began to seem more plausible to me. So I have been reading up on that topic, and I am now of the opinion the 9/11 attacks were a false flag attack.

I agree that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. But there is now good evidence that the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence actively supported Al Qaeda. The Bush family, both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush are very close to the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence. It would have been bad form and rude of the Saudi government to support the 9/11 attacks without the approval of their good friends the Bushes. The book "The Terror Timeline" does a very good job documenting the systematic dismantling of the US anti-terror defenses in order to allow the attacks to happen. Add in a few details like the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were admitted to the US under a special CIA visas for terrorists program, and the weight of the evidence starts to really pile up. I still have to read a few more books before I feel comfortable with this subject, but the I have uncovered a great deal of evidence that corroborates the false flag theory.

I still think UFO theories are out there, but I do not dismiss out of hand nearly as much as I would have a few years ago.

Hi Mark... nicely put. Yet I must disagree with your Osama conclusion... it was the Pakistani Army who supported the terrorists, MOST of them were Saudis, the list of hijackers is woefully incorrect and NEVER been updated and finally, the FBI NEVER LISTED 9/11 when describing and listing Osama's crimes.... like Saddam the US MILITARY created Osama to fight Russia while giving unbelieveable power to the local drug lords in Afghanistan.... why are we STILL in Afghanistan? one word - HEROIN.

didn't you know that Rummy, Chaney and Dub'ya KNEW that Saddam pulled it off....? How long before we were invading Iraq? If you'd liek the complete low-down on 9/11

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline Take your time and read ALL OF IT... Talk about blow your mind - the Able Danger stuff alone is amazing.

Peace

DJ

"Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq," Clarke said on Sunday's 60 Minutes. "I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'

==========

Two of the most amazing statements that I keep near and dear and their source:

U.S. Foreign Policy -- A Study in Hypocrisy

By William Blum

My experience in writing and speaking about what U.S. foreign policy has really done in

and to the world is that it’s often like telling people that I was abducted by aliens, except

that many of those people would sooner believe the abduction story.

For those of you who are not heavily into alien abduction stories, let me try to set the

proper atmosphere by mentioning two of the laws of politics which came out of the

Watergate scandal of the 1970s. (It doesn’t matter if you don’t know much about

Watergate; the laws are still understandable.)

The First Watergate Law of American Politics states: “No matter how paranoid you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.”

The Second Watergate Law states: “Don’t believe anything until it’s been officially denied."

Both laws are still on the books. Keep them handy in your head.

i.e.

=========

Condoleezza Rice: But I don’t remember the al‐Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

Richard Ben-Veniste: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB [Presidential Daily Briefing] warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

Condoleezza Rice: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

"I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center,

take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile"

And the military had conducted numerous drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon. For example, see this official military website showing a military drill conducted in 2000 using miniatures; this article concerning a May 2001 exercise of a plane crashing into the Pentagon (see also this article and this one); and this article about yet another drill of a plane hitting the Pentagon from August 2001.

and more examples closer to home...

WCR conclusions 9-12

The American Laws in Action over 10 years BEFORE they were realized

9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey

Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign,

to assassinate President Kennedy (official denial)

10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence

of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by

any Federal, State, or local official (official denial)

11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes

that. Oswald acted alone (official denial - no one else involved)

AND FINALLY - THE SECRET SERVICE DID NOTHING WRONG

12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds

that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s

safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD. (official denial - the SS was NOT responsible for the lack of JFK's safety)

and here they are... those MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR JFK's SAFETY: One isn't paying attention, the other is watching it happen....

Robert... thanks for this... great pix

Question... MO is supposedly 5'2", according to her pasport... the photos of her at 21 in 1928 with her sister shows she is a good 4 inches taller...

Is/was Lillian Murret 4'10" ??

And how about Eckdahl... Do you know his height? Cuase the woman who married him was 5'7"

And when along the way did she become a nurse? Seems to me it was AFTER 1958.

I could not afford to buy a bed for my grandchild, because I have worked prior to this for nothing. The job that I had quit I was making $25 a week, gentlemen-a 24-hour live-in job. The jobs prior to this I worked for $10 a week, 7 days a week, a live-in job.

Because of Lee's so-called defection, and my accident, the way I was treated, left destitute, without any medical or compensation, I decided to devote my life to humanity, and I became a practical nurse. And I have worked for $5 a week, living in the place.

Now, when they lived in the home on Mercedes Street that he rented, I was employed as an OB, a nurse, in Fort Worth, Tex., at an OB's salary. And that salary, gentlemen, will astonish you. I worked, lived in, for $9 a day, 24 hours duty.

On an OB case I am very busy with the baby all day long because people are coming in and out, giving presents and so on. I have a 10 o'clock feeding for the baby. And it is approximately 11 o'clock before I am through and in bed. The baby is up again at 2 o'clock. It is approximately 3:30 before I am through again with the baby. The baby is up again at 5:30. And it is approximately--then my day starts. I am stressing the point that 1 worked for $9 a day during all that, a $9 a day job. So that is 7 days a week, $63.

Now, this is the first time I have had a nurse's salary, I want you to understand.

As you see, the way I am properly dressed--I don't say I mean to be the height of fashion, but I have before becoming a nurse I was in the business world,

From H&L p101

In the fall of 1947 Georgia's neighbor,

Lucille Hubbard, drove the short, dumpy, heavy-set Marguerite to a house to pick up

some clothes after she got a job as a nurse

Seven years later, in the fall of 1954,

Harvey Oswald lived

in the rear apartment at 2220 Thomas Place and attended Stripling, while his short,

dumpy, heavy-set "caretaker/mother" worked as a nurse. Nine years later, on November

22, 1963, the same woman, the short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" im

poster occupied the same rear apartment and still worked as a practical nurse.

Lee... I'm pretty sure this is the ORIGINAL DILLARD that we see in every other location...

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=22&pos=6

There were no boxes in the 5th floor windows...

It simply looks as if he is pasted in there and that his neck is twice as long as it should be... while the negative version looks even stranger...

If you have another Dillard enlargement showing Norman with his head on correctly, I'd like to see it. This is the "sharpest" I've seen.

DJ