David Josephs

According to both Pool and Tomlinson they took an unidentified SS agent up the elevator leaving the other stretcher unattended.

I wonder if there were OTHER Chain of Evidence problems found in CE2011??

How about those pesky Tippit hulls...

Seems the same problem occurs here... Davis' and Benavidas cannot ID the hulls, Poe cannot ID hulls...

The only MARKS on the hulls are by men who were NOT AT THE CRIME SCENE... Barnes and Dhority...

The only marks on CE399? Men who were NOT IN THE SAME STATE AS WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED...

and yet these items of evidence are the cornerstone of the WCR and LNer arguments the world over.

If they cannot be traced back to the location where they were found - doesn't that remove them from being considered

AUTHENTICATED EVIDENCE?

Isn't this what Gary Mack calls HARD EVIDENCE of a conspiracy - where the only identification of the evidence comes from those not involved in the gathering of it?

DJ

And here you have the same pattern repeated: "I am going to prove all those critics deluded." Well, go ahead and do it then. And if you have no intention of doing it, then please leave. Since it's just more of your empty bombast: Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Pot...meet Pa Kettle.

Reminder: Jim D. is a person who seriously thinks that Jim Garrison was right re the JFK case. And Jimbo's also a person who is deluded enough to actually think that BOTH Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag that each of those witnesses said they saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.

Talk about "empty bombast...sound and fury signifying nothing". Jim and all other conspiracy theorists have a patent on such bombast.

Another LNer at another forum asked a good question a few months back when he asked: What have the JFK conspiracy theorists really accomplished? Anything of significance whatsoever? (Other than "bombast" and speculative theorizing that never ends?)

Food for thought as the 50th approaches.

Interesting how DVP can talk to us about Jim, Frazier, Randle, Oswald, paper bags, FOOD, the 50th... yet when it comes to dealing with the FACT that the men who had the opportunity to mark the shell MAY ACTUALLY HAVE, DAVID !! Except the bullet that Rowley gives to Todd is NOT the same one he got from Johnsen... He says so himself...

So the bullet that has Todd and Frasier and Cunningham's initials is a 6.5mm round weighing 159.7 grains or so... that ROWLEY GAVE TO TODD

The bullet that was found by Tomlinson and given to Wright and given to Johnsen MAY have had initials on it... who knows... THAT BULLET never made it out of Rowley's office... if it ever got there.... the world at large has never seen the bullet that Tomlinson gave to Wright....

ANYBODY can initial an empty envelope and tell us whatever they want WAS inside.... if CE399 WAS in that envelope, why do Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley not identify it as such? If they NEVER SAW THE BULLET in the envelope... initialing it does not change what's inside...

Stay with CE399 DVP and try to wiggle your way out of the SS's either LACK of proper procedure in creating a chain of evidence for this bullet, OR

Rowley perpetrating a crime by replacing THAT BULLET with what becomes CE399.

On 10/2/2012 at 2:01 PM, Pat Speer said:

On 10/1/2012 at 5:18 PM, David Josephs said:

Yes indeed Nick... me too... and thanks

Pat... weren't the PAIRS supposed to be stereoscoped versions so the image could be seen in 3D? Shot at the same time...

This is not the same image from difference angles... this is the same image a few seconds before or after the ruler was moved...

EACH image would have a 3D pair, no? so I guess the question is where are all these OTHER photos?

and when along the way did they wash/wet JFK's head? Had to come after this larger image... yet with all the blood and gore and such...

How is it possible that JFK's hair is dry here, yet soaked CLEAN in these others?

And finally,,, doyou believe it is THAT FLAP OF SCALP folded over to the left in the large image, that the Drs are holding in place, or something much larger?

DJ

Mr. SPECTER - What was done with the President's body after he was pronounced to be dead?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Well, after the last rites were said, we then undressed him and cleaned him up and wrapped him up in sheets until the coffin was brought.

The pictures are taken in pairs, a brief moment apart. There is nothing special about the photos. When placed in a stereoscopic viewer, however, a 3D effect is achieved. This same effect can be achieved at home, using photos taken on your own camera.

When one reads about Forensic photography, it becomes clear that the photos showing matted hair were the establishing shots--photos taken of the body at the beginning of the autopsy, and that the Groden color photos of the back of the head were taken later to demonstrate specific wounds. When one reads about autopsies in general, and not just the gunk on Kennedy's autopsy, moreover, it becomes crystal clear that they would have washed the blood and brains from Kennedy's hair before taking any photos of the wounds on the scalp and skull.

IOW, the color back of the head photos were intended to show a wound, the bullet entrance on the back of Kennedy's head by the EOP. I see it. Do you?

Yes Pat, I do see what they tried to say was the entrance wound...

Yet I must disagree with your description of the two F3 photos I posted... When stereoscoping, only the camera moves... not the items in the photos... moving the ruler down and not changing the angle of the photo does not make a 3D effect work... Same photo subject, side by side angles...

These are two different photos... btw - if each of the FOX PHOTOS had a twin... where are they and why aren't they available with the rest of the images out there?

Let me ask you Pat... do you see a horizontal line across the BOH starting just above the ruler? and wouldn't that FOLD be in the right place to match with F6/7's fold exposing the brain?

Bringing this back to current as I am finally getting to his books...

Read the FBI Secrets one... whcih basically paints the FBI as Hoover own private army against communists..

Reading "To Kill a President" now....

To me, it comes down to the credibility of his #1 informant Ramon.... maybe it's the style of his writing yet the way he writes Ramon's dialog as he describes the Bay of Pigs plot and then the JFK assassination

just doesn't ring as being true to the informants words - and rather like a paraphrase for ease of reading.

And while you would think this would contain a lot of FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE... much of it is relayed as stories told over drinks among FBI buddies... or from transcripts of illegal wire taps...

He KNOWS PEOPLE who KNOW people....

One of the more interesting items to me is his naming RICHARD CAIN as an agent on the GK... at least that's how it sounded to me, and that Cain worked for and against everyone

Maybe we can find Cain in the films/videos... ?? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcainR.htm

Swearingen is also of the opinion that Roselli fired from the sewer (I know it still sounds silly), yet those who saw the OTHER zfilm claim JFK was lifed up out of his seat when shot... other witnesses from the day say the same thing... and has Oswald taking a "first shot" while the team does the actual killing...

Swearingen goes on to make the point that not a single bug picked up any talk of an assassination plot against JFK... but then there were many things the mob did not talk about and still did...

Cheers

DJ

I came across another larger version of Dillard with Norman in the window and it srtuck me as very odd... the extended neck and head and then the negative image...

Along side photos of Norman at the window and just standing there... THIS is the man who after a 150dB shot is fired 10 feet from his head has no problems hearing the hulls and bolt...

SHOULDN'T there be a shadow on the left side of Norman as we see with Williams? Why/how is Norman's left shoulder and right next to his neck lit up by sun?

DJ

Here is the photo Zach spoke of (I think) with the bystanders enlarged...

I also included a blowup of Weaver and the corner of Main/Houston

Cheers

DJ

Rago/Ringler: The bullet which struck JBC in the right shoulder was the second bullet, not the bullet which passed through JFK.

Are you saying JBC was hit twice?

No but Kilduff said so as a direct quote from Burkley in the Parkland press conference...

JFK Hit once in the Head, JC hit in the chest and the wrist - 2 shots check out the youtube video of the entire press conference

1:12 - "He (JC) was shot twice..."

...comes in the testimony of James Jarman:

Mr. JARMAN. Well, he ( Oswald ) was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.

( 3 H 201 )

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning.

Mr. BALL - About what time?

Mr. JARMAN - It was between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, I believe.

Just to put the timing into perspective Gil... This conversation takes place earlier in the morning. Wouldn't one think that there'd be a paper around showing the route? The "quiet reader" doesn't read the newspaper?

and this discussion dovetails into some thoughts of mine about how Oswald would even know when to be at the window... even IF he knew the details from the newspaper AND had seen some of the VIP invitations, if he was to be involved, he had to KNOW when to be at the window so he did not miss the motorcade...

I find it UNREALISTIC to assume that Oswald did not know when and where the motorcade was doing its thing, or that the motorcade was coming at all... Since we do not know the manner in which Oswald spoke these words... he could just as easily been making simple conversation (or Jarman was fed the words)... Knowing the president is coming LATER IN THE DAY and seeing people gathering at 9-10am, there may not be a connection. Additionally - all we ever has are 2nd hand accounts of what he said... there are no interrogation transcripts, just poor notes. Trusting one of the Three Men who claim to be able to hear at all after experiencing 3 150dB rifle shots within 10-15 feet of their heads, is a big leap of faith imo.... I believe, in a very simple way, Jarman is trying to help incriminate Oswald by showing his interest in the motorcade and the direction... when in reality it adds the question of what Oswald really did know about the motorcade.

Add to this his affidavit:

AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared James Earl Jarman, Jr., c/m 33, 3942 Atlanta Street, Dallas, Texas HA8-1837 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:

I work for the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, as a Checker on the first floor for Mr. Roy S. Truly. On Friday, November 22, 1963, I got to work at 8:05 a.m. The first time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the President was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He asked me, "Which way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the President would probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and then go down Elm Street. (DJ: If he read this in the paper - why "probably"... and doesn't his answer strike you as supplied - unless he saw the map there would be no reason for Jarman to assume the turn onto Elm) He said, "Yes, I see". I only talked with him for about three or four minutes. The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator upstairs to go get some boxes. At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These employees were: Bill Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray (last name not known) and a Spanish boy (his name I cannot remember). To my knowledge Lee Oswald was not with us while we were watching the parade.

/s/ James Earl Jarman, Jr.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 23rd DAY OF November A.D. 1963

/s/ Patsy Collins

Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

Let's remember the discussion about Worrell and how it was questioned whether people would be coming to the area so early... or whether Worrell was there at all...

Mr. SPECTER - What time, to the best of your recollection, did you arrive at the intersection of Elm and Houston?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, about 10, 10:30, 10:45, something around there. There weren't many people standing around there then.

Mr. SPECTER - Well about how long before the Presidential motorcade came to Elm and Houston did you get there?

Mr. WORRELL - An hour; an hour and a half.

Bottom line Gil is this is evidence of what Oswald MIGHT HAVE SAID as relayed to us by someone with very questionable statements. How a "backfire" (a street level noise) becomes 3 rifle blasts 10 feet from their heads and then a THIRD SHOT finally comvinces these men that the shots are RIGHT ABOVE THEIR HEADS???? is beyond me... and then it's only NORMAN who figures out where the shots come from while he hears the "tink" of the hull and the working of the bolt... please.

Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, or backfire, as I thought it was then--I thought it was a backfire.

Mr. BALL - You thought it was what?

Mr. JARMAN - A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.

Mr. JARMAN - Well, after the third shot was fired, I think I got up and I run over to Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams, and told them, I said, I told them that it wasn't a backfire or anything, that somebody was shooting at the President.

"NORMAN: Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor."

Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?

Mr. NORMAN. Three.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember whether or not you said anything to the men then as to whether or not you heard anything from above you?

Mr. NORMAN. Only I think I remember saying that I thought I could hear the shell hulls and the ejection of the rifle. I didn't tell I think I hear anybody moving, you know.

Mr. BALL. But you thought, do you remember you told the men then that you thought you heard the ejection of the rifle?

Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And shells on the floor?

Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Falling?

Mr. NORMAN. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Did anybody say anything as to where they thought the shots came from?

Mr. NORMAN. Well, I don't recall of either one of them saying they thought where it came from.

This is an xray of JFK from 1947 showing the pins and screws...

http://www.two-views..._f_kennedy.html

The autopsy says:

Skeletal System

Aside from the above described skull wounds there are no significant

gross skeletal abnormalities.

and we cannot find a photo of JFK's lower back from the autopsy... or are there?

This seems to me to say that the man on whom an autopsy was performed was not JFK....

What does it say to you?

Yes indeed Nick... me too... and thanks

Pat... weren't the PAIRS supposed to be stereoscoped versions so the image could be seen in 3D? Shot at the same time...

This is not the same image from difference angles... this is the same image a few seconds before or after the ruler was moved...

EACH image would have a 3D pair, no? so I guess the question is where are all these OTHER photos?

and when along the way did they wash/wet JFK's head? Had to come after this larger image... yet with all the blood and gore and such...

How is it possible that JFK's hair is dry here, yet soaked CLEAN in these others?

And finally,,, doyou believe it is THAT FLAP OF SCALP folded over to the left in the large image, that the Drs are holding in place, or something much larger?

DJ

Mr. SPECTER - What was done with the President's body after he was pronounced to be dead?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Well, after the last rites were said, we then undressed him and cleaned him up and wrapped him up in sheets until the coffin was brought.

On 7/23/2010 at 10:06 PM, Greg Burnham said:

I just purchased a Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera...the same one allegedly used by Zappy. I will conduct my own tests using that camera. My tests will not be conducted immediately for several reasons. However, I will report the results here if and when they are completed.

Was looking for something else and found this thread...

Curious, Greg.... Since Craig here leaned the exacto knife from the front to the back of the cup... wouldn't that account from the shift from parallel to not as you move off axis?

(you can tell by the angle of the bottom of the knife)

If the knife was taped to the inside of the cup perfectly vertical... would the same things occur as you moved the camera left and right?

Somehow I think whether the "signpost" used in the analogy is vertical or not makes a difference... no?

DJ

Thanks Pat...

Was watching a video on Youtube about Groden's photos.... when this scene pops up...




Now I have the OTHER "hands holding the scalp" F3... but there is no ruler in that one...

Look at the distance from the top left corner of the ruler to the "red spot/hole/whatever it is" we can SEE the ruler has moved... yet very little else has.

You can't get the ruler to be farther away from a point IN THE PHOTO by moving the photo... or by slightly moving the camera - so it is NOT the same photo.

Where is this OTHER F4 image from? It's not in Killing of a President (see page 81 for the image on the left)

thanks
DJ

Pamela... and by default GM....

"GM has said that ITTC used the WCR reenactment as the basis for its dimensions."

Lamson:

And we get to the very crux of your mistake. There are no surveyed frames. There are only GUESSES. A recreation is GUESSES piled on top of more GUESSES.

In our MATH 101 threads we show conclusively that the data offered to represent the Zfilm - in the original legend, revised legends and subsequent recreations.... is horribly wrong

Not only are they wrong, but they can't even be fudged a little to represent the Zfilm... So as Purvis, Chris and I have tried to show, the margin of error is simply not enough for the recreation to create data THAT WRONG...

The entire 161 thru 313 sequence could not happen as offered in the legends and distances from the WCR... but they should not be so far off as to show a change from 3mph to 18 and then to 12mph in the course of a few seconds....

So while Lamson is correct, the data comes from a recreation... he fails to aknowledge how badly misrepresented the actual event is within this data...

If the reenactment was used for the dimensions... and the recreation was only an approximation... based on best guess.... how can the ITTC show make the claims it does?

The recreation numbers REQUIRE the limo to accellerate from 3mph to almost 26mph so that the average speed from frames 161-166, 166-185, & 185-186 match the legend created.

And then from 255-313 we have the limo traveling at 10.5mph - when in reality it was traveling MUCH slower...

So how can ITTC have anything correct, if they are using the WCR reenactment as their basis?

Curious...

Why hasn't anyone used more modern instruments and recreate the film EXACTLY, instead of how Myers did it?

Once there is an ACCURATE digital representation of the Zfilm... distances within the model SHOULD be perfectly accurate and we SHOULD be able to know the speeds between ANY distance.

Quote

A pristine bullet does not have any identifying characteristics with which they can distinguish it from another pristine bullet.

Bullsh!t Mike....

The bullet Tomlinson saw was pointed... CE399 is not...

Are you saying these PRISTINE BULLETS cannot be identified from each other?

Quote

And, by the way, I completely agree with you that the bullet which was turned over to the FBI by the Secret Service on November 22 was positively Bullet CE399. I have absolutely no doubt about that fact (for a variety of reasons), as I have said in many articles and posts on the Internet in the past several years.

David... there is not a single argument against what you wrote... The bullet Elmer Todd hands to Frazier, C1, and marked by both men at the FBI lab (not a single mark is on that bullet PRIOR to Todd/Frazier) is indeed the bullet marked as CE399... Marking an envelope supposedly containing evidence DOES NOT AUTHENTICATE THAT EVIDENCE, it only authenticates the envelope.

Problem is it is not the bullet that started out in Dallas...

Take one step before Rowley....

Rowley - "Could not identify the bullet as the one Johnsen gave him....AND GAVE TO TODD"

the man who gave Todd the bullet that he give to Frazier that becomes CE399..

Agent Johnsen - "Could not identify as the bullet from Wright (to Todd)"

The bullet Wright gets from Tomlinson?

"Could not identify as the bullet found 11/22/63" (from Tomlinson to Wright)

The bullet Tomlinson picks up and give to Wright?

"Could not identify as the bullet found and given to Wright"

So yes DVP... C1 that Todd GETS FROM ROWLEY, becomes CE399 and cannot be identified by any other person who handled it...

As we read the evidence in this letter... it is easy to see that Rowley handed Todd a different bullet than he got from Johnsen... So where is the bullet Johnsen gave Rowley?

C1/CE399 came into existence as the bullet in evidence in the handing of it over to Todd then to FBI...

Please show us the chain of custody that brings C1/CE399 BACK to the floor/stretcher in Parkland hosptial... THEN you've actually accomplished something...

CE399 being in DC ain't no big deal... get it to Dallas.

DJ

Agree Lee... The vast amount of info and knowledge stems from his looking into the documents, tens of thousands of documents... it is from THESE DOCUMENTS that the book is written, along with his interviews and the contributions of his circle of friends and associates...

He promotes his understanding and interpretation of the documents and evidence.... Could the person on the bus been someone looking like Oswald, but not Oswald... Is there real confusion, even with Whaley, as to which clothes he was wearing... when Whaley was the 2nd string cab driver? of course...

But this does not change the evidence or documents, which, as you've said, amounts to the WEALTH of information Armstrong makes available to researchers...

You want to question John's mental processes? We expect that... everyone should be questioned... but if John leaves off the word "grey" the sentence reads just fine.... to take this one reference out of the 5 I posted shows to me your bias... which you readily admit... I am simply approaching the theory with a bit more trust - at this point in time - which may in time change... I am not at that point.

Oswald apparently discarded the grey jacket described by bus passenger Roy Milton

Jones and cab driver William Whaley

Are the Unit Diaries the last word? The history of Oswald in the marines that SEEMS to be correcet except for a curious time in Sept/Oct 1958... The DoD deciding he never went....

Are there OTHER possible explanations, of course Lee... yet given what I understand of the CIA and late 50's, H&L is as plausible as Greg's conclusion of Aspergers and repeated mistakes that ONLY seem to incriminate Oswald... nobody makes a mistake that ever HELPS his case...

I'd still ask why so much of Oswald's past is so conflicting... and how Pic KNOWS Lee from HARVEY in every case... the difference between MO appearance, job history, testimony and actual history...

I'm simply not done with it... you and Greg have run your course and come to your conclusions...

Being a great researcher versus a great WRITER and organizer of thoughts and building a case may best be left to Salandria...

but I REFUSE to go ad hominem on John just cuase his book has some mistakes.... if the FBI is allowed, the DoD, CIA, SS ONI and WCR as well

I think a few mistakes, even some big ones, does not take from the overall theory or ducments that support it.

Lowery said while he has never met or known

Oswald he was apprehensive when he learned that Oswald had been

apprehended armed with a pistol in the Texas Theatre on West

Jefferson Boulevard, Oak Cliff, Dallas on 11/22/63.

So Lowery... I did a quick search and found the info on him and his contact with Hosty... seems he had much more info on Molina... than Oswald.

and WHY exclude him from H&L? IDK, I'd need to search out each and every mention of Lowery and see if there was anything beyond Hosty...

Editing/Criticizing is obviously MUCH EASIER than creating and publishing... IMO H&L opens doors into areas most would never wander... and in the process makes some significant discoveries...

If it didn;t happen that way, so be it. But to me, as long as pre-autopsy surgery on the magnitude that was performed, is possible, even probable...

Harvey and Lee and the evidence to support it, is - in THAT WORLD - just as plausible

Peace

DJ

That you would choose to believe the FBI over citizen witnesses and direct authenticated evidence is your problem, not mine. It boggles my mind that you are presenting yourself like this; The man who helped prove the FBI was dead wrong about Oswald on the bus which in turn changes most everything about the post-assassination timeline and suggests that Roger Craig was accurate in his recollection; that Worrell and Carr were NOT lying about the men running from the back of the TSBD, that Rowland is not lying about who he sees where, that Boone and Weitzman actually do find a Mauser and Baker/Truly L-I-E their butts off about the 2nd floor lunchroom

David,

Quick one. Greg did help prove the FBI (and others) were wrong about Oswald being on the bus. So for me, you have a slight problem.

Why?

Well Armstrong's theory promotes the bus and taxi rides as factual and are necessary for his overall narrative. The two Oswalds, i.e. the Oswald leaving the TSBD in the car and the "other" Oswald on the bus and in the cab, were Harvey and Lee according to the book.

In fact, Armstrong took great exception when Joseph Backes began trying to unlock the bus and taxi fabrications in the late 1990's. He really wasn't very happy with Joe and completely disregarded the evidence provided.

Armstrong discounted elements of Roy Milton Jones' FBI statement (that he had a copy of and did not use in his book in the way it should have been used) when he was debating Backes because, according to Armstrong, Jones was a "seventh grade student." Not that it matters in relation to his eyesight but Jones was actually an 11th grade student and Armstrong cherry picked the FBI statement that Jones gave to help bolster his H&L narrative when it suited. He even changed the color of the jacket Jones said he saw on a male passenger to help his case. Jones says it was "light blue" but on page 830 of Harvey & Lee, Armstrong says Jones saw a "grey jacket." Small stuff, but very important. With the documents he collected any impartial person could have blown the bus and taxi rides out of the water. Armstrong either chose not to, or was far too wedded to his theory to see it.

I personally lost faith in Armstrong's narrative a long time ago.

The more one prods at the Harvey & Lee theory, the more it begins to disintegrate.

I hear you Lee... and it's nice to be reading your comments again....

Jones says it was "light blue" but on page 830 of Harvey & Lee, Armstrong says Jones saw a "grey jacket." Small stuff, but very important

I agree Lee... small stuff that should be correctly posted... yet I believe you took the one misstatement and forgot the other accurate references and footnotes that come BEFORE this one sentence.

I come to find mistakes and inaccuracies in many of our researchers' books and offerings... with the info we are working with, this should be expected...

Incorrect analysis is another thing... and I believe he, like the other authors we read here, is going to present his conclusions as the end all on the subject... and in some areas he will be dead on and other, not so much.

I'm not so wedded to HIS theory as much as what the information says and why... Whether you believe or not, the way John Pic picks out Harvey from Lee in every case... and describes the "Lee Oswald" in 1962 as NOT the man he knew as his brother... is very compelling. Is it definitive, not by any means... yet I blieve it does not do the theory or evidence justice by dismissing it off hand, without study due to the NATURE of the idea.

Peace

DJ

From the index of H&L

Jones, Roy Milton 796, 825, 826, 830, 895

page 796

The FBI reported, "To the best of her recollection Oswald was wearing a

tan shirt and gray jacket."

Wesley Frazier recalled that Oswald wore, "A grey, more or less flannel,

wool-looking type of jacket. "

NOTE: Following the assassination Roy Milton Jones, a passenger on Cecil McWalter's

bus, saw Oswald carrying the same jacket which he described as "light blue. "

Here is CE2641 page 3, Roy Jones describing the man on the bus....

This is from page 825:

Jones told the FBI the man sitting behind him wore a

"light blue jacket

(Oswald's flannel jacket was

light grey) and gray khaki trousers (154)

(154) http://www.history-m...H25_CE_2641.pdf page 3

He described this man as follows

Races White

Sax . Male

Age . 30-35

Height . 5'11`

Weight . 150

Builds Medium

Remarks . wore no glasses and no hat

Hairs Dark brown, receding at temples

Dress . Light blue jacket and gray khaki

trousers

From 826:

McWatters continued south on Marsalis,

unaware that Officer J.D. Tippit was following

his bus, and remembered letting the "smiling man" off the bus south of Saner

Avenue.161 He described the young man as a "teenager, about

5'8", 155 lbs, medium

build, slim-faced" and remembered that he saw him on the bus the next day.162 The

young man lived one block south of Saner Avenue at 512 E Brownlee Avenue, and he

was later identified as Roy Milton Jones.

From page 830:

Oswald apparently discarded the grey jacket described by bus passenger Roy Milton

Jones and cab driver William Whaley

So here he mis-applies a quote, somewhat...

Jones DID see a jacket that had to be discarded (or was not Oswald), just not a grey one (although blue and grey can be very close... just like how brown and tan can be alike in different lights)

Page 895:

Cecil McWatters picked out a man who he said was the only one in the lineup

who resembled the man who had boarded his bus shortly after 12:30 pm on November

22nd, 1963. McWatters signed an affidavit in which he said this man boarded his bus

near Elm and Houston and rode to Marsalis Avenue in Oak Cliff. Warren Commission

attorney Joseph Ball was concerned about his testimony and read McWatters affidavit

into the record.87

Roy Milton Jones, not Oswald, was the person who rode on McWalter's bus

to Marsalis Avenue

15ft down.

15ft to go.

Perhaps this part of the FBI plat will lead to the 2nd 15ft.

Notice the light scribe LOS's coming off the Stemmons sign.

Someone was doing planning for a little different angle.

And maybe hiding a shot reaction to boot!!

chris

P.S

No more posts for two weeks, I'm going to Disneyland.

Give Mickey a big squeeze for all of us....

Thanks for the posts and work...

Catchya later

DJ

Bernie wrote (in black no bold):

No David I'm not just asking, what "the odds are of two boys from the late 30's growing up to look alike"?...I'm asking that about two boys who are also the subject of a long term intelligence plan that has had their identities manipulated to create one entity.

WE say they looked alike from the images, but they don't... they look similiar

But apparently similar enough to share a face on an ID card! There are differences in some of those photos above, no question. Especially the 1959 'Lee' who looks nothing like ANY of the others (but that one was taken by Robert who apparently knew 'both' so we shouldn't take that photo seriously anyway!). But all those others are either the same person or someone spookily like him, surely you must see that.

Personally, I believe you are giving that phenomenon too much credibility…

The “plan” would not involve these two being in the same place

After a certain point in life I believe combining faces is not as hard as you think…

and this was done in about 10 minutes… given some time and some skills… creating one composite image is really not hard….

My further skepticism is fuelled by the lack of 'legs' this theory has generated beyond what can be read from H/L. Where is the avalanche of further information corroborating the theory, above and beyond Armstrong's research? How many new people have come forward, say from BJHS or from his marines days further underlining and solidifying the H/L scenario?

Funny thing, you can look at this two ways… the lack of “legs” may mean we are closer to a truth than not…. I have found, over the years, that the old saying (Never believe anything until it is officially denied) to be a sad truism… When listening to the analysis of the past, or the memories of those most deeply inside, I try the exercise of taking everything said and reverse every meaning… now what is being said?

The other “Way” to look at this is the severe lack of interest and fear related to anything JFK and Oswald is innocent or something MORE than he appears to be. How many people do you think even have heard of H&L let alone read the book? Much of these interview were done just before the ARRB and just after the revised FOIA changes… Do you supposed Kleins will all of a sudden state they did not ship that weapon to HIDELL? There is little or no incentive to do so – THEY won, remember?

The records of the US Marines seems to be a fairly reliable source of info on their soldiers… The DoD will try to tell us he never left Japan for Taiwan… yet between witnesses and records, the DoD is not being truthful… AS I just posted, the RECORDS state he was in the hospital from Oct 7 thru Oct 13… yet his medical records show no such thing…

I cannot tell you the "plan" for how and why OSwald was created... CIA?? KBG?? other? I don't know Bernie... What I do know is the "plan" makes sense in the context of the times... the more I study the TIMES the more I appreciate the level of depravity in the planning and implementation of COUNTER intelligence and the attempts to uncover it.

David, I have read your work on here for many years now...quite a fan I am. You never descend to the gutter and you passionately argue your case nearly always with well thought out, well researched reasoning. I have not made even a fraction of the contribution you have made to the ideas on this forum... but, the above statment I find quite amazing for a researcher of your standing.

That something is possible is no proof that it has been done. That it is consistent with the type of subterfuge of the time also isn't proof that it was therefore done. How do you not know what the plan was for the how and the why...but know that it "makes sense"?

No Bernie, possibility does not mean PROOF. Yet possibility coupled with opportunity, desire, capability and necessity… What “makes sense” is the use of any and all resources, plans and “possibilities” to counter-act what the KGB was doing. The specifics of the “plan” is unknown… Whether the “general” idea is infiltration, or some other subterfuge, creating a convoluted and difficult to trace background comes in handy…

At the same token, why couldn’t HARVEY have been brought to America by a KGB plan with the desire to infiltrate the USA’s government, or gather whatever intelligence was possible after spending the necessary years generating and creating his cover…. AGAIN – I DON’T KNOW

What I do know is there was a very real possibility along with the capability by either CIA or KGB to pull it off…. With this base, we then look at the WCR and how it and the witnesses it used, created the history that we know as Lee Harvey Oswald’s….

When I first came across the whole Harve/Lee a few years ago I thought it was "exciting". Exotic almost. I wanted to believe it. I wanted to believe it, if not to see illustrated the lengths and depths some intelligence agencies went in order to create an advantage during the Cold War. But the more I read the more I realise it's a diversion...like all the others. It's a red herring. It's an avenue that leads over a cliff. Like the extreme Zapruder claims. It's the same pattern as well. Evidence of some tampering is tarnished because of the extreme claims of total tampering. I believe it is the same with the impersonation of Oswald, the truth is being hidden by this extreme version of such impersonation.

Disagree again Bernie… sorry. The SOP for CIA was to infuse some truth within the pile of lies… This formula is repeated ad nausea as you sift thru the “data” provided by these boys. Sad to say, but I feel that most if not every piece of evidence from the WCR, CIA, FBI and SS is suspect and should NOT be trusted until authenticated and corroborated.

We have no real idea what happened to the Zfilm 1) 0184, copy #1 is ?? 2) between 11pm Friday and 8am Sat, there is no accounting for the film 3) Max Philips’ note to Rowley indicates there is a 4^th copy of the film THAT DAY 4) the entire Life/NPIC fiasco… 5) finally – all the obvious contradiction between the non-governmental evidence and the government controlled stuff….

Talking of the depravity in the planning and implementation of COUNTER intelligence would that depravity extend to compiling a massive tome of facts, dates documents and records which teases out any anomolies that could then be glued to a Hollywood scripted premise? That would be a much cheaper way of covering tracks surely? Just a thought.

Cheaper? You think the CIA cared about CHEAPER?

As I mention above… each and every “fact” offered could be manufactured… but this last paragraph of yours shows me you have some research to do about the working of the CIA.

Read the plans/reports versus the reality for the Bay of Pigs…. The story the CIA told the JCS and POTUS was all BS, almost… there would not be a popular uprising, there would not be a revolt, and Fidel knew about the plans before they even happened… The CIA (or counter CIA) tells the anti-Batista troops THEY are going in first to die while the pro-Batista refugees would follow behind, cleaning up the mess and running things from there… Created all sorts of problems with the forces… even sounded like a movie script (The Good Shepard). When it finally came down to it, Dulles/Bissell believe JFK would send in the troops... he didn't and the rest is history.

Years ago I was exposed to the two Watergate laws of American Politics…

The first and most important:

“No matter how paranoid you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you can imagine”. The axiom has proven itself time and time again… There will always be other options, other possibilities and other directions things could have gone… but they went the way they did…

And to be honest, unless you are in the life and have the background to comment intelligently on these types of matters, it’s all a guess, based on evidence that may or may not even be authentic. Based on what I’ve seen and read, H&L is more probably than not… one thing’s for sure

LHO was neither Alone or a Nut.

Peace

DJ

Best regards,

Bernie

On 9/24/2012 at 3:03 PM, Greg Parker said:

David, it's been said to me -- and I agree -- that with all the evidence collected by Armstrong, he could have written the defining book on the case. Unfortunately he seems to have very early on tied himself to a theory that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I've said to you, I've got a lot more than what I've posted here. When I finally release it all, I expect it to be scrutinized and tested against other evidence and I want to ensure it can withstand that before I put it out. I'm also aware of new research being done by others which is nothing short of brilliant and ground-breaking. Neither mine, nor the new research of these others leads to any "Harvey".

I know it's a big book... but your dual Oswald's in NY and NO is now down to the memory of witnesses. And your Fort Worth - Atsugi dual Oswald's is likewise on its death-bed. The Weinstock - Gardos father/uncle allegation is no longer tenable. Those were the foundation stones on which this house of cards was built.

His raw material is infinitely more valuable than the book will ever be, and his making it freely available is a decision he deserves much kudos for, whatever other misgivings I may have about his book and methodology in writing it.

I'm nowhere near done either Greg.... but in all fairness, I will need to organize my thoughts into a post...

I'm sorry but I do not remember you making any progress on the DoD, Unit Diaries and medical records from Sept/Oct 1958.

Between those that remember Oswald from Taiwan, the DoD saying he never left, the Unit Diaries showing his leaving AND returning, his disappearance upon returning to Japan, & the supposed undocumented medical stay... I think we have more to discuss

He is listed as in the Hospital from Oct 7 thru the 13th... they just didn't bother to keep any records of it? http://www.history-m...ian_Ex_1.pdfyet

Yet recorded every other medical thing that occurs? (I believe he was sent 450 south for some purpose... I read in both Crossfire and in an Epstein book that he spent some time 450 miles south of Atsugi at (Inktani)sp?

More soon

DJ

Here is the document...

and I agree... buy and read the book as a WHOLE... put the puzzle together before you decide the picture is not correct...

DJ

Sorry David,

I was not trying to misrepresent you. I know you still cling to Harvey having been there in '53, but I thought you were conceding that the Beauregard record could no longer be used to support such a notion.

It would help if you would state what you believe a bit more clearly.

[...]

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

I agree, Greg. Perhaps David should start proof reading his posts before (and after) he posts them. I find some of them hard to follow.

--Tommy

I agree as well guys... I very rarely have uninterrupted JFK time... So I tend to compose, do a quick double check and go... I will be more aware of it and my need for clarity...

I greatly appreciate the patience and conversation... I learned a few things for sure, yet I remain in contact with Armstrong and will hopefully get my own chance to visit with Palmer in the coming months...

For the record - nothing about this os personal...

Greg... it's gotten to be like siblings with us, those who like you enough to be brutally honest, yet caring enough to keep at it... so thanks...

More to come....

DJ

So again I ask; how coincidental would it be for two unrelated boys, whose identities are being manipulated into one single entity for future espionage purposes over a seven year period, fortuitously and beyond anyone's intervention, also grow to strongly resemble each other as well? The odds are too mind-blowing to even contemplate. Wouldn't you agree?

If you're asking what the odds are of two boys from the late 30's growing up to look alike... it would take some work (I'min the idds business)... yet I still think you have missed the point... the likeness is really not all that similiar... and I don;t understand why I cannot convey that to you...

I do NOT believe the LEE was used to impersonate HARVEY... LEE was always Lee... the mystery is who HARVEY was and that HE becomes the Marine who defects... WE say they looked alike from the images, but they don't... they look similiar...

I cannot tell you the "plan" for how and why OSwald was created... CIA?? KBG?? other? I don't know Bernie... What I do know is the "plan" makes sense in the context of the times... the more I study the TIMES the more I appreciate the level of depravity in the planning and implementation of COUNTER intelligence and the attempts to uncover it.

I wish I could give you more... besides the books avaiable

DJ

Ca

n you just maybe give a simple "yes" or "no". Do you still believe that this exhibit is proof that "Harvey" attended Beauregard in 1953?

Greg.... Looking again at CE1413 I am rethinking my position... I do not believe that THIS RECORD is proof of HARVEY... any longer.

His grade cards Show the two 70's .... I believe this is solely LEE's records of BJHS and we must rely on other proof of HARVEY being in NOLA that FALL.

Obviously there is nothing but memories of an Oswald there during that time.... FBi is more thorough than I give credit for....

DJ