David Josephs

A very nice "coming clean" with the victims families applauding... damage done, we're sorry... (but we may be doing the same in other areas as we speak...) Second Watergate Law of "American" politics "Don't believe anything until it has been officially denied" All one need do is listen to ANY news show, read ANY paper or periodical... When was the last government denial of wrongdoing EVER shown to be honest and correct?

Greg, why does each and every post appear as if you're in a corner and fighting tooth and nail to get out of it? Seems to me that DSL had a number of supporters and helpers along the way... some people use "WE" when describing the work accomplished, some "I"... he was still at the top of that pyramid of research... so why all the hostility? Furthermore... what makes you so certain that a small high school occurance - described second hand thru another's letter - would even BE in a newspaper story? There is just as good a chance that nothing was EVER written about this incident... and you STILL have an 11/23 statement, a very descriptive and detailed statement, placing Oswald with McBride in 1957/58.... Since that causes such problems - you know like that pesky frontal throat injury - it just had to be a MISTAKE, had to be CORRECTED... gee, where have we heard THAT before.... Since you and David believe it is impossible for the US MARINES to be right about where their soldiers are at any given moment and they can't figure out if someone has boarded a ship or not and EVERY document places him on that ship to Taiwan and returning in October - except for the STD treatments in Japan.... I guess you conclude whatever you like. Meanwhile, the rest of us see a little more, a little deeper and are interested enough to actually research the information, study it, analyze it... and come to the conclusion that even if some of the evidence is wrong, there is STILL enough conflict with John Pic and Robert... with the inconsistencies of the woman claiming to be M. Oswald - and the records of the Marines and school systems to conclude something was VERY WRONG with the information related to Oswald's past. What you think is or is not "logical" or "possible" or "ridiculous" is really not the issue Greg... personal opinions aside, there is quite a lot of evidence to support H&L right there in the WCR... So hang your hat on Aspergers and MISTAKES while the rest of us lok at the documents and interviews and see conflict after conflict and ask WHY? Myra takes Oswald home to 126 Exchange where his mother is either a nurse or a bar waitress Myrtle Evans has the Oswalds staying at her apt on St. Mary's... EVEN IF this is in the Spring of 1954... you STILL have two boys with the same name going to the same school living in two different places. and you STILL do not have anyone saying he was NOT THERE in Sept 1953 other than the state of NY. Finally, I see you've chosen to engage DSL and DSL only as this seems like an argument that you can hold out on and win as it is a matter of opinions... That you don't or can't address the school record for 1953/54 and 54/55 at BJHS and it showing OSwald attending 2 classes for 89 days in the FALL of 1953 is your problem, not mine. The record is very clear and the witnesses are as well... Good luck with DSL... I'm done showing you how wrong your rebuttal evidence is and how you incorrectly interpret the records. This is pretty simply stuff Greg... One document details Oswald's trip to Taiwan... one his treatment in Japan... both at the same time -posted below AGAIN. With the UNIT DIARIES also listing his leaving and returning with a count of officers and enlisted... you REALLY going to stand your ground that each and every one of these documents is wrong, that the US MARINES does not know how many people get on and off their ships? Your right to do so Greg... but we have to be done here then. At some point, evidence that points to the US GOVT and its "actions" or the fact that Oswald was innocent of the murder will be finally accepted as the truth... Boone and Weitzman DID see a Mauser Baker and Truly did NOT incounter Oswald in the lunchroom or anywhere else for that matter IMO... (man on the stairs becomes Oswald in the lunchroom) Hill found auto shells up to 8 shots where fired in DP Klein's/FBI made sure not to allow comparison of the HIDELL order to any other order EVER... Seaport/REA NEVER gets paid for it item or services the MO was never processed the rifle and hulls were planted - the only way our three black men on the 5th hear ANYTHING is if the shots came from somewhere else (Dal-tex roof) and past the TSBD SE corner... for if they were indeed 10 feet from the muzzle blast, all three would have been deaf - or have a very bad ringing - for a good 20 minutes afterward and on and on... do you, in your heart of hearts believe the CIA was not capable of such a program as to "breed" a spy and create a false history? kinda makes the cover up thing even more important, the "kill Fidel" cover-up may have been nothing compared to covering up an ongoing and possibly successful spy creation and infultration program.... DJ

Thanks James... And a very good observation about the use of photos to convey lies.... The JC stand-in sure is close to that door.... how far over must he REALLY have been for that trajectory to work.. you know, the one OVER JFK's SHOULDER and directly into JC's armpit... Hey, wait a minute... a shot over the shoulder from behind and to his right COULD hit JC in just the right way... too bad there weren't any extra shots heard by anyone... or any bullets picked up in places where there shouldn't be...

Robert You might just try READING the book before being so dismissive. Dawn I see you are in touch with my old friend Rachel. She's good people. A touch of class and common sense... thanks Dawn. With regards to the Three Tramps reference I believe I have already created a thread that shows conclusively that the three men in the photos are not the men who spend 2-3 days of a 6 day sentence in the Dallas jails. Nor are the policemen who claim to have been involved with the "dirty tramps" shown in the DP photos. There were two sets of tramps... there were two sets, or more, of MANY MANY things in DP that day... which added to the post assassination confusion and allowed MANY MANY witnesses to be correct while at the same time be completely off base to the accepted "FACTS" of the case. (TWO SETS OF SS AGENTS?) just ask Haygood who he encounters at the back of the TSBD... Cheers DJ

Maybe this Dan? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pdf/HSCA_Report_0A_Preface.pdf B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations. C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy. http://911research.com/ http://911research.c...aluminothermics The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. The present review of the paper and related research is intended to summarize those findings for the non-technical reader. To that end, I first provide a short introduction to the subject of aluminothermic explosives, then outline the methods and results of analysis of the dust samples, and finally explore the significance of these findings. The discovery of unexploded super-thermite in the WTC dust augments a large body of evidence pointing to the use of aluminothermic materials in the destruction of the skyscrapers. The present review looks only at the evidence of explosives found in the dust and debris expelled from the Twin Towers. Even before WTC dust was subjected to the kind of microscopic scrutiny described in Active Thermitic Material Discovered, several features of the dust analysis published by the USGS pointed to the use of aluminothermics. For example, the USGS data shows high levels of barium -- a fact that is difficult to explain, barring pyrotechnics. The high levels of iron and aluminum in the dust -- each ranging from 1.3 to 4.1 percent of the dust samples by weight -- also appears anomalous, although prosaic sources of the metals can be imagined. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics: It is composed of intimately mixed aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper. [4,6] The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing. On treatment with methyl-ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components was observed. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430ºC, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron-oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900ºC) but very likely a form of super-thermite. After igniting several red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter run to 700ºC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and of many of the micro-spheres found in the WTC dust. [5] The presence of an organic substance in the red material is expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of this organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.

My own words in blue I remind you that Oswald spoke of a situation at a HIGH SCHOOL... not in a white neighborhood protesting the moving in of a black family.... Isn't this what you posted McBride said Oswald said in his letter? "In this letter he stated he had gotten mixed-up in an anti-Negro or an anti-Communist riot in a high school grounds in Ft. Worth, Texas." You want us to believe that any reference to a disturbance in Ft Worth is THE SPECIFIC SITUATION Oswald was referring to? Give us a break Greg. You have no idea whether or not one thing has to do with another... nor do you even know if whatever Oswald may have been referring to even MADE a newspaper. But you're never too short of supposition and conclusion based on incomplete data, as long as it supports your argument. With regards to John Pic and your Cherry-picking - 4 lines of his testimony Greg? 4? When he was shown the entire LIFE spread and correctly picked HARVEY from LEE in every case. Again... this type of posting is not worthy of you - go to the Exhibits and follow along... : Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 http://www.history-m...Vol16_0413a.htm 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. Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother? Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow. Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow? Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir. Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is. 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? 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. The Crux of the whole matter - Robert claiming he took the Bronz Zoo photo and claiming it was LEE, when it is obvious to all except you that the boy on the fence is not the 5'4" 115lbs LEE. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. This is the famous toothless photo in the classroom - again, possibly ROBERT, but not LEE 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. I believe it was OSwald who tells us that his brother used to impersonate him at school.. Pic seems to feel a couple of these photos are actually Robert and not Lee.... 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. Mr. JENNER - Do you recognize the person, the lady to the right who is pointing her finger at him? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. 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. Mr. JENNER - All right. Exhibit No. 288, there is ill the lower left-hand corner, there is a reproduction of a service card and a reproduction, also, of a photograph with the head of a man. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - That looks to me approximately how Lee Oswald looked when I seen him Thanksgiving 1962. This was when Pic tells us that his brother has changed DRASTICALLY and that he would NOT recognize that person as his brother Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them. Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 290, the lower left-hand corner there is a photograph of a young lady and a young man. Do you recognize either of those persons? Mr. PIC - He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him. Once again he does not say "My Brother" but the Lee Oswald he say in Nov 1962 - which he would not say was his brother. Mr. JENNER - And the lady? Mr. PIC - She is his wife, Marina, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother? Mr. PIC - That is correct. As we all know... the leaflets were handed out by HARVEY... John chooses LEE from HARVEY in every instance... but you'll tell us he is MISTAKEN as you have no other rebuttal. and at Thanksgiving 1962:. Mr. JENNER - How did he look to you physically as compared with when you had seen him last? Mr. PIC - I would have never recognized him, sir. Mr. JENNER - How did he look to you physically as compared with when you had seen him last? Mr. PIC - I would have never recognized him, sir. Mr. JENNER - Did you have the impression when you saw him on Thanksgiving of 1962 that in the meantime he had become embittered, resentful of his station? Mr. PIC - Well, sir; the Lee Harvey Oswald I met in November of 1962 was not the Lee Harvey Oswald I had known 10 years previous. "The leader vs introvert "problem" is explicable once you understand he had Asperger's" Look Greg, you want to stay with Aspergers - cause you feel it fits the description - that's your perogative People with Aspergers do not grow 6 inches from week to week and then get shorter again. They do not change their appearance at ages 12, 13 & 14 so much so their own brother cannot recognize them They can't live in two places at once, they cant BE in two places at once - no matter how hard you hope and pray. You got caught with your DoD letter - they say he stayed behind, YOU say he was flown back - you have no idea what you're saying when trying to explain away his being in two places at once other than MISTAKES and Aspergers... you don't even believe the DoD letter since he WAS on the ship in the Unit Diary - so you make up something about being flown back without a shred of proof. You suppose if he actually HAD Aspergers it would have been identified by now? You'd think John Simkin would include such a thing in his biography of Oswald? Wouldn't the behavior ALSO be indicative of being ordered to cause disturbances, to behave AGAINST your normal demeanor and give the IMPRESSION of some other situation so that a memory is created? He was described - HARVEY that is, as a quiet, loner, yet repeatedly he or someone pretending to be him causes disturbances wherever he goes - TO GET NOTICED. You're sounding alot like the McAdams crowd - when the evidence doesn't support their position - it's complete crap... when it does - it's golden. The USMARINES place Oswald on a ship to and from Taiwan at the same time he is treated in Japan - you have him leaving and flying back, the DoD has him never leaving to begin with... yet they do not begin to explain the Unit Diaries of his return... which shows that if he was in Japan - he STILL was able to get on a ship in Taiwan... or the recap of his military career below... And finally, related to THE SCHOOL YEAR... it starts in September Greg... 89 days from Sept 1953 brings us to the SPRING semester.... You do see grades for two classes on that line - right? You do see 1 absence and 89 days of attendance on the LINE ABOVE THE SPRING SEMESTER? You do see 90 days in the SPRING SEMESTER? With grades in all classes... the individual reports cards show him in homeroom 303 - LEE was in 303, HARVEY was with Myra. So Greg, how are there Phys Ed and Gen Science grades in the FALL semester Sept 1953-Jan 1954 with 89 days of attendence if he is at PS44 in NYC? On Jan 13, 1954 LEE begins school at BJHS after moving from NYC, LEE's homeroom is 303. It is THIS YEAR that their public school lives become one historical record It is also this year that LEE is living on St. Mary's and HARVEY is at 126 Exchange... Aspergers and MISTAKES is what you've put your faith and support in to rebute the WCR documentation showing the existence of two LEE HARVEY Oswald's and ultimately the sending of one - the russian speaking one, to russia under "protection of the US Government" HARVEY said that too Greg... and please stop generalizing... we are not talking about EVERY OSWALD SIGHTING being either H or L... we both know there was other activity related to Oswald that had nothing to do with either HARVEY or LEE... unless it was LEE doing the impersonating.... Could Odio have seen LEE with the other two men - are you going to say it is not even possible that LEE was the crazy marine and played the part? DJ

I'm beginning to finally understand how you've got yourself so confused about this. What it shows is a commencement date of 1/13/54. I would assume that date falls within the 53/54 school year. A quick check tells me that that school years vary from state to state and county to county. IN Alabama for instance, most counties start the school year in August and end it the following May. There are 2 classes and 89 days of attendance you seem to be forgetting on the first line of 53-54. Along with Myra DeRouse. The third line is a TOTAL of the two semesters... 89 in one 90 in another. It SAYS he attended 179 days with 5 absences. How do you not see that? the 1954-1-13 written there could be ANYTHING Greg... as it would be impossible for him to go to 89 days of school unless he was there from September on... Not sure that a half inch in growth and an extra pound over a 4 month period should be described as a transformation for a young teen. And measuring height isn't an exact science. Posture/footwear/eye of measurer all have a bearing on accuracy. The leader vs introvert "problem" is explicable once you understand he had Asperger's. People with this condition can and do move back and forth between those extremes depending on the environment they are in and the people around them. Finally, Pic never said the boy in the photo was not Lee. That is mischaracterizing his testimony. 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. Saying you don't recognize someone is not the same as saying it's not them, and you shouldn't need to keep stretching the evidence to make it fit if it is as clear cut as you maintain. To my mind, his not recognizing Lee is completely explicable. He rarely ever saw him over many many years. Greg, you don't post the entire interview or realize the amount of info supplied by Jenner in his questions... this is one of MANY ANSWERS in which he repeatedly picks LEE as his brother and does not recognize HARVEY. Sorry David, but that is just silly on its face. What it does show is ( a ) your admittance that McBride can no longer be used in the manner he has been and ( b ) your willingness to find some other use for him to keep this fantasy going. Since there was NOTHING left in the records by people hoping to leave clues to what might actually have happened... McBride's statement stands just as strongly as Weitzman and Boone's ID of a Mauser... they can claim from now to forever they were MISTAKEN... doesn't change what was said and recorded that weekend. Don't you say something about info from then as opposed to more recently in you profile?

I have checked google news archives and cannot find any news stories from 1958 about any riots in Forth Worth. Period. Regardless of their nature. The official timeline has Oswald moving to Collinswood St, Fort Worth in July, 1956... and Lo... I found a number of stories of riots in and around Fort Worth from early September, 1956 Here is one of those stories Ft Worth riot one Here is another scroll down to this sub-head violence threatens So long McBride... so long "Harvey"... Not so fast there Greg.... now that I’ve looked at these AGAIN, I see where you’re allowed to make wild suppositions and call them conclusions… You ought to be ashamed of yourself for this post – The “Ft Worth riot” you refer to says “National Guardsmen called to CLINTON TENNESSEE…” the protest had to do with the admission of negro children to a school in CLINTON TN. In Ft. Worth there were 150 people outside a negro’s house as he moved into an ALL WHITE STREET." THIS is the rebuttal to Oswald’s talking about a riot IN THE SCHOOL GROUNDS?… You honestly think the papers would report on a local SCHOOL PLAYGROUND RIOT? OK… how about that second link? That would be the SAME SCHOOL IN CLINTON TN and a few kids at a school in Ft Worth, mentioned as an afterthought, the last three paragraphs of the article that included PARENTS with their children stringing up a negro dummy on a flagpole… So you are saying, since YOU cannot find an article about a 1958 incident at a school in Ft Worth… it had to be wrong. Same with DSL... Quite a stretch there Greg…. Good thing we don’t just believe everything YOU post, right? and who says something at a school would even warrant a story? Ft Worth is only mentioned here as they are talking racial tension in CLINTON TN... which is about 900 miles from Ft Worth... Your links as supporting evidence have been terribly poor in each and every case... Your arguments agains add up to no riot story, McBride was mistaken, and the records of the US MARINES are FUBAR even though the DoD does not support YOUR claim that he was flown back to Japan. Meanwhile I have document after document, photo afet photo and the conflicting testimony of his brothers... one - Robert - obviously lying as he tries to remember which brother did what... and John who pick HARVEY from LEE in every case... You've proven nothing... nor have you been able to deal with the records beyond claiming "mistakes are made" The MARINES place him in Taiwan at the same time he is treated for STD in Japan. as well as on the boat BACK from Taiwan on the 5th... Your FBI witnesses were NOT asked about 1953 for some reason - the FBI knew better. and BOTH OSWALDS were in NOLA, one at 126 Exchange, one at 1454 St Mary's at the Evans'. Since you provide no rebutall beyond MISTAKES - I trust you will once again point out how any and all info supporting H&L is simply a mistake... and what you offer as evidence is ironclad and unimpeachable... {cough cough} sorry too much BS stuck in my throat on that last comment....

Thanks B... kinda shows that JFK should have a nice hole in the center of his right pectoral muscle... and NOTHING at his throat... While the Spector image works since he is resting the pointer on the man's shoulder... and JC is sitting next to the door... Spector blows his own theory out of the water with this photo alone.

Please explain to me, if you would, just why you believe there is anything inconsistent between Oswald having attended P.S. 44 in New York City, in the fall of 1953, and then starting Beauregard Junior High School on January 13, 1954, as the records clearly indicate. Thank you. I would like to try, as to me they clearly indicate a child attending a limited number of classes after transferring from a school whose designation is not quite correctly stated. 53-07 has Oswald transferring to PS44 on 1-16-53 after being truant most of the end of 1952. (This is when Robert LIES about visiting him and his family in NYC… Robert has to be in Ft Worth… where Stripling is, where his brother is supposedly going to school…). Oswald, after 1-16-53, does not appear ANYWHERE officially until in March 1953 he begins attending PS44 regularly… he is TRANSFORMED as a student… . In May 1953 LEE is 5’3 ½” 114lbs, in September, he is officially recorded as 5’4” 115lbs, leader… NOT the boy in the Bronx zoo photo who John Pic says is NOT LEE, while Robert insists is his brother. That boy, HARVEY is with Myra in the fall and winter 1953 in NOLA which is why not a single one of the FBI witnesses were asked about 1953… not one David. And those who answered about 1954 are all over the board… read their testimony and see yourself.… in Feb 1954, when MYRA drops him off at 126 Exchange – where the photo of the sitting and very sad Mrs. O. At this same time LEE has moved back with his mother to 1454 St Mary’s, Myrtle Evans’ apartment. I will post my entire reply soon which addresses the Evan’s interviews/testimony about the person who was LEE Oswald. 54-22 shows OSWALD attending BJHS in NOLA… it shows him taking 2 classes, scoring 70 in both and gaining 22 units which are added to some numbers to total 71.8, attending 89 days and being absent 1 time; 53-54 in the upper left and in three rows in the middle: FALL – SPRING and TOTAL all add up in every direction. His brother Robert, while knowing/denying his visit to his mother, brother john, sister in law, nephew and Lee, in NYC in the fall of 1952, places him at Stripling and then lies about his visit to NYC. One can say he meant that his brother SHOULD have been at Stripling… this goes to the heart of WHY LIE ABOUT NYC in the fall of 1952? Mr. JENNER. Did you see them? Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not at that time. I spent my leave in Fort Worth, because I did not feel I had enough time to travel to New York and down to Jacksonville, Fla Mr. PIC - I think this was, his leave was probably in October or November 1952, a matter of a month or two after they had moved out. We visited their apartment in the Bronx. Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, where did your brother stay? Mr. PIC - I think he stayed at the Soldier-Sailor-Airmen Club in New York. Mr. JENNER - In any event he did not stay with you. Mr. PIC - No, sir; he may have stayed with my mother also. I don't think so. Maybe for a night or two. We went out, my wife fixed him up with a date with one of her girl friends and we went out together a couple of times. So, we were invited up there for this Sunday dinner. So it was my mother, Lee, Robert, my wife, myself, and my son Repeatedly and consistently John Pic differentiates between HARVEY and LEE. Not once is he mistaken. Robert is caught repeatedly in lies and is the object of a number of quotes from his brother stating that photos purporting to be LEE are actually more like Robert. I would also ask that you read Jenner's questioning carefully... HE is the one filling in the blanks for Robert... repeatedly... as if HE knows the script and Robert is helplessly following along. 1952/53/54 and 58 are amazing transitional years and are more worthy of your study and attention. Maybe, just maybe McBride was left in the record to begin such an investigation… to expose some inconsistencies in the records that ought to be checked… it’s a pretty glaring mistake to say 1958 when he knows he had just changed jobs, was a young man and 2 years in the life of a 18-20 year old is a big deal.... and he repeats the year 1958 over and over in his statement... yet since it conflicts and simply CANNOT BE... it wasn't. kinda like saying and signing a statement about a 7.65 Mauser – the DAY AFTER IT HAS ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED – and you know, just being MISTAKEN…. cause, y'know... that just doesn't work for us. DJ DSL 9/8/12; 11 AM PDT Laguna Beach, California

Greg... thanks for the backhanded compliment.... I am not hinging all of H&L on McBride because his is only one piece of a very large puzzle... his statement as posted and discovered is no different than finding the FBI's "surgery to the head"... it's written there of course.... does this statement alone lead to the body alteration conclusion? of course not... but it stated the ball rolling... The differences in the appearance of the head from Dallas to Humes' statement as corroborated by MANY witnesses sets that stage. I also do not take what you post lightly - your opinions and work carry weight with me - yet I think you are studying the veins in a leaf rather than see the tree. I happen to believe the CIA/USGov't is capable of ANYTHING, including H&L, especially during the early Cold War.... just ask Gottlieb. I don't think it is as much Armstrong's presentation as much as the way the docs show the CIA/USG covering up something related to very specific times in Oswald's life. I'm going to respect your position and leave it at that. The documents and their sources... the missing records and the reasons... the contradictions in the memories of Oswald's past... and the SIGN OF THE TIMES leads me to believe there is much more to H&L than your rebuttals suggest. When over and over the FBI stays away from 1953/54 yet can reach 7 and more of these classmates and not ask ONE about that school year... while creating a boilerplate statement they never actually say or sign. It is not my position here to convince you of what the record shows us. I believe you've over simplified the situation and have dismissed the actions of the CIA in its Cold War programs that could easily have created this type of scenario. Are there inconsistencies and questions - yep, just like every other area of this case.... I BELIEVE YOU SAW A DIFFERENT ZFILM... no proof but your word and that others also saw it and the core belief there is something wrong with the zfilm... There is something very wrong with the history of Oswald and there is much in the way of evidence to suggest the melding of two seperate people... Did it happen? who knows? Is it possible - that's a BIG YES... pausible... yes... intelligence prints all over him? yes... the desire get loyal soldiers into Russia under deep cover? yes.... Atsugi? yes. I will continue reading and learning... I also hope you continue to find my work in this and other areas worth reviewing and informative. Peace DJ

Steve, I was not "pre-mature" anything. I was just asking questions, and seeking to straighten out the record. Which I think I did. DSL So once again the comments from 30 years later trump the statements made that weekend...? cause they did not fit with the "official" story.. while these other NON SIGNED STATEMENTS help set the record MORE straight than before... OK... and I guess McClellend, Perry and Jones were all wrong as well... bummer. Hasn't the Boyijean document been proven a fake yet David? and then all those lies told by Dennis David and the rest of the casket bearers... other than that document and a few statements that were of course MISTAKEN... the 6:35 entry NEVER HAPPENED. and then of course G & K & S & O never did bring in a casket at 7:17... just a slip of the tongue... you know - a MISTAKE. So interesting how one author's facts are another's MISTAKES.... the idea of two people becoming one Oswald is so much more far-fetched than operating on JFK in the belly of AF-1... or taking a hammer/saw to his skull an hour BEFORE the actual autopsy... Witness statements and authenticated evidence is all we have David... and I don't believe that H&L hinges it's existance on McBride when there are scores of other conflicting documents to support the theory right there in the WCR. DJ

Just a quick note... - I have the Morning Kansas City Star (KC Times) from September 28, 1964 - Warren Report Day... "Seconds later shots resounded... The President's hands moved to his neck..... "The governor was hit by a bullet which entered at the extreme right side of his back.... "Another bullet then struck Pres Kennedy in the rear portion of his head.... my bolding I have scanned them and will post what I can soon.... but here we are months later and each time they describe Connally's wounds they DO NOT equate the bullet thru the neck of JFK as the same bullet that hit JC... but they also don't exactly say it wasn't.... and I quote.... "One bullet passed thru the Pres' neck; a subsequent bullet which was lethal, shattered the right side of his skull. Gov Connally sustained bullet wounds in his back, the right side of his chest, right wrist , and left thigh." ".... Gov Connally was certain that he was hit with the second shot, which he stated he did not hear." DJ... FWIW

David... This is McBride's statement on NOVEMBER 23, 1963 - can you explain how it is that Armstrong got to him between 1pm 11/22 and this interview? and how him telling you something in 1994 should supercede his statement from the weekend of the assassination. As opposed to his telling you what YOU wanted to hear... no chance he was MISTAKEN when talking to you as opposed to the FBI? What is a researcher supposed to do when he sees a statement like this, goes directly to the source and the source stands by the statement. it is NOT CONCEIVABLE to either you or Greg that the mistakes are occurring on YOUR SIDE of the equation.... and this statement from THAT WEEKEND is his true account? Are you amazed since this somehow got thru the FBI evidence screens ... that it so contradicts the actual timeline for the man as to render the "official timeline" useless in determining where he was and when... McBride is only the tip of the iceberg here... the contradictions appear in the documents offered by the WCR thru the FBI and are further corroborated in person. DeRouse is not some made up person... John not recognizing his brother is REAL.... One quick look thru Armstrong's work at Baylor and I found a listing of the different heights recorded for this ONE MAN that range from 5'5" to 5'11" and from 130lbs to 165 lbs.... from small, scrawny, quiet loner to LEADER of the group, a boy that NEVER backed down... HARVEY versus LEE... You will notice that Greg and his witnesses only deal with 1954/55 and NEVER the 53/54 school year... the FBI was very careful NOT to ask about this year of transition as a youth nor to deal with the actual switch in Sept/Oct 1958.... from LEE, to HARVEY as Lee... who was then sent to Russia... To reiterate... this is PM's statement to the FBI on 11/23/63 - how does this statement get colored by Armstrong's work 30 years later? http://www.history-m...H22_CE_1386.pdf "I, PALMER E. McBRIDE hereby furnish the following free and voluntary statement to JOHN R, PALMER who I know to be a Special Agent of the FBI . I have been advised that this statement can be used in a court of law . No threats or have promises been made to me . "I was born on November 29, 1937, at New Orleans, Louisiana . I enlisted in the United States Air Force on November 25, 1960, and since June 15, 1961, I have been assigned to Patrick Air Force Base, Florida . I am presently an Airman Second Class assigned to the 6550th Maintenance Group with Air Force Serial Number AF 25589222 . "In about June, 1955, I went to work as a dental messenger for the Pfisterer Dental Laboratory Company in the 200 block of Dauphine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana . In about December, 1957, a young man named LEE OSWALD was employed in the same capacity . Because we both enjoyed classical music I invited him to my home at 1416 Baronne Street, New Orleans, and he did visit my home perhaps two or three times . I was living with my parents at that time, and during his visits we would listen to records in my room . 'During his first visit to my home in late 1957 or early 1958 the discussion turned to politics and to the possibility of war . At this time I made a statement to the effect that President DWIGHT EISENHOWER was doing a pretty good job for a man of his age and background, but that I did feel On 11/23/63 ., Patrick Air Force BasJ-F;I, A TP 62-455 by: SA JOHN R, PALMER : tune Dar, dictated: 11/26/63 "In early 1958 I took OSWALD with me to a meeting of the new Orleans Amatuer Astronomy Association at the home of WALTER GEHERKE, 208 Hector Ave ., Metaire, Louisiana . This meeting was presided over by the Association resident, WILLIAM EUGENE WULF, JR ., 2107 Annunciation Street, New Orleans. At this meeting I recall that Mr . WULF told OSWALD that if he liked Russia so damn much why didn't he go over there .' I do not know what OSWALD had said to bring forth this remark from WULF . David... did you have him sign one of these? "I have read and initialled each page and all corrections on this six page statement . I declare that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . "/S/ PALMER EDWIN McBRIDE When asked, Slater and Fiorello say 1956.... yet their statements do not bear their signatures.... So WHO to believe? Eighteen-year-old Palmer McBride was one of the delivery boys who had been working at Pfisterer's for the past two years (he continued working at Pfisterer's until mid-August, 1958). Other delivery boys included 18-year-old Lionel Slater, 77 a native of New Orleans who began work at Pfisterer's in 1955, 28 year old John Ulmer, also a native of New Orleans,78 and 18-year-old Paul Fiorello.

Joe... As I am gettiong only GMACK's reply to your email...or in reply to this thread... not sure... He keeps harping on these yellow strips here and there in Dallas... I see them equally spaced on Commerce in an overhead of DP from 1967 ... Whether they were there on 11/22, well, that would be a good question... Joe, it's just as plausible a GK shooter would use those marks anyway... whether they were "fresh" is something I'd like to see a bit more proof on... now that I see them on Commerce... My original on this is very large...I thought I uploaded the big one... if you can find it... you too will easily see the yellow curbs (edit: I hear what you're saying re: the trunk... and that may indeed be Altgens for a frame or two... just a thought. regarding math... when CL finally gets the connection between the DATA and the DECEPTION, - that whole "recreation" bs is just that, the data offered was not to substantiate the RECREATION... but the Zfilm itself - we can talk about math... that he doesn't understand the distances, timing, frame #'s etc... is his own fault. it's basic math and all the whining in the world about RECREATIONS doesn't change it.. the theory has been disproven... Altgens is there, or just barely there, or needn't be... fine. Doesn't change what he said, where he was, and where the WCR tell us he should have been.)

Tom... back and to the LEFT - right Tom? Cause our man Hoover was going to reverse the frames so that it appeared that he was thrown forward... but got caught... There was only so much that could be changed... and besides... it can be "explained" away... jet-effects.. corset, whatever... but to remove the entire shot sequence was probably no possible and the BEST EVIDENCE was going to be the final word in any case. Joe... I should add that the man to Altgens' right should also be seen.. if that blob is Foster.... if not... then maybe not I agree on your assessment of the agnles and such - I am simply going on the assumption that if we see Hill/Moorman... and Hill very pronounced... why not see a significant presence of Altgens there... RE: the yellow curbs... GMACK emailed me to say it was SOP for curbs to be painted... happened all the time My questions: 1) what is the EXACT distance between the painted curbs 2) where are the yellow marks on the north side of Elm, Main? IOW - other than the fresh paint on Elm... when the crew was out there painting... where else in DP did they put these yellow curbs and what exactly was the need for these curbs on the South side of Elm... what were they helping/doing at those spots? Seems to me - the only way to see these marks and for them to have any use would be from the North side of Elm I wonder what the criteria is for placing these curbs... GMACK? Craig... yes indeed CL... when Z was pointing toward Jean, she was seen in the trunk's reflection... Altgens is standing at very near the same angle/distance from Z>limo>Altgens as Hill... All I am saying is IF there was a composite done, the REFLECTIONS on the surfaces in the images SHOULD all work. Agreed John, Also nice to have more eyes looking at these things... but if all that was done was removal of frames... the reflection should all be fine... Reading again thru the Z timeline... I am convinced there was another 16mm copy available by Saturday morning... EVERYONE says Zapruder keeps the original and best copy EVERYONE states that Sorrels gets the other two copies ONE goes to the FBI, ONE stays in Dallas MAX PHILLIPS sends yet another copy to Rowley When Zavada states that altering a 8mm film was virtually impossible at the time... he makes no mention of 16mm film yet implies that any and all work on film is done at the 16mm level... The splitting or non-splitting of the original after printing is crucial... I do not think it was split, and I believe copies were made on the same source film as was in the camera... Let's also remember that the FBI does not conclude 18.3 for a few weeks... they did NOT have the camera... supposedly. the NPIC that weekend is tasked with identifying frames with shots yet is not understanding why they are to use 18 instead of 16fps On the first page of CIA450 it shows the confusing over 1) how did Life already place the 1st (190) and 2nd shots (264) with accuracy? 2) And since we already have Life's sequence, are these notes from Sat or Sun? 3) Finally... how can one determine the frames and timing when they did NOT have the camera... yet already KNEW - three weeks ahead of time - what the "accepted" speed of the camera would be. Page 1 also asks WHY 16 versus 18?

In and around Z303 we easily see the movement of Jean and Mary across the limo trunk We also see Ms Foster as a off colored blob againbs the darker background in 312/313/314/315 I contend we SHOULD be able to see the man to Altgens right and Altgens himself move across the limo's trunk... yet it does not appear that they are reflected there... As we've been contending the film was "altered" using a mask just after we see moorman moving off camera and we have the huge expanse of green... and what "appears" to be a reflection of Foster... I am at a loss as to why all the people along the South of Elm are not seem moving over the trunk's reflection as we saw Hill and Moorman... Just seems to me that the limo reflection HAS to be consistent with the background movement... and it appears not to be DJ

I'll try explaining this yet again, David. You cite Derouse as evidence of two separate people because Derouse claims she taught Oswald in 1953 when the real Oswald was supposed to be in NY. Yet not one of those 7 students mentions 1953. They all say 54/55. Armstrong claimed that no one should dismiss McBride's statements to authorities about when he knew Oswald without interviewing him. Yet Armstrong was quite happy to dismiss those 7 students (among many other witnesses) without interviewing them. Seems he was only interested in interviewing those willing to support his theory. The rest, he could simply claim that the witness was mistaken or the FBI lied about what they said. Thus my comment about the game you guys play being rigged. Further, you claim that the FBI made Stripling records disappear because they were proof of 2 Oswalds - yet if your claims about Beauregard are correct, then how is it the FBI failed to make those disappear, as well? And why is it that proponents of this theory are the only people who claim there are problems with Beauregard records in the first place? the transcript also shows him taking only 2-3 classes for the FIRST SEMESTER (9/53 - 1/54) and attending 89 days of school with 1 absence from 1/54-6/54 he attended school 90 days with 4 absences Yet the PS44 records show him in NYC from 9/53 thru 1/54... If he didnt start at Beauregard until 1-13-54... how does he attend school for the entire 179 day school year when the SAME RECORD has him attending 168 days in the 54-55 year? Let's keep this civil Greg... I am NOT a cultist... there are obviously conflicting records and statements in many areas of this case... You have problems with the McBride statements... I have concerns with Robert Oswald, Marina Oswald, Marguerite Oswald and what John Pic all say about our LEE/HARVEY, where he was, when he was and who he was.... I have concerns with them too, but my concerns have nothing to do with mythical beings. That you continue to ignore the obvious physical differences described by witnesses along with the drastic ideological changes... AND the fact we cannot get an accurate height on HARVEY after 1958, nor do we see any images of LEE after 1958 with his mouth open showing his teeth bleeds right into this scenario being true... Yeah.... um... sure.... To conclude, I respect your opinion and your attempt at substantiation of this info... but I feel that a DoD letter stating something to be true when all the records indicate otherwise is not sufficient to superceded the existing records. Whatever. DJ Yes Greg... "whatever"... PLEASE, DONT address the records AGAIN... the RECORDS show him attending Beauregard from Sept 1953 for 79 days while the RECORDS show him attending PS44 from Sept 1953 for 62 Now let's look at your magnificent 7... Peggy Zimmerman - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her? http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=26 This FBI report tells us that - when the FBI recontacted her on April 1, 1964 - Peggy Z attended BJHS with Lee Harvey Oswald during the 1954-55 school year... Was she asked if she saw him in 1953/54? Nope.... Does she say anything else? Well, she says she was at BJHS for 3 years... 7th, 8th, and 9th grades... except she says she was in the 10th grade in 54/55 Real quality witness there Greg http://www.aarclibra...H25_CE_2233.pdf Mrs . PEGGY ZIMMERERMAN, 832 Avenue G, Marrero, Louisiana, actually that she attended Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans for three years and recalled that LEE HARVEY OSWALD also attended during the 1954-55 school year . She said she did not know him well enough to even speak to him but seems to recall that he may have been in her home room as the tenth grade was set up alphabetically . She does not recall having any classes with him Which means that in the 54/55 school year Oswald was also in 10th grade... ?? But that can't be Greg... Oswald was in the 9th grade - I know Greg... just another one of those MISTAKES that just happen with regularity in this case.. This was the FIRST CONTACT on 11/25... and she described Oswald this way : She said she did not know him well enough to even speak to him but seems to recall that he may have been in her home room as the tenth grade was set up alphabetically . She does not recall having any classes with him . She did state, however that he was always alone and did not appear to have any friends . According to Myrtle and Julian Evans, the loud, boisterous Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard when he lived in their building at 1454 St. Marys Street during the first half of 1954. Mrs. EVANS - Well, it might have been a little later. It could have been in May or June of 1954, but possibly a little earlier than that. I can't remember that well enough to be definite on the month. Mr. JENNER - Where was this apartment? Mrs. EVANS - 1454 St. Mary Street, apartment 6, but now finally Margie decided that she couldn't afford that apartment, and moved, despite the fact that I was renting it to her for less than I would have anybody else, and I told her that. She came in one day and told me, "Myrtle, I am going to give the apartment up." She told me that she had seen a house out around St. Bernard that would be cheaper. She said she had rode around and looked at the house, and she thought that she would take it. Mr. JENNER - She had an automobile? Mrs. EVANS - No; she rode the bus out there. Mr. JENNER - She had no complaints about your apartment, did she? She just had found a cheaper place to move to? Mrs. EVANS - Oh, she was perfectly happy in the apartment. She said she liked it, but that she just couldn't afford it. Mr. JENNER - Who else was in the apartment besides Marguerite? Mrs. EVANS - Just her and Lee. Mr. JENNER - You did see Lee after they returned from New York? Mrs. EVANS - Oh, yes; they lived at my house for, oh, I guess about 6 months. Mr. JENNER - Including Lee? Mrs. EVANS - Oh, yes. HARVEY and the short MO lived at 126 Exchange during the time he went to Beauregard in the Fall of 1953 Whereas LEE is living at 1454 St. Mary after he moved back from NYC... Peggy Z is the quality evidence and the witnesses you want to use to support your argument AGAINST H&L having attended in 1953? WHATEVER Well, let’s see if it gets any better… Mrs Bernierita Smith - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her? http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=26 This too is a RECONTACT follow up report from this one: http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=332096 yet like Peggy, there does not seem to be anything new in the April 1 RECONTACT in fact... the verbiage between Peggy's 4/1 report and Berni's is identical, as if the FBI had a simply statement to reconfirm... but for what reason? Did they go back and ask her about the 53/54 year... the one WE ARE TALKING ABOUT? doesn't seem so, not even at the WC... this is the whole thing. Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in understanding that you attended Beauregard Junior High School at the same time that Lee Oswald did? Mrs. SMITH. Yes, sir. They already had the more complete 11/25 statements Can you think of a reason for these RECONTACTS when the results do not add anything to the record? Sure be nice to see if any one of the FBI agents actually ASKED about 1953/54 as the records for that year are the problem, not 54/55. And when asked at the WC, they are not specific about which year they are referring to… We both KNOW Oswald attends BJHS in 54/55… no dispute there… Why doesn’t the FBI ask about 1953 Greg? Onward and upward... Jack Loyakano - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview him? http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=715120 Here's another good one in the list... Jack here seems to think Oswald was a year behind him in 54/55 - which would put him back in 8th grade in 54/55... when we know he was in 8th grade in 53/54... None of these people associated with Oswald, knew him very well, yet ALL OF THEM describe Oswald as the small, loner HARVEY was.... Greg... Maybe help us understand why your FBI WITNESSES can't even remember what year, what grade, when and where they see Oswald in a year WE are not even discussing - yet you continually refer to them as some BACKBONE to your evidence against.... YOUR FBI or WC lawyers wont even ASK these people about 53/54.... wonder why? Carroll Battistella - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her? http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=28 Joan Burgard - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her? http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=29 I can keep going with this Greg... but for you to use carbon copy FBI statements - conflicting statements as well - without signatures or corroboration for a school year we are not even discussing is absurd... no one, and no school records conflict with the 54/55 year… in fact BOTH LEE AND HARVEY are at Beauregard in the Spring of 53/54 school year… and both are in 8th grade One of LEE's teachers can't even remember that LEE wa in his CLASS... and you are sticking with these 7? I’ve posted a number of items of evidence to prove HARVEY was at BJHS in Sept 1953… as well as at PS44 in Sept 1953… that he was at 126 Exchange and at the Evan’s AT THE SAME TIME… You’ve offered nothing but rubber stamp FBI reports about THE WRONG YEAR?? And then go on to insult me repeatedly to boot. The FBI did not ask about 1953 or even include 1953 in their reports since Oswald COULD NOT BE AT BEAUREGARD and PS44 at the same time... They KNEW there was a conflict... Again, the reason Myra wasn't called to testify in 1964? She knew HARVEY and could prove that he was not LEE... and the FBI simply could not have that. If a person was aware of both people, they weren’t called…. The ONLY two who were aware and called were Robert and John… Robert LIED his A$$ off… John told it like it is… HARVEY does not look like the LEE, his brother, that he remembers. A few more on the size difference between these two boys, both calling themselves Oswald a PS #44 health card show that Oswald was tall. His height was listed as 5-foot- 4-1/2, and his weight as 114 lbs in May, 1953.39 53-04 *13-old-Oswald, at 5-foot-4, was nearly as tall as his 20 year old half brother, John Pic, who was 5-foot-6."40 *the PS #44 health card fits the description of the tall, well-built, wellnourished Lee Harvey Oswald who attended Ridglea West Elementary School in Fort Worth, Texas, a year earlier. *the PS #44 health card lists Oswald's height at 5-foot-4-1/2, and is eifgh to ten inches taller than the boy who Dr. Kurian interviewed only a few weeks earlier. * the PS #44 health card listed Oswald's height as 5-foot-4 again in September 1953, only four months later. 53-04 • New York Psychiatrists recall that Oswald was short *Probation officer John Carro described Oswald as a small boy. *Dr. Kurian described the Oswald he met in the spring of 1953 as short, slight, and about 4-foot-6 to 4-foot-8. *Dr. Renatus Hartogs wrote ( 1965-Two Assassins) that Oswald was "a slender, dark-haired boy with a pale, haunted face - remember thinking how slight he seemed for his thirteen years. He had an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved children I had seen in concentration camps. " Mrs Anna Langlois - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her? http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=27 Fred O'sullivan - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview him? http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=27 Do I really need to do the same with these two as well? Did you even bother going to the links yourself and see how ridiculous it looks? Same words – exactly, over and over with nothing to add but that these people barely remember Oswald yet attended BJHS with him in the one year we KNOW he was there… BFD Greg. How about a few interviews by the FBI with these same people or others asking if they attended BJHS with Oswald in the 53/54 year… Wonder why you wont be able to find any of those?? Oh right… whatever.

This one Steve? I added the SS# from the 1955 Dolly Shoe W-2 What are you implying here Steve? DJ

Thanks Bill.... great info. that missing time is indeed significant... but I was sure Knowing what I know of LBJ... a quickie with the Mistress to celebrate becoming POTUS, and a cocktail with Hoover over the success of the plan... would be my guess. What else was more important ? Cheers DJ

Greg this is not some isolated incident… what’s extraordinary is your ongoing refusal to connect any of the dots… the records were not designed to confuse the issue as you would suggest… they simply tell the story of the two men involved where one of the men’s history all but disappears… But not completely… they are called “loose ends” Greg… not necessarily sloppy mistakes. The records of HARVEY before 1958 and LEE after 1958 are virtually gone. Before 1958 Oswald needed to be remembered as LEE – even in the face of his brother and others REFUSING TO ID Harvey as Lee… so the early HARVEY records are gone... I'm surprised the Bronz zoo picture didn't go by the way of so much other evidence about HARVEY... After 1958 LEE’s history becomes HARVEY’s past to create a new future. He is now remembered ONLY as the small, argumentative commie reading loner… when LEE was never seen in that light by ANYONE who described him… Even in the Marines there was a transition between the roughneck LEE and the little HARVEY. And even more substantiation... John is perfect in his picking out the LEE images from the HARVEY - any explanation for his 100% accuracy regarding the Life pictures? Mr. JENNER - How did he look to you physically as compared with when you had seen him last? Mr. PIC - I would have never recognized him, sir. Mr. JENNER - All right. Your brother Robert said something along these lines. You had last seen him in 19-- that was prior to this occasion, the last time you had seen him was when he was in New York City? Mr. PIC - Which was a little over 10 years. Mr. JENNER - Well, just about 10 years. Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - Of course you had seen him in February 1953, I think you said. Mr. PIC - Right. But we walked in and he walked out. Mr. JENNER - But you saw him? Mr. PIC - Right, I had seen him for a moment. Mr. JENNER - He was then at that particular time in the neighborhood of 13 years of age? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - Now, when you saw him 10 years later he was 23. Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - You noticed, did you, a material change, physically first, let's take his physical appearance? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Physically I noticed that. Mr. JENNER - What did you notice? Mr. PIC - He was much thinner than I had remembered him. He didn't have as much hair. Mr. JENNER - Did that arrest your attention? Was that a material difference? Did that strike you? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; it struck me quite profusely. Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 http://www.history-m...Vol16_0413a.htm 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. Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother? Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow. Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow? Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir. Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is. 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? 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. 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. 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. Mr. JENNER - Do you recognize the person, the lady to the right who is pointing her finger at him? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. 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. Mr. JENNER - All right. Exhibit No. 288, there is ill the lower left-hand corner, there is a reproduction of a service card and a reproduction, also, of a photograph with the head of a man. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - That looks to me approximately how Lee Oswald looked when I seen him Thanksgiving 1962. Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them. Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 290, the lower left-hand corner there is a photograph of a young lady and a young man. Do you recognize either of those persons? Mr. PIC - He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him. Mr. JENNER - And the lady? Mr. PIC - She is his wife, Marina, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother? Mr. PIC - That is correct. So the man who "appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962", who is the same man handing out leaflets - HARVEY - is not recognizeable to his own brother.... From my POV you will need much more that a series of mistakes and a DoD letter, that seems ALWAYS to center around HARVEY Oswald’s innocence being proven… Hey… maybe WALDMAN put the C2766 on the wrong order – you know, by MISTAKE. But that would HELP HARVEY… so of course those Mistakes NEVER occurred. So let me ask you… if it wasn’t HARVEY on the bus… or in the cab, or shooting Tippit…. Or in the balcony, or in the alley, or in the car, or on the plane with Vinson, or at Red Bird, or in Mexico, or in Alice TX, or Montreal, or ordering trucks, or shooting at a range, or asking that a scope be mounted,… Who was saying and/or representing themselves as such? PS… really Greg, how about taking it down a notch in what you think I am thinking about this okay? Mine… Armstrong’s claim and supporting evidence adds up to more than simple mistakes… Lee HARVEY Oswald remains an enigma for very specific reasons… and to continue to promote the idea that the CIA would not use its power to confuse the historical record of a man THEY sent to Russia for some purpose is again naive... that this twosome (and the peripheral players) were then redirected to accomplish some other purpose - the PATSY for the killing of an AMERICAN President... is really no big stretch given the players themselves... Phillips, Barnes, Donovan, Dulles, Hunt, etc, etc, etc.... btw - have you read NEXUS yet... I'm just starting... but when men gather together behind closed doors and they discuss the wholesale murder of the opposition in foreign countries - that doesn't give you pause to believe that ANYTHING is possible with enopugh money, depravity and creativity... Rule #1 of the Watergate Rules of American Politics: “No matter how paranoid you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you can imagine” At some point “mistakes” take on the appearance of a plan… and to believe that “intelligence” did not have a plan for Oswald(s) is again… very naïve in my book.

Bill - I'd like to better understand this conclusion from your blog post.... 2) Meanwhile, on the ground in Dallas, members of the Dallas Police Special Services Unit (SSU), specifically, Chief Lumpkin, Deputy Chief Stringfellow, Capt. Gannaway, all members of Jack Crichton’s 488th US Army Reserve Intelligence Unit, along with Asst. DA Alexander, actively promoted the Phase-One Cover Story that the assassination was the result of a Cuban Communist conspiracy would you give us example of "actively promoting" as Stringfellow was one of many who placed Oswald in the balcony... and could have known about the day's events ahead of time... I see a couple of references to FPCC and the cable to the base... were they doing more overtly to assign commie blame on Oswald? What did these men do to help the Phase 1 story along? I was always under the impression that the "commie" angle was invented by the CIA to specifically keep "them" away from investigating too closely - if it couldn't be any of the people/acronyms involved in the conspiracy, the conclusion HAD to be that he was alone - regardless of Hoover's lack of faith in this conclusion - which comes from the Mexico City Commie angle created by the CIA... As I see it, the only people pushing Commie conspiracy was the CIA (possibly knowing that Hoover might not be able to keep his hands off a "commie") ... and more publically, Carr... The othing thing that stood out for me was my remembering that LBJ insited on moving into the Oval Office and White House immediately - didn't Lincoln criticize him for being so unfeeling about kicking their furniture out asap? Thanks for the great read Bill DJ

Google it Mike.... Does your mother still spoon feed you too?

Here here... RIP GF... and thanks for so much for drawing back the curtains

We all have decided Mike... YOU need to go... Threads on this subject have been started and explored at both locations plus some others... Besides, your photographic manipulation/interpretation skills are simply pathetic.... As I posted to you before... just because you can make something appear in an image, does not mean it is there... Case in point: The kneeling man in Moorman, it is obvious from this ENHANCEMENT that there is someone kneeling in front of the wall in the bushes NOW look at the UNENHANCED VERSION - still see him there? He's a little harder to make out, but the image is obviously still there... Are you saying that I can make the argument that there is someone there - from this one image alone - in the face of all the eivdence that shows there was no such person there? At some point this "innocent yet stupid" presentation of yours gets annoying...and that point has been reached. See whatever you want to see Mike.... and please, NEVER, EVER listen to those here who run circles around your knowledge/skill base... you wouldn't want to find yourself LEARNING something...