David Josephs
-
Posts
6,150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
On 9/10/2012 at 5:42 AM, Bernice Moore said:
sorry first try did not work..all take care...b
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
-
DAVID SORRY TO ASK AGAIN.....
Remember the term premature anti- Fascist ? Well golly David ,seems you were on the CASE on anti-Armstrongism before Armstrong was publically popular. How did you become so prematurely anti-Armstrong ??
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
-
btw - you keep referring to the 7 students who attended Beauregard in 54-55 with Oswald... when our discussion is about the 53-54 school year...
there is no doubt about 54-55... When we have a report card for both PS44 and Beauregard.. in the 53-54 school year records for Beauregard it shows attendance for 179 total days...
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 54/55Real 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
-
On 8/30/2012 at 6:45 AM, Greg Parker said:On 8/29/2012 at 0:46 PM, David Josephs said:
Here is the record you're talking about. There is a major problem with what you say. It is NOT the same doctor, as can be seen with just a quick glance at both the hand writing and the initials.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=141372 Why do I get the impression you've never actually seen this document; that you've only taken Armstrong's word for what it shows - behavior consistent with being a devotee in a cult rather than an independent and open-minded researcher?
You're right Greg... it appears he was seen by a variety of doctors... I saw what looked like an "H" and the previous initials are "WH"... but a closer look shows it's just dated 11/3, the day AFTER Oswald leaves Japan.
A closer look? My god, David, the initials AND the writing are obviously NOT the same. A quick glance should be sufficient. But you saw what you wanted to see.
Still says 11/3 Greg. The day AFTER HARVEY leaves… not something you want to address… just another “Dr. Desk jockey” mistake to relieve the WCR of culpability… such a simply response that so easily lets you off the hook… and repeatedly weak.
I have all the H&L documents in a local flash drive... I don't need to go look for them... Your comment was unnecessary...
and the cult/devotee bullsh!t ought to end, at least if we're going to discuss this as adults.
Not bullxxxx. It's fact. Belief in mythical beings is a cornerstone of cults, as is being impervious to any argument against such belief, as is having a head guru with multiple lieutenants doing his talking. Armstrong is the L. Ron Hubbard of JFK research.
But I'll do a deal. You address all of my points as I do with you and all the others, instead of hand picking one or two, and stop referring to "Harvey" as if he were a real historical figure instead of a theoretical entity, and I will stop referring to cults.
I refer to HARVEY so that the discussion can be followed… The THEORY is that there were two men, the support for that theory MUST differentiate them for clarity. What YOU believe about Armstrong justifies ad hominem? Isn’t that the last refuge of a simply mind? So instead of describing the belief that the CIA used any and all tricks at its disposal including the creation of identities for the purpose of espionage – you want to insult? “Harvey” will continued to be used to describe the activities and history of a person that does not match LEE’s. You want to STOOP to ad hominem – have at it. I will focus on the FBI evidence you offer and the FACT you choose to believe a DoD letter to Blakey over the official records of the US MARINES.
The October 6th Unit Diary shows LEE OSWALD returning from Ping-Tung
YOU have him staying behind to receive treatment for STD as a result of a DoD response to a Blakey inquiry.
Nope. I have him staying behind for diagnosis and treatment of a possible STD. It's obvious to me from the reply, that the DoD didn't have a clue where he was; they were concerned only with giving an answer which might stop speculation. The reason they didn't have a clue is that the records were a mess. You want to use that in order to buttress Armstrong's theory when the theory has had the sword put through it from a hundred different angles in this thread already. I've worked in public administration. Files get messy - especially when worked on by different people at different times with different record keeping skills.Most of the time it doesn't matter. Most of the time, the file doesn't belong to someone who goes on to become an historical enigma. You take such a person and then start trawling through his public records for anomalies. But what you need to do is to demonstrate that Oswald's records were uniquely anomalous. Then you might have something - if you can also overcome the myriad other problems with the theory.
The records were NOT a mess by any stretch…they show plain and clear that he was both in Taiwan and being treated in Japan… YOU want to explain it with anything BUT H&L… when there being two of them is just as realistic a scenario as everyone only making mistakes in relation to Oswald’s innocence.
the BS story being concocted to cover the mistake of not removing these records is a mess…
Chalking it up as yet another administrative mistake because the FBI/DoD tells you so strikes me as extremely naïve on your part. But then again you want to believe so badly that H&L are a fallacy you’d buy the mistakes of a clerk over the lies of the DoD/FBI…
So once again.. the Marines are inable to determine who boards a ship and who doesn't?
You want us to believe that when departing from Taiwan back to Japan the US MARINES did not check to see if who they said was on the ship, actually got on the ship?
Looks to me like two days prior to sailing, a desk jockey was given the list of those going so that it could be recorded in the diary. At the last minute, Oswald was pulled out, but the record wasn't updated.
Greg… on the October 6 Unit Diary, Oswald is sailing back from Taiwan… I can understand if there w2as a last minute switch or stay-behind…. But when leaving Taiwan I find it very hard to believe that they left his name on the roster and did not know he was never there…… the RECORDS indicate an Oswald was in Taiwan and the records indicate an Oswald was in Japan at the same time.
On Oct 6, 1958 do you suppose the MARINES were already falsifying documents for the CIA to show that a soldier was not where he was said to be, and when corrected, the US MARINES still have him returning from a place you say he never went.... ??
Here you go again.... starting with the assumption that "Harvey" existed and then putting aspects of the paper trail in a certain sinister light for the purpose of buttressing your case. One of the most egregious errors you've made was projecting YOUR inability to look at alternative explanations on to me. I'm open to a few possibilities. You can only see one.
Because all your alternatives require everyone to be complete morons… the record keeping of the US MARINES in relation to the lives they are entrusted with is simple crap… When transporting a person from one place to the other… they don’t know how to create a manifest…
Do you realize that you are doing the same thing in reverse… H&L is simply not a possibility so nothing done will EVER lead you to that as a possibility. In reverse… you can accept the ongoing and systematic mistakes of everyone who ever came into contact with HARVEY who was no longer the same as the LEE they knew. Again Greg… how many “sorry those records were taken by the FBI and disappeared” or “no, the records are mistaken” do you need before the light goes off that maybe something fishy is going on?
He was not crossed off the Unit Diary... it was never updated for his "remaining behind" so all we have is this letter from the DoD saying so in response to a Blakey inquiry
I think if we looked hard enough. one of us might come up with more - but what would be the point? You would dismiss it, or ignore it, just the same as you have with everything else.
As would you Greg… I am not on an island here… you are convinced of your position… fine.
I think you are wrong and refuse to see the puzzle and would rather examine the pieces as separate and distinct from the picture is becomes.
William Trail states in one of theose FBI reports you put so much stock in, that he was in Taiwan with Oswald... that he was his difficult self and didn't get along with the other men (HARVEY that is) but you know all that right Greg? You have these docs memorized...
Trail stated he had very little memory of Oswald and seems to only really recall that Oswald was supposed to going to Taiwan. The Oswald/Taiwan thing is vague from Traial to say the least.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57729&relPageId=12
And this pro-Armstrong page gives Trail short shrift, dismissing him as someone who "saw little of Oswald".
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/JR-JA.html
Donovan on the other hand told the FBI that Trail had discussed knowing Oswald in JAPAN and the trouble he (Oswald) had been in there. Trail apparently said nothing to him about Taiwan.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=331798
“Little memory of”, “saw little of Oswald”, “Trail said nothing”
Greg, give us a break already… If you are a little bit pregnant – you’re pregnant
If he saw him only a little bit, from time to time, and did not hang with him but knew of his behavior… how do you equate that with HE WASN’T THERE?
oh yes... that he was there but flew back... except that's not what the letter says.... it says "Oswald did not sail from Japan on Sept 16, 1958..... I posted it above...
Trial doesn’t say he NEVER saw him, that he wasn’t sure if Oswald even was in Taiwan…
He saw him there….
The DoD says he never left Japan - where DID you get that airplane back to Japan story anyway?
Another “mistake” according to you? “Seeing Oswald just a little” not enough to establish his being there… please.
How did you put it? "Why do I get the impression you've never actually seen this document"?
http://www.maryferre...510&relPageId=9
Yep. That's the report that quotes Trail as saying he "saw little of Oswald". Maybe an indication Oswald did go, but he saw little of him, because he was quickly flown back.
Other than the DoD response to Blakey – where do you get this ?
So basically you come at me with a sentence from a DoD response to Blakey as your definitive proof that Oswald remained in Atsugi - since the medical records OBVIOUSLY show a L.H. Oswald receiving treatment for STD in Japan...
No David. It is you (and others) coming at me with things like this which have alternative explanations, but where you (and others) only see one because you have already made up your mind. If the evidence doesn't fit, it is because the FBI/DoD/CIA interfered with it. You are using what you consider anomalies in the records and using those as definitive proof of the existence of "Harvey". I'm not saying they are definitive proof of anything. On the contrary, I'm saying the records can't be used as definitive proof of any one theory. See the difference? See how you project what you do on to me?
Please stop whining Greg, that’s not what we/I am doing at all. "coming at you" ? and you haven't made up your mind here?
You have a single letter.. a single line in a single letter stating that Oswald NEVER LEFT Japan, sent to HSCA from the DoD (posted again above) which in your mind refutes the records and memories of the time period... With as bizarre as things are in the case from all parts of the world... you have trouble with the possibility of H&L being real.
You are claiming that the records related to his being transported to and from Taiwan are simply mistaken – since you do not want to acknowledge the probability Armstrong is right. Whether these specific records related to this one episode can or cannot be used as a reliable means of determining H&L is where you seem to keep getting held up.
These are not isolated, one time records of these two people Greg...
The school records show two Oswalds… one at PS44, one supposedly at Beauregard, attending part time during the first semester of the SEPT 53 - JUNE 54 8th grade school year. The attendance record for this Oswald at Beauregard shows 79 days attending and 1 day absent.
It also shows 80 school days and 4 absences for the 2nd semester for a total of 179 days attending school…
The PS44 record shows that on 9/30/52 Oswald enters 7th grade in NYC…
Now what did Robert say?
Oh yes… more MISTAKES…. Even though ROBERT visits them in NYC in both OCTOBER 1952 and the SUMMER of 1953… he STILL insists that his brother went straight from 6th to 7th grade in Ft Worth.
Mr. JENNER. And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arlington Heights High School? That would be 1952?
Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.
In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.
Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school.
How many school days are there from Sept 53 – December Break? In the total school year.
Any reason Beauregard and Myra DeRouse have him attending 80 days of school during this time?
Oh yes… mistakes again. Such a convenient reponse.
What I offer are US MARINES documents that state Oswald served in Japan and Taiwan as a "aviation electronics operator"...
That he was on the ship that took him to Taiwan
That he was on the ship that brought him back
and that during this stay the records indicate a LEE Oswald rec'd STD medical treatment... YOU want to hang your hat on a DoD letter basically stating all this was a big MISTAKE...
that's one helluva weak argument Greg...
No. I'm saying it's explicable in a number of ways, and the simplest of those ways is that the anomalies arose out of common garden variety sloppy records keeping. Yours is the extraordinary claim, but what you offer by way of proof for it falls far short of "extraordinary".
to be continued
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.
-
The answer to your question is one of the central elements of this article - The Tipping Point, in which I try to document at what point the Phase One - Castro Commie plot was officially discarded in favor of the equally implausible Phase Two - Deranged Lone Nut scenario - and my conclusion that it occurred between 7 and 9 pm on Nov. 21, while LBJ was in his office at the Executive Office Building next to the White House.
JFKcountercoup: The Tipping Point
While this little interlude is seldom discussed by conspiracy theorists, it is documented in part by Jack Valenti and Vincent Bugliosi, with Valenti confirming that LBJ was behind closed doors at the time, with Cliff Carter and maybe on other top aide.
From what I can gather so far, it was David Atlee Phillips' asset Joe Goulden, then working for a Philadelphia daily, who got assistant DA Alexander to say that he was going to indict Oswald as communist conspiracy, but when the news of this reached LBJ, probably via radio or TV, LBJ had Cliff Carter call Wagner Carr, and Carr called Alexander, who denied know anything about the leak to the press concerning the wording of the indictment, even though Bugliosi himself says he was the one who talked to Goulden.
The most interesting thing about this meeting is the time line - 6 pm arrival at White House lawn by helicopter from Andrews, three hours at VP office at EOB, leaving there at 9pm to go to LBJ residence - Elms at Spring Valley, five minutes drive, but according to Blaine and Bugliosi, LBJ and Valente don't arrive there until 10:30 - a one and a half hours difference. What did they do, ride around DC for an hour and a half.
Although I haven't read it yet, I understand Caro says they did indeed go for a ride, at LBJ's instructions, to pick up another close staff member.
In any case, it is a good question, and one that I think I have answered, but the answer of which only begs other questions that are harder to answer,
BK
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...
-
On 8/29/2012 at 4:22 PM, Robin Unger said:
It is obvious to EVERYONE accept you, that the two men are one in the same. ( Charles Hester in a suit and tie )
Nice try Robin...
"he ain't gona learn what he don't wanna know"
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him," and I just felt that somebody had ganged up on him and I was still shooting the pictures until he got under the underpass--I don't even know how I did it. And then, I didn't even remember how I got down from that abutment there, but there I was, I guess,
Are there any images of either Zappy or Sitzman getting up on or down from this 4 foot pedastal? - so we can prove to him he was even up there to begin with? The images I have of him on the pedestal are not exactly convincing
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, of course, what I saw you have on film, but that was the day, November 22, it was around 11:30. In fact, I didn't have my camera but my secretary asked me why I don't have it and I told her I wouldn't have a chance even to see the President and somehow she urged me and I went home and got my camera and came back and first I thought I might take pictures from the window because my building is right next to the building where the alleged assassin was, and it's just across--501 Elm Street (Dal-Tex), but I figured--I may go down and get better pictures, and I walked down. I believe it was Elm Street and on down to the lower part, closer to the underpass and I was trying to pick a space from where to take those pictures and I tried one place and it was on a narrow ledge and I couldn't balance myself very much. I tried another place and that had some obstruction of signs or whatever it was there and finally I found a place farther down near the underpass that was a square of concrete I don't know what you call it maybe about 4 feet high.
So I am also wondering where these two other locations are - between Dal-Tex and the overpass...
- NARROW LEDGE? Couldn't balance there and I guess no room for Sitzman? so he chooses an even more precarious spot....
- SOME OBSTRUCTION OF SIGNS?
Seems he would be walking west along the North side of Houston... the planter box has a narrow ledge...
That first eastern most pedastal seems to be a good spot... SIGNS?
Where do you think he was referring or was he just covering tracks since he was not really there...
Peace
DJ
-
Quote
Here is the record you're talking about. There is a major problem with what you say. It is NOT the same doctor, as can be seen with just a quick glance at both the hand writing and the initials.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=141372 Why do I get the impression you've never actually seen this document; that you've only taken Armstrong's word for what it shows - behavior consistent with being a devotee in a cult rather than an independent and open-minded researcher?
You're right Greg... it appears he was seen by a variety of doctors... I saw what looked like an "H" and the previous initials are "WH"... but a closer look shows it's just dated 11/3, the day AFTER Oswald leaves Japan.
I have all the H&L documents in a local flash drive... I don't need to go look for them... Your comment was unnecessary...
and the cult/devotee bullsh!t ought to end, at least if we're going to discuss this as adults.
The October 6th Unit Diary shows LEE OSWALD returning from Ping-Tung
YOU have him staying behind to receive treatment for STD as a result of a DoD response to a Blakey inquiry.
So once again.. the Marines are inable to determine who boards a ship and who doesn't?
You want us to believe that when departing from Taiwan back to Japan the US MARINES did not check to see if who they said was on the ship, actually got on the ship?
On Oct 6, 1958 do you suppose the MARINES were already falsifying documents for the CIA to show that a soldier was not where he was said to be, and when corrected, the US MARINES still have him returning from a place you say he never went.... ??
He was not crossed off the Unit Diary... it was never updated for his "remaining behind" so all we have is this letter from the DoD saying so in response to a Blakey inquiry
William Trail states in one of theose FBI reports you put so much stock in, that he was in Taiwan with Oswald... that he was his difficult self and didn't get along with the other men (HARVEY that is) but you know all that right Greg? You have these docs memorized...
How did you put it? "Why do I get the impression you've never actually seen this document"?
http://www.maryferre...510&relPageId=9
So basically you come at me with a sentence from a DoD response to Blakey as your definitive proof that Oswald remained in Atsugi - since the medical records OBVIOUSLY show a L.H. Oswald receiving treatment for STD in Japan...
What I offer are US MARINES documents that state Oswald served in Japan and Taiwan as a "aviation electronics operator"...
That he was on the ship that took him to Taiwan
That he was on the ship that brought him back
and that during this stay the records indicate a LEE Oswald rec'd STD medical treatment... YOU want to hang your hat on a DoD letter basically stating all this was a big MISTAKE...
that's one helluva weak argument Greg...
btw - you keep referring to the 7 students who attended Beauregard in 54-55 with Oswald... when our discussion is about the 53-54 school year...
there is no doubt about 54-55... When we have a report card for both PS44 and Beauregard.. in the 53-54 school year records for Beauregard it shows attendance for 179 total days...
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....
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...
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.
DJ
-
Okay again Mikey/Ringo/Rango whatever...
Don't like the way you got beat up about CE399 we see.... ?
This is the BS I posted about before... a link to a DVP post about a letter that has nothing to do with the men PRIOR to Rowley..
We realize it's way above your head and too confusing for you to articulate a reponse that addresses the evidence I put forth about CE399 not being in Dallas
That you can copy and paste a link (masterfully done) has no relationship to your complete inability to UNDERSTAND what you linked to...
Follow CE399 BACK from Frasier to Todd to Rowley to Johnson to Wright to Tomlinson... where does the INITIALS TRAIL end?
Take your time, we're not going anywhere
-
Yes Mikey... we've ALL had enough of your self proclaimed expertise and your inablility to find your A$$ with both hands
The Zfilm ends at z486...
z486 - z313 = 173 frames / 18.3fps = 9.45 seconds... (divide by 16 and we get almost 11 seconds if we believe the B&H manual) AFTER 313 Zapruder was still filming...
You are so far out of your league here Mikey it's comical.
Crawl back under whatever random name generating rock you came from, whatever-your-name-is... cause there ain't NOBODY buying what you keep trying to sell here.
-
So the idea of something "sinister" occurring in the west pergola almost a minute AFTER the shots seems to completely disregard the number of people who went to that area after the limo left.
What exactly do you find sinister about what appears to be a woman - possibly Sitzman and a couple of other people milling around the pergola?
I'd also ask you to look at the BOND series of photos... Bond 4 shows a woman in a black coat moving toward the pergola with people already there... this is also within 60 seconds as the bus hasn't come by yet.
No one has "ignored" the photo... and to push that assumption here is amazingly disrespectful to the years of research many of us have put into this case...
You remind me of the four blind men all touching a different part of an elephant and proclaiming what they have in front of them without reservation...
You are trying to tell us the image of a 1000 piece puzzle after only looking at 45 pieces...
40 of which are turned over and only show the cardboard back... but they do suggest a shape that might fit somewhere..
Mike... If you've come here for answers - and dude THIS IS THE PLACE FOR ANSWERS - if you'd just look, and read, and ask questions of probably the greatest collection of JFK researchers/authors available - you MAY get answers... insulting them is not going to cut it - no matter WHO you think you are compared to the people here. You don't have to ac ept their theories - but please know that in the process of investigating one area of this crime... ALL the areas seem to show up.
.
I read the threads here for 5 years before I felt I had something to contribute.
I keep gigs and gigs of "data" on a flash drive so I can access the source material without going to look for it on line... and if I don't have it I go find it and save it for next time
I'm all for believing in yourself and your conclusions - and defending them the best you know how... but when repeatedly asked for YOUR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, offering a link to someone else's work is not what we mean...
Pull out what you mean... highlight it so we know what you are referring to.... and develop a conclusion based on this evidence...
as you have read, I too stick to my guns in the face of rebuttal... and I will admit I am wrong when shown.
By your own estimates of the timeframe - do you now see how there is nothing sinister about the west pergola 1 minute after the shots....
But if you can prove that Emmett Hudson saw people in the pergola as he walked to the steps - cool (did you know that he walked right past there? do you know who I am referring to?)
Or anyone else for that matter seeing anything "sinister" in that area prior to the shots....
Your shotgun approach is interesting but from 165 feet away and from the SE window... a shotgun aint gonna hit anything but air...
If you took a scoped rifle instead.. and aimed at something... I bet even you will eventually hit something
Peace
DJ
-
So just above that white wall we see someone rising from the ground...
Compare this with the photos posted to see where poeple are positioned and you can start to get a better timeline
Altgens 8 - each couple is together
the color gif from Bell from Chris D comes later
and I believe this gif shows Hester getting upand walking as we pick him up in Bell
and Zap/Sitz are blocked by the sign and tree - but we can see they are not on the pedastal or moving off at this time...
DJ
-
I think we need to time stamp these images...
The gif seems to imply that Abe just ran off and Hester moves away... yet Altgens 8 shows them together.. both the Hesters and Abe/Marilyn
Is there enough time for Hester to jump up and start moving away while Sitzman veers off to the left?
So I found this gif that I separated into frames to show that Altgens 8 must have been VERY SOON after Altgens 7... and BEFORE the color gif showing Zap going toward Mrs. H.
and that Mr. Hester seems to get up and move away from Mrs Hester - the red arrows...
It does appear from this image that there are a number of people in the WEST pergola looking into the RR yard and parking lot...
Mike.. ALOT of people went to that area after the shots...
The image you posted first also needs a time stamp... but obviously occurs well after the limo leaves the scene...
Do you have any evidence/testimony that places movement in that area prior to the shots?
Sitzman picks out the black couple to her right..
Could there be someone in there? - sure... but what is to accomplish from that location other than to see into the RR yard - AFTER the shots are fired - which is when the image you posted was exposed?
DJ
(edit note: in the gif it is plain to see the black image rise... I will put the gif in the next post...)
The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Josephs
need room for new attachments
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....