Paul Trejo Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Well, Paul, I may be wrong, but my guess is that when that day comes, you will be among the few researchers wondering why we waited so long for so little. How ironic that a former CIA director has set this date for “full disclosure.” Well, Jim, when speaking about former President GHW Bush's signing of the JFK Records Act in 1992, which promises to release all Top Secret documents about the JFK murder by Thursday 26 October 2017 (exactly 25 years from the Act signing), I suspect you have become cynical. This is the political result, IMHO, of the CIA-did-it theory, of which the Harvey & Lee theory of John Armstrong is the most extreme form. Yet all versions of the CIA-did-it theory -- by far the most popular among the JFK Conspiracy Theories -- tend to lead their adherents to cynicism about the US Government. If that's true of all CIA-did-it theories, then that goes double for the Harvey & Lee theorists. That's because, IMHO, the Harvey & Lee theorists give way too much credit to the CIA for predicting the future and controlling events, so that in their opinion, the CIA began their manipulation of Lee Harvey Oswald way back in his childhood! Armstrong practically worships the CIA, by my reading. I don't think of the CIA as that powerful. They toppled foreign governments that favor Communism. That's what they did through 1963. They were good at what they did -- but they weren't infallible. They made many mistakes. One of their mistakes during the Cold War, I'm convinced, was that they failed to control two CIA Agents (and probably more) who became Rogues who journeyed forth to execute their own, private goals in conspiracy with Civilians. These two were David Morales and Howard Hunt, and both confessed to some role in the JFK murder. Bill Simpich's 2014 eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, proved (IMHO) that the CIA high-command had no idea who IMPERSONATED Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City's Cuban Consulate, in a sensitive phone call to the USSR Embassy, trying to contact KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. So, the CIA high-command started a Mole Hunt that lasted for years -- searching for the IMPERSONATORS. I take this as solid proof that the CIA high-command knew nothing about the plot to murder JFK in Dallas. So, the CIA wasn't nearly as smart as John Armstrong credits them, IMHO. As for GHW Bush, I believe he's a living genius, and that he controlled Ronald Reagan's presidency, and that he also controlled Dubya's presidency -- 20 years of Emperor Herbert's rule, so to speak. Bush attained the Big Picture of world history that enabled him to lead so well. CIA staff were generally far less intelligent than GHW Bush. IMHO, Bush signed the JFK Records Act in 1992 because the Berlin Wall and the USSR fell in 1990. Since Communism had fallen, the reason for the Top Secrecy of the JFK records was removed. This tells me that the National Security reason for secrecy in the JFK murder was all about the Cold War. This was proved IMHO by the signing of the JFK Records Act in 1992. So, I'm less cynical than you are, Jim. I faithfully expect to see "full disclosure" of the JFK mystery in October 2017. President GHW Bush promised it. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 1, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) of all the data in that post you don't understand, your only concern is that you don't see the math grade problem... Why don't the grade card absences match the 12 absences you claim adds to 180 days? Why don't the math grades match at all? Why does Re-Ad have 89 days next to the fall 53-54 semester if 168 + 12 is the total number of school days...89+1 is the total of attendance and absences for the fall semester? There's a lot more to come Greg. This is the easy stuff... I look forward to your reply. Having trouble with the math Greg? how does 5 = 12 ? As for the start of the 53-54 school year: This is for NYC - if you have something which shows a different start date for BJHS... as you have all the early Oswald answers - post it. and this one is for CT... same start date, Start date is actually Sept 9 which is earlier like the end date. 90 total days of school would mean the semester ends January 27th. unless there are more Winer vacation days in New Orleans. Yet if Oswald starts on Jan 13 as the WCR claims... how does he wind up with ANY grades for those 2 weeks and why does the "Re-Ad" not say 10-15 days as opposed to the full 89 of the semester? We can get to the BJHS to Easton to Arlington problems when you figure out how you botched the 168 + 12 presentation given the grade cards are in the same WCE and show only 5 absences... Watching you explain FBI altered evidence as pristine and original and then getting all caught up in the mistakes that were made creating them in the first place should be interesting to say the least.... You might start pondering where he was from Oct 1955 till Sept 1956... and how that is corroborated... given that the Easton records sent to Arlington in Sept 1956 and the Easton record shows he left Easton 10-14-56... And we will also get to 3830 W. 6th #3 versus 4936 Collinwood... You know Collinwood, the address on his enlistment papers But one step at a time. Where did you think the 12 absent days came from when you wrote this passage? The number 168 does indeed fall below the mandated 170 days. That tells us it cannot be the total number of days in the school year. What we need to do is add the number of days listed as “absent”. In the case of the 1954-55 school year, we see 168 + 12 = 180 days – the exact number of days Head claimed to be the “regular”! If we do the same for the previous school year, we get 184 – more than the “regular”, but the term does imply occasional variation. The important point is that nowhere in the record does it show Oswald’s total number of attendance days. To work that out, we need to also know the dates Oswald commenced and finished at the school, along with the start and end dates of the school years involved Edited July 31, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 What do his maths grades have to to with you guys deliberately misinterpreting what "re-ad" means, and the process necessary to find the total number of school days that school year? I know I know - like everyone else at the Bates Motel, you're very busy... whatever Seems you've checked in at the Bates as well - tends to happen when you're stuck as to what to do next... Don't like how I addressed your inaccuracies?. You're so wrapped up in dissing H&L you forget about the grade cards or to do a real timeline with the evidence to see what a joke the FBI left us... So let's go Greg... Since I know you've not done your homework related to these documents and rely instead on the poor, wrong and terribly sourced arguments you offered years ago without update... this NEW VOLUME of yours will undoubtedly be full of these errors. Gonna post another passage? Or need to figure out how you got it so wrong. You mean to tell us that you, the man who knows everything about Oswald, cannot tell us when the BJHS year began or why the grade cards conflict with the permenant record? And yet you write a book on Oswald anyway. This will be like showing Posner or Myers for what they were... 5% truth mixed into 95% speculative and inaccurate fluff. Please tell me you continued on in that new volume to Easton, Arlington and beyond with the same attention to detail. Your take on Tujague's should also be illuminating... but first... punch your way out of this paper bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 of all the data in that post you don't understand, your only concern is that you don't see the math grade problem... Why don't the grade card absences match the 12 absences you claim adds to 180 days? Why don't the math grades match at all? Why does Re-Ad have 89 days next to the fall 53-54 semester if 168 + 12 is the total number of school days...89+1 is the total of attendance and absences for the fall semester? There's a lot more to come Greg. This is the easy stuff... I look forward to your reply. You really ought to stop breathing in the fumes over at the Bates Motel (aka the DeepFoo). 168 + 12 is for the 54-55 school year. The 53-54 school year is (as I have already said!) is 179 + 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Having trouble with the math Greg? how does 5 = 12 ? Gee, I don't know, David? Your confusion is not my problem. 5 days absence pertains to the 53-54 school year 12 days absence pertains to the 54-55 school year. The rest of your post was just you blowing smoke from one orifice or another. How about you get back to the main point. You need "re-ad" to mean the number of days Oswald attended in order to sustain the falsehood that Oswald was in two places at once, correct? But it doesn't mean that at all, does it, David? "re-ad" is just the number of days to be added to absences in order to get the total number of school days in any particular year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 What do his maths grades have to to with you guys deliberately misinterpreting what "re-ad" means, and the process necessary to find the total number of school days that school year? I know I know - like everyone else at the Bates Motel, you're very busy... whatever Seems you've checked in at the Bates as well - tends to happen when you're stuck as to what to do next... Don't like how I addressed your inaccuracies?. You're so wrapped up in dissing H&L you forget about the grade cards or to do a real timeline with the evidence to see what a joke the FBI left us... So let's go Greg... Since I know you've not done your homework related to these documents and rely instead on the poor, wrong and terribly sourced arguments you offered years ago without update... this NEW VOLUME of yours will undoubtedly be full of these errors. Gonna post another passage? Or need to figure out how you got it so wrong. You mean to tell us that you, the man who knows everything about Oswald, cannot tell us when the BJHS year began or why the grade cards conflict with the permenant record? And yet you write a book on Oswald anyway. This will be like showing Posner or Myers for what they were... 5% truth mixed into 95% speculative and inaccurate fluff. Please tell me you continued on in that new volume to Easton, Arlington and beyond with the same attention to detail. Your take on Tujague's should also be illuminating... but first... punch your way out of this paper bag. I was kicked out of the Bates Motel (aka the deepfoo) because I was destroying your 2 Oswald myths. What inaccuracies did you address? All you did was made a fool of yourself again by claiming that the 5 days absence and the 12 days absence pertained to the same school year. They don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Really? What do these Grade cards refer to then Greg? Except for the Gen Math grades... they match each of the 54-55 classes in the perm record. Where do you suppose the numbers 168 & 12 come from and who put them there? And don't answer what you think I think... use your words to represent yourself for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Really? What do these Grade cards refer to then Greg? Um. Golly that's a tough one, Dave. I'm going to take a guess and say.... grades! Except for the Gen Math grades... they match each of the 54-55 classes in the perm record. Where do you suppose the numbers 168 & 12 come from and who put them there? So in fact they don't match.... but close enough is good enough to say they do? And don't answer what you think I think... use your words to represent yourself for a change. ? I wouldn't want to look inside your head, even if I could. There is enough horror in the world already. So come on Dave, you can do it. Tell me how many days you claim the records show Oswald attended Beauregard in the 53-54 school year? I say the paperwork provides insufficient data to make a determination. This is what hardlylee.nut says: 1953 Beauregard JHS record showing HARVEY Oswald attended 89 days of school during the fall semester of 1953, at the same time LEE Oswald attended PS 44 in New York City. See HARVEY's complete attendance and grade information for the fall 1953 semester directly below. Do you still support that nonsense or not? (hint: the 89 represents the re-ad figure. not days attended. Go back to where I explained to you for the umpteenth time what the re-ad figure actually is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Yup... exactly as you tried to prove earlier... Remember 168 + 12... for a total of 180 days of school and then 184 for the fall semester figured the same way... Says 89 + 1 on that line for a total of 90 Says 168 + 12 on the bottom line for a total of 180.... Just using the info you provided and claimed there is (or did you claim there is not) a connection between this number and the total number of school days? The number 168 does indeed fall below the mandated 170 days. That tells us it cannot be the total number of days in the school year. What we need to do is add the number of days listed as “absent”. In the case of the 1954-55 school year, we see 168 + 12 = 180 days – the exact number of days Head claimed to be the “regular”! If we do the same for the previous school year, we get 184 – more than the “regular”, but the term does imply occasional variation. The important point is that nowhere in the record does it show Oswald’s total number of attendance days. To work that out, we need to also know the dates Oswald commenced and finished at the school, along with the start and end dates of the school years involved. So if 168 does not equal the number of attendance days, why do you bother adding it to anything, using it for anything in this discussion? Why do you bother adding 89 + 1 + 90 + 4 to come to 184 if these numbers do not relate to his attendance? And doesn't it strike you as odd that a school record states there was 184 days one school year and 180 the next, (which you support) but that we are not supposed to know the actual attendance of the student in question, even though the Re-Ad number added to the absences give us the correct total number of days... You never seem to get to what YOU think Re-Ad is... other than to show when added to the other number, we get the total school year... You've contradicted your own presentation. As for the grades... they represent the entire 54-55 school year yet only show 5 absences... you simply can't understand what's going on,can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Yup... exactly as you tried to prove earlier... Remember 168 + 12... for a total of 180 days of school and then 184 for the fall semester figured the same way... Says 89 + 1 on that line for a total of 90 Says 168 + 12 on the bottom line for a total of 180.... Just using the info you provided and claimed there is (or did you claim there is not) a connection between this number and the total number of school days? The number 168 does indeed fall below the mandated 170 days. That tells us it cannot be the total number of days in the school year. What we need to do is add the number of days listed as “absent”. In the case of the 1954-55 school year, we see 168 + 12 = 180 days – the exact number of days Head claimed to be the “regular”! If we do the same for the previous school year, we get 184 – more than the “regular”, but the term does imply occasional variation. The important point is that nowhere in the record does it show Oswald’s total number of attendance days. To work that out, we need to also know the dates Oswald commenced and finished at the school, along with the start and end dates of the school years involved. So if 168 does not equal the number of attendance days, why do you bother adding it to anything, using it for anything in this discussion? Why do you bother adding 89 + 1 + 90 + 4 to come to 184 if these numbers do not relate to his attendance? And doesn't it strike you as odd that a school record states there was 184 days one school year and 180 the next, (which you support) but that we are not supposed to know the actual attendance of the student in question, even though the Re-Ad number added to the absences give us the correct total number of days... You never seem to get to what YOU think Re-Ad is... other than to show when added to the other number, we get the total school year... You've contradicted your own presentation. As for the grades... they represent the entire 54-55 school year yet only show 5 absences... you simply can't understand what's going on,can you? Oh I understand perfectly what's going on. You blowing smoke and avoiding answering pertinent questions. 1953-54 school year days available - 184 of which Oswald was absent 5 days and not enrolled for an unknown number of those days 1954-55 school year days available - 180 of which Oswald was absent 12 days. As for re-ad - how many times do I need to explain it? Head - in his two contradictory explanations, got it partially right in one when he said it represented the total number of school days. It would, but only if Oswald had no absences. You need to add those absences on. So... 168 + 12 = 180 for 54/55 and 179 + 5 = 184 for 53/54. So I'll ask again - do you stand by the Armstrong hoax that the re-ad figure is supposed to be the number of days Oswald attended? Edited August 1, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Paul, Who is "John Anderson"? You keep mentioning that name. Edited August 1, 2015 by Jim Hargrove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 What do his maths grades have to to with you guys deliberately misinterpreting what "re-ad" means, and the process necessary to find the total number of school days that school year? I know I know - like everyone else at the Bates Motel, you're very busy... whatever Seems you've checked in at the Bates as well - tends to happen when you're stuck as to what to do next... Don't like how I addressed your inaccuracies?. You're so wrapped up in dissing H&L you forget about the grade cards or to do a real timeline with the evidence to see what a joke the FBI left us... So let's go Greg... Since I know you've not done your homework related to these documents and rely instead on the poor, wrong and terribly sourced arguments you offered years ago without update... this NEW VOLUME of yours will undoubtedly be full of these errors. Gonna post another passage? Or need to figure out how you got it so wrong. You mean to tell us that you, the man who knows everything about Oswald, cannot tell us when the BJHS year began or why the grade cards conflict with the permenant record? And yet you write a book on Oswald anyway. This will be like showing Posner or Myers for what they were... 5% truth mixed into 95% speculative and inaccurate fluff. Please tell me you continued on in that new volume to Easton, Arlington and beyond with the same attention to detail. Your take on Tujague's should also be illuminating... but first... punch your way out of this paper bag. I was kicked out of the Bates Motel (aka the deepfoo) because I was destroying your 2 Oswald myths. What inaccuracies did you address? All you did was made a fool of yourself again by claiming that the 5 days absence and the 12 days absence pertained to the same school year. They don't. That is total bull and you know it. You were banned from DPF due to your nasty posts and many people emailing us about them, asking that we get rid of you or they would leave.. No one gets banned due to a particular view. especially if it is well argued. As proof your buddy Bart is posting at DPF and is not being nasty so there is no discussion of banning him. Likewise, no one gets banned without a lot of discussion among the founders, and finally, if warranted, a vote. The fact that you are so obsessed with JA is very telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Greg... the same exhibit which offers the perm record, offers the grade cards which feed into that record... Show us where 12 absences are recorded on grade cards to corroborate the permanent record. if 168 + 12 = 180, you are saying that 12 means something and was derived from actual records... that 12 equates to his absences from school... no? "168" is written there and as you explain, it makes up the rest of the school year.. most people understand that the number which is not "absences" is "attendance" Except you. THESE are the records in evidence.. if one does not begat the other... the origin of the other comes into question. Now why would the actual records of those specific years need creation ???? and what again is the significance of 3830 West 6th Apt 3 ... and then you can tell us where he was from Oct 55 thru Sept 56... You wrote a book about this time period, didn't you? why is getting the details correct so hard for you? You've been trying to make some point about "Re-Ad" yet you don't seem to be able to close this circle of your guesswork so it actually means something. If there were 180 days in a school year, and the student missed 12 days... how many days did he attend? If 168 is your answer, and 168 appears under the Re-Ad column... I'm thinking even you can connect those two dots... Edited August 1, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Paul, Who is "John Anderson"? You keep mentioning that name. Sorry, Jim. My JFK CT brain keep dredging up Jack Anderson and his obsessive CIA-Mafia CT. I always meant John Armstrong. I went back and corrected all those errors. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) What do his maths grades have to to with you guys deliberately misinterpreting what "re-ad" means, and the process necessary to find the total number of school days that school year? I know I know - like everyone else at the Bates Motel, you're very busy... whatever Seems you've checked in at the Bates as well - tends to happen when you're stuck as to what to do next... Don't like how I addressed your inaccuracies?. You're so wrapped up in dissing H&L you forget about the grade cards or to do a real timeline with the evidence to see what a joke the FBI left us... So let's go Greg... Since I know you've not done your homework related to these documents and rely instead on the poor, wrong and terribly sourced arguments you offered years ago without update... this NEW VOLUME of yours will undoubtedly be full of these errors. Gonna post another passage? Or need to figure out how you got it so wrong. You mean to tell us that you, the man who knows everything about Oswald, cannot tell us when the BJHS year began or why the grade cards conflict with the permenant record? And yet you write a book on Oswald anyway. This will be like showing Posner or Myers for what they were... 5% truth mixed into 95% speculative and inaccurate fluff. Please tell me you continued on in that new volume to Easton, Arlington and beyond with the same attention to detail. Your take on Tujague's should also be illuminating... but first... punch your way out of this paper bag. I was kicked out of the Bates Motel (aka the deepfoo) because I was destroying your 2 Oswald myths. What inaccuracies did you address? All you did was made a fool of yourself again by claiming that the 5 days absence and the 12 days absence pertained to the same school year. They don't. That is total bull and you know it. You were banned from DPF due to your nasty posts and many people emailing us about them, asking that we get rid of you or they would leave.. No one gets banned due to a particular view. especially if it is well argued. As proof your buddy Bart is posting at DPF and is not being nasty so there is no discussion of banning him. Likewise, no one gets banned without a lot of discussion among the founders, and finally, if warranted, a vote. The fact that you are so obsessed with JA is very telling. That is not bull at all. You were pleading with me to stop posting about H & L and instead, post about my book. I said I was happy to if anyone asked a question about it. No one did. Post a link to where I was nasty? Unless they have all been deleted I can post links showing what I was getting said to me from some of your members. Put up or shut up Dawn. Oh, and show where Vanessa was nasty to anyone while you're at it, before she was threatened with being banned. Edited August 2, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts