Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Jim Hargrove]

My point is, REASON IS NOT THE CURE, because Armstrong is more interested in book sales and market share than in the TRUTH, or anything to do with logic anymore.

On the contrary -- he's having a laugh -- all the way to the bank.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Anyone who knows how wealthy John Armstrong is (from his oil business and his custom home building work) would know that the income from book sales are irrelevant to his true wealth.

[Steven Gaal]

THE WC had a term for Harvey & Lee = FALSE OSWALD (see bottom first document)

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Oswald_in_New_Orleans.html

The False Oswald. Weisberg points out some of the appearances of what he terms "the false Oswald."

* Report of Bob Carroll, Criminal Intelligence Section, 23 Jan 1964. Hubert Morrow of Albright Parking System on Commerce Street remembered Oswald looking for a job six or seven days prior to the assassination, inquiring about the height of the parking lot and whether it afforded a "good view of Dallas."

* Criminal Intelligence Section report, 27 Jan 1964. This followup interview of Morrow noted that Albright employee Viola Sapp was also aware of the Oswald visit.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Paul,

Thanks for your interesting comments. I agree completely with the following:

It's seems to me that John Armstrong is having fun with the readers -- and has created a new game to play with the data of the JFK assassination.

I don't think that John Armstrong believes (or cares) about a Double-Oswald

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Yo, Porker,

John A's newest research... about the two Steven Landesbergs... will be ready for publication as early as tomorrow or Monday, and will be posted RIGHT HERE, along with the newest DEFECTION PHOTO info and TONSILS REPORT data on LHO.

Again, Porker (YOU LOOK SO MUCH THINNER IN YOUR BS PHOTO) ... please make posts soon along the lines of your FRANKENSTEIN OSWALD!! And by all means... DON'T CLICK HERE!

And remember....

WE LOVE YOU!!!

Bye-bye...

That should be interesting.

[Greg Parker]

I said before that the sum of those days was an approximation because the end date for the school year was unknown.

The end date CURRENTLY in New York is 6/23.

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/32DF8AD8-D1E0-4228-A919-818C6B12D8C3/0/201516SchoolYearCalendarFamilyFriendly.pdf

If it was the same or similar in 1953, you can have your 40 days, back but you need to subtract all days between 23/6 and September - about 49. I think that brings it back to approximately 192. You have also doubled up on the 15 days at YH. Those are the 15 days absence. You can't count it twice. So take off another 15 = 177 (again -it's approximate).

So... in summary... I may have been wrong about the 40 days not being counted - but only if the school year in 1953 ended around the same time as it currently does.

The bottom line is that there is a logical explanation that doesn't need a parallel universe to explain it.

bump.

[David Josephs]

I said before that the sum of those days was an approximation because the end date for the school year was unknown.

The end date CURRENTLY in New York is 6/23.

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/32DF8AD8-D1E0-4228-A919-818C6B12D8C3/0/201516SchoolYearCalendarFamilyFriendly.pdf

If it was the same or similar in 1953, you can have your 40 days, back but you need to subtract all days between 23/6 and September - about 49. I think that brings it back to approximately 192. You have also doubled up on the 15 days at YH. Those are the 15 days absence. You can't count it twice. So take off another 15 = 177 (again -it's approximate).

So... in summary... I may have been wrong about the 40 days not being counted - but only if the school year in 1953 ended around the same time as it currently does.

The bottom line is that there is a logical explanation that doesn't need a parallel universe to explain it.

bump.

pathetic.

Thru the 23rd of June, if they went that long, would be another 17 SCHOOL days genius.

There are over 40 school days from Jan 16 thru March 23...

The days in the Spring of 1953 in green represent the days which match the attendance record (inset) - there are 50 days there including his stay at Youth House on which he did not attend PS44 yet is somehow credited with the attendance with no mention of Youth house -

Let's add the 17 days until June 23rd for Parker. Total 67 days.

What does the evidence show? Reversed out overlaying Jan-Mar is the record... 109 + 15 + half days.

Let's add the 46 days back to Jan 16th - the day he was xferred thru March 23rd when he started school for a total of 67 + 46 = 113 school days. Still not the 124 + half days and we both know that the SPRING semester did not start on the 16th of Jan since we know the start date of the FALL semester and need about 90 school days.

It is 74 school days from Sept 1st to Jan 16th (and they did not start Sept 1st). Appears by basic math that the SPRING semester would not start until Feb.

You simply do not have enough days to account for the attendance.

So Parker... while you want to dance around throwing insults... it's all right here. Can't hide it, can't confuse it.

All you have left is your "go to": The FBI just made a mistake when they copied the originals onto the copies provided and proceeded to lose the originals... so trust us... it's just a simple mistake... hurry along, nothing to see here.

Edited June 7, 2015 by David Josephs

[Greg Parker]

I said before that the sum of those days was an approximation because the end date for the school year was unknown.

The end date CURRENTLY in New York is 6/23.

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/32DF8AD8-D1E0-4228-A919-818C6B12D8C3/0/201516SchoolYearCalendarFamilyFriendly.pdf

If it was the same or similar in 1953, you can have your 40 days, back but you need to subtract all days between 23/6 and September - about 49. I think that brings it back to approximately 192. You have also doubled up on the 15 days at YH. Those are the 15 days absence. You can't count it twice. So take off another 15 = 177 (again -it's approximate).

So... in summary... I may have been wrong about the 40 days not being counted - but only if the school year in 1953 ended around the same time as it currently does.

The bottom line is that there is a logical explanation that doesn't need a parallel universe to explain it.

bump.

pathetic.

Thru the 23rd of June, if they went that long, would be another 17 SCHOOL days genius.

There are over 40 school days from Jan 16 thru March 23...

The days in the Spring of 1953 in green represent the days which match the attendance record (inset) - there are 50 days there including his stay at Youth House on which he did not attend PS44 yet is somehow credited with the attendance with no mention of Youth house -

Let's add the 17 days until June 23rd for Parker. Total 67 days.

What does the evidence show? Reversed out overlaying Jan-Mar is the record... 109 + 15 + half days.

Let's add the 46 days back to Jan 16th - the day he was xferred thru March 23rd when he started school for a total of 67 + 46 = 113 school days. Still not the 124 + half days and we both know that the SPRING semester did not start on the 16th of Jan since we know the start date of the FALL semester and need about 90 school days.

It is 74 school days from Sept 1st to Jan 16th (and they did not start Sept 1st). Appears by basic math that the SPRING semester would not start until Feb.

You simply do not have enough days to account for the attendance.

So Parker... while you want to dance around throwing insults... it's all right here. Can't hide it, can't confuse it.

All you have left is your "go to": The FBI just made a mistake when they copied the originals onto the copies provided and proceeded to lose the originals... so trust us... it's just a simple mistake... hurry along, nothing to see here.

Oh, dear! Looks like you have me!

PS 117 (start of school year) = 15 + 47 + 4 half days (2 full days)

days not enrolled = 40

PS 44 = 109 + 15 (includes schools days spent in Youth House) + 6 half days (3 full days)

School year ends approx June 26 so deduct 49 days as ps 44 numbers go through to the start of the new school year on Sept 14.

------------------

so.... 15 + 47 + 2 + 40 + 109 + 15 + 3 - 49 = 182 - approximate only - actual figure would depend on date school year ended for 52/53 year.

Figures are taken from

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10765&search=%22school_records%22#relPageId=14&tab=page

School year end date assumed from current year end date as shown here

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/32DF8AD8-D1E0-4228-A919-818C6B12D8C3/0/201516SchoolYearCalendarFamilyFriendly.pdf

15 days at Youth House shown as days absence from PS 44.

I'll leave it to David to explain his calculations. I can't make a silk purse out of it.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Paul Trejo]

My point is, REASON IS NOT THE CURE, because Armstrong is more interested in book sales and market share than in the TRUTH, or anything to do with logic anymore.

On the contrary -- he's having a laugh -- all the way to the bank.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Anyone who knows how wealthy John Armstrong is (from his oil business and his custom home building work) would know that the income from book sales are irrelevant to his true wealth.

Well, Jim, when have wealthy people ever been *against* making more money?

Just because John Armstrong is already wealthy is no argument against a drive to make his hobby of playing with the American mind into a self-supporting venture.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

Just like you Greg, the FBI counted all the days including July, Aug and Sept... problem is he didn't go to summer school - unless you can provide some proof he did.

They simply counted the days from March 23 1953 until Jan 12, 1954 and created a fraudlulent document which makes no sense.

The total of the days offered here is virtually the same as the attendance from March 23 forward - except the summer should not be included.

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I do so identify that picture. That was taken at the Bronx Zoo--a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald, takes during my 10-day leave in New York City in 1953, approximately July or August of 1953.
Mr. JENNER. Was school in session at that time?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir, school was not in session at that time. This was during the summer months.
Mr. JENNER. So there was no obligation on the part of your brother to have been in school at this particular time?
Mr. OSWALD. That's correct, sir.

The School system would know the difference. The FBI agents tasked with creating this document evidently didn't.

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Josephs,

I don't have the mental acuity to understand the disagreement you and Greg have over the number of attendance days, and I want to understand both sides of the disagreement.

Will you please lay out your argument both conceptually and in detail? And also lay out Greg's competing argument in the same manner?

Thanks for your patience in attending to my request.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Greg Parker]

Just like you Greg, the FBI counted all the days including July, Aug and Sept... problem is he didn't go to summer school - unless you can provide some proof he did.

They simply counted the days from March 23 1953 until Jan 12, 1954 and created a fraudlulent document which makes no sense.

The total of the days offered here is virtually the same as the attendance from March 23 forward - except the summer should not be included.

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I do so identify that picture. That was taken at the Bronx Zoo--a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald, takes during my 10-day leave in New York City in 1953, approximately July or August of 1953.

Mr. JENNER. Was school in session at that time?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir, school was not in session at that time. This was during the summer months.

Mr. JENNER. So there was no obligation on the part of your brother to have been in school at this particular time?

Mr. OSWALD. That's correct, sir.

The School system would know the difference. The FBI agents tasked with creating this document evidently didn't.

I did a quick count of 215 week days for the period stated. Take away the 171 that the FBI came up with and you have 44. Summer = 40 days + other one day holidays = 44.

On that basis, I can't see what your gripe is. But even if do you have a point, so what? The FBI report is not a school report. The PS 44 school report is perfectly fine and accurate as per my previous calcs.

[Greg Parker]

David Josephs,

I don't have the mental acuity to understand the disagreement you and Greg have over the number of attendance days, and I want to understand both sides of the disagreement.

Will you please lay out your argument both conceptually and in detail? And also lay out Greg's competing argument in the same manner?

Thanks for your patience in attending to my request.

Can you explain what is confusing you in my calculations?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg,

There isn't anything confusing per se. I'm a mathematician at heart. I'm drawn to logical mathematical proofs. Step A leads to Step B, which leads to Step C, and so on. It's just that I can't follow the logic of your argument or David's argument, because I look at the arguments as one trained in math, and I don't understand the assumptions and the data. That's all.

You aren't confusing. I'm simply trying to understand your and David's arguments.

In math, proofs are laid out in discrete steps, based on stated assumptions. That's the sort of thing I relish.

[Paul Trejo]

Greg,

There isn't anything confusing per se. I'm a mathematician at heart. I'm drawn to logical mathematical proofs. Step A leads to Step B, which leads to Step C, and so on. It's just that I can't follow the logic of your argument or David's argument, because I look at the arguments as one trained in math, and I don't understand the assumptions and the data. That's all.

You aren't confusing. I'm simply trying to understand your and David's arguments.

In math, proofs are laid out in discrete steps, based on stated assumptions. That's the sort of thing I relish.

Jon, IMHO, David is trying to use Public School records to show that there were two Oswald's -- one attending one school in one place, and a different Oswald attending a different school at a different place. Greg doesn't agree that the data says what David says (and what John Armstrong says).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

There isn't anything confusing per se. I'm a mathematician at heart. I'm drawn to logical mathematical proofs. Step A leads to Step B, which leads to Step C, and so on. It's just that I can't follow the logic of your argument or David's argument, because I look at the arguments as one trained in math, and I don't understand the assumptions and the data. That's all.

You aren't confusing. I'm simply trying to understand your and David's arguments.

In math, proofs are laid out in discrete steps, based on stated assumptions. That's the sort of thing I relish.

The bigger picture is this: The FBI interviewed Myra Darouse, Lee's home-room teacher. She described Oswald as a physically small book-worm. That suited Armstrong's thesis and he tracked her down and convinced her the boy she remembered was "Harvey". Armstrong needed one of his two little CIA critters to be at Beauregard first, with the other coming later - hence the complete misreading of the school record to try and show it says he was there much sooner than the WC said.

But getting back to Myra - it is clear that even when interviewed by the FBI, she was confusing Oswald with another kid named Bobby Nuemann. The bottom line with the school record is that Armstrong twists it to somehow suggest it reveals an earlier start date that the official one.

It does no such thing. Everything with it adds up correctly.

For the facts about Myra and Beauregard, go here

"Harvey", the Tooth, the Whole Tooth & Nothing but Myra Darouse

Edited June 9, 2015 by Greg Parker