Jim Hargrove Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Actually, my article will show how Armstrong is dependent on people like myself and Greg Parker to do his fact checking for him. We all saw how you thanked Greg in the Frankenstein matter because you were able to take the things he pointed out and turn them into a new reality by first removing the composite graphic and then restoring it with a new explanation. Great! We can't wait to see your article!!! The composite newspaper image with Wide World Photos clearer "retransmitted" image is still up on the H&L Website, on the parent page of the defection photo page. See here, about 3/4 of the way to the end: http://harveyandlee.net/Marines/Marines.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 RE: the Texas Employment Commission: Isn't it remarkable how the H&L Hit Squad around here effortlessly dismisses original source documents from the Texas Employment Commission, declaring them "wrong." The evidence shows that American-born Lee Oswald appeared at the TEC in April 1962 and Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald showed up two months later, after his return to the US. Of course, the Hit Squad ignores the long-suppressed FBI statement of TEC employee Laura Kittrell, who met both Oswalds in her office at the TEC and DECSCRIBED THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM. http://harveyandlee.net/Kittrell/Kittrell.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Following is posted here, with permission of the writer, from a post made by Albert Doyle on a different forum: ===================== QUOTE ON =========================== Armstrong is a very good researcher despite what some trolls allege. This is from the post-assassination period where intel was now in its killing witnesses phase. So this shows the intel depth of the actor Landesberg because he is now very likely attempting to frame Fowler or even kill him. So you can pretty much plumb the depth of SR Landesberg and therefore interpolate his relationship to Oswald from this. If SR Landesberg is doing dirty post assassination ops like this he's deep-in and operational. He exists at the level of Armstrong's theory. The student SH Landesberg knew too much too soon and had information he couldn't have had unless he was associated with the spook work he exposed. Doubters would have to explain how exactly a crazy student would know all this business otherwise? (The trolls will say "It isn't up to me to prove anything") SH Landesberg had no reason to know all this 8 hours after the assassination. The only way he could have known is if somebody told him or he experienced it himself. It is silly to deny this because the combination of SH Landesberg knowing this stuff only 8 hours after the assassination, plus SR Landesberg admitting it was a mistake to ever get involved with Oswald, and the fact the admission that Perry was from El Paso, Texas came from an FBI interview with SH Landesberg, all creates an inescapable evidentiary conclusion. An undeniable convergence of evidence. Deniers are playing games because obviously Marine records will show SH Landesberg, SR Landesberg, Oswald, and Perry all in the Marines together. SH Landesberg had Florida hotel information only a person who knew SR Landesberg could have known. And there's only one Perry from El Paso who was stationed at Barstow who would match with all this, so the wishy-washy evasions being used to get around this defy the obvious. There's only one Earl Eugene Perry who could have been in the Marines in 1956 and ended up at the Barstow supply station in 1963. Also, it would appear the Village Voice reporters had much more knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald and red beard Landesberg than they let on to. Plus, the WMCA radio host Barry Gray specifically told FBI that L'eandes and Rizzuto were definitely different people. FBI ignored this and made them the same person. You can't deny, wish, wash, or weasel around that solid fact if you are genuinely seeking the truth. There's clear evidence of a cover-up here even though some are trying to keep your attention focused on minutia. ========================== QUOTE OFF =========================== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) BTW, what about your earlier post on this thread in which you said (in red-colored font) that a particular WC document about Oswald's alleged April, 1962, dealings with the Texas Employment Commission could be found in "on page 491 Volume 19 (WarrenVolumes)" [sic] ? Where did you get that bad information? Harvey and Lee ? Or was it just carelessness on your part? // GRAVES ========================================================================== [iT WAS A] QUOTE FROM H & L . The employment document does have 4/22 written on it , as you Mr. Graves note. GAAL Dear Steven, I've highlighted your little mistake, above, in bold red to make it really easy for you to find. You probably meant to write 4/62, instead. Right? Or do you really think that Harvey or Lee went into the Texas Employment Commission in April of 1922? --Tommy YES 4/62 ,gaal see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=306816 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Graves re Texas Employment Commission document of LHO >>>>>>>> So, what does the "4/62" stand for on the page, above? Is it a typo for "4/63"? Unlikely, because it's written twice. <<<<<<<< ========================================= http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://usvsth3m.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1rpKtMG.jpg&imgrefurl=http://usvsth3m.com/post/88365063778/a-guest-post-author-john-higgs-explains-why-we&h=289&w=600&tbnid=j-eh_c-eQgyiiM:&zoom=1&docid=oea2pftxlm57XM&ei=ZmWNVYrfNcigoQSkr5aYCw&tbm=isch&ved=0CCQQMygHMAc ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] now for something totally uplifting = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dZMBrGGmeE Edited June 26, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 the WMCA radio host Barry Gray specifically told FBI that L'eandes and Rizzuto were definitely different people. FBI ignored this and made them the same person.// Albert Doyle ================== Golly H & L crowd calls this a smoking gun. // gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) FBI SUPPLYING TRUE DOCUMENT FACTS AND THE REAL HISTORY BIO OF LHO = EQUALS = oil & WATER (THEY DONT MIX !!!!!!!!!!) // gaal ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] jfkfacts.org site pat speer April 8, 2015 at 10:26 am = Roy Truly’s testimony regarding the job application is slightly curious, IMO. Note that CE 496 is a copy, and not the original. Note that Truly refuses to say he recognizes the handwriting on the form as Oswald’s, and refuses to recognize the form as the one he gave Oswald to fill out. It seems from this he had some doubts about the form. Note also then that Belin doesn’t ask him if this is a copy of the form he supplied the ????? Where was the original job app, and who gave the WC the copy of the original? Not the DPD. The only App in their files was the re-production. The FBI, then. I’ll keep looking until I find something in the FBI’s files acknowledging they acquired the job app and had someone double-check the handwriting to make sure it was Oswald’s, etc, the way they did with so many other documents. Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 496, which appears to be a photostatic copy of a document, and I ask you to state if you know what that is. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 496 for identification.) Mr. TRULY. This is a copy of the application blank that Oswald filled out. I am not familiar with his handwriting, because he didn’t do anything that we have records of. All the work that he ever did was put his number or something.Mr. BELIN. Well, my first question is this: Is this particular form a form of your company?Mr. TRULY. That is one form; yes. We changed it a little bit, and this might have been just one that I pulled out. I can’t recall whether it is the one we use now or the one we did use.Mr. BELIN. Well, was this a form that you were using at about the time he came for employment?Mr. TRULY. Yes.(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)Mr. BELIN. Did you see him fill this out? Was it in your office or not?Mr. TRULY. Yes. He was sitting opposite me, and he filled it out on my desk.Mr. BELIN. He filled this Exhibit 496 out on your desk?Mr. TRULY. Yes.Mr. BELIN. At this time we offer in evidence Exhibit 496. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ pat speer April 8, 2015 at 12:17 pm = Sure enough, there is an FBI report indicating they acquired the original job app from the TSBD. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=178 1. Note the date. The FBI scooped up the original job app before the DPD–who was at that time in charge of the case–could get a look at it.2. Why did the FBI give the WC a copy?3. What happened to the original? Is it still in the FBI’s files? (no Pat its in the Elm St round file,GAAL)4. Does anyone know what happened to the TSBD’s files? The thought occurs that the copy retained by the TSBD might be different than the one entered into evidence as CE 496.5. On the other hand, this report might help explain why the DPD had a reproduction and not a copy. IF the copy of the job app provided the TSBD when the FBI took the original was of poor quality, Det. Brian may have simply decided he was better off reproducting the app than asking the FBI for a decent copy. Edited June 26, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) BTW, what about your earlier post on this thread in which you said (in red-colored font) that a particular WC document about Oswald's alleged April, 1962, dealings with the Texas Employment Commission could be found in "on page 491 Volume 19 (WarrenVolumes)" [sic] ? Where did you get that bad information? Harvey and Lee ? Or was it just carelessness on your part? // GRAVES ========================================================================== [iT WAS A] QUOTE FROM H & L . The employment document does have 4/22 written on it , as you Mr. Graves note. GAAL Dear Steven, I've highlighted your little mistake, above, in bold red to make it really easy for you to find. You probably meant to write 4/62, instead. Right? Or do you really think that Harvey or Lee went into the Texas Employment Commission in April of 1922? --Tommy YES 4/62 ,gaal see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=306816 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Graves re Texas Employment Commission document of LHO >>>>>>>> So, what does the "4/62" stand for on the page, above? Is it a typo for "4/63"? Unlikely, because it's written twice. <<<<<<<< ========================================= http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://usvsth3m.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1rpKtMG.jpg&imgrefurl=http://usvsth3m.com/post/88365063778/a-guest-post-author-john-higgs-explains-why-we&h=289&w=600&tbnid=j-eh_c-eQgyiiM:&zoom=1&docid=oea2pftxlm57XM&ei=ZmWNVYrfNcigoQSkr5aYCw&tbm=isch&ved=0CCQQMygHMAc ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] now for something totally uplifting = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dZMBrGGmeE Stephen, As Greg Parker pointed out after I asked the above question, a 10/10/62 Dallas office Texas Employment Commission document about Oswald says, "Date in Fort Worth -- June, 1962," indicating either that that was when Oswald and family moved to Fort Worth from Minsk, USSR, or that that was when Oswald had taken a TEC test at the Fort Worth TEC office. Regardless, June of 1962, can also be written "6/62". Dallas TEC worker Helen P. Cunningham probably wrote "4/62" by mistake twice, meaning to write "6/62," instead. How else would you interpret "Date in Fort Worth -- June 1962" on Oswald's 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document, Stephen? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm --Tommy CORRECTION. MY BAD: The 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document doesn't say "DATE IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 1962." It says "[G?]ATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 62" (The last letter is definitely a "B," not an "E.") http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm "ATB" was the partial acronym of the TEC test Oswald took in Fort Worth, as we can see from Donald E. Brooks' Warren Commission testimony. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brooks.htm (press Ctrl and "F" simultaneously and then type in "ATB" to find it) Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether you made inquiry of the Fort Worth office as to whether they had what you call this ATB? Mr. BROOKS. This is something--oh, you mean, test records? Mr. JENNER. Yes. Mr. BROOKS. No, sir; I didn't, I am sure of this. The other office, Mrs. Cunningham, might have, but I didn't. (It's obvious to me now that Jenner was looking at "[G?]ATB" on the document and wasn't sure what the first letter was, so just referred to it as "ATB." Brooks didn't know what Jenner was referring to at first because he knew it as the "GATB" test. From an affidavit by Helen p. Cunningham, we can see the "[G?]ABT" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery." http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunning1.htm Also note that "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" is written on the part of the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document called the "Test Record Card" which also includes the broken-down results from Oswald's GATB test. Note also that in bold print in the upper right hand corner of the document are the words "APTITUDE TEST BATTERIES." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm Edited June 26, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) BTW, what about your earlier post on this thread in which you said (in red-colored font) that a particular WC document about Oswald's alleged April, 1962, dealings with the Texas Employment Commission could be found in "on page 491 Volume 19 (WarrenVolumes)" [sic] ? Where did you get that bad information? Harvey and Lee ? Or was it just carelessness on your part? // GRAVES ========================================================================== [iT WAS A] QUOTE FROM H & L . The employment document does have 4/22 written on it , as you Mr. Graves note. GAAL Dear Steven, I've highlighted your little mistake, above, in bold red to make it really easy for you to find. You probably meant to write 4/62, instead. Right? Or do you really think that Harvey or Lee went into the Texas Employment Commission in April of 1922? --Tommy YES 4/62 ,gaal see http://educationforu...=19762&p=306816 FOR 4/62 marking re FORT WORTH TESTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Graves re Texas Employment Commission document of LHO >>>>>>>> So, what does the "4/62" stand for on the page, above? Is it a typo for "4/63"? Unlikely, because it's written twice. <<<<<<<< -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GRAVES SAYS Also note that "[?]ATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 1962" is written on the part of the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document called the "Test Record Card" and includes the broken-down results from Oswald's "ATB" test. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm (WHO WAS PUT UNDER OATH TO VERIFY THIS MINOX CAMER AAAAh ah ah LIGHT METER DOCUMENT ? ANSWER ZERO !!! Counseling Record Card is not Test Record Card,gaal) ============================================================ Golly he took tests in April 62 in Ft worth. No question or answer of Fort Worth TEST DATE, gaal Edited June 26, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) CUNNINGHAM/ BROOKS TESTIMONY DATES HERE DATES THERE, DATES & DATES EVERYWHERE .. BUT NO QUESTION DATE FORT WORTH TESTS > WHERE IS THAT QUESTION ?????????????? gaal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Graves re Texas Employment Commission document of LHO >>>>>>>> So, what does the "4/62" stand for on the page, above? Is it a typo for "4/63"? Unlikely, because it's written twice. <<<<<<<< --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOLLY GEE (and as GRAVES SAYS WOW !!), gaal =============================================================================================Testimony Of Donald E. Brooks = http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brooks.htm=Mr. JENNER. By the way, was this form E-13, made up in your office or made up in some other office?Mr. BROOKS. The original must have been made up in my office. That is usually the procedure, actually.Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether you made inquiry of the Fort Worth office as to whether they had what you call this ATB?Mr. BROOKS. This is something--oh, you mean, test records?Mr. JENNER. Yes.Mr. BROOKS. No, sir; I didn't, I am sure of this. The other office, Mrs. Cunningham, might have, but I didn't. Edited June 26, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) [...] [...] [...] Graves re Texas Employment Commission document of LHO: So, what does the "4/62" stand for on the page, above? Is it a typo for "4/63"? Unlikely, because it's written twice. [...] Stephen, As Greg Parker pointed out after I asked the above question, a 10/10/62 Dallas office Texas Employment Commission document about Oswald says, "Date in Fort Worth -- June, 1962," indicating either that that was when Oswald and family moved to Fort Worth from Minsk, USSR, or that that was when Oswald had taken a TEC test at the Fort Worth TEC office. Regardless, June of 1962, can also be written "6/62". Dallas TEC worker Helen P. Cunningham probably wrote "4/62" by mistake twice, meaning to write "6/62," instead. How else would you interpret "Date in Fort Worth -- June 1962" on Oswald's 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document, Stephen? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm --Tommy CORRECTION! MY BAD: It doesn't say "DATE IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 1962." It says "[G?]ATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 62" (The last letter is definitely a "B," not an "E.") http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm "ATB" was the partial acronym of the TEC test Oswald took in Fort Worth, as we can see from Donald E. Brooks' Warren Commission testimony. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brooks.htm (press Ctrl and "F" simultaneously and then type in "ATB" to find it) Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether you made inquiry of the Fort Worth office as to whether they had what you call this ATB? Mr. BROOKS. This is something--oh, you mean, test records? Mr. JENNER. Yes. Mr. BROOKS. No, sir; I didn't, I am sure of this. The other office, Mrs. Cunningham, might have, but I didn't. From an affidavit by Helen p. Cunningham, we can see the "[G?]ABT" stood for "General Aptitude Test battery." http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunning1.htm Also note that "[G?]ATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 1962" is written on the part of the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document called the "Test Record Card" and includes the broken-down results from Oswald's GATB test. Note also that in bold print in the upper right hand corner of the document are the words "APTITUDE TEST BATTERIES" http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm [...] Stephen, try to get it straight for once. You can't get around the fact that the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC "Aptitude Test Batteries" / "Test Record Card" document says "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm IMHO, this indicates that Oswald took the General Aptitude Test Battery in Fort Worth in June of 1962, not April. What do you take "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" to mean? The "4/62" written twice by the same person on another 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document was a simple mistake made by someone, probably Mrs. Cunningham, who wrote "4/62," instead of "6/62," for June, 1962, which represented not only the date that Oswald had moved to Texas from Minsk, but also the date that Oswald had first contacted the TEC, in Fort Worth, and had taken the GATB test there -- "June 1962". When Jenner saw "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" on the document, he couldn't make out the first letter, so asked Brooks about "ATB," instead, which Brooks correctly took him to mean the test results ("GATB"). So what if Jenner didn't ask Brooks about the date that Oswald had taken the "ATB" / "GATB" test in Fort Worth? Brooks wasn't the Dallas TEC employee who had requested those results from Fort Worth. Helen P. Cunningham was. And there was no need to ask anyone about it anyway, because Cunningham had written on the document "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- JUNE 1962." Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. So you can declare yourself "the winner" if you want to, but I think more level-headed members and guests will realize that I've made my case regarding "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962". --Tommy Edited June 26, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Stephen, try to get it straight for once. You can't get around the fact that the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC "Aptitude Test Batteries" / "Test Record Card" document says "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm IMHO, this indicates that Oswald took the General Aptitude Test Battery in Fort Worth in June of 1962, not April. What do you take "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" to mean? The "4/62" written twice by the same person on another 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document was a simple mistake made by someone, probably Mrs. Cunningham, who wrote "4/62" instead of "6/62," which would have indicated June, 1962, which represented not only the date that Oswald had moved to Texas from Minsk, but also the date that Oswald had first contacted the TEC, in Fort Worth, and had taken the GATB test there -- "June 1962". When Jenner saw "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" on the document, he couldn't make out the first letter, so asked Brooks about "ATB," instead, which Brooks correctly took him to mean the test results ("GATB"). So what if Jenner didn't ask Brooks about the date that Oswald had taken the "ATB" / "GATB" test in Fort Worth? Brooks wasn't the Dallas TEC employee who had requested those results from Fort Worth. Helen P. Cunningham was. And there was no need to ask anyone about it anyway, because Cunningham had written on the document "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- JUNE 1962." Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. So you can declare yourself "the winner" if you want to, but I think more level-headed members and guests will realize that I've made my case regarding "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962". --Tommy The only case being made here by Steve is this: there is no such thing as human error. If someone writes 4/62 then that is irrefutably correct. He simply repeated the tests during June. Anyone can see that two different dates indicates two lots of tests at FW. What you need to understand, Tommy, is that you are not dealing with reality as we know it, This reality exists in a completely different dimension. It's the duality thing again. The same, but different. Depending on the viewer's needs. It's a wonderful world to visit, Tommy. But you wouldn't want to live there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Stephen, try to get it straight for once. You can't get around the fact that the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC "Aptitude Test Batteries" / "Test Record Card" document says "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm IMHO, this indicates that Oswald took the General Aptitude Test Battery in Fort Worth in June of 1962, not April. What do you take "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" to mean? The "4/62" written twice by the same person on another 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document was a simple mistake made by someone, probably Mrs. Cunningham, who wrote "4/62" instead of "6/62," which would have indicated June, 1962, which represented not only the date that Oswald had moved to Texas from Minsk, but also the date that Oswald had first contacted the TEC, in Fort Worth, and had taken the GATB test there -- "June 1962". When Jenner saw "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" on the document, he couldn't make out the first letter, so asked Brooks about "ATB," instead, which Brooks correctly took him to mean the test results ("GATB"). So what if Jenner didn't ask Brooks about the date that Oswald had taken the "ATB" / "GATB" test in Fort Worth? Brooks wasn't the Dallas TEC employee who had requested those results from Fort Worth. Helen P. Cunningham was. And there was no need to ask anyone about it anyway, because Cunningham had written on the document "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- JUNE 1962." Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. So you can declare yourself "the winner" if you want to, but I think more level-headed members and guests will realize that I've made my case regarding "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962". --Tommy The only case being made here by Steve is this: there is no such thing as human error. If someone writes 4/62 then that is irrefutably correct. He simply repeated the tests during June. Anyone can see that two different dates indicates two lots of tests at FW. What you need to understand, Tommy, is that you are not dealing with reality as we know it, This reality exists in a completely different dimension. It's the duality thing again. The same, but different. Depending on the viewer's needs. It's a wonderful world to visit, Tommy. But you wouldn't want to live there. Well then that's really ironic, isn't it, Greg. Because he makes so many of them himself. Like writing "4/22" instead of "4/62" recently, for example. And he missed it (twice?) when I tried to point it out to him. How wonderfully ironic. --Tommy PS Yes. Especially when the "two test dates" you're talking about are written in different ways on two different documents, and the results of only one of them (the one taken in June 1962) are broken down. Edited June 26, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) So what if Jenner didn't ask Brooks about the date that Oswald had taken the "ATB" / "GATB" test in Fort Worth? Brooks wasn't the Dallas TEC employee who had requested those results from Fort Worth. Helen P. Cunningham was. And there was no need to ask anyone about it anyway, because Cunningham had written on the document "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- JUNE 1962." // GRAVES ================================================================================================================================================== Date crazy WC does not talk about Fort Worth test date No testimony about FT Worth Test Record Card Test Record Card is all we have to counter problem you stated :--Graves re Texas Employment Commission document of LHO>>>>>>>> So, what does the "4/62" stand for on the page, above? Is it a typo for "4/63"? Unlikely, because it's written twice. <<<<<<<< see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=307017 showing that there are document problems regarding LHO employment. LHO timesheets (that's plural) from the TSBD seems and out and out forgery*. Seems they were written in one sitting. (Like the LHO historical diary). Many problems LHO employment record. gaal ----------------------------------------------------- * forgery (a beloved word of Anti-H & L people) ,gaal Edited June 26, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Stephen, try to get it straight for once. You can't get around the fact that the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC "Aptitude Test Batteries" / "Test Record Card" document says "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm IMHO, this indicates that Oswald took the General Aptitude Test Battery in Fort Worth in June of 1962, not April. What do you take "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" to mean? The "4/62" written twice by the same person on another 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document was a simple mistake made by someone, probably Mrs. Cunningham, who wrote "4/62" instead of "6/62," which would have indicated June, 1962, which represented not only the date that Oswald had moved to Texas from Minsk, but also the date that Oswald had first contacted the TEC, in Fort Worth, and had taken the GATB test there -- "June 1962". When Jenner saw "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" on the document, he couldn't make out the first letter, so asked Brooks about "ATB," instead, which Brooks correctly took him to mean the test results ("GATB"). So what if Jenner didn't ask Brooks about the date that Oswald had taken the "ATB" / "GATB" test in Fort Worth? Brooks wasn't the Dallas TEC employee who had requested those results from Fort Worth. Helen P. Cunningham was. And there was no need to ask anyone about it anyway, because Cunningham had written on the document "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- JUNE 1962." Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. So you can declare yourself "the winner" if you want to, but I think more level-headed members and guests will realize that I've made my case regarding "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962". --Tommy The only case being made here by Steve is this: there is no such thing as human error. If someone writes 4/62 then that is irrefutably correct. He simply repeated the tests during June. Anyone can see that two different dates indicates two lots of tests at FW. What you need to understand, Tommy, is that you are not dealing with reality as we know it, This reality exists in a completely different dimension. It's the duality thing again. The same, but different. Depending on the viewer's needs. It's a wonderful world to visit, Tommy. But you wouldn't want to live there. Well then that's really ironic, isn't it, Greg. Because he makes so many of them himself. Like writing "4/22" instead of "4/62" recently, for example. And he missed it (twice?) when I tried to point it out to him. How wonderfully ironic. --Tommy That's exactly that the sort of deep warping that can occur when you're stuck between these alternate dimensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Stephen, try to get it straight for once. You can't get around the fact that the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC "Aptitude Test Batteries" / "Test Record Card" document says "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm IMHO, this indicates that Oswald took the General Aptitude Test Battery in Fort Worth in June of 1962, not April. What do you take "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" to mean? The "4/62" written twice by the same person on another 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document was a simple mistake made by someone, probably Mrs. Cunningham, who wrote "4/62" instead of "6/62," which would have indicated June, 1962, which represented not only the date that Oswald had moved to Texas from Minsk, but also the date that Oswald had first contacted the TEC, in Fort Worth, and had taken the GATB test there -- "June 1962". When Jenner saw "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" on the document, he couldn't make out the first letter, so asked Brooks about "ATB," instead, which Brooks correctly took him to mean the test results ("GATB"). So what if Jenner didn't ask Brooks about the date that Oswald had taken the "ATB" / "GATB" test in Fort Worth? Brooks wasn't the Dallas TEC employee who had requested those results from Fort Worth. Helen P. Cunningham was. And there was no need to ask anyone about it anyway, because Cunningham had written on the document "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- JUNE 1962." Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. So you can declare yourself "the winner" if you want to, but I think more level-headed members and guests will realize that I've made my case regarding "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962". --Tommy The only case being made here by Steve is this: there is no such thing as human error. If someone writes 4/62 then that is irrefutably correct. He simply repeated the tests during June. Anyone can see that two different dates indicates two lots of tests at FW. What you need to understand, Tommy, is that you are not dealing with reality as we know it, This reality exists in a completely different dimension. It's the duality thing again. The same, but different. Depending on the viewer's needs. It's a wonderful world to visit, Tommy. But you wouldn't want to live there. Well then that's really ironic, isn't it, Greg. Because he makes so many of them himself. Like writing "4/22" instead of "4/62" recently, for example. And he missed it (twice?) when I tried to point it out to him. How wonderfully ironic. --Tommy That's exactly that the sort of deep warping that can occur when you're stuck between these alternate dimensions. I know that that wasn't a grammar mistake you made. It's an evil, secret, hidden code. --Tommy Edited June 26, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts