Ron Ecker Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) I would like to ask a perhaps dumb question, since I'm not that well versed in Armstrong's tome. Is it possible that his theory is half right? That is, yes, there were two people, Harvey and Lee, who looked very much alike and were used in the JFK plot. But, no, this was not something that was set in motion from their childhoods. Rather, the conspirators simply found an adult who looked enough like the other adult that both could be used in the JFK plot for deceptive purposes. I'm wondering in this regard how much of Armstrong's evidence for two Oswalds has to do with their adulthoods, or is most of the evidence he presents confined to their childhoods. Edited March 9, 2014 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Howard Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) Ron, I have asked myself the same question. A pat answer, would be that anything is possible. But, obviously something more rooted in specifics is desired. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that the flaw in Armstrong's belief, hinges on the account of the "Tippit" family that told the story of Harvey Oswald stated specifically that Harvey & his family were Communists, so if you take that assertion to it's ultimate conclusion, then Harvey would be part of a Communist conspiracy, which, supports the conclusion of known disinformation stories by everyone from Michael Eddowes to the U.S. CIA/FBI's own conspiracy theories that Khrushchev was the mastermind of the Kennedy assassination. That does not float in my universe.....Especially as new research tends to bolster the fact that Oswald was not on the sixth floor at the moment JFK was assassinated, to begin with. Even with the most deferential treatment towards John Armstrong, the best ambiguity is rooted in the fact that there are obscurities regarding Oswald's passport, which unless there are some very specific "additional facts" which remain classified, at least until today, only forthcoming new information in the classified documents, could alter the current factionalism within the research community. What frustrates me the most is the completely un-needed virulent dialogue between the believers in Armstrong's thesis, and those who do not.FWIW Edited March 9, 2014 by Robert Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 What may be of some importance here is to step back off of Armstrong & me, and just consider the evidence. John is human and of course speculated based on the information he uncovered both in the evidence and that which was never followed up by anyone.. as well as evidence not included in the book but in thousands of pages of notebooks compiled during his research for the book Without John we do not know of Frank Kudlaty and the FBI coming to Stripling the morning of 11/23 to take records of young Oswald from a location he never "officially" attended. So I ask myself - what is so important to Hoover that less than 8 hours after his being charged for the murder of JFK, FBI agents are at a school across the street from where Marguerite is living at the time... to retrieve records for the fall of 1954... 9 years prior.... what "evidence" is to be found to assist in finding Oswald guilty of a murder in Dallas 9 years later? What occurs between the summer of 1952 and 1956 ? What does this evidence which the FBI acquired, copied and submitted (with originals no longer available) as evidence, say? Well, it tells the story of attendance at a school in NYC while also telling of a Truant child remanded to Youth house... with three different versions of a "permanent NYC school record" none of which correctly adding up to the right number of days in a school year.... It tells of a child attending PS44 for 105 3/2 and missing 15 3/2 days, a total of 129 and 6 half days... from 3/23/53 thru early June 1963. Think about that... there are 180 or so school days in a year, yet the records offer 129 in less than a single semester... at EXACTLY the same time he goes from the tallest 5'4" 115lb 6th grade kid to a 4'9" scrawny child with sever mental problems.... truancy, not saluting the flag, etc.... Other WCR records tell of Oswald spending from April 23 thru May 7 at Youth house... CE2224 with no record or interruption in his PS44 attendance... ... what is not said is that there were/are THREE PS44's in NYC... Manhattan, Bronx and Queens. So until one takes the time to reconcile these dates and these records... attacking John or me for focusing attention on these records is directly akin to shooting the messenger... rather than addressing the message. CE1384 is but one of a number of NYC school record copies... here they are side by side: ce1384 on the right and the other versions not at all matching... So before condemnation of the man, how about analysis of the evidence offered and provide your own explanations.... This is but the tip of a huge iceberg... The FBI created a story about LHO... they created stories about all sorts of things which we came to find were fraudulent... Norman Redlich caught them, and said so on 4/27/64.... and it fell on deaf ears... The evidence of HARVEY and family being Hungarian Communists is not extensive at all... it relies on a letter and followup interview of a woman claiming to have known HARVEY's father and uncle in NYC. Is it rock solid? not by any means, imo... so let's put that on the back burner - please - and just look at what the FBI offered as evidence of Oswald's locations and activities starting in the summer of 1952... It has been and always will be about the Evidence... the evidence betrays the conspiracy and cover-up, as we know.... If anyone else has spent the time I have in detailed analysis and mapping of this information, please offer up your expertise... I don't have all the answers, but I do have a very in-depth knowledge of the EVIDENCE from which the book was written... DSL asking why there is no medical evidence in H&L is the same as asking him why there is no H&L in Best Evidence... because it was not the focus of the book... I have not worked my way to the Tippit murder yet via H&L.. John has his ideas based his knowledge of the evidence.. but I do know that those who saw this man who looked like Oswald described him very differently than the man arrested.... yet the evidence gets so much more unavailable as we get closer to the event... When you've completed an analysis of 1952 thru the return from Russia as offered and available, you can come to your own conclusions. When you look at CE1961 and then what Felde says in ce1962 which contradicts where and when Oswald was where the RECORDS says he was... along with half dozen other men never questioned... there is reconciliation to be done.... http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0415a.htm%C2'> Baylor has over 1000 folders with evidence in them... the CD with the book has hundreds of images... It would nice, instead of lynching our own, that we take the time to learn the material, or allow those who do know it to offer their understanding while pointing to it... I do not post my opinions unless I preface it with IMO, or some other indicator that I am not presenting facts... When I present facts/evidence, I go out of my way to provide the source for it.... or an image of it. The time has come to stop attacking John, or Jim H or me over H&L and do the homework.... this is not one isolated misinterpretation... H&L evidence runs rampant for over 10 years from 1952 thru 1963... and the evidence is almost all in the WCR FBI submitted records.... or those actions of the FBI which appear suspect given an "innocent" government's activities to find its president's killer. If you can dismiss all of this evidence - so be it... John nor I have hinged our lives on anyone "getting" it.... Unlike so many others whose lives, income and reputations are built on there not being an H&L in the records Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Opinion much-rakers on this board have a very loud voice David Josephs. Your knowledge of H&L and its "evidence," plus the fact that your conversant, express yourself well with written word and a grasp of the simple fact that conspiracy murdered JFK makes you a real bone of contention for the lone nut, .John trolls that still inhabit this place. Despite the fact that latter Ed Forum posters and their numbers have dropped by 50% or more lately, what else is new?. The lone nut trolls will whine for the pure pleasure of it. Your power is in presenting, not debating Armstrong's theses... Edited March 10, 2014 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted March 10, 2014 Author Share Posted March 10, 2014 For David Lifton: Not every book on the assassination has to deal with the medical evidence. This book is the first hand research re Harvey and Lee. THAT is the total subject. Beyond this I am not commenting further here. It has devolved into name calling and I have zero time or tolerance for such. Ron: re your question above : The reason the CIA "imported" Russian speaking kids had to do with a different conspiracy. That of later sending them to Russian as spies. The CIA could not have envisioned JFK at the time, but when JFK was bucking his war mongers the two were utilized quite well. To understand this entire work you simply have to take the time to read it. Yes it is long but it's so fascinating. I am re-reading and taking notes. As it is fact-filled. David Josephs has done a great spread sheet but reading this work is a must. It can be obtained on John's website. I am bad at remembering web site names but I THINK it is harveyandlee.net. After court I will find it and augment this post. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 For David Lifton: Not every book on the assassination has to deal with the medical evidence. This book is the first hand research re Harvey and Lee. THAT is the total subject. Beyond this I am not commenting further here. It has devolved into name calling and I have zero time or tolerance for such. Ron: re your question above : The reason the CIA "imported" Russian speaking kids had to do with a different conspiracy. That of later sending them to Russian as spies. The CIA could not have envisioned JFK at the time, but when JFK was bucking his war mongers the two were utilized quite well. To understand this entire work you simply have to take the time to read it. Yes it is long but it's so fascinating. I am re-reading and taking notes. As it is fact-filled. David Josephs has done a great spread sheet but reading this work is a must. It can be obtained on John's website. I am bad at remembering web site names but I THINK it is harveyandlee.net. After court I will find it and augment this post. Dawn Hi Dawn, the only one who has been edited by the moderators is David Josephs. No one else has called anybody any names except David. What you mean is people keep asking awkward questions and you don't have the answers. "To understand this entire work you simply have to take the time to read it" Dawn, am I right that Armstrong recently teased you about not reading his book yet? I recall you saying somwhere that you were on your second attempt and this time you were going to complete it. You said he asked you if you had read Best Evidence and you said you had..hence him teasing you about not reading his. Did I get that wrong? I'll try and find it. Or maybe you could put us straight on this. Have YOU read the full book yet Dawn? As this is an awkward question I won't be expecting an answer. Regards, Bernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Opinion much-rakers on this board have a very loud voice David Josephs. Your knowledge of H&L and its "evidence," plus the fact that your conversant, express yourself well with written word and a grasp of the simple fact that conspiracy murdered JFK makes you a real bone of contention for the lone nut, .John trolls that still inhabit this place. Despite the fact that latter Ed Forum posters and their numbers have dropped by 50% or more lately, what else is new?. The lone nut trolls will whine for the pure pleasure of it. Your power is in presenting, not debating Armstrong's theses... Why is it muck-raking to ask pertinent questions? And, I repeat, it is only David Joseph's posts that have been edited by moderators. What does that say? Ok David, perhaps you know the answer to why the two chosen adolescents from different countries and different families would grow up looking so identical over a ten year period. It is precisely because you cannot answer this you are resigned to squealing "xxxxx" every time someone asks it. Just because you can't answer simple questions regarding your own cherished theories does not make me a "lone nut xxxxx". it just makes you all look very dishonest. #edit typo Edited March 10, 2014 by Bernie Laverick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 What may be of some importance here is to step back off of Armstrong & me, and just consider the evidence. John is human and of course speculated based on the information he uncovered both in the evidence and that which was never followed up by anyone.. as well as evidence not included in the book but in thousands of pages of notebooks compiled during his research for the book Without John we do not know of Frank Kudlaty and the FBI coming to Stripling the morning of 11/23 to take records of young Oswald from a location he never "officially" attended. So I ask myself - what is so important to Hoover that less than 8 hours after his being charged for the murder of JFK, FBI agents are at a school across the street from where Marguerite is living at the time... to retrieve records for the fall of 1954... 9 years prior.... what "evidence" is to be found to assist in finding Oswald guilty of a murder in Dallas 9 years later? What occurs between the summer of 1952 and 1956 ? What does this evidence which the FBI acquired, copied and submitted (with originals no longer available) as evidence, say? Well, it tells the story of attendance at a school in NYC while also telling of a Truant child remanded to Youth house... with three different versions of a "permanent NYC school record" none of which correctly adding up to the right number of days in a school year.... It tells of a child attending PS44 for 105 3/2 and missing 15 3/2 days, a total of 129 and 6 half days... from 3/23/53 thru early June 1963. Think about that... there are 180 or so school days in a year, yet the records offer 129 in less than a single semester... at EXACTLY the same time he goes from the tallest 5'4" 115lb 6th grade kid to a 4'9" scrawny child with sever mental problems.... truancy, not saluting the flag, etc.... Other WCR records tell of Oswald spending from April 23 thru May 7 at Youth house... CE2224 with no record or interruption in his PS44 attendance... ... what is not said is that there were/are THREE PS44's in NYC... Manhattan, Bronx and Queens. So until one takes the time to reconcile these dates and these records... attacking John or me for focusing attention on these records is directly akin to shooting the messenger... rather than addressing the message. CE1384 is but one of a number of NYC school record copies... here they are side by side: ce1384 on the right and the other versions not at all matching... So before condemnation of the man, how about analysis of the evidence offered and provide your own explanations.... This is but the tip of a huge iceberg... The FBI created a story about LHO... they created stories about all sorts of things which we came to find were fraudulent... Norman Redlich caught them, and said so on 4/27/64.... and it fell on deaf ears... The evidence of HARVEY and family being Hungarian Communists is not extensive at all... it relies on a letter and followup interview of a woman claiming to have known HARVEY's father and uncle in NYC. Is it rock solid? not by any means, imo... so let's put that on the back burner - please - and just look at what the FBI offered as evidence of Oswald's locations and activities starting in the summer of 1952... It has been and always will be about the Evidence... the evidence betrays the conspiracy and cover-up, as we know.... If anyone else has spent the time I have in detailed analysis and mapping of this information, please offer up your expertise... I don't have all the answers, but I do have a very in-depth knowledge of the EVIDENCE from which the book was written... DSL asking why there is no medical evidence in H&L is the same as asking him why there is no H&L in Best Evidence... because it was not the focus of the book... I have not worked my way to the Tippit murder yet via H&L.. John has his ideas based his knowledge of the evidence.. but I do know that those who saw this man who looked like Oswald described him very differently than the man arrested.... yet the evidence gets so much more unavailable as we get closer to the event... When you've completed an analysis of 1952 thru the return from Russia as offered and available, you can come to your own conclusions. When you look at CE1961 and then what Felde says in ce1962 which contradicts where and when Oswald was where the RECORDS says he was... along with half dozen other men never questioned... there is reconciliation to be done.... Baylor has over 1000 folders with evidence in them... the CD with the book has hundreds of images... It would nice, instead of lynching our own, that we take the time to learn the material, or allow those who do know it to offer their understanding while pointing to it... I do not post my opinions unless I preface it with IMO, or some other indicator that I am not presenting facts... When I present facts/evidence, I go out of my way to provide the source for it.... or an image of it. The time has come to stop attacking John, or Jim H or me over H&L and do the homework.... this is not one isolated misinterpretation... H&L evidence runs rampant for over 10 years from 1952 thru 1963... and the evidence is almost all in the WCR FBI submitted records.... or those actions of the FBI which appear suspect given an "innocent" government's activities to find its president's killer. If you can dismiss all of this evidence - so be it... John nor I have hinged our lives on anyone "getting" it.... Unlike so many others whose lives, income and reputations are built on there not being an H&L in the records Peace DJ http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t717-claims-claims-and-more-claims#7923 This has been done over and over again David. It has been explained in specific detail, as in the above post, but you refuse to budge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Opinion much-rakers on this board have a very loud voice David Josephs. Your knowledge of H&L and its "evidence," plus the fact that your conversant, express yourself well with written word and a grasp of the simple fact that conspiracy murdered JFK makes you a real bone of contention for the lone nut, .John trolls that still inhabit this place. Despite the fact that latter Ed Forum posters and their numbers have dropped by 50% or more lately, what else is new?. The lone nut trolls will whine for the pure pleasure of it. Your power is in presenting, not debating Armstrong's theses... Why is it muck-raking to ask pertinent questions? And, I repeat, it is only David Joseph's posts that have been edited by moderators. What does that say? Ok David, perhaps you know the answer to why the two chosen adolescents from different countries and different families would grow up looking so identical over a ten year period. It is precisely because you cannot answer this you are resigned to squealing "xxxxx" every time someone asks it. Just because you can't answer simple questions regarding your own cherished theories does not make me a "lone nut xxxxx". it just makes you all look very dishonest. #edit typo we await your future book concerning LHO and his many faces, Bernie. Till then, xxxxx on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Opinion much-rakers on this board have a very loud voice David Josephs. Your knowledge of H&L and its "evidence," plus the fact that your conversant, express yourself well with written word and a grasp of the simple fact that conspiracy murdered JFK makes you a real bone of contention for the lone nut, .John trolls that still inhabit this place. Despite the fact that latter Ed Forum posters and their numbers have dropped by 50% or more lately, what else is new?. The lone nut trolls will whine for the pure pleasure of it. Your power is in presenting, not debating Armstrong's theses... Why is it muck-raking to ask pertinent questions? And, I repeat, it is only David Joseph's posts that have been edited by moderators. What does that say? Ok David, perhaps you know the answer to why the two chosen adolescents from different countries and different families would grow up looking so identical over a ten year period. It is precisely because you cannot answer this you are resigned to squealing "xxxxx" every time someone asks it. Just because you can't answer simple questions regarding your own cherished theories does not make me a "lone nut xxxxx". it just makes you all look very dishonest. #edit typo we await your future book concerning LHO and his many faces, Bernie. Till then, xxxxx on... No answer from you either, what a surprise. I ask you a question. You call me a xxxxx. Why does everyone have to be an "expert" or an "author" to ask a simple question? If David Joseph's knowledge of all this is so outstanding then why doesn't he make me look foolish and simply answer the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Ron: re your question above : The reason the CIA "imported" Russian speaking kids had to do with a different conspiracy. That of later sending them to Russian as spies. The CIA could not have envisioned JFK at the time, but when JFK was bucking his war mongers the two were utilized quite well. To understand this entire work you simply have to take the time to read it. Yes it is long but it's so fascinating. I am re-reading and taking notes. As it is fact-filled. David Josephs has done a great spread sheet but reading this work is a must. It can be obtained on John's website. I am bad at remembering web site names but I THINK it is harveyandlee.net. After court I will find it and augment this post. Dawn, I have the book. Read parts of it several years ago, don't know if or when I'll get around to reading the whole thing. Don't remember much except that it was impressive. But the fact is, I think I know who killed JFK whether Armstrong is right or wrong. P.S. I used to know how to block quotes and reply underneath the block, but can't seem to do it anymore, so I'm putting my reply in bold. Edited March 10, 2014 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:56 PM David Josephs wrote.... Yes indeed... the silence of those not wishing to engage in discussion that MIGHT show their conclusions to be suspect... or not entirely supported by the evidence offered.Wasn't it the WCR commissioners and supporters who said... "We've demolished all arguments that anyone but Oswald was guilty and we are NOT going to discuss it or argue about it. We're not interested as our conclusion is our conclusion... and there is no valid rebuttal to be had... so don't even bother..." Fine words David, but shouldn't you practise what you preach and answer the awkward questions? So far I have asked Martin, Dawn (who, staggeringly, also hasn't read the full book!!!) David Healy and yourself. All I have encountered so far, apart from the constant insults, is "the silence of those not wishing to engage in discussion that MIGHT show their conclusions to be suspect..." Please look up the word 'irony'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 If David Joseph's knowledge of all this is so outstanding then why doesn't he make me look foolish and simply answer the question? Ok David, perhaps you know the answer to why the two chosen adolescents from different countries and different families would grow up looking so identical over a ten year period. Bernie... I'd be glad to let the anomousity drop... as to how and why these two were chosen and when I would like to offer this thought - Did they choose H&L much later in the equation (around the time they entered the marines - whatever the "plan" was) since he looked like LEE and was going to be used for some "operation", and then go back to recreate his history with his caretaker providing the images of the younger HARVEY, which are virtually all blurry and/or hard to make out... as opposed to trying to find children that looked alike? There are woefully few photos of HARVEY between the ages of 13 and 17... by 18 they did indeed look alike.. but we'll get to that discussion later.... at 12 and 13 I do not think these two look the same, nor do I think their size is the same... so in answer to your question... they were not chosen so they would look the same years later, they were chosen cause they looked the same IN 1956/57 and their histories were merged into one so that HARVEY and/or LEE would become an untraceable asset... Bernie - to be brutally honest, that thought occurred to me as I was typing this post... the quesion you asked is the problem with the mindset and analysis, not the evidence of H&L... they worked BACKWARD from two men who looked similar enough to fool whoever may have looked closely, as opposed to forward from 1952. DJ So let's take it a little at a time... The beginning of this journey is the Summer of 1952 after LEE graduates 6th grade and moves to NYC with his mother... Mr. JENNER - When next did you see your mother or Lee or Robert? Mr. PIC - August 1952, sir. Mr. JENNER - I hand you John Pic Exhibits Nos. 57 and 58. I don't know which depicts this young man at the younger age. Take the younger one. Mr. PIC - Exhibit No. 57, sir, I believe was taken either in late 1951 or early 1952, and it shows a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald approximately how he looked when he came to New York to stay with my wife and I in August of 1952 http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0073b.htm (the photo is a very small piece of the exhibit) So here is LEE anywhere from 1 year and 8 months BEFORE the Bronx zoo photo (early 1952) to even longer before... but appears to be his 6th grade photo, which in many school districts is taken during the first semester of the school year... so Fall 1951... (note: Bronx zoo photo supposedly from summer 1953) You've read John Pic's testimony... he is shown a large number of images of his brother and repeatedly picks LEE from HARVEY... The first image he says is not LEE is the Bronx Zoo photo... 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. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0413b.htm In 6th grade, on the right in my composite, LEE is 5'4" and 115lbs (we have those records too if you need) and Yes, I did go as far as to find out the heights of the guardrails at the Bronx zoo the photo was taken by Robert Oswald: Mr. OSWALD. This was July or August of 1953. I had my orders to go to Miami, Fla. I took a 10-day leave and left Millington, Tenn., by car and came to New York City and spent 10 days in New York with Lee, mother, John, and his family. <snip> Mr. JENNER. Referring to the 10-day leave in New York City, did you spend time with your brother Lee? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir (Jenner) Do you remember any of the places at which you took snapshots of Lee during this 10-day leave? Mr. OSWALD. The Bronx Zoo I believe was about the only time I can recall taking any pictures of him. So is it fair to say this photo was taken in the Summer of 1953 AFTER he has graduated from a Ft Worth elementary school and in NYC? Is it also fair to say that the WCR informs us that these are the same people? Is there evidence available that contradicts the size of LEE in NYC as not being a LARGE, 5'4" 115lb soon to be 13 year old leader in his class and sometime bully... but being a very small, undernourished looking boy? Do these boys look "identical" to you? Can we agree this is the place to start our discussion of how "identical" these boys are... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 So let me get this right, because the story had now changed somewhat hasn't it? You don't know what the original purpose of this pairing was and you now concede that the operation doesn't go as far back as you have all been saying it did. Is this the official H/L explanation? Or are you just thinking on your feet David? This would be fine, but as you have said, it's all about the evidence. Though I am pleased that in a previous post you were honest enough to say that "Armstrong speculated" with the evidence he had to hand. That's a start. You also admitted that he is "only human", but none of us really needed reminding of that... So for instance when you cite Oswald's height as going to 4' 9" from 5' 4" in one term....you see that as being supsicious. If it were true it would be. But you are mistaken David. You have read 5 FOOT 4 when really it is 54 INCHES, that is, 4' 6". You also misrepresented the attendance figures for Beaureguard JHS. The records show a total possible attendance of 89 and 90 days respectively for the two semesters. Yet you have interpreted this as total days ATENDANCE. Not true. To find the attendance one simply subtracts the absences from the total days available. Of course, looking at it through this prism creates a conflict in the records and therefore...a doppleganger. I also believe Frank Kudlaty is a compromised witness. He was an old mucker of Jack White (who admitted that he was responsible for tracking him down for Armstrong). Jack underlined Kudlaty's honesty and integrity by highlighting his personal knowledge of the man. When Jack was called out on this, conscious that he had now created a huge conflict of interest, he backtracked and said he'd hardly had any contact with him for over 50 years. No mention of their former relationship exists in H/L. When one of the witnessess has a connection to one of the researchers...you have to balance that evidence accordingly. When you don't balance the evidence you end up with Oswalds all over the place. Despite firmly believing he was being impersonated just prior to and during the assassination, there is simply not enough evidence to weave such an intricate story as H&L. And what evidence has been presented is flawed and misrepresented. But we have made progress. Because from now on we won't be hearing about a plot hatched in the early 50's to meld two individuals identities. You are now saying that the impetus for this came much later on in the deacade, after he joined the army. Then they backtracked with the school records and photos to make it 'fit'. David, are you sure this isn't just an improvised flurry, like a Keith Richards guitar lick on "Shine a Light"...? (maybe "Paint It Black" would be a better analogy) Thanks for responding... Best, Bernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 David: The Tippit murder was the subject of the paper I delivered for John at COPA. It absolutely nails it in my opinion. No other explanation makes sense. As to Bernie...I don't answer to people like you. I have been researching the murder of JFK since day one at age 14. I know how to ignore people who do not appear to be interested in the truth. It's a wast of my time. And any ones. Thanks DJ for all the great work you are doing on H & L. Some people can't see truth when it is presented. One must ask "why"? then move on. I have a time consuming job and learned years ago that arguing with non believers is like dealing with flat earthers. DJ if you have not already posted the stuff above, the details of the multiple PS 44 and Youth House evidence at DPF will you please do so. . Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now