Bernie Laverick Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 "...and learned years ago that arguing with non believers is like dealing with flat earthers..." Dawn I don't want to argue with you; I don't even particularly want to debate with you either. I really don't feel you know enough about the theory so as to explain its constituent parts. David J has clearly read the book inside out and I dare say can claim expertise on its contents; at first glance he puts a convincing case. The onus is on you to be an expert on H&L. Not us. It's your theory. You should own it. If others come along and find inconsistencies in the interpretation of the evidence it's not good enough to hold your hands over your ears close your eyes and shout "xxxxx" Refusing to debate your point with someone because they don't share your narrow view is shallow beyond belief. I take heart that anyone who happens upon this thread uncommitted to this debate will see that the desperate evasion, the abuse, and the name calling have all come from the H&L corner and none of it has been reciprocated by the "Non Believers". Bernie PS...Finished reading the book yet Dawn...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 "...and learned years ago that arguing with non believers is like dealing with flat earthers..." Dawn I don't want to argue with you; I don't even particularly want to debate with you either. I really don't feel you know enough about the theory so as to explain its constituent parts. David J has clearly read the book inside out and I dare say can claim expertise on its contents; at first glance he puts a convincing case. The onus is on you to be an expert on H&L. Not us. It's your theory. You should own it. If others come along and find inconsistencies in the interpretation of the evidence it's not good enough to hold your hands over your ears close your eyes and shout "xxxxx" Refusing to debate your point with someone because they don't share your narrow view is shallow beyond belief. I take heart that anyone who happens upon this thread uncommitted to this debate will see that the desperate evasion, the abuse, and the name calling have all come from the H&L corner and none of it has been reciprocated by the "Non Believers". Bernie PS...Finished reading the book yet Dawn...? I read most of the book years ago. Am re-reading it. I see that your bio tells us zero about you. Why is that not a surprise? Good bye. To quote David Healey "xxxxx on". I will not read any future posts from you. It's abundantly clear why you are here. Dawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 So let me get this right, <snip> Thanks for responding... Best, Bernie You're welcome Bernie... in terms of getting it right... I don't think you've mirrored what I said: The NYC school records in the WCR Exhibits shows Lee as 5'4" and 115lbs.. The photo I posted was to show you that over 18 months later the boy is no where near 5'4" tall, nor is he strapping or large... The boy on the right, Lee, was... You kept asking how they would know these boys would turn out looking so similar... As I posted, the realization came to me that they didn't... that the pairing of these two happens in the Marines, while they are in the hands of their government... Whoever HARVEY was... he had his own history, the people who saw one then the other years later were amazed at the tranformation, bot Lee and his mother... her own sister, his own brother With regards to BJHS... I wonder if you;ve done this analysis? The transfer date was 1/13/54.. Each of the school years has a FALL, SPRING and TOTAL We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. On one card there is 1 absence, the other has 2 for that same time period.... According to this article from NYC the school year was starting on Sept 14, 1953.. and ending June 29th. Would this be the same for NOLA? I was unable to find the dates for NOLA, yet we can make an assupmtion and see where that takes us.... We agree that this child attended all of the SPRING semester... total possible attendance 90 days, as you posted... 90 days prior to June 29th is February 23rd... so, ok... subtract for a few holidays (7 for spring break is now Feb 15th, and a few single day holidays) We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester in PE and Science, and gets two 70's. 90 days prior to Feb 9 is Oct 6th... remove Xmas holiday and Thanksgiving plus a few single day holidays and we are at Sept 16th... very reasonable starting date given what was written about NYC schools... With a few exceptions... 1) 809 French street (changed from 757 French by the city) was Lillian Murrat's place, Margeurite's sister. In February 1954, LEE and Mother lived on French street... and then moved to 1454 St. Mary's - Marge's friend Myrtle Evans' multi-room house she was renting to all sorts of people. (for some amazing testimony please read Mr and Mrs Evans' account of the LOUD and boisterous LEE as compared to the descriptions of HARVEY at the time) On problem... HARVEY and his caretaker were living at 126 Exchange at the same time.... which was confirmed by Myra DeRouse, Dorothy Duvik and Ed Voebel... and this photo of MO on the left from the National Archives taken at 126 Exchange states on the back: "NO, La, 1954" the photo on the right is also taken at 126 Exchange but in 1956 and is of the real MO. On February 19, 1954 the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald began working at Burt's Shoe Store at 1117 Canal Street, and listed her address as 1454 St. Marys Street Voebel further stated that he first met Oswald in 1954 or 1955 and knew him for about 1.5 years. Voebel stated that he took music lessons at Werleins on Canal Street and would go to Oswalds home at 126 Exchange Place to see Oswald on these dates. Ed Voebel was one of the few people in this history who became aware of the two different boys... as you can see... there is some evidence that a person calling himself HARVEY Oswald was seperate and ditinct from LEE... In my working backwards scenario, this DOES NOT ACCOUNT for them being manipulated during that time... so as I've always said, knowing the extent ot hese plans and the plans of say, Angleton, is beyond my comprehension.. The evidence offered to assist in the conviction of Oswald focuses very heavily on timeperiods which exhibit conflict... why should we care about Oswald in 7th grade? Was Sihan's life, or James Earl Ray's picked apart in the same manner and depth? Not even close... so I have to ask you... what was the point of this in-depth, in-detail analysis of Oswald's Junior High & High School days in Ft Worth, NOLA and NYC which in turn brought us to his military days which also are filled with conflict.... 2) Myra DeRouse and the entire SPRING of 54 semester, she is not in contact with LEE, but Harvey... and his "mother" who was supposedly workin at a bar in the Quarter at the same time LEE's mother is working at BURT SHOES. 3) When we move forward to 54-55 grade cards... we find they do not match the Cumulative record at all regarding the dates of attendence... Furthermore... there are 180 days AT LEAST, in a school year... 12 + 168 is 180... suggesting that these days are added together to come to a total for the year, NOT that 168 was the total number of days in the year... but only those he attended... does that matter in relation to 53-54... should there be some consistencey there... ? I guess that's up to how you interpret it... Bernie... my job is not to convince you of anything... but to get you to look at the evidence yourself... and let you correlate it yourself - don't take my word or anyone else's... If you feel there are reasonable explanations for it all... so be it. If you feel you are the H&L cop for the forum and its your duty to dispell what was offered, reading the book and scanning the support documents might be in your best interest... I did not live the 10+ years Armstrong did researching and compiling this info... I only spent the last year digging into it, finding conflict after conflict with the evidence the FBI and USMilitary provided.... When we look at all the other places the FBI, Military and WCR offers evidence which is easily proven to be inauthentic, created, altered and/or completely misleading AND one of the lead lawyers expresses his concern over the inaccuracy or the FBI and SS reports, only to be shut down... one has the gut feeling that something our of the ordinary was up... I tend to lean toward an organzied effort NOT to allow us to understand the true history of the man Ruby killed... that may change in time as I continue to search and uncover... and as our government releases documents related to a LONE NUT/No-Conspiracy that were classified for 75 years for SOME reason... I'm more than willing to be 100% wrong... yet until you address the totality of the evidence which pieces together the lies and deceit in order to rewrite history... MY POV will continue to be that there is something there with H&L... and that it is more important than we understand... Beyond that all I can do is wish you luck in your understanding and your research efforts to explain that tragic event. Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 With regards to BJHS... I wonder if you;ve done this analysis? The transfer date was 1/13/54.. Each of the school years has a FALL, SPRING and TOTAL We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. On one card there is 1 absence, the other has 2 for that same time period.... According to this article from NYC the school year was starting on Sept 14, 1953.. and ending June 29th. Would this be the same for NOLA? I was unable to find the dates for NOLA, yet we can make an assupmtion and see where that takes us.... We agree that this child attended all of the SPRING semester... total possible attendance 90 days, as you posted... 90 days prior to June 29th is February 23rd... so, ok... subtract for a few holidays (7 for spring break is now Feb 15th, and a few single day holidays) We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester in PE and Science, and gets two 70's. 90 days prior to Feb 9 is Oct 6th... remove Xmas holiday and Thanksgiving plus a few single day holidays and we are at Sept 16th... very reasonable starting date given what was written about NYC schools... I don't understand. Let's just stay with the Beaureguard records for now and allow me to return on the other parts later. I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make. Other than mine! He started, as you have correctly stated, on the 13th January a full month before the start of the spring semester. So as well as his 90 days minus four absences for the Spring semester he also has an attendance record for the fall semester too. And in the only month he attended of that fall semester, that is early January to early February, he took one day off! We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. Yes that's right, he attended the last 4 weeks of the Fall semester. So he has grades and absences in the Fall and in the Spring. You actually then go on to explain this... We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester Nothing in the Beareguard record implies he started before the 13th January 1954. Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) "...and learned years ago that arguing with non believers is like dealing with flat earthers..." Dawn I don't want to argue with you; I don't even particularly want to debate with you either. I really don't feel you know enough about the theory so as to explain its constituent parts. David J has clearly read the book inside out and I dare say can claim expertise on its contents; at first glance he puts a convincing case. The onus is on you to be an expert on H&L. Not us. It's your theory. You should own it. If others come along and find inconsistencies in the interpretation of the evidence it's not good enough to hold your hands over your ears close your eyes and shout "xxxxx" Refusing to debate your point with someone because they don't share your narrow view is shallow beyond belief. I take heart that anyone who happens upon this thread uncommitted to this debate will see that the desperate evasion, the abuse, and the name calling have all come from the H&L corner and none of it has been reciprocated by the "Non Believers". Bernie PS...Finished reading the book yet Dawn...? I read most of the book years ago. Am re-reading it. I see that your bio tells us zero about you. Why is that not a surprise? Good bye. To quote David Healey "xxxxx on". I will not read any future posts from you. It's abundantly clear why you are here. Dawn. And without a hint of irony Only most of it...? Yes good bye Dawn ....wall...head...brick http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=6223 #edit to insert bio link Edited March 11, 2014 by Bernie Laverick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 With regards to BJHS... I wonder if you;ve done this analysis? The transfer date was 1/13/54.. Each of the school years has a FALL, SPRING and TOTAL We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. On one card there is 1 absence, the other has 2 for that same time period.... According to this article from NYC the school year was starting on Sept 14, 1953.. and ending June 29th. Would this be the same for NOLA? I was unable to find the dates for NOLA, yet we can make an assupmtion and see where that takes us.... We agree that this child attended all of the SPRING semester... total possible attendance 90 days, as you posted... 90 days prior to June 29th is February 23rd... so, ok... subtract for a few holidays (7 for spring break is now Feb 15th, and a few single day holidays) We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester in PE and Science, and gets two 70's. 90 days prior to Feb 9 is Oct 6th... remove Xmas holiday and Thanksgiving plus a few single day holidays and we are at Sept 16th... very reasonable starting date given what was written about NYC schools... I don't understand. Let's just stay with the Beaureguard records for now and allow me to return on the other parts later. I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make. Other than mine! He started, as you have correctly stated, on the 13th January a full month before the start of the spring semester. So as well as his 90 days minus four absences for the Spring semester he also has an attendance record for the fall semester too. And in the only month he attended of that fall semester, that is early January to early February, he took one day off! We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. Yes that's right, he attended the last 4 weeks of the Fall semester. So he has grades and absences in the Fall and in the Spring. You actually then go on to explain this... We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester Nothing in the Beareguard record implies he started before the 13th January 1954. Nothing. As I said Bernie... the records were falsified so they work...no real big mystery there... but you stop short of the entire CONFLICT section of the post... BJHS is not an island.. it interconnects with a bunch of other evidence from that exact time period, to dismiss that and try to reconcile it on its own is the same as looking at three cartridges on the floor and calling it a day. During the SPRING SEMESTER of 1954 he is living at both 126 Exchange and 1454 St Mary's... he is both loud and large at Lillians as well as small and quiet on Exchange... I really recommend that you read Myrtle Evans' testimony to see how she describes LEE and MO... Lillian Murret's as well... Maybe also watch the DeRouse interview... ===== We needn't agree Bernie... it was I who lead us down the analytical path regarding the days of the school year that evidence represents... you didn't take us there Bernie... you didn't use it as an agument against me... all it took was a 53-54 calendar, an article about the NYC school year and some counting... I COULD BE WRONG about the NOLA school year... the info I posted was for NYC, no NOLA... So how about doing some work and telling us when the NOLA school year actually started, actually ended and match that to the BJHS records... develop an argument on your own and defend it... I think that's fair, don't you? Instead, I did that and freely admit that the BJHS evidence is not necessarily indicative of a conflict, but it is not exactly complete now is it, as I just said regarding the NYC school year.... what follows does show conflict though... if, by law there are at least 180 days in the school year (which we DO have evidence for)... the 54-55 records are in conflict stating there were only 168. Add further that 12 days absent is not shown on a single grade card... not one Bernie.. where does "12" come from? It's as if the 12 and 168 are there just to add to 180.... why do you suppose the information from those 54-55 grade cards is not accurately represented in the final record of one Oswald, Lee from 807 French St? ===== I will add one more thing to this - Louise Robertson, a maid hired by MO while living in NYC made a statement to the FBI... you aware of that... and those implications? I would appreciate you not thinking I am goading you on about the evidence and lack of time or effort to uncover the information on your own. It is not just talk when I say that the volume of information is monumental.. yet you dismiss it as unnecceary time and effort... which is your right, but please don't expect to be taken seriously when everyone else is doing your work... and you proudly proclaim your desire NOT to look for yourself... not to follow-up yourself... To me, and many others, it appears lazy and provides baseless, argumentative, chatter from a partially informed pundunt... rather than someone debating with facts culled from their own analysis and follow-thru. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 With regards to BJHS... I wonder if you;ve done this analysis? The transfer date was 1/13/54.. Each of the school years has a FALL, SPRING and TOTAL We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. On one card there is 1 absence, the other has 2 for that same time period.... According to this article from NYC the school year was starting on Sept 14, 1953.. and ending June 29th. Would this be the same for NOLA? I was unable to find the dates for NOLA, yet we can make an assupmtion and see where that takes us.... We agree that this child attended all of the SPRING semester... total possible attendance 90 days, as you posted... 90 days prior to June 29th is February 23rd... so, ok... subtract for a few holidays (7 for spring break is now Feb 15th, and a few single day holidays) We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester in PE and Science, and gets two 70's. 90 days prior to Feb 9 is Oct 6th... remove Xmas holiday and Thanksgiving plus a few single day holidays and we are at Sept 16th... very reasonable starting date given what was written about NYC schools... I don't understand. Let's just stay with the Beaureguard records for now and allow me to return on the other parts later. I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make. Other than mine! He started, as you have correctly stated, on the 13th January a full month before the start of the spring semester. So as well as his 90 days minus four absences for the Spring semester he also has an attendance record for the fall semester too. And in the only month he attended of that fall semester, that is early January to early February, he took one day off! We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. Yes that's right, he attended the last 4 weeks of the Fall semester. So he has grades and absences in the Fall and in the Spring. You actually then go on to explain this... We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester Nothing in the Beareguard record implies he started before the 13th January 1954. Nothing. As I said Bernie... the records were falsified so they work...no real big mystery there... but you stop short of the entire CONFLICT section of the post... BJHS is not an island.. it interconnects with a bunch of other evidence from that exact time period, to dismiss that and try to reconcile it on its own is the same as looking at three cartridges on the floor and calling it a day. During the SPRING SEMESTER of 1954 he is living at both 126 Exchange and 1454 St Mary's... he is both loud and large at Lillians as well as small and quiet on Exchange... I really recommend that you read Myrtle Evans' testimony to see how she describes LEE and MO... Lillian Murret's as well... Maybe also watch the DeRouse interview... ===== We needn't agree Bernie... it was I who lead us down the analytical path regarding the days of the school year that evidence represents... you didn't take us there Bernie... you didn't use it as an agument against me... all it took was a 53-54 calendar, an article about the NYC school year and some counting... I COULD BE WRONG about the NOLA school year... the info I posted was for NYC, no NOLA... So how about doing some work and telling us when the NOLA school year actually started, actually ended and match that to the BJHS records... develop an argument on your own and defend it... I think that's fair, don't you? Instead, I did that and freely admit that the BJHS evidence is not necessarily indicative of a conflict, but it is not exactly complete now is it, as I just said regarding the NYC school year.... what follows does show conflict though... if, by law there are at least 180 days in the school year (which we DO have evidence for)... the 54-55 records are in conflict stating there were only 168. Add further that 12 days absent is not shown on a single grade card... not one Bernie.. where does "12" come from? It's as if the 12 and 168 are there just to add to 180.... why do you suppose the information from those 54-55 grade cards is not accurately represented in the final record of one Oswald, Lee from 807 French St? ===== I will add one more thing to this - Louise Robertson, a maid hired by MO while living in NYC made a statement to the FBI... you aware of that... and those implications? I would appreciate you not thinking I am goading you on about the evidence and lack of time or effort to uncover the information on your own. It is not just talk when I say that the volume of information is monumental.. yet you dismiss it as unnecceary time and effort... which is your right, but please don't expect to be taken seriously when everyone else is doing your work... and you proudly proclaim your desire NOT to look for yourself... not to follow-up yourself... To me, and many others, it appears lazy and provides baseless, argumentative, chatter from a partially informed pundunt... rather than someone debating with facts culled from their own analysis and follow-thru. DJ Ok, fair points: I need to brush up on more of the evidence before I make any more comments. I accept that. At some point though David i would like to hear your take on the Mcwatters 'escape' scenario: I believe, though I could be wrong, that Armstrong relies heavily on it being true. But that can wait. Let me absorb what's been written, take a close look first hand at the evidence, and we can hopefully continue taking it one issue at a time. Agreed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) With regards to BJHS... I wonder if you;ve done this analysis? The transfer date was 1/13/54.. Each of the school years has a FALL, SPRING and TOTAL We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. On one card there is 1 absence, the other has 2 for that same time period.... According to this article from NYC the school year was starting on Sept 14, 1953.. and ending June 29th. Would this be the same for NOLA? I was unable to find the dates for NOLA, yet we can make an assupmtion and see where that takes us.... We agree that this child attended all of the SPRING semester... total possible attendance 90 days, as you posted... 90 days prior to June 29th is February 23rd... so, ok... subtract for a few holidays (7 for spring break is now Feb 15th, and a few single day holidays) We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester in PE and Science, and gets two 70's. 90 days prior to Feb 9 is Oct 6th... remove Xmas holiday and Thanksgiving plus a few single day holidays and we are at Sept 16th... very reasonable starting date given what was written about NYC schools... I don't understand. Let's just stay with the Beaureguard records for now and allow me to return on the other parts later. I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make. Other than mine! He started, as you have correctly stated, on the 13th January a full month before the start of the spring semester. So as well as his 90 days minus four absences for the Spring semester he also has an attendance record for the fall semester too. And in the only month he attended of that fall semester, that is early January to early February, he took one day off! We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. Yes that's right, he attended the last 4 weeks of the Fall semester. So he has grades and absences in the Fall and in the Spring. You actually then go on to explain this... We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester Nothing in the Beareguard record implies he started before the 13th January 1954. Nothing. As I said Bernie... the records were falsified so they work...no real big mystery there... but you stop short of the entire CONFLICT section of the post... BJHS is not an island.. it interconnects with a bunch of other evidence from that exact time period, to dismiss that and try to reconcile it on its own is the same as looking at three cartridges on the floor and calling it a day. During the SPRING SEMESTER of 1954 he is living at both 126 Exchange and 1454 St Mary's... he is both loud and large at Lillians as well as small and quiet on Exchange... I really recommend that you read Myrtle Evans' testimony to see how she describes LEE and MO... Lillian Murret's as well... Maybe also watch the DeRouse interview... ===== We needn't agree Bernie... it was I who lead us down the analytical path regarding the days of the school year that evidence represents... you didn't take us there Bernie... you didn't use it as an agument against me... all it took was a 53-54 calendar, an article about the NYC school year and some counting... I COULD BE WRONG about the NOLA school year... the info I posted was for NYC, no NOLA... So how about doing some work and telling us when the NOLA school year actually started, actually ended and match that to the BJHS records... develop an argument on your own and defend it... I think that's fair, don't you? Instead, I did that and freely admit that the BJHS evidence is not necessarily indicative of a conflict, but it is not exactly complete now is it, as I just said regarding the NYC school year.... what follows does show conflict though... if, by law there are at least 180 days in the school year (which we DO have evidence for)... the 54-55 records are in conflict stating there were only 168. Add further that 12 days absent is not shown on a single grade card... not one Bernie.. where does "12" come from? It's as if the 12 and 168 are there just to add to 180.... why do you suppose the information from those 54-55 grade cards is not accurately represented in the final record of one Oswald, Lee from 807 French St? ===== I will add one more thing to this - Louise Robertson, a maid hired by MO while living in NYC made a statement to the FBI... you aware of that... and those implications? I would appreciate you not thinking I am goading you on about the evidence and lack of time or effort to uncover the information on your own. It is not just talk when I say that the volume of information is monumental.. yet you dismiss it as unnecceary time and effort... which is your right, but please don't expect to be taken seriously when everyone else is doing your work... and you proudly proclaim your desire NOT to look for yourself... not to follow-up yourself... To me, and many others, it appears lazy and provides baseless, argumentative, chatter from a partially informed pundunt... rather than someone debating with facts culled from their own analysis and follow-thru. DJ [emphasis added by T. Graves] Ok, fair points: I need to brush up on more of the evidence before I make any more comments. I accept that. At some point though David i would like to hear your take on the Mcwatters 'escape' scenario: I believe, though I could be wrong, that Armstrong relies heavily on it being true. But that can wait. Let me absorb what's been written, take a close look first hand at the evidence, and we can hopefully continue taking it one issue at a time. Agreed? Bernie, Just bear in mind that IF you do present any NOLA documents which indicate no significant conflict with those from BJHS, all the "true believers" have to do is oh-so-gently "remind" you that "the records were falsified so they work." LOL I for one for one appreciate the civil, level-headed questions and analysis which you have contributed to this thread. Keep up the good work! I suspect that there are many more "non-believers" and "agnostics" out there who at present feel too intimidated to participate or to even ask questions. --Tommy PS Here's the link to the "missing" (we thought it was missing or that Greg Parker had deleted all of his posts when he left) thread to which you referred earlier. It's seventeen pages long and was started by Greg Parker. In case you're wondering, DJ enters the fray on page 5... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18558&page=1 Edited March 13, 2014 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 To be fair, that thread is 3 years old and well before I spent a year discussing and analyzing the evidence with John... Thanks for the "emphasis" Tommy... curious though - when do you bring anything of your own to the table? or are you just a critic of other's work with little if anything to add yourself? Those that can't do, coach... those that can't coach become critics. ========= Bernie... appreciate the graciousness... yet to Tommy's beleaguered point... much of the evidence from the FBI/WCR was altered or changed to fit the circumstance (Dulles's editing of Cadigan's WC testimony about there being 400 items at the FBI lab over the weekend for example becoming, in the final printing, a "fingerprint" problem... shown below) When the direct testimony of an FBI expert can be DELETED and his testimony written for him, what does that do to the credibility of all the other "evidence" offered by these men? At some point though David i would like to hear your take on the Mcwatters 'escape' scenario To be honest Bernie my analysis/understanding of what occurs after the shots are fired is still evolving... Could you point me to the passage of information you are talking about.... From what I remember, Greg Parker and friends did a great job proving Oswald was not on that bus.... which makes sense to me. Especially if the outburst over the Rambler happened. In my mind, "Keep Ruth out of this" meant just the opposite, but the Paines were treated with such kid gloves... IDK. My own feeling is that it was LEE who shot Tippit as part of the plan with Ruby... what I find interesting is the lack of fear Ruby & the conspirators on the ground had with Oswald in custody... If he was actually in the know... he nevers indicates it other than the "Patsy" comment - which in itself suggests a suspected plan... "I'm innocent" is the cry of a truly innocent man. Bernie, I can't stress enough that this is not about being an Armstrong disciple.... his work and vast collection of evidence are but doors to be walked thru and discovered... I do not agree with each and every conclusion be it speculation or not... I simply had a hard time DISPROVING what the evidence itself suggests while relating it to and corroborating it with other evidence... If it's all a sham, all a set-up then these discussion and forums have served their red-herring purposes... The belief I have come to accept is that they didn't get everything thinking that much of it would never see the light of day... that there are needles in the haystack that lead to some unavoidable truths... either that, or "it's just a dream we dreamed, one afternoon, long ago" -Phil Lesh, Box of Rain Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 So let me get this right, <snip> Thanks for responding... Best, Bernie You're welcome Bernie... in terms of getting it right... I don't think you've mirrored what I said: The NYC school records in the WCR Exhibits shows Lee as 5'4" and 115lbs.. The photo I posted was to show you that over 18 months later the boy is no where near 5'4" tall, nor is he strapping or large... The boy on the right, Lee, was... You kept asking how they would know these boys would turn out looking so similar... As I posted, the realization came to me that they didn't... that the pairing of these two happens in the Marines, while they are in the hands of their government... Whoever HARVEY was... he had his own history, the people who saw one then the other years later were amazed at the tranformation, bot Lee and his mother... her own sister, his own brother With regards to BJHS... I wonder if you;ve done this analysis? The transfer date was 1/13/54.. Each of the school years has a FALL, SPRING and TOTAL We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. On one card there is 1 absence, the other has 2 for that same time period.... According to this article from NYC the school year was starting on Sept 14, 1953.. and ending June 29th. Would this be the same for NOLA? I was unable to find the dates for NOLA, yet we can make an assupmtion and see where that takes us.... We agree that this child attended all of the SPRING semester... total possible attendance 90 days, as you posted... 90 days prior to June 29th is February 23rd... so, ok... subtract for a few holidays (7 for spring break is now Feb 15th, and a few single day holidays) We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester in PE and Science, and gets two 70's. 90 days prior to Feb 9 is Oct 6th... remove Xmas holiday and Thanksgiving plus a few single day holidays and we are at Sept 16th... very reasonable starting date given what was written about NYC schools... With a few exceptions... 1) 809 French street (changed from 757 French by the city) was Lillian Murrat's place, Margeurite's sister. In February 1954, LEE and Mother lived on French street... and then moved to 1454 St. Mary's - Marge's friend Myrtle Evans' multi-room house she was renting to all sorts of people. (for some amazing testimony please read Mr and Mrs Evans' account of the LOUD and boisterous LEE as compared to the descriptions of HARVEY at the time) On problem... HARVEY and his caretaker were living at 126 Exchange at the same time.... which was confirmed by Myra DeRouse, Dorothy Duvik and Ed Voebel... and this photo of MO on the left from the National Archives taken at 126 Exchange states on the back: "NO, La, 1954" the photo on the right is also taken at 126 Exchange but in 1956 and is of the real MO. On February 19, 1954 the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald began working at Burt's Shoe Store at 1117 Canal Street, and listed her address as 1454 St. Marys Street Voebel further stated that he first met Oswald in 1954 or 1955 and knew him for about 1.5 years. Voebel stated that he took music lessons at Werleins on Canal Street and would go to Oswalds home at 126 Exchange Place to see Oswald on these dates. Ed Voebel was one of the few people in this history who became aware of the two different boys... as you can see... there is some evidence that a person calling himself HARVEY Oswald was seperate and ditinct from LEE... In my working backwards scenario, this DOES NOT ACCOUNT for them being manipulated during that time... so as I've always said, knowing the extent ot hese plans and the plans of say, Angleton, is beyond my comprehension.. The evidence offered to assist in the conviction of Oswald focuses very heavily on timeperiods which exhibit conflict... why should we care about Oswald in 7th grade? Was Sihan's life, or James Earl Ray's picked apart in the same manner and depth? Not even close... so I have to ask you... what was the point of this in-depth, in-detail analysis of Oswald's Junior High & High School days in Ft Worth, NOLA and NYC which in turn brought us to his military days which also are filled with conflict.... 2) Myra DeRouse and the entire SPRING of 54 semester, she is not in contact with LEE, but Harvey... and his "mother" who was supposedly workin at a bar in the Quarter at the same time LEE's mother is working at BURT SHOES. 3) When we move forward to 54-55 grade cards... we find they do not match the Cumulative record at all regarding the dates of attendence... Furthermore... there are 180 days AT LEAST, in a school year... 12 + 168 is 180... suggesting that these days are added together to come to a total for the year, NOT that 168 was the total number of days in the year... but only those he attended... does that matter in relation to 53-54... should there be some consistencey there... ? I guess that's up to how you interpret it... Bernie... my job is not to convince you of anything... but to get you to look at the evidence yourself... and let you correlate it yourself - don't take my word or anyone else's... If you feel there are reasonable explanations for it all... so be it. If you feel you are the H&L cop for the forum and its your duty to dispell what was offered, reading the book and scanning the support documents might be in your best interest... I did not live the 10+ years Armstrong did researching and compiling this info... I only spent the last year digging into it, finding conflict after conflict with the evidence the FBI and USMilitary provided.... When we look at all the other places the FBI, Military and WCR offers evidence which is easily proven to be inauthentic, created, altered and/or completely misleading AND one of the lead lawyers expresses his concern over the inaccuracy or the FBI and SS reports, only to be shut down... one has the gut feeling that something our of the ordinary was up... I tend to lean toward an organzied effort NOT to allow us to understand the true history of the man Ruby killed... that may change in time as I continue to search and uncover... and as our government releases documents related to a LONE NUT/No-Conspiracy that were classified for 75 years for SOME reason... I'm more than willing to be 100% wrong... yet until you address the totality of the evidence which pieces together the lies and deceit in order to rewrite history... MY POV will continue to be that there is something there with H&L... and that it is more important than we understand... Beyond that all I can do is wish you luck in your understanding and your research efforts to explain that tragic event. Peace DJ Perhaps this is a dumb question, David. Are you claiming those two photos of Marguerite are different people? Because they sure look like the same person to me... P.S. On several of your recent posts you have made reference to Norman Redlich's complaint about the SS and FBI. I'm not sure if you appreciate the context of that complaint. He was claiming--quite correctly, IMO--that the SS and FBI re-enactments of the shooting were inaccurate, and would not stand the test of time. As these re-enactments both placed the head shot at a location far beyond where the head shot was shown to have happened in the films and photos (upon which these re-enactments were purportedly based) Redlich realized that the WC needed to clear up this matter, and come up with something that would pass the simplest of smell tests. It is telling, moreover, that those performing the SS and FBI re-enactments were not questioned as to their methodology, or the reasons for their mistakes. This suggests, at least to me, that Redlch and Specter etc. felt these mistakes were no coincidence...and that the FBI and SS were blowing smoke. April 27, 1964 MEMORANDUM TO: J. Lee Rankin FROM: Norman Redlich The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine. Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building. As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination. Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs we feel that we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was standing. We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The governor feels that it came around 230, which is certainly consistent with our observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4 seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman. Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent, therefore, that if Governor Connally was hit even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier. We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin could have fired the first shot at the President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin. I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the appropriate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these questions with observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us. I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture. It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken expeditiously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Perhaps this is a dumb question, David. Are you claiming those two photos of Marguerite are different people? Because they sure look like the same person to me... P.S. On several of your recent posts you have made reference to Norman Redlich's complaint about the SS and FBI. I'm not sure if you appreciate the context of that complaint. He was claiming--quite correctly, IMO--that the SS and FBI re-enactments of the shooting were inaccurate, and would not stand the test of time. As these re-enactments both placed the head shot at a location far beyond where the head shot was shown to have happened in the films and photos (upon which these re-enactments were purportedly based) Redlich realized that the WC needed to clear up this matter, and come up with something that would pass the simplest of smell tests. It is telling, moreover, that those performing the SS and FBI re-enactments were not questioned as to their methodology, or the reasons for their mistakes. This suggests, at least to me, that Redlch and Specter etc. felt these mistakes were no coincidence...and that the FBI and SS were blowing smoke. Pat... Given the opinions you've offered on the wounds and the shooting scenario I am not comfortable with anything you offer as your opinion of visual evidence.... that you neglect in your reply all that follows those photos in my post from is to be expected .... and then in turn you change subjects... Talk to me of 126 Exchange and 1454 St Mary's and the conflicting evidence of DeRouse and Voebel before you side-track the thread... === I will take a minute to address this memo... as you introduce a line of thought I had not considered before... This suggests, at least to me, that Redlch and Specter etc. felt these mistakes were no coincidence...and that the FBI and SS were blowing smoke. You seem to be saying that this memo's reference to "the reports of the FBI and SS" are those that ONLY deal with the recreations (WCD 298, & 88) and not WCDs: 1, 3, 77, 79, 80, 305, 320, & 677.. which for the purposes of this relply, I will accept. If we are indeed only talking about these recreations... you seem to be implying that Redlich is aware that both page 3 of WCD88 describing the location of the last shot (4 feet short of 5+00 or 4+95, 30 feet further down the street than the survey's 4+65) , and the FBI's WCD 298 which also shows a shot at the foot of the stairs are "incorrect"... and needed correcting or they would give a "totally misleading picture". This is of course compared to the Zfilm evidence... the Nix film and the Muchmore film... as well as the Moorman photo.... which the SS and FBI surely had in their possession in order to create these models and conclusions. These "Miselading WCDs" are buried, never corrected and not included in the volumes of the WCR. Not because they were "blowing smoke" but because they presented a more accurate picture of the location of the limo at times when the men inside were hit with bullets... I had assumed that Redlich was being truthful and trying to get at the accuracy of the situation when quite the opposite appears true... JFK was hit - from the front - at the foot of the steps just across from Hudson to the north and Altgens to the south... as they testified. Redlich is assisting in hiding the facts and basically proves that the ZFILM which contradicts these reports - was altered before anyone had a chance to see the original showing that shot hitting home right where the FBI and SS puts it. So I will ask you the same question I've asked others... from what source does the SS and FBI conclude that shot occurs at approx Z375? Given their access to these films and photos showing something different... unless these films and photos did NOT show what they currently do? What benefit is there to the FBI and SS who are assisting in the cover-up, to offer ANY evidence that contradicts the physical evidence from that day and then place it into evidence - oversight? Altruism of some underlings? Breadcrumbs for future generations? Please read the testimony of the man who created the FBI model and the single image from that model which does not show the strings from the 6th floor, along with NO questions as to what the model was intended to do or say...http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm No Pat... other than your helping me see Redlich in the same league as the rest and NOT the whistle-blower I thought he was... you've basically set the stage for the PROOF that the film/photo evidence has been terribly altered... That the FBI and SS got it frighteningly correct and that... Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin. the model in WCD298 and the only image of it from the WCR.... I'll finish with my question from above: What source materials did the FBI and SS use to conclude what we see here and read in WCD88? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) [...] [...] Peace DJ Perhaps this is a dumb question, David. Are you claiming those two photos of Marguerite are different people? Because they sure look like the same person to me... [...] [Pat Speer] Pat, I agree. The big smile distorts her face a bit and the costume headband hides her forehead and hair, but it sure looks like Marguerite Oswald to me. And the smiling boy at the zoo could well be a very happy young Lee Harvey Oswald, IMHO. --Tommy Edited March 13, 2014 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Perhaps this is a dumb question, David. Are you claiming those two photos of Marguerite are different people? Because they sure look like the same person to me... P.S. On several of your recent posts you have made reference to Norman Redlich's complaint about the SS and FBI. I'm not sure if you appreciate the context of that complaint. He was claiming--quite correctly, IMO--that the SS and FBI re-enactments of the shooting were inaccurate, and would not stand the test of time. As these re-enactments both placed the head shot at a location far beyond where the head shot was shown to have happened in the films and photos (upon which these re-enactments were purportedly based) Redlich realized that the WC needed to clear up this matter, and come up with something that would pass the simplest of smell tests. It is telling, moreover, that those performing the SS and FBI re-enactments were not questioned as to their methodology, or the reasons for their mistakes. This suggests, at least to me, that Redlch and Specter etc. felt these mistakes were no coincidence...and that the FBI and SS were blowing smoke. Pat... Given the opinions you've offered on the wounds and the shooting scenario I am not comfortable with anything you offer as your opinion of visual evidence.... that you neglect in your reply all that follows those photos in my post from is to be expected .... and then in turn you change subjects... Talk to me of 126 Exchange and 1454 St Mary's and the conflicting evidence of DeRouse and Voebel before you side-track the thread... === I will take a minute to address this memo... as you introduce a line of thought I had not considered before... This suggests, at least to me, that Redlch and Specter etc. felt these mistakes were no coincidence...and that the FBI and SS were blowing smoke. You seem to be saying that this memo's reference to "the reports of the FBI and SS" are those that ONLY deal with the recreations (WCD 298, & 88) and not WCDs: 1, 3, 77, 79, 80, 305, 320, & 677.. which for the purposes of this relply, I will accept. If we are indeed only talking about these recreations... you seem to be implying that Redlich is aware that both page 3 of WCD88 describing the location of the last shot (4 feet short of 5+00 or 4+95, 30 feet further down the street than the survey's 4+65) , and the FBI's WCD 298 which also shows a shot at the foot of the stairs are "incorrect"... and needed correcting or they would give a "totally misleading picture". This is of course compared to the Zfilm evidence... the Nix film and the Muchmore film... as well as the Moorman photo.... which the SS and FBI surely had in their possession in order to create these models and conclusions. These "Miselading WCDs" are buried, never corrected and not included in the volumes of the WCR. Not because they were "blowing smoke" but because they presented a more accurate picture of the location of the limo at times when the men inside were hit with bullets... I had assumed that Redlich was being truthful and trying to get at the accuracy of the situation when quite the opposite appears true... JFK was hit - from the front - at the foot of the steps just across from Hudson to the north and Altgens to the south... as they testified. Redlich is assisting in hiding the facts and basically proves that the ZFILM which contradicts these reports - was altered before anyone had a chance to see the original showing that shot hitting home right where the FBI and SS puts it. So I will ask you the same question I've asked others... from what source does the SS and FBI conclude that shot occurs at approx Z375? Given their access to these films and photos showing something different... unless these films and photos did NOT show what they currently do? What benefit is there to the FBI and SS who are assisting in the cover-up, to offer ANY evidence that contradicts the physical evidence from that day and then place it into evidence - oversight? Altruism of some underlings? Breadcrumbs for future generations? Please read the testimony of the man who created the FBI model and the single image from that model which does not show the strings from the 6th floor, along with NO questions as to what the model was intended to do or say...http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm No Pat... other than your helping me see Redlich in the same league as the rest and NOT the whistle-blower I thought he was... you've basically set the stage for the PROOF that the film/photo evidence has been terribly altered... That the FBI and SS got it frighteningly correct and that... Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin. the model in WCD298 and the only image of it from the WCR.... I'll finish with my question from above: What source materials did the FBI and SS use to conclude what we see here and read in WCD88? It appears you've been reading Tom Purvis, David. I discuss the re-enactments in greater detail than anywhere else in chapters 2 and 2b of my website. I have discussed them at length on this forum. It seems you want to believe the SS and FBI got it right when they moved the head shot down the road a bit. As discussed on my website, there are a number of problems with this. 1. The SS originally got the head shot location correct, within a few feet. They then moved it down the road a bit. At the same time, the FBI moved it down the road a bit. Purvis chose to believe that they thought there was a second head shot after the head shot, down by the steps. 2. He has nothing to support this, however. The SS and FBI documents all indicate they thought the first shot hit Kennedy, the second Connally, and that the third was the fatal head shot. These documents also claim that they used the Zapruder and Nix films to come to this conclusion. 3. Now, some choose to believe that the fatal head shot took place further down the road, and that the films were altered to hide this. There is a huge problem with this, however. The Newmans. Alll the photos show them to be in the same place, just behind the location of the limo at the time of the head shot. Their statements certainly suggest Kennedy wasn't another ten yards down the road. So why would the SS and FBI place the head shot yards and yards down the road from where it actually took place? Good question. But I think I have the answer. I believe they were trying to stretch out the shooting scenario--to give Oswald or whomever more time in which to fire the shots. This is demonstrated below. Sorry about the side-trip. Now back to Harvey and Lee. Edited March 13, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Edited March 13, 2014 by David Josephs 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