Was There a Set-up Distinct from the Cover-up?

[Greg Parker]

PS - the NYC school records state that little Ozzie attended or was absent a total of 127 days from March 23, 1953 until the end of the semester - June 30th...

He spent a couple weeks at Youth Camp (April 15 - May 8) during this time which is not noted in the attendance....

127 school days from March 23rd bring us to the beginning of September 1953. The FBI, in forging this document SEEMS to have added all the school days necessary to get to Sept 14th, the start of the next semester

instead of to the end of the Spring semester.

If you can count and add - I believe even you can get this one correct. How does a child attend 109 3/2 days and miss 15 3/2 days of school between 3/23 and 6/30 (if the school year even lasted that long.)

Oh wait, the summer of 1953 is the North Dakota summer... Maybe they tried to put little Ozzie in summer school all that time to counter act that claim? Yet little Lee did not attend summer school.

OK Tommy, you can wait for your hero GP to come to your aid, use your fingers and toes, or find a calculator.

He transfers to PS44 on 1/16/53 yet does not attend his first day until 3/23. Besides 15 3/2 absent days does not account for 1/16 - 3/23.

Good luck

In response to the above, Greg Parker wrote:

"But of course you're not going to post the originals which might confirm your maths...

The whole premise that the FBI forged the New York City school records is a completely screwed-up premise to try and sell. If my 11 year olds bought it, they'd get detention for a year.

The FBI had to beg the courts to release the records which was eventually done through the mayor's office. So you've got the FBI altering records supplied to them through official legal channels and then having the chutzpah to not only alter them, but to allow the WC to publish the altered versions.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10765&relPageId=2

PS

Thanks for finding and passing on the link, Tommy. I appreciate it."

Greg,

So Josephs is alleging that the FBI altered records that they had had to beg for through legal channels, and then actually allowed the Warren Commission to publish those altered records? Sounds like a very serious allegation.

Just wondering -- If Jo Jo posted "the originals," would they "confirm his maths"? I suppose not. Otherwise he would have posted them, right?

--Tommy

PS You're welcome Greg. BTW, which link are you referring to? LOL

But seriously, thank YOU for posting the newspaper picture of Lee Harvey Oswald that Jack White altered it almost beyond recognition.

And thank you for what you do in general.

What about Oswald's measurements while in school, Jo Jo?

Didn't Armstrong and you confuse 5' 4' with 54 inches, or something like that, which was a significant mistake because, after all, 54 inches = 4' 8" and is considerably shorter than 5' 4".

I'm going from memory here, so I might have the actual numbers wrong, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Ring any bells, ?

--Tommy

Tommy,

His understanding of how to read the school records is one of the problems - as he has demonstrated in the past with Beauregard records.

You are correct. Armstrong accuses the FBI of altering records obtained through legal channels. Here it is, straight from Harvey&Lee.net "Judge Florence Kelley gave the FBI original school records of Oswald's attendance, but weeks later the FBI provided the WC with photographs (not original records) of Oswald's attendance at PS 44 in the Bronx."

I would assume the FBI took copies because Judge Kelley was big on civil rights and privacy issues. She would have wanted the originals returned. How that is spun into something sinister once again tells you the type of people who came up with this cockamamie crap.

The judge told the press at the time... "Our records are always confidential and we never reveal them to anyone. I did give some information to the FBI, as an exception and contrary to our regular rules, for the simple reason that Oswald is dead..." In short, if Oswald had lived, obtaining those records would have been a lot harder than it already was.

These are the same people, btw, who claim the FBI stormed Stripling High the day after the assassination and obtained records from Frank Kudlaty, who as it happened, was a good friend to Armstrong side-kick, Jack White. Small world. And of course, those lying feds covered that up by later claiming that all the Fort Worth school records were obtained from the school Board. But who would ever believe that old school records would be kept at the school district office and not at the school itself? No one would ever buy that...

As for the height thing... the 54" could be mistaken as 64" which also comes out at 5' 4". But your idea on works, too.

They need it to be 64" so they can claim the kid who was seen (UNOFFICIALLY - at the request of Oswald's PO) by Dr Kurian, was the not the real historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

But Kurian was right. Lee Oswald was 4' 6" at the time. Boys going through puberty can have quick growth spurts, and that accounts for his being taller over the next couple of years. Nature explains very easily so much of what "puzzles" the Armstrongites regarding various alleged height discrepancies with Lee and Marguerite (people shrink as they age. Seems an easy enough concept to grasp, yet to this cult it means some sort of voodoo or dopplelganging machine is involed).

[Greg Parker]

He spent a couple weeks at Youth Camp

[Thomas Graves]

He spent a couple weeks at Youth Camp

Thanks for the feedback, Greg.

(I grew 14 inches one year around the age of 13 or 14. Talk about growth spurts. Course I did end up bein' 6' 5", but still...)

Armstrong and Jo Jo tickle my funny bone. Great entertainment!

--Tommy

[Greg Parker]

He spent a couple weeks at Youth Camp

Thanks for the feedback, Greg.

(I grew 14 inches one year around the age of 13 or 14. Talk about growth spurts. Course I did end up bein' 6' 5", but still...)

Armstrong and Jo Jo tickle my funny bone. Great entertainment!

--Tommy

Tommy,

I wonder how long he'll stay away this time before coming back and changing the subject? I think (should he return any time soon) he'll switch to the USMC records.

His problem is, he is too use to dealing with unquestioning zombies over at the DeepFooFoo forum - under the protection of his fellow cultists on the moderation team, should one of them accidentally ask a pertinent question. He is out of his depth on neutral territory.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Thomas Graves]

He spent a couple weeks at Youth Camp

Thanks for the feedback, Greg.

(I grew 14 inches one year around the age of 13 or 14. Talk about growth spurts. Course I did end up bein' 6' 5", but still...)

Armstrong and Jo Jo tickle my funny bone. Great entertainment!

--Tommy

Tommy,

I wonder how long he'll stay away this time before coming back and changing the subject? I think (should he return any time soon) he'll switch to the USMC records.

His problem is, he is too used

to dealing with unquestioning zombies over at the DeepFooFoo forum - under the protection of his fellow cultists on the moderation team, should one of them accidentally ask a pertinent question. He is out of his depth on neutral territory.

I rarely go over there myself, Greg. Although I agree with most of what P. D. Scot says in DP and the Death of JFK, I find that concentrating on one "conspiracy" at a time works best for me. I have a low tolerance for grand schemes and paranoia in my life whereas it appears that some people need it like a drug. I'm not much of a True Believer -- I'm too skeptical and critical-minded, I guess.

And I'll be the first to admit to getting carried away sometimes by my own misconceptions and perceptions -- Tan Jacket Man in the Hughes film, for example. Although it sure looked to me as though he was handing something off to the guy in the blue jacket... lol

I really wanted him to be the guy that Baker said he had encountered on the fourth floor or the stairway near the fourth floor...

--Tommy

Edited March 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Mark Knight]

Tommy,

Have you ever read Stephen King's "11/22/63" ?

Once I got past the concept of time travel, it seemed plausible.

Maybe that's why Mr. Josephs is working so hard on selling Armstrong's work...because we refuse to "suspend disbelief" long enough to let the fiction turn into reality.

But...that's just MY take on it all. If Armstrong's story is true, then the plot to kill JFK must have BEGUN more than 10 years before the actual assassination...even before he became a Senator, while he was still in the House of Representatives.

Rather than waiting for him to have become President [and by a slim margin at that], wouldn't the plotters have been smarter [and the plan less expensive] had they simply rubbed him out BEFORE he became politically powerful? I mean, doing it before he even gets elected to the Senate seems a lot simpler than killing a President....and if the [Harvey and Lee] plan was in motion in 1952-53, WHY WAIT?

Then again...WTF do I know...right?

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

Have you ever read Stephen King's "11/22/63" ?

Once I got past the concept of time travel, it seemed plausible.

Maybe that's why Mr. Josephs is working so hard on selling Armstrong's work...because we refuse to "suspend disbelief" long enough to let the fiction turn into reality.

But...that's just MY take on it all. If Armstrong's story is true, then the plot to kill JFK must have BEGUN more than 10 years before the actual assassination...even before he became a Senator, while he was still in the House of Representatives.

Rather than waiting for him to have become President [and by a slim margin at that], wouldn't the plotters have been smarter [and the plan less expensive] had they simply rubbed him out BEFORE he became politically powerful? I mean, doing it before he even gets elected to the Senate seems a lot simpler than killing a President....and if the [Harvey and Lee] plan was in motion in 1952-53, WHY WAIT?

Then again...WTF do I know...right?

Good one, Mark.

It seems to be part of human nature to always take things to extremes.

While I can accept the idea that Oswald was impersonated from time to time, I don't take it to the extreme and say that a Russian-speaking boy of Hungarian ancestry was chosen many years before the assassination to act as somebody's doppelganger and vice versa, and that one of them killed JFK after helping to set up the other one to take the blame.

Too neat. Too tidy. Too implausible.

I don't know how else to put it.

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edited March 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Mr. Knight - I've heard the King book is good, but I haven't been able to get myself to read it. Would you mind giving a simple synopsis of the central theory?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Several thoughts. First, if (and that's if) John Armstrong is correct about there being two boys named Lee Oswald who looked a lot alike and whose paths intertwined to an extent, it's not unreasonable to think these two boys may have come to someone's attention. The someone being a CIA officer or agent, possibly. Assuming this to be the case does require assuming the officer's or agent's purpose was to frame one of the boys ten years in the future.

Second, I'm reminded of living in Indiana in the mid- to late-1970s. Indiana was a great state for high school basketball and produced some truly great players for Indiana University and Purdue. There were moms, for example, who went to high school basketball games and made reports on talented players to Indiana college coaches. It was a marvelous system of spotting and assessing. Same thing could have happened if there were a Harvey and a Lee.

Postscript: One tends to ignore that for which one is not looking. Looking for something increases one's chances of perceiving it.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Mark Knight]

Paul B., the premise of king's book is thus: A man discovers a portal back in time to 1958. Every time you enter the portal, you arrive at the same place and the same day and time in 1958. This man, who has terminal cancer, lets another man in on his secret, and requests that the second man go back and try to prevent the JFK assassination. The second man promises he'l do his best, and then...does his best.

[Greg Parker]

Several thoughts. First, if (and that's if) John Armstrong is correct about there being two boys named Lee Oswald who looked a lot alike and whose paths intertwined to an extent, it's not unreasonable to think these two boys may have come to someone's attention. The someone being a CIA officer or agent, possibly. Assuming this to be the case does require assuming the officer's or agent's purpose was to frame one of the boys ten years in the future.

Second, I'm reminded of living in Indiana in the mid- to late-1970s. Indiana was a great state for high school basketball and produced some truly great players for Indiana University and Purdue. There were moms, for example, who went to high school basketball games and made reports on talented players to Indiana college coaches. It was a marvelous system of spotting and assessing. Same thing could have happened if there were a Harvey and a Lee.

Postscript: One tends to ignore that for which one is not looking. Looking for something increases one's chances of perceiving it.

And making it up, bending and twisting the facts, "misreading" documents, altering photos, co-opting a friend of a member of your team as a witness, and coaching other witnesses increases it again. It's just taking the WC MO one tiny step further.

The language skills can be accounted for in a non-spooky way.

We agree that there are some problems with some photos, notwithstanding that Jack White created one of them. Someone has played around with some others, and I believe who we see in one of the photos was a CIA agent, - an agent I will identify in my upcoming book. What we don't apparently agree on is that this is any sort of evidence for a CIA Doppelganger operation. The vast majority of photos are Oswald.

So what else are you stuck on here, Jon? What else is keeping you holding on to this smelly bag of offal as if it were a meal fit for a king?

You tell me what, and I'll explain to you why not.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Your post #125 is right on target IMO.

Thank you, Jon.

I admit to being unsure of the facts of the murder.

The wound in JFK's back in the vicinity of T3 was too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

That is the cardinal fact of JFK's murder.

Follow the evidence, eh?...A wound in the back with no corresponding exit wound. Therefore the wound in the throat was an entrance with no corresponding exit.

This matches the witness descriptions of the throat wound at Parkland, and the back wound at Bethesda.

There is no logical reason to make liars out of these witnesses just to press some silly Pet Theory about a high back wound or a throat exit, which lots of researchers like to do.

I don't think it's possible today to be sure of JFK's wounds, given the apparent Z-film tampering and the poor excuse of an autopsy.

All true of the head wound/s. They'd have to exhume JFK to answer those questions, and we all know that's not going to happen.

The medical evidence is easy to sort out.

There was medical evidence prepared/maintained according to proper military autopsy protocol.

There was medical evidence that wasn't prepared/maintained according to proper military autopsy protocol.

In the former category we put the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors on 11/22/63, Burkley's death certificate signed off as "verified"; the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil and signed off as" verified"; the cervical x-ray; the Sibert-O'Neill FBI report on the autopsy, as well as the Sibert-O'Neill depositions for the HSCA in '78.

The autopsy material that wasn't prepared/maintained according to proper military autopsy protocols includes the final autopsy report on the back wound, the extant autopsy photos especially the Fox 5 "Back of the Head" photo; the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen citing a moveable, non-thoracic landmark for a thoracic wound location (a triple violation of autopsy protocol!)

Since the FBI report refers to "apparent" surgery to the top of the head, the possibility of pre-autopsy surgery cannot be discounted.

This renders the head x-rays worthless as scientific evidence in a proper autopsy.

The entire subject of the head wound/s is a waste of time EXCEPT as a study of the cover-up.

I like Robert Mady's attempt to make sense of the extant Z-film. I believe, however, that concrete conclusions cannot be drawn from the extant film.

My interest in the Zfilm is restricted to Z186 thru Z255. I find that sequence consistent with the Betzner #3 photo (Z186), Willis #5 (Z202), and Altgens #6 (Z255), as well as the close-proximity witness statements of Nellie Connally, Phil Willis, Linda Willis, Rosemary Willis, Jackie Kennedy, Clint Hill, and Glenn Bennett.

I asked Jack White and John Costella if there was any anomaly in Z186 thru Z255 to lead one to conclude that sequence was altered -- both of these leading Zap-alterationists said the anomalies (limo stop, head shot/s) occurred after Z255.

Martin Schatz, M.D., makes much of the bullet holes in JFK's suit jacket and shirt, as you do. I'm inclined very much to buy your argument here. JFK's suit coat may have ridden up somewhat, but his clothes were tailored, which means they would move naturally with his body. I've got four tailored Brooks Brothers suits, because I make a lot of presentations. The suits are the best investment I've made. They've made me presentable when I've been a wreck, because they conform to me and my movements. That's the nature of tailored clothes.

The bullet holes in JFK's clothing give the lie to the Warren Report.

E. Martin Schotz, yes. In the Salandria Group with Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi, Harold Feldman, Ray Marcus and Michael Morrissey-- they've always emphasized the primacy of the clothing evidence.

In a murder case physical evidence trumps -- a fact a lot of researchers outside the Salandria Group don't grasp.

But the trach wound, the head wounds -- they've all been skillfully smudged for history.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg Parker,

I'm wading my way through H&L. I say wading because it's a slog.

I hear what you and Lee Farley say about Armstrong's having a selective agenda. I understand that.

I dismiss all arguments that no one could have been monitoring HARVEY and LEE in the 1950s, assuming HARVEY and LEE were different boys.

I ask only for the arguments, not links, the arguments. Why Armstrong is right. Why Armstrong is wrong.

Just so you know, to me, search for truth is paramount.

[Greg Parker]

Greg Parker,

I'm wading my way through H&L. I say wading because it's a slog.

I hear what you and Lee Farley say about Armstrong's having a selective agenda. I understand that.

I dismiss all arguments that no one could have been monitoring HARVEY and LEE in the 1950s, assuming HARVEY and LEE were different boys.

I ask only for the arguments, not links, the arguments. Why Armstrong is right. Why Armstrong is wrong.

Just so you know, to me, search for truth is paramount.

Jon,

I get concerned when someone as insightful as you (as you showed yet again in a recent reply to Tommy), cannot recognize claptrap when they see it.

You don't want links which cite evidence; you want me to reproduce it all here? Not gonna happen Jon. I simply don't have the time or inclination to replicate the mountain of work I've done on this - nor do see the need to when it is freely available to read elsewhere.

But I will give you this. Any theory is only as strong as its basis. The basis for this theory was the FBI report on the interview with Palmer McBride in which McBride states he knew Oswald in 1957-58 - an impossibility according to the official timeline - save there being more than one LHO.

"During his first visit to my home in late 1957 or early 1958 the discussion turned to politics and to the possibility of war. At this time I made a statement to the effect that President DWIGHT EISENHOWER was doing a pretty good job for a man of his age and background, but that I did feel more emphasis should be placed on the space program in view of Russian successes. OSWALD was very anti-Eisenhower, and stated that President EISENHOWER was exploiting the working people. He then made a statement to the effect that he would like to kill President EISENHOWER because he was exploiting the working class. This statement was not made in jest, and OSWALD was in a serious frame of mind when this statement was made."

Armstrong tells his readers that McBride talked to Oswald about the Sputnik program. But that is clearly not what McBride said. They talked about "Russian successes".

Here are 2 news stories from 1956 which talk about "Russian successes".

Soviet Race For 'Moon' Spurs US

‎

Pay-Per-View -

Christian Science Monitor - May 4, 1956

According to reports , Soviet space . under the direction of t;ommission . on Travel. Some of the Soviet Union's top natural scientists are believed to be ...

SOVIET SPACE SHIP IN '56 ENVISIONED; London Red Paper...

‎

$3.95 -

New York Times - Jan 3, 1956

The Communist newspaper Daily Worker reported in a Moscow dispatch today that the Soviet Union might be ready to launch a space satellite this year....

The McBride FBI report also says this.

"April or May, 1958 Oswald stated he was moving to Ft Worth....in about August 1958 I got a letter from him saying he had gotten mixed up in a anti-Negro or anti-Communist riot on high school grounds in Ft Worth"

Armstrong makes no mention of looking for any confirmation of any such riots. Why, when it would help confirm his own time-line? The reason seems to be that he may well have searched -- and came up blank as did I. For 1958, that is.

But August/September, 1956 is a different story. It happens to be when FW was implementing the Brown decision. Here is one story from that time-frame. I don't think it's the one Oswald witnessed. I will be publishing that one later this year, but this makes the general point, nonetheless...

This is a list of the Pfisterer and Beauregard witnesses Armstrong didn't interview. It is self-evident why.

Peggy Zimmerman - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55.

Mrs Bernierita Smith - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55.

Mrs Anna Langlois - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55.

Fred O'sullivan - 54/55.

Jack Loyakano - 54/55.

Carroll Battistella - 54/55.

Joan Burgard - 54/55.

Armstrong and his followers constantly claim that FBI reports are not to be trusted - this is their excuse for disregarding the time-frames those witnesses gave. FBI alterations. My response? Armstrong could have made a case for alteration by simply finding any interviewing some of these people. I know why he didn't. I would have to suspect, you know why as well.

One final thing - in Louisiana, a Census Form was completed for EVERY child attending school in that state. Did Armstrong check Census records?

The whole theory was built up from a completely false basis.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg,

Thanks. I can't respond to your comments about the "race riots" other than to say Armstrong's failure to do research as to the date(s) of the alleged riot(s) seems to me to be a minor matter in the overall scheme of things.

The Pfisterer and Beauregard witnesses -- I don't know what to think. I have an absence of knowledge of the facts. Are you alleging Armstrong ignored interviewing certain persons because they would tell him things he didn't want to hear? If so, I'd say that's a substantial allegation. But I don't know, because I lack information, how to assess such an allegation.

Your comment about "Russian successes" -- here I disagree. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 was a huge success for the Soviet Union and a tremendous victory for the soviets in the cold war. It demonstrated the superiority of soviet science and engineering. It was a very big deal. It's what caused me to go to college and study engineering and to build rockets in my garage from scratch. Anyone in the late 1950s or early 1960s who referred to "Russian successes" in 1957 or 1958 was surely referring to Russian successes in space, which at the time was labeled "Sputnik."

In my professional life, I'm an editorial board member of a tax journal. As such, I review articles tendered for publication. I review them for technical and factual accuracy. If I take the approach I use as a tax journal editor to john Armstrong's H&L, using the specialized knowledge you provide, I have to say I've got a question about the witnesses John Armstrong appeared to have ignored. I'd want to know for sure why he ignored them. No question. As to the "Russian successes", I'd give Armstrong a pass. As to the date(s) of the race riots(s), I'd ask for certainty, but wouldn't reject Armstrong's submission.