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

[Greg Parker]

Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't.

Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them?

Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir.

The photo being referred to is one from the Marines... that was another piece of evidence I relied upon for speculation about who the Star Telegram photo depicted.

[David Josephs]

Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them?
Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir.

See, now that's the difference between us Greg. You highlight the speculation while I would have highlighted the FACTS he was conveying. The DEFINITIVE statements.

"No sir, those men do not look like my brother Lee"... "one appears more like Robert

You would take this one line, out of context, and claim then that it is ROBERT in the Star photo, and then claim to have corroborating evidence?

Please. That's quite the standard on which to base conclusions. A decent speculation, definitely, but nothing on which to build a case, yet.

The point of the exchange is that the UPPER IMAGE, the one we'd all agree is the man Ruby killed, is not his brother by his own account.

How exactly is that central theme lost to you here?

[Greg Parker]

Essentially, you don't know who is in that photo and simply can't post a link or evidence which substantiates your, "Robert did indeed give a previous reporter a photo of Lee" statement.

You can guess based on Occum's razor... yet in this case that cannot be treated as an axiom we can hang our hats on - it's just a generality.

Pick another word. "Generality" has nothing to do with it. If you read the thread I pointed to on this, a lot of ideas were explored. What I posted here - complete with appropriate qualifiers, was just one.

No offense Greg, it's just that you or anyone just saying it is not the same as offering anything to assist in proving it.

It doens't really matter who that photo is or where it came from unless you can prove it...

The "substantive issue" is that none of this is my work. You want to know why Jack or John A did something you should have talked to them when you had a chance and when you have one.

Well, here's your chance to prove something. You say I don't know who it is, or anything about it. Show you do.

Q1. Authenticate that it is from Atsugi

Q2. Authenticate its date

Q3. What is the uniform

Q4. Provide a photograph of John Pic at the same age to rule him out

Oh, sorry. None of it is your work. So you can go around talking about "Harvey" as if he is a real historical figure and take nil responsibility for any errors found in that alternate universe you choose to inhabit? Not gonna happen.

The ISSUE is the EVIDENCE... taken as a whole. When the time is taken to corroborate and authentic the huge variety of Evidence and the info subsequently found via research and direct interview, the EVIDENCE holds within it clues that point to the existence of these two boys/men. Do one or two of your rebuttals destroy the presentation and mountian of evidence to consider? Sorry Greg, but to me the answer is no. You try to be reasonable in these rebuttals yet they are predominantly your opinion as it applies to the Evidence... not Evidence to impeach other evidence.

So... you admonish me for what you erroneously refer to as "generalities", and then admonish me again because I am too specific in my criticism of the theory and that we should just keep it general? Nice, But it ain't happening , either, bud. The house is made of straw, and you want people to stand back and imagine it is something else in their mind's eye. I don't care. I will pull it apart straw by straw to snap people out of their trance.

You don't have to subscribe to the explanation - yet just as I would assume you'd rather not have others disparage your work unless they could PROVE YOU WRONG - I think you might want to offer 1) a bit more respect for the work done & 2)a more complete rebuttal which includes some sort of real evidence that counters the claims and corroborations found rather than what you believe is the simpliest or easiest answer, and that's it so obivous I'm an #@!%$% for not seeing it.

I have provided evidence - as anyone who has looked at the links I previously gave, can plainly see - and you know it. Saying I haven't is just you wanting people to believe it and NOT look at what I have provided. You are nothing if not predictable in your avoidance, misdirection and other sleazeball debating tactics.

This situation is neither simple or easy and your lack of investigation into the rest of the corroborating evidence (the book, notebooks and images) for the existence of H&L just makes you look disgruntled and your responses half-assed.

Nope. My responses demonstrate the misreading of documents by Armstrong, the way he cherry-picked witnesses, and all his other smoke and mirror tricks. We can now add doctoring of photos.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

John Pic does not know about San Saba since it was not his family who lived there.

The above is a perfect example of yours (and by extension, Armstrong's) flawed methodology. Pic doesn't know about an address so that automatically means his family didn't live there - the delightful family known as the Dopplegangers did.

There is a simpler explanation, but why look for it? We already know you can't count. 12 weeks looks like 5 to you, but according to you, should have actually been 13 or more.

Here is the real reason Pic had no memory of San Saba... "Mrs Oswald purchased a small home in Benbrook on what is now San Saba Street..." http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=74098

In other words, it had a different name when they lived there. John did recall it, as the link above confirms... but under the original name.

I know I know... this is all Armstrong's doing not yours... and you had nothing to do with pushing any of it here... must have been your evil twin.

This situation is neither simple or easy and your lack of investigation into the rest of the corroborating evidence (the book, notebooks and images) for the existence of H&L just makes you look disgruntled and your responses half-assed.

Your continual reference to my lack of evidence and sources is just another tactic. You think by talking it up, people may actually start to believe it -- well, maybe -- if they are only reading one side of this.

Just for the record, here is what the last reviewer of my book says about it. "A well written, superbly researched and sourced volume." That was by Rob Clark. You know... the guy who interviewed you recently for his pod cast.

Now, exactly when are you going to admit you got it wrong about my posts all those years ago, and when are you going to address Jack White's Frankenstein Oswald? Avoidance is all well and good, but you're above that, surely?

Edited March 13, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

http://reopenkennedy...jacobi-hospital Proof that Jacobi hospital - where Armstrong claims LHO was tested psychologically - didn't exist until 1955 - after Lee Oswald had left NYC

this is what I mean Greg... It was a housekeeper, Louise Robertson, who supposedly called the FBI and told that story... not John. I helped impeach Ms Robertson by pointing out that Jacobi did not open until 1955 so please, give credit where it's due and get your facts straight. http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/18246 should be the link to John's notebook with her report (you need to go to page 2)

Wow are you something... your link shows that John asks a question as to whether Oswald could have been at Jacobi instead of school... except this is not John's work but Jim H's.

I know that MO actually said that her son NEVER went to Jacobi. It should say that LOUISE said that MO said... blah blah

I will let Jim/John know that this is a misquote of the book and the EVIDENCE that was offered. Not everything is as nefarious as you would make it. Sometime simple mistakes are made...

DJ

If you told him about it, it is because I have been telling you guys for years this is all wrong. If he knows it's not possible, why even still talk about it at the website he endorses?

LEE Oswald attended PS 44 for the remainder of 1953, without incident. But where was HARVEY Oswald, and what was he doing in the summer and fall of 1953? Louise Robertson was a housekeeper, employed by the Marguerite Oswald impostor for 6 weeks in the summer of 1953 to clean her apartment 2 or 3 days per week. Mrs. "Oswald" told Louise that she had brought her son to New York so that he could have mental tests performed at the Jacobi Hospital. Could young HARVEY Oswald, instead of truanting, have been spending some of his days at the Jacobi Hospital? Mrs. Robertson remembered that she was working at their apartment shortly before Mrs. Oswald left New York City, in the summer of 1953, but she did not know where they had gone.

http://harveyandlee.net/Early/Early.html

[David Josephs]

Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't.

Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them?

Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir.

The photo being referred to is one from the Marines... that was another piece of evidence I relied upon for speculation about who the Star Telegram photo depicted.

Good to see this post was completely lost on you Greg. Reinforces the fact that your entire world is based on speculation in turn based on cherry-picking the wrong information out of context and then building upon it.

As I post here - how do you so completely miss the point of this exchange? The man who is obviously the man Ruby killed is NOT MY BROTHER.

Yet you think his stating the lower one "aapears" to look more like Robert - as it actual being Robert.

Now THAT's some quality research and speculation corroboration..

Maybe its finally time to go back to your yes-men so they can pat you on the back, call us all sorts of vile names and yuk it up...

Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't.

Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them?

Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir.

See, now that's the difference between us Greg. You highlight the speculation while I would have highlighted the FACTS he was conveying. The DEFINITIVE statements.

"No sir, those men do not look like my brother Lee"... "one appears more like Robert

You would take this one line, out of context, and claim then that it is ROBERT in the Star photo, and then claim to have corroborating evidence?

Please. That's quite the standard on which to base conclusions. A decent speculation, definitely, but nothing on which to build a case, yet.

The point of the exchange is that the UPPER IMAGE, the one we'd all agree is the man Ruby killed, is not his brother by his own account.

How exactly is that central theme lost to you here?

[Thomas Graves]

John Pic does not know about San Saba since it was not his family who lived there.

The above is a perfect example of yours (and by extension, Armstrong's) flawed methodology. Pic doesn't know about an address so that automatically means his family didn't live there - the delightful family known as the Dopplegangers did.

There is a simpler explanation, but why look for it? We already know you can't count. 12 weeks looks like 5 to you, but according to you, should have actually been 13 or more.

Here is the real reason Pic had no memory of San Saba... "Mrs Oswald purchased a small home in Benbrook on what is now San Saba Street..." http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=74098

In other words, it had a different name when they lived there. John did recall it, as the link above confirms... but under the original name.

I know I know... this is all Armstrong's doing not yours... and you had nothing to do with pushing any of it here... must have been your evil twin.

This situation is neither simple or easy and your lack of investigation into the rest of the corroborating evidence (the book, notebooks and images) for the existence of H&L just makes you look disgruntled and your responses half-assed.

Your continual reference to my lack of evidence and sources is just another tactic. You think by talking it up, people may actually start to believe it -- well, maybe -- if they are only reading one side of this.

Just for the record, here is what the last reviewer of my book says about it. "A well written, superbly researched and sourced volume." That was by Rob Clark. You know... the guy who interviewed you recently for his pod cast.

Now, exactly when are you going to admit you got it wrong about my posts all those years ago, and when are you going to address Jack White's Frankenstein Oswald? Avoidance is all well and good, but you're above that, surely?

Greg,

Can't you get it through your head that neither Jo Jo nor his mentor Armstrong would ever even consider cherry-picking, on speculation, inaccurate, out-of-context information, and pounding the heck out of it (like a square peg into a round hole) in a vain attempt to buttress their Genetically-Engineered Harvey and Lee and Henry, Too! theory. Please lighten-up on them, Greg. It's not their fault that their theory is riddled with inaccuracies and outright blunders, like the late Jack White's crude attempt to distort the facial characteristics of Lee Harvey Oswald as they really did appear in that newspaper photograph, and their obvious misinterpreting (to their advantage, of course) of the numbers on Lee Harvey Oswald's school attendance records, to mention just two examples.

--Tommy

Edited March 13, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

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

[Greg Parker]

Good to see this post was completely lost on you Greg. Reinforces the fact that your entire world is based on speculation in turn based on cherry-picking the wrong information out of context and then building upon it.

As I post here - how do you so completely miss the point of this exchange? The man who is obviously the man Ruby killed is NOT MY BROTHER.

Yet you think his stating the lower one "aapears" to look more like Robert - as it actual being Robert.

Now THAT's some quality research and speculation corroboration..

Maybe its finally time to go back to your yes-men so they can pat you on the back, call us all sorts of vile names and yuk it up...

David, what didn't you understand about my response to this before? "If you read the thread I pointed to on this, a lot of ideas were explored. What I posted here - complete with appropriate qualifiers, was just one."

All you are doing is is trying to divert attention away from the drubbing you're getting by falsely accusing me of the very thing you and Armstrong do. But you never learn, do you? Because now I have to give you some examples.

Let's start with John Pic and the Bronx zoo photo.

The H & L website states flatly that "Pic said this young man was not his brother." But what Pic actually said was "Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald." Do I really need to explain (again) the difference between the two?

The height of Marguerite. I note that since I posted this https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13289-Edwin-Ekdahl-s-height#.VQNwnxzqFeo the claim that Ekdahl was "over six feet tall" (based on John Pic's boyhood memories, rather than the documented measurements I posted) has been removed from the H & L site, along with a comparison between Ekdahl and Marguerite standing side by side in their wedding photo, as the one "proof" that Marguerite was "tall". Unfortunately, things haven't really improved. The H & L site now claims she was "about 5' 7" - but does so without offering any supporting evidence of this whatsoever. http://harveyandlee.net/Mommies_Dearest/Mommies_Dearest.html

Lastly, let's get back to the tooth.

In April, '64, Voebel told the WC "Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out."

But his Nov '63 FBI report states that "Voebel remembers that when Oswald was struck, his tooth pierced his lip." No mention at all of a tooth knocked out.

The other witness told both the FBI and the WC the same story... which was "One fight really impressed me, I guess because there was this boy--he wasn't going to Beauregard, this boy he had the fight with, and he was a little guy. I think his name was Robin Riley. He hit Lee, and his tooth came through his lip."

So how does Armstrong treat this? He disregards Smith entirely, disregards Voebel's unqualified FBI statements and instead, relies upon a twice qualified WC statement. Why?

That's a rhetorical question. We all know why.

You, Armstrong and the rest of the cult are the last people on Earth who should be lecturing anyone - on anything.

And yes. rest assured, we have yukked it up, are currently yukking it up as I type, and will continue to yuk it up. Man up and you may at least recover some self-respect.

[David Josephs]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0413a.htm

Exh 284 ?

Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - There is a young fellow in the foreground-everybody else is facing the other way. He is in a pantomime, or grimace. Do you recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; looking at that picture and I have looked at it several times--that looks more like Robert than it does Lee, to my recollection.

(yet the Hallmark show on the card on the board is dated in the Winter of 1954 - it could not be Robert)

281?

Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 being some spread pages of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your attention first to the lower lefthand spread at .the bottom of the page. Do you recognize the area shown there?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.

282? (Other than the ZOO photo, these photos across the UPPER PAGE are all LEE)

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture.
Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee.
Mr. PIC - No, sir.

Mr. JENNER - In the upper portion there are a series of photographs spread from left-hand page across to the right-hand page. Take those on the left which appears to be a photograph of three young men. Do you recognize the persons shown in that photograph?
Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize ,this photograph, the people from left to right being Robert Oswald, the center one being Lee Oswald, and the third one being myself. This picture was taken at the house in Dallas when we returned from New Orleans.
Mr. JENNER - You mean from--when you came from New Orleans after being at the Bethlehem Orphanage Home?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - And you went to Dallas?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - It was taken in Dallas at or about that time?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - The next one is prominent; in front is a picture of a young boy. There is a partially shown girl and apparently another boy with a striped shirt in the background. Do you recognize that picture?
Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. JENNER - Do you have any impression as to when and where that was taken?
Mr. PIC - Just looking at the picture, I would guess first, second grade, maybe. I would have to guess at it.
Mr. JENNER - Then there is one immediately to the right of that, a young man in the foreground sitting on the floor, with his knees, legs crossed, and his arms also crossed. There are some other people apparently in the background.
Mr. PIC - I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. JENNER - Does anything about the picture enable you to identify as to where that was taken?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people?
Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. JENNER - Is he the one to which the black arrow is pointing? (5'4" 115lb LEE Oswald in 6th grade)
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

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.

286? (Taken in Highschool)

Mr. JENNER - All right. On Exhibit No. 286, the lower right-hand corner, there is another picture. Do you recognize that as your brother Lee in that picture?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; that is about how he looked when I seen him in 1962, his profile.

In CONTEXT it is quite obvious who he knows to be his borther and who he doesn't - he's right every time.

{sigh}

My self-respect... earth to GP....

Thank goodness we all have YOU to help us see so clearly and para-phase everybody else.

As opposed to what he actually said and what he actually meant.

Well done!

Edited March 14, 2015 by David Josephs

[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

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.

[Thomas Graves]

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 [Jo Jo], 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 Jo Jo 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.

[Cliff Varnell]

Perhaps the title of this diary should be, "Untangling Conspiracy to Murder JFK from the Cover-up".

I've had people get upset with me for pointing out that the subject of their study involved the cover-up of JFK's assassination, not the murder itself.

Charles Drago once opined that psychological-warfare master & LIFE mag Managing Director CD Jackson was well up in the hierarchy of JFK's killers.

Seemed to me they'd hire a psy-war guy for the kill team only if they planned to scare JFK to death -- otherwise Jackson was in on the cover-up, a separate operation.

Drago had a fit.

Then there was the time I pointed out to Jim DiEugenio that since none of the extant medical evidence can establish the number of times JFK was shot in the head or if there had been pre-autopsy surgery to the head -- a study of the head wound/s is not a study of JFK's murder but an investigation into the cover-up of the head wound/s evidence.

Jim appreciated my argument not one bit.

If one is a student of Lee Harvey Oswald, the head wound/s, and CE-399 one is not a student of the JFK assassination.

Such a researcher is a student of the JFK assassination cover-up.

Many such researchers don't grasp the the first thing about the actual murder -- the wound in JFK's back was too low to have been associated with the wound in his throat.

"Most researchers respect the clothing evidence" -- Jim DiEugenio.

Most?

<sigh>

Edited March 14, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Thomas Graves]

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 [Jo Jo], 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 Josephs 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

[Jon G. Tidd]

Cliff,

Your post #125 is right on target IMO.

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

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.

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