David Josephs Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) On 3/7/2017 at 8:34 AM, Sandy Larsen said: No you didn't. You didn't show how Oswald took and completed two classes at Beauregard while taking classes full time at PS44. What he attempts to show is the meaning of "Re-Ad" and the fact that record only shows 2 complete classes on the FALL 53-54 line. He suggests, as the record shows, that Oswald started January 13, 1954. On 3/7/2017 at 8:48 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said: This is based on the statements of Dr. Milton Kurian. I maintain that even though Kurian apparently worked at Youth House, he never saw LHO and is one of hundreds of people who came forward after the assassination honestly believing they saw him but were just mistaken. Like the other witnesses, Kurian has no documentation to support his claim. If Kurian did see LHO, which is doubtful and can never be proven one way or the other, he was simply mistaken about his remembrances regarding LHO's physical appearance. Eventually, I plan to do an article on Kurian and his story. No sir it is not. If you cannot trust your own eyes to see the difference, I feel for you. If I had meant the time at Youth House which is not reflected anywhere on his PERM record (not strange to you, we know - no absences or mention of Youth House once this child starts school again on March 23, 1953) I would have considering how much more fluent I am with the evidence If you were a teacher Tracy, and a child started in your class on 3/23/53, and then on April 10th is sent to Youth House and does not attend your class again until May 8th or 11th how would you record that time period? ATTENDED ? ABSENT ? Furthermore, this record claims there were 127 days of potential school for this child from March 23rd. From March 23rd until June 26th - the last possible day of school - is only 70 days TOTAL, minus Youth House and Spring break leaves barely 50 days to attend school The following line on this record is the start of the 54-55 school year at PS44 (of which there were 4 different ps44's within NY City at the time, Lee attended in Manhattan) Maybe they are counting back to January 16? That would add 44 more days of school to the 70 possible days making 114 yet wouldn't the days from 1/16/53 until 3/23/53 be listed under DAYS ABSENT? 109 3/2 + 15 3/2 = 127 if and only if you include all the days he did NOT attend as days he attended... Sorry boys, doesn't work that way - never did and never will. Unless you;re the FBI. Edited March 28, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 27 minutes ago, David Josephs said: 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. Wow, David. I've read that line ("Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald") many times. What I didn't know is that Pic could recognize the one picture but not the other, when the two were roughly the same age. That gives Pic's response greater significance, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) On 3/7/2017 at 9:06 AM, Sandy Larsen said: Wow, David. I've read that line ("Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald") many times. What I didn't know is that Pic could recognize the one picture but not the other, when the two were roughly the same age. That gives Pic's response greater significance, IMO. Agreed... and if you go to his testimony and the LIFE images, he correctly picks Lee from Harvey every time.... Here is Pic and Harvey at Thanksgiving 1962. The famous jacket/rifle photo is offered... that jacket and the Westbrook jacket look extremely similar right down to the button at the cuffs... but that's just my old eyes talking... Edited March 28, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, David Josephs said: He suggests, as the record shows, that Oswald started January 13, 1954. David, I've been meaning to ask about that (but have been preoccupied responding to posts.) It states the following on the Beauregard record: Originally Admitted: 1954-1-13 Isn't that a fly in the Beauregard School ointment? It seems to be stating that Oswald began attending class there the second semester of 53/54. Yet we see he took classes during the first semester. What gives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 16 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Agreed... and if you go to his testimony and the LIFE images, he correctly picks Lee from Harvey every time.... Here is Pic and Harvey at Thanksgiving 1962. The famous jacket/rifle photo is offered... that jacket and the Westbrook jacket look extremely similar right down to the button at the cuffs... but that's just my old eyes talking... David, Were you trying to make a point with those pictures? I mean, other than Lee and Harvey look like two different men? Regardless, I have a question. At that Thanksgiving get-together, Pic and other family members saw Harvey with Marina. Presumably they also saw Lee. Who did they think Harvey and Marina were? This seems very problematic for the Harvey & Lee concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 David, The differences in physical appearance you mention are not based on Kurian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Wow, David. I've read that line ("Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald") many times. What I didn't know is that Pic could recognize the one picture but not the other, when the two were roughly the same age. That gives Pic's response greater significance, IMO. Pic was under oath and he was simply trying to be careful with his answers. He hadn't seen his brother in 10 years before Thanksgiving, 1962. Edited March 7, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Jim, just to confirm, this photo is one of the 'real' Lee Harvey Oswald? Regards On 02/03/2017 at 2:39 PM, Jim Hargrove said: True, but soon after the fight Voebel snapped this photo of LEE Harvey Oswald, which he eventually sold to LIFE magazine for $75: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 18 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Pic was under oath and he was simply trying to be careful with his answers. He hadn't seen his brother in 10 years before Thanksgiving, 1962. That is precisely the reason that Pic recognizing one boy but not the other becomes more relevant. Before, when I wasn't aware he'd been shown both pictures, my thinking was that he said he didn't recognize LHO because the photo was from a long time ago and so he couldn't be sure. Frankly, if someone were to ask me if the boys were the same or different, I's say they look different, but that they could be the same. Just a difference in lighting. Odd, though, that the hair on one seems to have a lot of curl to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) On 3/7/2017 at 9:20 AM, Sandy Larsen said: David, I've been meaning to ask about that (but have been preoccupied responding to posts.) It states the following on the Beauregard record: Originally Admitted: 1954-1-13 Isn't that a fly in the Beauregard School ointment? It seems to be stating that Oswald began attending class there the second semester of 53/54. Yet we see he took classes during the first semester. What gives? Myra DeRouse, DOROTHY DUVIK, ED VOEBEL, & the CUMULATIVE RECORD is the ONLY evidence of his attending SPRING 53-54 at BJHS. Myra remembers very well and is sure that Oswald was not in homeroom 303 as his grade cards show. The FBI took all originals and provided photocopies of the school records - all of them. The items offered in evidence are copies designed to support the story of one Oswald. Problem being there are many conflicts that only begin in 1952. Google "John Ely" and get a flavor for what it was to do a bio on Lee Harvey... It is my understanding of the evidence that LEE attended a different PS44, in Manhattan while Harvey attended in the Bronx.. here is an annotated map showing the relationship between these locations. Robert Oswald tells us in his book that in Sept 1953 Lee entered 8th grade at PS44 on Columbus and 76th.. this is in Manhattan, not the Bronx. We must remember that they took the records of 2 children and created 1 record that satisfied the evidence. Carro claims he is in 9th grade in Sept 1953, not 8th as his brother claims. In the highlighted article next to Carro's photo it states Oswald went to PS44 at 1825 prospect in the Bronx. 2 different apartments, 2 different schools, 2 different children attending PS44 at the same time. Only Harvey's mother moved him often enough to make tracking him virtually impossible. ===== Edited March 8, 2017 by David Josephs space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: David, The differences in physical appearance you mention are not based on Kurian? no Tracy, they are based on the 7th grade NYC schools entry physical given Lee with the FBI spelling it out, literally. The rails at the Bronx zoo are 18" & 36" - yes I did call them to find out. The boy in the zoo photo is not 5'4" and not 115lbs. He does not have the neck of Lee Oswald, the largest kid in the class and natural leader of the others. Harvey Oswald, as the boy on the left in the photo was now called, was small, scrappy, and smarter than Lee. THIS is Harvey, compared to the 5'10" 165 lb Lee. Edited March 8, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Discussions of John Armstrong’s Harvey & Lee theory often involve scientific and other evidence. But what if we just look at the theory by asking some “common sense” questions? Let’s see what would we find. Who Was Involved in the Plot? How many individuals would have to be involved for the H&L plot to be true? It turns out the answer is dozens when you count the principals and the subordinates who would necessarily be involved. Some of the names on this list will not bother conspiracy theorists. James Angleton and David Phillips are well known suspects and universal villains with the CIA-did-it crowd. But some of the names on this list should give just about anyone pause, including LHO’s family members and friends. I invite anyone to think about the names here and honestly ask yourself how this could all come together. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html The Behavior of the “Fake” Marguerite The outlandish behavior of the woman who is supposed to be a CIA operative is one of the best common sense arguments against the theory. Jim Hargrove believes the fake Marguerite was a “spycatcher” whose job was to attract US intelligence agents who were aware of “Oswald’s” role as a spy and would then contact her. Marguerite would then report these agents to headquarters for elimination. But if she was a CIA operative, she had to be one of the world’s great actors since just about everyone that met her following the assassination thought she was crazy. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-two-marguerites-part-3.html Why Didn’t People Who Knew the “Real” Marguerite Speak Out? A simple question that Armstrong supporters can’t answer is why didn’t the “real” Marguerite’s friends from the early days come forward to say that the woman they saw on TV and in the newspapers (the impostor) was not the woman they knew? One weak argument is they were afraid. But they could have come forward at any time such as the seventies when the HSCA put the spotlight back on the case. Or they could have contacted an investigative journalist, such as Gaeton Fonzi, who was very sympathetic to the conspiracy cause and would have gladly listened to their story. None ever came forward and the people that testified or gave statements to the Warren Commission either recognized Marguerite or didn’t mention any problem. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html LHO’s Military ID Armstrong presents some contradictory records in his book to bolster his claim that of two Oswalds. But all of the records he presents show the same military id number. Exactly how did two men use the same ID at the same time and no one notice? Beauregard Armstrong says that both Oswalds attended Beauregard at the same time. He also says that LHO friend Ed Voebel knew both Oswalds. Armstrong has never claimed that “Harvey” and “Lee” were identical twins. Exactly how did this work and why did nobody notice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 David, That is just another misreading of a record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Just now, W. Tracy Parnell said: David, That is just another misreading of a record. yes - I see you doing that quite often - in fact with virtually every post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Because I'm not the one making the claim. Tracy is. Do you not understand that, old timer? EDIT: And I don't believe Greg Parker has the answer. Sandy, I may not know / understand everything, but I know / understand more than you realize, old boy. I can even pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time. -- Tommy PS -- What? Tracy is claiming that there were two Oswalds (one named "Lee" and one named "Harvey"), and two Marguerites (one tall and pretty, and the other short and ugly), and that the boys' school records indicate or imply that? Edited March 7, 2017 by Thomas Graves 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