James Norwood Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: In what you consider to have been my "intemperate response", I merely pointed out that you had failed to comprehend what I had written. I apologise if I offended your delicate sensibilities. Jeremy, I accept your apology, and I hope we can move on to discuss the substantive issues of this thread. Regarding what you observe about my "delicate sensibilities," I believe that we all have delicate sensibilities and that the discussion on this forum should be civil and in accordance with the guidelines to which we all have agreed. I also believe that many people reading these posts want to participate, but choose not to do so out of fear that they will be bullied and their sensibilities offended. But apparently that possibility has never occurred to you. My previous comments addressed what you have written on your website when your refer readers to the "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination" as set forth in the Warren Report. Other than the fact that President Kennedy was killed, what are some examples of those uncontested facts? I suspect that you will not be offering a single example in this discussion because you know very well that every major premise at the heart of the Warren Report has been called into question. For the purposes of this thread, I would also point out that every aspect of the story of Oswald as recounted in the Warren Report has been vigorously contested, if not refuted outright. To wit: • The Warren Report asserts that Oswald traveled to Mexico City in the late summer of 1963. That assertion has been strenuously debated and contested. • The Warren Report states as fact that Oswald ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano carbine that is alleged to be the murder weapon. That "fact" has been challenged in great detail on this thread. • The Warren Report places Oswald on the 6th floor of the time of the shooting. Even that fundamental assertion has been called into question. Those are only three examples of the major tenets that undergird the Warren Report and have been contested over the years. In contrast to the time of publication of the Warren Report in September 1964, today there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald was framed for the assassination by the CIA. In establishing the motivation for Oswald to kill the president, the scapegoating plan included an intricate string of impersonations of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination. Hence the importance of studying the topic of the two Oswalds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Fine, when will you be taking this "fact" to the proper authorities or at least to an investigative journalist so the world can become aware of this "fact?" If you are not willing to do that, what is the point of it all? Of course, you can't do that because you know you will be laughed at. Tracy, It is obvious that you do not understand the history of the investigations into the JFK assassination conducted by the "proper authorities." For your benefit, those investigations were the Church Committee and the House Committee on Assassinations of the 1970s that came in the wake of the failure of the Warren Commission. In the 1990s, the JFK Records Act established the Assassination Records Review Board that served to release new documents and revisit the evidence. But none of those government agencies have come close to arriving at the truth, and it would be pointless to think of conducting another incompetent and inconsequential government inquest. For your benefit as well, “investigative journalists” in the mainstream media have proven to be an abysmal failure in coming to terms with the assassination. Most of the MSM people will not even touch the JFK case today. You ask, "what is the point of it all?" The answer is for us to search for the truth as diligent citizens. Long after our deaths, it will be the historians who finally set the record straight at a time when this topic has lost the contentious nature of inquiry that exists today. Now, can we move on to explore the main topic of this thread, namely, the "gems" that that exist in a study of the two Oswalds that will help us arrive at the truth? Or, would you prefer to continue in your efforts to stifle the discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) On 8/30/2017 at 9:40 PM, Sandy Larsen said: Okay, show us that. So we can tear it to pieces. He can't Sandy... and he nor anyone else can fit 200 school days into those 210 available days... No school administrator in their right mind would enter those figures onto that child's perm record.... they know how many days there are in a school year... Why didn't the FBI? Are you going to claim Oswald didn't go to YOUTH HOUSE for over 2 weeks? Are you going to claim Oswald went to summer school that year? Are you going to claim Oswald did not get to take off school holidays like the rest of the children? If not, then there are only 123 days of school attended despite the records repeatedly claiming otherwise... 210 days - minus 55 days of summer - 17 days at Youth House - minus 15 days winter break = 123 days of possible school for little Ozzie... This has him attending/absent 127 days from 3/23/53 to the end of that semester... 109 3/2 + 15 3/2 = 127 From 3/23/53 to the end of the semester there are 70 TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS from which YOUTH HOUSE and Spring break are removed. According to this Little Ozzie starts PS44 on 1/19/53 but doesn't show up until 3/23... FACTS Tracy... try one on for size? Edited February 12, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, James Norwood said: Tracy, It is obvious that you do not understand the history of the investigations into the JFK assassination conducted by the "proper authorities." For your benefit, those investigations were the Church Committee and the House Committee on Assassinations of the 1970s that came in the wake of the failure of the Warren Commission. In the 1990s, the JFK Records Act established the Assassination Records Review Board that served to release new documents and revisit the evidence. But none of those government agencies have come close to arriving at the truth, and it would be pointless to think of conducting another incompetent and inconsequential government inquest. For your benefit as well, “investigative journalists” in the mainstream media have proven to be an abysmal failure in coming to terms with the assassination. Most of the MSM people will not even touch the JFK case today. You ask, "what is the point of it all?" The answer is for us to search for the truth as diligent citizens. Long after our deaths, it will be the historians who finally set the record straight at a time when this topic has lost the contentious nature of inquiry that exists today. Now, can we move on to explore the main topic of this thread, namely, the "gems" that that exist in a study of the two Oswalds that will help us arrive at the truth? Or, would you prefer to continue in your efforts to stifle the discussion? Your statement that I don't understand the history of JFK investigations is incorrect. I have studied the case since 1984-I have simply arrived at a different conclusion than you have. Stifle the discussion? Who is doing that? John Armstrong has published a book on the subject and he and Jim and David and others have ben promoting his work for years. I consider myself a skeptic who has helped to make others aware of the problems with this ridiculous, discredited theory. But I am not suppressing anything. Back to my point, if you can't find one journalist who will help you in today's world of Internet media, then you have to ask yourself if your theory has any value. You say you have uncovered the "truth." I for one would be shouting that "truth" from the rooftops if I truly believed that. But I am unaware of any H&L devotee who has contacted the media. Edited August 31, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: FACTS Tracy... try one on for size? Here are some facts David-try these on for size. The 1981 exhumation of LHO was done to test a two-Oswald theory similar to H&L. The exhumation examination found that the man buried in the grave in Fort Worth (who is supposed to be "Harvey") is the one and only LHO. "Harvey" had the mastoid operation that "Lee" was supposed to have had. This iron clad fact leaves you with Jim's explanation that "Harvey" must have had a mastoid operation at Jacobi Hospital in New York as suggested by Louise Robertson's statement. Absent Jim's very recent and very thin "explanation" you must accept the fact that the theory as related in Armstrong's book was debunked BEFORE it was even created. Other facts are the HSCA handwriting and photo analysis which also refute H&L. There any number of other common sense reasons to disbelieve the theory. So, you must disbelieve all of these proofs in order to accept the theory. I must believe that the school records are wrong or being misread. Which makes more sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 200 school days within 123 127 school days within 49 You simply can't address a simple question with a straight answer. What you are doing is called STRAW MAN within the COINTELPRO playbook... you may try some other tactics Tracy... this one is getting terribly old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 1 minute ago, David Josephs said: 200 school days within 123 127 school days within 49 You simply can't address a simple question with a straight answer. What you are doing is called STRAW MAN within the COINTELPRO playbook... you may try some other tactics Tracy... this one is getting terribly old. What's getting "terribly old"? Hearing the facts that refute the theory? I imagine that would get old, but facts are facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Wow... deaf dumb and blind There are barely 50 school days from 3/23/53 to the end of the year yet the records claim 127 days... There are only 123 school days in the entire period yet the records show 200... But the FBI isn't trying to hide anything by never offering the originals of these records.... One would think you knew how to count... and armed with that amazing inability we are supposed to give your opinions credibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Baumann Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 33 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: What's getting "terribly old"? Hearing the facts that refute the theory? I imagine that would get old, but facts are facts. Tracy, just because Jim's theory about the "Oswald Project" is probably wrong, does not mean that every piece of evidence he presents must necessarily be wrong too. I get the feeling you are not really interested in the case itself but rather in winning an argument. You are not being open-minded. To give you an example: Jim has provided evidence that Oswald got about half the answers right on a Russian test that was aimed at native speakers. Which is incredibly remarkable. You just shrug that off and say "Well he must have been some kind of prodigy". Do you really think that this is the most logical conclusion? Especially considering the circumstantial evidence that his trip to Russia was connected to an American intelligence operation? --> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter1.html I talked to an American colleague of mine today, who teaches English at our school. He's a very well educated man, he has a college degree and he's reached Level CEF-B2 (https://www.examenglish.com/CEFR/cefr.php) in German. He's been learning Russian for a while. Today he told me that he's got a C on his A1 test. And do you know how many lessons he's taken so far? 350! Oswald achieved the equivalent of A2, a whole level above A1, on his test, supposedly without any formal instruction. Which is ludicrous in my opinion. There's nothing in his school record that would indicate that he was some kind of language prodigy. The most logical conclusion is that he had received extensive language training before he took the test, maybe at Monterey Language School. Another example: You think that by questioning Veciana's testimony you can prove that David Attlee Phillips was not involved in the assassination. When I pointed out to you that to you that there's much more evidence that links Phillips to Oswald you just say that the CIA is probably hiding its "incompetence", when even Robert Blakey has finally realized the magnitude of the CIA's treachery. Why are you so incurious? Why can't you look at the evidence without prejudice and see where it leads you? The school records might not be definitive proof of an "Oswald Project". But they may be proof of something else, who knows? Edited August 31, 2017 by Mathias Baumann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Mathias, If you can somehow prove LHO could not have achieved the results he did (which was rated poor btw) then you would have something. But I think it would be all but impossible to do so. Maybe he guessed well-I don't know but I know of know evidence that he studied Russian outside of his own efforts. You suspect he had extensive training but you can't prove it. If the new documents show he studied at the Monterey Institute, then you might have something. But so far we have only had the "startling" revelation that Cabell was a CIA informant. I'm not aware of any evidence that links Phillips to LHO apart from Veciana. There are things that you and others conspiratorially interpret as linking the two but that is your opinion and not evidence. You ask why I am "incurious" but I could turn that around. Why have researchers been completely "incurious" about what Veciana really told Fonzi in the first interviews? Instead, they accepted what Fonzi told them which was not accurate and repeated that information for years. The school records are not proof of anything IMO other than records are misunderstood in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: Wow... deaf dumb and blind There are barely 50 school days from 3/23/53 to the end of the year yet the records claim 127 days... There are only 123 school days in the entire period yet the records show 200... But the FBI isn't trying to hide anything by never offering the originals of these records.... One would think you knew how to count... and armed with that amazing inability we are supposed to give your opinions credibility? Personal attack-wow what a surprise! But that doesn't change the fact that the H&L theory was debunked before it was created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) Tracy... You continue to whine like a little child when asked to simply use fingers and toes to count the days... Given how little credibility anyone here offers you, and even less coming to your aid with anything to support you... you're left with nothing but whining and diverting attention from your incredible lack of ability. It's truly sad you cannot man-up and address a simple arithmetic problem and then use whatever firing synapses you have left to ponder the meaning. 1952-1954 remains one of the most remarkable times in young Oswald's timeline... the work of John Ely goes to prove the existence of an entire set of people known to Lee Oswald who were summarily dismissed in favor of those knowing the man Ruby killed. It's laughable, the manner in which you post here assuming your vapid words and lack of evidentiary support goes unnoticed... when 99% of those who respond call you on your BS. For those keeping up... Marge "Oswald" was a 2220 Thomas on Nov 22. The house across the street from Stripling Jr High. Except Robert nor Edward offer up 2220 Thomas as an address they ever lived at ???? They lived at 7408 Ewing in 1948 after moving from 3300 Willing St in Ft Worth. On Sept 5, 1947 Lucille Hubbard drives Marge to 2220 Thomas to retrieve furniture On July 7 1947 Georgia Bell know the short, fat Marge who has one son going into 2nd grade living at 101 San Saba John found the Tarrant County documentation as well - but that would require you actually READ THE BOOK and acquire the CD... readers ought to be amazed that someone who never read the book can be so critical of its content. Mr. PIC - When we returned home I seen this house and my first impressions were that we are back to where we were. Lee had a dog that a woman had given him, I think it is the same dog we have pictures of, and I kind of had the feeling that our days at Chamberlain-Hunt were ended even though it didn't come officially. Then sometime in the summer of 1948, the divorce took place in Tarrant County, city of Fort Worth. I had to testify. I think they attempted to put Lee on the stand but he said that he wouldn't know right from wrong and the 'truth from a falsehood so they excused him as a witness being he was trader age. I don't remember my testimony completely. I dc remember that my mother had made the statement that if Mr. Ekdahl ever hit her again that she would send me in there to beat him up or, something which I doubt that I could have done. I was told by her that she was contesting the divorce so that he would still support her. She lost, he won. The divorce was granted. I was also told that there was a settlement of about $1,200 and she stated that just about all of this went to the lawyer. Right after this is when she purchased the house in Ben-brook, Tex., the little house. Mr. JENNER - Describe that house. Mr. PIC - It was an L--shaped house, sir, being the top of the L was her bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, and living room with a screened-in porch. She and Lee slept together. My brother and I slept in the living room in the screened-in porch on studio couches. When we moved into this house and after the divorce and everything became final, I was-- Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, was that 101 San Saba? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't know nothing about 101 San Saba. Robert Oswald remains blissfully unaware of this address... Interesting there would be evidence of houses the Oswald boys were not aware of as well as the attending of Stripling when Marge and son lived across the street (and around the corner from FBI agent Fain) Except as we are supposed to now know... he went to NYC for the 52-53 school year Mr. OSWALD. '48---we moved to the address on Ewing Street. Mr. JENNER. All right. And each of you then enrolled in Arlington? Mr. OSWALD. I was in the ninth grade, which was junior high school in Texas. I enrolled in W. C. Stripling. Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School. Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school. and to bring it full circle... who owns the house at 2220 Thomas? but a friend of FRED KORTH... you must know who that is... Edited April 12, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Wonder why Pic was so sure he knew nothing about 101 San Saba in Benbrook... Otis here claims it was Marge and 3 sons.. in 1946 Lee was 8, Robert 12 and Ed 14. Strange that both young men don't have any recall of 101 San Saba... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 David, You can continue to insult me-don't worry I can take it and I won't mention it again. I only mentioned it because in my experience someone who starts acting that way has run out of responses. And you can continue to believe that your pointing out anomalies in the evidence trumps the rock solid proof of the exhumation and other scientific evidence. IMO it doesn't, but I'll let the readers here decide. As far as Pic and Robert Oswald, they were giving what they believed to be truthful testimony but it was mostly from memory. It wouldn't be surprising if their testimonies did not match up perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Baumann Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Mathias, If you can somehow prove LHO could not have achieved the results he did (which was rated poor btw) then you would have something. But I think it would be all but impossible to do so. Maybe he guessed well-I don't know but I know of know evidence that he studied Russian outside of his own efforts. You suspect he had extensive training but you can't prove it. If the new documents show he studied at the Monterey Institute, then you might have something. But so far we have only had the "startling" revelation that Cabell was a CIA informant. I'm not aware of any evidence that links Phillips to LHO apart from Veciana. There are things that you and others conspiratorially interpret as linking the two but that is your opinion and not evidence. You ask why I am "incurious" but I could turn that around. Why have researchers been completely "incurious" about what Veciana really told Fonzi in the first interviews? Instead, they accepted what Fonzi told them which was not accurate and repeated that information for years. The school records are not proof of anything IMO other than records are misunderstood in some cases. Tracy, of course I cannot PROVE that Oswald couldn't have achieved the results without training. Just as the Warren Commission could not PROVE that Oswald - who couldn't shoot paraplegic rabbits in Russia - killed Kennedy singe-handedly with a crappy WWII mail order rifle. And I'm sure you know why the test was rated "poor" - because the target level was that of a native speaker. And yet Oswald got about half the answers right - which puts him at about level L2/R2. To reach that level a person of average intelligence would need hundreds of lessons. The evidence that Oswald could not have reached that level just by reading a dictionary is compelling. Please read my other posts where I present the evidence in more detail and tell me where exactly you disagree with my reasoning. About Phillips: - He lied about the Mexico City tapes being destroyed right after the assassination. - He tampered with Silvia Duran's testimony. - He was running smear campaigns against the FPCC - He had performed over the phone impersonations before - He endorsed Alvarado's phony story. - Phillips used the DRE for psychological warfare against Cuba - the very group Oswald supposedly tried to infiltrate. - His initial refusal that he didn't know Veciana - one of the most prominent figures in the anti-Castro movement - is highly suspicious. About Veciana: I've said it before that I find some of his statements dubious. But I don't think that his testimony is all that important - unless you want to prove that Oswald was working directly for Phillips - which I believe he wasn't. I think he was what Bill Simpich has called an "unwitting co-optee". Edited August 31, 2017 by Mathias Baumann 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