David Josephs Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 Let's follow along, shall we? The 6th grade LEE (far right) was one of the larges in his class... a leader and a bully... In Aug 1953 ROBERT claims to have taken this photo of his brother at Bronx Zoo 1 month later at PS 44 he is 5'4" 115 lbs which he had been all thru 7th grade as well... (The autopsy of Oswald says 5'9" 135... when he leaves the marines 5'10" 150.) Anyway, as I mentioned above, the FBI starts with 3/23/53 and carries to 1/12/54... (I wrote 7th above, my bad)... 171 11/2 days present... 18 11/2 days absent... 11/2 + 11/2 = 11 + 171 + 18 = 200 days Now the Calendar below... come count with me March 23 1953 thru Jan 12, 1954 is 200 days of school.... and in '53 he his at Youth House Apr 14 thru May 8th. School ends 3rd or 4th week of June... 180 days total per semester give or take 109 3/2 + 15 3/2 = 109 + 15 + 3 = 127 days.... from March 23 to June 26th ... 7 days in March + 22 full days in April + 21 full days in May + 20 full days in June... 7 + 22 + 21 + 20 = 70 possible school days without Youth house Mark... what's going on here? The FBI deep dive not only shows the records to be wrong... but we have 3 different copies of the single child's cumulative record for NYC... how dat? Give the earlier version in the center... which form w=matches the one on the left yet the writing is different, and has no relationship at all to the version on the right... The was FBI SOP for the day.... copies not originals... and different versions of the same item despite there having only been 1 original... (they recreated his TSBD application for pete sake).... And yet you cannot see the conflicts in 1954...which lead to Harvey attending Stripling in Sept/Oct 54... "sometimes the light is shining on me...other times I can barely see" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted July 12, 2020 Author Share Posted July 12, 2020 On 7/11/2020 at 2:09 PM, David Josephs said: (The autopsy of Oswald says 5'9" 135... when he leaves the marines 5'10" 150.) Great to see you posting again here, DJ, and the deep dive on the school records is fascinating. Hope you’ll find the time to stay for awhile. One minor note…. The docs I’m looking at indicate that while the Oswald on the slab in the Dallas morgue was indeed listed at 5’ 9” (69 inches) tall, several USMC docs list him at 5’ 11” (71 inches) tall. Specifically, the 9/3/59 USMC medical exam and the 10/12/59 Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge both list his height at 5’11”. That’s a two-inch difference, and none of these measurements are self-reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted July 12, 2020 Share Posted July 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: That’s a two-inch difference Been discussed a million times and alternative explanations provided-see here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1380-the-great-oswald-height-debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Specifically, the 9/3/59 USMC medical exam and the 10/12/59 Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge both list his height at 5’11”. That’s a two-inch difference, and none of these measurements are self-reported. Jim and David, There is published in the Warren Commission Hearings the Marine enlistment certificate for Oswald, which lists his height at 5' 8". The enlistment date was October 24, 1956. The certificate is Commission Exhibit 635 on p. 289 of Volume XVII of the Hearings and Exhibits. It goes without saying that the difference between 5' 8" and 5' 11" is a substantial one for official Marine records. There was an interesting article published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on November 23, 2013, wherein another document, the Marine application form signed by Oswald, was discussed. At the time of the assassination of President Kennedy, Marine 1st Sgt. John G. Chidgey was head of recruiting for the Marines in the Fort Worth office. According to the article, Sgt. Chidgey went to the basement of the Federal Courthouse in Fort Worth and pulled out the “APPLICATION FOR ENLISTMENT AND INDIVIDUAL DATA CARD” for Oswald, dated October 24, 1956. As reported in the article, the application form confirms the height of the applicant as 5' 8". But another fascinating part of the application was the listing of the addresses where Oswald had resided after the age of twelve. This topic is germane to our ongoing discussion about Stripling Junior High School. If one of the addresses listed on the application form is 2220 Thomas Place in Fort Worth in 1954-55, then we have more corroborating evidence that Oswald attended Stripling. Sgt. Chidgey kept the application form in his personal possession, passing it on to this son, John T. Chidgey, an attorney in Houston, who died in 2019. If the document has remained in the Chidgey family, it is an important historical record. The newspaper article may be accessed at this site: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/article3837441.html Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/article3837441.html#storylink=cpy Edited July 13, 2020 by James Norwood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 There were clearly three Oswalds! It is inconceivable that any of the following measurements were mistaken! Anyone can see this! - One of them was 5'11" (Marine records, 1959). - One of them was 5' 9' (Autopsy in 1963). - One of them was 5' 8" (Marine records, 1956). - One of them was 5' 6" or 5'7" (Bolton Ford witness). That's three, no, hang on, four Oswalds! Anyone can see this! Not to mention the exhumation in 1981, which estimated the height of the body as 5' 8 1/2". That makes five Oswalds! And one journalist in the USSR described Oswald as 5' 9" with brown eyes, while another journalist in the USSR described him as 5' 11" with blue eyes! It is inconceivable that either or both of these descriptions were mistaken! That makes six or maybe seven Oswalds! All of their earlobes were different by a couple of millimetres, too! And one or more of the six or seven Oswalds had a 13-inch head! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 David Josephs writes: Quote Standard COINTELPRO techniques for disrupting forums Is David really suggesting that those of us who dare to question the 'Harvey and Lee' cult are working on behalf of some nefarious official agency? Which one? The CIA? The FBI? The BBC? I'd guess our thin-skinned friend James Norwood is just about to jump in and report David to Mr Gordon, the headmaster, for casting aspersions about fellow members. Don't do it, James! It's only David Josephs. He really does seem to think that if you don't support the 'Harvey and Lee' gospel and every other piece of far-fetched everything-is-a-fake nonsense, you must have sold your soul to the lone-nut theory-believing devil. No-one takes these remarks seriously. Well, maybe John Butler does. There are at least two good reasons for critics of the lone-nut theory to oppose the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. Firstly, as we've seen with the Stripling stuff, it's based on no solid evidence at all, just a mess of anomalies, decades-old witness testimony, and unsubstantiated claims of fakery and document destruction. It's an invention, and it was debunked two decades before the Harvey and Lee book was published, by the discovery of a mastoidectomy defect on the body exhumed from Oswald's grave, thereby contradicting a central part of Armstrong's theory: the biographies of his two imaginary doppelgangers. Secondly, and more importantly, it has the capacity to harm the public's perception of the JFK assassination debate. If the public starts to see it as a contest between the lone-nut theory and everything-is-a-fake nonsense such as 'Harvey and Lee', several things are likely to happen. The rational majority of the general public will assume that the lone-nut theory must be correct. When people in the real world are introduced to a notion like a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme, most of them will dismiss it out of hand as a crazy fantasy, because in their non-paranoid experience the world doesn't work like that. These are the people who are likely to be the most receptive to genuine criticism of the lone-nut theory, and whose support will be necessary for any future official investigation into the assassination. It was public pressure that prompted both the formation of the HSCA and the passing of the ARRB legislation (inadequate though each turned out to be), and it is only public pressure that can do the same job in the future. As well as its effect on the general public, the everything-is-a-fake nonsense will turn away genuine researchers and those who might in due course become genuine researchers. How many intelligent people are there who developed an interest in the JFK assassination, and then learned that their time and effort was going to be taken up arguing with paranoid fantasists rather than doing proper research, and moved onto something more rewarding? Readers who have been following this forum for the last decade or so may have noticed the number of serious researchers who have either moved elsewhere (such as Greg Parker's forum) or who have given up on the JFK assassination altogether due to the amount of far-fetched nonsense they've had to deal with here. Having said that, the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense isn't quite the craziest JFK stuff on the net. Check out this Altgens-6-is-a-fake idiocy: http://www.oswald-innocent.com/anomalies.html What hope is there, when there's stuff like this floating around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 David Josephs writes: Quote Nothing is “self-authenticating” Jon.... especially in the FBI’s grab bag of bs evidence... How does the zfilm accomplish this Jon? When we know for a fact it was heavily altered....? In fact, use whatever image or film u like and please explain SELF AUTHENTICATING.... And then look up what evidence authentication means... [All those ellipses were in David's post, by the way; I didn't edit anything. The English language has since got to its feet, and is expected to make a full recovery.] The self-authentication concept was described by Josiah Thompson here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html He is saying that the whole of the photographic record from Dealey Plaza is self-authenticating. Dozens of people were taking photographs and home movies in Dealey Plaza, and many of those images overlap. Photograph A was taken at the same time as, and included part of the same scene as, Home Movie B, which was taken at the same time as, and included part of the same scene as, Photograph C. And so on. Because there is a mass of interacting images, altering one image is likely to generate discrepancies with other images, which would give the game away. The nefarious alteration of Image X is likely to require the alteration of Image Y, which will then require the alteration of Image Z. And so on. Of course, no such discrepancies have yet been demonstrated (but that's another story, for another thread), which means that it is highly unlikely that any substantial alteration of the photographic evidence from Dealey Plaza took place. Look at David's post again. Everything is a fake! It's hardly surprising that he ended up as a 'Harvey and Lee' believer, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) James Norwood writes: Quote I described Pitts' testimony very precisely and accurately, and you are misrepresenting what I wrote and once again casting aspersions that have no place in this forum. Your argument will not persuade anyone, and you are in violation of the forum guidelines by stringing out the discussion until the thread devolves into chaos. Please cease and desist and follow the agreed-upon rules of the Ed Forum. How exactly was I "misrepresenting" what you wrote? This is what you wrote: Quote In addition to the testimony of Robert Oswald, a total of six eyewitnesses (Frank Kudlaty, Fran Schubert, Richard Galindo, Mark Summers, Bobby Pitts, and Douglas Gann) clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School. You were claiming that Bobby Pitts "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School". What's the evidence for this claim? You didn't cite any evidence then, and you haven't done so since. Let's see whether Scripture can help us out. If we turn to pages 102 and 103 of the cult's holy book, we find Armstrong's account of Pitts' recollections: Quote I located Bobby Pitts, who lived next door at 2224 Thomas Place during the 1954-55 school year. Bobbie [sic] was in the 10th grade at Arlington Heights High School but his younger brother, Jackie (2 years younger), attended Stripling. Bobbie [sic] remembered that when he and some of the neighborhood boys played touch football in his front yard, Lee Harvey [bold in the original] Oswald would stand on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place and watch. Armstrong doesn't provide a footnote for this passage, and his CD doesn't include any documents relating to Bobby Pitts for the years 1954 or 1955. It looks as though the passage I quoted is all the evidence we have about Pitts' recollection of something that may or may not have happened 40 years earlier. That passage of Scripture contains absolutely nothing about a boy named Oswald attending Stripling school. Pitts did not recall what James claims he recalled. What James wrote was untrue, and I did not misrepresent him when I stated: Quote Pitts' recollection was (... how should I put it so that I don't get reported to teacher?) less than entirely accurately described by James If anything, I was too generous to James. His "attending Stripling Junior High School" claim was a complete invention. James "described Pitts' testimony very precisely and accurately," did he? I think our thin-skinned friend owes us a couple of apologies, firstly for making his untrue claim about Bobby Pitts, and secondly for accusing me of misrepresenting him: Quote In my zealous desire to spread the gospel of Armstrong, praise his name, I made a claim about Bobby Pitts that was clearly untrue. I and my fellow believers knew that what I wrote was untrue, which is why we all repeatedly refused to answer Mark Stevens' reasonable questions about it. May Armstrong forgive me for making his theory even more of a laughing-stock that it was before. Something along those lines should do it. Edited July 13, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk Tightened the prose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted July 13, 2020 Author Share Posted July 13, 2020 15 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: That’s a two-inch difference, 14 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Been discussed a million times and alternative explanations provided-see here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1380-the-great-oswald-height-debate Tracy, Do you even bother to read the silly stuff on Greg Parker’s site when you reference them here? In the page you linked, Mr. Parker wrote, “The simpler and saner explanation is that where the record shows height as 5' 11", it is an estimate by someone else, or an an exaggeration by Oswald.” Do you really think Marine Corps medical exams and reports had just estimates of height and weight, or that they allowed recruits to “exaggerate” their physical characteristics? Is Mr. Parker’s silly excuse what you refer to as an “alternative explanation?” That’s like an “alternative fact,” right? I can see why you always claim someone else somewhere else has presented these “alternative facts.” If you stated them here, we would all see how silly they are, and how silly your claims are. 3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: There were clearly three Oswalds! It is inconceivable that any of the following measurements were mistaken! Anyone can see this! - One of them was 5'11" (Marine records, 1959). - One of them was 5' 9' (Autopsy in 1963). - One of them was 5' 8" (Marine records, 1956). - One of them was 5' 6" or 5'7" (Bolton Ford witness). That's three, no, hang on, four Oswalds! Anyone can see this! Mr. Bojczuk’s reductio ad absurdum disregards the obvious fact that the overwhelming majority of references and reports on LHOs height as an adult are centered on 5’ 9” (69 inches) and 5’ 11” (71 inches) with few in between, which normally would be expected. Most of the few exceptions were measurements made before adulthood or were clearly estimates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted July 13, 2020 Author Share Posted July 13, 2020 13 hours ago, James Norwood said: As reported in the article, the application form confirms the height of the applicant as 5' 8". But another fascinating part of the application was the listing of the addresses where Oswald had resided after the age of twelve. This topic is germane to our ongoing discussion about Stripling Junior High School. If one of the addresses listed on the application form is 2220 Thomas Place in Fort Worth in 1954-55, then we have more corroborating evidence that Oswald attended Stripling. Sgt. Chidgey kept the application form in his personal possession, passing it on to this son, John T. Chidgey, an attorney in Houston, who died in 2019. If the document has remained in the Chidgey family, it is an important historical record. The newspaper article may be accessed at this site: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/article3837441.html Fascinating! Any chance the application is online? Have you tried searching for it? If not, I'll try to find the time. My assumption about the 5' 8" height is that the Russian-speaking LHO (Harvey) was just 17 years old at the time and probably grew another inch. That hardly negates the fact that there was a clear height and weight difference between the two LHO's, as documented from the mid-1950s until 1963. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 9 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Do you even bother to read the silly stuff on Greg Parker’s site when you reference them here? Yes, I have and they are all much more plausible than the 2 Oswald theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: That makes six or maybe seven Oswalds! Exactly. I've often said that using the H&L logic there could be a hundred Oswalds if you consider all of the discrepancies and false sightings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: How many intelligent people are there who developed an interest in the JFK assassination, and then learned that their time and effort was going to be taken up arguing with paranoid fantasists rather than doing proper research, and moved onto something more rewarding? Jeremy, When you engage in name-calling like the expression "paranoid fantasists" for those of us writing about the two Oswalds, then it is important to challenge your tract writing. Here is some pertinent background information: (1) John Armstrong began to share his research into the two Oswalds in the late 1990s. This was a kind of golden age of conferences on the JFK assassination, as they were occurring all over the nation in the decade following the release of Oliver Stone's film JFK. In his conference presentations, John received standing ovations for the research he was presenting. Several transcripts of the conference presentations appear on harveyandlee.net. (2) Harvey and Lee was published in 2003. It is a massive volume of nearly a thousand pages and requires multiple readings to digest. It is essential for the reader to work closely to the CD that includes images and documents. It is also important that the reader approach the material with a healthy skepticism and draw conclusions based on the evidence, as opposed to the words of the author. The reviews of the book on Amazon speak for themselves as testimonials for those who recognize how this book has changed the way we think about Oswald and the JFK assassination. (3) On harveyandlee.net, John has published a series of essays on specialized topics covered in his book. Those essays have been acknowledged by multiple researchers as landmark investigatory studies in the JFK assassination. (4) On the Education Forum, Jim Hargrove has started threads on the two Oswalds that have attracted tens of thousands of views. Those who are interested in this topic do not take your screeds seriously because they have a transparent, biased agenda due to your limited and ill-informed perspectives on the life of Oswald. I first came to know about John Armstrong's research from reading several of his essays in the outstanding journal The Fourth Decade in the 1990s. I am not a proselytizer, and I am not interested in promoting John's work. I am only a student of the JFK case who is able to recognize a pioneering work of research when I see one and to avail myself of the invaluable archive of primary sources accessible through the Baylor University Library thanks to John Armstrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: 14 hours ago, James Norwood said: As reported in the article, the application form confirms the height of the applicant as 5' 8". But another fascinating part of the application was the listing of the addresses where Oswald had resided after the age of twelve. This topic is germane to our ongoing discussion about Stripling Junior High School. If one of the addresses listed on the application form is 2220 Thomas Place in Fort Worth in 1954-55, then we have more corroborating evidence that Oswald attended Stripling. Sgt. Chidgey kept the application form in his personal possession, passing it on to this son, John T. Chidgey, an attorney in Houston, who died in 2019. If the document has remained in the Chidgey family, it is an important historical record. The newspaper article may be accessed at this site: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/article3837441.html Fascinating! Any chance the application is online? Have you tried searching for it? If not, I'll try to find the time. Jim, Yes, this is a fascinating document! I have been unable to locate a copy online. I have written to the reporter who mentioned it in his 2013 article. He is an award-winning journalist in Texas. I will keep you posted if I learn anything new. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, James Norwood said: Jim and David, There is published in the Warren Commission Hearings the Marine enlistment certificate for Oswald, which lists his height at 5' 8". The enlistment date was October 24, 1956. The certificate is Commission Exhibit 635 on p. 289 of Volume XVII of the Hearings and Exhibits. It goes without saying that the difference between 5' 8" and 5' 11" is a substantial one for official Marine records. There was an interesting article published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on November 23, 2013, wherein another document, the Marine application form signed by Oswald, was discussed. At the time of the assassination of President Kennedy, Marine 1st Sgt. John G. Chidgey was head of recruiting for the Marines in the Fort Worth office. According to the article, Sgt. Chidgey went to the basement of the Federal Courthouse in Fort Worth and pulled out the “APPLICATION FOR ENLISTMENT AND INDIVIDUAL DATA CARD” for Oswald, dated October 24, 1956. As reported in the article, the application form confirms the height of the applicant as 5' 8". But another fascinating part of the application was the listing of the addresses where Oswald had resided after the age of twelve. This topic is germane to our ongoing discussion about Stripling Junior High School. If one of the addresses listed on the application form is 2220 Thomas Place in Fort Worth in 1954-55, then we have more corroborating evidence that Oswald attended Stripling. Sgt. Chidgey kept the application form in his personal possession, passing it on to this son, John T. Chidgey, an attorney in Houston, who died in 2019. If the document has remained in the Chidgey family, it is an important historical record. The newspaper article may be accessed at this site: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/article3837441.html A 5'8'' Oswald is not a big deal. A hazel-eyed Oswald is. Once again, I ask the question who was the 5'8" hazel-eyed Oswald? My rather sketchy knowledge of human growth and development recalls that growth ends when bones began fusing after the growth spurt in males. On Oct. 24, 1956 Harvey Oswald at 17 years and could have been 5'8". Then during the course of the next year or two grew another inch. It occasionally happens that males can still grow in height to their college years. So, the notion that Harvey was 5'8" and later at the autopsy 5'9" is plausible. Or, that he was once measured at 5'10" might be an error. I don't think he would have shrunk 1" in height by age 24. The problem with the Sgt. Chidgey record is the hazel eyes. Any picture of Harvey shows he has blue-grey eyes. That's a fact. You can't get around that. We can't accept one part of a record and deny the other. Oh, I guess we could, but to me that would not be sensible. I have always speculated there were more than two Oswalds. Height and eye color might lead one to think the same thing. I remember being inducted into the US Army. There was a thorough medical examination by trained medical personnel, doctors and nurses. It went on all day. Every thing was carefully noted about one's personal features (I assume that has to do with body identification). I suspect the same was for the Marine Corps. I don't think they would have gotten Oswald's eye color wrong. We could say that they did, but there is no evidence that the Marine medical people did, or SGT Chidgey. One has to go with the info provided. So, who was the hazel-eyed Oswald? Edited July 13, 2020 by John Butler 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