JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Matt Grantham on May 30, 2018, 05:45:40 AM
-
According to Fort Worth's Strpling Junior High Assistant Principle Frank Kudlaty states the FBI seized Oswald records at the school within 24 hours of assassination The FBI apparently has no record of any such event
Robert Oswald's WC testimony
Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.
In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling
Junior High School then.
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?
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.
Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting
for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and
you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard,
continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was
attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.
Nonetheless the Warren Commission has Oswald only attending and graduating from Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans, or spending some of that time at a school in NYC
This alone is not proof of anything but there of course a lot more coincidences in the tale of the two Oswald's, so I suppose the only question I am directly posing is just in regard to the contradictions in this particular part of the story
-
According to Fort Worth's Strpling Junior High Assistant Principle Frank Kudlaty states the FBI seized Oswald records at the school within 24 hours of assassination The FBI apparently has no record of any such event
Robert Oswald's WC testimony
Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.
In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling
Junior High School then.
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?
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.
Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting
for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and
you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard,
continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was
attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.
Nonetheless the Warren Commission has Oswald only attending and graduating from Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans, or spending some of that time at a school in NYC
This alone is not proof of anything but there of course a lot more coincidences in the tale of the two Oswald's, so I suppose the only question I am directly posing is just in regard to the contradictions in this particular part of the story
Frank Kudlaty stated that there were records of Oswald attending W. C. Stripling but that he didn't attend for the full year.
-
Frank Kudlaty stated that there were records of Oswald attending W. C. Stripling but that he didn't attend for the full year.
Seventh through ninth with a partial year in the ninth graqde
-
What could they be afraid of? What could H.S. records show? Thoughts?
It seems Armstrong has done all that can be done in terms of gathering evidence of the contradictions of the lives and the seeming simultaneous witness identifications of two Oswalds being different places at the seem time I found this story by John Thacther, who had an eBook novel called The Other Man, which supposedly delves into the DNA evidence claiming the DNA between the decedents of Marina and the so called Harvey Oswald the Brother to Robert Oswald and John PIc Not sure if Robert or John Pic had children Also not sure if I want to pay 4 bucks which almost assuredly has no real evidence on this issue The idea from both Thatcher and Armstrong is that the intelligence communities somehow used a Russian or Hungarian born child and brought him into at least the New Orleans and Ft Worth areas near the time the Lee Oswald whose mother was Marguerite is living in those areas
While many of you no doubt will find the idea absurd there is in fact of very scientific way of settling this people if descendants on both sides are living
-
The LNers always demean John Armstrong, but the idea of there being two Oswalds goes back to the time of the assassination. The CIA has been known to use twins and other lookalikes. I am sure other intelligence groups have done the same.
Yes it seems quite brilliant and in a way it seems some those in the LN sell our intelligence agencies short by implying these things are beyond them Lets not forget the conspirators believed they were operating in the interests of national security
-
Not sure if Robert or John Pic had children
They did. Doubt anyone would find any thing there.
-
According to Fort Worth's Strpling Junior High Assistant Principle Frank Kudlaty states the FBI seized Oswald records at the school within 24 hours of assassination The FBI apparently has no record of any such event
Robert Oswald's WC testimony
Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.
In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling
Junior High School then.
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?
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.
Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting
for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and
you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard,
continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was
attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.
Nonetheless the Warren Commission has Oswald only attending and graduating from Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans, or spending some of that time at a school in NYC
This alone is not proof of anything but there of course a lot more coincidences in the tale of the two Oswald's, so I suppose the only question I am directly posing is just in regard to the contradictions in this particular part of the story
If the school year in question was 1951-'52, that would indicate that LeeOswald, born on Oct 18,'39, would have attained age 12 on Oct 18,'51, and had entered the 7th grade at age 11 in Aug/Sept '51.
However, I believe there are records that indicate LeeOswald graduated from the 6th grade at Ridgelea Elem/FortWorth on May 30,'52. And, there are records that indicate he graduated from the 9th grade in June '55, at Beauregard JHS, NewOrleans, LA.
-
They did. Doubt anyone would find any thing there.
I am not sure if we understand one another The children you refer to would have the DNA for the comparison
-
If the school year in question was 1951-'52, that would indicate that LeeOswald, born on Oct 18,'39, would have attained age 12 on Oct 18,'51, and had entered the 7th grade at age 11 in Aug/Sept '51.
However, I believe there are records that indicate LeeOswald graduated from the 6th grade at Ridgelea Elem/FortWorth on May 30,'52. And, there are records that indicate he graduated from the 9th grade in June '55, at Beauregard JHS, NewOrleans, LA.
First off the title of thread should have been Oswald's Junior High School The WC does not report Oswald attending Stripling Middle School in Ft Worth and there are witnesses that say that government officials seized them Beauregard is apparently a contradiction to that
Throwing this in for general idea of the two Oswalds. Laura Kitrell goes on the record to having met two separate Oswald's in in Dallas of October of 63
http://harveyandlee.net/Kittrell/Kittrell.htm
-
Statement and records that show at a minimum someone was impersonating Oswald in the U.S and Switzerland, during the period Oswald is in Russia
-
But who defines what's in the best interest of the nation?
Yes for me the best interest of the nation generally relies on truth and transparency I suppose my point is that it seems that many individuals are comfortable with the idea that intelligence agencies go to some pretty extreme means in their operations, and are pretty comfortable with that idea But whenever the idea arises that they might deceive the American people everything changes. I suppose I am just trying to point out to them that our intelligence agencies, even when their aim is to deceive, are still good old patriots at heart
Seperately it seems the story of the two Oswalds leaves us with the circumstance that the LHO who was shot by Ruby was not Marguerite's son Robert's Brother etc The fact that they went along with that seems like one of the weaker aspects of the theory Who the Russian speaking Harvey, as Armstrong claims he called himself, first appears in Texas in 1947 Who his family was remains a mystery. there was some information from an anonymous caller cited by Armstrong alludes to says he had an uncle somewhere in NY These are indeed pretty large holes in the story but is that void enough to ignore all the other evidence of two Oswalds?
-
If LHO who was killed by Ruby was not Robert's Brother then it would of course would make sense that he would be happy to see that his non brother LHO dead and being guilty of the murder since the safety of his true Brother may have been at stake Pure speculation I know
-
But who defines what's in the best interest of the nation?
You know sir....the puppets of the powers that be....the military industrial complex cabal.
-
Who was this guy?
(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Lee-1958%20from%20Robert.jpg)
-
Who was this guy?
(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Lee-1958%20from%20Robert.jpg)
Robert Oswald's Brother Lee
I have only seen a few pictures where it seems to be pretty clear we are looking at a different Oswald Wonder if any facial recognition experts have ever taken on the issue
-
A high school picture?
Another fuzzy photo but that is clearly not the same guy the DPD arrested.
-
Kind of funny that there is no ripping apart of this stuff. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it is because they have been through it before
-
Kind of funny that there is no ripping apart of this stuff. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it is because they have been through it before
It's more of the "Don't throw snowballs at the small school bus" rule.
-
It's more of the "Don't throw snowballs at the small school bus" rule.
Steve I am yet to see you post anything meaningful here Your latest post here ads to that proud tradition
-
The children you refer to would have the DNA for the comparison
I understand that part. And theoretically yes.
Might really mean something if someone can actually obtain it.
Who has the ability/connections to do this?
Gary Mack could have maybe.
Come back with suggestions.
-
How was Oswald proficient in Russian before defecting to the Soviet Union
Numerous eyewitnesses provide us with a profile of Oswald?s fluency in Russian, suggesting that he was a native speaker. According to these first-hand accounts, Oswald?s conversational and idiomatic Russian were so flawless that he could not have reached this level of fluency exclusively from the two-and-a-half years he spent in the USSR. Mrs. Natalie Ray, who emigrated to the United States from Stalingrad and met Oswald after his return from the Soviet Union, testified to the Warren Commission that his conversational Russian was ?just perfect?.it?s just too good speaking Russian for such a short time.? [4] Mrs. Ray was paying a posthumous compliment to Oswald while speaking in her own broken English: ?I said, ?How come you speak so good Russian? I been here so long and still don?t speak very well English.?? [5] When Mrs. Ray was asked by Warren Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler, ?You thought he spoke Russian better than you would expect a person to be able to speak Russian after only living?there only 3 years??, she replied, ?Yes; I really did.? [6]
After testing Oswald?s skills in translation, linguist Peter Gregory, who was a native Russian, dashed off a letter of recommendation for Oswald for work as a professional interpreter or translator of the Russian language. But with no evidence of formal training other than spending two-and-half years in the Soviet Union, how was it possible for Oswald to attain this level of accomplishment? Moreover, Gregory believed that Oswald spoke Russian with a Polish accent, which could not have been acquired from living in Minsk.
Peter Gregory?s son, Paul, was a schoolmate of Oswald?s at Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth in the academic year 1954-55. The school records documenting Oswald?s enrollment, which were hand-delivered to FBI agents by assistant principal Frank Kudlaty, were subsequently lost by the FBI. By the early 1960s, Paul Gregory was a graduate student in Russian language and literature at the University of Oklahoma. He later told the Warren Commission that, despite making grammatical errors, Oswald ?was completely fluent. He understood more than I did and he could express any idea?that he wanted to in Russian.? [9] Other witnesses, including George Bouhe, Mrs. Teofil (Anna ) Meller, Elena Hall, and Mrs. Dymitruk, recalled Oswald?s exceptional skills in speaking Russian. [10] This substantial body of testimony vouching for Oswald?s Russian language skills is not casual ?hearsay? evidence, but often first-hand accounts recorded under oath for the Warren Commission.
George De Mohrenschildt was a Russian ?migr? who had taught Russian language at the university level. He was in a perfect position to assess Oswald?s command of the language, yet was puzzled about where, how, and when Oswald could have achieved such mastery. How was it possible for an American high school dropout in his early twenties to have read ?Gorki, Dostoevski, Golgol, Tolstoi and Turgenieff? in the original Russian language versions? The extract above is from p. 118 of De Mohrenschildt?s memoir I Am a Patsy!: My Contact With Lee Harvey Oswald, The Warren Commission, and the JFK Assassination Conspiracy.
-
I understand that part. And theoretically yes.
Might really mean something if someone can actually obtain it.
Who has the ability/connections to do this?
Gary Mack could have maybe.
Come back with suggestions.
Jerry Thanks for the interest I would assume Armstrong would be taking the lead, but I see no contact info at his site DiEugenio use to be accessible on the Education discussion forum This may be to far out for a lot of CT folks, and I am not very familiar with who else out of the leading researchers is interested in the topic
It looks like Gary Mack died a few years ago
-
Rob I don't think we disagree, my comment was to try to frame it in a way lone shooter folks might be able to absorb
-
No problems Matt as I know that we agree. This is interesting stuff.
Thanks Rob
Here are a couple of points of interest
n January, 1953, while HARVEY and the Marguerite Oswald imposter were living in the Bronx, there are indications of CIA involvement. The House on Un-American Activites Committee (HUAC) had a file that made reference to a "Mrs. M. Oswald" in New York City that originated from a CIA Office of Security file. This CIA file contained references to 1941, Nazi's, and New Jersey. Judge John Tunheim, of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) wrote to Henry Hyde and requested the HUAC file, but his request was denied.
In February, 1953 John Pic and his family were invited to dinner at the Oswald's apartment. This was the last time Pic would see his brother for 9 years. Nine years later, in 1962 Pic was invited to Thanksgiving Dinner at Robert Oswald's home, where he met the Russian speaking HARVEY Oswald. Pic told the Warren Commission, "the Lee Harvey Oswald I met in November of 1962 [Thanksgiving] was not the Lee Harvey Oswald I had known 10 years previous [in New York]." When the Warren Commission showed John Pic photographs of HARVEY Oswald taken in 1953, 1957, and 1963 he refused to identify these photos as his brother. Robert Oswald most certainly knew that the Russian speaking HARVEY was not his brother, because Robert had lived with both HARVEY Oswald and the Marguerite Oswald impostor at 4936 Collinwood for 6 months in 1956.
At least one source has Oswald speaking German as well, and rumored to have had a Hungarian accent or country of origin We of course know that US intelligence had been working closely with German intelligence at the closing of WW2 Could this young Oswald been part of that new collaboration?
And to digress back to the gathering DNA. One would think that the LHO two daughter's with Marina would be sympathetic to having a DNA test Robert's Oswald's offspring not so much since he apparently identified Marina's Husband as his Brother If Pic had children they might be more willing since John Pic is on the record saying it was not his Brother
-
Robert Oswald had two children Cathy Marie and Robert Lee Edward Jr. John Pic had one Daughter born in July of 47. I believe Robert's children were born around 1960 Lee or Harvey, had two DaughtersAudery Marina "Rachel"Oswald Porter b. Oct 20/63 and June Lee Oswald b.Feb 15/63 I was thinking that even a genetic test might show if Rachel and June had markers for Easter European heritage that that alone could be significant since the Oswald name is Anglo Saxon However June and Rachel's Grandfather is listed as Nicolay Prusakov which throws a monkey wrench into that notion This would seemingly have to be Marguerite's Father Strangely Robert Oswald says he is not sure of his Mothers maiden name but assumes it was Claverie, which was her middle name
Every time you look for anything in this case there has so be some strange stuff
-
Yes Armstrong included a timeline of how it was a gradual process were the heavier Marguerite slowly to takes over the position of Oswald's Mother around 1960
-
Yes Armstrong included a timeline of how it was a gradual process were the heavier Marguerite slowly to takes over the position of Oswald's Mother around 1960
Weren't there two Marguerites? ;D
-
Actually there was no takeover according to him. The tall attractive Marguerite was the mother of Lee Oswald and the short heavyset one was the mother of Harvey Oswald. When the American Lee was taken out of the picture the Eastern European Harvey and his mom became LHO of record per Armstrong.
Today, what remains, are an overwhelming number of FBI reports relating to the Marguerite Oswald impostor. Beginning in 1955, as the number of FBI reports relating to Marguerite Claverie Oswald diminished, the number of FBI reports relating to the Marguerite Oswald imposter increased. By the spring of 1959 the Marguerite Oswald impostor became the one and only "Marguerite Oswald," mother of the young man who would soon "defect" to the Soviet Union
It seemed like you disputed my term of taking over for in referring to this quote Maybe your right, but so far I would think that is a reasonable summary of what is written here there was a matching correspondence between the changing frequency from Lee towards Harvey at this time So if I did not include that point that is a fair point
-
You're being too sensitive. There was a transition and not a takeover is all that I am saying. Supposedly the transition for Lee didn't occur until he was in the USMC.
It seems i have made two mistakes All over nothing imo Take over for, and a takeover have different connotations in my mind at least Transition is however, admittedly, is a better term
Can anyone tell me if the JFK education Forum allows for new members? I am having trouble finding a way to do so or getting a response from the administrators I post this here because of Jerry's remark that maybe I should try to see if anyone is working on the Oswal DNA question ,and thought the Education Forum might be a possible place to in that effort
-
According to Fort Worth's Strpling Junior High Assistant Principle Frank Kudlaty states the FBI seized Oswald records at the school within 24 hours of assassination The FBI apparently has no record of any such event
Robert Oswald's WC testimony
Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.
In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling
Junior High School then.
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?
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.
Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting
for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and
you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard,
continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was
attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.
Nonetheless the Warren Commission has Oswald only attending and graduating from Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans, or spending some of that time at a school in NYC
This alone is not proof of anything but there of course a lot more coincidences in the tale of the two Oswald's, so I suppose the only question I am directly posing is just in regard to the contradictions in this particular part of the story
Let's see if we can undo some of the misinformation in this thread. Frank Kudlaty never said a word to anyone about any confiscated records. At least not until he had a conversation with his friend Jack White who filled him in on the John Armstrong "Harvey & Lee" nonsense. Kudlaty then suddenly "remembered" the confiscated records. White tried to conceal the fact that he was a friend of Kudlaty in a discussion on the Education Forum, but Greg Parker got it out of him. The point is, if Kudlaty was so concerned about the "confiscated" records, why didn't he report it years before? Anyone interested in this can go to the EF and do a search or go to Greg Parker's (References & links to websites which contain pornographic images and/or abusive content directed at members of this Forum is strictly prohibited ) site.
Robert Oswald was simply wrong about Stripling:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/robert-oswald-and-stripling.html
-
Robert Oswald's Brother Lee
I have only seen a few pictures where it seems to be pretty clear we are looking at a different Oswald Wonder if any facial recognition experts have ever taken on the issue
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-hunter-photo.html
-
Thanks Rob
Here are a couple of points of interest
n January, 1953, while HARVEY and the Marguerite Oswald imposter were living in the Bronx, there are indications of CIA involvement. The House on Un-American Activites Committee (HUAC) had a file that made reference to a "Mrs. M. Oswald" in New York City that originated from a CIA Office of Security file. This CIA file contained references to 1941, Nazi's, and New Jersey. Judge John Tunheim, of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) wrote to Henry Hyde and requested the HUAC file, but his request was denied.
In February, 1953 John Pic and his family were invited to dinner at the Oswald's apartment. This was the last time Pic would see his brother for 9 years. Nine years later, in 1962 Pic was invited to Thanksgiving Dinner at Robert Oswald's home, where he met the Russian speaking HARVEY Oswald. Pic told the Warren Commission, "the Lee Harvey Oswald I met in November of 1962 [Thanksgiving] was not the Lee Harvey Oswald I had known 10 years previous [in New York]." When the Warren Commission showed John Pic photographs of HARVEY Oswald taken in 1953, 1957, and 1963 he refused to identify these photos as his brother. Robert Oswald most certainly knew that the Russian speaking HARVEY was not his brother, because Robert had lived with both HARVEY Oswald and the Marguerite Oswald impostor at 4936 Collinwood for 6 months in 1956.
At least one source has Oswald speaking German as well, and rumored to have had a Hungarian accent or country of origin We of course know that US intelligence had been working closely with German intelligence at the closing of WW2 Could this young Oswald been part of that new collaboration?
And to digress back to the gathering DNA. One would think that the LHO two daughter's with Marina would be sympathetic to having a DNA test Robert's Oswald's offspring not so much since he apparently identified Marina's Husband as his Brother If Pic had children they might be more willing since John Pic is on the record saying it was not his Brother
The HUAC thing is a prime example of the stuff that makes up the H&L theory. It is just something taken out of context and presented as a "fact" to amaze the gullible reader. Zero evidence that this was the historic Marguerite.
Anyone who has read John Pic's testimony in its entirety will realize that he never said the LHO who returned from Russia was not his brother. He merely did not recognize a few of the photographs that were shown to him which is not surprising since he did not see his brother for ten years. Another thing taken out of context and used to help bolster the H&L theory.
-
Robert Oswald had two children Cathy Marie and Robert Lee Edward Jr. John Pic had one Daughter born in July of 47. I believe Robert's children were born around 1960 Lee or Harvey, had two DaughtersAudery Marina "Rachel"Oswald Porter b. Oct 20/63 and June Lee Oswald b.Feb 15/63 I was thinking that even a genetic test might show if Rachel and June had markers for Easter European heritage that that alone could be significant since the Oswald name is Anglo Saxon However June and Rachel's Grandfather is listed as Nicolay Prusakov which throws a monkey wrench into that notion This would seemingly have to be Marguerite's Father Strangely Robert Oswald says he is not sure of his Mothers maiden name but assumes it was Claverie, which was her middle name
Every time you look for anything in this case there has so be some strange stuff
Marguerite's maiden name was Claverie and the fact that Robert didn't remember it doesn't change that simple well established fact.
-
Armstrong's book puts forth evidence showing the difference between the two Marguerites. One was tall and one was short. One was very attractive and the other not so much.
During her WC testimony the short one got quite a few things wrong about LHO's past.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html
-
The HUAC thing is a prime example of the stuff that makes up the H&L theory. It is just something taken out of context and presented as a "fact" to amaze the gullible reader. Zero evidence that this was the historic Marguerite.
Anyone who has read John Pic's testimony in its entirety will realize that he never said the LHO who returned from Russia was not his brother. He merely did not recognize a few of the photographs that were shown to him hwi9ch is not surprising since he did not see his brother for ten years. Another thing taken out of context and used to help bolster the H&L theory.
I'm a CTer but do not believe the Harvey and Lee (called by some, funnily, as Hardly Lee) baloney. I'd advise other readers to go to this very detailed and long thread on another forum. You'll find many of the silly, if not crazy, beliefs about this fictional caper including (non)photo alterations, sloping shoulders, and contrast(y) photos among other things.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?tab=comments#comment-348449 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?tab=comments#comment-348449)
Sadly, because of the "kinder and gentler" nature of the above forum, many people who used to vigorously debate this nonsense over there have left or been banned - Thomas Graves and myself being two of them. The whole EF site has now become a vast echo chamber with little push back there and if there is any push back, you're either warned, are not read (they have a magical Ignore button there), or banned entirely.
-
Marguerite's maiden name was Claverie and the fact that Robert didn't remember it doesn't change that simple well established fact.
I never said it wasn't Entering straw man territory
-
I'm a CTer but do not believe the Harvey and Lee (called by some, funnily, as Hardly Lee) baloney. I'd advise other readers to go to this very detailed and long thread on another forum. You'll find many of the silly, if not crazy, beliefs about this fictional caper including (non)photo alterations, sloping shoulders, and contrast(y) photos among other things.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?tab=comments#comment-348449 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?tab=comments#comment-348449)
Sadly, because of the "kinder and gentler" nature of the above forum, many people who used to vigorously debate this nonsense over there have left or been banned - Thomas Graves and myself being two of them. The whole EF site has now become a vast echo chamber with little push back there and if there is any push back, you're either warned, are not read (they have a magical Ignore button there), or banned entirely.
Maybe you are Michael But we do know that many folks like to pose as being sympathetic to the CT angle on many things so they can appear as an even more legitimate critic of when things have gone to far So far you have said nothing other than a story of being banned
-
Let's see if we can undo some of the misinformation in this thread. Frank Kudlaty never said a word to anyone about any confiscated records. At least not until he had a conversation with his friend Jack White who filled him in on the John Armstrong "Harvey & Lee" nonsense. Kudlaty then suddenly "remembered" the confiscated records. White tried to conceal the fact that he was a friend of Kudlaty in a discussion on the Education Forum, but Greg Parker got it out of him. The point is, if Kudlaty was so concerned about the "confiscated" records, why didn't he report it years before? Anyone interested in this can go to the EF and do a search or go to Greg Parker's (References & links to websites which contain pornographic images and/or abusive content directed at members of this Forum is strictly prohibited ) site.
Robert Oswald was simply wrong about Stripling:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/robert-oswald-and-stripling.html
Pardon me if you just saying all the statements by these people are incorrect because you said so doesn't strike me as particularly insightful
-
Fascinating W. Tracy Parnell; as for myself, I enjoy reading these posts.
-
Pardon me if you just saying all the statements by these people are incorrect because you said so doesn't strike me as particularly insightful
I think that my posts are just as helpful as yours, which seem merely to be regurgitations of information from other researchers including Armstrong and Jefferson Morley (in another thread). I am simply pointing out the problems here. Kudlaty never said word one about any confiscated records until he heard Jack White's (Armstrong's mentor for those who don't know) sales pitch. If I believed that the FBI did something untoward, I say something back in the day. That is a valid criticism IMO.
Robert Oswald was speaking to the WC and trying his best to reconstruct his life and his brother's life. He assumed that LHO attended Stripling. And, in fact, he would have started school there in September 1952 if Marguerite had not moved him to NYC in August of that year. So it was a logical assumption on his part but it was incorrect.
-
I think that my posts are just as helpful as yours, which seem merely to be regurgitations of information from other researchers including Armstrong and Jefferson Morley (in another thread). I am simply pointing out the problems here. Kudlaty never said word one about any confiscated records until he heard Jack White's (Armstrong's mentor for those who don't know) sales pitch. If I believed that the FBI did something untoward, I say something back in the day. That is a valid criticism IMO.
Robert Oswald was speaking to the WC and trying his best to reconstruct his life and his brother's life. He assumed that LHO attended Stripling. And, in fact, he would have started school there in September 1952 if Marguerite had not moved him to NYC in August of that year. So it was a logical assumption on his part but it was incorrect.
I want to make sure I understand the inference before commenting further, you believe Kudlaty's statements should be discredited because he had not alerted someone earlier that the records at Stripling had been seized by the FBI
As to your points about Robert Oswald, What exactly is supposed to be substantive about your claim? I try not to negatively characterize the posts of other's but I just fail to see what you're demonstrating other than you believe Robert Oswald was making an assumption or confused
-
Can anyone tell me if the JFK education Forum allows for new members? I am having trouble finding a way to do so or getting a response from the administrators
I doubt it but a lot of the members here are a lot more conversant with EF than me.
However 5 years ago I tried to join and got the same "brick wall".
Also hand in glove is Greg Burnhams site "assassinationjfk.net", which openly offers you can join but the capta wont work and when you contact about it there is just a :brick wall". At least burham mailed me back explaining how there had been a sophisticated hack and he cant fix the capta. The EF and Him must have formed their own exclusive club I guess.
-
Maybe you are Michael But we do know that many folks like to pose as being sympathetic to the CT angle on many things so they can appear as an even more legitimate critic of when things have gone to far So far you have said nothing other than a story of being banned
Hi Matt - it's obvious you did not click on the very long and detailed thread about HL on the other forum. If you had, you'll see many many rebuttals I've posted over there along with Jeremy (who runs a UK JFK site) and a guy named Bernie as well as Tracy and T. Graves. I mean, why retype them here? Just go there and read them for yourself.
As for Tracy Parnell, yes, he's an LNer but he's one of the most polite people I've come across on the forums. What's amazing to me is how a CTer (me) and LNer (Tracy) can actually agree on the nonsensical HL fairy tale.
-
Strawman. No one said anything about this.
That was the inference I got from the OPs comments. He said:
June and Rachel's Grandfather is listed as Nicolay Prusakov which throws a monkey wrench into that notion This [Prusakov] would seemingly have to be Marguerite's Father Strangely Robert Oswald says he is not sure of his Mothers maiden name but assumes it was Claverie, which was her middle name
But Marguerite's father was John Claverie and Marguerite's maiden name (not her "middle name") was Claverie. The OP seems to understand that Prusakov was not Marguerite's father but can't resist throwing in the tidbit about Robert forgetting his mother's maiden name as if there is something mysterious going on. I am just setting the record straight for those that read this type of stuff and don't know better.
-
As for Tracy Parnell, yes, he's an LNer but he's one of the most polite people I've come across on the forums. What's amazing to me is how a CTer (me) and LNer (Tracy) can actually agree on the nonsensical HL fairy tale.
Thanks Michael. And I think the fact that CTs and LNs have joined together to combat the H&L nonsense speaks volumes about it.
-
One of John Armstrong?s favorite investigative techniques is to suggest that since there are records that contain discrepancies, something sinister may be going on. But when others point out that mistakes and differences in records are a normal occurrence, Armstrong?s associates ridicule this idea and claim that so many unexplained discrepancies could not exist. But such inconsistencies can and do exist in the real world for varying reasons.
This short article explains one of the many "mysteries" in Armstrong's book:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/margaret-keating.html
-
It seems i have made two mistakes All over nothing imo Take over for, and a takeover have different connotations in my mind at least Transition is however, admittedly, is a better term
Can anyone tell me if the JFK education Forum allows for new members? I am having trouble finding a way to do so or getting a response from the administrators I post this here because of Jerry's remark that maybe I should try to see if anyone is working on the Oswal DNA question ,and thought the Education Forum might be a possible place to in that effort
Hi Matt if you want to sign up at EF the best thing to do is give it a whirl. If you make it great. Just stay on message and don't venture too far off the reservation. Just play nice to abide by the kinder and gentler nature of EF and you'll be fine. For your reading pleasure, here's the post that basically got me banned. I killed a lot of birds with a single stone in this post, going up against Jim Eugenio, which I actually did work for several years ago on his JFK100 special, among other things. I also went up against the scam artist Dave Lifton. And I also even expained to the readership over there how the whole EF was actually started, if you can believe, as a *marketing forum* for esteemed authors to sell their wares to mere mortals like me. Post is below along with link:
***
On 5/30/2018 at 11:49 PM, David Lifton said:
As a general rule, "new information" that suddenly materializes 25 years after the fact should not be given credence. For example: if Bellah had told the Dallas Morning News or the Dallas Times Herald (within a day, a week, or even a month) that the motorcade route was changed at the last minute, that would have been important, even sensational, news.
WALTON REPLY:
I would like to congratulate Dave L on his reply to Jim DiEugenio's post here in his attempt to hold Jim to a higher standard when it comes to the Kennedy case. I would like to take a moment, fellow EF members, to mention this because it's important to take the evidence and clues in the case and not revert to wild speculation. As much as I believe that Jim Eugenio has written some important analysis on the case, I recently came across a thread on EF where it seems like he is "all Kennedy, all good, all of the time" with no bend or let up in his thinking regarding the Kennedy family; in other words, his way of thinking is the Kennedys do no wrong. As much as I admire the Kennedys, I and Oliver Stone and I'm sure others know better.
But to take this higher standard a step further, and without attempting to hijack this thread, I would also like to mention to EF readers here that I certainly hope that Dave L also holds himself to a higher standard of the evidence in the case. I say this because it's my undertanding, forum readers, that he is currently writing another book that will have new evidence in the case. Dave L has been teasing fellow EF readers about this and, having worked in the marketing business for over 30 years, I certainly do not want to begrudge Dave L for doing that. It's important to get the word out when you are selling a new book. Ironically enough, I was unaware that when this very forum was started years ago that its initial intention was to do that very thing - to be a place where paid authors such as Jim Eugenio, Larry Hancock, Vince the Secret Service Expert, and Dave L - among others - can come onto this forum, ask questions and comingle with mere mortals such as myself. And of course they can also enourage us mortals to buy their latest book. This was an amazing discovery for me because when you think of a web forum called Education Forum, the idea of selling books certainly does not come to mind first and foremost.
This "selling your wares" concept has even included LNers such as Dave VP to sell his website by pushing the link here, encouraging folks to visit it, to watch his videos and click on his ads. And of course it's also been a place for LNers like Dave VP to argue the occasional point or two with these authors. There may even be, fellow EF members, an opportunity for lurkers, as Jim DiEugenio so eloquently called someone on this forum, to comingle with said authors.
But to circle back and arrive to that pesky higher standard. I discovered that one of the thrusts of Dave L's new book of new evidence will be that Dr. Malcolm Perry, one of Parkland's doctors who performed the throat incision to try to save Kennedy's life, did not cut into his throat, thus, proving that the body was altered before the autopsy began. Dave L's proof for this theory is:
** Proof 1 - audio in video interview of Perry does not sync up
** Proof 2 - Bob Groden said Perry told him
I vigorously debated Dave L on this, explaining that Dr. Perry clearly and accurately explained what he did to Kennedy's throat in his 1964 testimony. After being called a shmuck, among other things, by esteemed author Dave L, during our heated debate, and after also being torn a new asshole by other forum members who came to Dave L's defense, it's my understanding that Dave L has not reconsidered writing about this very shaky and speculative and dishonest theory and is moving forward with it. So once again, in the interest of trying to apply a higher standard in this case, I do hope Dave L reconsiders and I do this in support of Dr. Perry, a man who was thrust into the annals of history and is unable to defend himself.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24927-who-changed-the-motorcade-route/?do=findComment&comment=379522
(http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24927-who-changed-the-motorcade-route/?do=findComment&comment=379522)
-
I want to make sure I understand the inference before commenting further, you believe Kudlaty's statements should be discredited because he had not alerted someone earlier that the records at Stripling had been seized by the FBI
As to your points about Robert Oswald, What exactly is supposed to be substantive about your claim? I try not to negatively characterize the posts of other's but I just fail to see what you're demonstrating other than you believe Robert Oswald was making an assumption or confused
Discredited might be too strong, but the facts I have related regarding his assertion about the alleged confiscated records should be made known in order to evaluate his credibility on the issue. As far as Robert and Stripling, I am simply responding to your reposting of Armstrong's assertion that because Robert thought that LHO attended that school that makes it a fact and supports the H&L theory. But as is always the case with Armstrong there is another explanation-Robert was mistaken as the historical record shows.
-
Robert Oswald had two children Cathy Marie and Robert Lee Edward Jr. John Pic had one Daughter born in July of 47. I believe Robert's children were born around 1960 Lee or Harvey, had two DaughtersAudery Marina "Rachel"Oswald Porter b. Oct 20/63 and June Lee Oswald b.Feb 15/63 I was thinking that even a genetic test might show if Rachel and June had markers for Easter European heritage that that alone could be significant since the Oswald name is Anglo Saxon However June and Rachel's Grandfather is listed as Nicolay Prusakov which throws a monkey wrench into that notion This would seemingly have to be Marguerite's Father Strangely Robert Oswald says he is not sure of his Mothers maiden name but assumes it was Claverie, which was her middle name
Every time you look for anything in this case there has so be some strange stuff
You're off by a year on June Oswald's date of birth.
-
You're off by a year on June Oswald's date of birth.
Could be I based it on a You Tube video where she was 37 and I tried to extrapolated when the video was made to come up with the year so I am not surprised I was off by a year Always appreciate corrections
-
Hi Matt if you want to sign up at EF the best thing to do is give it a whirl. If you make it great. Just stay on message and don't venture too far off the reservation. Just play nice to abide by the kinder and gentler nature of EF and you'll be fine. For your reading pleasure, here's the post that basically got me banned. I killed a lot of birds with a single stone in this post, going up against Jim Eugenio, which I actually did work for several years ago on his JFK100 special, among other things. I also went up against the scam artist Dave Lifton. And I also even expained to the readership over there how the whole EF was actually started, if you can believe, as a *marketing forum* for esteemed authors to sell their wares to mere mortals like me. Post is below along with link:
***
On 5/30/2018 at 11:49 PM, David Lifton said:
As a general rule, "new information" that suddenly materializes 25 years after the fact should not be given credence. For example: if Bellah had told the Dallas Morning News or the Dallas Times Herald (within a day, a week, or even a month) that the motorcade route was changed at the last minute, that would have been important, even sensational, news.
WALTON REPLY:
I would like to congratulate Dave L on his reply to Jim DiEugenio's post here in his attempt to hold Jim to a higher standard when it comes to the Kennedy case. I would like to take a moment, fellow EF members, to mention this because it's important to take the evidence and clues in the case and not revert to wild speculation. As much as I believe that Jim Eugenio has written some important analysis on the case, I recently came across a thread on EF where it seems like he is "all Kennedy, all good, all of the time" with no bend or let up in his thinking regarding the Kennedy family; in other words, his way of thinking is the Kennedys do no wrong. As much as I admire the Kennedys, I and Oliver Stone and I'm sure others know better.
But to take this higher standard a step further, and without attempting to hijack this thread, I would also like to mention to EF readers here that I certainly hope that Dave L also holds himself to a higher standard of the evidence in the case. I say this because it's my undertanding, forum readers, that he is currently writing another book that will have new evidence in the case. Dave L has been teasing fellow EF readers about this and, having worked in the marketing business for over 30 years, I certainly do not want to begrudge Dave L for doing that. It's important to get the word out when you are selling a new book. Ironically enough, I was unaware that when this very forum was started years ago that its initial intention was to do that very thing - to be a place where paid authors such as Jim Eugenio, Larry Hancock, Vince the Secret Service Expert, and Dave L - among others - can come onto this forum, ask questions and comingle with mere mortals such as myself. And of course they can also enourage us mortals to buy their latest book. This was an amazing discovery for me because when you think of a web forum called Education Forum, the idea of selling books certainly does not come to mind first and foremost.
This "selling your wares" concept has even included LNers such as Dave VP to sell his website by pushing the link here, encouraging folks to visit it, to watch his videos and click on his ads. And of course it's also been a place for LNers like Dave VP to argue the occasional point or two with these authors. There may even be, fellow EF members, an opportunity for lurkers, as Jim DiEugenio so eloquently called someone on this forum, to comingle with said authors.
But to circle back and arrive to that pesky higher standard. I discovered that one of the thrusts of Dave L's new book of new evidence will be that Dr. Malcolm Perry, one of Parkland's doctors who performed the throat incision to try to save Kennedy's life, did not cut into his throat, thus, proving that the body was altered before the autopsy began. Dave L's proof for this theory is:
** Proof 1 - audio in video interview of Perry does not sync up
** Proof 2 - Bob Groden said Perry told him
I vigorously debated Dave L on this, explaining that Dr. Perry clearly and accurately explained what he did to Kennedy's throat in his 1964 testimony. After being called a shmuck, among other things, by esteemed author Dave L, during our heated debate, and after also being torn a new asshole by other forum members who came to Dave L's defense, it's my understanding that Dave L has not reconsidered writing about this very shaky and speculative and dishonest theory and is moving forward with it. So once again, in the interest of trying to apply a higher standard in this case, I do hope Dave L reconsiders and I do this in support of Dr. Perry, a man who was thrust into the annals of history and is unable to defend himself.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24927-who-changed-the-motorcade-route/?do=findComment&comment=379522
(http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24927-who-changed-the-motorcade-route/?do=findComment&comment=379522)
I know what you were talking about is a step removed from i am bringing up here but the question of how the hierarchies work within these movements, organizations, boards seems part of what you are getting at Good for you for questioning the paltry nature of DL's facts, yjr lack of audio sync on a video seems especially weak vunless he is able to lipread the video of Dr Perry saying I never cut JFk's throat or reasonable facsimile On the second point I assume Groden is confirming Liptons claim of what Perry said It must Must have sucked to be kicked up for just questioning what deserved to be questioned apparently Lifton believes no shots came from behind Unless I need a lot of enlightenment With all his apparent warts I don't think it diminishes what he did on Bethesda and other work, but i a,always open to being corrected
-
Quote from: Matt Grantham on June 08, 2018, 10:01:15 PM
Can anyone tell me if the JFK education Forum allows for new members? I am having trouble finding a way to do so or getting a response from the administrators
I doubt it but a lot of the members here are a lot more conversant with EF than me.
However 5 years ago I tried to join and got the same "brick wall".
Also hand in glove is Greg Burnhams site "assassinationjfk.net", which openly offers you can join but the capta wont work and when you contact about it there is just a :brick wall". At least burham mailed me back explaining how there had been a sophisticated hack and he cant fix the capta. The EF and Him must have formed their own exclusive club I guess.
EDIT Greg Burnham just contacted me and said he has fixed capta and so now forum is open to join again/
RE-EDIT - Lol unfortuneately he hasn't so back to the old "brick wall" suspicion I guess>
Hell that sure is confusing to me about the early 1950's Oswald seeming mysteries - errrrrrmmm because of
the past CIA breeding they knew where to find the perfect patsy?? 8) :D
-
So now we not only have Harvey and Lee, we also have ugly Marg and attractive Marg.
Only one Robert ?
Did he notice he had two mothers ?
Did he notice that Lee was snatched, replaced by Harvey, and then Lee was framed for the assassination ?
What happened to Harvey after the assassination ?
What happened to the attractive Marg after she gave up Lee to be replaced by Harvey and the ugly Marg ?
WHAT A PLOT THIS WAS !
-
So now we not only have Harvey and Lee, we also have ugly Marg and attractive Marg.
Only one Robert ?
Did he notice he had two mothers ?
Did he notice that Lee was snatched, replaced by Harvey, and then Lee was framed for the assassination ?
What happened to Harvey after the assassination ?
What happened to the attractive Marg after she gave up Lee to be replaced by Harvey and the ugly Marg ?
WHAT A PLOT THIS WAS !
Not to mention the two Ruths, Micheals and Georges. Apparently, JFK's double called in sick on the 22nd and despite all of the planning the actual POTUS took the hit. ;D
-
Discredited might be too strong, but the facts I have related regarding his assertion about the alleged confiscated records should be made known in order to evaluate his credibility on the issue. As far as Robert and Stripling, I am simply responding to your reposting of Armstrong's assertion that because Robert thought that LHO attended that school that makes it a fact and supports the H&L theory. But as is always the case with Armstrong there is another explanation-Robert was mistaken as the historical record shows.
Still feel i am quite a distance in understanding your suspicions. He should have reported to higher ups in the FBI, or gone to the media because it was suspicious ? May he have simply believed the confiscation was legitimate and they would lead to a report in the Warren Commission report that Oswald attended the years at stripling that were in those records Can you show that Kudlaty knew that the Stripling records were not in the WC report For the historical record at Beauregard or NY to become a contradiction to the evidence for Oswald at Stripling one must first conclude that there can be only one Oswald
-
So now we not only have Harvey and Lee, we also have ugly Marg and attractive Marg.
Only one Robert ?
Did he notice he had two mothers ?
Did he notice that Lee was snatched, replaced by Harvey, and then Lee was framed for the assassination ?
What happened to Harvey after the assassination ?
What happened to the attractive Marg after she gave up Lee to be replaced by Harvey and the ugly Marg ?
WHAT A PLOT THIS WAS !
Yes Howard you are absolutely right, it's really and truly a ridiculous story. Here's a boiled down summary of the whole crazy theory:
Secret agents wearing fedoras were over in Hungary post WWII. They found a boy there on the streets that looked exactly like Lee Harvey Oswald. So they snatched him from the street. Somehow, they found his Mother who - by a million and one coincidence - looked exactly like the US born Oswald's Mom, except she had a unibrow and never smiled.
So they brought him over, supposedly to be Oswald's double, and from 1953 until 1963 this clone basically lived in the real Oswald's shadow. Amazingly these kids and their Moms never once crossed paths while they were living parallel lives.
When 11/22 came around, one of the clones was blamed for Kennedy's murder while the other and his clone Mom disappeared forever never to be seen again.
Believe it or not, but if you went up to folks on EF - and I'm sure others - and told the story like above, people such as Larsen, Josephs and Hargrove, they will look you in the face with all sincerity and say "Yep, that's the way it happened. But oh, by the way, this whole story was NOT because it involved the JFK assassination." As hard to believe as all of this sounds, go over to the EF and you'll find everything I've said here is what they actually believe.
-
Your post ignores the possibility of two Marguerites. Claverie was one of the Marguerites' maiden name, but this doesn't address the topic of TWO Marguerites.
Your attempt at distraction won't work.
I address the "two Marguerites" at my website:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html
-
It is so misleading to act like this is just about John Armstrong's work. As I have said several times many different sources have discussed the idea of two Oswalds dating back to the time of the assassination.
Ridiculing Armstrong's work won't change this fact
So which of the two Oswald theories prior to Armstrong's do you endorse?
-
So now we not only have Harvey and Lee, we also have ugly Marg and attractive Marg.
Only one Robert ?
Did he notice he had two mothers ?
Did he notice that Lee was snatched, replaced by Harvey, and then Lee was framed for the assassination ?
What happened to Harvey after the assassination ?
What happened to the attractive Marg after she gave up Lee to be replaced by Harvey and the ugly Marg ?
WHAT A PLOT THIS WAS !
Here is a partial list of who would have been in on the plot:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html
-
Still feel i am quite a distance in understanding your suspicions. He should have reported to higher ups in the FBI, or gone to the media because it was suspicious ? May he have simply believed the confiscation was legitimate and they would lead to a report in the Warren Commission report that Oswald attended the years at stripling that were in those records Can you show that Kudlaty knew that the Stripling records were not in the WC report For the historical record at Beauregard or NY to become a contradiction to the evidence for Oswald at Stripling one must first conclude that there can be only one Oswald
Here is what I believe happened. Kudlaty was talking to his good friend Jack White who filled him in on the amazing H&L theory of his buddy Armstrong. Kudlaty MAY have remembered an incident where the FBI came to Stripling and asked for any records relating to LHO. The FBI COULD have taken some records relating to Robert Oswald but I doubt that. Then 35-40 years after the assassination after hearing Armstrong's theory, Kudlaty remembers this "confiscation" of records and believes they were the records of LHO. Except the historical record shows LHO did not attend Stripling. And there is not a single piece of evidence aside from Robert's misstatement and a couple of other "witnesses" that Armstrong coerced to support Kudlaty's claims. No yearbook photos no documentation of any kind.
What happens is that people want to become a part of history. Someone like Armstrong (who plays loosely with facts) comes along and tells people their remembrances are important and they buy into it. The same thing happened with Palmer McBride who was the basis for the entire H&L theory. Except his story has been totally demolished. That is harder to do with Kudlaty because his claim is very general. But the facts I have presented here are relevant to judge if his claim has merit. I leave it to each individual to decide for themselves.
-
This is LNer 101. They claim that CTers find everything "sinister" when all we are doing is pointing out discrepancies in the official narrative.
The LNers have actually claimed that the numerous OFFICIAL reports that list LHO's height as 5'9", 5'10" and 5'11" were simple mistakes. Ditto the varying eye colors.
Sure, these official sources including the USMC (who measured him) couldn't even get his height correct. Sure.
Head over to the EF and you can read for hours on the differences in the record. There is always an alternate explanation besides 2 Oswalds. Some of these are the information was reported orally instead of by measurement (even if this was against regulations), different foot ware, the body changes height throughout the day and so on.
-
Confusion, at times, can be hard to measure. According to what I read, MargueriteFrancesClaverie(1907-1981)married EdwardJohnPicJr,(1907-2002) in about 1929, and divorced in about 1932, shortly after the birth of their son, JohnEdwardPicSr(1932-2000), who married MargaretDorothyFuhrman in 1951, and their first child, a son, JohnEdwardPicJr was born in 1952.
Indicated also, was that MargaretDorothyFuhrmanPic, was born in 1933, and her parents were born in Hungary.
Indicated as well, was that MargueriteFrancesClaveriePic later married RobertEdwardLeeOswald, in 1933, and their first son, RobertEdwardLeeOswaldJr was born in 1934, with their second son, LeeHarveyOswald born in 1939, shortly after the death of RobertEdwardLeeOswaldSr.
MargueriteFrancesClaveriePicOswald reportedly married Edwin A Ekdahl in 1945, and divorced in 1948, but no known childbirth recorded.
Along life's way multiple residences, as well as schools attended, were indicated for the Claverie/Pic-Oswald-Ekdahl Family.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/pic_j.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/pic_e.htm
-
EF is the best place to find the fantasy world of Hardly Lee. It's so hilarious that the fantasists there invented an even crazier and funnier story about how missing teeth proves that there were two Oswalds. If you can believe it - and sadly it does appear even people on this forum believe in this nonsense - the crazy story actually gets to a dramatic conclusion that skulls were switched in Oswald's coffin years later but *before* the 1980's exhumation took place. HAHAHA! As if the Bad Guys knew exactly when to switch the skulls for the dramatic reveal.
And it's the usual cast of characters over there saying "Wow, good job!" and "OMG, amazing evidence!" - Larsen, Josephs, Hargrove et al.
Seriously, is it any wonder why folks dismiss the conspiracy community with the wave of a hand and an eye roll?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24626-more-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-molar-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not/?tab=comments#comment-369326 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24626-more-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-molar-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not/?tab=comments#comment-369326)
-
Why do I have to "endorse" any of them to consider that they may be accurate? Why do you endorse a theory that has NO supporting evidence behind it?
We're in the same boat then. I think that LHO acted alone (which you say has no supporting evidence) and that is the best current theory. It may or may not be correct but I have seen no specific alternate explanation. You think the 2 Oswald theories may be correct even though all they do is point out discrepancies in the record. BTW, the 1981 exhumation debunked the Eddowes theory and I believe all the other theories are similar and therefore debunked as well.
-
I can't since a LNer here had me banned. The odd thing is that LNer's name appeared no where on the forum.
OK, sorry to hear that.
-
EF is the best place to find the fantasy world of Hardly Lee. It's so hilarious that the fantasists there invented an even crazier and funnier story about how missing teeth proves that there were two Oswalds. If you can believe it - and sadly it does appear even people on this forum believe in this nonsense - the crazy story actually gets to a dramatic conclusion that skulls were switched in Oswald's coffin years later but *before* the 1980's exhumation took place. HAHAHA! As if the Bad Guys knew exactly when to switch the skulls for the dramatic reveal.
And it's the usual cast of characters over there saying "Wow, good job!" and "OMG, amazing evidence!" - Larsen, Josephs, Hargrove et al.
Seriously, is it any wonder why folks dismiss the conspiracy community with the wave of a hand and an eye roll?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24626-more-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-molar-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not/?tab=comments#comment-369326 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24626-more-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-molar-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not/?tab=comments#comment-369326)
Michael interesting that you seem to be indicating that those who investigate a given subject is equivalent to those individuals having formed a final conclusion of some sort that you feel is worthy of ridicule How would you know what people believe in without asking them? Better yet you could actually ask what degree of certainty or attachment to some final conclusion of said topic these individuals actually express especially when said conclusion seems to open the gates for your ridicule.
-
We know your opinion by now. If you are a true CTer you should be spending the majority of your time showing that the official theory has NO supporting evidence.
This subject doesn't make or break the idea of a conspiracy being involved in the assassination of JFK.
What many people who consider themselves researchers of this case fail to understand is that there was no huge convergence of cloned assassins and body alteration and faked films. If you took the time to read my other posts elsewhere, I am a CTer. But all of the puffed up and silly "theories" regarding how it took place go beyond the realm of plausibility.
-
Jim Marrs said that the casket LHO was buried showed signs of it having been opened prior to the exhuming in 1981. Is this correct?
No. It showed signs of damage caused by water from a cracked vault. I looked into the exhumation years ago and despite the claims of some theorists there was nothing untoward going on. Here is my page on that:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/xindex.htm
-
I can't since a LNer here had me banned. The odd thing is that LNer's name appeared no where on the forum.
Are you saying that you can't read post at the EF because you've been barred?
I read posts there every second day or so and I've not signed up as a member. Why can't you read there as a guest?
-
I am a CTer.
We have seen this from you several times Maybe fill us in on what part of a conspiracy theory you are aligned with?
-
Are you saying that you can't read post at the EF because you've been barred?
I read posts there every second day or so and I've not signed up as a member. Why can't you read there as a guest?
Do they allow new people to register as far as you know? Thanks
-
Confusion, at times, can be hard to measure. According to what I read, MargueriteFrancesClaverie(1907-1981)married EdwardJohnPicJr,(1907-2002) in about 1929, and divorced in about 1932, shortly after the birth of their son, JohnEdwardPicSr(1932-2000), who married MargaretDorothyFuhrman in 1951, and their first child, a son, JohnEdwardPicJr was born in 1952.
Indicated also, was that
Indicated as well, was that MargueriteFrancesClaveriePic later married RobertEdwardLeeOswald, in 1933, and their first son, RobertEdwardLeeOswaldJr was born in 1934, with their second son, LeeHarveyOswald born in 1939, shortly after the death of RobertEdwardLeeOswaldSr.
I have not looked at the link where you provided this information apparently
MargueriteFrancesClaverie(1907-1981)
MargaretDorothyFuhrmanPic, was born in 1933, and her parents were born in Hungary.
Clearly two different women clearly according to this Now I suppose I cannot ask Michal a question on the issue since he has already declared the whole subject ridicule positive and investigatory negative with some unknown but unquestionable mechanism of insight Maybe one of those remaining that understand having an opinion rests on your ability to defend it will chime in for the chimeless
-
I have not looked at the link where you provided this information apparently
MargueriteFrancesClaverie(1907-1981)
MargaretDorothyFuhrmanPic, was born in 1933, and her parents were born in Hungary.
Clearly two different women clearly according to this Now I suppose I cannot ask Michal a question on the issue since he has already declared the whole subject ridicule positive and investigatory negative with some unknown but unquestionable mechanism of insight Maybe one of those remaining that understand having an opinion rests on your ability to defend it will chime in for the chimeless
For clarification, I believe that it is two separate links provided in the post referenced.
Also,it appears as though RobertEdwardLeeOswaldSr was married to MargaretKeating prior to his marriage to MargueriteFrancesClaverie/Pic, according to this provided link.
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
-
For clarification, I believe that it is two separate links provided.
The links seem to only be Pic's testimony, but thanks for posting this.
-
The links seem to only be Pic's testimony, but thanks for posting this.
Two people, JohnEdwardPicSr, and his father, EdwardJohnPicJr.
And, note edit.
-
O.K I think I was bit confused or maybe there was an error in your previous post Larry, regardless we seem to back at the starting point Maybe those here who answer questions can confirm that Claverie was the maiden name of Margaret Frances Claverie?
-
I don't recall any specific reference, and I suppose I accepted it as correct. In Louisiana, sometimes records require some extra effort.
-
I don't recall any specific reference, and I suppose I accepted it as correct. In Louisiana, sometimes records require some extra effort.
Fair enough
I would like to add this to list of facts that seem to need explanation
In the summer of 1947, while Marguerite Ekdahl (Oswald) and her son LEE were living on 8th Avenue in Ft. Worth, another Marguerite Oswald and a young boy ("HARVEY Oswald") were living in Benbrook, a suburb of Ft. Worth. In June, 1947, Georgia Bell and her husband, Walter, purchased a property in Benbrook and began building their home directly across the street from a house in which Mrs. Oswald and the young boy were living (101 San Saba). Georgia, who lived at 100 San Saba for the next 50 years, remembered that Marguerite Oswald and the young boy lived at 101 San Saba from May through Thanksgiving, 1947. Tarrant County land records confirm that Walter and Georgia Bell purchased their property in June, 1947.
-
Fair enough
I would like to add this to list of facts that seem to need explanation
In the summer of 1947, while Marguerite Ekdahl (Oswald) and her son LEE were living on 8th Avenue in Ft. Worth, another Marguerite Oswald and a young boy ("HARVEY Oswald") were living in Benbrook, a suburb of Ft. Worth. In June, 1947, Georgia Bell and her husband, Walter, purchased a property in Benbrook and began building their home directly across the street from a house in which Mrs. Oswald and the young boy were living (101 San Saba). Georgia, who lived at 100 San Saba for the next 50 years, remembered that Marguerite Oswald and the young boy lived at 101 San Saba from May through Thanksgiving, 1947. Tarrant County land records confirm that Walter and Georgia Bell purchased their property in June, 1947.
I suppose my question would be the "correctness of memory" factor. If Ms and Mr Bell purchased the property in June,'47 and then began building their residential structure, how was it that they "remembered" that MargueriteOswald and the young boy lived across the street from May,'47, through November,'47?
-
Who would have guessed that hair samples taken through the years could be analyzed for DNA?
Also advanced was the suggestion that youngsters could be utilized as they grow up for clandestine use in the future.
It was stated in some of the literature that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only American "defector"to enter the Soviet Union back in the late 50s.
Ever see the movie 'Salt' with Angelina Jolie?
-
Several months later I read Warren Commission exhibit #1386, in Volume XXII
of the Warren Volumes, which was an FBI report of an interview of Palmer E. McBride
on November 22, 1963. JFKIOI-ol On the day of the assassination McBride was serving in
the US Air Force and was stationed at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. That evening,
when McBride saw and recognized Lee Harvey Oswald from his picture on television,
he immediately contacted Air Force security officers. The officers spoke with McBride,
notified the FBI, and Special Agent (SA) John R. Palmer was dispatched from Washington,
DC to interview him.
McBride began the interview by telling SA Palmer and the security officers that
he had worked with Oswald at the Pfisterer Dental Lab in New Orleans in 1957 and
1958. McBride explained that his and Oswald's duties were to deliver dental products
produced by the lab to local dentists. During breaks from their work the boys discussed
astronomy, politics, and communism. On one occasion Oswald told McBride that he
would like to kill President Eisenhower. McBride told Palmer that Oswald visited his home
on several occasions and together they listened to classical music. McBride also visited
Oswald at his apartment in the Hotel Senator, which was located directly across the
street from the dental lab on Dauphine Street.
McBride told Palmer that Oswald had introduced him to his mother, who he
remembered as "short and fat." In early 1958 Oswald accompanied McBride to a meeting
of the New Orleans Amateur Astronomy Association (NOAAA) and met some of
the members. McBride and Oswald worked together every day for seven months until
Oswald quit in May 1958 and moved to Fort Worth.
2
When I read the Warren Commission's final report on the assassination I was
surprised to learn that they determined Oswald had been in Japan serving in the Marine
Corps in 1957 and 1958, and was not in New Orleans. JFKtot-oz I was confused and searched
the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission hearings to locate McBride's testimony, but
was surprised to find that he was never interviewed by the Commission.
On January 17, 1945 Dr. Phil ben, of Dallas, performed a tonsillectomy on 5-yearold
Lee Harvey Oswald. 52-
05 In 1945 a tonsillectomy was as routine an operation as it is
today. It is performed by anaesthetizing the patient, propping the mouth open, depressing
the tongue, grasping the tonsils with a tenaculum, and then cutting out the tonsils.
The patient is then allowed to awake naturally from anesthesia. The operation is nearly
100% successful and only in extremely rare cases do tonsils re-appear. If and when tonsils
do re-appear, they grow only to no more than 10% of their original size-not large
enough to require removal.
NOTE: The real Lee Harvey Oswald had his tonsils removed in 1945 but, as we shall
see, the "Oswald" imposter was treated for tonsillitis while in the Marines.
-
I suppose my question would be the "correctness of memory" factor. If Ms and Mr Bell purchased the property in June,'47 and then began building their residential structure, how was it that they "remembered" that MargueriteOswald and the young boy lived across the street from May,'47, through November,'47?
From John Armstrong
Walter and Georgia Bell finished building their new home at 100 San Saba in
early July 1947. A few weeks before they moved into their new home, Marguerite
Oswald moved into her new house across the street at 101 San Saba. Georgia Bell lived
the next 49 years of her life at 100 San Saba, and knew each and every one of her neighbors
very well.
I met Georgia Bell in early 1996 and visited with her at 100 San Saba on several
occasions. When I met Georgia she was 82 years old and had a very good memory. Georgia
remembered Marguerite Oswald well and said that she did not have much furniture,
few clothes, and no car when she moved in. Marguerite, who Georgia described as "short
and fat," often visited her as did Marguerite's neighbor to the east, Mrs. Lucille
Hubbard. Georgia and Lucille often picked up groceries for Mrs. Oswald and chauffeured
her around Benbrook.
NOTE: When I showed Georgia Bell a photograph of "Marguerite Oswald" standing
in a kitchen washing dishes (circa 1961) she said, "That's her, short and fat just like I
remember her." 52-12 But when I showed Georgia a photo taken of the tall, nice-looking
Marguerite Oswald on the day of her marriage to Edwin Ekdahl in 1945 she said, "I
don't know who that is. " 52-13
-
Several months later I read Warren Commission exhibit #1386, in Volume XXII
of the Warren Volumes, which was an FBI report of an interview of Palmer E. McBride
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html
-
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html
With all due respect your responses to these posts is that the report in question is impossible because there is a Lee Harvey Oswald living somewhere else simultaneously For you this is evidence that a contradictory report is impossible whereas for those entertaining the possibility of two Oswald's it is a confirmation of the theory
-
With all due respect your responses to these posts is that it is impossible because there is a Lee Harvey Oswald living somewhere else simultaneously to the given reports in question For you this is evidence that a contradictory report is impossible whereas for those entertaining the possibility of two Oswald's it is a confirmation of the theory
I don't think you read the article. The fact that the one and only LHO was overseas is only one of the things that debunks Palmer McBride's story. From my article:
We know LHO worked at Pfisterer in 1956 and not 1957 because of the ARRB tax records.
CD 343 confirms LHO worked at Pfisterer in 1956 and not 1957.
Other Pfisterer employees remembered LHO working there in 1956.
In an interview with David Lifton in 1994, McBride recanted his assertions about knowing LHO in 1956 and about Sputnik.
The riots LHO mentioned in a letter to McBride occurred in 1956 not 1958.
The ARRB investigated and refuted Armstrong?s claims about the tax records.
Now, if you want to join the H&L people and say that the records are faked and David Lifton is lying and the ARRB is wrong you can do that. But the vast majority of researchers on both sides understand that McBride was simply mistaken.
-
I don't think you read the article. The fact that the one and only LHO was overseas is only one of the things that debunks Palmer McBride's story. From my article:
We know LHO worked at Pfisterer in 1956 and not 1957 because of the ARRB tax records.
CD 343 confirms LHO worked at Pfisterer in 1956 and not 1957.
Other Pfisterer employees remembered LHO working there in 1956.
In an interview with David Lifton in 1994, McBride recanted his assertions about knowing LHO in 1956 and about Sputnik.
The riots LHO mentioned in a letter to McBride occurred in 1956 not 1958.
The ARRB investigated and refuted Armstrong?s claims about the tax records.
Now, if you want to join the H&L people and say that the records are faked and David Lifton is lying and the ARRB is wrong you can do that. But the vast majority of researchers on both sides understand that McBride was simply mistaken.
As afar as a McBride recantation First that does not explain the lack of the WC ever talking to him Second yes I am going to suggest there is an established tendency for witnesses of various sorts, especially those tied to intelligence, to move their stories over time to conform to the needs of those promulgating the official story Are you suggesting his memory improved over time? LHO being wrong about the dates of t he riot seem only to point at a lack of proper memory and nothing more Some of the other points you raise may be legitimate, and I will hopefully look into a bit more
And of course this is only one part of the material I posted
-
As afar as a McBride recantation First that does not explain the lack of the WC ever talking to him Second yes I am going to suggest there is an established tendency for witnesses of various sorts, especially those tied to intelligence, to move their stories over time to conform to the needs of those promulgating the official story Are you suggesting his memory improved over time? LHO being wrong about the dates of t he riot seem only to point at a lack of proper memory and nothing more Some of the other points you raise may be legitimate, and I will hopefully look into a bit more
And of course this is only one part of the material I posted
The WC intended to call McBride if I remember correctly but didn't probably because of time constraints. In any case, they had his FBI statement. If he had been called the WC would have done the same thing David Lifton did-shown McBride the documentation that proved he was simply mistaken about the dates. It wasn't a major issue for the WC-no need to embarrass someone for their faulty memory. But this is what Armstrong does-takes a discrepancy in the record and uses it to his advantage. Lookup "Armstrong witness recruitment program" and you will find David Lifton's explanation of how Armstrong operates. He goes and finds a witness and then convinces them they are a part of history and then explains his crazy theory. Read the transcript of Lifton's interview with McBride and you will see the way a witness should be questioned to arrive at the truth.
-
The WC intended to call McBride if I remember correctly but didn't probably because of time constraints. In any case, they had his FBI statement. If he had been called the WC would have done the same thing David Lifton did-shown McBride the documentation that proved he was simply mistaken about the dates. It wasn't a major issue for the WC-no need to embarrass someone for their faulty memory. But this is what Armstrong does-takes a discrepancy in the record and uses it to his advantage. Lookup "Armstrong witness recruitment program" and you will find David Lifton's explanation of how Armstrong operates. He goes and finds a witness and then convinces them they are a part of history and then explains his crazy theory. Read the transcript of Lifton's interview with McBride and you will see the way a witness should be questioned to arrive at the truth.
does Davi Lifton allow himself to be cross examined , if you will, that no shots came from behind?
-
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/cifnFZW_bnw
But the vast majority of researchers on both sides understand that McBride was simply mistaken.
We have Lifton obviously If you have a list of others it would helpful That being said two points
1-It is a field too far for many , and no doubt the wilder stories scare people off for a variety of reasons
2- Simply saying someone is mistaken is diferent than actually addressing the evidence as to why they are wrong
-
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/cifnFZW_bnw
But the vast majority of researchers on both sides understand that McBride was simply mistaken.
We have Lifton obviously If you have a list of others it would helpful That being said two points
1-It is a field too far for many , and no doubt the wilder stories scare people off for a variety of reasons
2- Simply saying someone is mistaken is diferent than actually addressing the evidence as to why they are wrong
Myself, David Lifton, Greg Parker, Michael Walton, Thomas Graves for starters. We did an informal poll at the EF and the majority did not agree with H&L. As for addressing evidence the researchers I named have done just that both at private websites and forums.
-
Myself, David Lifton, Greg Parker, Michael Walton, Thomas Graves for starters. We did an informal poll at the EF and the majority did not agree with H&L. As for addressing evidence the researchers I named have done just that both at private websites and forums.
Best I can tell from Michael Walton is that he knew the two Oswalds was absurd on the face of it, but thanks for the list
-
Matt, thanks for starting this topic. Just when I though the assassination couldn't get more bizarre, this takes it to a new level. I have purposely stayed away from the subject of Oswald as I couldn't really understand his role from what I have read. However your topic has interested me and after going through http://harveyandlee.net/ (http://harveyandlee.net/) I will pursue it more.
Today I just found Armstrong's book on the net, which I will read, if anyone else cares to read it is at: https://app.box.com/s/8b408e6999f8799dfd0a/file/9075938573 (https://app.box.com/s/8b408e6999f8799dfd0a/file/9075938573)
There is so much to think about in this story, but does anyone have any background on Vada Mercer? Immediately that name jumped out at me because I wondered if she may have been related to the king maker Robert Mercer who's been so much in the news lately. Tom Scully are you still here? I miss your old posts.
Robert Mercer is even more interesting than I imagined. Here are a couple of links:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-28/robert-mercer-s-secret-adventure-as-a-new-mexico-cop (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-28/robert-mercer-s-secret-adventure-as-a-new-mexico-cop)
I can't get access to the full article of this link but the headline screams at me:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21/how-renaissance-s-medallion-fund-became-finance-s-blackest-box (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21/how-renaissance-s-medallion-fund-became-finance-s-blackest-box)
-
Good for you, but I have a policy that forbids me from visiting sites that have banned me for NO reason.
You are not forbidden. You choose to not visit that site. Big difference.
-
Best I can tell from Michael Walton is that he knew the two Oswalds was absurd on the face of it, but thanks for the list
There's no "on the face of it." It didn't happen. Period. It's one of the more shameful, stupid and ridiculous "theories" in the JFK narrative.
With all due respect to Tracy, an LNer, there was a conspiracy. But there was NOT this world-class convergence of cloned Oswalds, faked films, poisoned darts, and all of the other goofy ####.
And BTW Tracy - here's a whole new one you can start debunking and I'll be right there with you. I don't know if you've heard but Lifton is coming out with a brand new theory that Dr Perry did not cut into Kennedy's throat at PMH. In other words, he's now saying that the trach cut you see in the autopsy photo was done *before* the autopsy, further proving his ridiculous XXXXXXX body alteration theory.
Any time you're ready I'll join you LOL.
-
There's no "on the face of it." It didn't happen. Period. It's one of the more shameful, stupid and ridiculous "theories" in the JFK narrative.
With all due respect to Tracy, an LNer, there was a conspiracy. But there was NOT this world-class convergence of cloned Oswalds, faked films, poisoned darts, and all of the other goofy ####.
And BTW Tracy - here's a whole new one you can start debunking and I'll be right there with you. I don't know if you've heard but Lifton is coming out with a brand new theory that Dr Perry did not cut into Kennedy's throat at PMH. In other words, he's now saying that the trach cut you see in the autopsy photo was done *before* the autopsy, further proving his ridiculous XXXXXXX body alteration theory.
Any time you're ready I'll join you LOL.
I guess I am from the old school where people might need to explain their position Perhaps it was too much to question whether you dismissed the question in an a priori fashion or in one that actually investigated it If you could leave out the fluff in every one of your posts that you are something akin to pragmatic conspiracy theorist I guess I will just I will just have to hang around and see if you ever post something that evinces that perspective
-
Sergeant Robert Vinson claims his flight was detoured to Dallas shortly after the assassination to pick up two passengers, one of which Vinson claims looked like Lee Harvey Oswald
https://jfkplayersandwitnesses.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/witness-robert-vinson-i-flew-home-with-an-oswald-lookalike-my-flight-picked-up-in-dallas/
-
I just want to try to frame this one last time for Michael in hopefully a polite manner I was a philosophy major bit Don't really know if it has bearing on this issue. It is reasonable to have a operative a priori understandings For instance gravity, the speed of light are a kind of a priori understanding that are useful obviously the investigation of phenomenon where they come into play so if someone has a theory, or supposed evidence, which they claim shows anomalies or contradictions of those laws there is every reason to be either skeptical or completely dismissive However from a scientific perspective all claims deserve a test. It is obviously not practical to test every wild eyed claim, but the investigatory necessity, technically, trumps all established dogma in a purely empirical sense
So it is not necessarily wrong to have an a priori notion that some things are just out of the range of possibility, such as two Oswald's, but it is technically not a approach consistent with empiricism. I do feel however that you do have some responsibility to specify which of these perspectives you are drawing from in your continued efforts of self congratulatory ridicule of those wiling to consider the issue
-
And BTW Tracy - here's a whole new one you can start debunking and I'll be right there with you. I don't know if you've heard but Lifton is coming out with a brand new theory that Dr Perry did not cut into Kennedy's throat at PMH. In other words, he's now saying that the trach cut you see in the autopsy photo was done *before* the autopsy, further proving his ridiculous XXXXXXX body alteration theory.
Any time you're ready I'll join you LOL.
I did hear about that Michael. Probably not enough hours in the day for me to get into that one! :)
-
I did hear about that Michael. Probably not enough hours in the day for me to get into that one! :)
Oh to be a debunker Those with the bunk are eternally doomed to your shining light
Somewhere it was mentioned there was a transcript of the debate between Armstrong and Lifton Does anyone have a link to that?
-
Oh to be a debunker Those with the bunk are eternally doomed to your shining light
Somewhere it was mentioned there was a transcript of the debate between Armstrong and Lifton Does anyone have a link to that?
No, Armstrong won't debate anyone-he sends out Hargrove and Josephs to do it for him. You may be thinking of the Lifton interview with McBride. If so let me know and I'll see if I can find it.
-
Matt, thanks for starting this topic. Just when I though the assassination couldn't get more bizarre, this takes it to a new level. I have purposely stayed away from the subject of Oswald as I couldn't really understand his role from what I have read. However your topic has interested me and after going through http://harveyandlee.net/ (http://harveyandlee.net/) I will pursue it more.
Today I just found Armstrong's book on the net, which I will read, if anyone else cares to read it is at: https://app.box.com/s/8b408e6999f8799dfd0a/file/9075938573 (https://app.box.com/s/8b408e6999f8799dfd0a/file/9075938573)
There is so much to think about in this story, but does anyone have any background on Vada Mercer? Immediately that name jumped out at me because I wondered if she may have been related to the king maker Robert Mercer who's been so much in the news lately. Tom Scully are you still here? I miss your old posts.
Robert Mercer is even more interesting than I imagined. Here are a couple of links:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-28/robert-mercer-s-secret-adventure-as-a-new-mexico-cop (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-28/robert-mercer-s-secret-adventure-as-a-new-mexico-cop)
I can't get access to the full article of this link but the headline screams at me:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21/how-renaissance-s-medallion-fund-became-finance-s-blackest-box (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21/how-renaissance-s-medallion-fund-became-finance-s-blackest-box)
Thanks Steve I am interested in the material you are posting about the Nazi connections, and hope to post on those threads when I can find something to contribute I did hear once that there were supposedly some German industrial targets that were off limits to allied bombers because of financial interests. We can always move it if there any objections connections I should probably have asked that question on your thread
-
No, Armstrong won't debate anyone-he sends out Hargrove and Josephs to do it for him. You may be thinking of the Lifton interview with McBride. If so let me know and I'll see if I can find it.
OK thanks I could have sworn somebody said something about Lifton at least critiquing Armstrong, but I am likely mistaken since I looked through the thread again and could not find it
-
Here is a link to a pretty nice timeline of Oswald or Oswalds that I think is ideologically neutral
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
The following is likely an old story to many of you
TF White a lifelong mechanic sees an individual pull a car over on Davis street near the the Texas theater.. He feels the individual is suspicious, trying to hide or something He approaches the car he makes aye contact with the individual, and indivdual speeds off After seeing the pictures on Oswald in the news that day White determines it was Oswald in that car He writes down the license plate and it is reportedly owned by Tippit's best friend Carl Mather whose employer, Collins Radio, has CIA connections
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/03/red-1961-ford-falcon.html
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/02/collins-radio-connections-to.html
-
Thanks Steve I am interested in the material you are posting about the Nazi connections, and hope to post on those threads when I can find something to contribute I did hear once that there were supposedly some German industrial targets that were off limits to allied bombers because of financial interests. We can always move it if there any objections connections I should probably have asked that question on your thread
Matt, thank you for your interest. Please feel free to post on the Nazi connection. I look forward to your views, even if you try to debunk some of mine. So far no one has tried to. That's probably a bad sign for the world. You are right, many industrial targets owned by Americans were generally off limits to the bombers. After the war, Gen. Eisenhower made his headquarters at one of the few targets untouched in Munich, IG Farben Headquarters. Ford Motor Company went to court to sue the US government for bombing its German plant. I forget if they won. Its been awhile since I studied all this. My next installment, timewise, should be the assassination of FDR. Some speculate it was a suicide, but I lean to the former. I don't have the sources I need yet though. I guess I will have to purchase them.
So for now I'm trying to learn more about Oswald. That there is a withheld government document on his mother's interaction with Nazi's caught my interest. A possible Hungarian origin of Harvey, another fascist hotbed is also of interest to me. Just started reading the book, but why didn't John Pic identify Marguerite as an imposter after the assassination?
-
That there is a withheld government document on his mother's interaction with Nazi's caught my interest. A possible Hungarian origin of Harvey, another fascist hotbed is also of interest to me. Just started reading the book, but why didn't John Pic identify Marguerite as an imposter after the assassination?
Remember, the document only said "M. Oswald." How many of those must there be? As far as the "imposter" Marguerite, not only John Pic, but why didn't any of the people who knew the "real" Marguerite come forward to say that this person was not the Marguerite they were acquainted with when they saw her on TV and in newspapers? When you ask the H&L people they say something like "oh they were paid off by the CIA." Really? How many people is the average person acquainted with-hundreds? And the CIA paid all of them off? Pretty far fetched I think.
-
Remember, the document only said "M. Oswald." How many of those must there be? As far as the "imposter" Marguerite, not only John Pic, but why didn't any of the people who knew the "real" Marguerite come forward to say that this person was not the Marguerite they were acquainted with when they saw her on TV and in newspapers? When you ask the H&L people they say something like "oh they were paid off by the CIA." Really? How many people is the average person acquainted with-hundreds? And the CIA paid all of them off? Pretty far fetched I think.
Hopefully Steve will not object if I answer a question addressed to him One also wonders why W Tracy addresses. Yes perhaps the first sentence is fairly addressed to Steve, but not the rest First off Armstrong claims such people exist, but as usual some of his statements seem not to be supported by any reference on-line Two caveats quickly come to mind ad to why this may not have occurred One is of course many of those who knew Marguerite likely did not see the photographs as she appeared before the WC And second some people, especially friends of Marguerite may not have wanted to open a can of worms or cause her anymore trauma than she already suffered And yes of course the fear of being castigated as a conspiracy theorist etc
What I find interesting is that you chose to focus as void of information, no friends came forward and stated Marguerite 2 was not Marguerite C, as your main response to the the issue A n inference to a void is of course and inference There are a multitude of facts in regards to the contradiction of addresses, jobs, inconsistencies in appearance etc, and yet almost no response from you to these issues
-
Hopefully Steve will not object if I answer a question addressed to him One also wonders why W Tracy addresses. Yes perhaps the first sentence is fairly addressed to Steve, but not the rest First off Armstrong claims such people exist, but as usual some of his statements seem not to be supported by any reference on-line Two caveats quickly come to mind ad to why this may not have occurred One is of course many of those who knew Marguerite likely did not see the photographs as she appeared before the WC And second some people, especially friends of Marguerite may not have wanted to open a can of worms or cause her anymore trauma than she already suffered And yes of course the fear of being castigated as a conspiracy theorist etc
What I find interesting is that you chose to focus as void of information, no friends came forward and stated Marguerite 2 was not Marguerite C, as your main response to the the issue A n inference to a void is of course and inference There are a multitude of facts in regards to the contradiction of addresses, jobs, inconsistencies in appearance etc, and yet almost no response from you to these issues
You don't find it odd that no one who knew the "real" Marguerite realized she was different from the "Fake" they saw on TV? Remember, in those days there were 3 channels and that was all that was on for days at a time. The likelihood that not one of dozens or hundreds realized the Marguerite they saw or read about is small IMO.
As for contradictions, if you want to discuss any specifics let me know. But in a case where LHO had more than 20 different residences during his childhood these inconsistencies could be expected.
-
You don't find it odd that no one who knew the "real" Marguerite realized she was different from the "Fake" they saw on TV? Remember, in those days there were 3 channels and that was all that was on for days at a time. The likelihood that not one of dozens or hundreds realized the Marguerite they saw or read about is small IMO.
As for contradictions, if you want to discuss any specifics let me know. But in a case where LHO had more than 20 different residences during his childhood these inconsistencies could be expected.
I was not quite old enough to remember how much her face was on TV I guess it makes she was on a lot Hard to know how many people may have tried to contact the Dallas stations or other media sources I suppose The other part of the question is how many people really knew her well enough to be sure it was not her Those who had known her in the last 15 years or so being the most likely to be confident it was just not a bad case of ageing It is an area I am interested in , and its certainly a fair point just not one worthy of discrediting other evidence imo
-
Remember, the document only said "M. Oswald." How many of those must there be? As far as the "imposter" Marguerite, not only John Pic, but why didn't any of the people who knew the "real" Marguerite come forward to say that this person was not the Marguerite they were acquainted with when they saw her on TV and in newspapers? When you ask the H&L people they say something like "oh they were paid off by the CIA." Really? How many people is the average person acquainted with-hundreds? And the CIA paid all of them off? Pretty far fetched I think.
I guess I am getting ahead of myself Are you saying it is Marguerite Claverie Oswald testifying to the Warren Commission?
-
I guess I am getting ahead of myself Are you saying it is Marguerite Claverie Oswald testifying to the Warren Commission?
I am saying the woman who testified was indeed the one and only Marguerite Claverie Oswald. According to the H&L theory, the woman who testified was the "fake" Marguerite who took the place of the original "tall beautiful" Marguerite. This woman, who worked for the CIA, took the place of the original Marguerite around 1959. My point is why didn't the friends and acquaintances of the original Marguerite come forward to say this was not the woman they knew? And as Steve asked, why didn't John Pic say this was not his mother?
IMO, researchers should be very skeptical of the H&L theory but some are not. This is apparently because the theory appeals to them on some level and they are will to suspend disbelief. But the theory is nonsense and a waste of time.
-
I am saying the woman who testified was indeed the one and only Marguerite Claverie Oswald. According to the H&L theory, the woman who testified was the "fake" Marguerite who took the place of the original "tall beautiful" Marguerite. This woman, who worked for the CIA, took the place of the original Marguerite around 1959. My point is why didn't the friends and acquaintances of the original Marguerite come forward to say this was not the woman they knew? And as Steve asked, why didn't John Pic say this was not his mother?
IMO, researchers should be very skeptical of the H&L theory but some are not. This is apparently because the theory appeals to them on some level and they are will to suspend disbelief. But the theory is nonsense and a waste of time.
How tall was Marguerite Claverie Oswald?
-
I've only made it to pg 120 of 1000+ pages, but Armstrong offers the following about Marguerite's best friend's statement:
NOTE: The "beautiful woman with black hair" who "dressed beautifully" was certainly not the older, dumpy, heavy-set, shabbily dressed "Marguerite Oswald" imposter who was photographed in the living room of 126 Exchange in February 1954.
Following the assassination Myrtle and Julian Evans saw this woman on television. When deposed on April 7, 1964 by Warren Commission Attorney Albert Jenner, Myrtle Evans said, "When I saw her on Tv, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said that couldn't be Margie. Julian told the Commission, "When we saw her on television just recently, after all this happened, she looked awful. There s no other way to describe it, the change that has come over her. You wouldn't have recognized her if they hadn't told you who she was; she looked that different. Where her hair used to be black, now it's entirely gray, and she really looks old ..... shes the same age as my wife (57), but she looks about 70 now. "The Commission, understandably, did not ask either Myrtle or Julian to identify the 1954 photograph of the short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" as their friend of 25 years.
Neither Julian nor Myrtle, who had known the real Marguerite Oswald since 1935, recognized the heavy-set, shabbily-dressed woman they saw on television. They didn't realize this woman was not their friend who lived next door in New Orleans only 8 years earlier. The woman they saw on television was the "caretaker/mother" of Harvey Oswaldthe same old, dumpy, heavy-set woman who was photographed sitting in the chair of her living room at 126 Exchange Place in 1954. By 1963 this woman s appearance had changed little-she still had grey hair, still looked old, and was still dowdy and plump.
Lee's contemporaneous best friend said roughly the same:
On April 7, 1964, Ed Voebel was deposed by Warren Commission attorney Albert Jenner who asked, "Did you meet his mother?" Voebel said, "I think I met her one time, and for some reason I had a picture in my mind which was different from when I saw her in the paper after all of this happened. I didn't recognize her. She was a lot thinner. and her hair wasn't as gray. as I recall it. when I met her. Of course, this was about 8 years ago, but I can remember she had a black dress on, and she was sitting down smoking a cigarette."
That still leaves the family not speaking up. Armstrong claims Robert was a part of the cover up, but Pic and the Murrets? I will continue reading...
-
Thanks Steve I remember that name and quote but could not find it Well done and thank you
People can see a picture of MCO in 1960 at the two Marguerite's page link at the Harvey and Lee site as well as the other Marguerite who is seen in 63 and 64 The difference is so remarkable I was surprised that W Tracy was even claiming this was the same woman There are indeed strange questions remaining and it seems clear that both groups of people were connected to some degree from 47 onward For instance it seems the impersonator Marguerite and Harvey rented from the real Marguerite C at San Sabo
-
How tall was Marguerite Claverie Oswald?
No taller than 5' 4". I assume you are leading up to Armstrong's claims about height discrepancies. Here is an analysis of the issue:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html
-
Thanks Steve I remember that name and quote but could not find it Well done and thank you
People can see a picture of MCO in 1960 at the two Marguerite's page link at the Harvey and Lee site as well as the other Marguerite who is seen in 63 and 64 The difference is so remarkable I was surprised that W Tracy was even claiming this was the same woman There are indeed strange questions remaining and it seems clear that both groups of people were connected to some degree from 47 onward For instance it seems the impersonator Marguerite and Harvey rented from the real Marguerite C at San Sabo
There is a difference. Its called aging and "letting yourself go." There was not a single person in the world who claimed there were two Marguerites until John Armstrong came along. Friends, family-nobody. Armstrong is taking you for a ride. As for San Saba, he is using the statement of one woman made years and years after to create the "fact" that there were two Oswalds living in two different places.
What really happened is that Marguerite bought the house in July, 1947 probably as a backup plan of sorts because she was having marital problems with Ekdahl. She rented the house out and continued to live on 8th Street in Fort Worth. In March, 1948 she moved to Willing Street in Fort Worth. In app. June of the same year she moved to San Saba where they lived for the summer. In September, she moved to Ewing Street in Fort Worth where the family lived for three years. Armstrong ignores the weight of the evidence and seizes on a witness statement or an inconsistency in the record to make his case. But the record is very clear about where the one and only Marguerite lived during this specific time frame.
-
Neither Julian nor Myrtle, who had known the real Marguerite Oswald since 1935, recognized the heavy-set, shabbily-dressed woman they saw on television.
Read here how Armstrong manipulated what Mr. and Mrs. Evans said to his advantage. The Evans' never said they didn't know Marguerite-only that she had changed:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html
-
Read here how Armstrong manipulated what Mr. and Mrs. Evans said to his advantage. The Evans' never said they didn't know Marguerite-only that she had changed:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html
This is not in Julian's testimony
and I said that couldn't be Margie. Julian told the Commission,
-
This is not in Julian's testimony
and I said that couldn't be Margie. Julian told the Commission,
But Myrtle Evans clarified her remarks. She said "when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was..." [emphasis added]. They were surprised at her appearence and that she had let herself go. At no time did they tell the commission that this was not the woman they knew but was instead an impostor. If you want to believe that, you are free to do so but there is no support for it. It is just a belief on your part. Also ask yourself, if the CIA (who CTs believe is all powerful) were going to get a woman to replace Marguerite, why not find one who looked exactly like the original? It is when you start asking qustions (and there are dozens more) like this that you can see what is going on.
-
This is not in Julian's testimony
and I said that couldn't be Margie. Julian told the Commission,
Have you actually ever read Julian's WC testimony? Here it is: Mr. EVANS - I think she's a fine woman, myself, a fine woman; intelligent, very soft spoken - a beautiful woman, with black hair streaked with a little gray, but when you saw her on television since this thing happened, she really looked awful; nothing at all like she used to look. She has really aged. She looked like a charwoman, compared to what she used to look like. She used to be a fashion plate. She dressed beautifully, but when we saw her on television just recently, after all this happened, she looked awful. There's no way to describe it, the change that has come over her. You wouldn't have recognized her if they hadn't told you who she was; she looked that different. Where her hair used to be black, now it's entirely gray, and she really looks Old
Mr. JENNER - Well, she's 57, I believe.
Mr. EVANS - That's right; she's the same age as my wife, but she looks about 70 now. That's about all I can remember about her, and then I saw this thing
-
Have you actually ever read Julian's WC testimony? Here it is: Mr. EVANS - I think she's a fine woman, myself, a fine woman; intelligent, very soft spoken - a beautiful woman, with black hair streaked with a little gray, but when you saw her on television since this thing happened, she really looked awful; nothing at all like she used to look. She has really aged. She looked like a charwoman, compared to what she used to look like. She used to be a fashion plate. She dressed beautifully, but when we saw her on television just recently, after all this happened, she looked awful. There's no way to describe it, the change that has come over her. You wouldn't have recognized her if they hadn't told you who she was; she looked that different. Where her hair used to be black, now it's entirely gray, and she really looks Old
Mr. JENNER - Well, she's 57, I believe.
Mr. EVANS - That's right; she's the same age as my wife, but she looks about 70 now. That's about all I can remember about her, and then I saw this thing
Thanks for posting that Denis. It couldn't be clearer that Evans is talking about the woman he knew and how she had aged and not referring to some sort of impostor.
-
The progression Marguerite went through (the aging process was probably sped up due to the fact she smoked) can be clearly seen at this site:
http://oswald-photos.blogspot.com/2012/09/marguerite-claverie-oswald-1907-1981.html
You would have to believe that these family photos were faked and the impostor substituted into family albums without anyone knowing, or that the entire family was in on it.
-
The progression Marguerite went through (the aging process was probably sped up due to the fact she smoked) can be clearly seen at this site:
http://oswald-photos.blogspot.com/2012/09/marguerite-claverie-oswald-1907-1981.html
You would have to believe that these family photos were faked and the impostor substituted into family albums without anyone knowing, or that the entire family was in on it.
W Tracy You have been exceptionally civil compared to the norm on this board and I respect that. I will also admit that due to my background I am very reluctant to get into comparing conclusion the latter sentence is clearly an allusion towards what I consider bringing conclusions into the premises Not that is not a fair question at some point, but I cannot answer the question because I do not have a clear conclusion If I am guessing I believe there was a better chance that the two families were connected in some way as opposed to faking photographs
In regard to Oswald's height as 5'10 coordinating to his passport A lot of debate has been made over the 5'10 versus 5'9 Arguing over an inch in height seems like small potatoes, yet according to researchers I believe even outside of of Armstrong, researchers claim there is somewhat clear demarcation of a 5-9 150 lb or less Oswald or a 510 165 lb Oswald An inch may not seem like much, but when trying to distinguish between two individuals who may only be 4 inches apart it become more significant going to check if the morgue had an official height for Oswald
-
I do find it a little odd that there seems to be much about the two Marguerite's past 64
However
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=947&ei=ov0mW-WHB8KQsAXo5bi4DA&q=marguerite+oswald&oq=marguerite+oswald&gs_l=img.12..0j0i24k1l6.3179.9399.0.12800.21.12.1.8.8.0.108.995.6j4.10.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..2.18.928.0..35i39k1j0i30k1.0.BpkytKmQ1to#imgrc=dtqifAdS18gFPM:
-
Have you actually ever read Julian's WC testimony? Here it is: Mr. EVANS - I think she's a fine woman, myself, a fine woman; intelligent, very soft spoken - a beautiful woman, with black hair streaked with a little gray, but when you saw her on television since this thing happened, she really looked awful; nothing at all like she used to look. She has really aged. She looked like a charwoman, compared to what she used to look like. She used to be a fashion plate. She dressed beautifully, but when we saw her on television just recently, after all this happened, she looked awful. There's no way to describe it, the change that has come over her. You wouldn't have recognized her if they hadn't told you who she was; she looked that different. Where her hair used to be black, now it's entirely gray, and she really looks Old
Mr. JENNER - Well, she's 57, I believe.
Mr. EVANS - That's right; she's the same age as my wife, but she looks about 70 now. That's about all I can remember about her, and then I saw this thing
So Steve's quote of him at the WC is incorrect?
-
So Steve's quote of him at the WC is incorrect?
The quote is accurate. However, it is incomplete and "cherrypicked" as is all of Armstrong's "evidence" for H&L. When read in context it is clear both the Evans' are talking about the Marguerite they knew and not an impostor. They are simply surprised at the change in her. But that is one thing you must learn about Armstrong and the H&L theory. The weight of the evidence is what professional investigators look at. Armstrong selects what fits his theory and ignores everything else or conveniently claims it is fabricated. He says there was a massive conspiracy involving the FBI, WC, HSCA etc. But when you look at the citations in his book (when they are actually provided) you will find references to those very same agencies. How does he determine which FBI reports etc. to believe and which were falsified? Of course, those that fit his theory are to be believed apparently and the others ignored or branded as fakes.
-
The quote is accurate. However, it is incomplete and "cherrypicked" as is all of Armstrong's "evidence" for H&L. When read in context it is clear both the Evans' are talking about the Marguerite they knew and not an impostor. They are simply surprised at the change in her. But that is one thing you must learn about Armstrong and the H&L theory. The weight of the evidence is what professional investigators look at. Armstrong selects what fits his theory and ignores everything else or conveniently claims it is fabricated. He says there was a massive conspiracy involving the FBI, WC, HSCA etc. But when you look at the citations in his book (when they are actually provided) you will find references to those very same agencies. How does he determine which FBI reports etc. to believe and which were falsified? Of course, those that fit his theory are to be believed apparently and the others ignored or branded as fakes.
No doubt a problem Some of this is of course endemic to most questions in JFK research I will add, and this indeed inferential, that the amount of attention and research the FBI placed on Oswald's past including Marguerite, seems odd I understand you can see this as a no win for the FBI, but wow a lot of effort
-
No doubt a problem Some of this is of course endemic to most questions in JFK research I will add, and this indeed inferential, that the amount of attention and research the FBI placed on Oswald's past including Marguerite, seems odd I understand you can see this as a no win for the FBI, but wow a lot of effort
I don't see it as odd myself. It was believed that LHO had killed the President and the WC were tasked with determining if that was true. To that end, a biography of LHO was necessary and the FBI, as the primary investigative arm for the WC, did most of the work.
-
So Steve's quote of him at the WC is incorrect?
Hi Matt, you shouldn't take anyone's word for anything (I'm sure Tracy will agree) wherever possible check stuff out for yourself. Below is a link which over the years I've found invaluable. Here, check out for yourself exactly what Julian Evans said; http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
PS Don't be put off because it's from McAdam's site. The testimony is sound and easily checked. Good luck with your research.
-
Hi Matt, you shouldn't take anyone's word for anything (I'm sure Tracy will agree) wherever possible check stuff out for yourself. Below is a link which over the years I've found invaluable. Here, check out for yourself exactly what Julian Evans said; http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
PS Don't be put off because it's from McAdam's site. The testimony is sound and easily checked. Good luck with your research.
Thanks Dennis I did recently become aware of it and posted about it yesterday since it was don for a day or so Yes I tremendous resource and the McAdams folks deserve a lot of credit for it
On another point I have been trying to find a way to find a contact for Jim Hargrove I found two old emails that didn't work Now I have sent a message to Debra Conway at the JFK Lancer Facebook page I am mostly curious about any DNA project
-
Thanks Dennis I did recently become aware of it and posted about it yesterday since it was don for a day or so Yes I tremendous resource and the McAdams folks deserve a lot of credit for it
On another point I have been trying to find a way to find a contact for Jim Hargrove I found two old emails that didn't work Now I have sent a message to Debra Conway at the JFK Lancer Facebook page I am mostly curious about any DNA project
Sorry Matt, I can't help with a contact for Jim, except to suggest you start a thread with the title, 'Contact for Jim Hargrove' it's JFK related so Duncan won't mind and someone here is sure to know. I presume the DNA project you mention would obviously involve Oswald's siblings or children, yes? You have to realise Matt, these good people have been badgered and pestered (and some even accused) for decades. I honestly can't imagine they'd be receptive to a DNA project..but who knows. Good luck.
-
I heard back from Jim Hargrove thanks to some help from one of the members here My main question was of course whether there was any effort to get DNA from some of the prodigy involved His advice read the book look at the website Oh well
-
I heard back from Jim Hargrove thanks to some help from one of the members here My main question was of course whether there was any effort to get DNA from some of the prodigy involved His advice read the book look at the website Oh well
In other words, no DNA project.
-
In other words, no DNA project.
It seems so I am not drawing any absolute conclusions, but lets say I am disillusioned on several levels
I am not sure if you have had interaction with him, but I am contemplating a reply.I am weighing my options on whether I will respond and what a response would contain I could imagine from your perspective this is an indication that they don't even believe their own story And indeed that is a possibility Certainly it appears more likely than before
-
Now you're starting to get the picture. There's a hell of a lot of BS'ers out there. BEWARE!!
-
I went over to a thread at the Deep Politics Forum regarding the two Oswald's, and there is not a word on this lengthy thread about a DNA project fro the renaming Oswald prodigy JIm Hargrove was on the thread I am registering over there and seeing what kind of replies I get to this question I did find this from Pic's testimony which I have apparently missed previously
Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him.
Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother?
Mr. PIC - That is correct.
-
I went over to a thread at the Deep Politics Forum regarding the two Oswald's, and there is not a word on this lengthy thread about a DNA project fro the renaming Oswald prodigy JIm Hargrove was on the thread I am registering over there and seeing what kind of replies I get to this question I did find this from Pic's testimony which I have apparently missed previously
Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him.
Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother?
Mr. PIC - That is correct.
As Denis pointed out, it is unlikely that anyone in the Oswald family will go along with such a project. They were told when the exhumation occurred that would be the end of the double Oswald theories, in other words, that would prove or disprove them. Of course, the theorists (even Eddowes himself) went right back to work undaunted.
As for Pic, he simply did not think the photo looked like his brother (whom he had not seen for 10 years) and since he was under oath was trying to be careful. But at no time in his testimony, including at the end when he was asked if there was anything he would like to add, did he imply that there were two Oswalds. Armstrong also contacted him in the nineties and if he were interested in promoting such theories had the perfect chance to do so then. He declined and stuck by his WC testimony.
-
As Denis pointed out, it is unlikely that anyone in the Oswald family will go along with such a project. They were told when the exhumation occurred that would be the end of the double Oswald theories, in other words, that would prove or disprove them. Of course, the theorists (even Eddowes himself) went right back to work undaunted.
As for Pic, he simply did not think the photo looked like his brother (whom he had not seen for 10 years) and since he was under oath was trying to be careful. But at no time in his testimony, including at the end when he was asked if there was anything he would like to add, did he imply that there were two Oswalds. Armstrong also contacted him in the nineties and if he were interested in promoting such theories had the perfect chance to do so then. He declined and stuck by his WC testimony.
Several points here
There are several photos, including when Oswald is young, where he cannot identify him
One is whether Armstrong and Hargrove are being forthright and transparent
Pic saw the Oswald who married Marina in on Thanksgiving 62 This was the first time he had seen him in 9 years
The premise that it's unusual that someone would be able identify their half brother that they had known since age 12 after 9 years apart is questionable at best
-
I heard back from Jim Hargrove thanks to some help from one of the members here My main question was of course whether there was any effort to get DNA from some of the prodigy involved His advice read the book look at the website Oh well
Progeny, not prodigy
-
Progeny, not prodigy
Thanks Bill Somewhere in the back of my mind I felt something was a little funny I do take pride, or something similar, in my vocab, so this is a major demerit I did know the difference as soon as you mentioned it, so perhaps it is more of a neuron glitch than not actually not knowing the word. An F up for sure, but today I am cutting back on my pain killers
-
Several points here
There are several photos, including when Oswald is young, where he cannot identify him
One is whether Armstrong and Hargrove are being forthright and transparent
Pic saw the Oswald who married Marina in on Thanksgiving 62 This was the first time he had seen him in 9 years
The premise that it's unusual that someone would be able identify their half brother that they had known since age 12 after 9 years apart is questionable at best
Haven't you seen a family photo in a group setting and someone says "that doesn't even look like you." I personally have had this experience many times especially in years past when photography wasn't what it is now. He simply didn't think those photos looked like his brother and was being careful and truthful because he was under oath. Never does he say or imply that there were two of his brother and if you read his testimony that is clear. Armstrong uses the fact that he didn't think the photos looked like his brother to his advantage to persuade gullible readers (who are predisposed to believe his theories) that he has found some great truth.
In a case like this (especially when the family in question moved many times) there will be photos, documents and witness statements that do not jibe with the rest of the record. You have to look at the totality of the evidence to find the truth. Armstrong does not do that. He seizes on the expected inconsistencies to persuade those who are ready to be persuaded.
-
Haven't you seen a family photo in a group setting and someone says "that doesn't even look like you." I personally have had this experience many times especially in years past when photography wasn't what it is now. He simply didn't think those photos looked like his brother and was being careful and truthful because he was under oath. Never does he say or imply that there were two of his brother and if you read his testimony that is clear. Armstrong uses the fact that he didn't think the photos looked like his brother to his advantage to persuade gullible readers (who are predisposed to believe his theories) that he has found some great truth.
In a case like this (especially when the family in question moved many times) there will be photos, documents and witness statements that do not jibe with the rest of the record. You have to look at the totality of the evidence to find the truth. Armstrong does not do that. He seizes on the expected inconsistencies to persuade those who are ready to be persuaded.
Sorry I disagree Pic could have easily qualified the statement by saying yes it looked a lot like my Brother but he had changed so much and it had been so long etc Nothing like that is stated it is a flat denial that has significance
-
This requires some reading between the lines, but it seems pretty odd at best
Ruth and Michael Paine responded exactly the same way when news broke that shots were believed to have originated from the Texas School Book Depository: they both immediately assumed that Oswald was involved. During a phone call placed at one pm November 22, 1963, Michael Paine calling from his office at Bell Helicopter to Ruth at home in Irving, this assumption receives a qualification: ?the male voice was heard to comment that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President, but did not feel OSWALD was responsible, and further stated, ?We both know who is responsible.?1 Whoever it is Michael Paine believed ?responsible? for the assassination it has remained closely held, as neither he or Ruth Paine have faced official scrutiny since 1968.