Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Jon G. Tidd]

Question for the experts: John Armstrong wrote this large book, which I bought for about $100 USD. I've not finished the book and admit it's slow going. I don't subscribe to the notion two children were manipulated by the CIA. Then again, I've got an open mind.

The question is, does "Harvey & Lee" have truth to it? If so, what is the truth?

[Jim Hargrove]

Speaking of questionable tax documents, as we have been, here's a fine-looking tax return for "Lee Harvey Oswald" published by the Warren Commission:

As you can see, it seems to be Oswald's tax return for 1956. This return shows that the income reported matches perfectly with the W-2 forms for 1956 shown earlier. Any problems?

For one thing, the Social Security Administration did not include any Oswald income for 1956 (or any year prior to his Marine Corps service) in the "Total Earnings" field in its "Determination of Award" form completed after his death. And, when asked for all tax records relating to LHO and Marina, the SSA indicated it was sending "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps." Not much of an explanation.

But there is another glaring problem with this return!

"Lee Harvey Oswald" had been enlisted in the Marine Corps since October 26, 1956. Yet there is no Marine Corps income listed on this 1956 return. "Lee Harvey Oswald" was surely wearing a USMC uniform when he filled out and signed this return on Feb. 7, 1957. Are we to believe that he simply forgot? As John Armstrong wrote on HarveyandLee.net:

In mid-to-late January, 1957, employers mailed W-2 forms to their employees. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) mailed W-2 forms to military personnel. Oswald's address, listed in his military file, was 4936 Collinwood, Ft. Worth, TX. The Warren Commission would like us to believe that Oswald somehow received the J.R. Michels, Tujague's, and Pfisterer W-2 forms, but never received the W-2 form mailed by the DFAS. The WC would also like us to believe that Oswald kept the J.R. Michels, Tujague's, and Pfisterer W-2 forms for the next 7 years--from 1956 to 1963, yet lost or never received the W-2 form from the Marine Corps. If Oswald never received a W-2 from DFAS, he could easily have obtained payroll information through his company commander. Why would a Marine complete a tax return and not list his Marine Corp income on the return? The answer is simple: Oswald did not complete the 1956 tax return. Finally, the 1956 tax return was mailed from California on February 7, yet the return was received by the IRS only one day later in Dallas, TX, on February 8.

A W-2 form from DFAS was never found by the FBI nor requested by the FBI or Warren Commission. Is it possible that income for both HARVEY and LEE would appear on DFAS W-2 forms (1956-1959)? The individual who filled out the 1956 1040 did not have a W-2 form from DFAS and did not have access to Oswald's payroll records from the Department of the Navy. In fact, the Department of the Navy did not release Oswald's military pay records until Sept, 1964 (see below). With no information whatsoever concerning Oswald's earnings from the military, the Marine Corps was not listed as an employer and no income was reported. The 1956 return was fabricated/created by the same people who fabricated/created the J.R. Michels, Tujague's, and Pfisterer W-2 forms.

[Don Jeffries]

Mark,

You mistake my reference to "professional" reporters as indicative of dismissing those on forums as being non-professionals. On the contrary, I have little regard for "professional" reporters or historians. We would know nothing about this case without all the citizen critics, none of them "professional."

And I certainly don't want to infer that I am proclaiming myself to be a "professional."

[Paul Trejo]

BUMP

Edited May 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

As you can see, it seems to be Oswald's tax return for 1956. This return shows that the income reported matches perfectly with the W-2 forms for 1956 shown earlier. Any problems?

It depends.

What tax year was Oswald using, the calendar year or the fiscal year?

If your answer is just a guess, please label it as such.

[Mark Knight]

Here's your freakin' citations. Sorry that PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with Social Security counts for so little with you.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/EN-05-10085.pdf

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/survivors/onyourown5.html

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/survivors/ifyou.html#sb=4

Since you seem to doubt my ability to tell the truth, try this out as well:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Knight&GSfn=Brenda&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSst=17&GScnty=813&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=113674665&df=all&

[Greg Parker]

Here's your freakin' citations. Sorry that PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with Social Security counts for so little with you.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/EN-05-10085.pdf

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/survivors/onyourown5.html

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/survivors/ifyou.html#sb=4

Since you seem to doubt my ability to tell the truth, try this out as well:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Knight&GSfn=Brenda&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSst=17&GScnty=813&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=113674665&df=all&

Really, Mark?

What didn't you get when I said "And what I said was 'I'll happily admit to being wrong if it can be demonstrated with citations that I am.' What I was given instead of a citation was an anecdote. Regardless, I thanked Mark for providing it, and I think it is obvious I accepted it, though still not proven with proper citations."

I accepted it BECAUSE it was you, and NOT one of the Armstrong inner circle stooges. THEY are the ones I don't trust without citations. And even then, you have to go through evaluating the document and comparing it to their interpretation of it. The school records are a prime example.

You can keep looking for excuses to get yourself all worked up, or you can start looking at the pig they keep putting lipstick on and start seeing it as the pig it is instead of Marilyn Monroe.

[Mark Knight]

You misunderstand MY position, Greg.

I was simply attempting to provide some background on the Social Security thing. I'm not buying the Harvey and Lee angle, because I haven't seen anything that convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not attempting to support a theory I haven't bought myself.

Which is why I followed with the links...to explain the "anecdote." Which is more than the H&L folks have done

[Greg Parker]

The notion that there is a "simple" explanation for anything related to Oswald flies in the face of 50 years of research by independent citizens. It does, however, echo the views of "professional" journalists and historians. Everything about Lee Harvey Oswald is confusing and open to question. To state otherwise is to ignore much of the information available to us, not to mention all that's been destroyed, lost or remains classified.

The notion that there must be a convoluted, complex explanation for anything related to Oswald flies in the face of reason, common sense and some of the evidence.

If there were merely a few anomalies about Oswald's height or something, that would probably be easy to explain.

No anomalies there. The evidence tells us that the only times his height was recorded as more than 5' 9" were the times he self-reported it. When he was actually measured, he was shown to be 2" shorter. Reason and common sense dictate that he peaked at 5' 9".

But Oswald was a supposed minimum-wage loser that attracted the much older, upper-crust, intelligence-connected George DeMohrenschildt as a best friend.

Indeed. So that means the CIA had a doppelganger program?

He can be connected to pro-Castro and anti-Castro activists and to American intelligence. He was called "Private Oswaldovicth" according to the similarly intriguing Kerry Thornley, but all the rest of his Marine colleagues remembered him differently. It was recalled, for instance, that he was proud to have been named after the great Robert E. Lee. How does an affinity for Robert E. Lee jibe with a die hard leftist so enamored of the communist ideology that he defected to the Soviet Union?

Indeed. So that means the CIA had a doppelganger program?

Excusing all the unconnected instances of someone seemingly impersonating Oswald in the period just before the assassination is something that the authorities and "professional" journalists would do. If Oswald was being set up to be the patsy, whether through Armstrong's theory or otherwise, those incidents represent some of the strongest evidence we have of conspiratorial behavior. None of these encounters has been demonstrated to be less than credible, no matter how many Oswalts and alleged mental issues can be injected into the discussion. Again, that is the sort of thing that mainstream reporters would do, or government authorities "investigating" the case would have done, and did in fact do.

Can you name an incident of an alleged second Oswald sighting that Armstrong rejects as part of his theory? If not, why not? It's not a matter of "excusing" anything. Each needs to be examined on its own merits - and most fall apart when you examine the documentation. Excusing THAT by saying all FBI reports are false is just lame. The larger problem is that most simply take what is written in books as gospel. Encouraging disbelief in government reports covers all gaps in logic. In short, it is similar to how cults keep the flock in check. Demonize all else bar the Word according to [fill in the blank].

There are huge discrepancies regarding Oswald's height,

No there isn't.

the schools he attended, etc.

No there isn't. The issue is that those pushing this theory simply don't know how to read the school reports. If you want to run with Robert Oswald and Frank Kudlaty and claim that Oswald attended Stripling you have the right to believe whomever and whatever you want. But Robert's memory was shoddy in other areas, and Kudlaty is compromised as a witness by his undeclared longstanding friendship with a key figure in the development of this story-line.

Yelling that this isn't so doesn't contradict the data, or cause reasonable people to turn off their skepticism. Jack White's ground-breaking work on the photographic record regarding Oswald remains important, no matter how many times posters on a forum say otherwise.

So skepticism is fine... except when directed at this theory?

But okay... here is data for you.

In the 1940s tonsils were only partially removed. For kids who had this operation prior to the full development of their tonsils (at age 8), there was a risk of regrowth. To deny Oswald's tonsils could not have been a problem in the Marines is therefore an anti-science, faith-based belief.

Who discovered the identities of the alleged father and uncle of "Harvey"? Not Armstrong. It was me. And guess what? They were not related by blood nor marriage, nor do either look even remotely like Oswald.

There is data which places Oswald in Fort Worth at exactly the time the official record says he was there - Sept, 1956. But adherents to this theory prefer memory to hard evidence. Why is that, Don? Did the government mass hypnotize the entire planet into believing that Fort Worth had forced integration in 1956 and not 1958. Were followers of Armstrong the only ones impervious to this brainwashing?

Two witnesses stated that Oswald Oswald's tooth went through his lip (and was not knocked out). This is supported by the autopsy report noting a small scar on the lip where this happened.

Documents show that Edwin Ekdhal was at least 3 inches shorter than Armstrong claimed, Yet another example of falling on your face relying on someone's memory rather than the actual documentary record.

And on and on it goes... each item used to prop up this mess crumbles under the light.

I am aware of the problems with Armstrong's theory.

Really? Can you list them?

I don't agree with it all, particularly in his reliance upon what I think is dubious evidence of Oswald's post-assassination movements.

Okay. That's a start. What else?

But I value his effort, and the fact that he added a new element to the database, much as David Lifton did (and again, I can recognize Lifton's importance without buying the entire body alteration theory).

Throw in your other favorite, Alex Jones, and you have the trifecta!

"Harvey and Lee" is just a theory. It makes no sense to be as devoted to condemning it as John Armstrong is to promulgating it. Regardless of the theory, no one can deny that Armstrong did a great deal of work and unearthed a lot of valuable information. That information certainly doesn't bolster the official fairy tale, with or without the theory. The theory doesn't detract from "serious" research or researchers, and in fact adds to our understanding of the case.

That's as bad as saying it makes no sense going after Lifton, JVB, Fetzer, the WC, the Bug, Jones or "the-Driver- did-it" brigade.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Jim Hargrove]

No anomalies there. The evidence tells us that the only times his height was recorded as more than 5' 9" were the times he self-reported it. When he was actually measured, he was shown to be 2" shorter. Reason and common sense dictate that he peaked at 5' 9".

That sounds good, but it simply isn't true. For example, the report dated Sept. 11, 1959 of the medical exam for the discharge of one "Lee Harvey Oswald" from the US Marine Corps lists his height as 71" (which is 5' 11"). This is a well-known document.

I'd upload it here, but the forum software says I've used up my quota and can't upload anything larger than 62k. (Sigh)

But it is easy to find. The Warren Commission published it as Folsom Exhibit 1, p. 73.

[Jim Hargrove]

There are huge discrepancies regarding Oswald's height,

No there isn't.

Well, I guess we can all go home then.

[Jim Hargrove]

No there isn't. The issue is that those pushing this theory simply don't know how to read the school reports. If you want to run with Robert Oswald and Frank Kudlaty and claim that Oswald attended Stripling you have the right to believe whomever and whatever you want. But Robert's memory was shoddy in other areas, and Kudlaty is compromised as a witness by his undeclared longstanding friendship with a key figure in the development of this story-line.

After the assassination SAC John Malone, the FBI agent in charge of the New York Office, inspected "Oswald's" original court file in the presence of Judge Florence Kelley. Malone took notes and sent a report to FBI Director Hoover the following day. Malone wrote, "Oswald's attendance record at PS #44 from 3/23/53 to 1/12/54 was 171 and 11 half-days present and 18 and 11 half days absent. If LEE Oswald's 182 days of attendance (171 full days, 11 1/2 days) and 18 absences are plotted on 1953 and 1954 calendars it is easy to see that LEE Oswald attended PS 44 full time during the entire 1953 school year.

The Warren Commission also published 1953 Beauregard Junior High Schools records showing that Oswald attended 89 days of school during the fall semester of 1953. Conflicting school records from both New York City and New Orleans are published in the Warren volumes.

[Jim Hargrove]

In the 1940s tonsils were only partially removed. For kids who had this operation prior to the full development of their tonsils (at age 8), there was a risk of regrowth. To deny Oswald's tonsils could not have been a problem in the Marines is therefore an anti-science, faith-based belief.

In the more than 1,000 pages of Harvey and Lee, here is John Armstrong's full report on "Oswald's" tonsillectomy:

First, page 21:

On January 17, 1945 Dr. Philben, of Dallas, performed a tonsillectomy on 5-year­

old 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, depress­

ing 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.

And finally from page 153:

On January 6, 1957 Pvt. Lee H. (Harvey) Oswald, of Platoon 2060 was

diagnosed with tonsillitis, given an injection of penicillin, and advised

not to swim:1 57-01

NOTE: Lee Oswald could not possibly have contracted tonsillitis because his tonsils

were surgically removed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas 12 years earlier, on January

17, 1945, by Dr. Philben. 2 57-02

It appears to be true that some tonsils do grow back, but the need to remove them again is the exception rather than the rule. This is another indication, if not proof, that there is real problem with the identity of "Lee Harvey Oswald."

Some time ago, I presented Greg with evidence from a peer-reviewed medical monograph stating that at the time of Oswald's 1945 tonsillectomy, tonsillectomies in the United States typically involved the complete removal of the tonsils, not partially.

[Don Jeffries]

Greg,

You're the one who's grasping at straws here, not Armstrong or his defenders. Your dismissal of Armstrong includes the most unlikeliest of conjectures. For instance, Oswald's tonsils growing back. As a baby boomer, I knew lots of kids who had their tonsils out. Never heard of a single case of them growing back later. That had to be an extremely rare thing.

You were eagerly claiming to have "solved" the Albert Bogard incident a while back, and posted a lot of information about the man you believed had been mistaken for Oswald, someone named Oswalt. Not long after that, you just as eagerly announced that you had resolved the issue again, and that the man Bogard encountered was the real Lee Harvey Oswald. Your "evidence" amounted to declaring that Oswald decided he needed a car for his driver's test. And you think others are wildly speculating?

If you want to focus on the holes in Armstrong's theory, go after his support of the official narrative of Oswald's post-assassination movements; the bus ride, cab ride, and especially the killing of Tippit. I'm with you on that. But what are the odds that the anomaly in the records about Oswald's tonsils are the result of a rare occurrence of them growing back and most of the encounters with an apparent phony Oswald were the result of separate, distinct mental issues on the part of those reporting them? Given all the "coincidences" and "mistaken" witnesses we have been asked to accept for over 50 years, in order to swallow the official fairy tale, I can't help feeling that you're asking researchers to do the same thing.

It's your cavalier dismissal of all those unconnected witnesses who reported an encounter with a seeming Oswald impersonator that I take such strong objection to. When you claim they were all mentally ill, you are not only relying on a truly remarkable coincidence (all those disparate people sharing a common experience just happening to each have mental issues), you are introducing the kind of "evidence" that Warren Commission apologists have always relied on.

[Bernie Laverick]

As a baby boomer, I knew lots of kids who had their tonsils out. Never heard of a single case of them growing back later. That had to be an extremely rare thing.

Hi Don, in what possible context would you have ever found that out anyway?

"Hey Don, how's it going buddy? It must be, what, twenty years...? Did you know that my tonsils grew back after I had that operation?"

Seriously? I'm trying to work out just how socially inappropriate it would be to bump into someone years later and slip that info into the conversation. Lack of such a conversation does not prove your point.

You don't flinch at the prospect of an on-going intelligence operation that picked two non-related 13 year olds - and a dopple-ganger mother - who miraculously entered adulthood with almost identical facial features, (enough to make all these witnesses positive it was Oswald at any rate), yet you blanche at the idea that tonsils may grow back! And cite personal experience as proof.

The most pertinent question asked on this thread so far is this. Of all the coincidences, sightings, discrepancies, and 'confusing' documents...are there ANY that can be innocently explained? Or does EVERY single example fit into the Harvey Lee paradigm?

Here's a non confrontational way of asking John Armstrong's supporters to lay out any doubts they may have with this or that portion of his story. Don has already said he can't see how it could possibly fit into what we now know about Oswald's means of escape. That's an honest admission Don. Maybe others have similar niggling doubts about one or two of the witnesses/documents etc... Or are we saying that not one single iota can be construed in any other way than that laid out by Armstrong?

Because that would be unreasonable wouldn't it? All that work and not a single error? So where do his supporters think he may have erred?

I've been here a few times before. I ask a reasonable question about this and instead of answers I will be showered with abuse...