Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[David Josephs]

Don Jeffries, on 14 May 2015 - 1:56 PM, said:

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.

H&L is neither convoluted or complex – there are hundreds of documents which reveal conflicts with who and where Oswald was during most of his life – they are laid out chronologically with extensive footnotes and sources.

Only those who do not wish to do the work – like you – are so overwhelmed by the work. The WCR is a convoluted and complex attempt at hiding fact within mountains of crap with footnotes that lead in circles and sources which do not say what they are intended to and yet it can be analyzed and be seen for what it is. H&L is a monument to the lies the FBI and WC created to incriminate a man. Along the way another story, another secret appears to have surfaced.

We’re still so sorry it remains out of your reach – but I’m sure you’ll keep trying, talking about your own work does not seem to be as fruitful or garner the attention you se crave

Asperger’s cannot have him be in two places at once. Asperger’s does not explain the avoidance of the WC to stay away from those who knew a different LEE than others… Gorsky, Felde, Donovan, the list goes on and on.

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".

So you will now claim that when the marines discharge someone and give him an ending physical, they don’t measure his height? Does 71" equate to 5'11" down under or do they have a different measuring system?

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?

No Greg, it means that something is not right. And when the backstory emerges of who George was and who Ruth was and how unlikely their association was… we take a closer look.

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? See above

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 hundreds and hundreds of examples in the thousands of notebooks at Baylor which did not make it to the book. Since you never actually READ the book or looked at a handful of notebooks – how would you know?

Most do NOT fall apart with the documentation. Only your arguments fall apart with the sources you provide. Case in point we discussed the 53-54 school years and you throw a dozen witnesses and sources at me and ALL were for 54-55 with nary a question about the years discussed. That is your MO Greg… The thousands of items evidence in H&L come from a variety of sources…. Does every word in H&L represent full authenticated evidence? Of course not – yet well more of his evidence is authentic than any of your rebuttals have every offered.

There are huge discrepancies regarding Oswald's height,

No there isn't.

Yes Greg, there is. Huge may be an overstatement but the two men identified as H&L in photos look similar yet are different sizes, shapes and heights.

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.

All you have is attacking the relationships that Kudlaty had with the author to impeach the testimony and story he tells? You don’t bother with the related facts of those seeing Oswald at 2220 Thomas, of playing with him at Stripling. You don’t have to believe Kudlaty… that’s up to you. Your inability to understand the fraud in the school records is just you covering your ears and chanting “no, nope no, nope…” When you can show how there are 125+ school days between March 23 and May 30 1953 and the child only missed 15 days while being at Youth House during April and May – we’re all ears.

That you don’t like a witness or their relationship to the situation does not make them wrong – you need to PROVE the evidence which supports their story is not authentic – and you NEVER do that.

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.

We don’t deny it – you simply refuse to accept that you MAY be wrong about the regrowth – but since H&L is not possible in your world, the tonsils MUST grow back. Even though you cannot prove either. What we do have is a tonsillectomy in 1945 and tonsillitis in 1957 while the child with the regrown tonsils did not have a single reported incidence of problems with his tonsils or throat until he joins the Marines.

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.

You did? How could you have found anyone if there is no connection? These the men from Hungary as written about in the FBI report from Mrs Jack Tippit of CT? It is not possible of course that immigrant children were not cared for by men who could be called “father” or “uncle” and have no direct relationship other than to care for and prepare the child for whatever was needed…

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?

The “high school riots” argument again? Yes, In Sept of 1956 Oswald was at Arlington HS yet in late 1955 or early 1956 he and MO moved to San Diego for 6 months where Harvey works as a delivery boy. Take it for what it is… disprove it if you can.

Laura Kittrell, who worked for the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) interviewed

Harvey Oswald in October 1963, and he told her about his move to California.

He said, "It was before I went into the Marines. It was when I was just sixteen (he

turned 16 on October 18, 1955). I had this messenger-boy job in California. It was a

motor-scooter messenger-boy job, but I worked in the office too, filing and taking care

of the mail. It was for an investment company, and I worked there six months. The name

of it was the ETI Realty Company."

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.

Curious Greg… how do you know this was not just some stated height like the ones you claim for Oswald’s 5’11” height? Who measured Ekdahl to arrive at this 3” shorter figure? You saying it does not make it so Greg… show the evidence and make a real case.

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?

Yes, I can Greg but you have no interest in big picture discussion, you want to see how many threads you can find and keep pulling until one does what you what it to…

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?

The Post assassination movements are a mix of evidence and speculation – JA has freely admitted this… Since no one knows exactly what happened, when or how we use the available evidence – which you still have not bothered to read or review in full but only cherry-pick when a thread turns up bare – and piece a scenario together.

Does it not dawn on you that the book was written 15 years ago and new things have been learned to either improve upon or refute the things in the book. Whether he decides to revise and release an updated version is up to him. That’s what he is using the website for at this point. All you seem to be doing is trying to sell your book and argue.

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!

Whatever…

"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.

As you notice Greg, your name is nowhere to be seen. No one seems to care enough about what you are doing to even bother discussing it.

Putting Lifton and Bugliosi in the same category just proves how convoluted your thinking has become. If the great and powerful Parker disagrees it must be kook time – and then you spend weeks making hollow arguments that are easily dismissed.

Post your own work here Greg. Let us pull the threads of YOUR work for a few months… the assumptions you jump to, the speculation you present as facts… the dots you connect that are not even on the same page…

“According to Oliver Lee, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii”

I sent the man a note – be interesting to get his take on you and the use of his work. From which “thesis” does Lee’s work that you use come from – you know, a footnote or document reference so we can see if you are true to your source… like the thousands of footnotes and docs offered by JA.

Present and Defend YOUR work for a while – or is that simply too much exposure for you to risk – might hurt book sales or something? Or is it the simple fact that no one really cares about the work you’re doing while H&L remains at the forefront of conversation and research… and remains the only way people are interested in what you post…

How are the eBook sales coming? Maybe if the sample chapter was actually about Oswald (his name is mentioned only once yet is in the title of the book) instead of everything else you could find to throw in you might get some interest… ??

[Steven Gaal]

"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?" //

--------------------------------

I am a semi pro musician and jobbing actor from Hull East Yorkshire in the north of England. I used to be a sales manager in the once mighty local fishing industry, and I ran my own tapas bar in Spain for a couple of years.

I am married to Yvonne and we have been together for 35 years. We have an amazing 27 yr old daughter and an incredibly boisterous English Springer Spaniel puppy called Charlie.

I first became interested in the JFK assassination over 30 years ago yet despite reading dozens of books and thousands of essays, articles, and forum posts...I haven't a clue what really happened! But more and more I am slowly learning what didn't happen and what couldn't have happened. That's a start. // LAVERICK

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Yes the ref given is for tonsils removed in the USA. Those poor Brits don't seem to know one organ from another !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o

Edited May 15, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[David Josephs]

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

Of course there are Bernie (I guess Greg needed more ROKC help so he called in the big guns)

Why not go into the book yourself and post the best 100 of these "instances" that you think are innocent coincidences and we'll see.

There is no possible way that H&L can be correct on each and every point. Yet as I search the PDF I find words like "theory -ize" "speculate -ative" "possible -ly" in hundreds of instances.

Could tonsils grow back... of course

Can a man go from 5'9" 135 to 5'11" 150 in the Marines from age 17 to 20? of course

can he then shrink back to 5'9" 135 for his autopsy?

Could there be examples of other C20-T750 orders that show Kleins shipping a 40" rifle to everyone - yes, but the microfilm is gone and no other information was even looked at.

Could Palmer and the others at Pfisterer's be wrong about the timing... sure. Yet if H&L is real then they could also be right about the timing... especially since there are records of an Oswald in Japan at the time.

Again, do people SHRINK by as much as they say here?

p170-171

NOTE: In July, 2003 JFK researcher Bill Kelley interviewed Richard A. Bullock, who 170 knew Lee Oswald in Japan. Bullock knew him as "Ozzie," and said he was 30-40 pounds heavier and 3-4 inches taller than the man accused of killing President Kennedy.Bullock said the Oswald he knew in Japan was not man accused of killing the President.

p171

Peter Francis Connor was another Marine who lived in the same barracks as

Lee Oswald, but not in the same cubicle. Connor told the FBI, "He did not know

anyone who was close friends with Oswald and knew little about him."7° Connor never

heard anyone say that Oswald had anti-American or pro-Communist sentiments, but did recall

that Oswald was a troublemaker and engaged in fights. He said that Oswald was a pretty

good worker, but remembered that he was very sloppy. Connor remembered that Oswald

wore an expert rifleman's medal and that his nickname was "Oz" (the same nickname

remembered by Dan Powers, Richard Cyr, Zack Stout, and Richard Bullock). On occasion,

some of the Marines would call Oswald by the name "Harv," which upset him.71

Connor was not interviewed by the Commission.

Were Azcue and Druan lying when they said the man Ruby killed was not in their embassy? (Neither H or L)

I guess what I and the other H&L supporters would like to understand is whether or not 1% 5% 10% of the info offered is believed to be inconsistent with the conclusion - does this completely obliterate that conclusion? I will ask the same question back to you Bernie

Can JA and H&L be 100% wrong in every instance ? Can all these documents and testimonials be part of some scheme to promote a theory which took a man 10 years and hundred of thousands of his own dollars to compile - for what purpose?

He was a wealthy, happy man well before getting the itch from the Palmer interview. Sometimes the evidence itself leads the charge as it does with the Mexico City trip I worked on.

What the real truth is will remain unknown since the Evidence IS the Conspiracy...

So I ask you - can you offer a single argument AGAINST H&L that does not require us to have faith in the symptoms of Asperger's. Sorry, but Asperger's does not explain the obvious differences with these two men

We don't know how much of H&L's early history is real or created but we do know that more FBI time and effort is concentrated on Oswald's childhood than any other accused man in history... that Kudlaty claims the FBI showed us less than 8 hours after Oswald is accused of the JFK murder and Pfisterer's is visited less than a few days after the assassination.

What could possibly be learned at Stripling and Pfisterer's from the mid 50's that would help the investigation which was a sham to begin with? CYA for the FBI and "friends" is just as plausible given the era as any other explanation and actually carries with it more proof than any other options.

You can argue the points away - but you can't argue ALL of them away and be convincing.

We found that 99% of the info offered in the WCR and HSCA is pure junk.

If H&L is 85% accurate with 15% misguided speculation - does that mean H&L is no longer possible?

Even 50/50... what about 25%?

The EVIDENCE and follow up interviews tell a compelling story that corroborates each other repeatedly. But Aspergers and some tonsil regrowth does not explain away the mountain of conflict left behind and it is insulting to all of us for that to be the cornerstone of an intelligent and documented rebuttal - when it is simply one man's undocumented guess.

[Bernie Laverick]

"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?" //

--------------------------------

I am a semi pro musician and jobbing actor from Hull East Yorkshire in the north of England. I used to be a sales manager in the once mighty local fishing industry, and I ran my own tapas bar in Spain for a couple of years.

I am married to Yvonne and we have been together for 35 years. We have an amazing 27 yr old daughter and an incredibly boisterous English Springer Spaniel puppy called Charlie.

I first became interested in the JFK assassination over 30 years ago yet despite reading dozens of books and thousands of essays, articles, and forum posts...I haven't a clue what really happened! But more and more I am slowly learning what didn't happen and what couldn't have happened. That's a start. // LAVERICK

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Yes the ref given is for tonsils removed in the USA. Those poor Brits don't seem to know one organ from another !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o

Thanks for posting my bio, and thanks for the considered response. It isn't in any way an odd post, or disturbingly bizarre; perfectly normal in fact, like all your other ones Steven.

Ok, back on Planet Earth, which small part of Harvey and Lee do you think Armstrong may have got wrong Steven? Or is absolutely everything rock solid, factually correct, and with not even one small piddling mistake? Do you have ANY criticism at all of his conclusions? If so, what?

Hope you can provide an answer.

Regards

P.S. Posting my bio provoked me to take a brief look at yours. I notice you say you "follow the Lord". I bet his first name begins with a J!

[Paul Trejo]

...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...

Actually, I side with Greg on this important point. It is too easy to make too much of the many "sightings" of Lee Harvey Oswald reported after 11/22/1963.

It's almost like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster.

As an interesting case in point, let's review the only chapter in "Harvey and Lee" which focuses on Mexico City. Here we have two opposite "official" accounts of Oswald, namely:

(I) Mexican Immigration records along with Oswald's application for a Visa to Cuba, complete with his photograph, declare that Oswald arrived in Mexico as a passenger in a car, and that he truly did visit the Cuban Consulate there.

(II) FBI records that say Oswald entered and existed Mexico City as a "Lone Nut" by bus.

Based on these two "official" accounts, John Armstrong could invent a double-Oswald in Mexico City, simply by taking both accounts at face value. In addition to these, Armstrong also had to respond to the following details:

(1) Some mole in the CIA tried to Impersonate Oswald at the Mexico City Cuban Consulate (cf. Bill Simpich)

(2) Fictions about a love affair between Oswald and Silvia Duran filled the Mexican newspapers for weeks.

(3) J. Edgar Hoover opposed all these factors because they contradicted his "Lone Nut" theory of Oswald.

(4) J. Edgar Hoover ordered the FBI to tamper with all the Mexico City evidence until it matched a "Lone Nut" Oswald.

Because the data that Hoover's FBI manufactured became the Official USA position on Oswald, and because the data of Mexican Immigration and Consulate scandals suggest that Oswald was never alone for one hour in Mexico City, we have two opposite -- and official -- stories of Oswald in Mexico City.

There were three possible solutions:

(i) That Hoover lied, and there really was no Lone Nut who rode a bus to Mexico City (so Mexican Immigration was right);

(ii) That the Mexican Immigration service, and the CIA Mole-Hunt, were incompetent and mistaken (so Hoover was right);

(iii) That Hoover, the Mexican Officials and the CIA, all told the truth (so everybody was right).

John Armstrong sides with (iii) and rightly notes that the only logical solution to the scenario in which both Hoover and Mexican authorities were correct in their reports is that there were TWO OSWALDS, in other words, Harvey and Lee.

In my view, this would have been Armstrong's strongest case for a double-Oswald theory.

However, since I maintain solution (i), that Hoover deliberately lied (as proved by Wrone's putative FBI memo of 4pm EST 11/22/1963), then there is no need -- and therefore no logic -- to support a double-Oswald theory in the Mexico City case.

To further support Greg's observation, the five English-speaking witnesses who claimed to see OSWALD on their bus to Mexico City, offered testimony that crumbles upon cross-examination.

{a} The two young ladies from Australia admitted that their "Oswald" never told them his name -- ever.

{b} Osborne was an obsessive xxxx.

{c} Dr. John Bryan McFarland and his wife Maryl claimed that Oswald merely repeated the FBI standard claim: "I am Lee Harvey Oswald, officer of the NOLA FPCC, on my way to see Castro," and said nothing else to them; period.

Clearly these five "sighting witnesses" were all trying to please their FBI handlers who were seeking promotions from Hoover for pushing his "Lone Nut" nonsense.

Insofar as I may be correct, then we may also suspect many (if not most) other OSWALD "sightings" to be instances of FBI agents fishing for "potentials," and reporting them as "actuals".

The whole idea of the FBI was to forge, forge, forge data for Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory.

It's just this simple -- Hoover lied. The WC conclusion was a lie. The "Lone Nut" theory was an urban myth.

Now, suddenly, there is only one Lee Harvey Oswald, once again. As Jon Tidd said, knowing this man is the key; and Marina Oswald is our living key.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Bernie Laverick]

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

Of course there are Bernie (I guess Greg needed more ROKC help so he called in the big guns)

As predicted...I saw this and refused to read any further. First line in and the insults start, just as I had pre-warned. You're on your own David. I was hoping Jim may have wanted to engage. He seems a lot more knowledgeable about H&L than you and he doesn't have that abrasive aggression you import into all these discussions. I'm not biting!

So I'd like to address the question directly to John Armstrong's 1st lieutenant and most eloquent exponent if that's ok? Jim is there any part of JA's work, which made it into the book, that in the light of new research may contain errors? If so, which?

I hope you can respond with courtesy. I genuinely want to know whether you have ANY doubts whatsoever. Surely it would be highly unusual for someone to write a 1,000 page book on a subject of this complexity and over a 25 year period find that not one error has emerged that could offer a different explanation, wouldn't it?

So what bits, with the benefit of hindsight, did JA get wrong?

[Greg Parker]

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.

My information has been that you are NOT measured upon leaving the services. Are you disputing that?

[Greg Parker]

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.

Those are not direct quotes from Malone. It is YOUR interpretation - - and it is wrong.

[Paul Trejo]

...So what bits, with the benefit of hindsight, did JA get wrong?

Please see and remark on my post #87.

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

When I wrote that understanding Oswald was key to understanding the assassination, I meant that understanding Marina's husband was key. He was the individual whom history has indicted as JFK's killer.

FWIW, I believe there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds, based on photographs, medical records, school records, military records, and so on. I do not believe the two were singled out and managed by the CIA as boys.

I do believe their histories and identities were merged by the FBI post-assassination. For the reason you advance -- to paint Marina's husband as the only "Oswald", so that he could be depicted successfully as a lone nut.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

When I wrote that understanding Oswald was key to understanding the assassination, I meant that understanding Marina's husband was key. He was the individual whom history has indicted as JFK's killer.

FWIW, I believe there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds, based on photographs, medical records, school records, military records, and so on. I do not believe the two were singled out and managed by the CIA as boys.

I do believe their histories and identities were merged by the FBI post-assassination. For the reason you advance -- to paint Marina's husband as the only "Oswald", so that he could be depicted successfully as a lone nut.

OK, Jon, I didn't realize you were a Double-Oswald advocate.

I myself see no verifiable evidence whatsoever that leads me to such a conclusion. The theory of "mistaken identity" is far more useful in sighting cases involving super-famous or super-infamous persons in history.

As Greg Parker noted, virtually all of the "sightings" of Lee Harvey Oswald reported after 11/22/1963 quickly crumble upon closer scrutiny.

FWIW, I agree with you that Marina's husband remains the key to unlocking the JFK murder mystery, though I speak from the Single-Oswald theory.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Steven Gaal]

Thanks for posting my bio, and thanks for the considered response. It isn't in any way an odd post, or disturbingly bizarre; perfectly normal in fact, like all your other ones Steven.

Ok, back on Planet Earth, which small part of Harvey and Lee do you think Armstrong may have got wrong Steven? Or is absolutely everything rock solid, factually correct, and with not even one small piddling mistake? Do you have ANY criticism at all of his conclusions? If so, what?

Hope you can provide an answer.

Regards

P.S. Posting my bio provoked me to take a brief look at yours. I notice you say you "follow the Lord". I bet his first name begins with a J! // LAVERICK

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Golly Laverick great detective !! Begins with J !! very good !! (GAAL)

=================================================

I wish Armstrong had investigated Leslie Welding and Ekdahl in a deeper fashion. (GAAL)
======================================================================================

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6017&p=285893
=

BLOGGER leslie sharp says:

March 29, 2013 at 3:26 pm

In 1963, Zeppa sat on the board of Lone Star Steel along with several of Dallas’ most powerful bankers. It is odd that Lone Star’s direct bank however was American National Bank and Trust of Chicago, coincidentally the same banker used by Ero Manufacturing, employer of Lawrence V. Meyers. Through ANBT there is also a direct link to Leslie Welding in Ft. Worth.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Leslie Welding in Ft. Worth. (employer Lee Harvey Oswald)

see link

http://jfkassassinat...mony/bargas.htm

0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o

1.Further Issues and Serious Fraud Instances: Thirty-Two Articles ... - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=059586399X

Sally Ramage - ‎2006 - 261 pages

One was Helliwell; he was involved with the CIA, and was a well-known political
... at the American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago were found in ...

2.[PDF] Assignment Assumption and Amendment of CIA (00120942).DOC

ww2.vbg.org/.../Contingent%20Infra%20Agrmt%20Amended%203-26-2012%20Exhib%20I.pdf
‎

•Cached
Mar 26, 2012 ... National Association, successor trustee to American National Bank and Trust
Company of Chicago, as. Trustee under Trust Agreement dated ...
3.Florida Risk Planning Consultants, Inc. v. Transport Life Insurance ...

https://www.courtlis...sultants-inc-v-transport-/
‎

•Cached
Apr 20, 1984 ... American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Cross-Appellee v. ...
Thus CIA acted as a conduit between FRP and Transport.

•Follow The Yellow Brick Road: Part Two | Scoop News
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0204/S00030.htm
‎

•Cached
Apr 5, 2002 ... Mrs. Ferdinand is the daughter of Albert Carone, a CIA-Mafia ..... came from the
American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago.
1 - TechNewsWorldwww.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?&www...org... ‎

1.

•Cached
Word that the Pentagon and CIA are using bank records to actively spy on ... with
American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago to June 15th. Notably ...

###############
###############
###############

Who Was Edwin Albert Ekdahl, Stepfather of Lee Harvey Oswald? >>>> see below link
======================================================================

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?10872-Who-Was-Edwin-Albert-Ekdahl-Stepfather-of-Lee-Harvey-Oswald

=================================================
Seems LHO can be made up out of whole cloth. (GAAL)

========================================================================================== Edited May 15, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[David Josephs]

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

Of course there are Bernie (I guess Greg needed more ROKC help so he called in the big guns)

As predicted...I saw this and refused to read any further. First line in and the insults start, just as I had pre-warned. You're on your own David. I was hoping Jim may have wanted to engage. He seems a lot more knowledgeable about H&L than you and he doesn't have that abrasive aggression you import into all these discussions. I'm not biting!

So I'd like to address the question directly to John Armstrong's 1st lieutenant and most eloquent exponent if that's ok? Jim is there any part of JA's work, which made it into the book, that in the light of new research may contain errors? If so, which?

I hope you can respond with courtesy. I genuinely want to know whether you have ANY doubts whatsoever. Surely it would be highly unusual for someone to write a 1,000 page book on a subject of this complexity and over a 25 year period find that not one error has emerged that could offer a different explanation, wouldn't it?

So what bits, with the benefit of hindsight, did JA get wrong?

Okay - if calling you a "big gun" in the research community is an insult, fine.

Believe it or not I was agreeing with you - the question you don't like is - are you of the opinion that 100% of H&L is wrong... That JA did not get a single thing correct in all the documents and interviews... and that each and every instance of conflict has a benign explanation.

If not, then please post what you see as NOT incorrect about H&L - where the conflicts cannot be explained by anything other than two men... I posted a handful in the post you refused to read...

No matter... pretty sure that all of us aint gonna learn what we dont wanna know... nor is any of this discussion going to convince either side the other has merit... at the end of the day though, we post authenticated evidence and the speculation based on it.

You can't seem to get around to posting anything which actually supports your case...

Wonder why that is ???

Jim Hargrove can handle you and what little you bring to the H&L table just fine. that you miss the entire point of the book and research is what's most disappointing...

ta-ta

[Greg Parker]

Your shameless self-promotion on virtually every post and every forum to try and sell volumes of your work betrays your agenda...

What poppycock and piffle!

I wasn't the one who rebooted this thread urging people to go read HardlyLee.nut, the website selling Armstrong's theory and his book, was I?

Moreover, when I was a member at DeepFooFoo.orgy, you guys were urging - nay - BEGGING me talk about my book so I would stop humiliating you over the hardlylee theory. When I REFUSED to talk about my book unless someone asked a specific question about it, and continued replying to the garbage being spouted about the historical figure of Lee Harvey Oswald, I was booted.

To quote Carmine S. "Keep trying".

[Greg Parker]

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.

You keep claiming it is unimportant because it is only a very small part of his book. That's like saying lies are okay, so long as they don't take up pages upon pages in being told.

You also made a huge issue out of it at HardlyLee.nut, by proclaiming the tonsils must have been magic -- in BIG GARISH LETTERING so no one could possibly miss it.

As for what you claim to have provided in the past... I'm sorry - but I honestly don't recall it.

Here is what I have provided in the past:

Under normal circumstances, tonsils and adenoids tend to grow at a fairly steady rate until a person is about 8 years of age. At this point, they begin to shrink. Adenoids pretty much disappear by adulthood. Understanding how the tonsils and adenoids normally function and grow may help you determine if your tonsils are likely to grow back or not. For more information, read:

What are the Tonsils?

What are the Adenoids?

Given the amount of time it takes for tissue to regenerate and a naturally limited growth period, it is unlikely that, should your tonsils grow back, they will ever grow back to their original size.

If you had your adenoids removed at the same time as your tonsils, it is more likely that they will grow back than your tonsils. While I have cared for patients who are having a second adenoidectomy, I have never cared for someone, or even known someone, who has had to have their tonsils removed more than once in a lifetime. If you know someone whose tonsils have grown back, they probably had their tonsils removed many years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonsillectomy

Also check out pages 15, 16 and 17 here

https://www.ntuh.gov.tw/ENT/DocLib7/History%20of%20Tonsillectomy%2020050914.pdf

Edited May 15, 2015 by Greg Parker