Jim Hargrove

TWO MARGUERITE OSWALDS -- NEW DETAILS

550 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

8 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Thomas G

The use of two Oswalds narrows down the number of entities that could have plotted the assassination. That is important.

Forget about where the two Oswalds came from or how they just happened to be in Dealey Plaza, or if Armstrong is right or wrong.  

In his post prior to this one, Tommy clearly dodges the question in his "answer," but tries to answer a question no one asked, and he continues to try to diminish the treachery of CIA personnel by hiding behind the “mole hunt” excuse that he wants us to believe excuses the culpability of several Agency personnel in the framing of “Lee Harvey Oswald” for the assassination of JFK.

In the Roman/Hood/Karamessines/Whitten cable of 10/10/63 the individual misidentified as “Lee Henry Oswald” suddenly becomes the “Lee Oswald who called sovemb 1 Oct,” in other words, the patsy-to-be: “Lee Harvey Oswald.”  That Oswald is described as “FIVE FEET TEN INCHES, ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE POUNDS” may appear to be disinformation, and may be, but it is also close to the description from his Marine Corps records of American-born LEE Harvey Oswald, who was about two inches taller and huskier than Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald.  More importantly, this is the cable that connects "Lee Henry Oswald" with the "Oswald" allegedly at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, and it attempts to rehabilitate “Oswald’s” reputation. 
 
In reference to FBI supervisor Marvin Gheesling’s removal of "Oswald" from the watch list, Bill Simpich concluded a post in another thread with this chilling paragraph:

Gheesling's decision to take Oswald off the watch list effectively dimmed the lights around Oswald. It meant that Oswald would not be watched in Dallas with close scrutiny in situations involving national security, such as when JFK came to town in a motorcade. If Gheesling had waited another day, Oswald would have been in the spotlight. Dallas agents would have been on him like white on rice.

So was all this just a couple of ghastly errors that helped unknown bad players make a patsy out of “Oswald,” or was it something even more sinister?  The answers to that question came fast starting on November 23, 1963, when David Atlee Phillips and several other CIA personnel start making every effort they can to connect “Lee Harvey Oswald” with the Cuban government, undoubtedly hoping to blame the assassination on Castro and ultimately provoke a U.S. invasion of Cuba.

For example, on November 25 Phillips' associate Gilberta Alvarado Ugarte walked into the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City and claimed he had been in the Cuban Embassy in MC on September 18, 1963. He told officials that he witnessed Oswald receive $6500 in cash from a "Negro with red hair" inside the Cuban consulate to kill President Kennedy.

Alvarado’s date was wrong, and his entire story was bs, but Phillips backed up Alvarado’s character and claims in a half dozen or so CIA cables, several written under false names.  There are other examples of this subterfuge, including Phillips’ own vicious attempts to have Cuban Consulate employee Silvia Duran forced by Mexican DFS to confess to a sexual relationship with “Lee Harvey Oswald” and portray it all as part of a communist conspiracy organized Cuba.  

From American-born LEE Oswald’s meeting in Dallas in August ‘63 with Maurice Bishop/David Phillips (while HARVEY Oswald was still in New Orleans) to the endless lies the CIA issued immediately after the assassination and for decades later (George Joannides, anyone?) you ain’t gonna explain Oswald and the CIA as just a mole hunt to me, despite Bill Simpich’s excellent work.  Richard Case Nagell may have been one weird guy, but he clearly had foreknowledge  about the plot to kill JFK, and the CIA clearly ignored his warnings. 

And don’t forget that the Kennedy Administration and the CIA were clearly at war just weeks before the assassination, as shown in the infamous Arthur Krock defense of the Agency in the Oct. 3, 1963 New York Times.
 

Krock_CIA.jpeg?dl=0

Edited by Jim Hargrove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Do you seriously believe an exhumation of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” remains was done without involving the U.S. Government?  Or the subsequent long-delayed report?

There was no involvement of the federal government, the exhumation was done at the behest of a private individual. The 4 forensic physicians worked for various government entities, but the vast majority of forensic people do. It takes a leap of logic to believe that these individuals could be controlled by the CIA or whoever. The mysterious 27 month "delay" in the publication of the report has been addressed by DiMaio, even though what the delay was supposed to achieve from the point of the conspiracy is unclear. Anyway, DiMaio stated:

“The critics are unfamiliar with medical publications ... It usually takes a year or two from submission to publication. It often takes months to write the article such that everyone is in agreement with the manuscript.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, right, and the Warren Commission "was the greatest examination of evidence in the history of mankind."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

two unrelated adolescent boys (with, by definition, two different mothers), chosen by the CIA to somehow grow up looking nearly identical, facially, so that they can participate, one wittingly, the other not, whenever their services are eventually needed in some doppelganger-based "black op" once they've grown up, in this case some ten years down the road.

Great points made here Tommy, but I would add that when they were about 14, Armstrong tells us that they looked very different. "Harvey" was 4'8" and scrawny, almost like a concentration camp survivor, while "Lee" was husky and 5'4". But the CIA somehow knew these boys were eventually going to grow up to look enough alike for their nefarious future plans. Now seriously, who can believe that nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Tracy....

Since you’re once again busy pointing everywhere but here, why don’t you take this opportunity between endless links elsewhere to put into your own words what error led the WC to publish school records indicating “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended PS 44 in New York City at the very same time he attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans?

Instead of pointing to Greg Parker’s non-explanations, why not use your own words right here?  Just be specific about how the "error" occurred.

Just pointing out for the tenth time or so that you simply can’t  do it….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hey, Tracy....

Since you’re once again busy pointing everywhere but here, why don’t you take this opportunity between endless links elsewhere to put into your own words what error led the WC to publish school records indicating “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended PS 44 in New York City at the very same time he attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans?

Instead of pointing to Greg Parker’s non-explanations, why not use your own words right here?  Just be specific about how the "error" occurred.

Just pointing out for the tenth time or so that you simply can’t  do it….

For the tenth time, Greg Parker has offered an explanation-you simply disagree with it. I offer no explanation beyond what he has except the records are wrong, or being misread. The fact that you don't agree with me doesn't prove 2 Oswalds, in fact, the totality of the evidence proves their weren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also for the tenth time, the fact that you cannot put Parker’s “explanation” into your own words here clearly shows that you are embarrassed by it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As most members here know, I am not a conspiracy believer. Jim Hargrove may think I am a disinformation agent employed by the CIA (as Armstrong mentor Jack White did) and therefore I should not be listened to. But many conspiracy believers likewise do not buy into the H&L theory. Three prominent examples are:

David Lifton

Lifton does not believe the H&L theory and has criticized it here at EF. He interviewed Palmer McBride before Armstrong got a hold of him and McBride recanted his beliefs about when his experiences with LHO occurred:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html

Jeremy Bojczuk

Jeremy has also criticized H&L here at the EF. He has an excellent overview of the subject here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory

Greg Parker

Parker is one of the most vocal critics of H&L. See his archive which is critical of the theory here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

[steaming hot spaghetti]

"Dear James"

Why don't you and Josephs and Armstrong just indict the whole evil CIA from top-to-bottom for the assassination of JFK?

Because doing so would force you to curtail the nice little cottage industries you guys have rigged up?

Or do you reasonably expect to be able, within the next fifty years or so, to point the finger at and "convict," with overwhelming evidence, the 5,000 or so evil people who were directly involved?

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree with Graves about Oswald  being impersonated  but not the fairy tale version.

The Leon Oswald sightings, the guy shooting  wildly at a shooting  range, and the car dealership incident  are all examples  of someone  going  around  making and doing  outrageous  claims to memorialize  the events months later.

And Hargrove's posted photo of an Oswald  look a like watching  a burlesque show in Ruby's  nightclub  is an example  of being  where he probably  wasn't  supposed  to be seen. What are the odds of a look  a like being  in an establishment  owned by the guy who  ends up killing  mastoid Oswald  on 11/24?

But  as Graves  said this  impersonation  was all part of the plan, NOT the silly fairy tale espoused  by Armstrong.

And sadly folks on EF will continue  to  fall for the craziness of it. What  was Barnum's famous quote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Great points made here Tommy, but I would add that when they were about 14, Armstrong tells us that they looked very different. "Harvey" was 4'8" and scrawny, almost like a concentration camp survivor, while "Lee" was husky and 5'4". But the CIA somehow knew these boys were eventually going to grow up to look enough alike for their nefarious future plans. Now seriously, who can believe that nonsense?

Tracy,

I kinda feel sorry for Armstrong.  He's on a very difficult "mission".

He has to convince "newbies" that Harvey and Lee looked quite different so he can show that they, indeed, were two different guys, but on the other hand he's gotta show that they looked quite similar in order to explain how they were able to convince so many people that there was only one of them -- sometimes that "one of them" being Harvey, and at other times that "one of them" being Lee.

And then he has to deal with the Two Marguerites (OMG) in a similar fashion!

LOL

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
I can't help it; the Agency made me do it. (lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear George,

If I agree that Craig saw an Oswald lookalike acting suspiciously after the assassination, how does that preclude my believing that four other people may have seen the same person acting suspiciously (or not) in Dallas that day?

But more importantly, why does that person have to have been involved in some improbable. very long-term CIA-run doppelganger project?

--  Tommy :sun 

So, Tommy, we're just arguing about the duration of the Two Oswalds project, eh?  You're walking a delicate line here, as evidence by your editing of the post above, and so I feel kind of sorry for you being in the tough position you're in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

So, Tommy, we're just arguing about the duration of the Two Oswalds project, eh?  You're walking a delicate line here, as evidence by your editing of the post above, and so I feel kind of sorry for you being in the tough position you're in.

"Dear James"

Don't get all paranoid on me again.

I'm a compulsive editor of my own, and sometimes other people's writings (depending on what my handler at Langley tells me to do, of course).

It's an obsession for me (probably due to all of those Agency-financed lobotomies I've had), and IMHO, THEY are very wise to make use of my ... disability .... in such a "creative" way.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now