Jump to content
The Education Forum

A few Harvey & Lee questions


Recommended Posts

This is a verbatim post from a thread pulled towards H&L that needn't have been. I find these points to be some of the more direct to show conflict between the FBI's reporting of the situation and the actual situation. The fact remains that records exist of a small boy being reviewed at Youth House - no where near the boy Lee was. These days on the NYC perm record need not be exact, but they ought to make sense.

In a 180 day, 2-90 day - 4.5 month per semester school year, can a portion of one semester be 127 days? and not ANY 127 days but a time that the Pics and Oswalds describe in such contrasting detail as to what happens to Lee, where and when they visit, who they see, where they live, what Marg does... and on and on.

Please be clear - H&L from 1952 thru early 1963 had nothing to do with JFK's assassination. What the CIA was doing and why is hard to see, let alone understand. If they can fire a dart which leaves no trace, contemplate and execute some of the grossest atrocities to justify an elusive end... H&L is really so far from the path as to be ridiculed?

then shout out to Jon Tidd and from where this post came - the cover-up does indeed continue to this very second.

and thank you Steve and Don for having my back.... ampersands and all.. :up

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

Lee -

I respect your POV and the manner in which you present it.

If a certain researcher did not explore the autopsy as completely as he did we may still be accepting the fraudulent xrays and photos as authentic. We may never have gotten around to fathoming that Rear Admiral Galloway would ORDER the doctors to destroy this Best Evidence in favor of evidence that was needed...

Could we ever expect to contemplate that JFK's body arrived 90 minutes before it did officially, that he may have even been operated on in the belly of AF-1. That the damage as we now get to see it has literally nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza - yet researchers will still refer to these autopsy conclusions as if they represented the crime and not the conspiracy.

Do I need to agree with every page, every speculative conclusion? of course not and I don't. If you've gone to all the work to understand what was offered and conclude it not to be supportive of the final conclusion - BRAVO! That's the beauty of the case and imo the intent of the Conspiracy. Many explanations can be correct. The Evidence offeres a view into history yet only a partial view - the non-governmental efforts of individuals like Lifton and Armstrong adds immeasurably to the knowledge base and to the testing of the theories.

I find the wholesale exclusion of marines who would have stayed with LEE in favor of those who were with Harvey very compelling.

I find the conflicts in the timelines along with glaring evidence of the same man in two places simultaneously more than "minutia"

The acceptance and understanding of H&L requires one to drop their preconceived notions of right and wrong and enter the world of spies, military black ops and the MilitaryIndustrialCongressionalComplex. To firmly conclude it as an "absurdity" with the thinnest of rebuttals does everyone a disservice.

I do not happen to subscribe to much of the POST assassination travels of Lee and Harvey as offered by John. Some of it makes sense, most does not TO ME. What that has to do with 10 years prior and the events in NYC, IDK. The boy looking like a scrawny 4'9" at the end of the summer of 1953 when he was 5'4" 115lbs in the winter of 1951 in 6th grade. These are not the same boy: (edit/correction: the 5'4" 115lbs comes from the entrance physical to PS117 in Sept 1952)

And John is simply too stupid to know his brother.

Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that?
Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.

Bronx%20Zoo%20HARVEY%20full%20picture%20

When I started my Mexico work I believed it was LEE who had traveled to Mexico for a number of compelling reasons. Over the past months I come to find that it is possible that LEE was in a car with others going to and from Mexico City - it is alos possible it was not Lee and possible that no one took this trip. It is also most likely that the person the travel is attributed to is not the same person pretending to be Oswald on Sept 27th.

Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0418a.htm 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.

So okay Lee, you can point to minutia that you say does not support the H&L conclusion.

I feel like I can point to and show mountains of significant evidence which proves it correct.

I ask people like Greg to read the book so he can address the topic with some credibility and intelligence, not to spout off ideas he has about doctors in 1945 or school records he cannot comprehend. I do not dismiss his arguments for lack of reading the book - but for lack of substance and source. Whenever he does offer a source - it's wrong and/or does not address the rebuttal he offers. (the boy had a tonsilectomy while the dead man has intact tonsils... did they grow back? well, maybe, if that was the one and only singular piece of evidence which creates a conflict between the boy born Lee Oswald and the man Ruby killed - but it's not. and just like PM by the doorway possibly being Oswald, we use ALL the evidence, not just Brennan's who supposedly puts him in the window and then we call it a done deal)

Lee - NYC - he starts school on March 23, 1953 and ends in June. He is at YOUTH HOUSE from April 15 to May 8: 18 school days he is not at PS44 (which btw there were 3 of in NYC at the time, Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx - do you know which one Oswald went to?) The school records show he attends 109 3/2 days and is absent 15 3/2 days. Total 124 6/2 or 127 days.

Count forward 127 school days from March 23rd Lee. Count backward from June 26th 127 school days.

The most important and controversial time in Oswald's young life - he is just picked up and moved to NYC - and this big, gregarious, leader of boys becomes someone totally different. Shorter, meaner, a loner, a thinker.

I will consider any alternative that is supported by some level of evidence or fact...

1952-53%20school%20calendars%20%20-%20to

One final word and I'd like to hear your thoughts...

CE1384 p699 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0365a.htm is the Permanent Record of Oswald's NYC school career. Except the CE1384 sticker is not on this copy...

Below are the three PERM records from NYC schools for Oswald offered as evidence.

CE1384 does not match the initial "Perm" record in the middle either. The one on the right is the copy Armstrong found at the Archives...Any reason we have an exhibit in the WCR which not only does not have its designation as an exhibit but is not even on the same form - even though all the information appears to have been copied verbatim.

A reasonable explanation with some supporting info would be appreciated. That "mistakes are made" does not account for the wholesale copying of a perm record. More interesting to me is that the middle record would have simply been added to over time - yet the copy on the left side's first column of info is not written in the same hand and the teacher's names from form to form are not the same - among a number of differences.

What's much more important are the conflicts with the multiple Oswalds later, after 1962 when they return from Russia. During the summer of 1963 an Oswald is in New Orleans and in Dallas - one has a paper trail, one does not. One also wonders why the kid from the South has completely lost his twang while only having lived in NY for 18 months and the rest of the time back in the south.

One wonders.

CE1384NYCschoolrecords-threedifferentver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a verbatim post from a thread pulled towards H&L that needn't have been. I find these points to be some of the more direct to show conflict between the FBI's reporting of the situation and the actual situation. The fact remains that records exist of a small boy being reviewed at Youth House - no where near the boy Lee was. These days on the NYC perm record need not be exact, but they ought to make sense.

In a 180 day, 2-90 day - 4.5 month per semester school year, can a portion of one semester be 127 days? and not ANY 127 days but a time that the Pics and Oswalds describe in such contrasting detail as to what happens to Lee, where and when they visit, who they see, where they live, what Marg does... and on and on.

Please be clear - H&L from 1952 thru early 1963 had nothing to do with JFK's assassination. What the CIA was doing and why is hard to see, let alone understand. If they can fire a dart which leaves no trace, contemplate and execute some of the grossest atrocities to justify an elusive end... H&L is really so far from the path as to be ridiculed?

then shout out to Jon Tidd and from where this post came - the cover-up does indeed continue to this very second.

and thank you Steve and Don for having my back.... ampersands and all.. :up

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

Lee -

I respect your POV and the manner in which you present it.

If a certain researcher did not explore the autopsy as completely as he did we may still be accepting the fraudulent xrays and photos as authentic. We may never have gotten around to fathoming that Rear Admiral Galloway would ORDER the doctors to destroy this Best Evidence in favor of evidence that was needed...

Could we ever expect to contemplate that JFK's body arrived 90 minutes before it did officially, that he may have even been operated on in the belly of AF-1. That the damage as we now get to see it has literally nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza - yet researchers will still refer to these autopsy conclusions as if they represented the crime and not the conspiracy.

Do I need to agree with every page, every speculative conclusion? of course not and I don't. If you've gone to all the work to understand what was offered and conclude it not to be supportive of the final conclusion - BRAVO! That's the beauty of the case and imo the intent of the Conspiracy. Many explanations can be correct. The Evidence offeres a view into history yet only a partial view - the non-governmental efforts of individuals like Lifton and Armstrong adds immeasurably to the knowledge base and to the testing of the theories.

I find the wholesale exclusion of marines who would have stayed with LEE in favor of those who were with Harvey very compelling.

I find the conflicts in the timelines along with glaring evidence of the same man in two places simultaneously more than "minutia"

The acceptance and understanding of H&L requires one to drop their preconceived notions of right and wrong and enter the world of spies, military black ops and the MilitaryIndustrialCongressionalComplex. To firmly conclude it as an "absurdity" with the thinnest of rebuttals does everyone a disservice.

I do not happen to subscribe to much of the POST assassination travels of Lee and Harvey as offered by John. Some of it makes sense, most does not TO ME. What that has to do with 10 years prior and the events in NYC, IDK. The boy looking like a scrawny 4'9" at the end of the summer of 1953 when he was 5'4" 115lbs in the winter of 1951 in 6th grade. These are not the same boy: (edit/correction: the 5'4" 115lbs comes from the entrance physical to PS117 in Sept 1952)

And John is simply too stupid to know his brother.

Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that?

Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?

Mr. PIC - No, sir.

Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald?

Mr. PIC - No, sir.

Bronx%20Zoo%20HARVEY%20full%20picture%20

When I started my Mexico work I believed it was LEE who had traveled to Mexico for a number of compelling reasons. Over the past months I come to find that it is possible that LEE was in a car with others going to and from Mexico City - it is alos possible it was not Lee and possible that no one took this trip. It is also most likely that the person the travel is attributed to is not the same person pretending to be Oswald on Sept 27th.

Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0418a.htm 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.

So okay Lee, you can point to minutia that you say does not support the H&L conclusion.

I feel like I can point to and show mountains of significant evidence which proves it correct.

I ask people like Greg to read the book so he can address the topic with some credibility and intelligence, not to spout off ideas he has about doctors in 1945 or school records he cannot comprehend. I do not dismiss his arguments for lack of reading the book - but for lack of substance and source. Whenever he does offer a source - it's wrong and/or does not address the rebuttal he offers. (the boy had a tonsilectomy while the dead man has intact tonsils... did they grow back? well, maybe, if that was the one and only singular piece of evidence which creates a conflict between the boy born Lee Oswald and the man Ruby killed - but it's not. and just like PM by the doorway possibly being Oswald, we use ALL the evidence, not just Brennan's who supposedly puts him in the window and then we call it a done deal)

Lee - NYC - he starts school on March 23, 1953 and ends in June. He is at YOUTH HOUSE from April 15 to May 8: 18 school days he is not at PS44 (which btw there were 3 of in NYC at the time, Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx - do you know which one Oswald went to?) The school records show he attends 109 3/2 days and is absent 15 3/2 days. Total 124 6/2 or 127 days.

Count forward 127 school days from March 23rd Lee. Count backward from June 26th 127 school days.

The most important and controversial time in Oswald's young life - he is just picked up and moved to NYC - and this big, gregarious, leader of boys becomes someone totally different. Shorter, meaner, a loner, a thinker.

I will consider any alternative that is supported by some level of evidence or fact...

1952-53%20school%20calendars%20%20-%20to

One final word and I'd like to hear your thoughts...

CE1384 p699 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0365a.htm is the Permanent Record of Oswald's NYC school career. Except the CE1384 sticker is not on this copy...

Below are the three PERM records from NYC schools for Oswald offered as evidence.

CE1384 does not match the initial "Perm" record in the middle either. The one on the right is the copy Armstrong found at the Archives...Any reason we have an exhibit in the WCR which not only does not have its designation as an exhibit but is not even on the same form - even though all the information appears to have been copied verbatim.

A reasonable explanation with some supporting info would be appreciated. That "mistakes are made" does not account for the wholesale copying of a perm record. More interesting to me is that the middle record would have simply been added to over time - yet the copy on the left side's first column of info is not written in the same hand and the teacher's names from form to form are not the same - among a number of differences.

What's much more important are the conflicts with the multiple Oswalds later, after 1962 when they return from Russia. During the summer of 1963 an Oswald is in New Orleans and in Dallas - one has a paper trail, one does not. One also wonders why the kid from the South has completely lost his twang while only having lived in NY for 18 months and the rest of the time back in the south.

One wonders.

CE1384NYCschoolrecords-threedifferentver

Dear David,

Just curious -- how many people do you figure you've converted to your theory over the years?

Ten? Fifteen?

Thank you,

--Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THANKS for the separate thread.

Now, carry on....

Okay, Mark.

In the spirit of trying to divert all of the other H and L stuff on this forum to this thread, I'll throw my two cents in to help get it rolling.

Here we go:

I personally believe that the H and L theory, as expressed on this forum by David Josephs is, for lack of a better term, a bunch of garbage.

Thank you very much,

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. A member
will not use this board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or
defamatory, inaccurate,
I ask people like Greg to read the book so he can address the topic with some credibility and intelligence, not to spout off ideas he has about doctors in 1945 or school records he cannot comprehend. I do not dismiss his arguments for lack of reading the book - but for lack of substance and source. Whenever he does offer a source - it's wrong and/or does not address the rebuttal he offers. (the boy had a tonsilectomy while the dead man has intact tonsils... did they grow back? well, maybe, if that was the one and only singular piece of evidence which creates a conflict between the boy born Lee Oswald and the man Ruby killed - but it's not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THANKS for the separate thread.

Now, carry on....

Okay, Mark.

In the spirit of trying to divert all of the other H and L stuff on this forum to this thread, I'll throw my two cents in to help get it rolling.

Here we go:

I personally believe that the H and L theory, as expressed on this forum by David Josephs is, for lack of a better term, a bunch of garbage.

Thank you very much,

--Tommy :sun

I agree Tommy. It's this sort of bizarre theory that the research community should distance itself from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THANKS for the separate thread.

Now, carry on....

Okay, Mark.

In the spirit of trying to divert all of the other H and L stuff on this forum to this thread, I'll throw my two cents in to help get it rolling.

Here we go:

I personally believe that the H and L theory, as expressed on this forum by David Josephs is, for lack of a better term,

"a bunch of distracting garbage"

Thank you very much,

--Tommy :sun

I agree Tommy. It's this sort of bizarre theory that the research community should distance itself from.

Now Vanessa. Behave yourself. LOL

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish someone who has the knowledge to do so would lay out the facts, discretely, asserted by John Armstrong, all the main facts, and assess for the benefit of me and perhaps others each fact asserted.

Facts are a matter of historical record. If John Armstrong has asserted "A" to be a fact, he should back his assertion with something in the historical record. If Armstrong has asserted "A" to be a fact and has not backed his assertion or has falsely backed his assertion, I'd like to know about it.

It appears to me a lot of the discussion here concerning John Armstrong is whether Armstrong assesses correctly the facts he gets right. For example, I understand that Armstrong has asserted that a boy alleged to be Oswald had his tonsils removed in 1945 and that the man buried in Oswald's grave was buried with intact tonsils. I'll assume for sake of discussion these are facts asserted by Armstrong and that these asserted facts are backed by the historical record.

How do I assess these facts? From what I've read, sometimes during a tonsillectomy there is a failure to remove all the tonsil, and in such a case the tonsil occasionally grows back partially, not to its original size. From what I've read, this occasional occurrence happens tonsil-by-tonsil. That is, if one tonsil is removed completely and the other only mostly, only the mostly removed tonsil may grow back to part of its original size.

So I'm left with a question: Does the historical record indicate clearly the extent to which the man buried in Oswald's grave had intact tonsils? I'd say, based on what I've read, that if the historical record indicates clearly the tonsils were fully intact, the man buried in Oswald's grave is not the same person as the boy who had a tonsillectomy in 1945.

Edited by Jon G. Tidd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> key point is intel wants the body cremated ???? WHY ??? H & L ??? Golly could be eh ?? (GAAL)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Bill Kelly ++

Rufus Taylor & Dallas ONI SA J. Mason Lankford, Jr.

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

Please visit Greg Parker's ReopenKennedycase blog at:
http://reopenkennedy...-mason-lankford
=

The links to all of these sources work correctly at his blog.

U.S. Social Security Death Index for Mason Lankford
first name: Mason
last name:Lankford
birth date:14 October 1921
social security number:462-14-0308
place of issuance:Texas
last residence:Fort Worth, Tarrant,
Texaszip code of last residence:76112
death date:16 June 1997
estimated age at death:76
https://familysearch...Z/p_12979762014

J. Mason Lankford, Jr. devoted much of his life to the fire service. A native of Texas, Mason served in various capacities, including Tarrant County (TX) Fire Marshal. When Congressman Curt Weldon (PA) sought congressional support for a Fire Caucus, Mason recruited the Texas delegation, including then-House Speaker Jim Wright, who was a pivotal player in its successful launch.

John Mason Lankford Jr. (1921-1997), better known as Mason Lankford, is best known as a firefighter and Fire Marshal of Tarrant County (Fort Worth), Texas. His dedication, service and promotion of the firefighter’s agenda are legendary. In fact, the prestigious Fire Service Leadership Award of the Congressional Fire Services Institute is named for him.

But Lankford is of interest to Kennedy assassination researchers as well, for the following reasons:

From 1948 to 1972, he was employed by either General Dynamics or its Convair Division as Director of Security, or in other security related positions. GDs security division was probably a nexus for DISC – the Defense Industrial Security Command – a central organ of the military-industrial complex.

In this capacity Lankford would certainly have been acquainted with two other GD Security officers who figure prominently in the Lee Harvey Oswald story – I B Hale and Max Clark. In fact, there is an interesting incident associating Max Clark with Lankford’s mother, Grace, and his sister, Catherine Russell:

http://www.maryferre...635&relPageId=2

There is also a link between Lankford and Roscoe White. In his capacity at the security office, Lankford provided verification of employment at Convair for White on his 1963 application with the Dallas Police Department. White had been employed at Convair from 8 May 1956 to 28 July 1956, and was eligible for rehire – implying a positive recommendation. For unknown reasons, White did not list this employment in his application; rather, the DPD investigator got the information from White’s stepfather, and contacted Lankford directly for the verification.

It is interesting that Robert Oswald was employed at Convair during this period in 1956 as well, suggesting the possibility that Robert and Lankford may have known each other long before their interactions of 1963. Also, although of course Convair was one of the largest employers in Fort Worth at the time, it is at least possible that Roscoe White and Robert knew each other then also. Further, there is some overlap between White’s period of employment and Lee Harvey Oswald’s presence in Fort Worth prior to his Marine Corps enlistment. Is it possible that all four – Lankford, Roscoe White, Robert Oswald and LHO – knew each other in 1956?

Lankford’s investigative and intelligence roots ran deep. In addition to his occupations of firefighter and director of security, he had a role as board chairman of the Texas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies.

The Victoria Advocate, 24 August 1972, p. 1
http://news.google.c...-lankford&hl=en

More importantly, in November of 1963, and likely long before that, Lankford was a Special Agent for the Office of Naval Intelligence in Dallas, reporting directly to the Director of Naval Intelligence, Rufus Taylor.

http://contentdm.bay...PTR=13197&REC=1 (go to page 5 and following).

At approximately 1:00 PM, on November 26, 1963, J. M. LANKFORD, Special Agent, Office of Naval Intelligence, Dallas, Texas, personally appeared at the Dallas Field Division. Mr. LANKFORD advised SA John J. FLANAGAN that approximately fifteen minutes previously an informant of his had contacted him concerning JACK RUBY and LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

LANKFORD stated that his informant, ROBERT KERMIT PATTERSON, an admitted homosexual, has been furnishing information to ONI for some time. He has, in the past, furnished signed statements to the Office of Naval Intelligence setting forth his homosexual activities with young servicemen….

Patterson, a former Navy man, lived at the YMCA and an associate Donald C. Stuart and operated a TV and radio repair shop with Charles Arndt, who also lived at the YMCA. Two weeks previous Ruby and a man who appeared to be Oswald visited there shop Contract Electonics at 2533 Elm St. Stuart also worked at KLIF.

Letter to Admiral McDonald from Adml. Rufus L. Taylor also mentions Tracy Thurlo Pope, ex-Navy. P.24
http://contentdm.bay...PTR=13197&REC=1

Admiral McDonald 27 Nov. 1963

Rear Admiral Taylor

Oswald Killing

1.Information from our Dallas office provides names of several persons connected with Ruby and Oswald. Robert Kermit Patterson, admitted 6J (homosexual), contacted resident agent Dallas about 1330 CST yesterday and said he had information in regard assassination of President Kennedy. Patterson said he and one Donald C. Stuart operated Contract Electronics, 2533 Elm Street, Dallas. About two weeks ago, Jack Ruby/aka/Rubenstein and subject Oswald visited Contract Electronics and wanted work done on a microphones at Ruby Carousel Night Club, Dallas. On this occasion ruby told Oswald to write names of Patterson and Stuart in Carousel guest book. Contract Electronics did the requested mike work at the Carousel and were paid by Negro employee. The Senior Resident Agent at Dallas has taken Patterson to the FBI Dallas for further interrogation. Neither Stuart nor Patterson has discussed above information with anyone else, according to Patterson. The files at DIO 8ND are negative on Stuart.

2.In this office we have a file on Patterson and another person not mentioned in the above message by the name of Tracy Thurio Pope. Pope is the one that first pointed out Patterson. Patterson was in the Navy and is now out. Pope was in the Navy and is out, Service No. 599 29 44, AA, USN. There is no Navy record on Stuart. This morning we had a meeting here to make sure that everybody is informed and that the FBI is getting everything it needs.

3.The above information certainly raises questions as to Ruby’s real motives in killing Oswald. We have all been interested in what seemed to us to be a look of recognition on Oswald’s fact when he spotted Ruby.

4.BuPers is being kept currently informed of information of the sort contained in paragraph 1 and 2 above.

Very respectfully, Rufus L. Taylor

Copy to: REVIWED BY NCIS (ONI) JFK TASK FORCE
On 12-17-93
RELEASE IN FULL

Furthermore, Lankford had an association with the Secret Service. He was on “old acquaintance” of Texas-based SS agent Mike Howard. In fact, Lankford assisted Howard in securing Fort Worth for JFKs November 21-22 visit. Other SS-ONI cooperation might have been effected through William Greer and Forrest Sorrels.

http://nl.newsbank.c...ackval=GooglePM

Fort Worth Star-Telegram – November 23, 1993 – 15
Guarding the OSWALDS An ex-security supervisor recalls preparing for Kenendy’s visit to Fort Worth – then having to watch over the family of his assassin,…

Lankford’s actions following the assassination, detailed in the above article, are interesting. “Frustrated and worn out, heartsick and physically ill, Lankford tumbled into bed that Friday night. For two days he refused to even get up to eat.”

Several interpretations come to mind. First, maybe Lankford was just overworked. Second, maybe he was overwhelmed by grief. Third, perhaps he was just sick. Or fourth, maybe he was very, very worried.

At any rate, by Sunday morning, November 24th, Lankford seems to have recovered. Mike Howard called him to request that he accompany him along with the security team protecting Marina and Marguerite Oswald. The site of their seclusion, the Inn of the Six Flags at Arlington, was chosen by Lankford (implying, perhaps, that Lankford was more in control than the official story relates?).

Also present at the time, or shortly thereafter, was Robert Oswald. Interestingly, in his notes dealing with this period, Robert refers to Lankford familiarly as “Mason”, suggesting that maybe the two had, indeed, known each other in the past (although Robert misspells Mason’s last name as “Langford”).

http://www.maryferre...51&relPageId=30
Lankford was also involved with LHOs funeral and burial. He seems to have been a “prime mover” in an attempt to have LHOs body cremated, rather than buried. This is reported by morticians Paul Groody and Allen Baumgardner, as well as by Robert Oswald. In fact, the process went so far that cremation forms were actually typed up, although the family members finally decided against it. Why, it must be asked, was Lankford so eager for cremation?

http://www.newspaper...x?img=112857505

http://news.google.c...pg=4750,3133122

One way to interpret Lankford’s role is that he was a mid-level ONI operative, responsible for implementing and coordinating directives from above, and handling lesser operatives below. It is not unreasonable to infer that he may have been a true ONI handler for both Roscoe White and LHO – as opposed to caretakers like DeMohrenschildt or the Paines – for whom Lankford may also have been a handler or at least a coordinator. Thus his concern while LHO was still alive, and seeming relief when he died. But even in death, LHO was dangerous.

That is it insofar as the assassination is concerned. But a couple of other associations might be of significance.

First of all, Mason Lankford’s father, John Mason Lankford Sr., was an employee of Temco in the early 1950s, suggesting a possible relationship with David Harold Byrd.

Dallas Morning News, 20 November 1953, p 14. Available at genealogybank.com

Also, there is an association with Amon Carter, whose wife at one point employed Marguerite Oswald.

http://books.google....ved=0CFMQ6AEwBw

Finally, it should be noted, whether a coincidence or not, that according to the1947 Fort Worth city directory, the Ekdahl/Oswald/Pic family was … well… nearly a neighbor of the Lankford family. At any rate they lived about a half-mile apart: theEkdahl/ Oswalds at 1505 8th Avenue, and Mason Lankford at 2211 West Magnolia.

Even closer was Oswald’s school. Had he been so inclined, Lankford would have needed to walk only 3 or 4 blocks to see first-grader Lee Harvey Oswald playing at the Lily B. Clayton Elementary School yard.
000000000000000000000000000000000000
CREMATION ??????????????????????????? why ? ANSWER TWO OSWALDS H & L sg
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish someone who has the knowledge to do so would lay out the facts, discretely, asserted by John Armstrong, all the main facts, and assess for the benefit of me and perhaps others each fact asserted.

Facts are a matter of historical record. If John Armstrong has asserted "A" to be a fact, he should back his assertion with something in the historical record. If Armstrong has asserted "A" to be a fact and has not backed his assertion or has falsely backed his assertion, I'd like to know about it.

It appears to me a lot of the discussion here concerning John Armstrong is whether Armstrong assesses correctly the facts he gets right. For example, I understand that Armstrong has asserted that a boy alleged to be Oswald had his tonsils removed in 1945 and that the man buried in Oswald's grave was buried with intact tonsils. I'll assume for sake of discussion these are facts asserted by Armstrong and that these asserted facts are backed by the historical record.

How do I assess these facts? From what I've read, sometimes during a tonsillectomy there is a failure to remove all the tonsil, and in such a case the tonsil occasionally grows back partially, not to its original size. From what I've read, this occasional occurrence happens tonsil-by-tonsil. That is, if one tonsil is removed completely and the other only mostly, only the mostly removed tonsil may grow back to part of its original size.

So I'm left with a question: Does the historical record indicate clearly the extent to which the man buried in Oswald's grave had intact tonsils? I'd say, based on what I've read, that if the historical record indicates clearly the tonsils were fully intact, the man buried in Oswald's grave is not the same person as the boy who had a tonsillectomy in 1945.

Hi Jon,

I'm not sure if you did this already but if you PM me with an email address I will send you the spreadsheet I created which shows the conflicts, locations, and happenings with H&L from 1939 thru Nov 1963 side-by-side and is searchable and sortable...

Case in point - Georgia Bell was interviewed by John in 1996. (the 52-12 refers to images on the CD which comes with the Book) He went thru the land records to find who was supposed to be there and he talked to the people who actually did live there - Now, info on "Buster Murray" never living where records related to Marg say he did is not going to blow the case wide open - but is another in a long line of conflicts that seem to follow Mrs. O.

On July 7, 1947 Marguerite C. Ekdahl, with a $1500 cash down payment, purchased

a new home at 101 San Saba in Benbrook for $3950.74 Tarrant County land

records show that Marguerite Ekdahl leased her house to Buster L. Murray on August

1, 194 7 for one year at $50 per month. 75 This is the only Tarrant County record relating

to Buster Murray.

Buster Murray and his wife, Doris, lived at 1617 Hemphill in 1947-48 and at

1919 W. Vickery in 1950, according to Fort Worth City directories. None of the neighbors

who lived on San Saba during that time remember anyone named Buster Murray.

Georgia Bell, who lived directly across the street from the Oswald's at 100 San Saba,

remembered Marguerite very well, but said nobody by the name of Murray ever lived

in the house.

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

this is 52-12 and 52-13

52-12_zpsm4dndsnq.jpg 52-13_zpszfapfrup.jpg

It's more than just that he had tonsils when he was re-examined. The Donabedian Ex #1 p599 shows that Oswald had tonsillitis in January, 1957. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0309a.htm

This same exhibit describes a 3" mastoid scar on the left side in a number of places along with "STDs contracted in the line of duty", and a gunshot wound just above the elbow... Compare the medical logs to the travel and we find him being treated for STDs at the same time the records put him on a boat to Ping Tung. CE1961 states that Oswald went to Ping Tung on the 14th of Sept..http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0415a.htm while Donabedian Ex #1 p603 has him receiving STD treatment... There's a DoD letter that claims he was flown back to Japan yet both the Sept 14 and Oct 6 logs show him on the ship to and from Ping Tung... another story has him not leaving at all - yet somehow he is on the Oct 5-6 ship back:

58-13_zpsigkn06cz.jpg

These logs are found on the CD. He is supposedly treated in Japan on the 16th, 22nd, 23rd & 29th of Sept while he is also in Ping Tung.

The Folsom Ex http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0338b.htm p658 shows nothing between Aug 13 and Oct 5th...

On p661 of the Folsom Exh we see that from the first to second weapons test Oswald gets worse using an M-1.

These bits of Evidence added to each other betray the building blocks of the conspiracy - they do not accurately reflect the history of this man and in fact illustrate the conflicts.

Shall we ala McAdams or DVP try to explain away each and every one of these conflicts under the assumption that two Oswalds is foolish and not possible - or do we evaluate each item for what it represents and how it fits in the overall puzzle.

(Note: this is not the same as JVB where a simple search proves the evidence offered does not support the conclusion - the infamous W-2 is not on a form the IRS used during this or any other period that I could find)

The tonsilectomy was recorded on a life insurance policy that Marg buys on Lee. The men who embalmed Oswald stated that the did not see the craniotomy scars on the "head" removed from the casket. http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/lhox2.htm#_ednref9 That the casket had been broken from the bottom and that a number of other events related to Oswald's remains also may have occurred.

All we have are the stories and evidence... the Norton report and the men who performed the services are in conflict. How many times do we come across official reports which conflict with the people they are supposedly written about?

52-05_zps72rrsllm.jpg

Asking what H&L is all about, in a nutshell - is the same as asking what the cover-up was all about... in a nutshell. Can a few sentences or paragraphs do justice to what we now know about the conspiracy?

Here we go:

Assassination? Oswald didn't do it

H&L? The evidence and supplemental research done shows that the evidence offered is hiding the existence of two separate men using the same identity by combining these records into a single one.

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/tabs/collection/po-arm is the index to the Baylor notebooks. The source materials for the book. Not everything here made it to the book. It represents over 10 years of work traveling the world on his own dime to uncover what he saw as an explainable mystery embedded in the evidence itself.

I hope I've done your question some justice - and will continue to address any H&L questions and concerns posted.

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we missed the point Mark....

Georgia was shown a picture of Marg when she lived on San Saba from 1945 - if anything she would be MORE familar with the 1945 Marg than the 1961 version.:

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

The woman on the left worked at retail stores and is the older version of the woman in the center -

in the center is LEE's mother in 1945 when Georgia knew her -

on the right is the practical nurse/barmaid/maid/home nurse (Lee's mother was never a nurse)

Mrs%20Ekdahl_zpspmeosjbq.jpg

Georgia remembered another occasion when Mrs. Oswald obtained a job as a practical nurse and needed a car to pick up some of her clothes. 52-14 She said, "Lucille Hubbard gave Marguerite a ride in her car and took her to a house that Marguerite had rented 'next to the Stripling School.' Mrs. Hubbard was surprised to find not only a lot of clothes, but also a lot of furniture in the house."

Mrs Oswald was at 2220 Thomas across from Stripling on Nov 22, 1963 as well.

Whether of not we think they appear the same or not wasn't the intent of the post - a woman who lived across the street from her claims it's not. This is the follow-up research JA did to investigate the actual story not just rely on the FBI's timeline taken from Life magazine.

Even though there are witnesses who claim to have seen Mrs. O with 3 children John Pic specifically states:

Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, was that 101 San Saba?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't know nothing about 101 San Saba.
Mr. JENNER - Do you recall the street you were on in Benbrook; this first house?
Mr. PIC - There were no streets. We used a post office box number up at the post office there. Because I was sending away for stamps at the time from different companies, and I was collecting stamps and I would go pick up the mail at the post office.
Mr. JENNER - The first house in Benbrook was on Granbury Road, that is your recollection? That is the one you have already mentioned heretofore?
Mr. PIC - Granbury Road is familiar, sir, if that is the one that is way far south of town on Granbury Road, then that is it.
Mr. JENNER - Well, there is a letter in the file at the Hunt Military Academy in October of 1945 informing them that a new address would be Granbury Road, Route 5, Box 567 in Benbrook.
Mr. PIC - That is the one further south of Fort Worth.

Mr. JENNER - That is the first one?
Mr. PIC - Right.
Mr. JENNER - The house you are now mentioning in Benbrook was the summer of 1948 is different from the first one?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; it is.

The "first one" is from 1945 when Lee was in 1st grade at Benbrook common school

the second one, in 1948 is at a time when their address was 3300 Willig and then 7408 Ewing

while Lee was in 2nd & 3rd grade

Mr. PIC - After the divorce she bought the house in Benbrook, Tex and then she was either working at or just got the job at Leonard Bros., Fort Worth, department store, Fort Worth, Tex.

On July 7, 1947 Marguerite C. Ekdahl, with a $1500 cash down payment, purchased

a new home at 101 San Saba in Benbrook for $3950.74 Tarrant County land

records show that Marguerite Ekdahl leased her house to Buster L. Murray on August

1, 194 7 for one year at $50 per month. 75 This is the only Tarrant County record relating

to Buster Murray.

Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, was that 101 San Saba?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't know nothing about 101 San Saba

Do you think yo could recognize a picture of your mother or father from 40 years ago? How about a neighbor you drove around and bought groceries for who was rude and cheap - not paying anything for the help offered? Is there a reason not to believe Georgia when the records corroborate her words?

This like so much of the case, is not a 100% lock. It's some high % with the need to correlate it with all the other info... when one does that I believe the picture becomes more clear

DJ

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of course you can Mark, there's a well remembered expression from the 60's...."if you remember Woodstock, it just proves you weren't really there". // HANCOCK

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

I get it >>>>>>>>>>>>> Harvey smoked and his shoulders sloped !! (GAAL)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm baffled at how some people can see a person and not remember their face later. Post a photo of someone, I'm confident I can identify them. But some people just don't register faces.

By the way, at my own father's funeral, I was told by several of his lifelong friends of jobs he had that I never knew about. I was under the impression he held the same one for decades after WW2, but lo and behold, he had worked a few others.

I'm pretty sure that someone with the right amount of energy and more or less mania for a subject could devote years to a thesis and find tens of thousands of data points to support it.

I've said this before but I am positive I could prove Woodstock never happened.

There is probably a bit of a misunderstanding as to how H&L developed... John didn't go looking for Kudlaty - he was led to him by teachers and the Principal who felt he may have info that could help. When Kudlaty tells John that he gave the records to the FBI on 11/23 at 8am yet saw them and confirmed it said Oswald attended Stripling in the fall of 1954... It was a pretty amazing discovery. The Principal also said he rememebr that Oswald had gone to Stripling for a while.

I think those with an agenda can find ways to accuse those they don't believe that the results of this work were so tainted by the preconcieved conclusion that, in your words, "a subject could devote years to a thesis and find tens of thousands of data points to support it."

One might assume that after the first X number of attempts, if the evidence is not there to support the theory, the person might stop looking.

The impetus for the search was Palmer McBride's FBI interview http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0370b.htm stating that he was with Oswlad in 1957-58 when Oswald was in the Marines.

(emphasis in original)

H&L p3

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. 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

Over the years both Lifton and Parker have tried to assert that Palmer was wrong. That it was 1956, BEFORE Oswald went into the marines.

Lifton even wrote the ARRB about what he felt was the "mistake" - this is Palmer's reply - cc'd to all JFK Researchers & publishers.

I just got off the phone with John who feels it's okay to post this... I truly know of nothing else I can do but present the EVIDENCE from those who offered it and lived it.

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy

DJ

Palmer%20McBride%20to%20David%20Lifton_z

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...