The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained

[Don Jeffries]

Greg,

It's always good to hear new perspectives, and I certainly don't believe we should stick rigidly to a collective consensus about many aspects of this case. That being said, I'm wondering where you're going with this line of thought.

The nature of the most well known "fake" Oswald encounters certainly seems to suggest an overt attempt to impress witnesses in a particular way, as a part of the overall framing process. Yes, Oswald was a nondescript individual in appearance; I suppose that's why the encounters were so outrageously designed. Oswald reckelessly operating a car (whether or not he could legally do so) and inferring he was coming into some money soon, while proclaiming "Maybe I'll have to go to Russia to buy a car" to hapless salesman Albert Guy Bogard; being blatantly advertised to Sylvia Odio as a potential assassin of Kennedy; angrily firing at the wrong targets at a test firing range- what else can all these suggest other than that they were a crucial part of the conspirators plans to fram Oswald?

Do you believe that Bogard, Odio and the witnesses at the test firing range were mistaken about what they'd witnessed? That they all imagined the Oswald name afterwards, when it was nationally known? That it was the real Oswald, doing such incriminating things? I'm just trying to get a feel for what you're saying here.

One doesn't have to totally accept John Armstrong's theory in order to recognize that Oswald was being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination of JFK.

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

It's always good to hear new perspectives, and I certainly don't believe we should stick rigidly to a collective consensus about many aspects of this case. That being said, I'm wondering where you're going with this line of thought.

The nature of the most well known "fake" Oswald encounters certainly seems to suggest an overt attempt to impress witnesses in a particular way, as a part of the overall framing process. Yes, Oswald was a nondescript individual in appearance; I suppose that's why the encounters were so outrageously designed. Oswald reckelessly operating a car (whether or not he could legally do so) and inferring he was coming into some money soon, while proclaiming "Maybe I'll have to go to Russia to buy a car" to hapless salesman Albert Guy Bogard; being blatantly advertised to Sylvia Odio as a potential assassin of Kennedy; angrily firing at the wrong targets at a test firing range- what else can all these suggest other than that they were a crucial part of the conspirators plans to fram Oswald?

Do you believe that Bogard, Odio and the witnesses at the test firing range were mistaken about what they'd witnessed? That they all imagined the Oswald name afterwards, when it was nationally known? That it was the real Oswald, doing such incriminating things? I'm just trying to get a feel for what you're saying here.

One doesn't have to totally accept John Armstrong's theory in order to recognize that Oswald was being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination of JFK.

Where am I going with this, Don?

Clearing out some pf the BS in this case. So far here I have the scalps of McBride and January, wouldn't you agree?

Regarding your last comment, I refer you back to my initial post where I said this:

1. Sightings of Oswald when he was known to be elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, no sighting of Oswald has ever been dismissed by the proponents of "Two Oswalds". Yet the sheer number and variety of them alone suggests some are

the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;

mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;

by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

Edited August 20, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

It's always good to hear new perspectives,

This isn't a "perspective", Don. Not a point of view. Not a theory. It's identifying and taking out the trash.

[David Lifton]

Ok Greg, I agree you did not say that, I wish you had been more specific.

But when you say Palmer McBride only, you leave out the fact that when John found the other members of the astronomy club, they backed him Palmer up.

Further, the opera that he and Oswald went to, Boris Godunov, only played in New Orleans in October of 1957, when Oswald was in Japan.

Your statement as to what "John found" is false. As is all too often the case, you are promoting a bunch of nonsense, and urban legend.

1. The FBI interviews of those at the astronomy club--not Armstrong's absurd reliance on 30 year old recollections--support the fact that Oswald was brought to one (or more) astronomy club meetings in 1956 (and certainly not 1957 or 1958, when he was already in the Marines, and in Japan.

2. As Greg Parker has noted, Fort Worth news stories, published in 1956, support the fact that when Oswald wrote a letter to Pfisterer (mentioning civil disorders in Fort Worth), the year being referred to was 1956, and not one or two years later. (FYI: Pre -internet, I found those same stories the "old fashioned" way, via microfilm at the Ft Worth library). Its interesting that, in the world of the Internet, they are now a mouse-click away.

3. The IRS records establish that Oswald worked at Pfisterer in 1956, not 1957 or 1958. (And the only way around this documentary evidence is to subscribe to Armstrong's theory that Oswald's 1956 tax returns have been falsified). There is no reason to believe that to be so.

4. When I interviewed Palmer McBride both by telephone (September, 1994) and then on camera one month later, he readily admitted that he was probably mistaken as to the year, if the military records showed Oswald was in Japan.

5. I never had the hostile communication with Linda Faircloth, that Armstrong (and/or Faircloth) attributed to me. Either or both of them just made it up.

Furthermore: McBride did not come up with the notion that his original statement (on 11/23) could not have been in error (as to the year, and that it just had to be 1957 or 1958, as he mistakenly stated), until he was lobbied by Armstrong--whose "investigation" in this area, more or less resembled a "witness recruitment program."

Only by ignoring the best evidence, and relying on 30 year old recollection (rather than what the FBI reports clearly state, and what the tax returns, which were resident in the US National Archives since 1964, clearly show) can one support Armstrong's "two Oswald" hypothesis, in this area.

FWIW: Bugliosi's writeup on the matter of Palmer McBride (and which is to be found in the CD with his end notes (at page 570)--is quite lengthy, detailed, and accurate. So is Doug Horne's investigation, while on the ARRB, about the tax returns constituting a definitive refutation of the foundation of Armstrong's "two-Oswald" theory, and make no mistake about it: Armstrong's starting point was the original McBride affidavit, which was simply mistaken.

As I stated above, its time to stop promoting nonsense and urban legend.

You're a history teacher, right? Start behaving like one.

DSL

12/27/11

11:55 AM PST

Edited December 27, 2011 by David Lifton

[Greg Parker]

As is all too often the case, you are promoting a bunch of nonsense, and urban legend.

...

You're a history teacher, right? Start behaving like one.

And this is from the guy who believes that conspirators would find it simpler and more desriable to steal the President's body and create false wounds, use multiple caskets, alter home movies and everything else that goes along with his stupid theory than to just put a gunman behind the limo?

Gimmee a break.

Strangely, Martin, you AND Lifton are both right in what is said above.

[Greg Parker]

Ok Greg, I agree you did not say that, I wish you had been more specific.

But when you say Palmer McBride only, you leave out the fact that when John found the other members of the astronomy club, they backed him Palmer up.

Further, the opera that he and Oswald went to, Boris Godunov, only played in New Orleans in October of 1957, when Oswald was in Japan.

Your statement as to what "John found" is false. As is all too often the case, you are promoting a bunch of nonsense, and urban legend.

1. The FBI interviews of those at the astronomy club--not Armstrong's absurd reliance on 30 year old recollections--support the fact that Oswald was brought to one (or more) astronomy club meetings in 1956 (and certainly not 1957 or 1958, when he was already in the Marines, and in Japan.

2. As Greg Parker has noted, Fort Worth news stories, published in 1956, support the fact that when Oswald wrote a letter to Pfisterer (mentioning civil disorders in Fort Worth), the year being referred to was 1956, and not one or two years later. (FYI: Pre -internet, I found those same stories the "old fashioned" way, via microfilm at the Ft Worth library). Its interesting that, in the world of the Internet, they are now a mouse-click away.

Did you publish anything about those stories? If so, can you point me to where I can find what you had to say about them at the time? Was there any reaction?

[B. A. Copeland]

As is all too often the case, you are promoting a bunch of nonsense, and urban legend.

...

You're a history teacher, right? Start behaving like one.

And this is from the guy who believes that conspirators would find it simpler and more desriable to steal the President's body and create false wounds, use multiple caskets, alter home movies and everything else that goes along with his stupid theory than to just put a gunman behind the limo?

Gimmee a break.

Well when you look at the range of events on the day in question......if you have a team of mult. assassins, accessories before and after the fact......you then know, in advance, that Kennedy will be shot from mult. directions, which directly results in mult. wounds......well, once the operation is completed, why not include a team to make sure the wounds are "worked on" to ensure that the results will fit with the official line which is also created by the same 'party'? (I actually hope that in my lifetime JFK's body could possibly be exhumed and examined by honest (lol....I know) historians, doctors, etc.)

While evidence and proofs may constitute one thing, it is not "off the cliff" to hypothesize that wounds would be altered by those who in effect, have the power to do so, in order to create a kind of coherent result, that is, wounds resulting from "Oswald's shot at the president" Just as it isn't off the cliff to speculate that the z-film may have indeed been altered. Its not crazy to think of such a thing and most thinking people, especially those who study the JFK event to some extent, have good reasons to "think up" such things.

Think about it, if it is easier to put a gunman behind the limo, but in actuality you have shooters from the front of the vehicle....well what happens when autopsy time comes? You have a wound inconsistent with a shot solely from behind (or the official explanation). Therefore what do you do? Well, the perps. figured they'd attempt to alter wounds, edit photos, etc. Certainly power existed to do just that. Is that really a wild, incoherent theory? Personally I never thought so.

Edited December 27, 2011 by B. A. Copeland

[Greg Parker]

Well when you look at the range of events on the day in question......if you have a team of mult. assassins, accessories before and after the fact......you then know, in advance, that Kennedy will be shot from mult. directions, which directly results in mult. wounds......well, once the operation is completed, why not include a team to make sure the wounds are "worked on" to ensure that the results will fit with the official line which is also created by the same 'party'? (I actually hope that in my lifetime JFK's body could possibly be exhumed and examined by honest (lol....I know) historians, doctors, etc.)

While evidence and proofs may constitute one thing, it is not "off the cliff" to hypothesize that wounds would be altered by those who in effect, have the power to do so, in order to create a kind of coherent result, that is, wounds resulting from "Oswald's shot at the president" Just as it isn't off the cliff to speculate that the z-film may have indeed been altered. Its not crazy to think of such a thing and most thinking people, especially those who study the JFK event to some extent, have good reasons to "think up" such things.

Think about it, if it is easier to put a gunman behind the limo, but in actuality you have shooters from the front of the vehicle....well what happens when autopsy time comes? You have a wound inconsistent with a shot solely from behind (or the official explanation). Therefore what do you do? Well, the perps. figured they'd attempt to alter wounds, edit photos, etc. Certainly power existed to do just that. Is that really a wild, incoherent theory? Personally I never thought so.

BA,

it seems to me that the perps wanted the world to buy into a communist conspiracy. Certainly gunfire from different vantage points (if such was the case) would not be inconsistent with that. Switching to the LN scenario didn't come until well after the alleged body hijacking and alteration.

Apart from that, why go to all that bother when one assassin could have got the job done in the first place? (rhetorical question - I really don't want to turn this into a discussion of Lifton's theories - though feel free to copy and paste and answer somewhere else)

[Greg Parker]

It would be an all but impossible task to discuss each and every Oswald sighting.

Needless to say, I believe all the ones which are not confirmed as being the historical Lee Harvey Oswald do fit into one of the categories listed at the start:

the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;

mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;

by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

I'd like to move on for now, to the second area that causes some to ponder a "two Oswald" theory...

per point 2 in the original post:

2. Some people describing Oswald one way - others in a completely opposite way.

Asperger's would account for this, as Oswald would appear very intelligent to some depending on the immediate environment and circumstances - while others would describe him as superficial, repetitive, mechanical for the same reasons.

Questions or comments?

Edited August 20, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Zach Robertson]

There are three key areas that make up the argument for two Oswalds:

1. Sightings of Oswald when he was known to be elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, no sighting of Oswald has ever been dismissed by the proponents of "Two Oswalds". Yet the sheer number and variety of them alone suggests some are

the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;

mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;

by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

2. Some people describing Oswald one way - others in a completely opposite way.

Asperger's would account for this, as Oswald would appear very intelligent to some depending on the immediate environment and circumstances - while others would describe him as superficial, repetitive, mechanical for the same reasons.

3. Changes in Oswald's appearance - particularly after he came back from USSR.

This can be accounted for in a very non-spooky way but I am holding it back for my book -- it is not guesswork. The proof of why his appearance was different is in the 26 volumes.

Hi Greg,

Very interesting stuff. I agree completely with you on #1. Regarding #'s 2 and 3, I'm very interested in learning more and checking out your book.

Good luck,

Zach

[Steven Gaal]

There are three key areas that make up the argument for two Oswalds:

1. Sightings of Oswald when he was known to be elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, no sighting of Oswald has ever been dismissed by the proponents of "Two Oswalds". Yet the sheer number and variety of them alone suggests some are

the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;

mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;

by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

2. Some people describing Oswald one way - others in a completely opposite way.

Asperger's would account for this, as Oswald would appear very intelligent to some depending on the immediate environment and circumstances - while others would describe him as superficial, repetitive, mechanical for the same reasons.

3. Changes in Oswald's appearance - particularly after he came back from USSR.

This can be accounted for in a very non-spooky way but I am holding it back for my book -- it is not guesswork. The proof of why his appearance was different is in the 26 volumes.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX=

Greg, in Harvey and Lee pgs 201-202. Armstrong writes about the lies of Robert Blakey regarding problems of LHO being in two places at once via military records. Do you address this in your book ??? sg

[Greg Parker]

There are three key areas that make up the argument for two Oswalds:

1. Sightings of Oswald when he was known to be elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, no sighting of Oswald has ever been dismissed by the proponents of "Two Oswalds". Yet the sheer number and variety of them alone suggests some are

the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;

mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;

by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

2. Some people describing Oswald one way - others in a completely opposite way.

Asperger's would account for this, as Oswald would appear very intelligent to some depending on the immediate environment and circumstances - while others would describe him as superficial, repetitive, mechanical for the same reasons.

3. Changes in Oswald's appearance - particularly after he came back from USSR.

This can be accounted for in a very non-spooky way but I am holding it back for my book -- it is not guesswork. The proof of why his appearance was different is in the 26 volumes.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX=

Greg, in Harvey and Lee pgs 201-202. Armstrong writes about the lies of Robert Blakey regarding problems of LHO being in two places at once via military records. Do you address this in your book ??? sg

Steve, the book will not be about dealing with Armstrong's theory - or any other theory. It will be setting out to explain the life and times of the Historical Lee Harvey Oswald and to provide new leads that, in any other case, would be sufficient to warrant a new investigation.

The working title is: "LEE HARVEY OSWALD’S COLD WAR & why the Kennedyassassination should be reopened"

By virtue of the content, it will have material that may tend to refute various theories, including Harvey & Lee.

If you want to provide details of the alleged problems with the military records, I'll address them here.

[Greg Parker]

There are three key areas that make up the argument for two Oswalds:

1. Sightings of Oswald when he was known to be elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, no sighting of Oswald has ever been dismissed by the proponents of "Two Oswalds". Yet the sheer number and variety of them alone suggests some are

the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;

mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;

by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

2. Some people describing Oswald one way - others in a completely opposite way.

Asperger's would account for this, as Oswald would appear very intelligent to some depending on the immediate environment and circumstances - while others would describe him as superficial, repetitive, mechanical for the same reasons.

3. Changes in Oswald's appearance - particularly after he came back from USSR.

This can be accounted for in a very non-spooky way but I am holding it back for my book -- it is not guesswork. The proof of why his appearance was different is in the 26 volumes.

Hi Greg,

Very interesting stuff. I agree completely with you on #1. Regarding #'s 2 and 3, I'm very interested in learning more and checking out your book.

Good luck,

Zach

Thanks Zach.

[David Lifton]

As is all too often the case, you are promoting a bunch of nonsense, and urban legend.

...

You're a history teacher, right? Start behaving like one.

And this is from the guy who believes that conspirators would find it simpler and more desriable to steal the President's body and create false wounds, use multiple caskets, alter home movies and everything else that goes along with his stupid theory than to just put a gunman behind the limo?

Gimmee a break.

Your posts prove that you are clueless when it comes to understanding how a real world conspiracy functions, or how the alteration of evidence permits the manipulation of an investigation.

DSL

[William Kelly]

There are three key areas that make up the argument for two Oswalds:

1. Sightings of Oswald when he was known to be elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, no sighting of Oswald has ever been dismissed by the proponents of "Two Oswalds". Yet the sheer number and variety of them alone suggests some are

the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;

mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;

by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

2. Some people describing Oswald one way - others in a completely opposite way.

Asperger's would account for this, as Oswald would appear very intelligent to some depending on the immediate environment and circumstances - while others would describe him as superficial, repetitive, mechanical for the same reasons.

3. Changes in Oswald's appearance - particularly after he came back from USSR.

This can be accounted for in a very non-spooky way but I am holding it back for my book -- it is not guesswork. The proof of why his appearance was different is in the 26 volumes.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX=

Greg, in Harvey and Lee pgs 201-202. Armstrong writes about the lies of Robert Blakey regarding problems of LHO being in two places at once via military records. Do you address this in your book ??? sg

Steve, the book will not be about dealing with Armstrong's theory - or any other theory. It will be setting out to explain the life and times of the Historical Lee Harvey Oswald and to provide new leads that, in any other case, would be sufficient to warrant a new investigation.

The working title is: "LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S COLD WAR & why the Kennedyassassination should be reopened"

By virtue of the content, it will have material that may tend to refute various theories, including Harvey & Lee.

If you want to provide details of the alleged problems with the military records, I'll address them here.

Good Luck with that Greg,

Let me know how I can help you.

BK