The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained

[David Josephs]

David, just to understand...are you saying the Marines had two personnel stationed in Japan, both named Lee Harvey Oswald - and that one went to Taiwan while one stayed

at Atsuki and both had active medical records at the same time under the same name? Or does Harvey have records under a different name?

And yes I have read John's book and listened to him present many times but that was not my impression of what he was saying....just trying to make sure I'm following you.

From my understanding of the book and the records... the records refer to LEE OSWALD (original entry records with identified scars that are not seen on Harvey) yet they do not accurately reflect the activities of HARVEY OSWALD who was in the Marines yet about 6 months behind LEE - CE1961/2 and Allen Felde's evidence is an account of the two different men. While LEE was going to Jacksonville Harvey was with Allen and finally in May he goes to Jacksonville when Lee moves on to Biloxi... The two men were also at El Toro and Santa Ana at different locations yet the WCR interchanges them as if they are the same...

That LEE was being treated on Atsugi while Harvey goes to Taiwan is a result of the records left behind being cherry-picked... the Med record also does not show that Hospital stay from Oct 7 to the 13th since that was most likely Harvey... CE1961 is an FBI combination of both men's info but mostly LEE...

From H&L: Harvey was discharged in Sept 1959.

In 1959 Major William P. Gorsky was the Assistant Provost Marshall at the

Marine Corps Air Station (the jet base) at El Toro. According to Major Gorsky's files,

Lee Harvey Oswald was discharged from the Marine base in March 1959.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Ya didn't get a straight answer, didja Larry?

[Guest Mark Valenti]

A prospective employer once did a background check on me, and my high school indicated that I had graduated two years later than I really did. It was nothing more than a paperwork error, they cited a student with the same last name.

But I suppose that means I have a doppleganger because how could I have graduated two different times, right? // VALENTI

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

Professor Jerry Rose of Decade Journal fame said that after much study he found problems with every ( EVERY,GAAL) major record of LHO. (EVERY MAJOR RECORD (not just one) GAAL)

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

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, LICENSE RECORDS

On February 14, 1968, Aletha Frair made the following signed statement to Garrison investigator Gary Sanders:

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

STATE OF LOUISIANA

PARISH OF ORLEANS

S T A T E M E N T

DATE: February 14, 1968

STATEMENT OF: ALETHA FRAIR

RESIDING AT: 8001 Benson

New Orleans, LA

Phone - 242-2126

My name is ALETHA FRAIR (MRS. JOHN FRAIR). I live at:

8001 Benson

New Orleans, La.

Phone - 242-2126

I worked for the Department of Public Safety in Austin, Texas from the early part of October 1963, through the early part of December 1963. While I was employed at the Department of Public Safety I worked in the License Records Department. This Dept. Was responsible for the IBM computer records of all driver's licenses in the state of Texas.

My husband, JOHN, was working for the United Press International during November of 1963 and on November 22, 1963 he was in Uvalde, Texas, covering the birthday of ex-Vice President JOHN NANCE GARNER.

I did not go to work on the 22 of November, 1963, but the following event occured (sic) the week after the assassination of President KENNEDY.

During the week following the murder of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, on either Wednesday the 27th, or Tuesday the 28th of November, 1963 the Texas driver's license issued to LEE HARVEY OSWALD came into my division.

The record (IBM card) on OSWALD was pulled from the files. Several other employees (5 or 6) of the Department saw the driver's license which was dirty and worn as though it had been carried in a billfold. The license was the talk of the office that day since everyone knew who OSWALD was, and the reason his driver's license records were being pulled from the active file was the fact that he had been killed.

In October of 1966 my husband and I moved to New Orleans and in June of 1967 my husband went to work for WWL-TV, Channel 4.

I, ALETHA FRAIR, hereby affirm that all of the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge.

Signed February 14, 1968.

(Signature of Aletha Frair)

(Signature of witness Gary Sanders)

(Signature of witness Jody Duek)

See the documents discussed above.

In a cover memo accompanying the typed statement, Garrison investigator Gary Sanders gave the names of six women, several still employed at the Texas Department of Public Safety, who would confirm Aletha Frair's statement.

Steven, this is from USA PEOPLE SEARCH. It finds that a Steven Gaal has two different middle names. How to explain?!?!?!?!?!

Could it possibly be that there are two of the same people?!?!?!?!

Edited April 25, 2015 by Mark Valenti

[David Lifton]

David,

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that those witnesses encountered the real Oswald? Or that they were entirely credible in identifying someone who looked exactly like him?

Sorry for the extremely delayed response:

In response to your question: I believe they encountered the real Oswald.

Not an impersonator, but the real Lee H. Oswald.

At Lincoln Mercury (Bogard) and at the firing range (Dr. Wood, and his son) --without question.

Re Sylvia Odio--I still return to the matter and re-analyze it; but basically my conclusion remains the same: yes, it was Oswald. The real Oswald (of the Warren Report).

FWIW (and by way of background). . . :

In communicating with Armstrong--extensively and in detail for several months prior to October, 1995-I found that he was almost congenitally incapable of dealing with contradictory data. So. . . : no matter what the contradiction was, Armstrong immediately postulated "duplicate Oswalds" (my quotes). Again and again he did this--always resorting to these improbable (perhaps impossible, is more accurate) "explanations", rather than simply addressing the contradiction (or conflict) as any historian would, and in less extreme terms.

The result (imho): he has compiled a book full of data that is sometimes useful, but which is almost always mis-interpreted.

ARMSTRONG AND THE OSWALD TAX RECORDS:

The most extreme example of this approach occurred during the latter days of the ARRB, when Doug Horne was able to unearth the tax records for the period 1955/1956 (speaking here from memory). Those records definitively established where Oswald worked --i.e., based on the tax returns filed. Almost immediately, Armstrong and his followers erected an "adjunct" hypothesis: that the tax records were (as in "must have been") falsified.

That was an absurd hypothesis, and there was no credible data to support it; but that's what was said, and so his theory then "lived on."

(As it does, apparently among some folks, today.)

DSL

4/25/15, 11:55 a.m., PDT

Los Angeles, California

[David Josephs]

The "real" Oswald of the Warren report and the "real" Lee H. Oswald are not the same person.

The way you wrote it is absolutely correct.

As for tax records... I posted the Reily W-2 which was on a form not used by the IRS thru employers to employees in any year let alone those around 1963.

Saying that the IRS, it's information of the process it takes getting data from point A to B cannot be corrupted after what we know of the record is what sounds absurd.

This piling on of JA regarding theories which are offered and subsequently questioned or even changed is mind-boggling.

Do you realize how many notches you fall David when you attack ideas and theories that evolve and adjust to the information as it becomes available...

As a valued leader, author, researcher, spokesperson for the cause, it's enough already.

You don't have to kiss his toes yet you also don't have to throw out pointless zingers to accomplish what? that you know more about his research than he does - would you stand for that if directed towards you? I know... tough hides... we should be able to take it... but from each other.?

From your POV David, which is not as extensive as his, or mine for that matter, the analysis is mis-interpreted.

Do unto others David... seems appropriate at this point.

Take care.

DJ

[Steven Gaal]

https://harveyandlee.net/~harveyan/Unraveling/Unravels.htm


On November 26, all of Oswald's possessions were quietly returned to the Dallas Police. The FBI and Dallas Police then photographed and inventoried 455 items (Oswald's possessions) using five rolls of film (CE 2003). The FBI had taken 225 items to Washington, DC but returned 455 items to the Dallas Police. The FBI added an extra 220 items of evidence. Why?

Among the additional items inventoried and photographed were W-2 forms from Dolly Shoe (1955), Tujague's (1955/56), JR Michaels (1956) and the Pfisterer Dental Lab (1956). But not one of these W-2 forms has the initials of a Dallas Police officer. None of these W-2 forms are on the DPD handwritten lists. None of these W-2 forms are on the lists typed at DPD headquarters (Stovall A & B, Turner 1). And none of these W-2 forms appear in photographs of Oswald's possessions spread out on the floor of the Dallas Police Department on November 23. But all of these W-2 forms have the initials of FBI Lab Technician Robert Frazier (FBI headquarters, Washington, DC). The evidence clearly suggests that these W-2 forms were created, initialed by Frazier, and added to Oswald's possessions while in FBI custody between November 23-26. In fact over 200 items of evidence were added to Oswald's possessions while in FBI custody. The W-2 forms were not found by the Dallas Police. They were created in Washington, DC for the purpose of altering the dates of Oswald's employment in the mid-1950s. It is pretty hard to imagine that a 16 or 17 year old teenager would keep 1955 and 1956 W-2 forms during his 3 years in the Marine Corps, 2-1/2 years in the Soviet Union, and year and a half moving from Dallas to New Orleans and back to Dallas. Why would Oswald keep 8-year-old W-2 forms and yet not keep W-2 forms, copies of tax returns, or any employment information from his work in 1962 and 1963?

NOTE: It is easy to determine if the W-2 forms, or any other items of "evidence", were added to the original 225 items of evidence brought to FBI headquarters on November 23. First, look at any item listed on the joint DPD/FBI inventory of November 26, 1963 (WC Ex. 2003) to see if that item has the initials of a Dallas Police officer. Second, see if that item was listed on the handwritten or typed DPD inventory list (WC exhibits-Stoval A; Stoval B; Turner 1). If a particular item does not have the initials of a DPD officer and is not listed on the original DPD inventory (handwritten or typed), then that item was not found by the Dallas Police. That item was added to Oswald's possessions in Washington, DC, may have been initialed by an FBI lab technician, returned to the Dallas Police on November 26, inventoried and photographed jointly by the DPD and FBI, and then listed among the 455 items that appear on Warren Commission Exhibit #2003. This is how certain items of "evidence" were added to Oswald's possessions in order to help frame him for the assassination and to help merge the backgrounds of HARVEY and LEE in order to make it appear as though there were only one "Lee Harvey Oswald."

]]]]]]

see website

]]]]]]

Above are two of the four W-2 forms allegedly found among Oswald's possessions. But it appears far more likely that they were created during the brief time the items were at FBI Headquarters in Washington between late Nov. 23 and Nov. 26. These documents were not listed in the inventories written by the Dallas Police, nor were they initialled by Gus Rose, R. S. Stovall or John P. Adamcik. Other reasons to suspect them are explained below.

Following the assassination the Warren Commission depended upon the FBI to investigate, collect, and provide information to them. Top FBI official William Sullivan said, "Hoover did not like to see the Warren commissions come into existence. He showed marked interest in limiting the scope of it or circumventing the scope of it and taking any action that might result in neutralizing it.....when an enormous organization like the FBI with tremendous power still can sit back and shuffle the deck of cards and pick up the card they want to show you it may be you're not going to get the entire picture. If there were documents that possibly he didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those documents no longer exist, and the truth will never be known." Commission attorney Samuel Stern was skeptical and aware of a potential problem. Stern told the HSCA, "at the outset we realized that there was no possible way to penetrate any official involvement in a cover-up or conspiracy if there was such complicity......the FBI and CIA could formulate and maintain a cover-up which no one would ever penetrate." Mr. Stern's skepticism and analysis proved to be correct.
In 1978 the SSA once again failed to provide information relating to Oswald's pre-1962 employment (House Select Committee). In an attempt to avoid answering questions or providing Social Security records about Oswald's pre-1962 income someone at the SSA took the time to copy and forward to the HSCA copies of Oswald's employment as reported by the Warren Commission (line 23). It is obvious that in 1978 someone at the SSA knew there was problem with LHO's pre-1962 income. That someone knew there was a big problem and was trying hard to avoid the issue 15 years after the assassination.
On November 22, 1996, Marina Oswald Porter and the Assassination Record Review Board's John Tunnheim appeared on the Oprah Winfrey television program. On that broadcast, Tunnheim asked Marina point blank to release Oswalds tax forms and said, "We're asking her to cooperate as well with help getting access to Lee Harvey Oswald's tax files...." Marina refused, adding: "It's not important." But the missing information was and is very important. We have to wonder WHY Marina refused to allow access to Oswald's tax information.
SSA records relating to Oswald's pre-1962 earnings either disappeared or were withheld in 1963. Their disappearance was actively managed and continued through 1978 and beyond, and someone knew the reason. Someone knew and someone still knows. Today, if the SSA "magically" produced Oswald's pre-1962 records, there is little doubt those records would be "sanitized." If Oswald's earnings from employment at Dolly Shoe, Tujague's, JR Michaels, and the Pfisterer Dental Lab had been properly maintained and reported by the SSA fifty years ago, then those records would show that two people were using the name and social security number of Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Jon G. Tidd]

As I think about the possibility someone or some entity framed Marina's husband for JFK's murder, including the possibility he was set up in advance to take the fall for the murder, I've not found it necessary to fit "Lee" into my thinking.

I see, I think, no clear and indications Marina's husband was set up in advance. He was, no matter what, a great patsy all by himself.

Whatever happened in Mexico City wasn't constructed to set up Oswald, unless one buys Phil Shenon's story. As for the Sylvia Odio incident, if one believes "Leon" was Marina's husband, one doesn't need "Lee." As for the Sportdome incident, even if the misbehaving party was "Lee", that incident is hardly enough to set up Marina's husband for JFK's murder. Same goes for the Bogard auto incident. Maybe, I'll concede, there was an attempt to set up Marina's husband using "Lee." it sure wasn't much of an attempt, and it sure didn't get much play. My best guess is that Marina's husband was identified but not set up as patsy pre-assassination. If this guess is correct, there is no role for "Lee" pre-assassination in preparing the way for Marina's husband to be charged with JFK's murder.

Post-assassination, I don't see any possible role for "Lee" except maybe for attracting Johnny Brewer's attention outside the Texas Theater. That's a real slender reed on which to base a frame job.

I do believe Marina's husband was framed post-assassination. I don't see a necessary role for "Lee" in constructing the frame. The DPD was up to the job.

I have no problem, however, in believing there were two boys whose faces were superficially similar who went by the same name. I have no problem believing post-assassination the FBI (principally) wove the histories of two such boys into a single thread in order to distort facts central understanding the assassination.

[Thomas Graves]

On 4/25/2015 at 1:41 PM, Jon G. Tidd said:

As I think about the possibility someone or some entity framed Marina's husband for JFK's murder, including the possibility he was set up in advance to take the fall for the murder, I've not found it necessary to fit "Lee" into my thinking.

I see, I think, no clear and indications Marina's husband was set up in advance. He was, no matter what, a great patsy all by himself.

Whatever happened in Mexico City wasn't constructed to set up Oswald, unless one buys Phil Shenon's story. As for the Sylvia Odio incident, if one believes "Leon" was Marina's husband, one doesn't need "Lee." As for the Sportdome incident, even if the misbehaving party was "Lee", that incident is hardly enough to set up Marina's husband for JFK's murder. Same goes for the Bogard auto incident. Maybe, I'll concede, there was an attempt to set up Marina's husband using "Lee." it sure wasn't much of an attempt, and it sure didn't get much play. My best guess is that Marina's husband was identified but not set up as patsy pre-assassination. If this guess is correct, there is no role for "Lee" pre-assassination in preparing the way for Marina's husband to be charged with JFK's murder.

Post-assassination, I don't see any possible role for "Lee" except maybe for attracting Johnny Brewer's attention outside the Texas Theater. That's a real slender reed on which to base a frame job.

I do believe Marina's husband was framed post-assassination. I don't see a necessary role for "Lee" in constructing the frame. The DPD was up to the job.

I have no problem, however, in believing there were two boys whose faces were superficially similar who went by the same name. I have no problem believing post-assassination the FBI (principally) wove the histories of two such boys into a single thread in order to distort facts central understanding the assassination.

Jon,

Perhaps if you were willing to view the above-mentioned incidents collectively rather than as isolated, individual incidents, you'd be able to accept the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was set up in advance to be implicated in the assassination, and that he was also set up to be framed after the fact. The DPD had all of their ducks in a row for that.

Look at it this way: If an effort was made to set up Oswald in advance, the bad guys would have been pretty stupid to think that they could implicate Oswald by any one of these incidents, alone, wouldn't they.

--Tommy

Edited March 17, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

I refuse to wade through the morass of verbiage dumped on this thread since my last post looking for the barely possible one or two semi-coherent, semi-relevant nuggets it may contain.

You win, James. It's your forum, and I hope you, Harvey, Lee and all the cheerleaders will be very happy together.

Adios!

[Thomas Graves]

On 4/25/2015 at 5:12 PM, Thomas Graves said:

On 4/25/2015 at 1:41 PM, Jon G. Tidd said:

As I think about the possibility someone or some entity framed Marina's husband for JFK's murder, including the possibility he was set up in advance to take the fall for the murder, I've not found it necessary to fit "Lee" into my thinking.

I see, I think, no clear and indications Marina's husband was set up in advance. He was, no matter what, a great patsy all by himself.

Whatever happened in Mexico City wasn't constructed to set up Oswald, unless one buys Phil Shenon's story. As for the Sylvia Odio incident, if one believes "Leon" was Marina's husband, one doesn't need "Lee." As for the Sportdome incident, even if the misbehaving party was "Lee", that incident is hardly enough to set up Marina's husband for JFK's murder. Same goes for the Bogard auto incident. Maybe, I'll concede, there was an attempt to set up Marina's husband using "Lee." it sure wasn't much of an attempt, and it sure didn't get much play. My best guess is that Marina's husband was identified but not set up as patsy pre-assassination. If this guess is correct, there is no role for "Lee" pre-assassination in preparing the way for Marina's husband to be charged with JFK's murder.

Post-assassination, I don't see any possible role for "Lee" except maybe for attracting Johnny Brewer's attention outside the Texas Theater. That's a real slender reed on which to base a frame job.

I do believe Marina's husband was framed post-assassination. I don't see a necessary role for "Lee" in constructing the frame. The DPD was up to the job.

I have no problem, however, in believing there were two boys whose faces were superficially similar who went by the same name. I have no problem believing post-assassination the FBI (principally) wove the histories of two such boys into a single thread in order to distort facts central understanding the assassination.

 deleted by Tommy Graves

bumped

Edited March 17, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

As I think about the possibility someone or some entity framed Marina's husband for JFK's murder, including the possibility he was set up in advance to take the fall for the murder, I've not found it necessary to fit "Lee" into my thinking.

I see, I think, no clear and indications Marina's husband was set up in advance. He was, no matter what, a great patsy all by himself.

Whatever happened in Mexico City wasn't constructed to set up Oswald, unless one buys Phil Shenon's story. As for the Sylvia Odio incident, if one believes "Leon" was Marina's husband, one doesn't need "Lee." As for the Sportdome incident, even if the misbehaving party was "Lee", that incident is hardly enough to set up Marina's husband for JFK's murder. Same goes for the Bogard auto incident. Maybe, I'll concede, there was an attempt to set up Marina's husband using "Lee." it sure wasn't much of an attempt, and it sure didn't get much play. My best guess is that Marina's husband was identified but not set up as patsy pre-assassination. If this guess is correct, there is no role for "Lee" pre-assassination in preparing the way for Marina's husband to be charged with JFK's murder.

Post-assassination, I don't see any possible role for "Lee" except maybe for attracting Johnny Brewer's attention outside the Texas Theater. That's a real slender reed on which to base a frame job.

I do believe Marina's husband was framed post-assassination. I don't see a necessary role for "Lee" in constructing the frame. The DPD was up to the job.

I have no problem, however, in believing there were two boys whose faces were superficially similar who went by the same name. I have no problem believing post-assassination the FBI (principally) wove the histories of two such boys into a single thread in order to distort facts central understanding the assassination.

I hope though Jon, that you continue to see the duplicity in these "non set-up activities" in which Oswald was conveniently placed and conveniently steered to perform.

I'm not sure how you can be so definitive about his not being the object of a set-up as a contingency at the very least... That he was being set-up as a Castro sympathizer which is then changed to Lone Nut does not change the set-up process... only what parts are to be made public.

The CIA and State dept knows that an Oswald travels to and from Mexico by car but literally creates the story that the evidence does NOT say anything about a mode of transportation. The FBI is then enlisted to create a bus trip... which, with the help of a well placed Gobernacion asset, the FBI does, even though it knows the details could not possibly be related to Oswald.

There is both pre and post assassination incrimination going on, but from activities which were not directly related until 11/22.

JA makes a strong case that Ruby was connected, enough so to not be charged or jailed for his gun-running, drugs or other illegal activities. and Lee is with Ruby.

Most of the framing happens when Commie killer turns to Lone Nut... great example is Alvarado in Mexico and how his story evolves, and is then dismissed...

As for the two boys... NYC 1952-53 will always remain a most interesting and highly contested time period.

Why those who knew Harvey said he did not talk with a southern drawl as Lee did before he left... is one small indication of what was going on.

How his brother Pic tells Lee from Harvey is ever case...

But H&L is not the point (although this is an H&L thread)... that Oswald and those around him lived in the world of spies is not arguable... that his movements and activities do not describe an innocent bystander is also not arguable.

What his purposes were... the existence of the two of them, the relationship to 11/22... is interpretation of the evidence available and how it corroborates the thesis.

I'm not sure again how you can see he was not set-up in advance when so much of the incriminating evidence is a result of activities he was guided to perform, or were performed for him with the purpose of incrimination or leverage at some point.

[Jon G. Tidd]

deleted

Edited April 27, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Michael Clark]

I was taking care of a friend who had surgery. She has no interest in the case but recorded a program for me in my absence. We were watching the program together. She saw images of Lee at the DPD. Soon after, she saw the Lee-and-Marina-on-the-train photo and she cried-out: "That's not him!".

There was no input from me about Harvey and Lee. I had already taxed her patience previously with anything I had to say about the case.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited March 20, 2018 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

On 12/24/2011 at 6:23 PM, Greg Parker said:

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.

Come back Greg!

[Thomas Graves]

On 12/24/2011 at 3:23 PM, Greg Parker said:

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.

Just now came across this (IMHO) important thread which Greg Parker started back in 2011 ...

BUMP

--  Tommy