The problem with conspiracy

[Greg Parker]

And no matter how you slice it, Bogard was found dead in his car in a cemetery, with a bunch of papers featuring stories about the JFK assassination in the trunk.

Yes, Don, he was. I don't know what YOU make of that, but to me, it screams of someone obsessed and dwelling on his treatment by the government, the media and loonies who insisted he saw a double.

Depression + Dramamine = suicide ideation. I know that's just too mundane and unexciting for you, Don.... but that's medical science for you.

The government didn't believe him. People like you didn't believe him. You ALL drove him to suicide.

But according to you.... what? He was murdered and the murderers left all those JFK stories in the trunk because.... ? I mean... if it was murder and not suicide, why did you mention them?

[David Lifton]

We don't need to "prove" there was a conspiracy. A few days studying the evidence will convince anyone without an agenda that there was a conspiracy. The authorities would have needed to prove Oswald did it beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming he was tried in an honest courtroom (which he probably wouldn't have been), and had competent legal representation (which probably wouldn't have been the case). To disinterested researchers, they inadvertently proved he couldn't have done it.

Every source you cited in order to build your Warren Commission-style theory that the real Oswald visited Bogard is tainted. So Ian Griggs found a document quoting Marina about Oswald buying a car? You can't be serious! Marina's testimony about anything regarding her husband is worthless. Do you also think that she held the bathroom door to keep him from shooting Nixon? Along with the Paines- these are the three sources used for virtually everything negative we "know" about Oswald. Quoting them is like quoting yet another intelligence agency asset about the Kennedys being gung ho about efforts to assassinate Castro, or how our Vietnam policy wouldn't have changed if he'd lived.

Yes, Greg, you're certainly making the case for conspiracy stronger by relying on Marina and the Paines, and once again attributing the testimony of a witness who bolstered it to some kind of mental or emotional illness. And no matter how you slice it, Bogard was found dead in his car in a cemetery, with a bunch of papers featuring stories about the JFK assassination in the trunk. That's suspicious and significant, especially when combined with all the other unnatural deaths connected to this case.

You accuse others of being irresponsible, yet you continue to accuse Jack White of chicanery that you can't possibly prove, insist that Oswald's tonsil issue was the result of a very, very improbable regrowth, dismiss the separate encounters Yates, Bogard and Odio had with seeming Oswald impersonators as separate instances of mental illness, etc. Your theories are wilder than anything your dreaded "conspiracy theorists" have ever come up with.

Sometimes, i agree with a person in one area, even if I am in complete disagreement with that person in another. And that applies here, to Greg Parker's general remarks about Bogard.

FWIW: I believe that Bogard dealt with the real Lee Oswald, and there was no impersonation.

For the life of me, Don, I have no idea why you keep insisting that this and that events are impersonations, when it is simply the real Lee Oswald living his real life; and unaware, of course, that he was being used, and the end of the road was a short distance away.

In the case of the test drive of the car, and his intent to purchase one, Greg Parker omitted a fact which is quite relevant: sometime in the first week or two following the assassination, the FBI turned up evidence that Oswald visited an insurance agent, and inquired about buying automobile liability insurance. The fellow's name was--as i recollect--Brand.

Are you unaware of that?

The notion that there was "two Oswalds" and that that concept has to be invoked to "explain" why Oswald would want to buy a car is unnecessary and, imho, just plain silly.

And while I'm on the subject of impersonation: I also believe that Oswald --yes, the real Oswald--visited Odio.

ODIO

One can't address the Odio situation properly unless one takes into account Oswald's visit to the Austin office Selective Service, where he spent about 30 minutes speaking with Ms. Lee Dannelly. That visit (according to Ms. Dannelly) occurred shortly after noon on Wednesday, September 25th, and --unless Ms. Dannelly was hallucinating, that visit with Oswald establishes that Lee Oswald had airplane transportation on the morning of Wed., 9/25; that he flew from New Orleans to Austin (almost certainly for "other" reasons); and, while there, dropped by the Selective Service office and saw Ms. Dannelly. The Dannelly story was first investigated and reported by Ron Dugger, in the Texas Observor; then she was interviewed, in detail, by the FBI. She most definitely should have been called as a WC witness--but was not. I interviewed her in 1991.

And while on the subject of Oswald and "air transportation": Another piece of evidence bearing on Oswald's "itinerary" during this very period was when he called Horace Twiford, of the Socialist Labor Party, on his way back from Dallas to Houston (where he boarded the bus going south). Mr. Twiford, a seaman, was "out at sea," but his wife took the call; and she told the FBI that Oswald said he was "flying to Mexico".

Note: ". . . flying to Mexico. . ." No, he didn't go to Mexico by plane; but clearly, "flying" was on LHO's mind.

The "traditional" way of interpreting all this data--going back decades to the time of Popkin's "Second Oswald"--is that all of this was the work of an imposter. IMHO: That is flat out wrong. And finally, for what its worth (and sorry, Don), I also believe that Lee and Marina visited that furniture store.

Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Marina says"--that's another canard.

Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Ruth or Michael Paine say"--another canard.

All of this is the outgrowth of the oversimplified view of Oswald which began in the 1960s--that he was just some ordinary lefty worker, living his ordinary lefty life, while evil forces pounced on his existence, and --through an evil imposter--created the false impression that, for example, he was (he thought) coming into money, and might be genuinely looking into buying a car; or buying furniture; or moving into an apartment with his wife.

I hope you do realize, Don, that Lee thought he had a future; and did not think he was going to die on November 22, 1963.

As a novelist, I'm sure you do realize that. . . so why do you insist on "connecting the dots" in this totally incorrect way?

DSL

6/22/15 - 4:10 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

[David Lifton]

The case for conspiracy is coming. Game, set & match. You can all please your selves after that.

What??

The case for conspiracy is prima facie and has been with us from the beginning.

Anyone who is "scrambling" to "prove" conspiracy is someone who isn't in possession of the physical facts of the case.

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

2 shooters proven.

Many have concluded otherwise -- no one can factually argue otherwise.

No one.

The US gov't, the corporate media, and the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community have been suppressing/ignoring/dismissing the physical evidence since the night of the autopsy when the doctors weren't allowed to observe JFK's clothes.

CT/LN Pet Theorists despise the physical evidence in this case.

A relentless focus on the clothing evidence arouses dark & incredible passions in places like ROKC where folks like Lee Farley and Hasan Yusuf claim I deserve to have my head kicked in for this relentless focus.

It's a murder case -- physical evidence is always paramount in a murder case.

But not this one!

So Greg Parker is finally going to "answer" a question that was answered officially in the office of Arlen Specter almost 50 years ago.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.html

Gaeton Fonzi rolls in his grave...

Cliff:

I agree with you.

The clothing holes proves the official version to be false.

Of course--and I'm sure you know this--this point was argued by Vincent Salandria in his original articles in Liberation Magazine (Spring 1965); and Gaeton Fonzi emphasized the point in his interviews with Arlen Specter, and the original article he published in Philadelphia Magazine.

I have always wondered whether Arlen Specter was obstinate and/or incompetent, or simply knowingly complicit in developing a false solution to the crime, and then going on and defending it for the rest of his life.

DSL

6/22/15 - 4:30 am. PDT

Los Angeles, California

[Greg Parker]

We don't need to "prove" there was a conspiracy. A few days studying the evidence will convince anyone without an agenda that there was a conspiracy. The authorities would have needed to prove Oswald did it beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming he was tried in an honest courtroom (which he probably wouldn't have been), and had competent legal representation (which probably wouldn't have been the case). To disinterested researchers, they inadvertently proved he couldn't have done it.

Every source you cited in order to build your Warren Commission-style theory that the real Oswald visited Bogard is tainted. So Ian Griggs found a document quoting Marina about Oswald buying a car? You can't be serious! Marina's testimony about anything regarding her husband is worthless. Do you also think that she held the bathroom door to keep him from shooting Nixon? Along with the Paines- these are the three sources used for virtually everything negative we "know" about Oswald. Quoting them is like quoting yet another intelligence agency asset about the Kennedys being gung ho about efforts to assassinate Castro, or how our Vietnam policy wouldn't have changed if he'd lived.

Yes, Greg, you're certainly making the case for conspiracy stronger by relying on Marina and the Paines, and once again attributing the testimony of a witness who bolstered it to some kind of mental or emotional illness. And no matter how you slice it, Bogard was found dead in his car in a cemetery, with a bunch of papers featuring stories about the JFK assassination in the trunk. That's suspicious and significant, especially when combined with all the other unnatural deaths connected to this case.

You accuse others of being irresponsible, yet you continue to accuse Jack White of chicanery that you can't possibly prove, insist that Oswald's tonsil issue was the result of a very, very improbable regrowth, dismiss the separate encounters Yates, Bogard and Odio had with seeming Oswald impersonators as separate instances of mental illness, etc. Your theories are wilder than anything your dreaded "conspiracy theorists" have ever come up with.

Sometimes, i agree with a person in one area, even if I am in complete disagreement with that person in another. And that applies here, to Greg Parker's general remarks about Bogard.

FWIW: I believe that Bogard dealt with the real Lee Oswald, and there was no impersonation.

For the life of me, Don, I have no idea why you keep insisting that this and that events are impersonations, when it is simply the real Lee Oswald living his real life; and unaware, of course, that he was being used, and the end of the road was a short distance away.

In the case of the test drive of the car, and his intent to purchase one, Greg Parker omitted a fact which is quite relevant: sometime in the first week or two following the assassination, the FBI turned up evidence that Oswald visited an insurance agent, and inquired about buying automobile liability insurance. The fellow's name was--as i recollect--Brand.

Are you unaware of that?

The notion that there was "two Oswalds" and that that concept has to be invoked to "explain" why Oswald would want to buy a car is unnecessary and, imho, just plain silly.

And while I'm on the subject of impersonation: I also believe that Oswald --yes, the real Oswald--visited Odio.

ODIO

One can't address the Odio situation properly unless one takes into account Oswald's visit to the Austin office Selective Service, where he spent about 30 minutes speaking with Ms. Lee Dannelly. That visit (according to Ms. Dannelly) occurred shortly after noon on Wednesday, September 25th, and --unless Ms. Dannelly was hallucinating, that visit with Oswald establishes that Lee Oswald had airplane transportation on the morning of Wed., 9/25; that he flew from New Orleans to Austin (almost certainly for "other" reasons); and, while there, dropped by the Selective Service office and saw Ms. Dannelly. The Dannelly story was first investigated and reported by Ron Dugger, in the Texas Observor; then she was interviewed, in detail, by the FBI. She most definitely should have been called as a WC witness--but was not. I interviewed her in 1991.

And while on the subject of Oswald and "air transportation": Another piece of evidence bearing on Oswald's "itinerary" during this very period was when he called Horace Twiford, of the Socialist Labor Party, on his way back from Dallas to Houston (where he boarded the bus going south). Mr. Twiford, a seaman, was "out at sea," but his wife took the call; and she told the FBI that Oswald said he was "flying to Mexico".

Note: ". . . flying to Mexico. . ." No, he didn't go to Mexico by plane; but clearly, "flying" was on LHO's mind.

The "traditional" way of interpreting all this data--going back decades to the time of Popkin's "Second Oswald"--is that all of this was the work of an imposter. IMHO: That is flat out wrong. And finally, for what its worth (and sorry, Don), I also believe that Lee and Marina visited that furniture store.

Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Marina says"--that's another canard.

Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Ruth or Michael Paine say"--another canard.

All of this is the outgrowth of the oversimplified view of Oswald which began in the 1960s--that he was just some ordinary lefty worker, living his ordinary lefty life, while evil forces pounced on his existence, and --through an evil imposter--created the false impression that, for example, he was (he thought) coming into money, and might be genuinely looking into buying a car; or buying furniture; or moving into an apartment with his wife.

I hope you do realize, Don, that Lee thought he had a future; and did not think he was going to die on November 22, 1963.

As a novelist, I'm sure you do realize that. . . so why do you insist on "connecting the dots" in this totally incorrect way?

DSL

6/22/15 - 4:10 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Wrong. I knew about it. It was not Oswald. In my opinion, it was Herbert Lee (H. Lee - who, unlike LHO, actually did live at the N Beckley Boarding House). I refuse to use something just because it would boost my theory.

Here is the document.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408&relPageId=176&search=%22tower_insurance%22

Note that it starts out stating that the person identified himself as OH Lee and lived at the Johnson's b/h. It also says he had come from San Antonio. Neither LHO nor Herbert had come from there. They had both come from Louisiana, so that can be put to down to either the person lying, or Brand misremembering. This person produced a license in the surname Lee. Note now that brand says he could not recall if the initials were OH. I believe it was just "H". Also ask yourself why LHO would be looking to buy a car in his real name but seeking insurance for it under an alias and having a license in that fake name. The document finishes by saying that after the assassination, Brand didn't recognise Oswald as the person he had dealt with. He only put it together after he learned Oswald had supposedly lived at that address under the name OH Lee.

[Greg Parker]

reboot

[Tom Hume]

There is another possible reason for the Oswald impersonations: That these doppelgangers were not part of a frame at all, but were stunts created by Oswald and his two confederates, Richard Case Nagell, and Igor V Vaganov. These three guys called themselves "ICO", and their stunts were awash in anagram puzzles that both told their story of the upcoming assassination attempt, and what ICO was doing to prevent it.

We have two names: "O H LEE", and, "HERBERT LEE", an address, "1026 North Beckley, and a visit to a car insurance company by "O H LEE".

"1026 NORTH BECKLEY" anagrams to:

"1026 KEY: 'B', OTHER 'L'"

There is an abundance of ICO puzzles that appear to make this same claim; that Baganov was the other Lee. My hypothesis predicts that Oswald's choice of addresses would likely have been made by RCN or IVB for their puzzle value.

The two "Lee" names at the Beckley address are:

"Herbert Lee", and "O.H. Lee", and one of the standard ICO puzzle techniques (covered in my previous posts) is called the "ONION". It simply entails removing all of the duplicate letters from a piece of discourse. "ONION" becomes "ONI", for example.

Using the ONION on "HERBERT LEE/O.H LEE", yields "HERBTLO", which anagrams to:

"'B', OTHER 'L"

Yikes! This is essentially the same puzzle answer we received from anagramming O. H. Lee's address.

Using ICO's binary code method, "'B', OTHER 'L'", decodes to (Footnote #1):

"JBB, 11-22"

(The number/letter translation devise is in Footnote #2)

"JBB" was ICO's primary tactic for preventing the "11-22" assassination: "Jerry B Belknap" was to stage a fit on Elm Street that would force the motorcade to take an alternative route.

Claiming to be "O H Lee", someone applied for car insurance and also claimed to be from "San Antonio": Not "New Orleans", but "San Antonio. "SAN ANTONIO" anagrams to:

"SANTA ONION"

And when one uses ICO's Onion technique on "SANTA ONION", one comes up with "SANTOI", which anagrams to:

"IT'S A NO"

This is a typical ICO double entendre, meaning that the ruling at the insurance company was "NO", and that "San Antonio" was not the correct city - "IT'S A N.O." - "IT'S A 'New Orleans'".

"HERBERT LEE" anagrams to:

"THE REBEL: R.E."

We get to find out who the "REBEL R. E." is by anagramming "HERBERT LEE - O.H. LEE". These two names anagram to:

"ROBERT E. LEE. He-he. L"

My take would be that ICO was adding a little humor here, which is not uncommon.

If we combine both names and the address, it looks like this:

"OH LEE, HERBERT LEE, 1026 NORTH BECKLEY"

And when we translate the four numbers to letters, it looks like this:

"OH LEE, HERBERT LEE, BACG NORTH BECKLEY"

And when we use the "Onion" on the above letters, it looks like this:

"OHLERBTACGNKY"

And this 13-letter puzzle anagrams to:

"G BACK THORNLEY"

"G" would be "Guy", and this appears to be another double entendre, because, "G BACK THORNLEY" decodes to (#3):

"A GAY"

Another very common ICO puzzle tool is the "DT" cipher, and "DT" stands for "Double Talk". Where the "Onion" is used to reduce the number of letters in a puzzle, the "DT" cipher is used to double the number of letters.

A..B..C..D..E..F..G..H..I..J..K..L..M..N..O..P..Q..R..S..T..U..V..W..X..Y..Z

K..L..M..N..O.P..Q..R..S.T.U..V..W..X..Y...Z..A..B..C..D..E..F..G...H..I...J

The cipher works from the top down, and if we apply the name, "O. H. LEE" to the cipher, we get, "OHLEE + YRVOO", which can anagram to:

"YO, E HOOVER. L"

The above answer looks okay, but the real meaning is this:

"O-24: E HOOVER. L"

I translated the "Y" to "24", and "O-24" is a very big deal in the ICO puzzles, second only to the Jerry B Belknap stunt. "O-24" is the puzzle symbol for the so-called "Odio Incident". "O" stands for "Odio", but the puzzle also contains eight letter "Os".

The puzzle is puzzle number "24" in Oswald's Historic Diary, the incident happened on the "24"th of September, and the giant "24"-letter puzzle is Richard Case Nagell's masterpiece, one of his "Trade Marks" ("MICRO DOTS" anagrams to "RC 'TM': S ODIO". "LO CURTAIN RODS" (the intended 13-letter rendering of this ICO puzzle), anagrams to "RCN ULTRA: 'S ODIO'").

I'm introducing the "S ODIO" puzzle here because it is a good example of the "ONION", and "ODIO" is one of the topics discussed on this thread.

Here is the 24-letter "S ODIO" puzzle (AKA: O-Y):

"LEON O, LEOPOLDO, ANGELO, S ODIO"

These 24 letters can anagram to:

"PEEL ONION: LOOOLDOAGELOSOD"

And when we follow the above directions, we come up with:

"PEEL ONION: LODAGES"

And we can now re-anagram this to:

"PEELED ONION: S.O GAL"

When we use the Onion on the entire 24-letter puzzle: "LEON O, LEOPOLDO, ANGELO, S ODIO", we come up with, "LEONPDAGSI". This anagrams to:

"DP IS ANGELO", or

"ANGELO IS DP"

This might bear repeating:

"DP IS ANGELO", "ANGELO IS DP"

"DP" is, of course, "David Phillips", and "DP IS ANGELO" appears to be at least one of ICO's primary intention behind this huge "S ODIO" puzzle.

Although it might be of little value, my favorite 24-letter anagram of "LEON O, LEOPOLDO, ANGELO, S ODIO", is:

"DIG DAP'S LLLLEEEOOOOOOOON. N"

("DAP" could possibly stand for "David Atlee Phillips")

Tom

Footnote #1 B, OTHER L

BOTHER = 101101, and, 010010, plus tag L

Yield: BL

LREHTO = 110110, and, 001001, plus tag B

Yield: WJB. Total Yield: BLWJB = JBB, 11-22

Footnote #2 letter/number translation device:

(A=0)(B=1)(C=2)(D=3)(E=4)(F=5)(G=6)(H=7)(I=8)(J=9)(K=10)(L=11)(M=12)(N=13)(O=14)(P=15)(Q=16)(R=17)(S=18)(T=19)(U=20)(V=21)(W=22)(X=23)(Y=24)(Z=25)

Footnote #3 G BACK THORNLEY

GBACKT HORNLE = 010001 101110, and, 101110 010001, plus tag Y

Yield: AAY

YELNRO HTKCAB = 001110 110001, and, 110001 001110, plus tag G

Yield: G. Total yield: A GAY

Edited June 23, 2015 by Tom Hume

[David Lifton]

We don't need to "prove" there was a conspiracy. A few days studying the evidence will convince anyone without an agenda that there was a conspiracy. The authorities would have needed to prove Oswald did it beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming he was tried in an honest courtroom (which he probably wouldn't have been), and had competent legal representation (which probably wouldn't have been the case). To disinterested researchers, they inadvertently proved he couldn't have done it.

Every source you cited in order to build your Warren Commission-style theory that the real Oswald visited Bogard is tainted. So Ian Griggs found a document quoting Marina about Oswald buying a car? You can't be serious! Marina's testimony about anything regarding her husband is worthless. Do you also think that she held the bathroom door to keep him from shooting Nixon? Along with the Paines- these are the three sources used for virtually everything negative we "know" about Oswald. Quoting them is like quoting yet another intelligence agency asset about the Kennedys being gung ho about efforts to assassinate Castro, or how our Vietnam policy wouldn't have changed if he'd lived.

Yes, Greg, you're certainly making the case for conspiracy stronger by relying on Marina and the Paines, and once again attributing the testimony of a witness who bolstered it to some kind of mental or emotional illness. And no matter how you slice it, Bogard was found dead in his car in a cemetery, with a bunch of papers featuring stories about the JFK assassination in the trunk. That's suspicious and significant, especially when combined with all the other unnatural deaths connected to this case.

You accuse others of being irresponsible, yet you continue to accuse Jack White of chicanery that you can't possibly prove, insist that Oswald's tonsil issue was the result of a very, very improbable regrowth, dismiss the separate encounters Yates, Bogard and Odio had with seeming Oswald impersonators as separate instances of mental illness, etc. Your theories are wilder than anything your dreaded "conspiracy theorists" have ever come up with.

Sometimes, i agree with a person in one area, even if I am in complete disagreement with that person in another. And that applies here, to Greg Parker's general remarks about Bogard.

FWIW: I believe that Bogard dealt with the real Lee Oswald, and there was no impersonation.

For the life of me, Don, I have no idea why you keep insisting that this and that events are impersonations, when it is simply the real Lee Oswald living his real life; and unaware, of course, that he was being used, and the end of the road was a short distance away.

In the case of the test drive of the car, and his intent to purchase one, Greg Parker omitted a fact which is quite relevant: sometime in the first week or two following the assassination, the FBI turned up evidence that Oswald visited an insurance agent, and inquired about buying automobile liability insurance. The fellow's name was--as i recollect--Brand.

Are you unaware of that?

The notion that there was "two Oswalds" and that that concept has to be invoked to "explain" why Oswald would want to buy a car is unnecessary and, imho, just plain silly.

And while I'm on the subject of impersonation: I also believe that Oswald --yes, the real Oswald--visited Odio.

ODIO

One can't address the Odio situation properly unless one takes into account Oswald's visit to the Austin office Selective Service, where he spent about 30 minutes speaking with Ms. Lee Dannelly. That visit (according to Ms. Dannelly) occurred shortly after noon on Wednesday, September 25th, and --unless Ms. Dannelly was hallucinating, that visit with Oswald establishes that Lee Oswald had airplane transportation on the morning of Wed., 9/25; that he flew from New Orleans to Austin (almost certainly for "other" reasons); and, while there, dropped by the Selective Service office and saw Ms. Dannelly. The Dannelly story was first investigated and reported by Ron Dugger, in the Texas Observor; then she was interviewed, in detail, by the FBI. She most definitely should have been called as a WC witness--but was not. I interviewed her in 1991.

And while on the subject of Oswald and "air transportation": Another piece of evidence bearing on Oswald's "itinerary" during this very period was when he called Horace Twiford, of the Socialist Labor Party, on his way back from Dallas to Houston (where he boarded the bus going south). Mr. Twiford, a seaman, was "out at sea," but his wife took the call; and she told the FBI that Oswald said he was "flying to Mexico".

Note: ". . . flying to Mexico. . ." No, he didn't go to Mexico by plane; but clearly, "flying" was on LHO's mind.

The "traditional" way of interpreting all this data--going back decades to the time of Popkin's "Second Oswald"--is that all of this was the work of an imposter. IMHO: That is flat out wrong. And finally, for what its worth (and sorry, Don), I also believe that Lee and Marina visited that furniture store.

Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Marina says"--that's another canard.

Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Ruth or Michael Paine say"--another canard.

All of this is the outgrowth of the oversimplified view of Oswald which began in the 1960s--that he was just some ordinary lefty worker, living his ordinary lefty life, while evil forces pounced on his existence, and --through an evil imposter--created the false impression that, for example, he was (he thought) coming into money, and might be genuinely looking into buying a car; or buying furniture; or moving into an apartment with his wife.

I hope you do realize, Don, that Lee thought he had a future; and did not think he was going to die on November 22, 1963.

As a novelist, I'm sure you do realize that. . . so why do you insist on "connecting the dots" in this totally incorrect way?

DSL

6/22/15 - 4:10 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Wrong. I knew about it. It was not Oswald. In my opinion, it was Herbert Lee (H. Lee - who, unlike LHO, actually did live at the N Beckley Boarding House). I refuse to use something just because it would boost my theory.

Here is the document.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408&relPageId=176&search=%22tower_insurance%22

Note that it starts out stating that the person identified himself as OH Lee and lived at the Johnson's b/h. It also says he had come from San Antonio. Neither LHO nor Herbert had come from there. They had both come from Louisiana, so that can be put to down to either the person lying, or Brand misremembering. This person produced a license in the surname Lee. Note now that brand says he could not recall if the initials were OH. I believe it was just "H". Also ask yourself why LHO would be looking to buy a car in his real name but seeking insurance for it under an alias and having a license in that fake name. The document finishes by saying that after the assassination, Brand didn't recognize Oswald as the person he had dealt with. He only put it together after he learned Oswald had supposedly lived at that address under the name OH Lee.

QUOTE: I think it depends on how one reads the FBI interview of Brand, which is dated 12/2/63. The closing paragraph states: "Brand concluded by saying he did not immediately recognize Lee Harvey Oswald's photograph in the Dallas newspapers, or on television, until after reading OSWALD had in the past used the name LEE, at which time he did recognize OSWALD's photograph as being the individual who contacted him regarding insurance under the name of O. H. Lee." UNQUOTE

Well Greg. . . I disagree with your analysis. I think that last sentence speaks for itself. Brand in fact recognized Oswald from the photograph; and Oswald was in fact registered at the rooming house with a last name of "Lee." Also, please note: If another living person --e.g., "Herbert Lee"--had inquired about buying automobile liability insurance with Edward Brand, then the FBI almost certainly would have had a followup interview that person, and that FBI 302 would be in the file. In other words, Herbert Lee would have been interviewed, and that person (.e.g. Herbert Lee) would have said: "Yes, that was me." As far as I know, there is no such follow-up interview. Therefore, I find it persuasive that Lee Oswald--using the I.D. "O H Lee" during that very period (and intending to buy a car)--in fact inquired about buying automobile liability insurance from Edward Brand at Tower Insurance approximately two weeks before JFK's assassination.

Furthermore, there is one other detail which you have failed to mention: Brand notes that he had "inquired of LEE what type of car he owned" and that Lee "replied he did not own a car, but intended to buy one in the near future."

That, of course, is perfectly consistent with his behavior with Bogard, when he test drove the Mercury Comet.

Also keep in mind: According to Brand (as reported in this FBI interview): "This individual . . stated (that) he resided directly across the street in a rooming house owned by A. C. Johnson."

So. . let's see how all this adds up:

a) He lived across the street in the rooming house owned by A.C. Johnson

( b ) He was registered there under the name O H Lee

c) He did not own a car (yet) but was intending to buy one.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. .. methinks its a duck.

Yes, sure sounds like Lee H. Oswald.

The only detail that does not fit is when he told Brand that (quoting the FBI report) "he had just moved to Dallas from San Antonio, Texas."

But I find that understandable. Certainly, LHO would not want to say, "Oh yes, I was in New Orleans, where I was parading around as a supporter of Fidel Castro"; or "Oh yes, I lived in Minsk, USSR, for 2 plus years. . . and if you check the news clippings, you will see that I said that I hated America and wanted to remain in Russia for the rest of my life."

Such behavior would not be designed to get the lowest insurance rates. (Even a Geico agent might not save you that 15% which appears in all their ads).

Greg Parker: I am so glad to see that you "refuse to use something just because it would boost my theory."

How noble of you.

The question is: in your zeal to be the perfect researcher and theoretician, perhaps you are ignoring data that supports the most obvious hypothesis.

Quack quack. .

DSL

6/22/15 - 2 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited June 23, 2015 by David Lifton

[Greg Parker]

QUOTE: I think it depends on how one reads the FBI interview of Brand, which is dated 12/2/63. The closing paragraph states: "Brand concluded by saying he did not immediately recognize Lee Harvey Oswald's photograph in the Dallas newspapers, or on television, until after reading OSWALD had in the past used the name LEE, at which time he did recognize OSWALD's photograph as being the individual who contacted him regarding insurance under the name of O. H. Lee." UNQUOTE

Power of suggestion.

Well Greg. . . I disagree with your analysis.

Okay.

I think that last sentence speaks for itself. Brand in fact recognized Oswald from the photograph; and Oswald was in fact registered at the rooming house with a last name of "Lee."

So the rooming house had a OH Lee AND a H Lee? Okay.

Also, please note: If another living person --e.g., "Herbert Lee"--had inquired about buying automobile liability insurance with Edward Brand, then the FBI almost certainly would have had a followup interview that person,

But Brand told them it was Oswald.. Remember? Why would the FBI think - "this guy dealt with a Mr Lee whom he later thought he recognized as Oswald - so therefore we should interview Herbert Lee about it."?

and that FBI 302 would be in the file. In other words, Herbert Lee would have been interviewed,

Why, if they are being told it was Oswald, would they interview Herbert Lee? And if the person said that the license showed the name as Herbert Lee (or even just H Lee) , then why would they interview Herbert anyway? He's got nothing to do with anything as far as they know. It may as well have been Joe Bloggs.

These are some seriously Armstrongesque style arguments you're pulling out here.

and that person (.e.g. Herbert Lee) would have said: "Yes, that was me." As far as I know, there is no such follow-up interview. Therefore, I find it persuasive that Lee Oswald--using the I.D. "O H Lee" during that very period (and intending to buy a car)--in fact inquired about buying automobile liability insurance from Edward Brand at Tower Insurance approximately two weeks before JFK's assassination.

Well, again, you have Oswald trying to buy a car under his real name, carrying a driver's license in the name of Lee and inquiring about car insurance under that alias. It doesn't add up, compute or make any sense.

Furthermore, there is one other detail which you have failed to mention: Brand notes that he had "inquired of LEE what type of car he owned" and that Lee "replied he did not own a car, but intended to buy one in the near future."

So? Herbert Lee was employed and actually could save for one.

That, of course, is perfectly consistent with his behavior with Bogard, when he test drove the Mercury Comet.

Perfectly consistent with lots of young men. Which is where the Oswald sightings sometimes cause problems.

Also keep in mind: According to Brand (as reported in this FBI interview): "This individual . . stated (that) he resided directly across the street in a rooming house owned by A. C. Johnson."

Yes. That's where Herbert lived alright.

So. . let's see how all this adds up:

a) He lived across the street in the rooming house owned by A.C. Johnson

( b ) He was registered there under the name O H Lee

c) He did not own a car (yet) but was intending to buy one.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. .. methinks its a duck.

Yep. A duck named Herbert Lee. Who, by the way, was far more likely to have a driver's license in the name of "Lee" than Oswald since it actually was his name. Can you point to Oswald's fake driver's license in the records? Can you explain what happened to it?

Yes, sure sounds like Lee H. Oswald.

Sure. Just like Bogard's man sounds like a doppelganger.

The only detail that does not fit is when he told Brand that (quoting the FBI report) "he had just moved to Dallas from San Antonio, Texas."

But I find that understandable. Certainly, LHO would not want to say, "Oh yes, I was in New Orleans, where I was parading around as a supporter of Fidel Castro"; or "Oh yes, I lived in Minsk, USSR, for 2 plus years. . . and if you check the news clippings, you will see that I said that I hated America and wanted to remain in Russia for the rest of my life."

Why does he need to say where he was from at all? And even if he did - why would he add "and in New Orleans I was a Castro supporter." Sorry. That's utter nonsense straight from the H & L Little Book of Illogic.

Such behavior would not be designed to get the lowest insurance rates. (Even a Geico agent might not save you that 15% which appears in all their ads).

Greg Parker: I am so glad to see that you "refuse to use something just because it would boost my theory."

How noble of you.

The question is: in your zeal to be the perfect researcher and theoretician, perhaps you are ignoring data that supports the most obvious hypothesis.

Quack quack. .

Yes. That's how you come across. A real quack.-up. Even by California standards.

DSL

6/22/15 - 2 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited June 23, 2015 by Greg Parker

[David Lifton]

QUOTE: I think it depends on how one reads the FBI interview of Brand, which is dated 12/2/63. The closing paragraph states: "Brand concluded by saying he did not immediately recognize Lee Harvey Oswald's photograph in the Dallas newspapers, or on television, until after reading OSWALD had in the past used the name LEE, at which time he did recognize OSWALD's photograph as being the individual who contacted him regarding insurance under the name of O. H. Lee." UNQUOTE

Power of suggestion.

Well Greg. . . I disagree with your analysis.

Okay.

I think that last sentence speaks for itself. Brand in fact recognized Oswald from the photograph; and Oswald was in fact registered at the rooming house with a last name of "Lee."

So the rooming house had a OH Lee AND a H Lee? Okay.

Also, please note: If another living person --e.g., "Herbert Lee"--had inquired about buying automobile liability insurance with Edward Brand, then the FBI almost certainly would have had a followup interview that person,

But Brand told them it was Oswald.. Remember? Why would the FBI think - "this guy dealt with a Mr Lee whom he later thought he recognized as Oswald - so therefore we should interview Herbert Lee about it."?

and that FBI 302 would be in the file. In other words, Herbert Lee would have been interviewed,

Why, if they are being told it was Oswald, would they interview Herbert Lee? And if the person said that the license showed the name as Herbert Lee (or even just H Lee) , then why would they interview Herbert anyway? He's got nothing to do with anything as far as they know. It may as well have been Joe Bloggs.

These are some seriously Armstrongesque style arguments you're pulling out here.

and that person (.e.g. Herbert Lee) would have said: "Yes, that was me." As far as I know, there is no such follow-up interview. Therefore, I find it persuasive that Lee Oswald--using the I.D. "O H Lee" during that very period (and intending to buy a car)--in fact inquired about buying automobile liability insurance from Edward Brand at Tower Insurance approximately two weeks before JFK's assassination.

Well, again, you have Oswald trying to buy a car under his real name, carrying a driver's license in the name of Lee and inquiring about car insurance under that alias. It doesn't add up, compute or make any sense.

Furthermore, there is one other detail which you have failed to mention: Brand notes that he had "inquired of LEE what type of car he owned" and that Lee "replied he did not own a car, but intended to buy one in the near future."

So? Herbert Lee was employed and actually could save for one.

That, of course, is perfectly consistent with his behavior with Bogard, when he test drove the Mercury Comet.

Perfectly consistent with lots of young men. Which is where the Oswald sightings sometimes cause problems.

Also keep in mind: According to Brand (as reported in this FBI interview): "This individual . . stated (that) he resided directly across the street in a rooming house owned by A. C. Johnson."

Yes. That's where Herbert lived alright.

So. . let's see how all this adds up:

a) He lived across the street in the rooming house owned by A.C. Johnson

( b ) He was registered there under the name O H Lee

c) He did not own a car (yet) but was intending to buy one.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. .. methinks its a duck.

Yep. A duck named Herbert Lee. Who, by the way, was far more likely to have a driver's license in the name of "Lee" than Oswald since it actually was his name. Can you point to Oswald's fake driver's license in the records? Can you explain what happened to it?

Yes, sure sounds like Lee H. Oswald.

Sure. Just like Bogard's man sounds like a doppelganger.

The only detail that does not fit is when he told Brand that (quoting the FBI report) "he had just moved to Dallas from San Antonio, Texas."

But I find that understandable. Certainly, LHO would not want to say, "Oh yes, I was in New Orleans, where I was parading around as a supporter of Fidel Castro"; or "Oh yes, I lived in Minsk, USSR, for 2 plus years. . . and if you check the news clippings, you will see that I said that I hated America and wanted to remain in Russia for the rest of my life."

Why does he need to say where he was from at all? And even if he did - why would he add "and in New Orleans I was a Castro supporter." Sorry. That's utter nonsense straight from the H & L Little Book of Illogic.

Such behavior would not be designed to get the lowest insurance rates. (Even a Geico agent might not save you that 15% which appears in all their ads).

Greg Parker: I am so glad to see that you "refuse to use something just because it would boost my theory."

How noble of you.

The question is: in your zeal to be the perfect researcher and theoretician, perhaps you are ignoring data that supports the most obvious hypothesis.

Quack quack. .

Yes. That's how you come across. A real quack.-up. Even by California standards.

DSL

6/22/15 - 2 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Excuses excuses, Greg Parker.

Despite all the huffing and puffing, you have not addressed the data as I have clearly laid it out in my post.

Further, please don't imply that I am a supporter of Armstrong, because I most definitely am not. Moreover, I have made that fact clear --over the years--on any number of occasions. I do not subscribe to the "doppleganger" theory, as laid out in Armstrong's work. And my record on my opposition to the way Armstrong has interpreted the record is crystal clear. Remember: I had personal contact with Armstrong for several months in 1995, and found it impossible to communicate with him on the case, because every inconsistency was interpreted as a "second Oswald."

Now back to the period that Oswald was at 1026 Beckley Street:

Your objections notwithstanding, the FBI interview of Brand--about someone whose last name was "Lee" and who lived across the street at Beckley, and who had not yet purchased a car (but was intending to): all of that, when combined with the Bogard account of Oswald test driving a Mercury Comet in that same period, is important circumstantial evidence that the Lee Oswald who test drove the Mercury Comet is the same person who inquired about buying automobile liability insurance, and who spoke with Brand at Tower Insurance, during that same time period.

You can complain, and yell and scream all you want Greg Parker: the basic facts will not go away.

And, for the rest of the picture, all one needs to do is keep in mind that Lee was taking some driving lessons from Ruth Paine, and even was intending to get a driver's license on November 9th, but missed that appointment and arrived at the Texas DMV office after it had closed.

Returning to the Brand FBI interview, please don't forget the way Brand left it with the FBI on that date:

QUOTE:

he did recognize OSWALD's photograph as being the individual who contacted him regarding insurance under the name of O. H. Lee. UNQUOTE

What do you want? Greg Parker. As a friend of mine here in L.A. would say: "Must I send flowers?"

Or, as Posner would say: Case Closed.

DSL

6/23/15 - 5:35 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited June 23, 2015 by David Lifton

[Greg Parker]

1. I never said you were an Armstrong supporter. I suggested you were using the type of faulty logic his little helpers rely upon.

2. You have not addressed the license issue.

3. He initially did not recognise Oswald. He said he only came to recognise him after he learned Oswald was (allegedly) living at that boarding house using the alias OH Lee. You have stripped the quote of that context. I say the belated recognition was no more than the power of suggestion.

But look. I have absolutely no desire to change your mind about this. I hope you stick to your guns for your book.

[Greg Parker]

Greg - I don't want to feel annoyed by you, but it is starting to get to me. So in the interests of stopping that would you be willing to outline your version of what did or didn't happen on Nov 22 1963? Or, send me somewhere so I can understand what you believe at this point. You are good at tearing down other people's beliefs, and perhaps you have good points. But at last with Josephs or Jeffries I know what their starting pont is.

I am willing to -- and am in the process of doing it.

The bare bones without going into the evidence.

Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume. This program both took him to the soviet union, and was the one used to get him into the TSBD. He was told he would be taking over from William Lowery in watching and informing on Joe Molina. Lowery had "outed" himself (and thus making him useless as an informant) in September.

The real purpose of having him in there was to use as a potential patsy.

There were three plans for assassination. The first at the 12:10 point in the motorcade was aborted for reasons I won't go into here. The second was the one that worked. If that too had been aborted, Molina's wife, who was set to be one of the women serving lunch at the trade mart, would have been given a poisoned steak for JFK. As soon as it became known she was the wife of a known local "subversive", they both would become scapegoats.

The people who planned this had the means, motive and opportunity - as well as all the necessary connections.

The framing of Oswald was based around real events from his past, but modified and brought forward to help incriminate him. It also drew heavily on known historical cases. Someone (and I am sure I know who), had access to information about Oswald's time in Misk and knew a lot about past communist cases.

You can tear it down now, but I don't know how you'll justify that without knowing what evidence I have to support it all. The evidence will stand up.

Also Paul... everything I have said here, I have said in the past. Maybe just not all in one post.

"Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume."

http://www.ctka.net/2015/GregP2Excerpt.html

[Thomas Graves]

Greg - I don't want to feel annoyed by you, but it is starting to get to me. So in the interests of stopping that would you be willing to outline your version of what did or didn't happen on Nov 22 1963? Or, send me somewhere so I can understand what you believe at this point. You are good at tearing down other people's beliefs, and perhaps you have good points. But at last with Josephs or Jeffries I know what their starting pont is.

I am willing to -- and am in the process of doing it.

The bare bones without going into the evidence.

Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume. This program both took him to the soviet union, and was the one used to get him into the TSBD. He was told he would be taking over from William Lowery in watching and informing on Joe Molina. Lowery had "outed" himself (and thus making him useless as an informant) in September.

The real purpose of having him in there was to use as a potential patsy.

There were three plans for assassination. The first at the 12:10 point in the motorcade was aborted for reasons I won't go into here. The second was the one that worked. If that too had been aborted, Molina's wife, who was set to be one of the women serving lunch at the trade mart, would have been given a poisoned steak for JFK. As soon as it became known she was the wife of a known local "subversive", they both would become scapegoats.

The people who planned this had the means, motive and opportunity - as well as all the necessary connections.

The framing of Oswald was based around real events from his past, but modified and brought forward to help incriminate him. It also drew heavily on known historical cases. Someone (and I am sure I know who), had access to information about Oswald's time in Misk and knew a lot about past communist cases.

You can tear it down now, but I don't know how you'll justify that without knowing what evidence I have to support it all. The evidence will stand up.

Also Paul... everything I have said here, I have said in the past. Maybe just not all in one post.

"Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume."

http://www.ctka.net/2015/GregP2Excerpt.html

Paul,

He doesn't want to let Schrodinger's Cat out of the bag.

But one of these days he's gonna prove that he broke the case wide open a couple of years ago.

Aren't you, Greg.

--Tommy

Edited January 18, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

Greg - I don't want to feel annoyed by you, but it is starting to get to me. So in the interests of stopping that would you be willing to outline your version of what did or didn't happen on Nov 22 1963? Or, send me somewhere so I can understand what you believe at this point. You are good at tearing down other people's beliefs, and perhaps you have good points. But at last with Josephs or Jeffries I know what their starting pont is.

I am willing to -- and am in the process of doing it.

The bare bones without going into the evidence.

Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume. This program both took him to the soviet union, and was the one used to get him into the TSBD. He was told he would be taking over from William Lowery in watching and informing on Joe Molina. Lowery had "outed" himself (and thus making him useless as an informant) in September.

The real purpose of having him in there was to use as a potential patsy.

There were three plans for assassination. The first at the 12:10 point in the motorcade was aborted for reasons I won't go into here. The second was the one that worked. If that too had been aborted, Molina's wife, who was set to be one of the women serving lunch at the trade mart, would have been given a poisoned steak for JFK. As soon as it became known she was the wife of a known local "subversive", they both would become scapegoats.

The people who planned this had the means, motive and opportunity - as well as all the necessary connections.

The framing of Oswald was based around real events from his past, but modified and brought forward to help incriminate him. It also drew heavily on known historical cases. Someone (and I am sure I know who), had access to information about Oswald's time in Misk and knew a lot about past communist cases.

You can tear it down now, but I don't know how you'll justify that without knowing what evidence I have to support it all. The evidence will stand up.

Also Paul... everything I have said here, I have said in the past. Maybe just not all in one post.

"Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume."

http://www.ctka.net/2015/GregP2Excerpt.html

Paul,

He doesn't want to let Schrodinger's Cat out of the bag.

But one of these days he's gonna prove that he broke the case wide open a couple of years ago.

Aren't you, Greg.

--Tommy

As shown here, Tommy, I keep my promises.

By the time I publish the third volume, you may well be right... it may be a couple of years since I made the case-breaking discovery.

I'll ignore the sarcasm, Tommy. I know you're a bit bent out of your 8' 4" shape at the moment... but you'll bounce back.

[Thomas Graves]

Greg - I don't want to feel annoyed by you, but it is starting to get to me. So in the interests of stopping that would you be willing to outline your version of what did or didn't happen on Nov 22 1963? Or, send me somewhere so I can understand what you believe at this point. You are good at tearing down other people's beliefs, and perhaps you have good points. But at last with Josephs or Jeffries I know what their starting pont is.

I am willing to -- and am in the process of doing it.

The bare bones without going into the evidence.

Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume. This program both took him to the soviet union, and was the one used to get him into the TSBD. He was told he would be taking over from William Lowery in watching and informing on Joe Molina. Lowery had "outed" himself (and thus making him useless as an informant) in September.

The real purpose of having him in there was to use as a potential patsy.

There were three plans for assassination. The first at the 12:10 point in the motorcade was aborted for reasons I won't go into here. The second was the one that worked. If that too had been aborted, Molina's wife, who was set to be one of the women serving lunch at the trade mart, would have been given a poisoned steak for JFK. As soon as it became known she was the wife of a known local "subversive", they both would become scapegoats.

The people who planned this had the means, motive and opportunity - as well as all the necessary connections.

The framing of Oswald was based around real events from his past, but modified and brought forward to help incriminate him. It also drew heavily on known historical cases. Someone (and I am sure I know who), had access to information about Oswald's time in Misk and knew a lot about past communist cases.

You can tear it down now, but I don't know how you'll justify that without knowing what evidence I have to support it all. The evidence will stand up.

Also Paul... everything I have said here, I have said in the past. Maybe just not all in one post.

"Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume."

http://www.ctka.net/2015/GregP2Excerpt.html

Paul,

He doesn't want to let Schrodinger's Cat out of the bag.

But one of these days he's gonna prove that he broke the case wide open a couple of years ago.

Aren't you, Greg.

--Tommy

As shown here, Tommy, I keep my promises.

By the time I publish the third volume, you may well be right... it may be a couple of years since I made the case-breaking discovery.

I'll ignore the sarcasm, Tommy. I know you're a bit bent out of your 8' 4" shape at the moment... but you'll bounce back.

Greg,

8' 4" ?

No, it was an 8' 10" Takayama "Noserider" [q.v.] that I used to ride.

That was just right for my at-that-time 6' 5", 220 lb., Apollo-like frame.

Please do try to get your facts straight.

--Tommy

PS Just one innocent question at this point. How could the Bad Guys be sure that Molina's wife would be the person serving the steak to JFK?

Was she the designated "President server" for the occasion? If so, what rationale was given for her manager's choosing her, of all people, to have the honor of serving the President?

PS Just one innocent question at this point. How could the Bad Guys be sure that Molina's wife would be the person serving the steak to the President? Had she been been given that assignment by her manager? If so, what was his rationale for choosing her, of all people, to have the honor of personally serving the President his meal?

Edited January 18, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

The problem with conspiracy? Analyzing conspiracy theories requires separating fact from opinion.

Fact: JFK was killed in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Opinion: The cause of death was [blank].

Blank: A needle containing poison inserted into JFK's throat by Malcolm Perry. Credit: Ashton Grey.

No one here knows the cause of death.