Jump to content


Spartacus

Oswald in NYC


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 09 July 2005 - 01:58 PM

This article firstly reiterates the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald's New York court file ended up with the Senate Subcomittee on Juvenile Delinquency which held hearings in New York City in 1954. Dr Kurian's last day as Clinic Psychiatrist for the Court of Domestic Relations was in March, 1953. On that day, he would interview a southern boy with a bad truancy record; name of Lee Oswald. The file holding the report on this interview went missing. Kurian's boss was Dr Harris Peck. Peck went on to appear as a witness at the Senate hearings. It is my speculation that Peck perused the court files looking for cases which would support the hypothesis of the good senators.

Secondly, the article looks at the possibility that Oswald was recruited as an informant through his brother, John Pic, during Pic's service in the Port Security Unit (PSU) of the Coast Guard. The use of child informants hits the headlines periodically - unfortunately most often because of the death of the child. One such case is described here under the heading, Death of Child Informant Leads to Lawsuit: Death of Child InformantPolice, MI and FBI have historically used them. Some police forces still do, albeit under ostensibly tighter safe-guards than once existed - depending on the jurisdiction.

The Korean War served as the underlying reason for the formation of the PSU, and it may also have played a part (however indirectly) in bringing the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Deliquency to New York for hearings on comic books. Popular belief among comic "historians" is that the subcommittee was out to get one publisher... William Gaines... and for one purpose... to aid his (more conservative) competitors. But Gaines' FBI file (capioned: Sedition/Internal Security) shows that MI may have lent a hand due to concern over his comics depiction of war. The file actually opens with a MI memo from April '52 stating that his comics were "detrimental to the morale of combat soldiers and emphasizes the horrors, hardships and futility of war". MI wanted the FBI to find out if Gaines' company (EC Comics) was disseminating these comics to those of draft age, or to servicemen, and to ask the Justice Dept if Gaines was violating sedition statutes. The FBI did action the request... two years later, at the time of the subcommittee
hearings.

During the course of the Korean War, there was also great concern of how US comics were being used for propaganda -- by Communist countries...

Gaines appeared to self-destruct when he sat before committee members high as a kite to read a prepared statement and respond to questions. The drug-induced haze and statement however, were courtesy of friend and future FPCC official, Lyle Stuart. Stuart, who had been the one who convinced Gaines to appear in the first place, refused to accompany his friend into that particular den of lions. In the end, the subcommittee, deftly avoiding the "Big Brother" tag which would accompany legislative prohibitions, by working with the industry to establish a self-regulating code which would squeeze Gaines out of business.

Section A Item Three of the Comic Code: "Policemen, judges, Government officials and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrepect for established authority."

Young Lee was sent to Youth House as a truant who preferred reading comics to going to school... and who, when he did actually attend classes, refused to salute the flag, and generally lacked respect for any authority.

On would expect that this refusal to salute the flag, in era of communist hysteria and loyalty oaths, should have raised greater concerns, and led perhaps, to authorities looking into this boys family. After all, isn't it from the parents that for instance, disrectect for ones government usually springs? In fact, earlier cases of such refusal to salute had gone all the way to the Supreme Court. Though these cases involved a failure to salute on religious grounds, they show just how far some would go to enforce "loyalty". In Minersville School District V Gobitis (1940), the court held that compelling students to salute the flag did not violate any religeous freedom. This decision was reversed in 1943 in West Virginia State Board V Barnette.

Gaines' comic empire was flattened, but from ground-zero rose a little magazine named MAD. It was a Gaines-saver.

I believe Lee had no intention of joining the Marines during his time in NY... nor the Army for that matter (which is what he apparently told staff at Youth House). He idolised Pic. And Pic had plans for joining the USAF. Thus, back in NO, Lee got into astronomy and joined the CAP. At some point, he apparently realised there was no way around entry to USAF without perfect hearing. Oswald's hearing was impaired according to a report from Youth House. He'd also had a mastoidectomy at age 5. He could however, get into the Marines.

Hearing requirements for military service: "The Dept. of Defense has minimal fitness standards that must be met in order to enter military service. "Waivers for hearing loss are not granted by USAF, although hearing loss may be waived by other services on very rare occasion. Consideration for waiver of hearing loss depends on the nature of the loss, severity of loss, and the military job that is being sought by the applicant (e.g., someone with hearing loss could not be a pilot, or work in jobs requiring acute hearing). Typically, hearing loss is waived for difficult-to-fill professionalpositions such as physician, nurse, lawyer, etc."

"Etc" could of course, include intelligence work.

JOHN PIC, JAN 1951 - FEB 1953
Pic was at the Coast Guard Training Station at Groton, Conn for 6 months: Jan 1951 - Jun 1951. Groton had only two types of training which ran for 6 months; Hospital Corpsman and Radioman. www.jacksjoint.com/averypt.htm Since his later career was in USAF hospitals, the former was most likely the training he undertook.

Two postings later, from Jan 1952 - Apr 1952, he was landed in the middle of a streptococcal epidemic at US Naval Training Station, Bainbridge Md. The epidemic - one of many hitting the armed forces, was under investigation by Charles Rammelkamp of the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB). Given his (probable) prior training as a corpsman, Pic's posting at Bainbridge at that particular time may not have been coincidental or arbitrary. The AFEB had no moral or ethical issue with non-consensual experiments on human subjects as evidenced by the gift of hepititis it bestowed upon severely retarded children between 1956 and 1972. AFEB ExperimentsRammelkamp was on the Board of Directors during this period. Streptococcal A infections were weaponised by the military in the '60s using aerosol spray as the delivery system. Military Bioweapons It was during his next posting with the Port Security Unit (PSU) at Ellis Island (Apr 1952 - Feb 1953) that Marguerite and Lee came to New York and moved in with Pic and his wife, Margie. The PSU was the outgrowth of the an amendment to the Espionage Act signed into law on August 9, 1950 by Truman, and his subsequent issuance of Executive Order 10173. What had been a voluntary program among unions to weed out those under Communist influence, was now involuntary. The PSU worked with the FBI, ONI and their informants to rid the Maritime industry of more workers than any other of the myriad security and loyalty programs in existence at the time. The Navy now admits that information from informants was never checked, and many of those affected, were either innocent, or at the very least, posed no threat to National Security. PSU, FBI and OSI Hunt Subversives on the Waterfront Pic's work on Ellis Island must have kept him busy. It housed an immigration Depot rife with potential for hunters of subversives. By August 1952, the program had screened 500,000 people. Still, he managed to take two weeks off in August 1952 to show his kid brother all the sights of the Big Apple. The 1951 budget was the biggest in US peace-time history with proposed expenditure of 70 billion dollars. Of that amount, 70% would be allocated to security programs. Two programs receiving hugely increased financial injections were the Port Security Program and the "internal security activities of the FBI". 1951 Budget Spending on Security Programs

LEE OSWALD, AUG 1952 - JAN 1954
Robert Oswald joined the Marines in July, 1952. A month later, Marguerite took her youngest son and moved to New York City. In 1953, Marguerite confided in her house-keeper, Louise Robertson that she had brought young Lee to New York for "mental tests" at the Jacobi Hospital. Though this was not possible, since the Jacobi Hospital did not officially open until 1955, Robertson could be forgiven if, after 10 years, she named the place which was built onto an existing facility - The Bronx Municiple Hospital - itself part of the Albert Einstein Medical College. Critics and Warren Commission defenders alike have used the FBI statement of Robertson as evidence of Oswald's abnormal psychology. However, there is precious little evidence young Oswald was exhibiting behaviours in Fort Worth that would warrant trekking all the way to New York for "mental tests". Texas did, afterall, have psychiatrists and psychologists. If indeed, this had been the original purpose of the move, then other possibilities regarding such a "need" should be explored. Marguerite would, in 1954, tell Lee's Probation Officer, John Carro, that the move to New York was at the invitation of her eldest son. Report of Robert CaroAs we have seen, John, at the time his mother and brother arrived, was working with the PSU -- a unit of the Coast Guard specifcally set up to rid the Maritime industry of subversive elements, and that in doing so, it worked closely with the FBI and OSI and their thousands of informants. If John had issued the invitation, then it was also he, or his employer, who must have been behind the arrangements of any "mental tests". The very term "mental tests" seems somehow incongruous if this was to be a simple trip to a psychiatrist for evaluation. Researcher Herbert Blenner has suggested the possibility that the testing may have involved parapsychologists from Eastern Europe who, at the time, were studying not what people thought, but how they thought. Their ultimate aim, according to Blenner, was to eradicate the education system of "progressive tendencies"

John Pic was questioned by the Warren Commission regarding the claims made by Louise Robertson. Unfortunately, he was bound to answer "no" regardless of whether the claim was true or false, leaving us none the wiser.

Mr. JENNER. Did you hear anything to the effect that the reason why your mother and Lee had come to New York had anything to do with Lee's being given some sort of mental tests?
Mr. PIC. No, sir

Marguerite likewise, was asked a single question on this.

Mr. RANKIN. Before you left New York, did you ever tell anybody that you took Lee Oswald to New York so he could have mental tests at the Jacobi Hospital?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir; never. My child was a normal child -- and while in New York, I explained to you he had a dog with puppies. He had a bicycle. There was nothing abnormal about Lee Oswald.

We have been told through the WC that young Lee and John had a falling out in NYC over tension created by (1) Pic's notion that his mother seemed to have come to stay in the apartment permanently and, (2) an alleged threat with a knife made to John's wife, Margie. We are further told that this falling out caused the two brothers to have no meaningful contact until Thanksgiving, 1962.

As discussed, Marguerite told John Carro that they came to NY at Pic's invitation. This seems probable in light of the fact that Pic's mother-in-law (whose apartment this was) went to visit a sister just before Marguerite's arrival - thus (barely) creating enough space for mother and son.

Marguerite confirmed this in testimony:

Mrs.OSWALD. Yes, I do. I am glad you said that. My daughter-in-law was very upset. The very first time we went there--I stated before, and I am glad I said that--that we were not welcome. And immediately it was asked what did we plan to do, as soon as we put our foot in the house.. And I had made it plain to John Edward that I was going to have a place of my own, that we were just coming there to get located. My daughter-in-law resented the fact that her mother--this went on before I got there that her mother had to leave the house and go visit a sister so I could come, John Edward's mother.

John, for his part, gave no explanation for his mother's arrival, but based his belief that she intended to stay in the apartment on her bringing, among other possessions, her own TV set. Note however, that Marguerite testified that she'd made it clear that she was staying only long enough "to get located". In any event, how could Marguerite believe it would be POSSIBLE to stay once the mother-in-law returned? Isn't it more likely she brought her possessions simply because she intended to stay in the same city?

The story concerning the knife incident also had two different versions. The version prefered by the WC was once again John's.

Here was what Marguerite had to say about it:

"We were not wanted, sir, from the very beginning. So there was, I think now--it was not a kitchen knife it was a little pocket knife, a child's knife, that Lee had. So she hit Lee. So Lee had the knife-now, I remember this distinctly, because I remember how awful I thought Marjory was about this. Lee had the knife in his hand. He was whittling, because John Edward whittled ships and taught Lee to whittle ships. He puts them in the glass, you know. And he was whittling when this incident occurred. And that is whatit occurred about, because there was scraps of the wood on the floor."

If Young Lee was acting as an informant in New York as a result of any influence from Pic, then it might be seen as necessary to put "distance" between them, and later create a context for the apparent lack of contact.

#2 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,195 posts

Posted 10 July 2005 - 12:37 AM

Greg,

Your info on William Gaines is a revelation. I was a big EC Comics fan as a kid, I would buy every one of them, including of course the early issues of MAD. I had no idea that they were subversive. I still have some of them, so I'll have to go back and read them again. Of course back then I was also a big fan of Tom and Jerry and the Roadrunner and Coyote cartoons, not realizing at the time that they were too violent and thus scarring me emotionally for life.

On Oswald in New York, have you read any of Armstrong's Harvey and Lee? He makes a case for the smaller Oswald (Harvey) being raised in New York City, the son of Russian-speaking immigrants, hence his ability in Russian, while the real Lee Harvey Oswald and his mother moved to New York in 1952 to live with John Pic. (In his WC testimony Pic was shown a photo, apparently of Harvey, taken at the Bronx Zoo in 1953, and Pic said, "Sir, from that photo I could not recognize that is Lee Harvey Oswald.")

Ron

#3 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 10 July 2005 - 11:50 AM

Greg,

Your info on William Gaines is a revelation. I was a big EC Comics fan as a kid, I would buy every one of them, including of course the early issues of MAD. I had no idea that they were subversive. I still have some of them, so I'll have to go back and read them again. Of course back then I was also a big fan of Tom and Jerry and the Roadrunner and Coyote cartoons, not realizing at the time that they were too violent and thus scarring me emotionally for life.

Ron, it's pretty obvious to me you were brainwashed by such commie propaganda at an early age B)

On Oswald in New York, have you read any of Armstrong's Harvey and Lee? He makes a case for the smaller Oswald (Harvey) being raised in New York City, the son of Russian-speaking immigrants, hence his ability in Russian, while the real Lee Harvey Oswald and his mother moved to New York in 1952 to live with John Pic. (In his WC testimony Pic was shown a photo, apparently of Harvey, taken at the Bronx Zoo in 1953, and Pic said, "Sir, from that photo I could not recognize that is Lee Harvey Oswald.")

I periodically get asked if I've read Harvey & Lee. The answer is "only a very litte from the web."  Not overly impressed with the use of evidence. Two examples:

The last time they'd been together that Thanksgiving of 1962, Pic had handed
Oswald his memo book for Oswald to enter his new address. After jotting down
his Dallas post office box, he signed his name with one word: "Harvey."


That is just patently untrue. The name and the address are on opposite pages.

Here it is so can see for yourself:

LHO address from Pic's notebook

My personal opinion is that it was a reference to someone else. Harvey for instance, was the name of one of the dentists who worked on Marina's teeth. Since I have never seen any evidence (apart from DeM's testimony) that Marina actually had bad teeth, and since the USSR had free dental, and lastly, since the usual remedy in the early '60's for young females was to pull the lot and put in false teeth, I conclude that the dental work had other purposes -- an implant. Alternatively, (as suggested to me by another) it may be a reference to William Harvey. We will only ever know by getting Marina and Pic on the witness stand under cross-examination.

The other example is the Bolton Ford incident.

On January 20, 1961, a man calling himself "Lee Oswald" met with Fred Sewell, manager of Bolton Ford Truck center in New Orleans.

Again - patently untrue. The two men involved NEVER met with Sewell. They dealt with a salesman named Oscar Deslatte. And Deslatte, as far as I can tell, has never said the name "Lee Oswald " was mentioned - only "Oswald". Since LHO was in the USSR at the time, the simplest, most logical explanation is that it was a different Oswald. LHO was not short of relatives in NO with that name. I'll go with it being one of them.

At least some of the photos are explicable without resorting to Two Oswalds - "the bull-necked LHO in the Marines" photo can be put down to 3 squares a day and a ton pf physical exercise in boot camp. I had the same bull neck in my youth from lots of sport and training.

All that said, I don't rule out the theory altogether. I am aware of evidence that is yet to surface publicly. It is in the form of personal recollections, and therefore it is up to that person to choose when/if they ever decide to come with it.

As for Pic's memory... hell, I've got twin sons who look nothing alike - yet I sometimes get them confused in photos.

And Dr Kurian? Armstrong seems to have missed the real significance - THE MISSING FILE! and instead, concentrated on a physical description of Oswald given by Kurian decades after his one meeting with him. Why? Well, it did fit his theory...but isn't just possible that Kurian was misrembering after all that time? 

There are also other (probably more) significant things involving Pic's notebook, which I may repost on at some stage.

Sorry for the rant, Ron... but misuse of evidence pisses me off where it is obvious it is not accidental. (and I'm apparently getting curmudgeonly in my fast approaching dotage  <_< )



Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Edited by Greg Parker, 10 July 2005 - 01:38 PM.


#4 Robert Charles-Dunne

Robert Charles-Dunne

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 855 posts

Posted 10 July 2005 - 05:24 PM

Sorry for the rant, Ron... but misuse of evidence pisses me off where it is obvious it is not accidental. (and I'm apparently getting curmudgeonly in my fast approaching dotage 

Greg, your "curmudgeonly" approach is a huge part of your charm.  You Aussies seem to be born with the blessing of skeptical piss and vinegar in your veins.  We more timid colonials can only marvel at the mirth. 

Re: Armstrong - Years back, on another forum, I regularly defended Armstrong against a variety of peculiar naysayers who seemed intent upon impeaching him and his hypothesis without any evidence, or any self-consciousness about their evidence-free "coulda/mighta/maya" attempts at refutation .  I much admired the fact that Armstrong would avail himself of the raw data - original field reports, etc. - rather than settle for the synopsized versions prepared for WC consumption, and take careful note of the differences between them.  Obviously, Armstrong regularly discovered glaring anomalies that couldn't be easily reconciled or rationalized away, despite the best efforts of the naysayers. 

However, I strenuously pointed out in that same forum that I did not subscribe to his hypothesis, only that he should be allowed to publish prior to being damned.  My reasoning was that if Armstrong was wrong in his conclusions, that would become apparent soon enough.  I couldn't credit the rabid nature of the responses elicited by Armstrong's work from those who could offer no compelling explanation whatsoever for the anomalies Armstrong had uncovered, and didn't trouble themselves with finding any alternative explanations.

For my efforts, I was invited by Armstrong's then-factotum and all-round wonderful human being, Jim Hargrove, to vet John's manuscript, in its then-state, for errors and omissions.  I was happy to do so, as and when time allowed.

Those familiar with Armstrong's hypothesis will know the details: US intelligence had located two youngsters named Oswald - one of whom spoke Russian - and kept close tabs on them, years later substituting the Russian speaking Harvey for the red-white-and-blue Marine Lee just prior to dispatching Harvey to the USSR.

Armstrong claimed a precendent for this: one Gordon Lonsdale, a Soviet spy who had assumed the identity of a Canadian-born child [who died as a youth], and used that persona to worm his way into a position of some power, all the while reporting back to Moscow.

On its very surface, it was clear that the Lonsdale case was merely an instance of a grown man finding and utilizing a dead child's name.  Hence, it was not a precedent for what he contended happened with the "two Oswalds."  There were no "two Londsdales."  I strongly urged him to find a more compelling precedent, or excise the Lonsdale allusion entirely.

In the earlier chapters of his manuscript, there were other such problems, many of which weren't fatal flaws and could be remedied simply by viewing the problem from a slightly different angle.  As an agnostic, I offered advice that I thought might help shore up the weaker points, or improve their plausibility within the context of his hypothesis.  I was thanked for my help, but wasn't invited to vet the remaining chapters.

The most tantalizing aspect of the Armstrong hypothesis, I think, is that it is something akin to a unified field theory that purports to explain away all the glaring discrepancies and anomalies within the historical record of the man we've come to accept - and think we know - as Lee Harvey Oswald.  It is a bold and audacious explanation for the hundreds of instances of dissonance between a report here, and a contrary report there.  Was Oswald 5'7" or 5'9" or 5'11"?  Were his eyes green or blue or brown?  Did he have all his teeth, or lose a front tooth, or have his molars removed?  While in the Marines, was he stationed in Atsugi or Formosa or...or...or?  Armstrong has been highly successful in pointing out the factual glitches in various aspects of the known record [based in part on the prior work of Robert Cutler and Michael Eddowes]; less so in attributing them all to the existence of a second Oswald, to my mind at least.

Having said all this, and despite the foregoing, I can offer no better explanation for each of these anomalies, and nor can the naysayers in most instances.  After all, how does one rationalize away the existence of witnesses - including teachers and principals - who recall attending school with a young Lee or Harvey Oswald, when that same child seems to have never been enrolled there, and was documented attending another school at the very same time?  How can the same child attend school in New York City, yet be enrolled elsewhere during the self-same semester?

Credit where it's due: Armstrong has uncovered far more in the way of first-hand evidence of anomalies than can be easily explained, or than others have done, the unabashedly baseless protests of the naysayers be damned.  Where that evidence has been stretched to further his hypothesis - but without offending logic or contravening accepted methodology - he should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Where the evidence has been manipulated against and despite logic and methodology - as in the instances Greg has cited above - he should be asked hard questions and held to account, as should anyone else.       

I sincerely hope my old chum Jack White will step in here to offer some of his characteristcally cogent thoughts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



#5 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 10 July 2005 - 07:45 PM


Sorry for the rant, Ron... but misuse of evidence pisses me off where it is obvious it is not accidental. (and I'm apparently getting curmudgeonly in my fast approaching dotage 

Greg, your "curmudgeonly" approach is a huge part of your charm.  You Aussies seem to be born with the blessing of skeptical piss and vinegar in your veins.  We more timid colonials can only marvel at the mirth. 

Re: Armstrong - Years back, on another forum, I regularly defended Armstrong against a variety of peculiar naysayers who seemed intent upon impeaching him and his hypothesis without any evidence, or any self-consciousness about their evidence-free "coulda/mighta/maya" attempts at refutation .  I much admired the fact that Armstrong would avail himself of the raw data - original field reports, etc. - rather than settle for the synopsized versions prepared for WC consumption, and take careful note of the differences between them.  Obviously, Armstrong regularly discovered glaring anomalies that couldn't be easily reconciled or rationalized away, despite the best efforts of the naysayers. 

However, I strenuously pointed out in that same forum that I did not subscribe to his hypothesis, only that he should be allowed to publish prior to being damned.  My reasoning was that if Armstrong was wrong in his conclusions, that would become apparent soon enough.  I couldn't credit the rabid nature of the responses elicited by Armstrong's work from those who could offer no compelling explanation whatsoever for the anomalies Armstrong had uncovered, and didn't trouble themselves with finding any alternative explanations.

For my efforts, I was invited by Armstrong's then-factotum and all-round wonderful human being, Jim Hargrove, to vet John's manuscript, in its then-state, for errors and omissions.  I was happy to do so, as and when time allowed.

Those familiar with Armstrong's hypothesis will know the details: US intelligence had located two youngsters named Oswald - one of whom spoke Russian - and kept close tabs on them, years later substituting the Russian speaking Harvey for the red-white-and-blue Marine Lee just prior to dispatching Harvey to the USSR.

Armstrong claimed a precendent for this: one Gordon Lonsdale, a Soviet spy who had assumed the identity of a Canadian-born child [who died as a youth], and used that persona to worm his way into a position of some power, all the while reporting back to Moscow.

On its very surface, it was clear that the Lonsdale case was merely an instance of a grown man finding and utilizing a dead child's name.  Hence, it was not a precedent for what he contended happened with the "two Oswalds."  There were no "two Londsdales."  I strongly urged him to find a more compelling precedent, or excise the Lonsdale allusion entirely.

In the earlier chapters of his manuscript, there were other such problems, many of which weren't fatal flaws and could be remedied simply by viewing the problem from a slightly different angle.  As an agnostic, I offered advice that I thought might help shore up the weaker points, or improve their plausibility within the context of his hypothesis.  I was thanked for my help, but wasn't invited to vet the remaining chapters.

The most tantalizing aspect of the Armstrong hypothesis, I think, is that it is something akin to a unified field theory that purports to explain away all the glaring discrepancies and anomalies within the historical record of the man we've come to accept - and think we know - as Lee Harvey Oswald.  It is a bold and audacious explanation for the hundreds of instances of dissonance between a report here, and a contrary report there.  Was Oswald 5'7" or 5'9" or 5'11"?  Were his eyes green or blue or brown?  Did he have all his teeth, or lose a front tooth, or have his molars removed?  While in the Marines, was he stationed in Atsugi or Formosa or...or...or?  Armstrong has been highly successful in pointing out the factual glitches in various aspects of the known record [based in part on the prior work of Robert Cutler and Michael Eddowes]; less so in attributing them all to the existence of a second Oswald, to my mind at least.

Having said all this, and despite the foregoing, I can offer no better explanation for each of these anomalies, and nor can the naysayers in most instances.  After all, how does one rationalize away the existence of witnesses - including teachers and principals - who recall attending school with a young Lee or Harvey Oswald, when that same child seems to have never been enrolled there, and was documented attending another school at the very same time?  How can the same child attend school in New York City, yet be enrolled elsewhere during the self-same semester?

Credit where it's due: Armstrong has uncovered far more in the way of first-hand evidence of anomalies than can be easily explained, or than others have done, the unabashedly baseless protests of the naysayers be damned.  Where that evidence has been stretched to further his hypothesis - but without offending logic or contravening accepted methodology - he should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Where the evidence has been manipulated against and despite logic and methodology - as in the instances Greg has cited above - he should be asked hard questions and held to account, as should anyone else.        

I sincerely hope my old chum Jack White will step in here to offer some of his characteristcally cogent thoughts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Robert...thanks for your assessment of HARVEY&LEE. Very good.

My assessment...let's say that Armstrong did MAKE A FEW ERRORS, or finally
published his book after 10 years of research, when another year MIGHT have
turned up new facts (ala Jeff Pruitt research). Let's give John's critics their
few mistakes...maybe one percent. That leaves us with a book that is 99%
accurate. What is the significance of that? The book is ESSENTIALLY CORRECT!

Need I say more?

Pruitt's historical research into the Oswald family, and possible other Oswald
brothers etc. DOES NOT NEGATE JOHN'S WORK, it merely adds to it and
tends to clear up some of the multiple Marguerites and Oswald inconsistencies.
The entire Oswald family apparently (according to Pruitt) was mixed up in
intelligence activities, including members we have not heard of.

Jack <_<

#6 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 10 July 2005 - 07:46 PM


Sorry for the rant, Ron... but misuse of evidence pisses me off where it is obvious it is not accidental. (and I'm apparently getting curmudgeonly in my fast approaching dotage 

Greg, your "curmudgeonly" approach is a huge part of your charm.  You Aussies seem to be born with the blessing of skeptical piss and vinegar in your veins.  We more timid colonials can only marvel at the mirth. 

Re: Armstrong - Years back, on another forum, I regularly defended Armstrong against a variety of peculiar naysayers who seemed intent upon impeaching him and his hypothesis without any evidence, or any self-consciousness about their evidence-free "coulda/mighta/maya" attempts at refutation .  I much admired the fact that Armstrong would avail himself of the raw data - original field reports, etc. - rather than settle for the synopsized versions prepared for WC consumption, and take careful note of the differences between them.  Obviously, Armstrong regularly discovered glaring anomalies that couldn't be easily reconciled or rationalized away, despite the best efforts of the naysayers. 

However, I strenuously pointed out in that same forum that I did not subscribe to his hypothesis, only that he should be allowed to publish prior to being damned.  My reasoning was that if Armstrong was wrong in his conclusions, that would become apparent soon enough.  I couldn't credit the rabid nature of the responses elicited by Armstrong's work from those who could offer no compelling explanation whatsoever for the anomalies Armstrong had uncovered, and didn't trouble themselves with finding any alternative explanations.

For my efforts, I was invited by Armstrong's then-factotum and all-round wonderful human being, Jim Hargrove, to vet John's manuscript, in its then-state, for errors and omissions.  I was happy to do so, as and when time allowed.

Those familiar with Armstrong's hypothesis will know the details: US intelligence had located two youngsters named Oswald - one of whom spoke Russian - and kept close tabs on them, years later substituting the Russian speaking Harvey for the red-white-and-blue Marine Lee just prior to dispatching Harvey to the USSR.

Armstrong claimed a precendent for this: one Gordon Lonsdale, a Soviet spy who had assumed the identity of a Canadian-born child [who died as a youth], and used that persona to worm his way into a position of some power, all the while reporting back to Moscow.

On its very surface, it was clear that the Lonsdale case was merely an instance of a grown man finding and utilizing a dead child's name.  Hence, it was not a precedent for what he contended happened with the "two Oswalds."  There were no "two Londsdales."  I strongly urged him to find a more compelling precedent, or excise the Lonsdale allusion entirely.

In the earlier chapters of his manuscript, there were other such problems, many of which weren't fatal flaws and could be remedied simply by viewing the problem from a slightly different angle.  As an agnostic, I offered advice that I thought might help shore up the weaker points, or improve their plausibility within the context of his hypothesis.  I was thanked for my help, but wasn't invited to vet the remaining chapters.

The most tantalizing aspect of the Armstrong hypothesis, I think, is that it is something akin to a unified field theory that purports to explain away all the glaring discrepancies and anomalies within the historical record of the man we've come to accept - and think we know - as Lee Harvey Oswald.  It is a bold and audacious explanation for the hundreds of instances of dissonance between a report here, and a contrary report there.  Was Oswald 5'7" or 5'9" or 5'11"?  Were his eyes green or blue or brown?  Did he have all his teeth, or lose a front tooth, or have his molars removed?  While in the Marines, was he stationed in Atsugi or Formosa or...or...or?  Armstrong has been highly successful in pointing out the factual glitches in various aspects of the known record [based in part on the prior work of Robert Cutler and Michael Eddowes]; less so in attributing them all to the existence of a second Oswald, to my mind at least.

Having said all this, and despite the foregoing, I can offer no better explanation for each of these anomalies, and nor can the naysayers in most instances.  After all, how does one rationalize away the existence of witnesses - including teachers and principals - who recall attending school with a young Lee or Harvey Oswald, when that same child seems to have never been enrolled there, and was documented attending another school at the very same time?  How can the same child attend school in New York City, yet be enrolled elsewhere during the self-same semester?

Credit where it's due: Armstrong has uncovered far more in the way of first-hand evidence of anomalies than can be easily explained, or than others have done, the unabashedly baseless protests of the naysayers be damned.  Where that evidence has been stretched to further his hypothesis - but without offending logic or contravening accepted methodology - he should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Where the evidence has been manipulated against and despite logic and methodology - as in the instances Greg has cited above - he should be asked hard questions and held to account, as should anyone else.        

I sincerely hope my old chum Jack White will step in here to offer some of his characteristcally cogent thoughts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Robert...thanks for your assessment of HARVEY&LEE. Very good.

My assessment...let's say that Armstrong did MAKE A FEW ERRORS, or finally
published his book after 10 years of research, when another year MIGHT have
turned up new facts (ala Jeff Pruitt research). Let's give John's critics their
few mistakes...maybe one percent. That leaves us with a book that is 99%
accurate. What is the significance of that? The book is ESSENTIALLY CORRECT!

Need I say more?

Pruitt's historical research into the Oswald family, and possible other Oswald
brothers etc. DOES NOT NEGATE JOHN'S WORK, it merely adds to it and
tends to clear up some of the multiple Marguerites and Oswald inconsistencies.
The entire Oswald family apparently (according to Pruitt) was mixed up in
intelligence activities, including members we have not heard of.

Jack <_<

#7 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,195 posts

Posted 10 July 2005 - 07:53 PM

Greg, Robert, and Jack,

Your comments on Armstrong's work are very interesting to me, as I have been trying to decide what to think of his book as I have been periodically making my way through it. I have certainly been impressed with the mass of evidence he has produced for his theory, not to mention various nuggets of info on the JFK case that I have never seen elsewhere.

With regard to statements of Armstrong that are incorrect or untrue:

The last time they'd been together that Thanksgiving of 1962, Pic had handed
Oswald his memo book for Oswald to enter his new address. After jotting down
his Dallas post office box, he signed his name with one word: "Harvey."


That is just patently untrue. The name and the address are on opposite pages.

Here it is so can see for yourself:

LHO address from Pic's notebook


Armstrong includes this same exhibit on his book's CD. I don't think he has spoken incorrectly. The two opposing pages were completely blank when Oswald wrote on them. So he simply wrote his name across from or parallel to the address, instead of under it. (He may have added the name as an afterthought, originally assuming that Pic would know whose address it was. People ordinarily write their name first, then their address.)


On January 20, 1961, a man calling himself "Lee Oswald" met with Fred Sewell, manager of Bolton Ford Truck center in New Orleans.

Again - patently untrue. The two men involved NEVER met with Sewell. They dealt with a salesman named Oscar Deslatte. And Deslatte, as far as I can tell, has never said the name "Lee Oswald " was mentioned - only "Oswald".


Greg, I assume you're quoting from some article by Armstrong previous to his book. While his statement was untrue as quoted, it has been corrected in his book. On page 325, he describes how Oswald and another man came into the Bolton Ford dealership and met with Deslatte, not with Sewell. Sewell was in and out during this time. As for Oswald giving the name "Lee Oswald," and not just "Oswald," this is from Sewell's deposition or interview during the Garrison investigation, as reproduced by Armstrong on the book's CD:


Posted Image


Ron

#8 Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,957 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted 11 July 2005 - 05:36 AM

Quote:

""Again - patently untrue. The two men involved NEVER met with Sewell. They dealt with a salesman named Oscar Deslatte. And Deslatte, as far as I can tell, has never said the name "Lee Oswald " was mentioned - only "Oswald".
Since LHO was in the USSR at the time, the simplest, most logical explanation is that it was a different Oswald. LHO was not short of relatives in NO with that name. I'll go with it being one of them. ""



Re this above truck information a little further....

When Deslatte contacted the FBI after the assassination...he gave them the carbon copy of the old purchase form... this was only released to all in 1979.......it contained more than the name of Oswald.... the "Joseph Moore" who had introduced himself as such, earlier, and then ask that the name of "Oswald" be used, on the form...well...the reason could have been, and hidden from all, till 79, that even...though Oswald is not the most unusual name.

On the copy of the form was the name of the anti-Castro group that was intending to buy the trucks, and that name was.....

"Friends of Democratic Cuba".....and in 1961 one of the leading men of that group was Guy Bannister, former top FBI agent, still involved in undercover work...and the man as identified as using Oswald in the suspect "Fair Play for Cuba Operation"....in the summer of 63.....

So it came full circle, and implies that the Anti-Castro organization may have been using Oswald's identity as far back as 1961.....and also don't forget that the possible usage of his ID, goes back to Hoover, Head of the FBI..... in 1960.....

Edited by Bernice Moore, 11 July 2005 - 05:40 AM.


#9 JL Allen

JL Allen

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 11 July 2005 - 12:18 PM

I believe that this is the "Bronx Zoo photo" mentioned in post #2, from which Pic says he cannot identify Lee Harvey Oswald.

Edited by JL Allen, 11 July 2005 - 12:19 PM.


#10 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 11 July 2005 - 12:43 PM


Sorry for the rant, Ron... but misuse of evidence pisses me off where it is obvious it is not accidental. (and I'm apparently getting curmudgeonly in my fast approaching dotage 

Greg, your "curmudgeonly" approach is a huge part of your charm.  You Aussies seem to be born with the blessing of skeptical piss and vinegar in your veins.  We more timid colonials can only marvel at the mirth. 

Robert, someone recently mentioned I had made some curmudgenly comments here. I took it with the good humour intended. Actually one of my favourite words. Balderdash is the other...

Re: Armstrong - Years back, on another forum, I regularly defended Armstrong against a variety of peculiar naysayers who seemed intent upon impeaching him and his hypothesis without any evidence, or any self-consciousness about their evidence-free "coulda/mighta/maya" attempts at refutation .  I much admired the fact that Armstrong would avail himself of the raw data - original field reports, etc. - rather than settle for the synopsized versions prepared for WC consumption, and take careful note of the differences between them.  Obviously, Armstrong regularly discovered glaring anomalies that couldn't be easily reconciled or rationalized away, despite the best efforts of the naysayers.

I know the forum.. but arrived too late to witness what you are referring to. Instead what I witnessed was a siege mentality which informed the counter-attacks against any hint of dissent. The place reminded me of a cult -- where Two Oswalds was historical fact -- not just a theory, which is what it actually is. 

However, I strenuously pointed out in that same forum that I did not subscribe to his hypothesis, only that he should be allowed to publish prior to being damned.  My reasoning was that if Armstrong was wrong in his conclusions, that would become apparent soon enough.  I couldn't credit the rabid nature of the responses elicited by Armstrong's work from those who could offer no compelling explanation whatsoever for the anomalies Armstrong had uncovered, and didn't trouble themselves with finding any alternative explanations.

I'm glad he got the book out. Like I said to Ron, I don't dismiss the possibility.  Just turned off by the sermonising of some of the adherents.

For my efforts, I was invited by Armstrong's then-factotum and all-round wonderful human being, Jim Hargrove, to vet John's manuscript, in its then-state, for errors and omissions.  I was happy to do so, as and when time allowed.

My few dealings with Jim were all on alt.conspiracy.jfk. He struck me as a decent bloke, and not among the group alluded to above.

Those familiar with Armstrong's hypothesis will know the details: US intelligence had located two youngsters named Oswald - one of whom spoke Russian - and kept close tabs on them, years later substituting the Russian speaking Harvey for the red-white-and-blue Marine Lee just prior to dispatching Harvey to the USSR.

Armstrong claimed a precendent for this: one Gordon Lonsdale, a Soviet spy who had assumed the identity of a Canadian-born child [who died as a youth], and used that persona to worm his way into a position of some power, all the while reporting back to Moscow.

On its very surface, it was clear that the Lonsdale case was merely an instance of a grown man finding and utilizing a dead child's name.  Hence, it was not a precedent for what he contended happened with the "two Oswalds."  There were no "two Londsdales."  I strongly urged him to find a more compelling precedent, or excise the Lonsdale allusion entirely.

In the earlier chapters of his manuscript, there were other such problems, many of which weren't fatal flaws and could be remedied simply by viewing the problem from a slightly different angle.  As an agnostic, I offered advice that I thought might help shore up the weaker points, or improve their plausibility within the context of his hypothesis.  I was thanked for my help, but wasn't invited to vet the remaining chapters.

Well, that's what happens to Heritics.   :) Shoulda toed that party line!

The most tantalizing aspect of the Armstrong hypothesis, I think, is that it is something akin to a unified field theory that purports to explain away all the glaring discrepancies and anomalies within the historical record of the man we've come to accept - and think we know - as Lee Harvey Oswald.  It is a bold and audacious explanation for the hundreds of instances of dissonance between a report here, and a contrary report there.  Was Oswald 5'7" or 5'9" or 5'11"?  Were his eyes green or blue or brown?  Did he have all his teeth, or lose a front tooth, or have his molars removed?  While in the Marines, was he stationed in Atsugi or Formosa or...or...or?  Armstrong has been highly successful in pointing out the factual glitches in various aspects of the known record [based in part on the prior work of Robert Cutler and Michael Eddowes]; less so in attributing them all to the existence of a second Oswald, to my mind at least.

And mine - though in fairness, I'll again point, I am only familiar with bits and pieces that are on the web. It is entirely possible that reading the book might make me more - or less confident in the theory.

Having said all this, and despite the foregoing, I can offer no better explanation for each of these anomalies, and nor can the naysayers in most instances.  After all, how does one rationalize away the existence of witnesses - including teachers and principals - who recall attending school with a young Lee or Harvey Oswald, when that same child seems to have never been enrolled there, and was documented attending another school at the very same time?  How can the same child attend school in New York City, yet be enrolled elsewhere during the self-same semester?

Without the extant records, let alone familiarity with the US school system, I'm not about to attempt to offer an explanation.

Credit where it's due: Armstrong has uncovered far more in the way of first-hand evidence of anomalies than can be easily explained, or than others have done, the unabashedly baseless protests of the naysayers be damned.  Where that evidence has been stretched to further his hypothesis - but without offending logic or contravening accepted methodology - he should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Where the evidence has been manipulated against and despite logic and methodology - as in the instances Greg has cited above - he should be asked hard questions and held to account, as should anyone else.

From reading other responses here, perhaps it is his adherents at fault, not Armstrong, by what they have put on the web in service to the theory.    

I sincerely hope my old chum Jack White will step in here to offer some of his characteristcally cogent thoughts.


He has.


<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



#11 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 11 July 2005 - 01:45 PM

Greg, Robert, and Jack,

Your comments on Armstrong's work are very interesting to me, as I have been trying to decide what to think of his book as I have been periodically making my way through it. I have certainly been impressed with the mass of evidence he has produced for his theory, not to mention various nuggets of info on the JFK case that I have never seen elsewhere.

With regard to statements of Armstrong that are incorrect or untrue:

The last time they'd been together that Thanksgiving of 1962, Pic had handed
Oswald his memo book for Oswald to enter his new address. After jotting down
his Dallas post office box, he signed his name with one word: "Harvey."


That is just patently untrue. The name and the address are on opposite pages.

Here it is so can see for yourself:

LHO address from Pic's notebook


Armstrong includes this same exhibit on his book's CD. I don't think he has spoken incorrectly. The two opposing pages were completely blank when Oswald wrote on them. So he simply wrote his name across from or parallel to the address, instead of under it. (He may have added the name as an afterthought, originally assuming that Pic would know whose address it was. People ordinarily write their name first, then their address.)

Ron, The quote I gave makes it sound like "Harvey" was written under (or above) the address. Had it been, it would be hard to argue it referred to anyone but Oswald (and from there, you could make a case that it was not Lee, but a "second" Oswald who happened to be named Harvey). THAT was the dishonesty. In my opinion, with the name written on the opposite page, it cannot be the default assumption it had anything to do with the address.

On January 20, 1961, a man calling himself "Lee Oswald" met with Fred Sewell, manager of Bolton Ford Truck center in New Orleans.

Again - patently untrue. The two men involved NEVER met with Sewell. They dealt with a salesman named Oscar Deslatte. And Deslatte, as far as I can tell, has never said the name "Lee Oswald " was mentioned - only "Oswald".


Greg, I assume you're quoting from some article by Armstrong previous to his book. While his statement was untrue as quoted, it has been corrected in his book. On page 325, he describes how Oswald and another man came into the Bolton Ford dealership and met with Deslatte, not with Sewell. Sewell was in and out during this time. As for Oswald giving the name "Lee Oswald," and not just "Oswald," this is from Sewell's deposition or interview during the Garrison investigation, as reproduced by Armstrong on the book's CD:

Glad to hear a correction was made. I was aware of the Garrison deposition. I don't believe much reliance can be placed on it. Sewell's recollection does not corrospond whith what Deslatte had said some years earlier - in particular on the name "Lee" ever being mentioned.

There is also this from AJW:

Oscar Deslatte, another employee of Bolton Ford, confirmed the report of Fred Sewell in a conversation with the FBI: "Joseph Moore," and an unidentified Cuban male, insisted Oscar Deslatte sell them trucks at cost because they would be used against Castro. Joseph Moore said he was an ex-Marine who was involved in training the invasion brigade. He wrote his name and bid on a piece of paper and handed it to Oscar Deslatte. Joseph Moore then asked Oscar Deslatte to return the slip, and changed the name on it to "OSWALD."

And this from Richard Billings diary (which has Garrison supporting what I believe to be the common-sense solution, unless it really WAS a Cuban, as Delatte seems to have indicated at some stage):

He has also learned that four months before the Bay of Pigs, an organization known as Friends of Democratic Cuba bought ten, or contracted to buy, ten Ford trucks from the Bolton Ford Company. There is an FBI report on this dated Nov. 25, 1963. Essentially it says that a man named Joseph Moore talked to an assistant manager of the Ford company named Oscar Deslatte. They negotiated, and at the end of the negotiation, this man, Moore, told Deslatte to change the name on the papers to Oswald. Garrison suspects this unknown Oswald may have been one of the relatives, since the FBI report indicates that, A. the incident occurred while Lee Harvey was in the Soviet Union, and B. it is recorded in the FBI exhibits that a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald was shown to Deslatte, and he did not recognize it.

Then there is Hemings who apparently believes the whole story is bogus.


Posted Image


Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Edited by Greg Parker, 11 July 2005 - 02:17 PM.


#12 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 12 July 2005 - 01:57 PM

I believe that this is the "Bronx Zoo photo" mentioned in post #2, from which Pic says he cannot identify Lee Harvey Oswald.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


You are correct, JL -- that is the photo.

Now consider: The theory has it that the "Harvey" character was NOT a Southern boy like Lee. If this then is "Harvey" and NOT Lee -- why is he dressed in jeans? Marguerite told the WC that Lee did not like going to school in New York because he got teased about wearing jeans - not then fashionable in NY. (YIKES! Maybe "Harvey" was already impersonating Lee!)

Also the theory has it that "Harvey" wrote his name in Pic's notebook. Clearly, at least by then, if not at some earlier point in time, Pic KNEW about the CIA operation using two different Oswalds. Why then would he cause any suspicion or doubt to fall on the REAL identity of the boy in the photo - and thus potentially give the whole thing away?

That's my last comment in this thread on the subject. Not unusual for my threads to get side-tracked. My fault this time. I should not have responded to Ron's initial post the way I did.

Does anyone have anything to say about Pic's work for the PSU clearing the docks of subversives?

Anyone want to comment on how Oswald got into the Marines with a hearing loss and a history of ear problems. As I pointed out... there was only one way to get in under those circumstances... having some type of useful talent or specialised training...

Edited by Greg Parker, 12 July 2005 - 02:03 PM.


#13 T. Casey Brennan

T. Casey Brennan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Location:Ann Arbor, MI

Posted 04 January 2006 - 02:36 AM

[quote name='Greg Parker' date='Jul 9 2005, 01:58 PM' post='32589']
This article firstly reiterates the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald's New York court file ended up with the Senate Subcomittee on Juvenile Delinquency which held hearings in New York City in 1954. Dr Kurian's last day as Clinic Psychiatrist for the Court of Domestic Relations was in March, 1953. On that day, he would interview a southern boy with a bad truancy record; name of Lee Oswald. The file holding the report on this interview went missing. Kurian's boss was Dr Harris Peck. Peck went on to appear as a witness at the Senate hearings. It is my speculation that Peck perused the court files looking for cases which would support the hypothesis of the good senators.

...

The Korean War served as the underlying reason for the formation of the PSU, and it may also have played a part (however indirectly) in bringing the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Deliquency to New York for hearings on comic books. Popular belief among comic "historians" is that the subcommittee was out to get one publisher... William Gaines... and for one purpose... to aid his (more conservative) competitors. But Gaines' FBI file (capioned: Sedition/Internal Security) shows that MI may have lent a hand due to concern over his comics depiction of war. The file actually opens with a MI memo from April '52 stating that his comics were "detrimental to the morale of combat soldiers and emphasizes the horrors, hardships and futility of war". MI wanted the FBI to find out if Gaines' company (EC Comics) was disseminating these comics to those of draft age, or to servicemen, and to ask the Justice Dept if Gaines was violating sedition statutes. The FBI did action the request... two years later, at the time of the subcommittee
hearings.

During the course of the Korean War, there was also great concern of how US comics were being used for propaganda -- by Communist countries...

Gaines appeared to self-destruct when he sat before committee members high as a kite to read a prepared statement and respond to questions. The drug-induced haze and statement however, were courtesy of friend and future FPCC official, Lyle Stuart. Stuart, who had been the one who convinced Gaines to appear in the first place, refused to accompany his friend into that particular den of lions. In the end, the subcommittee, deftly avoiding the "Big Brother" tag which would accompany legislative prohibitions, by working with the industry to establish a self-regulating code which would squeeze Gaines out of business.

Section A Item Three of the Comic Code: "Policemen, judges, Government officials and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrepect for established authority."

Young Lee was sent to Youth House as a truant who preferred reading comics to going to school... and who, when he did actually attend classes, refused to salute the flag, and generally lacked respect for any authority.

Greg:

Your research is totally amazing. I was not aware that anyone besides myself and Judyth Baker knew that Lee Oswald was an avid comic book reader. I wrote for the Warren comics in the '70s...they were begun as a continuation of the EC concept. In the 80s, I attempted to continue the anti-comic book movement as part of a vendetta against the comic book publishers whom I claimed privately had blacklisted me. My work in this regard can be found in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE, Vol. 128, No. 131, Sept. 28, 1982, page S12435, and in the UN World Health Organization magazine WORLD HEALTH, October 1983 and January-February 1986 issues. Bill Clinton issued a gubernatorial proclamation in my honor in this regard...it can be found at:

http://pweb.netcom.c...orn/clinton.jpg

FOLLOWING CEREBUS #6, published in Texas, but available at comic shops and Tower Records internationally has a huge article on me, with over a dozen pages of photos, old comic stories by me, etc., dating back 35 years. A URL describing the issue is at:

http://spectrummagaz...ccurrent2.chtml

More on me can be found at:

http://tcasey.inri.net

Best -- T. Casey Brennan

#14 Robert Howard

Robert Howard

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 January 2006 - 05:34 PM

Greg, I must admit I can't conjure up a scenario involving Robert Pic and the PSU as it pertains to Oswald, I personally doubt that Oswald had a personal involvement with PSU through Pic, but stranger things have happened. As to the same question under the "Harvey and Lee" premise, all I can say is that if there were two Oswald's and one was involved with the PSU at this early stage, we are all in trouble as far as 'resolving the unanswered questions of JFK's assassination.'
I would like to ask since the Harvey and Lee/John Armstrong thing came up. I purchased 'JFK The Dead Witnesses' recently which Craig Roberts wrote in collaboration with John Armstrong at the time. I also corresponded via email with Roberts who told me that he was no longer focusing on the JFK Assassination, but on other matters. He said he hadn't talked to John Armstrong in some time.

The question I wanted to ask is, isn't there a segment in "Harvey and Lee" which states that Ruby and Oswald were together in New Orleans, and at that time Lee Harvey Oswald was ostensibly placing phone calls to the Cuban and Russian Embassies?

Also, does it mention anything about Jack Ruby going to Cuba in 1963 using a Czechoslovakian passport?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users