Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained


Greg Parker

Recommended Posts

Robert,

there is no equivelence between Armstrong's Two Oswald Theory and the Lonsdale affair. Assuming the ID of dead people has long been an option for spies and criminals.

The de La Guardia twins were arrested and tried on drug trafficking charges - which may or may not have had a political motive concerning one of the other arrestees. I have searched for some indication that they were involved in spying and if so, that it entailed assuming each other's identity, and have found none. What exactly does Armstrong claim about them that he believes shows equivelence?

Bottom line -- if they were in fact spies, and if they did pretend to be each other as part of their spy activities -that at least makes some sense. They looked very much alike and shared personality traits and personal history. The theory that two unrelated boys - one noticably shorter and brighter than the other - were used in a lifelong project involving one pretending to be the other - and moreover, neccitating the use also of a doppleganger mother for the one dubbed "Harvey", is the stuff of z grade movies.

As for the files marked "Harvey Lee Oswald"... don't forget the one marked "Henry Oswald" -- maybe we should go for a triplet project? Or maybe there were other reasons for it. The work done by Bill Simpich may help clarify.

The Armstrong case for two Oswald's is a lot like the WC case for a lone assassin. It is built on often misunderstand, or deliberately reshaped circumstantial evidence - padded out with irrelvancies and bloated to a supersized burger for public consumption. Both can look appealing for those hungry enough for a solution. Just don't put the ingredients under a mcroscope!

The main difference is that whereas the WC never met an"Oswald sighting" it could accept - Armstrong never met one he could reject.

But both extremes were in support of a predetermined conclusion.

Greg, what about Armstrong's photos of 2 Lee Harvey Oswalds in school? (One was Harvey Lee Oswald.) And one of the Oswald's had a busted tooth in high school. And one had an inner ear surgery. Why did Marina walk up to the coffin before it was put on display and open one of his eyes to see the color? (Why else?)

I can't wait to read your book.

Kathy C

Kathy,

Hate to be a nuisance, but could you provide a link to the two photos you're referring to and provide some information on who designated one as being "Harvey Lee Oswald"?

The busted tooth photo I'm aware of, but will need to dig up all the info on it and will get back to you.

First I've heard about Marina and the coffin. Where did that information come from? I gather you are guessing as to the reason she did it (assuming she did)

That suggests a further problem... in that you seem to be saying "Lee" and "Harvey" didn't even share the same eye color?

I can think of at least one other reason someone might open the eyes to look at them: superstition. There was a lot of that still around in the '60s, particularly outside of western culture. But even western culture carries on with very old superstitions involving the dead, including covering the face with a sheet. This was originally done because it was believed the spirit escaped through the mouth.

These pictures show O in his marine uniform. The other picture looks to me like a resemblance. He might be LHO. He might have gotten into the rambler. Although we see him again in the Texas Theater being calmly let out by 2 cops.

Kathy C

post-5645-039979400 1325218666_thumb.jpg

Edited by Kathleen Collins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems I forgot the magic work. David, can you please point me to the information you found and what reaction there was to it? I am very interested in the way people ignore information when it goes against their beliefs -- and this seems like a very good example.

Mr Lifton, why are you ignoring this request? I have asked politely and given what I think is a very good reason for wanting to know. The thought that you demolished any credence given to McBride with unimpeachable evidence regarding the timing of Fort Worth riots, and no one paid a lick of notice, is a major issue confronting those trying to narrow the field of possibilities in this case in order to gain some sort of consensus.

The stories were in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. I cannot locate them at this time. Just pay someone (as I recall I did) to go to the FWST in the vicinity of those dates, and I'm sure you'll find them. (FYI: I never published anything about them. Once I spoke to McBride, and filmed him, I had no doubt that his original statement, as to the date, was simply an error. Of course, there's lots of people who just can't give up on the Amrstrong interpretation of all this, just like there are people who can't let go of the idea that Steve Witt and his umbrella are innocent. Since you found similar stories through your own Internet search, I've been assuming you realize McBride simply had the date wrong.

DSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems I forgot the magic work. David, can you please point me to the information you found and what reaction there was to it? I am very interested in the way people ignore information when it goes against their beliefs -- and this seems like a very good example.

Mr Lifton, why are you ignoring this request? I have asked politely and given what I think is a very good reason for wanting to know. The thought that you demolished any credence given to McBride with unimpeachable evidence regarding the timing of Fort Worth riots, and no one paid a lick of notice, is a major issue confronting those trying to narrow the field of possibilities in this case in order to gain some sort of consensus.

The stories were in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. I cannot locate them at this time. Just pay someone (as I recall I did) to go to the FWST in the vicinity of those dates, and I'm sure you'll find them. (FYI: I never published anything about them. Once I spoke to McBride, and filmed him, I had no doubt that his original statement, as to the date, was simply an error. Of course, there's lots of people who just can't give up on the Amrstrong interpretation of all this, just like there are people who can't let go of the idea that Steve Witt and his umbrella are innocent. Since you found similar stories through your own Internet search, I've been assuming you realize McBride simply had the date wrong.

DSL

Thank you, David.

You found proof that McBride had got his years mixed up, but have never mentioned it in any debate on him, nor published it in any article on the subject.

That tells me all I need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems I forgot the magic work. David, can you please point me to the information you found and what reaction there was to it? I am very interested in the way people ignore information when it goes against their beliefs -- and this seems like a very good example.

Mr Lifton, why are you ignoring this request? I have asked politely and given what I think is a very good reason for wanting to know. The thought that you demolished any credence given to McBride with unimpeachable evidence regarding the timing of Fort Worth riots, and no one paid a lick of notice, is a major issue confronting those trying to narrow the field of possibilities in this case in order to gain some sort of consensus.

The stories were in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. I cannot locate them at this time. Just pay someone (as I recall I did) to go to the FWST in the vicinity of those dates, and I'm sure you'll find them. (FYI: I never published anything about them. Once I spoke to McBride, and filmed him, I had no doubt that his original statement, as to the date, was simply an error. Of course, there's lots of people who just can't give up on the Amrstrong interpretation of all this, just like there are people who can't let go of the idea that Steve Witt and his umbrella are innocent. Since you found similar stories through your own Internet search, I've been assuming you realize McBride simply had the date wrong.

DSL

Thank you, David.

You found proof that McBride had got his years mixed up, but have never mentioned it in any debate on him, nor published it in any article on the subject.

That tells me all I need to know.

I was just wondering if others here share David's views that, when attempting to debunk a theory, the most effective way is to locate absolute proof that the theory is based on faulty memory - and then deep-six that evidence and never mention it again - that is until someone else locates it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

As a general rule, when it comes to understanding the minutiae of the JFK assassation and having to depend on David Lifton in contrast to Lee Farley, I will take David Lifton 98 times out of 100.

I do believe what Lifton says about James Witt - that he really was Umbrella Man and he told his dentist's office that. (Now, it is possible that Witt could be CIA ... possible, but not likely).

Ditto the stuff about Michael Paine - perhaps Lifton is saving that for his next book. I have no reason to doubt David Lifton's interview of Paine.

And then there is the *fantasy* of John Armstrong's completely bogus theory of the 2 Oswalds. Lifton, like I, will tell you that is junk.

And then there is the timeline of US intelligence agent Oswald immediately following the JFK assassition. I read those threads and I don't think Lee Farley's theories hold any water. Just totally bankrupt and pushing on a string.

I think Lifton's biggest mistake is thinking all the shots came from the front (the Tague near miss completely tosses that theory out, as does the back wound on JFK).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a general rule, when it comes to understanding the minutiae of the JFK assassation and having to depend on David Lifton in contrast to Lee Farley, I will take David Lifton 98 times out of 100.

I do believe what Lifton says about James Witt - that he really was Umbrella Man and he told his dentist's office that. (Now, it is possible that Witt could be CIA ... possible, but not likely).

Ditto the stuff about Michael Paine - perhaps Lifton is saving that for his next book. I have no reason to doubt David Lifton's interview of Paine.

And then there is the *fantasy* of John Armstrong's completely bogus theory of the 2 Oswalds. Lifton, like I, will tell you that is junk.

And then there is the timeline of US intelligence agent Oswald immediately following the JFK assassition. I read those threads and I don't think Lee Farley's theories hold any water. Just totally bankrupt and pushing on a string.

I think Lifton's biggest mistake is thinking all the shots came from the front (the Tague near miss completely tosses that theory out, as does the back wound on JFK).

Perfect marriage of minds!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Elsewhere in the Janney thread there is a war being waged where accusations of having hidden agendas and of protecting ones pet theories at all costs are being loaded and fired.

The irony is that both the main protagonists are devotees of "Harvey & Lee" .

So let's see who has the agenda and who will protect a theory at any cost.

I invite them both here to agree "Harvey & Lee" is now a debunked theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

I appreciate what you are doing and would like to have you address some of the earlier days for Lee/Harvey

A Ms Myra Derouse CLAIMS to have been Harvey's Home room teacher at Beauregard in the 53-54 school year...

She describes him as a small (4'6" at most) scrawny, undernourished kid... who prefered to be called Harvey.

She drove him home, heard about the mother who worked in a bar...

The homeroom was located in the basement cafeteria of the high school...

School records for PS44 in NYC for September 1953 have Oswald listed at 64 inches (5'4") and 115lbs.... (the boy on the left in the photo below)

The boy on the right, which Robert says is LEE and that he took the picture, is in reality Harvey... and I show you how Robert messes up in testimony below.

School records from Beauregard have Lee Harvey in homeroom 303 with a different PE teacher entirely.

Mr. JENNER. And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arlington Heights High School? That would be 1952?

Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.

In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.

Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.

Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school.

Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard, continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Stripling JR High is in Fort Worth

Mr. JENNER. You were attending--you were then 15. You were now attending high school, I assume.

Mr. OSWALD. Junior high school.

Mr. JENNER. In Fort Worth?

Mr. OSWALD. Fort Worth, W. C. Stripling Junior High School.

Mr. DULLES. What was the name of that?

Mr. OSWALD. W. C. Stripling Junior High School.

Now, Lee and the MO moved to NYC in 1948...

HARVEY went to PS#117 in 1952, was barely in class and had problems with the law and his truancy

at PS#44 in 1953, the attendance suddenly changes... and the ongoing court appearances for HARVEY'S behavior

while LEE, who arrived in NYC with his mother, is a model student at PS#44

In 1952, Lee was in NYC and not Fort Worth... In the Summer of 1953, Harvey is in Stanley, ND.

Can't be in Ft Worth, NYC and NOLA all at the same times... and as you can see here... in 1952 he WAS in Ft Worth... but they move to NYC and as I show below ROBERT not only knows this but visits them in NYC in 1952 AFTER school has already started.

the boy with 47 days absent was HARVEY... he transfers to PS#44 on 1/16/53 yet does not being records until 3/23/53

53-07.jpg

ROBERT visited NYC in the summer of 1953 when Harvey was between 7th and 8th grades

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not at that time. I spent my leave in Fort Worth, because I did not feel I had enough time to travel to New York and down to Jacksonville, Fla. After completing metalsmith school at Millington, Tenn., I took a 10-day leave.

Mr. JENNER. Fix the time.

Mr. OSWALD. This was July or August of 1953. I had my orders to go to Miami, Fla. I took a 10-day leave and left Millington, Tenn., by car and came to New York City and spent 10 days in New York with Lee, mother, John, and his family.

Mr. JENNER. Where did you stay?

Mr. OSWALD. At mother's apartment, with Lee, in the Bronx some place I do not recall the address.

Mr. JENNER. What, if anything, did you learn at that time regarding Lee's attendance or nonattendance in school?

Mr. OSWALD. Nothing on that, sir. This was in the summer time. Lee, of course, was home and not supposed to be in school. And I do not think anything was brought up that I recall about whether or not Lee had been attending school regularly or not.

Mr. McKENZIE. Can we go off the record?

Mr. JENNER. Yes. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.

Mr. JENNER. Referring to the 10-day leave in New York City, did you spend time with your brother Lee?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your mother was working during that period of time, was she not?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. In spending time with him, did you take him around, or accompany him, visiting various places in New York City?

Mr. OSWALD. He took me around, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have occasion during that period to take any photographs, snapshots, of Lee?

Mr. OSWALD. I certainly can identify the one appearing in Life--yes, sir; I did.

Mr. JENNER. Just hold your answers right in this area exactly to my questions.

Mr. OSWALD. I'm sorry.

Mr. JENNER. Were these taken with your camera, or was it a camera that your mother or brother owned or had?

Mr. OSWALD. This was my camera.

Mr. DULLES. What do these questions refer to? Do they refer to the pictures in Life?

Mr. JENNER. Well, I really did not want to refer to that at the moment.

Do you remember any of the places at which you took snapshots of Lee during this 10-day leave?

Mr. OSWALD. The Bronx Zoo I believe was about the only time I can recall taking any pictures of him

LeeandHarvey-1953.jpg

So, according the the WCR records and the testimony of HIS BROTHER ROBERT...

Robert KNOWS his young brother and Mother are in NYC in 1952-1953... he visited them there first in 1952(!), and took the photo of HARVEY we see above during the summer of 1953.

The records of Oswald from Stripling are GONE... there is nothing to coroborrate Robert's testimony and insistence that his brother was in Ft Worth at the same time he is visiting them in NYC, both in Fall 1952 and Summer 1953.

Robert KNEW that Lee could not be both in NYC and Ft Worth... Harvey on the other hand..... is the boy on the right, and NOT the 5'4" BIG BOY in the photo on the left

btw - check out the hand and arms on Harvey on the left... look at the size of his hands comapred to his body...

now chaeck some of the Nov 22 photos of Oswald's hands.... definitely not proof... but they sure do look familiar

DJ

John PIC:

Mr. PIC. So they moved out in about September 1952, maybe it was late Septemberearly October, somewhere around there, so from about somewhere between September of 1952 and January 1953, my brother Robert came to New York on leave, and we were all invited up to the Bronx.

...

"To visit my mother and my brother..."

from Harvey and Lee, Armstrong:

The Warren Commission ignored Robert Oswald's testimony about Stripling

and concluded that "Lee Harvey Oswald"

left Fort Worth in August of 1952,

and moved to New York with his mother where he attended the 7th grade (1952-53)

and the first half of the 8th grade (fall semester, 1953).

He then moved to New Orleans where he attended the last half of the 8th grade (spring semester, 1954),

all of the 9th grade (1954-55 school year), and graduated from Beauregard in June 1955.

He briefly attended Warren Easton High School in the fall of 1955 (New Orleans), dropped out, worked in

New Orleans for the next 8 months, and then moved to Fort Worth.

According to Warren Commission version of his background, it would have been impossible

for "Lee Harvey Oswald" to have attended even a single day of school at Stripling Junior

High in Fort Worth, from September 1952 thro June 1956

Finally... the assisstant pricipal of STRIPLING JR HIGH

As I continued to locate and talk with former Stripling teachers, many suggested

that I call "Frank Kudlaty," the former assistant principal at Stripling. I telephoned Mr.

Kudlaty, introduced myself as a JFK researcher, and asked if he knew whether or not

"Lee Harvey Oswald" had attended Stripling. Without hesitation Frank said, "Yes, he

attended Stripling." Somewhat surprised I asked, "How do you know that." Frank replied,

"Because I gave his Stripling records to the FBI."Frank explained, during a videotaped interview, that before the FBI agents

arrived at Stripling on Saturday morning (November 23), he briefly reviewed Oswald's

school file. He explained that when a student enrolled in a new school, in this case at

Stripling, the previous school routinely sent copies of his school transcripts. Occasionally,

if the records were not sent, the new school would write and request copies of the

school records from the previous school. Frank said that when he examined Oswald's

file he saw neither copies of school transcripts from a previous school nor a letter from

Stripling requesting such records.

Frank said this was very unusual, as Oswald must have

attended school prior to his attendance at Stripling, yet there were no records .

Greg... what I believe Harvey and Lee is trying to show is that a single person's history was created from two people. At this point in the timeline JFK is not even in the picture... This is our CIA doing what they do in their effort to deal with Russia and the Cold war....

HARVEY, imo, was to be an asset... what type and for whom... IDK.

Were Robert and John into things beyond their means? again IDK Robert supports the Lee is Lee and always was, while John knows that the Lee he is shown at the Bronx zoo, is NOT his brother... and says so.

You an I deciding on the intelligence, logic, meaningfulness, necessity and/or desire of those creating and playing these games - is in my opinion beyond us.

Knowing how these projects were set up or created in OTHER areas may or may not have a bearing on this one.

I would hope you can see Harvey and Lee as a view into planning and operations who's ultimate purposes are unknown.

Do you believe Arthur Vallee was manipulated into potentially being at the right place and right time?

If I am a chess master - I look at all the pieces on the board before I evaluate my next move... the history of Harvey/Lee makes sense in the world of spooks and spies...

That it doesn't make sense to the "normal" person is part of the beauty of it - in fact it is so "out there" that believing is harder than accepting it's even possible...

No Greg, I do not believe Harvey & Lee is debunked at all... NYC in 1952-1954 is the KEY to the merging of these two boys - and the fact that school records - originals - have all gone missing should come as no surprise.

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

this is the problem I have. When I debunk one part of the theory, it gets ignored and all I get in response is "but what about..." and then I have to go about checking that out to verify or disprove.

What amazes me, David, is that you are very obviously a good researcher -- yet you don't appear to have applied your skills to verifying anything to do with this theory.

The foundation stone of Armstrong's theory was the memory of Palmer McBride. I have clearly and unequivocally shown McBride's memory to have been in error - yet not a peep from anyone about that.

From AJ Weberman's nodule on McBride

Quote

In April or May 1958 OSWALD stated he was moving to Fort Worth, Texas, with his mother. In about August 1958, I received a letter from him saying he was employed as a shoe salesman in Ft. Worth. In this letter he stated he had gotten mixed-up in an anti-Negro or an anti-Communist riot in a high school grounds in Ft. Worth, Texas.

I have checked google news archives and cannot find any news stories from 1958 about any riots in Forth Worth. Period. Regardless of their nature.

The official timeline has Oswald moving to Collinswood St, Fort Worth in July, 1956...

and Lo... I found a number of stories of riots in and around Fort Worth from early September, 1956

Here is one of those stories

Ft Worth riot one

Here is another

scroll down to this sub-head

violence threatens

The timing of those riots shoots down McBride. Oswald was most certainly NOT in the Marines AND living simultaneously in Ft Worth in 1958. Not sure how anyone can possibly dispute that - and indeed, no one seems to want to try - they seem to hope it will just somehow go away. Anything to keep this fairy tale going - meanwhile they have the audacity to accuse others of having an "agenda".

Okay. So here I go again:

Myra Darouse - Beauregard

Myra "claimed" to be Oswald's home teacher because she was. Just not in any part of 1953 as she apparently thought some 40 years later.

http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=34

He attended Beauregard from 1/13/54 to 6/10/55.

http://www.maryferre...971&relPageId=3

My guess is that Armstrong honed in on her because the FBI report on her doesn't give any time frame and because she described him as "physically small". Both of those things suited Armstrong's theory. But the FBI was more thorough than you'd imagine for an agency allegedly trying to hide certain facts.

They also interviewed:

Fellow Beauregard students -

Peggy Zimmerman - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?

http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=26

Mrs Bernierita Smith - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?

http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=26

Mrs Anna Langlois - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?

http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=27

Fred O'sullivan - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview him?

http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=27

Jack Loyakano - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview him?

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=715120

Carroll Battistella - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?

http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=28

Joan Burgard - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?

http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=29

Teachers -

There were a number of teachers interviewed. Outside of Myra Dalouse, none had any vivid memory of Oswald - or simply no memory of him at all.

Why did Armstrong rely on the 40 year old memory of one teacher and ignore the 10 year old memories of 7 former students?

On the height issue -- she stated in '64 that Oswald was "physically small" - which sounds more like a description of physique rather than height. Her 40 year old memory that he was only about 4' 8" I have little doubt is attributable to a combination of faulty memory and leading questions.

On the issue of wanting to be called "Harvey" - as above.

From Dave Reitzes early work on Harvey & Lee:

This author spoke to Myra DaRouse on October 4, 1998. She told me precisely the same thing as she told John Armstrong, with one only slightly disturbing difference. I asked Ms. DaRouse if he had introduced himself to her as "Harvey." (A leading question, true; I took the answer for granted.) She said, "No, he always called himself, or wanted to be called by his full name." By full name, I wondered, did she mean "Lee Harvey Oswald?" "That's right," she said. "I called him 'Lee Harvey.'"

Would I normally cite David Reitzes? No. But there is absolutely no corroboration from any of the above witnesses that they knew him as "Harvey" at Beauregard or that he wanted to be called "Harvey" - and any theory not only imagining the existence of "Harvey" but also imaging that "Harvey" was part of a CIA plan to create "a single person's history ... from two people" is really pushing the caca uphill when you have one of the two entities wanting to be called by a different name.

One final thing - in Louisiana, a Census Form was completed for EVERY child attending school in that state. Did Armstrong check Census records?

http://www.maryferre...07&relPageId=83

Robert Oswald and Stripling

Robert proved his memory was hopeless with the "I Led Three Lives" stuff up.

His testimony:

Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.

In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.

He would be attending... Robert seems to be making an assumption based on his erroneous arithmetic. Lee did not turn 13 until October, 1952.

Kudlaty

This friend of Jack White from their old college days claimed he was ordered to get Oswald's school records from the school and give them to the FBI. Yet in every single other case, school records were kept, and could only be obtained from, the School District Board.

The NYC school records

I have no idea what you think they show or prove. I do know I have scrutinized them in the past and found them to be unremarkable and non-contradictory. What the record does show is an absence covering his time in Youth House, and the fact that he did not start truanting until after his 13th birthday and ceased again as soon as John Pic left his Coast Guard position as a commie chaser.

The Bronx Zoo photo

Your composite shows the same boy. I don't know how you can say with such certainty that one is a "big boy". The only difference appears to be the hair style. Then, like now, young boys liked to experiment with different hair styles. Robert took the photo when he visited in the Summer of '53. In this instance, it was John Pic who miss-remembered. But in Armstrong's usual fashion, all statements are true so long as they fit with the theory. So... one visit becomes two... and Pic never said the photo was not his brother - only that he didn't recognize his brother in the photo. Hardly surprising. There were large time gaps in between seeing each other, and the next time pic saw lee after '54 was not until late 1962. I've looked at photos of one of my brothers when he was a kid and doesn't look as I recall him - and that is without any large gaps in seeing each other over the years. It's both a product of memory and of the nature of photographs.

David, whether you and others will ever accept it, this theory is dead in the water.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the time and effort Greg...

I would not call McBride the FOUNDATION as much as the launching point... that would be akin to saying if we can prove Oswald ordered the rifle, he committed the crime...

those two things do not necessitate each other... beyond McBride there is so much to support H&L.... but all in due time

At a quick glance I see most of your info is focused on 54-55 and not the 52-53, 53-54 school years...

As I go to each of those links you offered I find them discussing 54-55.... we are focused on the 53/54 school year here... you will not find many witnesses after 1955 who will tell you anything about LEE... Harvey on the other hand has become the center of attention.

Myra Darouse - Beauregard

Myra "claimed" to be Oswald's home teacher because she was. Just not in any part of 1953 as she apparently thought some 40 years later.

http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=34

At this link of yours there is no mention of school years at all... and she confirms the smallness of the student she knew as Harvey

Here is the NY PS#44 school record for LEE - between MAY and SEPT 1953 he grew slightly and was still 115lbs - not the small, quiet little boy Darouse - and a number of other people who knew Harvey and not Lee - described him as... the psychiatrist in NY (Milton KURIAN, march 1953) also described him as very small and undernourished while dealing with his truancy problems... nothing like the well adjusted, and well developed LEE

Are you going to claim that from Jan 53 thru May 53 he grew 8 inches? and then when the photo at the Bronx zoo is taken that summer he shrinks back down again? The boy in the Bronx zoo photo is NOT 5'4" and 115... in fact, LEE would have grown even more by the summer... Harvey, the boy in that photo was NOT recognized by John.. while the other boy was...

The official timeline has Oswald moving to Collinswood St, Fort Worth in July, 1956...

Greg, the problem is WITH the official timeline...

I will take your post and look thru the links and address your points - which I can always count on to be well presented and well supported.... yet starting with that link to Darouse and you telling me there is something there that tells us the YEARS involved - when there is no mention of timeframe at all is a bit of a surprise. I'd like to get back to 1952/53 as this is the key period of transition -

Here is just a little piece of why I do not trust what the FBI writes without signature of authentication - and then I will address 52/53 and more of your post.

when we look around the Darouse pages in that file you linked me to, we see the FBI saying BREEDLOVE said that he too did not "recall" Oswald while at Beauregard

Yet at the same time we have Lee Harvey Oswald's 8th grade report card for Industrial Arts taught by FRED BREEDLOVE, with his signature... showing Lee in his class...

guess it was convenient for the FBI to state that Breedlove did not know him... especially during the 53/54 year when LEE was in HR 303 and Harvey was with Darouse elsewhere.

Greg, Since when do FBI reports of what he said, she said, they said, and what we chose to write down ever account for evidence in this case?

and so far, each of the links has to do with 54-55.... 53/54 is what wer are discussing, having statements from people about the 54/55 year is of no consquence...

More soon.

Cheers

DJ

btw - while I am no where near the researcher others are, I do believe I have a good grasp of the material. I try not to JUDGE the theory before I investigate it.

You seem to simply not like the H&L idea and have focused all your efforts on McBride... when the keys to this mystery are to be found in total...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw - you will notice that ALL the links for 54-55 describe Oswald as the small, quiet, loner, that was HARVEY...

Betwewen that photo of LEE in the classroom in the Bronx zoo composite, 1952/3, and the 1956 Marine photo all there is of LEE is the photo of his missing tooth in the classroom which John feels could be Robert.

Look at what we have for LEE between 55 and 59.... horribly out of focus, potential composites versus the clear images of HARVEY.

LEE can be traced after 55/56 and the contrast between the MARINE and the little commie-loving troublemaker Harvey is easily seen and extensively documented....

DJ

oswaldfaces.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • David Josephs:
    The "unit diaries" of LHO are proof of two Oswalds. SEE PAGES 197 to 202 Harvey and Lee.
    NEVER FOUND REFUTATION OF TWO OSWALDS FROM UNIT DIARIES.
    ############
    THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
    Marguerite Oswald didnt want to be a mother. At 171/2 she worked as a receptionist for a United Fruit Company connected law firm. United Fruit had deep ties with ONI. Getting rid of her children was a legal problem. Thus as a woman of small means she contacted her old work place to get free legal info. to rid herself of mother obligations. From ONI to the CIA LHO went. Its really simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sept 14, 1958 HARVEY Oswald was sent from Atsugi to Ping Tung Taiwan.. not to return until Oct 6th

On Sept 16, Dr. Paul Deranian diagnosis Oswald with gonorrhea:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm (I only use this link to show that Deranian was indeed the doctor at ATSUGI JAPAN.... not on the ship or in Taiwan.)

One such misconception that collapses under further inspection is that Oswald's contracting of gonorrhea is conclusively linked to his activities as an intelligence operative. The cause of the speculation can be found among the Warren Commission's reproduction of Oswald's medical file during his service in the Marines from 1956-59.(2) The reason for this speculation is a diagnosis by Captain Paul Deranian, the senior medical officer at Atsugi, that Oswald contracted "Urethritis, Acute, due to gonococcus #0303." The Captain noted its origin as being "In line of duty, not due to own misconduct." While on the surface this notation might seem odd, especially to those not acquainted with military regulations and procedures involving law and medicine, there is no mystery surrounding this determination.

http://www.history-m..._Donabedian.pdf

Donadebian was called in by the WCR to explain the records....

Captain DONABEDIAN. Not in this one.

The one above here, we assume he had gonorrhea-on the 16th.

Problem here Greg... HARVEY OSWALD left for Taiwan two days before. as the unit diaries say...

All the while that HARVEY is in Taiwan, LEE is still in ATSUGI getting treated for STDs.

I'm all ears over how you reconcile this Greg.... thanks

DJ

and thanks Steven... much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

1. If you prefer to call McBride the "launching pad" for the theory, that's fine with me. The bottom line is, he claimed Oswald wrote to him from Ft Worth in 1958 - which gave rise to the theory that (and forgive me if I have this the wrong way around) "Harvey" was in the Marines at the same time that Lee was living in Ft Worth. Oswald had mentioned anti-communist or anti-Black riots in this letter. The problem is, that there is no evidence of riots in Ft Worth during 1958, but such evidence exists for Aug/Sept, 1956 which is soon after the official history has Oswald moving to Ft Worth. I have previously shown McBride's memory was in error regarding the time period Oswald worked at the dental clinic so if we're going with "launch pad" as analogue, the rocket it launched immediately exploded, but (according to you) it somehow was still a successful mission.

2. Re dear old Myra was this: I already pointed out that the FBI gives no time-frame and that she described Oswald as "physically small". My point was that "no time frame" is not the same as saying it was 53/54. That part was a 40 year old memory which DID NOT SQUARE with the 10 year old memories of no less than 7 of Oswald's former classmates. On that basis, the theory that "Harvey" was in New Orleans in late '53 while Lee was still in New York holds no water. Your only recourse under those circumstances is to make the claim that the FBI lied in multiple reports in order to hide the truth. Anticipating that argument. I already suggested that such an argument defies logic. Why risk interviewing all those people if you suspect you're going to have to fudge their reports? Much simpler and cleaner to just not interview them to start with. The other issue about her describing him as "physically small" to the FBI is somewhat telling, She did NOT say he was "short" or even "short for his age" which is the type of comment you'd expect if talking about height. As I indicated, I believe she was instead talking about physique. I am not surprised however, that 40 years down the track, a smooth talking Armstrong could get her to say he was only 4' 8". On the issue of wanting to be called "Harvey" - that was apparently denied when Dave Reitzes spoke to her, and there is no other records suggesting he ever asked anyone else to be called "Harvey". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - a 40 year old memory doesn't cut it - especially when she allegedly denied ever saying it.

3. Not sure what your point is about Breedlove. A number of teachers were interviewed whose class he attended, but who did not remember him. They didn't remember him because he did not stand out. I can point you to those if you want, but really, you only have to look at the pages before and after Breedlove to find them yourself.

4. The photo comparisons only prove what has been obvious in this forum for a long time: people will see whatever they want to see in photos. All I see is Lee as he was pre-Marines, and then Lee with a typical Marine post basic training bull neck. His later weight and hair less are explicable from records within the 26 volumes - if you know what you're looking for.

5. For Dr. Kurian's memory to be accurate, you have to posit that John Carro was part of the plot and/or cover-up. I think that is a despicable aspersion to cast on someone who had an impeccable reputation as a Parole Officer and a distinguished career as a judge. Kurian may have interviewed some kid named "Harvey" or "Oswald" - not totally uncommon names. It just wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald, or anyone pretending to be.

6. You said: "You seem to simply not like the H&L idea and have focused all your efforts on McBride... when the keys to this mystery are to be found in total... " I'm sorry, David. This is just dead wrong. Like most, I was intrigued by the theory when I first came across it. I even took it for granted that Kurian was the real deal. You can find old posts of mine where I assume he was. It was only when I started looking into parts of the theory that I started to realize what a crock it is. And it was only when I started to post some of my findings that I discovered how zealous are it's adherents. It is often no different - and sometimes worse than arguing the veracity of the Old Testament with fundamentalist Christians. There is just nothing - no piece of evidence and no logic that will shake the faith. Do I concentrate on efforts on McBride? On this thread, maybe - but overall? Hardly - as anyone can check for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem here Greg.

Yes, David. Noted.

The theory now has 3 Oswalds in Aug/Sept, 1958. One living in Ft Worth and writing letters to acquaintances in New Orleans, another at Atsugi getting medical treatment and a third en route to Taiwan.

Alternatively...

The one in Ft Worth was actually living there 2 years BEFORE his acquaintance said he was - and which now has documentary proof to back it up.

The one en route to Taiwan is a product of Armstrong's imagination (or was it one of his flock?) based on a misunderstanding of the records as evidenced by...

HARVEY OSWALD left for Taiwan two days before. as the unit diaries say...

The unit diary says no such thing. It is DATED 2 days before. Not the same thing as sailing 2 days before.

The Skagit actually sailed out on September 16.

"Oswald's unit was deployed for Taiwan on September 16..."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=49565&relPageId=94

Your list was made up 2 days before sailing and named those who would be going to Taiwan on her. Oswald however, pulled out on the day of departure to seek medical treatment.

See how this is working so far? I go to the nth degree to respond to each and every "but what about..." type question and never get acknowledgment of what I have produced... just another "but what about..." so I am now going to claim that the lack of acknowledgement is tantamount to being unable to adequately rebut, and the tactic of merely responding with "but what about..." is just a desperate attempt to find something... ANYTHING that will actually stand up to scrutiny - thus your backslapping of Steve because you thought this actually WOULD stand up. Sorry, David. It does not.

Your work on the rifle and pistol shipping has been educational. Your efforts here have also been - but unfortunately for the wrong reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...