Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Recommended Posts

Some simple questions about Lee Harvey Oswald can be difficult to answer. For example, could Oswald drive a car? Did he have a driver's license?
As we all know, Marina and the Paines all said he couldn't drive and didn't have a driver's license. We're told he had to hitch a ride to work with Wesley Frazier for the same reason.
But Oswald's barber told the Warren Commission a very different story:
Mr. JENNER. You have a distinct recollection that on occasions when this man came into your shop for a haircut, he drove an automobile up to your shop?
Mr. SHASTEEN. He drove that there 1955, I think it's a 1955, I'm sure it's a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon. It's either blue and white or green and white it's two-toned--I know that. Now, why I say--why I take it for granted that Mrs. Paine was with him when he come to the grocery store--I do remember he wasn't driving when they would come to the grocery store, there would be a lady driving and I'm assuming that that was Mrs. Paine, because like I say, I have been--I have never been close enough to her and knew it, to speak to her, but she trades at the service station where I do and I saw her in there and I never did pay any attention to her and I saw her passing, met her in the road in the car and those things. (WC X, 317)
Furniture store owner Edith Whitworth also saw Oswald drive a two-tone car:
Mr. LIEBELER. You saw him drive up in the car?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; because it was all glass in front and I was sitting at the--well, it's the cash stand-- we call it there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Which direction was he driving the car at that time?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Driving west on a one-way street--that's a one way there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Running from east to west?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. East to west.
Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of a car did he have, Mrs. Whitworth?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, as far as I can remember--I wouldn't be---I wouldn't say for sure. All I can say is that I believe, you know, not paying a lot of attention to the car and the car not meaning anything at that time, that it was a two-tone blue and white. It was either a Ford or a Plymouth. Now, I wouldn't swear to that, but it was either one the car didn't mean anything to me at that time. Anyway, he came in and he stood--. (WC XI, 264)
Edith's friend Gertrude Hunter also saw Oswald drive a two-tone car:
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see who was driving it?
Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was this man driving it?
Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many people were in the car?
Mrs. HUNTER. Just him and a woman and two children.
Mr. LIEBELER. Nobody else?
Mrs. HUNTER. No one else.
Mr. LIEBELER. You are quite sure about that?
Mrs. HUNTER. I'm positive, because I was sitting right there I was sitting this way and the door was right here [indicating], and he drove cater-cornered up.
Mr. LIEBELER. And there are glass windows in the front of the store so that you could see right out into the street?
Mrs. HUNTER. It is a solid glass there and the door was standing open there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know about what kind of car it was?
Mrs. HUNTER. Now, the reason I'm definite about the car--a friend of mine in Houston--I was looking for them up and they had a car just like this and I had left a note on my mailbox that I would be at this place--- telling them if anyone come I would be at this place and when they drove up I thought that was them and it was a two-tone-blue Ford.
And, as we all know, car salesman Albert Bogard told the Warren Commission that a man who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald walked into the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership in an early Saturday afternoon in November, 1963. He inquired about purchasing a vehicle and Mr. Bogard took him for a test drive on the Stemmons Freeway. (LEE) Oswald said he was not ready to purchase a car but within a few weeks he had some money coming in and would be back. Bogard wrote the name Lee Oswald on one the back of one his business cards. When he heard that Oswald had been arrested for shooting a policeman in Oak Cliff, he tore the card up. Bogard's story was corroborated by his sales manager, Frank Pizzo, and two salesman, Oran Brown and Gene Wilson.
There are many other examples of witnesses who saw Oswald drive a car, the most famous of which probably occurred in and around Alice, Texas in October, 1963 and on assassination day.
WC staffers apparently were confused by the conflicting testimony, and so they arranged to have Marina Oswald, Gertrude Hunter, and Edith Whitworth appear together in an attempt to resolve the conflicts. Hunter and Whitworth both identified Marina as the woman they had seen arriving at the Furniture Mart in a car driven by Lee Harvey Oswald, but Marina denied everything.
Mrs. OSWALD. I have never seen Lee drive the car in my lifetime. Lee never drove a car with me or the children in it. The only time I saw him behind the wheel was when Ruth Paine taught him to drive the car, he was practicing parking the car when Ruth Paine was teaching him to drive.
Mr. LIEBELER. And that was all in front of Mr. Paine's house; wasn't it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I'm sure this lady is trying to tell the truth, but the only possible person who could have driven the car when we were in that store could have been Mrs. Ruth Paine. She knows all the stores where we went because we never went there without her. (WC XI, 280)
What is truly bizarre about all this is that a simple phone call to the Texas Department of Public Safety could have resolved the issue of whether Lee Harvey Oswald had a Texas driver's license, but apparently none of the high-powered attorneys on the Warren Commission could find the phone number. Had they bothered to inquire, of course, staffers would have gotten an answer that was difficult to explain. As the following affidavit acquired by Jim Garrison's office shows, many people at the Dep't. of Public Safety were aware that Lee Harvey Oswald had a Texas driver's license.
post-7185-0-06217800-1431523673_thumb.jpg
post-7185-0-26176100-1431523718_thumb.jpg
post-7185-0-69481500-1431523746_thumb.gif
For those unable to read the graphic of Aletha Frair's statement, here's what it says:
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF ORLEANS
S T A T E M E N T
DATE: February 14, 1968
STATEMENT OF: ALETHA FRAIR
RESIDING AT: 8001 Benson
New Orleans, LA
Phone - 242-2126
My name is ALETHA FRAIR (MRS. JOHN FRAIR). I live at:
8001 Benson
New Orleans, La.
Phone - 242-2126
I worked for the Department of Public Safety in Austin, Texas from the early part of October 1963, through the early part of December 1963. While I was employed at the Department of Public Safety I worked in the License Records Department. This Dept. Was responsible for the IBM computer records of all driver's licenses in the state of Texas.
My husband, JOHN, was working for the United Press International during November of 1963 and on November 22, 1963 he was in Uvalde, Texas, covering the birthday of ex-Vice President JOHN NANCE GARNER.
I did not go to work on the 22 of November, 1963, but the following event occured (sic) the week after the assassination of President KENNEDY.
During the week following the murder of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, on either Wednesday the 27th, or Tuesday the 28th of November, 1963 the Texas driver's license issued to LEE HARVEY OSWALD came into my division.
The record (IBM card) on OSWALD was pulled from the files. Several other employees (5 or 6) of the Department saw the driver's license which was dirty and worn as though it had been carried in a billfold. The license was the talk of the office that day since everyone knew who OSWALD was, and the reason his driver's license records were being pulled from the active file was the fact that he had been killed.
In October of 1966 my husband and I moved to New Orleans and in June of 1967 my husband went to work for WWL-TV, Channel 4.
I, ALETHA FRAIR, hereby affirm that all of the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge.
Signed February 14, 1968.
(Signature of Aletha Frair)
(Signature of witness Gary Sanders)
(Signature of witness Jody Duek)
For more information about "Lee Harvey Oswald" and his driver's license, see: http://harveyandlee.net/Driving/Drive.htm
Of course, all this can be easily explained if you believe there were two different young men using the name "Lee Harvey Oswald." If you think that is absurd, what's your explanation for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another simple question about Lee Harvey Oswald that is difficult to answer:

Why doesn't the Social Security Administration count any of Oswald's employment income prior to the time he joined the U.S. Marine Corps?

According to SSA and IRS records, Oswald's income in 1962 and 1963 was as follows:

Employer: William B. Reily & Co., Earnings: 422.25 and 191.25
Employer: Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Inc., Earnings: 727.80 and 945.69 and 121.67
Employer: Leslie Welding, Earnings: 636.50
Texas Book Depository, Earnings: 261.68
Add them all up, and you get and Grand Total of $3306.85
So, less than a month after receiving a completed "Application for Survivors Insurance Benefits" form filled out by Marina, the SSA office in Dallas had completed a "Determination of Award" form. Below is the first part of that form:
post-7185-0-71671400-1431527010_thumb.jpg
As you can see, according to the Social Security Administration, the lifetime earnings of "Lee Harvey Oswald" amounted to $3306.85, exactly the amount of his 1962 and 1963 income. But what about Oswald's earlier income from Dolly Shoe, Tujague's, J.R. Michaels, and Pfisterer Dental Lab? Why isn't it included by the SSA? There are supposedly legitimate W-2 forms showing Social Security information for those employers as well. Here are the forms for Dolly Shoe and Pfisterer:
post-7185-0-14299000-1431527997_thumb.gif
post-7185-0-66779500-1431528026_thumb.gif
On May 15, 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations chief counsel Robert Blakey wrote to the Social Security Administration requesting "access to all files and documents concerning or referring to Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald." On July 28, Social Security Administration associate commissioner Robert P. Bynum formally responded. In a three-page cover letter to Ms. Jackie Hess, an HSCA employee, Bynum cited 36 different documents that were being forwarded from the Social Security Administration to the HSCA. This is a remarkable document, and three excerpts from it are reproduced below:
post-7185-0-12422700-1431528426_thumb.jpg
...
post-7185-0-56267200-1431528440_thumb.jpg
...
post-7185-0-47712200-1431528454_thumb.jpg
As you can see above, Item 23 in the letter from the Social Security Administration to the HSCA states: "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps."
Why didn't the Social Security Administration include any of Oswald's income from his first four employers in his lifetime earnings report? And why on earth was the Warren Report offered as an explanation?
John Armstrong believes Oswald's pre-Marine income reports are fraudulent. If anyone here has a better explanation, I'd love to hear it.
More about this topic can be found at: http://harveyandlee.net/Unraveling/Unravels.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From Harvey and Lee, p. 799:


TDPS employee Mrs. Lee Bozarth stated categorically that she knew from direct personal

experience there was a Texas driver's license and a file for Lee Harvey Oswald, and that

it was pulled and given to a federal agency in early December, 1963. [Nov 22-21] TDPS

proceedures for issuing licenses and creating files was confirmed by her supervisor, Mr.

Griffen, to the HSCA in 1978. Six other TDPS employees also saw the file including Ray

Sundy, Joyce Bostic, Inez Leake, Gayle Scott, Peggy Smith, and Mrs. Ernie Isaacs.


In 1978 HSCA investigator Gary Sanders contacted the TDPS for information about

Oswald's driver's license. After having a brief and curt conversation with Mrs. Seay

Sanders wrote, "It is very obvious to me that if there are any records at the DPS pertaining

to Lee Harvey Oswald they are not going to release them." [Nov 22-22]


The info in brackets above are links to document reproductions on the CD that accompanies the book. I can probably dig up the images later if anyone is interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but it's a little confusing.

When a person applies for a license, a file is automatically created, yes?

And so that file is what was seen by people in the office?

Not a license but a pink slip indicating an application?

Also, there is mention of several other names, and Garrison's investigator did seem to try to speak to them. But it also seems that he failed in his attempt, and therefore there is no further corroboration?

I wonder what they meant when they said the paper found in the file was tattered, worn and stained, as if it had been carried around in a person's wallet for a period of time??

I've never given back one of my driver's licenses to the license bureau for them to keep. Why would they have something that was worn and stained?

Makes no sense.

Mark,

these guys have the license being handed in by the authorities and then have the same authorities suppressing it.

Mr. JENNER - Mr. Chairman, I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 426 a form or document which purports to be a driver's permit or driver's license permit application by Lee Harvey Oswald. It is a one-page form document on heavy board, or at least heavy paper.
Are you familiar sufficiently with the handwriting or handprinting of Lee Harvey Oswald to be able to tell us whether the writing and handprinting on that document is or is not Lee Harvey Oswald's?
Mrs. PAINE - I am not sufficiently familiar. I can simply compare it with m only other thing I have seen in his printing which is what he wrote down in my diary.
Mr. JENNER - Refreshing your recollection in that respect and looking at the exhibit, if you are able to do so, would you give us your opinion as to whether the exhibit is in the handwriting or handprinting of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. PAINE - I think it very likely is.
Mr. JENNER - In your short talk with Lee Harvey Oswald on the subject of his having gone to the license application department in Dallas, was anything said about his actually having filled out a driver's license or a learner's permit application?
Mrs. PAINE - No; nothing.
Mr. DULLES - Could we have the date of this document?
Mr. JENNER - If it is dated. My recollection is it is not.
Mrs. PAINE - His birthday is on it only. Picked up at his room on the date of the assassination. I guess it was picked up, I don't know.
Mr. JENNER - Could I review this with you a little bit? Did Lee Harvey Oswald on this occasion tell you in the course of what limited telephone conversation you had with him, that he had gone to the driver's license application bureau?
Mrs. PAINE - No; he told Marina.

Oswald was supposed to go have his test with Ruth - in Ruth's car. He labored under the belief that he needed a car to take the test and when Ruth pulled out, he made a half-hearted attempt to buy one. When it was made clear he couldn't because of a lack of credit history and limited employment time, he tried to save face (as many do in those situations) by making up a story that he was coming into some money and would return in a few weeks.

Indigenous peoples around the globe sought to explain the world around them. Because of lack of knowledge and science, the only option open was to create stories to explain nature. That's what we see here. The creation of a story to try and explain what the authors of the stories cannot explain because of their own knowledge, logic and science deficits.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another simple question about Lee Harvey Oswald that is difficult to answer:

Why doesn't the Social Security Administration count any of Oswald's employment income prior to the time he joined the U.S. Marine Corps?

According to SSA and IRS records, Oswald's income in 1962 and 1963 was as follows:

Employer: William B. Reily & Co., Earnings: 422.25 and 191.25
Employer: Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Inc., Earnings: 727.80 and 945.69 and 121.67
Employer: Leslie Welding, Earnings: 636.50
Texas Book Depository, Earnings: 261.68
Add them all up, and you get and Grand Total of $3306.85
So, less than a month after receiving a completed "Application for Survivors Insurance Benefits" form filled out by Marina, the SSA office in Dallas had completed a "Determination of Award" form. Below is the first part of that form:
(edit: image deleted due to restrictions on number of images)
As you can see, according to the Social Security Administration, the lifetime earnings of "Lee Harvey Oswald" amounted to $3306.85, exactly the amount of his 1962 and 1963 income. But what about Oswald's earlier income from Dolly Shoe, Tujague's, J.R. Michaels, and Pfisterer Dental Lab? Why isn't it included by the SSA? There are supposedly legitimate W-2 forms showing Social Security information for those employers as well. Here are the forms for Dolly Shoe and Pfisterer:
On May 15, 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations chief counsel Robert Blakey wrote to the Social Security Administration requesting "access to all files and documents concerning or referring to Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald." On July 28, Social Security Administration associate commissioner Robert P. Bynum formally responded. In a three-page cover letter to Ms. Jackie Hess, an HSCA employee, Bynum cited 36 different documents that were being forwarded from the Social Security Administration to the HSCA. This is a remarkable document, and three excerpts from it are reproduced below:
...
...
As you can see above, Item 23 in the letter from the Social Security Administration to the HSCA states: "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps."
Why didn't the Social Security Administration include any of Oswald's income from his first four employers in his lifetime earnings report? And why on earth was the Warren Report offered as an explanation?
John Armstrong believes Oswald's pre-Marine income reports are fraudulent. If anyone here has a better explanation, I'd love to hear it.
More about this topic can be found at: http://harveyandlee.net/Unraveling/Unravels.htm

Here is a perfect example of how myths can be created because of deficits in logic, science and knowledge.

Armstrong just doesn't seem to understand that it's not okay to compare apples and oranges.

That is what he may be doing when he attempts to compare the data needed for a "survivor's insurance benefits claim" and the data needed by the HSCA.

It can be demonstrated I'm wrong by showing that the survivor's benefits claim is based on all US income Oswald earned, including earnings prior to marriage.

My own best guess is that only US income earned during the marriage would count. I'll happily admit to being wrong if it can be demonstrated with citations that I am.

For obvious reasons, the HSCA wanted to examine his whole of life income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to tell me God isn't crying when it rains?

No, but I know lots of farmers who do when it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is truly bizarre about all this is that a simple phone call to the Texas Department of Public Safety could have resolved the issue of whether Lee Harvey Oswald had a Texas driver's license, but apparently none of the high-powered attorneys on the Warren Commission could find the phone number.

Just as bizarre is the fact that this license was the talk of the office, yet the story never leaked and only came to light via Garrison's intrepid investigators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As we all know, Marina and the Paines all said he couldn't drive and didn't have a driver's license. We're told he had to hitch a ride to work with Wesley Frazier for the same reason.
But Oswald's barber told the Warren Commission a very different story:
Mr. JENNER. You have a distinct recollection that on occasions when this man came into your shop for a haircut, he drove an automobile up to your shop?
Mr. SHASTEEN. He drove that there 1955, I think it's a 1955, I'm sure it's a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon. It's either blue and white or green and white it's two-toned--I know that. Now, why I say--why I take it for granted that Mrs. Paine was with him when he come to the grocery store--I do remember he wasn't driving when they would come to the grocery store, there would be a lady driving and I'm assuming that that was Mrs. Paine, because like I say, I have been--I have never been close enough to her and knew it, to speak to her, but she trades at the service station where I do and I saw her in there and I never did pay any attention to her and I saw her passing, met her in the road in the car and those things. (WC X, 317)

Shasteen was telling the truth. Oswald drove Ruth's car to get haircuts. Do you think Ruth is going to admit she allowed an unlicensed driver use her car? No mystery here at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but it's a little confusing.

When a person applies for a license, a file is automatically created, yes?

And so that file is what was seen by people in the office?

Not a license but a pink slip indicating an application?

Also, there is mention of several other names, and Garrison's investigator did seem to try to speak to them. But it also seems that he failed in his attempt, and therefore there is no further corroboration?

I wonder what they meant when they said the paper found in the file was tattered, worn and stained, as if it had been carried around in a person's wallet for a period of time??

I've never given back one of my driver's licenses to the license bureau for them to keep. Why would they have something that was worn and stained?

Makes no sense.

I've never given back a driver's license to the issuing bureau either, but what you or I would do with our licenses is irrelevant. "Lee Harvey Oswald" was in no position to return this license either, and he clearly didn't. But someone in law enforcement or some other official might well do just that. The returned license might have been in the wallet that Captain Westbrook "found" at 10th and Patton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a perfect example of how myths can be created because of deficits in logic, science and knowledge.

Armstrong just doesn't seem to understand that it's not okay to compare apples and oranges.

That is what he may be doing when he attempts to compare the data needed for a "survivor's insurance benefits claim" and the data needed by the HSCA.

It can be demonstrated I'm wrong by showing that the survivor's benefits claim is based on all US income Oswald earned, including earnings prior to marriage.

My own best guess is that only US income earned during the marriage would count. I'll happily admit to being wrong if it can be demonstrated with citations that I am.

For obvious reasons, the HSCA wanted to examine his whole of life income.

And, of course, the HSCA did not ask the SSA about what portions of her hubby's income Marina would be eligible to receive. The HSCA asked for "access to all files and documents concerning or referring to Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald." And, in place of actual reports on his pre-Marine income, SSA responded with three pages from the Warren Commission Report.

Oh, and don't try to claim that SSA responded with info only about both Oswald and his wife. Included with Bynum's letters were such pre-marriage docs as Oswald's SSA application, his Dishonorable Discharge, Marina's birth certificate, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a perfect example of how myths can be created because of deficits in logic, science and knowledge.

Armstrong just doesn't seem to understand that it's not okay to compare apples and oranges.

That is what he may be doing when he attempts to compare the data needed for a "survivor's insurance benefits claim" and the data needed by the HSCA.

It can be demonstrated I'm wrong by showing that the survivor's benefits claim is based on all US income Oswald earned, including earnings prior to marriage.

My own best guess is that only US income earned during the marriage would count. I'll happily admit to being wrong if it can be demonstrated with citations that I am.

For obvious reasons, the HSCA wanted to examine his whole of life income.

And, of course, the HSCA did not ask the SSA about what portions of her hubby's income Marina would be eligible to receive. The HSCA asked for "access to all files and documents concerning or referring to Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald." And, in place of actual reports on his pre-Marine income, SSA responded with three pages from the Warren Commission Report.

Oh, and don't try to claim that SSA responded with info only about both Oswald and his wife. Included with Bynum's letters were such pre-marriage docs as Oswald's SSA application, his Dishonorable Discharge, Marina's birth certificate, and so on.

Are you claiming that the HSCA was investigating Marina's Survivor's Insurance Benefits Claim? If not, then you are attempting to link unrelated requests for information. As far as I am aware, the HSCA had no interest in Marina's Social Security benefits and was requesting details of Oswald's income for the very reasonable and sane purpose of attempting to answer the question about his finances and means of doing certain things with a limited income.

Her survivor's claim - as I said previously, was probably based on the income earned by Oswald in the US while they were married - that is all pre-marriage and non-US income details were not required.

Why do you guys seem to not grasp very simple things? THESE WERE TWO VERY SEPARATE & UNRELATED INFORMATION REQUESTS - REQUESTS MADE FOR ENTIRELY UNRELATED PURPOSES AND REQUIRING DIFFERENT DATA SETS - WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE RECORDS REFLECT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, I know that you may not have much information available regarding US Social Security and survivors' benefits. Most of it has little bearing on the JFK assassination case...EXCEPT that both of Oswald's daughters were eligible to receive survivors' benefits until at least age 18 [there are special rules for benefits to be paid after age 18], and those benefits were payable to Marina as the trustee for the children. Marina herself could NOT receive survivors benefits until she reached retirement age--at least age 62. But the survivors' benefits would have been based upon Oswald's LIFETIME earnings, at least those earnings that were subject to Social Security withholding.

So all of Oswald's earnings, INCLUDING earnings prior to his marriage, would be a part of the basis for determining the survivors' benefits.

I learned a bit about that when my first wife passed away at age 36 leaving me with two minor children. The benefits the children drew were based on ALL my wife's lifelong earnings, and not merely what was earned after marriage, or after the birth of each child. The same rules would have applied to Oswald's children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, I know that you may not have much information available regarding US Social Security and survivors' benefits. Most of it has little bearing on the JFK assassination case...EXCEPT that both of Oswald's daughters were eligible to receive survivors' benefits until at least age 18 [there are special rules for benefits to be paid after age 18], and those benefits were payable to Marina as the trustee for the children. Marina herself could NOT receive survivors benefits until she reached retirement age--at least age 62. But the survivors' benefits would have been based upon Oswald's LIFETIME earnings, at least those earnings that were subject to Social Security withholding.

So all of Oswald's earnings, INCLUDING earnings prior to his marriage, would be a part of the basis for determining the survivors' benefits.

I learned a bit about that when my first wife passed away at age 36 leaving me with two minor children. The benefits the children drew were based on ALL my wife's lifelong earnings, and not merely what was earned after marriage, or after the birth of each child. The same rules would have applied to Oswald's children.

Thank you, Mark... but this is still myth-making.

Doug Horne already explained all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Doug Horne already explained it, then you should be able to tell us why the Social Security Administration's summary of Lee Harvey Oswald's LIFETIME EARNINGS did not include any of his income from work prior to his service in the Marine Corps. By all means please explain why, with his cover letter, Robert Bynum said he was including, "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to his service in the Marine Corps." That sounds pretty strange to us simple folk who, as you tell it, don't know how to analyze things properly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×