Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Jim Hargrove]

We're STILL WAITING!

All these little boy tantrums are because he was unable to address ridiculous issue of them looking identical.

Will you address that Jim?? You've been asked enough now.

Certainly, Bernie.

They looked similar enough to fool some casual observers, but they were hardly identical.

You guys should all contact Social Security to get the latest excuse for this stuff.

[Jim Hargrove]

Let's review this one more time.

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.

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?

The answer isn't all that complicated. It's right here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Unraveling/Unravels.htm

Edited August 27, 2015 by Jim Hargrove

[Bernie Laverick]

We're STILL WAITING!

All these little boy tantrums are because he was unable to address ridiculous issue of them looking identical.

Will you address that Jim?? You've been asked enough now.

Certainly, Bernie.

They looked similar enough to fool some casual observers, but they were hardly identical.

You guys should all contact Social Security to get the latest excuse for this stuff.

Casual observers? This is a comedy sketch surely. The "casual observers" you refer to are your star witnesses!! They are the ones who are making this work for you!! Not one of them seemingly commented an the slight differences to the person they were describing and the person flashed across the entire media? Not one.

Did any of the witnesses who saw 'Lee' in this time frame subsequently remark on the slight facial difference between the person they witnessed and the person shot by Ruby. Not even a lingering doubt that they were two different people? Did Noto, or any of the other witnesses who say they saw 'Lee' ever subsequently say of the sighting, "Funny thing is, he said his name was Oswald but there's something about the guy they're showing on TV that doesn't quite ring true. He wasn't the man I witnessed."

They ALL believed the person they were speaking to was the historic Oswald. The doppelganger fooled EVERYONE who saw him

That's as near as identical as you can get!

And that means your entire theory is utter nonsense because the chances are too ridiculous to even consider.

Gaal will now throw up some link to Victorian facial reconstruction like he did the last time we nailed you on this. He also showed a link about two guys who weren't related but looked identical, it was quite creepy I admit. But that means Gaal is convinced that the two Oswalds DID look identical, he was trying to show how that could be possible. But you are now saying they weren't.

Well only to "casual observers" at least, that is, the very people on who's observations sits the entire H&L fantasy.

You should all get together and write a sitcom, I don't know, something like Mork and Mindy...

[Jim Hargrove]

Thanks, Tommy, for answering..... But I have to ask the same question again that you said you'd NEVER answer. . . . . .

===================QUOTE ON =======================

The moon isn't made of green cheese, but...

Why didn't the Social Security Admin recognize any of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" teen-aged employment?

======================= QUOTE OFF =====================

Will you ever answer this simple question, Tommy?

Have any of you ever contacted the Social Security Admin and asked them?

If not, why not?

Maybe it only includes "working life" income?

Working life income is used to assess pension entitlements and life insurance/superannuation payouts etc.

It is usually defined as income earned from a certain age to a nominal retirement age e.g. 16 to 65.

But you guys won't check it out in case you don't get the answer you want. You don't really know why it wasn't included, but it sure helps your cause to be able to attribute a nefarious reason!

Nice try. But the Oswald you defend was clearly between the ages of 16 and 65 in 1956.

And, of course, if there was ANY truth to what you say, Mr. Bynum would have simply explained it, rather than offer three pages from the Warren Commission report as an explanation.

Don't worry, though. Sooner or later, SSA will feel compelled to offer an excuse. Why don't you call them and get one?

http://harveyandlee.net/Unraveling/Unravels.htm

[Greg Parker]

Let's review this one more time.

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.

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?

The answer isn't all that complicated. It's right here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Unraveling/Unravels.htm

Jim,

Have you,or Armstrong or any one else looked 42 USC 405 © (2) which was sited by Bynum as to why certain records were not provided? I mean, the letter states quite clearly "... redisclosure is prohibited" under this provision.

Even with this in front of you, you still prefer to make up evidence-free nefarious reasons.

If this theory was based on honest scholarship, a specialist lawyer would sought for an opinion on the use of 44 USC 405 © (2) in these circumstances. But again - none of you will do that for fear of of not receiving the answer you want,

Edited August 27, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Jim Hargrove]

Casual observers? This is a comedy sketch surely. The "casual observers" you refer to are your star witnesses!! They are the ones who are making this work for you!! Not one of them seemingly commented an the slight differences to the person they were describing and the person flashed across the entire media? Not one.

You need to pay attention, Bernie. Obviously, I'm going to have to post A LOT more stuff from Harvey and Lee. As I've already shown, Richard Garrett met Harvey Oswald in junior high school and Lee Oswald in high school and was quoted by Life magazine telling the differences between the two.

Laura Kittrell at the Texas Employment Commission also met both Oswalds and described the differences in great (and accurate) detail:

from Harvey and Lee, p. 728:

Laura said, "Although the man I remember as (Harvey) Oswald and the man I

remember as the Teamster (Lee Oswald) were much alike in size, shape, and outline,

generally, there was a marked difference between them in bearing and manner. The

man I remember as (Harvey) Oswald was a trim, energetic, compact, well-knit person

who sat on the edge of a chair, but the man I remember as the teamster was a trifling,

shiftless, good-for-nothing lout who sprawled oafishly over his chair and whose move-

ments seemed curiously uncoordinated, like those of a person who had been drinking,

and yet I don't think he had been drinking."^{81 OCT,63-13}

Laura also recalled, "He (the "Teamster") was slouchy and he was kind of un-

kempt, not dirty, but messy and very unmilitary looking. That was one thing about Mr.

(Harvey) Oswald, he always looked very military, neat as a pin, and this fellow wasn't.

And he had this peculiar way of laughing and talking so that people all over the room

could hear him, and Mr. (Harvey) Oswald wasn't like that at all." Kittrell said that al-

though she suspected the fellow (the "Teamster") might not have been (Harvey)

Oswald at the time, she wasn't sure and she didn't want to call him a xxxx and create a

scene without being sure.⁸²

A number of other witnesses noted that the "Oswald" they saw on television after the assassination was not the Oswald they originally encountered. I'll make a list some time.

[Jim Hargrove]

Let's review this one more time.

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.

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?

The answer isn't all that complicated. It's right here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Unraveling/Unravels.htm

Jim,

Have you,or Armstrong or any one else looked 42 USC 405 © (2) which was sited by Bynum as to why certain records were not provided? I mean, the letter states quite clearly "... redisclosure is prohibited" under this provision.

Even with this in front of you, you still prefer to make up evidence-free nefarious reasons.

If this theory was based on honest scholarship, a specialist lawyer would sought for an opinion on the use of 44 USC 405 © (2) in these circumstances. But again - none of you will do that for fear of of not receiving the answer you want,

The information you cite is clearly shown at the bottom of the following page from my website:

http://harveyandlee.net/Unraveling/Unravels.htm

Although Mr. Bynum included LHO employment information from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, William B. Reily, Leslie Welding and the Texas School Book Depository, none is offered from “Oswald's” pre-Marine service employers. Even more significantly, none of “Oswald's” pre-Marine income is listed on his lifetime earnings report. Completely missing is the income from Dolly Shoe, Tujagues, J.R. Michels, and Pfisterer Dental Lab. You have tried a number of explanations for this earlier in this thread, and all have been shot down. No doubt we'll hear more now.

[Bernie Laverick]

Casual observers? This is a comedy sketch surely. The "casual observers" you refer to are your star witnesses!! They are the ones who are making this work for you!! Not one of them seemingly commented an the slight differences to the person they were describing and the person flashed across the entire media? Not one.

You need to pay attention, Bernie. Obviously, I'm going to have to post A LOT more stuff from Harvey and Lee. As I've already shown, Richard Garrett met Harvey Oswald in junior high school and Lee Oswald in high school and was quoted by Life magazine telling the differences between the two.

Laura Kittrell at the Texas Employment Commission also met both Oswalds and described the differences in great (and accurate) detail:

from Harvey and Lee, p. 728:

Laura said, "Although the man I remember as (Harvey) Oswald and the man I

remember as the Teamster (Lee Oswald) were much alike in size, shape, and outline,

generally, there was a marked difference between them in bearing and manner. The

man I remember as (Harvey) Oswald was a trim, energetic, compact, well-knit person

who sat on the edge of a chair, but the man I remember as the teamster was a trifling,

shiftless, good-for-nothing lout who sprawled oafishly over his chair and whose move-

ments seemed curiously uncoordinated, like those of a person who had been drinking,

and yet I don't think he had been drinking."^{81 OCT,63-13}

Laura also recalled, "He (the "Teamster") was slouchy and he was kind of un-

kempt, not dirty, but messy and very unmilitary looking. That was one thing about Mr.

(Harvey) Oswald, he always looked very military, neat as a pin, and this fellow wasn't.

And he had this peculiar way of laughing and talking so that people all over the room

could hear him, and Mr. (Harvey) Oswald wasn't like that at all." Kittrell said that al-

though she suspected the fellow (the "Teamster") might not have been (Harvey)

Oswald at the time, she wasn't sure and she didn't want to call him a xxxx and create a

scene without being sure.⁸²

A number of other witnesses noted that the "Oswald" they saw on television after the assassination was not the Oswald they originally encountered. I'll make a list some time.

From H&L..."She interviewed the two Oswalds in 1963 in Dallas. She remembered they looked remarkably similar." "The two Oswalds were very, very similar"

FBI report (boooh!!!) of interview with Kittrell: "Miss Kittrell also said she could not be certain the man was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald; she said her recollection of the person is that he seemed to fit the description later published concerning the real Oswald." http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20227/227e.pdf

This is the Kittrell that went on to write a scrawling letter to Robert Kennedy dripping with paranoia about ‘them’ being out to get her. The woman was clearly disturbed and only too willing to embroil herself in an intrigue pitting herself against dark government forces.

Read the letter, she’s completely round the hat rack! (also on above link)

And are we saying that by the time Kittrell had got back from lunch on the 22^nd Nov the FBI had already swept her office of all traces of Oswald’s records?

Really? That quick?

But why did the handlers allow this to happen in the first place? How stupid are they to let both subjects expose themselves at the most critical point of the whole elaborate plot.

Why would they do that? What possible advantage is there having both of them appear at the same office to be interviewed by the same person only weeks apart?

This story sounds great, exotic almost, but when you scratch the surface, on every issue, it's nothing more than a bag of smoke.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Bernie Laverick

[David Josephs]

It must be BL's turn to be an annoying gnat.

You guys must alternate weeks.

For someone who could care less Bernie, How do explain to your family all this time time you spend away on a topic you know nothing about, don't want to know about yet can't help yourself from asking about it.

You're a living oxymoron.

Edited August 27, 2015 by David Josephs

[Bernie Laverick]

It must be BL's turn to be an annoying gnat.

You guys must alternate weeks.

For someone who could care less Bernie, How do explain to your family all this time time you spend away on a topic you know nothing about, don't want to know about yet can't help yourself from asking about it.

You're a living oxymoron.

Who says I don't care less? You? Clearly I do...

So now it's your turn. Hope you do a bit better than Mork and Mindy. They're getting a bit of a whooping aren't they David?

So now David Josephs is going to answer why Oswald's handlers would allow the doppelganger to visit the same office, TEC, to have an interview with the same person, Kittrell, just weeks before the assassination. If they were that un-secretive about all of this then there should be 100's of examples where 'Lee' is clearly in the USA whilst 'Harvey' is in the USSR. But you have nothing.

Noto thing!

And all of these witnesses are SURE that the person shot by Ruby is the person they are talking about. In other words, they were identical in looks.

Oops.

PS David, the constant reference to my family is not the button you need to be pushing. To start a flame war you should make references to my criminal convictions. I'm very secretive and sensitive about that! That's the button right there. Ok?

[Jim Hargrove]

In her FBI interview, Kittrell clearly indicated that the man she suspected might not be Oswald in fact identified himself as him. From the report of her interview:

From p. 8:

"She has concluded that the person she saw the last time wasn't really Oswald but perhaps someone he sent in his place in order to maintain his unemployment claim"

From p. 9:

"She said that although she suspected the fellow might no have been Oswald at the time, she wasn't sure and she didn't want to call him a L-I-A-R and create a scene without being sure."

(I spelled "L-I-A-R" with hyphens so the forum software won't censor it.)

[Bernie Laverick]

In her FBI interview, Kittrell clearly indicated that the man she suspected might not be Oswald in fact identified himself as him. From the report of her interview:

From p. 8:

"She has concluded that the person she saw the last time wasn't really Oswald but perhaps someone he sent in his place in order to maintain his unemployment claim"

From p. 9:

"She said that although she suspected the fellow might no have been Oswald at the time, she wasn't sure and she didn't want to call him a L-I-A-R and create a scene without being sure."

(I spelled "L-I-A-R" with hyphens so the forum software won't censor it.)

Did you read the rambling accusatory letter she wrote to Robert Kennedy? She's bonkers and you know it!

[David Josephs]

If there ever was an expert on BONKERS BL... You da man.

My point again, if you don't want to know, why do you ask. If you don't believe anything anyway, who cares what she wrote, and how does that have any bearing on who she saw?

[Jim Hargrove]

In her FBI interview, Kittrell clearly indicated that the man she suspected might not be Oswald in fact identified himself as him. From the report of her interview:

From p. 8:

"She has concluded that the person she saw the last time wasn't really Oswald but perhaps someone he sent in his place in order to maintain his unemployment claim"

From p. 9:

"She said that although she suspected the fellow might no have been Oswald at the time, she wasn't sure and she didn't want to call him a L-I-A-R and create a scene without being sure."

(I spelled "L-I-A-R" with hyphens so the forum software won't censor it.)

Did you read the rambling accusatory letter she wrote to Robert Kennedy? She's bonkers and you know it!

So, Bernie, you go from stating that "not one" witness could see any differences between the two Oswalds to now trying to discredit the ones who did.

And we'd better add John Pic to the list. It has frequently been shown on this very forum that Lee Harvey Oswald's own half-brother, during his sworn Warren Commission testimony, refused to identify Lee HARVEY Oswald as his brother in the famous Bronx Zoo and Fair Play for Cuba flier photos during. You know why? Because it WASN'T his brother!

Edited August 27, 2015 by Jim Hargrove

[Steven Gaal]

In her FBI interview, Kittrell clearly indicated that the man she suspected might not be Oswald in fact identified himself as him. From the report of her interview:

From p. 8:

"She has concluded that the person she saw the last time wasn't really Oswald but perhaps someone he sent in his place in order to maintain his unemployment claim"

From p. 9:

"She said that although she suspected the fellow might no have been Oswald at the time, she wasn't sure and she didn't want to call him a L-I-A-R and create a scene without being sure."

(I spelled "L-I-A-R" with hyphens so the forum software won't censor it.)

Did you read the rambling accusatory letter she wrote to Robert Kennedy? She's bonkers and you know it!

BONKERS ..bonkers is anyone making a buck over the family pain of the Oswald family.

THAT PERSON IS IMORAL. How does that go ??? CASE CLOSED. see https://bernielaverick.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/bernie-laverick-2/ gaal

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/lee-harveys-legacy/ link info below

" Rachel was quiet for a moment. "I think Lee was this twenty-four-year-old guy, this youngster, who got himself in over his head. Lee was intelligent, but he was no genius. I don’t know who else was involved, but clearly it was too big of a deal for one twenty-four-year-old kid to do by himself. For example, right before the shooting someone asked my mother to take a picture of Lee holding a rifle, and then right after the shooting, the picture is confiscated, and everyone says, ‘Look, there’s the gun, there’s the guy who did it, case closed.’ And apparently there were police recordings of someone saying Jack Ruby was planning to kill Lee, and sure enough, the next day Jack Ruby makes his way through all the police and kills Lee live on national TV. I mean, think about it. There are just too many loose ends for it all to be dumped on my father. It was just too big of a deal. Until I was twenty-three, I didn’t even know there were alternative theories. I’ve only read a couple of books about it. I’m sorry for my father’s pain, but basically I just want it to be over, one way or another, especially by the time I have kids. - " See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/lee-harveys-legacy/#sthash.XXMSW8xV.dpuf

Edited August 27, 2015 by Steven Gaal