The Truth About Oswald's Birth Certificate

[Guest]

This is from the University of Louisiana website:

If a student would like to add a dependent child, it is considered a qualifying event. We will need the following within 31 days of the birth or adoption:

1. A copy of the birth certificate or declaration of birth.

A declaration of birth (i.e., Harvey Oswald's affidavit) seems to be a requirement in all French-based systems.  The purpose is apparently to establish "filiation," which we might think of as paternity but apparently is a broader concept dealing with rights of inheritance and whatnot.  Since LHO's father was dead, Harvey may have been able to make this declaration as the current Louisiana statutes would allow for an out-of-hospital birth.  Louisiana law is so different from that of other states that I don't even bother to cite Louisiana cases in my briefs unless I'm absolutely desperate.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

This is from the University of Louisiana website:

If a student would like to add a dependent child, it is considered a qualifying event. We will need the following within 31 days of the birth or adoption:

1. A copy of the birth certificate or declaration of birth.

A declaration of birth (i.e., Harvey Oswald's affidavit) seems to be a requirement in all French-based systems.  The purpose is apparently to establish "filiation," which we might think of as paternity but apparently is a broader concept dealing with rights of inheritance and whatnot.  Since LHO's father was dead, Harvey may have been able to make this declaration as the current Louisiana statutes would allow for an out-of-hospital birth.  Louisiana law is so different from that of other states that I don't even bother to cite Louisiana cases in my briefs unless I'm absolutely desperate.

My contention has been that Harvey Oswald filed an affidavit for some specific reason. The information you provide seems to confirm my idea. There is a logical succession. Harvey Oswald files an affidavit. The same day, CE 800 is issued (or whatever the term would be). The next day, a birth notice appears in the newspaper. One event follows the other. No mystery-except to the students of H&L.

[Sandy Larsen]

One guy I found says pretty much the same as what I said:

There were two types of birth certificates issued in the state of Louisiana at the time of Oswald's birth (10/18/39).  A Certificate of Birth and a Declaration of Birth.  [The latter] was issued for a non-hospital birth with no attending physician.  Meaning, someone born at home or in rural area such as a farm or ranch.  The Certificate of Birth was issued by a hospital and and signed by the attending physician.  In this case, for Oswald's birth, it would be the Old French Hospital in New Orleans.

(Source)

I guess he's an Armstrong follower, so that shows that my understanding is the same as Armstrong's. I'll bet a nickel it is correct.

According to that article, Oswald was born in a hospital. So he should have been issued a Certificate of Birth like this one:  EDIT: No, not like this. This is a "birth record," not a birth certificate! It was issued for a HOME birth.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Sandy,

How do you know that the birth date is in question? Maybe the existence of the "True" birth certificate is.  I think it's a perfectly good and valid question to ask why the WC didn't get a certified copy of Oswald's "True" birth certificate. Like the one I posted above.

As Lance Payette points out a “true” birth certificate for that era may not have existed. I maintain that CE 800, which states the date of birth and that the birth was registered, is what Oswald thought was a BC and was presented and accepted as such (we have at least one documented example of him doing that). The WC didn’t go any further because there was no need to. They had two documents that stated the date of birth and every time LHO was asked for his date of birth on whatever form he put 10/18/39. No mystery.

Oswald was born at home? I thought he was born in a hospital. If he was born at home, and if what I said above is correct, then the CE 800 would indeed be the birth certificate. But not a certified one.

No, I was referring to the document you posted. That was a home birth. LHO was born in the old French Hospital.

I don't know what you mean by "the affidavit."

 

The affidavit filed by Harvey Oswald (Armstrong refers to this as a declaration of birth which it may be). See page 33 of this link:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/2510

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

One guy I found says pretty much the same as what I said:

There were two types of birth certificates issued in the state of Louisiana at the time of Oswald's birth (10/18/39).  A Certificate of Birth and a Declaration of Birth.  [The latter] was issued for a non-hospital birth with no attending physician.  Meaning, someone born at home or in rural area such as a farm or ranch.  The Certificate of Birth was issued by a hospital and and signed by the attending physician.  In this case, for Oswald's birth, it would be the Old French Hospital in New Orleans.

(Source)

I guess he's an Armstrong follower, so that shows that my understanding is the same as Armstrong's. I'll bet a nickel it is correct.

According to that article, Oswald was born in a hospital. So he should have been issued a Certificate of Birth like this one:

This document is virtually identical to what Harvey Oswald filed (see link above). If anything it is a declaration of birth or an affidavit of birth. Go back and read the information Lance Payette posted here. There are two documents in question. The likelihood is that CE 800 followed the Harvey Oswald document. CE 800 may not be a BC per se, but it could be (and was) used for the same purpose. There is no mystery here despite John Armstrong's attempt to get people to believe otherwise-that is the point.

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sandy,

How do you know that the birth date is in question? Maybe the existence of the "True" birth certificate is.  I think it's a perfectly good and valid question to ask why the WC didn't get a certified copy of Oswald's "True" birth certificate. Like the one I posted above.

As Lance Payette points out a “true” birth certificate for that era may not have existed.

 

I maintain that CE 800, which states the date of birth and that the birth was registered, is what Oswald thought was a BC and was presented and accepted as such (we have at least one documented example of him doing that). The WC didn’t go any further because there was no need to. They had two documents that stated the date of birth and every time LHO was asked for his date of birth on whatever form he put 10/18/39. No mystery.

 

Oswald was born at home? I thought he was born in a hospital. If he was born at home, and if what I said above is correct, then the CE 800 would indeed be the birth certificate. But not a certified one.

 

No, I was referring to the document you posted. That was a home birth.

Well, so it was! And yet it has a birth certificate associated with it.

Oops! No it doesn't! That document is NOT a birth certificate! It's a "birth record."

 

LHO was born in the old French Hospital.

I don't know what you mean by "the affidavit."

 

The affidavit filed by Harvey Oswald (Armstrong refers to this as a declaration of birth which it may be). See page 33 of this link:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/2510

 

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

One guy I found says pretty much the same as what I said:

There were two types of birth certificates issued in the state of Louisiana at the time of Oswald's birth (10/18/39).  A Certificate of Birth and a Declaration of Birth.  [The latter] was issued for a non-hospital birth with no attending physician.  Meaning, someone born at home or in rural area such as a farm or ranch.  The Certificate of Birth was issued by a hospital and and signed by the attending physician.  In this case, for Oswald's birth, it would be the Old French Hospital in New Orleans.

(Source)

I guess he's an Armstrong follower, so that shows that my understanding is the same as Armstrong's. I'll bet a nickel it is correct.

Oh, Lord, it never ends.  Your "source" is a fellow Harvey & Lee loon who likewise parroted Armstrong's theories on the Postal Money Order, including the non-existent Wilmouth affidavit that is cited in H&L but does not exist.  He is precisely who I was referring to in my original post here, when I mentioned people who mistakenly assume the current Louisiana statutes must be identical to the 1939 statutes.  I determined that he was repeating what he had picked up from someone else on yet another forum, who was likewise referring to the current statutes.  That's why I reproduced the current statute - the above is not even an accurate summary of it!  You are making precisely my point as to why H&L fans are the Flat Earthers of JFK research:  Armstrong does sloppy research ... his mistakes are repeated like gospel by folks such as your "source" ... these mistakes then take on a life of their own, with no one ever bothering to ask "Where did that come from?" or "What is the original source of that?" ... and then some fifth-generation version of one of the mistakes is cited on a thread such as this as "further proof" that Armstrong was correct.  If I may pat myself on the back, and I may, I got involved in this silliness by actually attempting to check a few footnotes in my very own copy of H&L, with which I was duly impressed at the time.  On too many occasions for comfort, I discovered that Armstrong's sources, such as Wilmouth's supposed statement to the FBI, did not exist.  However, my experience with the Flat Earthers has given me a new appreciation as to why demonstrable facts don't even dent the tinfoil hats of True Believers.

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Guest

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Oh, Lord, it never ends.  Your "source" is a fellow Harvey & Lee loon who likewise parroted Armstrong's theories on the Postal Money Order, including the non-existent Wilmouth affidavit that is cited in H&L but does not exist.  He is precisely who I was referring to in my original post here, when I mentioned people who mistakenly assume the current Louisiana statutes must be identical to the 1939 statutes.  I determined that he was repeating what he had picked up from someone else on yet another forum, who was likewise referring to the current statutes.  That's why I reproduced the current statute - the above is not even an accurate summary of it!  You are making precisely my point as to why H&L fans are the Flat Earthers of JFK research:  Armstrong does sloppy research ... his mistakes are repeated like gospel by folks such as your "source" ... these mistakes then take on a life of their own, with no one ever bothering to ask "Where did that come from?" or "What is the original source of that?" ... and then some fifth-generation version of one of the mistakes is cited on a thread such as this as "further proof" that Armstrong was correct.

Beat me to it Lance and took the words right out of my mouth. Flat Earth Society indeed.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

If I may pat myself on the back, and I may, I got involved in this silliness by actually attempting to check a few footnotes in my very own copy of H&L, with which I was duly impressed at the time.  On too many occasions for comfort, I discovered that Armstrong's sources, such as Wilmouth's supposed statement to the FBI, did not exist.  However, my experience with the Flat Earthers has given me a new appreciation as to why demonstrable facts don't even dent the tinfoil hats of True Believers.

At one time I entertained the concept of writing a book to refute Armstrong. I soon realized that it would take around 2000 pages to refute his nearly 1000 pages of nonsense. So I do a little here and there. The number of instances where there is no citation or an incorrect citation is astounding.

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

This document is virtually identical to what Harvey Oswald filed (see link above)..

Yes, you are right. The only difference being that in Oswald's case it states that he was born in the hospital.

And you're right that this document came "stamped" as a "true and correct copy of the original." Just like one I posted earlier.

That means that the three Oswald birth documents matches the three I posted earlier, which I got from this link:  http://jwmyers3.com/family/scans/ASHbirth.html

I'm satisfied that the WC got the correct birth records. If I owe anybody a nickel, let me know your Paypal account and I'll send it to you.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, you are right. The only difference being that in Oswald's case it states that he was born in the hospital.

And you're right that this document came "stamped" as a "true and correct copy of the original." Just like one I posted earlier.

That means that the three Oswald birth documents matches the three I posted earlier, which I got from this link:  http://jwmyers3.com/family/scans/ASHbirth.html

I'm satisfied that the WC got the correct birth records. If I owe anybody a nickel, let me know your Paypal account and I'll send it to you.

Sandy,

I give you a lot of credit for seeing the truth. Now if we can talk you out of the entire H&L theory that would be better than the nickel.:)

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim (Hargrove),

It is my belief that the WC got the necessary birth documents for LHO. I urge you to show this thread to John Armstrong, and advise him to remove the birth certificate question from the next edition of his book. And I urge you to remove it from the Harvey and Lee website.

[Sandy Larsen]

Lance,

Can you give me any further information about the Wilmouth documents to the FBI that don't exist. I'd like to check it out for myself.

Thanks

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sandy,

I give you a lot of credit for seeing the truth. Now if we can talk you out of the entire H&L theory that would be better than the nickel.:)

As I said on the other H&L thread, I'm always willing to listen. As long as it's one argument at a time and is clearly explained.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

(BTW, I deserve a little credit myself, for finding that three-document page that nearly-perfectly aligned with the WC's Oswald birth records.  )

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Sandy,

Not trying to "pile on" but here is another example of an Armstrong idea that was demonstrably false and he knew it or should have known it:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/marguerite-never-smiled.html

At some point you have to ask why he does these things and the answer I come up with is to mislead or confuse people. Another thing about Armstrong that angers me is that he doesn't defend himself-he gets Jim Hargrove or David Josephs to do it. Back in the late 90s when I got started with Armstrong his excuse was he wasn't on the Internet. What is his excuse in 2017?