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
Jim Hargrove

J Norwood: "Lee Harvey Oswald: The Legend and the Truth"

Recommended Posts

Read the LHO Legend article here:

http://harveyandlee.net/J_Norwood/Legend.html

James Norwood describes his new article:

For a number of years I offered a university-level course on the JFK assassination.  The first question raised by students typically pertained to Oswald.  So, I wanted to write a piece that offers an introduction to this complex topic.  In the literature on the assassination, one of anomalies is that no full-scale biography has ever been published on "Lee Harvey Oswald."  Even Norman Mailer's 791-page opus Oswald's Tale--An American Mystery (1995) primarily focuses on the 1959 defection and the period leading up to the assassination.  When Mailer attempted to assess the youth of Oswald, he was so flummoxed that he relied on lengthy excerpts from Warren Commission testimony, as opposed to preparing a conventional biography.  With the unprecedented coverage of the case for over a half century, one would think that there would be an endless string of Oswald biographies.  After all, there still regularly appear new biographies of John Wilkes Booth.  Yet historians and biographers will not touch the subject of Oswald.  The question is why?  The breakthrough work on this topic is John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee.  The investigative work, the critical thinking, and the evidence presented afford the thoughtful student a window into both the life of Oswald and the JFK assassination.  One need not agree with all of Mr. Armstrong's conclusions in order to appreciate the care with which he has collected primary sources and the vital testimony of eyewitnesses that he has gathered for this monumental study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go to Part 3, the mystery of San Saba is really interesting.

I remember when I read John's book, that struck me to the point I read that section twice.  Even people who do not like the book cannot avoid this conundrum.

BTW, the only way to read John's book is straight through.  People who read it and then put it down or who only read parts of it, don't really understand it or appreciate it.  

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you go to Part 3, the mystery of San Saba is really interesting.

I remember when I read John's book, that struck me to the point I read that section twice.  Even people who do not like the book cannot avoid this conundrum.

BTW, the only way to read John's book is straight through.  People who rad it and then put it down or who only read parts of it, don't really understand it or appreciate it.  

Dear James,

I don't "rad" it at all.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I  just can't  buy into  this story. From 63 until 75 my deaf housewife  mom and dock worker dad bought and sold 5 houses. My dad never made big bucks and the  only  work  my mom could  get was cleaning  a real estate  office  at night. Neither  came  into  any big bucks to make  this happen. They were just resourceful.

This  is  not  nearly as  many as Marge Oswald  but we're  expected  to  believe  that  all  of  this  house  buying and moving  around  has sinister  reasons?

We're  expected  to  believe  that while  in  the  military  Oswald  had a clone  there?

On another  clone thread I  posted a GIF that shows LHO transforming  from 59 to 63. It's  him and Hilarious Hargrove  and Laughing  Larsen fumbled  and STILL couldn't  believe  their eyes that it was the same  person.

And yet the clone story keeps  rolling  along doing  nothing  but adding  more confusion  to the "new students of JFK" that they claim  they're  trying  to educate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closing paragraph of J Norwoods article: 

Quote

Rather than seek superficial answers from photographs or micro-analyze details that will never be resolved, the diligent student of the assassination should actually study the climate in America in the Cold War.  A couple of suggested readings are Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes—A History of the CIA (New York: Anchor, 2008) and David Talbot, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government (New York: Harper Perennial, 2016).  Those works help to amplify the monumental contributions of John Armstrong in understanding both the true identity of Lee Harvey Oswald and the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

Talbot in THE DEVILS CHESSBOARD mentions John Armstrong and his theorie not once. But Talbot quotes Ernst Titovets a lot, whose book OSWALDS RUSSIAN EPISODE contradicts the Armstrong book. Therefore Norwood (pro Armstrong)recommends to his students ( and us)a book, (DEVILS CHESSBOARD), which is clearly anti-Armstrong. Funny thing. 

 

KK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you go to Part 3, the mystery of San Saba is really interesting.

I remember when I read John's book, that struck me to the point I read that section twice.  Even people who do not like the book cannot avoid this conundrum.

BTW, the only way to read John's book is straight through.  People who rad it and then put it down or who only read parts of it, don't really understand it or appreciate it.  

One of the really significant questions James Norwood asks is where did Marguerite get all her money in the late 1940s?  I can't imagine.  Ekdahl, who seemed to have at least some money, was long gone.  And yet, here's how James describes the situation in his article:

Yet by the late 1940s, her situation had turned around so completely that she was now residing in middle-class neighborhoods and was even purchasing properties solely in her name. In July, 1947, Marguerite purchased a small house at 101 San Saba in Benbrook; in August, 1948, she purchased a new home at 7408 Ewing in Fort Worth; and in November, 1951, she purchased a small house at 4833 Birchman in Fort Worth.  During the period of 1947-51, there were three purchases of homes and a grand total of six different addresses at which Marguerite was residing. It is no small accomplishment to be a homeowner in the early twenty-first century.  But it was also difficult in the post-Depression years of the 1940s.  So, what explains Marguerite’s change in fortunes?

The change may be explained by the Oswald Project.  In allowing the government to use the name of one of her boys for a surrogate “Lee Harvey Oswald,” as well as her own name that would be shared with another woman, Marguerite Claverie Oswald likely made a Faustian bargain, first with the OSS and subsequently the CIA.  To a large degree, her life and the lives of her children were controlled by the government undoubtedly in return for monetary compensation.

I can't think of a more likely situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

On another  clone thread I  posted a GIF that shows LHO transforming  from 59 to 63. It's  him and Hilarious Hargrove  and Laughing  Larsen fumbled  and STILL couldn't  believe  their eyes that it was the same  person.

Wilting Walton took the photo from the Harvey Oswald's 1959 passport and superimposed it on Harvey Oswald's 1963 mug shot, and decided it was the same person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Read the LHO Legend article here:

A couple quick points. Now I know why Jim was so adamant in criticizing my Wilcott article since Norwood's piece starts off with it. Bad timing for them for sure. Most of these points have already been addressed. Can all of them be to the satisfaction of Armstrong/Hargrove/Norwood? No, as I have said many times and that allows them to do what they do. Professional investigators, attorneys etc. understand this. In fact, if there were not discrepancies in a case this large with this many documents, especially considering LHO's mother lived in over 50 different places, I would consider THAT to be proof of something funny. Finally, it is amazing that a "professor" is pushing this type of nonsense, but I hear he is friendly with Fetzer so it figures. I will work up a brief rebuttal on some of these, but in the meantime:

Wilcott:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html

The Truth About H&L:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html

EDIT: Parker has rebutted a few of these:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1397-armstrong-asks

 

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

One of the really significant questions James Norwood asks is where did Marguerite get all her money in the late 1940s?  I can't imagine.  Ekdahl, who seemed to have at least some money, was long gone.  And yet, here's how James describes the situation in his article:

Yet by the late 1940s, her situation had turned around so completely that she was now residing in middle-class neighborhoods and was even purchasing properties solely in her name. In July, 1947, Marguerite purchased a small house at 101 San Saba in Benbrook; in August, 1948, she purchased a new home at 7408 Ewing in Fort Worth; and in November, 1951, she purchased a small house at 4833 Birchman in Fort Worth.  During the period of 1947-51, there were three purchases of homes and a grand total of six different addresses at which Marguerite was residing. It is no small accomplishment to be a homeowner in the early twenty-first century.  But it was also difficult in the post-Depression years of the 1940s.  So, what explains Marguerite’s change in fortunes?

The change may be explained by the Oswald Project.  In allowing the government to use the name of one of her boys for a surrogate “Lee Harvey Oswald,” as well as her own name that would be shared with another woman, Marguerite Claverie Oswald likely made a Faustian bargain, first with the OSS and subsequently the CIA.  To a large degree, her life and the lives of her children were controlled by the government undoubtedly in return for monetary compensation.

I can't think of a more likely situation.

Jim, can you comment on LHO's uncle's ties to Carlos Marcelo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Michael, but about all I know is that Blakey claimed Dutz Murret was under Marcello's thumb, but I just don't trust Blakey.  In a way, I thought the HSCA was more dishonest than the WC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Kudos to you, Tracy!

Notwithstanding two minor typos in the form of a missing comma in the sentence "Nothing was 'suspended', and a professor should know better." ,

and the minor boo-boo in the sentence, "However, Kudlaty apparently didn’t think anything sinister was going before speaking to Armstrong on since he never reported the alleged 'confiscation,'”

you, sir, have written a decisive and definitive disputation of the Harvey-and-Lee-and-the-Two-Marguerites beliefs of the (soon to be non-tenured?) Professor and his Deep State-believing coreligionists.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Tracy,

Well written debunk of the "Harvey and Lee" silliness.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know its almost as if Tracy Parnell is auditioning for the John McAdams chair.  And here we have PT and TG cheering him on mindlessly; when its clear that neither of them have read the book.  (No surprise with PT.)  

If you have read the book, the mystery about San Saba comes from Georgia Bell who lived next door and who Armstrong found and talked to.  (This is called doing field research, which i cannot recall PT, TG, or TP doing any of.)  Her testimony is utterly fascinating and conflicts with the land records John found.  And BTW, John actually cites the volume and page number for those records.  So if TP was a serious person he could go to those volumes and cross check them.  He doesn't.  In fact, I don't even think he knows the footnote exists. 

As per the rest of his co called "well written debunk", he has the whole McAdams technique down pat.  See, McAdams did very little original research.  What he did was surf the internet for hours on end and he would try and find opposing views on certain critical issues.  He would then promote those, without doing any qualitative analysis of the two opposing viewpoints.  I mean, in my review of him and his site, this approach was actually embarrassingly amateurish on the issue of Kennedy and Vietnam.

Well that is what Parnell does.  (I'll never forget what he did with DeMaio years ago concerning the aborted CNN special. He did not even know about that one.)  About WIlcott, he quotes the whole HSCA critique of him.  Which is pathetic since everyone knows that Blakey was in bed at that time with the CIA and was cooperating with them even more than they wanted him to. (For example in the Regis Blahut affair, as documented in The Assassinations, pgs 86-87, Blakey chose a CIA inquiry even though they advised him not to.)  So if you read the HSCA critique of Wilcott, Blakey could have only gotten some of that info from the CIA.  And I won't even go into what the CIA ended up doing to Wilcott personally.  But this is what I expect from Parnell, since that is his bag.

As per Kudlaty, I mean please. This proves that none of you read the book. John writes about the whole Stripling issue for 5 pages.  The idea that Kudlaty has no corroboration is simply false, although again, I expect this from Parnell.  There is Robert Galindo, the principal at that time, there is teacher Mark Summers, and there are early statements from Robert Oswald.  And I mean, how do you get a better witness than Kudlaty who ascended up the education establishment to be a superintendent.  Or didn't you know that either?

As per Palmer McBride, there is more than one landmark in his testimony that makes it pretty interesting, e.g. the opera the two attended, which John found out the actual dates for.

As per TP's excuse for the Ely statement, i mean can the man be serious?  This is nothing but a desperate assumption in his mad haste to dispose of the issue.

Our side is not supposed to dwell on these kinds of McAdams type excuses for research and analysis.  And in the old days of RCD, Jeffries, and Dwayne Dunn, I don't think TP would have survived more than a few days here.  But with PT and TG egging him on, it looks like he has  found a seat right next to DVP.  

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

You know its almost as if Tracy Parnell is auditioning for the John McAdams chair.  And here we have PT and TG cheering him on mindlessly; when its clear that neither of them have read the book.  (No surprise with PT.)  

If you have read the book, the mystery about San Saba comes from Georgia Bell who lived next door and who Armstrong found and talked to.  (This is called doing field research, which I cannot recall PT, TG, or TP doing any of.)  Her testimony is utterly fascinating and conflicts with the land records John found.  And BTW, John actually cites the volume and page number for those records.  So if TP was a serious person he could go to those volumes and cross check them.  He doesn't.  In fact, I don't even think he knows the footnote exists. 

As per the rest of his co called "well written debunk", he has the whole McAdams technique down pat.  See, McAdams did very little original research.  What he did was surf the internet for hours on end and he would try and find opposing views on certain critical issues.  He would then promote those, without doing any qualitative analysis of the two opposing viewpoints.  I mean, in my review of him and his site, this approach was actually embarrassingly amateurish on the issue of Kennedy and Vietnam.

Well that is what Parnell does.  (I'll never forget what he did with DeMaio years ago concerning the aborted CNN special. He did not even know about that one.)  About WIlcott, he quotes the whole HSCA critique of him.  Which is pathetic since everyone knows that Blakey was in bed at that time with the CIA and was cooperating with them even more than they wanted him to. (For example in the Regis Blahut affair, as documented in The Assassinations, pgs 86-87, Blakey chose a CIA inquiry even though they advised him not to.)  So if you read the HSCA critique of Wilcott, Blakey could have only gotten some of that info from the CIA.  And I won't even go into what the CIA ended up doing to Wilcott personally.  But this is what I expect from Parnell, since that is his bag.

As per Kudlaty, I mean please. This proves that none of you read the book. John writes about the whole Stripling issue for 5 pages.  The idea that Kudlaty has no corroboration is simply false, although again, I expect this from Parnell.  There is Robert Galindo, the principal at that time, there is teacher Mark Summers, and there are early statements from Robert Oswald.  And I mean, how do you get a better witness than Kudlaty who ascended up the education establishment to be a superintendent.  Or didn't you know that either?

As per Palmer McBride, there is more than one landmark in his testimony that makes it pretty interesting, e.g. the opera the two attended, which John found out the actual dates for.

As per TP's excuse for the Ely statement, i mean can the man be serious?  This is nothing but a desperate assumption in his mad haste to dispose of the issue.

Our side is not supposed to dwell on these kinds of McAdams type excuses for research and analysis.  And in the old days of RCD, Jeffries, and Dwayne Dunn, I don't think TP would have survived more than a few days here.  But with PT and TG egging him on, it looks like he has  found a seat right next to DVP.  

 

Dear James,

You don't seem to realize that in order for one to believe in Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites, one must not only read the book, but be of a gullible, paranoiac, "We Live In A Deep State!" disposition, as well. 

Vladimir Putin loves it, because he knows that that kind of thinking (which he engenders and makes palatable to both the Alt Right and the Alt Left, through his xxxxx factory in Saint Petersburg, and by Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear through Gucccifer 2.0 and Assange) is tearing this country apart.

How does it feel to know that you might be doing Putin's dirty work for him, unwittingly of course?

--  Tommy :sun

 

PS  Short memory eh, James?

Doesn't my proving that "Larry Florer" really was Larry Florer, or my proving (by going to the La Jolla Library's History Room) that the guy whose car was photographed outside the Mexico City Soviet Embassy on 11/23/63 really was living on Fay avenue in La Jolla in 1963, and that David Ferrie had called a BANK in La Jolla in April, 1962, and my interviewing of retired ONI special agent Robert D. Steel, and my recent posting that there were ALPHA 66 meetings in La Jolla in 1963, and my going to the Brass Rail bar in the Hillcrest part of San Diego and finding out it had never been owned by Hungarians count for anything?

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×