One Question re: Two Oswalds

[Mark Knight]

I guess I'm agnostic on the Harvey and Lee topic. While I don't doubt there was at least one imposter sighted during 1963, I have trouble with the idea of a CIA project that predates the CIA.

So I suppose the question that should be answered is:

If it was Harvey who was gunned down by Ruby...

...where is Lee in the past 55 years?

[Ron Bulman]

53 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

I guess I'm agnostic on the Harvey and Lee topic. While I don't doubt there was at least one imposter sighted during 1963, I have trouble with the idea of a CIA project that predates the CIA.

So I suppose the question that should be answered is:

If it was Harvey who was gunned down by Ruby...

...where is Lee in the past 55 years?

I've never read Harvey and Lee, at $90 used it's a bit expensive for me.  I don't doubt there was someone impersonating Oswald prior to the assassination.  But I've never been able to wrap my head around the cia developing two young men over 20 years as a potential need for something as big as assassinating  a sitting president.  

But I also figured whichever one was which, the one that didn't get assassinated by Ruby in the DPD basement, was also eliminated for security purposes.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

...where is Lee in the past 55 years?

"Lee" as well as his mother (the real Marguerite) conveniently disappeared. Armstrong has stated that "Lee"  may be "very much alive."

[Gene Kelly]

Mark:

I've always had the same nagging question.  If (for a moment) we accept two Oswalds, and Lee was the guy in the balcony of Texas Theater -- the one led out the back door and later seen at El Chico Restaurant in a red Ford Falcon -- then that is the last that we ever see or hear of him.  One W. T. White, a mechanic, alleged that he and his wife were watching TV on the night of the assassination when they brought Lee Harvey Oswald out at the police station. White said to his wife, “That’s the man I saw in the car over in the parking lot this afternoon.”  The car was later traced to a Carl Mathers who knew Tippit and worked at Collins Radio.  Lots of coincidences there.  Bill Kelly did some ground work on the El Chico story, and I understand Mather's was given immunity and his HSCA testimony is not released. 

Then there is NORAD/Air Force sergeant Robert G. Vinson's providential presence on the second Oswald's flight from Dallas (detailed in Douglas's "JFK and the Unspeakable"). On November 22, 1963, Vinson saw the second Oswald escaping on the same C-54 cargo plane he was hitching a ride home on. Vinson also got off the plane at the same CIA base as Oswald's double did, a few minutes after him. Thirty years later, Robert Vinson told the story of his flight from Dallas to news anchor Larry Hatteberg on Wichita's KAKE-TV Channel 10 News.  In 2003 James Johnston and journalist Jon Roe co-authored FLIGHT FROM DALLAS, describing Robert Vinson's experience in detail.

The trail (of "Lee") goes cold after that.   I do find it a striking dichotomy that there are many observations of Oswald doubles in the months preceding the assassination ... but not a single one after November 1963.  

Gene
 

[Guest]

I asked that question a long time ago, because I was disappointed at the way Harvey & Lee simply ended as though it had hit a brick wall, with seemingly no interest on the part of Armstrong as to what had happened to Lee or his fake mother.  Having traced the entire pre-assassination history of "Lee" and fake mama, would it not be the most compelling proof of Armstrong's theory if "Lee" could be identified post-assassination?  The "answer," as I recall, was that Armstrong had no interest in anything post-assassination.  The actual answer, of course, is that there is no "Lee" and never was, something that I believe all but the most certifiably wacked-out of the H&L cult know.  It's a game - let's pretend we believe the earth is flat and have some fun with it.

[David Andrews]

14 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I've never read Harvey and Lee, at $90 used it's a bit expensive for me. 

It's a free download now, including the CD of documents.  Look for an older post from B. A. Copeland that has the links.  Look for my post complaining that I couldn't download them with Windows XP (I got them later on another OS).

+++

The actual answer, of course, is that there is no "Lee" and never was

Lance, if you do some fact checking, there are irreconcilable discrepancies with the Oswald family's living addresses, with Marguerite Oswald's employment records, and with Oswald's conflicting service records.  The FBI displayed quite an interest in quashing duplicate school records.  John Pic, in his WC testimony, challenged facts and photos presented him.  Something was up, if not everything posited.

It might be one thing to assume that Oswald's tax returns are classified because he did work for FBI and CIA.  But why are Marguerite's classified?  One answer for both is that employment records for "mother" and "son" would reveal too many lacunae and lead to unexplained duplicate histories.

Edited April 16, 2018 by David Andrews

[Ron Bulman]

35 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

It's a free download now, including the CD of documents.  Look for an older post from B. A. Copeland that has the links.  Look for my post complaining that I couldn't download them with Windows XP (I got them later on another OS).

+++

The actual answer, of course, is that there is no "Lee" and never was

Lance, if you do some fact checking, there are irreconcilable discrepancies with the Oswald family's living addresses, with Marguerite Oswald's employment records, and with Oswald's conflicting service records.  The FBI displayed quite an interest in quashing duplicate school records.  John Pic, in his WC testimony, challenged facts and photos presented him.  Something was up, if not everything posited.

It might be one thing to assume that Oswald's tax returns are classified because he did work for FBI and CIA.  But why are Marguerite's classified?  One answer for both is that employment records for "mother" and "son" would reveal too many lacunae and lead to unexplained duplicate histories.

Thanks David, I'll look for it.  maybe it will change my perspective.

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

....wacked-out of the H&L cult....

People who are incapable of giving reasonable alternative explanations for the two-Oswald evidence should refrain from calling those who understand that evidence a "cult."

Evidence like: Oswald attending two schools simultaneously; Oswald being in Taiwan while simultaneously being treated for VD in Japan; Oswald missing molar #30 in 1958, but not so in 1963; Oswald wearing a false tooth in 1958, while still retaining all his natural teeth as of 1963.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Lance, if you do some fact checking, there are irreconcilable discrepancies with the Oswald family's living addresses, with Marguerite Oswald's employment records, and with Oswald's conflicting service records.  The FBI displayed quite an interest in quashing duplicate school records.  John Pic, in his WC testimony, challenged facts and photos presented him.  Something was up, if not everything posited.

There seems to be an assumption that I am uninformed about the "two Oswalds" theory (or theories).  I have dutifully read and purchased Harvey & Lee, exposed a number of outright errors in it (without having any sort of mission or agenda to do so), spent a lot more time than most people looking at the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University, and explored in depth some of the more puzzling incidents (such as the Bolton Ford incident).  Even when wearing my Lone Nut beanie, I acknowledge the existence of a number of oddities.  But as I said on another thread, this would be true if my own educational, medical and employment records were examined with the same microscope we apply to LHO's - due in no small part to confusion and dissembling on my own part, since my own childhood was at least as chaotic as LHO's.  I have seen nothing, however, that would even vaguely lead me in the direction of Harvey & Lee, or really even to a firm conclusion that some individual or individuals were posing as LHO.  Everything is either an invented "mystery" of the sort in which Sandy deals or an unwarranted inference and huge leap of logic based on some dubious "fact."  If one attempts to debate with a Flat Earther, as I actually have, one finds that there are some facts that mesh as well with a flat earth as with a spherical one; I can acknowledge this, but the Flat Earthers cannot acknowledge the overwhelming evidence the earth is spherical.

I think the original post asked a relevant question, but the predictable response is to sidetrack the discussion with "Forget about that - look at this other stuff that shows H&L isn't as silly as you'd like to think!"  Armstrong believes "Lee" and "fake Marguerite" survived the assassination, but has NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in attempting to determine what became of them?  Really, after delving into the minutiae of their pre-assassination lives to the extent reflected in Harvey & Lee?  At least on the surface, that suggests to me:  You have no interest in what became of them because you know damn well they never existed.

Concerning tax returns, the ARRB stated:

To shed light on questions regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's employment history and sources of income, the Review Board sought to inspect and publicly release Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Social Security Administration (SSA) records on Oswald. Although the Review Board staff did review IRS and SSA records, Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the disclosure of tax return information, and section 11(a) of the JFK Act explicitly preserves the confidentiality of tax return information. Thus, the Review Board unfortunately could not open Lee Harvey Oswald's tax returns. The next chapter of this report explains, in the IRS compliance section, the mechanics of the Review Board's and the IRS's efforts to release this information.

In a letter to Lee Rankin dated 1-6-1964 and found in Box 8, Notebook 1C of the Armstrong Collection, the author stated:

Also enclosed are Photostats of income tax returns filed by Marguerite C. Oswald for the years 1956 through 1962 and Photostats of tax returns filed by Robert L. Oswald for the same period together with Photostats of pertinent communications and attachments to the returns.

If the returns are not yet publicly available to the extent conspiracy theorists might like, is there any reason at all to suspect the explanation is anything deep, dark and nefarious?  More to the point, what efforts have been undertaken to obtain access to the returns?  It seems that every time Armstrong and the H&L enthusiasts posit some deep, dark mystery (e.g. the "missing endorsements" on the money order for the rifle, the educational records "proving" LHO was in two junior high schools at the same time), they are puzzlingly unwilling to undertake the sort of rudimentary efforts that might expose the "mystery" as not being so deep and dark after all.  Gee, I wonder why that might be?  There is a "Gee, whiz, LOOK AT THIS!!!" aspect to the H&L "research" that one simply does not find in serious research. 

[Sandy Larsen]

38 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Everything is either an invented "mystery" of the sort in which Sandy deals....

 

Name one invented H&L mystery that I have had anything to do or deal with..

I have dealt only with real mysteries, one of which you and I debated. I'll add that you conceded in that debate. And, as expected, you now just ignore that mystery.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Jonathan Cohen]

30 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I think the original post asked a relevant question, but the predictable response is to sidetrack the discussion with "Forget about that - look at this other stuff that shows H&L isn't as silly as you'd like to think!"  Armstrong believes "Lee" and "fake Marguerite" survived the assassination, but has NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in attempting to determine what became of them?  Really, after delving into the minutiae of their pre-assassination lives to the extent reflected in Harvey & Lee?  At least on the surface, that suggests to me:  You have no interest in what became of them because you know damn well they never existed.

This is the best illustration possible of the complete and utter nonsense that is duplicate Lees and Marguerites. But I'd still love to hear Armstrong defenders explain what happened to all these extra members of the Oswald family.

[Mark Knight]

So where is Lee today?

Simple question.

And where had he been since 1963?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Lance,

If you'd like to give the name calling a break and do some actual online research, try Googling this:

          lee harvey oswald and donald o norton

You will learn that John did a vast amount of research into the subject of what may have happened to LEE Harvey Oswald, but in the end decided the results were not worth including even in a book in excess of a thousand pages.  My personal feelings are that the man born as LEE Harvey Oswald didn't survive long after the assassination of JFK.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Jim Hargrove
Got the wrong middle initial for Donald Norton. A common mistake.

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

It seems that every time Armstrong and the H&L enthusiasts posit some deep, dark mystery (e.g. the "missing endorsements" on the money order for the rifle, the educational records "proving" LHO was in two junior high schools at the same time), they are puzzlingly unwilling to undertake the sort of rudimentary efforts that might expose the "mystery" as not being so deep and dark after all. 

 

That's pure B.S.

You can't deal with the fact that you're incapable of giving innocent explanations to what the hard evidence shows. And so instead you resort to pseudo-psychoanalysis and name calling, thinking that that will hand you the victory instead.

Keep on dreaming.

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You can't deal with the fact that you're incapable of giving innocent explanations to what the hard evidence shows.

Really?  Remind me again:  You did WHAT to determine whether the Mystery Money Order really should have had bank endorsements?  I at least contacted the postal museum at the Smithsonian Institution, and you did WHAT?  And WHO discovered the File Locator Number that pretty well ended the Money Order Mystery?  WHO discovered that Armstrong's citations to Wilmouth's supposed testimony concerning the necessity for bank endorsements were completely bogus, provoking nothing but silence from Armstrong and his minions?  Remind me again:  You did WHAT to determine whether the P.S. 44 / Beauregard Junior High Educational Records Mystery really exists or is easily explained by state and local educational officials in NY and LA?  And WHO established (with Tracy) that the Oswald Birth Certificate Mystery was no mystery at all?  WHO quickly established that the Mystery of the 5'7" Oswald Photo was no mystery at all because the measuring stick was a surveyor's rod?

Lest anyone think I am tooting my own horn, precisely the opposite is true:  Every time I bother to look into one of Armstrong's claims, which is seldom, it just doesn't hold up.  Far from requiring expertise, this is child's play.  If one took the same microscope to Armstrong's claims that the H&L supporters take to the "evidence," I have a pretty good idea of what the result would be.

Remind me again:  WHAT was "mystery" we supposedly debated that I supposedly "conceded"?  I will certainly acknowledge error when I commit one, but I am not recalling whatever you're talking about.  I did not dive into the Oswald's Teeth debate because, inasmuch as medical experts confirmed the identify of the corpse after the exhumation, I really don't care if one of his teeth had a half-carat diamond implant it was not "supposed" to have.