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
Sign in to follow this  
Bernice Moore

John Pic

Recommended Posts

Judyth Quote.."John Pic was Lee´s half brother. He was working at a the United States government-run hospital in Texas when Kennedy was assassinated. He stayed out of things as much as possible. He had not seen his brother Lee for years, so far as I am aware."

"Back to John Pic: What were Pic´s responses to other photos? We would have to know which ones he was presented. We would also have to find out when he had last seen Lee in the flesh..." end quote..

John Pic had not seen Lee, since 1953, when Lee was 13 years old…Pic was asked by the WC "How did he look to you physically as compared with when you had seen him last?"..Pic replied "I would never have recognized him ,sir....he was much thinner than I had remembered him. He didn't have much hair...His face features were somewhat different, being his eyes were set back maybe, you know like in these army pictures, they looked different that (sic) I remembered him. His face was rounder. Marilyn had described him to me when he went into the Marine Corp as having a bull neck. This I didn't notice at all. "WC Vol XI. .page 62.

In discussion, "Well sir: The Lee Harvey Oswald I met in Nov. of 62 was not the Lee Harvey Oswald I had known years previous".”.page 62...WC Vol X1

Lets have a look at the photographs...that were shown to John Pic..

WC VOL XI page 64

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol11_0037b.htm

Pages 64,65,66 follow.. below..

For Exhibits……photos...shown below…….

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0413a.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bernice:

Yes that passage you relate from WC vols has entered my thinking many times.

Such an odd thing to say and revealing.

Doesn't anyone think it strange that the WC would go as far back as grade school, if the "case" were as strong as they implied it was.

I mean an awful lot of time was consumed to paint in the picture of Lee Oswald as a lone nut, and a malcontent.

A little diggin though shatters the mirror.

I have had doubts for decades about the presumed nature and character of this man.

Even his own half brother had some question. So I am in good company when even the man's half brother wonders.

Wonders?

"Well sir: The Lee Harvey Oswald I met in Nov. of 62 was not the Lee Harvey Oswald I had known years previous".”.page 62...WC Vol X1

This is a pretty direct and unambiguous staement.

" "How did he look to you physically as compared with when you had seen him last?"..Pic replied "I would never have recognized him ,sir....he was much thinner than I had remembered him. He didn't have much hair...His face features were somewhat different, being his eyes were set back maybe, you know like in these army pictures, they looked different that (sic) I remembered him. His face was rounder. Marilyn had described him to me when he went into the Marine Corp as having a bull neck. This I didn't notice at all. "WC Vol XI. .page 62."

Clearly something was being said other than 'this is my brother.'

I would know my own brothers anywhere anytime even after being away for years as I was. They knew me and I knew them. As a matter of fact at the end of training my youngest brother recognized me before anyone else did, in spite of a change in size and a 70 pound weight gain as well as no hair etc.

And that there was no doubt about who was whom. Even old friends knew who was whom. Just bigger and yes bullnecked to be sure.

It wasn't Appearance that was recognized, it was mannerism and walk and the like, the things the military cannot train out, not even the USMC.

Some what as Jim Garrison said the Russian exam disclosed in the WC vols tripped his trigger, the Mr. John Pic quotes have grabbed me for years.

I don't know what was going on for sure with Mr. Pic, but I am sure that pictures of "Lee Oswald" are not all of the same person.

I also KNOW for sure that "Marxist malcontents" don't stay in the U.S. Marines and they DO NOT get Russian language training and do not EVER hold Crypto clearances. ONI by all appearances.

I must get John Armstrong's book.

Thanks Bernice

Jim Hackett II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim:

Nice to hear from you. Alls well I see...good.

This web is so tangled, and as you think you

just may have finally gotten a hand on SOME... it's gone, as you read

through the WC,and the testimonies, you come to realize that the witnesses are cut off it seems continually, abruptly, and also I have found

in an older book..that I have been just skimming through, George O'Toole's "Assassination Tapes"...1975...perhaps you have read such.?

He was a former computer specialist, C.I.A..as chief of Problem Analysis

Branch...He became a specialist in the "lie detector".."The Psychological Stress

Evaluator"...He took what he called his PSE, and off to Dallas he ventured

giving the impression he was there working on an article....in 1973..

He interviewed many witnesses, police and all, and used a taped machine to

record their interviews...Then he would analyse such with the

PSE....It is quite an adventure....as many were very difficult to approach,

the first person he was able to make an appointment with was Dallas police chief Jesse Curry, who

opened many doors for him, by giving him the permission to tell whomever

that he had spoken with him, and received I believe a list of names...

George also received access to some tapes taken at the time of those tragic days, played such and recorded them and then processed..as he did so, he found many errors within the testimonies and statements given and also errors, when compared to what was printed in the WC.....He went on to receive permission to access some tapes at the Archives....

tapes taken of the WC hearings...

Now ,we must rely on the stenotypists account of what was said before the Commission..and though we have known we cannot rely on anything to do with such now....I will go on to quote from the book,

page 89...this was also eye opener...to what actually went on..

" In July 1973 Robert Smith of the Com. to Inv.Assns. discovered the existance of some sound recordings among the material turned over to the N.A.bt the com.

and obtained permission to listen to them.Smith and I ( O'Toole) went to the archives and were presented with a set of plastic disks from an office dictating machine. We found that they contained some of Marina Oswald's testimony in Russian before the com. The dictating machine, which was not designed for this use, seems to have been placed near the com. members examining Mrs. Oswald,because their questions are fairly audible, as is the voice of the interpreter who translated the questions and answers. Marina Oswald's voice, however is very faint.Background sounds, which seems to be a commercial radio broadcast, are also audible behind the testimony and may have been picked up by the recording machine through the electrical wiring in the building in which the examination was conducted .These technical problems resulting from the careless and amateurish way the recordings were made discouraged me from attempting a PSE analysis of them.However, our trip to the archives yielded at least one discovery: there are significant discrepancies between the recorded testimony and the corresponding transcript published by the government.." We always knew it was not to be trusted but....

As we know the people that seemed to believe the Report were relatively few, but those such as Meagher, Weisberg, Penn, Lane, Epstein and a few others,who were after only the hard truth, and would accept no other, were regarded as "scavengers" and were more or less called eccentric and much harsher names....But they persevered..The reporters at first seemingly in the Dallas area, we know now to have at least set about to find the truth and investigate on their won, perhaps this created the beginning of the "Investigative Reporters " of today?...they were within a short time transferred, given their ticket, moved and disappeared, to other parts of the country, some were murdered....until they were no longer in the Dallas area...some when contacted in later years, still refused to discuss anything, their research seems to have been over before it was really begun...Even Curry had trouble with the W.C.s version of the truth....As the weeks went by O'Toole did find some whose stress factor, was unusual and pointed to untruthfulness...and some were DPD....and a lot of nervous people..

The executive order that created the WC as we know, charged them with the responsibility " to ascertain,evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassinations"... they did not, and it was a white wash as we know to-day it fell apart....If they, and we know they did ,altered Marina's, and as I related earlier they did cut off, and seemed to halt the witnesses in their words, and changing the subject and such of the questioning,and the examing of the Photographers and photos was almost a pathetic joke..see Weisberg..

They did bombard many with their questions..hardly pausing long enough to give them the chance to reply..Within the Assn books, we do find many, especially that came out of the Garrison inv..and eventually when shown...did relate how their testimonies and statements were altered..a mixed bag...

In Harvey & Lee as you mention, there is such differences in the two men, that it is almost difficult to fathom, it is a great reference book, and if you are able to obtain such in the future, please do so..as in all books, there are some editing mistakes,and such.. but nothing you cannot overcome, if you are searching for the discovery of all......and the search goes on, but this John Armstrong's work is magnificent IMO...and very heavy.lol...the years spent, the time, money, the travel, to many foreign countries, the thousands of people interviewed, thousands of hours spent within the Archives and Librarys, that is dedication......overwhelming when thought of to the extent this man went to....this was over a 12 year search for the men.....

You mention John Pic, and that he would have known his brother, as you say you and yours have never made that mistake. My Dad and his brother,even when they had not seen each other in 22years..Joe being out West...one had grown short and heavy, the other very thin and grey,and baldish, he stepped off the train, and Jim called out,"here Joe"...instant recognition...after all those years, we thought it amazing, they didn't...so as you say it has never left you..If you also,study the photos as I know you have ,the man, who was killed by Jack Ruby, is not ,IMO, appear to be the L.H.O. that we see in the earlier photos, nor his complexion, his palor, his hair, his attitude,and personality apparently, nor his weight, his build, nor his bull neck, which I do not think you can loose.?...as you say....and other traits..all and enigma..c

Thanks Jim for the come back, always a pleasure, keep up the good research.... B) B..

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Bernice:

I have to say your posts sure bring up thought provoking points and good ones!

I read Mr. O'Toole's book, but it is another one I intend to get.

I recall a study of Mr. Buell Wesley Frasier and the conclusion that he wasn't totally honest in his textimony. It fits with a few suspicions I have about the whole TSBD arena. They are only suspicions at this point or I would go deeper.

The whole thing of Ms. Paine and Mr. Paine for that matter and the TSBD job and the rest of the people associated with the TSBD just again create more questions than it answers.

I must go see the doctors today, too soon as time is short, but I had to relate the way my youngest brother recognized me when no one did until he did.

Little guy was 6 and I was 20. I'd been gone 6 months and had as I said undergone the most intense training I had up to that time.

I got off the plane and started into the then "insecure" jetway looking for my family actually my other brother as it was my plan to surprise my Momma and Pop, but my brother didn't keep the secret.

We all were looking for each other in the crowd, and I heard my youngest brother say there he is before I saw him.

That's my brother and I'll never forget even up to death, the little guy breaking under the velvet rope barrier and running to me. Made me again wish I didn't have a duty to do and could stay home and finish reading him the Hobbit.

Anyway it's one of those family moments worth more than gold or uncountable wealth. He grew good and well and made all us proud, but to me he will always be my little brother.

Oh and even when I was skinnied down by deployment a year or so later then every one knew me at once when I came home, but I was wrecked drinking from SF to home. Silly youth.

Now he is bigger than I am, but so is my other younger brother.

Oddly I find myself glad my brothers are now too old to be drafted and I find fear my nephews or nieces will be "drafted" today or in the near future.

No! they will not! Our family has done it's duty for three generations, let Jody's sons go this time.

Jody is a name from 30 years ago, used in the military to designate the Jody at home that stole your woman and had the good job you deserved when you came home to post war depressed economy.

Jody's kids can go this time, not this family.

Off to the docs: We are gonna be fine, no worries.

Best Regards:

Jim Hackett II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jim for the reply.Why not send George's sons..

and those of the Washington Belt..... :lol:

Couldn't help that remark...too choice.. :lol:

Much in Sylvia Meagher

that does not comply,with what all had to say...

Most interesting....Pick a subject a name,any it

seems......

Again soon...regards.B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Pic had not seen Lee, since 1953, when Lee was 13 years old…

false.

Last time John Pic saw his half-brother Lee was at a Thanksgiving party on November 62 in Fort Worth.

-Carboxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's correct, he John Pic ,had not seen his brother Lee, from 1953...

Until Thanksgiving.1962...He was relating how he appeared to him at that time.

B

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bernice,

What should be taken into account with all this imo, is that Pic had not seen a great deal of Lee even prior to 1953.

Additionally, Lee's "bull neck" in some photos can be attributed to having gone through basic training - that's what exercise does to young bodies. His thinning hair and apparent loss of weight on returning from Russia can easily be attributed to poor diet whilst in that country.

None of that is to say I have no problem with the photos - just that there may be plausible alternative explanations for both Pic's lack of positivity, and Lee's changing appearance.

greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Greg:

Nice to see you here......Been awhile....Have a look at the photo

below,please..

Now this fella to me, looks very healthy,

full head of hair etc...on beginning their journey to the U.S from Russia......

Must have been a terrible voyage as....his appearance here is far different than

was described by his family at the Thksg visit...???

Regards.B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome, Bernice.

Not sure I'd like to give an opinion on the state of his health from that photo, given it's in b & w and you can't see his body, but I'd agree about the head of hair. In fact, as I indicated before, it's not that I have no problems with some of the photos. I do -- and this was one of the photos I was thinking of when I wrote that - though it's the facial characteristics here that bother me more than the hair.

It's possible for instance, that he simply hadn't had it cut for a while. Combing it back while it's a little longer, as it appears to be in the photo, would tend to mask signs of it beginning to thin.

As far as I'm aware, it was only Pic who commented on Lee's appearance. Marguerite wasn't at the thanksgiving. I'll try and check if Robert commented.

Here are some comments from Peter Gregory's testimony which tend to support what I originally said:

Mr. GREGORY. Just that he worked in a shop that I mentioned. I remember his main complaint about his life there was that he didn't get enough to eat, that he had to go, either he or Marina, would have to go stand in line in order to get anything, and he seemed to have only potatoes and cabbage while he was there. And he would always speak about how poorly he ate. That seemed to be his great objection to the Soviet Union, that he didn't eat very well.

I'm sure you know the correlation between poor diet and hair loss.

With LHO, there may have also been a genetic factor. I've attached (hopefully, successfully) a photo of Robert as a relatively young man with thinning hair. Later photos show how it thinned much more over the years.

Pic does say the thinning hair struck him "quite profusely", but that is a little puzzling to me, since Pic had not seen him for 10 years when Lee was only 13. All he had to go on for comparison was cousin Marilyn's description of how he looked after joining the Marines (complete with bull neck etc)...

I'll stop here before I really start rambling :rolleyes: ... but the long and the short of it is -- yes, some photos are problematic, but do have, imo, simple, plausible explanations. On the other hand, I do see a few potential implausibilities with alternative explanations.

greg

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
Sign in to follow this  

×