THE PHONEY WORLD OF OSWALD ACCUSERS

[Bernie Laverick]

I agree.The whole investigation into Oswald has led nowhere.Just where it was supposed to.

Thank you Mr. Wilson. It seems you and I are fairly lonely here in considering Lee Oswald a COMPLETELY innocent man, falsely accused by LN's and CT's alike.

I note that John Newman's book, Oswald and the CIA, is seldom mentioned on this forum. Newman has gone a long way towards identifying some of the individuals who framed Lee Oswald, but there is one VERY IMPORTANT mistake in his book, where he alludes to Oz being present at the assassination scene with a rifle.

Apart from that, Newman does a brilliant job of tracking down the small group of CIA officers who secretly and carefully monitored Lee Oswald's movements, right up to his employment at the TSBD. The next step, (I think Jim Root has recently pointed this out) was to arrange for the motorcade to pass the TSBD and the grassy knoll AT A VERY SLOW SPEED. Now the plot includes certain members of the Secret Service (and beyond).

Lee Oswald, contrary to misinformed opinion, was no agent of any intelligence agency, and he was not a spy of any kind. He was just a guy who liked to think and act for himself, and of course his views evolved as he learned from life's experiences. John Newman seems to have begun by suspecting that OZ may have been a spy, but a careful reading of Newman's book shows that in the end he is not prepared to accuse Oz of spying for anyone. Newman does make it very clear, however, that Oz was very much the TARGET of spies.

For the benefit of some members here who don't seem to understand, there is a difference between being a spy, and being SPIED UPON.

Precisely because he was totally innocent, and knew nothing whatsoever about the crime, all the endless probing of his life has led precisely nowhere (and as for the know-nothings who insist on probing his wife as well -- don't get me started!)

Since Oz was completely innocent, and the "evidence" against him was so flimsy, the plotters decided ahead of time that he could not be allowed to live long enough to speak to a lawyer.

So to all the Oswald accusers out there, whether you consider yourself an LN or a CT, I cite the old Sufi saying:

Oh Pilgrim, I fear you will never reach Mecca

For you are on the road to Turkestan.

Since Oz was completely innocent, and the "evidence" against him was so flimsy, the plotters decided ahead of time that he could not be allowed to live long enough to speak to a lawyer.

They killed him because he was innocent? If the evidence was so flimsy...why did they arrest him? Then they hold him for 48 hours where presumably Oswald convinces them of his innocense and thus leaving them no alternative but to have him killed so as to cover up a false arrest?

And then stick to that story for another half century???

I just knew you wouldn't respond Ray. It's like when I asked you how many photos Marina took of Oswald with the gun: same response.

Thing is Ray you can't make endless posts castigating folk for even hinting that Oswald may have had some involvement and then remain silent whenever awkward questions are asked?

So Ray, I'd like to ask you again: if he was "completely innocent" and the "evidence was so flimsy"...why did they arrest him in the first place? If he was just a patsy wouldn't they have chosen someone who was not COMPLETELY innocent? Someone with a little more than "flimsy" evidence? After all you can't make a patsy from thin air.

And when do you believe the DPD realised they had got the wrong man? An hour after the arrest? 24 hours after the arrest? And why would Jack Ruby have been instructed to kill an innocent man on live TV merely to cover up a false arrest? Wouldn't it have been easier for Oswald to have 'fallen' down some stairs? That way the entire world would never know that, on that fateful day, the DPD, in all the confusion, arrested an innocent suspect.

A bit extreme don't you think?

Ray I find you to be the most sophisticated LNer on this forum. Oh you'll howl that you have always maintained his innocense, and that that is a preposterous charge. But scratch the surface and this is where all your posts ACTUALLY lead to. Watch...

So, according to you, within seconds of Kennedy being shot directly outside his workplace, he leaves the TSBD, tells no one, not his boss nor his fellow workmates and decides to go and catch a film. Why he would know any of the details of what was showing or when (he was supposed to be at work don't forget) is anyone's guess. Just leaving your workplace in the middle of the day to go to the cinema is quite bizarre: to do so minutes after a president is shot directly outside your door is indicative of a very strange man indeed! But before he gets to the cinema (how many others within minutes of hearing of Kennedy's assassination decided to bunk off work and go catch a movie?) he realises he needs to pick up a gun (!) from his rooming house. Why of course. Then he sets off in the opposite direction to where he was eventually found but somehow manages to take a detour near Tenth and Patton presumably because he's realised he's already missed the start of the film...

Ray, these are the actions of an idiot! You make Oswald look like a complete oddball. If only the decision to go to the cinema is correct you must agree that we are talking about a very bizarre man. Or in other words......a lone nut!!!!

That's where you're taking us isn't it Ray?

[Greg Parker]

I agree.The whole investigation into Oswald has led nowhere.Just where it was supposed to.

Thank you Mr. Wilson. It seems you and I are fairly lonely here in considering Lee Oswald a COMPLETELY innocent man, falsely accused by LN's and CT's alike.

I note that John Newman's book, Oswald and the CIA, is seldom mentioned on this forum. Newman has gone a long way towards identifying some of the individuals who framed Lee Oswald, but there is one VERY IMPORTANT mistake in his book, where he alludes to Oz being present at the assassination scene with a rifle.

Apart from that, Newman does a brilliant job of tracking down the small group of CIA officers who secretly and carefully monitored Lee Oswald's movements, right up to his employment at the TSBD. The next step, (I think Jim Root has recently pointed this out) was to arrange for the motorcade to pass the TSBD and the grassy knoll AT A VERY SLOW SPEED. Now the plot includes certain members of the Secret Service (and beyond).

Lee Oswald, contrary to misinformed opinion, was no agent of any intelligence agency, and he was not a spy of any kind. He was just a guy who liked to think and act for himself, and of course his views evolved as he learned from life's experiences. John Newman seems to have begun by suspecting that OZ may have been a spy, but a careful reading of Newman's book shows that HE INTERVIEWED NED KEENAN AND FAILED TO NAIL HIM AS A CIA AGENT in the REDSKIN program.

in the end he is not prepared to accuse Oz of spying for anyone. Newman does make it very clear, however, that Oz was very much the TARGET of spies. Had Newman looked into Keenan, he would have to have come to a different conclusion about Oswald.

For the benefit of some members here who don't seem to understand, there is a difference between being a spy, and being SPIED UPON.

Precisely because he was totally innocent, and knew nothing whatsoever about the crime, all the endless probing of his life has led precisely nowhere (and as for the know-nothings who insist on probing his wife as well -- don't get me started!)

Since Oz was completely innocent, and the "evidence" against him was so flimsy, the plotters decided ahead of time that he could not be allowed to live long enough to speak to a lawyer.

So to all the Oswald accusers out there, whether you consider yourself an LN or a CT, I cite the old Sufi saying:

Oh Pilgrim, I fear you will never reach Mecca

For you are on the road to Turkestan.

[Dawn Meredith]

But how can you say that that their technique of showing those pictures in the aftermath of the assassination was of no value as Oswald was being shown to the world as being the killer, and these pictures "proved it"?

Sorry Peter, I just became a grandfather for the first time, and life has suddenly become very busy, so I do not have time to go into this in detail right now.

It is true that the backyard photos were used as powerful propaganda AFTER Lee Oswald was dead, but they were only valuable because he was not around to defend himself.

Oswald's accusers , including Jim garrison, have always had this great advantage.

That explains why they had to murder him before he could prove his innocence.

So Ray, are you saying that the photos are genuine and that this was just a bit of marital recreation on their part?

"What shall we do today Honey? Take the kids to the park? Or, maybe I could dress up as a left wing assassin and you could photograph it?"

Under what 'normal' circumstances does a married man ask his wife to take photos of himself posing as an assassin?

And how many did she say she took Ray? Can you please give a definitive figure on EXACTLY how many photos were taken by Marina?

This is all very entertaining but the level of disinformation on this forum is staggering. I had some run ins with Carroll a few years back and his hatred of Garrison gets very old but to read that he believes the basckyard photos are authenic and that LHO was not part of any intelligence operation demonstrates that his purpose here - imho- is to distort, waste time with straw men arguments, and direct people away from the truth. Double talk indeed.

Dawn

[Bernie Laverick]

But how can you say that that their technique of showing those pictures in the aftermath of the assassination was of no value as Oswald was being shown to the world as being the killer, and these pictures "proved it"?

Sorry Peter, I just became a grandfather for the first time, and life has suddenly become very busy, so I do not have time to go into this in detail right now.

It is true that the backyard photos were used as powerful propaganda AFTER Lee Oswald was dead, but they were only valuable because he was not around to defend himself.

Oswald's accusers , including Jim garrison, have always had this great advantage.

That explains why they had to murder him before he could prove his innocence.

So Ray, are you saying that the photos are genuine and that this was just a bit of marital recreation on their part?

"What shall we do today Honey? Take the kids to the park? Or, maybe I could dress up as a left wing assassin and you could photograph it?"

Under what 'normal' circumstances does a married man ask his wife to take photos of himself posing as an assassin?

And how many did she say she took Ray? Can you please give a definitive figure on EXACTLY how many photos were taken by Marina?

This is all very entertaining but the level of disinformation on this forum is staggering. I had some run ins with Carroll a few years back and his hatred of Garrison gets very old but to read that he believes the basckyard photos are authenic and that LHO was not part of any intelligence operation demonstrates that his purpose here - imho- is to distort, waste time with straw men arguments, and direct people away from the truth. Double talk indeed.

Dawn

So Ray, how many photos did Marina I-tell-the-ruth-the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth Oswald say she had taken that day?

[Mark Wilson]

Mr.Carroll,Although we agree that Oswald was innocent in the assassination,we differ on your position that Oswald was not involved in any kind intelligence.At a minimum,he was involved in some kind of domestic intelligence involving the FBI.I've come to this conclusion based on,1)his arrest in New Orleans and interview with the FBI,2)his interaction with Hosty, and 3)Waggoner Carr's claim that Oswald was receiving $200 a month from the FBI during the months of 9/62 through 11/63...Hoover later denied this tidbit,but who are you going to believe? Oswald being paid by the FBI at the time he supposedly killed JFK,of course Hoover would deny this..I think Oswald was a good guy.If he was trying to expose the assassination plot,as i think he was,he had to be killed.What other reason can there be that Oswald was in custody for around 2 days and for the most part(less Fritz's notes) there's no real record of any interrogation.

Mark,

I personally think the idea that Oswald was trying to expose the plot is a bit silly. Surely all he would have had to do was phone the FBI or the DPD or yell for help as soon as he realised what was going on? But he didn't. While someone was up on the sixth floor shooting Kennedy, Oswald was sitting in the first floor lunch room reading a newspaper and eating a cheese sandwich.

Presumably what you're suggesting is that Oswald knew the people involved and, therefore, new about the plot in advance? If that was the case then why did he make no attempt to stop it? Again, all he would have had to do was call the feds and say "There's a plot to kill Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on Friday. These are the people involved - go arrest 'em!"

Hi Martin.Your criticism of my theory is understandable.In defense of my theory,we have the Hosty note and the FBI telex warning of the assassination attempt.In regards to the FBI telex,there was someone who accurately predicted the scenerio played out in Dealey Plaza.There is no proof that Oswald was the source of the telex,but we have the proof that the FBI was informed of the plot in advance and did nothing to prevent it...So your question of why didnt Oswald phone the FBI or DPD is mute because someone did notify the FBI in advance and as we see,nothing was done.For all we know,Oswald did exactly what you've implied he didnt do....What we do know is there was alot of disinformation on Oswald from the very beginning,like him being a defector,the Fair play for Cuba,the Cuban embassy "episode" ,beating his wife, and how about the alleged statement made by Oswald at the time of the arrest,"I got me a president and a cop and i'll go for 2 more".? In regards to Oswalds alleged statement when arrested,this is in stark contrast from his statements captured by tv cameras while in custody,like, "i'm just a patsy", "i didnt kill anyone", or his request that he be given legal assistance...It's beyond belief that the APB on Oswald,within the hour, closed the case...Of the many witnesses to the assassination,there is a bevy of conflicting testimony and accounts, who were all looking at the same incident. Yet,we are supposed believe that with the capture of Oswald, the case was solved...Oswald had to be killed before a trial or even before securing an attorney. No Oswald,no trial,no resistance....no problems.

[John Dolva]

I say again, Oswalds musings on the way back to the US outilnes what he probably considered an insight where he rejected both communism and capialism, expressing an affinity with the Minutemen and taking it a step further. I

f these were expressions of his personal position one may assume that he would expect to have a voice within that milieu, and having done so, far more calculating minds would probably not have trouble helpng Oswald to believe that they would implement his ''scheme''.

A meaning of patsy is something like ''the cheated or tricked one''. This would also fit such an evaluation of these existing research castoffs,

edit:edits

Edited August 8, 2010 by John Dolva

[Michael Hogan]

In this testosterone-filled, male-dominated forum, we are all very lucky to have Kathy Beckett as a voice of reason and moderation.

So I am grateful that Kathy has taken the trouble to contact me personally to point out that I am violating forum rules when I call Mr. Morrow a xxxx, on the occasion of Morrow's FALSE accusation that Lee Oswald sold radar secrets to the Soviets.

It is a HISTORICAL FACT that both the US and the Russian governments have confirmed -- repeatedly -- that Lee Oswald NEVER sold or gave away radar secrets to the Soviets. But if Mr. Morrow chooses to believe things that are obviously not true, that is his right and privilege. People have been believing things that are not true since the beginning of time, and no doubt the trend will continue.

So when I suggested earlier that Mr. Morrow was perpetrating a BIG LIE, I should have qualified that by saying that, if Morrow ACTUALLY BELIEVES such foolish nonsense, then he is not -- strictly speaking -- a xxxx, and I owe him an apology, which I hereby humbly tender.

Thank you Kathy Beckett, for taking the time and trouble to set me straight.

So humble. And sincere, I'm sure.

The humor is obviously beyond your capacity, Mr. Hogan.

And no doubt I am not the only one who is NOT SURPRISED!

The testosterone levels that Carroll refers above to are shown to diminish greatly in old age. Apparently,

some men feel the need to compensate by indulging in overly-aggressive, self-aggrandizing, ugly behavior.

While it is true that Kathy Beckett is a voice of reason and moderation, Carroll ignores the fact that his

violation of Forum rules was pointed out to him previously (more than once) and that he chose to ignore it:

Calling another member a xxxx (caps his), as he did earlier in this thread, demonstrates Carroll's lack of self-control and willingness to break a Forum rule when it suits him. Obviously, it also speaks to the weakness of his arguments.

Martin Hay broke no Forum rule by using a banned term as did Carroll, but when contacted by Kathy Beckett, Hay had the grace to apologize:

I want to publicly apologise for asking Mr. Carroll if he had a "mental disability." It has been pointed out to me that this could easily cause offence not just to him but to other forum members. This is not my intent and I usually do my best to avoid saying childish things like that.

Apologies to all.

Carroll's response indicates a lot about the man:

Well once again I have doubts about you old sport. Since the only person you insulted was me, do you really think you can get yourself off the hook by apologizing to OTHER members?

Kathy Beckett had to set Carroll straight:

Ray,

I am the one who said something to Martin.

Martin,thank you for apologizing (in public, no less!). That is something that a lot of people don't or won't do. It speaks well of you.

Kathy

I'm sure it was not lost on Carroll how clumsily he received Martin's apology, how negatively it was perceived, and

how Kathy thanked Martin for publicly apologizing. I knew Carroll wanted a chance to redeem himself in Kathy's eyes.

I tried to help him:

Maybe you should consider saying something to Carroll.

There is Not A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Lee Oswald gave away radar secrets. You just made that up , You xxxx!

Sure enough, Kathy Beckett contacted Carroll privately and voila! His belated and tepid apology to Robert Morrow was

forthcoming. Carroll expended more effort in flattering and thanking Kathy than he did in apologizing to the member he

called a xxxx. It was, of course, an attempt to get back in her good graces. I'm sure Carroll wishes Kathy would compliment

him, as she did Martin Hay.

But in his "humbly tendered" apology, Carroll could not resist further barbs to the member he called a xxxx.

It is a HISTORICAL FACT that both the US and the Russian governments have confirmed -- repeatedly -- that Lee Oswald NEVER sold or gave away radar secrets to the Soviets. But if Mr. Morrow chooses to believe things that are obviously not true, that is his right and privilege. People have been believing things that are not true since the beginning of time, and no doubt the trend will continue.

So when I suggested earlier that Mr. Morrow was perpetrating a BIG LIE, I should have qualified that by saying that, if Morrow ACTUALLY BELIEVES such foolish nonsense, then he is not -- strictly speaking -- a xxxx

Carroll should obtain a copy of John Newman's Oswald and the CIA and refer himself to the chapter entitled

The American Girls in Moscow. Newman writes:

Neither Priscilla Johnson's 1959 contemporaneous notes nor her 1963 written recollection mention that Oswald told her he

had threatened to reveal radar secrets. Her newspaper articles then and since make no mention of radar secrets. Under oath,

however, she told a very different story. Here is the bombshell she dropped during her sworn testimony to the Warren Commission:

Mr. SLAWSON: Miss Johnson, I wonder if you would search your memory with the help of your notes and make any comments you could

on what contacts Lee Oswald had had with Soviet officials before you saw him, any remarks he made or things you could read between

the lines, and so on.

Miss JOHNSON: I had the impression, in fact he said, he hoped that his experience as a radar operator would make him more

desirable to them. [the Soviets] That was the only thing that really showed any lack of integrity in a way about him, a negative

thing. That is, he felt he had something he could give them, something that would hurt his country in a way, or could, and that

was the one thing that was quite negative, that he was holding out some kind of bait.

In a 1994 interview with the author, Priscilla McMillan found the contradiction between her Warren Commission and other writings troubling.

How could Priscilla not have written about such a startling part of her interview with Oswald? "I know, that is terrible," she remarked in 1994,

"that is so unprofessional." Her recollection was at first indecisive, and she wondered if it had not been "wrong to tell the Warren Commission that."

At length, however, she stuck with her testimony. Not surprisingly, Priscilla's revelation about radar secrets startled her Warren Commission

interrogator, W. David Slawson. This is what happened next:

Mr. SLAWSON: Could you elaborate a little bit on that radar point? Had you been informed by the American Embassy at the time that he

had told Richard Snyder that he had already volunteered to the Soviet officials that he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps,

and would give the Russian Government any secrets he had possessed?

Miss JOHNSON: I had no idea that he had told Snyder that, but he did tell me-- I got the impression, I am not sure that

it is in the notes or not, I certainly got the impression that he was using his radar training as a come-on to them, hoped

that that would make him of some value to them, and I----

Mr. SLAWSON: This was something then that he must have volunteered to you, because you would not have known to ask about it?

Miss JOHNSON: Well, again I am not very military minded. and I couldn't have cared less, you know. But somehow along the line,

if it is not in my notes then it is a memory, then it is one of the things I didn't write well, one thing is you know I tend

to write what I thought I might use in the story. But I wasn't going to write a particularly negative story about him. I wasn't

going to write that he was using it as a come-on so I might not have transcribed it just simply for that reason, that it wasn't

a part of my story. But it definitely was an impression that he--and it was from him, certainly not from the Embassy, that he

was using that as a come-on, and I sure didn't like that. But it didn't occur to me he might have military secrets. I just felt,

well hell, he didn't have much as a radar operator that they need, although even there I didn't know. Maybe there was some little

twist in our radar technique that he might know. It showed a lack of integrity in his personality, and that I remembered. What he

might or might not have to offer them I didn't know.

Robert Morrow was probably a lot closer to the truth than was Carroll. Yet Carroll now maintains that he "suggested earlier

that Mr. Morrow was perpetrating a BIG LIE." Carroll suggested nothing of the sort. He called Morrow a xxxx, pure and simple

and used his juvenile habit of putting a word in caps to do it.

Lest any member think that I doubt Carroll's humility and sincerity, they're right.

I intend to proffer a few of his recent quotes in a subsequent post to show the reason for this doubt.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Dean Hagerman]

Marina I-tell-the-ruth-the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth Oswald

[John Dolva]

All's good Lee. Thanks for asking. How I understood his writings were that they were a tentative proposal that would see the contradictions of both stand out and allow for a confrontation out of which the Minutemens dogma would prevail.

edit::add Engels (I think, Lenin?) tract on the infantility of individual acts of left wing direct actions would have been standard fare. To ignore it indicates to me to not understand it. Lessons were learnt through the long struggle since the publication of the communist manuifesto Another indicator (to me) that Oswalds concept of communism was heavily right tainted in its expression. Sort of like a b grade movie plot.

Edited August 8, 2010 by John Dolva

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Good going Mike.

Keep it coming.

I'm sure the WHOLE WORLD is holding its breath, waiting to hear the latest OFFAL from mike hogan, and his latest dumb and stupid bunch of OSWALD ACCUSATIONS!

The same EXCITED world is also waiting for John Dolva's CORROBORATING EVIDENCE.

Edited August 9, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[John Dolva]

Evidence for what, Raymond?

[Bernie Laverick]

Good going Mike.

Keep it coming.

I'm sure the WHOLE WORLD is holding its breath, waiting to hear the latest OFFAL from mike hogan, and his latest dumb and stupid bunch of OSWALD ACCUSATIONS!

The same EXCITED world is also waiting for John Dolva's CORROBORATING EVIDENCE.

Then why don't you try and defend it instead of hurling insults at everyone who raises points which you can't answer.

You have really made yourself look more foolish than normal on this thread. I am almost cringing with embarrassment for you.

All you had to do was answer a couple of questions.

1 - How many backyard photos did Marina take of Oswald?

Seeing as you won't answer (how could you without concluding that she has lied through her teeth!) I shall tell you. It was two. No not two, I mean one...or was it two..actually it could have been three or maybe it was four.

2 - Why would a normal person on just hearing that the president had been shot outside his workplace immediately decide to go catch a movie, and drop off to pick up his gun on the way. You think that is normal behaviour? I think they are the actions of a lone nut!

Just like you!

[John Wilson]

I believe that LHO was innocent of the killing of JFK, but guilty/naive enough to allow himself to be drawn into a web of intrigue with rum characters which ultimately culminated in the death of the President.

To what extent he knew of any of what was, by it's alledged nature, a conspiracy, we will never know. He was a 'patsy', perhaps thinking he was a valid part of something else?

What annoys me is the blinkered ignoramuses who rigidly state (as if only they have God's eyes on the matter!), nay insist, that absolutely no-one else was involved in JFK's death...or RFK, etc etc.

[Robert Howard]

I believe that LHO was innocent of the killing of JFK, but guilty/naive enough to allow himself to be drawn into a web of intrigue with rum characters which ultimately culminated in the death of the President.

To what extent he knew of any of what was, by it's alledged nature, a conspiracy, we will never know. He was a 'patsy', perhaps thinking he was a valid part of something else?

What annoys me is the blinkered ignoramuses who rigidly state (as if only they have God's eyes on the matter!), nay insist, that absolutely no-one else was involved in JFK's death...or RFK, etc etc.

There was an old camera commercial, in which a famous tennis pro, was quoted as saying, "Image is everything."

Perhaps the most extreme portrayal of the psuedo-evil Oswald family, that did not focus on Lee Harvey Oswald, exclusively

was acclaimed writer Jean Stafford's book regarding Marguerite Oswald, entitled A Mother In History.

After the book's publication, the New York Times wrote "A SHOCKED AND SHOCKING BOOK...THE WHOLE ABSURD OBSCENITY

OF THE DALLAS KILLING AND ITS AFTERMATH IS CONTAINED IN ITS PORTRAIT OF MRS. MARGUERITE OSWALD"

Marguerite Oswald did not do herself any favors in terms of approaching even a modicum of carefully crafted statements, regarding

her son's involvement or incrimination in the assassination of President Kennedy.

The back cover of the book captured the essence of the entire 119 pages where the following quotations were

captured for posterity.

Marguerite:

Now maybe Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin she pursued," stirring the coffee. "But does that make him a louse?

No, No! Killing does not necessarily mean badness. You find killing in some very fine homes for some reason or another

And, as we all know President Kennedy was a dying man. So I say it is possible that my son was chosen to

shoot him in a mercy killing for the security of the country. And if this is true, it was a fine thing to do and my son is a hero." . . .

Stafford: She turned to me with her sociable smile and asked.

"Do you take cream and sugar, sweetheart?"

The negative persona of Marguerite was not the exclusive domain of the official interviews and media treatment of her in the aftermath of her sons

death, she apparently identified the Mexico City mystery man who has never been conclusively identified, as Jack Ruby, which did not earn her any points for reliability, she is also believed by many to have been impersonated, as revealed by researcher John Armstrong, author of Harvey and Lee.

In large part, due to photographs that strongly appear to be two different persons, adding to additional interest in apparent similarities between the history of Gordon Lonsdale/Kolodny and Lee Oswald/Harvey Lee Oswald regarding twin intelligence operatives.

But there are hints that some of Marguerite's insights were not the product of a deranged mind, and even more evidence that

the impeccable credentials of Jean Stafford would never have stood the light of day, in today's media.

And overtones that Stafford's selection as a biographer of Lee Oswald's mother was akin to having a member of a neo-Nazi organization write a biography of Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu.

First there is the matter of a period in Marguerite's employment history directly associated with the Algiers Naval Station, which is of no small significance.

To preface it is a known fact that in her divorce from Edwin Ehkdahl, Margeruite was represented by Fred Korth, who would later

tarnish the Kennedy Administration, by his conflict of interest while he was Secretary of the Navy, in regards to business dealings with his bank

Continental National Bank, in regards to General Dynamics interest in securing the TFX Fighter Contract, his resignation took place only a month before

JFK's assassination.

Getting back to Maguerite's connection to Algiers, La., in a obscure passage from Stafford's book, Marguerite

In Marguerite's own words:

"I used to work in Algiers, Louisiana, during the war and that is across the river from New Orleans.

I was a switchboard operator. My duty was six o'clock in the morning until three, or six-thirty, I forget

which. So, I rented a room in Algiers, Louisiana, and my sister was taking care of Lee at permanently at

this particular time. He was about two years old.......

And the Naval Base personnel used to come with a jeep to pick me up because there was no other way to get to the Naval Base."

pages 60-61, A Mother In History: Marguerite Oswald, The Mother of the Man Who Killed President Kennedy by Jean Stafford

Robert: If her memory was accurate, this would mean that the time frame was around the late summer of 1941, as Lee's birthdate was October 18, 1939.

During World War II, Algiers, Louisiana housed the Navy Cost Inspector, Todd-Johnson Dry Docks, Inc. and the Naval Training School (Fire Fighters Modified),

Naval Station, Algiers, New Orleans, La.

The ONI office for the 8th Naval District at that time was located at New Orleans.

See

http://www.ibiblio.o...USN-Act/LA.html

In another strange passage, she relates, "Every Sunday we would go to the Museum of Natural History or the Planeterium, and we'd have dinner at the Rockefeller

Center, and when I'd go to work on Monday, they'd say, 'Well Oswald tell us New Yorkers what you found out about New York. I may go to New York one of these

days. I like to travel just like Lee. He was in the Philippines, he was in Corregidor, he was in Formosa, he was in Japan, so he's been all over besides Russia.

That boy was being trained. Let me give you an instance on some of the work I've done on him being trained as an agent.

I received this letter from him on November 8, 1961. And on the back of the letter it said, 'Name, Address, Male, Occupation,' and then something

I couldn't make out. It looked like a '4' and a '1' and then it had a post-office box, 703 in Washington, D.C. When I received this letter, I wrote

asking them to tell me about my son because he was in Russia, and I said that on the back of his letter was this post-office box number. Do you

know my letter was not answered or returned to me? Now this is significant that box number has that letter to this day. And do you know who the box number is?

Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Washington D.C.!

page 98, A Mother In History: Marguerite Oswald, The Mother of the Man Who Killed President Kennedy by Jean Stafford

also see

CE 184 - Letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to Marguerite Oswald, dated November 8, 1961, with envelope.

http://www.maryferre...3&relPageId=567

Appointment Calendar of Former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Oct 6, 1966

3:30 P M- Be photographed with Mr. Leslie M [illegible] Director of Veterans of Foreign Wars

accompanied by Mr, [redacted]Washington, Director of Veterans of Foreign Wars

http://www.maryferre...9&relPageId=133

Then there is the matter of Stafford's own political viewpoint and how it may explain her seemingly outright hostility to the mother of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I will cite a couple of passages, which reference her stay at the University of Heidelberg.

........While critical reaction to Stafford's fiction has been generally positive, scholars have lamented that her work has not yet received the widespread attention it deserves. Although most critics have praised Stafford's precise and controlled prose, complex characterization, realistic dialogue, and the psychological horror inherent in many of her works, others have faulted what they consider her overemphasis on technique, describing her style as contrived, self-conscious, and lacking in emotional intimacy. Some have also suggested that although Stafford addressed the role of women in American society, many of her female characters ultimately succumb to the restrictions and expectations of patriarchal society. Nevertheless, Stafford's short stories have been consistently lauded for their realism, powerful themes, and sometimes disturbing subject matter; they have also been compared to the works of such notable writers as Anton Chekhov, Henry James, Jane Austen, Fedor Dostoevksy, Thomas Mann, and Eudora Welty. Morris Dickstein has noted that Stafford's stories "do not primarily focus on men and events; instead an atmosphere is created, a situation explored; we are granted not a conclusive action or denouement but only the significant word, the telltale gesture. . . . She lays hold of her characters like an antique-hunter, scrutinizes them from every angle, exhibits their subtle defects and beauties." Jeanette Mann has also praised Stafford's short fiction, stating that "in each story [stafford] creates a moment of experience, through the use of realistic settings, characters, and dialogues, so as to present, often through the device of dramatic irony, the sudden illumination or understanding, the symbolic crisis, or the unresolved glimpse into the heart of the situation."

http://www.enotes.co...m/stafford-jean

During her time in Heidelberg, for instance, Stafford was mesmerized by the Nazis: "I was swept along on the tide of this well-organized collective conniption fit .... If a recruiter had come by and asked me to pledge myself for the rest of my life to the [Nazi Party], in all likelihood I would have done so." A psychology professor at Boulder noted that Stafford was the most "suggestible" hypnotic subject he'd ever had.

http://www.newcriter...-s-triumph-5753

What makes all of this perhaps, slightly more interesting is the University of Heidelberg, itself.

Connections between Heidelberg University and names that are associated with the Kennedy Assassination, include the following:

Dr. Wilhelm Keutemeyer, Dr. Hans Bernd Gisevius, Mary Bancroft and Allen Dulles were four participants in the July 20, 1944 attempt to kill Hitler,

besides the most well known name of all Count Klaus Von Stauffenberg]

Heidelberg alumni include:

Charles Willoughby

[for accounts of MacArthur's little fascist Charles Willoughby see numerous books, articles on the world wide web]

Dr. Wilhelm Keutemeyer

Volkmar Schmidt

See pages 484, 647 n; The Assassination Chronicles Inquest, Counterplot and Legend Edward Jay Epstein

also

FBI Files on George DeMohrenschildt, Batch 16

http://www.maryferre...92&relPageId=48

And the book

Elektrochemische Verfahrenstechnik: Grundlagen, Reaktionstechnik ...By Volkmar M. Schmidt

See

http://books.google....u_4SJWQ0mIC&pg=

Edited August 17, 2010 by Robert Howard

[Robert Howard]

I believe that LHO was innocent of the killing of JFK, but guilty/naive enough to allow himself to be drawn into a web of intrigue with rum characters which ultimately culminated in the death of the President.

To what extent he knew of any of what was, by it's alledged nature, a conspiracy, we will never know. He was a 'patsy', perhaps thinking he was a valid part of something else?

What annoys me is the blinkered ignoramuses who rigidly state (as if only they have God's eyes on the matter!), nay insist, that absolutely no-one else was involved in JFK's death...or RFK, etc etc.

There was an old camera commercial, in which a famous tennis pro, was quoted as saying, "Image is everything."

Perhaps the most extreme portrayal of the psuedo-evil Oswald family, that did not focus on Lee Harvey Oswald, exclusively

was acclaimed writer Jean Stafford's book regarding Marguerite Oswald, entitled A Mother In History.

After the book's publication, the New York Times wrote "A SHOCKED AND SHOCKING BOOK...THE WHOLE ABSURD OBSCENITY

OF THE DALLAS KILLING AND ITS AFTERMATH IS CONTAINED IN ITS PORTRAIT OF MRS. MARGUERITE OSWALD"

Marguerite Oswald did not do herself any favors in terms of approaching even a modicum of carefully crafted statements, regarding

her son's involvement or incrimination in the assassination of President Kennedy.

The back cover of the book captured the essence of the entire 119 pages where the following quotations were

captured for posterity.

Marguerite:

Now maybe Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin she pursued," stirring the coffee. "But does that make him a louse?

No, No! Killing does not necessarily mean badness. You find killing in some very fine homes for some reason or another

And, as we all know President Kennedy was a dying man. So I say it is possible that my son was chosen to

shoot him in a mercy killing for the security of the country. And if this is true, it was a fine thing to do and my son is a hero." . . .

Stafford: She turned to me with her sociable smile and asked.

"Do you take cream and sugar, sweetheart?"

The negative persona of Marguerite was not the exclusive domain of the official interviews and media treatment of her in the aftermath of her sons

death, she apparently identified the Mexico City mystery man who has never been conclusively identified, as Jack Ruby, which did not earn her any points for reliability, she is also believed by many to have been impersonated, as revealed by researcher John Armstrong, author of Harvey and Lee.

In large part, due to photographs that strongly appear to be two different persons, adding to additional interest in apparent similarities between the history of Gordon Lonsdale/Kolodny and Lee Oswald/Harvey Lee Oswald regarding twin intelligence operatives.

But there are hints that some of Marguerite's insights were not the product of a deranged mind, and even more evidence that

the impeccable credentials of Jean Stafford would never have stood the light of day, in today's media.

And overtones that Stafford's selection as a biographer of Lee Oswald's mother was akin to having a member of a neo-Nazi organization write a biography of Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu.

First there is the matter of a period in Marguerite's employment history directly associated with the Algiers Naval Station, which is of no small significance.

To preface it is a known fact that in her divorce from Edwin Ehkdahl, Margeruite was represented by Fred Korth, who would later

tarnish the Kennedy Administration, by his conflict of interest while he was Secretary of the Navy, in regards to business dealings with his bank

Continental National Bank, in regards to General Dynamics interest in securing the TFX Fighter Contract, his resignation took place only a month before

JFK's assassination.

Getting back to Maguerite's connection to Algiers, La., in a obscure passage from Stafford's book, Marguerite

In Marguerite's own words:

"I used to work in Algiers, Louisiana, during the war and that is across the river from New Orleans.

I was a switchboard operator. My duty was six o'clock in the morning until three, or six-thirty, I forget

which. So, I rented a room in Algiers, Louisiana, and my sister was taking care of Lee at permanently at

this particular time. He was about two years old.......

And the Naval Base personnel used to come with a jeep to pick me up because there was no other way to get to the Naval Base."

pages 60-61, A Mother In History: Marguerite Oswald, The Mother of the Man Who Killed President Kennedy by Jean Stafford

Robert: If her memory was accurate, this would mean that the time frame was around the late summer of 1941, as Lee's birthdate was October 18, 1939.

During World War II, Algiers, Louisiana housed the Navy Cost Inspector, Todd-Johnson Dry Docks, Inc. and the Naval Training School (Fire Fighters Modified),

Naval Station, Algiers, New Orleans, La.

The ONI office for the 8th Naval District at that time was located at New Orleans.

See

http://www.ibiblio.o...USN-Act/LA.html

In another strange passage, she relates, "Every Sunday we would go to the Museum of Natural History or the Planeterium, and we'd have dinner at the Rockefeller

Center, and when I'd go to work on Monday, they'd say, 'Well Oswald tell us New Yorkers what you found out about New York. I may go to New York one of these

days. I like to travel just like Lee. He was in the Philippines, he was in Corregidor, he was in Formosa, he was in Japan, so he's been all over besides Russia.

That boy was being trained. Let me give you an instance on some of the work I've done on him being trained as an agent.

I received this letter from him on November 8, 1961. And on the back of the letter it said, 'Name, Address, Male, Occupation,' and then something

I couldn't make out. It looked like a '4' and a '1' and then it had a post-office box, 703 in Washington, D.C. When I received this letter, I wrote

asking them to tell me about my son because he was in Russia, and I said that on the back of his letter was this post-office box number. Do you

know my letter was not answered or returned to me? Now this is significant that box number has that letter to this day. And do you know who the box number is?

Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Washington D.C.!

page 98, A Mother In History: Marguerite Oswald, The Mother of the Man Who Killed President Kennedy by Jean Stafford

also see

CE 184 - Letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to Marguerite Oswald, dated November 8, 1961, with envelope.

http://www.maryferre...3&relPageId=567

Appointment Calendar of Former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Oct 6, 1966

3:30 P M- Be photographed with Mr. Leslie M [illegible] Director of Veterans of Foreign Wars

accompanied by Mr, [redacted]Washington, Director of Veterans of Foreign Wars

http://www.maryferre...9&relPageId=133

Then there is the matter of Stafford's own political viewpoint and how it may explain her seemingly outright hostility to the mother of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I will cite a couple of passages, which reference her stay at the University of Heidelberg.

........While critical reaction to Stafford's fiction has been generally positive, scholars have lamented that her work has not yet received the widespread attention it deserves. Although most critics have praised Stafford's precise and controlled prose, complex characterization, realistic dialogue, and the psychological horror inherent in many of her works, others have faulted what they consider her overemphasis on technique, describing her style as contrived, self-conscious, and lacking in emotional intimacy. Some have also suggested that although Stafford addressed the role of women in American society, many of her female characters ultimately succumb to the restrictions and expectations of patriarchal society. Nevertheless, Stafford's short stories have been consistently lauded for their realism, powerful themes, and sometimes disturbing subject matter; they have also been compared to the works of such notable writers as Anton Chekhov, Henry James, Jane Austen, Fedor Dostoevksy, Thomas Mann, and Eudora Welty. Morris Dickstein has noted that Stafford's stories "do not primarily focus on men and events; instead an atmosphere is created, a situation explored; we are granted not a conclusive action or denouement but only the significant word, the telltale gesture. . . . She lays hold of her characters like an antique-hunter, scrutinizes them from every angle, exhibits their subtle defects and beauties." Jeanette Mann has also praised Stafford's short fiction, stating that "in each story [stafford] creates a moment of experience, through the use of realistic settings, characters, and dialogues, so as to present, often through the device of dramatic irony, the sudden illumination or understanding, the symbolic crisis, or the unresolved glimpse into the heart of the situation."

http://www.enotes.co...m/stafford-jean

During her time in Heidelberg, for instance, Stafford was mesmerized by the Nazis: "I was swept along on the tide of this well-organized collective conniption fit .... If a recruiter had come by and asked me to pledge myself for the rest of my life to the [Nazi Party], in all likelihood I would have done so." A psychology professor at Boulder noted that Stafford was the most "suggestible" hypnotic subject he'd ever had.

http://www.newcriter...-s-triumph-5753

What makes all of this perhaps, slightly more interesting is the University of Heidelberg, itself.

Connections between Heidelberg University and names that are associated with the Kennedy Assassination, include the following:

Dr. Wilhelm Keutemeyer, Dr. Hans Bernd Gisevius, Mary Bancroft and Allen Dulles were four participants in the July 20, 1944 attempt to kill Hitler,

besides the most well known name of all Count Klaus Von Stauffenberg]

Heidelberg alumni include:

Charles Willoughby

[for accounts of MacArthur's little fascist Charles Willoughby see numerous books, articles on the world wide web]

Dr. Wilhelm Keutemeyer

Volkmar Schmidt

See pages 484, 647 n; The Assassination Chronicles Inquest, Counterplot and Legend Edward Jay Epstein

also

FBI Files on George DeMohrenschildt, Batch 16

http://www.maryferre...92&relPageId=48

And the book

Elektrochemische Verfahrenstechnik: Grundlagen, Reaktionstechnik ...By Volkmar M. Schmidt

See

http://books.google....u_4SJWQ0mIC&pg=

But there is more........ask yourself who would have the unmitigated gall to publish a book with the following title

The Autobiography of Lee Harvey Oswald: My Own Life In My Own Words

see google books

If the idea seems a little repugnant to the reader, it may further be explained that the idea for this persons book, was an alternative to all those awful

conspiracy theories.

What was it Don King used to say?

Only In America........