Steven Gaal Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) TO QUOTE Dr. Jerry Rose =====> EVERY document of LHO has problems. http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=520355 http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=520356 ===================== Do you realize that you are doing the same thing in reverse… H&L is simply not a possibility so nothing done will EVER lead you to that as a possibility. In reverse… you can accept the ongoing and systematic mistakes of everyone who ever came into contact with HARVEY who was no longer the same as the LEE they knew. Again Greg… how many “sorry those records were taken by the FBI and disappeared” or “no, the records are mistaken” do you need before the light goes off that maybe something fishy is going on? // end JOSEPHS --------------------------------------- yes to illustrate Myra DaRouse Larue-Oswald's (Harvey) 8th grade home room teacher (and girls physical education teacher). When Oswald arrived in Myra's homeroom at Beauregard Jr. High in NO, during "basketball season," he told her that he wanted to be called "Harvey." Myra described Harvey as short, slight, and without an "ounce of fight" in him. Myra recalled the day when a piano fell onto Harvey. She took him to the Monte Lepre Clinic, on Canal Street, and then to his home on Exchange Alley. At this time, according to WC documents and WC testimony of Myrtle and Julian Evans (close friends of MO), LHO and his tall, nice-looking mother were living in one of their apartments on St. Marys Street = equals= I saw a demon ,per PARKER I have no scanner could someone scanup (not on internet) BACK COVER of the magazine THE FOURTH DECADE Volume 6,Number 1 It shows the anomaly of the LHO Social Security Number. THANKS SGaal ################### You see all SS# 433-54-XXXX were issued in 1954 except that LHO's SS# was issued in 1955 ??? GEE MUST BE DEMONS !! Maybe Mr. Parker should seance the late DR. Rose ??? Edited August 31, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) This one Steve? I added the SS# from the 1955 Dolly Shoe W-2 What are you implying here Steve? DJ Edited May 23, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) Lets say you were a CCCP Intel CE (or CI) officer. It would be really good if you could get info of a persons work history from the SS Administration to check on a possible recruit.These altered records were done to trick some low level USA CCCP asset in place at SS. Greg… how many “sorry those records were taken by the FBI and disappeared” or “no, the records are mistaken” do you need before the light goes off that maybe something fishy is going on? // end JOSEPHS. When you have evidence of Oswald seen at two places ,you could say that this was faulty memory and/or manipulated testimony. BUT when you have continual anomalous records it would be a better assumption of TWO Oswalds. Comrade commissar, Im a import/export expert..so if you want to get someone into imperialist dog USA...Im your man ...(see below) ################################# Louis Marzialle-store manager at Dolly Shoe, where LHO (Harvey) worked full time in the spring of 1955 (while Lee Oswald attended Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans without missing a single day of school). Louis remembered clearly the day he fired Oswald. It was the day that his first son was born. ================================================================ November 10, 1955: LHO starts work as a messenger boy at Gerald F. Tujague Inc. (W. Tracy Parnell timeline) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE JFK CASE: THE TWELVE WHO BUILT THE OSWALD LEGEND (Part 9 - Oswald Takes Center Stage As An Intelligence Asset) Bill Simpich is a civil rights attorney and an antiwar activist in the San Francisco Bay Area. Gerard Tujague was the treasurer of the FDC. [28] Oswald had worked for Tujague's import-export business in 1956, told his mother he was going to return to work at Tujague's right before he defected in 1959, and listed himself as a shipping export agent on his passport in 1959. Oswald named Tujague as a reference and used his proper address when he looked for work in 1963. [29] ======= [27] During that month, Banister incorporated his front organization - the "Friends of Democratic Cuba" (FDC): DDP Richard Bissell to FBI liaison Sam Papich, 3/30/61, HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, Box 14 / NARA Record Number: 1993.07.14.15:41:50:460270. Also see redacted version (easier to read): FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Additional Releases, Part 1 of 3, p. 301. [28] Gerard Tujague was the treasurer of the FDC: Id., at p. 2; also see Lee Harvey Oswald Chronology, created by "LMK" of FBI, p. 2; [29] Oswald had worked for Tujague's import-export business in 1956; told his mother he was going to return to work at Tujague's right before he defected in 1959; listed himself as a shipping export agent on his passport in 1959; and named Tujague as a reference with the proper address when he looked for work in 1963: See CIA document, "Chronology of Oswald in the USSR", Oswald 201 File, Vol 38B/ NARA Record Number: 1993.06.10.15:01:04:030000. Also see copy of 1959 passport, HSCA volume 4, p. 282. Also see Tujague's FBI interview, 11/25/63, CD 75, p. 4. Also see Report of SA William Newbrough that provides Tujague's proper address, 11/29/63, Oswald 201 File, Vol 3, CD75, Part 1. https://www.maryferr...bsPageId=994064 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jerry D. Rose was THE expert on LHO documentation. On pg 31 you can find in refs one through six for a deeper look at LHO records AKA FORGERIES ================================= http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=520478 == http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=28 == http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=29 == http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=30 == http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=31 Edited August 31, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 btw - you keep referring to the 7 students who attended Beauregard in 54-55 with Oswald... when our discussion is about the 53-54 school year... there is no doubt about 54-55... When we have a report card for both PS44 and Beauregard.. in the 53-54 school year records for Beauregard it shows attendance for 179 total days... I'll try explaining this yet again, David. You cite Derouse as evidence of two separate people because Derouse claims she taught Oswald in 1953 when the real Oswald was supposed to be in NY. Yet not one of those 7 students mentions 1953. They all say 54/55. Armstrong claimed that no one should dismiss McBride's statements to authorities about when he knew Oswald without interviewing him. Yet Armstrong was quite happy to dismiss those 7 students (among many other witnesses) without interviewing them. Seems he was only interested in interviewing those willing to support his theory. The rest, he could simply claim that the witness was mistaken or the FBI lied about what they said. Thus my comment about the game you guys play being rigged. Further, you claim that the FBI made Stripling records disappear because they were proof of 2 Oswalds - yet if your claims about Beauregard are correct, then how is it the FBI failed to make those disappear, as well? And why is it that proponents of this theory are the only people who claim there are problems with Beauregard records in the first place? the transcript also shows him taking only 2-3 classes for the FIRST SEMESTER (9/53 - 1/54) and attending 89 days of school with 1 absence from 1/54-6/54 he attended school 90 days with 4 absences Yet the PS44 records show him in NYC from 9/53 thru 1/54... If he didnt start at Beauregard until 1-13-54... how does he attend school for the entire 179 day school year when the SAME RECORD has him attending 168 days in the 54-55 year? Let's keep this civil Greg... I am NOT a cultist... there are obviously conflicting records and statements in many areas of this case... You have problems with the McBride statements... I have concerns with Robert Oswald, Marina Oswald, Marguerite Oswald and what John Pic all say about our LEE/HARVEY, where he was, when he was and who he was.... I have concerns with them too, but my concerns have nothing to do with mythical beings. That you continue to ignore the obvious physical differences described by witnesses along with the drastic ideological changes... AND the fact we cannot get an accurate height on HARVEY after 1958, nor do we see any images of LEE after 1958 with his mouth open showing his teeth bleeds right into this scenario being true... Yeah.... um... sure.... To conclude, I respect your opinion and your attempt at substantiation of this info... but I feel that a DoD letter stating something to be true when all the records indicate otherwise is not sufficient to superceded the existing records. Whatever. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) btw - you keep referring to the 7 students who attended Beauregard in 54-55 with Oswald... when our discussion is about the 53-54 school year...there is no doubt about 54-55... When we have a report card for both PS44 and Beauregard.. in the 53-54 school year records for Beauregard it shows attendance for 179 total days... I'll try explaining this yet again, David.You cite Derouse as evidence of two separate people because Derouse claims she taught Oswald in 1953 when the real Oswald was supposed to be in NY.Yet not one of those 7 students mentions 1953. They all say 54/55. Armstrong claimed that no one should dismiss McBride's statements to authorities about when he knew Oswald without interviewing him. Yet Armstrong was quite happy to dismiss those 7 students (among many other witnesses) without interviewing them. Seems he was only interested in interviewing those willing to support his theory. The rest, he could simply claim that the witness was mistaken or the FBI lied about what they said. Thus my comment about the game you guys play being rigged.Further, you claim that the FBI made Stripling records disappear because they were proof of 2 Oswalds - yet if your claims about Beauregard are correct, then how is it the FBI failed to make those disappear, as well? And why is it that proponents of this theory are the only people who claim there are problems with Beauregard records in the first place? the transcript also shows him taking only 2-3 classes for the FIRST SEMESTER (9/53 - 1/54) and attending 89 days of school with 1 absencefrom 1/54-6/54 he attended school 90 days with 4 absencesYet the PS44 records show him in NYC from 9/53 thru 1/54...If he didnt start at Beauregard until 1-13-54... how does he attend school for the entire 179 day school year when the SAME RECORD has him attending 168 days in the 54-55 year?Let's keep this civil Greg... I am NOT a cultist... there are obviously conflicting records and statements in many areas of this case...You have problems with the McBride statements... I have concerns with Robert Oswald, Marina Oswald, Marguerite Oswald and what John Pic all sayabout our LEE/HARVEY, where he was, when he was and who he was....I have concerns with them too, but my concerns have nothing to do with mythical beings.That you continue to ignore the obvious physical differences described by witnesses along with the drastic ideological changes... AND the fact we cannot get an accurate height on HARVEY after 1958, nor do we see any images of LEE after 1958 with his mouth open showing his teeth bleeds right into this scenario being true...Yeah.... um... sure.... To conclude, I respect your opinion and your attempt at substantiation of this info... but I feel that a DoD letter stating something to be true when all the records indicate otherwise is not sufficient to superceded the existing records.Whatever.DJ Yes Greg... "whatever"... PLEASE, DONT address the records AGAIN... the RECORDS show him attending Beauregard from Sept 1953 for 79 days while the RECORDS show him attending PS44 from Sept 1953 for 62Now let's look at your magnificent 7...Peggy Zimmerman - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=26This FBI report tells us that - when the FBI recontacted her on April 1, 1964 - Peggy Z attended BJHS with Lee Harvey Oswald during the 1954-55 school year...Was she asked if she saw him in 1953/54? Nope....Does she say anything else? Well, she says she was at BJHS for 3 years... 7th, 8th, and 9th grades... except she says she was in the 10th grade in 54/55 Real quality witness there Greghttp://www.aarclibra...H25_CE_2233.pdfMrs . PEGGY ZIMMERERMAN, 832 Avenue G, Marrero,Louisiana, actually that she attended Beauregard Junior HighSchool in New Orleans for three years and recalled that LEEHARVEY OSWALD also attended during the 1954-55 school year .She said she did not know him well enough to even speak tohim but seems to recall that he may have been in her homeroom as the tenth grade was set up alphabetically . She doesnot recall having any classes with himWhich means that in the 54/55 school year Oswald was also in 10th grade... ?? But that can't be Greg... Oswald was in the 9th grade - I know Greg... just another one of those MISTAKES that just happen with regularity in this case..This was the FIRST CONTACT on 11/25... and she described Oswald this way :She said she did not know him well enough to even speak tohim but seems to recall that he may have been in her homeroom as the tenth grade was set up alphabetically . She doesnot recall having any classes with him . She did state, howeverthat he was always alone and did not appear to have anyfriends .According to Myrtle and Julian Evans, the loud, boisterous Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard when he lived in their building at 1454 St. Marys Street during the first half of 1954.Mrs. EVANS - Well, it might have been a little later. It could have been in May or June of 1954, but possibly a little earlier than that. I can't remember that well enough to be definite on the month.Mr. JENNER - Where was this apartment?Mrs. EVANS - 1454 St. Mary Street, apartment 6, but now finally Margie decided that she couldn't afford that apartment, and moved, despite the fact that I was renting it to her for less than I would have anybody else, and I told her that.She came in one day and told me, "Myrtle, I am going to give the apartment up." She told me that she had seen a house out around St. Bernard that would be cheaper. She said she had rode around and looked at the house, and she thought that she would take it.Mr. JENNER - She had an automobile?Mrs. EVANS - No; she rode the bus out there.Mr. JENNER - She had no complaints about your apartment, did she? She just had found a cheaper place to move to?Mrs. EVANS - Oh, she was perfectly happy in the apartment. She said she liked it, but that she just couldn't afford it.Mr. JENNER - Who else was in the apartment besides Marguerite?Mrs. EVANS - Just her and Lee.Mr. JENNER - You did see Lee after they returned from New York?Mrs. EVANS - Oh, yes; they lived at my house for, oh, I guess about 6 months.Mr. JENNER - Including Lee?Mrs. EVANS - Oh, yes.HARVEY and the short MO lived at 126 Exchange during the time he went to Beauregard in the Fall of 1953Whereas LEE is living at 1454 St. Mary after he moved back from NYC...Peggy Z is the quality evidence and the witnesses you want to use to support your argument AGAINST H&L having attended in 1953? WHATEVERWell, let’s see if it gets any better…Mrs Bernierita Smith - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=26This too is a RECONTACT follow up report from this one: http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=332096yet like Peggy, there does not seem to be anything new in the April 1 RECONTACTin fact... the verbiage between Peggy's 4/1 report and Berni's is identical, as if the FBI had a simply statement to reconfirm... but for what reason?Did they go back and ask her about the 53/54 year... the one WE ARE TALKING ABOUT? doesn't seem so, not even at the WC... this is the whole thing.Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in understanding that you attended Beauregard Junior High School at the same time that Lee Oswald did?Mrs. SMITH. Yes, sir.They already had the more complete 11/25 statementsCan you think of a reason for these RECONTACTS when the results do not add anything to the record?Sure be nice to see if any one of the FBI agents actually ASKED about 1953/54 as the records for that year are the problem, not 54/55. And when asked at the WC, they are not specific about which year they are referring to…We both KNOW Oswald attends BJHS in 54/55… no dispute there… Why doesn’t the FBI ask about 1953 Greg?Onward and upward...Jack Loyakano - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview him?http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=715120Here's another good one in the list...Jack here seems to think Oswald was a year behind him in 54/55 - which would put him back in 8th grade in 54/55... when we know he was in 8th grade in 53/54...None of these people associated with Oswald, knew him very well, yet ALL OF THEM describe Oswald as the small, loner HARVEY was....Greg... Maybe help us understand why your FBI WITNESSES can't even remember what year, what grade, when and where they see Oswald in a year WE are not even discussing - yet you continually refer to them as some BACKBONE to your evidence against....YOUR FBI or WC lawyers wont even ASK these people about 53/54.... wonder why?Carroll Battistella - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=28Joan Burgard - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=29I can keep going with this Greg... but for you to use carbon copy FBI statements - conflicting statements as well - without signatures or corroboration for a school year we are not even discussing is absurd... no one, and no school records conflict with the 54/55 year… in fact BOTH LEE AND HARVEY are at Beauregard in the Spring of 53/54 school year… and both are in 8th grade One of LEE's teachers can't even remember that LEE wa in his CLASS... and you are sticking with these 7?I’ve posted a number of items of evidence to prove HARVEY was at BJHS in Sept 1953… as well as at PS44 in Sept 1953… that he was at 126 Exchange and at the Evan’s AT THE SAME TIME…You’ve offered nothing but rubber stamp FBI reports about THE WRONG YEAR?? And then go on to insult me repeatedly to boot.The FBI did not ask about 1953 or even include 1953 in their reports since Oswald COULD NOT BE AT BEAUREGARD and PS44 at the same time... They KNEW there was a conflict...Again, the reason Myra wasn't called to testify in 1964? She knew HARVEY and could prove that he was not LEE... and the FBI simply could not have that. If a person was aware of both people, they weren’t called…. The ONLY two who were aware and called were Robert and John… Robert LIED his A$$ off… John told it like it is… HARVEY does not look like the LEE, his brother, that he remembers.A few more on the size difference between these two boys, both calling themselves Oswalda PS #44 health card show that Oswald was tall. His height was listed as 5-foot-4-1/2, and his weight as 114 lbs in May, 1953.39 53-04*13-old-Oswald, at 5-foot-4, was nearly as tall as his 20 year old halfbrother, John Pic, who was 5-foot-6."40*the PS #44 health card fits the description of the tall, well-built, wellnourishedLee Harvey Oswald who attended Ridglea West ElementarySchool in Fort Worth, Texas, a year earlier.*the PS #44 health card lists Oswald's height at 5-foot-4-1/2, and is eifgh to ten inches taller than the boy who Dr. Kurian interviewed only a fewweeks earlier.* the PS #44 health card listed Oswald's height as 5-foot-4 again in September1953, only four months later. 53-04• New York Psychiatrists recall that Oswald was short*Probation officer John Carro described Oswald as a small boy.*Dr. Kurian described the Oswald he met in the spring of 1953 as short,slight, and about 4-foot-6 to 4-foot-8.*Dr. Renatus Hartogs wrote ( 1965-Two Assassins) that Oswald was "a slender, dark-haired boy with a pale, haunted face - remember thinking howslight he seemed for his thirteen years. He had an underfed look, reminiscentof the starved children I had seen in concentration camps. "Mrs Anna Langlois - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=27Fred O'sullivan - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview him?http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=27Do I really need to do the same with these two as well? Did you even bother going to the links yourself and see how ridiculous it looks? Same words – exactly, over and over with nothing to add but that these people barely remember Oswald yet attended BJHS with him in the one year we KNOW he was there… BFD Greg.How about a few interviews by the FBI with these same people or others asking if they attended BJHS with Oswald in the 53/54 year…Wonder why you wont be able to find any of those??Oh right… whatever. Edited September 19, 2013 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 1, 2012 Author Share Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) Still says 11/3 Greg. The day AFTER HARVEY leaves… not something you want to address… just another “Dr. Desk jockey” mistake to relieve the WCR of culpability… such a simply response that so easily lets you off the hook… and repeatedly weak. What is there to address, David? Are you claiming that medical records were not transferred along with personnel? I refer to HARVEY so that the discussion can be followed… The THEORY is that there were two men, the support for that theory MUST differentiate them for clarity. What YOU believe about Armstrong justifies ad hominem? Isn’t that the last refuge of a simply mind? So instead of describing the belief that the CIA used any and all tricks at its disposal including the creation of identities for the purpose of espionage – you want to insult? “Harvey” will continued to be used to describe the activities and history of a person that does not match LEE’s. You want to STOOP to ad hominem – have at it. I will focus on the FBI evidence you offer and the FACT you choose to believe a DoD letter to Blakey over the official records of the US MARINES. Not ad hom because it is factual and relevant. Again you are projecting. You are the one employing logical fallacies. Your standout one goes like this... "Harvey" is real, therefore "x" item must mean "y". The records were NOT a mess by any stretch…they show plain and clear that he was both in Taiwan and being treated in Japan… YOU want to explain it with anything BUT H&L… when there being two of them is just as realistic a scenario as everyone only making mistakes in relation to Oswald’s innocence. Of course they're not a mess, David. And of course if they didn't show something that could be incorporated into this ludicrous fantasy , you'd be saying they were altered. Because it's a rigged game you guys play. the BS story being concocted to cover the mistake of not removing these records is a mess… Chalking it up as yet another administrative mistake because the FBI/DoD tells you so strikes me as extremely naïve on your part. But then again you want to believe so badly that H&L are a fallacy you’d buy the mistakes of a clerk over the lies of the DoD/FBI… H & L is destroyed not because of these records, or because of any replies to any HSCA inquiries, but because it is constructed of the flimsiest of cards, some of which have been pulled from the bottom of the deck. Ft Worth riots in '56, not '58. 7 students remembering Oswald from 1954, not 1953, with not one claiming he wanted to be called "Harvey". One brother remembering coming to NY mid-year while the other brother recalls it as being start of year, with neither claiming there were 2 visits - yet it is claimed as 2 visits. Why? Because it suits Armstrong's purposes. John Pic not recognizing a photo of Lee becomes the now familiar formula: "X" (where X is no individual ever changes appearance in H & L World) + "Y" (where Y is that no one has imperfect memory unless the memory runs contrary to The Theory) = "it must be Harvey". The alternative explanation that he rarely ever saw Lee so it's not hard to understand Lee looked different to what he remembered, is just too simple and too sane to contemplate. And the list goes on and on. Greg… on the October 6 Unit Diary, Oswald is sailing back from Taiwan… I can understand if there w2as a last minute switch or stay-behind…. But when leaving Taiwan I find it very hard to believe that they left his name on the roster and did not know he was never there…… the RECORDS indicate an Oswald was in Taiwan and the records indicate an Oswald was in Japan at the same time. One mistake in an administrative record often snowballs. It's such a common phenomenon I'd be surprised if there was not a name for it. You've never had a problem with a utility company that causes much pain but eventually traces back to one little itty-bitty minor miss-transcription or miss-communication that snowballed out of control? No one has ever died in hospital because some doctor/nurse/admin person made one minor error on the patient record that was acted upon and led to more mistakes culminating in unnecessary medication or a wrong medical procedure? H & L World is apparently a perfect world where none of this ever happens; where everything is purposeful and explicable in terms of the H & L operation or the subsequent H & L cover up. Another of your logical fallacies: The government does bad things, therefore Harvey is real. [snip of arguments that are becoming too repetitive] William Trail states in one of theose FBI reports you put so much stock in, that he was in Taiwan with Oswald... that he was his difficult self and didn't get along with the other men (HARVEY that is) but you know all that right Greg? You have these docs memorized... Trail stated he had very little memory of Oswald and seems to only really recall that Oswald was supposed to going to Taiwan. The Oswald/Taiwan thing is vague from Traial to say the least. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57729&relPageId=12 And this pro-Armstrong page gives Trail short shrift, dismissing him as someone who "saw little of Oswald". http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/JR-JA.html Donovan on the other hand told the FBI that Trail had discussed knowing Oswald in JAPAN and the trouble he (Oswald) had been in there. Trail apparently said nothing to him about Taiwan. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=331798 “Little memory of”, “saw little of Oswald”, “Trail said nothing” Greg, give us a break already… If you are a little bit pregnant – you’re pregnant If he saw him only a little bit, from time to time, and did not hang with him but knew of his behavior… how do you equate that with HE WASN’T THERE? He never said "from time to time" - only that he saw "little of him" - which is consonant with seeing him for a short period and no more after that... which fits with Oswald having actually gone to Taiwan but not staying there very long. Your insertion of "from time to time" has one purpose and one purpose only - to give the impression that he saw Oswald in Taiwan only intermittently, but over a long period of time. That is an unwarranted interpretation. And I don't discount the possibility that his memory of seeing Oswald in Taiwan was simply in error; that he was actually recalling seeing him in Japan, and had merely heard rumors about him while in Taiwan. oh yes... that he was there but flew back... except that's not what the letter says.... it says "Oswald did not sail from Japan on Sept 16, 1958..... I posted it above... Yes it does. And I as said previously, my impression of the letter is that they don't really have a clue; that the records being a mess makes for too much ambiguity which leads to speculation. As always, the authorities were more concerned with heading speculation off at the pass than they were with establishing the facts. The way they always try to achieve that is by making strong, authoritative, unambiguous statements. Doesn't matter if what they say is true. It only matters that it dispels any concerns. They obviously could not have foreseen the rise of the Harvey cult. Trial doesn’t say he NEVER saw him, that he wasn’t sure if Oswald even was in Taiwan… He saw him there…. The DoD says he never left Japan - where DID you get that airplane back to Japan story anyway? There is at least one official document which SPECULATES that this may have happened, but that they don't think it did. I don't have time to hunt it down right now. [snip of more repetition] to be continued Edited September 1, 2012 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) I interviewed Palmer McBride, on camera, on October 2, 1994--apparently before John Armstrong was able to "work his magic"on the witness. Here is an excerpt of the transcript of that filmed interview, the part that dealt with the matter of Sputnik: DSL: Ok, let’s jump to the year of Sputnik. Ok? PM: Ok, October 4th 1957. I come home from work from Pfisterer, and Bill Wolfe calls me up and says "The Russians have launched an air satellite." I said "What!?" He said, "Yeah, 184 lbs." (PM. . continuing. . . ): I said "That’s incredible, Vanguard’s only 19." And we got into Sputnik and everything. We joined the Holy Cross Moon Watching Team at Holy Cross High School down in…I forget the name of the town….it was south of New Orleans, down in the industrial canal. And everybody wanted to see the Russian satellite. And we’d go down there and the teacher, name of Wendall Adams, I still have his signature on my certificate. We’d go out in the morning about 2 or 3 in the morning, and wait for the satellites to come over. And we did see the rocket carrier for Sputnik One and Sputnik Two itself. We’d see those go over in the early morning hours. I’d go from there, get on the bus and go directly to work. DSL: Let me ask you something. Was Oswald at Pfisterer when Sputnik went up? PM: Oh no, no, he’d left in 1956. DSL: So he was not there? PM: No. The whole thing with Sputnik was October 1957. DSL: Right. Did you have an argument with Oswald about Sputnik the day it went up at Pfisterer? PM: No. He left in the summer of 1956, he wasn’t there in 1957. END OF EXCERPT Its my opinion that John Armstrong "sold" a number of witnesses on the "historical importance" of his hypothesis, and that, as a consequence, they modified their accounts to be part of something that they believed was "important." Unfortanately, that's how he went about some of his "research" for HARVEY AND LEE and why we have the "filmed record" of these witnesses that are on the Internet today. DSL 9/5/12; 2:10 AM PDT Los Angeles, California Edited September 5, 2012 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Hello David, Long time no hear. Question, how early did you know that there needed to be a anti-Dual Identity argument ?? Cause your making it in October 1994. #################################### ############################### THOUGHT EXPERIMENT Marguerite Oswald didnt want to be a mother. At 171/2 she worked as a receptionist for a United Fruit Company connected law firm. United Fruit had deep ties with ONI. Getting rid of her children was a legal problem. Thus as a woman of small means she contacted her old work place to get free legal info. to rid herself of mother obligations. From ONI to the CIA LHO went. Its really simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- from Fair Play # 7 Lee Harvey Oswald---a U.S. Intelligence Agent: The Evidence Presentation by Hal Verb "Let me begin by first making a couple of quotations," Hal Verb began, adding that collecting quotations was something of a hobby for him. "There are two: 'We see what we see because we miss all the finer details,'...and 'There is only one thing that moves government on any level, and that is utter, stark fear.'" The first quotation was attributed to someone who was unintelligible on my tape recording, unfortunately---although Mr. Verb added that the man was the founder of general semantics. The second is by the late William Kunstler. "I'm talking about the fear when they see the people mobilized, who have truth on their side, and then do something about it," Verb continued. "That's why I'm here [at COPA], and I hope that's why you're here." Verb said, before getting to the body of his talk, that he did not know Lee Harvey Oswald, but Oswald knew of him, at least indirectly. Verb said in the early sixties, he---Verb---participated in distributing a Fair Play for Cuba Committee pamphlet, "Cuban Counter-revolutionaries in the United States," that Oswald ordered through the mail. Verb added that he used to write for The Militant and was a member and organizer of the New Jersey chapter of the FPCC. "Many of the theories that are bandied about say that [Oswald] was an agent of the FBI or the CIA...but I say he was an agent of the ONI...Office of Naval Intelligence...Since the Marine Corps is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Navy, and since his Marine Corps discharge was handled by the Navy, there's no way that you can have this discharge, and his conduct---before, during and after---unless the ONI started it." This association of Oswald, however, with ONI, does not by any means prove or disprove that if there were a conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy it follows that ONI is directly involved in that conspiracy. It can be argued, however, that a failure to completely uncover and thoroughly understand this Oswald-ONI relationship would, without doubt, prevent us from reaching any final conclusions as to the nature of the conspiracy: no other avenue of pursuit is possible unless this fact is recognized. Why is ONI singled out rather than the traditional and usual "spy" agencies (such as the CIA or FBI) when Oswald's intelligence links are cited? ...The argument can be offered that drawing attention to such agencies as the CIA and FBI provides an exercise in futility where these agencies become mere "whipping boys" frustrating serious attempts to unravel the truth of Oswald's ONI association, in a real sense, then, a cover-up of a cover-up. There are three distinct and substantive reasons to conclude that Oswald was an ONI agent. Of these three the first is logical and quite apparent and the other two relate to my own personal and direct experiences in tracking down, examining and analyzing the data in Oswald's short-lived career as an intelligence agent. The first of these reasons is, in my view, an obvious one. I would cite here what the American philosopher Alfred Whitehead's observation that "it takes an unusual mind to see the obvious." What is "obvious" here applies to the necessary fact that while Oswald was in the Marine Corps if there were any questions arising during his tour of duty about his "conduct" during (and after) his Marine Corps service it would come automatically to the attention of the ONI. That is because [as noted] the Marine Corps is under the jurisdiction of the Navy Department. Oswald's "discharge" status, thus, involved ONI vis-a-vis the Marine Corps and US Navy branches. The other two reasons involving my own experiences occurred in 1965 and 1966. The latter date I will cite here as it relates more directly to the first reason discussed above: Oswald's ONI links principally those immediately before his release from the Marine Corps. In December 1966 I appeared on a radio interview program in Oakland, California together with Harold Weisberg, the noted author of many books on the JFK case. At the very end of the show a caller, who would not identify himself, phoned in and wanted to speak with Weisberg. By happenstance I was able to hear what the caller had to say. Some of what the caller discussed is mentioned in Weisberg's Oswald in New Orleans (p. 87) [p. 85 in the Canyon Books edition---Ed.] but not all... "He [the caller] engaged in a recreational activity which I'm not going to mention, because it gives a clue as to who he is," Verb told his rapt COPA audience. "At least who I think he---who I've tracked down---think he is. In fact I tracked him down. I refused to give his name to any individual, and I finally gave his name to Harold Weisberg yesterday [October 21, 1995, presumably---Ed.] in a handwritten note. I did not want to put this in the form of a letter, or even mention his name. When Harold saw it, he said, 'That name seems familiar.' Now, I don't know what he's going to do with it. But, I have tracked this person down." Essentially, the caller, who was stationed at El Toro Marine Corps base when Oswald was there, knew Oswald and was a barracks roommate of his. Oswald, he asserted, had a "crypto clearance" and during Oswald's remaining two weeks before receiving his "hardship" discharge was constantly in the base's "C.I.D." (Criminal Investigation Division) HQ being "briefed" for a "mission." As we all know, Oswald went to Russia [right after his discharge]. The caller maintained that Oswald was "set up with a specific discharge" and that the "crypto" work involved "black box" stuff. According to the caller, Oswald worked in decoding "IFF" (Identification of Friend of Foe) aircraft. The caller said there were about 180 individual assigned to the unit and five were classified. Thus, Oswald had to be one of these five. "Now, the obvious implication is that Oswald was on a mission," Verb stated, "as an agent of the ONI. Now, like I say, I tracked down that person---and that's one of the reasons---that's my personal experience with showing that he is an agent." In testimony before the ARRB (the presidential Assassination Records and Review Board) in Dallas, November 1994, I cited this particular 1966 call and urged the Board to review this matter and interview not only those in the CID but also the ONI as well. I pointed out that if Oswald were briefed by the CID it could not escape the notice and attention of the ONI. To date (July 1995) there is no indication or prospect that the ARRB has or will look into this but, at least, now it is a matter of historical record. [Note: The ARRB is not an investigative body---Ed.] The second (personal) reason noted above deals with an event in 1965. A friend, knowing of my deep interest in the JFK case, gave me a record he found at a record store. This record, which I still own, is extremely rare (I've seen only one other copy) and was made around 1964. It is called The President's Assassin Speaks, and has Oswald's actual voice during a radio debate he had with Ed Butler (and others) in New Orleans, August 21, 1963. Produced by "Key Records" in Los Angeles, it is an anti-communist propaganda production of Dr. Billy James Hargis, founder and director of "The Christian Crusade." Naming Oswald as the assassin, the record strives mightily to link Owald with an (implied) communist conspiracy. If you listen to this record, the back of the record assures us, "you will be able to decide for yourself who gave the orders to Oswald to take the life of President Kennedy." My interest in this record, however, was not the propaganda content but rather in a discovery I made of a "slip" Oswald made on that tape while defending his stay in Russia as a "defector." Oswald "slipped" and stated he "was under the protection of the American government," quickly recovering from his "slip" and then saying he was "not under" that protection. "When I heard that record, I went ballistic. Of course, in those days you didn't use the term 'ballistic.' But I did go ballistic. I said, my God! The guy has slipped and made an admission---to me---which represents that he is representing the U.S. Government!... "So I immediately went to the [Warren Commission] volumes...and they left out the part where he says 'I was under the protection of---' and they leave in the 'I was not under the protection of.' "I just spoke recently to John Newman and I said, 'You know, John, why did you publish in your book, Oswald and the CIA---I'm a stickler for details. I mean, I probably find errors in virtually all the books, it's just something I do because I want to get the record straight---I said, 'Why did you publish that?' And he said, 'Hal, I just didn't know about that.' Of course, he's learned about it. So, all he did was reprint what's in the volumes. But the volumes didn't get it straight. You start questioning, why didn't the volumes publish it? That's another story." Forgetting for the moment [that] the Warren Commission "transcript" did not print Oswald's "slip," for myself, it again offered a clear and strong indication that Oswald was, indeed, a U.S. intelligence agent whose assignment was his stay in Russia. In summary for the three main reasons cited above the evidence is sufficient, compelling and substantive: Lee Harvey Oswald was a U.S. intelligence agent engaged in various activities at home (the U.S.) and abroad beginning with his Marine Corps discharge and ending with his death at the hands of Jack Ruby. As to the final question of the nature of the conspiracy: Unravelling Oswald's intelligence connections provides the key. The answer or answers lie staring us in the face if only we would truly look! As the noted philiosopher Wittgenstein so well counseled us, "Look---and then think!" ######################## ONI MATERIAL https://docs.google....LBDqiiLgLT7r4tw =========================================================== The Fourth Decade Conference at Fredonia, New York, July 19-21, 1996 by Joseph Backes Mr. Scott's presentation was an outgrowth of his Fourth Decade article. He mentioned that he interviewed Otto Otepka for the Canadian Broadcasting Company. The interview was not aired. Mr. Scott expected Mr. Otepka to be a reactionary type of person but was surprised to find he was not. Otepka was amazed that Oswald got his passport after his "defection" to Russia in just one day. Otepka stressed that that should never have happened. Mr. Scott referenced some documents he got in 1978 that he know understands much better with newer releases. Lee Harvey Oswald's records were being shuffled around various agencies by CIA Counterintelligence operation officials, or as they are known in ONI, counterintelligence programmers. OP/921E-2, 92 is ONI, 921 is ONI security, 921E is counterintelligence, and 921E-2, is counterintelligence programmers . The primary point is that they had an investigatory side and they had an investigatory file on Lee Harvey Oswald. The key documents were handled by counterintelligence programmers. Now the interesting thing is that no one seemed to care when LHO offered to commit espionage for the Russians, at the same time there were counterintelligence files on Oswald. Now on November 22, John McNaughton, the legal counsel for the Dept. of Defense, asks the Navy for files on Oswald; this goes to the Director of Naval Intelligence. Admiral Taylor's first reaction is "we can't give them this". And it comes through General Caroll of the DIA. Peter Dale Scott referenced a document, wherein Admiral Taylor is quoted as saying "Prepare a file on Oswald", this is referred to as the ONI file on Oswald. It is that but it was prepared on November 22 and it contains information from three other files, an investigatory file, a supplementary file, and yet another file. Now I think it is safe to assume that they are hiding something. McNaughton saw a different file than what we have today because he saw a reference to two confidential records and he asked for them. Apparently they refused to show those to McNaughton saying they were only transmittal documents. Paul Hoch filed a FOIA, Freedom of Information Act request for these two confidential records in 1978. An assistant to McNaughton asked for them again and was refused. Paul Hoch got them. One of them says, "Subject: Oswald, Harvey Lee". Mr. Scott pointed out that of the 40 or so Oswald, Harvey Lee documents that we have this is the only one that is pre-assassination. And it is an intelligence file. It is addressed to the Marines at the Glenn cue (sic?) 9th Naval district. Then it says ATTN: G-2. So the cover story that these were just transmittal documents belies the fact that Marine G-2 had files on Oswald. You might say, "Well of course Marine G-2 had a file on Lee Oswald, a Marine who 'defected' to Russia." The problem is that when Col. Folsom went to the Warren Commission (testimony begins Volume 8 p. 303) and said here is the official file on Oswald it was an unclassified personnel file. There was a reference to the two confidential records McNaughton wanted to see, perhaps a slip up but no longer in the ONI file. Mr. Scott noted that there were at least 4 telephone calls on Lee Oswald G-2 records. The relationship of Marguerite Oswald with John Fain and the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram is astounding. Read Mr. Scott's article in The Fourth Decade. The Marine G-2 preferred the earlier Marguerite version, based on a newspaper report, that Lee Oswald did defect, despite the fact that that is a State Department determination and that they said he did not defect. Marguerite wrote another letter saying that Lee was still a United States citizen, again based on a newspaper article. Marguerite wrote a letter on March 6, 1960 to Congressman Jim Wright saying that according to a UPI Moscow report Lee appeared before the U.S. Embassy and renounced his citizenship. On March 7, 1960 she wrote to Secretary of State Christian Herter saying that according to what she read in the papers the Russians refused his request but said he could stay as a Resident Alien. "As far as I know he is still a U.S. citizen."[1] I think the intelligence apparatus was mad as hell that the State Dept. was ruining an operation by saying Oswald did not defect. I think it was imperative that all believe he did indeed defect but for Oswald and those running this scheme, whatever it was, no legally Oswald did not defect. The civilians in the State Dept. were not clued in on whatever the operation was, thus they said he did not defect. This led to the conflict. The intelligence community is not interested in investigating Oswald, they are investigating the State Dept. and why the said he did not defect. There is a memo from a Mr. Vacek, of Marine G-2, warning the State Dept. that there might be Congressional interest in Oswald. This would be the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. I think Mr. Scott made a reference to me that the ARRB asked the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for SISS records and the ARRB was told there were no records from the SISS. According to John Bevilaqua, he asked the ARRB to look into the SISS and was told that the SISS is outside the ARRB's purview, same with the HUAC. Now I might have mentioned this somewhere along the line in my coverage of the ARRB but it was not in my Fredonia paper. Anyway, Peter was astounded and finds this inconceivable that there are no records as the SISS was extremely interested in Lee Oswald and extremely well informed. They wanted to know how Oswald got a passport in 24 hours! Mr. Vacek memo was in May 1962. SISS was very interested in this case in 1964. Mr. Fain writes a report that ends up in HUAC in June '62. When did the SISS first learn things about Oswald? The second passport was issued in June of 1963. Within days of Oswald getting this second passport, June 27, 1963 Otepka is walked out of his office by Kennedy administration appointees In September '63 Otepka is reprimanded for sharing things without authorization to Congressional authorities. In June his safe is drilled and removed are Oswald records. In 1964 Otepka told this under oath to the SISS. From 1959 until June 1963 Otto Otepka kept files on defectors. Otepka was trying to spy on what the U.S. or the U.S.S.R was doing with Lee Oswald. Edited September 5, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) David... This is McBride's statement on NOVEMBER 23, 1963 - can you explain how it is that Armstrong got to him between 1pm 11/22 and this interview? and how him telling you something in 1994 should supercede his statement from the weekend of the assassination. As opposed to his telling you what YOU wanted to hear... no chance he was MISTAKEN when talking to you as opposed to the FBI? What is a researcher supposed to do when he sees a statement like this, goes directly to the source and the source stands by the statement. it is NOT CONCEIVABLE to either you or Greg that the mistakes are occurring on YOUR SIDE of the equation.... and this statement from THAT WEEKEND is his true account? Are you amazed since this somehow got thru the FBI evidence screens ... that it so contradicts the actual timeline for the man as to render the "official timeline" useless in determining where he was and when... McBride is only the tip of the iceberg here... the contradictions appear in the documents offered by the WCR thru the FBI and are further corroborated in person. DeRouse is not some made up person... John not recognizing his brother is REAL.... One quick look thru Armstrong's work at Baylor and I found a listing of the different heights recorded for this ONE MAN that range from 5'5" to 5'11" and from 130lbs to 165 lbs.... from small, scrawny, quiet loner to LEADER of the group, a boy that NEVER backed down... HARVEY versus LEE... You will notice that Greg and his witnesses only deal with 1954/55 and NEVER the 53/54 school year... the FBI was very careful NOT to ask about this year of transition as a youth nor to deal with the actual switch in Sept/Oct 1958.... from LEE, to HARVEY as Lee... who was then sent to Russia... To reiterate... this is PM's statement to the FBI on 11/23/63 - how does this statement get colored by Armstrong's work 30 years later? http://www.history-m...H22_CE_1386.pdf "I, PALMER E. McBRIDE hereby furnish the following free and voluntary statement to JOHN R, PALMER who I know to be a Special Agent of the FBI . I have been advised that this statement can be used in a court of law . No threats or have promises been made to me . "I was born on November 29, 1937, at New Orleans, Louisiana . I enlisted in the United States Air Force on November 25, 1960, and since June 15, 1961, I have been assigned to Patrick Air Force Base, Florida . I am presently an Airman Second Class assigned to the 6550th Maintenance Group with Air Force Serial Number AF 25589222 . "In about June, 1955, I went to work as a dental messenger for the Pfisterer Dental Laboratory Company in the 200 block of Dauphine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana . In about December, 1957, a young man named LEE OSWALD was employed in the same capacity . Because we both enjoyed classical music I invited him to my home at 1416 Baronne Street, New Orleans, and he did visit my home perhaps two or three times . I was living with my parents at that time, and during his visits we would listen to records in my room . 'During his first visit to my home in late 1957 or early 1958 the discussion turned to politics and to the possibility of war . At this time I made a statement to the effect that President DWIGHT EISENHOWER was doing a pretty good job for a man of his age and background, but that I did feel On 11/23/63 ., Patrick Air Force BasJ-F;I, A TP 62-455 by: SA JOHN R, PALMER : tune Dar, dictated: 11/26/63 "In early 1958 I took OSWALD with me to a meeting of the new Orleans Amatuer Astronomy Association at the home of WALTER GEHERKE, 208 Hector Ave ., Metaire, Louisiana . This meeting was presided over by the Association resident, WILLIAM EUGENE WULF, JR ., 2107 Annunciation Street, New Orleans. At this meeting I recall that Mr . WULF told OSWALD that if he liked Russia so damn much why didn't he go over there .' I do not know what OSWALD had said to bring forth this remark from WULF . David... did you have him sign one of these? "I have read and initialled each page and all corrections on this six page statement . I declare that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . "/S/ PALMER EDWIN McBRIDE When asked, Slater and Fiorello say 1956.... yet their statements do not bear their signatures.... So WHO to believe? Eighteen-year-old Palmer McBride was one of the delivery boys who had been working at Pfisterer's for the past two years (he continued working at Pfisterer's until mid-August, 1958). Other delivery boys included 18-year-old Lionel Slater, 77 a native of New Orleans who began work at Pfisterer's in 1955, 28 year old John Ulmer, also a native of New Orleans,78 and 18-year-old Paul Fiorello. Edited September 5, 2012 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 This is McBride's statement on NOVEMBER 23, 1963 - can you explain how it is that Armstrong got to him between 1pm 11/22 and this interview? and how him telling you something in 1994 should supercede his statement from the weekend of the assassination. As opposed to his telling you what YOU wanted to hear... no chance he was MISTAKEN when talking to you as opposed to the FBI?What is a researcher supposed to do when he sees a statement like this, goes directly to the source and the source stands by the statement. it is NOT CONCEIVABLE to either you or Greg that the mistakes are occurring on YOUR SIDE of the equation.... and this statement from THAT WEEKEND is his true account? Are you amazed since this somehow got thru the FBI evidence screens ... that it so contradicts the actual timeline for the man as to render the "official timeline" useless in determining where he was and when... McBride is only the tip of the iceberg here... the contradictions appear in the documents offered by the WCR thru the FBI and are further corroborated in person. DeRouse is not some made up person... John not recognizing his brother is REAL.... One quick look thru Armstrong's work at Baylor and I found a listing of the different heights recorded for this ONE MAN that range from 5'5" to 5'11" and from 130lbs to 165 lbs.... from small, scrawny, quiet loner to LEADER of the group, a boy that NEVER backed down... HARVEY versus LEE... You will notice that Greg and his witnesses only deal with 1954/55 and NEVER the 53/54 school year... the FBI was very careful NOT to ask about this year of transition as a youth nor to deal with the actual switch in Sept/Oct 1958.... from LEE, to HARVEY as Lee... who was then sent to Russia... Greg has already explained what he has noticed. That is that it's a rigged game you guys play. I also want to state here and now that my argument does not rely on any of Mr Lifton's claims - though if he ever put the unedited interview on youtube, it might be useful supporting evidence. Not that any support is needed. The '56 Ft Worth riots put paid to McBride's alleged FBI statement. Yes, McBride apparently initialed each page of his report and no one else did. That should be a red flag for you - not me. I mean... you've got the FBI going to Stripling on the Saturday confiscating records to hide a supposed dual Oswald timeline - and on that same day, you've got the FBI not only interviewing McBride and NOT changing his report to fit one timeline - but actually getting him (and him alone among how many witnesses interviewed about the period of time in question?) to initial each page. But you guys are impervious to all the contradictions this mess of a theory throws up, aren't you David? I talk about the 54/55 year? Of course I do. Seven students all told the FBI they knew Oswald in 54/55 at Beauregard. Your claim that they only said that because they were not asked about '53 is typical of snake oil salesmen. If the FBI were trying to hide Oswald being at Beauregard in '53, you'd think those 7 ex students would be the ones to have been asked to initial each page and NOT McBride. But different rules apply to different witnesses in H & L world. McBride gets an interview from Armstrong with Armstrong trying to excoriate any researcher who questions McBride by stating categorically that they should interview him before dismissing him. Yet Armstrong flatly dismissed every single witness whose FBI report went against his theory WITHOUT INTERVIEWING A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Disgraceful double standards. On what basis does he dismiss them? On the basis that they did not sign their statements and therefore the FBI must have changed what they said. Pathetic logic because as I have demonstrated here, it makes the FBI look like Keystone cops - confiscating and changing evidence on Nov 23, while on that very day, making sure a witness who allegedly exposes all they are trying to hide, not only DOESN'T have his statement changed - he is asked to initial it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) David... This is McBride's statement on NOVEMBER 23, 1963 - can you explain how it is that Armstrong got to him between 1pm 11/22 and this interview? and how him telling you something in 1994 should supercede his statement from the weekend of the assassination. As opposed to his telling you what YOU wanted to hear... no chance he was MISTAKEN when talking to you as opposed to the FBI? What is a researcher supposed to do when he sees a statement like this, goes directly to the source and the source stands by the statement. it is NOT CONCEIVABLE to either you or Greg that the mistakes are occurring on YOUR SIDE of the equation.... and this statement from THAT WEEKEND is his true account? Are you amazed since this somehow got thru the FBI evidence screens ... that it so contradicts the actual timeline for the man as to render the "official timeline" useless in determining where he was and when... McBride is only the tip of the iceberg here... the contradictions appear in the documents offered by the WCR thru the FBI and are further corroborated in person. DeRouse is not some made up person... John not recognizing his brother is REAL.... One quick look thru Armstrong's work at Baylor and I found a listing of the different heights recorded for this ONE MAN that range from 5'5" to 5'11" and from 130lbs to 165 lbs.... from small, scrawny, quiet loner to LEADER of the group, a boy that NEVER backed down... HARVEY versus LEE... You will notice that Greg and his witnesses only deal with 1954/55 and NEVER the 53/54 school year... the FBI was very careful NOT to ask about this year of transition as a youth nor to deal with the actual switch in Sept/Oct 1958.... from LEE, to HARVEY as Lee... who was then sent to Russia... To reiterate... this is PM's statement to the FBI on 11/23/63 - how does this statement get colored by Armstrong's work 30 years later? http://www.history-m...H22_CE_1386.pdf "I, PALMER E. McBRIDE hereby furnish the following free and voluntary statement to JOHN R, PALMER who I know to be a Special Agent of the FBI . I have been advised that this statement can be used in a court of law . No threats or have promises been made to me . "I was born on November 29, 1937, at New Orleans, Louisiana . I enlisted in the United States Air Force on November 25, 1960, and since June 15, 1961, I have been assigned to Patrick Air Force Base, Florida . I am presently an Airman Second Class assigned to the 6550th Maintenance Group with Air Force Serial Number AF 25589222 . "In about June, 1955, I went to work as a dental messenger for the Pfisterer Dental Laboratory Company in the 200 block of Dauphine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana . In about December, 1957, a young man named LEE OSWALD was employed in the same capacity . Because we both enjoyed classical music I invited him to my home at 1416 Baronne Street, New Orleans, and he did visit my home perhaps two or three times . I was living with my parents at that time, and during his visits we would listen to records in my room . 'During his first visit to my home in late 1957 or early 1958 the discussion turned to politics and to the possibility of war . At this time I made a statement to the effect that President DWIGHT EISENHOWER was doing a pretty good job for a man of his age and background, but that I did feel On 11/23/63 ., Patrick Air Force BasJ-F;I, A TP 62-455 by: SA JOHN R, PALMER : tune Dar, dictated: 11/26/63 "In early 1958 I took OSWALD with me to a meeting of the new Orleans Amatuer Astronomy Association at the home of WALTER GEHERKE, 208 Hector Ave ., Metaire, Louisiana . This meeting was presided over by the Association resident, WILLIAM EUGENE WULF, JR ., 2107 Annunciation Street, New Orleans. At this meeting I recall that Mr . WULF told OSWALD that if he liked Russia so damn much why didn't he go over there .' I do not know what OSWALD had said to bring forth this remark from WULF . David... did you have him sign one of these? "I have read and initialled each page and all corrections on this six page statement . I declare that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . "/S/ PALMER EDWIN McBRIDE When asked, Slater and Fiorello say 1956.... yet their statements do not bear their signatures.... So WHO to believe? Eighteen-year-old Palmer McBride was one of the delivery boys who had been working at Pfisterer's for the past two years (he continued working at Pfisterer's until mid-August, 1958). Other delivery boys included 18-year-old Lionel Slater, 77 a native of New Orleans who began work at Pfisterer's in 1955, 28 year old John Ulmer, also a native of New Orleans,78 and 18-year-old Paul Fiorello. David (Josephs): First, a preliminary observation: the co-mingling of red and blue fonts is confusing, because--on this forum--a change in color usually is the way a third person inserts a comment. When, instead, red is inserted into text that is blue, as a substitute for italics, or "boldface," it doesn't create emphasis, but just confusion. Now, to the rest of my post. . . IMHO: The original FBI report was simply wrong--not because the FBI agents made a mistake, but because McBride made a mistake. Its that simple. Here was McBride,on November 23, 1963, having just learned that JFK was shot, and that this person he worked with was supposed to be JFK's murderer. Palmer McBride was not a researcher. He didn't keep a journal. He was doing it all by recollection; and he made a mistake. So what? Not only do the Oswald tax records establish that Oswald worked at Pfisterer in 1956, there's the corroboration coming from the William Wulf episode. (There's also the fact that McBride reports Oswald having written their supervisor a letter, from Fort Worth, saying "hello" to everybody, and talking about the racial demonstrations in Ft Worth--which occurred in late summer of 1956). Only by doing a lot of pulling and hauling is it possible to "argue" that the year all this occurred (i.e., when McBride knew Oswald at Pfisterer) was 1957 or 1958, and not 1956, which is obviously the correct date. When time permits, I can return to this subject and provide you with my own personal hypothesis as to why McBride was vulnerable to the sort of "pitch" that Armstrong gave him (and other witnesses), and which turned his "investigation" into more or less a "witness recruitment program". But for now, here is more of the Q and A between myself and Palmer McBride during that filmed interview on October 2, 1994. In this section, he is able to place his employment at Pfisterer as following his brief employment at the Weyerhauser Box company, which he vividly remembered as being between October, 1955 and January, 1956. Then, following Weyerhauser, he went to work at Pfisterer. Here is that excerpt, and how it occurred. When, on camera, I read him his official statement (“In about June 1956, I went to work as a dental messenger for the Pfisterer Dental Laboratories,”) McBride cut in and said: “No, that’s a typo, it was ’56.” And then he reflected back, told me about Weyerhauser Box company (which became an important time-marker in our conversation) and how his employment there was followed by Pfisterer, etc. We summed it up: DSL: I want to make this clear: you’re pretty sure Pfisterer comes after Weyerhauser Box? McB: Oh yeah, absolutely. DSL: [so] is it a fair statement to say that we go from Ebauma Food Company (phonetic), where you [worked] in New Orleans, and then in October 1955 to January 1956, you’re at Weyerhauser Box? McB: There you go, yeah. DSL: And then after Weyerhauser Box, comes Pfisterer [Dental Labs]? McB: Pfisterer, yeah. DSL: OK. McB: That was in January, 1956, not June [1955, as his FBI statement read]. * * * McB: I worked at Pfisterer; he (Oswald) came about April [1956]. April or so; April, May. Something like that. [For] about six weeks I knew him. DSL: OK. In this statement, you also write, “during his first visit to my home, in late ’57 or early ’58. . . “ McB: No, that’s not right. Its gotta be ’56. Its gotta be ’56. It can’t be ’57.” . . . . DSL: I want you to go through this. Do you have any theory as to why you were confused, why you thought it was ’57 or ’58 back when youmade the statement? McB: No. I can’t figure it out as to why I thought it was ’58. If he was already in the Marines in’56, he sure as hell wasn’t at Pfisterer. DSL: Well, let’s put it differently. You went to work at Pfisterer in January of ’56, after the Weyerhauser Box Company? McB: Right, after Weyerhauser. DSL: So it wasn’t too many more months—you didn’t have to wait a year to meet Oswald, did you? McB: No, it was a couple of months. Maybe March or April [1956]. I don’t remember exactly. DSL: And we don’t have exact [employment] records, either. And then later, after again going over his prior employment at Weyerhauser Box Company, he said, of the time he met Oswald at Pfisterer: McB: It was in ’56. It wasn’t in ’57 or ’58, no. It had to be ’56. * * * I really don't see the difficulty in understanding why, on November 22, 1963, and in the throes of being astonished at his supposedly having known the man who murdered Kennedy, McBride might not have made an error of the kind it seems obvious to me that he did. We're talking here about getting the chronology correct about exactly when he was employed somewhere seven and a half years before. Its most unfortunate that the Warren Commission did not (a) request the FBI to re-interview McBride and (b ) get McBride's (and Oswald's) employment records at Pfisterer; and (c ) call McBride as a witness. But back to Armstrong: just look at the way he behaved. When the ARRB unearthed the Oswald tax records, and it showed he (Oswald) was employed at Pfisterer in 1956, Armstrong immediately came up with the hypothesis that the tax records were forgeries. (And, of course, those who believed in his hypothesis went along with that extrapolation, too.) Go figure. DSL 9/5/12; 5:45 PM PDT Los Angeles, California Edited September 6, 2012 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) DAVID SORRY TO ASK AGAIN..... Remember the term premature anti- Fascist ? Well golly David ,seems you were on the CASE on anti-Armstrongism before Armstrong was publically popular. How did you become so prematurely anti-Armstrong ?? ######################### Edited September 7, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 DAVID SORRY TO ASK AGAIN..... Remember the term premature anti- Fascist ? Well golly David ,seems you were on the CASE on anti-Armstrongism before Armstrong was publically popular. How did you become so prematurely anti-Armstrong ?? Steve, I was not "pre-mature" anything. I was just asking questions, and seeking to straighten out the record. Which I think I did. DSL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 DAVID SORRY TO ASK AGAIN..... Remember the term premature anti- Fascist ? Well golly David ,seems you were on the CASE on anti-Armstrongism before Armstrong was publically popular. How did you become so prematurely anti-Armstrong ?? Steve, I was not "pre-mature" anything. I was just asking questions, and seeking to straighten out the record. Which I think I did. DSL So once again the comments from 30 years later trump the statements made that weekend...? cause they did not fit with the "official" story.. while these other NON SIGNED STATEMENTS help set the record MORE straight than before... OK... and I guess McClellend, Perry and Jones were all wrong as well... bummer. Hasn't the Boyijean document been proven a fake yet David? and then all those lies told by Dennis David and the rest of the casket bearers... other than that document and a few statements that were of course MISTAKEN... the 6:35 entry NEVER HAPPENED. and then of course G & K & S & O never did bring in a casket at 7:17... just a slip of the tongue... you know - a MISTAKE. So interesting how one author's facts are another's MISTAKES.... the idea of two people becoming one Oswald is so much more far-fetched than operating on JFK in the belly of AF-1... or taking a hammer/saw to his skull an hour BEFORE the actual autopsy... Witness statements and authenticated evidence is all we have David... and I don't believe that H&L hinges it's existance on McBride when there are scores of other conflicting documents to support the theory right there in the WCR. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 8, 2012 Author Share Posted September 8, 2012 DAVID SORRY TO ASK AGAIN..... Remember the term premature anti- Fascist ? Well golly David ,seems you were on the CASE on anti-Armstrongism before Armstrong was publically popular. How did you become so prematurely anti-Armstrong ?? Steve, I was not "pre-mature" anything. I was just asking questions, and seeking to straighten out the record. Which I think I did. DSL Hopefully your hypothesis will explain yet another back-flip by McBride in '99 David Lifton's Letter to the ARRB on Palmer McBride David Lifton refuses to accept the word of Palmer McBride that he knew Oswald in 1957, insisting that because Oswald was not in America, McBride must simply be in error. In this letter, made public by the Review Board, Lifton asks the Board to pursue the work records of Oswald and Palmer McBride for this period. (Lifton has never believed that there could have been two people sharing the identity of Oswald, even though J. Edgar Hoover himself postulated this in a now-famous memo.) Palmer McBride's Response to Lifton When McBride found out what Lifton had written to the ARRB, he composed this straightfoward response, citing additional witnesses beyond himself who can support his contention that Oswald worked for Pfisterer's in 1957 and 1958, and not in 1956. McBride challenges Lifton to deal accurately and fairly with the record, the whole record. http://www.ctka.net/backisss.html The above alone should be reason enough for you to make the video of your interview public. ------------------------- For Steve: This is the FBI report that gave birth to this cockamamie theory: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1386.htm I have demolished it on two fronts in this thread: "In April or May, 1958, OSWALD stated he was moving to Ft. Worth, Texas, with his mother. In about August, 1958, I received a letter from him saying he was employed as a shoe salesman in Ft. Worth. In this letter he also stated he had gotten mixed up in an Anti-Negro or Anti-Communist riot on a high school grounds in Ft. Worth, Texas. OSWALD did not elaborate on this statement." My response? Newspaper accounts demonstrate categorically that those riots happened 2 years prior to what McBride claimed - which places Oswald in Ft Worth exactly as the official time line has him there. The rebuttal? The one attempt to rebut this was so bad, I'm not surprised Steve seems to have dropped it. "During his first visit to my home in late 1957 or early 1958 the discussion turned to politics and to the possibility of war. At this time I made a statement to the effect that President DWIGHT EISENHOWER was doing a pretty good job for a man of his age and background, but that I did feel more emphasis should be placed on the space program in view of Russian successes. OSWALD was very anti-Eisenhower, and stated that President EISENHOWER was exploiting the working people. He then made a statement to the effect that he would like to kill President EISENHOWER because he was exploiting the working class. This statement was not made in jest, and OSWALD was in a serious frame of mind when this statement was made. Clearly, McBride never mentioned Sputnik in that first interview. McBride only said that HE told Oswald that Ike should do more on the space program in view of "Russian successes". Armstrong couldn't help himself. He took the year McBride gave and coupled that with "Russian success" in space and came up with the idea that they must have been talking about Sputnik ("McBride's recollection that Oswald and he discussed "Russian successes" in space surely means they surely talked at least after the launch of the first Russian space success:Sputnik on October 4, 1957."" ) But the fact is ( a ) anyone talking about Sputnik would have referred specifically to Sputnik, and not used the term he used and ( b ) as shown earlier in this thread, newspapers were full of stories in 1956 about "Russian success" in space. Copied from post 91: Soviet Race For 'Moon' Spurs US Pay-Per-View - Christian Science Monitor - May 4, 1956 According to reports , Soviet space . under the direction of t;ommission . on Travel. Some of the Soviet Union's top natural scientists are believed to be ... SOVIET SPACE SHIP IN '56 ENVISIONED; London Red Paper... $3.95 - New York Times - Jan 3, 1956 The Communist newspaper Daily Worker reported in a Moscow dispatch today that the Soviet Union might be ready to launch a space satellite this year.... Twinkle On, Little Star, Unsoviet Red From Afar $3.95 - New York Times - Mar 16, 1956 BURLINGTON, NC, March 15 (UP)-A suspected "Soviet space satellite," the subject of a top-secret Air Force study, turned out today to be a star in good ... --------------------------------------- I do agree with Mr Lifton that part of what Armstrong did was go on a witness recruitment drive. This drive extended to using a friend of a friend (Kutlady), and ignoring any and all witnesses whose witness accounts were not to his liking - which in turn enabled him to claim that their FBI reports were altered. Neat scam. But the jig, as they say, is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now