Jim Hargrove

Mr. Laverick, like all the people here trying to make the Bolton Ford incident go away, likes to deal in only a little bit of the evidence, hardly all of it. Mr. Laverick does not want his readers to know that both “Friends of Democratic Cuba” and “Oswald” were written on the same Bolton Ford bid. And he does not want his readers to know that among the officers of “Friends of Democratic Cuba” were none other than W. Guy Banister, who famously interacted with Lee HARVEY Oswald in New Orleans in 1963, and Gerard Tugague, Oswald’s EMPLOYER in 1956. What a coincidence! But we are supposed to believe this was some other “Oswald,” say “Matilda Oswald.” LOL!!! Attempting to mock the evidence he cannot refute, Mr. Laverick goes on to ask, “How delusional do you have to be to accept this childish nonsense?” Apparently a lot more childish than Hoover’s FBI, which in December 1963 was so alarmed that “Subject: Lee Harvey Oswald” actually “was trying to get trucks for Cuba” from “Bolton Ford Co.” that an airtel was sent to the FBI director himself (see below). Mr. Laverick correctly points out that Sewell described Lee Oswald as 5’6” or 5’7”, but fails to point out that Sewell also said “Joseph Moore” was “the shorter of the two” men, which, unless you want to consider “Moore” was under 5’5”, certainly leaves room that Lee Oswald may have actually been several inches taller. Mr. Sewell was undoubtedly more interested in the size of Oswald’s bank account than his frame. Mr. Laverick’s arguments are pitiful! He can try to use all the mocking words he likes, but the evidence is still here to stay!

You're asking me to clarify why the existing 1953-54 school records published by the Warren Commission comprise impossible contradictions? You're kidding, right? When YOU try to explain the conflicting 1953/54 school records, which clearly show "LHO" attended school simultaneously in NYC and New Orleans during the 1953-54 semester, you guys just consistently punt, claiming Greg Parker has all the answers. But you won't put those answers here. Why? Because you know that DJ, or Sandy, or I could just tear those so-called answers apart. Whether the existing documents are legitimate or were fabricated by the FBI is hardly the point. If they were fabricated, the FBI clearly made a mistake, probably because the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. Why would they have fabricated the documents? As always, in so many other situations, to hide the fact that two young men were going by the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" and, in this case, attending two schools simultaneously more than 13 hundred miles apart. It would have been an error, get it? If the documents are real, the issue is even simpler. I think the school records were altered significantly by the FBI, but imperfectly. They made mistakes. It isn't easy making a whole human being disappear. Here are the facts shown by the school records published in the Warren volumes.... NYC/New Orleans School Records.... In 1953, Marguerite and LEE were living in a basement apartment at 1455 Sheridan while LEE was attending PS 44. After the assassination SAC John Malone, the FBI agent in charge of the New York Office, inspected Oswald's original court file in the presence of Judge Florence Kelley. Malone took notes and sent a report to FBI Director Hoover the following day. Malone wrote, "Oswald's attendance record at PS #44 from 3/23/53 to 1/12/54 was 171 and 11 half-days present and 18 and 11 half days absent. If LEE Oswald's 182 days of attendance (171 full days, 11 1/2 days) and 18 absences are plotted on 1953 and 1954 calendars it is easy to see that LEE Oswald attended PS 44 full time during the entire 1953 school year. Here is the cumulative PS 44 record from the New York City School system: Below are the Beauregard cumulative record for LHO and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing it. Remember that the PS44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school. Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students. The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things. At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.” But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.” So which is it? Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period? The answer is right before us in the documents shown above. In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column. It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year. Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year. But that can’t be! Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken. On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers. Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year! The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school. So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard. It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days. For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for. Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year! Despite whatever spin Tracy cares to put on this, the NYC and Louisiana school records for fall semester starting in 1953 clearly show two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two different schools at the same time! Stripling School Records Disappear... A similar problem came up for the FBI when it looked at "Lee Harvey Oswald's" very next fall semester (starting in 1954). Although Beauregard records (see above) clearly showed he was attending school there, newspaper accounts, teachers, students and administrators, even Robert Oswald, all said Lee Oswald actually attended Stripling School in Fort Worth. John interviewed a number of people who knew Lee Oswald attended Stripling. Here are his YouTube interviews with two of them: The H&L critics active on this forum clearly don't give a damn about any of this evidence. They just want it to go away, but it won't.

Still waiting for Mr. Bojczuk's reply. Why does he ignore that fact that the Friends of Democratic Cuba's officers included none other than "Lee Harvey Oswald's" former employer and his New Orleans working partner Guy Banister (former head of the FBI Chicago office)? Why does he ignore the obvious fact that the Bolton Ford incident was such threat to the Official Story about LHO that Hoover himself was directly advised of the situation in the airtel above? And why does Mr. Bojczuk provide a link to a site that is intended to hide the significance of the incident rather than one that clearly exposes it? Here is where readers can read the truth about the Bolton Ford incident: http://harveyandlee.net/Misc/Bolton.html

Mr. Walton spends so much time trying to heap scorn on the evidence for Harvey and Lee and everyone who recognizes those facts that he doesn’t have time to understand even the most basic aspects of the evidence. Mr. Walton seems to understand that “a super-secret government-sponsored clone” as he puts it, “would make it look like Oswald was involved in some secret clone operation, then that actually PROVES conspiracy or will raise a lot of red flags in the official narrative of what happened.” Indeed! What Mr. Walton clearly doesn’t understand is that the FBI tried hard to make the evidence for two Oswalds disappear. This evidence actually goes back more than ten years before the assassination. This is why, for example, Hoover had to combine the school records for two boys going by the same name and try to make it appear that only one boy existed. That is why the Stripling school records all disappeared, despite all the people who said Oswald attended it. And the FBI made mistakes. The NYC school records do not jibe with the truancy case and, of course, they clearly show that one young boy attended school simultaneously in New York City and New Orleans. Despite the size and power of his FBI, Hoover was not able to cover all his bases, and the material he neglected to bury or alter is what we have left to figure out what happened in this case, and to figure out the true biography of “Lee Harvey Oswald.” Mr. Walton clearly is not interested in understanding even the most basic elements of the Harvey and Lee evidence, and his lack of understanding is clearly shown in his post above.

EXECUTIVE SESSION ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1978 House of Representatives, John F. Kennedy Subcommittee of the Select Committee on Assassinations, Washington, D.C. [. . . . ] TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. WILCOTT, A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Mr. Goldsmith. For the record, would you please state your name and address and occupation? Mr. Wilcott. My name is James B. Wilcott. My address is 2761 Atlantic Street, in Concord, and my occupation is electronic technician. [ . . . . ] Mr. Goldsmith. And, Mr. Wilcott, is it true that you are a former employee with the CIA and that you are here today testifying voluntarily without a subpoena? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. During what years did you work for the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. I worked from the years, May, of 1957 to, April, of 1966. Mr. Goldsmith. And in what general capacity did you work with the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. All in the finance--in accounting all of the time. [. . . .] Mr. Goldsmith. Drawing your attention to the period immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, at that time, did you come across any information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship with the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did. Mr. Goldsmith. And will you tell the Committee what that relationship was? Mr. Wilcott. Well, it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an employee of the agency and was an agent of the agency. Mr. Goldsmith. What do you mean by the term "agent?" Mr. Wilcott. That he was a regular employee, receiving a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work. Mr. Goldsmith. How did this information concerning Oswald first come to your attention? Mr. Wilcott. The first time I heard about Oswald being connected in any way with CIA was the day after the Kennedy assassination. Mr. Goldsmith. And how did that come to your attention? Mr. Wilcott. Well, I was on day duty for the station. It was a guard-type function at the station, which I worked for overtime. There was a lot of excitement going on at the station after the Kennedy assassination. Towards the end of my tour of duty, I heard certain things about Oswald somehow being connected with the agency, and I didn't really believe this when I heard it, and I thought it was absurd. Then, as time went on, I began to hear more things in that line. Mr. Goldsmith. I think we had better go over that one more time. When, exactly, was the very first time that you heard or came across information that Oswald was an agent? Mr. Wilcott. I heard references to it the day after the assassination. Mr. Goldsmith. And who made these references to Oswald being an agent of the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. I can't remember the exact persons. There was talk about it going on at the station, and several months following at the station. Mr. Goldsmith. How many people made this reference to Oswald being an agent of the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. At least--there was at least six or seven people, specifically, who said that they either knew or believed Oswald to be an agent of the CIA. Mr. Goldsmith. Was Jerry Fox one of the people that made this allegation? Mr. Wilcott. To the best of my recollection, yes. Mr. Goldsmith. And who is Jerry Fox? Mr. Wilcott. Jerry Fox was a Case Officer for his branch, the Soviet Russia Branch, [REDACTED] Station, who purchased information from the Soviets. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, did I ask you to prepare a list of CIA Case Officers working at the [REDACTED] Station in 1963? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, you did. [Witness then recites a lengthy list of case officers and station names, quite a few redacted in this document--jh] [. . . .] Mr. Goldsmith. At the time that this allegation first came to your attention, did you discuss it with anyone? Mr. Wilcott. Oh, yes. I discussed it with my friends and the people that I was associating with socially. Mr. Goldsmith. Who were your friends that you discussed this with? Mr. Wilcott. [REDACTED] George Breen, Ed Luck, and [REDACTED]. Mr. Goldsmith. Who was George Breen? Mr. Wilcott. George Breen was a person in Registry, who was my closest friend while I was in [REDACTED]. Mr. Goldsmith. Was he a CIA employee? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, he was. Mr. Goldsmith. And would he corroborate your observation that Oswald was an agent? Mr. Wilcott. I don't know. Mr. Goldsmith. At the time that this allegation first came to your attention, did you learn the name of Oswald's Case Officer at the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. No. Mr. Goldsmith. Were there any other times during your stay with the CIA at [REDACTED] Station that you came across information that Oswald had been a CIA agent? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. When was that? Mr. Wilcott. The specific incident was soon after the Kennedy assassination, where an agent, a Case Officer--I am sure it was a Case Officer--came up to my window to draw money, and he specifically said in the conversation that ensued, he specifically said, "Well, Jim, the money that I drew the last couple of weeks ago or so was money" either for the Oswald project or for Oswald. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you remember the name of this Case Officer? Mr. Wilcott. No, I don't. Mr Goldsmith. Do you remember when specifically this conversation took place? Mr. Wilcott. Not specifically, only generally. Mr. Goldsmith. How many months after the assassination was this? Mr. Wilcott. I think it must have been two or three omths [sic] after the assassination. Mr. Goldsmith. And do you remember were this conversation took place? Mr. Wilcott. It was right at my window, my disbursing cage window. Mr. Goldsmith. Did you discuss this information with anyone? Mr. Wilcott. Oh, yes. Mr. Goldsmith. With whom? Mr. Wilcott. Certainly with George Breen, [REDACTED] the circle of social friends that we had. Mr. Goldsmith. How do you spell [REDACTED] last name? Mr. Wilcott. [REDACTED] (spelling). [. . . .] Mr. Goldsmith. Did this Case Officer tell you what Oswald's cryptonym was? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, he mentioned the cryptonym specifically under which the money was drawn. Mr. Goldsmith. And what did he tell you the cryptonym was? Mr. Wilcott. I cannot remember. Mr. Goldsmith. What was your response to this revelation as to what Oswald's cryptonym was? Did you write it down or do anything? Mr. Wilcott. No; I think that I looked through my advance book--and I had a book where the advances on project were run, and I leafed through them, and I must have at least leafed through them to see if what he said was true. [Three pages of discussion about Wilcott's "Request for Advance" book follows but is omitted here. --jh] Mr. Goldsmith. And for purposes of clarification, now, if Oswald was already dead at the time that you went to this book, why did you go back and examine the book? Mr. Wilcott. Well, I am sorry--if Oswald was what? Mr. Goldsmith. At the time you went to look at the book, Oswald was already dead, is that correct? Mr. Wilcott. That is right. Mr. Goldsmith. Why did you go back to look at the book? Mr. Wilcott. Well, the payments that were made especially to substations like Oswald's was operated--it was a substation of the [REDACTED] Station, and they had one in [REDACTED] and they had one in [REDACTED]--and it may be six months or even a year after the initial allocation that the final accounting for those funds were submitted, and they would operate out of revolving funds or out of their own personal funds in many cases. Mr. Goldsmith. So, is your testimony then that even though Oswald was already dead at the time, the book might have contained a reference to either Oswald or the Oswald project and that that reference would have been to a period six months or even a year earlier, is that correct? Mr. Wilcott. That is correct. [As far as I can determine from this 54-page typed document, HSCA Counsel Michael Goldsmith never asks Wilcott the essential question, which would be: "Was the Oswald cryptonym you no longer recall in your "Request for Advance" book?" Strange. The most relevant testimony is found on pages 18-19, as follows. --jh] Mr. Goldsmith. But as a matter of routine, would the CIA cash disbursement files refer to the cryptonym of either the person or the project that is receiving funds? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I am sure somewhere. Mr. Goldsmith. As a matter of routine, there would be that reference? Do you believe that there was such a reference to Oswald? [Mr. Wilcott.] Yes, I do, and I believe there was such a reference.

Hey, Sandy. Please check your personal messages. I've been trying to reach you.

FINALLY!! Mr. Parnell goes on the record with a single sentence describing Greg Parker's "debunking" of the school records. But, of course, Parnell/Parker are completely wrong! Let's see how: Below are the Beauregard cumulative record for LHO and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing it. Remember that the PS44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school. Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students. The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things. At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.” But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.” So which is it? Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period? The answer is right before us in the documents shown above. In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column. It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year. Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year. But that can’t be! Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken. On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers. Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year! The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school. So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard. It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days. For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for. Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year! Despite whatever spin Tracy cares to put on this, the NYC and Louisiana school records for fall semester starting in 1953 clearly show two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two different schools at the same time!

Mr. Bojczuk cherry picks his quotes and doesn't even bother to read the full transcript of the Garrison's interview with Fred Sewell. In it, Mr. Sewell makes abundantly clear that the can't remember for sure whether "Oswald" or "Lee Oswald" was written on the bid, although he did "remember the men." It should be noted that the FBI took Oswald's bid form immediately after it was located at Bolton Ford. Here's the relevant excerpt, emphasis added: JG: Do you ever recollect he said LEE OSWALD. FS: I think LEE OSWALD, and I think OSCAR wrote it down. Or that may be - it's been six years I may be wrong. If you have that paper you know. I can't remember that long. But I remember the men. So then when the President was assas- inated and the name came out, OSCAR come in either the nex morning or the morning after and and said, "Say Fred, do you remember those two guys who was in here from Cuba trying to get some buses cheap?" and I said,"Yes". He sai "I think that one of those men was the one who killed the President." I said, "Aw your kidding" and he said "We've got a piece of paper around here somewhere with a bid on it." He went and hauled that piece of paper out and the OSCAR called the F.B.I. JG: Did it have "OSWALD" on it or "LEE OSWALD"? Do you remember looking at it? FS: I can't remember that. It's been six years but I know that the man who identified himself as OSWALD was in the office and made that remark. Now, I do know that. Mr. Bojczuk ignores the specificity of the information provided above by Fred Sewell and goes on, as usual, to explain how awful I am. Mr. Bojczuk then writes the following remarkable sentence: "Fred Sewell's recollection was faulty, and there is no reason to conclude that the man who visited the Bolton Ford dealership used the name 'Lee Oswald'." Mr. Bojczuk probably wrote those words with a straight face, even though he wasn't at the Bolton Ford dealership and Fred Sewell was. Mr. Bojczuk chooses his words carefully, but does he REALLY believe that LEE OSWALD wasn't at the Bolton Ford dealership? To do so, of course, he must pretend he doesn't know that officers of the "Friends of Democratic Cuba" organization written on the bid included none other than Guy Banister and Oswald's former employer Gerard Tugague. Gerard Tugague employed Oswald in late 1955 and early 1956 at the 300 Sanlin Building in New Orleans. Mr. Bojczuk desperately wants us to believe that it was some other "Oswald" at Bolton Ford, but he knows that the FBI knew better. It clearly understood that the "SUBJECT: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" had been to the Bolton Ford dealership seeking trucks for Cuba, and the issue was alarming enough to end an airtel directly to J. Edgar Hoover himself. As always, Mr. Bojczuk concludes his post with links to other sites, saying the truth about the Bolton Ford incident is there. But the truth isn't there. The truth about the Bolton Ford incident is here: http://harveyandlee.net/Misc/Bolton.html

Mr. Bojczuk opines.... When I suggested to Mr. Bojczuk that Fred Sewell's interview with Jim Garrison and assistant district attorney James Alcock was more reliable, and far more complete, than the brief FBI report that didn't even indicate Oscar Deslatte's exact words, Mr. Bojczuk declared the FBI report was more reliable. To reinforce this, he wrote: We are to believe the FBI report. There are two reasons to believe that Sewell's account is less reliable than Deslatte's. Firstly, Sewell's account was given several years later than Deslatte's. Secondly, one claim that Sewell made is demonstrably wrong: that Deslatte wrote the full name 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. The paperwork contains only the name 'Oswald'. Remarkably, Mr. Bojczuk gets even this simple fact wrong. From the Garrison transcript: JG: Did it have "OSWALD" on it or "LEE OSWALD"? Do you remember looking at it? FS: I can't remember that. It's been six years but I know that the man who identified himself as OSWALD was in the office and made that remark. Now, I do know that. One must wonder where Mr. Bojczuk's faith in the FBI's role in the so-called investigation can possibly come from. It's work has been a disgrace, and we now know that it was held in disrepute even by members of the Warren Commission. Writing in the November 21, 2016 edition of Consortiumnews.com, Dr. Gary Aguilar summarized what even members of the Warren Commission and the HSCA felt about the FBI's betrayal of the public trust in the Kennedy assassination aftermath: “What was significant,” Blakey determined, “was the ability of the FBI to intimidate the Commission, in light of the Bureau’s predisposition on the questions of Oswald’s guilt and whether there had been a conspiracy. At a January 27 [1964] Commission meeting, there was another dialogue [among Warren Commissioners]: “John McCloy: ‘… the time is almost overdue for us to have a better perspective of the FBI investigation than we now have … We are so dependent on them for our facts … .’ “Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin: ‘Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problem. They have decided that no one else is involved … .’ “Senator Richard Russell: ‘They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.’ “Senator Hale Boggs: ‘You have put your finger on it.’ (Closed Warren Commission meeting.)” [Blakey & Billings, Fatal Hour– The Assassination of President. See also: North, Act of Treason] Testifying before the HSCA, the Warren Commission’s chief counsel J. Lee Rankin shamefully admitted, “Who could protest against what Mr. Hoover did back in those days?” Apparently not President Lyndon Johnson’s blue-ribbon commissioners. The HSCA’s Blakey also reported that “When asked if he was satisfied with the (Commission’s) investigation that led to the (no conspiracy) conclusion, Judge Burt Griffin (a Commission staff member) said he was not.” [Blakey & Billings, Ibid.] Mr. Bojczuk REALLY want us to believe the FBI report on Deslatte over the Garrison transcript of Fred Sewell’s interview! Well, let’s see some more about how reliable the FBI was in this case…. Here’s a brief three-minute YouTube movie proving how the FBI altered statements by crucial Dealey Plaza witnesses so that it could pin the blame solely on Lee Harvey Oswald. Here’s an example of how the FBI had a procedure in place to materially alter the testimony of its own agents, even over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys: And here’s my favorite: In the wee hours of the night of Nov 22-23, 1963, the FBI secretly took “Oswald's Possessions” from the Dallas Police Department, transported them to Washington, D.C. altered them, and then secretly returned them to Dallas, only to publicly send them to Washington. D.C. a few days later. Among a great many other alterations, a Minox “spy camera” became a Minox “light meter.” FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the bean about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC. Mr. Bojczuk's faith in the FBI appears to be seriously misplaced!

Is this your pitiful attempt to divide and conquer, Bernie? To see David Joseph's in-depth knowledge of the Kennedy Case, all you need to do is look at his articles published on Jim DiEugenio's Kennedys and King website. They are breathtaking in their detail. I especially enjoyed his series on Mexico City, which you no doubt are totally unaware of.

Sandy, Great catch! You make a terrific argument that there are remnants of Russian-style Cyrillic lettering near the outer edge of the white quarter circle at lower right of the photo. Or at least remnants of something that was partially erased. A couple of other points…. Whoever made this hoax may have had photos of Russian-speaking Oswald, but not the right kind. Think of all the requirements for U.S. passport photos: the entire face has to be in the image, covering a specific percentage of the image area; the subject has to be directly facing the camera; subjects are usually told not to smile, and so on. The vast majority of common snapshots simply will not meet those criteria. But if the Russian-speaking Oswald made this composite himself, why wouldn’t he get a suitable picture of himself so he could simply paste it over the ID card of the taller American-born Oswald? It was work to attempt to obscure the quarter circle of white from the image. I think this suggests, though hardly proves, that the ID was faked by someone other than Harvey Oswald.

Quite obviously, Mr. Bojczuk has decided not to respond to this post. If he does respond, it will consist primarily of just complaints about how horrible I am followed by a link to some incomplete nonsense by Greg Parker. Mr. Bojczuk will put nothing substantial about the Bolton Ford Incident up on this website. I wonder why?

Ya gotta at least give Mr. Parnell points for chutzpa. Again and again for YEARS, he declares Harvey and Lee dead and buried, and yet he cannot explain even the simple contradictions explored in this very thread, for example: The Bolton Ford incident, Oswald’s pre- and post “defection” Russian language skills, Oswald’s remarkable simultaneous appearances in NYC and New Orleans schools simultaneously, his uncanny ability to receive penicillin injections in Japan and sail the high seas to Taiwan simultaneously, and so on. Mr. Parnell often says he can’t explain every little thing, or something like that, and then he says Greg Parker has all the answers. In other words, look over there, but not here, not on the JFK Assassination Debate forum. It is a tactic all the H&L critics who can’t answer the issues have adopted. Funny how they all act in concert.

You're right, Tom, the dimensions appear quite different, with the back side appearing MUCH wider proportionally than the front side. I can't explain it, and I'm not sure where John got the images, although he got a ton of material directly from the National Archives. Does this make you suspicious of something? With digital imaging, obviously, it is extraordinarily easy to deliberately or accidentally change the aspect ration of a photo. One wrong click and drag with a mouse can do it. Do you see something more sinister?

Thanks for the posts, DJ. it also looks to me like this whole fabrication was simply to put a photo of the shorter Russian-speaking Oswald on the ID card of the 71” American-born Oswald. So... I assume you’d think that the true image on the original ID card was of the taller Oswald. Since Nagell’s fuzzy card shows a different image and signature, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that Nagell's copy may have been made before the alteration, and it therefore shows the taller, American-born Oswald? Does it look like some of the pix we assume are Lee (the widow's peak, etc).

Since Mr. Norwood has decided to drop by the JFK Assassination Debate forum, I thought some readers might be interested in taking a look at his fascinating article on the Harvey and Lee Website. Just follow this link: http://harveyandlee.net/J_Norwood/Legend.html

Anyone who thinks CIA officials would be unwilling to perform an unnecessary mastoidectomy on a young boy just to meet the goals of the Oswald Project should take a look at the CIA's MKULTRA program, in which hundreds and probably thousands of unsuspecting Americans from every walk of life were poisoned with LSD. Some of the decision-makers in the CIA during the 1950s and 1960s were clearly criminally insane.

Mr. Bojczuk apparently is unable to respond to the above. He'd rather, as always, just post links to Greg Parker, pretending the answers are there. Why is he so afraid to respond?

Welcome, Mr. Norwood! It's good to see you here. Hope you find the time to stay for a while.

Yeah, but the Russkies might have confiscated his walking papers to let him go, no? However, any idea what a photo ID on those papers would look like?

This thread began when an H&L critic made fun of our contention that Lee HARVEY Oswald spoke far better Russian than he should have according to his official biography. The H&L critics clearly thought we were supposed to believe their opinions over the opinion of Yale University Slavic Language Department head Vladimir Petrov, who wrote that a letter supposedly written by Harvey Oswald was actually "written by a Russian with an imperfect knowledge of English." And, of course, we're supposed to believe that, while reading Russian magazines with a Russian-English dictionary in his spare time in the Marine Corps, and while working full time in a factory in Minsk and taking only a handful of language language tutoring session, Harvey Oswald learned to write Russian like this: And, of course, we're supposed to assume that the H&L critics know more about Harvey Oswald's Russian abilities than his friend George De Mohrenschildt, a Russian immigrant who wrote the following in his manuscript entitled "I AM A PATSY! I AM A PATSY": Incidentally I never saw him interested in anything else except Russian books and magazines . He said he didn't want to forget the language - but it amazed me that he read such difficult writers like Gorki, Dostoevski, Gogol, Tolstoi and Turgenieff - in Russian. As everyone knows Russian is a complex language and he was supposed to have stayed in the Soviet Union only a little over two years. He must have had some previous training and that point had never been brought up by the Warren Committee - and it is still puzzling to me. In my opinion Lee was a very bright person but not a genius. He never mastered the English language yet he learned such a dif- icult language! I taught Russian at all level in a large University, and I never saw such a profficiency in the best senior students who constantly listened to Russian tapes and spoke to Russian friends . As a matter of fact American-born instructors never mastered Russian spoken language as well as Lee did. No doubt we're also supposed to believe the opinions of H&L critics over the opinions of other Russian immigrants around Dallas who met Harvey Oswald and shared their thoughts: Natalie Ray was asked by Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler, "Did he (Oswald) speak to you in Russian?" Mrs. Ray replied, "Yes; just perfect; re­ally surprised me ... it's just too good speaking Russian for be such a short time, you know.... I said, 'How come you speak so good Russian? I been here so long and still don't speak very well English." Mrs. Teofil (Anna) Meller was asked by Liebeler, "Do you think that his com­mand of the Russian language was better than you would expect for the period of time that he had spent in Russia?" Mrs. Meller replied, "Yes; absolutely better than I would expect." Peter Gregory told Warren Commission Representative Gerald Ford, "I thought that Lee Oswald spoke (Russian) with a Polish accent, that is why I asked him if he was of Polish decent." And on and on. No doubt H&L critics want us to believe that Harvey Oswald's Russian fluency was a natural result of his self-study in the Marines and his two and a half years in the USSR, but I don't believe it, and I think a whole lot of people without an axe to grind in this debate won't believe it either. And I haven't even mentioned above Harvey Oswald's obvious familiarity with the Russian language before he even "defected" to the Soviet Union.

Fascinating! Doubt you'll get any takers, and if you do I doubly doubt they'll ever admit their utter failure, but fail they will. Your support is appreciated.

I also think the DoD ID is a fake. But the most interesting new information from this thread, for me at least, is Chris Newton’s discovery of how much the Oswald mug shot on it looks like a Russian passport photo. According to Oswald’s 1959 passport, it was valid for two years after the issue date (see immediately under EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL)... ...and since the issue date was Sept. 10 1959…. …. Oswald’s passport would have expired on Sept. 10, 1961. According to the Official Story®, Oswald flew from Minsk to Moscow on Saturday, July 8, 1961, called Richard Snyder at home, and said he wanted to return to the United States. Snyder said he wanted to interview Marina, and she, apparently like her husband, also flew to Moscow the following Monday, and like her husband, didn’t seek police permission. That same Monday, Snyder supposedly renewed Oswald’s U.S. passport. Why then, do we have what appears to be a Soviet passport photo of Oswald attached to a phony DoD ID card? Could it be that the official story is untrue, that Oswald DID NOT get his U.S. passport renewed at the American Embassy, and instead traveled back to the U.S. on a Soviet passport? Would there be any other reason for Oswald to have obtained a Soviet-style passport photo of himself? Has anyone ever seen a hint of any evidence that Oswald had a Russian passport?

In his latest screed, Mr. Bojczuk spends far more time explaining how horrible and biased I am than he does discussing the actual evidence. After declaring, again and again, how Greg Parker has explained all this, he finally does get to a small part of the evidence, however briefly. Here is Mr. Bojczuk’s entire stab at debunking the significance of the Bolton Ford incident: The earliest account of the Bolton Ford incident, by Oscar Deslatte, mentions someone called 'Oswald', and specifically denies that a first name was given. Jim, following scripture, ignores this and prefers the account from several years later, in which Fred Sewell, who did not deal directly with the man named Oswald, recalled that the man gave the first name 'Lee' and that Deslatte wrote the full name, 'Lee Oswald', on the paperwork. But the paperwork only contains the name 'Oswald'. Unless the FBI tampered with its report of Deslatte's interview and with the Bolton Ford paperwork (I'm afraid I may be putting ideas in Jim's head here), Sewell's recollection was faulty. Sewell was wrong to claim that the man gave the name 'Lee Oswald'. Jim cites Sewell's unreliable evidence, which incorrectly ties 'Lee Oswald' with the incident, and simply ignores the evidence which shows Sewell to have been an unreliable witness. By “earliest account of the Bolton Ford incident,” Mr. Bojczuk is referring to the FBI report of 11/25/63 buried in a lengthy Warren Commission document. By suggesting that the report says Deslatte and the bid mentions only “Oswald” and not “Lee Oswald,” Mr. Bojczuk wants us to believe it could be referring to any old Oswald, say Francis Oswald, or Ezekial Oswald, or... you get the picture. Mr. Bojczuk wants us to believe that just about anyone other than “Lee Oswald” was being referred to. Of course, this begs the question: If Mr. Deslatte didn’t think it was “Lee Oswald,” why did he remember the incident two years later and why did he contact the FBI? Mr. Bojczuk fails to mention that the “Friends of Democratic Cuba” is listed on the Bolton form along with the name “Oswald.” Mr. Bojczuk fails to acknowledge that among the officers of “Friends of Democratic Cuba” were none other than W. Guy Banister, who famously interacted with Lee HARVEY Oswald in New Orleans in 1963, and Gerard Tugague, Oswald’s EMPLOYER in 1956. What a coincidence! Mr. Bojczuk also fails to mention that, by Dec. 19, 1963, the SAC in New Orleans was already confirming directly to J. Edgar Hoover himself that a man named Charles Pearson, who was office manager at Graham Paper Company, had stated that his friend Oscar W. Deslatte, assistant manager of truck sales at Bolton Ford, had been contacted by Oswald about buying trucks. Worse yet, the whole process of investigating the incident was prompted by a phone call from none other than Carlos Bringieur, the man who pretended to fight and then debate on the radio with “Lee HARVEY Oswald in August 1963 in New Orleans The FBI report that Mr. Bojczuk is so enamored with specifically states that “DESLATTE was exhibited a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD.” And yet, Deslatte’s boss, Fred Sewell, specifically denied that claim to Jim Garrison. He said, “No. They didn’t show us no pictures.” And he said it several times. So who are we to believe, the FBI report on Deslatte or the Garrison transcript of Fred Sewell’s interview. Well, let’s see how reliable the FBI was in this case…. Here’s a brief three-minute YouTube movie proving how the FBI altered statements by crucial Dealey Plaza witnesses so that it could pin the blame solely on Lee Harvey Oswald. Here’s an example of how the FBI had a procedure in place to materially alter the testimony of its own agents, even over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys: And here’s my favorite: In the wee hours of the night of Nov 22-23, 1963, the FBI secretly took “Oswald's Possessions” from the Dallas Police Department, transported them to Washington, D.C. altered them, and then secretly returned them to Dallas, only to publicly send them to Washington. D.C. a few days later. Among a great many other alterations, a Minox “spy camera” became a Minox “light meter.” FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the bean about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC. Mr. Bojczuk wrote: Unless the FBI tampered with its report of Deslatte's interview and with the Bolton Ford paperwork (I'm afraid I may be putting ideas in Jim's head here).... It is obvious to any fair observer of this case that the FBI tampered with evidence in a major way.