Jim Hargrove

Von Pein.... TAKE MY WORDS OFF YOUR WEBSITE!

Von Pein.... TAKE MY WORDS OFF YOUR WEBSITE!

David: Take my words off your site! You have debunked NOTHING! Quoting Sandy Larsen... Jim DiEugenio and Jim Hargrove are right about DVP's website giving him the last word. I have a perfect example. Several posts ago Scott Kaiser tried to prove to DVP that postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps. Unfortunately he quoted regulations for DISBURSEMENT postal money orders, which are a special type of PMO and not the type used by Hidell. In Post 85 on this page, DVP replied by pasting from his website a sequence of posts made by DVP's buddies on another forum, where they point out that I had made the same mistake. Oddly, one of the posts among them was mine from THIS forum, not theirs. So David showed Scott that he was wrong. Not surprisingly, David didn't reveal to Scott the FRB circulars that cover regular money orders and prove that they too require bank stamps. Anyway, I wondered if DVP posted ANYTHING on that page of his website regarding FRB circulars and my proof. What I found is, to say the least, enlightening. The date span of that page on DVP's site covers the whole PMO debate, up through yesterday. So it should have posts regarding my proof. But no, there is not one single post where I show that the FRB circulars tell bank managers that bank stamps are indeed required on PMOs. Not One! In addition, I stumbled across an odd exchange between me and David on his site. David had this theory that banks didn't stamp individual items, but instead stamped the deposit slip (called a "cash letter") just once for all items. I proved him wrong by showing an actual check that Oswald had deposited. Here is what he has on his site: SANDY LARSEN SAID: It is easy to prove today -- right now -- that a bank stamp on a cash letter (bulk deposit slip) wasn't the way things were done in the 1960s. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that cash items were NOT stamped individually, because it was done on the cash letter. If that were the case, then how would you explain check #7419 on this page? On the reverse side of the check you can see the FRB Chicago stamp (rectangular), so you know the check was processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. And you can see two bank stamps for Fort Worth National Bank (one is a hexagon and the other a rectangle with a decorative border). Since this is a national bank, it was the one that submitted the check to FRB Chicago. Why are those bank stamps there, David?? When one stamp on the cash letter would have sufficed? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Probably because you're talking about CHECKS and not POSTAL MONEY ORDERS in that example, Sandy. That's why. Big difference. The First National Bank of Chicago very likely handled Postal Money Orders differently (in bulk) than they did checks. What? No rebuttal from me? Well, no. Not on DVP's site. But if you go to the source -- this forum -- there IS a rebuttal. Here it is: SANDY LARSEN SAID: But the part of the regulation you quoted, regarding bulk deposits and cash letters, applies to all cash items, not just PMOs. And cash items include checks, money orders and other such instruments. So if the FRBs allowed bank stamps to be on the cash letter instead of individual items, that would apply to checks, PMOs, and the rest. What I showed is that what you described wasn't the case for checks. And so it wouldn't have been be the case for PMOs either. After a few more exchanges DVP lost the mini-debate. But his website leads one to conclude otherwise. (If anybody wants to see for themselves, start at Post 25 on this page. Skip the long post to Lance Payette.) Edited February 24, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

Quoting Sandy Larsen... Jim DiEugenio and Jim Hargrove are right about DVP's website giving him the last word. I have a perfect example. Several posts ago Scott Kaiser tried to prove to DVP that postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps. Unfortunately he quoted regulations for DISBURSEMENT postal money orders, which are a special type of PMO and not the type used by Hidell. In Post 85 on this page, DVP replied by pasting from his website a sequence of posts made by DVP's buddies on another forum, where they point out that I had made the same mistake. Oddly, one of the posts among them was mine from THIS forum, not theirs. So David showed Scott that he was wrong. Not surprisingly, David didn't reveal to Scott the FRB circulars that cover regular money orders and prove that they too require bank stamps. Anyway, I wondered if DVP posted ANYTHING on that page of his website regarding FRB circulars and my proof. What I found is, to say the least, enlightening. The date span of that page on DVP's site covers the whole PMO debate, up through yesterday. So it should have posts regarding my proof. But no, there is not one single post where I show that the FRB circulars tell bank managers that bank stamps are indeed required on PMOs. Not One! In addition, I stumbled across an odd exchange between me and David on his site. David had this theory that banks didn't stamp individual items, but instead stamped the deposit slip (called a "cash letter") just once for all items. I proved him wrong by showing an actual check that Oswald had deposited. Here is what he has on his site: SANDY LARSEN SAID: It is easy to prove today -- right now -- that a bank stamp on a cash letter (bulk deposit slip) wasn't the way things were done in the 1960s. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that cash items were NOT stamped individually, because it was done on the cash letter. If that were the case, then how would you explain check #7419 on this page? On the reverse side of the check you can see the FRB Chicago stamp (rectangular), so you know the check was processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. And you can see two bank stamps for Fort Worth National Bank (one is a hexagon and the other a rectangle with a decorative border). Since this is a national bank, it was the one that submitted the check to FRB Chicago. Why are those bank stamps there, David?? When one stamp on the cash letter would have sufficed? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Probably because you're talking about CHECKS and not POSTAL MONEY ORDERS in that example, Sandy. That's why. Big difference. The First National Bank of Chicago very likely handled Postal Money Orders differently (in bulk) than they did checks. What? No rebuttal from me? Well, no. Not on DVP's site. But if you go to the source -- this forum -- there IS a rebuttal. Here it is: SANDY LARSEN SAID: But the part of the regulation you quoted, regarding bulk deposits and cash letters, applies to all cash items, not just PMOs. And cash items include checks, money orders and other such instruments. So if the FRBs allowed bank stamps to be on the cash letter instead of individual items, that would apply to checks, PMOs, and the rest. What I showed is that what you described wasn't the case for checks. And so it wouldn't have been be the case for PMOs either. After a few more exchanges DVP lost the mini-debate. But his website leads one to conclude otherwise. (If anybody wants to see for themselves, start at Post 25 on this page. Skip the long post to Lance Payette.) Edited February 24, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

Right you are, Jim. What Mr. Von Pein posts are, as I have said many times, IMAGINARY CONVERSATIONS! DAVID: Again, take my words off your site!

It's very gratifying to see that RXZIM has been added to the cryptonym page. Even though the listing seems to go to unusual lengths to suggest it may not be true.... .... it's real progress to at least acknowledge Mr. Wilcott's long-suppressed assertion. One thing I'd like to add is that Mr. Wilcott several times referred to "Oswald or the Oswald Project." Thank you for your efforts on this. Most worthwhile.

Ditto here, David. Remove my words from your website!

Steve, Lots of interesting questions, as always. Jack Davis was interviewed by a number of researchers (not sure who was first) but among them were Jim Marrs and John Armstrong. I think I posted before a note from Mr. Davis to John A. in which he made a slight correction about his seat position in the theater. Jack’s note below is immediately above the theater diagram John gave him. At the time John interviewed him in the late 1990s, Mr. Davis was still working as a Dallas-based Christian Evangelist. As for speculation about who was brought out the back door and placed into a squad car, practically nothing adds up. Why are there two DPD reports indicating “Oswald” was arrested in the balcony? The arrest circumstances are and were FAMOUS! Why did all evidence of that unidentified theater witness disappear? Why did all evidence of all the theater patrons also disappear? Why for all these years has it been up to private citizens, working on shoestring budgets, to track them down? Little doubt we both agree that something substantial appears to have been hidden about events at the Texas Theater that fateful afternoon.

Butch Burroughs could not have seen “Oswald” enter the Texas Theater if, as Burroughs told the Warren Commission he suspected, “Oswald” went directly up to the balcony after entering the building. Burroughs’ concession stand was located behind the closed doors in the picture below of the theater lobby. Although he clearly saw one “Oswald” and for decades claimed he saw two “Oswalds” inside the theater, the Warren Commission apparently never asked him the critical question: When did he first see “Oswald” inside the theater? He later claimed it was about 1:15 when “Oswald” purchased popcorn from him, which happens to be the same time the WC wants us to believe Tippit was shot. Although the list of theater patrons suspiciously disappeared, a few of them have been located over the years. One of was Jack Davis, who confirmed the approximate time “Oswald” went into the concession area where Burroughs was working. To those who say they will only pay attention to witness statements made in 1963 or 1964, I ask, “Explain why the list of theater patrons was lost?"

John, There’s a lot of evidence that both Oswalds were in the Marines at the same time. Most people think of just the period starting in Sept. 1958 when Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald was on the U.S. Skagit and then in Taiwan at the very same time American born Lee Oswald was being treated (ostensibly for VD) at Atsugi Station Hospital in Japan, but the evidence goes far beyond that. For Russian-speaking Harvey, the idea, as with the schools he attended, was apparently just to give him a taste of American life so that he could answer any questions that might come up about it when on assignment. Matching his sporadic attendance at various schools, the Russian-speaking Oswald was in and out of the Marines while American-born Lee apparently served consistently. We agree that there is no evidence either Oswald served in Korea, though Nagell did, and ostensibly with the U.S. Army (though perhaps more accurately the Agency). Probably unrelated, but who knows for sure? I’ll keep an eye out for other references, but my guess is that “Oswald” was just using the term “Army” as a generic expression for armed forces, assuming, perhaps, the Soviets wouldn’t distinguish between the various branches. This is pure speculation, of course, but the evidence that both Oswalds were in the USMC at more or less the same time is substantial. You’re probably already aware of this, but some more evidence is at the link below, though the mother lode is in the book Harvey and Lee. Marine Corps and the Soviet Union

Interesting observations, John. This gets tricky. According to the 3/30/64 memo from Hoover to DCI, Hoover wrote, "Enclosed for your information is one copy each of the 448 photographs which have been acquired during the course of our investigation in this matter." Hoover makes no assertion about where the photos were when they were confiscated, though the included report indicates just over 300 of them belonged to the Paines. Was the FBI lying again? Always a real possibility, but this would require more checking of the "Oswald's possessions" documents and more.

John, Thanks again for this link. I’ve gone through the pictures and, if we are to believe the FBI, of the 448 items, just over 300 hundred of them belonged to Ruth and Michael Paine. According to the report, these pictures were the Paine’s, not the “Oswald’s.” 371-1 through 371-197 372-1 through 372-66 376-1 through 376-10 377-1 through 377-30 The airport photo in which “Keflavik” is clearest is numbered 372-7, which would put it in the second sequence of Paine photos listed above. I didn’t go through the list again to pick out the other Keflavik photos, but my bet is they are also listed among the Paine’s collection. The real question, of course, is can we trust the FBI report? Here is image 372-7 from the "201" file on the Mary Ferrell site:

A perfect example of how Mr. Von Pein's imaginary conversations promote his own viewpoint and distort the truth was offered in this very thread by Sandy Larsen on 2/24/2016. To read Sandy's post, CLICK HERE.

For more than two decades, I've had "The Evolution of Lee Harvey Oswald" poster hanging on my office door (in two different homes). Jack White did the graphics and John Armstrong worked with him and did much of the research. Below is the highest resolution version of the poster I've been able to share on forums such as this. If you maximize the image and download it, you should be able to read every text caption. The captions are important. Here 'tis (click on the image to enlarge it):

To John B, Thanks for all this material. I’m kind of slow studying this stuff, but I’ll try to muddle through. Both John A. and I agree with you completely that the photographic record of “Lee Harvey Oswald” has been grossly manipulated and altered. I’m particularly intrigued by what you call “face masks” (an image of one person’s face pasted over another person’s body). This stuff may have been used far more extensively than just in the so-called "Backyard Photos," probably the most famous instance which "Oswald" pointed to himself. Some of the other close-ups you have published indeed look like “face masks” to me, but I also know from experience that strange artifacts can be produced entirely unintentionally when enlarging and otherwise manipulating digital graphics, and so I want to be cautious. Thanks again.

Joe, Robert Oswald (for entirely patriotic reasons, I’m sure) was in on the plot to send a Russian-speaking young man (Harvey) to Russia using his actual brother’s (Lee’s) American-born identity. Robert knew the man killed by Jack Ruby was not his brother, but he eventually went along with the subterfuge. The woman known as “Marguerite Oswald” was an Intel-sponsored impostor who was related to neither Harvey nor Lee Oswald. Much of this is explained in far greater detail in my website (most of which is written by John Armstrong).

Steve, Maybe, but Westbrook seemed to be in charge at the theater, at least of “Oswald.” From CE 2003: Taylor wrote, “We were instructed by Captain Westbrook to get the prisoner in a car and take him to the City Hall…. I along with Lt. Cunningham and J.B. Toney remained at the Theatre and took the names and addresses of the occupants of the Theatre.” (CE 2003, pp. 96-97) Bob Carroll reported, “After Oswald was handcuffed we were instructed by Captain W.R. Westbrook to take him directly to City Hall.” (Ibid, p. 81) McDonald wrote, “Captain W.R. Westbrook then told several of the officers to take Oswald directly to the City Hall.” (Ibid, p. 91) In charge of personnel for DPD, Westbrook surely had sway with the cops who would have reasons to protect him. His descriptions of how he spent his time immediately after the hit are highly suspicious, his role in the 10th Patton wallet was beyond suspicious. He had possession of the wallet, the jacket, and, for at least an hour, the revolver (you know, the one that supposedly misfired in the theater leaving a dent on the bullet but which fired perfectly in tests afterward.) I think Westbrook was a co-conspirator.

Before leaving the Texas Theater, Capt. Westbrook ordered Detective Taylor, Lt. Cunningham, and J.B. Toney "to take the names and addresses of the occupants of the theater." Detective Taylor noted in his report (CE 2003, page 97, at WCH 24/243) that he, Lt. Cunningham, and J.B. Toney remained at the theater following the arrest "and took the names and addresses of the occupants of the theater." These officers would likely have turned their completed lists over to the man who gave them the order, Captain Westbrook. But these lists of theater patrons, like the wallet produced by Westbrook at 10th & Patton, disappeared and were never seen again. There was no chain of evidence regarding the list of theater patrons or the wallet, no police reports, and both items simply disappeared. The WC, perhaps intentionally, did not take the testimony of Taylor, Cunningham, or Toney. They could have asked any of these officers what they did with their completed lists. The WC did ask Westbrook about the list of theater patrons and, as can be expected, he answered "No; possibly Lieutenant Cunningham will know, but I don't know who has the list." (From November 22, 1963 on the H&L website)

Peter Dale Scott and John Newman on Two Oswalds: https://youtu.be/AhrZXO_p4QY Above clip from 3 March, 2018 "Spy Wars" Conference, San Francisco, Part 2. Speakers in this clip are: Bill Simpich--BS Peter Dale Scott – PDS John Newman – JN At approximately the 37:12 mark in the YouTube clip above: BS: There’s two different genuses of false phone calls. PDS: Yeah, exactly. One was a call with a lie in it, the other was an alleged call that did not, in fact, take place. JN: The Tuesday call didn’t take place? PDS: No, the Tuesday call did take place by a man, I’m sure, was not the Oswald we think of…. JN: Right PDS: ... and then, by the way… this is just a question… are you absolutely convinced that the man who was “Lee Harvey Oswald” in Russia was, in fact, the man picked up in Dallas in 1963? JN: Not at all. And I’ve gone over to the view that in Mexico City that, maybe it’s him, maybe it’s not. So I’m not going to be dogmatic about it. He could have been there and impersonated or could have been not there at all. PDS: ... There is a fragment of a release that says that the man who made the phone calls spoke horrible Russian AND English! So, I do not think that was the man in Dallas…. This is completely anecdotal but I once had an hour long conversation with Marina where I was trying my hardest not to bring up the assassination. We were talking about literature and I said did she like Henry James and she said she had never heard of Henry James, who was Henry James and I said, “Oh, he’s sort of like the American Turgenev. And she said, “Oh, Turgenev, Alek really loved Turgenev.” The man who checked out books from the New Orleans Public Library was not a lover of Turgenev.

What made me suspicious of Mr. Titovets was his claim that "Oswald" often spoke Russian in public, as well as his claim that associating him with American Intel was absurd. The Russian language business conflicted with most of the evidence we have (see some of it in my post at the top of this page). John A. interviewed Ana Ziger in Buenos Aires in 1998. Ms. Ziger knew "Oswald" as well as anyone else. Her father was his boss at the Minsk radio plant. There are numerous pictures of Oswald and her together. Some are published in the Warren Volumes. Ana Ziger told John A. that "Oswald" almost never spoke Russian.

Both you guys might be interested in the following Jack White post from 2010. I haven't seen enough evidence in the theory to accept it, and there seems to be some evidence against it, but Jack knew a ton about this case and was and remains always worth considering. Here's his post; a link to the full thread is at the end: Here's the thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15686-did-harvey-return-from-russia/

To understand Mr. Payette's "needle of history" .... See what Americans have thought about the Kennedy Assassination for the last half century.... Does Mr. Payette seriously think we have been fooled?

To understand fuss about the HARVEY AND LEE website.... CLICK HERE!

Mr. Payette, You are CORRECT! From 1963 to yesterday, a vast plurality of Americans have believed, and have always believed, that President JFK was killed by a conspiracy! Can you name another question in American history whose answer by popular proclamation has been so definitive for so long? Do you REALLY think we have been fooled? Members of the CIA ordered the death of JFK! I suspect you know it as well.

On Ernst Titovets.... Titovets considers the idea that Oswald was connected to either American or Russian intelligence the “wildest speculation.” “A James Bond fantasy.” He ignores the evidence of Oswald’s connections to American intelligence as revealed in many books, and seems to hope his readers will ignore it as well, thereby effectively cutting the marionette’s wires. --Milicent Cranor, 2013 Here’s what Dr. James Norwood wrote about Titovets in his article Oswald’s Proficiency in the Russian Language: One of Oswald’s friends in Minsk was a medical student named Ernst Titovets, who acknowledged in his 2013 book Oswald: Russian Episode that Oswald spoke in a “faltering Russian.” [44] In JFK studies, Titovets was a johnny-come-lately, waiting until the approach of the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination to bring out his memoir. After his book publication, Titovets has attempted to discredit John Armstrong’s research into the period in which Oswald was in residence in Minsk. Using sleight-of-hand, specious arguments, and hearsay testimony, Titovets attempts to name individuals who heard Oswald speaking competent Russian during his stay in Minsk. Undoubtedly, Oswald gave the appearance of attempting to learn the native language over the course of his two-and-a-half years in the Soviet Union. But nowhere does Titovets provide an example of Oswald’s unsurpassed command of the Russian language, as attested by those in America who appeared before the Warren Commission. About the best testimonial to Oswald’s language competency while in the Soviet Union was given by Belarusian President Shuskevich, Oswald’s former tutor in Minsk, who described Oswald’s spoken Russian as “passable.” [45] Along with his book, Titovets released a set of tape recordings in which he is in conversation with Oswald. Those tapes offer examples of Titovets and Oswald speaking only in English. But according to Norman Mailer, who was granted access to the KGB files, Titovets also recorded conversations in which Oswald was attempting to speak in Russian: “His [Titovets’] Russian-speaking tapes were also studied [by the KGB] to explore any possibility that he [Oswald] was concealing a better knowledge of their language than he pretended to have.” [46] In other words, the KGB was concerned about the main point raised in this essay, namely, Oswald’s intention of “concealing” to his hosts his fluency in Russian. If Titovets genuinely wishes to do a service in the interest of the historical record, he would release the tapes in which he was conversing with Oswald in Russian to offer the public first-hand evidence into Oswald’s Russian language skills while living in the Soviet Union. Until that happens, Titovets is offering only second-hand evidence with a personal agenda. At present, there is nowhere in Titovets’ writings an instance of a laudatory comment about Oswald’s fluency in Russian to compare with the superlative tributes given by Oswald’s acquaintances in the United States. The question is: Why? Researcher Millicent Cranor has raised the most pertinent question about Ernst Titovets: “In his book, Titovets appears to be defending Oswald—but is he really defending the C.I.A.?” [47] NOTES [44] Ernst Titovets, Oswald: Russian Episode (Belarus: Mon Litera Publishing, 2013), 111.[45] Fred Weir and Marie Eckel, “Why Soviets Were No Fans of Lee Harvey Oswald,” The Christian Science Monitor (November 21, 2013):https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/1121/Why-Soviets-were-no-fans-of-Lee-Harvey-Oswald [46] Mailer, 121. Mailer also offers a character sketch of Ernst Titovets from the perspective of one of his friends in Minsk, a young woman named Albina: “She [Albina] had always thought Erich [Ernst Titovets] was a little strange, and nothing about him was fun….Some students used to speak of him as manerniy—full of mannerisms. So, nobody liked him much, but then he always wanted to show people he was better….Titovets always wanted to impress people that he was not average, and so he always did things by himself.” (99-100)[47] Milicent Cranor, “Is US Effort to Block Oswald Friend and His ‘Revelations’ Another Deception?”, Who.What.Why.: https://whowhatwhy.org/2013/08/27/is-us-effort-to-block-oswald-friend-and-his-revelations-itself-a-further-deception/