Jim Hargrove

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/21/us/jfk-assassination-conspiracy-theories-debunked/index.html

James Wilcott was hardly the only CIA employee who, in one way or another, told the HSCA that the Oswald Project was a creation of the CIA.  J.J. Angleton’s assistant Ann Egerter also indirectly confirmed that Oswald was an employee of the Agency.

The following is excerpted from Jim Douglass, JFK and The Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Orbis Books, NY 2010, pp. 144-145:

It was Angleton’s staff member, Ann Egerter, who opened Oswald’s 201 SIG file on December 9, 1960.[56] Egerter was questioned by the House Select Committee. They knew they could not expect her, as a CIA employee, to answer truthfully, even under oath, the question whether Oswald was a CIA agent. Allen Dulles, Kennedy’s fired CIA director, had said in the January 27, 1964, closed-door Warren Commission meeting that no CIA employee, even under oath, should ever say truthfully if Oswald (or anyone else) was in fact a CIA agent.[57] The House Select Committee therefore had to get the answer from Angleton’s associate, Ann Egerter—by then retired and somewhat obliging—by indirect questioning.

When Egerter was asked the purpose of Counterintelligence’s Special Investigations Group (CI/SIG), she said, “We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel who were suspected one way or another.”[58]

Egerter had thereby already made a crucial admission, whose implications would be drawn out step by step. Her HSCA interviewer then asked Egerter to confirm this specific purpose of SIG: “Please correct me if I am wrong. In light of the example that you have given and the statements that you have made it seems that the purpose of CI/SIG was very limited and that limited purpose was being [sic] to investigate Agency employees who for some reason were under suspicion.”

Egerter replied, “That is correct.”[59]

She was then asked: “When a 201 file is opened does that mean that whoever opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual, or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks that the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?”

Egerter: “Well, in general, I would say that would be correct.” 
Interviewer: “Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?” 
Egerter: “No, I can’t think of one.”[60]

Researcher Lisa Pease concluded from Ann Egerter’s testimony that Oswald’s 201 file in CI/SIG “implies strongly that either Oswald was indeed a member of the CIA or was being used in an operation involving members of the CIA, which for my money is essentially the same thing.”[61] In either case, Oswald was a CIA asset.

Egerter also indicated by her testimony that Oswald was a particular kind of CIA asset, an Agency employee who was suspected of being a security risk. That would have been the reason for opening a 201 file on him specifically in Angleton’s Special Investigations Group of Counterintelligence. Egerter said SIG was known in the Agency as “the office that spied on spies,”[62] and repeatedly identified the spies being spied upon as CIA employees. She again described the work of her SIG office as “investigations of Agency employees where there was an indication of espionage.”[63]

Her interviewer in turn patiently sought reconfirmation of this stated purpose of her office that so strongly implied Oswald was a CIA employee under investigation by the Agency:

Interviewer: “I hope you understand my questions are directed toward trying to find out what the purpose of the CI/SIG Office was and under what circumstances was the opening up of the 201 file [on Oswald]. I am given the impression that the purpose of CI/SIG was very limited, primarily to investigate Agency employees who for one reason or another might be under suspicion of getting espionage against the United States. Is that an accurate statement of the purpose of CI/SIG?” 
Egerter: “Well, it is employees and also penetration, which is the same thing, of the Agency.”[64]

Ann Egerter’s testimony points toward Oswald having been a CIA employee who by December 1960 had come under suspicion by the Agency. He was to be carefully watched. As a security risk, he was also the ideal kind of person for the CIA to offer up three years later as a scapegoat in the assassination of a president who some believed had become a much greater security risk.

NOTES:

56. The CIA document that opened Oswald’s 201 SIG file on December 9, 1960, signed by Ann Egerter, is on page 463 of Newman’s Oswald and the CIA.
57. President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy: Report of Proceedings Held at Washington, D.C. Monday, January 27, 1964; published by Harold Weisberg as Whitewash IV: Top Secret JFK Assassination Transcript (Frederick, Md.: 1974), p. 62; p. 153 of transcript.
58. HSCA Deposition of Ann Elizabeth Goldsborough Egerter, p. 8. Cited by Lisa Pease, “James Angleton,” in Assassinations, p. 146 (emphasis added).
59. Egerter, HCSA Deposition, p. 9 (emphasis added).
60. Ibid., pp. 9-10.
61.Pease, Assassinations, p. 147.
62. Preliminary HSCA Interview of Ann Egerter by Dan Hardway and Betsy Wolf, March 31, 1978, p. 3. JFK Record Number 180-10142-10298.
63. Egerter HSCA Deposition, May 17,1978, p. 20. JFK Record Number 180-10131-10333.
64. Ibid., p. 21. Egerter’s HSCA interviewer, Michael Goldsmith, also asked her about the suggestive letters “AG” (meaning “AGENT”?) printed in an identification box on the December 9, 1960, form by which Egerter had opened Oswald’s 201 file:

Goldsmith: “What does the term ‘AG’ stand for?” 
Egerter: “I have forgotten.” 
Goldsmith: “Is that your handwriting?” 
Egerter: “I don’t think so. I forget.” 
Goldsmith: “Would that have stood for agent?” 
Egerter: “No. I forget what ‘AG’ meant.” Ibid., pp. 58-59.

Lacking an independent authority to interpret the CIA form, Goldsmith accepted Egerter’s inability to remember what “AG” meant or if she had written those letters on the form, and moved on to other questions.
 

It is time to stop allowing CIA apologists to get away with saying "Lee Harvey Oswald" was anything other than a creation of the CIA.  How long must we accept their excuses?

3 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Wilcott was (as JFK would write) a profile in courage ... I wonder how any other more ethical and principled CIA employees tried to speak up (and were intimidated or silenced).  You'd think more than a few felt the same way.  Its reassuring to finally read the 'unvarnished' truth, but very sad as well.  The HSCA knew ... they knew the truth, and concocted the Mafia fairy tale. Its simply shameful.  

The climate and culture within CIA are described well by Wilcott.  One can see how being liberal would be viewed with distaste.  It reminds me of the later disparaging remarks by Howard Hunt about liberals.  The condescending and arrogant tone of William R. Buckley on Firing Line. I worked (as a federal employee) with an investigator who had been involved with HSCA in his previous career, and approached him in 1994 to ask "who did it?"  His reply was CIA ... I was less well informed in those days, and somewhat taken aback, finding it difficult to believe a government agency would be complicit.  I countered with "how sure are you?" and he answered that he'd bet a year's salary on it.  He spoke of how utterly impossible it was to get any viable information from CIA or a straight answer.  My last question to him -- the answer to which stays with me today (and forever) - was the inevitable "why don't they just come out (after 30 years) and tell us?  His reply:

"What makes you think that's the worst thing they ever did?"

Fascinating.  Thank you, Gene!

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

I'm afraid I didn't frame my question well.

Yes, I know that Wilcott's testimony supports the Harvey & Lee theory. Just like it supports the "Oswald was a CIA agent" theory. (Both of which I consider to be proven facts, given their respective levels of supporting evidence.)

What I an wondering is this: OTHER THAN ITS EVIDENCE FOR OSWALD BEING A CIA AGENT, can you think of any of Wilcott's testimony that supports the Harvey and Lee theory in particular?

The one thing I can think of is the apparent fact that it was referred to as the "Oswald Project," at least casually so. It seems to me that CIA projects would not normally be named after a participating agent. In this case it is as though OSWALD was the "star" of the project.

My thinking is that it was named the "Oswald Project" because it involved multiple Oswalds.

Sandy,

Jim Wilcott probably didn’t understood the full dimensions of what he called the “Oswald project.”    He apparently believed that Oswald was given Russian language courses and double agent training at the military base at Atsugi, Japan, which, according to the HSCA notes above, he described as a “deep cover CIA base.”  But as you probably know, one of the most thoroughly documented episodes in Harvey and Lee shows that it was American-born LEE Harvey Oswald who spent time at Atsugi, not the Russian-speaking youngster who went to Russia and was eventually shot dead by Ruby.

Wilcott’s observations, however, had some real insights into the Oswald project and how it eventually became entangled in the plot to kill JFK.  And, as I’ll show momentarily, both Wilcott and HSCA staffers nearly stumbled across the two Oswalds in an extended New York City episode.  But first….

Note that one of the pages from the HSCA notes above contains this sentence: “Approximately April-June 1963, Cryptonym for Oswald Project approx. RX-ZIM.”  I don’t know if those dates have any particular significance, but assuming for a moment that they do, let’s consider what was happening with the Oswald Project between April and June of 1963.

In May of 1963, for no apparent reason whatsoever, Lee HARVEY Oswald decided to move from Dallas to New Orleans.  My bet is that he was instructed to do so.  In New Orleans, he quickly began associating with the virulent anti-Castro operatives surrounding ex-FBI man Guy Banister, but, of course, he famously posed as a pro-Castro leftist.  Many researchers believe that this was the start of the process of setting up Lee HARVEY Oswald as the patsy in the JFK hit, so that the assassination could be blamed on Castro’s Cuba.  What a remarkable coincidence that this sheep-dipping project began right in the middle of the April-June 1963 period Wilcott apparently associated with the RX-ZIM cryptonym!

Now.... Please take a look at the paragraph I’ve highlighted in yellow from another page (shown below) of the HSCA notes on Wilcott.

In the highlighted paragraph above, the “SWP” mentioned several times is probably the Socialist Workers Party.  John A. has done considerable research showing how American-born LEE Harvey Oswald was involved in activities in New York City and elsewhere during the very years Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald was in Russia.  The activities involved disrupting socialist and liberal organizations and probably involved some anti-Semitic elements as well. It is a complicated story involving the television actor and comedian John Landesberg. John A’s lengthy writeup about it can be read here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Landesberg/Landesbergs.html

This is a hot-button issue for CIA defenders and H&L critics.  Tracy Parnell has a write-up somewhere attempting to debunk it.  It shouldn’t be difficult to find.  Why is it such a controversial issue?

That’s simple.  According to the official biography of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” Oswald spent only a few hours in New York City after returning from Russia before flying home to Texas, and he never again spent any time in NYC.  So where does all this NYC business come from?  It all involved American-born LEE Oswald, who, while HARVEY was in Russia, was actively involved in anti-Communist and anti-Castro activities in New York City, Florida, and Louisiana.  

Tracy,

Nice try, but the HSCA's own notes clearly show that Wilcott and his attorney Bill Schaap were expressly ordered "to not reveal specifics of specific questions" in his HSCA testimony.  Jack White told us at length how the HSCA worked.  When White wanted to show his "many faces of Lee Harvey Oswald" material to the HSCA, he was threatened with Contempt of Congress.

Do you really wonder why RX-ZIM is so buried in the JFK literature?  Can you say "cover-up?"  I didn't think so.

Also included in the HSCA files on Wilcott is a 19-page manuscript entitled “THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION,” which appears to have been written by James Wilcott himself, although clearly with many of the limitations the HSCA demanded.  Nevertheless, there is some interesting material there, especially about CIA plans to invade Cuba.  Here are the first two pages from that document.

The entire manuscript can be read at the following address, starting about eight pages down:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/secclass/pdf/Wilcott_3-22-78.pdf

Jim,

Obviously Fritz complicated the matter of the shells, so it's probably best to clarify the subject by considering the bullets that came from those shells.  When looked at this way, the answer is obviously "three," but only if we carefully analyze the situation.  So....

One of Oswald's three bullets entered the President's head near the bottom of his skull, and also four inches higher.

A second bullet entered the base of the President's neck, and also several inches lower in his back, exited an entrance wound in his throat, struck Governor Connally's back, broke a rib bone, exited his chest, broke two bones in his right wrist, became embedded in thigh bone, and finally fell out onto the gurney of a little boy in Parkland Memorial Hospital.

A third bullet missed entirely, striking a tree limb which separated the jacket from the lead core, and the core traveled on to strike pavement near James Tague, a motorcade bystander who was slightly wounded by concrete splatter. (I'm actually a little uneasy about this explanation, but if Gerald Posner claims its true, who am I to argue?)  Now here's where you have to pay close attention....

Another third bullet hit the turf along the south side of Elm St near a manhole cover.
 
A third third bullet hit the pavement on Elm Street just to the right and behind the Presidential limousine near the Book Depository.

A fourth third bullet grew in size and then evaporated while in FBI evidence envelope 89-43-1A-122. (For technical details, see "Growth and evaporation of full metal jacketed bullets in Southern U.S. climates" by Luis Alvarez and also "Urinary Tricks and Evidence Envelopes" by Dr. John Lattimer.) We really need to "trust the experts" on this one!

I hope this clarifies the bullet situation.  I've only managed to understand it by studying U.S. documents for many years.

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Does anyone know what happened to Wilcott.

I know that in addition to what Goldsmith did to him, the HSCA later tried to smear his reputation.

But does anyone know what happened to him after that?

Jim, see...

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/JamesWilcottJFK+US.html

This write-up looks pretty spot on to me.  Can you comment on its accuracy, especially the tie-in with Ann Egerter’s testimony?

Sandy,

Don't forget that the full title of John's book is, "HARVEY & LEE: How the CIA Framed Oswald."  So I'd have to say it adds a lot!

From the same HSCA collection, here’s a summary of Wilcott’s CIA employment starting from May 1957.  Although  he continued to advance at the Agency for a time after the Kennedy Assassination, reaching a GS-9 pay scale during a brief stint at Langley, Wilcott’s relationship with the Agency soon soured.  He quit in April 1966.  

As many JFK researchers know, James Wilcott was a CIA accountant from May 1957 through April 1966.  At the time of the assassination of JFK, Wilcott worked at the Agency’s Tokyo station where he said he was told by other Agency personnel that funds he himself had disbursed were for “Oswald” or the “Oswald Project.”  During his secret HSCA testimony of March 22, 1978, Wilcott said, “it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an employee of the agency and was an agent of the agency.” Asked by Michael Goldsmith what he meant by the term “agent,” Wilcott responded that Oswald “was a regular employee, receiving a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work.” Following is a brief excerpt from the testimony.

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.

A bit later in the testimony comes this:

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.

And later in the testimony comes this:

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.

For some time, it appeared that Wilcott could not remember the names of the case officers he talked to about the CIA’s employment of Oswald or Oswald’s cryptonym.  The point of this post, however, is to show that contemporaneous HSCA notes on Wilcott indicate that the HSCA’s Michael Goldsmith simply would not allow Wilcott to make specific charges in his testimony or, apparently, to indicate that he did indeed know Oswald’s cryptonym.

That cryptonym, Wilcott apparently told the HSCA staff, was RX-ZIM.  

Below are some of the HSCA notes about James Wilcott that have been virtually ignored by JFK researchers for at least two decades.  Why not spend a few minutes and read through them yourself?  There are a number of real surprises among them, including revelations barely hinted at in Wilcott’s long-suppressed testimony.  Comments are welcomed.

If you guys want to convince yourselves those morphing pictures of appearing and disappearing teeth actually prove anything at all, by all means go for it!

Have you figured out yet how Oswald's cadaver regrew a front tooth in his coffin?
 

Thank you for the reply, James.  No doubt more than a few of us will be interested in learning more about how we can help you keep the Ed Forum alive and well.  Despite our obvious problems, there is clearly some important work going on here.

Michael...

Thanks for bringing up the Furniture Mart episode.

The Furniture Mart story was explained by Mrs. Whitworth on Nov. 27, 1963 to Miss Jean Campbell, the American correspondent of the London Evening Standard.  Edith Whitworth's friend, Gertrude Hunter, also met this Oswald family at the Furniture Mart.

During her talk with the London Evening Standard reporter, Mrs. Whitworth checked her notes about her husband's recent bus trip and was able to use that event to establish the date of the Oswald family visit as either Wednesday, November 6 or Thursday, November 7.  According to records of the Texas School Book Depository, Lee HARVEY Oswald worked all day at the building on both November 6 and November 7.

Both Mrs. Whitworth and Gertrude Hunter said this Oswald drove a blue and white or blue two-tone Ford, which sounds like Ruth Paine's automobile.  Both Marina and Ruth Paine denied everything, including during the July 24, 1964 hearing in which Mrs. Whitworth, Gertrude Hunter, Marina Oswald, June Oswald, and Rachel Oswald were all brought together by the Warren Commission, which for once seemed genuinely curious about this event.

In describing Marina and the two daughters, Mrs. Whitworth made an interesting comment.  She said, "That little girl, the oldest one, isn't she a dark headed girl, and at that time she wore--she had her bangs cut... she had straight hair hair and she had little bangs in front...."  In his book, John points out that "Twenty-two-month-old June Oswald had blond hair--not dark hair.... Ruth Paine's daughter had dark hair with bangs."

On 3/19/2018 at 7:27 AM, James R Gordon said:

This morning I noted that there were 762 reads of the thread and 13 responses - and that included the multiple responses by two members who used the thread to continue their own discussions. It would appear that the majority of members who read the thread do not share my views and have ignored the thread. In all good conscience I cannot accept remaining with the status quo and all the issues that has provoked and also be expected to fund this forum - as I have done for a number of years. I will stop payments to Invision after April 4th. That means this forum is funded until May 11th - approximately 7 weeks. What happens now to the EF is for the membership to decide.

Like others, I’d like to thank Mr. Gordon for making this forum possible for a number of years at his own expense.  It often must have felt like a thankless task.

Rather than let all the information contained in these many pages simply die, perhaps Mr. Gordon would consider taking a few steps to preserve it.  If he is not already doing so, I wonder if there is a way to archive all the posts immediately.  It would surely be easier to do that now rather than trying to somehow reconstruct all this data after it was erased from the current server.  Can any of us help defray the cost of that?

Better yet, if there were new conditions of support that might enable James to reconsider his decision, no doubt many of us would appreciate hearing about them.  Some of us would surely be willing to help in any way possible.  

April 4th is just two weeks away.  I do think the use of language is important, but establishing the truth in this case, to me, is even more important.  Call me pessimistic, but two weeks seems like insufficient time to settle either issue.  Is there a way at least to extend the deadline?

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I assume the Harvey and Lee theorists posit that the FBI memorandum is a fabrication, part of the conspiracy?  If so, what purpose would it have served?

Of course the FBI report of 11/25/63 was a cover-up doc!  We know because the fraudulent report says Deslatte couldn’t identify a picture of Oswald!  Are you kidding?  Three days after the assassination of JFK everyone in America had seen pictures of LHO!  Even more significantly, Sewell told Garrison, “They didn’t show us no pictures. They didn’t do anything but take that paper and they offered us a receipt.”

Warren Commission loyalists will no doubt say the FBI investigation was more reliable than the investigation by Garrison, but we have lots of evidence of how dishonest many of the FBI reports were. The FBI’s malfeasance in this case was legion and is well known by most members of this forum.  The short (3 minute) YouTube video below demonstrates quite clearly how the FBI altered the observations of three critical Dealey Plaza witnesses who believed shots may have been taken at JFK from outside of the Texas School Book Depository, thus contradicting the official story.  It just takes 3 minutes to watch this:

The FBI went to extraordinary lengths to suppress evidence of what CIA accountant James Wilcott called the “Oswald Project,” including sending out agents within hours of the assassination to confiscate original school and teen-aged employment records of “Lee Harvey Oswald.” 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.” Tax records, not found by Dallas police who said they initialed each scrap of paper, magically appeared without DPD initials.  FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the bean about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC.

The FBI falsified so much testimony that it even had a process in place for routinely doing so, including over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys.  

For more about how the FBI altered evidence, see this link:

Manipulated, Fabricated, and Disappearing Evidence

Please spare us suggestions that the FBI conducted an honest investigation in this case!  I’ll take Garrison’s work over Hoover’s ANY day.  When we try to figure out what happened, all we can do is try to piece together the evidence Hoover neglected to cover up, and in a case this big, there was plenty of it.

One of the items the FBI forgot to destroy was its own airtel dated 12/9/63, which clearly showed Deslatte DID remember Oswald and did remember that “Oswald said he was trying to get trucks for Cuba.”  Deslatte's recollection was clearly in danger of becoming the talk of the town!  The FBI’s cover-up report was probably back dated to 11/25/63.  

The FBI HAD to cover-up the two Oswalds, which Hoover had known about for years.  Had they not done so, American Intel's "Oswald Project" would have been exposed.

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I did not know about  Bringuier's role in that one. Thanks.

What I don’t get is that with all his connections to the FBI and so many people in Banister’s circle, as well as DRE, and probably CIA, Bringuier surely knew that the Friends of Democratic Cuba was an anti-Castro outfit.  Why would he want to tie “Lee Harvey Oswald” into anti-Castro circles when the world was being told Oswald was a Castro-loving commie?  It doesn’t make sense.  I always assumed Bringuier knew a lot, but this report makes me wonder.
 

If Greg Parker worked half as hard to "Reopen the Kennedy Case" as he worked at trying to debunk H&L he might have actually accomplished something.  This thread is kind of amazing because, in the beginning, Parker works tirelessly at attacking H&L, and then, 20 or so pages later, he just gives up and surrenders.  Not sure why Tommy resurrected this old thread, but it is fascinating.

On 3/18/2018 at 1:32 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm sure that Jim Hargrove could add to this list. This list covers only the evidence I am most familiar with.

Sure, there are scores of other examples.  Let's consider a few one at a time, starting with this....

As most of us know, the record indicates that Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald was in the Soviet Union from October 1959 through May 1962. How odd, then, that on January 20, 1961, more than a year before HARVEY returned from the Soviet Union, a man looking like him and using the name "Lee Oswald" visited the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans with another man. The two men spoke with Assistant Manager Oscar Deslatte and said they were interested in purchasing 10 Ford Econoline Trucks. As one of the men discussed the purchase with Deslatte, the other man, who identified himself as Joseph Moore, made a list of the equipment they desired on the trucks.

Deslatte went to his boss, truck manager Fred Sewell, and told him about the two men who wanted to purchase trucks and said they represented the "Free Democrats of Cuba or some such organization." Sewell told Deslatte to give the men a bid of $75 over their cost for the trucks. Deslatte and Sewell returned to Deslatte's desk and wrote out a bid form to Joseph Moore. As Deslatte was filling out the bid form, Joseph Moore and the other man began talking to both Deslatte and Sewell.

When Moore saw that Deslatte had written his name on the bid form he asked that the name be changed to "Friends of Democratic Cuba." Moore's friend looked at the form and said, "By the way, you'd better put my name down there because I'm the man handling the money." When Deslatte asked, "What's your name?" the man replied, "Lee Oswald."

Here's the bid form filled out by the Bolton Ford salesman.  Note that "Oswald" and "Friends of Democratic Cuba" are written on the form.

And who were among the executive officers of "Friends of Democratic Cuba?"  None other than Harvey Oswald associates W. Guy Banister and Gerard Tugague.

After the assassination, Fred Sewell recalled his salesman Deslatte telling him, "Say Fred, do you remember those two guys who was in here from Cuba trying to get some buses cheap?  I think that one of those men was the one who killed the President." Deslatte added, "We've got a piece of paper around here somewhere with a bid on it," and he found it (shown above) and called the FBI.   

And who also helped bring all this to the attention of the FBI?  None other than Harvey Oswald's alleged protagonist Carlos Bringuier.

Parker and other H&L critics will try to defuse this evidence, probably by pointing to minor descrepancie among the witnesses, but they never try to characterize and refute ALL the evidence.  They always just consider some of it.  For a more detailed examination of the Bolton Ford Incident, follow the link below....

Bolton Ford

Edit: I forgot to mention that there is another FBI report that attempts to minimize the significance of this encounter.  It is very easy to show, however, that the report is just an attempted cover-up.

Sorry to be overdramatic, Paul, but I’m just stunned at the lengths you guys will go to to deny what is right in front of your eyes.  Do you seriously expect me to believe that LIFE magazine editors called for the LHO classroom photo to be retouched to give the illusion LEE was missing a front tooth or two?  Seriously?  Otherwise, why  do you bring this up?

The LIFE magazine photo is evidence because we know the FBI altered other evidence (ask me for proof, please!!!) and this photo apparently was never in the hands of the FBI, at least not before LIFE published it.  If you can prove LIFE magazine retouched the photo to make a tooth or two disappear, then that retouched photo would be evidence indeed!  But, of course, just about everything you write trying to make this missing tooth business go away is just wild speculation.
 

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

I demand to see the ORIGINAL.

You can demand to see anything you want about this case, but making your demand on an internet discussion forum is not the way to succeed.  You have to do what John did, spend months at the National Archives, travel across the U.S. to visit court houses and state and county offices, visit living eyewitnesses, even if they’ve moved overseas, and do the hard work to do real research.  You demand to see original evidence on the Education Forum, and you claim I’m overdramatic?  

16 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

This photo was also retouched.    The "missing tooth" theory really isn't new.   It's an H&L ploy.   (The H&L CT, by the way, is more than 20 years old, having first appeared in an article in Probe Magazine (1995), written by John Armstrong.)

Proof will take time -- because H&L people play with photography.  In time I will prove it, because it's clearly photograph trickery -- probably being used to seek a Hollywood contract for a movie deal.   It's an affront to JFK Research, so I take this personally.

This photo has been in the National Archives for decades.  John got himself a copy and had it reproduced it in the 2003 CD that accompanied Harvey and Lee.  Have you even bothered to look at the photo at the Archives, or request a high-quality color copy via mail?  Of course not.  You just make wild accusations here about “photographic trickery.”

I’m simply stunned at the foolish lengths you guys go to trying to deny the simple and plain truth in front of your eyes.  

28 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I certainly don't think the H&L folks altered the LIFE magazine photo -- because it was before your time.

Yet all LIFE magazine photos are famous for being retouched by the LIFE magazine photographic department.   It's a well-known fact.

No, when it comes to the Ed Voebel photograph -- I say that was first modified by LHO and Ed Voebel (before the LIFE magazine retouch)

So, Mr. Trejo is now claiming that the classroom photo of LEE Oswald's missing tooth was retouched by, count them...

1. LEE Harvey Oswald
2. Edward Voebel
3. LIFE magazine editors

What a conspiracy!  All done to create the illusion of a missing tooth or teeth???  This just gets better and better.

31 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I demand to see the ORIGINAL.

Good luck, Mr. Trejo.  The last person I'm aware of allowed to directly examine large numbers of LHO "original" evidence at the National Archives was John Armstrong. John has said many times that there was little original documentation there; mostly b&w copies. 

But the LIFE magazine published halftone prints do comprise evidence.  The photo was apparently acquired from Voebel via WDSU Television in New Orleans, and published by LIFE just a few months after the assassination, untouched by the FBI or the Warren Commission.

8 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Not sure how this adds anything to the copy above, Michael, but here it is again....

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

This photo was also retouched.    The "missing tooth" theory really isn't new.   It's an H&L ploy.   (The H&L CT, by the way, is more than 20 years old, having first appeared in an article in Probe Magazine (1995), written by John Armstrong.)

Proof will take time -- because H&L people play with photography.  In time I will prove it, because it's clearly photograph trickery -- probably being used to seek a Hollywood contract for a movie deal.   It's an affront to JFK Research, so I take this personally.

I disagree sharply with Jim and with Mike on this point, because the missing "space" between the teeth in Ed Voebel's photo of LHO was large enough for 2.5 teeth.  

Also, an honest (unretouched) blowup of the original shows black ink marks.   

In order to prove it, I'll need to get hold of ORIGINAL copies of Ed Voebel's photograph -- because I can't trust the H&L folks with photographic "evidence" anymore.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

I just want to get the above accusation by Mr. Trejo on the record here, so that it can't be altered.

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Also, an honest (unretouched) blowup of the original shows black ink marks.   

In order to prove it, I'll need to get hold of ORIGINAL copies of Ed Voebel's photograph -- because I can't trust the H&L folks with photographic "evidence" anymore.

Oh, this is rich!

Paul Trejo is accusing John A. or me or Sandy or someone among the “H&L folks” of going back in time to 1964 and messing with the Feb. 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine, which can be easily purchased online by anyone interested in Mr. Trejo’s accusation.  Here, again, is the cover of my copy of that edition of the magazine.

The good quality halftone print of the image that I copied with my Nexus 6P cell phone camera is shown on pp. 70-71 of the magazine.

Here’s an unretouched closeup of the image above showing LEE Harvey Oswald’s missing front tooth.

Any reader who believes that anyone among the “H&L folks” may have retouched this photograph—as Mr. Trejo is clearly claiming--is urged to buy or borrow a copy of the Feb. 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine and make their own judgment.  This isn’t rocket science.

Get your hands on the magazine and look for yourself!

8 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

 

Thanks Jim. It just makes it easer to present when I repost it. I don't have to steer the reader to it or give it some kind of name. I can say... " in this pic....."

this pic makes me think that one or both teeth were compromised in some way after the fight and that, perhaps, his right tooth was bonded in someway to his left tooth, until it "failed" in '58.

Also, and very importantly, it points out the foolishness is Paul Trej's claim that the photo was altered by Oswald, or friends, when they were kids.

Mr. Trejo seems to be claiming that the "H&L folks" altered this photo, along with the LIFE magazine photo.  We'll see where that accusation leads.

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Sandy or Jim, could one of you post the second pic, above, in isolation? It is the clincher, for me, that Sandy's analysis is correct. 

Not sure how this adds anything to the copy above, Michael, but here it is again....

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

That photo was artificially retouched.   You keep posting it as though it was a scientific artifact -- it's not.  It was a teenage prank.

22 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

I'm going to disagree with Paul here.  I don't think it was touched up.  But amazingly this is the same photo I've mentioned numerous times where the photo clearly shows a blackened tooth being there.  It's very obvious because of the camera flash light bounce on it.

So, Paul says it was a touched-up photo, Michael says it was a blackened tooth, Tracy says whatever Parker tells him to say, Tommy says nothing relevant at all, but not one of you guys will admit to what it clearly seems to be: a kid showing off a missing front tooth.

You want us to believe that Ed Voebel and LEE Harvey Oswald made up an elaborate classroom prank for reasons unknown, that Voebel committed perjury to support that classroom prank for reasons unknown, that Aunt Lillian threw her support behind the prank by claiming to arrange for dental care for Lee for reasons unknown, and that Marine Corps dentists were so enchanted by unknown motives that they immortalized the whole saga by saying a false tooth (prosthesis) failed on an official USMC dental form.

Do ANY of you want to consider the SLIGHTLY more likely possibility that LEE Oswald simply lost a front tooth in a fight?  Nah, I didn’t think you would.