1 hour ago, Stu Wexler said:

This is what people who will compromise  almost every other value they have to support RFK Jr. because he supports a CT do not get:  he is so out to lunch on vaccines and medical-adjacent material that his support may well undermine our efforts. Even with his own family. People, by association, may see CT in JFK as whacked out as his vaccine related CTs.

Stu

Stu-

You may politicize this post if you wish. 

I say nothing about RFK2's stances on a wide variety of issues.  

I say only that The Daily Beast (and many other publications) have chosen to ridicule RFK2's stance on the JFKA. 

On that topic alone---the JFKA---I defend RFK2 as having perceptive viewpoints. 

Indeed, I think RFK2's views on the JFKA are in the mainstream of the EF-JFKA. 

7 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I thought Purdy did "okay." Not great, but not bad. Just not good enough.

You could tell that Purdy just doesn't have the over-all physical talent skill set Patrick Mahomes has. Mahomes is a very fast and agile, dodging moves runner. Close to being as fast as his backs and receivers.

Mahomes made most of his best passes after running out of his pocket. His speed gave him more time to set himself to do so.

Slower runner Purdy got run down very quickly 80% of time he ran out of the pocket. And usually by linemen and linebackers who are not the fastest players on their defense teams.

Also, Purdy is just too short imo. Every game I watch him it seems 3 or 4 of his passes don't make it over the outstretched arms of the other team's defensive linemen who are often 6 inches taller than him. 

Purdy looks like a peach fuzz faced teenager to me. It looks like he hardly has to shave. And Purdy never has any expression on his face. It's just a flat non-emotional look. Again. like Lee Harvey Oswald?

Still I like him for the reasons I stated earlier. Hope he has a good career.

Loved the zoom-in shots of Taylor Swift jumping, squealing, hugging and high fiving like a love-struck cheerleader in her luxury booth. Also, the beautiful Blake Lively was right there with her.

I don't know. I think the Swift/Kelce romance thing added to the whole affair. Something more than the big butt tough guy slamming and tackling.

Something more reflective and inclusive of our broader societal culture? A high school girl/football player boyfriend romance story? I guess a more adolescent version of the Jackie Kennedy/JFK Camelot thing?

Oh, and looking more closely at Purdy's face sans his helmet ( especially his profile ) He looks more like Oswald than I previously considered. 

And like I mentioned earlier...if the main stream sports media critics put too much blame on Purdy for the 49er loss...he really would be justified in making a public statement repeating Lee Harvey Oswald's most famous one...

"I Am Just A Patsy!"

I was jesting. I only saw some highlights, but Purdy reminds me of Tom Brady. He nearly prevailed, and the 49ers defense just could not hold in the final moments of the game. 

He does seem cool under fire, another Brady trait. My guess is you see the 49ers back in the SB next year. 

My take is that it was physically impossible for a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action rifle to have fired shots as quickly as they impacted JFK and Gov. Connally.  

There are other JFKA scholars, far more accomplished than myself, who have spent decades pursuing and fleshing out many questionable aspects of the JFKA, and the WC's limited and expedient narrative.

Then, we have the HSCA, which in 1979 said the JFKA likely resulted from a conspiracy. 

No matter.

The Daily Beast said LHO did it alone, and RFK2 is wrong in his "theory" of the JFKA. 

Yes, in this day and age. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-why-rfk-jrs-super-bowl-ad-was-an-absolute-disgrace

"That same month, RFK Jr. reaffirmed his belief that the JFK assassination was not just the work of a 23-year-old loser using a rifle to elevate himself from the obscurity of laboring in a textbook warehouse.

“There is overwhelming evidence that the CIA was involved in his murder,” Kennedy said on a radio talk show. There is no evidence that the assassination involved anybody but Lee Harvey Oswald, just as there is no evidence to back RFK Jr.’s other conspiracy theories.

I heard early stirrings of the JFK conspiracy theory two days after the assassination. Douglas and I were among those who stood on the steps of the North Portico at 1 p.m. and watched JFK’s flag-draped coffin being borne to a horse-drawn gun carriage.

The sound of the horse hooves starting toward the Capitol was joined by people muttering around us that the man who had murdered the president had himself been shot dead in Dallas just a half hour before. That killer was Jack Ruby and despite all the speculation that followed, there is no evidence that he was anything but another loser with a gun."

Well, that is what the JFKA community is still up against. Anyone who suspects LHO did not act alone is a nut. 

Well, I guess the LHO-cyborg is not all that great at football. SB loser. 

3 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

The Osborne bullet was the same one as Dr. Young's bullet brought into the autopsy from the limousine, not the "king-size fragment" that fell out of Kennedy's back, per Custer. Two different pieces of ballistic evidence.

You think Dr. Young's slug (found in the limo) was seen by Osborne? But Osborn's testimony is the bullet fell out of JFK's coat. 

Seems like a mish-mash of conflicting statements to me. 

39 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

David Osborne, later Admiral. Stated President was fully dressed and wearing a coat.

That's right! I have been trying to remember his name. 

Osborne had a long and successful career at Bethesda, with promotions after 1963. He sure does not seem like a lulu. 

"Osborne said that the President was fully dressed when the coffin was opened. Upon raising his shoulders to remove the coat, Osborne said that a slug rolled out of his clothing and onto the table. Osborne said that the slug was copper-clad and that the Secret Service or FBI took possession of this. Upon further inquiry, Osborne emphasized that the slug was a fully intact missile and not a fragment."

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md66.pdf

Sheesh! How does Osborne's commentary line up with anything? 

If you told me the CIA had released a hallucinogenic gas into Bethesda...I would not sneer. The different recollections are wildly inconsistent. 

But why stop at an LHO doubl

32 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

this guy also owns 3 wallets……whoa!! just had a massive deja vu…..

But why stop at a double? I think we can go for a triple, with photo evidence being amassed. 

https://nypost.com/2024/02/07/sports/brock-purdy-asked-about-lee-harvey-oswald-at-super-bowl-2024/

Brock Purdy gives blunt response after reporter’s bizarre Lee Harvey Oswald question

On 5/16/2018 at 3:11 AM, David Josephs said:

While the CIA denies that OSWALD spoke to CIA agents at the US Embassy in Moscow...

He obviously did... and was handled by SNYDER in a manner to NOT allow him to defect... officially.

Strangely though, after reading about the time and effort in the late 40's (and again in 1970) to work for the CIA, he supposedly only works from Sept 59 thru Oct 60.

 

R i c h a rd Snyder was the Department of State consular officer on duty at the A m e r i c a n Embassy in Moscow when Lee Harvey Oswald appeared at the embassy to announce his defection on October 31, 1959. Though Snyder had briefly worked for the CIA in 1949 and 1950, the Review Board staff could locate no evidence in CIA files that he still had any connection to the CIA at the time of Oswald’s defection. CIA processed its 201 re c o rd on Snyder as part of the sequestered collection. The Review Board staff examined Snyder’s Office of Personnel file, but did not designate any records as assassination records   https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/review-board/report/arrb-final-report.pdf   p112

Do employees really ever LEAVE the CIA??

I'd imagine that the KGB was more interested in SNYDER to defect than to accept what Oswald was doing....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent work.

Anyway, it is standard practice to embed bona fide spies into diplomatic staff, so that they have diplomatic immunity. 

Even under the Geneva rules, it is legitimate for the host country to simply execute a spy. 

That also goes for soldiers found not fighting in uniform, on any battlefield. 

Yes, quite likely Snyder was CIA. 

CT'ers: When convicting people of the JFKA...use the same level of scrutiny and skepticism when refuting claims that LHO did it. 

CT'ers will examine in the most minute detail (as they should) all evidence against LHO, and develop elaborate counter-arguments and alternative narratives. All good. 

But then CT'ers will say "Lansdale did it" on rather flimsy evidence. Anybody is quoted saying anything, despite a lack of recordings or same-day written evidence. 

Suspects from Nazis to French right-wingers to Jews to Mormons to Mafia to Cubans to members of the military-Deep State community have all been convicted by JFKA researchers. 

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben:

Just remember, 2 million budget back then.

Today, that is about ten million.

For a JFK assassination book?

JD-

Op Mock in spades, likely. 

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I can't see a huge difference between (A) two Oswalds and (B) two Oswald identities being used by the real Oswald and by a fake Oswald. I know they're not the same, but I don't see a gigantic difference between them.

Yes. There is a difference between some spookery, creating a shadow Oswald on paper, and occasional impersonations vs. the full-on from childhood LHO-HLO theory. 

8 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

I don't know the answers to your questions. But my *guess* is that while bunking with Oswald for a couple of weeks Oswald was not touting the benefits of Marxism or saying stuff like my whole life changed when I was handed a flier in NYC a few years ago about the innocence of the Rosenbergs. Maybe Oswald was talking about how proud he was to be a Marine and wanted to kill communists or undermine communism. Maybe Oswald was singing the praises of John Wayne. 

I guess is nothing at all about "Marxism" radiated off of Oswald and looking back years later Lord concluded there is absolutely no way Oswald was a legit Marxist defector to the USSR in 1959.

Then the Dallas FBI Agent John Fain interviewed Robert and Marguerite Oswald in 1960 neither of them had any idea about Lee Oswald's supposed turn to Marxism and communism. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95569#relPageId=139 (Start on page 139)

 

 

Thanks for your reply.

It is disappointing we don't know more about Lord. 

As pointed out by many, the WC would interview certain witnesses in detailed length, such as Kerry Thornley, and others just disappeared off the map. 

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The other point I was trying to accent was: how quickly Epstein flipped.

Inquest was published in January of 1966.  And Clay Felker gave it a big blast off at his house, many celebrities there.  And it got attention in the press.  It was mostly well reviewed.

But yet, by the end of the year, Epstein has gone over and is cooperating with the likes of Richard Warren Lewis and FBI fink Larry Schiller.  He is on their record album accompanying that horrible book, The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report. 

Then, he does not show up as part of the Boston debate team with Salandria. But he does approach him later and they have that strange conversation which I took from Jhn Kelin's fine book, Praise from a Future Generation. Where Epstein says to Vince that he has changed.  That debate was in November of 1966.  And then of course he goes to work on the smear job on Jim Garrison. 

In light of the record, there are two schools of thought on Epstein and the JFK case. For whatever reason, he turned in late 1966.  I mean when you are cavorting around with the lawyers for Clay Shaw, and Jack Ruby and Gordon Novel, and your end product is put out by the CIA as an example of how to counter the critics, then you have changed your ways.

The other school is that Epstein was not really ever a critic, because his first book seemed to tolerate the concept of Political Truth.  And very soon after he called critics like Mark Lane "demonologists".  He even accused Lane of sending a burglar to his house to steal a document.  (This turned out to be untrue as Lane already had it from Salandria.)

But on top of that he was, by the seventies, firmly in the Oswald did it camp.  As can be seen by the conclusion of Legend.  He even supports the forensic conclusions of the HSCA!  Which is nutty.  I mean Guinn, Canning, Baden? They have all turned out to be jokes.

For myself, I really don't know which is the answer.  If you forced me at gunpoint, I would probably vote for the latter.  On the grounds that he hid Specter's reply to him about how he convinced the rest of the Commission into the SBT. Specter told Epstein that he simply showed them the Z film in slow motion and said, "We either go with the Magic Bullet, or we start looking for a second shooter."

To my knowledge he did not reveal this until the 21st century.

 

JD-

We both have had books published. I would venture to say that pre-publication advances of $2 million are unheard of, except for celebrity authors, such as Obama or Bill Clinton. Outside the the JFK crowd, no one has ever heard of Epstein. 

Epstein? A very dubious author. 

2 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

The value of the letter from Billy Lord is that someone who spent a great deal of time in close quarters (as a cabin mate on a ship) with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1959 thought he was CIA handled fake defector to Russia and was not buying the "Oswald is a commie" narrative. And, furthermore, this witness came under surveillance and intimidation in the 1970s (presumably by the government) and had has home telephone tapped years after the JFK assassination.

Great work RM, in resurrecting a forgotten and fascinating page in the LHO saga. 

I do ask however: Do we know why Billy Lord thought LHO was a false defector or CIA asset? (I suspect as much also, btw). 

If Lord suspected LHO as a false defector due to something Lord read after the JFKA, that is fine, and certainly a valid opinion. 

But what would be more interesting is if Lord had insights from bunking with LHO for a couple of weeks.  Did LHO reveal any details, or clues? 

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

A flurry of shells came into the limo.

-Roy Kellerman

Exactly. 

Kellerman's words echo those of Connally. 

My guess is someone was using a silenced semi-automatic. 

Of the three ear-witnesses on the TSBD fifth floor, two thought the shots had come from above them, and one thought the shots had come from below them. 

In addition, dozens and dozens of witnesses described a "bang...bang-bang" sequence of shots on 11/22.

Gov. Connally thought the shots had entered the cab of the limo as if fired from an "automatic rifle." 

 Amos Euins, very close to the TSBD and who witnessed the gunman, said he heard four shots. 

I do not understand the reasoning behind this post.

One witness statement means....what? 

47 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The Texas Theater misunderstanding was resolved here and on the ROKC forum a few years ago. See, for example:

• https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2051-time-to-kill-another-myth-there-was-no-second-oswald-arrested-at-the-theater
• http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170

There was only one Oswald in the Texas Theater. This wasn't even a case of a plausible short-term impersonation, let alone an implausible scheme involving a pair of imaginary long-term doppelgängers.

The person whom Burroughs erroneously claimed (three decades after the event, having failed to mention it to Jim Marrs) he saw being arrested was George Jefferson Applin, Jr, who had not been arrested but was being escorted by the police to one of their cars parked at the rear of the building. From there, Applin was taken to the police station, where he gave a statement. The police then drove him back to the Texas Theater.

Applin, a 21-year-old white man, was the person whom Bernard Haire saw at the rear of the building. Haire assumed that Applin was being arrested, and jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the young white man he saw was the young white man who was accused of shooting JFK.

This incident illustrates the main problem with Douglass's book. He takes all sorts of dubious evidence at face value and weaves an unlikely narrative out of it. People read his book, take it at face value (it's got endnotes in it, with references and stuff, so it must be true!), and the myth continues that a second Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Whenever faced with an inherently implausible claim involving lizard people, imaginary doppelgängers, or little green men, readers should use their critical faculties and get into the habit of checking primary sources, e.g.:

• George Applin's affidavit: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338846/
• Applin's Warren Commission testimony: Hearings, vol.7, pp.14-17 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41#relPageId=24)

The ROKC thread I mentioned is worth reading in full. One remark by Greg Parker stands out:

"This incident illustrates the main problem with Douglass's book. He takes all sorts of dubious evidence at face value and weaves an unlikely narrative out of it."--JB

I agree with this, and it is too bad, as parts of the book are excellent. 

Douglass even goes so far as to state that a large cargo plane landed in a wash near downtown Dallas and spirited an LHO look-a-like away. Based on one witness statement.

And that Jack Ruby was seen outside the TSBD---again based on a lone witness statement. 

Douglass even waxes spiritual about these witnesses. 

Whether CT'er or LN'er, relying on lone eyewitness accounts...well, anyone who ever worked in courts knows witness statements are a crapshoot.

The advent of webcams is a big boost to law enforcement. 

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The following comment was made in another thread:

 

 

The results of this ONI investigation may have uncovered the two sets of military records I conjectured above.

 

@Benjamin Cole @Jim Hargrove

 

Man, I would love to see those records. Whatever they contain. 

10 hours ago, Fred Dent said:

(I'm new, so please go easy on me...)

After spending hundreds of hours in the JFK vortex as an earnest student of the assassination, there is one question that I cannot seem to find an answer to:

If JFK was shot in the neck/throat from the front, why is there no exit wound in the back of the neck?  Because the neck is a relatively small section of our anatomy, it seems that a bullet would easily pass through and create a visible exit wound.  However, there doesn't seem to be much discussion around this topic that I can find in my searching and reading of the case.  

Perhaps this has been addressed by other researchers.  If so, I would appreciate being pointed to any discussions or articles related to this topic.

Fred Dent

 

 

You ask a reasonable question. 

In addition, there was a windshield in front of JFK.

Some people posit a midget was hiding in a sewer drain.

JFK's neck wound sure is an oddity. 

Tink Thompson has speculated a bullet fragment, or shard of glass made a wound in JFK's front throat. Or possibly an exiting skull fragment. 

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Ben,

A lot of mistakes were made, and Jim Hargrove has a ton of evidence for two boy-Oswalds.

For example, school records show that Oswald attended two different schools simultaneously. (Beauregard Junior High and P.S. 44). And, also regarding schools, the Warren Commission has records for him attending one school during another school year (I forget the name), and yet everybody in his family testified that he went to a different school, Stripling Junior High. Plus the assistant principal of Stripling recalls the FBI taking Oswalds records from Stripling, never to be returned. (He's interviewed on videotape.)

And on and on.

 

So, there could be even more lapses in scrubbing in the suppressed records...right? 

And not just regarding LHO and a possible double, but on other topics as well? 

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

My bet is that any “smoking guns” in the remaining documents were scrubbed long ago, but I’d love to be wrong on that.

Government records (federal and local) about “Lee Harvey Oswald” is a fascinating subject.  One Oswald clearly had a valid Texas drivers license while the other did not.  There are fascinating Social Security oddities about “LHO as well.  And then there is this note from John A’s book, Harvey and Lee:

NOTE: Following the assassination of President Kennedy, US Senator Richard Russell
(a member of the Warren Commission) asked former Army Intelligence office Colonel
Phillip Corso to conduct a discreet inquiry into the assassination. After contacting Francis
Knight, head of the US Passport Office, Corso reported to Senator Russell that Knight
had told him there were two passports issued to "Lee Harvey Oswald" and they had been
used by two different people. 66

Endnote 66 reads:

66. Anthony Summers, Official and Confidential, the Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover (New York) 1993, p. 322; Authors interview with Phillip Corso, 1996.

Phillip Corso wrote a book about spooky dealings involving possibly alien technology at Roswell, and for that reason some people discredit him, but it seems worthwhile to at least keep his claim in mind.  Corso did have an extensive background in US Army Intell.

JH--

1. Of course, we don't know what we don't know about the fake US government's suppression of the JFK Records. What is in there?

2. But you and others contend enough material, likely mistakenly, was left to raise questions about two LHOs.

3. Ergo, I conclude other mistakes could have been in scrubbing the records, and so there may be more clues to a possible LHO double in the records. 

In general, I suspect that LHO was an intel-state asset, and that is what is being suppressed by Merrick Garland and the Justice Department at this time. 

However, if there were two LHOs, then maybe there is more material about that. 

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

You don't understand the "tangled snarl" that has grown up around the implementation of the JFK Act?  It's really not that difficult.

 

In '92 Congress passed (unanimously in both houses!) the JFK Act to establish the ARRB to search for and release to the public all remaining JFK information (records), so the public could decide for themselves what happened that day.  All JFK records were to be housed in the JFK Collection at NARA.

 

It was to be an enormous task. Congress was wise enough to delegate the responsibility to the new Board to define the records they were to look for.  The board defined record as broadly as possible--all information relative to understanding the murder regardless of the form it takes or who possess it (though it took them until the summer of '95 to issue a final definition). Only in the "rarest" of circumstances, Congress said, should information still be withheld.

 

But, abhorring permanent bureaucracies, Congress gave the new Board a short life to at least begin the job. Initially the Board was to last only 2 years.  That was later expanded to 6 years.  The Board closed in '98.

 

Congress knew the job would not be finished by then, so they set a deadline 25 years in the future when they expected completion (2017).  But they supplemented  that. The Act says, Section 12 (b), that the search and release of records shall continue until NARA's Archivist certifies to the President and Congress that all JFK records have been made available for public view.

 

Whose job, then, has it been to to continue the job the Board started?  Bill and Larry filed the MFF suit claiming it's NARA's job and they haven't been doing it.  

 

No one in the case disputes NARA's (lack of) performance in the last 25+years.

 

Instead, Judge Seeborg rejected out of hand (in both his decisions) the assertion that continuing the record search was NARA's responsibility. The ARRB and NARA were "two distinct entities, separately referenced in the JFK Act, and tasked with separate statutory functions", he said.

 

He pointed to the Section 12 (a) termination of the Board and concluded that neither NARA, nor any other agency, can on its own volition "legally assume obligations so terminated".

 

That was a massive misreading of the Act.  Section 12 (b) explains that the search and release obligations were *not* terminated when the Board closed. They were to continue until NARA's Archivist certifies that all records have been released to the public.  Seeborg never mentioned 12 (b) in his initial decision. 

 

Seeborg never addressed the threshold question of exactly who then is responsible for the work Congress envisioned remaining when the Board closed, if it is not NARA. 

 

By denying to NARA or anyone the responsibility for the job, it was easy for Seeborg to reject all of the important points of the suit itself that argued for an order directing NARA to implement the Act. 

 

In filings after the initial deciosn, Bill and Larry pressed Seeborg on 12 (b).

 

He was forced to quote the 12 (b) language.  Yet, incredibly, he directly followed the acknowledgement of NARA's Archivist's responsibility by simply regurgitating the same nonsense about NARA itself having no further responsibilities. And he added, as I already explained, to turn the knife.

 

As if NARA and its Archivist were distinct and separate entities, with different tasks and responsibilities, like he claimed was the case for the Board and NARA.  The Archivist runs NARA.   

 

In short, Seeborg has erected a massive roadblock toward any efforts to use the JFK Act as it was intended.

 

Smelling blood I presume, Biden has come along with his blatantly illegal "transparency plan" to try to finish the job of eliminating any usefulness of the JFK Act.  Seeborg has waived that through too. 

 

 

RO-

Thank you for your synopsis of the fake US government's suppression of the JFK Records Act. 

When I say I don't understand what has happened, I mean I do not understand what appear to be entirely specious and fake arguments made by Merrick Garland's Justice Department, or the rank perfidious of Judge Seeborg. 

18 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Tom Gram we have some ideas about missing or destroyed records. For example, there are footnoes in Book V of the Church Committee Report that cites documents that are not in the JFK Collection or the current Church Committee records. The LHO mexico city tapes were destroyed but we know Mexican Government was given dupes. We are asking for them. The Sheridan files were physically removed from the JFK Library (technically a part of the NARA presidential records system) and given to NBC. 

What happened to the reports sumarizing the investigation conducted Donald Heath over the weekend of the assassination  into potential exile and cuban involvement in the assassination. his memo said he saw those reports in 1973 in a storage cabinet at Langley. What happened to them? were they destroyed?

We have accounts that a ONI investigation on oswald was done in the weeks after the assassination and the investigatve materials were stored at naval bases around the world so they would not be found if a record search was done  in DC.  

we also want to find out what records were actually searched at CIA. did they actually search every nook where records could have been stored?  It is unclear. I'd like to depose CIA officials to see where they looked. 

Just some examples. I'm sure others have ideas/suggestions. if you do, please contact Bill Simpich and me. 

BTW- not only did NBC refuse to turn over the Sheridan files to ARRB (who commenced lawsuit that was terminated when ARRB went out of business) but it has also refused to share the Darnall film so that it can be analyzed usingmodern forensic techniques. There should be an outcry launched against NBC for withholding these materials that have been identified as "assassination" records.    

Thank you Larry Schnapf for your efforts to recover records that belong to the public, now suppressed by the US government, which is instituting increasingly depraved arguments and tactics to do so.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If there were two Oswalds (and I believe there were) then the records that Jim presented show that both the one that went to Taiwan and the one who stayed in Japan, being treated for VD, both had the same military service number, 1653230.

 

 

The two Oswalds would have been placed in different units. The military had to have been cooperating with an intelligence service in order to keep two separate sets of records.

I've never thought the two Oswalds looked liked twins... only that the could have passed for one another in situations where other people wouldn't have become acquainted with their specific looks.

 

Is this something that might be revealed if the JFK Records were to be released?