Greg Parker

Of course! You can't have a doppelganger without a designated name! How else are you going to keep them all straight?

Less definitive than figments of your own imaginations?

But that cobbling together couldn't possibly include the 2nd floor lunchroom bollocks, apparently

Didn't want to comment on this until I had a chance to check it out. "Judge John Tunheim, of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), wrote to Henry Hyde in an attempt to get the HUAC files on Lee and Marguerite Oswald released, but his request was refused." It is another of those claims that has been copied and pasted all over the web as if a given as true - with not one - not a single person giving a citation. This is from the ARRB final report: 6. House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) During the 1950s and 1960s, this Committee investigated "un-American" activities of various individuals and groups. In the summer of 1996, the staff of NARA's Center for Legislative Archives did an initial survey of the HUAC files and identified files on Lee Harvey Oswald, Marina Oswald, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), and Mark Lane (a Warren Commission critic). Under House Rules, investigative records of a House committee may be closed for fifty years after the committee finishes their investigation and shuts down. In November 1996, the Review Board requested that Congress make these records available for inspection by the Review Board to confirm whether the records initially identified by NARA staff were assassination records and should be released to the public. The Review Board received no responses and raised the matter again in 1997. In January 1998, the Clerk's Office sought permission from the Judiciary Committee to open up the HUAC files for Review Board inspection. The Judiciary Committee initially denied the Board's request, but upon reconsideration ultimately agreed to release substantial HUAC files relating to the JFK assassination. 1. Marguerite was not identified by NARA as being in those files. 2. The vast bulk of the files were eventually handed over. ------------------------- This tends to support my contention that the "Mrs. Oswald" in the files was indeed the Mrs. Oswald I pointed to previously. How's that sword in the ground holding up, sport?

Thanks, Tommy. This has been an eye-opening foray into the world of JFK research for me. Precisely how has the File Locator Number been overlooked for decades? It took me a few hours on Google to determine what it was. How has the non-existent “Wilmouth statement” been repeatedly cited as authority without anyone asking, “Where is the Wilmouth statement, anyhow?” How does Lance become classified as DVP’s “buddy” when I’m sure neither of us had ever heard of the other before meeting on this thread? Is anyone allowed to agree with Dave’s assessment of the evidence on any issue without becoming “the enemy”? Why do True Believers feel compelled to close ranks, change the subject and resort to ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies in order to preserve the illusion that the Klein’s money order is a massive fake, as opposed to simply admitting “OK, there is a 99.9% certainty that it was processed through the banking system and this avenue of inquiry is a dead end?” It is not as though any conspiracy theory hinges on the money order not having been processed through the banking system. The answer, I believe, is that too many conspiracy theorists have become fundamentalist true believers; they have lost all perspective and no longer even care what the truth is on any particular issue. Their pet conspiracy theory has become a religion. I don’t believe I will ever look at JFK “research” (to use the term loosely) the same way again. I don’t believe, deep down, anyone really believes the earth is 6,000 years old; I don’t believe anyone, deep down, still really believes the Klein’s money order should be festooned with endorsements. You have articulated some of the real problems with this "community". There is simply a "knee-jerk" impulse from both sides to disbelieve each other on any issue. That said, I can afford to (and do) occasionally agree with DVP. All I want are the facts. DVP on the other hand, can never afford to agree with any CT position. This forces him to make up any silly argument he can to deny specific points. If he ends up being right about the CT position being wrong, it is sometimes by sheer accident - as I demonstrated in another thread yesterday. I applaud your efforts in this thread, though I haven't followed all arguments closely enough to "pick a side".

Here are the facts. The 1941 HUAC hearings were mainly, if not totally swallowed up by an investigation into Nazis in New Jersey. As part of that investigation, the HUAC published the names of all the employees of the German Library of Information - which was purportedly churning out Nazi propaganda. One of the stenos listed as employed by the library was a "Mrs Oswald"... not "Mrs M Oswald" as Richard and/or Armstrong asserts and certainly not "Marguerite Oswald" as stated elsewhere on the net. Marguerite Oswald was running a lotion shop in Fort Worth at the time. I could probably find out what the fake Marguerite's albi is - but I think she already has the best one ready made - she never existed .https://archive.org/stream/investigationofu07unit#page/12/mode/2up/search/oswald ------------------------------------------------------------------ So... it's not surprising that this "Mrs Oswald" was named in a CIA office of security file dealing with Nazis in New Jersey in 1941. This Mrs Oswald was employed by said Nazis in spreading propaganda. As interesting as all of that is, it has bugger all to do with the Lee Harvey Oswald case - though there is an entirely different connection between the Oswald case and that New Jersey Nazi investigation by HUAC - as explained in the backend of LHOCW vol 2! Thanks Richard, for the opportunity to shoot another Armstrong fish in a barrel with the added bonus of being able to plug my own book!

Well Paul, firstly, you've mistaken me for someone who gives a fig about what anyone else has said on it. Secondly, IIRC correctly, they were not as unequivocal as you indicate anyway.

Thanks Greg, for your semantic pause on this interesting topic in the history of Lee Harvey Oswald. It might be worthwhile to also review CE 15, the actual letter intercepted by the FBI on November 10th 1963, which had been sent from Irving, Texas on November 9th. This type-written letter is full of mysteries -- but also full of clues -- related to the JFK assassination. I agree it's full of false information. I don't see how it helps to hang LHO post-assassination, however -- since the letter seeks to involve the USSR in LHO's plots and plans, while the Warren Commission *insisted strenuously* that LHO was a "Lone Nut" who had "no accomplices who are still at large." Instead, one may argue along with Jeff Caufield (2015) that a Right-wing conspiracy engaged LHO to work with them to blame the JFK assassination on the USSR and Cuba. That alone, IMHO, is the purpose of the USSR Embassy letter. Here's my transcript of this interesting letter: ------------------------ BEGIN LETTER FROM LHO TO USSR EMBASSY, NOV 9. 1963 -- CE 15 ------------------ TO: OVERSEAS DIVISION . EMBASSY U.S.S.R. . WASHINGTON, D.C. . NOV. 9, 1963 FROM: LEE H. OSWALD, P.O. BOX 6625, DALLAS, TEXAS . MARINA NICHOLAYEVNA OSWALD, SOVIET CITIZEN Dear Sirs, This is to inform you of recent events since my meetings with comrade Kostin in the Embassy of the Soviet Union, Mexico City, Mexico. I was unable to remain in Mexico indefinitely because of my Mexican visa restrictions which was for 15 days only. I could not take a chance on requesting a new visa unless I used my real name, so I returned to the United States. I had not planned to contact the Soviet Embassy in Mexico, so they were unprepared, had I been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as planned, the embassy there would have had time to complete our business. Of course the Soviet embassy was not at fault; they were, as I say, unprepared. The Cuban consulate was guilty of a grave breach of regulations. I am glad he has since been replaced. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is not now interested in my activities in the progressive organization, "Fair Play for Cuba Committee," of which I was secretary in New Orleans (state Louisiana) since I no longer reside in that state. However, the F.B.I. has visited us here in Dallas, Texas, on November 1st. Agent James P. Hasty warned me that if I engaged in F.P.C.C. activities in Texas the F.B.I. will again take an "interest" in me. This agent also "suggested" to Marina Nicholayevna that she could remain in the United States under F.B.I. "protection", that is, she could defect from the Soviet Union. Of course, I and my wife strongly protested these tactics by the notorious F.B.I. Please inform us of the arrival of our Soviet entrance visas as soon as they come. Also, this is to inform you of the birth on October 20, 1963 of a DAUGHTER, AUDREY MARINA OSWALD in DALLAS, TEXAS to my wife. Respectfully, <signature> ------------------------ END LETTER FROM LHO TO USSR EMBASSY, NOV 9. 1963 -- CE 15 ------------------ We should first notice that the USSR commented on this letter when confronted with it by the FBI after the JFK assassination. The USSR at first believed that the letter was forged, in order to lay a phony paper trail to link LHO with the USSR. According to classified USSR documents recently by the National Archives in August, 1999, ."This letter was clearly a provocation: It gives the impression we had close ties with Oswald and were using him for some purposes of our own." This document was signed by USSR Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. Looking at this letter, the theory that makes the most sense to me is that LHO was tricked into working with the Radical Right in the USA, in order to frame Fidel Castro and the USSR for the (attempted or actual) assassination of JFK. The USSR claims that they had no solid relationship with LHO -- LHO was never a Communist Party member, paid no dues to them, and regularly wrote to them, knowing full well that the FBI would intercept the full paper trail from LHO to the USSR. From this vantage, since Marina wanted urgently to remain in the USA, and Ruth Paine wanted urgently to keep Marina Oswald inside the USA as a friend of freedom -- any connection between Ruth Paine and this USSR Embassy letter would be sheer guesswork. Let's look at the falsehoods: (1) LHO said that he entered Mexico City using an alias. Mexico City immigration records record his real name. (2) LHO said correctly that he never planned to contact the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City -- but he did so only because the Cuban Consulate boldly refused to honor his "credentials." However, LHO then adds that if had been able to enter Havana Cuba, he would have "had time to complete our business," which he neglects to itemize. This implies that the USSR and LHO had a mutual plan together (which the USSR flatly denied). (3) LHO tried to drive a wedge between the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City by blaming his failure to obtain instant passage to Cuba wholly on the Cuban Consulate (and not on his bogus resume of "credentials." (4) LHO boasts that he knows that the Cuban Consulate was replaced. This was a wild guess of bluster, though some have said that the Consulate was already marked for transfer earlier in the year. (5) LHO boasts that he was "Secretary" of the FPCC in NOLA (which was a lie, since that 544 Camp Street FPCC "branch" was phony from the start. (6) LHO boasts that the FBI was tracking him in NOLA because of the FPCC branch, when actually LHO himself asked for the FBI to interview him in NOLA after his fake fight with Carlos Bringuier in NOLA. So, LHO forged this "interest" so he could boast of it to the USSR. LHO was creating a paper trail of his bogus FPCC affiliation. (7) While it is true that the FBI visited Ruth and Marina in Irving Texas, they never asked about the FPCC, nor did they even meet LHO himself during those two visits. LHO lied by putting a warning about the FPCC into Hosty's mouth. (8) LHO lied by claiming that Hosty tried to get Marina to "defect" from the USSR. Hosty said no such thing. (9) LHO asks about two Soviet visas, one for himself and one for Marina -- but he neglected to admit that he forced Marina to apply for her Soviet visa starting in February 1963, when she urgently wanted to stay in the USA. So, Greg, I count nine lies in LHO's Embassy letter, and they don't tend to blame LHO of the JFK murder, but tend to link LHO with the USSR -- a linkage which the USSR emphatically denied. Regards, --Paul Trejo Oswald never went to MC. It contained information that he therefore could not have known, Ruth Paine knew he never went to MC. Oswald was never known to type a letter previously. Ruth Paine could have obtained the information contained in the letter. Ruth Paine later forged the Walker letter but could not type it since it would be alleged Oswald wrote in from the Neely St. address at which he never resided, but which was given to the DPD by Ruth's husband. Your take is ludicrous because you have Oswald hanging himself, along with the Soviets and Cubans.

Greg, your theory is intriguing, and original. Carol Hewett doesn't claim that LHO's Embassy letter was written by Ruth Paine, but only wonders whether Ruth Paine helped LHO complete the final draft. Carol Hewett wonders, only because the final draft seems more "educated," and Ruth Paine was college educated, while LHO dropped out of high-school and got his GED from the Marines. Further, Carol Hewett believed -- in her error -- that Ruth Paine was secretly helping LHO in his political cause because Ruth failed to complain about her Veterans Day clash with LHO to her mother. Yet as you admitted, Greg, Carol Hewett based her belief on a letter written in October -- before Veterans Day. Without that argument, Carol Hewett's guesswork loses its foundation. Carol Hewett further admits that LHO had been writing to the USSR Embassy since February 1963. She says that Marina Oswald did likewise, but Carol failed to admit Marina's testimony that LHO forced her to do that. This additional letter to the USSR Embassy from LHO was, even according to Carol Hewett, only the latest in a long series. The FBI intercepted LHO's letter to the USSR Embassy, and made this typewritten letter an Exhibit for the Warren Commission, as given in this link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/8p358ex48.gif So, what is your rationale, Greg, for your original claim that Ruth Paine wrote the USSR Embassy letter? I ask, because Ruth Paine said LHO told her in September that he was going to Houston to look for work -- not to Mexico City. Marina also confirmed this -- saying that LHO warned her sternly never to mention to anybody that he was going to Mexico City. So, Marina confirmed that she never told Ruth Paine that LHO went to Mexico City. Yet this USSR Embassy letter makes the Mexico City trip into its central theme. So, what's your rationale? Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, not having read Ms Hewett's article, I took you at pour word on the Veteran's Day mix-up. I'm not debating it any further without reading it. I have given you my opinion on the letter to the Embassy, It was the only letter Oswald ever allegedly typed (If I am recalling correctly) and is full of false information that helps hang him post-assassination.

Richard, you need to argue with DVP. He's just as certain of his nonsense as you are of yours. It makes it an even contest.

Paul, it would appear that you are correct. Hewett was confused as to when the Veterans weekend was and somehow also got muddled with other timings. The real problem with the letter to the embassy is that Ruth wrote it herself.

Why? Because both Mrs. Reid and Oswald said so. But if the FBI agent wrote that statement and not Baker and if Baker made no OTHER reference to a coke, then I take it back about him recalling it was a mirage. In fact, based on this information, I'll go one better and chalk this one up for the LIN side by saying it is now rendered non-suspicious. Yep. The LNs got something right. They just have no clue as to why they are right. I will explain in the paper I'm writing for this joint. I don't understand Greg. What exactly is non-suspicious? Of course it is suspicious that Baker dictated the words "drinking a coke," just like it's suspicious that he dictated the words about the lunchroom encounter. Right? All in due time, Sandy.Two different situations. Like I said, you guys got this right -- you're just completely wrong about why you're right!. Lucky for you there's a CT around to explain it to you. Happy birthday, David.

It's like extracting teeth from jellyfish. The letter in question is Ruth's letter to her mother.

Why? Because both Mrs. Reid and Oswald said so. But if the FBI agent wrote that statement and not Baker and if Baker made no OTHER reference to a coke, then I take it back about him recalling it was a mirage. In fact, based on this information, I'll go one better and chalk this one up for the LIN side by saying it is now rendered non-suspicious. Yep. The LNs got something right. They just have no clue as to why they are right. I will explain in the paper I'm writing for this joint.

I sympathize with your request here, Greg, but I don't have control over that. CTKA (affiliated with James DiEugenio) is selling a CD of PROBE Magazine back-issues, and I bought that CD to review Carol Hewett's claims with a fine-toothed comb. Now, I did supply the title, the date, the volume and the page number of the article that I'm criticizing. Also, I did quote directly from Carol Hewett to show the precise paragraph in which she made her clear blunder. Yet, there's no on-line link for me to include for this purpose, Greg. Perhaps we should ask James DiEugenio to post Carol Hewett's articles on-line for this purpose. There's a lot more errors in that article and in other articles Carol wrote. I propose to expose them all in this thread. Regards, --Paul Trejo I sympathize with your request here, Greg, but I don't have control over that. CTKA (affiliated with James DiEugenio) is selling a CD of PROBE Magazine back-issues, and I bought that CD to review Carol Hewett's claims with a fine-toothed comb. Now, I did supply the title, the date, the volume and the page number of the article that I'm criticizing. Also, I did quote directly from Carol Hewett to show the precise paragraph in which she made her clear blunder. Yet, there's no on-line link for me to include for this purpose, Greg. Perhaps we should ask James DiEugenio to post Carol Hewett's articles on-line for this purpose. There's a lot more errors in that article and in other articles Carol wrote. I propose to expose them all in this thread. Regards, --Paul Trejo Well, at least a link to the letter in question?

It's a Hard Grind Doing the Bump Mr. BELIN - All right. Mr. BAKER - And then there are some inner doors and another door you have to go through, a swinging door type. As I entered this lobby there were people going in as I entered. And I asked, I just spoke out and asked where the stairs or elevator was, and this man, Mr. Truly, spoke up and says, it seems to me like he says, "I am a building manager. Follow me, officer, and I will show you." So we immediately went out through the second set of doors, and we ran into the swinging door. Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, during the course of running into the swinging door, did you bump into the back of Mr. Truly? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I did. Mr. BELIN - Then what happened? Mr. BAKER - We finally backed up and got through that little swinging door there and we kind of all ran, not real fast but, you know, a good trot, to the back of the Building, I was following him. It just wasn't Truly's day for doors, stairs or elevators... But here's the thing,,, Baker's 1st day statement... I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. so "people standing around inside" that he asked directions from morphed into "people going in as I entered" that he asked - and consequently, Truly goes from already being in there to one of those entering. Baker sure had some short term memory problems. Forgot what floor he stopped a potential suspect on, forgot his description, forgot about the lunchroom altogether, took him until his long term memory kicked in to recall that the coke bottle was a false memory or mirage, forgot that people weren't inside when he got there, they were apparenting pushing past him to get in - and of course - forgot all about the bump and grind he did with Truly until reminded by the ever-helpful Belin. Thanks God for Truly and Baker - otherwise we'd still be in the dark!

No. Not unless the person was carrying a gun. Baker very likely would have let him go from the sixth floor (just like he did on the 2nd floor) after Mr. Truly identifies LHO as just another employee. Baker originally thought the gunshots came from the roof, not the 6th floor (or any other floor). Is that Rule #2A from "The CTer Guide To Make-Believe JFK Conspiracy Theories"? But such a rule probably is in place for many Internet CTers. Otherwise, outer-fringe conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio and Greg R. Parker wouldn't be able to build up their lists of never-ending liars in the JFK case nearly as easily. Good imaginary rule, Greg. It keeps you from having to accept the reality of Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious guilt. "Police routinely lie to and mislead suspects" http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/includes/pdf/CLQ-2.pdf "interrogation techniques which employ lies" http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1933&context=ulj

Well, Greg, you're forcing my hand, so I'll offer a preview of coming attractions: In her article, Ruth Paine Finds Evidence: Oswald’s Letter to the Soviet Embassy, Carol Hewett criticizes Ruth Paine for complaining to the Warren Commission about finding Oswald's November 9th Letter to the Soviet Embassy in her house, which Oswald wrote during the Veteran's Day holiday weekend. To criticize Ruth Paine for this, Carol Hewett writes: ...Ruth wrote a very touching letter to her mother dated October 14, 1963 describing the Veterans Day’s weekend with Lee. She mentions what a good father he was, how much he helped with repairs and generally provided a welcome masculine presence to the household. Not a word to her mother about the Embassy letter which so upset Ruth that she reasoned to a rude invasion of her guest’s privacy. These omissions, coupled with her willingness to give Lee a driving lesson following her reading of the disturbing letter, render Ruth’s testimony suspect. (Carol Hewett, PROBE, Vol. 4, No. 3, March-April, 1997, p. 16) The obvious error in Carol Hewett's "research" is that Ruth Paine's letter to her mother dated October 14, 1963, WAS WRITTEN NEARLY ONE MONTH BEFORE OSWALD'S LETTER TO THE SOVIET EMBASSY. Nothing about Veteran's Day appeared in this letter from Ruth Paine to her mother! How could Carol Hewett miss that? This is just a preview of what's coming. Regards, --Paul Trejo BUMPED. Carol Hewett showed pure bias in her attacks on Ruth Paine in PROBE Magazine 1993-2000. This hasn't been debated ad infinitum. Nobody has taken Carol Hewett to task before the appearance of this thread. I just showed a major blunder on the part of Carol Hewett -- and I notice that James and Greg have carefully evaded comment. Oddly -- I've heard no comment about Carol Hewett's blunder from anybody yet. I'm waiting. Regards, --Paul Trejo If you want to pick an argument over someone's work, you need to provide links to their material as well as links to the material you are relying on to debunk it. Otherwise you're saying, I'll give you both sides of the argument - you don't need no steenkin references, trust me, amigos! I'm not doing your work for you.

Good. Then you agree that Oswald himself said he encountered the policeman on the second floor. It's good to have that finally settled. Thanks. Will the number of liars in that "major piece" be three dozen or four dozen? Bookhout never wrote the WCR, junior as you indicated he did. Will the number of liars blah blah de blah blah. Grow up. Get a new script. Learn the Queensbury rules. Be constructive. You're a wearisome worn out recording. As you will see, the number one rule of a cop interrogation is to lie through your teeth at every opportunity. It's just policy and nothing personal, your understand,

Yeah, right. Too funny. As if Baker and Truly KNEW the sniper had been on the sixth floor as of 12:31:30 on Nov. 22. (Is that going to be your next lame-ass theory, Greg --- that Baker & Truly knew the "sixth floor" was the Floor Of Death as of 12:31 PM?) Regardless of the FLOOR NUMBER, this headline would still apply.... DALLAS COP CATCHES SNIPER BUT RELEASES HIM! Here is what you said: "And would you care to explain WHY the evil Baker/Truly twins decided to put Oswald on the SECOND floor via their lies---instead of the SIXTH floor?" How are they supposed to put him on the 6th floor unless they see him there? Baker supposedly stuck his gun in Oswald's gut for being in a second floor lunchroom.. He thought the shots came from much further up. Don't you think if he catches someone on the 6th floor, he is going to hold him? That is why they didn't put him on the 6th floor, genius. They could never explain away letting him go. There was NO such headline about the idiot cop letting someone go from the 2nd floor, so you saying same headline WOULD apply is just you making up history, It never happened. No such headline.

bump

No.No I don't. Bookhout never wrote the WCR. Have you had maybe a wee bit much christmas cheer? Oswald's interrogations and the subsequent reports are different kettle of fish. I am working on a major piece about those. But you're just trying to shift the debate yet again. Let's stick to first person accounts for now and leave the hearsay out because that will ultimately be another avenue for wiggle room for you. And we don't want that now, do we? Noooooo...... not today anyway. Try again tomorrow. I might cut some slack for your birthday.

And so you think BOTH Baker & Truly were so dumb, so stupid, so idiotic, they decided to alter their totally fabricated lie about LHO about a half-a-dozen times?? Is that correct? And would you care to explain WHY the Baker/Truly twins decided to put Oswald on the SECOND floor via their lies---instead of the SIXTH floor? How does putting him on the second floor do the patsy-framers any good at all? Gee, what a shocker. Doesn't matter what I think. What I think doesn't change the fact that they gave all those stories. This is just another stunt you pull. Try and shift the debate to the messenger. Ain't happening. They said all of those things. I don't have to speculate what caused them to. It does show at least on face value, that neither are reliable witnesses. It also shows you have double-standards, crying about how anyone could possibly accuse them of lying on national TV after they actually got the script right when they constantly gave different accounts to the media - and to authors! Why didn't they put him on the 6th floor? Are you serious? That's hilarious! The Headline DUMB DALLAS COP CATCHES SNIPER RED-HANDED BUT RELEASES HIM! HIS SUPERIORS DESCRIBE HIM AS SLOW WITTED. subhead: building superintended arrested as accomplice after vouching for shooter. My onl;y regret is that Truly is not alive to see the bus coming.

"No one has proprietary ownership of threads" Jack White to me in 2010 after I complained of his continual hijacking of my threads. I know you wouldn't want to argue with Jack about anything. Besides... who gives a fig about this thread? We all know where it's heading. We all know the defense team's arguments. Mr. P won't come up with anything that hasn't been debated ad infinitum already. Do you like arguing round and round in circles? I certainly don't give a toss for it. RP won't know what hit her when my third book comes out.