THE PHONEY WORLD OF OSWALD ACCUSERS

[Jack White]

"Marguerite Oswald" was a paid actress employed by the CIA to play the part of Harvey's mother.

See Harvey & Lee by Armstrong.

Jack

[Guest Robert Morrow]

"Marguerite Oswald" was a paid actress employed by the CIA to play the part of Harvey's mother.

See Harvey & Lee by Armstrong.

Jack

I do not believe the 2 Oswalds and especially the 2 Oswald mothers theory. I do not think the CIA would be paying Marguerite to be telling everyone she knew that Oswald was a CIA agent - which she did.

I do think Harvey and Lee the book has some other great info in it, though.

[Bernice Moore]

HI ROBERT'; I REALIZE HOW YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT THE TWO MARGUERITES, LET ALONE TWO LHO'S I HAVE ADMITTED WHEN I FIRST CAME UPON JACK'S STUDIES I CERTAINLY HAD MY DOUBTS, BUT THE MORE I RESEARCHED AND CHECKED INTO SUCH, THERE REALLY WAS , IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION, OTHER THAN IF SOME OTHERS OUT THERE CAN EXPLAIN AND PROVE THE DIFFERENCES, NOT ONLY OF THE DIFFERENCES IN APPEARANCES, BUT ALSO IN HOW THEY COULD BOTH AT TIMES, BE IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES AT ONCE, THOUGH I HAVE READ OF MANY DOWNING JACK AND DISBELIEVING JOHN A'S WORK, THEY HAV OFFERED NOTHING ELSE IN REALITY IN THE WAY OF SUCH, I CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW ANYONE CAN BE IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE, THOUGH WITH LHO THERE HE IS IN THE MILITARY AND STATIONED IN DIFFERENT POSTS AT THE SAME TIMES AND ACCORDING TO MILITARY RECORDS..NOT WCS THANKS..TAKE CARE B

Edited August 28, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Robert Howard]

HI ROBERT'; I REALIZE HOW YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT THE TWO MARGUERITES, LET ALONE TWO LHO'S I HAVE ADMITTED WHEN I FIRST CAME UPON JACK'S STUDIES I CERTAINLY HAD MY DOUBTS, BUT THE MORE I RESEARCHED AND CHECKED INTO SUCH, THERE REALLY WAS , IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION, OTHER THAN IF SOME OTHERS OUT THERE CAN EXPLAIN AND PROVE THE DIFFERENCES, NOT ONLY OF THE DIFFERENCES IN APPEARANCES, BUT ALSO IN HOW THEY COULD BOTH AT TIMES, BE IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES AT ONCE, THOUGH I HAVE READ OF MANY DOWNING JACK AND DISBELIEVING JOHN A'S WORK, THEY HAV OFFERED NOTHING ELSE IN REALITY IN THE WAY OF SUCH, I CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW ANYONE CAN BE IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE, THOUGH WITH LHO THERE HE IS IN THE MILITARY AND STATIONED IN DIFFERENT POSTS AT THE SAME TIMES AND ACCORDING TO MILITARY RECORDS..NOT WCS THANKS..TAKE CARE B

After some time, Jack White and Jack Armstrong have me convinced that there is more than something to the Harvey and Lee conceptualization. The photo's of "Marguerite"

pretty much speak for themselves. My only disappointment is that since the Jack Tippit family in Westport, Connecticut is such an integral part of the story, it does not appear

that any genealogical research studying whether the two Tippit families were in fact, related has been done. I have had my copy of Harvey and Lee for some time.

I do recognize that that is not as prerequisite for the two Oswald's to be a reality, but it would be nice to know, if there was a literal genealogical connection.

Back decades ago, researchers W R Morris and R B Cutler mentioned, almost as an afterthought that their other "Oswald was probably born in Riga, Latvia in 1938...."

I wondered how they came upon this particular city, until I read a section of Lee Harvey Oswald's 201 File.

It was in Riga, Lativa that "Alik," lived.

But it gets even more convoluted, Alfred LNU and Alik appear to be two separate persons, I am one of the few persons I suppose, who feel that photo of Oswald with

Alfred looks very much like Jean Souetre.

I wish Jack Armstrong would interact a little more with the research community, but it is a free country.

[Bernice Moore]

hi robert thank you for your informative post as always.. i now admit, i must reread and get into the harvey and lee again, i am rusty...i do not know if the small photo up on left corner is the one you reference, if not, i will look further in the lho russian photos...this below was posted in the past you probably have read it, but just in case not, i post it for you and all.....many thanks b..

From: (Jim Hargrove)

Subject: "Harvey & Lee:" HSCA Secret Testimony--LHO Was CIA

Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 16:02:56 GMT

Organization: World Wide Access

James B. Wilcott, a former CIA accountant, swore in secret HSCA testimony

that a Lee Harvey Oswald was paid by the CIA. The document excerpted below

was acquired by John Armstrong after his JFK Lancer NID97 presentation, and

was forwarded to me by Michael Parks. (Thanks, Mike)

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1978

House of Representatives,

John F. Kennedy Subcommittee

of the Select Committee on

Assassinations,

Washington, D.C.

[. . . . ]

TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. WILCOTT, A FORMER EMPLOYEE

OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY:

Mr. Goldsmith. For the record, would you please state your name and address

and occupation?

Mr. Wilcott. My name is James B. Wilcott. My address is 2761 Atlantic

Street, in Concord, and my occupation is electronic technician.

[ . . . . ]

Mr. Goldsmith. And, Mr. Wilcott, is it true that you are a former employee

with the CIA and that you are here today testifying voluntarily without a

subpoena?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. During what years did you work for the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. I worked from the years, May, of 1957 to, April, of 1966.

Mr. Goldsmith. And in what general capacity did you work with the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. All in the finance--in accounting all of the time.

[. . . .]

Mr. Goldsmith. Drawing your attention to the period immediately after the

assassination of President Kennedy, at that time, did you come across any

information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship with the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did.

Mr. Goldsmith. And will you tell the Committee what that relationship was?

Mr. Wilcott. Well, it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an

employee of the agency and was an agent of the agency.

Mr. Goldsmith. What do you mean by the term "agent?"

Mr. Wilcott. That he was a regular employee, receiving a full-time salary

for agent work for doing CIA operational work.

Mr. Goldsmith. How did this information concerning Oswald first come to

your attention?

Mr. Wilcott. The first time I heard about Oswald being connected in any way

with CIA was the day after the Kennedy assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And how did that come to your attention?

Mr. Wilcott. Well, I was on day duty for the station. It was a guard-type

function at the station, which I worked for overtime. There was a lot of

excitement going on at the station after the Kennedy assassination.

Towards the end of my tour of duty, I heard certain things about Oswald

somehow being connected with the agency, and I didn't really believe this

when I heard it, and I thought it was absurd. Then, as time went on, I

began to hear more things in that line.

Mr. Goldsmith. I think we had better go over that one more time. When,

exactly, was the very first time that you heard or came across information

that Oswald was an agent?

Mr. Wilcott. I heard references to it the day after the assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And who made these references to Oswald being an agent of

the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. I can't remember the exact persons. There was talk about it

going on at the station, and several months following at the station.

Mr. Goldsmith. How many people made this reference to Oswald being an agent

of the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. At least--there was at least six or seven people,

specifically, who said that they either knew or believed Oswald to be an

agent of the CIA.

Mr. Goldsmith. Was Jerry Fox one of the people that made this allegation?

Mr. Wilcott. To the best of my recollection, yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. And who is Jerry Fox?

Mr. Wilcott. Jerry Fox was a Case Officer for his branch, the Soviet Russia

Branch, [REDACTED] Station, who purchased information from the Soviets.

Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, did I ask you to prepare a list of CIA Case

Officers working at the [REDACTED] Station in 1963?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, you did. [Witness then recites a lengthy list of case

officers and station names, quite a few redacted in this document--jh]

[. . . .]

Mr. Goldsmith. At the time that this allegation first came to your

attention, did you discuss it with anyone?

Mr. Wilcott. Oh, yes. I discussed it with my friends and the people that I

was associating with socially.

Mr. Goldsmith. Who were your friends that you discussed this with?

Mr. Wilcott. [REDACTED] George Breen, Ed Luck, and [REDACTED].

Mr. Goldsmith. Who was George Breen?

Mr. Wilcott. George Breen was a person in Registry, who was my closest

friend while I was in [REDACTED].

Mr. Goldsmith. Was he a CIA employee?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, he was.

Mr. Goldsmith. And would he corroborate your observation that Oswald was an

agent?

Mr. Wilcott. I don't know.

Mr. Goldsmith. At the time that this allegation first came to your

attention, did you learn the name of Oswald's Case Officer at the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. No.

Mr. Goldsmith. Were there any other times during your stay with the CIA at

[REDACTED] Station that you came across information that Oswald had been a

CIA agent?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. When was that?

Mr. Wilcott. The specific incident was soon after the Kennedy

assassination, where an agent, a Case Officer--I am sure it was a Case

Officer--came up to my window to draw money, and he specifically said in the

conversation that ensued, he specifically said, "Well, Jim, the money that I

drew the last couple of weeks ago or so was money" either for the Oswald

project or for Oswald.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you remember the name of this Case Officer?

Mr. Wilcott. No, I don't.

Mr Goldsmith. Do you remember when specifically this conversation took

place?

Mr. Wilcott. Not specifically, only generally.

Mr. Goldsmith. How many months after the assassination was this?

Mr. Wilcott. I think it must have been two or three omths [sic] after the

assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And do you remember were this conversation took place?

Mr. Wilcott. It was right at my window, my disbursing cage window.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you discuss this information with anyone?

Mr. Wilcott. Oh, yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. With whom?

Mr. Wilcott. Certainly with George Breen, [REDACTED] the circle of social

friends that we had.

Mr. Goldsmith. How do you spell [REDACTED] last name?

Mr. Wilcott. [REDACTED] (spelling).

[. . . .]

Mr. Goldsmith. Did this Case Officer tell you what Oswald's cryptonym was?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, he mentioned the cryptonym specifically under which the

money was drawn.

Mr. Goldsmith. And what did he tell you the cryptonym was?

Mr. Wilcott. I cannot remember.

Mr. Goldsmith. What was your response to this revelation as to what

Oswald's cryptonym was? Did you write it down or do anything?

Mr. Wilcott. No; I think that I looked through my advance book--and I had a

book where the advances on project were run, and I leafed through them, and

I must have at least leafed through them to see if what he said was true.

[Three pages of discussion about Wilcott's "Request for Advance" book

follows but is omitted here. --jh]

Mr. Goldsmith. And for purposes of clarification, now, if Oswald was

already dead atthe time that you went to this book, why did you go back and

examine the book?

Mr. Wilcott. Well, I am sorry--if Oswald was what?

Mr. Goldsmith. At the time you went to look at the book, Oswald was already

dead, is that correct?

Mr. Wilcott. That is right.

Mr. Goldsmith. Why did you go back to look at the book?

Mr. Wilcott. Well, the payments that were made especially to substations

like Oswald's was operated--it was a substation of the [REDACTED] Station,

and they had one in [REDACTED] and they had one in [REDACTED]--and it may be

six months or even a year after the initial allocation that the final

accounting for those funds were submitted, and they would operate out of

revolving funds or out of their own personal funds in many cases.

Mr. Goldsmith. So, is your testimony then that even though Oswald was

already dead at the time, the book might have contained a reference to

either Oswald or the Oswald project and that that reference would have been

to a period six months or even a year earlier, is that correct?

Mr. Wilcott. That is correct.

[As far as I can determine from this 54-page typed document, HSCA Counsel

Michael Goldsmith never asks Wilcott the essential question, which would be:

"Was the Oswald cryptonym you no longer recall in your "Request for Advance"

book?" Strange. The most relevant testimony is found on pages 18-19, as

follows. --jh]

Mr. Goldsmith. But as a matter of routine, would the CIA cash disbursement

files refer to the cryptonym of either the person or the project that is

receiving funds?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I am sure somewhere.

Mr. Goldsmith. As a matter of routine, there would be that reference? Do

you believe that there was such a reference to Oswald?

[Mr. Wilcott.] Yes, I do, and I believe there was such a reference.

The above covers less than half of Wilcott's sworn testimony at the HSCA

Executive Session of 3/22/78. He makes a number of other interesting

statements, including how the agency routinely destroyed or altered internal

documents when there was public disclosure of an operation (called a

"flap").

--Jim Hargrove

[Guest Tom Scully]

In the world of JFK assassination research, there are only TWO kinds of people.

There are the Oswald DEFENDERS, of whom I am one, and there are the Oswald ACCUSERS, who include the Warren Commission, Vince Bugliosi, Jim Garrison, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (to mention just a few)

I hope I am wrong, but from recent discussions here, it seems that I am the only Oswald defender on this forum.

...........................

I would like to know whether there is ANYBODY ELSE on this forum, besides myself, who thinks that Lee Oswald was an INNOCENT man who was framed for a crime he would NEVER HAVE COUNTENANCED

If you are an Oswald accuser, please do me a favor and DON'T BOTHER TO REPLY.

So you give the thread a provocative title aimed directly at Oswald accusers and end it with a plea for them not to reply.

So apparently this thread is solely for Oswald DEFENDERS . But if there are no Oswald ACCUSERS contributing there will be nothing for the defenders to defend! Not thought this through have you Raymond?

But hey, at least inconvenient facts won't be getting in the way of things.

take stock of your frequent tendency to convey an impression in your posts that you are struggling with challenges manifesting themselves in your posts as remarkably similar to what would be unsurprising to read if it was authored by someone of diminished capacity.

W ell it is a long time Since I read such a tortured piece of prose.

Lee Oswald went to his grave protesting his innocence

jut as Michael Morton would have done

had it not been for The Innocence project.

It seems you and most members here don't believe Lee Oswald

and you are abusing your position to censor discussion relevant to the question of Lee Oswald's innocence.

Once again I would like to know if other moderators support this form of CENORHIP.

I am not interested in hearing any more of Scully's gobbledygook

.............................................

Greetings Billy and good luck with your new forum.

My thanks to Robert Morrow for letting us know.

Robert is a self-admitted Oswald accuser, and I respect him for making that admission.

Can you tell me if your forum allows someone to argue that Lee Oswald was completely innocent

JUST LIKE MICHAEL MORTON

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403194n&tag=contentBody%3BstoryMediaBox

in contrast to this JFK forum where arguments for Lee's innocence are currently VERBOTEN

by order of DER FUHRER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

.....The reasonable person is also a standard that holds: each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances.[2][3] While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.....

Edited March 29, 2012 by Tom Scully

[J. Raymond Carroll]

the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.[/i]....

According to the new Forum rules promulgated by DER FUHRER

I am not allowed to mention DER FUHRER'S name.

But it is a great joke to hear him describe himself

as REASONABLE.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Willkommen zu Hause, Liebling, zum Theater des Absurden, früher unter dem Namen Education Forum bekannt......

If you are an Oswald accuser, please do me a favor and DON'T BOTHER TO REPLY.

So you give the thread a provocative title aimed directly at Oswald accusers and end it with a plea for them not to reply.

Since it appears you never went to school (or if you did, you forgot what you learned) I will repeat it -- SLOWLY .

My post is aimed at finding out whether there is ANYONE here who believes -- as I do -- that Lee Oswald was an innocent man

Obviously, you sir had no business replying.

This is the worst thread I have ever seen in my entire life

Sie können sich von diesem Hotel zu jeder Zeit, aber man kann nie verlassen.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Tom Scully

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Willkommen zu Hause, Liebling, zum Theater des Absurden früher unter dem Namen Education Forum bekannt......

HEIL HITLER

[Guest Tom Scully]

Ein Housewarminggeschenk für Sie, proffesor.

Sorry Bill. Nothing personal, but I find that statement EXTREMELY ambiguous, just as I find that MOST AMERICANS become AMBIGUOUS/EVASIVE when it comes to the UNSOLVED MURDER of JFK.

......

I POSTED THIS ON THE lANCER FORUM

AND ALSO ON THE McADAMS FORUM......

alt.assassination.jfk

Can anyone tell why the Morton case is relevant

Ray

View profile

I have posted

> I have posted information about the case of Michael Morton

> on the Education Forum

> and got back the equivalent

> of DUMB LOOKS.

You did a poor job of showing any relevance to the Kennedy

assassination. There are thousands of cases that would be relevant,

like Hinckley, the self deluded loner living in a fantasy world that

shot Reagan.

John Raley is the greatest trial lawyer

I have ever seen in action

besides being an all-round GREAT GUY.

Below is an email from John about his most important case ever

and I urge everyone to watch 60 Minutes this coming Sunday.

Friends,

I wanted to let you know that 60 Minutes has confirmed that they will run the Michael Morton exoneration story this Sunday night the 25th.

Michael’s wife was brutally murdered at home 26 years ago while Michael was at work. He was charged with the crime and wrongfully convicted. Evidence of his innocence was concealed. After a 7 year fight to obtain DNA testing, Michael has this year been declared Actually Innocent by the State of Texas and released after 25 years in prison. The DNA testing also lead to a hit on a known felon with a lengthy record in 3 states, who has been indicted for the murder.

Many of you have supported Michael’s cause with your prayers and good wishes. He appreciates both very much. Sunday, if you have a chance to tune in, Michael will tell his story. I am interviewed briefly as well, as is Barry Scheck of my co-counsel The Innocence Project.

Take care,

John Raley

Edited March 29, 2012 by Tom Scully

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray

View profile

I have posted

> I have posted information about the case of Michael Morton

> on the Education Forum

> and got back the equivalent

> of DUMB LOOKS.

You did a poor job of showing any relevance to the Kennedy

assassination. There are thousands of cases that would be relevant,

like Hinckley, the self deluded loner living in a fantasy world that

shot Reagan.

Why am I not surprised that the opinions of people

on the McAdams forum are no different from Scully's

John Raley is the greatest trial lawyer

I have ever seen in action

besides being an all-round GREAT GUY.

Below is an email from John about his most important case ever

and I urge everyone to watch 60 Minutes this coming Sunday.

Friends,

I wanted to let you know that 60 Minutes has confirmed that they will run the Michael Morton exoneration story this Sunday night the 25th.

Michael’s wife was brutally murdered at home 26 years ago while Michael was at work. He was charged with the crime and wrongfully convicted. Evidence of his innocence was concealed. After a 7 year fight to obtain DNA testing, Michael has this year been declared Actually Innocent by the State of Texas and released after 25 years in prison. The DNA testing also lead to a hit on a known felon with a lengthy record in 3 states, who has been indicted for the murder.

Many of you have supported Michael’s cause with your prayers and good wishes. He appreciates both very much. Sunday, if you have a chance to tune in, Michael will tell his story. I am interviewed briefly as well, as is Barry Scheck of my co-counsel The Innocence Project.

Take care,

John Raley

Well thank you for finally posting this on the JFK FORUM

Up to now you have censored it.

What gives

Did some rational person finally take you to the woodshed

as I requested

[J. Raymond Carroll]

FInd that Mark Lane tape yet Ray?

The busted gramaphone strikes again.

Ya gotta admire all those Oswald accusers

[Michael Hogan]

I moved this reply from a thread that had drifted seriously off-topic.

this place has become a real three ring circus.

Quite right Jim

EDIT

Ray, please refrain from insulting your fellow forum members. It interferes with the free flow of information we value so highly, and makes us look like children.

It does not make us look like children, it reflects on Carroll himself and him only.

Carroll has a track record on this Forum that is unparalelled in its nastiness coupled with lack of actual content.

The insult that Pat Speer edited was more benign than many of the things Carroll has written recently, in my opinion.

In the context of the JFK Assassination Debate section of the EF, the terms Oswald-accuser, widow-basher and Fuhrer are more noxious than the phrase Pat made invisible.

Particularly so when they are unwarranted and routinely put in all caps.

And even these terms are less pernicious than some of the rules violations Carroll has been allowed to get away with in the past.

This type of moderation is a case of too little, too late. Again, in my opinion.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Michael Hogan

[Mark Wengler]

I personally believe that Oswald did not shoot President Kennedy. But to say that a thread is only for those who believe that Oswald is Innocent and those who believe that Oswald did shoot President Kennedy do not need to post here is very wrong. All threads should be open to all debate so all sides can have a sayso.

[Guest Tom Scully]

.............

Mr. Di Eugenio: Thank you for your reply. I do not expect you to hug Hugh Aynesworth, but I do not agree with your statement that "Anybody who associates with the likes of Hugh Aynesworth on the JFK case is deserving of both suspicion and contempt." .......

.............

I don't shout people down, but I do recommend the study of experimental psychology for the light it can shed on this case and why this case has not been solved.

Well guess what, I don't agree with Zaid or Ford ......

In the world of JFK assassination research, there are only TWO kinds of people.....

I would like to know whether there is ANYBODY ELSE on this forum, besides myself, who thinks that Lee Oswald was an INNOCENT man who was framed for a crime he would NEVER HAVE COUNTENANCED

If you are an Oswald accuser, please do me a favor and DON'T BOTHER TO REPLY.

Almost as bad as living with Dennis Ford and Mark Zaid.

Since the subject is non-sequiturs, let me repeat that i have great memories of Dennis Ford -- a guy who would give you the shirt off his back in the middle of a Winter snow-storm AND THINK NOTHING OF IT --but I do not know Mark Zaid from a hole in the wall. I did of course read Zaid's article on the JFK Disclosure Act, and I heard he was promoting a conspiracy theory in the death of Princess Di, but apart from that I know nothing about the man, and have no desire to know more.

So WOOF WOOF, Fido, you are barking up the wrong tree.