Jump to content
The Education Forum

Cops, FBI, Texas Rangers, Sheriffs and reporters were all in on it


Greg Parker
 Share

Recommended Posts

According to this student, the school was sent home early on Nov 22nd, but she had trouble walking home because the street was crowded with cops, rangers, sherrifs, FBI agents and reporters outside "Mrs Oswald's" house.

When the student finally got home, she learned from TV that they were still searching for Oswald...!!!!

So there you have it. We know who the plotters were now because we all know anyone associated with Stripling Junior High has an infallible memory.

Seriously, can anyone check out a directory for '62, '63 or '64 to see if any Oswald's are listed for 2220 Thomas Place, Fort Worth?

Two questions spring to mind - the first in relation to Kudlaty's allegations:

If the FBI was there on the afternoon of Nov 22nd, why did they wait until the next day to take control of Oswald's records?

If there were reporters present, where are all those stories, and all the newsreel footage?

As it stands, it's looking to me like a family named Oswald (but not THE family) lived at that address, and at the very least, the mother still lived there in '63.

http://www.pbs.org/n.../questions.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this student, the school was sent home early on Nov 22nd, but she had trouble walking home because the street was crowded with cops, rangers, sherrifs, FBI agents and reporters outside "Mrs Oswald's" house.

When the student finally got home, she learned from TV that they were still searching for Oswald...!!!!

So there you have it. We know who the plotters were now because we all know anyone associated with Stripling Junior High has an infallible memory.

Seriously, can anyone check out a directory for '62, '63 or '64 to see if any Oswald's are listed for 2220 Thomas Place, Fort Worth?

Two questions spring to mind - the first in relation to Kudlaty's allegations:

If the FBI was there on the afternoon of Nov 22nd, why did they wait until the next day to take control of Oswald's records?

If there were reporters present, where are all those stories, and all the newsreel footage?

As it stands, it's looking to me like a family named Oswald (but not THE family) lived at that address, and at the very least, the mother still lived there in '63.

http://www.pbs.org/n.../questions.html

Home/Archive/Documents/JFK Assassination Documents/JFK Documents - Central Intelligence Agency/Oswald 201 File (201-289248)/Oswald 201 File, Vol 42/

NARA Record Number: 1993.06.10.18:10:20:810000

RESULTS OF CHECKS AT DALLAS/FT WORTH AREA BANKS FOR SAFE DEPOSIT BOX A

...The records reveal that Mrs. Marguerite C. Oswald opened a savings account on July 31, 1962 with a $100 deposit and the current balance is $ 3,600.12. Current address listed on savings account is 2220 Thomas Place, Fort Worth, Texas.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=96321&relPageId=19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this student, the school was sent home early on Nov 22nd, but she had trouble walking home because the street was crowded with cops, rangers, sherrifs, FBI agents and reporters outside "Mrs Oswald's" house.

When the student finally got home, she learned from TV that they were still searching for Oswald...!!!!

So there you have it. We know who the plotters were now because we all know anyone associated with Stripling Junior High has an infallible memory.

Seriously, can anyone check out a directory for '62, '63 or '64 to see if any Oswald's are listed for 2220 Thomas Place, Fort Worth?

Two questions spring to mind - the first in relation to Kudlaty's allegations:

If the FBI was there on the afternoon of Nov 22nd, why did they wait until the next day to take control of Oswald's records?

If there were reporters present, where are all those stories, and all the newsreel footage?

As it stands, it's looking to me like a family named Oswald (but not THE family) lived at that address, and at the very least, the mother still lived there in '63.

http://www.pbs.org/n.../questions.html

Home/Archive/Documents/JFK Assassination Documents/JFK Documents - Central Intelligence Agency/Oswald 201 File (201-289248)/Oswald 201 File, Vol 42/

NARA Record Number: 1993.06.10.18:10:20:810000

RESULTS OF CHECKS AT DALLAS/FT WORTH AREA BANKS FOR SAFE DEPOSIT BOX A

...The records reveal that Mrs. Marguerite C. Oswald opened a savings account on July 31, 1962 with a $100 deposit and the current balance is $ 3,600.12. Current address listed on savings account is 2220 Thomas Place, Fort Worth, Texas.

http://www.maryferre...21&relPageId=19

Thanks Robert. Good to see you on the job!

This document also shows she opened an account in Jan '63 with an address at 1013 5th Avenue. Can it be checked as to who was listed there during '63?

Also - is this supposed to be the real Marguerite or the big fat phony one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this student, the school was sent home early on Nov 22nd, but she had trouble walking home because the street was crowded with cops, rangers, sherrifs, FBI agents and reporters outside "Mrs Oswald's" house.

When the student finally got home, she learned from TV that they were still searching for Oswald...!!!!

So there you have it. We know who the plotters were now because we all know anyone associated with Stripling Junior High has an infallible memory.

Seriously, can anyone check out a directory for '62, '63 or '64 to see if any Oswald's are listed for 2220 Thomas Place, Fort Worth?

Two questions spring to mind - the first in relation to Kudlaty's allegations:

If the FBI was there on the afternoon of Nov 22nd, why did they wait until the next day to take control of Oswald's records?

If there were reporters present, where are all those stories, and all the newsreel footage?

As it stands, it's looking to me like a family named Oswald (but not THE family) lived at that address, and at the very least, the mother still lived there in '63.

http://www.pbs.org/n.../questions.html

Home/Archive/Documents/JFK Assassination Documents/JFK Documents - Central Intelligence Agency/Oswald 201 File (201-289248)/Oswald 201 File, Vol 42/

NARA Record Number: 1993.06.10.18:10:20:810000

RESULTS OF CHECKS AT DALLAS/FT WORTH AREA BANKS FOR SAFE DEPOSIT BOX A

...The records reveal that Mrs. Marguerite C. Oswald opened a savings account on July 31, 1962 with a $100 deposit and the current balance is $ 3,600.12. Current address listed on savings account is 2220 Thomas Place, Fort Worth, Texas.

http://www.maryferre...21&relPageId=19

Thanks Robert. Good to see you on the job!

This document also shows she opened an account in Jan '63 with an address at 1013 5th Avenue. Can it be checked as to who was listed there during '63?

Also - is this supposed to be the real Marguerite or the big fat phony one?

Page 11 of this document shows Marguerite listed at the 5th Ave address in the '63 Polk directory and at the Thomas Place address in '64 directory.

What evidence is there of residence at the Thomas Pl address in the early 50s?

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Greg you feel so snarky against some who think differently than you, and believe in john armstrong's work, i cannot figure out why it is so apparently offensive to you, i do not recall others telling you what to believe, to each their own i thought, really i used to....anyway i did find this info out for you, now i hmmm wonder why people bother at times, anywhere here it is...fwiw and for whatever you do with it..this is from a 63 directory..from a friend...b

:(

I have a 1963 Ft. WorthPolks Directory, will list the Oswalds.Charles 2821 NW 31stJewel same as aboveJohn G. 1824 6th Av.Margt 1073 5th Av Apt 6Robert 7313 Davenport Av. 2220a Thomas Place is a B.J. Cox2220b Thomas Place is Vacant

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Greg, ask a mod to change the thread title to add the name of this insurance company that provided the Oswald family's address change history to the WC. I must say, it is a very well covered history, right down to the day of each address change, through the 50's and up to the date of the assassination.:

"...They call me the wanderer , yeah I'm a wanderer,

I go around around around around..."

"Following is a list of all change of addresses taken from our

premium cards that we have on Mrs. Oswald since she bought her

first insurance from this Company in 1950 to the present time.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0058a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0058b.htm

Now, it is the other Oswald who lived at 2220 Thomas Place, and spent a summer in North Dakota

while the Oswald covered in the above linked address history was documented as living in NYC

during the exact same time period, circa 1952-53. (I added this paragraph as a courtesy to future readers

unfamiliar with the "two Oswalds" premise.) If the missing Stripling Junior High, Fort Worth record of

Oswald's registration, grades and attendance ever surfaces, the game changes...If not, we have the witness

accounts gathered by John Armstrong and the letter from the woman in North Dakota to LBJ.

IMO, no amount of evidence will convince the government to pay attention to the "two Oswalds" premise.

The Smithsonian had rejected sound and thorough evidence, including newspaper reports in real time, and sworn

affadavits that Gustav Whitehead performed powered flight 18 months before the Wright brothers, and all to no avail, whatsoever, and that resistance to evidence was cemented while we still postured as "a nations of laws".

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YYwzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O0oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3723,3855542&dq=gustav+aero&hl=en

The Aerial Sweepstakes At The St. Louis Fair .

Deseret News - Apr 12, 1902

... finally met his death) to the latest aero plane by Gustave Whitehead, with which he claims to have made a flight of a mile and a half. .

http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm

Gustave Whitehead and the First-Flight Controversy

Stanley Yale Beach was the aeronautical editor of Scientific American. A resident of Stratford, he helped finance Whitehead for some time. Beach also designed a Whitehead-built biplane that suffered from a major flaw: its wings were flat, with no curvature, or ‘camber.’ It never flew despite Whitehead’s effort to alleviate Beach’s error by installing a cambered monoplane wing behind the flat surfaces. A few excerpts from Beach’s reports in Scientific American in 1906 and 1908 contradict Orville’s version of Beach’s beliefs about Whitehead.

Beach’s reports referred to powered flights in 1901 by Whitehead in the issues of January 27, November 24 and December 15, 1906, and January 25, 1908. Included were these phrases: ‘Whitehead in 1901 and Wright brothers in 1903 have already flown for short distances with motor-powered aeroplanes,’ ‘Whitehead’s former bat-like machine with which he made a number of flights in 1901,’ ‘A single blurred photograph of a large bird-like machine constructed by Whitehead in 1901 was the only photo of a motor-driven aeroplane in flight.’

The last quote is from a long article by Beach on the first annual exhibit held by the newly formed Aero Club of America at the 69th Regiment Armory in New York City. The report appeared in Scientific American, January 27, 1906. In that issue Beach also wrote, ‘It would seem that aeroplane inventors would show photographs of their machines in flight to at least partially substantiate their claims.’ That barb, according to O’Dwyer, was clearly aimed at the Wrights, who had been invited to show photographic evidence of their December 17, 1903, flight but refused even to attend the exhibit. ‘That famous photo,’ O’Dwyer added, ‘did not surface until 1908.’...

Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth!

http://gustavewhitehead.org/the_research.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1067&bih=706&tbs=nws%3A1%2Car%3A1&q=%22Wright+and+the+Smithsonian+for+the+display+of+the+aircraft+stipulates+that+the+museum+never+publish+material*%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Wrights Not First, Researcher Claims .

Reading Eagle - Aug 22, 1982

... estate of Orville Wright and the Smithsonian for the display of the aircraft stipulates that the museum never publish material that would disprove the ...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1067&bih=706&tbs=nws%3A1%2Car%3A1&q=1912+Smithsonian+gustav+whitehead&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Were The Wrights Only 2nd .

Milwaukee Journal - Mar 10, 1986

At Issue is whether Gustave Whitehead, an obscure GermanAmerican inventor, ... at the National Museum of American History of the Smithsonian Institution.

http://www.weisskopf.de/pageID_9967512.html

Aviation Pioneer Gustav Weißkopf Museum

whd3.jpg

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Anniversary-of-disputed-1st-flight-takes-wing-in-615968.php

Anniversary of disputed 1st flight takes wing in Fairfield

John Burgeson, Staff Writer

Published: 04:27 p.m., Saturday, August 14, 2010

FAIRFIELD ---- On August 14, 1901, according to many people in the region, Gustave Whitehead fired up the engines of his No. 21 flying machine near Jennings Beach, and took to the skies for about 30 seconds....

....It was Kosch and others who, in 1986, built a recreation of Whitehead's bat-like flyer in an effort financed by Kaye Williams of Captain's Cove fame. In December of that year, the craft, piloted by Kosch, achieved powered flight at Sikorsky Memorial Airport.

That flight ended when it collided with a photographer for this newspaper, Wayne Ratzenberger, who received a broken arm in the ordeal....

The U.S. government, during the rest of our lives, will bring its power to bear to make sure assassination research remains a hobby, not to be taken seriously by "serious" (powerful people that actually matter...) people.

Orville Wright has gone down in history as a brave pioneer, a national hero, first, along with his brother, in aviation. Closer to the truth is that he was a self-promoting propagandist, and opportunist who blackmailed the Smithsonian into silence in exchange for the right to display, his more primitive, "also ran", flying machine. Oswald has gone down in history as an evil, "lone nut" killer of a president and a policeman. An incurious and unquestioning audience perpetuates both of these officially sponsored and perpetuated myths. How many twists of the truth are there in this quote box?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1986-03-23/news/0210070040_1_gustave-whitehead-orville-wright-model-21

Wrights 1st To Fly? Maybe Not

March 23, 1986|By James Brooke, New York Times

...Orville Wright wrote in 1937: ''In the case of Whitehead, the design of the machine is in itself enough to refute the statements that the machine flew.''

But half a century later some history buffs are about to put Wright's verdict to the test.

With painstaking detective work, they tracked down the specifications of the Model 21 published in turn-of-the-century scientific journals. They studied magnifications of old photographs. The result is a reproduction made of piano wire, bamboo, Japanese silk and spruce planks. Powered flights are planned for this summer.

''With the replica, we can't prove that Whitehead flew, but we can show that he could have flown,'' said William O'Dwyer, a leader of the group....

...Whitehead was buried in a pauper's grave in 1927. Over the years all his notebooks, records and airplane models disappeared.

O'Dwyer said the Smithsonian was not interested in examining the Whitehead claim because in 1948 the secretary of the Smithsonian signed a contract with the executors of the Wright estate.

In this contract, the Smithsonian bought the Wright airplane of 1903 for $1 in return for a pledge never to remove it from prominent, public display and never to ''publish or permit to be displayed a statement'' about any earlier aircraft that would claim to have been capable of carrying a man under its own power ''in controlled flight.''

If the Smithsonian violates the contract, the Wright airplane is to be returned to the heirs of the Wright estate.

''That thing does exist,'' Crouch said of the contract. ''But I can't imagine a Smithsonian scholar who uncovered evidence about someone flying before Wilbur and Orville Wright and suppressing that information.''

http://www.456fis.org/THE_HISTORY_OF_FLIGHT_-_WHO_FLEW_FIRST.htm

title.gif

In 1982, Thomas D. Crouch, then curator of aeronautics for the National Air & Space Museum, wrote to a publisher of an aviation history magazine concerning the early aeronautical editors of the Scientific American. He said, in part, "The editors of the Scientific American were honest men. They would not lie to their readers. I have no doubt that they saw a blurred image of some sort on the wall. That is not to say that the editors of the Scientific American believed that Whitehead had invented the airplane. They had quite another candidate in mind for that honor." Dr. Crouch then pointed to Beach's report crediting the Wrights for the "Genesis of the Aeroplane," stating: "In short, these were trained, professional technical journalists who were in the best possible position to judge Whitehead's work, and who had always been sympathetic toward him. They were far better able to evaluate the validity of Whitehead's case than anyone alive today."

I buy that, Dr. Crouch! Those editors credited Whitehead for flying with power in 1901 and also 1903! Not "practical flight," but "successful motor-driven flight."

The September 19, 1903, Scientific American full-page report by its aeronautical editor Stanley Yale Beach told of Whitehead making powered flights in what had been his triplane glider, which also predates the flights made at Kitty Hawk the following December!

Beach reported on page 204 in the September 19, 1903, Scientific American edition: "… By running with the machine against the wind after the motor had been started, the aeroplane was made to skim along above the ground at heights of from 3 to 16 feet for a distance, without the operator touching, of about 350 yards. It was possible to have traveled a much longer distance, without the operator touching terra firma, but for the operator's desire not to get too far above it. Although the motor was not developing its full power, owing to the speed not exceeding 1,000 R.P.M., it developed sufficient to move the machine against the wind …. Having proven that a less powerful motor will do the work, Mr. Whitehead is now constructing one of 6 horsepower which will weigh between 25 and 30 pounds …."

The engine shown in the September 1903 article was the engine exhibited by Whitehead at the Second Annual Exhibit of the Aero Club of America in December 1906 that was shown in the photo between the Curtiss and Wright engines.

An identical engine was bought by Thomas "Lucky" Baldwin, who installed it in his California Arrow airship during the preparations to fly it at the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair. When the Wrights sought a lightweight engine for their powered experiments at Kitty Hawk, Octave Chanute urged Wilbur to look into the ones being built by Gustave Whitehead.

Orville Wright denied they had ever visited Whitehead at his shop, stating they had only stopped in Bridgeport while on the train to Boston. That seems strange, for the Wrights were lent the use of an office by Simon Lake, Bridgeport's famed pioneer submarine inventor, as was reported in a Bridgeport newspaper. Men who worked in Whitehead's shop on Pine Street also recalled when the Wrights visited Gustave Whitehead.

Back in the 1960s when we began our investigation, we were informed that the Smithsonian NASM had no knowledge about Whitehead's early claims of powered flight until Stella Randolph's book came out in 1937. Nearly two decades later, we discovered the Smithsonian had produced a "Bibliography of Aeronautics" covering the years up through 1912; in it, a great number of the references are cross-indexed under the names of both Whitehead and Weisskopf. Since the Museum's book covering references on hand in their collection shows they knew a lot about what was being reported about Whitehead's work and claims, it is hard to understand why the Smithsonian never once contacted Whitehead, or for that matter, ever contacted his family after his death in 1927. His engines, papers and original glass negatives were still at his home until the time his family moved to Florida after WW II. Unfortunately, little has survived: five of the books he studied along with a working scale model of his 1898 steam engine and some miscellaneous parts and wooden patterns salvaged by Stella Randolph in the mid-1930s. All else went to the town dump or to scrap-metal yards....

....and for David Von Pein; here is the Wright Brothers equivalent of a Lone Nut website.:

http://www.wright-brothers.org/TBR/History/History%20of%20Airplane/Whitehead.htm

Airplane No. 21 Replica -- Both Andy Gush of Bridgeport, Connecticut and the HFRC-GV has built and test flown replicas of the aircraft that Whitehead claimed to have flown in 1901. Neither of these were faithful replicas in that they used two 45 hp ultralight engines and high speed props, generating much more power and thrust than would have been available to Whitehead. Nonetheless, it's an ambitious and exciting adventure in new archaeology, and we applaud their work to illuminate this poorly understood chapter of aviation history. Beware of accepting the conclusions of Rush and the HFRC-GV at face value, however. New archaeology was developed to gain insight into the possible experiences of people in times past. It does not prove what did or did not happen.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...