Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained


Greg Parker
 Share

Recommended Posts

There are three key areas that make up the argument for two Oswalds:

1. Sightings of Oswald when he was known to be elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, no sighting of Oswald has ever been dismissed by the proponents of "Two Oswalds". Yet the sheer number and variety of them alone suggests some are

the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;

mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;

by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

2. Some people describing Oswald one way - others in a completely opposite way.

Asperger's would account for this, as Oswald would appear very intelligent to some depending on the immediate environment and circumstances - while others would describe him as superficial, repetitive, mechanical for the same reasons.

3. Changes in Oswald's appearance - particularly after he came back from USSR.

This can be accounted for in a very non-spooky way but I am holding it back for my book -- it is not guesswork. The proof of why his appearance was different is in the 26 volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

there were definitely multiples, in some way or shape. Though I know it probably has nothing to do with this, has anyone else ever noticed that the unidentified guy photographed handing out leaflets with Oswald in New Orleans happens to look a lot like Oswald?

Glad to hear about the book Greg.

I have always been disappointed that no one has ever bothered to look into the genealogy of the Tippit surname, to determine if the Jack Tippit of Westport, Connecticut was even related to the family of J.D. Tippit in Dallas, one of the central premises to, maybe, not the credibility of, but at least the development of the story.

Nothwithstanding, the fact that a bloodline is more or less academic, the story began when an "unknown caller,"

telephoned the family of Jack Tippit, with, the account of the other Oswald family and "Harvey" Oswald that became the crux of Armstrong's theory; Coupled with the legion of multiple Oswald sightings [ever heard the phrase...Kilroy was here?] and discrepancy's in the Warren Commission's examination and in some cases "seizure" of Oswald historical records

and various disagreements over where Oswald was at various periods in the years before the assassination, the theory

has its proponents, and one of the bylines of that among Armstrong's constituents, if you will, is becoming very upset when someone tries, [in their mind] to point out weaknesses in the theory. Ostensibly, if the US government ever fessed up about "what was" the "Oswald Project," and the dynamic of some key references to "Harvey Lee" Oswald on certain documents, and then the whole situation in Mexico City in early October '63, with a false Oswald involved, we wouldn't be having this to deal with. I am still convinced there were two "Oswald's" that left the Texas School Book Depository between 12:31 and 12:40 C.D.T., on the 22nd of November, but unfortunately no-one had a chance to ask the person running into the Rambler, what his name was...lol. But that doesen't mean I believe his name was Harvey Lee Oswald.

Another problem with the theory, as far as I am concerned is that on the surface if you accept the theory as it is presented the person of Harvey Oswald was a communist, was he not, so you get back into that old caveat of the Soviet's were behind that. If there was a real Harvey Oswald as Armstrong described him, his background IMO was a false one, because then the Soviets would seemingly have been behind the JFK assassination; and that argument is the biggest myth about JFK's death that has ever been perpetuated, next to Oswald not being the gunman who did it.

I also am in agreement with Armstrong's point about intelligence ops back in the day, in various countries using doubles, as in the case of Cuban's Antonio and Patricio DeLaguardia or false identities, such as Kolon Molodi being given fake docs by the Soviet's to spy on the British and establishing his false identity as the deceased Canadian Gordon Lonsdale, who had died, according to his parents circa 1932. To me, the chronology of Oswald and the documents issue notwithstanding, I still can't walk away from Armstrong's theory; I suppose it is the old argument, of trying to prove that something "didn't happen."

So I suppose, I will be one of the first to read Greg's book, when it comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes the whole Oswald family was seen in places they couldn't have been according to the official story. One example is that gun shop in Irvin, TX (or Dallas, can't remember very well). Oswald was seen driving the car, but he allegedly could not drive.

Wayne January saw Oswald with a woman in a Dallas airport.

Edited by Andric Perez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes the whole Oswald family was seen in places they couldn't have been according to the official story. One example is that gun shop in Irvin, TX (or Dallas, can't remember very well). Oswald was seen driving the car, but he allegedly could not drive.

Wayne January saw Oswald with a woman in a Dallas airport.

Andric,

you said it all when you said 'allegedly" couldn't drive. I'm curious as to why this could not have been the O's (apart from the driving issue)? Where else were they supposed to have been at the time?

I'm perfectly at ease with the Irving incidents being the O's as I have looked into those sightings quite recently, but it's possible I missed that they were supposed to be elsewhere. The January one, I'd have to take another look at -- has been a while...

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there were definitely multiples, in some way or shape. Though I know it probably has nothing to do with this, has anyone else ever noticed that the unidentified guy photographed handing out leaflets with Oswald in New Orleans happens to look a lot like Oswald?

Glad to hear about the book Greg.

I have always been disappointed that no one has ever bothered to look into the genealogy of the Tippit surname, to determine if the Jack Tippit of Westport, Connecticut was even related to the family of J.D. Tippit in Dallas, one of the central premises to, maybe, not the credibility of, but at least the development of the story.

Nothwithstanding, the fact that a bloodline is more or less academic, the story began when an "unknown caller,"

telephoned the family of Jack Tippit, with, the account of the other Oswald family and "Harvey" Oswald that became the crux of Armstrong's theory; Coupled with the legion of multiple Oswald sightings [ever heard the phrase...Kilroy was here?] and discrepancy's in the Warren Commission's examination and in some cases "seizure" of Oswald historical records

and various disagreements over where Oswald was at various periods in the years before the assassination, the theory

has its proponents, and one of the bylines of that among Armstrong's constituents, if you will, is becoming very upset when someone tries, [in their mind] to point out weaknesses in the theory. Ostensibly, if the US government ever fessed up about "what was" the "Oswald Project," and the dynamic of some key references to "Harvey Lee" Oswald on certain documents, and then the whole situation in Mexico City in early October '63, with a false Oswald involved, we wouldn't be having this to deal with. I am still convinced there were two "Oswald's" that left the Texas School Book Depository between 12:31 and 12:40 C.D.T., on the 22nd of November, but unfortunately no-one had a chance to ask the person running into the Rambler, what his name was...lol. But that doesen't mean I believe his name was Harvey Lee Oswald.

Another problem with the theory, as far as I am concerned is that on the surface if you accept the theory as it is presented the person of Harvey Oswald was a communist, was he not, so you get back into that old caveat of the Soviet's were behind that. If there was a real Harvey Oswald as Armstrong described him, his background IMO was a false one, because then the Soviets would seemingly have been behind the JFK assassination; and that argument is the biggest myth about JFK's death that has ever been perpetuated, next to Oswald not being the gunman who did it.

I also am in agreement with Armstrong's point about intelligence ops back in the day, in various countries using doubles, as in the case of Cuban's Antonio and Patricio DeLaguardia or false identities, such as Kolon Molodi being given fake docs by the Soviet's to spy on the British and establishing his false identity as the deceased Canadian Gordon Lonsdale, who had died, according to his parents circa 1932. To me, the chronology of Oswald and the documents issue notwithstanding, I still can't walk away from Armstrong's theory; I suppose it is the old argument, of trying to prove that something "didn't happen."

So I suppose, I will be one of the first to read Greg's book, when it comes out.

Robert,

there is no equivelance between Armstrong's Two Oswald Theory and the Lonsdale affair. Assuming the ID of dead people has long been an option for spies and criminals.

The de La Guardia twins were arrested and tried on drug trafficking charges - which may or may not have had a political motive concerning one of the other arrestees. I have searched for some indication that they were involved in spying and if so, that it entailed assuming each other's identity, and have found none. What exactly does Armstrong claim about them that he believes shows equivelance?

Bottom line -- if they were in fact spies, and if they did pretend to be each other as part of their spy activities -that at least makes some sense. They looked very much alike and shared personality traits and personal history. The theory that two unrelated boys - one noticably shorter and brighter than the other - were used in a lifelong project involving one pretending to be the other - and moreover, neccitating the use also of a doppleganger mother for the one dubbed "Harvey", is the stuff of z grade movies.

As for the files marked "Harvey Lee Oswald"... don't forget the one marked "Henry Oswald" -- maybe we should go for a triplet project? Or maybe there were other reasons for it. The work done by Bill Simpich may help clarify.

The Armstrong case for two Oswald's is a lot like the WC case for a lone assassin. It is built on often misunderstand, or deliberately reshaped circumstantial evidence - padded out with irrelvancies and bloated to a supersized burger for public consumption. Both can look appealing for those hungry enough for a solution. Just don't put the ingredients under a mcroscope!

The main difference is that whereas the WC never met an"Oswald sighting" it could accept - Armstrong never met one he could reject.

But both extremes were in support of a predetermined conclusion.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there were definitely multiples, in some way or shape. Though I know it probably has nothing to do with this, has anyone else ever noticed that the unidentified guy photographed handing out leaflets with Oswald in New Orleans happens to look a lot like Oswald?

Allen,

Oswald was a non-descript person. The number of people who fit his general description at the time would be hard to quantify.

It's not hard to imagine that some people who, in the months leading up to the assassination, had an unusual dealing with a young man who happened to match O's general description, and in wanting to help - or put themselves into the case - contacted the authorities claiming it had been Oswald.

This does not account for encounters where the "lookalike" actually gave a name or other details which pointed to Oswald - even when the record shows it could not have been him. Those cases need a different explanation.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allen Lowe from the "Tink Does New York" thread:

(btw, and off topic, I also tend to think that DeMorhenschildt was, like Oswald, somewhat to the Left politically, in spite of some of his history; I think it was Dick Russell who interviewed him when he was teaching at an all-black college).

Allen, whilst you may be right, I wouldn't rely on working at a black college as dispositive of a liberal outlook.

Not all conservatives (even the "ultra" variety) are racists.

Recall that as conservative a stronghold as Dallas was, it was among the first major southern cities to move in an orderly way, to integration. It did so because the conservative busonessmen who ran Dallas had no outright hatred for Blacks, and could see the commercial advantages.

Likewise members of CUSA (Conservatism USA) who left the army and converged on Dallas to infiltrate and unite all the rightist groups under its own umbrella, were not racists and poked fun at that aspect of Dallas - though pretended to go along with it for their own ends.

I do think it's possible that DeM was all but apolitical and sold himself to whichever side suited...

I haven't read "I'm a Patsy" but must do so since you keep mentioning it in relation to Aspewrger's (getting back on track rolleyes.gif)

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always been disappointed that no one has ever bothered to look into the genealogy of the Tippit surname, to determine if the Jack Tippit of Westport, Connecticut was even related to the family of J.D. Tippit in Dallas, one of the central premises to, maybe, not the credibility of, but at least the development of the story.

Robert,

Jack Tippit told a reporter, and later confirmed to the FBI, he was distantly related to JD. It (the press story) was how the woman came to choose him to contact.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=694499

Nothwithstanding, the fact that a bloodline is more or less academic, the story began when an "unknown caller," telephoned the family of Jack Tippit, with, the account of the other Oswald family and "Harvey" Oswald that became the crux of Armstrong's theory;

The woman never mentioned anything about it being anyone's "other" family. That's is an unwarranted inference - possibly based on a belief that the woman mentioned the name "Harvey". But that never happened either.

http://www.maryferre...72&relPageId=59

Btw, I identied the two gentlemen referred to by the caller -- and it pretty much rules out there being anything to her story (imo).

http://reopenkennedy...ppit-phone-call

Coupled with the legion of multiple Oswald sightings [ever heard the phrase...Kilroy was here?] and discrepancy's in the Warren Commission's examination and in some cases "seizure" of Oswald historical records

"Alleged voluntary handing over" may be more accurate if you're talking about Stripling. But I don't believe it was ( a ) legal for the school to do that - nor ( b ) that the records were even kept at the school. They are far more commonly kept at the school district headquarters - especially non-current records.

Also consider the source: an undeclared friend of a companion and asssitant to the author. Classic undeclared conflict of interest.

Do you believe Oswald was dyslexic?

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there were definitely multiples, in some way or shape. Though I know it probably has nothing to do with this, has anyone else ever noticed that the unidentified guy photographed handing out leaflets with Oswald in New Orleans happens to look a lot like Oswald?

Glad to hear about the book Greg.

I have always been disappointed that no one has ever bothered to look into the genealogy of the Tippit surname, to determine if the Jack Tippit of Westport, Connecticut was even related to the family of J.D. Tippit in Dallas, one of the central premises to, maybe, not the credibility of, but at least the development of the story.

Nothwithstanding, the fact that a bloodline is more or less academic, the story began when an "unknown caller,"

telephoned the family of Jack Tippit, with, the account of the other Oswald family and "Harvey" Oswald that became the crux of Armstrong's theory; Coupled with the legion of multiple Oswald sightings [ever heard the phrase...Kilroy was here?] and discrepancy's in the Warren Commission's examination and in some cases "seizure" of Oswald historical records

and various disagreements over where Oswald was at various periods in the years before the assassination, the theory

has its proponents, and one of the bylines of that among Armstrong's constituents, if you will, is becoming very upset when someone tries, [in their mind] to point out weaknesses in the theory. Ostensibly, if the US government ever fessed up about "what was" the "Oswald Project," and the dynamic of some key references to "Harvey Lee" Oswald on certain documents, and then the whole situation in Mexico City in early October '63, with a false Oswald involved, we wouldn't be having this to deal with. I am still convinced there were two "Oswald's" that left the Texas School Book Depository between 12:31 and 12:40 C.D.T., on the 22nd of November, but unfortunately no-one had a chance to ask the person running into the Rambler, what his name was...lol. But that doesen't mean I believe his name was Harvey Lee Oswald.

Another problem with the theory, as far as I am concerned is that on the surface if you accept the theory as it is presented the person of Harvey Oswald was a communist, was he not, so you get back into that old caveat of the Soviet's were behind that. If there was a real Harvey Oswald as Armstrong described him, his background IMO was a false one, because then the Soviets would seemingly have been behind the JFK assassination; and that argument is the biggest myth about JFK's death that has ever been perpetuated, next to Oswald not being the gunman who did it.

I also am in agreement with Armstrong's point about intelligence ops back in the day, in various countries using doubles, as in the case of Cuban's Antonio and Patricio DeLaguardia or false identities, such as Kolon Molodi being given fake docs by the Soviet's to spy on the British and establishing his false identity as the deceased Canadian Gordon Lonsdale, who had died, according to his parents circa 1932. To me, the chronology of Oswald and the documents issue notwithstanding, I still can't walk away from Armstrong's theory; I suppose it is the old argument, of trying to prove that something "didn't happen."

So I suppose, I will be one of the first to read Greg's book, when it comes out.

Robert,

there is no equivelence between Armstrong's Two Oswald Theory and the Lonsdale affair. Assuming the ID of dead people has long been an option for spies and criminals.

The de La Guardia twins were arrested and tried on drug trafficking charges - which may or may not have had a political motive concerning one of the other arrestees. I have searched for some indication that they were involved in spying and if so, that it entailed assuming each other's identity, and have found none. What exactly does Armstrong claim about them that he believes shows equivelence?

Bottom line -- if they were in fact spies, and if they did pretend to be each other as part of their spy activities -that at least makes some sense. They looked very much alike and shared personality traits and personal history. The theory that two unrelated boys - one noticably shorter and brighter than the other - were used in a lifelong project involving one pretending to be the other - and moreover, neccitating the use also of a doppleganger mother for the one dubbed "Harvey", is the stuff of z grade movies.

As for the files marked "Harvey Lee Oswald"... don't forget the one marked "Henry Oswald" -- maybe we should go for a triplet project? Or maybe there were other reasons for it. The work done by Bill Simpich may help clarify.

The Armstrong case for two Oswald's is a lot like the WC case for a lone assassin. It is built on often misunderstand, or deliberately reshaped circumstantial evidence - padded out with irrelvancies and bloated to a supersized burger for public consumption. Both can look appealing for those hungry enough for a solution. Just don't put the ingredients under a mcroscope!

The main difference is that whereas the WC never met an"Oswald sighting" it could accept - Armstrong never met one he could reject.

But both extremes were in support of a predetermined conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

The Armstrong case for two Oswald's is a lot like the WC case for a lone assassin. It is built on often misunderstand, or deliberately reshaped circumstantial evidence - padded out with irrelvancies and bloated to a supersized burger for public consumption. Both can look appealing for those hungry enough for a solution. Just don't put the ingredients under a mcroscope!

The main difference is that whereas the WC never met an"Oswald sighting" it could accept - Armstrong never met one he could reject.

But both extremes were in support of a predetermined conclusion.

:clapping

--Tommy

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, it's interesting to hear about Texas' relative progressivism - the I Am A Patsy ms used to be somewhere on line, I read it maybe 5 years ago (and I may be recalling incorrectly but I seem to remember that Reitzes, who at one time was a very convincing Conspiracy supporter, had something to do with it's placement on the net).

One thing that I do not think has been addressed in terms of photographic evidence and Oswald is that older photography is really just an analog representation of reality - and so will vary. Think of yourself in multiple photos, even today; some people look quite different in different shots, even at the same angle, in the same lighting. So although Oswald's features to seem to evolve (devolve?) from photo to photo, who knows? Though I do think there was clearly misrepresentation going on re: Oswald, having read Armstrong a while back, I think the scheme he presents is just too complicated to be real. Though in the JFK case I keep finding the need to readjust my opinions as reality moves closer and closer to the ridiculous. Things I never would have believed 40 years ago just keep turning out to be unfortunately true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you - just don't forget to use your CIA filter.

I think DeMohrenschildt is our most solid link to Oswald. He shows a lot of insight into the man. Though some may disagree, I don't think he knew what he was babysitting Oswald for, though he knew there was something going on operationally. As for his politics, they were, I think, like Oswald's, complicated. And let's not forget that the CIA in those days was even siphoning funds through liberal groups in the name of anti-communism (something which got Allard Lowenstein into some trouble in later years)and so was not necessarily (in those pre-disclosure days) seen as a purely reactionary entity.

Edited by Allen Lowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

there is no equivelence between Armstrong's Two Oswald Theory and the Lonsdale affair. Assuming the ID of dead people has long been an option for spies and criminals.

The de La Guardia twins were arrested and tried on drug trafficking charges - which may or may not have had a political motive concerning one of the other arrestees. I have searched for some indication that they were involved in spying and if so, that it entailed assuming each other's identity, and have found none. What exactly does Armstrong claim about them that he believes shows equivelence?

Bottom line -- if they were in fact spies, and if they did pretend to be each other as part of their spy activities -that at least makes some sense. They looked very much alike and shared personality traits and personal history. The theory that two unrelated boys - one noticably shorter and brighter than the other - were used in a lifelong project involving one pretending to be the other - and moreover, neccitating the use also of a doppleganger mother for the one dubbed "Harvey", is the stuff of z grade movies.

As for the files marked "Harvey Lee Oswald"... don't forget the one marked "Henry Oswald" -- maybe we should go for a triplet project? Or maybe there were other reasons for it. The work done by Bill Simpich may help clarify.

The Armstrong case for two Oswald's is a lot like the WC case for a lone assassin. It is built on often misunderstand, or deliberately reshaped circumstantial evidence - padded out with irrelvancies and bloated to a supersized burger for public consumption. Both can look appealing for those hungry enough for a solution. Just don't put the ingredients under a mcroscope!

The main difference is that whereas the WC never met an"Oswald sighting" it could accept - Armstrong never met one he could reject.

But both extremes were in support of a predetermined conclusion.

Greg, what about Armstrong's photos of 2 Lee Harvey Oswalds in school? (One was Harvey Lee Oswald.) And one of the Oswald's had a busted tooth in high school. And one had an inner ear surgery. Why did Marina walk up to the coffin before it was put on display and open one of his eyes to see the color? (Why else?)

I can't wait to read your book.

Kathy C

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...