David Josephs Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 That you would choose to believe the FBI over citizen witnesses and direct authenticated evidence is your problem, not mine. It boggles my mind that you are presenting yourself like this; The man who helped prove the FBI was dead wrong about Oswald on the bus which in turn changes most everything about the post-assassination timeline and suggests that Roger Craig was accurate in his recollection; that Worrell and Carr were NOT lying about the men running from the back of the TSBD, that Rowland is not lying about who he sees where, that Boone and Weitzman actually do find a Mauser and Baker/Truly L-I-E their butts off about the 2nd floor lunchroom David, Quick one. Greg did help prove the FBI (and others) were wrong about Oswald being on the bus. So for me, you have a slight problem. Why? Well Armstrong's theory promotes the bus and taxi rides as factual and are necessary for his overall narrative. The two Oswalds, i.e. the Oswald leaving the TSBD in the car and the "other" Oswald on the bus and in the cab, were Harvey and Lee according to the book. In fact, Armstrong took great exception when Joseph Backes began trying to unlock the bus and taxi fabrications in the late 1990's. He really wasn't very happy with Joe and completely disregarded the evidence provided. Armstrong discounted elements of Roy Milton Jones' FBI statement (that he had a copy of and did not use in his book in the way it should have been used) when he was debating Backes because, according to Armstrong, Jones was a "seventh grade student." Not that it matters in relation to his eyesight but Jones was actually an 11th grade student and Armstrong cherry picked the FBI statement that Jones gave to help bolster his H&L narrative when it suited. He even changed the color of the jacket Jones said he saw on a male passenger to help his case. Jones says it was "light blue" but on page 830 of Harvey & Lee, Armstrong says Jones saw a "grey jacket." Small stuff, but very important. With the documents he collected any impartial person could have blown the bus and taxi rides out of the water. Armstrong either chose not to, or was far too wedded to his theory to see it. I personally lost faith in Armstrong's narrative a long time ago. The more one prods at the Harvey & Lee theory, the more it begins to disintegrate. I hear you Lee... and it's nice to be reading your comments again.... Jones says it was "light blue" but on page 830 of Harvey & Lee, Armstrong says Jones saw a "grey jacket." Small stuff, but very important I agree Lee... small stuff that should be correctly posted... yet I believe you took the one misstatement and forgot the other accurate references and footnotes that come BEFORE this one sentence. I come to find mistakes and inaccuracies in many of our researchers' books and offerings... with the info we are working with, this should be expected... Incorrect analysis is another thing... and I believe he, like the other authors we read here, is going to present his conclusions as the end all on the subject... and in some areas he will be dead on and other, not so much. I'm not so wedded to HIS theory as much as what the information says and why... Whether you believe or not, the way John Pic picks out Harvey from Lee in every case... and describes the "Lee Oswald" in 1962 as NOT the man he knew as his brother... is very compelling. Is it definitive, not by any means... yet I blieve it does not do the theory or evidence justice by dismissing it off hand, without study due to the NATURE of the idea. Peace DJ From the index of H&L Jones, Roy Milton 796, 825, 826, 830, 895 page 796 The FBI reported, "To the best of her recollection Oswald was wearing a tan shirt and gray jacket." Wesley Frazier recalled that Oswald wore, "A grey, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket. " NOTE: Following the assassination Roy Milton Jones, a passenger on Cecil McWalter's bus, saw Oswald carrying the same jacket which he described as "light blue. " Here is CE2641 page 3, Roy Jones describing the man on the bus.... This is from page 825: Jones told the FBI the man sitting behind him wore a "light blue jacket (Oswald's flannel jacket was light grey) and gray khaki trousers (154) (154) http://www.history-m...H25_CE_2641.pdf page 3 He described this man as follows Races White Sax . Male Age . 30-35 Height . 5'11` Weight . 150 Builds Medium Remarks . wore no glasses and no hat Hairs Dark brown, receding at temples Dress . Light blue jacket and gray khaki trousers From 826: McWatters continued south on Marsalis, unaware that Officer J.D. Tippit was following his bus, and remembered letting the "smiling man" off the bus south of Saner Avenue.161 He described the young man as a "teenager, about 5'8", 155 lbs, medium build, slim-faced" and remembered that he saw him on the bus the next day.162 The young man lived one block south of Saner Avenue at 512 E Brownlee Avenue, and he was later identified as Roy Milton Jones. From page 830: Oswald apparently discarded the grey jacket described by bus passenger Roy Milton Jones and cab driver William Whaley So here he mis-applies a quote, somewhat... Jones DID see a jacket that had to be discarded (or was not Oswald), just not a grey one (although blue and grey can be very close... just like how brown and tan can be alike in different lights) Page 895: Cecil McWatters picked out a man who he said was the only one in the lineup who resembled the man who had boarded his bus shortly after 12:30 pm on November 22nd, 1963. McWatters signed an affidavit in which he said this man boarded his bus near Elm and Houston and rode to Marsalis Avenue in Oak Cliff. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball was concerned about his testimony and read McWatters affidavit into the record.87 Roy Milton Jones, not Oswald, was the person who rode on McWalter's bus to Marsalis Avenue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Agree Lee... The vast amount of info and knowledge stems from his looking into the documents, tens of thousands of documents... it is from THESE DOCUMENTS that the book is written, along with his interviews and the contributions of his circle of friends and associates... He promotes his understanding and interpretation of the documents and evidence.... Could the person on the bus been someone looking like Oswald, but not Oswald... Is there real confusion, even with Whaley, as to which clothes he was wearing... when Whaley was the 2nd string cab driver? of course... But this does not change the evidence or documents, which, as you've said, amounts to the WEALTH of information Armstrong makes available to researchers... You want to question John's mental processes? We expect that... everyone should be questioned... but if John leaves off the word "grey" the sentence reads just fine.... to take this one reference out of the 5 I posted shows to me your bias... which you readily admit... I am simply approaching the theory with a bit more trust - at this point in time - which may in time change... I am not at that point. Oswald apparently discarded the grey jacket described by bus passenger Roy Milton Jones and cab driver William Whaley Are the Unit Diaries the last word? The history of Oswald in the marines that SEEMS to be correcet except for a curious time in Sept/Oct 1958... The DoD deciding he never went.... Are there OTHER possible explanations, of course Lee... yet given what I understand of the CIA and late 50's, H&L is as plausible as Greg's conclusion of Aspergers and repeated mistakes that ONLY seem to incriminate Oswald... nobody makes a mistake that ever HELPS his case... I'd still ask why so much of Oswald's past is so conflicting... and how Pic KNOWS Lee from HARVEY in every case... the difference between MO appearance, job history, testimony and actual history... I'm simply not done with it... you and Greg have run your course and come to your conclusions... Being a great researcher versus a great WRITER and organizer of thoughts and building a case may best be left to Salandria... but I REFUSE to go ad hominem on John just cuase his book has some mistakes.... if the FBI is allowed, the DoD, CIA, SS ONI and WCR as well I think a few mistakes, even some big ones, does not take from the overall theory or ducments that support it. Lowery said while he has never met or known Oswald he was apprehensive when he learned that Oswald had been apprehended armed with a pistol in the Texas Theatre on West Jefferson Boulevard, Oak Cliff, Dallas on 11/22/63. So Lowery... I did a quick search and found the info on him and his contact with Hosty... seems he had much more info on Molina... than Oswald. and WHY exclude him from H&L? IDK, I'd need to search out each and every mention of Lowery and see if there was anything beyond Hosty... Editing/Criticizing is obviously MUCH EASIER than creating and publishing... IMO H&L opens doors into areas most would never wander... and in the process makes some significant discoveries... If it didn;t happen that way, so be it. But to me, as long as pre-autopsy surgery on the magnitude that was performed, is possible, even probable... Harvey and Lee and the evidence to support it, is - in THAT WORLD - just as plausible Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Ok so I keep stumbling across the "dual oswals/harvey & lee" scenario oddly and the one "kicker" to me is this: the absence of the wounds from Oswald's (though which one i'm not so sure lol) self inflicted gunshot wound and his mastoid scar. How on earth does anyone esplain this? These wounds were not present according to Groody or Dr. Rose. If the 'real' Oswald had thrse scars, then shouldn't they have been present on the body during these two special events and recorded? Edit: I also reviewed the Oswald Exhumation in the 80's and that time, they did conclude that the scar was present. I just can't wrap my mind around how the Mortician and Pathologist did not see any or document them if they indeed were on the corpse. Also, has anyone ever figured out what the individuals who fingerprinted Oswald's corspe were after? B.A., Well, I think the theory is that the bad guys needed LHO's prints so they could transfer them to the rifle. (Is that what you're asking about?) --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) I completely apologize for the delayed response Mr Graves. Yes that is what i was asking about. I was going to begin a new topic on this exact topic but I found this topic instead lol. My question is simple, given the history of Oswald's surgeries, wounds (gunshot, mastoid, etc) What do JFK researchers think concerning the total absence of any wounds whatsoever my Earl Rose and (for example) the total absence of a Mastoid Surgery scar in photos such as this: It clearly is not there. I personally do not lean towards an Oswald Dopp. theory but I tend to go where the evidence leads. It definitely seems reasonable to conclude there may have been indeed an Oswald Dopp. but ultimately I am still open. I just wanted to know, what I seem to clearly perceive, as the absence of a previously documented and what should be present mastoid surgery scar behind Oswalds left ear. I also have thought about this many times and wondered if perhaps it was present but in the shadowy area in the above photograph behind the ear but I am certain Dr Rose would have documented it if it existed. Thanks for any and all thoughts. Edited April 2, 2013 by B. A. Copeland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Greg, It's always good to hear new perspectives, and I certainly don't believe we should stick rigidly to a collective consensus about many aspects of this case. That being said, I'm wondering where you're going with this line of thought. The nature of the most well known "fake" Oswald encounters certainly seems to suggest an overt attempt to impress witnesses in a particular way, as a part of the overall framing process. Yes, Oswald was a nondescript individual in appearance; I suppose that's why the encounters were so outrageously designed. Oswald reckelessly operating a car (whether or not he could legally do so) and inferring he was coming into some money soon, while proclaiming "Maybe I'll have to go to Russia to buy a car" to hapless salesman Albert Guy Bogard; being blatantly advertised to Sylvia Odio as a potential assassin of Kennedy; angrily firing at the wrong targets at a test firing range- what else can all these suggest other than that they were a crucial part of the conspirators plans to fram Oswald? Do you believe that Bogard, Odio and the witnesses at the test firing range were mistaken about what they'd witnessed? That they all imagined the Oswald name afterwards, when it was nationally known? That it was the real Oswald, doing such incriminating things? I'm just trying to get a feel for what you're saying here. One doesn't have to totally accept John Armstrong's theory in order to recognize that Oswald was being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination of JFK. FWIW: I believe that Bogard, Odio, and witnesses at the firing range (e.g., Dr. Wood's son) all properly identified Oswald. DSL 4/2/13; 4:10 AM PDT Los Angeles, Ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 David, I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that those witnesses encountered the real Oswald? Or that they were entirely credible in identifying someone who looked exactly like him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) On 4/1/2013 at 9:49 PM, B. A. Copeland said: I completely apologize for the delayed response Mr Graves. Yes that is what i was asking about. I was going to begin a new topic on this exact topic but I found this topic instead lol. My question is simple, given the history of Oswald's surgeries, wounds (gunshot, mastoid, etc) What do JFK researchers think concerning the total absence of any wounds whatsoever my Earl Rose and (for example) the total absence of a Mastoid Surgery scar in photos such as this: It clearly is not there. I personally do not lean towards an Oswald Dopp. theory but I tend to go where the evidence leads. It definitely seems reasonable to conclude there may have been indeed an Oswald Dopp. but ultimately I am still open. I just wanted to know, what I seem to clearly perceive, as the absence of a previously documented and what should be present mastoid surgery scar behind Oswalds left ear. I also have thought about this many times and wondered if perhaps it was present but in the shadowy area in the above photograph behind the ear but I am certain Dr Rose would have documented it if it existed. Thanks for any and all thoughts. The thing about Rose is that the Body Diagram includes the words: Surgical wounds only"... even though he puts the upper arm injury sustained from the accidently fired gun while in the marines... So not ALL the wounds shown were surgical - from the autopsy - therefore a mastoid scar, as B.A. states, SHOULD be noted and should be there as well... BOTH injuroes are associated with LEE... not HARVEY http://www.mindserpe...omy/Tonsils.htm In October, 1957 Lee shot himself in the left arm with a .22 derringer. The entrance wound was closed with stitches and the bullit left in his arm. Later an incision was made on the back side of his arm and the bullet removed. Two incisions--two scars. After Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby an autopsy was performed. Photographs were taken of Oswalds arms. There are no scars from a bullet wound, nor are any scars noted on the autopsy report. Oswald was prepared for burial and embalmed by Mortician Paul Groody. Groody was twice asked about scars on Oswald's arms. Groody said he had not seen any scars on Oswald's arms. Years earlier, when Lee Oswald was 6 years old, he had a mastoidectomy operation behind his left ear. In 1956 Lee's Marine medical examination report lists a 3" mastoid scar behind his left ear. When Harvey was killed by Jack Ruby, Dr. Earl Rose performed the autopsy. Dr. Rose noted many scars in his autopsy report, some were as small as 1/16". Dr. Rose also took 27 color slides of Oswalds body which are now in the National Archives. There is no 3" mastoidectomy scar on the autopsy report nor can such a scar be seen in any of the color slides. It was Lee Oswald who had the 3" mastoidectomy scar-not Harvey. Harvey had no such scar. Edited May 3, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 FFS, I have completely demolished this flagrant nonsense about scars here: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t226-armstrong-s-magic-tonsillectomy-vanishing-scars Please don't bother trying to argue about it. Not interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) So the tonsils grew back... ok... I will discuss the mastoid scar in a minute since your link says nothing about the scar and rescaring near the left elbow when the 22 bullet first went in and then when it was taken out... surely that scar didn't just smooth out and disappear.... TODAY, 2013, I am sure there are much fewer problems and scars as a result of Mastoidectomies... In 1945, when Oswald was 6 or 7, and most able bodied doctors were fighting a war or taking car of the wounded... the possbility that a 3" scar was not created is not as cut and dried as you want to make it appear... via the single link to a single description of the procedure as it is performed today. Here is an image of the location and resulting scar location The attached - Oswald's Report of Med Eval, mentions a 3" scar as - visual ops 3" lt mastoid - And if you look at the posted Face sheet on Oswald I posted with the body diagram, they mention a tiny scar by his lip, another tiny scare on the right side of his neck, the swelling of the right eye from the altercation with police at the theater FRIDAY... yet no mention of a 3" scar behind the left ear... I guess we can accept it was so well hidden the Marine Doctors found it doing a cursory entry exam, while Rose doesn't while performing an autopsy. and yet we STILL have the elbow scar... Not interested in arguing about it... that's cool. No argument here. What should be there, isn't... but that's okay cause we have 'splanations for every problem with Oswald's guilt. not that we've heard THOSE words before in this case. Simply amazing to me how many witnesses have to be wrong, how many evidentiary results MUST be the most rare of circumstances rather than SOP.... in most every aspect of every piece of evidence looked at in this case... 999/1000 if a person has a scar, it's an identifying mark... just not Oswald. Even if it was seen and officially identified 5-6 years before... not 50 years. Is there just as easy an explanation for the elbow scar? DJ Edited May 3, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) Yes indeed... the silence of those not wishing to engage in discussion that MIGHT show their conclusions to be suspect... or not entirely supported by the evidence offered. Wasn't it the WCR commissioners and supporters who said... "We've demolished all arguments that anyone but Oswald was guilty and we are NOT going to discuss it or argue about it We're not interested as our conclusion is our conclusion... and there is no valid rebuttal to be had... so don't even bother..." Well sorry, that's not how we operate here. We post the evidence and let readers decide based on the evidence and it's authenticity... First we have an Oswald being treated in Atsugi 6 times between Sept 14 and Oct 6th... and second we have an Oswald in Ping Tung from Sept 14 - Oct 6... and a Marine record of his being on the ship sailing BACK from Ping Tung Oct 6. Pretty good trick since he supposedly never left. ... and even though the DoD claims he stayed behind... there are records of evidence of his being not only seen but involved in a Guard duty incident while at Ping Tung... The Marines go on to report, as does the DoD that Oswald was hospitalized from Oct 7 thru Oct 13... except the chronological Health record shows no activity for this time period. (attached) So the Marine records of who went where and who returned and who sailed what ship with who else aboard is simply WRONG... as any evidence suggesting two Oswalds MUST BE if you're wanting as badly as possible to discredit the theory, the evidence and the conlcusion of LEE and HARVEY. Where again was that elbow scar... Disappeared same as the Marine records I suppose. Oh right... we're NOT "arguing" about it.... we're just to accept what we are told regardless of the evidence... based on the reputation and believeability of those delivering it. Those who disagree and can provide proof, be damned... Two sides to every story sure makes it convenient to ALWAYS maintain a doubt as to whether the GOVERNMENT is telling the truth - or not. This, of course, is not by design, but coincidence that ANY info suggesting ANYTHING other than Oswald's sole guilt... MUST have been wrong and requires undating, or CORRECTING so it fits with the WCR... Perfect. Edited May 3, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 “To conclude, what was happening in 1953 has nothing to do with 11/22/63 Bernie... NOBODY makes that leap, which is why you ought to read first and condemn after...” in response to... I am presuming that the CIA's interest in this project is solely confined to a 'defection' and not, way back in 1953, looking at a future patsy option for an assassination ten years later! “In the early 1950's an intelligence operation began that involved two teenage boys--Lee Oswald, from Fort Worth and a Russian speaking boy who was given the name "Harvey Oswald", from New York. In 1952, these boys were brought together in New York City. They lived parallel but separate lives, often in the same city. The ultimate purpose of this operation was to switch their identities and eventually send Russian speaking Harvey Oswald into the Soviet Union. This is exactly what happened, 7 years later, when Harvey participated in a CIA sponsored defection program in 1959.” (Armstrong) How in 1952 could anyone have known that the facial features of these 'two' individuals would be almost symmetrical seven years later? We already know that phsyically there was, apparently, a huge discrepency at this time, one tall well built and the other like a concentration camp victim, so was the fact they grew through adolescence ending up looking almost identical just an unexpected bonus? Best regards, Bernie You seem to be forgetting that few if anyone would know about the OTHER one. All that needed matching was their backgrounds... maybe someone used Oswald as the Patsy knowing that the Angleton can of worms would provide cover should anyone come snooping.... IDK Bernie... And asI've posted... not everything in that book or coming from John's mouth need be golden. He too is trying to piece together a 1000 piece puzzle with only the handful of pieces available.. many with more than dubious origins. IDK how Angleton thought, or Helms or Hunt... and I thin that remains key here.... Until you can get inside the creation of covert planning... or have an extensive background in understanding these plans... we can only guess. My question... whatever prompted John to go look... don't you find it somewhat amazing that our LONE NUT has such an interesting and convoluted history - missing school records taken by the FBI within days of the assassination? That there are explanations which can be argued from both sides with a high degree of authenticity makes the case that much more easy to see as a PLANNED OPERATION... Finally... I'd ask that you look at the sources of evidence from each side... Uncorroborated FBI reports versus witnesses who were there.... AFTER the fact changes to stories that used to point away from Oswald are now implicating Oswald.... 2 feet becomes 3'6", 12:15 becomes 11:45... the 1st floor becomes the 6th, a Mauser becomes a Carcano.... and a shot from Above somehow enters the back and travels UP to exit the throat, then DOWN at 25 degrees to go thur the next man.... At what point do you not concede... ? "Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied" ... "we never imagined planes being flown into buildings" there's only so much BS to take, isn't there? DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 (edited) Thanks for the responses, Greg & Joseph. Greg, take it easy lol. People may continue to ask this before searching your work or coming across it. It is a crucial issue but I definitely feel the main/plain things of the case are solid (conspiracy to murder, Oswald as patsy, etc) but this is just side study. Seems to be my gripe with the medical issues. So we seem to have some rational explanation for the 'vanishing' scars. I suppose it can have some explanatory scope and power but I don't know....is the scar well hidden on most people depending on their skin? As DJ said...you have one group of doctors who clearly identified it and you have Rose, who never did. The logical implication being if one group of capable doctors/physicians could easily examine and verify this surgical scar, you would assume that another capable doctor could as well. On the webpage there is an explanation that the scar could be well hidden but then one must ask why the first group of doctors did not have a problem locating it. The tonsil issue seems solid but I do wonder if Oswald ever had a partial done....As I type this message I am just bewildered in reflecting on Pic's testimony for the WC: Mr. JENNER. Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC. Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER. That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC. No, sir. --WC Vol. 11, p. 65 I mean this is just crazy.....Pic does not even recognize his very own brother....I see GP that you basically consider this a non-issue but I remember first reading it and being interested in the possible implications. I'll need to gather all of your analysis and get to reading. Edited April 27, 2013 by B. A. Copeland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Howard Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 (edited) I would seriously suggest that upon closer inspection, the infamous Harvey and Lee photograph might not be the product of CIA magic photo doctoring, that has fragmented the research community till, well this very day, I believe this particular photo at the very least shows that the ball is not in Greg Parker's court. Does anyone have the chutzpah to say it? After closely examining the photo, the idea of a HARVEY face on one side and a LEE face on the other side in a single exposure seems a lot more iffy. It looks like the dynamic is nothing but a damn stain on the photograph...... https://www.maryferr...77&relPageId=35 Cheers Edited April 27, 2013 by Robert Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted April 20, 2015 Author Share Posted April 20, 2015 Greg, It's always good to hear new perspectives, and I certainly don't believe we should stick rigidly to a collective consensus about many aspects of this case. That being said, I'm wondering where you're going with this line of thought. The nature of the most well known "fake" Oswald encounters certainly seems to suggest an overt attempt to impress witnesses in a particular way, as a part of the overall framing process. Yes, Oswald was a nondescript individual in appearance; I suppose that's why the encounters were so outrageously designed. Oswald reckelessly operating a car (whether or not he could legally do so) and inferring he was coming into some money soon, while proclaiming "Maybe I'll have to go to Russia to buy a car" to hapless salesman Albert Guy Bogard; being blatantly advertised to Sylvia Odio as a potential assassin of Kennedy; angrily firing at the wrong targets at a test firing range- what else can all these suggest other than that they were a crucial part of the conspirators plans to fram Oswald? Do you believe that Bogard, Odio and the witnesses at the test firing range were mistaken about what they'd witnessed? That they all imagined the Oswald name afterwards, when it was nationally known? That it was the real Oswald, doing such incriminating things? I'm just trying to get a feel for what you're saying here. One doesn't have to totally accept John Armstrong's theory in order to recognize that Oswald was being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination of JFK. "Do you believe that Bogard" The Bogard incident explained. It was a guy called Louis Oswald (or Oswalt) - and imo was not a deliberate impersonation. http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13172470-meet-the-oswalts-another-nail-in-the-coffin-of-harvey-lee?next= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Greg, The FBI claimed to have received a letter from the Salvation Army, which apparently cannot be located, to the effect that there was an individual named Louis Oswalt who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald? I admit that it is exceedingly curious that someone with that close a name would also be a supposed physical look-a-like, but such apparent coincidences are par for this case. The tip from Tanner to the FBI seems inconsistent with the Bogard incident, which took place just prior to the assassination, whereas the other tip investigated by the FBI obviously occurred much earlier, if the car was repossessed from Louis Oswalt at the end of September. And again, we are asked to rely on the FBI here, Given what we know of how they "investigated" everything in this case, it looks to me like they were trying to debunk the Oswald impersonator sightings with their typical ineptitude. I think you're so invested in proving Armstrong's Harvey and Lee wrong, that you are carrying that bias with you when you scrutinize these Oswald impersonations, which could be true examples of conspirators setting up Oswald in advance to be the patsy, entirely independent of Armstrong's theory. You've connected some interesting square pegs here, but are doggedly trying to stuff them into a round hole, imho. One thing neither you nor the FBI can deny is that Albert Bogard, whoever he encountered that day, was one of the numerous unnatural deaths connected to this case. He was found dead in his car, supposedly a suicide, at a cemetery. Not the way most people exit this world. And for extra added drama, there was a stack of newspapers in the trunk of his car, all with headlines about the JFK assassination. Now whether he was actually severely beaten after testifying before the Warren Commission, who knows? That story, like so many of the details about these witness deaths, can be traced to Penn Jones. Some people are dubious about his credibility. I think he was a lot more credible than the FBI, or any other "official" source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now