The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

You have to know it's against the forum rules to call someone a xxxx. Yet you called David Lifton a xxxx twice in this thread. There are other ways to make your point without resorting to such childish tactics. You also threw in a gratuitious bit of profanity. How does any of this strengthen your arguments?

I wish everyone would consider that your posts are being read by many, many people all over the world. Your real names are attached to these posts- do you really want to leave this kind of impression?

Yes, Don, I know it is against forum rules to tell the truth in some circumstances. I have no problem with my name being seen attached to these posts. Protection of liars is, ironically, the very thing we all agree is being done via the withholding of documents, and other ways and means of hiding behind "rules". If people get the wrong "impression" it is because you are pushing that wrong impression.

If you want this place populated solely by liars, their sycophants, and assorted snake oil salesmen, please enforce your "rules". You're certainly helping to drag in that direction.

I recently re-contacted the person who did this research for me. The year was 1995, and this researcher went to the Fort Worth library and carefully examined all issues of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram between July 1, 1956 and October 24, 1956.

That's when the articles in question were found.

I'm sorry that your ego can't handle that fact--but it is a fact.

Your response (to finding that you were not the first person to learn of this data) is to curse and hurl profanities. As my long gone grandmother used to say, someone should wash your mouth out with soap.

Also, I looked up you bio. You're apparently a ninth grade drop-out with a highly over-inflated view of himself. (No, your bio doesn't say the second fact; that's just my inference). Maybe you don't understand, but in the real world, one is supposed to offer evidence for your allegations. The fact that you found some out of town news articles, using Google, post-2004, does not mean that this information wasn't discovered, by this researcher, back in 1995, at the Fort Worth Public Library. In fact, that's exactly what happened.

Furthermore, the fact that I chose not to mention that data in the September, 1998 fax to the ARRB does not mean --I emphasize, does not mean--that I didn't know about it. Its simply a fact that I did not believe it to be relevant to the suggestion I was making: that the ARRB should pursue the matter of McBride's tax records (and Oswald's tax records) because that would prove when these two persons were working at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories. In fact, the ARRB obtained --i.e., made public--Oswald's tax records, and they established exactly that: that LHO worked at Pfisterer in 1956. I regret that, by 9/30/98, which was the 'sunset' date for their operations, the ARRB did not locate McBride's tax records, also.

Keep up the good work, Greg Parker. Maybe someday you'll learn some manners, and behave as an adult.

DSL

9/10/12; 4 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

This isn't about my ego, no matter how hard you try to turn it around. It is about honesty and YOUR ego.

It is not just that you never mentioned it in your fax to the ARRB. It is that you have written about McBride extensively since 1995 and not mentioned those news stories once in all those writings. Your first mention was when? That's right, David. It was right here in this thread after I posted about them. YOUR ego could not handle the fact that you had not found those stories in all those years of debates about McBride, so you invented your little story about dispatching some researcher to the Ft Worth library and discovering them back in the day.

I'm quite happy to drop this for now in deference to poor Don's delicate sensibilities, so long as you fully understand that you will be exposed if you publish this lie in your book.

[Greg Parker]

Not so fast there Greg....

now that I’ve looked at these AGAIN, I see where you’re allowed to make wild suppositions and call them conclusions…

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for this post – The “Ft Worth riot” you refer to says

“National Guardsmen called to CLINTON TENNESSEE…” the protest had to do with the admission of negro children to a school in CLINTON TN. In Ft. Worth there were 150 people outside a negro’s house as he moved into an ALL WHITE STREET."

THIS is the rebuttal to Oswald’s talking about a riot IN THE SCHOOL GROUNDS?… You honestly think the papers would report on a local SCHOOL PLAYGROUND RIOT?

OK… how about that second link?

That would be the SAME SCHOOL IN CLINTON TN and a few kids at a school in Ft Worth, mentioned as an afterthought, the last three paragraphs of the article that included PARENTS with their children stringing up a negro dummy on a flagpole…

So you are saying, since YOU cannot find an article about a 1958 incident at a school in Ft Worth… it had to be wrong. Same with DSL...

Quite a stretch there Greg…. Good thing we don’t just believe everything YOU post, right?

and who says something at a school would even warrant a story? Ft Worth is only mentioned here as they are talking racial tension in CLINTON TN... which is about 900 miles from Ft Worth...

Your links as supporting evidence have been terribly poor in each and every case...

I ought to be ashamed of myself?

Please David, read more carefully before making such statements.

The last paragraph of the Sydney Morning Herald story... "The incident was the second in Texas in the past few days. On Friday demonstrators prevented 12 Negro pupils from registering at Mansfield High School." Clinton, Tn may be about 900 miles from Ft Worth, but Mansfield is only 20.

[Greg Parker]

There are 2 classes and 89 days of attendance you seem to be forgetting on the first line of 53-54. Along with Myra DeRouse. The third line is a TOTAL of the two semesters... 89 in one 90 in another.

It SAYS he attended 179 days with 5 absences. How do you not see that? the 1954-1-13 written there could be ANYTHING Greg... as it would be impossible for him to go to 89 days of school unless he was there from September on...

Impossible? David, please - step back a bit and put your brain into gear.

We are talking about SCHOOL years - not CALENDAR years.

I previously said this - reposted now because you seem to have missed it, forgotten it, or not understood it the first time:

I'm beginning to finally understand how you've got yourself so confused about this. What it shows is a commencement date of 1/13/54. I would assume that date falls within the 53/54 school year. A quick check tells me that that school years vary from state to state and county to county. IN Alabama for instance, most counties start the school year in August and end it the following May.

If Oswald was enrolled on 13/1/54 and we count forward 89 school days, we end up in the middle of May - a common end date for school years.

There is NOTHING -- I repeat NOTHING suspicious or out of the ordinary in Oswald's school records.

[John Simkin]

Greg,

You have to know it's against the forum rules to call someone a xxxx. Yet you called David Lifton a xxxx twice in this thread. There are other ways to make your point without resorting to such childish tactics. You also threw in a gratuitious bit of profanity. How does any of this strengthen your arguments?

I wish everyone would consider that your posts are being read by many, many people all over the world. Your real names are attached to these posts- do you really want to leave this kind of impression?

Yes, Don, I know it is against forum rules to tell the truth in some circumstances. I have no problem with my name being seen attached to these posts. Protection of liars is, ironically, the very thing we all agree is being done via the withholding of documents, and other ways and means of hiding behind "rules". If people get the wrong "impression" it is because you are pushing that wrong impression.

If you want this place populated solely by liars, their sycophants, and assorted snake oil salesmen, please enforce your "rules". You're certainly helping to drag in that direction.

I see no reason why you need to use the word "xxxx" in your criticism of David's work. Like Don, I think your approach to David only damages your own reputation.

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

You have to know it's against the forum rules to call someone a xxxx. Yet you called David Lifton a xxxx twice in this thread. There are other ways to make your point without resorting to such childish tactics. You also threw in a gratuitious bit of profanity. How does any of this strengthen your arguments?

I wish everyone would consider that your posts are being read by many, many people all over the world. Your real names are attached to these posts- do you really want to leave this kind of impression?

Yes, Don, I know it is against forum rules to tell the truth in some circumstances. I have no problem with my name being seen attached to these posts. Protection of liars is, ironically, the very thing we all agree is being done via the withholding of documents, and other ways and means of hiding behind "rules". If people get the wrong "impression" it is because you are pushing that wrong impression.

If you want this place populated solely by liars, their sycophants, and assorted snake oil salesmen, please enforce your "rules". You're certainly helping to drag in that direction.

I see no reason why you need to use the word "xxxx" in your criticism of David's work. Like Don, I think your approach to David only damages your own reputation.

Thank you John.

Since I have not been critical of Mr Lifton's work in any way, shape or form in this thread, I can only assume you have read no more than the post to which you have replied.

My use of the word "xxxx" was in regard to - of all things - a lie. My approach to Mr Lifton regarding that lie has been direct and honest. If directness and honesty adversely affects whatever reputation I have, so be it.

Since we're dispensing advice, I believe your reputation is adversely affected by your support of anyone willing to spread evidence-free gossip and innuendo about JFK's private life. But I don't believe for a second you'll heed that advice any more than you did when you were warned about some of your moderators.

I have high regard for you on a personal level John, but we have some fundamental differences which largely boil down to how we view substance and surface appearance.

From post #148 in reply to Mr Lifton: I'm quite happy to drop this for now in deference to poor Don's delicate sensibilities, so long as you fully understand that you will be exposed if you publish this lie in your book.

Unless someone else has something to say about it, this issue is dropped pending Mr Lifton's book coming out and what it contains.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

For David Josephs

From the Spokane Daily Chronicle, Sept 3, 1956.

I draw your attention particularly to: The demonstrations started yesterday afternoon after a called meeting of residents of the neighborhood at the Riverside Elementary School...

Edited September 11, 2012 by Greg Parker

[David Josephs]

On 9/11/2012 at 4:36 AM, Greg Parker said:

For David Josephs

From the Spokane Daily Chronicle, Sept 3, 1956.

I draw your attention particularly to: The demonstrations started yesterday afternoon after a called meeting of residents of the neighborhood at the Riverside Elementary School...

My own words in blue

I remind you that Oswald spoke of a situation at a HIGH SCHOOL... not in a white neighborhood protesting the moving in of a black family.... Isn't this what you posted McBride said Oswald said in his letter?

"In this letter he stated he had gotten mixed-up in an anti-Negro or an anti-Communist riot in a high school grounds in Ft. Worth, Texas."

You want us to believe that any reference to a disturbance in Ft Worth is THE SPECIFIC SITUATION Oswald was referring to? Give us a break Greg. You have no idea whether or not one thing has to do with another... nor do you even know if whatever Oswald may have been referring to even MADE a newspaper. But you're never too short of supposition and conclusion based on incomplete data, as long as it supports your argument.

With regards to John Pic and your Cherry-picking - 4 lines of his testimony Greg? 4? When he was shown the entire LIFE spread and correctly picked HARVEY from LEE in every case.

Again... this type of posting is not worthy of you - go to the Exhibits and follow along... :

Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 http://www.history-m...Vol16_0413a.htm being some spread pages of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your attention first to the lower lefthand spread at .the bottom of the page. Do you recognize the area shown there?

Mr. PIC - No, sir.

Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother?

Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow.

Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow?

Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother?

Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir.

Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say--

Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that.

Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is.

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture.

Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee.

Mr. PIC - No, sir.

Mr. JENNER - In the upper portion there are a series of photographs spread from left-hand page across to the right-hand page. Take those on the left which appears to be a photograph of three young men. Do you recognize the persons shown in that photograph?

Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize ,this photograph, the people from left to right being Robert Oswald, the center one being Lee Oswald, and the third one being myself. This picture was taken at the house in Dallas when we returned from New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER - You mean from--when you came from New Orleans after being at the Bethlehem Orphanage Home?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER - And you went to Dallas?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER - It was taken in Dallas at or about that time?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER - The next one is prominent; in front is a picture of a young boy. There is a partially shown girl and apparently another boy with a striped shirt in the background. Do you recognize that picture?

Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER - Do you have any impression as to when and where that was taken?

Mr. PIC - Just looking at the picture, I would guess first, second grade, maybe. I would have to guess at it.

Mr. JENNER - Then there is one immediately to the right of that, a young man in the foreground sitting on the floor, with his knees, legs crossed, and his arms also crossed. There are some other people apparently in the background.

Mr. PIC - I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER - Does anything about the picture enable you to identify as to where that was taken?

Mr. PIC - No, sir.

Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people?

Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER - Is he the one to which the black arrow is pointing?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

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. The Crux of the whole matter - Robert claiming he took the Bronz Zoo photo and claiming it was LEE, when it is obvious to all except you that the boy on the fence is not the 5'4" 115lbs LEE.

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.

Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald?

Mr. PIC - No, sir. This is the famous toothless photo in the classroom - again, possibly ROBERT, but not LEE

Mr. JENNER - There is a young fellow in the foreground-everybody else is facing the other way. He is in a pantomime, or grimace. Do you recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; looking at that picture and I have looked at it several times--that looks more like Robert than it does Lee, to my recollection. I believe it was OSwald who tells us that his brother used to impersonate him at school.. Pic seems to feel a couple of these photos are actually Robert and not Lee....

Mr. JENNER - All right. On Exhibit No. 286, the lower right-hand corner, there is another picture. Do you recognize that as your brother Lee in that picture?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; that is about how he looked when I seen him in 1962, his profile.

Mr. JENNER - Do you recognize the person, the lady to the right who is pointing her finger at him?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't.

Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't.

Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them?

Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir.

Mr. JENNER - All right. Exhibit No. 288, there is ill the lower left-hand corner, there is a reproduction of a service card and a reproduction, also, of a photograph with the head of a man. Do you recognize that?

Mr. PIC - That looks to me approximately how Lee Oswald looked when I seen him Thanksgiving 1962. This was when Pic tells us that his brother has changed DRASTICALLY and that he would NOT recognize that person as his brother

Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them.

Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 290, the lower left-hand corner there is a photograph of a young lady and a young man. Do you recognize either of those persons?

Mr. PIC - He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him. Once again he does not say "My Brother" but the Lee Oswald he say in Nov 1962 - which he would not say was his brother.

Mr. JENNER - And the lady?

Mr. PIC - She is his wife, Marina, sir.

Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him.

Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother?

Mr. PIC - That is correct. As we all know... the leaflets were handed out by HARVEY... John chooses LEE from HARVEY in every instance... but you'll tell us he is MISTAKEN as you have no other rebuttal.

and at Thanksgiving 1962:.

Mr. JENNER - How did he look to you physically as compared with when you had seen him last?

Mr. PIC - I would have never recognized him, sir.

Mr. JENNER - How did he look to you physically as compared with when you had seen him last?

Mr. PIC - I would have never recognized him, sir.

Mr. JENNER - Did you have the impression when you saw him on Thanksgiving of 1962 that in the meantime he had become embittered, resentful of his station?

Mr. PIC - Well, sir; the Lee Harvey Oswald I met in November of 1962 was not the Lee Harvey Oswald I had known 10 years previous.

"The leader vs introvert "problem" is explicable once you understand he had Asperger's"

Look Greg, you want to stay with Aspergers - cause you feel it fits the description - that's your perogative

People with Aspergers do not grow 6 inches from week to week and then get shorter again.

They do not change their appearance at ages 12, 13 & 14 so much so their own brother cannot recognize them

They can't live in two places at once, they cant BE in two places at once - no matter how hard you hope and pray.

You got caught with your DoD letter - they say he stayed behind, YOU say he was flown back - you have no idea what you're saying when trying to explain away his being in two places at once other than MISTAKES and Aspergers... you don't even believe the DoD letter since he WAS on the ship in the Unit Diary - so you make up something about being flown back without a shred of proof.

You suppose if he actually HAD Aspergers it would have been identified by now? You'd think John Simkin would include such a thing in his biography of Oswald?

Wouldn't the behavior ALSO be indicative of being ordered to cause disturbances, to behave AGAINST your normal demeanor and give the IMPRESSION of some other situation so that a memory is created? He was described - HARVEY that is, as a quiet, loner, yet repeatedly he or someone pretending to be him causes disturbances wherever he goes - TO GET NOTICED.

You're sounding alot like the McAdams crowd - when the evidence doesn't support their position - it's complete crap... when it does - it's golden.

The USMARINES place Oswald on a ship to and from Taiwan at the same time he is treated in Japan - you have him leaving and flying back, the DoD has him never leaving to begin with... yet they do not begin to explain the Unit Diaries of his return... which shows that if he was in Japan - he STILL was able to get on a ship in Taiwan...

or the recap of his military career below...

And finally, related to THE SCHOOL YEAR... it starts in September Greg... 89 days from Sept 1953 brings us to the SPRING semester....

You do see grades for two classes on that line - right?

You do see 1 absence and 89 days of attendance on the LINE ABOVE THE SPRING SEMESTER?

You do see 90 days in the SPRING SEMESTER? With grades in all classes... the individual reports cards show him in homeroom 303 - LEE was in 303, HARVEY was with Myra.

So Greg, how are there Phys Ed and Gen Science grades in the FALL semester Sept 1953-Jan 1954 with 89 days of attendence if he is at PS44 in NYC?

On Jan 13, 1954 LEE begins school at BJHS after moving from NYC, LEE's homeroom is 303. It is THIS YEAR that their public school lives become one historical record

It is also this year that LEE is living on St. Mary's and HARVEY is at 126 Exchange...

Aspergers and MISTAKES is what you've put your faith and support in to rebute the WCR documentation showing the existence of two LEE HARVEY Oswald's and ultimately the sending of one - the russian speaking one, to russia under "protection of the US Government" HARVEY said that too Greg...

and please stop generalizing... we are not talking about EVERY OSWALD SIGHTING being either H or L... we both know there was other activity related to Oswald that had nothing to do with either HARVEY or LEE... unless it was LEE doing the impersonating.... Could Odio have seen LEE with the other two men - are you going to say it is not even possible that LEE was the crazy marine and played the part?

DJ

Edited March 7, 2017 by David Josephs
need room for new attachments

[David Lifton]

Greg,

You have to know it's against the forum rules to call someone a xxxx. Yet you called David Lifton a xxxx twice in this thread. There are other ways to make your point without resorting to such childish tactics. You also threw in a gratuitious bit of profanity. How does any of this strengthen your arguments?

I wish everyone would consider that your posts are being read by many, many people all over the world. Your real names are attached to these posts- do you really want to leave this kind of impression?

Yes, Don, I know it is against forum rules to tell the truth in some circumstances. I have no problem with my name being seen attached to these posts. Protection of liars is, ironically, the very thing we all agree is being done via the withholding of documents, and other ways and means of hiding behind "rules". If people get the wrong "impression" it is because you are pushing that wrong impression.

If you want this place populated solely by liars, their sycophants, and assorted snake oil salesmen, please enforce your "rules". You're certainly helping to drag in that direction.

I recently re-contacted the person who did this research for me. The year was 1995, and this researcher went to the Fort Worth library and carefully examined all issues of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram between July 1, 1956 and October 24, 1956.

That's when the articles in question were found.

I'm sorry that your ego can't handle that fact--but it is a fact.

Your response (to finding that you were not the first person to learn of this data) is to curse and hurl profanities. As my long gone grandmother used to say, someone should wash your mouth out with soap.

Also, I looked up you bio. You're apparently a ninth grade drop-out with a highly over-inflated view of himself. (No, your bio doesn't say the second fact; that's just my inference). Maybe you don't understand, but in the real world, one is supposed to offer evidence for your allegations. The fact that you found some out of town news articles, using Google, post-2004, does not mean that this information wasn't discovered, by this researcher, back in 1995, at the Fort Worth Public Library. In fact, that's exactly what happened.

Furthermore, the fact that I chose not to mention that data in the September, 1998 fax to the ARRB does not mean --I emphasize, does not mean--that I didn't know about it. Its simply a fact that I did not believe it to be relevant to the suggestion I was making: that the ARRB should pursue the matter of McBride's tax records (and Oswald's tax records) because that would prove when these two persons were working at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories. In fact, the ARRB obtained --i.e., made public--Oswald's tax records, and they established exactly that: that LHO worked at Pfisterer in 1956. I regret that, by 9/30/98, which was the 'sunset' date for their operations, the ARRB did not locate McBride's tax records, also.

Keep up the good work, Greg Parker. Maybe someday you'll learn some manners, and behave as an adult.

DSL

9/10/12; 4 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

This isn't about my ego, no matter how hard you try to turn it around. It is about honesty and YOUR ego.

It is not just that you never mentioned it in your fax to the ARRB. It is that you have written about McBride extensively since 1995 and not mentioned those news stories once in all those writings. Your first mention was when? That's right, David. It was right here in this thread after I posted about them. YOUR ego could not handle the fact that you had not found those stories in all those years of debates about McBride, so you invented your little story about dispatching some researcher to the Ft Worth library and discovering them back in the day.

I'm quite happy to drop this for now in deference to poor Don's delicate sensibilities, so long as you fully understand that you will be exposed if you publish this lie in your book.

From your recent post, QUOTING:

YOUR ego could not handle the fact that you had not found those stories in all those years of debates about McBride, so you invented your little story about dispatching some researcher to the Ft Worth library and discovering them back in the day.

I'm quite happy to drop this for now in deference to poor Don's delicate sensibilities, so long as you fully understand that you will be exposed if you publish this lie in your book. UNQUOTE

DSL RESPONSE (edited and updated, 9/11/12, at 7:30 PM PDT):

Greg Parker: Your statements (about what I found, and when) are false, and complete nonsense. And no, I did not "invent" a "little story about dispatching some researcher to the Ft Worth Library". That's false, and quite disrespectful of the person who actually went there, and did the work.

The person who was working with me at the time, and who kindly did this research, was Debra Conway (who founded JFK Lancer). Debra spent hours at the Fort Worth Public Library, back in 1995, going through microfilms of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and looking up other relevant records as well. We talked on the phone quite a bit, as to what she found, and then she mailed me one or more packets of news clippings, that she printed out. At the time, she was also pursing the matter of obtaining real-estate records as to where Oswald lived, what houses Marguerite Oswald bought, and when, etc. (Furthermore, I gave four talks at JFK Lancer in their November, 1996 conference).

So it was Debra Conway who--back in 1995 (yes, 1995, that's seventeen years ago)-- was at the Fort Worth Library going through various records; and it was she who found the news stories, and it was she who made the link between those news stories and the McBride statement.

The Palmer McBride Statement - - 11/23/63 (WCE 1386)

Now let's go to McBride's 11/23/63 FBI statement, which is Warren Commission Exhibit 1386 (in which he clearly makes a mistake as to when he knew Oswald) and which, towards the end, he refers to a letter from Oswald which he incorrectly states was received in 1958: "I received a letter from him saying he was employed as a shoe salesman in Ft. Worth. In this letter he also stated he had gotten mixed up in an Anti-Negro or Anti-Communist riot on a high school grounds in Ft. Worth, Texas. OSWALD did not elaborate on this statement."

Debra Conway (not I) made the connection between one or two of the news stories she had found and this statement in the McBride FBI report. Note: She wasn't at the library seeking such a statement. She was there carefully perusing the Fort Worth Star Telegram for various other information, and happened to come across the information. Furthermore, as I said, one of the other things she did at that time (either at the Ft Worth Library, or the one in Dallas) was to obtain records for when Marguerite Oswald bought and sold certain properties in the Dallas/Ft Worth area.

So, Greg Parker, your statements and accusations are false. I did not "invent" any of this; and you're completely wrong. Moreover, in a recent email, Debra recalls doing this work in the Fort Worth Public Library and confirms that the year was 1995.

There's another thing you do not seem to understand, and which perhaps, if you did--i.e., if you came down off your "I was there first!" and "nobody-could-have-discovered-any-of-this-before-me" pedestal --- would place everything in proper context.

September/October, 1994: My Original Contact with Palmer McBride

I first contacted Palmer McBride back in September, 1994. At that time, I was writing up drafts of the period of Oswald's life both for the "New York City" period (roughly, August, 1952 to the end of December, 1953/very early January, 1954) and another for the New Orleans period (Jan 13, 1954 through June 30, 1956). Of course, in connection with that work, I was closely studying all relevant FBI reports, and in particular, the testimony of Eddie Voebel (Oswald's "best friend" during the academic year 1954/1955 when he was in the ninth grade at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans); and, finally, all records pertaining to the following year--i.e., the "academic year" 1955/56, when Oswald was no longer in school and was working: first at Tujagues, then J.R. Michels, and, finally, at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories (as a dental messenger), which then brings us (according to the Oswald tax records) to the Spring of 1956. And, of course, that's where Oswald met McBride, a fellow dental messenger.

Warren Commission Exhibit 1386--Palmer McBride's 11/23/63 FBI statement (which pertained to the Spring 1956, when Oswald was at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories, but which incorrectly placed the time-frame as "about December 1957" and then later as "in late 1957 or early 1958") was obviously in error. (Certainly, that was my take on it, inasmuch as Oswald (a) moved from New Orleans to Fort Worth on 7/1/56; (b ) enlisted in the U.S. Marines on 10/24/56; and (c ) by December, 1957 was in Japan or the Philippines. )

Now returning to my own time-frame. . . :

During that general time frame (1994, as I recall) I Iearned from another JFK researcher (Wallace Milam) that someone named John Armstrong was taking the "1957" or "1958" statements seriously, and was constructing this elaborate theory that there were two Oswalds --one who was at Pfisterer, in New Orleans, and the "other one" who was in Japan. Eventually (as I'm sure you are aware) Armstrong's theorizing led to the additional extrapolation that, in addition to there being "two Oswalds," there were also "two Marguerite's" etc. etc.)

At the time (summer/fall of 1994) I had no idea where Palmer McBride lived; but then received a telephone call from the late Robert Chapman (a good friend of mine, and another JFK researcher, who was very close to Mary Ferrell). Chapman told me that either he (or Mary) had located McBride and that he lived out here in Southern California. I remember Robert saying, "He's right in your back yard! You should speak with him!" I was supplied his address and phone number. As a consequence, I telephoned McBride in late September, 1994.

From that conversation, it became evident to me that McBride's memory (when he made the statement he did, on 11/23/63) had been in error as to the year he knew Oswald--but. . .so what? People make mistakes. But because of that error, and other detail he provided to me about Oswald (in our initial phone conversation), and because I was already familiar with the way Armstrong was functioning (lobbying witnesses as to when they knew Oswald, as if Kennedy research was a "political process") I thought it would be a good idea to get McBride's entire account on film. That way, regardless of what Armstrong managed to do in the future--and whatever witnesses he approached, and whatever he persuaded them to say--I would at least have a filmed record of what McBride had told me.

Late September, 1994:The Decision to Film McBride (if possible)

Working with film was not new to me. I had already done that in the case of the key autopsy witnesses (and for similar reasons). In October, 1980, with the publication of BEST EVIDENCE just two months away, I wanted to protect the integrity of the accounts I had been provided (via telephone interviews) from a news organization like 60 Minutes, and so I had professional film crew accompany me and film my interviews with Paul O'Connor, Dennis David, Jerrol Custer, Aubrey Rike, and James Jenkins. The technology availability today (e.g., a good 8 mm hi def camera, or even just an iphone) wasn't available then, and the project, with a 3 person film crew being flown to five separate areas of the U.S., cost about $28,000. But the President of Macmillan and I split the cost, because we both believed it important to preserve the integrity of the record.

Now, in September, 1994, I found myself in a similar situation. John Armstrong, I learned, seemed to be functioning like a busy bee, lobbying witnesses that they knew Lee Oswald in a year other than the one they originally told the FBI, and I wanted a filmed record of what McBride was telling me over the telephone. Fortunately, McBride did not live in some far-away place, so no airplane transportation was involved. Furthermore, I knew someone in the film business who lent a hand. Even, so, the project cost almost $1,000.

I arranged for McBride to sit for an interview--at his home--that would be recorded by a professional camera person. All of that occurred on October 2, 1994. ((See Posts # 124 and #128 on this thread for excerpts from my McBride filmed interview)).

There's one other fact that perhaps you ought to know.

WITNESS JOHN DOE -- GOOD FRIEND OF EDDIE VOEBEL (and who also knew Oswald)

In 1990, I had been introduced to another person--who knew Oswald during the period Fall 1954/Spring 1955 (LHO's ninth grade at Beauregard Junior High School). This person --who I am calling "Joe Doe" in this post--was a good friend of Eddie Voebel, and as a consequence, also spent time with Oswald, when the three of them would hang out together. There is one FBI document which mentions his name, but it was not followed up properly. (I attribute that to an FBI fluke, and/or the fact that information was not volunteerred, which perhaps ought to have been). Anyway, I interviewed this person over the telephone (initially) and then flew to New Orleans and conducted a serious multi-hour in-person interview; and, in addition, a multi-hour filmed interview. (By this time, I had my own hi-def 8mm camera, and did the camera work all by myself; so I was "producer, director, and questioner"--all rolled into one.)

This witness--who I am calling John Doe in this posting--provided all sorts of interesting information about Oswald (and his mother); and, as ar as I am concerned, what he said completely blows the "Harvey and Lee" hypothesis out of the water).

I will be presenting his account, in considerable detail, in a future writing (and I'm sure that as soon as I do, Ms. Judyth you-know-who will immediately jump in, and add this witness to her fictional account of her alleged "relationship" with Lee Oswald.)

As you may (or may not) know, Voebel died some years back; and, unfortunately, so did this "best friend of Eddie," but I can assure you that he, and Lee Oswald, and Eddie Voebel "hung out together". And I have his account recorded on audio, and then in an excellent multi-hour filmed interview.

SUMMARIZING. . . :

I'm writing the above to point out that (a) my interest in Palmer McBride and his erroneous account (as to date) goes way back, to the early 1990s (at least); and (b ) that I was a close student of what he had to say (even though I believed--and still do--that he had the date wrong).

The Palmer McBride 11/23/63 statement, with its incorrect date, offers an excellent example of a "loose end" that ought to have been further investigated, and cleared up, at the time of the original FBI investigation, and certainly by the time of the Warren Commission investigation. It was a serious error not to have done so. Why the FBI supervisors missed this is something I don't understand. How the Warren Commission legal staff ignored it, is thoroughly inexplicable. But that's what happened, and that left the door wide open for the kind of "two Oswald" hypothesis that then germinated.

I was very sorry to see John Armstrong go off on what appeared to me (then) to be a "witness recruitment program," attempting to persuade a host of people that they didn't know Oswald when they said they did, but rather at a later time--all in the pursuit of this "double Oswald" hypothesis, which I believe is completely incorrect. Then, after all this effort, he published this whole hypothesis in his book, Harvey and Lee, in 2003.

I'm very glad that I spoke with Palmer McBride in September, 1994, filmed him in October 1994 (all of this, nine years prior to Armstrong's date of publication); and filmed the other witness--who knew Oswald during the ninth grade at Beauregard Junior High School and over the summer of 1955, and into very early fall 1955 (when LHO attended Warren Easton High School, for just a few weeks).

Finally, when the ARRB opened up for business (summer of 1995) I spoke with Jeremy Gunn (and probably others) about the importance of obtaining the tax records of McBride and Oswald to establish a documentary record of when both Oswald and McBride worked at Pfisterer; and then, in September, 1998, and as a matter of record, and with less than a month left in the ARRB's life, I sent the fax that I did, my final plea that they should do something about all this before they closed shop (9/30/98).

Perhaps, with this as context, anyone reading this will understand that of course (in 1995) I was interested in the Fort Worth newspapers--in the period 7/1/56 (when LHO and his mom left New Orleans and moved to Fort Worth) through 10/24/56 (when he enlisted in the Marines).

In short: you were not the only person, Greg Parker, who was interested in these matters--and from your own bio on the London Forum, it is rather obvious that I was deeply involved in the JFK case, and in studying Oswald's biography, years before you ever got interested in the Kennedy assassination.

Again: See Posts #124 and #128 on this thread for excerpts of my 10/2/94 filmed interview with Palmer McBride. These excerpts establish that Palmer McBride told me that he knew Oswald in the late Spring of 1956, and not years later.

DSL

9/11/12; 12 noon;

revised/updated, 9/11/12, 7:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited September 12, 2012 by David Lifton

[Dawn Meredith]

The John Armstrong "Two Oswalds" theory is one of the greatest sub-canards in JFK research. It is right up there with thinking the 3 tramps were CIA operatives or assassins.

I looked at John Armstrong's photo's of "Harvey" and "Lee" and they all look like the same guy to me!!

Add that to the fact that because Oswald the patsy received so much national exposure that it was bound to lead to many false accounts of bogus Oswald sightings.

Having said that I will give John Armstong some credit for some good research in other areas, namely the rifle and Mexico City. And having said THAT, I am of the belief that Oswald did in fact go to Mexico City in the summer of 1963, despite (maybe because of) what David Atlee Phillips later told Mark Lane.

Robert You might just try READING the book before being so dismissive.

Dawn

I see you are in touch with my old friend Rachel. She's good people.

[David Josephs]

The John Armstrong "Two Oswalds" theory is one of the greatest sub-canards in JFK research. It is right up there with thinking the 3 tramps were CIA operatives or assassins.

I looked at John Armstrong's photo's of "Harvey" and "Lee" and they all look like the same guy to me!!

Add that to the fact that because Oswald the patsy received so much national exposure that it was bound to lead to many false accounts of bogus Oswald sightings.

Having said that I will give John Armstong some credit for some good research in other areas, namely the rifle and Mexico City. And having said THAT, I am of the belief that Oswald did in fact go to Mexico City in the summer of 1963, despite (maybe because of) what David Atlee Phillips later told Mark Lane.

Robert You might just try READING the book before being so dismissive.

Dawn

I see you are in touch with my old friend Rachel. She's good people.

A touch of class and common sense... thanks Dawn.

With regards to the Three Tramps reference I believe I have already created a thread that shows conclusively that the three men in the photos are not the men who spend 2-3 days of a 6 day sentence in the Dallas jails.

Nor are the policemen who claim to have been involved with the "dirty tramps" shown in the DP photos. There were two sets of tramps... there were two sets, or more, of MANY MANY things in DP that day... which added to the post assassination confusion and allowed MANY MANY witnesses to be correct while at the same time be completely off base to the accepted "FACTS" of the case.

(TWO SETS OF SS AGENTS?) just ask Haygood who he encounters at the back of the TSBD...

Cheers

DJ

[John Simkin]

Since we're dispensing advice, I believe your reputation is adversely affected by your support of anyone willing to spread evidence-free gossip and innuendo about JFK's private life. But I don't believe for a second you'll heed that advice any more than you did when you were warned about some of your moderators.

I have high regard for you on a personal level John, but we have some fundamental differences which largely boil down to how we view substance and surface appearance.

Maybe you could be more precise about my “support of anyone willing to spread evidence-free gossip and innuendo about JFK's private life”.

It is true that I have in the past included information about JFK’s sex life in my posts (for example, Mary Pinchot Meyer), but this is more than gossip and it does, in my opinion, could have a direct bearing on the assassination.

Are you denying that JFK had numerous affairs or do you think some writers exaggerate this?

Should biographers include details of JFK’s sexual behaviour in their books? Yes, I think they should. I have recently finished a book on Charles Dickens where I look at his sexual relationships. I have done this because I believe it provides insights into his work. But a biographer is interested in the whole man. It is important to see beneath the public image the person wants to communicate. Personally, I believe the moral behaviour of JFK leaves a lot to be desired. More importantly, it gave information to his enemies to use against him. For example, it was the main reason why he could not sack J. Edgar Hoover. If any leader really wants to take on those really in control of society, he must make sure his personal behaviour is beyond reproach.

Also, after his post about his researcher, Debra Conway, you owe David an apology.

[Greg Parker]

Since we're dispensing advice, I believe your reputation is adversely affected by your support of anyone willing to spread evidence-free gossip and innuendo about JFK's private life. But I don't believe for a second you'll heed that advice any more than you did when you were warned about some of your moderators.

I have high regard for you on a personal level John, but we have some fundamental differences which largely boil down to how we view substance and surface appearance.

Maybe you could be more precise about my “support of anyone willing to spread evidence-free gossip and innuendo about JFK's private life”.

Alford and that alleged historian who first wrote about her, for starters. But it might be easier and quicker if you would list the witnesses to his alleged affairs that you do not believe.

It is true that I have in the past included information about JFK’s sex life in my posts (for example, Mary Pinchot Meyer), but this is more than gossip and it does, in my opinion, could have a direct bearing on the assassination.

An opinion you're entitled to, John.

Are you denying that JFK had numerous affairs or do you think some writers exaggerate this?

Neither. I am saying that there is no evidence which goes beyond circumstantial at best - but mostly it's gossip and innuendo, some of which can be traced back to the Republican Party.

I have no axe to grind. I just want a reasonable standard of evidence.

Should biographers include details of JFK’s sexual behaviour in their books? Yes, I think they should.

Once again, you are assuming that he did. "If" he did, and the evidence is solid, I agree with you. But I haven't seen anything solid. I have seen a lot that is too bad for words.

I have recently finished a book on Charles Dickens where I look at his sexual relationships. I have done this because I believe it provides insights into his work. But a biographer is interested in the whole man. It is important to see beneath the public image the person wants to communicate. Personally, I believe the moral behaviour of JFK leaves a lot to be desired.

Because you believe the likes of Alford.

More importantly, it gave information to his enemies to use against him. For example, it was the main reason why he could not sack J. Edgar Hoover. If any leader really wants to take on those really in control of society, he must make sure his personal behaviour is beyond reproach.

Only if these things were true. You believe witnesses who are simply are not believable, imo.

Also, after his post about his researcher, Debra Conway, you owe David an apology.

With due respect John, I owe him precisely nothing. If you had studied the thread, you might understand that.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

David,

how much did you pay Debra for her work?

[Greg Parker]

I found those same stories the "old fashioned" way, via microfilm at the Ft Worth library) DSL Post 41

‘I” found – not some un-named researcher

----------------------------------------------------------------

The stories were in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. I cannot locate them at this time. Just pay someone (as I recall I did) to go to the FWST in the vicinity of those dates, and I'm sure you'll find them. ](FYI: I never published anything about them. DSL Post 73

Now the story is that he paid some un-named person, and he can’t find them (the stories) and has never mentioned them in all his writings (until after I did).

--------------------------------------------------------------

As has been pointed out (and according to McBride, himself) Oswald –who, with his mother, moved to Fort Worth on July 1, 1956—subsequently wrote a letter to a supervisor at Pfisterer. In that letter, he talks of racial tensions and demonstrations in Fort Worth. Back around 1995, I had someone go to the Fort Worth library, pull microfilms of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and actually locate news stories mentioning that. DSL post 135

Seemingly emboldened, David cranks up the bullometer. He is now claiming that he sent this un-named person SPECIFICALLY TO LOCATE NEWS STORIES THAT MENTION THAT (the riots). So after dispatching someone to locate them, what does he do? NOTHING. NADA. He doesn’t talk about them to the ARRB, Armstrong, or apparently anyone else. He doesn’t write about them. He had them apparently laying about the house someplace until the cleaner threw them in the dustbin (or whatever his story will turn out to be regarding how they were lost). He will soon change this part of the story about why the person was sent. In fact, the only constant part of the story has been that he never wrote about the articles found. And that is also the only fully believable part of the story...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

As I mentioned previously, back around 1995 (plus or minus) I had someone carefully go through the Fort Worth Star Telegramarchives (or microfilms, at the Fort Worth Library) for the summer of 1956, simply because Oswald and his mother moved there on July 1, 1956, and that was his residence until the day he enlisted in the Marines on 10/24/56. That search happened to turn up one or two news stories about the racial situation in Fort Worth; and yes, at that time, I made the connection between the letter Oswald reportedly wrote his former supervisor at Pfisterer, and that news story. DSL post 137

In his very next post, he contradicted his advice that he specifically sent someone looking for those stories. His new version is that the search was conducted simply because Lee and Marguerite were living there, and the finding of the stories on civil unrest was peripheral only. But why would you search the newspapers simply because Marguerite and Lee were living there? Did David expect to find stories on them in the social pages? It’s a crock. The ONLY sane reason to do the search was the one I had – that being the same as the one he INITIALLY said he had, but quickly disavowed. That reason was to find confirmation that Oswald wrote his letter in 1956. Note also, that whilst he has stuck to the new version in one respect (it wasn’t really me who found them – it was someone I hired), he has added a new twist. He takes credit for making the connection between the stories and Lee’s letter. But that too, will be shed quicker than a g-string from a Ruby stripper.

---------------------------------------------------------

When I state the truth about what I discovered, and when I discovered it (circa 1995), and how I discovered it—i.e., the “old fashioned way” by actually having someone go to the Fort Worth Library and examine microfilms of the 1956 Fort Worth Star Telegram- DSL post 139.

God bless him. The “old fashioned way” to David is having someone else go do your work for you. Must be nice on that plantation.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I just noted [the Fort Worth stories] as a "fact in passing." Really, that's the way I viewed it, From same post as above

All very passé, was it, David? But that’s not what you say later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I indeed had a researcher go through the Fort Worth Star Telegram, on microfilm, for the period July 1, 1956 through October 24, 1956 (the brief period that LHO lived in Ft Worth, with his mother, after the 2-1/2 years in New Orleans). That person mailed me a number of news clips, and one of them concerned the civil rights demonstrations, and that person noted the correlation between those stories and what Palmer McBride had said about someone at Pfisterer receiving a letter from Oswald about that. Did that register in my mind? Yes. Did I place a whole lot of emphasis on it? No. From same post as above

So there it is. In the space of a few paragraphs, he has gone from claiming credit for linking the Ft Worth articles and Oswald’s letter, to saying it was his researcher who made the link – and it wasn’t one he put much emphasis on. Anyone not noticing a pattern of deception yet? I suggest you get a seeing eye dog. Three paragraphs later, he contradicts himself again by saying “Yes, the Fort worth newspaper stories are important” This, from a man who just got through telling us he merely noted them in passing, didn’t place much emphasis on them, certainly never ever wrote about them (until they were mentioned by me) and somewhere, somehow lost them along the way. He completes this post by reminding us that HE happens “to have also discovered those news stories….”

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Your statements (about what I found, and when) are false, and complete nonsense. And no, I did not "invent" a "little story about dispatching some researcher to the Ft Worth Library".

The person who was working with me at the time, and who kindly did this research was Debra Conway (who founded JFK Lancer). Debra spent hours at the Fort Worth Public Library, back in 1995, going through microfilms of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and looking up other relevant records as well. We talked on the phone quite a bit, as to what she found, and then she mailed me one or more packets of news clippings, that she printed out. At the time, she was also pursing the matter of obtaining real-estate records as to where Oswald lived, what houses Marguerite Oswald bought, and when, etc. (Furthermore, I gave four talks at JFK Lancer in their November, 1996 conference).

So it was Debra Conway who--back in 1995 (yes, 1995, that's seventeen years ago)-- was at the Fort Worth Library going through various records; and it was she who found the news stories, and it was she who made the link between those news stories and the McBride statement. DSL post 155

From the deep recesses, he finally manages to dredge up a name for his paid for gofer. None other than Debra Conway. How many people here, I wonder, would not be able to recall Debra helping them out in a fairly substantial manner 17 years ago? Anyone who doubts he had no name to put to his helper at the start of this needs to go back and read what he wrote – “I cannot locate them at this time. Just pay someone (as I recall I did)”

- there is no certainty there at all – only a vague recollection of paying someone…

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I owe him NOTHING.

the above was taken from this deconstruction: http://reopenkennedy...-tales-and-true

Edited September 12, 2012 by Greg Parker

[David Josephs]

Greg, why does each and every post appear as if you're in a corner and fighting tooth and nail to get out of it?

Seems to me that DSL had a number of supporters and helpers along the way... some people use "WE" when describing the work accomplished, some "I"... he was still at the top of that pyramid of research...

so why all the hostility?

Furthermore... what makes you so certain that a small high school occurance - described second hand thru another's letter - would even BE in a newspaper story? There is just as good a chance that nothing was EVER written about this incident... and you STILL have an 11/23 statement, a very descriptive and detailed statement, placing Oswald with McBride in 1957/58.... Since that causes such problems - you know like that pesky frontal throat injury - it just had to be a MISTAKE, had to be CORRECTED... gee, where have we heard THAT before....

Since you and David believe it is impossible for the US MARINES to be right about where their soldiers are at any given moment

and they can't figure out if someone has boarded a ship or not

and EVERY document places him on that ship to Taiwan and returning in October - except for the STD treatments in Japan....

I guess you conclude whatever you like. Meanwhile, the rest of us see a little more, a little deeper and are interested enough to actually research the information, study it, analyze it... and come to the conclusion that even if some of the evidence is wrong, there is STILL enough conflict with John Pic and Robert... with the inconsistencies of the woman claiming to be M. Oswald - and the records of the Marines and school systems to conclude something was VERY WRONG with the information related to Oswald's past.

What you think is or is not "logical" or "possible" or "ridiculous" is really not the issue Greg... personal opinions aside, there is quite a lot of evidence to support H&L right there in the WCR...

So hang your hat on Aspergers and MISTAKES while the rest of us lok at the documents and interviews and see conflict after conflict and ask WHY?

Myra takes Oswald home to 126 Exchange where his mother is either a nurse or a bar waitress

Myrtle Evans has the Oswalds staying at her apt on St. Mary's... EVEN IF this is in the Spring of 1954... you STILL have two boys with the same name going to the same school living in two different places.

and you STILL do not have anyone saying he was NOT THERE in Sept 1953 other than the state of NY.

Finally, I see you've chosen to engage DSL and DSL only as this seems like an argument that you can hold out on and win as it is a matter of opinions...

That you don't or can't address the school record for 1953/54 and 54/55 at BJHS and it showing OSwald attending 2 classes for 89 days in the FALL of 1953 is your problem, not mine.

The record is very clear and the witnesses are as well...

Good luck with DSL... I'm done showing you how wrong your rebuttal evidence is and how you incorrectly interpret the records. This is pretty simply stuff Greg...

One document details Oswald's trip to Taiwan... one his treatment in Japan... both at the same time -posted below AGAIN.

With the UNIT DIARIES also listing his leaving and returning with a count of officers and enlisted... you REALLY going to stand your ground that each and every one of these documents is wrong, that the US MARINES does not know how many people get on and off their ships?

Your right to do so Greg... but we have to be done here then.

At some point, evidence that points to the US GOVT and its "actions" or the fact that Oswald was innocent of the murder will be finally accepted as the truth...

Boone and Weitzman DID see a Mauser

Baker and Truly did NOT incounter Oswald in the lunchroom or anywhere else for that matter IMO... (man on the stairs becomes Oswald in the lunchroom)

Hill found auto shells

up to 8 shots where fired in DP

Klein's/FBI made sure not to allow comparison of the HIDELL order to any other order EVER...

Seaport/REA NEVER gets paid for it item or services

the MO was never processed

the rifle and hulls were planted - the only way our three black men on the 5th hear ANYTHING is if the shots came from somewhere else (Dal-tex roof) and past the TSBD SE corner... for if they were indeed 10 feet from the muzzle blast, all three would have been deaf - or have a very bad ringing - for a good 20 minutes afterward

and on and on... do you, in your heart of hearts believe the CIA was not capable of such a program as to "breed" a spy and create a false history?

kinda makes the cover up thing even more important, the "kill Fidel" cover-up may have been nothing compared to covering up an ongoing and possibly successful spy creation and infultration program....

DJ

Edited March 7, 2017 by David Josephs