The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained

[Don Jeffries]

Greg,

Like David, I'm at a loss to understand your hostility towards DSL. If I understand both of your positions correctly, you and David Lifton agree that Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory is bogus. Why then are you expending such energy attempting to discredit research you essentially agree with? I apologize if I've mischaracterized your views vs. DSL's.

For the record, I think Armstrong produced a great deal of intriguing information. I don't accept his theory in total (for instance, he believes the official version of Oswald's post-assassination movements, the bus ride, cab, etc.) However, I think it's unfair to dismiss his work completely. Especially when considered in context with the well documented sightings of "fake" Oswalds in the period just before the assassination, Armstrong's research is significant.

[David Lifton]

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

Greg Parker,

Nothing has really changed. And this latest post of yours (# 161) reveals that you not only appear to have a rather juvenile (and spiteful) nature, but, in addition (and for some reason uknown to me) to have a deep personal animus towards me.

To begin with: your major line of argument is full of conjecture, speculation, and unwarranted inferences about why I did what I did, and since your information is sorely lacking, your speculations are faulty and your inferences are incorrect.

A major point you seem to be making—in framing your “case” against me (which goes on for hundreds of words)—is that I have gone to all this trouble this year (i.e. 2012) and made up a false story. And why? Apparently (you think) to conceal the fact that back in 1995 (that’s 17 years ago) I did not do what I said I did; i.e., I did not learn about the Fort Worth Star-Telegram news stories about the racial tensions (or incidents) in Fort Worth the summer/fall of 1956. Further, I did notlearn about those matters in just the manner in which I said I did: by having someone go to the Fort Worth Public Library, examine the microfilmed copies of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for the period in question: i.e., the summer of 1956.

But in fact that’s exactly what I did. I learned about those news stories in exactly that fashion, and the “someone” who assisted me at that time was Debra Conway, the founder of JFK Lancer.

Let’s back up just a bit: In my earlier posts on this thread, I said I was assisted by a third party. But, initially, I omitted the name of the third party from the discussion. In my later post (see Post # 155) I provided more detail, named the person who assisted me and gave full credit.

John Simkin then remarked (post # 158) “After his post about his researcher, Debra Conway, you owe David an apology.”

But, you will have none of it. Of course you won’t. You just can’t. Its not just that you are a stubborn individual; you have a serious personal agenda, and its not very nice to behold.

Like a recalcitrant child, you just can’t (and won’t) deal with the reality of the situation—that I learned of (and was sent copies of) these news stories back in 1995. So like a spoiled and misbehaving child, you cry out “No, I don’t! I owe him precisely nothing!”

You then proceed to expend hundreds of words supposedly analyzing exactly what I did, and how my previous statements prove I am lying.

Well, I am not lying, at all. And your plethora of words consist of a completely faulty analysis, (which you call a “deconstruction”, and which you devote the better part of a page to on your website). You then provide us with generous excerpts of this silly and thoroughly faulty reconstruction.

GREG PARKER’S MAJOR POINT: My reason for the FW Newspaper Research

Your major point seems to be: Why would David Lifton (that’s me) ask anyone—Debra Conway or anyone else—to look at the microfilm records of the Fort Worth newspapers, for the summer of 1956? That makes no sense, you say, and so you conclude this is all a made up story. A complete fiction. Here, let me quote your words back to you:

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.

Just focus on your key sentence: “the only sane reason to do the search as the one I had.”

In the "Greg Parker centered" universe, Greg’s thoughts and ideas are always a “first cause.” Here, let’s focus (still again) on the key quote:

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. . .

Well, Greg Parker, you’re just flat out incorrect; and no, I’m not lying, not at all. And in fact I had a perfectly legitimate reason for searching those newspapers.

1995: My Primary Reason for Doing the Fort Worth Newspaper Research

Let’s go back to your question: Why was I interested in the Fort Worth newspapers during that period? First of all, because Oswald lived in Fort Worth, between July 1, 1956,and October 24, 1956, when he enlisted in the Marines. But secondly (and more important to me at the time): Because I wanted to find out if Oswald’s favorite TV show, I Led 3 Lives, was broadcast in the Fort Worth area that summer.

That’s right—its as simple as that: finding out the details as to when a particular TV show aired. That’s the answer to your silly question. I already knew, from another source (Sponsor magazine, available at the UCLA Library) that the show was likely broadcast in Fort Worth that summer—but I didn’t have the specific data for Fort Worth. To obtain that data, it would be necessary to look at the equivalent of the TV guide, or the Sunday magazine for the area, which usually contains television listings.

Consequently: I asked Debra if she would please take the time and do me the favor of doing just that, and she graciously assisted me.

It was in connection with that effort (i.e., verifying that that particular TV show was broadcast in Fort Worth, that summer) that Debra went through some two months of microfilm, and, in the course of that, discovered the Fort Worth news stories about the racial incident.

So that’s the answer to your accusatory question, and the rhetoric you have loaded on board with it.

OK? Do you now “get it”? Do you now understand?

Repetition never hurts, a teacher tells me, so here, let’s now return to your foolish argument, delivered in your haughty "I'm so superior/I know it all" tone, to make sure you understand. Here’s your angry challenge, to me:

But firstly I again ask what the point was of going through the newspapers for the period Oswald was there, if not to find confirmation of him being there when the record says he was. I mean, did Lifton and his researcher expect to find stories about Marguerite or Oswald? Of course not! The ONLY reason to conduct such a search was to find something that would confirm Oswald's letter was written in 1956 and not 1958.

AND:

The ONLY logical reason to look in those papers was the reason I did. . .

And. . . :

YOUR ego [referring to me—DSL] 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.

These statements--all of them false--are the words of an apparently psychologically wounded Greg Parker, crying out in anger, because—he now finds—something he thought only he did, and only he knew about—was not so. Perhaps by now, Greg Parker, you will finally “get it”: perhaps now you will realize that your analysis of what I did, and why I did it, is faulty, and, consequently, your conclusions are entirely wrong.

Frankly, you sound like a little boy whining that someone has taken away some prize you think you deserve. So sorry about that, but I cannot help you.

But just why do you behave in this absurd fashion? What's the source of all this anger?

Here’s my theory; and since you’ve felt free to speculate about my motives, here’s my theory about you.

GREG PARKER: “History Begins With Me” (aka “Before me, nothing happened. . . so prepare to press the “reset button,” if you wish to enter my “universe”)

The year when this “newspaper research” took place was (as I have stated) 1995; and 1995 was the year after I interviewed Palmer McBride by phone (September, 1994) and then also on camera (October 2, 1994).

The summer of 1995 also marks the time that the ARRB was finally organized, and funded and proceeded with their operations. September 17, 1996, was the date I testified before the ARRB in Los Angeles, and donated a super-special copy of the 35 mm Z film; and during that entire period, I was in constant touch with Doug Horne, or Jeremy Gunn, because approximately 10 of the “Best Evidence” witnesses were called, and I made available tapes of my telephone interviews, and videos of the filmed interviews. I was in constant touch with the ARRB staff, and I also wanted them to resolve the Palmer McBride matter, because I understood then--from conversations with other researchers (and with John Armstrong himself)--that if this matter was not "officially corrected," it would be the source of what would be (imho) future false biographies of Oswald.

Now, changing the subject justa bit, let me ask: what was going on with you in 1995? Remember: this was five years before you became involved in the Kennedy case (when, in the year 2000, according to your own website, you read Anthony Summers book). But, regardless of your relatively late “arrival,” let’s place Greg Parker on the time line. My life is an open book; so let’s focus on you for just a bit. (That’s fair, would you not agree?)

Greg Parker and the JFK Research Timeline

From your own website: You were born in 1958 (which makes you about 54 today), you attended “11 different schools,” and then “at age 14” you “left school altogether” and then spent your time “bumming around the country” until 1988, when you began working for the Australian civil service. All very well, so that means you didn’t go beyond the ninth grade in your education, and were about 30 years old when you ceased your life as a drifter. (Do correct me if I’m wrong.)

Three years later –in December, 1991—Oliver Stone's film JFK was released, and you state that you were “interested” but that didn’t quite do it for you. So now you were about 33 years old. Stone’s film had sparked your interest, but it didn’t lead to anything, at least not immediately. (Again, this is from your own website.)

So now another nine years passed, to about the year 2000, and you were now about 42.

At this time, your interest was “rekindled” because you read Anthony Summers’ book, Conspiracy (which, fyi, was first published in June, 1980). As a consequence of reading Tony’s book, you apparently had your “light bulb moment” (my words); and now (finally) you developed a serious interest in the JFK assassination.

Ta Da!! Greg Parker has arrived on the scene. So we can all go home. He will solve the mystery!

The problem, Mr. Parker, is that by the time you “got involved,” (in the year 2000, which was 12 years ago) lots of other things had happened in the world. I hope you do realize that. There is history that took place before you! Furthermore, these “other things” have nothing to do with you.

No matter. At some point, you set up a website.

Besides discussing various Kennedy issues, your website sells T-Shirts, and beer mugs and handbags (I think), and even had, some time back, pictures of provocative ladies. It provides a home for your friend, Richard Gilbride, who argues that some half dozen employees of the Texas School Book Depository were central figures in the JFK assassination. It also has a place where one can click and make a financial contribution. And some speech about opening the files, and why that would be good for democracy.

At some point, you did certain research and your research was “presented” at a research conference. According to your website, here is a description of your research: you presented “strong evidence showing Jack Ruby to be a conduit for funding WMD research in the late 1950s. . .”

( . Jack Ruby and “WMD”. . ? Really??)

Finally, at some point, you became interested in the theories of John Armstrong, and the puzzling statement of Palmer McBride, Oswald’s co-worker at Pfisterer Dental Labs in New Orleans (in the Spring of 1956), and McBride’s puzzling statement (to the FBI, on 11/23/63) that he knew Oswald in late 1957 and/or 1958.

Sheriff Parker Arrives---and Addresses the Palmer McBride Situation

By analyzing all the data, you concluded that Armstrong is wrong, and –specifically, that Palmer McBride’s 11/23/63 statement (that he knew Oswald in 1957/58) was incorrect. You also noticed that--in this 11/23/63 statement-- McBride said he received a letter from Oswald, later that summer (which would be 1956, if Spring 1956 is when McBride knew Oswald); and that racial tensions and incidents were mentioned, by McBride, in that letter.

At this point, you apparently turned to everybody’s favorite reference tool, "everyman’s card catalogue”: Google.

GREG PARKER AND GOOGLE - -2004 (or thereafter, perhaps as late as 2011)

At some point, via Google, you found references to the stories about racial tensions and/or incidents in Fort Worth, in the summer/fall of 1956. You then “made the connection” between that data and the letter that Palmer McBride said he received from Oswald. (To which I say: “Good for you!” After all, this “proves” that McBride was wrong when he said he knew Oswald in 1957 or 1958. Here is good evidence—indeed, excellent evidence—that it was 1956, after all!)

So now it is Christmas day (or X-mas eve, depending on one’s time zone), you go up on the Simkin Group, and start a thread: “The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained.” Originator: Greg Parker. Date: December 25, 2011. Time: 12:23 AM.

The thread wanders a bit, Robert Morrow chimes in, so does Lee Farley, I mentioned that I knew about these news stories (and no, I did not respond to your questions about that)—and then, at post #78 (which is dated January 1, 2012), there is an eight-month jump to 20 August, 2012, and post number #79.

PARKER’S POST #79

In that post, you bemoan the fact that “there is a war being waged where accusations of having hidden agendas and of protecting ones pet theories at all costs are being loaded and fired. The irony is that both the main protagonists are devotees of "Harvey & Lee". So let's see who has the agenda and who will protect a theory at any cost. I invite them both here to agree "Harvey & Lee" is now a debunked theory (my emphasis added--DSL).

At this point –21 August 2012 --you got yourself involved in a detailed debate with David Josephs (who apparently subscribes to much of Armstrong’s hypothesis). Pictures are brought out; school records are analyzed, and then, finally, you pull out your tactical nuclear weapon.

GREG PARKER AND HIS MINIATURE NUKE

You pointed out that there are these Fort Worth news stories which you found (via Google) and which established that you are correct, and that the entire John Armstrong crowd is wrong (and indeed, as I said above, I believe that is in fact the case. . .so; congratulations!)

We are now at calendar date 23 August, 2012, and your post #86. You are trying to explain to David Josephs why you believe that Palmer McBride’s statement is incorrect.

In Post #86, you write:

1. If you prefer to call McBride the "launching pad" for the theory, that's fine with me. The bottom line is, he claimed Oswald wrote to him from Ft Worth in 1958 - which gave rise to the theory that (and forgive me if I have this the wrong way around) "Harvey" was in the Marines at the same time that Lee was living in Ft Worth. Oswald had mentioned anti-communist or anti-Black riots in this letter. The problem is, that there is no evidence of riots in Ft Worth during 1958, but such evidence exists for Aug/Sept, 1956 which is soon after the official history has Oswald moving to Ft Worth. I have previously shown McBride's memory was in error regarding the time period Oswald worked at the dental clinic so if we're going with "launch pad" as analogue, the rocket it launched immediately exploded, but (according to you) it somehow was still a successful mission.

You and David Josephs then go round and round on a number of particulars (and I would side with you in those posts); and then Stephen Gaal materializes (24 August 2012, Post # 90) and he says, in big black letters:

I had dinner with Palmer McBride and he said Oswald and he talked about the Sputnik launch.

(DSL Note: Sputnik was launched in October, 1957)

Lots of interesting data is discussed, and there is a film excerpt of Linda Faircloth, one of the Pfisterer witnesses who, imho, Armstrong hyped into becoming a “true believer” in his theory. There then followed much back and forth, in which David Josephs presented the kind of data one finds in the Armstrong book, and you (Greg Parker) were in rebuttal mode—and, for the most part, I think your arguments were superior. In fact, if you want to see a good debate on why “Harvey and Lee” is just plain wrong, this thread, up to this point, is a good study guide.

Anyway, this brings us to calendar date 5 September 2012.

It was at this point, that a problem developed, and the problem was me.

(Now bear with me while I write about myself, at least partially, in the third person)

9/5/2012: DSL POSTS ABOUT HIS 1994 INTEREST IN McBride

(and his 10/2/94 filmed interview with McBride) --See my Post # 124, dated 9/5/12 (and then # 128, as well)

To some extent provoked by Steve Gaal’s post, I posted on the thread, stating that I interviewed Palmer McBride on October 2, 1994, and provided quotes from that filmed interview. That is when McBride told me that he knew Oswald in the spring of 1956, and not 1957 or 1958. In short, that is when McBride admitted (to me) that his 11/23/63 statement was in error. All this occurred because I got McBride to go on camera before John Armstrong worked his magic on him, and before someone planted in his head the notion that he would go down in history, if he really knew Oswald in 1957 and 1958, because there was more than one Oswald, etc. (And on 9/6/12, I posted another excerpt from my filmed interview [see My Post # 128] ).

In other words, by getting McBride on camera on October 2, 1994, I rained on John Armstrong’s parade. . .indeed, I rained real hard. (But I didn’t do anything with the film footage; at least, not at that time; intending to use it at some future date in a documentary film. Also please note: there was no "Internet" (as we now know it) in 1995).

But now, let’s return to you, Greg Parker, and your reaction.

Please note: my interview with Palmer McBride occurred on October 2, 1994—that is six years before you read Tony Summers book; six years before you ever got involved in the Kennedy assassination.

I also noted that I wrote the ARRB in September, 1998, urging them to get the McBride and Oswald tax records. Again, that is 1998, a good two years before you read Tony Summers book, and, by your own admission, really got involved in the JFK case.

Now (apparently) you can’t deal with any of this. For now its becoming apparent that I did quite a bit of original research on the matter of Palmer McBride, and did it in the period 1994 /1995, and then wrote the ARRB about the matter in early September, 1998. (All this occurred years before Sheriff Parker arrived on the scene.)

So now let’s turn to your reaction.

GREG PARKER’S REACTION TO LEARING THAT, FOR DSL,

The McBride Issue fell into the category of “been there, done that”.

“What?!” You scream.

Somebody was here before me?

Somebody found what I learned from a Google search (in the period post 2004, and perhaps as late as 2011), back in 1995?!

No! No! That’s impossible!

And so, like a child, you scream and shout and spit. You curse and hurl insults. You say I’m a xxxx. You say I am a thief. You challenge me to sue you. But nothing is going to change the basic facts.

Indeed, I found what I did (and when I said I did, and exactly how I did). Yes, Greg Parker, I learned about the articles in the Fort Worth Star Telegram, back in 1995, because of the careful research of Debra Conway, at the Fort Worth Public Library.

I’m not going to continue this “discussion” any further; because I think any rational person can understand what I did, and when I did it; and why.

So essentially, my response to you comes down to this: Greg Parker, Grow up.

It may be late in the day, but its never too late to grow up.

But of course, you have difficulty with that concept. On your website, you have now taken quotes from this thread on the London Forum, and constructed an elaborate (and fallacious) write-up, attempting to make the case that I’m a xxxx and a thief.

You title your nasty and sarcastic web essay: “David Lifton – Tall Tales and True. . . “

So is this, in the final analysis, what your “JFK research” amounts to? Is this what it has come down to? Protecting this juvenile fantasy you have that nothing happened before you arrived on the scene? That we should all press a “reset button” to accommodate the fact that, in about the year 2000, and when you were about 42, you finally got “involved” in the JFK case? And so, therefore, I (for example) couldn’t have possibly done what I said I did, in 1995--- at least five years before you ever got involved in the Kennedy case? And so I must be lying?

Oh pleez. . . get real, and grow up. .

SOME FINAL THOUGHTS

I’m glad you realize that John Armstrong’s hypothesis is completely incorrect. I (too) believe it to be incorrect because it is obvious to me that, on November 23, 1963, McBride simply made an error (in that original FBI interview) in accurately recalling just when it was that he knew Oswald. When I spoke with McBride in late September, 1994, and when I conducted the filmed interview on October 2, 1994, that is what he told me.

The following year, when reviewing the Fort Worth Star-Telegram stories for the summer and fall of 1956, the stories about the Fort Worth racial tensions and incidents were discovered.

FYI: In the first half of 1995, I had extensive contact with Armstrong, by phone and fax. From Armstrong, I learned some interesting things--and I give him credit for the massive amount of work he did (and for certain specific things Iearned from him)--but I never "connected the dots" the way he did, and told him so. I'm not alone in this opinion: that he collected a massive amount of information, but his interpretations are often incorrect. (FYI #2: We stopped talking about September, 1995).

In September, 1998, when I wrote the ARRB, I wrote a letter explaining the problem, and strongly suggesting that they (the ARRB) obtain McBride’s (and Oswald’s) tax records. The point of my letter was not to prove Armstrong was wrong (even though I thought he was) but to get the ARRB to do their job properly, and seek the relevant tax records.

And so I phrased my request in the context of their legislative mandate: “. . .to clarify the record. . . “

Let me repeat: I was not “debating” John Armstrong; I was not playing a game of “gotcha” with him.

Rather: I was attempting to persuade the ARRB to do their job. (which they subsequently did do, at least to some extent, when they obtained Oswald’s tax records). Those records prove that Oswald was at Pfisterer in the spring of 1956. In my September, 1998 letter to the ARRB, I didn’t mention the Fort Worth news stories because (to me, and at that time) they weren’t relevant—not in the context of a legal argument being made to the ARRB. If I were writing a section in a book, then sure, the existence of those stories is, I believe, “probative.” Of course they are. Armstrong and his minions can argue all they want about the Oswald tax records being falsified (to me, it is obvious that that argument is ridiculous); but they cannot argue that the Fort Worth news stories were forged. (And you make that point rather well. But keep in mind: The ARRB memo about the Oswald tax records (written by Doug Horne, Chief Analyst, Military Records) was not released until some months after the ARRB closed shop on 9/30/98; and, I believe, it was only after that that Armstrong argued that the IRS tax records were falsified).

But let's return to your absurd charges about me--i.e., that I stole your ideas, that I'm a xxxx, a thief, and all the rest of it.

As I said in an earlier post, I really don’t care what you believe. You have revealed yourself to be an intolerant person who apparently is clinging to the idea that certain news story information that you found in 2010 or 2011, was unknown to me until your discovery, and that is flat-out false.

As I have explained, I learned of that information in 1995 when, as a result of my request, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram microfilms for that period were examined at the Fort Worth Public Library (by Debra Conway, and for an entirely different reason). Those stories were found at that time, and corroborated what I had already confirmed before (in Sept-October, 1994), when I personally interviewed Palmer McBride. In posts #124 and #128 on this thread, I already “published” what he told me (and it is word-for-word accurate): the year he knew Oswald was 1956—and not 1957 or 1958.

My research into this matter and my insights occurred some five or six years before the year 2000, the year Tony Summers book inspired your interest in the Kennedy assassination—at a time that I had already been involved in the case for some 35 years.

No, Greg Parker, I don’t need to “steal” your discovery. (And I certainly did no such thing in this case).

I have made plenty of my own.

I do believe, in connection with your analysis of this situation, and particularly my activities and motives, you have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills. Often, a good researcher is one who can "connect the dots" correctly. That is an art. For whatever reason, I think you have a tendency to "connect the molehills."

DSL

9/13/12; 1:30 AM PDT

(edited 11:15 AM PDT, same day)

Los Angeles, California

Edited September 13, 2012 by David Lifton

[Greg Parker]

Greg Parker and the JFK Research Timeline

David, I'm as bemused as you seem to be by how I got here.

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

Like David, I'm at a loss to understand your hostility towards DSL.

What can I say? I don't like liars or condescending blowhards. A bit of history: he was allowed, by this forum without sanction, to continually misrepresent my position on various aspects of this case - despite being repeatedly corrected. Once you know something to be untrue and you continue saying it, you are what Don? What's the politically correct euphemism for "xxxx" around here? He has reverted back, though in a more subtle way, to doing that in his latest bout of bloviation.

If I understand both of your positions correctly, you and David Lifton agree that Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory is bogus. Why then are you expending such energy attempting to discredit research you essentially agree with? I apologize if I've mischaracterized your views vs. DSL's.

This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing about Armstrong. As I have already said, I think he is right about Armstrong. But you've already misled John Simkin regarding this, and since he seems to be persuaded by single posts rather than a thorough examination of the thread, you may find yourself being supported again on this, regardless of anything I say.

For the record, I think Armstrong produced a great deal of intriguing information. I don't accept his theory in total (for instance, he believes the official version of Oswald's post-assassination movements, the bus ride, cab, etc.) However, I think it's unfair to dismiss his work completely. Especially when considered in context with the well documented sightings of "fake" Oswalds in the period just before the assassination, Armstrong's research is significant.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Failure to directly answer a question / making general statements in response / non-answer statements and; inconsistent statements are all indicators of untruthfulness, and universally recognized as such by law agencies.

Who did the search of newspapers in the Fort Worth Library?

story one: DSL did

story two: an un-named researcher did it for payment

story three: Debra Conway "kindly" did it

Why was the research conducted?

story one: To locate stories of civil unrest which would indicate LHO wrote his letter in 1956 and not 1958.

story two: It was done simply because LHO and his mother were living there at the time.

story three: It was done to find out if "I Led 3 Lives" was being re-run during the time in question.

Was the find important?

Story one: I placed no emphasis on it. Noted them only in passing. Never wrote about them

Story 2: Yes, the Fort Worth stories are important.

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

One change in a story might be put down to inadvertence, or lack of clarity. Two might be put down to advancing years and so on. But eight contradictory statements? That represents a clear indication of deception.

For the second time, since it didn't seem to sink in before: this isn't about my ego, no matter how hard some try to push that diversion. I don't care who uses my research (it is posted for people to use), or if they acknowledge where they got it, so long as they're not claiming it as their own. People making up stories so it can be used as their own is where I draw the line.

And as David now knows, Gary Mack has indicated there is some chance the Star Telegram had no, or very little coverage of what was happening in the Civil Rights struggle locally in 1956 due to the attitude of the owner, despite the issue being covered extensively in other papers.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Bernie Laverick]

David why don'y you make Greg look really silly? It would be so easy. Simply refer him to some statement, letter, fax, interview or any such other piece of work you have done, post 1995, that includes this F Worth riot information...other than after the post Greg made in this thread. There! You'll have him 'bang to rights'! Providing such a reference could have saved you having to write a volumous reply that seemed more concerned with childish insults than proving you were indeed aware of this information years ago. So far all we have is David Lifton found this out years ago because David Lifton says so.

In 2003 (when Greg was 3 years old) Armstrong's Harvey and Lee was published; so you will have known fairly soon that it was seriously flawed.because you knew that Mcbride was wrong about the dates.You knew that because you sent someone to find out some other information and they dug this up as well. Given that you are a vocal opponent of Armstrong's work, and in particular the Mcbride scenario, and that this information is effectively a cleaver crashing down on it, where since 1995 have you made any reference to its devestating significance?

A quick short response showing where you have used this information regarding the F Worth riots as reported in the local papers to bolster up your ongoing refutation to Armstrong's conclusions would, I fear, seriously damage Greg's reputation. Do it David! Put the thirteen year old in his place!

PS... Greg, I know what you're trying to do here and it's really not on. You are trying to imply that someone, a distinguished researcher of longstanding, who had access to Mcbride and who even interviewed him on camera, didn't even think of checking local media reports that may or may not corroborate his story. Cheap shot Greg. Then you go further and allege that this person only revealed he knew of this information after you had disclosed it in this thread. Greg soon you will eat your words when David provides all the links showing us where has used this information since 1995.

[Mike Rago]

I would like to see the research regarding Jack Ruby and his facilitating funding for WMD research.

Greg Parker also had some of his research presented at the Pittsburgh conference in November, 2003. This included strong evidence showing Jack Ruby to be a conduit for funding WMD research in the late 1950s,

http://www.spartacus.../JFKparkerG.htm

Edited September 13, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Greg Parker]

Greg soon you will eat your words when David provides all the links showing us where has used this information since 1995.

Bernie, I'll be absent for a day or two without internet access, but I'll have my knife and fork ready for when I return.

But while on the subject, I missed one other change in his story: Who made the connection between newspaper stories and Oswald letter? Story One: DSL: Story two: Debra Conway.

I should have also made it clear that I never made any accusations when David first brought this up. It took the emergence of these contradtory statements before that happened.

I would like to see the research regarding Jack Ruby and his facilitating funding for WMD research.

You will, I fear, be gravely disappointed. I include bio weapons under the WMD umbrella, and there is no evidence his efforts to facilitate funding were successful. See: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2342

[Mike Rago]

In an effort not to sidetrack this thread I will put my post in a different thread.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Josephs]

Mr. Lifton...

Are you of the opinion that the US MARINES is so inept a group as to not know when one of their own is .... on a ship? at his post? following orders? at the hospital?

That the UNIT DIARIES kept by the US MARINES are filled with mistake after mistake as to not be able to tell us what was happening to the MEN UNDER THIER SUPERVISION...?

And the recap of his military career as offered by the MARINES also includes his trip to Taiwan....

Of course it is possible mistakes were made.... but Greg would have us believe there were no Doctors in Taiwan and Oswald had to be flown back to Japan for penicillin ??

"was at Ping Tung, North Taiwan, on September 30th..."

as well as the Diaries about leaving on the 14th and returning on the 5th

David, of course I'm going to be using the materials Armstrong has collected.... starting with McBride's statement...

You of all people, upon finding a single statement in the official record about "surgery to the head" was able to find document after document and witness after witness to support what was written by the FBI that day. EVERYTHING you did was to forward the supporting evidence for your book and your theory...

Did you ever find out exactly what that "surgery" entailed or must we make assumptions based on the availble info? Can you tell us what was cut and what was removed based on the available info?

Or are you mostly guessing based on the testimonies of witnesses and the physical evidence?

What do Sibert and O'Neill have to say when confronted with both Boyijean and the 8pm OFFICIAL entry - given they alone, on a dolley, brought the empty casket into the ante-room...

http://www.aarclibra...html/Image2.htm here is O'Neill's HSCA affidavit in which he tells us that he, Sibert, Greer and Kellerman wheel the casket in

whereas in his ARRB interview he adds the honor guard yet STILL has the casket on a dolly...

He then writes in the very next sentence that he was present when various personnel placed the body on the autopsy table - giveing us the impression that no time transpired... when in fact he was asked to leave the anteroom BEFORE the casket was opened and BEFORE 7:30, when JFK was already in the morgue.

But you KNOW all this ... and this was not the point of my post.... my POINT is that you believe Boyijean... even though it basically confirms that the official story of the autopsy is a hoax...

and you've gotten as much confirmation of said hoax as is possible... yet there are those that will still call you a kook and a crackpot for even suggesting such an absurd and crazy theory... O'Neill himself says so in his ARRB deposition. Are we supposed to dismiss Mr Lifton because the FBI says he full of it?

I am NOT saying Armstrong has each and every answer - all I am saying is that the documents available strongly suggest that two different people were using the name LEE HARVEY OSWALD by design and that their histories were combined into one... does McBride have the dates wrong... maybe, even likely... so what? Did McBride have anything to do with September/October 1958 in the China Seas? With BJHS and PS44 in 1953/54? With the Oswalds living at both Exchange and St. Mary's in the spring of 1954?

With the obvious FACTS that John picks HARVEY from LEE each and every time, that Robert lies about his brother's history,

and that the Summer 1953 photo of HARVEY in the Bronx (4"8' and scrawny) is not the same person as the boy ending 1953's school year at 5'4" 114 and starting in September at PS44 at 5'4" 115lbs

that the BJHS record shows LHO taking two classes and attending 89 days of the FALL 1953 semester in NOLA while LEE is at PS44 - no longer truant, no longer a problem... LEE not HARVEY any longer.

Greg, it seems, feels as if addressing me is no longer in his best interest as he does not have any answers beyond Aspergers and MISTAKES... so I'll ask you...

Do you believe it was beyond the US GOVT to breed spys, destroy documents, blend histories and create an "expendable" to suit their purposes when and if the time arose and that these "bred spys" were part of a much larger program/plan to fight Russian communist aggression?

That our USGOVT does NOT control US citizens without their knowledge.... for their own ends and that this, like any other "program" may have provided great success in the battle against Russians?

I'm sorry if these sound rhetorical.... but I get the impression that only the theories and ideas eminating from you and Greg are the only things you find worth considering and accepting in this case...

as if there is no possibility that people like Armstrong may have discovered a chink in the armor, like you, and pushed thru it to find that somethings are true, some not but the underlying facts reveal ANYTHING is possible from body alteration, to two Oswalds... to more than 3 shots, to a GK assassin, to corrupt DPD/Sheriff personnel, to the replacing of a Mauser with a Carcano, to the lying about an encounter with Oswald that never happened... to three men not 10 feet from a 150dB exposion yet be able to hear the clink of the hulls and the action of the bolt... even after two more such explosions....

There is much more to support two Oswalds than McBride possibly getting the year wrong.... but at least that opened the door... just like the FBI report did for you all those years ago.

One would think you of all people would be a little more open to the possibility and the evidence Armstrong collected right out of the WCR...

DJ

Edited May 3, 2017 by David Josephs

[David Lifton]

David why don'y you make Greg look really silly? It would be so easy. Simply refer him to some statement, letter, fax, interview or any such other piece of work you have done, post 1995, that includes this F Worth riot information...other than after the post Greg made in this thread. There! You'll have him 'bang to rights'! Providing such a reference could have saved you having to write a volumous reply that seemed more concerned with childish insults than proving you were indeed aware of this information years ago. So far all we have is David Lifton found this out years ago because David Lifton says so.

In 2003 (when Greg was 3 years old) Armstrong's Harvey and Lee was published; so you will have known fairly soon that it was seriously flawed.because you knew that Mcbride was wrong about the dates.You knew that because you sent someone to find out some other information and they dug this up as well. Given that you are a vocal opponent of Armstrong's work, and in particular the Mcbride scenario, and that this information is effectively a cleaver crashing down on it, where since 1995 have you made any reference to its devestating significance?

A quick short response showing where you have used this information regarding the F Worth riots as reported in the local papers to bolster up your ongoing refutation to Armstrong's conclusions would, I fear, seriously damage Greg's reputation. Do it David! Put the thirteen year old in his place!

PS... Greg, I know what you're trying to do here and it's really not on. You are trying to imply that someone, a distinguished researcher of longstanding, who had access to Mcbride and who even interviewed him on camera, didn't even think of checking local media reports that may or may not corroborate his story. Cheap shot Greg. Then you go further and allege that this person only revealed he knew of this information after you had disclosed it in this thread. Greg soon you will eat your words when David provides all the links showing us where has used this information since 1995.

Hi Bernie,

In response to my detailed accounts of the facts going back some 17 or 18 years (See my Posts #155 and # 164 on this thread), I see that you have read them, digested the information I provided, and done some serious thinking about the issue. I appreciate your interest. It is truly heart warming.

But I gather that my effort was –nonetheless—lacking (at least that would appear to be so). And you have obviously given this some serious thought.

In navigating this sticky wicket, you suggest that I “refer” Greg Parker to “some statement, letter, fax, interview or any such other piece of work you (meaning me, DSL) have done, post 1995. . “ etc.

Unfortunately, and as a practical matter, that won’t work.

First of all, although there were occasional interviews on my book BEST EVIDENCE (published, by separate publishers, in 1981 [Macmillan], 1982 [Dell], 1988 [Carrol and Graf], and 1993 [New American Library]) there were no interviews on my ongoing research. Nor did I make any “statement” –whatever that means. That leaves (I suppose) the possibility of a fax or a letter. But. . to whom? So no, I did not write any “letter” (as far as I can recall) or send any fax. The “best evidence” of my knowledge of what was in the Fort Worth newspapers was the back-and-forth with Debra Conway when she went to the Fort Worth Public Library; and, besides the phone calls we had, some of that is possibly recorded in emails and would be resident on the hard disk of a computer I owned 17 years ago, a machine that is in a storage area.

But let’s return to the present. The calendar year today is 2012. The period when much of this took place is 1994/1995. Going back to 1994, when I interviewed Palmer McBride on camera, why that’s 18 years ago.

In short, your suggestion is not just impractical, candidly, it drips with sarcasm and insincerity.

Again, consider the calendar date. Let’s move forward a comparable period of time: to the year 2030.

So let’s put the shoe on the other foot. . . your foot, Bernie.

BERNIE’S FOOT – CIRCA 2030

Just suppose, Bernie, that in the year 2030, some eighteen years hence, you were to be asked to produce “some statement, letter, fax, interview. .” etc. etc---going back to today. Do you think you’d be able to do it? Do you even save your checking account records for 18 years? (The IRS requires 7 years, I believe. But 18? For who? For you and Greg Parker? Do you two prepare for future dialogue and friendly “Q and A” that way? For example: "Hey, Greg, do you remember what you had for breakfast 18 years ago? Or the time that your car broke down in the desert. . and that kangaroo came along. .and ran off with your spare tire?! Oh sure you do. . .just check some letter or fax you wrote back then . . it should be so easy. . !")

Again I say: your suggestion is not just impractical, it drips with sarcasm and insincerity.

Of course, maybe I’m all wrong, and you in fact save such records—not only (perhaps) do you save them, but maybe you in fact have them accurately filed, and can lay your hands on them within minutes (or, at most, an hour). But I doubt it.

I clicked on your biography (via the link at the bottom of your post [#168]), to learn more about you–perhaps, I thought, you might be a serious accountant, or a professional librarian, or archivist; you know, someone who takes record keeping very seriously; and here’s what I find. Under “Biography: Bernie Laverick” is an entry you yourself filed, and which is dated March 14, 2008; time: 8:49 AM:

“I intend to add a more detailed biography very soon, but I am at present bewitched by all the attachments that, until my recent registration, had been out of bounds.”

“. . .very soon. . . “?

Now Bernie, that was 2008, just four and a half years ago—and, apparently, you still haven’t gotten around to providing “a more detailed biography.”

Tut tut. . Shame on you, Bernie! Where is the data?! You promised!. . . .

Now (setting aside the year 2008) suppose I asked you to go back 17 or 18 years. . . do you really believe you could lay your hands on the kind of data you are requesting me to produce?

Bernie: Here’s my suggestion for your “to do” list:

1) Finish the "more detailed biography" you promised us four and a half years ago.

2) Volunteer for service on some Grand Jury, so you can exercise your inquisitive tendencies, in investigating matters more pertinent to the society at large.

DSL

9/14/12; 1:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited September 14, 2012 by David Lifton

[Bernie Laverick]

BERNIE’S FOOT – CIRCA 2030

Just suppose, Bernie, that in the year 2030, some eighteen years hence, you were to be asked to produce “some statement, letter, fax, interview. .” etc. etc---going back to today. Do you think you’d be able to do it? Do you even save your checking account records for 18 years? (The IRS requires 7 years, I believe. But 18? For who? For you and Greg Parker?

David, with respect, to relegate the discovery of this information of the 1956 Fort Worth riots date, thus destroying McBride’s credibility (and therefore Armstrong’s too), to some domestic “statement, letter or fax…” is a bit disingenuous.

Do you two prepare for future dialogue and friendly “Q and A” that way? For example: "Hey, Greg, do you remember what you had for breakfast 18 years ago? Or the time that your car broke down in the desert. . and that kangaroo came along. .and ran off with your spare tire?! Oh sure you do. . .just check some letter or fax you wrote back then . . it should be so easy. . !"

I swear I would vividly remember the date if a kangaroo had stolen my spare tyre. Yes Sir, I would remember that; and what’s more I’d tell folk about it too. But kangaroos stealing spare tyres is mere piffle compared to a dedicated full time JFK researcher finding the rock solid proof he had been seeking, going a good way to debunking the Harvey/Lee sideshow, as he had intended, but says nothing of it in the copious amounts of words written by said researcher on said subject in the intervening 18 years.

Of course, maybe I’m all wrong, and you in fact save such records—not only (perhaps) do you save them, but you in fact have them accurately filed, and can lay your hands on them within minutes (or, at most, an hour). But I doubt it

“Such records”? David you have done huge amounts of work on the possibility of there being a body alteration to account for the contradiction of medical evidence and autopsy result. It’s a seductive theory but regardless of its merits or otherwise your research will have almost certainly led you to certain documents or “such records” you feel to be primary in coming to this conclusion. Surely discovering that Mcbride was definitely wrong regarding the dates would massively strengthen your justified debunking of the Harvey/Lee nonsense. You have made public the text of your interview with him on occasions; why not the Fort Worth riots as a back-up to that?

However, I will now retreat from this thread because, firstly, it is a diversion to the main topic and secondly you’re right, my bio needs filling in.

Can someone please tell me how to do it? Every time I try to load up the ‘about me’ page it says ‘error’. Any suggestions?

I'm a musician from Hull, North England,

[David Lifton]

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...

David (Josephs):

I believe that the text of the AP article dated 9/3/56 (the one bearing the dateline “Fort Worth”, posted by Greg Parker on 9/11/12 ) is close enough to what Palmer McBride recalled (in his 11/23/63 statement) that it passes muster as the same general event.

I say “general event” because, while the language is not identical, its important to keep in mind the circumstances of the Palmer McBride statement: he was recalling all this on November 23, 1963, and so is recalling events that took place seven years prior to that (i.e., in 1956).

Here (from WCE 1386) is McBride’s exact language on 11/23, recalling the letter he received from Oswald after he had left New Orleans (6/30/56) and moved to Fort 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.

From the AP dispatch, datelined Fort Worth, and dated 9/3/56:

The demonstrations started yesterday afternoon after a called meeting of residents of the neighborhood at the Riverside elementary school. There E.G. Brown said the presence of the Negro family was part of an “insidious plot” by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to get Negroes into the school district.

Of course, there are differences in the text but I do think that, as the saying goes, this is “good enough for government work.”

I think that perhaps the time has come to do a complete and careful scan not only of stories in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, but also all stories published in the much smaller (and more tabloid) Fort Worth Press about any and all "riots" or civil disturbances during this period. Gary Mack has informed me that that the Fort Worth Press--tiny compared to the FW Star Telegram--very likely had more complete coverage in the area of race matters. Anyway, I’m going to try and get that done: Just how many stories were there, in each of these two newspapers? And what were their exact dates?

Oswald, we know, was an inveterate newspaper reader (and super-interested in matters political, and definitely not a racist) so its fair to state that he would have read such accounts.

From the account posted by Greg Parker--one published in a completely different city, but turned up in Google search--its clear these events made the national wire service(s). Frankly, I’m surprised that, by using Google (and employing the proper search terms), its possible, in the calendar year 2012, to actually locate such dispatches –published in other American cities. All of which brings us back to Fort Worth, and the question: just what newspaper accounts might Oswald have read? And, more important, might he have personally gone and witnessed any of this civil unrest--as his letter to Palmer McBride implies he did?

Consider carefully the language Oswald (supposedly) used. Oswald's letter (as recollected by McBride) implies he was actually there: "he [LHO] had gotten mixed up in an Anti-Negro or Anti-Communist riot..."

The Fort Worth News Stories vs the IRS (and Social Security) Tax Data

As I have pointed out, the Fort Worth newspaper stories (when I first heard about them) seemed nowhere near as important as the Oswald tax data. As a consequence of my lobbying (1998, and earlier, and possibly the suggestion of others, as well—that I don’t know), the ARRB not only obtained the LHO 1956 federal (form 1040) tax return, but in addition (and this is very important) the tax form known as “941,” which was filed by his employer (Pfisterer Dental Labs) in connection with tax withholding under the Social Security laws. Form 941 was the employer's record of Social Security taxes that were withheld. According to the ARRB, the 941 form filed by Pfisterer makes clear that Oswald worked there in calendar year 1956.

So (to recap): there were two kinds of tax data (re Oswald) that was ascertained by the ARRB:

(a) Oswald’s 1956 IRS return (which listed Pfisterer, as a source of income)

(b ) Pfisterer’s form 941 (which listed Oswald, as someone whose pay was taxed)

As far as I'm concerned, this data established, without any question, that Oswald worked at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories in calendar year 1956.

This data was not released until some weeks (or months) after the ARRB closed down on 9/30/98—and, as far as I’m concerned, that ought to have been the end of Armstrong’s hypothesis, and all the stuff about “two Oswalds,” “two Marguerites,” etc etc.

But it wasn't. . . and like the energizer bunny, the story goes on. . and on. . .

ARMSTRONG'S RESPONSE TO THE ARRB TAX DATA: its all fabricated!

After this data became known, John Armstrong then attempted to counter this evidence with the totally ridiculous claim (imho) that the tax data was falsified. In other words, his conspiracy kept getting “bigger and bigger” to accommodate the contrary evidence.

As far as I was concerned then (and now) all of this was total nonsense. But that’s what Armstrong did—and (I suppose) that’s what he believes to this day.

When that belief is joined with the amateurish way he went about what he calls his “investigation” (and what I have described as his “witness recruitment program”), there is little left of the notion of “two Oswalds.”

In a subsequent post, I will post additional evidence which (I believe) shows the foolishness of his methodology, and which makes a mockery of this hypothesis.

THE (1956) FORT WORTH NEWS STORIES AS A WAY OF REFUTING ARMSTRONG

(by corroborating what Palmer McBride wrote in his 11/23/63 statement)

On this thread, Greg Parker has noted that the Fort Worth news stories are important because, whereas Armstrong can claim the tax records were falsified (even if that is the purest nonsense), no one can claim that the Fort Worth news stories about racial unrest were fabricated. And I agree: that is true.

But I must add that, back in October, 1994, when I interviewed Palmer McBride on camera (and he admitted that he knew Oswald in 1956, and not in 1957 or 1958 as his 11/23/63 statement mistakenly claimed); and in 1998, when I wrote the ARRB urging them to get the tax records, who would ever have thought that John Armstrong would stick to such a hypothesis—once the IRS tax data was unearthed, assuming it showed that Oswald worked at Pfisterer in 1956?

Yet that is exactly what he has done. (And, to my considerable surprise, there are actually people that continue to support that view).

If there is time, in future posts I will have more to say about this “two Oswald” hypothesis, and why I don’t think its credible, or worthy of belief.

DSL

9/14/12; 4:30 PM PDT

Updated, 6:35 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited September 15, 2012 by David Lifton

[David Josephs]

Thank you for your reply David...

I look forward to you specifically addressing the Sept/Oct 1958 MARINE records of his both leaving and returning from Taiwan while simultaneously being treated for a STD in Japan.

and how a lowly radar operator gets a STD "in the line of duty"... while being paid to frequent Japanese nightclub/brothels

Cheers

DJ

[David Lifton]

Thank you for your reply David...

I look forward to you specifically addressing the Sept/Oct 1958 MARINE records of his both leaving and returning from Taiwan while simultaneously being treated for a STD in Japan.

and how a lowly radar operator gets a STD "in the line of duty"... while being paid to frequent Japanese nightclub/brothels

Cheers

DJ

Before I address all that (which I will attempt to do) could you please supply me with specific data regarding the following issues.

QUESTION #1: Why have you stated that there is an anomaly regarding Oswald's residence at 126 Exchange Place; specifically, in your post # 172 ("yesterday"), you allege the following anomaly:

". . with the Oswalds living at both Exchange and St. Mary's in the Spring of 1954". . (my emphasis added).

Please explain why you believe this to be so; i.e., on what do you base such an assertion?

In addition, I have these queries:

#2: Could you please tell me where these unit diaries are posted on the Internet? I'd also like to bring myself up to date on just when these items became available, and where they might be posted, on the Internet.

FYI: Some years back, I tried to get them--from NARA--but apparently I was attempting to do so just prior to the time the JFK Records Act forced their release, so the answer was "no". Anyway, I do not today know where this data is posted.

#3: Another question: I have always been interested in the matter of LHO being briefly stationed at Iwakuni, before returning from his Far East tour. (This is mentioned in Epstein's LEGEND). Are there Unit Diaries posted for that sojourn? Please advise.

#4 Finally, and addressing the period Fall 1953/Spring 1954 (when LHO was in the 8th grade):

Could you please spell out--in plain English (and avoiding the "jargon" of "Harvey" and "Lee", which I find very confusing)--just why it is that you believe Oswald did not simply exit NYC at the tail end of December, 1953, proceed to New Orleans (with his mother), and then register at Beauregard Junior High School on January 13, 1954? Again: please try to avoid using the specialized lingo of "Harvey and Lee". (IMHO, that only clutters up the discussion). FYI: From my examination of the records, I don't see anything unusual is going on. Oswald left New York City with his mom at the tail end of December, 1953 (when Marguerite was clearly worried about losing her son to the legal system, again), and they arrived in New Orleans, and he registered at Beauregard on January 13, 1954.

What is the problem with that?

(FYI: I don't see any problem with that, but if you do, I'd like to know the specifics.

Thank you.

DSL

P.S. ("#5" on my list of questions): One other thing: I notice you use the language "a lowly radar operator." I'm sure you understand that I am not a "lone nutter" nor do I subscribe to the official version of the Kennedy assassination (nor to the "official biography" of Oswald). Moreover, I am well aware that his one-year overseas tour in the Far East (which included a posting at Atsugi Naval Air Station, which was a U-2 base) was then followed by an approximately 8 - 9 month stay at El Toro Marine Base in Southern California; and then, following his 9/11/59 USMC discharge, by a brief visit home, and then by his globe-spanning journey to the USSR, his arrival in Moscow on 10/16, and by his defection (what his mother called his "so-called defection"). So it would not surprise me at all if various anomalies turned up in connection with the USMC tour of duty: rest assured, I am interested in them all. Where we possibly disagree is with the notion that a "double Oswald" hypothesis (or any variant of that, as offered by Armstrong, and as set forth in Harvey and Lee) is necessary, or is the proper explanation for any such anomalies. DSL

Edited September 15, 2012 by David Lifton