The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained

[Greg Parker]

So once again the comments from 30 years later trump the statements made that weekend...? cause they did not fit with the "official" story.. while these other NON SIGNED STATEMENTS help set the record MORE straight than before...

David, please explain why the FBI were running around destroying traces of a second time-line on Nov 23 while on that same day they were putting on the record a statement that actually suggests a second timeline, and moreover, why they got McBride (and no one else) to sign his/her statement?

The fact is, they got him to sign it BECAUSE of the timeline he was giving. They wanted it on record that they had not altered his statement to read "1958" and not "1956". That, and the warnings given at the start of the statement were standard MO for dealing with witnesses whose memories were problematic. In short, this is why so few were asked to sign their statements. When they were asked, It was CYA. Had nothing at all to do with McBride "slipping through" the clean up crew's net, or whatever BS you purport to believe.

OK... and I guess McClellend, Perry and Jones were all wrong as well... bummer.

Hasn't the Boyijean document been proven a fake yet David? and then all those lies told by Dennis David and the rest of the casket bearers... other than that document and a few statements that were of course MISTAKEN... the 6:35 entry NEVER HAPPENED. and then of course G & K & S & O never did bring in a casket at 7:17... just a slip of the tongue...

you know - a MISTAKE. So interesting how one author's facts are another's MISTAKES...

the idea of two people becoming one Oswald is so much more far-fetched than operating on JFK in the belly of AF-1... or taking a hammer/saw to his skull an hour BEFORE the actual autopsy...

Another logical fallacy. If Mr Lifton's theory is unreliable, it does not mean his assessment of Armstrong's theory is also unreliable.

Witness statements and authenticated evidence is all we have David... and I don't believe that H&L hinges it's existance on McBride when there are scores of other conflicting documents to support the theory right there in the WCR.

So you're kinda sorta (but not outright admitting) that you're dumping McBride.

This is like WC supporters of the McAdams school of debate. When finally forced to admit anything at all about the DPD investigation, they opt for the limited hangout that they were incompetent (as opposed to corrupt). This leaves them with the argument that, despite being extremely incompetent, the DPD nevertheless nabbed the assassin in record time, and in equal record time, established his sole guilt. It's counter-intuitive. Just as with you now claiming the house of cards can have its foundation stone pulled out, without it all falling down.

David, I cannot in all honesty, work out how you can do such great work in other areas of this case, and lose all logic here. But the word "brainwashing" keeps coming to mind...

DJ

Edited September 8, 2012 by Greg Parker

[David Josephs]

Greg...

thanks for the backhanded compliment....

I am not hinging all of H&L on McBride because his is only one piece of a very large puzzle... his statement as posted and discovered is no different than finding the FBI's "surgery to the head"... it's written there of course.... does this statement alone lead to the body alteration conclusion? of course not... but it stated the ball rolling...

The differences in the appearance of the head from Dallas to Humes' statement as corroborated by MANY witnesses sets that stage.

I also do not take what you post lightly - your opinions and work carry weight with me - yet I think you are studying the veins in a leaf rather than see the tree. I happen to believe the CIA/USGov't is capable of ANYTHING, including H&L, especially during the early Cold War.... just ask Gottlieb. I don't think it is as much Armstrong's presentation as much as the way the docs show the CIA/USG covering up something related to very specific times in Oswald's life.

I'm going to respect your position and leave it at that. The documents and their sources... the missing records and the reasons... the contradictions in the memories of Oswald's past... and the SIGN OF THE TIMES leads me to believe there is much more to H&L than your rebuttals suggest. When over and over the FBI stays away from 1953/54 yet can reach 7 and more of these classmates and not ask ONE about that school year... while creating a boilerplate statement they never actually say or sign.

It is not my position here to convince you of what the record shows us. I believe you've over simplified the situation and have dismissed the actions of the CIA in its Cold War programs that could easily have created this type of scenario. Are there inconsistencies and questions - yep, just like every other area of this case....

I BELIEVE YOU SAW A DIFFERENT ZFILM... no proof but your word and that others also saw it and the core belief there is something wrong with the zfilm...

There is something very wrong with the history of Oswald and there is much in the way of evidence to suggest the melding of two seperate people... Did it happen? who knows? Is it possible - that's a BIG YES... pausible... yes... intelligence prints all over him? yes... the desire get loyal soldiers into Russia under deep cover? yes.... Atsugi? yes.

I will continue reading and learning... I also hope you continue to find my work in this and other areas worth reviewing and informative.

Peace

DJ

[David Lifton]

DAVID SORRY TO ASK AGAIN.....

Remember the term premature anti- Fascist ? Well golly David ,seems you were on the CASE on anti-Armstrongism before Armstrong was publically popular. How did you become so prematurely anti-Armstrong ??

Steve,

I was not "pre-mature" anything. I was just asking questions, and seeking to straighten out the record.

Which I think I did.

DSL

So once again the comments from 30 years later trump the statements made that weekend...? cause they did not fit with the "official" story.. while these other NON SIGNED STATEMENTS help set the record MORE straight than before...

OK... and I guess McClellend, Perry and Jones were all wrong as well... bummer.

Hasn't the Boyijean document been proven a fake yet David? and then all those lies told by Dennis David and the rest of the casket bearers... other than that document and a few statements that were of course MISTAKEN... the 6:35 entry NEVER HAPPENED. and then of course G & K & S & O never did bring in a casket at 7:17... just a slip of the tongue...

you know - a MISTAKE. So interesting how one author's facts are another's MISTAKES....

the idea of two people becoming one Oswald is so much more far-fetched than operating on JFK in the belly of AF-1... or taking a hammer/saw to his skull an hour BEFORE the actual autopsy...

Witness statements and authenticated evidence is all we have David... and I don't believe that H&L hinges it's existance on McBride when there are scores of other conflicting documents to support the theory right there in the WCR.

DJ

David Josephs:

Here are some points you might keep in mind when you navigate the record:

1. I had extensive personal contact with John Armstrong—for about six months—in the first half of 1995. I spoke to him on the phone, and we exchanged email and/or faxes.

2. What I found—repeatedly found—was that John seemed incapable of dealing with any “conflict of information” (however minor) without invoking his “double –Oswald” hypothesis. For John Armstrong, that was carved in stone. It was a starting point, not a conclusion. He was immovable on the subject. Whether it was some piece of data about Marguerite, or the car she was driving, or the height of Lee Oswald—no matter what the situation, and no matter what the “conflict”--with Armstrong, the inference always was that every single inconsistency had to be explained by positing multiple Oswalds.

3. This is exactly why and how he came up with “two Oswald’s” to explain the “Oswald in North Dakota” situation, which (I do hope you realize) was nothing but a typo (or misreading) of the notes of Aline Mosby. This matter, incidentally, has been written about quite nicely by Dave Reitzes. But Armstrong wouldn’t hear of it. Here he had a report of Oswald in North Dakota, it was in some wire service account, and he just seemed incapable of entertaining any explanation other than the notion that there were “two Oswalds.”

4. FYI: I fully appreciated the fact that Armstrong had the time (and the financial wherewithal) to fly to South America, to pursue a witness who knew Oswald in Russia, or to fly to Switzerland, and to actually visit the facility that had been Albert Schweitzer College. I appreciated that, and told him so.

5. But I could not stand idly by and agree (or condone) the manner in which he ignored logic (not to mention just plain common sense) and invoked these elaborate explanations in the North Dakota situation; or, for that matter, in the case of Palmer McBride.

6. When the ARRB was created, and finally was funded and staffed (summer of 1995, as I recall) I certainly put the whole Palmer McBride situation on my “to do” list; and did indeed urge them to do everything possible to “clarify the record.” That, in fact, was the ARRB’s legislative mandate—to “clarify the record.” So I certainly wanted them to obtain McBride’s tax records, and his employment records, and—if appropriate—and after that was done, to call him as a witness. Asking them to pursue that was simply asking them to do their job. It was plain common sense.

7. Don’t you think it would have been appropriate, for example, to go to the Weyerhauser Box company and verify just when McBride worked there? If, as he told me, he worked at Weyerhauser in late 1955 and immediately prior to his employment at Pfisterer, that would have provided an excellent time marker. (Would you not agree)

8. What is peculiar—and almost comical—about this situation is that someone in the background—probably Armstrong himself, or an associate—was egging on Palmer McBride to write the letter(s) he did, supposedly defending his position. Over the years, it has always seemed clear to me that –as I stated—John Armstrong went on a “witness recruitment program”. Palmer McBride was, in a way, a lynchpin of his hypothesis. (And Armstrong understood that.) So, apparently, Armstrong then pitched him (or somehow persuaded him) of his (McBride’s) great importance to history, if this original statement was in fact correct, and not the error it so obviously is.

9. Armstrong similarly worked his “salesman magic” on this lady, Linda Faircloth, who then made false statements about my conversation with her.

10. You have brought up the Dallas doctors, and their statements about Kennedy’s wounds, which-of course---are of paramount importance. You cannot compare this situation to the situation with the Dallas doctors. There is no comparison between Palmer McBride, searching his memory—on November 23, 1963—and “getting it wrong” (as to when he knew Oswald) and the Dallas doctors, who saw the President’s body, and then, on that very day, made written reports about what wounds they saw; or, in the case of Dr. Perry, immediately held a press conference, and spoke in detail about what they had observed. How can you possibly make such an absurd comparison? It’s apples and oranges. Again: You’re going to compare Palmer McBride’s 6-7 year old recollection of “when he knew Oswald” to the Dallas doctors report of wounds they had just seen on the President’s body just minutes, or hours, before? Oh pleez. . . really, David Josephs, I would expect more of you; and expect you not to indulge in such a false comparison. That is total nonsense.

11. It is unfortunate that Pfisterer’s employment records for that general period were lost or destroyed in some sort of flood (I do not remember the details at this writing). Were it not for that, there’d by no argument here, at all. No room for someone like an Armstrong to come along and say, “Hey, look here, there were two Oswalds!” No room for someone like a Linda Faircloth to come forth and support this nonsense. If those employment records existed, Linda Faircloth would probably be viewed as a non-entity, some peripheral fruitcake seeking to make a name for herself.

12. But. . why does any of this matter to you? Why should any of this “peripheral data” matter. Consider: We already have the Oswald tax records. Those records, by themselves, completely destroy the Armstrong hypothesis, by showing that Oswald was employed at Pfisterer in 1956. To any reasonable person, that should have been the end of the debate.—and certainly not a launching pad to start an additional extrapolation of the original (and imho, thoroughly faulty) hypothesis: “Oh, those Oswald tax records are forgeries!” What total nonsense.

13. 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. More recently, Greg Parker, using Google, came up with similar corroboration. There were no “digital scanners” back in 1995—certainly, I did not have one—or I would have scanned those items). My point is that that data also corroborates the fact that we are dealing with the year 1956, and certainly not 1957 or 1958.

SOME OF THE “OTHER DATA”

14. This is somewhat “off topic” but I do not agree with you that there is “other data” that supports the notion that there are “two Oswalds.” Lee Oswald and his mother left New York City in late December, 1953 (or the first days of January, 1954) when the situation with the NYC juvenile courts was heating up, and Marguerite was worried that the autorities were going to take her son away from her, or force him to go to some juvenile facility. This is all spelled out in the records. Its in the Warren Commission’s 26 volumes. They left New York City, traveled to New Orleans, and the New Orleans school records establish he was registered at Beauregard Junior High School by January 13, 1954. Why do you claim that is in doubt? (Based on what?)

15. FYI: the FBI investigation established that LHO attended PS 117 (in the Bronx) for a brief period (15 days, as I recall; see WCE 2224). You may be aware (or perhaps not) that a decade (or more) ago, a lady came forward in Florida, who was Oswald’s art teacher there (at PS 117). Her name was Dorrit Woolf, and I interviewed her—first, by phone, and then I flew to Florida and interviewed her there, extensively, and on camera. She provided further data about what Oswald was like, as a youngster who (on 10/18/53) had just turned 14. But that is another story, and I will have a small section on Ms. Woolf in my book.

Please explain to me, if you would, just why you believe there is anything inconsistent between Oswald having attended P.S. 44 in New York City, in the fall of 1953, and then starting Beauregard Junior High School on January 13, 1954, as the records clearly indicate. Thank you.

DSL

9/8/12; 11 AM PDT

Laguna Beach, California

[Greg Parker]

DSL:

13. 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. More recently, Greg Parker, using Google, came up with similar corroboration. There were no “digital scanners” back in 1995—certainly, I did not have one—or I would have scanned those items). My point is that that data also corroborates the fact that we are dealing with the year 1956, and certainly not 1957 or 1958.

David, if you make this claim in your book, I will ensure everyone knows you are lying. You wrote to the ARRB (and I have a copy of the fax) in 1998 urging them to get the record straightened out regarding McBride. Nowhere in that lengthy letter did you mention unearthing irrefutable proof to back up your claim that McBride's memory was in error.

DJ

Greg...

thanks for the backhanded compliment....

It wasn't meant to be anything but me calling it like I see it. I was thinking in particular of your work on the rifle and pistol delivery, and of your finding of the luncheon invitation.

I also do not take what you post lightly - your opinions and work carry weight with me - yet I think you are studying the veins in a leaf rather than see the tree. I happen to believe the CIA/USGov't is capable of ANYTHING, including H&L, especially during the early Cold War.... just ask Gottlieb. I don't think it is as much Armstrong's presentation as much as the way the docs show the CIA/USG covering up something related to very specific times in Oswald's life.

Putting the veins of the leaf under a microscope is a far more accurate means of identifying the species than merely eyeballing it. Yes, there are fingerprints of intel all over LHO, yes there were things being covered up, but all this and more can be explained in more ways than positing a second Oswald requiring a second mother, neither of whom have the looks or personality of the people they are supposed to be imitating. I will be putting forward my own explanations in my book. I fully expect some criticism for it. I fully expect for a percentage of that criticism to have validity. My job is to ensure that book leaves as little room for such valid criticism as possible. I will, if nothing else, have a lot of new information.

[David Lifton]

DSL:

13. 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. More recently, Greg Parker, using Google, came up with similar corroboration. There were no “digital scanners” back in 1995—certainly, I did not have one—or I would have scanned those items). My point is that that data also corroborates the fact that we are dealing with the year 1956, and certainly not 1957 or 1958.

David, if you make this claim in your book, I will ensure everyone knows you are lying. You wrote to the ARRB (and I have a copy of the fax) in 1998 urging them to get the record straightened out regarding McBride. Nowhere in that lengthy letter did you mention unearthing irrefutable proof to back up your claim that McBride's memory was in error.

DJ

Greg...

thanks for the backhanded compliment....

It wasn't meant to be anything but me calling it like I see it. I was thinking in particular of your work on the rifle and pistol delivery, and of your finding of the luncheon invitation.

I also do not take what you post lightly - your opinions and work carry weight with me - yet I think you are studying the veins in a leaf rather than see the tree. I happen to believe the CIA/USGov't is capable of ANYTHING, including H&L, especially during the early Cold War.... just ask Gottlieb. I don't think it is as much Armstrong's presentation as much as the way the docs show the CIA/USG covering up something related to very specific times in Oswald's life.

Putting the veins of the leaf under a microscope is a far more accurate means of identifying the species than merely eyeballing it. Yes, there are fingerprints of intel all over LHO, yes there were things being covered up, but all this and more can be explained in more ways than positing a second Oswald requiring a second mother, neither of whom have the looks or personality of the people they are supposed to be imitating. I will be putting forward my own explanations in my book. I fully expect some criticism for it. I fully expect for a percentage of that criticism to have validity. My job is to ensure that book leaves as little room for such valid criticism as possible. I will, if nothing else, have a lot of new information.

Greg Parker:

As I mentioned previously, back around 1995 (plus or minus) I had someone carefully go through the Fort Worth Star Telegram archives (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.

Making that connection was not exactly rocket science. I had studied McBride's WC affidavit, and I had already interviewed him--in September, 1994 over the telephone, and then on October 2, 1994, on camera.

No, I did not mention that Fort Worth "newpaper information" in the fax that I wrote the ARRB on 9/4/98 suggesting that certain tax records be obtained and placed in the JFK Collection. I didn’t mention the Fort Worth Star Telegram news stories because, frankly, that wasn’t the focus of my suggestion to the ARRB. My focus was on the (Social Security Administration) tax records. Anyone can obtain a microfilm record of a newspaper. That is already in the public record. I wanted the ARRB to do something only they were legally empowered to do: obtain tax records, declare them to be “assassination records,” and place them in the JFK Records Collection.

Your focus is apparently on the news story (or stories) that you turned up through a Google search years quite a few years later, and your apparent reluctance to believe that, years earlier, I had discovered similar press accounts (or perhaps the source press accounts) actually published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram.

Frankly, I don't care what you believe (or don't believe). Your post, with its juvenile threats to supposedly “expose” me if I make some claim in my own work, is typical Greg Parker.

In the interest of demystifying this situation, below my typed signature is the text of the 9/4/1998 fax I sent to ARRB suggesting/urging that they obtain certain tax records which would establish –without question—just when Palmer McBride worked at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories., which in fact was the Spring of 1956.

The fact is that the ARRB, thanks to the diligent work done by Doug Horne, Chief Analyst for Military Records, made a complete hash of the Armstrong “two Oswald hypothesis” when he produced the Oswald tax records, which showed that Oswald was employed at Pfisterer in 1956.

As I have mentioned (and as I am sure you are well aware) the response of Armstrong was to then argue that the tax records had been falsified, which, imho, is ridiculous.

DSL

9/9/12; 11:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

* * * BELOW HERE - - TEXT OF FAX SENT TO ARRB on 9/4/98

TO: Laura Denk, Director, ARRB

Date: September 4, 1998

Fax Number: 202 724 0457

Number of pages (including this cover sheet): 3

Dear Ms. Denk:

I know the ARRB has less than a month left. Nonetheless, I want to bring to

your attention a situation which pinpoints an assassination record--a record

(or records) which hopefully the ARRB can locate and, through its authority,

cause to be put in the National Archives in the Kennedy collection.

I may have reviewed this orally with Jeremy Gunn when we had a private

meeting after I testified at the Los Angeles hearing. But I am not certain,

and certainly I never put what follows in writing.

Instead of just naming the record, I will state this in the context of a

"problem" to which this record (or these records) constitute the "solution".

I'm stating it in this format because I believe this "problem" captures the

reason the ARRB was created, in the first place: to locate records in the

spirit of reducing confusion and suspicion in this case.

THE PROBLEM:

On 11/23/63, the day after the assassination, the FBI contacted a young man

named Palmer McBride, who knew Oswald back in the Spring of 1956, when

Oswald was 16 years old, had quit high school, and was a messenger at

Pfisterer Dental Labs. (McBride also worked at Pfisterer.)

In making his "morning after" statement to the FBI as to when he knew

Oswald, McBride erred by a year, and said he knew Oswald in 1957 (and 1958),

rather than the Spring of 1956.

--------------------------- END PAGE 1 -----------------------------------

Ms Laura Denk, ARRB; 9/4/98; p. 2

Of course, Oswald was in the military (and stationed in Japan) during the

period 1957/58--and so any "reasonable person" (if I may use that term)

would say this was nothing but an error of memory.

As you know, I'm in the process of completing a major work on Oswald. I have

known about this situation (the "McBride error") for years, and in fact

interviewed McBride in 1994, on camera, and straightened it out--at least to

my satisfaction.

Nonetheless, the written record has a power--and a legal and historical

status--all its own; and McBride is in fact on record with this incorrect

information, and the Warren Commission never called him as a witness to

clarify this situation. Consequently, the soil is ripe for confusion and the

promulgation of rather implausible interpretation of this "conflict in the

record": i.e., that McBride "was right the first time", so to speak.

A number of assassination researchers have fastened on to this "conflict in

the record" and use it as the basis of a claim that there were "two"

Oswalds--one at Pfisterer Labs, circa 1957/58; the other, in Japan (serving

in the Marines).

What is particularly appalling about this situation is that McBride himself

makes public appearances promulgating this erroneous account. In addition,

there is one Linda Faircloth, who has been affiliated with Pfisferer, who

has now joined the bandwagon--offering support for McBride's erroneous

claim. (The situation is aggravated by the fact that, as a result of a fire,

the original employment records are either damaged or in some way

unavailable).

The combination of McBride and Faircloth lecturing based on faulty

recollections is sure to sow confusion. And the unavailability of the

original Pfisterer employment record only makes matters worse. But all this

can be settled quite easily and rather authoritatively--and it should be

settled, in the spirit of "truth in history."

THE SOLUTION:

The ARRB must get the "real time" Social Security records--the records of

quarterly earnings--and declare them assassination records. Certainly, the

records of Oswald, the accused assassin, should fall into this category.

Moreover, it is my opinion that since McBride knew Oswald, and since he in

fact made an FBI statement on 11/23/63 that is seriously in error, his

Social Security earning records for the period that he knew Oswald should be

examined and also be designated assassination records. (If his consent is

needed, then I think he ought to be formally approached and asked for such

consent.)

-------------------------- END PAGE 2 ---------------------------------

Ms Laura Denk, ARRB; 9/4/98; p. 3

I believe that the Social Security earnings records of McBride and Oswald

should be placed in the National Archives. If releases are needed, then I

think the ARRB should approach Marina Oswald Porter for a release re the

Oswald records, and McBride himself for his earning records, for the period

1955-58. If consent is needed from the company itself, then I think

Pfisterer Labs should be approached (see the P.S. to this letter).

In addition, to make the Oswald file complete, I believe that the complete

Social Security earnings records for Oswald--not just Spring 1956, but

starting with any job he previously held (I believe he began work in 1954 or

55, in a shoe store) plus the complete record for Oswald right through to

any pay he received while in the Marines--in the U.S. or while in the Far

East--and finally the records pertaining to the various jobs he held upon

his return from Russian, up to and including his employment at the Texas

School Book Depository in the fall of 1963 should be designated

assassination records and be placed in the US National Archives as part of

the official record in this case.

To do otherwise would be to ignore a very basic real-time computer record

which tracks the whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald.

As I said at the outset of this communication, I realize that there is less

than a month left; but, in view of the many questions surrounding Oswald and

his activities, surely his earnings records are material. I hope that you

will be able to use your authority as General Counsel of the ARRB to see

that these important records (as well as those of Palmer McBride, during the

period he worked at Pfisterer) are located and placed in the National

Archives.

Sincerely,

[signature]

David S. Lifton

P.S. For your information: Pfisterer Dental Laboratories is still listed in

New Orleans phone book (Tel 504 837 6622) and there is a "Louis M.

Pfisterer, Jr." also listed (Tel. XXX-XXXX, Address: XXXXX XXXXXXX Blvd.)

Edited September 9, 2012 by David Lifton

[Greg Parker]

Greg Parker:

As I mentioned previously, back around 1995 (plus or minus) I had someone carefully go through the Fort Worth Star Telegram archives (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.

Making that connection was not exactly rocket science. I had studied McBride's WC affidavit, and I had already interviewed him--in September, 1994 over the telephone, and then on October 2, 1994, on camera.

No, I did not mention that Fort Worth "newpaper information" in the fax that I wrote the ARRB on 9/4/98 suggesting that certain tax records be obtained and placed in the JFK Collection. I didn’t mention the Fort Worth Star Telegram news stories because, frankly, that wasn’t the focus of my suggestion to the ARRB. My focus was on the (Social Security Administration) tax records. Anyone can obtain a microfilm record of a newspaper. That is already in the public record. I wanted the ARRB to do something only they were legally empowered to do: obtain tax records, declare them to be “assassination records,” and place them in the JFK Records Collection.

Bullxxxx.

You laid out the problem and told them the SOLUTION was in the tax records. But according to you - you already had the the solution for 3 years. If you had those stories, it would have underlined the need to obtain the tax records. If you had those stories, you would have, in all your voluminous writings on Armstrong's theory, mentioned them at some stage.

Your focus is apparently on the news story (or stories) that you turned up through a Google search years quite a few years later, and your apparent reluctance to believe that, years earlier, I had discovered similar press accounts (or perhaps the source press accounts) actually published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram.

Frankly, I don't care what you believe (or don't believe). Your post, with its juvenile threats to supposedly “expose” me if I make some claim in my own work, is typical Greg Parker.

If you publish this as your work, you will be exposed as the xxxx and thief you are. Your choice.

In the interest of demystifying this situation, below my typed signature is the text of the 9/4/1998 fax I sent to ARRB suggesting/urging that they obtain certain tax records which would establish –without question—just when Palmer McBride worked at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories., which in fact was the Spring of 1956.

The fact is that the ARRB, thanks to the diligent work done by Doug Horne, Chief Analyst for Military Records, made a complete hash of the Armstrong “two Oswald hypothesis” when he produced the Oswald tax records, which showed that Oswald was employed at Pfisterer in 1956.

As I have mentioned (and as I am sure you are well aware) the response of Armstrong was to then argue that the tax records had been falsified, which, imho, is ridiculous.

Yes. And what was it he said about the Ft Worth stories from 1956 you got someone to dig up again? Oh, that's right. No response to that because somehow you forgot to mention it to him.

DSL

9/9/12; 11:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

* * * BELOW HERE - - TEXT OF FAX SENT TO ARRB on 9/4/98

TO: Laura Denk, Director, ARRB

Date: September 4, 1998

Fax Number: 202 724 0457

Number of pages (including this cover sheet): 3

Dear Ms. Denk:

I know the ARRB has less than a month left. Nonetheless, I want to bring to

your attention a situation which pinpoints an assassination record--a record

(or records) which hopefully the ARRB can locate and, through its authority,

cause to be put in the National Archives in the Kennedy collection.

I may have reviewed this orally with Jeremy Gunn when we had a private

meeting after I testified at the Los Angeles hearing. But I am not certain,

and certainly I never put what follows in writing.

Instead of just naming the record, I will state this in the context of a

"problem" to which this record (or these records) constitute the "solution".

I'm stating it in this format because I believe this "problem" captures the

reason the ARRB was created, in the first place: to locate records in the

spirit of reducing confusion and suspicion in this case.

THE PROBLEM:

On 11/23/63, the day after the assassination, the FBI contacted a young man

named Palmer McBride, who knew Oswald back in the Spring of 1956, when

Oswald was 16 years old, had quit high school, and was a messenger at

Pfisterer Dental Labs. (McBride also worked at Pfisterer.)

In making his "morning after" statement to the FBI as to when he knew

Oswald, McBride erred by a year, and said he knew Oswald in 1957 (and 1958),

rather than the Spring of 1956.

--------------------------- END PAGE 1 -----------------------------------

Ms Laura Denk, ARRB; 9/4/98; p. 2

Of course, Oswald was in the military (and stationed in Japan) during the

period 1957/58--and so any "reasonable person" (if I may use that term)

would say this was nothing but an error of memory.

As you know, I'm in the process of completing a major work on Oswald. I have

known about this situation (the "McBride error") for years, and in fact

interviewed McBride in 1994, on camera, and straightened it out--at least to

my satisfaction.

Nonetheless, the written record has a power--and a legal and historical

status--all its own; and McBride is in fact on record with this incorrect

information, and the Warren Commission never called him as a witness to

clarify this situation. Consequently, the soil is ripe for confusion and the

promulgation of rather implausible interpretation of this "conflict in the

record": i.e., that McBride "was right the first time", so to speak.

A number of assassination researchers have fastened on to this "conflict in

the record" and use it as the basis of a claim that there were "two"

Oswalds--one at Pfisterer Labs, circa 1957/58; the other, in Japan (serving

in the Marines).

What is particularly appalling about this situation is that McBride himself

makes public appearances promulgating this erroneous account. In addition,

there is one Linda Faircloth, who has been affiliated with Pfisferer, who

has now joined the bandwagon--offering support for McBride's erroneous

claim. (The situation is aggravated by the fact that, as a result of a fire,

the original employment records are either damaged or in some way

unavailable).

The combination of McBride and Faircloth lecturing based on faulty

recollections is sure to sow confusion. And the unavailability of the

original Pfisterer employment record only makes matters worse. But all this

can be settled quite easily and rather authoritatively--and it should be

settled, in the spirit of "truth in history."

THE SOLUTION:

The ARRB must get the "real time" Social Security records--the records of

quarterly earnings--and declare them assassination records. Certainly, the

records of Oswald, the accused assassin, should fall into this category.

Moreover, it is my opinion that since McBride knew Oswald, and since he in

fact made an FBI statement on 11/23/63 that is seriously in error, his

Social Security earning records for the period that he knew Oswald should be

examined and also be designated assassination records. (If his consent is

needed, then I think he ought to be formally approached and asked for such

consent.)

-------------------------- END PAGE 2 ---------------------------------

Ms Laura Denk, ARRB; 9/4/98; p. 3

I believe that the Social Security earnings records of McBride and Oswald

should be placed in the National Archives. If releases are needed, then I

think the ARRB should approach Marina Oswald Porter for a release re the

Oswald records, and McBride himself for his earning records, for the period

1955-58. If consent is needed from the company itself, then I think

Pfisterer Labs should be approached (see the P.S. to this letter).

In addition, to make the Oswald file complete, I believe that the complete

Social Security earnings records for Oswald--not just Spring 1956, but

starting with any job he previously held (I believe he began work in 1954 or

55, in a shoe store) plus the complete record for Oswald right through to

any pay he received while in the Marines--in the U.S. or while in the Far

East--and finally the records pertaining to the various jobs he held upon

his return from Russian, up to and including his employment at the Texas

School Book Depository in the fall of 1963 should be designated

assassination records and be placed in the US National Archives as part of

the official record in this case.

To do otherwise would be to ignore a very basic real-time computer record

which tracks the whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald.

As I said at the outset of this communication, I realize that there is less

than a month left; but, in view of the many questions surrounding Oswald and

his activities, surely his earnings records are material. I hope that you

will be able to use your authority as General Counsel of the ARRB to see

that these important records (as well as those of Palmer McBride, during the

period he worked at Pfisterer) are located and placed in the National

Archives.

Sincerely,

[signature]

David S. Lifton

P.S. For your information: Pfisterer Dental Laboratories is still listed in

New Orleans phone book (Tel 504 837 6622) and there is a "Louis M.

Pfisterer, Jr." also listed (Tel. XXX-XXXX, Address: XXXXX XXXXXXX Blvd.)

[David Lifton]

Greg Parker:

As I mentioned previously, back around 1995 (plus or minus) I had someone carefully go through the Fort Worth Star Telegram archives (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.

Making that connection was not exactly rocket science. I had studied McBride's WC affidavit, and I had already interviewed him--in September, 1994 over the telephone, and then on October 2, 1994, on camera.

No, I did not mention that Fort Worth "newpaper information" in the fax that I wrote the ARRB on 9/4/98 suggesting that certain tax records be obtained and placed in the JFK Collection. I didn’t mention the Fort Worth Star Telegram news stories because, frankly, that wasn’t the focus of my suggestion to the ARRB. My focus was on the (Social Security Administration) tax records. Anyone can obtain a microfilm record of a newspaper. That is already in the public record. I wanted the ARRB to do something only they were legally empowered to do: obtain tax records, declare them to be “assassination records,” and place them in the JFK Records Collection.

Bullxxxx.

You laid out the problem and told them the SOLUTION was in the tax records. But according to you - you already had the the solution for 3 years. If you had those stories, it would have underlined the need to obtain the tax records. If you had those stories, you would have, in all your voluminous writings on Armstrong's theory, mentioned them at some stage.

Your focus is apparently on the news story (or stories) that you turned up through a Google search years quite a few years later, and your apparent reluctance to believe that, years earlier, I had discovered similar press accounts (or perhaps the source press accounts) actually published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram.

Frankly, I don't care what you believe (or don't believe). Your post, with its juvenile threats to supposedly “expose” me if I make some claim in my own work, is typical Greg Parker.

If you publish this as your work, you will be exposed as the xxxx and thief you are. Your choice.

In the interest of demystifying this situation, below my typed signature is the text of the 9/4/1998 fax I sent to ARRB suggesting/urging that they obtain certain tax records which would establish –without question—just when Palmer McBride worked at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories., which in fact was the Spring of 1956.

The fact is that the ARRB, thanks to the diligent work done by Doug Horne, Chief Analyst for Military Records, made a complete hash of the Armstrong “two Oswald hypothesis” when he produced the Oswald tax records, which showed that Oswald was employed at Pfisterer in 1956.

As I have mentioned (and as I am sure you are well aware) the response of Armstrong was to then argue that the tax records had been falsified, which, imho, is ridiculous.

Yes. And what was it he said about the Ft Worth stories from 1956 you got someone to dig up again? Oh, that's right. No response to that because somehow you forgot to mention it to him.

DSL

9/9/12; 11:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

* * * BELOW HERE - - TEXT OF FAX SENT TO ARRB on 9/4/98

[snipped, to save space]

Greg Parker,

You’re behaving like an adolescent who is more concerned with who discovered the “Fort Worth news stories first” than with the truth.

Your entire psyche seems to be focused on that issue. When I patiently explained that I already knew about the Ft Worth newspaper accounts, at the time I wrote the ARRB (because, back around 1995, I had a researcher carefully go through the Fort Worth newspapers from July 1, 1956 until October 24, 1956) and that my (9/4/98) fax to the ARRB was to urge them (with under 30 days left) to get the critical tax information, all you can see (apparently) is that, via Google, you discovered Fort Worth data years later.

Do you not know that Google didn’t even go public until 2004?

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--all you can see, in your limited universe, is that you found this Fort Worth data via Google (and apparently mentioned in some other non-Fort Worth newspaper) and that, by God, you want to be known as the first person who discovered. Well, apparently you’re not. But you can’t deal with that, so you respond by writing “Bullxxxx.”.

Then you write (of what I did): “You laid out the problem and told them the SOLUTION was in the tax records. But according to you - you already had the solution for 3 years. If you had those stories, it would have underlined the need to obtain the tax records. If you had those stories, you would have, in all your voluminous writings on Armstrong's theory, mentioned them at some stage.”

“. . .the solution. . .” ??

What you don’t seem to understand (and perhaps this is the source of our difference here) is that I never viewed the Fort Worth newspaper stories that I found, circa 1995, as “the solution.” I just noted as a "fact in passing." Really, that's the way I viewed it, and no, I did not then go and check the 1957 or 1958 newspapers--and if you do that, well, "more power to you," as the saying goes. That I certainly did not do.

But back to the word "solution" which you seem so fond of.

You’re free to believe that (and to keep using that terminology) but that’s certainly not the way I viewed the problem. I always believed that the definitive records –the unimpeachable records which proved Palmer McBride’s 11/23/63 statement was in error—were the tax records. Those tax records would prove –without question—when Palmer McBride worked at Pfisterer Dental Labs, and when Oswald did. And that’s what I urged the ARRB to locate, declare to be assassination records, and place them in the JFK Collection. Moreover, not only did I write ARRB Director Laura Denk about that in early September, 1998, I had already spoken to Jeremy Gunn about it back when I testified to the ARRB, on 9/17/96. (So none of this was "new." I was just putting it all in writing, and "for the record"--as the saying goes, hoping they would do everything possible in the month left to their existence, to pursue the matter).

You also seem to be drawing unwarranted inferences as to what I believed and why I believed it, and whether, if I had this or that piece of data, I "would have mentioned it" by this or that date. What you don't seem to understand is the way I viewed the issue. My job was not to win a debate with the ARRB staff; or to persuade the ARRB to believe this hypothesis or that. My goal was to explain the problem in terms of their legislative mandate—i.e., to lay out a problem, note that it was part of their mission to “clarify the record,” and explain why these tax records were relevant and would do exactly that. (And so they should pursue the matter).

You clearly have an over-inflated view of your own importance and discoveries. Whatever you discovered through Google (years later), is fine; I’m not disputing that. But you’re way out of line if you think I did not do what I said I did, or when I said I did it.

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.

Furthermore, where do you come up with the nutty notion that if I knew this or that, I would have included it in this or that communication to the ARRB? I have all kinds of data that I have not yet made public. So what?

I think you ought to reconsider your entire thinking on this issue.

Yes, the Fort Worth newspaper stories are important, and no doubt you made the discoveries you did, and when you said you did; and no doubt you have argued that point very persuasively in your posts on the London Forum. All very well, and I congratulate you for that. (Remember, there was no "internet" in 1995, as we know it today). But I happened to have also “discovered” those news stories back around 1995.

But again, so what?

DSL

9/9/12; 5:20 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited September 10, 2012 by David Lifton

[Guest Robert Morrow]

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.

[David Josephs]

Please explain to me, if you would, just why you believe there is anything inconsistent between Oswald having attended P.S. 44 in New York City, in the fall of 1953, and then starting Beauregard Junior High School on January 13, 1954, as the records clearly indicate. Thank you.

I would like to try, as to me they clearly indicate a child attending a limited number of classes after transferring from a school whose designation is not quite correctly stated.

53-07 has Oswald transferring to PS44 on 1-16-53 after being truant most of the end of 1952. (This is when Robert LIES about visiting him and his family in NYC… Robert has to be in Ft Worth… where Stripling is, where his brother is supposedly going to school…). Oswald, after 1-16-53, does not appear ANYWHERE officially until in March 1953 he begins attending PS44 regularly… he is TRANSFORMED as a student… . In May 1953 LEE is 5’3 ½” 114lbs, in September, he is officially recorded as 5’4” 115lbs, leader… NOT the boy in the Bronx zoo photo who John Pic says is NOT LEE, while Robert insists is his brother.

That boy, HARVEY is with Myra in the fall and winter 1953 in NOLA which is why not a single one of the FBI witnesses were asked about 1953… not one David. And those who answered about 1954 are all over the board… read their testimony and see yourself.… in Feb 1954, when MYRA drops him off at 126 Exchange – where the photo of the sitting and very sad Mrs. O. At this same time LEE has moved back with his mother to 1454 St Mary’s, Myrtle Evans’ apartment. I will post my entire reply soon which addresses the Evan’s interviews/testimony about the person who was LEE Oswald.

54-22 shows OSWALD attending BJHS in NOLA… it shows him taking 2 classes, scoring 70 in both and gaining 22 units which are added to some numbers to total 71.8, attending 89 days and being absent 1 time; 53-54 in the upper left and in three rows in the middle: FALL – SPRING and TOTAL all add up in every direction.

His brother Robert, while knowing/denying his visit to his mother, brother john, sister in law, nephew and Lee, in NYC in the fall of 1952, places him at Stripling and then lies about his visit to NYC. One can say he meant that his brother SHOULD have been at Stripling… this goes to the heart of WHY LIE ABOUT NYC in the fall of 1952?

Mr. JENNER. Did you see them?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not at that time. I spent my leave in Fort Worth, because I did not feel I had enough time to travel to New York and down to Jacksonville, Fla

Mr. PIC - I think this was, his leave was probably in October or November 1952, a matter of a month or two after they had moved out. We visited their apartment in the Bronx.

Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, where did your brother stay?

Mr. PIC - I think he stayed at the Soldier-Sailor-Airmen Club in New York.

Mr. JENNER - In any event he did not stay with you.

Mr. PIC - No, sir; he may have stayed with my mother also. I don't think so. Maybe for a night or two. We went out, my wife fixed him up with a date with one of her girl friends and we went out together a couple of times. So, we were invited up there for this Sunday dinner. So it was my mother, Lee, Robert, my wife, myself, and my son

Repeatedly and consistently John Pic differentiates between HARVEY and LEE. Not once is he mistaken.

Robert is caught repeatedly in lies and is the object of a number of quotes from his brother stating that photos purporting to be LEE are actually more like Robert.

I would also ask that you read Jenner's questioning carefully... HE is the one filling in the blanks for Robert... repeatedly... as if HE knows the script and Robert is helplessly following along.

1952/53/54 and 58 are amazing transitional years and are more worthy of your study and attention. Maybe, just maybe McBride was left in the record to begin such an investigation… to expose some inconsistencies in the records that ought to be checked… it’s a pretty glaring mistake to say 1958 when he knows he had just changed jobs, was a young man and 2 years in the life of a 18-20 year old is a big deal.... and he repeats the year 1958 over and over in his statement... yet since it conflicts and simply CANNOT BE... it wasn't.

kinda like saying and signing a statement about a 7.65 Mauser – the DAY AFTER IT HAS ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED – and you know, just being

MISTAKEN…. cause, y'know... that just doesn't work for us.

DJ

DSL

9/8/12; 11 AM PDT

Laguna Beach, California

Edited March 7, 2017 by David Josephs
no room left for more attachments

[Don Jeffries]

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?

[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.

[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

[Greg Parker]

54-22 shows OSWALD attending BJHS in NOLA… it shows him taking 2 classes, scoring 70 in both and gaining 22 units which are added to some numbers to total 71.8, attending 89 days and being absent 1 time; 53-54 in the upper left and in three rows in the middle: FALL – SPRING and TOTAL all add up in every direction.

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.

He is TRANSFORMED as a student… . In May 1953 LEE is 5’3 ½” 114lbs, in September, he is officially recorded as 5’4” 115lbs, leader… NOT the boy in the Bronx zoo photo who John Pic says is NOT LEE, while Robert insists is his brother.

Not sure that a half inch in growth and an extra pound over a 4 month period should be described as a transformation for a young teen. And measuring height isn't an exact science. Posture/footwear/eye of measurer all have a bearing on accuracy. The leader vs introvert "problem" is explicable once you understand he had Asperger's. People with this condition can and do move back and forth between those extremes depending on the environment they are in and the people around them. Finally, Pic never said the boy in the photo was not Lee. That is mischaracterizing his testimony.

Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that?

Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?

Mr. PIC - No, sir.

Saying you don't recognize someone is not the same as saying it's not them, and you shouldn't need to keep stretching the evidence to make it fit if it is as clear cut as you maintain. To my mind, his not recognizing Lee is completely explicable. He rarely ever saw him over many many years.

1952/53/54 and 58 are amazing transitional years and are more worthy of your study and attention. Maybe, just maybe McBride was left in the record to begin such an investigation… to expose some inconsistencies in the records that ought to be checked…

Sorry David, but that is just silly on its face. What it does show is ( a ) your admittance that McBride can no longer be used in the manner he has been and ( b ) your willingness to find some other use for him to keep this fantasy going.

[David Josephs]

On 12/27/2011 at 1:11 AM, Greg Parker said:

"Mr Firorello recalled Oswald was employed for approximately two months in the first part of 1956, and when he quit, he stated he was going to Texas to sell shoes... Mr Fiorello said that he [Oswald] associated mainly with another messenger Palmer McBride... McBride's main interest was astrology [sic] and he and Oswald often had long discussions on this topic. They also discussed and often argued about Russia but not specifically communism..."

"Another employee at the dental lab, Lionel Slater, was interviewed and stated that he too was employed as a messenger during Oswald's period of employment... and associated mainly with Palmer McBride... He too stated that Oswald and McBride were interested in and frequently discussed astrology [sic]... "

http://www.maryferre...21&relPageId=42

"John B Ulmer, Jr... worked as a messenger for Pfisterer Dental Laboratory Company from 1953 to 1961... does not recall Lee Harvey Oswald, although Oswald's photograph , taken while a student in 9th grade at Beauregard School, New Orleans, resembles a messenger who was employed there for just a few weeks in about 1956..."

You cannot dismiss them as being wrong without speaking to them and investigating there claims.

That was the benchmark Armstrong placed on McBride's evidence when it was suggested he was mistaken about the dates...

From AJ Weberman's nodule on McBride

Quote

In April or May 1958 OSWALD stated he was moving to Fort Worth, Texas, with his mother. In about August 1958, I received a letter from him saying he was employed as a shoe salesman in Ft. Worth. 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.

I have checked google news archives and cannot find any news stories from 1958 about any riots in Forth Worth. Period. Regardless of their nature.

The official timeline has Oswald moving to Collinswood St, Fort Worth in July, 1956...

and Lo... I found a number of stories of riots in and around Fort Worth from early September, 1956

Here is one of those stories

Ft Worth riot one

Here is another

scroll down to this sub-head

violence threatens

So long McBride... so long "Harvey"...

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...

Your arguments agains add up to no riot story, McBride was mistaken, and the records of the US MARINES are FUBAR even though the DoD does not support YOUR claim that he was flown back to Japan.

Meanwhile I have document after document, photo afet photo and the conflicting testimony of his brothers... one - Robert - obviously lying as he tries to remember which brother did what... and John who pick HARVEY from LEE in every case...

You've proven nothing... nor have you been able to deal with the records beyond claiming "mistakes are made" The MARINES place him in Taiwan at the same time he is treated for STD in Japan.

as well as on the boat BACK from Taiwan on the 5th... Your FBI witnesses were NOT asked about 1953 for some reason - the FBI knew better. and BOTH OSWALDS were in NOLA, one at 126 Exchange, one at 1454 St Mary's at the Evans'. Since you provide no rebutall beyond MISTAKES - I trust you will once again point out how any and all info supporting H&L is simply a mistake...

and what you offer as evidence is ironclad and unimpeachable... {cough cough} sorry too much BS stuck in my throat on that last comment....

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

[David Josephs]

54-22 shows OSWALD attending BJHS in NOLA… it shows him taking 2 classes, scoring 70 in both and gaining 22 units which are added to some numbers to total 71.8, attending 89 days and being absent 1 time; 53-54 in the upper left and in three rows in the middle: FALL – SPRING and TOTAL all add up in every direction.

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.

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...

He is TRANSFORMED as a student… . In May 1953 LEE is 5’3 ½” 114lbs, in September, he is officially recorded as 5’4” 115lbs, leader… NOT the boy in the Bronx zoo photo who John Pic says is NOT LEE, while Robert insists is his brother.

Not sure that a half inch in growth and an extra pound over a 4 month period should be described as a transformation for a young teen. And measuring height isn't an exact science. Posture/footwear/eye of measurer all have a bearing on accuracy. The leader vs introvert "problem" is explicable once you understand he had Asperger's. People with this condition can and do move back and forth between those extremes depending on the environment they are in and the people around them. Finally, Pic never said the boy in the photo was not Lee. That is mischaracterizing his testimony.

Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that?

Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?

Mr. PIC - No, sir.

Saying you don't recognize someone is not the same as saying it's not them, and you shouldn't need to keep stretching the evidence to make it fit if it is as clear cut as you maintain. To my mind, his not recognizing Lee is completely explicable. He rarely ever saw him over many many years.

Greg, you don't post the entire interview or realize the amount of info supplied by Jenner in his questions... this is one of MANY ANSWERS in which he repeatedly picks LEE as his brother and does not recognize HARVEY.

1952/53/54 and 58 are amazing transitional years and are more worthy of your study and attention. Maybe, just maybe McBride was left in the record to begin such an investigation… to expose some inconsistencies in the records that ought to be checked…

Sorry David, but that is just silly on its face. What it does show is ( a ) your admittance that McBride can no longer be used in the manner he has been and ( b ) your willingness to find some other use for him to keep this fantasy going.

Since there was NOTHING left in the records by people hoping to leave clues to what might actually have happened... McBride's statement stands just as strongly as Weitzman and Boone's ID of a Mauser... they can claim from now to forever they were MISTAKEN... doesn't change what was said and recorded that weekend. Don't you say something about info from then as opposed to more recently in you profile?