Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Greg Parker]

However, it is possible that LHO briefly attended Stripling in 1951-52 as Robert believed. If he did, it would jibe with Kudlaty's recollection that LHO's attendance was short in duration. In any case, as Greg Parker has pointed out, you don't need a parallel universe to explain this.

The FBI and/or WC apparently disagreed with you, because all the Stripling records disappeared.

Excellent!

Non-existent records disappeared from a place they could not have been stored at.

I smell a Nobel Prize in Quantum Physics.

[Jim Hargrove]

FBI agents seize school records on 11/23/63, at which time J.Edgar Hoover appears badly informed about the most basic alleged facts pertaining to the assassination. Something's not right here. Why would Hoover, if he was clueless, send FBI agents to seize the particular school records in question? Doesn't make sense.

Two possibilities: [1] Persons posing as FBI agents seized the records. [2] Alan Belmont, whom some have alleged controlled the FBI's response to the assassination, was on the ball even though Hoover wasn't.

I believe it was #[1]. I believe Hoover immediately perceived he had been snookered. And that he reacted as any adversary could have predicted. He acted to protect himself and the FBI. Not to seek the truth, but to circle the wagons.

Footnote: It strikes me that some third party, who knew American leaders and American politics, knew how to manipulate the levers of American government by framing Oswald, as early as 1:56 p.m. CST as the assassin and as the killer of J.D. Tippit.

It's real easy to point fingers at the CIA. That's why, IMO, focusing on the CIA is a false trail. The CIA was snookered as well and reacted as could have been predicted.

Hi, Jon,

Hoover was hardly clueless about the Oswald Project prior to the assassination! He did lie about his knowledge, though. He claimed, right after the hit, that the FBI had no prior knowledge of "Lee Harvey Oswald." What a joke! Dozens of FBI docs on Oswald were already in existence before President Kennedy was killed, including Hoover's own June 1960 memo in which he wrote, "there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate." Hoover was hardly clueless about the Oswald Project. That's why his agents confiscated teenaged employment and school records of "Lee Harvey Oswald" before even investigating the scope of a potential conspiracy to kill USG officials.

From the Intro of H&L:

Immediately after President Kennedy's assassination the FBI began an in­

vestigation, even though the Dallas Police had sole jurisdiction over the

case. Less than an hour after Oswald's arrest FBI Director]. Edgar Hoover

wrote a two page memorandum in which he described Oswald's trips to Russia and Cuba

and his involvement with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.1 Hoover identified Oswald

as the prime suspect and knew the building from which the shots were fired--all within

an hour of Oswald's arrest.

Following the assassination Dallas Police Lt. Jack Revill was walking through

the basement of police headquarters when he was approached by FBI agent James

Hasty. Revill remembered, "Mr. Hasty ran over to me and he says .... 'a Communist

killed President Kennedy .... Lee Oswald killed President Kennedy.' I said, 'Who is Lee

Oswald?' Hasty said, 'He is in our Communist file. We knew he was here in Dallas.'2

I asked him why he had not told us this, and the best (of) my recollection is that he said

he couldn't."3

Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry soon appeared on a television broadcast and

made a statement to the effect that agents of the FBI had prior information and know-

ledge regarding Oswald. When J. Edgar Hoover learned of Curry 's statement he in­

structed senior FBI official C.D. DeLoach to contact the Senior Agent in charge of the

Dallas Office, Gordon Shanklin, and order him to immediately obtain a retraction.4

Shanklin was told that if he did not obtain a retraction, he would be terminated from

the Bureau. Shanklin quickly contacted Curry and obtained a statement that read, "from

his (Curry's) own personal knowledge, the FBI did not have any previous information

regarding Lee Harvey Oswald."

J. Edgar Hoover desparately tried to keep the public from learning about the

FBI's prior knowledge of Oswald, and from wondering if the FBI had any connections

or contacts with Oswald. But Hoover was in a difficult position. If he admitted that FBI

agents had been following Oswald's activities for the past 4 years, critics would blame

the Bureau for not keeping a close watch on Oswald during the President's trip to Dal­

las. If he denied knowing of Oswald's activities, critics would blame him for not keep­

ing a close eye on the alledged communist "defector."

Hoover repeatedly lied to the public and insisted the FBI had no prior knowl­edge

of Oswald. But, unknown to the public, the FBI had dozens of reports on Oswald

dating back to 1959 which Hoover kept secret from the public. These reports included:

1) a file on Lee Harvey Oswald which contained fingerprint cards, Naval intel­

ligence memorandums, State Department Dispatches, letters from the Depart­

ment of State, interviews with Oswald, his mother, wife, relatives, Mrs. Ruth

Paine, field re ports setting forth results of his residences and employment,

airtels from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) regarding his activities in

Mexico City, Passport Office records, etc.5

2) photographs of a middle-aged, heavy-set man in Mexico City who was incor-

rectly identified by the CIA as Lee Harvey Oswald;6 a tape recording (provided

by the CIA station in Mexico City Station) of a telephone conversation between

a man they identified as Oswald who was speaking in very poor, broken Rus-

sian, with personnel at the Soviet Embassy. Hoover knew neither the photo­

graph nor the tape recording was of the Lee Harvey Oswald being held by the Dallas

Police.7 Hoover knew within hours of the assassination that someone had

impersonated Oswald in Mexico City, less than two months before the assassination,

and he shared that information with President Lyndon Johnson the day after the

assassination during a tape recorded telephone conversation.

3) a report by New Orleans agent Milton Kaack, dated October 31, 1963, that

included information on Oswalds birth records from the New Orleans Depart­

ment of Vital Statistics.8 FBI agents were investigating Oswald's background less

than three weeks before the assassination.

4) a report from FBI confidential informant Eugene Clair Davis who reported

contact with a Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans during the weeks immedi­-

ately preceeding the assassination, at the same time a second Lee Harvey Oswald was

living in Dallas and working at the Texas SchoolBook Depository.9

5) an FBI memo dated three days before the assassination, sent by the Special

Agent in Charge (SAC) of the New Orleans FBI Office to FBI Director Hoover,

in which Oswald's business address was listed as "Texas School Book Deposi­

tory, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas."10

6) Hoover's file on Oswald contained over a hundred FBI reports and news

articles from 1959 thru 1963 relating to Lee Harvey Oswald.

FBI Director Hoover knew much more about Lee Harvey Oswald's background

than he shared with the public on November 22, 1963. The following evening Hoover

told President Lyndon Johnson, "We have up here the tape recording and the photo­-

graph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy using Oswald's name. That picture and

tape recording do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other

words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there."

NOTES:

1 FBI Hoover memo, 4:01 pm, 11/22/63.

2 WC testimony of Lieutenant Jack Revill, 5 H 34.

3 Ibid at 37.

4 FBI memo from C.D. DeLoach to Mr. Mohr, 11/23/63.

5 National Archives, HSCA 180-10030-10436, FBI Case File 105-8255-3561.

6 WC Exhibit 237.

7 Hoover/Johnson telephone conversation, 11/23/63.

8 FBI report of Milton Kaack, 10/31/63.

9 National Archives, HSCA 180-10087-10474, Numbered Files 001786, Interview of D'Avy by HSCA Staff Attorney Belford

Lawson, 7/8/77.

10 FBI memo from SAC, New Orleans, to FBI Director, Bufile 105-82555.

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

As for Oswald and the CIA, I don't see any other explanation for the false Russian "defection" or the apparent willingness of the U.S. governement to allow a second "defection" just weeks prior to the assassination.

[Bernie Laverick]

However, it is possible that LHO briefly attended Stripling in 1951-52 as Robert believed. If he did, it would jibe with Kudlaty's recollection that LHO's attendance was short in duration. In any case, as Greg Parker has pointed out, you don't need a parallel universe to explain this.

The FBI and/or WC apparently disagreed with you, because all the Stripling records disappeared.

Excellent!

Non-existent records disappeared from a place they could not have been stored at.

I smell a Nobel Prize in Quantum Physics.

The Copenhagen Interpretation

The Many-Worlds theory of quantum mechanics supposes that for each pos­sible outcome of any given action, the universe splits to accommodate each on­e. This theory takes the observer out of the equation. No longer are we able to influence the outcome of an event simply by observing it, as is stated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[Karl Kinaski]

quote James Fetzer Judith in Exile thread # 1251

Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work?

close quote

"Lee" losing a tooth at Beauregard Junior High.

Lillian Murret, "Harvey's" aunt, remembered paying for his visit to the dentist. Are we

now to believe that Lillian and Dutz Murret knew both "Harvey" and "Lee" ???

KK

Edited June 11, 2015 by Karl Kinaski

[Karl Kinaski]

Harvey and Lee

By W. Tracy Parnell

Armstrongs book debunked

[David Josephs]

You know better than to make allegations like that without providing examples. If you had any, I assume you would have provided them.

This entire thread and the Odio thread provides example after example... anyone reading either thread sees how you craft an argument...

Did you not post: "Are you claiming that a man of the cloth lied to the authorities when he told them that she never heard the name Oswald used by the men?" when the evidence is right there... (all these quotes are from your posts on the Odio thread)

This is obviously a misleading statement since that's not what Odio said and we've told you this numerous times... yet you continue like the FBI and WC - as if nothing was said and your conclusion supercedes the facts... nice try, but simply not true.

And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice

With regards to Odio and Father McKann - you don't bother posting the actual testimony, only your absurd question in which YOU assume what she told the Father and present it as factual... when the testimony is right there...

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that one of the men--did you tell him the names of the men who were there?

Mrs. ODIO. I told him what I knew, the names of the men that I knew.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used in your presence by any of these men?

Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, a report that we have from Agent Hosty indicates that when you told him about Leopoldo's telephone call to you the following day,

that you told Agent Hosty that Leopoldo told you he was not going to have anything more to do with Leon Oswald since Leon was considered to be loco?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Wonder why Liebeler would use the name OSWALD when it supposedly NEVER came up...

Another example includes your chery-picking the testimony to support you argument when the very next sentences illustrate what you are hiding:

You wrote: Odio was all over shop.

Mr. LIEBELER. After looking at this picture, are you more convinced, or less convinced, or do you still have about the same feeling that you had before you looked at it that the man who was in your apartment late in September was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I have to be careful about that, because I have the same feeling that it was, but at the same time I have been looking at papers for months and months of pictures, and these help you to remember too much. I wish I could isolate the incident without remembering the other pictures. I have a feeling there are certain pictures that do not resemble him. It was not the Oswald that was standing in front of my door. He was kind of tired looking. He had a little smile, but he was sunken in in the face that day. More skinny, I would say.

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

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?

I included the "----" and the next section of your post to show that you did not include the very next 2 Q&As: wonder why???

(Your post)

Mr. LIEBELER. After looking at this picture, are you more convinced, or less convinced, or do you still have about the same feeling that you had before you looked at it that the man who was in your apartment late in September was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I have to be careful about that, because I have the same feeling that it was, but at the same time I have been looking at papers for months and months of pictures, and these help you to remember too much. I wish I could isolate the incident without remembering the other pictures. I have a feeling there are certain pictures that do not resemble him. It was not the Oswald that was standing in front of my door. He was kind of tired looking. He had a little smile, but he was sunken in in the face that day. More skinny, I would say.

Yet all we need do is keep reading... you attempt to prove that Odio was not sure about whether it was Lee Harvey by posting the excerpt above... what follows...?

(the next line)

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, do you have any doubts in your mind after looking at these pictures that the man that was in your apartment was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I don't have any doubts.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any doubt about it then?

Mrs. ODIO. I kept saying it can't be to myself; it just can't be. I mean it couldn't be, but when my sister walked into the hospital and she said, "Sylvia, have you seen the man?" And I said, "Yes." And she said, "That was the man that was at the door of my house." So I had no doubts then.

Wow Greg, if one was to read only what you posted and then the entire passage one might get the impression you were hiding the fact that Annie and Sylvia both identified and were sure that the man Ruby shot had been at their house. No wonder you decided not to include that part... it's exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are trying to say...

-------------------- one more?

would say.

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

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is true. I mean, even though she said she thought I had mentioned the name very clearly, and I had mentioned the names of the three men.

Mr. LIEBELER. But she didn't remember it?

Mrs. ODIO. No;

So here was the next section of your reply trying to prove the surname OSWALD was never used..

But please don't post the sentences just prior to this statement or just after explaining that by the time Annie arrives at the door they are talking about him as "the/an American"... and that she too was sure who it was.

These are but a few examples of how you cherry pick data and sources to support your POV yet each and every time a source if checked - it says exactly the opposite of what you are tying to prove...

And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice. Then my sister Annie by that time was standing near the door. She had come to see what was going on. And they introduced him as an American who was very much interested in the Cuban cause.

(now you turn your quote machine on)

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is true. I mean, even though she said she thought I had mentioned the name very clearly, and I had mentioned the names of the three men.

Mr. LIEBELER. But she didn't remember it?

Mrs. ODIO. No; (OFF IT GOES)

yet Odio continues:

she said I mentioned it, because I made a comment. This I don't recall. I said, "I am going to see Antonio Alentado," which is one of the leaders of the JURE here in Dallas. And I think I just casually said, "I am going to mention these names to him to see if he knows any of them." But I forgot about them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister see the men?

Mrs. ODIO. She saw the three of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this with her since that time?

Mrs. ODIO. I just had to discuss it because it was bothering me. I just had to know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she think it was Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. Well, her reaction to it when Oswald came on television, she almost passed out on me, just like I did the day at work when I learned about the assassination of the President. Her reaction was so obvious that it was him, I mean. And my reaction, we remember Oswald the day he came to my house because he had not shaved and he had a kind of a very, I don't know how to express it, but some little hairs like if you haven't shaved, but it is not a thick moustache, but some kind of shadow. That is something I noticed. And he was wearing--the other ones were wearing white dirty shirts, but he was wearing a long sleeved shirt.

So please Greg... if you want to take the high road, your posting and behavior needs to reflect that... these "omissions of info" which turn your arguments on their head is how you operate.

We can also post your NYC school day argument which has fallen apart since you assumed that counting the summer months when no school is in session is SOP. Sorry mate, not here.

When we discuss the 53-54 school year at BJHS you post 7 sources to info on the 54-55 school year and get all indignant when it is poointed out that these are two completely different years...

But that does not curb this behavior either...

So how about we back off the accusation of he said she said about JA and his sources when you post info which cannot be refuted by dead men along side evidence which shows the level of dedication you offer in regards to substantiating evidnece in support of a theory.

You make this way too easy Greg... thanks

=======================

And then you make these terribly uniformed comments about disappearing records as if the only set of records missing in this case are Stripling's.

Seems to me if you actually look Greg, the evidence which could exhonerate Oswald is gone where as the FBI 's incriminating evidence has the most dubious of pasts.

Greg, your tactics are easily uncovered your agenda really quite obvious to all.

You and the others keep making your accusations and offering your assumptions yet when it gets down to the evidence, there is really very little you can do to change their meaning...

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy IS the Evidence... your evidence-twisting cherry-picking attacks do nothing to change this and only reflect on the kind of researcher and writer you are.

All we need to continue to do here is watch you implode.

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

Karl... when you find a book on the JFK situation that does not have any errors or speculative offerings you let us know. When the blind man feels the elephants leg and calls it a tree trunk, it does not make the bliond man correct, only sure of HIS impression of the facts... take the blinders off and even the blind man can see he was wrong to come to conclusion when only having been exposed to the smallest part of the situation...

Edited June 11, 2015 by David Josephs

[Karl Kinaski]

quote Tracy Parnell ( http://http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/3key.htm )

3. Oswald Exhumation.

In 1981, the body of LHO was exhumed in order to disprove the theory of Michael Eddowes whose book, The Oswald File, postulated a Soviet look-alike was buried in the LHO grave. The body was positively identified primarily by dental records as that of Oswald. That killed Eddowes' theory but interestingly once again Armstrong's theory was defeated by an event that predated it.

Although the Norton team's primary charge was the use of dental records, they could not help but notice the obvious presence of a mastoidectomy defect on the left side of the head that corresponded with the one LHO was known to have. The team noted the defect in their report and also photographed it for the record. The problem for Armstrong is that the body Norton looked at was supposed to be "Harvey" while it was "Lee" who had the mastoid operation. So once again the Armstrong theory is shown to be wrong and totally disproved.

close quote

KK

Edited June 11, 2015 by Karl Kinaski

[Karl Kinaski]

If you are a H&L devotee, you must draw the conclusion, that

Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with

Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them

has ever breathed a word about it!

Omerta eh?

KK

[W. Tracy Parnell]

If you are a H&L devotee, you must draw the conclusion, that

Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with

Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them

has ever breathed a word about it!

Omerta eh?

KK

Karl,

Lillian had to have known about the "plot" as would the entire Murret family. The closest Armstrong comes to admitting this that I can find is on page 279 where he says:

Lillian Murret, sister of the real Marguerite Oswald, went along with the charade and told the Commission, "She came down here ..... She told me all about it, what she knew about it (the defection).

Thanks for mentioning my website as well.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

quote Tracy Parnell ( http://http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/3key.htm )

3. Oswald Exhumation.

In 1981, the body of LHO was exhumed in order to disprove the theory of Michael Eddowes whose book, The Oswald File, postulated a Soviet look-alike was buried in the LHO grave. The body was positively identified primarily by dental records as that of Oswald. That killed Eddowes' theory but interestingly once again Armstrong's theory was defeated by an event that predated it.

Although the Norton team's primary charge was the use of dental records, they could not help but notice the obvious presence of a mastoidectomy defect on the left side of the head that corresponded with the one LHO was known to have. The team noted the defect in their report and also photographed it for the record. The problem for Armstrong is that the body Norton looked at was supposed to be "Harvey" while it was "Lee" who had the mastoid operation. So once again the Armstrong theory is shown to be wrong and totally disproved.

close quote

KK

Amazingly, to this day Armstrong and his team have never addressed the mastoid issue. There is also a Russian medical document that reports the mastoid scar which, of course, is found on "Harvey" instead of Lee. Maybe one of the H&L team members can update us on this issue.

[Thomas Graves]

quote Tracy Parnell ( http://http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/3key.htm )

3. Oswald Exhumation.

In 1981, the body of LHO was exhumed in order to disprove the theory of Michael Eddowes whose book, The Oswald File, postulated a Soviet look-alike was buried in the LHO grave. The body was positively identified primarily by dental records as that of Oswald. That killed Eddowes' theory but interestingly once again Armstrong's theory was defeated by an event that predated it.

Although the Norton team's primary charge was the use of dental records, they could not help but notice the obvious presence of a mastoidectomy defect on the left side of the head that corresponded with the one LHO was known to have. The team noted the defect in their report and also photographed it for the record. The problem for Armstrong is that the body Norton looked at was supposed to be "Harvey" while it was "Lee" who had the mastoid operation. So once again the Armstrong theory is shown to be wrong and totally disproved.

close quote

KK

Karl,

That's very easy to explain.

The bad guys killed Lee and substituted his corpse for Harvey's several years later.

That would also explain the broken coffin.

Uhh oh. I might have just opened up a big "can of worms," literally and figuratively.

LOL

--Tommy

Edited June 11, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

If you are a H&L devotee, you must draw the conclusion, that

Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with

Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them

has ever breathed a word about it!

Omerta eh?

KK

It's nice that you are so sure of this Karl... yet us H&L devotees MUST not do anything of the sort - the Evidence does not support your assumption, unless you'd care to post some ??...

What leads you to believe they KNEW as opposed to possibly suspected there was something wrong with the returning Oswald?

From Dutz's testimony he assumed it was the same person...

Mr. MURRET - Yes. That's when Lee came to town, and wanted to look for an apartment, and said he was going to get a job, and that he would like to stay with us until he found something.

Mr. JENNER - All right; now, tell us about that.

Mr. MURRET - Well, when I walked in the house, he was standing in the kitchen.

Mr. JENNER - That was after you came home from work?

Mr. MURRET - That's right.

Mr. JENNER - You were surprised to see him?

Mr. MURRET - Yes; that's right. I was surprised all right.

Mr. JENNER - All right. What happened then?

Mr. MURRET - My wife said, "Do you recognize who this is?" and I said, "Yes," and I said, "It looks like he has grown up or something." Of course, he looked older, but he hadn't changed too much in appearance, I don't think.

Mr. JENNER - Of course, this was Lee Oswald?

Mr. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - The same boy, but you say he had grown up a little more, is that right?

Mr. MURRET - That's right.

Mr. JENNER - Physically, at least?

Mr. MURRET - Yes, sir

Mr. JENNER - Did Lee seem to have that propensity, that when you did things for him, that he didn't seem to want you doing anything for him?

Mrs. MURRET - I don't think he seemed to be very appreciative for anything you did for him. Now, I will say this, at the time he was receiving something, like these clothes, he seemed to be very happy about it, but it didn't last any time, and he never would put it in words at least anyway. We were probably the only people that he knew as relatives. I don't think he knew anyone else in the family.

(I couldn't find anything that gives the impression she thought there were two men - have you?) I did find that Myrtle Evans did not recognize him - but you did not mention Myrtle.

Mr. JENNER - Tell me the circumstances that led to his renting that apartment, Mrs. Evans.

Mrs. EVANS - Well, the doorbell rang, and my husband hadn't gone to work. He says he recognized him then, but I don't remember it that way, but anyway this young man was at the door, and he said he wanted an apartment, and did I have an apartment to rent, and I didn't have anything in this building, but I told him about another building I was fixing up, and I told him I might be able to find something for him, and he told me he had a wife and child over in Texas, and that he was going to bring them over here as soon as he could find an apartment. and that he had to find something right now. He said, "I want something right away."

When we were walking down the steps, I looked at him real hardlike, and I didn't recognize him, but something made me ask him, "I know you, don't I?" and he said, "Sure; I am Lee Oswald; I was just waiting to see when you were going to recognize me." I said, "Lee Oswald, what are you doing in this country? I thought you were in Russia. I thought you had given up your American citizenship and gone behind the Iron Curtain," and he said, "No," he said, "I went over there," he said, "but I didn't give up my citizenship." He said he had been back in the States for quite a while, and that he had brought his Russian wife back with him; so I told him I would help him look for a place; so I rang up this friend of mine, and I asked her, I said, "Vickie, do you happen to know where I can rent an apartment for a young couple with one little baby?" and she said, "Yes; Myrtle, I will take children. This is a little duplex," she said, and she said, "This is a nice little apartment, and I think they will like it," and I said , "How much?" and she said, "$65," and I said, "Well, he can't spend too much; he is just getting a new job."

Pic did not know both men yet was pretty clear about picking Lee from Harvey in all the Life photos

Robert MAY have known about both, MAY have been one of the Oswalds leaving incriminating evidence... but there is little direect evidence other than the striking resemblence.

Marina never met LEE so I don't know how she would be aware of both men.

Anna LEWIS on the other hand MAY have seen both men when she says she met Lee Oswald in Feb 1962 when Harvey was in Russia... and then again in the summer of '63 when it was Harvey in New Orleans - yet she states that this time around Oswald did not acknowledge or seem to recognize her. Which dovetails into JVB who also may have know both yet again, the evidence is not there.

LEE Oswald's USMC supervisor Gorsky tells us that he processed Oswald's discharge in March 1959 and all that paperwork was sent to Washington DC. Not evidence of BOTH men, but certainly a conflict with the Sept 11, 1959 dicharge date of JFK's accused killer.

If you could just post the evidence which leads to these conclusions maybe we can have a frame of reference from which to discuss this... If all this is are your impression and assumptions, say so and we can speculate to our hearts content.

[David Josephs]

quote Tracy Parnell ( http://http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/3key.htm )

3. Oswald Exhumation.

In 1981, the body of LHO was exhumed in order to disprove the theory of Michael Eddowes whose book, The Oswald File, postulated a Soviet look-alike was buried in the LHO grave. The body was positively identified primarily by dental records as that of Oswald. That killed Eddowes' theory but interestingly once again Armstrong's theory was defeated by an event that predated it.

Although the Norton team's primary charge was the use of dental records, they could not help but notice the obvious presence of a mastoidectomy defect on the left side of the head that corresponded with the one LHO was known to have. The team noted the defect in their report and also photographed it for the record. The problem for Armstrong is that the body Norton looked at was supposed to be "Harvey" while it was "Lee" who had the mastoid operation. So once again the Armstrong theory is shown to be wrong and totally disproved.

close quote

KK

Karl,

That's very easy to explain.

The bad guys killed Lee and substituted his corpse for Harvey's several years later.

That would also explain the broken coffin.

Uhh oh. I might have just opened up a big "can of worms," literally and figuratively.

LOL

--Tommy

Let's take a look at what occurs on the autopsy table when we know the person on the table was the man Ruby killed...

The autopsy report states:

"At the upper end of his right sternocleidomastoid over the skin is transverse very superficial 3/4 inch

scratch with some reddish antiseptic type of paint surrounding this."

First off the mastoid operation was on the LEFT SIDE of Oswald's head, not right. In Russia Harvey did have something done to the right side of his head... CE985 p450

Secondly, the description of this right side wound suggests it was a fresh wound and not a healed scar.

Diagnosis when admitted : Chronic otitis media purulenta at the

right side, complicated by granulations

Clinical diagnosis : Chronic otitis media purulenta at the right

side, complicated by graulations and

cholesteatoma. Adenoids 1 .5

The Donabedian Ex p582 tells us on Sept 11th when discharged this man has a 1" mastoidectomy scar on the left side of his head.

In fairness, it also states that there is a healed scar behind the LEFT ear... this Russin note is the only mention of the left side scar.

Regarding the suicide attempt scar - also in Donabedian - There is nothing shown on the lower LEFT arm..

Furthermore, the self inflicted gunshot wound according to the same discharge document is "S gunshot, left elbow"

The wounds shown on the autopsy sheet do not coincide with these descriptions... and the 27 photos Rose took plus the 9 rolls of film another doctor mentions taking - of which shot #11 is the "Back of the head" do not seem to be available to be reviewed.

On. February 26, .1964, Mr. Paul J. Groody, Embalmor and

Funeral Director; Charles B. Miller, owner, and Allen S. Baumgardai-,

Apprentice-Embalmer, Miller. Funeral Home, 5805 Camp Bowie Blvd.,

Fort Worth, Texas, all advised that at the time the body of Lee

Harvey Oswald was embalmed they did not observe any type of scar

on the left wrist of Oswald.

Part of CE985:

"In order to delay his departure he inflicted wounds on the lower third of his left forearm and put it into hot water."

"On February 25, 1964, Mr. C. J. Price, Administrator,

Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas, advised he was unable to

recall seeing or reading any report or observation on the part of

any person who attended Lee Harvey Oswald after his fatal shooting':

on November 24, 1963, that commented on a scar on Oswald's inner

left wrist. He stated he observed Oswald while he was in the

Trauma room and during the time he was sent to surgery at Parkland

Memorial Hospital on the day of the shooting and he failed to

observe any scar on Oswald's wrist.

Not only nothing on the left wrist, but nothing on the left forearm where the Russians placed this wound.

This sheet also does not show a scar behind the left ear. Given the state of the coffin when exhumed... seems to most of us that anything is possible once the seal is broken... Besides didn't the doctors also state that tere was not craniotomy scar on the exhumed body - I may be recalling this incorrectly...

Seems to me there are quite a few conflicts with the boy's childhood record, USMC record, the Russian record and this autopsy... but of course that's just me.

DJ

[W. Tracy Parnell]

CE 985, page 455 states clearly:

Left Ear: Behind the ear there is a stable post operational scar.

This is the same mastoid scar observed at autopsy. This is supposed to be "Lee" who has the scar but it is clearly "Harvey" in both cases. The "very superficial 3/4 inch scratch" has nothing to do with anything. It is just that, a little scratch that he could have received a million ways. Rose missed scars including the mastoid scar. He stated at the time of the exhumation that he could have missed the mastoid scar. If he could have missed one, he could have missed others. In a perfect world he would have been informed of the mastoid operation and every known scar so he would have been on the alert.

Groody was there to embalm the body, not to make an identification. Just because he didn't see a particular scar doesn't mean it wasn't there. Same with the Parkland doctors-they were trying to save his life not look for scars. The craniotomy scar was observed and photographed by the forensic pathologists at the exhumation. The photo is on my website in the post "Paul Groody's Theory".

Edited June 11, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[David Josephs]

CE 985, page 455 states clearly:

Left Ear: Behind the ear there is a stable post operational scar.

This is the same mastoid scar observed at autopsy. This is supposed to be "Lee" who has the scar but it is clearly "Harvey" in both cases. The "very superficial 3/4 inch scratch" has nothing to do with anything. It is just that, a little scratch that he could have received a million ways. Rose missed scars including the mastoid scar. He stated at the time of the exhumation that he could have missed the mastoid scar. If he could have missed one, he could have missed others. In a perfect world he would have been informed of the mastoid operation and every known scar so he would have been on the alert.

Groody was there to embalm the body, not to make an identification. Just because he didn't see a particular scar doesn't mean it wasn't there. Same with the Parkland doctors-they were trying to save his life not look for scars. The craniotomy scar was observed and photographed by the forensic pathologists at the exhumation. The photo is on my website in the post "Paul Groody's Theory".

Yes Tracy, that's why I mentioned it. CE985 is from his stay in Russia.

what I am more curious about is the rest of the information... no Left arm scars at all... nothing from the suicide and nothing from the gunshot wound...

there is also nothing noted on the fact sheet about the left side mastoid scar... If they observed a scar behind the left ear - why not notate it on the autopsy sheet?

Not proof in itself it was not there... but an indication it wasn't.

A grain of sand for sure, but accumulate enough of them and you have the Sahara.

Not saying this is the tablets from the mountain, just that there are some serious conflicts with the information the USMC states and what this autopsy does...

From the USMC height and weight which they supposedly just pulled out of thin air or asked Oswald and wrote whatever he said...

to the descriptions of the wounds... to the inaccessibility of all the Rose and intern photos of the autopsy...