Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Rose admittedly missed the mastoid scar, that is why it wasn't noted. But the larger point to me is why has Armstrong never addressed the mastoid issue? I could understand it if his position was that they gave "Harvey" a mastoid operation so he would match "Lee". But he just ignores it.

[Greg Parker]

Rose admittedly missed the mastoid scar, that is why it wasn't noted. But the larger point to me is why has Armstrong never addressed the mastoid issue? I could understand it if his position was that they gave "Harvey" a mastoid operation so he would match "Lee". But he just ignores it.

Tracy, they are just stomping over ground that should be left in peace.

Mastoid scars are all but invisible to the naked eye. That's why Rose missed it at autopsy. It was not missed when the body was exhumed because the epidermis had decayed, revealing the underlying scar. Science trumps voodoo Harvey dolls and magic scars and magic teeth every single time.

[Greg Parker]

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

David, I think you may have just invented a whole new logical fallacy.

What Odio told the Warren Commission about how "Leon" was introduced to her has no bearing on what she did or did not tell the padre about that.

It wasn't JUST the padre, it was also her psychiatrist and her uncle - all saying the same thing - Odio did not claim to them that the person was introduced to her as "Leon Oswald".

So were they all lying, or not?

ps

Please please please go and take a course in logic! And take the others with you...

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Rose admittedly missed the mastoid scar, that is why it wasn't noted. But the larger point to me is why has Armstrong never addressed the mastoid issue? I could understand it if his position was that they gave "Harvey" a mastoid operation so he would match "Lee". But he just ignores it.

Tracy, they are just stomping over ground that should be left in peace.

Mastoid scars are all but invisible to the naked eye. That's why Rose missed it at autopsy. It was not missed when the body was exhumed because the epidermis had decayed, revealing the underlying scar. Science trumps voodoo Harvey dolls and magic scars and magic teeth every single time.

Right Greg, they try to make the scar as un-noticeable as possible. If I remember correctly, they also removed some of the bone and this also made it easy to spot during the exhumation.

[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.

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.

I can see the Copenhagen Interpretation being cited in defense of all doppelganger witnesses henceforth.

[Thomas Graves]

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.

I can see the Copenhagen Interpretation being cited in defense of all doppelganger witnesses henceforth.

Oops. You might have let the (dead?) cat out of the bag.

--Tommy

Edited June 11, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

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

David, I think you may have just invented a whole new logical fallacy.

What Odio told the Warren Commission about how "Leon" was introduced to her has no bearing on what she did or did not tell the padre about that.

It wasn't JUST the padre, it was also her psychiatrist and her uncle - all saying the same thing - Odio did not claim to them that the person was introduced to her as "Leon Oswald".

So were they all lying, or not?

ps

Please please please go and take a course in logic! And take the others with you...

So basically what Odio says in her testimony when asked whether she told Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used, she said it was not EXCEPT for to introduce me and the time they left.

Below this testimony excerpt is CE2943 regarding the interview with Father McChann where Oswald is mentioned both times in reference to what Odio tells him verbally and in a letter

Where do you get the impression or the evidence which states that the Father said she did not mention the Oswald name?

What you actually claim is that "he told them that SHE NEVER HEARD THE NAME OSWALD USED BY THESE MEN... " which assumes she said to the Father she NEVER HEARD THEM USE THE NAME OSWALD which we both know is not true.

So, where do you get that impression ? From what evidence does that originate?

This is the evidence I have which states exactly what Odio told the Father... where's your evidence for why his interview summary report mentiond that "ODIO INFORMED HIM (father McC) THAT A GROUP OF CUBANS HAD BROUGHT OSWALD TO HER APARTMENT" and then repeats it in a letter?

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.

Part 2 - Where would David Slawson get the idea that she was introduced to and knew the name "LEON OSWALD" if it was never mentioned?

Finally, She says the same thing in her testimony about what she told the FBI as what McChann said she told him about meeting LEON OSWALD,,,,

Mr. LIEBELER. My record indicates that on December 18, 1963, you were interviewed by two agents of the FBI, Mr. James P. Hoary and Bardwell D. Odum. Do you remember that?

Mrs. ODIO. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER It is my understanding that they interviewed you at your place of work, is that correct?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER Do you remember approximately what they asked you and what you told them?

Mrs. ODIO. I think I remember. Not exactly, but I think I can recall the conversation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you give us the content of that conversation, as best you can recall

Mrs. ODIO. They told me they were coming because of the assassination of President Kennedy, that they had news that I knew or I had known Lee Harvey Oswald. And I told them that I had not known him as Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald. And they showed me a picture of Oswald and a picture of Ruby. I did not know Ruby, but I did recall Oswald. They asked me about my activities in JURE. That is the Junta Revolutionary, and it is led by Manolo Ray. I told him that I did belong to this organization because my father and mother had belonged in Cuba, and I had seen him (Ray) in Puerto recently, and that I knew him personally, and that I did belong to JURE. They asked me about the members here in Dallas, and I told him a few names of the Cubans here. They asked me to tell the story about what happened in my house.

And this line has never changed either....

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

Greg - if you have any evidence which shows what she told the psychiatrist and her uncle which proves what you are claiming, post it. Your post about your amazement over whether a man of the cloth would ever lie about such a thing assumes you know what she said to him... which from your posts you obviously had no idea, or do have an idea and chose to hide it - again.

PROVE any of what you offer as a conclusion is true to begin with... as I posted, you make assumptions about what the evidence MIGHT have said and then run with it as if you've found some FACT when in reality it has been only a fact in your mind which comes with no supporting evidence... only the Faith Factor...

Until you actually post a single thing that supports any of your "factual conclusions built on a foundation of assumed facts rather than proven ones" why should anyone believe a word you post?

[Greg Parker]

Not playing this game, David. It's all been posted already.

[Jim Hargrove]

Harvey and Lee

By W. Tracy Parnell

Armstrongs book debunked

Tracy Parnell covers a number of topics in his effort to "debunk" Harvey and Lee. I'll be taking a look at more of his points in the coming days and weeks, but for now I'm going to concentrate on the topic he writes at most length about--handwriting samples of "Lee Harvey Oswald" and what the experts had to say about them.

For this, Tracy relies entirely on the HSCA, the same crew that told us 26 Bethesda witnesses claimed JFK's head wounds agreed with the autopsy findings, then announced that the interviews of these 26 witnesses would be kept secret for 50 years, and then had to scurry like rats when the interviews were released early, showing that all the witnesses had actually disagreed with the autopsy report.

In his report about the testimony of three HSCA handwriting experts, Tracy fails to inform us that all three experts complained that they were examining photographs (or photographs of photographs) instead of original documents. Virtually all experts in questioned documents agree that examiners should always insist on seeing originals, since on photographic copies it is far too easy to cut and paste elements of a forgery and then eliminate all traces of alteration.

One of the three HSCA handwriting experts, David J. Purtell, testified this way: "...it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method." [8 HSCA 239]

Back in 2011, EF member Gil Jesus made the following post about the obvious shortcomings of the HSCA's methodology.

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

Two experts gave testimony to the WC concerning questioned documents: Alwyn Cole and James C. Cadigan. Cole apprenticed as a questioned document examiner for 6 years, from 1929 to 1935, and had been an examiner of questioned documents for the U.S. Treasury Department since then. Cadigan had been a questioned document examiner with the FBI for 23.5 years, following a specialized course of training and instruction. Both had testified many times in Federal and States courts. ( WCR, App. X, pg. 566 ) Their conclusions were identical. The mail order and envelope for the C2766 rifle were photographed by Klein's on microfilm, and then destroyed. ( ibid., pg. 569 )

The money order was never microfilmed.

In his testimony, Cadigan was careful to say that CADIGAN 11 had been prepared by LHO and NOT CE 788. The reason he said it that way is because Cadigan never compared the ORIGINAL, CE 788, to Oswald's handwriting. He compared a PHOTOGRAPH of CE 788, which was Cadigan 11. ( 7 H 423 )

Likewise, Cole examined a COPY of the original, which is CE 789, and not the original, CE 788. ( 4 H 374 )

In fact, ALL of the Commission's handwriting examinations, by BOTH Cadigan and Cole were made of PHOTOGRAPHS of the original exhibits, not the exhibits themselves. In addition, since each handwriting expert was not trained in photographic processing, the photographs they examined were not made by the examiners themselves, but rather "under their supervision".

Meaning someone else.

And because someone else was involved in the "creation" of this evidence, the person or persons responsible for that creation also created a chain of custody of the evidence.

Unfortunately, the chain of custody of those photos was never ESTABLISHED because those "under their supervision" remained unnamed, never marked the photos after they processed them and were never called to testify and identify the photos as the ones they took or to describe the technical processes they used in creating them.

And for that matter, neither Cole nor Cadigan was asked any technical questions about the photos even though they admitted supervising their creation. Instead of photographic technicians, the legitimacy of the photographs were confirmed VISUALLY by the examiners, Cadigan and Cole.

In spite of the lack of a chain of custody, the Commission did what it usually did numerous times in its hearings and accepted ALL of the photographs as evidence and designated them as exhibits.

Both Cole and Cadigan testified that the photographs they examined were clear enough to permit an identification through examination. Their opinions covered both the copies of the standards ( the known handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald ) and the copies of the questioned documents, like the money order.

WHY NOT COPIES ?

Likewise, the House Select Committee on Assassinations examined the Oswald handwriting in 1978 using a three member panel consisting of Joseph P. McNally, David J. Purtell, and Charles C. Scott.

The conclusions of the HSCA handwriting panel indicate that there are problems with comparing copies with originals.

Scott concluded that while all of the original handwriting purported to be Oswald's was made by the same person, only a "tentative opinion" could be reached as to the reproductions. ( 8 HSCA 247 )

McNally agreed, saying that while the writing on the envelope and the money order matched, there was a caveat ( condition ) that the writing on the envelope was a photo reproduction from microfilm. ( 4 HSCA 355 )

Earlier he explained why the conditional identification when discussing the panel's examination of Oswald's Cuban visa application. He said that because it was not an original document, it "could not be examined microscopically". ( ibid. )

During his testimony, McNally was forced to admit that copies were never as good as originals for handwriting comparison:

Mr. FAUNTROY. Are photocopies as good as original handwriting for analysis purposes?

Mr. McNALLY. No, never.

( 2 HSCA 393 )

BTW, the money order ( Item 29 in 8 HSCA 230 ) which was examined by both McNally and Purtell was described as a XEROX COPY. ( 8 HSCA 234, 239 ) Purtell described it as a Xerox copy of a microfilm copy. ( 239 )

IOW, a copy of a copy.

In his examination of the "Dear Mr. Hunt " letter, McNally said that it would not be "particularly difficult" to forge Oswald's signature.

Mr. MCNALLY. ....Oswald's general writing pattern is simple and tends to be rather legible, and to turn out something like that would be not particularly difficult.

( 4 H 360 )

On the next page, he described HOW Oswald's signature could be faked:

Mr. McNALLY. ......It could very well be a situation where this thing has been patched together from original writing of Oswald. It can be done using a photo reproduction process.

( 4 HSCA 361 )

Purtell explained the process further, adding that the final product would be "reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration" :

"....it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method."

( 8 HSCA 239 )

And THAT'S why you don't use COPIES when comparing handwriting.

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

Although as an organization it doesn't deserve much defense, the HSCA probably had little choice but to supply its experts with b&w copies instead of original documents. Back in 1963 and 1964, the FBI convinced Warren Commissioners to accept COPIES of almost all documentary evidence in the case, copies that, in the opinion of the HSCA's own handwriting experts, could be altered in any way desired with no remaining trace of the changes.

Tracy Parnell called his article, "The Handwriting is on the Wall." Perhaps "The Handwriting is Off the Wall" was a better description. How unfortunate for all of us that the handwriting was not on the original documents.

[Jim Hargrove]

The FBI gave the Warren Commission photographic copies of documents rather than originals, and the HSCA's own expert witnesses explained how copies can be manipulated to "prove" whatever is wanted. Now the question becomes, Would the FBI lie and cheat to prove whatever it wanted? And the answer, then and now, is a resounding yes.

Look at the evidence from this year alone....

"Pseudoscience in the Witness Box: The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science," is the headline from the April 22, 2015 online edition of Slate Magazine.

The same Slate article quoted a Washington Post story of a few days earlier, which stated: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

Things look pretty bad for the FBI recently, but how about in earlier days? Surely they were better then, right?

Of course not.... Remember the Frederick Whitehurst scandal from the 1990s? Whitehurst was one of the Bureau's top scientists, and he complained for more than a decade toward the end of the last century about the FBI's vaunted crime lab faking evidence and slanting it toward the prosecution. According to the Feb. 27, 1998 edition of CNN:

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

For 10 years Whitehurst complained mostly in vain about lab practices. But his efforts finally led last April to a scathing 500-page study of the lab by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.

Bromwich blasted the famed lab for flawed scientific work and inaccurate, pro-prosecution testimony in major cases, including the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings.

Bromwich recommended major reforms, discipline for five agents that is still under consideration and transfer of Whitehurst to other duties.

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

Whitehurst, of course, was pilloried endlessly by defenders of the FBI, eventually resulting in the award of more than a million dollars to Whitehurst as compensation, and a new federal law protecting whistleblowers!

So... for a quarter century and probably more, the FBI has clearly been cooking the evidence to favor the prosecution. But that didn't happen back in the good ole' days, right? Not when J. Edgar was in charge.

William Sullivan (a top-ranking FBI official) said, "Hoover did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence. He showed a marked interest in limiting the scope of it and taking any action which might result in neutralizing it."* He added, "If there were documents that possibly he (Hoover) didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those docu­ments no longer exist, and the truth will never be known."**

NOTES:

* Interview of William Sullivan by Robert Fink, November, 1975; Memo from James P. Kelly to G. Robert Blakey, 11/18/77; HSCA 108-10112-10133, Numbered Files 003406

** Ibid.

For detailed information on how the FBI cooked the books in the case against "Lee Harvey Oswald", CLICK HERE.

[Steven Gaal]

The FBI gave the Warren Commission photographic copies of documents rather than originals, and the HSCA's own expert witnesses explained how copies can be manipulated to "prove" whatever is wanted. Now the question becomes, Would the FBI lie and cheat to prove whatever it wanted? And the answer, then and now, is a resounding yes.

Look at the evidence from this year alone....

"Pseudoscience in the Witness Box: The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science," is the headline from the April 22, 2015 online edition of Slate Magazine.

The same Slate article quoted a Washington Post story of a few days earlier, which stated: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

Things look pretty bad for the FBI recently, but how about in earlier days? Surely they were better then, right?

Of course not.... Remember the Frederick Whitehurst scandal from the 1990s? Whitehurst was one of the Bureau's top scientists, and he complained for more than a decade toward the end of the last century about the FBI's vaunted crime lab faking evidence and slanting it toward the prosecution. According to the Feb. 27, 1998 edition of CNN:

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

For 10 years Whitehurst complained mostly in vain about lab practices. But his efforts finally led last April to a scathing 500-page study of the lab by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.

Bromwich blasted the famed lab for flawed scientific work and inaccurate, pro-prosecution testimony in major cases, including the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings.

Bromwich recommended major reforms, discipline for five agents that is still under consideration and transfer of Whitehurst to other duties.

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

Whitehurst, of course, was pilloried endlessly by defenders of the FBI, eventually resulting in the award of more than a million dollars to Whitehurst as compensation, and a new federal law protecting whistleblowers!

So... for a quarter century and probably more, the FBI has clearly been cooking the evidence to favor the prosecution. But that didn't happen back in the good ole' days, right? Not when J. Edgar was in charge.

William Sullivan (a top-ranking FBI official) said, "Hoover did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence. He showed a marked interest in limiting the scope of it and taking any action which might result in neutralizing it."* He added, "If there were documents that possibly he (Hoover) didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those docu­ments no longer exist, and the truth will never be known."**

NOTES:

* Interview of William Sullivan by Robert Fink, November, 1975; Memo from James P. Kelly to G. Robert Blakey, 11/18/77; HSCA 108-10112-10133, Numbered Files 003406

** Ibid.

For detailed information on how the FBI cooked the books in the case against "Lee Harvey Oswald", CLICK HERE.

None of this, and also Armstrong's article points to actual fabrication/falsification of LHO signature. I really find all this stuff rather manipulative in making people believe something happened when there is zero evidence in place that directly supports what you state..

That page you link to is terrible, and I mean terrible...

there is good reason to believe that FBI Director Hoover learned about the CIA's “Oswald project” show me

For example, LEE Oswald would not have approached Robert McKeown, a former gun-runner and close friend of Fidel Castro, and attempted to purchase rifles from him without orders (probably from the CIA's David Phillips). show me

The orders probably originated with his CIA handlers (David Phillips, Mexico City), and were given to someone with close connections to the FBI, perhaps Guy Bannister in New Orleans show me

HARVEY may have been told that he could help the FBI by starting a local FPCC chapter and recruiting new members, while working for the Bureau as an undercover confidential informant. show me

If Oswald was working undercover for the FBI this could explain why, after arrested in New Orleans, he spoke with FBI agent John Lester Quigley for an hour and a half. show me that BIG IF

Oswald may have thought his assignment as an undercover confidential informant was to identify and report Castro sympathizers to the FBI show me

But the real reason for the CIA to initiate (HARVEY) Oswald's undercover assignment was to have him working for the FBI on November 22, 1963. show me

Hoover knew that HARVEY Oswald was working for the CIA when he “defected” to the Soviet Union. show me

And now, on the day President Kennedy was assassinated, HARVEY Oswald was not only a CIA asset but was also probably working undercover for the FBI. Probably? Show me!

I stopped reading for obvious reasons, you know people read these threads and it is time they understand that H&L is filled to the brim with speculation and conjecture and the whole thing is sexed up.

No offence but you guys are getting pushed further and further in the corner, and it is not a pretty sight.

********************************************************************

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

LHO had a Social Security Number that did not reflect correct age or location at age 15 and a half GAAL

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

We have already looked at the testimony of Frances Knight (Passport Chairperson) regarding this issue, but the Warren Commission (WC) also called Abram Chayes who was a legal advisor to the State Department. Here is an exchange on this topic (again, keep in mind, the issue of a passport being issued is very relevant as IF LHO did NOT get issued one he could NOT shoot JFK (if you believe the WC’s conclusion)).

===

Representative Ford. Would you in the June determination have had the files from the Department of State which showed that on October 31 Oswald walked into the American Embassy.

Mr. Chayes. Oh, yes.

Representative Ford. And said "I, Lee Harvey Oswald, do hereby request that my present citizenship in the United States of America be revoked."

Mr. Chayes. Oh, yes; the entire file.

Representative Ford. And would it also have had the one of November 3d where he said "I, Lee Harvey Oswald, do hereby request that my present United States citizenship be revoked"?

Mr. Chayes. Yes; it would have had all of that.

Representative Ford. It would have had all of that?

Mr. Chayes. Yes.

Representative Ford. And it would have had the----

Mr. Chayes. But it would also have had the determination that he had to expatriate himself and that he was an American citizen. I, myself, doubt that an abortive attempt at expatriation would, certainly without more, warrant the denial of a passport to a person who was in fact a citizen.

An “abortive attempt” he says? Does this sound like an abortive attempt? Go to CE-920 and read this:

=

In this document you will see it says LHO requested that his US citizenship be REVOKED and came to the consulate office of the US Embassy to SIGN THE FORMAL PAPERS, but was REFUSED by the Embassy. This clearly shows LHO did NOT “expatriate” himself ONLY because the US government wouldn’t allow him to!

He even is writing a PROTEST to the US government and mentions that he has “an application, requesting that I be considered for citizenship in the Soviet Union, is now pending before the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.” Does that sound like someone who does NOT want to get rid of their US citizenship and expatriate himself? It sure does to me. OR, more to the point, he is an INTELLIGENCE operative running a scam for the Soviet listeners.

If we go to CE-919 and read that it seems simple to do.

=

It says, “As you were informed at the time of your visit to the Embassy on October 31, 1959, it is a principal of the American Government that the right of expatriation is a natural AND INHERENT RIGHT of any person and that the manner prescribed by law for renunciation of American citizenship is the execution of an oath before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in the established form.” (emphasis added)

=

So, it seems it only took an oath at the Embassy before a diplomatic or consular officer to renounce one’s citizenship, thus, the question has to be asked, why was LHO trying to fill out paperwork to do this? He even says in his letter that he was refused his LEGAL RIGHT. Why? Who did NOT want LHO to renounce his citizenship? Or was he play acting again? Either scenario shows there were bigger plans for LHO even then and his return to the US was necessary.

What did Mr. Chayes mean by this comment?

=

Mr. Dulles. Is it not correct though that when you were trying to get the visa for Mrs. Oswald, you made a very strong case that his continued residence in the Soviet Union was harmful to the foreign policy of the United States, or words to that effect?

Mr. Chayes. Well, we were very anxious to get him back and I think that is right. In a sense we had him on our hands then. We were in discussion with him. He was in the Embassy and he was very directly our responsibility, so that anything that he did or that went wrong during that period, he was under our protection and we were necessarily involved.

=

If he went back as a tourist and got into some trouble of some kind or another, we would then have the choice I think to get involved, and we might or might not. The situation it seems to me is different when a fellow is already in trouble and you have taken steps to put the U.S. Embassy in the picture. Then you have a special responsibility if anything goes off the track and you want to take whatever steps you can to shorten the time in which you are bearing that special responsibility.

==

Get him back from what? Was he saying they were glad to have him back from Russia? IF so, why? He was a disaffected LONER supposedly! Also note how his staying in the USSR was "harmful to diplomatic relations" between our countries. The SAME thing would be said about looking into a CONSPIRACY by LBJ's aide to Henry Wade! It seems this was the code term then as "National Security" is now.

I think that is what he saying because this was the NEXT question.

=

Representative Ford. I think, Mr. Chayes, however, you are saying or you are inferring that it was a clear-cut decision back when it was determined that he had not given up his United States citizenship.

Mr. Chayes. It was in July of 1961, when his passport was renewed. We couldn't have had a passport renewal if there weren't such a determination, and in fact there was such a determination.

Representative Ford. There was such a determination?

Mr. Chayes. Yes, sir.

=

Of course he had NOT given up his US citizenship since it was just shown he was NOT ALLOWED TO! This kept the door open for his return to the US. Why would the US want a “sociopath” (the WC’s word) back in the US and then NOT debrief him supposedly?

Again, all of this leads one to believe LHO was on a mission and not really trying to defect as claimed. ONLY the CIA was running a mission like this, and this shows us LHO was anything but a “loner” as claimed by the WC.

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

http://whokilledjfk.net/lho.htm

=

We know that the State Department Loaned him the money for the return trip back to the United States.

I also have on video tape that the CIA supplied their Assets with Minox Cameras.

A Minox Camera was found among Oswald's possessions after his arrest. (See Spy Stuff Page)

WHY would a Repatriated Defector continue to wear his Marine Corps Ring and his Marine Corps I D Bracelet? Oswald was wearing them when he was arrested.

I can understand a U S Marine Corps Private contracting a Venarial Disease while stationed at a Top Secret U-2 Base.

What I can NOT understand is that it was contracted "In The Line of Duty"???

HOW could a Defector work on Highly Classified material?? (below) (DURING THE MISSLE CRISES)

lho.ht7.jpg

Oct. of '62 was the Missle crises. WHAT was Oswald,s Job? see below

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

As you can tell from my bio, I work at Southern Methodist University ("SMU"). When I moved to Dallas in 1999 I got a job at SMU's Center for Media & Instructional Technology ("CMIT"). The CMIT media librarian at the time (introduced to me as "Judy Childs") was in fact Judy Chiles, wife of Bill Chiles, part owner of Jaggars Chiles Stovall.

Well, you know, when I found that out I just went through the roof! So at one of our Chritmas parties, I approached Bill (who is a sweet guy) and I asked him point blank about Lee Harvey Oswald working for his company.

Bill stated that Oswald was generally a crappy employee, that we wore thick black military-type boots, was surly, and to the concern of Bill at least, walked around speaking in Russian.

Since they did some work for the US Government, Bill was concerned about this guy enough to call the FBI. Bill told the FBI that this guy named Oswald was clunking around in military boots, speaking in Russian and making a nuisance of himself. Bill said the FBI put him on hold, and then came back with (and I am paraphrasing here) "...yeah, we know about Oswald, he's okay."

For what it's worth.

Rob

Edited June 12, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

What on earth has this got to do what I just asked for?

Bill said the FBI put him on hold, and then came back with (and I am paraphrasing here) "...yeah, we know about Oswald, he's okay."

For what it's worth.

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

LHO is OK with the FBI to work on Highly Classified material. even though >>>>>>>>>> walked around speaking in Russian.

LHO had a Social Security Number that did not reflect correct age or location at age 15 and a half (SS given to him because he is intell asset at 15 half. (GAAL)

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

THIS EARTH == PLANET EARTH TO BART........ PLANET EARTH TO BART ========== not rocket science

Edited June 12, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[David Josephs]

Not playing this game, David. It's all been posted already.

Can't play cause you've already lost... Odio's words and the evidence which follows is fairly easy to follow Greg... why you continue to make it so hard by misstating what she said, repeatedly, is a mystery.

I can post example after example of how you twist the evidence to suit your assumptions... you do it on every virtually every... then you build on a base of wrong conclusions and then bring your grown-up voice when challenged.

no matter how hard you try though mate, you can't change what the evidence says or reveals... or how badly you misinterpret it...

But it sure is fun to watch you keep trying....

You never did address why you cherry-pick one sentence and exclude the very next which completely negates your conclusion in order to promote an opinion... (oops, the question is its own answer)

Can't stand it when you're called on your bluff to post examples of your work twisting the facts and evidence as requested? Stay on topic Greg, you asked and I delivered... You slink away. (Cointelpro tactics)

That's what bullies who are called on their "toughness" do... every time.

So where is your pithy and witty reply to the count of days you did, including the summer, to arrive at the same totals as the FBI who created this doc in the first place?...

Still can't wrap you head around the fact the records are a poor representation of an attempt to combine school records into one person... and you simply can't understand what happened...

How could the FBI be so stupid, right? Cause in 1963 no one thought anyone would bother looking... the entirety of the WCR is based on the assumption no one would read it or bother to...

They were wrong.

It is STILL not possible to have 125+ days of school in a semester let alone less than a semester... so you keep adding and subtracting till you find something that works while anyone else who can add

sees the inherent problems with these records...

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim Hargrove said:

The FBI gave the Warren Commission photographic copies of documents rather than originals, and the HSCA's own expert witnesses explained how copies can be manipulated to "prove" whatever is wanted. Now the question becomes, Would the FBI lie and cheat to prove whatever it wanted? And the answer, then and now, is a resounding yes.

I don't have time right now to answer this or the previous post in detail. I would just point out that nothing on your web page proves the FBI did anything to the documents. You suggest they had them so they could have done something to them. But you have no proof of this. Of course, the minute the FBI or whoever has something that helps the H&L theory, that person or entity suddenly becomes as good as gold. Lurkers can go here for an example (second half of the article), in this case involving the "fake" Marguerite, who according to Armstrong was normally the biggest xxxx in the world:

http://wtracyparnell.com/marguerite-and-the-fort-worth-press/

[David Josephs]

The FBI gave the Warren Commission photographic copies of documents rather than originals, and the HSCA's own expert witnesses explained how copies can be manipulated to "prove" whatever is wanted. Now the question becomes, Would the FBI lie and cheat to prove whatever it wanted? And the answer, then and now, is a resounding yes.

Look at the evidence from this year alone....

"Pseudoscience in the Witness Box: The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science," is the headline from the April 22, 2015 online edition of Slate Magazine.

The same Slate article quoted a Washington Post story of a few days earlier, which stated: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

Things look pretty bad for the FBI recently, but how about in earlier days? Surely they were better then, right?

Of course not.... Remember the Frederick Whitehurst scandal from the 1990s? Whitehurst was one of the Bureau's top scientists, and he complained for more than a decade toward the end of the last century about the FBI's vaunted crime lab faking evidence and slanting it toward the prosecution. According to the Feb. 27, 1998 edition of CNN:

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

For 10 years Whitehurst complained mostly in vain about lab practices. But his efforts finally led last April to a scathing 500-page study of the lab by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.

Bromwich blasted the famed lab for flawed scientific work and inaccurate, pro-prosecution testimony in major cases, including the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings.

Bromwich recommended major reforms, discipline for five agents that is still under consideration and transfer of Whitehurst to other duties.

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

Whitehurst, of course, was pilloried endlessly by defenders of the FBI, eventually resulting in the award of more than a million dollars to Whitehurst as compensation, and a new federal law protecting whistleblowers!

So... for a quarter century and probably more, the FBI has clearly been cooking the evidence to favor the prosecution. But that didn't happen back in the good ole' days, right? Not when J. Edgar was in charge.

William Sullivan (a top-ranking FBI official) said, "Hoover did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence. He showed a marked interest in limiting the scope of it and taking any action which might result in neutralizing it."* He added, "If there were documents that possibly he (Hoover) didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those docu­ments no longer exist, and the truth will never be known."**

NOTES:

* Interview of William Sullivan by Robert Fink, November, 1975; Memo from James P. Kelly to G. Robert Blakey, 11/18/77; HSCA 108-10112-10133, Numbered Files 003406

** Ibid.

For detailed information on how the FBI cooked the books in the case against "Lee Harvey Oswald", CLICK HERE.

None of this, and also Armstrong's article points to actual fabrication/falsification of LHO signature. I really find all this stuff rather manipulative in making people believe something happened when there is zero evidence in place that directly supports what you state..

That page you link to is terrible, and I mean terrible...

there is good reason to believe that FBI Director Hoover learned about the CIA's “Oswald project” show me

For example, LEE Oswald would not have approached Robert McKeown, a former gun-runner and close friend of Fidel Castro, and attempted to purchase rifles from him without orders (probably from the CIA's David Phillips). show me

The orders probably originated with his CIA handlers (David Phillips, Mexico City), and were given to someone with close connections to the FBI, perhaps Guy Bannister in New Orleans show me

HARVEY may have been told that he could help the FBI by starting a local FPCC chapter and recruiting new members, while working for the Bureau as an undercover confidential informant. show me

If Oswald was working undercover for the FBI this could explain why, after arrested in New Orleans, he spoke with FBI agent John Lester Quigley for an hour and a half. show me that BIG IF

Oswald may have thought his assignment as an undercover confidential informant was to identify and report Castro sympathizers to the FBI show me

But the real reason for the CIA to initiate (HARVEY) Oswald's undercover assignment was to have him working for the FBI on November 22, 1963. show me

Hoover knew that HARVEY Oswald was working for the CIA when he “defected” to the Soviet Union. show me

And now, on the day President Kennedy was assassinated, HARVEY Oswald was not only a CIA asset but was also probably working undercover for the FBI. Probably? Show me!

I stopped reading for obvious reasons, you know people read these threads and it is time they understand that H&L is filled to the brim with speculation and conjecture and the whole thing is sexed up.

No offence but you guys are getting pushed further and further in the corner, and it is not a pretty sight.

Bart...

Not sure it is fair to go see one page of thousands related to H&L and make these claims. This is not some neat little box which can be wrapped up for you... this is akin to studying the WCR and finding its conflicts - which is the basis for the H&L book to begin with....

For example, "Showing You" that the Kleins evidence is a fraud takes some undersatanding of the background info...

"The answer was likely because ...." Is how the last sentence from that paragraph begins before you turned on your quotes. "LIKELY" along with words like, "Possibly" "Probably" & "IF" tell people who read them that the following is speculation based on the evidence found and reseach done... that the author, like the Parker Radionics assumptions, are his best explanation for what he is explaining.

So when evidence such as the following surfaces - the assumption one can make after authenticating the evidence is that Oswald was doing work via Bannister for the FBI - where it is then speculated that as a CIA connected asset, his being associated with the FBI would virtually guarantee cooperation from the FBI. Hoover hated the CIA yet still provided them CYA via the evidence related to Mexico... why would he do that if he had a choice?

Bannister's investigator, George Higgenbotham, told Bannister that he saw Oswald and another young man handing out FPCC leaflets in front of the Trade Mart. Bannister replied, “Cool it. One of them is mine.” Bannister told his secretary, Delphine Roberts, “He's with us, he's associated with this office.” Mrs. Roberts said, “I presumed then, and am now certain, that the reason for Oswald being there was that he was required to act undercover.” Oswald's leaf-letting was filmed by an FBI agent with a 35 mm camera. WDSU-TV cameraman Orvie Aucoin, an active FBI informant, filmed Oswald as he passed out leaflets. CIA agent William Gaudet watched Oswald hand out literature from his office in the Trade Mart. If Oswald was working undercover for the FBI this could explain why, after arrested in New Orleans, he spoke with FBI agent John Lester Quigley for an hour and a half.

Can you say with 100% certainty how many bullets hit JFK? JC? How many fired from the front versus the rear? Or can we only speculate based on the evidence available to us...

"The Throat was an entrace wound" then becomes a speculative statement regardless of how crazy the SBT sounds since the evidence for a frontal shot remains speculative... we can try and SHOW YOU why this is true, but there is nothing definitive, nothing which cannot be argued against... it's just an accepted speculative FACT of the case from a Conspiracy Realist's POV... like Oswald being connected to Intel be it Military, CIA or FBI.

Whether you believe Jean Hill or not... her EVIDENCE suggests that shots came from the Knoll... as did the evidence of a large number of witnesses...

WCD298 is the FBI lying about that and all the other evidence related to the shooting while CE884 is the SS doing the same.

So I ask in all sincerety for which of the above statements would you like me to SHOW YOU the supporting evidence ? Pick one and then we can move on...

I think the above related to Bannister gives some indication that Oswald was working with Intel in New Orleans and was representing himself to be one thing while working with those representing another...

At the same time there are multiple sighting os Lee Oswald and Ruby together in Dallas all that summer...

I'll do whatever I can to help people understand were and how H&L was derived and post the evidence which points us in that direction... take it or leave it.

There are those who still believe that the Parkland wounds and Bethesda wounds are the same AND there was a conspiracy... to each their own Bart.

Unlike JVB, John could care less about selling books... H&L is a launching point - if you find it to be supportive of a way to view the events, fine. If not, fine as well...

The only thing I take issue with is the rebuttal posting of speculation without a hint of supporting evidence or outright misrepresentation of the info.

No matter how hard anyone tries, they cannot get 127 days of school into less than a semester when an entire school year is 180-190 days... in the one year in which all these changes and switches are occurring...

Bart, I have a quesation for you

Can you explain how a 5'4" 115lb boy in Sept of 1953 can be this same 4'10" little runt of a boy in a photo from just a month earlier - Aug 1953 - which his brother Pic tells us he cannot ID this boy as his brother?