Steven Gaal Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) see post # 18 above @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ I met with Palmer McBride via researcher William Weston. He seemed a real and truthful man......case closed ?? >> H & L true ....... Edited March 27, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 28, 2015 Author Share Posted March 28, 2015 see post # 18 above @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ I met with Palmer McBride via researcher William Weston. He seemed a real and truthful man......case closed ?? >> H & L true ....... Tip of the iceberg as they say. Related a story John told me today... He met a man doing a historical retrospect on the school and teachers including Stripling. He provided John with a complete list of teachers from the 50's. As some were found to have passed on those that he did reach told him to talk with Kudlaty - asst prinipal. Even the principal says to talk to Kudlaty so he calls him. "Did Oswald go to Stripling?" "Yeah" "are you sure?" "Well I gave them his records the day after the assassination". " !!! " stunned. Take care Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Lankford was also involved with LHOs funeral and burial. He seems to have been a “prime mover” in an attempt to have LHOs body cremated, rather than buried. This is reported by morticians Paul Groody and Allen Baumgardner, as well as by Robert Oswald. In fact, the process went so far that cremation forms were actually typed up, although the family members finally decided against it. Why, it must be asked, was Lankford so eager for cremation? I'm bringing this thread back up because I just did an article on Groody. The "prime mover" stuff comes from Groody and his assistant Baumgardner. Lankford was contacted by reporters and stated that cremation was simply an alternative offered to the Oswald family by law enforcement "but the brother, mother and wife didn't want to do it. The (cremation) papers were sent to us." Looks like just more conspiracy theories from Groody to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) This is a verbatim post from a thread pulled towards H&L that needn't have been. I find these points to be some of the more direct to show conflict between the FBI's reporting of the situation and the actual situation. The fact remains that records exist of a small boy being reviewed at Youth House - no where near the boy Lee was. These days on the NYC perm record need not be exact, but they ought to make sense. In a 180 day, 2-90 day - 4.5 month per semester school year, can a portion of one semester be 127 days? and not ANY 127 days but a time that the Pics and Oswalds describe in such contrasting detail as to what happens to Lee, where and when they visit, who they see, where they live, what Marg does... and on and on. Please be clear - H&L from 1952 thru early 1963 had nothing to do with JFK's assassination. What the CIA was doing and why is hard to see, let alone understand. If they can fire a dart which leaves no trace, contemplate and execute some of the grossest atrocities to justify an elusive end... H&L is really so far from the path as to be ridiculed? then shout out to Jon Tidd and from where this post came - the cover-up does indeed continue to this very second. and thank you Steve and Don for having my back.... ampersands and all.. ===================== Lee - I respect your POV and the manner in which you present it. If a certain researcher did not explore the autopsy as completely as he did we may still be accepting the fraudulent xrays and photos as authentic. We may never have gotten around to fathoming that Rear Admiral Galloway would ORDER the doctors to destroy this Best Evidence in favor of evidence that was needed... Could we ever expect to contemplate that JFK's body arrived 90 minutes before it did officially, that he may have even been operated on in the belly of AF-1. That the damage as we now get to see it has literally nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza - yet researchers will still refer to these autopsy conclusions as if they represented the crime and not the conspiracy. Do I need to agree with every page, every speculative conclusion? of course not and I don't. If you've gone to all the work to understand what was offered and conclude it not to be supportive of the final conclusion - BRAVO! That's the beauty of the case and imo the intent of the Conspiracy. Many explanations can be correct. The Evidence offeres a view into history yet only a partial view - the non-governmental efforts of individuals like Lifton and Armstrong adds immeasurably to the knowledge base and to the testing of the theories. I find the wholesale exclusion of marines who would have stayed with LEE in favor of those who were with Harvey very compelling. I find the conflicts in the timelines along with glaring evidence of the same man in two places simultaneously more than "minutia" The acceptance and understanding of H&L requires one to drop their preconceived notions of right and wrong and enter the world of spies, military black ops and the MilitaryIndustrialCongressionalComplex. To firmly conclude it as an "absurdity" with the thinnest of rebuttals does everyone a disservice. I do not happen to subscribe to much of the POST assassination travels of Lee and Harvey as offered by John. Some of it makes sense, most does not TO ME. What that has to do with 10 years prior and the events in NYC, IDK. The boy looking like a scrawny 4'9" at the end of the summer of 1953 when he was 5'4" 115lbs in the winter of 1951 in 6th grade. These are not the same boy: (edit/correction: the 5'4" 115lbs comes from the entrance physical to PS117 in Sept 1952) And John is simply too stupid to know his brother. 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. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. When I started my Mexico work I believed it was LEE who had traveled to Mexico for a number of compelling reasons. Over the past months I come to find that it is possible that LEE was in a car with others going to and from Mexico City - it is alos possible it was not Lee and possible that no one took this trip. It is also most likely that the person the travel is attributed to is not the same person pretending to be Oswald on Sept 27th. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0418a.htm at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother? Mr. PIC - That is correct. So okay Lee, you can point to minutia that you say does not support the H&L conclusion. I feel like I can point to and show mountains of significant evidence which proves it correct. I ask people like Greg to read the book so he can address the topic with some credibility and intelligence, not to spout off ideas he has about doctors in 1945 or school records he cannot comprehend. I do not dismiss his arguments for lack of reading the book - but for lack of substance and source. Whenever he does offer a source - it's wrong and/or does not address the rebuttal he offers. (the boy had a tonsilectomy while the dead man has intact tonsils... did they grow back? well, maybe, if that was the one and only singular piece of evidence which creates a conflict between the boy born Lee Oswald and the man Ruby killed - but it's not. and just like PM by the doorway possibly being Oswald, we use ALL the evidence, not just Brennan's who supposedly puts him in the window and then we call it a done deal) Lee - NYC - he starts school on March 23, 1953 and ends in June. He is at YOUTH HOUSE from April 15 to May 8: 18 school days he is not at PS44 (which btw there were 3 of in NYC at the time, Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx - do you know which one Oswald went to?) The school records show he attends 109 3/2 days and is absent 15 3/2 days. Total 124 6/2 or 127 days. Count forward 127 school days from March 23rd Lee. Count backward from June 26th 127 school days. The most important and controversial time in Oswald's young life - he is just picked up and moved to NYC - and this big, gregarious, leader of boys becomes someone totally different. Shorter, meaner, a loner, a thinker. I will consider any alternative that is supported by some level of evidence or fact... One final word and I'd like to hear your thoughts... CE1384 p699 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0365a.htm is the Permanent Record of Oswald's NYC school career. Except the CE1384 sticker is not on this copy... Below are the three PERM records from NYC schools for Oswald offered as evidence. CE1384 does not match the initial "Perm" record in the middle either. The one on the right is the copy Armstrong found at the Archives...Any reason we have an exhibit in the WCR which not only does not have its designation as an exhibit but is not even on the same form - even though all the information appears to have been copied verbatim. A reasonable explanation with some supporting info would be appreciated. That "mistakes are made" does not account for the wholesale copying of a perm record. More interesting to me is that the middle record would have simply been added to over time - yet the copy on the left side's first column of info is not written in the same hand and the teacher's names from form to form are not the same - among a number of differences. What's much more important are the conflicts with the multiple Oswalds later, after 1962 when they return from Russia. During the summer of 1963 an Oswald is in New Orleans and in Dallas - one has a paper trail, one does not. One also wonders why the kid from the South has completely lost his twang while only having lived in NY for 18 months and the rest of the time back in the south. One wonders. Dear David, Just curious -- how many people do you figure you've converted to your theory over the years? Ten? Fifteen? Thank you, --Tommy And here's another question: How does "Harvey and Lee" theory help us solve the JFK assassination? Let me guess -- "Well, I guess it proves that the CIA did it." --Tommy Edited June 10, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 This is a verbatim post from a thread pulled towards H&L that needn't have been. I find these points to be some of the more direct to show conflict between the FBI's reporting of the situation and the actual situation. The fact remains that records exist of a small boy being reviewed at Youth House - no where near the boy Lee was. These days on the NYC perm record need not be exact, but they ought to make sense. In a 180 day, 2-90 day - 4.5 month per semester school year, can a portion of one semester be 127 days? and not ANY 127 days but a time that the Pics and Oswalds describe in such contrasting detail as to what happens to Lee, where and when they visit, who they see, where they live, what Marg does... and on and on. Please be clear - H&L from 1952 thru early 1963 had nothing to do with JFK's assassination. What the CIA was doing and why is hard to see, let alone understand. If they can fire a dart which leaves no trace, contemplate and execute some of the grossest atrocities to justify an elusive end... H&L is really so far from the path as to be ridiculed? then shout out to Jon Tidd and from where this post came - the cover-up does indeed continue to this very second. and thank you Steve and Don for having my back.... ampersands and all.. ===================== Lee - I respect your POV and the manner in which you present it. If a certain researcher did not explore the autopsy as completely as he did we may still be accepting the fraudulent xrays and photos as authentic. We may never have gotten around to fathoming that Rear Admiral Galloway would ORDER the doctors to destroy this Best Evidence in favor of evidence that was needed... Could we ever expect to contemplate that JFK's body arrived 90 minutes before it did officially, that he may have even been operated on in the belly of AF-1. That the damage as we now get to see it has literally nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza - yet researchers will still refer to these autopsy conclusions as if they represented the crime and not the conspiracy. Do I need to agree with every page, every speculative conclusion? of course not and I don't. If you've gone to all the work to understand what was offered and conclude it not to be supportive of the final conclusion - BRAVO! That's the beauty of the case and imo the intent of the Conspiracy. Many explanations can be correct. The Evidence offeres a view into history yet only a partial view - the non-governmental efforts of individuals like Lifton and Armstrong adds immeasurably to the knowledge base and to the testing of the theories. I find the wholesale exclusion of marines who would have stayed with LEE in favor of those who were with Harvey very compelling. I find the conflicts in the timelines along with glaring evidence of the same man in two places simultaneously more than "minutia" The acceptance and understanding of H&L requires one to drop their preconceived notions of right and wrong and enter the world of spies, military black ops and the MilitaryIndustrialCongressionalComplex. To firmly conclude it as an "absurdity" with the thinnest of rebuttals does everyone a disservice. I do not happen to subscribe to much of the POST assassination travels of Lee and Harvey as offered by John. Some of it makes sense, most does not TO ME. What that has to do with 10 years prior and the events in NYC, IDK. The boy looking like a scrawny 4'9" at the end of the summer of 1953 when he was 5'4" 115lbs in the winter of 1951 in 6th grade. These are not the same boy: (edit/correction: the 5'4" 115lbs comes from the entrance physical to PS117 in Sept 1952) And John is simply too stupid to know his brother. 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. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. When I started my Mexico work I believed it was LEE who had traveled to Mexico for a number of compelling reasons. Over the past months I come to find that it is possible that LEE was in a car with others going to and from Mexico City - it is alos possible it was not Lee and possible that no one took this trip. It is also most likely that the person the travel is attributed to is not the same person pretending to be Oswald on Sept 27th. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0418a.htm at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother? Mr. PIC - That is correct. So okay Lee, you can point to minutia that you say does not support the H&L conclusion. I feel like I can point to and show mountains of significant evidence which proves it correct. I ask people like Greg to read the book so he can address the topic with some credibility and intelligence, not to spout off ideas he has about doctors in 1945 or school records he cannot comprehend. I do not dismiss his arguments for lack of reading the book - but for lack of substance and source. Whenever he does offer a source - it's wrong and/or does not address the rebuttal he offers. (the boy had a tonsilectomy while the dead man has intact tonsils... did they grow back? well, maybe, if that was the one and only singular piece of evidence which creates a conflict between the boy born Lee Oswald and the man Ruby killed - but it's not. and just like PM by the doorway possibly being Oswald, we use ALL the evidence, not just Brennan's who supposedly puts him in the window and then we call it a done deal) Lee - NYC - he starts school on March 23, 1953 and ends in June. He is at YOUTH HOUSE from April 15 to May 8: 18 school days he is not at PS44 (which btw there were 3 of in NYC at the time, Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx - do you know which one Oswald went to?) The school records show he attends 109 3/2 days and is absent 15 3/2 days. Total 124 6/2 or 127 days. Count forward 127 school days from March 23rd Lee. Count backward from June 26th 127 school days. The most important and controversial time in Oswald's young life - he is just picked up and moved to NYC - and this big, gregarious, leader of boys becomes someone totally different. Shorter, meaner, a loner, a thinker. I will consider any alternative that is supported by some level of evidence or fact... One final word and I'd like to hear your thoughts... CE1384 p699 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0365a.htm is the Permanent Record of Oswald's NYC school career. Except the CE1384 sticker is not on this copy... Below are the three PERM records from NYC schools for Oswald offered as evidence. CE1384 does not match the initial "Perm" record in the middle either. The one on the right is the copy Armstrong found at the Archives...Any reason we have an exhibit in the WCR which not only does not have its designation as an exhibit but is not even on the same form - even though all the information appears to have been copied verbatim. A reasonable explanation with some supporting info would be appreciated. That "mistakes are made" does not account for the wholesale copying of a perm record. More interesting to me is that the middle record would have simply been added to over time - yet the copy on the left side's first column of info is not written in the same hand and the teacher's names from form to form are not the same - among a number of differences. What's much more important are the conflicts with the multiple Oswalds later, after 1962 when they return from Russia. During the summer of 1963 an Oswald is in New Orleans and in Dallas - one has a paper trail, one does not. One also wonders why the kid from the South has completely lost his twang while only having lived in NY for 18 months and the rest of the time back in the south. One wonders. Dear David, Just curious -- how many people do you figure you've converted to your theory over the years? Ten? Fifteen? Thank you, --Tommy And here's another question: How does "Harvey and Lee" theory help us solve the JFK assassination? Let me guess -- "Well, I guess it proves that the CIA did it." --Tommy Wow! You guys are REALLY WORRIED about little ole Harvey and Lee!!!??? Whatever you do, folks, DO NOT CLICK THE LINK BELOW: HarveyandLee.net Good golly Miss Molly, PLEASE DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE... Or the one below.... HarveyandLee.net I MEAN, OUR CIA REQUESTS THAT YOU JUST DON'T CLICK ANYTHING, OK? THAT MEANS... NOT HERE EITHER!!! AND THEY REALLY MEAN IT, OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) [...] Dear David Josephs, Just curious -- how many people do you figure you've converted to your theory over the years? Five? Ten? Thank you, --Tommy And here's another question: How does "Harvey and Lee" theory help us solve the JFK assassination? Answer: "Well, it proves that the CIA did it." LOL --Tommy Wow! You guys are REALLY WORRIED about little ole Harvey and Lee!!!??? Whatever you do, folks, DO NOT CLICK THE LINK BELOW: HarveyandLee.net Good golly Miss Molly, PLEASE DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE... Or the one below.... HarveyandLee.net I MEAN, OUR CIA REQUESTS THAT YOU JUST DON'T CLICK ANYTHING, OK? THAT MEANS... NOT HERE EITHER!!! AND THEY REALLY MEAN IT, OK? Jim, No need to overreact. --Tommy Edited June 10, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Right, Tommy, just check out harveyandlee.net, and why not do it RIGHT NOW? --Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 And here's another question: How does "Harvey and Lee" theory help us solve the JFK assassination? Let me guess -- "Well, I guess it proves that the CIA did it." --Tommy First off Tommy - no one is going to SOLVE the JFK assassination... any records that would give any real indication of what occurred are long gone.. All we have related to the actual event is the word of those who were there as told to researchers outside the US government. Hermanio Diaz telling someone he did it who tells another,etc... Circumstantially he may have pulled the trigger and was connected to the CIA/Military/Cuban trifecta (at a minimum) who facilitated the crime. The only solution is that he was killed as the result of a conspiracy which itself was covered up by yet another conspiracy. You think learning about George J. will shed light on solving the crime? Does showing the FBI created the fraudulent Klein's and Mexico City evidence help SOLVe anything factual related to the assassination? IMO, no. It simply shows the extent of the conspiracies involved. ---------- Regarding your specific question... H&L is a study of the EVIDENCE provided by and covered up by the FBI/SS/CIA etc and how that differs from the what independent reseach found.... just like most every one of the JFK books. The Evidence shows a shot to the back which makes the SBT impossible. Salandria saw that immediately. The Evidence shows the autopsy in total was altered and tampered with and then lied about... Lifton The WCR was torn apart by Meager for the pile of lies it is: If closed minds continue to open, to receive and evaluate objectively the facts which are on the record, we may yet proceed to pursue the truth to its ultimate reaches-regardless of attendant dangers and doubts-so that history will know with certainty what happened in Dallas, and why. - Meager It is with this is mind that we look at the Evidence related to Harvey and Lee's existence. One needs to ask how a brother does not recognize his own - and yet is correct when telling H from L in all the photos One needs to ask why a USMC buddy Felde - tells one story while the WC CE1961 offers a differnent one One needs to ask how Lee is seen in the company of Ruby and related characters in Dallas while Harvey is in New Orleans with his family Is all the Evidence planted there to give us the impression there was an H&L? Is the Evidence indicative of someone simply playing the part of Lee Oswald yet helping Ruby and cronies with weapons, gambling and drug running while alos involved with the anti-Castro movement? Was Lee turned into a spook or informant for some group or groups? Why is McKeown talking about an Oswald with an Hispanic looking to buy scoped rifles for an absurd amount of money in early Sept while Harvey is on New Orleans? Seems there was quite a trail of incrimination related to Oswald left behind to be found should the situation warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 David Josephs said: One needs to ask how a brother does not recognize his own - and yet is correct when telling H from L in all the photos Pic had an opportunity to talk to John Armstrong and "spill his guts". He declined. Pic never said that the man in the photos was not his brother-only that he could not recognize those photos as his brother. He was being careful because he was under oath. One needs to ask why a USMC buddy Felde - tells one story while the WC CE1961 offers a differnent one Because Felde was simply mistaken which gave Armstrong an opportunity to work him into his theory. One needs to ask how Lee is seen in the company of Ruby and related characters in Dallas while Harvey is in New Orleans with his family Because again, there will be false sightings in a high profile case and this was as high profile as they come. Actually, the only one who "needs" to ask these questions is a person developing a two Oswald theory since there are other logical explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Lankford was also involved with LHOs funeral and burial. He seems to have been a “prime mover” in an attempt to have LHOs body cremated, rather than buried. This is reported by morticians Paul Groody and Allen Baumgardner, as well as by Robert Oswald. In fact, the process went so far that cremation forms were actually typed up, although the family members finally decided against it. Why, it must be asked, was Lankford so eager for cremation? I'm bringing this thread back up because I just did an article on Groody. The "prime mover" stuff comes from Groody and his assistant Baumgardner. Lankford was contacted by reporters and stated that cremation was simply an alternative offered to the Oswald family by law enforcement "but the brother, mother and wife didn't want to do it. The (cremation) papers were sent to us." Looks like just more conspiracy theories from Groody to me. Gary Mack reminded me of the following by email: There are other explanations why Lankford urged cremation. First and foremost, it was cheaper and it was clear the Oswald family didn't have much, if any, money. But second, there were genuine fears in Fort Worth that the grave site would be violated and the body stolen. Well, no body, no theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Steven Gaal, on 27 Mar 2015 - 07:38 AM, said: Lankford was also involved with LHOs funeral and burial. He seems to have been a “prime mover” in an attempt to have LHOs body cremated, rather than buried. This is reported by morticians Paul Groody and Allen Baumgardner, as well as by Robert Oswald. In fact, the process went so far that cremation forms were actually typed up, although the family members finally decided against it. Why, it must be asked, was Lankford so eager for cremation? ============================================================ Why is ONI LANKFORD involved in the Oswald funeral ANSWER MIKE HOWARD SEE http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2011/11/rufus-taylor-dallas-oni-sa-j-mason.html ============ The tall tales of Mike Howard Posted on May 16, 2013 by vincepalamara = The tall tales of Mike Howard 4/26/64 It was charged here [san Francisco] yesterday that a Dallas Secret Service agent deliberately “planted” a false story about the assassination of President Kennedy. New York attorney Mark Lane .. charged that the phony story was “leaked” to a Ft. Worth reporter on 2/9 to take press attention away from the appearance of Oswald’s mother before the Commission on the following day. [story refers to Negro janitor alleged to have seen Oswald shoot.] 5/9/64 Mark Lane … charged the Secret Service with deliberately planting a false story in the press … According to Lane, the … falsification concerned an article in the 2/10 issue of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram … “The story broke the same day Oswald’s mother was to appear as the first witness on behalf of Lee Oswald. It was obviously calculated to prevent press coverage of any witness who was going to raise doubts about Oswald’s guilt.” National Guardian [story given by Mike Howard, Secret Service, to Thayer Waldo, reporter for the Star-Telegram: a Negro janitor, looking out of a window on the same floor Texas School Book Depository, heard first shot, saw Oswald and was prepared to identify him. AP account of Star-Telegram story filed Chronology, 2/9, 813 to 1143 pcs.] See Secret Service 2/13/64 – AP, 131 aes, Sterling Green 5/9/64 Mark Lane, in a statement to the Guardian 5/4 … said he has learned that a second rifle, not the one attributed to Oswald, was found on the roof of the Texas School Book Depository building the day the President was murdered. [Lane describes meeting between Thayer Waldo, reporter for Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, and Mike Howard, Secret Service agent.] … At one point during their meeting, Waldo asked Mike Howard whether there was any truth to the story that another rifle was found on the roof of the school book building, a story that had previously been denied. Mike Howard replied: “Yes, we found a rifle on the roof, but it was dropped by a Dallas police officer earlier in the day and he forgot to pick it up.” National Guardian==http://vincepalamara.com/2013/05/16/the-tall-tales-of-mike-howard/ ===================================================================== Edited June 11, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/stig-3.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now