Greg Parker Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 From HardlyLee.nut On October 21, as his VISA was about to expire, Oswald met with an official with the Passport and Visa Department who advised him to "go home." That evening, in his hotel room, he cut his left wrist in a futile attempt at suicide. The doctor who examined HARVEY at Botkinskaya Hospital wrote, "A 'show' suicide,' since he was refused political asylum, which he had been demanding." After a few days in the hospital HARVEY Oswald was taken to the passport office on October 28. Three days later he attempted to renounce his US citizenship at the US Embassy, an incident that was soon reported in various newspapers in the US. The Ft. Worth Star Telegram wrote about his "defection," but they published a photograph of LEE Oswald--not HARVEY. This was because people who had grown up with LEE Oswald in Ft. Worth may have recognized LEE Oswald's photo, but they would not have recognized a photo of HARVEY Oswald. The Fort Worth Star Telegram Published LEE's Picture when HARVEY "Defected" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does anyone actually believe this is the photo used in the Star-Telegram story? Can we go to a whole page on a site showing this? A site that has nothing to do with HardlyLee.nut?
David Lifton Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 (edited) From HardlyLee.nut On October 21, as his VISA was about to expire, Oswald met with an official with the Passport and Visa Department who advised him to "go home." That evening, in his hotel room, he cut his left wrist in a futile attempt at suicide. The doctor who examined HARVEY at Botkinskaya Hospital wrote, "A 'show' suicide,' since he was refused political asylum, which he had been demanding." After a few days in the hospital HARVEY Oswald was taken to the passport office on October 28. Three days later he attempted to renounce his US citizenship at the US Embassy, an incident that was soon reported in various newspapers in the US. The Ft. Worth Star Telegram wrote about his "defection," but they published a photograph of LEE Oswald--not HARVEY. This was because people who had grown up with LEE Oswald in Ft. Worth may have recognized LEE Oswald's photo, but they would not have recognized a photo of HARVEY Oswald. The Fort Worth Star Telegram Published LEE's Picture when HARVEY "Defected" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does anyone actually believe this is the photo used in the Star-Telegram story? Can we go to a whole page on a site showing this? A site that has nothing to do with HardlyLee.nut? The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is available on microfilm, so that should be easy to verify. (Added later in the day: When I wrote the above, I had in mind getting the whole reel of microfilm on Interlibrary Loan. However, if all that is needed is to get a copy of this one story, one can call the Ft Worth Library, ask for the reference desk, and arrange for them to take their roll of the film, locate this story, and make a printout. I do not know what the fees would be. But my impression is that it would be modest. They would then remit the image via email or one could request that a photocopy be sent by ordinary mail.) I have another question: Quoted in the post is the report of one of the Soviet doctors who is quoted as saying "A 'show' suicide,' since he was refused political asylum, which he had been demanding." I have never seen that quote before, and--as I recall--I examined the Soviet medical records as turned over by the USSR to the US Government in December, 1963. Does anyone know the source of the statement that it was a ". . 'show' suicide..." quote? Thanks. DSL 5/15/15 - 8:30 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California Edited May 16, 2015 by David Lifton
Don Jeffries Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 Greg, So now you mimic John Armstrong's theory by referring to it as "Hardly Lee.nut?" That's some argument. Be careful- Thomas Graves is very sensitive to this kind of thing. This may cause him to reconsider his recent theory that others here are baiting you.
Ron Ecker Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 I thought that hardlylee.nut was a website that I hadn't heard of. The "nut" extension was news to me too. Thanks for clearing that up.
Thomas Graves Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 (edited) Greg, So now you mimic John Armstrong's theory by referring to it as "Hardly Lee.nut?" That's some argument. Be careful- Thomas Graves is very sensitive to this kind of thing. This may cause him to reconsider his recent theory that others here are baiting you. If David Josephs is permitted to vilify Greg Parker, myself, and others who disagree with the cult-like Harvey and Lee theory, then we should be allowed to make innocuous little jokes about Josephs and Armstrong, et al. --Tommy Edited May 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves
David Josephs Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 Not really sure why Jim H did not go with the image that is found in one of John's notebooks of the original Ft Worth paper.. And also thanks to John Wood who years back sent me the image with what looks like the emulsion over the face is removed... Nothing nefarious, just a better version of the paper's image - but I would suggest it side-by-side, not superimposed. panties can be unbunched now Greg...
Greg Parker Posted May 15, 2015 Author Posted May 15, 2015 (edited) Not really sure why Jim H did not go with the image that is found in one of John's notebooks of the original Ft Worth paper.. And also thanks to John Wood who years back sent me the image with what looks like the emulsion over the face is removed... Nothing nefarious, just a better version of the paper's image - but I would suggest it side-by-side, not superimposed. panties can be unbunched now Greg... Um, David, Frankenstein has clearly been posted over the top of the original photo in an attempt to "differentiate" "Lee" from "Harvey"This is from the book: Origin Of The FWS-T Photo The first reporter who attempted to interview Oswald in Moscow was Abe Goldberg, early in the afternoon of Oct. 31, shortly after Oswald left the U.S. Embassy. Goldberg told the FBI that he did not take a photograph of Oswald. Robert Korengold spoke briefly with Oswald at the door to his room at the Hotel Metropole, but took no photographs. Aline Mosby was the first person to actually interview Oswald in mid- afternoon of Oct. 31, but there is no indication from her notes or testimony that she tok a photograph of Oswald. Priscilla Johnson was the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald. The photo of LEE Oswald that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on November 1, 1959 appeared again in the November 26th issue of the Evening Star in Washington D.C. This time the photo was credited to the the Associated Press (AP), yet they claim to have no record of it's origin. The origin of this photo, published within 24 hours of Aline Mosby's interview with Oswald in Moscow remains unknown. (Once again information about Oswald, in this case a photo, was given to the media by an unidentified source only one day after his "defection." The most LIKELY souce was a CIA media asset. Why weren't you aware that Armstrong claims the photo came from the CIA? Which is just rubbish. It has to be the work of Jack White. Edited May 15, 2015 by Greg Parker
David Josephs Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 I have another question: Quoted in the post is the report of one of the Soviet doctors who is quoted as saying "A 'show' suicide,' since he was refused political asylum, which he had been demanding." I have never seen that quote before, and--as I recall--I examined the Soviet medical records as turned over by the USSR to the US Government in December, 1963. Does anyone know the source of the ". . 'show' suicide..." quote? DSL... I could not find that exact quote either yet there are over 3000 page hits for "suicide" at MFF so it could take some time to find it... Seems to me from these notes of other Doctors in Russia, the statement is not so far fetched.
David Josephs Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 Not really sure why Jim H did not go with the image that is found in one of John's notebooks of the original Ft Worth paper.. And also thanks to John Wood who years back sent me the image with what looks like the emulsion over the face is removed... Nothing nefarious, just a better version of the paper's image - but I would suggest it side-by-side, not superimposed. panties can be unbunched now Greg... Um, David, Frankenstein has clearly been posted over the top of the original photo in an attempt to "differentiate" "Lee" from "Harvey"This is from the book: Origin Of The FWS-T Photo The first reporter who attempted to interview Oswald in Moscow was Abe Goldberg, early in the afternoon of Oct. 31, shortly after Oswald left the U.S. Embassy. Goldberg told the FBI that he did not take a photograph of Oswald. Robert Korengold spoke briefly with Oswald at the door to his room at the Hotel Metropole, but took no photographs. Aline Mosby was the first person to actually interview Oswald in mid- afternoon of Oct. 31, but there is no indication from her notes or testimony that she tok a photograph of Oswald. Priscilla Johnson was the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald. The photo of LEE Oswald that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on November 1, 1959 appeared again in the November 26th issue of the Evening Star in Washington D.C. This time the photo was credited to the the Associated Press (AP), yet they claim to have no record of it's origin. The origin of this photo, published within 24 hours of Aline Mosby's interview with Oswald in Moscow remains unknown. (Once again information about Oswald, in this case a photo, was given to the media by an unidentified source only one day after his "defection." The most LIKELY souce was a CIA media asset. Why weren't you aware that Armstrong claims the photo came from the CIA? Which is just rubbish. It has to be the work of Jack White. So you're not REALLY sure it was Jack White, if it just "has to be"... LOL What he says Greg is that the CIA is the LIKELY source after explaining that there is no evidence a photo taken prior to the story by those in Russia. The sentence would read, "The CIA provided this photo of LEE to cover for Harvey" if Armstrong CLAIMED it came from the CIA... you do understand the english word "LIKELY" don't you... It has to do with uncertainty, a guess using an informed opinion that has good chances of being correct. At the core of this, maybe it's just a language problem you keep having and your ability to distinguish speculation as stated and fact as offered... ?? If we had a good version of the newspaper's photo (which is what Jack seems to have been trying to accomplish if it was him) MAYBE it would look like the images Wood sent me including Jack's clean-up... the photo of Oswald at the top right of my composite appears to be the BASIS for the Ft Worth image yet Woods shows something was done to it... 1. Can you offer anything to prove a photo was taken of Oswald to accompany the article? 2. Where do you think a photo of Oswald in the Marines came from for the Star image along with the story? 3. Who do you think TOOK this image of Oswald in the marines in the first place and when? You remain so ready to jump on anything you believe can be capitalized upon that you forgoe things like facts and reading with comprehension. That and the CIA NEVER provided anything to a newspaper to get a story out that THEY wanted... Never ever.
Greg Parker Posted May 15, 2015 Author Posted May 15, 2015 Not really sure why Jim H did not go with the image that is found in one of John's notebooks of the original Ft Worth paper.. And also thanks to John Wood who years back sent me the image with what looks like the emulsion over the face is removed... Nothing nefarious, just a better version of the paper's image - but I would suggest it side-by-side, not superimposed. panties can be unbunched now Greg... Um, David, Frankenstein has clearly been posted over the top of the original photo in an attempt to "differentiate" "Lee" from "Harvey"This is from the book: Origin Of The FWS-T Photo The first reporter who attempted to interview Oswald in Moscow was Abe Goldberg, early in the afternoon of Oct. 31, shortly after Oswald left the U.S. Embassy. Goldberg told the FBI that he did not take a photograph of Oswald. Robert Korengold spoke briefly with Oswald at the door to his room at the Hotel Metropole, but took no photographs. Aline Mosby was the first person to actually interview Oswald in mid- afternoon of Oct. 31, but there is no indication from her notes or testimony that she tok a photograph of Oswald. Priscilla Johnson was the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald. The photo of LEE Oswald that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on November 1, 1959 appeared again in the November 26th issue of the Evening Star in Washington D.C. This time the photo was credited to the the Associated Press (AP), yet they claim to have no record of it's origin. The origin of this photo, published within 24 hours of Aline Mosby's interview with Oswald in Moscow remains unknown. (Once again information about Oswald, in this case a photo, was given to the media by an unidentified source only one day after his "defection." The most LIKELY souce was a CIA media asset. Why weren't you aware that Armstrong claims the photo came from the CIA? Which is just rubbish. It has to be the work of Jack White. So you're not REALLY sure it was Jack White, if it just "has to be"... LOL What he says Greg is that the CIA is the LIKELY source after explaining that there is no evidence a photo taken prior to the story by those in Russia. The sentence would read, "The CIA provided this photo of LEE to cover for Harvey" if Armstrong CLAIMED it came from the CIA... you do understand the english word "LIKELY" don't you... It has to do with uncertainty, a guess using an informed opinion that has good chances of being correct. At the core of this, maybe it's just a language problem you keep having and your ability to distinguish speculation as stated and fact as offered... ?? If we had a good version of the newspaper's photo (which is what Jack seems to have been trying to accomplish if it was him) MAYBE it would look like the images Wood sent me including Jack's clean-up... the photo of Oswald at the top right of my composite appears to be the BASIS for the Ft Worth image yet Woods shows something was done to it... 1. Can you offer anything to prove a photo was taken of Oswald to accompany the article? 2. Where do you think a photo of Oswald in the Marines came from for the Star image along with the story? 3. Who do you think TOOK this image of Oswald in the marines in the first place and when? You remain so ready to jump on anything you believe can be capitalized upon that you forgoe things like facts and reading with comprehension. That and the CIA NEVER provided anything to a newspaper to get a story out that THEY wanted... Never ever. His book has been sold as "speculation free" and only evidence with multiple sources used. You can twist it any way you want. The Frankenstein photo was pasted over the top of the real photo used. The HardlyLee.nut website - purportedly the online portal to the the book and the contained within, clearly pushes the line that the Frankenstein photo was what was published. The story YOU have produced showing the actual photo used proves research fraud has occurred. Just as troubling is that the story you produced is missing from the Star-Telegram archives (at least as it is on-line). So where did YOUR version come from, David? From Armstrong? Did he obtain the only copy of the original held? Who plastered Frankenstein over the top of the original story and told everyone that WAS the original? Who had the Frankenstein version in their compilation of the Many Faces of Dobie Gillis Lee Oswald? Jack White. Here is the original compilation which includes Frankenstein: The CIA didn't produce Frankenstein. It was done by those with a motive to change the photo to suit a theory.
Steven Gaal Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 Greg, golly doesn't the nose in the newspaper photo look a little wide ??
Greg Parker Posted May 15, 2015 Author Posted May 15, 2015 Greg, golly doesn't the nose in the newspaper photo look a little wide ?? Golly Steve. Yes it does. But that's a different issue. The issue here is a faked up photo plastered over the actual photo and "sold" as the original photo used. It is RESEARCH FRAUD. Can you deal with THAT before we move on to the ACTUAL photo used?
Steven Gaal Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 Golly Steve. Yes it does // Parker ===================================== Oh ?? ....?? So the newspaper has a doctored photo ?? Oh ?? ....?? So isn't that FRAUD ?? . I mean if I had bought that newspaper then my research on defectors would be compromised ....hum... Why would anyone want to confuse the identity of LHO ....why and WHO ????
David Josephs Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 His book has been sold as "speculation free" and only evidence with multiple sources used. Really? Where Greg.... please show us the Ad or whatever it is you think offered that description ... Not at harveyandlee.net and not at Amazon... back your accusation up with something real so it can, for once, actually be believed. Is this like you stating that JA says the Star photo was supplied from the CIA, when what he wrote was it was "LIKELY"... which in our world equates to speculation... Pathetic
Greg Parker Posted May 15, 2015 Author Posted May 15, 2015 Golly Steve. Yes it does // Parker ===================================== Oh ?? ....?? So the newspaper has a doctored photo ?? Oh ?? ....?? So isn't that FRAUD ?? . I mean if I had bought that newspaper then my research on defectors would be compromised ....hum... Why would anyone want to confuse the identity of LHO ....why and WHO ???? Your reluctance to discuss the issue raised is noted. But for everyone else - the issue is that an obviously faked photo was stuck over the top of the photo used by the paper and presented to the research world as if it was the photo used. That is fraud against this "community". Additionally, it now appears that Armstrong holds the only known original copy of the story as it was published.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now