The Truth About Oswald's Birth Certificate

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim,

As attorney Lance Payette has shown, a 1971 BC has nothing to do with 1939. My website will be updated if and when 100% accurate information is provided regarding LHO's birth certificate. As it stands, what is in my article is essentially correct. I believe that the 2 documents we have are all that exists regarding LHO's birth. Even you and Armstrong admit when he was born unless you are changing your tune on that as well. There is no mystery here and anyone that says there is a mystery is misleading people for their own reasons. Bugliosi said it best:

Quote

Armstrong, a committed conspiracy theorist, writes ominously that “a birth certificate for Lee Harvey Oswald has never been made public,” the implication being that if it exists, the unnamed conspirators are suppressing it (instead of destroying it) because the certificate itself holds some kind of a key (along with a thousand other keys) to the assassination, which, of course, is nonsense.

 

[Guest]

I would say what we do know is that CE 800 is precisely what we would expect LHO to have as proof of his birth.  My understanding is that it was among LHO's possessions (correct me if I'm wrong).  Apparently we don't know the provenance of the declaration - it was apparently released by the FBI together with many other documents in 1978 (correct me if I'm wrong).  It's not as though the Louisiana authorities released the declaration and said "Here's the birth certificate," as though they were trying to pull a fast one.  Wherever the declaration came from, it likewise seems to be a perfectly routine document for a 1939 Louisiana birth.  In short, CE 800 and the declaration are not, in themselves, suggestive of any mystery at all.

The rational way to approach this, if you think there may be a mystery, is to ask:

1.  How should a hospital birth have been documented in New Orleans Parish in 1939?  This is a general question that the New Orleans department of vital statistics should be happy to answer.

2.  Does New Orleans Parish in fact have those documents for LHO?  Marina or perhaps other family members could determine this.  A local investigator with good contacts might obtain off-the-record answers.

3.  If not, why not?  Were they destroyed in accordance with a records retention schedule, or is there a genuine mystery?

If you reach stage 3 and the answer is "There is a genuine mystery," then we have something to talk about.  But starting with the very unlikely premise that Corso was providing accurate information about two birth certificates (possibly the birth registry and the declaration?), that we "can't" get the birth certificate because we haven't been able to, and that there thus is a Huge Mystery that fits squarely into Harvey & Lee - well, that is a completely backwards approach, driven not by a desire to learn the truth but by a desire to prop up Harvey & Lee.

Over and out..

[Jim Hargrove]

You fellows keep moving the goal posts.  Lance, for example, first declares that we can't see Oswald's official birth certificate because it doesn't exist, and then he  says maybe it does exist but the law won't allow us to see it for several more decades.  Perhaps someone will point to an explanation by the WC or the HSCA or the ARRB explaining that this is the case.

There are privacy laws about IRS returns and Social Security Administration reports too, but the government published a number of them about "Lee Harvey Oswald," no doubt because of the extenuating circumstances.  

Here's that 1971 official birth certificate published by media.nola.com:

And here is what is today referred to as a "birth card" for the 1939 birth of Oswald.

 

You guys have been attempting to criticize John Armstrong for saying that Oswald's birth certificate has never been made public by declaring it never existed.  Now you are trying to say it wasn't made public because the law doesn't permit it.  Got a USG citation explaining that?

John perhaps should have said "Oswald's official birth certificate" has never been made public. What fine quibbling!  He's basically right about that, and I think y'all know it.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim,

Why do you keep taking up good bandwidth posting the 1971 BC? All it shows is that a lot of things have changed since 1939. We all know that. Lance is saying that CE 800 may be all there is because of the way things were done then. If there is some other “official” BC you or I wouldn’t be able to get access to it for the non-nefarious reasons he has stated. We are criticizing Armstrong because he is suggesting something fishy is going on when it is quite obvious to all reasonable people that is not the case. The bottom line is there is no mystery here. Armstrong is being taken to task for insinuating there is one including the Corso stuff. I didn’t address that in my article but I am looking into it now.

[Jim Hargrove]

Tracy,

If you want to pretend this ....

 

... is an official New Orleans birth certificate, be my guest.  It's amazing that in your blog you declared victory by claiming that a 1924 version of a similar document was declared a birth certificate by bookseller AbeBooks.  I have proved that now, as well as 46 years ago, New Orleans official birth certificates required more data than is included on the document above.  John Armstrong said it wasn't an official birth certificate, and that one hasn't been released, and he was right on both counts.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

33 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Tracy,

If you want to pretend this ....

 

... is an official New Orleans birth certificate, be my guest.  It's amazing that in your blog you declared victory by claiming that a 1924 version of a similar document was declared a birth certificate by bookseller AbeBooks.  I have proved that now, as well as 46 years ago, New Orleans official birth certificates required more data than is included on the document above.  John Armstrong said it wasn't an official birth certificate, and that one hasn't been released, and he was right on both counts.

 

My advice-contact AbeBooks and tell them they are not selling an original birth certificate. You might even get a finder's fee for saving them a lawsuit.  

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I wondered if Truman Capote was a hospital or home birth. If he was a home birth you could make the case that LHO's BC shouldn't look like his since the circumstances were different. According to People Magazine and a few other sources, Capote was a hospital birth like LHO:

http://people.com/archive/truman-capote-vol-15-no-3/

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

You fellows keep moving the goal posts.  Lance, for example, first declares that we can't see Oswald's official birth certificate because it doesn't exist, and then he  says maybe it does exist but the law won't allow us to see it for several more decades.  Perhaps someone will point to an explanation by the WC or the HSCA or the ARRB explaining that this is the case.

It is a simple fact that, under Louisiana law, birth certificates less than 100 years old are closed.  From the website of the Louisiana Department of Health:  "Under Louisiana law, birth records are strictly confidential until 100 years after the year of birth."  http://ldh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/649  To obtain a birth certificate less than 100 years old, you must be a close relative or meet the requirements specified in Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:41 (court order, etc.).  Marina or one of the daughters could request LHO's birth certificate.  As disappointing as it may be, there is no statutory exception for "fans of Harvey & Lee."  Do you think I'm making this stuff up?

If Marina ordered LHO's birth certificate, I have no idea what she would receive.  Because LHO was born in New Orleans Parish, which was apparently allowed to operate autonomously, she might receive a "birth certificate" that looks exactly like Truman Capote's 1924 certificate and the similar documents we have posted from the early 1900s that are likewise described as "birth certificates."  I doubt she would receive a document that looks like CE 800, because of the language "Keep this for future reference."  The Truman Capote document and the other "birth certificates" do not have this language, suggesting that CE 800 is a "birth certificate equivalent" the individual could use as proof of birth.  Or, for all I know, Marina might receive a copy of the registry page from the master registry of births.  Or, for all I know, Marina might receive a more detailed birth certificate containing the information required by the 1918 statutes to which I referred you - but I doubt it, because the Capote document is long after 1918 and is seemingly following the pattern of what was done in the early 1900's, suggesting that New Orleans Parish continued to do its own thing.

Why would the WC, HSCA or ARRB have cared one way or the other about LHO's birth certificate?  There was no doubt as to where or when he was born.  Good Lord, he had managed to satisfy the Marines, the U. S. Passport Office and the Soviet authorities as to who he was.  If Hoover actually thought an Oswald imposter might be on the loose, he surely wasn't thinking of someone who had been pretending to be Oswald since birth.  The birth certificate issue is significant only to a fan of Harvey and Lee.  Isn't this what we see repeatedly - Armstrong and his followers having deep dark suspicions because something is supposedly "missing" or some avenue of investigation supposedly "wasn't pursued," when in fact the answer is:  Because no one had any reason to care.  Your suspicions are founded on things that are completely insignificant unless one is a fan of Harvey & Lee - which, for obvious reasons, no one on the WC, HSCA or ARRB could possibly have been.

[Jim Hargrove]

Well, this is weird....

I was talking to John A. a few minutes ago, and he asked me what I was doing today, and I said arguing about Oswald's birth card or short form birth certificate or whatever you want to call it, and he said, "Oh, I have his official birth certificate.  I thought I emailed it to you and David and some others recently."

I asked him where he got it, and he said he didn't remember, though I suspect he does.  He has met with Marina many times and has gotten much original documentation on Oswald from her, but she is just one possibility.  John wouldn't give me a clue where it came from.

He said he'll dig up the copy of the official certificate and send it to me as soon as he can find an electronic copy (he has a number of different homes and he's away from the stateside one that has most of his printed docs).  If he sends it to me, and I'll bet he does, I'll be damned if I know what to do with it.  I won't post it here without an OK from James Gordon or someone else who can speak on this board's behalf.  Considering Louisiana law, I'm not sure I'd post it anyway.  Perhaps I should speak with an attorney, Lance.

Interesting....

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Well, this is weird....

I was talking to John A. a few minutes ago, and he asked me what I was doing today, and I said arguing about Oswald's birth card or short form birth certificate or whatever you want to call it, and he said, "Oh, I have his official birth certificate.  I thought I emailed it to you and David and some others recently."

I asked him where he got it, and he said he didn't remember, though I suspect he does.  He has met with Marina many times and has gotten much original documentation on Oswald from her, but she is just one possibility.  John wouldn't give me a clue where it came from.

He said he'll dig up the copy of the official certificate and send it to me as soon as he can find an electronic copy (he has a number of different homes and he's away from the stateside one that has most of his printed docs).  If he sends it to me, and I'll bet he does, I'll be damned if I know what to do with it.  I won't post it here without an OK from James Gordon or someone else who can speak on this board's behalf.  Considering Louisiana law, I'm not sure I'd post it anyway.  Perhaps I should speak with an attorney, Lance.

Interesting....

That is indeed fascinating.  I'll be sure to visit you in jail if I'm wrong, but I would be 99.9% certain that if the birth certificate was obtained legitimately (for example, by Marina), and she gave a copy to Armstrong (as opposed to him stealing it), there would be no problem with posting it here.  Be sure to clarify whether this is Lee's birth certificate or Harvey's so there's no confusion.   If this document never sees the light of day, I will never waste another nanosecond debating Harvey & Lee.  After all this time, I have a hard time believing that obtaining LHO's birth certificate would be an "Oh, didn't I mention that to you?" item for Armstrong, but I will wait with bated breath.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

 

Quote

If he sends it to me, and I'll bet he does, I'll be damned if I know what to do with it.  I won't post it here without an OK from James Gordon or someone else who can speak on this board's behalf.  Considering Louisiana law, I'm not sure I'd post it anyway.

Simple solution Jim, you can just tell us what it says if you don't want to post it. Of course, many people might be skeptical if you don't. If Josephs and "others" have it, it will leak out eventually anyway. BTW, why didn't you ask him what the DOB was?

Edited January 8, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

Why should I bother?

Two months after the death of his father Lee Harvey Oswald was born, on
October 18, 1939. He was delivered by Dr. Bruno F. Mancuso at the Old French Hospital
in New Orleans. A birth notice was listed in the "Records of the Day" section in the
Times-Picayune on October 26, 1939. (Harvey and Lee, p.16)

[Jim Hargrove]

If anyone is wondering....

I'm still waiting for JA to send me the first ever copy for publication of LHO's official birth certificate.  If I know John, this WILL come, though if it does I have no clue what to do next.

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

If Armstrong's track record is an indication, it will never happen and that is my prediction, which I will retract if I am wrong. We are still waiting for the document that Armstrong supposedly "found" that shows Aline Mosby wrote "North Dakota" instead of New Orleans. Lance Payette has referenced a document regarding Robert Wilmouth that seems to be missing and Armstrong can't provide. Of course, if Armstrong did have such a birth document we know there is nothing fishy about it. Because in that case, his and Hargrove's "concern" about legal issues would no doubt disappear and the document would be everywhere on the Internet immediately. And BTW Jim, if you say you have the document but can't release it, nobody is going to believe that you really have it. With the number of documented whoppers in H&L (starting with the whole concept) Armstrong doesn't inspire confidence.

Of course, as Hargrove admits, we know what the document will say if it does exist and is produced-that LHO was born 10/18/39 with no funny business. And the whole reason for this debate is that Armstrong (and a few others) have been trying to insinuate for years that something is wrong or being hidden involving LHO's birth. So, if such a document exists and is produced and shows what it must show-does that mean Armstrong has debunked himself?

[Guest]

This will all be moot if Armstrong produces something that everyone agrees is a birth certificate, but a couple of minor points did occur to me that had not occurred before:

When you obtain a certified copy of a recorded document from a recorder's (or registrar's) office, the recorder typically attaches a strip of paper that is the certification of authenticity (so the document can be introduced into evidence).  It is dated the day the copy is issued.  The one we see on Harvey Oswald's declaration is dated December 2, 1963, so the FBI (or someone) apparently obtained this right after the assassination.

CE 800 refers to LHO's birth being registered in Book 207, Folio 1321.  "Folio" means "page."  This is, of course, how a recorder typically indexes documents - by book and page, so they can easily be located many years later.

Harvey Oswald's declaration bears the number 1321 in the upper right corner.  Pretty clearly, it is the document to which CE 800 is referring.

You will note that the old statute I posted above (reproduced below for convenience) suggests that Harvey Oswald's declaration, and its entry into the registry of births, is all there should be - and CE 800 suggests it is all there is.  My guess would be that Harvey's affidavit is what the FBI would have received if they had told the New Orleans registrar they wanted a certified record of Oswald's birth.

If there is, in fact, a separate birth certificate containing detailed information of the sort found on a modern birth certificate, it is a separate document completed at the hospital by the delivering physician and perhaps kept separately from Book 207.  As I said, I have an original of my own Certificate of Birth completed by the delivering physician at an Arizona hospital in 1950, but it is not the same Certificate of Birth I receive from the Arizona authorities if I request a copy today.

But again, I will wait with bated breath for whatever is produced.

___________________________________________________

AN ACT

To provide for the recording of Births and Deaths.

Section 1. Be it enacted, by the legislative council and House of Representatives of the territory of Orleans, in general assembly convened, That it shall be the duty of all the parish judges of this territory (except the parish judge of New Orleans, to be hereafter provided for) to record all the births of white persons on a book bound and kept for that purpose by order of dates, and likewise to record all deaths of white persons

on another book kept in the same manner.

Section 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the parish judges to receive declarations of births within eight days from the birth, and that they may however extend that delay to three months after the birth, when a declaration could not be made sooner on account of the persons who are to make the same, living at a distance or being prevented to do so by sickness or other lawful impediment.

Section 3. And be it further enacted, That the birth of a child shall be declared by his father, or in case the father could not make the said declaration, by any other person who may have been present at the birth of the child, and that the said birth shall be immediately recorded in the presence of two witnesses.

Section 4. And be it further enacted, That the said records shall contain the day, hour, and place of birth, the sex of the child, and the first name or names given to the child, the first name or names, profession and residence of the father and mother, and the name of the witness.