W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 Quote 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. That is apparently what happened: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57674&search=harvey_oswald+birth+certificate#relPageId=205&tab=page This is just a bad copy of the same declaration that Armstrong obtained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) Probably I am beating this to death and going over old ground, but in reviewing the Armstrong Collection at Baylor (he did do a great deal of work, I'll give him credit for that) I noticed the following in the same box Tracy referenced in his original email: An FBI report on LHO's Fair Play for Cuba activities dated October 21, 1963 contains the same reference to Book 207, Folio 1321: BACKGROUND Birth Mrs. STEPHANIE A. HENNEL, Orleans Parish Board of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, City Hall, New Orleans, Louisiana, advised on October 24,1963, that Book 207, Folio No. 1321, recorded the birth of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, white male, on October 18, 1939, New Orleans, Louisiana. The child's father was shown as ROBERT E. LEE OSWALD, and his mother as MARGUERITE CLAVERIE. A "JFK Assassination System Identification Form" dated Feb. 6, 1994 refers to LHO's "birth certificate" dated Dec. 2, 1963 (same date as the certification of the declaration) and states that its restriction status is "Open in Full." A similar form dated the same day refers to the FBI transmittal document for LHO's "birth certificate" and states it is likewise "Open in Full." And more than one FBI transmittal document from 1963 or 1964 states that what is being transmitted is a "certified copy of [LHO's] birth certificate." Even Armstrong's notes refer to having "finally found" LHO's birth certificate. In short, it seems clear that both before and after the assassination the declaration recorded at Book 207, Folio 1321 was deemed the birth certificate by everyone. Surely the New Orleans registrar would not have been playing hide-the-ball with the FBI in October of 1963? All of which means that I will be surprised if a different and more detailed birth certificate is produced - but I am certainly prepared to be surprised. Edited January 9, 2017 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 Question for David Josephs: Can you confirm Hargrove's assertion about the BC and that Armstrong may have emailed such a document to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 DJ sent me the doc yesterday, but I injured my hand and it is hard to type. It appears to be LHO birth certification by Harvey F Oswald. Clear enough to read everything, and includes hospital name, parents ages, and stuff you would expect to see on a full birth certificate. It's also a full size doc. I can email it to Lance is he would like to contact me at: Jimbotopia@gmail.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: DJ sent me the doc yesterday, but I injured my hand and it is hard to type. It appears to be LHO birth certification by Harvey F Oswald. Clear enough to read everything, and includes hospital name, parents ages, and stuff you would expect to see on a full birth certificate. It's also a full size doc. I can email it to Lance is he would like to contact me at: Jimbotopia@gmail.com That doesn't surprise me since Armstrong thought the Harvey Oswald affidavit (declaration of birth) was the BC back in 1997 (p. 45): http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/2510 Is it now Armstrong's position that this document is the BC (which is certainly possible)? Or has he simply forgotten what the unknown correspondent (Hewitt?) told him back then that apparently convinced him otherwise? Edited January 10, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: DJ sent me the doc yesterday, but I injured my hand and it is hard to type. It appears to be LHO birth certification by Harvey F Oswald. Clear enough to read everything, and includes hospital name, parents ages, and stuff you would expect to see on a full birth certificate. It's also a full size doc. I can email it to Lance is he would like to contact me at: Jimbotopia@gmail.com What you are describing is exactly what Harvey Oswald's declaration recorded at Book 207, Folio 1321 contains - hospital, parents' names and ages, etc. Anyway, I'll send you an email if you would like to email a copy back to me. I'll probably just end up posting it unless someone has an objection. I'll be out most of the day, but back this p.m. Edited January 10, 2017 by Guest Error in folio number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Lance Payette said: What you are describing is exactly what Harvey Oswald's declaration recorded at Book 207, Folio 1321 contains - hospital, parents' names and ages, etc. Anyway, I'll send you an email if you would like to email a copy back to me. I'll probably just end up posting it unless someone has an objection. I'll be out most of the day, but back this p.m. What he is describing, I believe, is the exact same document that appears on page 33 here: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/2510 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Yes, it is the same document, recorded at Book 207, Folio 1321 - but as you can see (I hope) it is a positive image rather than the negative image we have been viewing and includes the State of Louisiana border that does make it look considerably more like what we expect a birth certificate to look like. In the negative we have been seeing, the entire top portion is cut off. Thanks, Jim (and indirectly John Armstrong) for sharing this. I take it there is no longer any mystery, apart from whatever Corso may have meant about there being two different birth certificates for LHO. Assuming that Corso was speaking in good faith, I wonder if perhaps he had the same confusion we have had - i.e., the Harvey Oswald declaration and CE 800 seeming to be "two different" birth certificates when they really aren't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 Lance, So where are we at in your opinion. Which document is the BC or is neither? I don't see how this could be the official BC since LA is a closed state as you point out and Armstrong would not be able to obtain it not being family. I will agree that there is no mystery other than why Armstrong ever made a big deal out of this to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Lance, So where are we at in your opinion. Which document is the BC or is neither? I don't see how this could be the official BC since LA is a closed state as you point out and Armstrong would not be able to obtain it not being family. I will agree that there is no mystery other than why Armstrong ever made a big deal out of this to begin with. I think the document provided to me by Jim is indeed the birth certificate. Book 207, Folio 1321 is the document referenced in the FBI report a month before the assassination occurred. When we say the Louisiana records are "closed" for 100 years, it merely means that they aren't "public" records that anyone can request until the 100 years is up. They are not closed to persons who are authorized to obtain a copy. As I stated, any close family member could have obtained a copy. There is also a statute, which I didn't review all that carefully, that allows them to be obtained pursuant to a court order or in other specified circumstances. Again, what we now have is nothing more than a clean and complete copy of the sawed-off negative copy of the declaration of Harvey Oswald that we have been looking at all along. I don't know how a clean copy came into John Armstrong's possession, but since he had contact with Marina I don't see anything sinister about it. I actually haven't quite followed what the mystery was supposed to be. If it was supposed to be that Corso said there were two distinct birth certificates for LHO - well, then the mystery would remain (if you believe Corso) because we still only have one. If it was supposed to be that we had no birth certificate for LHO because Harvey Oswald's declaration was not a birth certificate, which I believe is what the mystery was supposed to be - well, now we can see that Harvey's declaration (with the other official signatures on the document) actually is the birth certificate. Armstrong may not have realized it was the birth certificate until he received this clean and complete copy, whenever that was. CE 800 would just be a short-form proof of birth that could be easily carried and used as needed - hence the language "Keep this for future reference." Edited January 11, 2017 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 The only "mystery" is why Armstrong went around for years implying there was something funny about LHO's birth records, especially considering that he undoubtedly had this BC (if this is really it) before he published his book in 2003. I never believed the Corso stuff anyway since it was based on his word alone and I don't take anybody's word without documentation or some other evidence. Anyway, thanks for your help and expertise in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 Lance, I contacted the Louisiana State Archives and an employee there agrees with your assessment and believes that the document Hargrove provided is the BC. The employee also mentioned the "keep this for future reference" as proof. My BC article will be updated with this information and I'll post here when finished. Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 The update to my article is now live. Special thanks to Lance Payette, Jim Hargrove and Sandy Larsen for helping to resolve the issue. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 On 1/12/2017 at 9:26 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said: The update to my article is now live. Special thanks to Lance Payette, Jim Hargrove and Sandy Larsen for helping to resolve the issue. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html I just noticed that someone else was reading this thread. It looks very informative, so I decided to bump it. -- TG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html So this is Armstrong in the possession of Oswalds birth certificate, not making it public for a one and a half decade while throwing around bullxxxx about it, watching researchers running around in circles. That's the deed of an disinfo agent. -- HARVEY&LEE is a very skillful disinfo-doorstopper: full of accurate details, but used in the context of a funny theory of two IC-created Oswalds acting as IC assets almost from the cradle to the grave. To a reader of this book, my advice would be: take the accurate details out of the book and throw the Armstrong Two Ossi Theory out of the window, which is nothing but a silly tale, created to muddy the waters of 22.11.1963. HARVEY&LEE is not a Conspiracy book, it is Smoke and Mirrors to confuse honest assassination researchers. Jim Hargrove is not a researcher, he is Armstrongs Internet man, promoting the silly premise of H&L ... IMO PS The late Jack White was a victim of Armstrongs Disinfo-book and campaign. KK 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