Jump to content
The Education Forum

TWO MARGUERITE OSWALDS -- NEW DETAILS


Jim Hargrove
 Share

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Tracy,

I read your piece and noticed that you felt the need to resort to character assassination.

Well, perhaps CTers do that too (I haven't paid attention). So I'll just leave it at that.

But I do want to address the things you list in your post:

  • Wilcott became an antiwar activist.

    And that's a good thing, right?
     
  • Wilcott became a conspiracy theorist after he left the CIA.

    Anybody who believes Wilcott's story is a conspiracy theorist. Wilcott apparently believed himself.
     
  • Wilcott was investigated by the CIA for associating with left-wing types.

    Oh my god! He may have associated with people like me!


 :P

 

No character assassination, all based on facts. From the CIA's perspective considering the time period, Wilcott's association with anti-war or left-wing types which started before he even left the agency would not be considered a good thing. And he was a conspiracy theorist, that is, he believed in a JFK conspiracy no doubt due to books he had read. All facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 558
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear David,

I must confess that I haven't.

Could you please give us a 100-page synopsis?

--  Tommy :sun

No real surprise there Tommy...    most who attack the premise and the evidence don't have all the puzzle pieces... yet insist on telling us what the entire picture looks like

There are hundreds of conflicts along the timeline and discussed in that 1000 page book... backup research and original Archive documentation is contained in the Baylor collection of notebooks with a selection offered on a CD which accompanies the book.

I would venture to say that every book on the subject can and has been challenged.
Yet, when the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence proves the premise and what is offered as rebuttal focuses on "mistakes and over-sight" one has to wonder how many "mistakes" constitutes coincidence versus how many of these conflicts support and corroborate the premise.

I'm curious Tommy - how many times do you think these two men were side-by-side?  Who, in your vast knowledge of this situation, would have seen both men within any realistic time frame so as to make a comparison - other than Ruby?

Do you believe the CIA of the 50's and 60's was incapable of implementing a plan such as this?  
Do you believe that duplicates were used in spycraft to confuse the enemy?  (didn't Nagell say he used the name HIDELL?)
Do you understand that a faked or combined history would be very difficult to uncover in 1960 since the records which illustrate this plan would be extremely difficult to obtain, if you weren't the FBI or the Dept of Defense.?

Angleton added that CI/SIG kept lists of defectors to the United States and managed sensitive cases involving Americans which were not being handled by any other US Government department. He said these functions were deliberately referred to only in “fairly camouflaged terms” and were “very much fuzed over,” even within the CIA, in order to preserve the Unit's secrecy. Angleton told the HSCA

Even better Tommy - read and learn about what it is you're going to condemn BEFORE you condemn it...  otherwise you continue to sound and look foolish like the rest of this little contrary group who remained convinced arithmetic is Subjective and there is not one reliable witness in this case...

You guys sound like the HSCA...  :rolleyes:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy,

The apparent anomaly in the school records is explained in this thread, which includes a post addressed to you personally:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records


Jeremy,

I've been referred to that thread multiple times. Some times  I find something new has been added. But so far nothing explains the fall of 1953 conflict between NYC Public School 44 and New Orleans Beauregard Junior High, where the records show LHO attended both schools simultaneously.

I just check again and Greg Parker has indeed added what he thinks is a viable explanation. This time he says:

Quote

I said earlier in this thread:

"Whether it applied to Beauregard, don't recall, but in at least one new school he started at, they tested him one or more subjects not long after he started in order to see where he was at - and possibly also because previous records were not provided."

I have found it. This happened at PS 44 in NYC. It appears to be that the Headmaster ordered Lee be tested because he was "very intelligent" but was having difficulties at home and truanting.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10765&search=%22school_records%22#relPageId=6&tab=page


So, Greg is saying that Oswald was given special exams at PS 44 "not long after he started in order to see where he was at." And so he was given credit for the classes without actually taking the classes. (Perhaps he took the classes at his prior school.) And since they would be so flexible to do such a thing at PS 44, it should not be surprising that they would have done the same at Beauregard. And that would explain how Oswald passed the two classes at Beauregard without his actually attending.

Well I clicked the link Greg provided and, lo and behold, what did I find? I found that the exams given to Oswald were... drum roll please... medical exams!

Well that's what it looks like to me. The whole document is about medical and health matters.

But for kicks and giggles, lets assume for a moment that the two special exams noted in the document are indeed class exams. Let's see what we can learn based on that assumption.

Oswald was given two special exams. But not at the beginning of the semester... the exams were given near the end of the semester! May 11 and May 13, 1953 to be precise. Therefore the exams weren't given to see if credits should be given for classes Oswald previously took at another school. (In other words, transfer credits.)  The special exams were given because Oswald hadn't been attending class and apparently was too far behind to take the regular exams, or simply missed the exams. (Depending upon what the last day of the semester was.)

Click the link and read it for yourselves. Here are some reason given for providing the special exams:

5/11/53. Exam requested by principal. ...[unreadable]... Has not been attending school. ...[unreadable]... Boy very intelligent. Upset home life. Mother works. Father deceased.

5/13/53. Special exam. ...[unreadable]...Boy has resentful attitude. Mother works and cannot be present. History of left ...[unreadable].

 

And so, once again, Greg Parker's debunking has been debunked!

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Tracy,

I read your piece and noticed that you felt the need to resort to character assassination.

Well, perhaps CTers do that too (I haven't paid attention). So I'll just leave it at that.

But I do want to address the things you list in your post:

  • Wilcott became an antiwar activist.

    And that's a good thing, right?
     
  • Wilcott became a conspiracy theorist after he left the CIA.

    Anybody who believes Wilcott's story is a conspiracy theorist. Wilcott apparently believed himself.
     
  • Wilcott was investigated by the CIA for associating with left-wing types.

    Oh my god! He may have associated with people like me!


 :P

 

Sandy,

What makes you think Tracy isn't some kind of CTer?  (Maybe he isn't --  IDK.)

Regardless, CT'er (like me, for example) NEVER engage in "character assassination".

LOL

--  Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

No real surprise there Tommy...    most who attack the premise and the evidence don't have all the puzzle pieces... yet insist on telling us what the entire picture looks like

There are hundreds of conflicts along the timeline and discussed in that 1000 page book... backup research and original Archive documentation is contained in the Baylor collection of notebooks with a selection offered on a CD which accompanies the book.

I would venture to say that every book on the subject can and has been challenged.
Yet, when the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence proves the premise and what is offered as rebuttal focuses on "mistakes and over-sight" one has to wonder how many "mistakes" constitutes coincidence versus how many of these conflicts support and corroborate the premise.

I'm curious Tommy - how many times do you think these two men were side-by-side?  Who, in your vast knowledge of this situation, would have seen both men within any realistic time frame so as to make a comparison - other than Ruby?

Do you believe the CIA of the 50's and 60's was incapable of implementing a plan such as this?  
Do you believe that duplicates were used in spycraft to confuse the enemy?  (didn't Nagell say he used the name HIDELL?)
Do you understand that a faked or combined history would be very difficult to uncover in 1960 since the records which illustrate this plan would be extremely difficult to obtain, if you weren't the FBI or the Dept of Defense.?

Angleton added that CI/SIG kept lists of defectors to the United States and managed sensitive cases involving Americans which were not being handled by any other US Government department. He said these functions were deliberately referred to only in “fairly camouflaged terms” and were “very much fuzed over,” even within the CIA, in order to preserve the Unit's secrecy. Angleton told the HSCA

Even better Tommy - read and learn about what it is you're going to condemn BEFORE you condemn it...  otherwise you continue to sound and look foolish like the rest of this little contrary group who remained convinced arithmetic is Subjective and there is not one reliable witness in this case...

You guys sound like the HSCA...  :rolleyes:

 

 

Dear David,

My "vast knowledge"?

LOL  You gotta be kidding.

I can't hold a candle to your infinite, spaghettified database and fractured wisdom!

--  Tommy :sun

PS  What?  No "convincing" graphics or documents this time?

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

What makes you think Tracy isn't some kind of CTer?  (Maybe he isn't --  IDK.)


I can tell by his arguments that Tracy is an LNer. I'd be greatly surprised to find out he is not.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And so, once again, Greg Parker's debunking has been debunked!


BTW, my reason for getting this personal with Greg is because of the nasty way he has been talking about me on his website.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear David,

My "vast knowledge"?

LOL  You gotta be kidding.

I can't hold a candle to your infinite, spaghettified database and fractured wisdom!

--  Tommy :sun

PS  What?  No "convincing" graphics or documents this time?

LOL

No sir, you will never learn what you don't want to know...  your offering a rebuttal based on what you KNOW rather than what you THINK would be nice once in a while though...

Amazing how you remain the only poster on these threads lost in a fog.  Well done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

LOL

No sir, you will never learn what you don't want to know...  your offering a rebuttal based on what you KNOW rather than what you THINK would be nice once in a while though...

Amazing how you remain the only poster on these threads lost in a fog.  Well done!

Dear David,

You're right.  For example, I'll never learn that the moon is made of green cheese.

After all, to learn that, ya gotta be a real true believer, and I just don't have the "appetite" for it.

Whereas you seem to eat that xxxx up.

LOL

--  Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Jeremy,

I've been referred to that thread multiple times. Some times  I find something new has been added. But so far nothing explains the fall of 1953 conflict between NYC Public School 44 and New Orleans Beauregard Junior High, where the records show LHO attended both schools simultaneously.

I just check again and Greg Parker has indeed added what he thinks is a viable explanation. This time he says:

  Quote

I said earlier in this thread:

"Whether it applied to Beauregard, don't recall, but in at least one new school he started at, they tested him one or more subjects not long after he started in order to see where he was at - and possibly also because previous records were not provided."

I have found it. This happened at PS 44 in NYC. It appears to be that the Headmaster ordered Lee be tested because he was "very intelligent" but was having difficulties at home and truanting.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10765&search=%22school_records%22#relPageId=6&tab=page

 


So, Greg is saying that Oswald was given special exams at PS 44 "not long after he started in order to see where he was at." And so he was given credit for the classes without actually taking the classes. (Perhaps he took the classes at his prior school.) And since they would be so flexible to do such a thing at PS 44, it should not be surprising that they would have done the same at Beauregard. And that would explain how Oswald passed the two classes at Beauregard without his actually attending.

Well I clicked the link Greg provided and, lo and behold, what did I find? I found that the exams given to Oswald were... drum roll please... medical exams!

Well that's what it looks like to me. The whole document is about medical and health matters.

But for kicks and giggles, lets assume for a moment that the two special exams noted in the document are indeed class exams. Let's see what we can learn based on that assumption.

Oswald was given two special exams. But not at the beginning of the semester... the exams were given near the end of the semester! May 11 and May 13, 1953 to be precise. Therefore the exams weren't given to see if credits should be given for classes Oswald previously took at another school. (In other words, transfer credits.)  The special exams were given because Oswald hadn't been attending class and apparently was too far behind to take the regular exams, or simply missed the exams. (Depending upon what the last day of the semester was.)

Click the link and read it for yourselves. Here are some reason given for providing the special exams:

5/11/53. Exam requested by principal. ...[unreadable]... Has not been attending school. ...[unreadable]... Boy very intelligent. Upset home life. Mother works. Father deceased.

5/13/53. Special exam. ...[unreadable]...Boy has resentful attitude. Mother works and cannot be present. History of left ...[unreadable].

 

And so, once again, Greg Parker's debunking has been debunked!

 

Megathanks for taking the time to do this, Sandy!  You wouldn’t believe how different the PS44/Beauregard “debunking” efforts have been over the years trying to explain “LHO’s” simultaneous attendance in schools over a thousand miles apart.

Sometimes the arguments take just hours to change.  I was just starting a write-up to scold Tracy Parnell about mis-characterizing James Wilcott’s testimony.    But when I reviewed his blog less than 24 hours after I originally read it, Tracy had removed the most offensive inaccuracy.  He must be a mind reader!  All that was left were Tracy’s usual character assassinations along with his practiced inability to understand that Wilcott was probably protecting some of his fellow station mates by not naming them.  It must have taken a tremendous amount of courage to do what he did back in the HSCA days.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Megathanks for taking the time to do this, Sandy!  You wouldn’t believe how different the PS44/Beauregard “debunking” efforts have been over the years trying to explain “LHO’s” simultaneous attendance in schools over a thousand miles apart.

Sometimes the arguments take just hours to change.  I was just starting a write-up to scold Tracy Parnell about mis-characterizing James Wilcott’s testimony.    But when I reviewed his blog less than 24 hours after I originally read it, Tracy had removed the most offensive inaccuracy.  He must be a mind reader!  All that was left were Tracy’s usual character assassinations along with his practiced inability to understand that Wilcott was probably protecting some of his fellow station mates by not naming them.  It must have taken a tremendous amount of courage to do what he did back in the HSCA days.  

I mentioned in a previous post how I came to make that change. I reviewed Wilcott's testimony with the HSCA bullet points and found that one assertion was not fully supported so I removed it. As far as Wilcott protecting anyone, he named several persons that he may have spoken to about LHO. The HSCA interviewed 18 employees from Tokyo and not one would confirm any of his allegations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I mentioned in a previous post how I came to make that change. I reviewed Wilcott's testimony with the HSCA bullet points and found that one assertion was not fully supported so I removed it. As far as Wilcott protecting anyone, he named several persons that he may have spoken to about LHO. The HSCA interviewed 18 employees from Tokyo and not one would confirm any of his allegations.


Tracy,

Do you think that CIA employees are going to admit they said anything about a top secret program?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...