A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[Jim Hargrove]

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Joe,

It seems to me that a photographic expert is what you need.

As for me, I'm satisfied with the preponderance of the evidence. There is so much evidence for there being two Oswalds that the photo showing the tooth missing is of little significance on it's own.

Of course, if it could be proven beyond doubt that the tooth is missing in the photo, and that the photo was taken the day after the tooth was lost or later, this would be absolute proof of two Oswald boys. But no matter what, there is always going to be some doubt over the photo. There is always going to be some possibility that there is a defect on the photographic film where the tooth appears to be missing. And there is always going to be some possibility that Ed Voebel just happened to have his camera at school the day of the fight, and thereby got a picture before the tooth was reset, and was able to patch up Oswald's lip in the boys room, get the photo taken without any blood showing, take Oswald to the school's main office, have Marguerite called, wait for Marguerite to arrive, and still get Oswald to a dentist in time to have his tooth successfully reset.

But I go by the odds. Odds are that that Ed Voebel is right about Oswald losing his tooth because Aunt Lillian corroborates that narrative. Odds are that the photo does indeed show a missing tooth because, after all, the odds show that Oswald did indeed lose a tooth. Plus odds are that there doesn't just happen to be a film defect that makes it look like a tooth is missing. Odds are that the photo was NOT taken the day the tooth was lost, because 1) kids don't routinely take cameras to school and so Ed Likely did not have his that day; and 2) because there is no indication in the photo that Oswald had just been in a fight.... no blood, no paper towels or toilet paper dressing the wound, etc. And since the odds are the photo was taken a day or more after the tooth was lost, odds are that the tooth could not have been successfully reset. (Even these days one needs to get to a dentist within an hour of losing a tooth to have much hope of having it successfully reset.)

There is only one conceivable reason a person would bet against all those odds, and that is if he knows for a fact that there was only one boy Oswald.

Problem is, the odds are also high that there were two boy Oswalds. The fact that the school records show him attending two schools simultaneously. The fact that navy medical records show him in Japan when other navy records show him to be in Taiwan. And the list goes on and on.

The odds are greatly in my favor. The odds are greatly against the anti-H&L gang. But they don't recognize that because they simple cannot accept the possibility that the CIA would go to such lengths as to groom a future spy beginning at childhood. I'll bet that these same folks would also deny the other fantastical things the U.S. has engaged in if they weren't widely accepted facts. Like the CIA's illegal and unethical LSD experiments on U.S. citizens. Like the proposed Operation Northwoods.

Well said, Sandy.  John did some serious detective work to try and date Voebel's photograph, but in the end could only approximate the date.  From Harvey and Lee:

 

[Bernie Laverick]

I don't know if this may be of any interest to anyone, probably not if I'm honest, certainly to no one outside of this little bubble...(and very few within no doubt) but I'll post it anyway.

Here's a link to a thread from 2008 

At the top of page 12 there is a reply by Duke Lane to my post from the previous page. I'll paste that post below. I've added the bold.

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

I have always been intrigued as to why Tippit was waiting at the Good Luck Oil station, or more importantly, who he was waiting for. What could have been so important that, only moments after the nearby assassination, would have required him to be there?

Given his subsequent actions, described earlier in this thread as “a man frantically looking for someone”; the erratic movements; the manic search of Andrews’ car; running a stop sign; the failed telephone call at the Top Ten Records shop, and the then seemingly successful conclusion to that search at the corner of 10th and Patten surely points to only one thing: he was waiting at Gloco looking out for Oswald to pass over the Houston Street viaduct.

If so, logic dictates that the original plan would be for Tippit to identify a particular vehicle crossing the viaduct, a vehicle that Tippit may have been familiar with or had at least been briefed on, and then follow it to a pre-arranged rendezvous. It either didn’t turn up, or he got there too late, or there was a forced change of plan – one of many that weekend – provoking the ensuing frantic search.

Given the well documented testimonies of an Oswald sighting climbing into a Nash Rambler close to the TSBD moments after the assassination, could this be the car Tippit was anxiously waiting for? It would certainly seem logical. Many researches suggest he was waiting for Oswald’s taxi. But surely, whatever Tippit’s role was you’d have thought his handlers would have given him better odds than that!

So this, in my opinion, lends credence to the sighting by Officer Craig and others of an Oswald escaping by the more conventional means of a get-away car as opposed to the risible public transport pantomime.

If indeed it was Oswald in that Nash Rambler, and Tippit’s actions point further to that possibility, this means we have a major discrepancy that can only be explained by the presence of two Oswalds. That or the entire section of the WC that deals with Oswald’s journey (journey, not get-away!) from the TSBD to his room on Beckley - including the witness testimonies of all those who identified him at various points along the way, bus driver, taxi driver, former landlady etc - is a pack of lies from start to finish.

We can dismiss any amount of the conclusions drawn up by the WC but can we pick and choose which group of witnesses we want to believe or disbelieve on the basis of inconvenience to a pet theory? Is it in any way likely that the above WC witnesses were complicit in the conspiracy when they described Oswald’s public transport movements? This is probably the same odds as the witnesses to the Nash Rambler get-away scenario, among others who placed ‘Oswald’ in all the ‘wrong’ locations, conspiring to create a red herring that may muddy the waters for the next half century. If just one witness from each of the alternative scenarios is correct we know for certain that there were indeed two Oswalds.

Pure conjecture but I often wonder whether Tippit eventually encountered the ‘wrong’ Oswald. (I now know this to be Lee) The one he didn’t know! That would certainly explain the initial casual nature of the meeting at 10th and Patten, only turning sinister as Tippit’s suspicions are raised during the course of the conversation, when something just didn’t quite ring right.

This scenario also accounts for the impossibility of the patsy Oswald, (i.e. the one known by Tippit) by now nervously seeking his contact in the Texas Theatre, being physically capable of reaching the crime scene in the time available to do the deed.

Of course this is pure speculation and tells us nothing of what the real connection was or what the ultimate outcome of the rendezvous was supposed to be. But it does underline the importance of an often overlooked aspect to this case – Tippit’s role.

Who was moving him around the chessboard and why?

Edited March 18, 2008 by Bernie Laverick 

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

See how easy we can all get carried away with things...?

We all get things wrong sometimes.

The question is, do you have the strength of character to face up to it and correct it?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

The GLOCO station, where Tippit was sitting in his car, was directly across the street from where McWatters' bus was scheduled to stop shortly before 1 pm.  Tippit was probably waiting for Harvey, because when the bus failed to appear... 

Tippit became alarmed, quickly left the GLOCO station, and began driving south on Lancaster. A minute or two later, at 12:54 PM, Tippit reported his position as Lancaster and 8th. He then turned right on Jefferson Blvd and drove two miles (3-4 minutes) to the Top Ten Record Store. Tippit parked his patrol car, hurriedly entered the store, and asked store clerk Louis Cortinas for permission to make a phone call. Tippit said nothing during the call, hung up the phone, hurried out to his car, and drove north across Jefferson Blvd. (circa 1:00 PM). A few minutes later Earlene Roberts saw a police patrol car drive slowly past HARVEY Oswald's rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley. The police car was most likely driven either by Officer Tippit or by Capt. Westbrook with Officer Croy.

NOTE: The author believes that on 11/22/63 the conspirators were given orders, and expected to follow those orders. If Tippit was waiting for HARVEY Oswald at the GLOCO Station, then it may have been Tippit who drove slowly past his rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley.

--from HarveyandLee.net/November/November_22.htm

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

As an aside to Bernie's comment near the bottom of page 113, Lobster magazine is actually still going. It has published a fair amount on the JFK assassination over the years, mostly in the form of book reviews. See https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/JFK.html . Issue 47 included a review of the 'Harvey and Lee' book, reproduced here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19762-harvey-and-lee-john-armstrong/ . The latest issue includes three JFK-related articles, all currently available as PDF downloads: https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/issue74.php .

Years ago, I read a short book by Robin Ramsay on the JFK assassination (latest edition: http://www.pocketessentials.co.uk/who-shot-jfk ). As far as I recall, he pushed the 'LBJ did it' line and gave serious consideration to the improbable (to put it mildly) claims of Lol Factor and Mac Wallace. The last but one issue of the magazine included a review of Joan Mellen's Faustian Bargains in which Ramsay questioned Mellen's dismissal of the Mac Wallace evidence. Chauncey Holt too gets a lot more credence from Ramsay than most researchers would give.

[Jim Hargrove]

Robin Ramsey’s review of H&L, linked above, always struck me as a good one considering his brief exposure to the book.  I’ve been studying it for nearly 15 years and I’m still surprised by elements of it.  On this forum, I’m betting that only David Josephs and James Norwood may know as much or more about it than I do.  Sandy Larsen is well on his way, but it’s a long, long road.  Two points I'd like to talk about: First, Mr. Ramsey complained about the lack of editing and numerous typos.

Although Barry Krusch’s widely distributed pdf of the book was done with great care, the OCR procedure introduced more typos than are present in the print edition.  John first typed the lengthy manuscript in the U.S.  When he found how much it would cost to have the book printed here, he traveled to China to seek a less expensive solution.

After finding a cost-effective Chinese printer, he discovered that the pagemaker software he used to create the manuscript was incompatible with anything available in China, nor could he find anyone able to convert it. He ultimately retyped the entire manuscript while still in Asia.  John had never before worked as a writer nor as (or with) an editor, and so there are quite a few typos and grammatical errors in the book, which was typeset electronically  from his manuscript.  John’s misuse of apostrophes, as one example, is widespread, his rationales for their use utterly unfathomable, at least by me.  But I’ve never seen a grammatical error in the book that interfered with comprehension.  

How John managed to get the printed books out of China is a funny story, but instead of going through that here I’d like to discuss another one of Mr. Ramsey’s observations: that H&L is unable to prove, “however plausible it may be,” that the “CIA killed JFK and framed Oswald….”  I think H&L makes an excellent case--proof or something approaching proof--for that very premise.

Mr. Ramsay would probably agree that even the official cover story for “Lee Harvey Oswald” sounds like an intelligence operation.  Some researchers ask us to believe that “Oswald was a spy in his own mind” or a “CIA wannabe.”  But the story of an unpunished Marine “defector” with U-2 knowledge who said he’d tell the Russkies everything he knew and, just a few years after returning to the US without so much as an official de-briefing, was given the OK by State to travel to Cuba and Russia AGAIN just smells like a spy game.  Even without documentary proof, the spy story is just visceral.  If you look at it honestly, how could it be anything else?

How did “Marguerite Oswald” have enough money to own three homes simultaneously in the early 1950s?  How did poor, poor Marguerite afford a housekeeper in New York City?  And how did “Lee Harvey Oswald,” always poor as a church mouse, have enough saved non-convertible military scrip to travel to Russia and stay in first-class hotels and order a top-flight private Intourist guide in Moscow?

Brick by brick, John builds his case that the Oswald saga only makes sense as an Intelligence operation.  He makes an even better case that the set up of Oswald as JFK’s assassin working for Cuba, and Oswald’s silencing, was directed by CIA’s David Atlee Phillips.  Phillips’ actions trying to tie Oswald to Cuba and Castro are well known.  But what John discovered beyond that brings us directly to Jack Ruby.

Ruby, he found, was more deeply involved in the assassination than we previously thought.  Ruby’s activities running guns to Cuba were long suppressed.  Does anyone doubt the CIA had to know all about that?  Is it not an amazing coincidence that two of the musicians in the little Carousel Club trio decided to share a house 15 miles away from their work, but in direct view of Ruth Paine’s house?  And how about all those witnesses who placed Ruby at the TSBD at the time of the assassination, including the confidential informant who said Ruby invited him there to “watch the fireworks.”

After it was clear that “Oswald” had survived long enough to be taken to Dallas Police headquarters, Ruby announced that he would be spending much of the night at Gorden McLendon’s KLIF radio station.  And who was McLendon’s lifelong friend, since grade school days?  None other than David Atlee Phillips.  Together in the 1970s, the two men founded the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.  I’d sure like to know what Phillips related to Ruby to make him kill Oswald in front of live television cameras.  Must have been an offer he couldn’t possibly refuse.

As to the whole Mac Wallace business referred to above, whatever else you care to say about LBJ, he was not an idiot.  Putting his associate Mac Wallace on the 6th floor of the TSBD would have risked immediate exposure.

[David Josephs]

Well done Jim...  

[Sandy Larsen]

41 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Well done Jim...  

Ditto.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

How did “Marguerite Oswald” have enough money to own three homes simultaneously in the early 1950s?  How did poor, poor Marguerite afford a housekeeper in New York City?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html

[Jim Hargrove]

From Dr. James Norwood's article, "Lee Harvey Oswald: The Lengend and the Truth," on HarveyandLee.net.  See especially the fourth paragraph below.

Following the death of her husband, Robert E. Lee Oswald, in 1939, Marguerite was virtually destitute.  Her precarious financial situation led her to place her young son Lee in an orphanage in 1942.  

Yet by the late 1940s, her situation had turned around so completely that she was now residing in middle-class neighborhoods and was even purchasing properties solely in her name. In July, 1947, Marguerite purchased a small house at 101 San Saba in Benbrook; in August, 1948, she purchased a new home at 7408 Ewing in Fort Worth; and in November, 1951, she purchased a small house at 4833 Birchman in Fort Worth.  During the period of 1947-51, there were three purchases of homes and a grand total of six different addresses at which Marguerite was residing. It is no small accomplishment to be a homeowner in the early twenty-first century.  But it was also difficult in the post-Depression years of the 1940s.  So, what explains Marguerite’s change in fortunes?

The change may be explained by the Oswald Project.  In allowing the government to use the name of one of her boys for a surrogate “Lee Harvey Oswald,” as well as her own name that would be shared with another woman, Marguerite Claverie Oswald likely made a Faustian bargain, first with the OSS and subsequently the CIA.  To a large degree, her life and the lives of her children were controlled by the government undoubtedly in return for monetary compensation.

Between 1947-51, Marguerite purchased three different homes in the Fort Worth area.  By early 1951, she was apparently making payments on and maintaining the three properties concurrently.  During this period, she also experienced a financial setback from a  divorce in which, according to John Pic's Warren Commission testimony, Marguerite came out on the losing end of the court's decree, despite the alleged philandering and physical abuse of Edwin Eckdahl.  Pic recalled that "I was told by her that she was contesting the divorce so that he would still support her.  She lost, he won." (WCH, XI, 29)  With no monthly payments from Eckdahl, Marguerite was completely on her own in financing the three homes during this four-year stretch.  This raises the concern about how she could have made the down payments, met monthly financial obligations, and sustained the upkeep of the three properties, while continuing to pay rent at other residences.  The timing of the earliest evidence of the two Oswald boys and the two Marguerites during the pre-New York years begs the question of how Marguerite came into the funds to enable her to play Monopoly on this scale.

Part of her bargain was that the family would constantly be on the move. Of course, the purpose of the moving in the 1940s and ‘50s had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.  In this first stage of the documentary record, the goal was to make it difficult for Soviet intelligence to trace the whereabouts of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” once he had defected. 

[Michael Cross]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html

That may be the most vacuous thing I've ever read.  The question is not did she profit from real estate, it is how did she BUY real estate.  By "running a con" on everyone?  Please.  What's your source, as you don't give us any documentation. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, Michael Cross said:

That may be the most vacuous thing I've ever read.  The question is not did she profit from real estate, it is how did she BUY real estate.  By "running a con" on everyone?  Please.  What's your source, as you don't give us any documentation. 

She bought real estate by selling other real estate. As stated in the article, the source was John Armstrong's own documents at Baylor.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

6 hours ago, Michael Cross said:

That may be the most vacuous thing I've ever read.  The question is not did she profit from real estate, it is how did [Marguerite] BUY real estate.  By "running a con" on everyone?  Please.  What's your source, as you don't give us any documentation. 

She bought real estate by selling other real estate.

Well then, how did Marguerite pay for the first properties she bought?

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[James Norwood]

13 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Brick by brick, John builds his case that the Oswald saga only makes sense as an Intelligence operation.  He makes an even better case that the set up of Oswald as JFK’s assassin working for Cuba, and Oswald’s silencing, was directed by CIA’s David Atlee Phillips.  Phillips’ actions trying to tie Oswald to Cuba and Castro are well known.  But what John discovered beyond that brings us directly to Jack Ruby.

Ruby, he found, was more deeply involved in the assassination than we previously thought.  Ruby’s activities running guns to Cuba were long suppressed.  Does anyone doubt the CIA had to know all about that?  Is it not an amazing coincidence that two of the musicians in the little Carousel Club trio decided to share a house 15 miles away from their work, but in direct view of Ruth Paine’s house?  And how about all those witnesses who placed Ruby at the TSBD at the time of the assassination, including the confidential informant who said Ruby invited him there to “watch the fireworks.”

 

Very well done, Jim! 

Your points above on Jack Ruby are especially important. 

Readers of this thread are urged to study John Armstrong's piece on Ruby:

http://harveyandlee.net/Ruby/Ruby.html

The story of Jack Ruby has long flummoxed JFK researchers.  John's article hits the bull's eye, especially in linking Ruby to the CIA, not the mafia.

It takes a minimum of one hour to read and digest this lengthy piece.  The abundant primary sources appearing throughout John's article are what make it so persuasive.  Readers are encouraged to verify each of those sources and to weigh the evidence for themselves, to determine the significant role played by Ruby in the assassination.
 

Edited October 25, 2017 by James Norwood

[Jim Hargrove]

11 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

She bought real estate by selling other real estate. As stated in the article, the source was John Armstrong's own documents at Baylor.

Mr. Parnell wants us to believe that the $5000 insurance money Marguerite got for Robert Sr.'s death was available to her to help purchase these homes, when in fact her financial straights in the early 1940s clearly indicate that it was gone by then.

And, of course, 101 San Saba, which should have been the springboard for Marguerite’s career as a Real Estate tycoon, was sold for a huge loss four years after she purchased it.

From “The Early Lives of Harvey and Lee”:

In the summer of 1947, while Marguerite Ekdahl (Oswald) and her son LEE were living on 8th Avenue in Ft. Worth, another Marguerite Oswald and a young boy ("HARVEY Oswald") were living in Benbrook, a suburb of Ft. Worth. In June, 1947, Georgia Bell and her husband, Walter, purchased a property in Benbrook and began building their home directly across the street from a house in which Mrs. Oswald and the young boy were living (101 San Saba). Georgia, who lived at 100 San Saba for the next 50 years, remembered that Marguerite Oswald and the young boy lived at 101 San Saba from May through Thanksgiving, 1947. Tarrant County land records confirm that Walter and Georgia Bell purchased their property in June, 1947.

Tarrant County land records also confirm that Marguerite C. Ekdahl purchased 101 San Saba on July 7, 1947. Shortly after purchasing this property, the short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor and young HARVEY moved in and stayed until Thanksgiving. Marguerite C. Ekdahl rented out this property for the next four and a half years and then sold it on November 6, 1951. Nine days later (November 15, 1951) she purchased a small home at 4833 Birchman in Ft. Worth, rented it out for a year and a half and sold it on April 27, 1953 while she was living in New York. The WC thoroughly researched the addresses where the Oswald family lived and the properties owned by Mrs. Oswald. But for some unknown reason they never reported, or intentionally failed to report, that Mrs. Oswald owned 4833 Birchman.

The tall, nice-looking Marguerite C. Ekdahl purchased 101 San Saba in July, 1947, but she may have never lived at this address. I showed Georgia a photo of the "Marguerite Oswald" impostor standing in front of a kitchen sink. Georgia said, "That's her, short and fat just like I remember her. She was not a very nice person." I then showed Georgia a photo of tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald standing next to Edwin Ekdahl on their wedding day, taken only two years earlier. She replied, "I don't know who that is." Georgia remembered buying groceries for the short, fat, Mrs. Oswald, taking her to the store, and remembered that the young boy played with neighborhood children. She remembered that a neighbor, Lucille Hubbard, drove Mrs. Oswald to pick up some clothes from another house when she got a job as a nurse. Mrs. Hubbard confided to Georgia that Marguerite had furniture and lots of clothes stored at this house which was located "across from Stripling School." We shall soon see that this may be the same house in which 15 year old HARVEY and Marguerite were living in the fall of 1954, while HARVEY was attending Stripling Junior High. This was also the house where the short, fat Marguerite Oswald impostor was living on November 22, 1963.

The summer and fall of 1947 is the earliest known confirmation that two different Oswald families were living at two different locations at the same time. Robert Oswald discussed family matters in detail during his WC testimony, but when asked about the summer of 1947 commission member Allen Dulles, former Director of the CIA, asked for an adjournment. Dulles was likely concerned that Robert, like John Pic, would say that his family was living at 1505 8th avenue during the summer of 1947, which would conflict with a 2nd Oswald family living at 101 San Saba at the same time. Dulles' request for an adjournment strongly suggests that he had intimate, detailed knowledge about the backgrounds of HARVEY and LEE. When Robert Oswald's testimony resumed he was questioned about events that occurred beginning in the fall of 1948. No further questions were asked about the summer of 1947.

THE MARGUERITE OSWALD IMPOSTOR AND HARVEY WERE LIVING AT 101 SAN SABA IN BENBROOK FROM JULY THROUGH NOVEMBER, 1947 WHILE MARGUERITE (OSWALD) EKDAHL WAS LIVING WITH LEE (AND ROBERT AND JOHN DURING THE SUMMER) AT 1505 8TH AVENUE. MORE IMPORTANT, HOWEVER, WAS THAT 101 SAN SABA WAS OWNED BY MARGUERITE (OSWALD) EKDAHL AND WAS RENTED TO THE MARGUERITE OSWALD IMPOSTOR FOR 6 MONTHS. THESE TWO WOMEN KNEW EACH OTHER IN 1947.

Mrs. Hubbard said that Marguerite, while living on San Saba, also had furniture and “lots of clothes” at a house “across from Stripling School.”  This was surely 2220 Thomas Place which, as Dr. James Norwood has pointed out, “Over the course of nearly two decades, this was a home base (or “safe house”) for the Marguerite Oswald imposter.”  She was living there at the time of the assassination.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Michael Walton]

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html?m=1

Amazingly Tracy debunks the HL story with Armstrong's own research.

What none of the HL supporters realize is the money she made back then is huge in today's  dollars.

KUDOS to Tracy for bringing more truth out of the shadows.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Michael Walton