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

[Sandy Larsen]

28 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Sure, Sandy!

Just last Saturday, W. Tracy Parnel wrote:

Unfortunately for Armstrong, In 1995, three years before she talked to Armstrong, Ziger told an Argentinian publication that “Nobody could say anything [about lies LHO told] because he spoke Russian poorly Dad would translate ...” 

There is other evidence, but I do love it so when Mr. Parnell provides it!!!

What more can I say?

LOL. I just read about the Ziger family in Harvey & Lee and discovered that Armstrong interviewed Ana Ziger. She said pretty much the same to him.

According to Ana, the main reason her family was never able to learn much about
Oswald was his unwillingness to learn or speak Russian. After hearing Ana's comment I was
confused, and asked her how well Oswald spoke Russian when she knew him in Minsk.
Ana replied, without hesitating, "he didn't speak any Russian."
 

NOTE: Many researchers, including myself, assumed that Oswald spoke near peifect
Russian while in Russia. This assumption was based on statements by Oswald's widow,
Marina, who said that he spoke Russian with a Baltic accent when she met him at a dance
in March, 1961 in Minsk.

I wanted to be sure that I understood her answer and said, "Ana, you knew
Oswald from the time he arrived in Minsk until the day he and Marina left for the
United States. You and your parents accompanied them to the train station and took
photographs (published in the Warren Volumes). During this time he never spoke any
Russian, even up to the day he left Minsk?" Ana, once again, replied, "No-not a word.
My father always interpreted for him-he was the only one in our family who spoke
English."

 

Tracy,

Why do you suppose Oswald quit speaking Russian once  he arrived in the Soviet Union? And how did he become so proficient in the language given that he never even practiced while there? Okay, I supposed he could have practiced when he was home alone. But I doubt it, given that he was being bugged by the KGB. (According to Ana.)

 

[Jim Hargrove]

And remember, this is just how Oswald hid his Russian abilities when he was taken to Botkinskay Hospital after his fake suicide attempt.  A doctor wrote "The patient apparently understands the questions asked in Russian. Sometimes he answers correctly, but immediately states that he does not understand what he was asked."

I'd like to get a copy of Norman Mailer's book, because my understanding is he interviewed or found extensive information on the Intourist Guide Oswald hired, Rimma Shirakova.  She apparently indicated that Oswald didn't speak a word of Russian.

[Michael Walton]

It's all a sham, a fairy tale. Jim (John?) continues to say that we don't understand the evidence when we do.  Parker boiled the numbers down on the school records and they match up perfectly. I showed that the NO and NYC records reconcile when they say previous schools were one or the other. Jeremy has shown plenty of evidence to rebut the fantasy of learning Russian. Jim (John?) and Sandy are trying to shove a round peg into a square hole.

Jim (John?) desperately continues to post here throwing more papers and words up on the wall and hoping they will stick, all in the hopes of winning over converts so suckers (like Larsen?) will buy his $60 waste-of-paper book. The only other lone voice left is the cold and calculating evidence man who's still on the fence about the case and who brags that he goes by the book and only the facts please.

Could you trust the thought process of a man who says he saw one of the old guys up on the knoll brandishing a black pistol during the murder, then says he was only joking? If he saw a black pistol in the old guy's hand, is it any wonder that he keeps flailing away here as well, saying we don't understand the evidence, as if he has some superior mind and everyone else are retards?

Yet, he continues to post here, saying we're all wrong and don't understand anything and yet, the cold and calculating evidence man is alway right.

http://www.polaroidland.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MoormanPolaroid1.jpg

[Jim Hargrove]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald may not have mastered writing in Russian (this I do not know), but he certainly did master speaking and comprehending Russian. Jim has posted the evidence for that fact numerous times and it is quite conclusive.

Of course, Ruth Paine wanted us all to know that Harvey Oswald wrote Russian like a... uh... true Russian when she "found" the note in which he practically admitted he was about to shoot General Walker.

I think the note is clearly a forgery, but it puts WC loyalists in an interesting position of having to believe Harvey Oswald could write Russian like that after just 12 tutoring sessions in the language. LOL.

[Michael Walton]

It's all a sham, a fairy tale. Jim (John?) continues to say that we don't understand the evidence when we do.  Parker boiled the numbers down on the school records and they match up perfectly. I showed that the NO and NYC records reconcile when they say previous schools were one or the other. Jeremy has shown plenty of evidence to rebut the fantasy of learning Russian. Jim (John?) and Sandy are trying to shove a round peg into a square hole.

Jim (John?) desperately continues to post here throwing more papers and words up on the wall and hoping they will stick, all in the hopes of winning over converts so suckers (like Larsen?) will buy his $60 waste-of-paper book. The only other lone voice left is the cold and calculating evidence man who's still on the fence about the case and who brags that he goes by the book and only the facts please.

Could you trust the thought process of a man who says he saw one of the old guys up on the knoll brandishing a black pistol during the murder, then says he was only joking? If he saw a black pistol in the old guy's hand, is it any wonder that he keeps flailing away here as well, saying we don't understand the evidence, as if he has some superior mind and everyone else are retards?

Yet, he continues to post here, saying we're all wrong and don't understand anything and yet, the cold and calculating evidence man is alway right.

http://www.polaroidland.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MoormanPolaroid1.jpg

[Jim Hargrove]

To Michael Walton:

John Armstrong is a multi-millionaire who made two separate fortunes in his life, one in the oil business and the other as a custom-home builder.  He owns at least four homes that I'm aware of.

When you suggest he does all this to sell a $60 book you are making a fool of yourself.... again.  I can assure you, I am not John Armstrong. He has never posted on an online forum.

You are playing the fool.  Can you argue about ANY evidence?  Your disdain for real evidence is clear as you describe the process of presenting it as  "throwing more papers and words up on the wall."  Why don't YOU present some evidence, instead of just stating your OPINIONS all the time?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Sure, Sandy!

Just last Saturday, W. Tracy Parnel wrote:

Unfortunately for Armstrong, In 1995, three years before she talked to Armstrong, Ziger told an Argentinian publication that “Nobody could say anything [about lies LHO told] because he spoke Russian poorly Dad would translate ...” 

There is other evidence, but I do love it so when Mr. Parnell provides it!!!

What more can I say?

But John Armstrong claims that LHO spoke NO Russian in Russia. Now you're using me as evidence that he spoke poorly? Which is it?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Why do you suppose Oswald quit speaking Russian once  he arrived in the Soviet Union?

He didn't Sandy, and I wouldn't put too much faith in alleged statements John Armstrong provides. He has been caught manipulating evidence many times. Also, as David Lifton points out, Armstrong went on a "witness recruitment program." That is, he gets in a conversation with people and manipulates then to say what he wants rather than asking objective questions as a journalist or true fact finder would do.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Jim (John?) desperately continues to post here throwing more papers and words up on the wall and hoping they will stick, all in the hopes of winning over converts so suckers (like Larsen?) will buy his $60 waste-of-paper book.

Unfortunately, his success at converting Sandy has apparently emboldened him to ramp up his recruitment efforts.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

When you suggest he does all this to sell a $60 book you are making a fool of yourself

He doesn't need the money-fine. But to say that he doesn't want to sell the book is silly. Why write it if you don't want to sell and thereby promote your theory?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It proves nothing because it makes false assumptions, leads to false answers, and is generally incoherent.

Greg Parker has responded:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records

[Jim Hargrove]

As always, H&L critics refuse to debate HERE the evidence that "Lee Harvey Oswald" attended school simultaneously in New York and New Orleans.  They always point to another website, so they can argue about what appears THERE.

This is the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum, men.  If you believe anyone can explain the miracle of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" 1953 fall semester, why not put the evidence HERE?  Then we could DEBATE it HERE with clarity.

But, of course, clarity isn't what you guys want.  You want to pretend that someone else has solved your problem.

And then you run away! WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO PUT WHATEVER EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM YOU HAVE RIGHT HERE?

Here, again, is a brief version of my evidence:

In 1953, Marguerite and LEE were living in a basement apartment at 1455 Sheridan while LEE was attending PS 44 in New York City. After the assassination SAC John Malone, the FBI agent in charge of the New York Office, inspected Oswald's original court file in the presence of Judge Florence Kelley. Malone took notes and sent a report to FBI Director Hoover the following day. Malone wrote, "Oswald's attendance record at PS #44 from 3/23/53 to 1/12/54 was 171 and 11 half-days present and 18 and 11 half days absent. If LEE Oswald's 182 days of attendance (171 full days, 11 1/2 days) and 18 absences are plotted on 1953 and 1954 calendars it is easy to see that LEE Oswald attended PS 44 full time during the entire 1953 school year.

In the fall of 1953 LEE Oswald was attending the eighth grade at PS 44 in New York, while HARVEY Oswald and his caretaker/mother were living at 126 Exchange Place in New Orleans. HARVEY was enrolled in the eighth grade at Beauregard Junior High, and because he attended school part-time he was not assigned a home room. On page 817, of Warren Volume 22, there is a copy of Oswald's cumulative school records at Beauregard.  The first row, highlighted in yellow, is the fall semester of 1953 and shows that Oswald attended a General Science class, a Physical Education class, and attended 89 days of school with only one absence. The second row is for the last half of the eighth grade (spring semester). The third row shows final grades, absences, and tardies for the entire 53-54 school year (eighth grade).

 

WHO HAS THE COURAGE TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND DEBATE THE EVIDENCE HERE?

Not one H&L critic, I'll bet.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

As always, H&L critics refuse to debate HERE the evidence that "Lee Harvey Oswald" attended school simultaneously in New York and New Orleans.  They always point to another website, so they can argue about what appears THERE.

This is the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum, men.  If you believe anyone can explain the miracle of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" 1953 fall semester, why not put the evidence HERE?  Then we could DEBATE it HERE with clarity.

But, of course, clarity isn't what you guys want.  You want to pretend that someone else has solved your problem.

And then you run away! WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO PUT WHATEVER EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM YOU HAVE RIGHT HERE?

Here, again, is a brief version of my evidence:

In 1953, Marguerite and LEE were living in a basement apartment at 1455 Sheridan while LEE was attending PS 44 in New York City. After the assassination SAC John Malone, the FBI agent in charge of the New York Office, inspected Oswald's original court file in the presence of Judge Florence Kelley. Malone took notes and sent a report to FBI Director Hoover the following day. Malone wrote, "Oswald's attendance record at PS #44 from 3/23/53 to 1/12/54 was 171 and 11 half-days present and 18 and 11 half days absent. If LEE Oswald's 182 days of attendance (171 full days, 11 1/2 days) and 18 absences are plotted on 1953 and 1954 calendars it is easy to see that LEE Oswald attended PS 44 full time during the entire 1953 school year.

In the fall of 1953 LEE Oswald was attending the eighth grade at PS 44 in New York, while HARVEY Oswald and his caretaker/mother were living at 126 Exchange Place in New Orleans. HARVEY was enrolled in the eighth grade at Beauregard Junior High, and because he attended school part-time he was not assigned a home room. On page 817, of Warren Volume 22, there is a copy of Oswald's cumulative school records at Beauregard.  The first row, highlighted in yellow, is the fall semester of 1953 and shows that Oswald attended a General Science class, a Physical Education class, and attended 89 days of school with only one absence. The second row is for the last half of the eighth grade (spring semester). The third row shows final grades, absences, and tardies for the entire 53-54 school year (eighth grade).

 

WHO HAS THE COURAGE TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND DEBATE THE EVIDENCE HERE?

Not one H&L critic, I'll bet.

As Greg Parker points out, the evidence has been debated here endlessly. When Parker was a member here, he debated against David Josephs and Steve Gaal. The H&L people refuse to accept his (or anyone's) explanations. In the link I just posted, Parker discusses Sandy's claims and offers other explanations. But they insist that no other explanations have been offered which is obviously untrue. I am not getting any younger and I have no time or inclination to debate old issues and have no theory other than the one Parker offers which is that the records are being misinterpreted. I have bigger fish to fry than H&L at this point in time if I can summon the energy to tackle those issues. But as I always say, let the readers look at the stuff Jim posts (over and over) and the rebuttals Parker has on his site and let them make up their own mind.

[Mathias Baumann]

On ‎23‎.‎08‎.‎2017 at 10:41 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The CIA does not give out information as a matter of policy. Many researchers seem to not understand that. People like Helms, Angleton, Dulles and so on felt they had a higher oath and that was to the CIA and was the nature of the job they held-they didn't see it as lying. Angleton controlled information very closely. Many of the things certain researchers attach a sinister meaning to are probably the CIA just trying to keep the secrets and also covering up their own incompetence. 

Tracy,

how do you know it's just incompetence they're trying to cover up?

Quote

G. Robert Blakey’s 2003 Addendum to this Interview:

I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee. My reasons follow:

The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.

These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission’s investigation; they were crucial issues in the committee’s investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79. Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!

What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency’s DRE files? We will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or during our investigation?

I don’t believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be documented. Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents connected to the DRE should have been made available to the commission and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.

Obviously, too, it did not identify the agent who was its contact with the DRE at the crucial time that Oswald was in contact with it: George Joannides.

During the relevant period, the committee’s chief contact with the Agency on a day-to-day basis was Scott Breckinridge. (I put aside our point of contact with the office of chief counsel, Lyle Miller) We sent researchers to the Agency to request and read documents. The relationship between our young researchers, law students who came with me from Cornell, was anything but “happy.” Nevertheless, we were getting and reviewing documents. Breckinridge, however, suggested that he create a new point of contact person who might “facilitate” the process of obtaining and reviewing materials. He introduced me to Joannides, who, he said, he had arranged to bring out of retirement to help us. He told me that he had experience in finding documents; he thought he would be of help to us.

I was not told of Joannides’ background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.

That the Agency would put a “material witness” in as a “filter” between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation.

The committee’s researchers immediately complained to me that Joannides was, in fact, not facilitating but obstructing our obtaining of documents. I contacted Breckinridge and Joannides. Their side of the story wrote off the complaints to the young age and attitude of the people.

They were certainly right about one question: the committee’s researchers did not trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why they were in their positions. We wanted to test the Agency’s integrity. I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researchers were right. I now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of Joannides.

For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.

What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.

I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

I am now in that camp.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/interview-g-robert-blakey/

So the head of the HSCA has finally admitted that the CIA obstructed his search for truth, just as Gaeton Fonzi suspected from very early on. So tell me Tracy, how could the HSCA have possibly found evidence of CIA involvement? Blakey trusted the CIA but he was deceived and crucial evidence such as the Mexico City phone tapes (and possibly also photographs of Oswald!) was destroyed.

David Morales admitted his involvement to two friends. Before his death he built his home into a fortress, because he "knew too much". His friend Johnny Roselli was brutally murdered when he started talking about the Kennedy assassination. Do you seriously believe there's no reason at all to suspect the CIA could have been involved in the death of president Kennedy?  

[Mathias Baumann]

On ‎23‎.‎08‎.‎2017 at 11:50 PM, Michael Walton said:

Mathis, what exactly are you trying to learn here?  You seem to be all over the place, curious about Russian, Oswald's language capabilities, then you delve into Webster. What exactly are you trying to learn here? Instead of getting into the minutiae of this crazy story, you may want to step back and just ask yourself if this whole caper passes the smell test, which it obviously does not.

Michael,

I do not think that a theory should be completely discarded just because it seems outlandish. That does not mean that I subscribe to Jim's theory about the "Oswald Project". I do not. I certainly do not believe that "Harvey" learned Russian in Hungary, because Russian was not taught until grade 5. And no matter what the school records might show I don't think the CIA would use a Hungarian orphan to spy on the Soviets when they had an abundant supply of White Russian exiles in America.

But some points Jim has raised are very interesting in my opinion. To give some examples:

- Oswald's Marine Corps test: Oswald got half the answers right on a test that was aimed at native speakers. That is VERY remarkable! It is my belief as a language teacher that he could not have done so in just two or three months time without intensive instruction. If I'm wrong I'd definitely like to see the material he studied with. My guess is that he did study at the Monterey language after all (although I know there's no documentary evidence).

- Jim has shown that in some of Oswald's Marine Corps records Oswald's height is incorrectly stated as 5' 9''. Curiously that is the same wrong height Oswald used in the applications he sent out when looking for a job in New Orleans. And coincidentally that's also Kerry Thornley's height... and Thornley is certainly a very curious and suspicious fellow...

- David Phillips connection to McLendon is very interesting in my opinion. This was news to me. We know Phillips worked undercover in Cuba from 1959 - 1960. Ruby visited Cuba several times in 1959 ... Another coincidence?

Some thoughts about Phillips: I think it's possible he was not directly involved in the assassination:

In his novel Phillips describes how he builds up Oswald Marxist credentials in order to get him access to Cuba. I think this might be the truth, because it sounds like a reasonable explanation for Oswald's strange behavior in New Orleans.

His attempt to blame Castro by using Alvarado seems too amateurish to me. That was certainly not planned well in advance but concocted after the fact. My guess is that Phillips was genuinely surprised by the assassination but then tried to take advantage of it.

I also remember reading that Phillips stated in a newspaper interview that he believed that "individual CIA agents" could have been involved in the assassination. I find this a very remarkable statement in view of the fact that Phillips spent his life defending the CIA's reputation, don't you think? Maybe that was really his honest opinion?

Edited August 25, 2017 by Mathias Baumann