Jump to content
The Education Forum

Two Oswalds in the Texas Theater


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

It was probably important to kill "classic" Oswald (thank you Jim Hargrove).  They spent so much time setting him up to take the fall for a good reason.  As for Lee Oswald, he'd been hanging out with the likes of Frank Sturgis, et. al.  And, from my reading, was a man full of hubris and arrogance.  He may have felt quite confident in his usefulness, particularly after having killed Tippit with Westbrook.

Paul,

You’re getting to understand the basics of this really quickly.  Again, I’d like to suggest that it would have been difficult to make disappear the American born LHO because he had real family that might object... including his real mother, his real brother (Robert), his real half-brother (John Pic), and close relations such as the Murrets.

Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald, on the other hand, who was probably born in Europe, had no one.  Just a Russian wife who had already left him, two daughters way too young to help him, and a phony mom who, we soon learned through her testimony, knew practically nothing about him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 560
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The following FBI document, an internal teletype from 11/30/63, was withheld from public view for three decades.

URGENT 11-30-63 7-37 PM EST MB
TO DIRECTOR, AND SACS DALLAS AND NEW YORK
FROM SAC, NEW HAVEN /100-18158/
NEW YORK VIA WASHINGTON
LEE HARVEY OSWALD, IS - R
ON NOV. THIRTY INSTANT, JACK D. TIPPIT, SELF EMPLOYED
CARTOONIST FOR NATIONAL MAGAZINES AND WIFE, ONE SIX FOUR
NEW TOWN TURNPIKE, WESTPORT, CONN., ADVISED AS FOLLOWS. AT
APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN THIRTY AM ON INSTANT DATE MRS. TIPPIT
RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM UNKNOWN WOMAN WHO ASKED IF
MR. TIPPIT WAS A POLICEMAN AND IF HE WAS RELATED TO THE POLICE-
MAN TIPPIT WHO WAS SHOT IN DALLAS. MRS. TIPPIT REPLIED HER
HUSBAND WAS NOT A POLICEMAN, WAS DISTANTLY RELATED TO OFFICER
TIPPIT AND ASKED IDENTITY OF CALLER. ON ANOTHER EXTENSION
JACK TIPPIT LISTENED TO BALANCE OF PHONE CALL. THE WOMAN SAID
SHE COULD NOT GIVE HER NAME AS SHE WAS AFRAID OF BEING KILLED,
THAT SHE WAS FROM NEW YORK AND HAD TO COME "HERE" TO MAKE THE
CALL SO THAT SHE COULD NOT BE TRACED AS SHE WAS IN FEAR OF HER
END PAGE ONE


PAGE TWO:


LIFE. THE WOMAN REQUESTED THAT NOTHING BE SAID TO THE PRESS
ABOUT A WOMAN CALLING AS THEY WOULD KNOW HER IDENTITY AND SHE
WOULD BE KILLED.
THE WOMAN SAID SHE KNEW OSWALD-S FATHER AND UNCLE WHO
WERE HUNGARIANS AND COMMUNISTS. THE WOMAN CONTINUED THAT
OSWALD-S FATHER AND UNCLE HAD LIVED AT SEVENTY SEVENTH AND SECOND
AVENUE, YORKVILLE, NYC, THAT WHILE LIVING THERE BOTH WERE
UNEMPLOYED, GOT THEIR MONEY FROM COMMUNISTS AND SPENT ALL THERE
TIME IN COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES.
THE WOMAN THEN BEGAN SPEAKING INDISTINCTLY, DISJOINTEDLY,
AND NERVOUSLY. SHE STATED SHE HAD TWO NAMES TO GIVE AND
MENTIONED THE NAME EMILE KARDOS AND SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A
BROTHER IN LAW. WHEN MRS. TIPPIT TRIED TO FIND OUT WHOSE
BROTHER IN LAW THE WOMAN KEPT REPEATING THE WORD BROTHER IN LAW.
THE WOMAN STATED KARDOS IS HEAD OF THE COMMUNISTS AND THAT THIS
GROUP IN NEW YORK NOW HAS CHARTS AND MAPS. THE WOMAN SAID
SOMETHING ABOUT WEINSTOCK THE EDITOR OF QUOTE WOMAN-S WORLD
UNQUOTE BUT DID NOT GIVE FURTHER DETAILS.. THE WOMAN SAID THE
END PAGE TWO


PAGE THREE:


GROUP IN NEW YORK PLANS TO TAKE OVER THE GOVERNMENT, THAT OF
COURSE THEY WOULD DENY THIS BUT SHE KNEW IT TO BE TRUE.
SHE THEN HUNG UP ABRUPTLY. THE WOMAN NEVER GAVE ANY REASON
FOR HER CALL WHICH SOUNDED LOCAL. MRS. TIPPIT THOUGHT THE
WOMAN HAD AN AUSTRIAN OR GERMAN ACCENT WHILE MR. TIPPIT
BELIEVED IT WAS SPANISH. BOTH FELT THE WOMAN SOUNDED LIKE
A MATURE ADULT AND DID NOT HAVE A YOUTHFUL VOICE.
MR. TIPPIT EXPLAINED WOMAN MAY HAVE OBTAINED HIS IDENTITY
FROM AN ARTICLE ON PAGE ONE OF NORWALK, CONN. QUOTE HOUR
UNQUOTE FOR NOVEMBER TWENTYFIVE LAST, WHICH STATED THAT WE MAY
BE A DISTANT RELATIVE OF THE DALLAS POLICEMAN. TIPPIT SAID
ARTICLE RESULTED FROM TELEPHONE CALL FROM REPORTER WHO WAS
CHECKING ALL TIPPITS IN LOCAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES.
BUREAU REQUESTED TO COORDINATE ABOVE WITH ANY OTHER
INFORMATION TO DETERMINE IF PERTINENT AS NEW HAVEN HAS NO
KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATES OF OSWALD-S FATHER
AND UNCLE.
END AND ACK PLS
7-45 PM OK FBI WA LLD FOR RELAY
6-47 PM CST OK FBI DL FL
TU PLSDISC M
CC-MR_ROSEN

Link to post
Share on other sites

John A on the FBI document above:

There are literally millions and millions of documents relating to the assassination of President Kennedy in the National Archives. But there is only one document, among the millions, that suggests a possible origin for Russian speaking HARVEY Oswald. An anonymous telephone tip can hardly be considered proof of anything, but it does offer an intriguing clue as to the possible location and origin of a very young HARVEY Oswald (prior to 1947) and possible family members. It should be noted that Russian is an often-spoken second language in Hungary, and it would hardly be surprising that Hungarian immigrants could speak Russian fluently.

The woman who telephoned Mrs. Tippit said she knew Oswald's father and uncle, who, she said, were Hungarians and communists. If this is true then it is probable the FBI and Director Hoover knew about these people from the early 1950s. A New York Times story of June 21, 1951 (page 16) indicated that during the previous year (1950) 21 people had been arrested in New York City and were awaiting trial for Communist related activities. One of the people arrested was Louis Weinstock, the Hungarian born leader of the Communist Party USA. Weinstock, born in 1903, was one of two names mentioned by the anonymous woman who called the Tippits of Westport, Connecticut. In December 1962, HARVEY Oswald corresponded with Weinstock, who was then general manager of The Worker.

In the early 1950s the majority of active members of the American Communist Party were actually FBI agents working under cover. These people may have acted like communists, but in reality they were agents provocateur and their mission was to uncover and identify domestic communists for the FBI. It is difficult to believe that a supporter of communism would consider participating in Communist demonstrations in the heart of New York City at the height of the McCarthy era. But it is easy to believe the FBI, through their undercover informants, knew the identities of any and all persons suspected of being communists or supporting communist activities. The fact that Louis Weinstock was active in communist activities in NYC from the early 1950s through the early 1960s is a good indication that he was an FBI agent provocateur or informant.

The woman who called Mrs. Tippit apparently knew that Oswald's father and uncle were communists and lived at 77th and 2nd Ave. in Yorkville. The House on Un-American Activities in New York had a file on a Marguerite Oswald in January, 1953. This file contained references to 1941, Nazis, and New Jersey, and was eventually discovered in a CIA office of Security file. The Assassination Records Review Board requested this file, but the request was denied. It is reasonable to assume the FBI should also have known about these "communists" Mrs. Tippit referenced. In 1959, after Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald "defected" to the Soviet Union, the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover knew about Oswald. Eight months later (in June 1960) Hoover wrote a memo to the State Department stating, "Since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning the subject will be appreciated." During the time HARVEY Oswald was in the Soviet Union, the FBI received numerous reports that (LEE) Oswald was in the USA (Florida, New Orleans, Dallas). After HARVEY Oswald returned to the USA with wife and child in June, 1962, the FBI monitored his activities.

One month before the assassination (10/24/63) FBI SA Milton Kaack reviewed the birth records of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans. By November 22, 1963 Hoover knew a great deal about the two Oswalds, and he knew that a thorough investigation into their backgrounds could expose HARVEY and LEE and the US government agency that created the "Oswald project." That afternoon (11/22/63) FBI SA James Hosty sat in on Oswald's first interrogation with the Dallas Police. Hosty was soon ordered, by an unidentified FBI counterintelligence officer, to have no further discussions with Oswald and not to investigate his background. Local FBI agents in Dallas and New Orleans would not be allowed to conduct their own, unsupervised investigations into the Oswalds or into their family backgrounds. Hoover and senior FBI officials knew perfectly well they had to manage and control their well-trained agents by telling them exactly where to go, exactly what evidence to confiscate, and specifically which people to interview and not to interview. Original FBI reports of "field" investigations and original evidence confiscated by the Dallas Police were sent to FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, where Hoover and senior FBI officials were waiting, were in complete control, and knew how to manipulate the evidence. As top FBI official William Sullivan said, "When an enormous organization like the FBI with tremendous power still can sit back and shuffle the deck of cards and pick up the card they want to show you it may be you're not going to get the entire picture. If there were documents that possibly he (Hoover) didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those documents no longer exist, and the truth will never be known."

Hoover's knowledge of HARVEY and LEE was so extensive that he knew exactly where to send his agents in order to confiscate 6-8 year old employment records, elementary and junior high school records from New York City, Ft. Worth, New Orleans, and other material that could expose the two Oswalds. Oswald's possessions, collected by the Dallas Police, were sent to FBI headquarters only 14 hours after the assassination. Within 72 hours most of the documentation that could have exposed HARVEY and LEE was already in Washington, DC. Two days later, on November 24, FBI Associate Director Clyde Tolson wrote, "Shanklin said results of the investigation have been reduced to written form and consequently the information will all be available for these two supervisors. We can prepare a memorandum to the Attorney General [Robert Kennedy] to set out the evidence showing that Oswald is responsible for the shooting that killed the President. We will show that Oswald was an avowed Marxist, a former defector to the Soviet union and an active member of the FPCC, which has been financed by Castro. We will set forth the items of evidence which make it clear that Oswald is the man who killed the President." Two days after the assassination, and five days before the Warren Commission was established, FBI leadership had already decided that Oswald was the lone assassin. The remaining task was to distribute their manipulated and fabricated evidence to the Warren Commission, which supported the Bureau's two-day old investigation that concluded "Lee Harvey Oswald" had shot and killed JFK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 2:41 AM, Cory Santos said:

What is interesting is Postal noted Tippit worked for the theater on the side.  Another "strange coincidence"?

Regarding that...Tippit worked as security for the Stevens Theater on Sundays. The Stevens Park Shopping Center was close to his home. [CE 2985] He did work at the TT "years ago" [she said]

Back to the Texas Theater...I wonder what ever happened to the manager. From the testimony of Julia Postal--
 

Quote

Mrs Postal. Officer Tippit used to work part time for us years ago. I didn't know him personally.
Mr. BALL. You mean he guarded the theatre?
Mrs. POSTAL. On Friday nights and Saturdays, canvass the theatre,

Mrs. POSTAL. Now, yes, sir; just about the time we opened, my employer had stayed and took the tickets because we change pictures on Thursday and want to do anything, he----and about this time I heard the sirens----police was racing back and forth. ~~ 

~~....some sirens were going west, and my employer got in his car. He was parked in front, to go up to see where they were going. He, perhaps I said, he passed Oswald. At that time I didn't know it was Oswald. Had to bypass him, because as he went through this way, Oswald went through this way and ducked into the theatre there. ~~

~~~ Mr. BALL. Who is your boss?
Mrs. POSTAL. Mr. John A. Callahan.
Mr. BALL. Where did you say he was?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; I say, they bypassed each other, actually, the man ducked in this way and my employer went that-a-way, to get in his car. ~~

~~  Mr. BALL. And your boss passed him, did he?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; they went----one came one way, and one went the other way just at the same time. ~~

 

 

That's it. Whatever happened to Callahan? He just disappeared? And [again] who was the projectionist? What did he see? Also, Postal's testimony is full of contradictions.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/postal.htm

Edited by Karl Hilliard
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Mr. B. might take time out from misrepresenting me and busily pointing to banned forum member Greg Parker’s site and at least pretend to be interested in exploring here some element of the Kennedy Assassination that extends beyond ... Harvey and Lee

I have explored other areas of the JFK assassination on this forum. See, for example, my reply to François Carlier, formerly of this parish:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25532-then-went-outside-to-watch-the-p-parade/page/24/?tab=comments#comment-394813

He, like Jim, was promoting poorly supported speculation. The difference is that M. Carlier's type of poorly supported speculation doesn't create an unpleasant stink that is liable to deter the general public from exploring rational criticism of the lone-nut theory. Sadly, poor François had something of a tantrum and left the forum shortly afterwards.

I'm not sure that I've been misrepresenting Jim. If I have, perhaps he could explain how. From his previous comments, he seems to believe that Butch Burroughs gave an accurate account of seeing someone who looked like Oswald being arrested on the ground floor of the Texas Theater and escorted by police officers from the rear of the building. He also seems to believe that two police officers accurately reported that someone named Oswald was arrested in the balcony.

That's two Oswald imposters: one arrested on each floor of the Texas Theater. Neither of these fake Oswalds can have been confused with the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald, since one of them was arrested on the same floor as the real-life Oswald but was taken out through the wrong door, while the other was arrested on a different floor from the real-life Oswald and was taken out who-knows-where (personally, I suspect he was beamed up into an invisible spaceship).

If Burroughs' account and the police reports are accurate, as Jim appears to believe, we have three Oswald lookalikes in the same place at the same time. Not only that, but we also have three Oswald lookalikes being arrested in front of the public and generating witness statements and police reports which blatantly give away the plot.

I personally wouldn't rule out the possibility that a decoy, who needn't have been the spitting image of the real-life Oswald, did indeed lead the police to the Texas Theater, but if that happened the decoy would surely have kept his head down, watched the rest of the film, and left the building with everyone else, never to be seen again.

One might imagine that any plotters who were going to send one, let alone two, fake Oswalds into the Texas Theater would at least have had a quiet word with the police chief beforehand so that their fake Oswalds were not arrested and paraded out of the building in full view of however many pesky onlookers happened to turn up that day.

Obviously, we can't entertain the idea that the witnesses may have made perfectly understandable, honest, everyday mistakes, because that would remove one of the few remaining pieces of evidence for Jim's beloved 'Harvey and Lee' theory. In true 'Harvey and Lee' style, we must hammer the evidence into shape until it fits the theory. We must propose the existence of a third member of the top-secret doppelganger project: Harlee Oswald.

I would be interested to learn Jim's thoughts on Harlee Oswald. I'm particularly keen to find out where Harlee's mastoidectomy operation took place. Was it in a hospital that hadn't been built yet, like 'Harvey' (or was it 'Lee'; I can never remember). You see, if Harlee had undergone a mastoidectomy operation (real or fake, it doesn't really matter), he becomes the ideal candidate for the Oswald who was exhumed in 1981.

That would overcome the biggest of the many problems with the traditional 'Harvey and Lee' theory: the fact that the theory requires that the Oswald who was buried had not undergone a mastoidectomy, whereas the record shows that the Oswald who was exhumed had in fact undergone a mastoidectomy. Without Harlee, the theory is a self-contradictory piece of ill-thought-out nonsense that was debunked two decades before the book was published. But with Harlee as the corpse, the theory rises from the dead.

I think it was Bernie Laverick, another persecutor of Jim Hargrove, who remarked here some time ago that although the 'Harvey and Lee' theory has been around for two decades or more, it has acquired fewer believers than the theory that the Queen of England is a lizard. Who knows, the new and improved and far more credible 'Harvey and Lee and Harlee' theory might well push the number of converts into double figures! Jim, join me in promoting this exciting new theory! Do you believe? I said, do you believe? Yes, Harlee, I believe!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, thanks so much for posting this info.  I knew of none of that!  Perhaps, at this point in my life, I should actually read "Harvey and Lee" :>).  At any rate, I think you and JA have very compelling arguments.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If Burroughs' account and the police reports are accurate, as Jim appears to believe, we have three Oswald lookalikes in the same place at the same time. Not only that, but we also have three Oswald lookalikes being arrested in front of the public and generating witness statements and police reports which blatantly give away the plot.

What utter nonsense.  From pp. 460-461 of JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass:

In response to my question, “Now you didn’t see anybody else [besides Oswald] get arrested that day, did you?” he answered, “Yes, there was a lookalike—an Oswald lookalike.” In response to further questions, he described the second arrest, that of the “Oswald lookalike.” Ibid. Because Butch Burroughs saw neither Oswald nor his lookalike enter the Texas Theater, each must have gone directly up the balcony stairs on entering. Oswald crossed the balcony and came down the stairs on the far side of the lobby. There he entered the orchestra seats and began his seat-hopping, in apparent search of a contact. His lookalike sneaked into the theater at 1:45 P.M. and, like Oswald, went immediately up the balcony stairs. By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby, either on his own or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

James Douglass writes:

Quote

His lookalike sneaked into the theater at 1:45 P.M. and, like Oswald, went immediately up the balcony stairs. By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby, either on his own or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony.

I'm not sure why Jim has quoted this passage in Douglass's book, since it supports what I've been saying.

According to this passage, Burroughs cannot have seen the "Oswald double" descend from the balcony, because he didn't know whether the man descended "either on his own or already accompanied by police". When Douglass writes that the "Oswald double ... had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby", he is speculating about the movements of the "Oswald double" who had sneaked up to the balcony. He is not describing what Burroughs saw.

In case that isn't clear enough for Jim, let's take it in stages:

Quote

By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby

Douglass's use of the pronoun "he" refers to the "Oswald double" whom Douglass had previously placed in the balcony. Douglass is speculating that this "Oswald double" had already come down the stairs by the time Burroughs saw someone being arrested on the ground floor. Douglass is not claiming that Burroughs saw this "Oswald double" come down from the balcony. Furthermore, Douglass is emphasising that the arrest Burroughs saw happened on the ground floor, not in the balcony.

Quote

either on his own or already accompanied by police

Douglass is again speculating, this time about how the "Oswald double" came down from the balcony. The use of "either ... or" shows that Douglass does not know whether or not the "Oswald double" was accompanied by the police during the "Oswald double's" speculative descent from the balcony. This implies that Burroughs had not told Douglass anything about the "Oswald double's" descent from the balcony, and confirms what we already knew: that Burroughs had not seen any "Oswald double" come down the stairs.

Conclusion: the man Burroughs saw being arrested on the ground floor cannot have been the man who was reported to have been arrested in the balcony.

All Burroughs saw was what he interpreted thirty years later as an arrest on the ground floor, with the man being escorted out of the rear of the building. That's Oswald number one.

The police reports claimed that someone named Oswald was arrested in the balcony. That's Oswald number two.

And the real-life, one-and-only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested separately on the ground floor and taken out of the front of the building. That's Oswald number three.

As I wrote earlier, if we take all the statements at face value we have "three Oswald lookalikes being arrested in front of the public and generating witness statements and police reports which blatantly give away the plot". Not only that, but the stupid Oswald lookalike who was arrested in the balcony actually gave his name as Oswald, again giving away the dastardly plot. Stupid, stupid Oswald lookalike!

The three-Oswald conundrum doesn't seem to have any easy way out, does it? The only way to preserve the Texas Theater element of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is to admit that one, and only one, of the sources made an honest, understandable mistake. Jim has four options:

Option A

Jim admits that the police reports contained an honest, understandable mistake and that no-one named Oswald was actually arrested in the balcony. That way, Jim gets to keep Butch Burroughs' claim that two Oswald lookalikes were arrested on the ground floor and taken out of separate doors, one via the main entrance and one via the rear entrance, where he was seen by Bernard Haire.

Advantage: The 'Harvey and Lee' theory survives!

Disadvantage: What makes Burroughs more believable than the police reports? Doesn't look good for Jim, who appears to be picking and choosing which bits of evidence to believe based solely upon whether or not they can be made to support the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.

Option B

Jim admits that Burroughs had made an honest, understandable mistake and that the person Burrroughs and Haire saw being taken out of the rear of the building was actually George Applin. That way, Jim gets to keep the police reports that someone named Oswald was arrested in the balcony.

Advantage: Consistent with what we know about Applin, and with the fact that only one person is recorded as being escorted from the rear of the building. More importantly, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory survives!

Disadvantage: What makes the police reports more believable than Burroughs? Doesn't look good for Jim, who appears to be picking and choosing which bits of evidence to believe based solely upon whether or not they can be made to support the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.

Option C

Jim admits that both Burroughs and the police made honest, understandable mistakes. That way, Jim claims that only one person, the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, was arrested in the Texas Theater, and that George Applin was the man innocently escorted out of the rear of the building.

Advantage: Jim appears to be consistent and rational. Well done, Jim!

Disadvantage: One more piece of evidence for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory bites the dust.

Option D

Jim refuses to admit that either the police reports or Burroughs' 30-year-old recollection could possibly be mistaken. That way, Jim claims that there were three Oswalds arrested in the Texas Theater, two on the ground floor and one in the balcony.

Advantage: Nothing, really.

Disadvantage: Jim appears to be consistent but deranged, not to mention blasphemous, since the existence of three Oswalds is contrary to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. Also, it makes the 'Harvey and Lee' theory look like the sort of imbecilic nonsense that might be partly dreamed up by some guy who thought the moon landings were faked, which indeed it was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Furthermore, Douglass is emphasising that the arrest Burroughs saw happened on the ground floor, not in the balcony.

That is simply not true. Here is what Douglass actually wrote (emphasis added):  “By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby, either on his own or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony.” 

Quote

Conclusion: the man Burroughs saw being arrested on the ground floor cannot have been the man who was reported to have been arrested in the balcony.

No matter how many times he tries, Mr. B. simply can't make his mischaracterization of Douglass's statement true.   Douglass clearly wrote about the possibility that the Oswald “double” was arrested in the balcony and then brought down to the main floor where Burroughs then saw him.  Two Dallas Police reports indicate Oswald was arrested in the balcony.  This isn’t rocket science.

Starting from a false premise, Mr. B. then goes on to list all sorts of silly "options" that I won’t bother discussing, except for the fact that in one of those "options" he makes the following statement:

Quote

 

Consistent with what we know about Applin, and with the fact that only one person is recorded as being escorted from the rear of the building.

 

His sentence is perhaps intentionally unclear, but if Mr. B. is suggesting that Applin “is recorded as being escorted from the rear of the building,” I’d sure like to see his proof on that!  

On Sept 1, Mr. B posted this: “There is indeed no direct evidence (a photo or a written statement, for example) to show that Applin was escorted out by the police via one of the two rear doors, and then driven away in a police car.”  Is he now changing his story?

Mr. B. clearly wants us to believe that the Oswald “double” was George Applin, even though the witnesses suggest otherwise.  Burroughs says he saw both men within minutes of each other and that they looked remarkably similar.

According to Jim Marrs, who interviewed Bernard Haire in 1987, Haire said that the man who was taken out the theater’s alley door “appeared to be flushed as if having been in a struggle.”  That does not sound like a mere witness.  Images of “Lee Harvey Oswald” were visible on television and newspapers within hours of the assassination.  And yet Haire thought for all those years he had seen his arrest.  And Haire apparently got a good look at the second “Oswald.”  In Crossfire, Marrs wrote, “Haire was opposite the rear door when police brought a young white man out.” (Crossfire, p. 354)  

Crossfire_354.jpg

While awaiting more misstatements from Mr. B., let’s take another look at those two Dallas Police reports indicating Oswald was arrested in the balcony. 

Stringfellow.jpg

balcony1.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 4:35 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I personally wouldn't rule out the possibility that a decoy, who needn't have been the spitting image of the real-life Oswald, did indeed lead the police to the Texas Theater, but if that happened the decoy would surely have kept his head down, watched the rest of the film, and left the building with everyone else, never to be seen again.

Right, just like an Oswald decoy started the day on  November 22 by showing a Texas driver’s license to Fred Moore at a Jiffy store to buy two beers at 8:30 am, when Classic Oswald® was already at work; just like a decoy in a white t-shirt was seen by Mrs. Reid immediately after the hit; just like a decoy was seen entering the Nash Rambler at just about the same time Classic Oswald got on a bus.  The second Oswald/Hidell wallet, the one that magically appeared in Capt. Westbrook’s hands at 10th and Patton, was apparently owned by the Oswald decoy.  Naturally!

That same Oswald decoy apparently spent weeks setting up Classic Oswald before the assassination, including four different appearances at the Sports Drome Rifle Range, visits to Morgan’s Gun Shop, the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership, the Irving Furniture Mart, the Southland Hotel parking garage, and so on.

I could start going back in time showing how that Oswald decoy appeared again and again and again, but I have to wonder if there isn’t a simpler explanation.

Don’t have time for these thoughts, though.  I’m meeting my own decoy for breakfast.  Everyone has to have one of them decoys, especially “Lee Harvey Oswald,” eh?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I could start going back in time showing how that Oswald decoy appeared again and again and again, but I have to wonder if there isn’t a simpler explanation.

Don’t have time for these thoughts, though. 
 

Jim,

 

I don't want to hijack this thread, but the one I can't shake is the fight on the docks in Miami in March or April of 1963. Not only is this contact so up close and personal as to involve physical contact; but the perpetrator used Oswald's name..

CD 1020 p. 13

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11416#relPageId=15&tab=page

Allegedly, Jerry Buchanan and Oswald get into a fight on a dock in late March or early April of 1963 when Oswald insists on boarding a boat headed out on anti-Castro (bombing?) mission to Cuba.

image.png.82496253c3e6076394c6347a8aba176d.png

page 14:

image.png.8c29ae1fd584b50c221fa22db001df88.png

 

Steve Thomas


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Jim's reading comprehension skills seem to be somewhat limited, I'll try to explain things in a bit more detail. This is the passage from Douglass's book which Jim quoted earlier:

Quote

In response to my question, “Now you didn’t see anybody else [besides Oswald] get arrested that day, did you?” he answered, “Yes, there was a lookalike—an Oswald lookalike.” In response to further questions, he described the second arrest, that of the “Oswald lookalike.” Ibid. Because Butch Burroughs saw neither Oswald nor his lookalike enter the Texas Theater, each must have gone directly up the balcony stairs on entering. Oswald crossed the balcony and came down the stairs on the far side of the lobby. There he entered the orchestra seats and began his seat-hopping, in apparent search of a contact. His lookalike sneaked into the theater at 1:45 P.M. and, like Oswald, went immediately up the balcony stairs. By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby, either on his own or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony.

Since Jim is having trouble distinguishing between fact and speculation, let's look at the relevant parts in detail, and see how much of this passage is speculation on Douglass's part and how much is information given by Burroughs (and how much of Douglass's speculation is justified):

Quote

In response to my question, “Now you didn’t see anybody else [besides Oswald] get arrested that day, did you?” he answered, “Yes, there was a lookalike—an Oswald lookalike.” In response to further questions, he described the second arrest, that of the “Oswald lookalike.” Ibid.

"Ibid." refers to "Author's interview with Burroughs, July 16, 2007". Douglass is reporting Burroughs' claim to have seen someone who looked something like Oswald being arrested somewhere in the Texas Theater, 44 years earlier.

Quote

Because Butch Burroughs saw neither Oswald nor his lookalike enter the Texas Theater, each must have gone directly up the balcony stairs on entering.

This is speculation by Douglass, who seems to be mistaken (yes, it's true; people make mistakes sometimes). Burroughs told Jim Marrs in 1987 that he had in fact seen Oswald enter the auditorium, which implies that Oswald did not go up to the balcony. According to Marrs, "Burroughs claims that ... Oswald entered the theater shortly after 1 P.M. (Crossfire, p.353)." Burroughs does not mention anything about Oswald going up to the balcony. Burroughs must have seen Oswald enter the auditorium on the ground floor. It makes no difference whether Oswald actually entered the ground floor auditorium directly or via the balcony, but it is clear that Douglass's account is just speculation.

The story of an imposter going up to the balcony is based on Burroughs' hearing the front doors opening at around 1.35pm but not seeing anyone enter the ground-floor auditorium, implying that the person had gone directly up to the balcony via the stairs in the lobby. Not only did Burroughs not see anyone going up to the balcony, but as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) no-one else saw the alleged imposter going up the stairs either.

Quote

Oswald crossed the balcony and came down the stairs on the far side of the lobby.

Speculation by Douglass, and misinformed speculation at that. Cannot have happened if Burroughs' original story is accurate, and there's no reason to doubt this element of Burroughs' story.

Quote

There he entered the orchestra seats and began his seat-hopping, in apparent search of a contact.

There is indeed evidence, from Burroughs and Jack Davis (Marrs, Crossfire, p.353), that Oswald did a bit of seat-hopping on the ground floor.

Quote

His lookalike sneaked into the theater at 1:45 P.M. and, like Oswald, went immediately up the balcony stairs.

Speculation by Douglass, and partly mistaken. As has just been explained, Oswald did not in fact go up to the balcony, and it doesn't look as though anyone saw the imposter going up to the balcony either. Certainly, Burroughs didn't see this.

In the 20 years between his interviews with Marrs and Douglass, Burroughs seems to have moved the time of the alleged imposter's entrance forward by 10 minutes. Who knows, perhaps his memory was not 100% perfect after all!

Quote

By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby,

Speculation by Douglass. "He" in this case is the mysterious "Oswald double" whom Douglass speculates was in the balcony. Burroughs witnessed an incident which he interpreted several decades later as an arrest, but Burroughs did not tell Douglass that the person he saw "arrested" had come down from the balcony; that is pure speculation by Douglass.

More importantly, what Burroughs interpreted as an arrest must have taken place on the ground floor, since Burroughs was working on the ground floor and never gave any indication that he visited the balcony while the police were in the building. Douglass's speculative account is in agreement with this; he implies that the "arrest" which Burroughs saw must have happened on the ground floor, since the speculative arrestee had speculatively descended from the balcony before the speculative "arrest" took place.

Quote

either on his own or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony.

Speculation by Douglass. Because Douglass doesn't know whether or not the mysterious "Oswald double" was accompanied by the police when (or if) he came down the stairs, we can be certain that Burroughs cannot have told Douglass that he saw the mysterious "Oswald double" coming down the stairs. Douglass doesn't cite any sources to support his claim, so we also be certain that no other witnesses saw the mysterious "Oswald double" coming down the stairs either.

I hope I've made it clear even to Jim that:

(a) Butch Burroughs saw a man who looked something like Oswald apparently being arrested on the ground floor, and

(b) the notion that the alleged "Oswald double" who may or may not have been arrested in the balcony had descended to the ground floor is simply speculation by Douglass.

Burroughs did not tell Marrs or Douglass that he had seen an "Oswald double" brought down from the balcony (or if he did, both Marrs and Douglass failed to mention it, for no obvious reason). Douglass's interview with Burroughs provides no evidence at all that the man Burroughs saw on the ground floor apparently getting arrested was the same man as the mysterious "Oswald double" from the balcony.

Douglass cites no eye-witnesses, least of all Butch Burroughs, to support his speculation that any "Oswald double" came down the stairs from the balcony at any time, let alone before the incident which Burroughs interpreted, several decades later, as an arrest.

In other words, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone was arrested in the balcony and then arrested again on the ground floor. The police reports did not mention it. Burroughs did not mention it. Jack Davis did not mention it. No other witnesses mentioned it.

If, like Jim, we believe that neither Burroughs nor the police reports were mistaken, we're left with two separate events: two arrests of fake Oswalds, one on the ground floor and one in the balcony. Plus, of course, the indisputable arrest on the ground floor of the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. That makes three Oswalds: Harvey, Lee and Harlee. I'm not sure which was which, though. Perhaps Jim could consult his guru and tell us the answer.

Let's look at this statement by Jim:

Quote

Douglass clearly wrote about the possibility that the Oswald “double” was arrested in the balcony and then brought down to the main floor where Burroughs then saw him.

Yes, Douglass did indeed write "about the possibility", but, as I pointed out earlier, that's all it was: speculation. I'm glad Jim agrees with me. As I have already explained, Douglass cites no evidence at all that any mysterious imposter was "brought down to the main floor", let alone that the mysterious imposter was then seen by Burroughs. It's just speculation.

Let's now look at this statement by Jim:

Quote

His sentence ["Consistent with what we know about Applin, and with the fact that only one person is recorded as being escorted from the rear of the building."] is perhaps intentionally unclear, but if Mr. B. is suggesting that Applin “is recorded as being escorted from the rear of the building,” I’d sure like to see his proof on that!

Jim has conflated two separate things. I hope he didn't do it deliberately, and that it was just one of those mistakes that people make sometimes:

1 - The notion that Burroughs may have been mistaken is consistent with what we know abut Applin, i.e. that Applin spoke to the police on the ground floor and was escorted by them out of the building: an episode that Burroughs could easily have confused, decades after the event, as an arrest.

2 - Only one person is recorded as being escorted from the rear of the building. That one person is the person whom Bernard Haire saw being escorted from the rear of the building by the police and driven away in a police car.

For reasons already given several times over, George Applin, who we know was driven away by the police, probably left the Texas Theater via the rear door into the alley, where several police cars were parked. If he did, he is the only candidate for the one person who was recorded as being escorted from the rear of the building, and the person whom Bernard Haire saw. And if he was the person Bernard Haire saw, he must also have been the person whom Butch Burroughs saw. While we're on the subject, we mustn't forget that only one person is recorded as being arrested and escorted by the police from the front door: the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald.

There we have it: George Applin was escorted by the police from the rear of the building, and Lee Harvey Oswald was escorted by the police from the front of the building. If there actually was someone in the balcony stupidly telling the police that his name was Oswald and giving the game away, he must have left the building by being beamed up into that old 'Harvey and Lee' standby, the invisible spaceship.

Since we're disposing of Jim's belief that no witnesses ever make mistakes if it helps to prop up the feeble 'Harvey and Lee' theory, his lists of amazing, I-believe-every-one-of-them sightings were dealt with some time ago by Jim's friend from down under, Greg Parker. In case Jim hasn't yet got around to reading Greg's explanation and finding out why he has been left looking rather gullible, he can find it here and catch up with the latest developments in the field of Texas Theater studies:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2051-time-to-kill-another-myth-there-was-no-second-oswald-arrested-at-the-theater#30276

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that we've cleared all of that up, here are three questions for Jim:

1 - Which of the four options do you now want to go with: Burroughs was mistaken; the police were mistaken; both Burroughs and the police were mistaken; or no-one was mistaken and there were therefore three Oswalds arrested in front of the public in the same building at the same time, generating reports which blew the whole dastardly plot wide open?

2 - Why did the Bad Guys recruit a balcony-based doppelganger who was so stupid as to give his name as Oswald, thereby again blowing the whole dastardly plot wide open?

3 - Where did the 'Harvey and Lee' spaceship go in between hovering over the Texas Theater in 1963 and hovering over the cemetery in Forth Worth during Oswald's exhumation in 1981?

4 - We've got three Oswalds: ground-floor front-door Oswald, ground-floor rear-door Oswald, and balcony Oswald. We've also got three doppelgänger: Harvey, Lee and Harlee. Which was which?

OK, that's four questions. Obviously, one of them must have been a doppelganger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. B. continues to pretend that James Douglass’s interview with Butch Burroughs provided information precluding an arrest of the Oswald lookalike in the balcony, while Mr. Douglass’s own published analysis of the interview clearly suggests otherwise.  Mr. B. goes on and on and on about how Mr. Douglass was speculating, but that speculation was based on the information he received from Butch Burroughs, which, clearly in his opinion, did not preclude a balcony arrest.  Again, this is not complicated, at least until Mr. B. tries to make it so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Jim,

 

I don't want to hijack this thread, but the one I can't shake is the fight on the docks in Miami in March or April of 1963. Not only is this contact so up close and personal as to involve physical contact; but the perpetrator used Oswald's name..

CD 1020 p. 13

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11416#relPageId=15&tab=page

Allegedly, Jerry Buchanan and Oswald get into a fight on a dock in late March or early April of 1963 when Oswald insists on boarding a boat headed out on anti-Castro (bombing?) mission to Cuba.

image.png.82496253c3e6076394c6347a8aba176d.png

page 14:

image.png.8c29ae1fd584b50c221fa22db001df88.png

 

Steve Thomas
 

This is interesting, Steve.  John A. wrote only briefly about Buchanan in H&L, and so I didn’t know about this reported event.  There is a pretty good collection of documents on Buchanan and his alleged fight with “Oswald” on Baylor University’s online John Armstrong Collection.  Here is the link: 


http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/31079/rec/62


It’s pretty obvious that the Bureau took the Buchanan threat seriously, because it apparently went to some effort to discredit him.  A cover page, at the very top, indicated that “The Miami Office does not contemplate further investigation to disprove the allegations by JIM BUCHANAN,” because, apparently, “he ran off with the wife of a Hollywood city employee,” and was then “refused employment,” and was finally hired by a Pompano Beach newspaper “in dire need of reporters.”  And so on….

Buchanan apparently indicated, according to a 3/26/64 report by SAs Catlin and Boston, that Oswald was in Miami “during October 1962 and March 1963.”  As far as I know, in October 1962, Classic Oswald® was in Fort Worth and then Dallas.  His employment with Leslie Welding ended Oct. 8.  He spent most of March and April of 1963 in Texas, infamously moving by bus for no apparent reason to New Orleans on April 23.  

John A. described Jerry Buchanan as “a member of Frank Fiorini Sturgis' CIA sponsored International Anti-Communist Brigade.”  Buchanan’s description  of “Oswald” wanting to join an anti-Castro operation on a Miami dock sounds much like the accusations made by Marita Lorenz and others.  Thank you for bringing this up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...