"Oswald" to Soviets: "...my parents are dead, I have no brothers or sisters."

[Steve Thomas]

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

It sounds as if you have compiled many more examples.  I’d love to see your full list.

Jim,

Rather than post it here, could I invite you to look at my web site?

https://myjfksite.weebly.com/

The Heading is "Harvey Lee Oswald", and it's about 3/5 down the page.

The Headings are in red.

 

Steve Thomas

[Jim Hargrove]

Steve and John,

Thank you for the links.  This will take some time for me to study....

[Jim Hargrove]

Both you guys might be interested in the following Jack White post from 2010.   I haven't seen enough evidence in the theory to accept it, and there seems to be some evidence against it, but Jack knew a ton about this case and was and remains always worth considering.  Here's his post; a link to the full thread is at the end:

Quote

 

JVB has made several postings scoffing at the notion of a FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM, and that

Harvey was a part of it.

James J. Angleton of the CIA was in charge of the defector program. He also managed the Nosenko

affair, in which a Russian "defector" defected to the US, coming to tell that THE KGB HAD NO

OPERATIONAL INTEREST in the defector "Lee Harvey Oswald" (when all indications are that they

were immediately aware of the "false defector" and placed him under full time surveillance and perhaps

more). The HSCA was extremely interested in Nosenko.

At the time of Nosenko's defection, the CIA split into 2 factions...pro-Nosenko and anti-Nosenko. Angleton

believed that Nosenko himself was a false defector, and had him placed in solitary confinement for

several years where he underwent "enhanced interrogation" to "break him". Nosenko could have

potentially exposed Angleton's program, and Angleton wanted to know whether the KGB had substituted

a doppelganger for his false defector. The KGB's Nosenko operation put them in the position of "protesting

too much" to distance the Soviet Union from the assassination.

The question was WHETHER THE LHO WHO RETURNED FROM RUSSIA WAS THE SAME ONE

WHO DEFECTED. Either way, it does NOT materially affect the Harvey and Lee story, but adds an EXTRA

dimension. Either way, it is the one point on which I do not fully agree with Armstrong. I have always

believed that the LHO who returned from Russia was NOT the same LHO who defected. I have always

believed that the Soviets replaced the original defector with one of their own. There is much evidence

to support this. John decided NOT to include this possibility (though he was aware of it) in his book for

several reasons:

1. There was NO documentation for the KGB doing this. John wrote nothing without documentation.

2. A whole book would be needed devoted only to this portion, and he did not have space or time.

3. Even if the original defector was replaced by the KGB, it does not negate the Lee & Harvey documentation;

it only means that someone else was substituted for the original Harvey.

4. It would complicate the story of the original false defector by adding that a false defector had been

replaced by a "double agent"...so was he working for the CIA or the KGB? Since no documentation exists,

this would make the story impossible to tell without speculation and years more of research. He decided

to put his book to bed with only what he could DOCUMENT, with no distracting speculation. I agreed

with his decision...though we both recognized that there perhaps was much more to the story. On the

same grounds, he decided not to do a chapter on Donald O. Norton...because it involved speculation

which, though documented, was not proof. He threw out at least a year of research for lack of TWO SOURCES

of documentation.

If the KGB was interested enough in the false defection to send Nosenko to say that the Soviets were

not interested in LHO, this aspect of the defection is worthy of investigation.

In this thread I will attempt to document some of the evidence that the LHO in Russia was not the same

one who defected. However, this does not mean that the original defector was not the same one who

returned. It is a very confusing story which is unlikely to be conclusive. There are NO records of

what the KGB did concerning LHO's time in Minsk.

I will start with the Ziger sisters. Their father was head of the radio factory in Minsk where LHO

worked. Mr. Ziger acted as an overseer of LHO, and he visited the Ziger home frequently, becoming

well acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Ziger and their two daughters. John Armstrong tracked down

the Ziger sisters, by then living in Argentina. John flew to Argentina to interview them about their

remembrances of LHO. Since they spoke only Russian and Spanish, he hired an interpreter to

help with the interview. He found many interesting things, but perhaps the most interesting was

that the LHO that they knew was VERY SHORT, perhaps about 5'2"! This was very puzzling since

the defector was 5'9" and LHO was once listed in Marine records as 5'11". A photo of the Zigers

with "Lee" shows a very short person. There are other conflicting photos. The possibility exists

that the KGB furnished or tampered with ALL photos of the Russian period. John decided that

he could not depend solely on the word of the Ziger sisters, since no other documentation supported

their stories. He decided correctly that he could not depend solely on photos of dubious provenance

to back up the story told by the sisters. So all of the information provided by the Zigers is not in the book.

I will start with a clipping which John obtained from the Ziger sisters in an Argentina newspaper.

I will follow with other photos from the Russian period which strongly suggest that the LHO

who was in Russia was neither Harvey or Lee.

Jack

 

Here's the thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15686-did-harvey-return-from-russia/

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Jim Hargrove

[John Butler]

Jim,

I keep coming back to the idea that it is very difficult to tell one Oswald from the other visually.  The FBI had all 488 photos from the Paine's garage, and later included in his CIA 201 file, for several months before showing them to Marina Oswald.  Since, many have complained about the FBI doctoring records what is to keep them from doctoring photos?  Nothing.  The FBI photo lab was handy.  They sent their results to the CIA for approval I would assume.  Anything out of sequence or plausibility could be claimed as photos from Michael or Ruth Payne. 

Here's a good example.  We usually see Marine Oswald in this photo which is actually a crop of a larger photo.  The larger photo has to be kept in the background and not shown.

Many have said this is a composite photo based on Oswald's features and feature alignment.  The larger photo shows why Oswald's left shoulder is not seen.

It seems as if the right arm has been cut away.  Regardless, the left side of Oswald's body is larger than his right side.  Enough so that the photo of Oswald had to be cropped that way or look weird.  Which training class is this alleged Oswald supposed to be at with the Air Force?

Jack White is one of my heroes of the Kennedy assassination research.  But, Jack had feet of clay and didn't really provide information he knew until much later after the fact.  Regardless, he is a Great American.  Jack's work about there being a shorter Oswald is confirmed by witnesses saying Oswald was 5"2 or 5'4 in height. 

FWIW, I believe Lee Oswald pioneered or led the way into the Soviet Union.  He was later joined by Harvey in time to be with Marina.  Marina describes Harvey's language ability. 

The shorter Oswald I call Alek Oswald who is composited with Harvey on Hiddell's draft card.  Jack thought this fellow looked nothing like Lee or Harvey.  I agree.  There is a superficial resemblance.  Of course, most of the Oswald doubles do superficially resemble either Oswald.  But, that resemblance falls apart on closer inspection.

   

This is the person Jack White thought was the shorter Oswald when measured against Marina when both were photographed in this location.  I made the same mistake that Jack did when I first noticed the lack of height difference between the two.  I didn't look at Marina's feet.  She may have been wearing heals rather than sandals.  Heals would change her height about 2 inches or less.  This is still an argument.  Did she wear heals and would it have changed the height difference between a 5'2 foot lady and a 5'11 or 5'9 man significantly.

It is my opinion that Harvey or Lee was not replaced by any Russian agent.  Harvey replaced Lee at a certain point once Lee had established the routines of Lee Oswald.  They played their Here's Harvey and Here's Lee game off and on while there.  One may have made trips to other places such as Rome.  One of the Oswalds possibly Lee may have left a week early (there was a rumor of a young American male leaving Minsk about a week before the Oswald family) and returned to the US through Keflavik, Iceland.  Proof?  More likely speculation.

Here's where I go farther out on the limb.  I believe Marina knew this and was good with the idea of there being two Oswalds.  If there were two Oswalds in Minsk and later in Texas at the Paines, then they must have shared things, wife, clothes, camera equipment, etc.  Marina's mission, as a honey trap, was to get to the US as the wife of a defector.  She became a double agent for the US.  Then tripled once she was in the US. 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by John Butler

[John Butler]

I keep side tracking myself on what I want to discuss.  So, I'll get this out of the way first.

This photo has always bothered me for some reason I couldn't pin down.  It's Oswald's bloused boot in this photo.  I was my understanding that soldiers in the Marine Corps didn't do this.  I was stationed near a Marine Corps detachment at Camp Perry, Ohio.  These were infantry personnel who had been sent to pull the 1000 yard targets and show with a little red disk on a stick where the round hit.  They were in about a 7 foot trench below the targets.  In a conversation with some of the Marines, they told me they didn't blouse boots and never had.

Is this Oswald photo correct with Marines going through Basic Training blousing their boots?  Did they do that there and later not blouse their boots in utility uniforms?  Does some old Marine from that era have any info on this?

The Marine Corps changed their policy on blousing boots in 2003 with this set of orders:

This is the pertinent info:

3.  THE COMBAT UTILITY COAT WILL BE WORN OUTSIDE THE TROUSERS.  WHEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMANDER, SLEEVES WILL BE ROLLED WITH THE INSIDE OUT, FORMING A ROLL ABOUT THREE INCHES WIDE, AND TERMINATING AT A POINT ABOUT TWO INCHES ABOVE THE ELBOW.  WHEN MARINE CORPS COMBAT BOOTS (MCCB'S) ARE WORN, THE TROUSERS WILL BE BLOUSED IN A NEAT UNIFORM MANNER.  WHEN THE COMBAT UTILITY UNIFORM IS PRESCRIBED FOR PARADES, REVIEWS AND CEREMONIES, THE HELMET WITH CAMOUFLAGE COVER MAY BE PRESCRIBED. 4.  THE COMBAT UTILITY GARRISON CAP WILL BE WORN

This sounds exactly like Sixties US Army policy on how to wear fatigues in hot weather.  The bit about bloused boots has been standard in the Army for a long time.

If anyone has information that will contradict this please advise.  Otherwise, I will consider this well known photo a doctored or altered photo.  I think this photo might have been altered to show Oswald may have known more about shooting than otherwise known.  This photo of Oswald is a textbook photo on how to fire a weapon in a kneeling position.  If he could do this perfectly well then he could shoot perfectly.  After all, he had to kneel in the Sniper's Nest to shoot out the window of the TSBD.

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by John Butler

[Joe Bauer]

I am not a student of this area of Lee Harvey Oswald study.

Know hardly anything about it.

But I have a nagging question I feel compelled to ask.

How could Robert Oswald and his mother be fooled by a person impersonating their brother and son?

I have many brothers. Even after a several years absence, I could tell if they were the same person I knew before.

A brother would notice small things.

Physical, facial expression and speaking mannerisms. Tone and pitch of voice. Inflections in speech. Reminiscing memories?

If the returning Oswald from the USSR was not the brother of Robert and son of mother Marguerite and yet passed as such to them, this guy deserves kudo's for his impersonation skills.

One other obscure detail I noticed when the arrested Oswald was asked whether he killed JFK in the 11,22,1963 Friday night Dallas PD  building interview;

He responded by saying something like ... the first I heard of this was when a reporter "axed" me that question in the hallway.

The pronunciation of the word "asked" as "axed" is a distinctly deep South slang one.

A New Orlean's raised person may very well have used this version of the word "asked" imo.

Hope my off-the-wall question doesn't offend.

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[Jim Hargrove]

Joe,

Robert Oswald (for entirely patriotic reasons, I’m sure) was in on the plot to send a Russian-speaking young man (Harvey) to Russia using his actual brother’s (Lee’s) American-born identity. Robert knew the man killed by Jack Ruby was not his brother, but he eventually went along with the subterfuge.

The woman known as “Marguerite Oswald” was an Intel-sponsored impostor who was related to neither Harvey nor Lee Oswald.   Much of this is explained in far greater detail in my website (most of which is written by John Armstrong).

[Jim Hargrove]

To John B,

Thanks for all this material.  I’m kind of slow studying this stuff, but I’ll try to muddle through.  Both John A. and I agree with you completely that the photographic record of “Lee Harvey Oswald” has been grossly manipulated and altered.

I’m particularly intrigued by what you call “face masks” (an image of one person’s face pasted over another person’s body). This stuff may have been used far more extensively than just in the so-called "Backyard Photos," probably the most famous instance which "Oswald" pointed to himself.  Some of the other close-ups you have published indeed look like “face masks” to me, but I also know from experience that strange artifacts can be produced entirely unintentionally when enlarging and otherwise manipulating digital graphics, and so I want to be cautious. Thanks again.  

[Steve Thomas]

Deleted

Steve Thomas

Edited May 12, 2022 by Steve Thomas

[John Butler]

Jim,

At this point I am trying to do a study of the Oswalds in the military.  The two posts I have made so far are related to what I am actually doing in this study.  It may not seem that way at this point, but they are.  They will tie in directly.

I am a bit confused on something on Harvey and Lee.  This is it:

"In the fall of 1956, while HARVEY Oswald and Allen Felde were stationed at San Diego, LEE Oswald was at the Marine Corps Air Facility at El Toro, CA, 10 miles south of Camp Pendleton. It was in El Toro that Sergeant Wallace Ransberger first met Private First Class LEE Oswald, and a year later associated with him at Atsugi, Japan. Ransberger and LEE Oswald were assigned to the same unit and their duties were to furnish repair parts for vehicles and generators. In early 1957 Sergeant Donald Goodwin was assigned to Camp Pendleton and supervised a group of 20 men in the 5th Marine division, one of whom was radio communicator LEE Oswald, Private 1st class. As we shall see, it was LEE Oswald who was assigned to the jet base at El Toro, CA (HARVEY was assigned to Santa Ana, CA)."

The US Army and the Marine Corps differ somewhat on ranks.  The enlisted system is the same for both with ranks of E1 through E9.  A PFC in the Army is an E3.  In the Marines a PFC is an E2, which is a lower rank.  The equivalent E3 rank in the Marines is a Lance Corporal.

The reason I bring this up is that it takes TIS (time in service) to move from one rank to a higher rank.  The TIS for a move to E2 from E1 is 6 months in the Marines.  Nowadays, one can make rank quicker by special training or education or some meritorious feat.  But, in the 1950's this TIS time was pretty much locked in for advancement in the Marines which was about the same as the US Army, which in the 60's was a 4 month period to an automatic promotion to E2.

Can you see what I am getting at?  How did Lee advance to PFC in the fall of 1956 when he went into the military in mid October, same as Harvey?  At best he would have been in the Marines 2 1/2 months by the end of the year.  If Sgt. Ransberger knew Lee Oswald as a PFC it must have been at a later time.  Or, did Lee join the Marines earlier?       

 

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by John Butler

[John Butler]

48 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

I have only ever looked at American photos of LHO compared to Russian photos of LHO, but I've never looked at the Russian photos in isolation.

These photos are courtesy of Jack White back in 2010. The second one from the left on the bottom row is supposedly from his wedding. To me, his nasal septum is completely different. Were there different Russian LHO's?

 

       

 

 

Steve Thomas

Steve,

Jack White is hard to disagree with, but I do on some things from time to time.  The 3rd photo in the top line marked "Russian LHO" is Lee Oswald the original Lee Harvey Oswald.  I would like to see the original of this photo.  I would add to Jack's description with things noticed from other photos.  Lee has a wider or broader nose, lacks noticeable earlobes, his hair is generally curlier than Harvey's and was balding faster.  Both Oswalds have what I call a weak chin.

It is because of composites and face masks that it is difficult to separate one from the other.  The 5th or last photo in the top line is who I call Alek Oswald, the third LHO in Russia.  Who this guy was is anybody's guess.  He is the short Oswald said to be about 5'2 or 5'4 by Russian witnesses.  Jack says, and he is right, this particular photo looks nothing like Harvey Oswald the man shot at the Dallas Police Station.

There are very few photos of Lee Harvey Oswald left in the photo record.  One is from the Civil Air Patrol that I posted on earlier.  Another is the class year book photo in which Oswald is talking to a young lady.  There are some others in Russia, but they are arguable.

When on that November day, Lee Oswald got on that plane in Dallas for a flight to Roswell Air Base he vanished from history.  The CIA and FBI did a good job of removing him from the photographic record.  The written record was harder to do and there is more evidence to support a Harvey and Lee on the Harvey and Lee website than what one can gather from the photographic record.

You can almost always recognize a photo of Harvey Oswald, even when a baby, by his most identifiable characteristic.  And, this characteristic was used by photo alterers to say this is for sure Harvey Oswald (Lee Harvey Oswald).  The artist who did this magazine cover rightly and correctly identified the dominate distinguishing feature of Harvey Oswald.  That is the two crook or bend characteristic of the upper rim of his left ear.  Look closely at the mag cover:

As I said this identifier is not fool proof since there are so many composite photos showing what purports to be Harvey Oswald (Lee Harvey Oswald).   

Edited August 22, 2019 by John Butler

[B. A. Copeland]

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

I keep side tracking myself on what I want to discuss.  So, I'll get this out of the way first.

This photo has always bothered me for some reason I couldn't pin down.  It's Oswald's bloused boot in this photo.  I was my understanding that soldiers in the Marine Corps didn't do this.  I was stationed near a Marine Corps detachment at Camp Perry, Ohio.  These were infantry personnel who had been sent to pull the 1000 yard targets and show with a little red disk on a stick where the round hit.  They were in about a 7 foot trench below the targets.  In a conversation with some of the Marines, they told me they didn't blouse boots and never had.

Is this Oswald photo correct with Marines going through Basic Training blousing their boots?  Did they do that there and later not blouse their boots in utility uniforms?  Does some old Marine from that era have any info on this?

The Marine Corps changed their policy on blousing boots in 2003 with this set of orders:

This is the pertinent info:

3.  THE COMBAT UTILITY COAT WILL BE WORN OUTSIDE THE TROUSERS.  WHEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMANDER, SLEEVES WILL BE ROLLED WITH THE INSIDE OUT, FORMING A ROLL ABOUT THREE INCHES WIDE, AND TERMINATING AT A POINT ABOUT TWO INCHES ABOVE THE ELBOW.  WHEN MARINE CORPS COMBAT BOOTS (MCCB'S) ARE WORN, THE TROUSERS WILL BE BLOUSED IN A NEAT UNIFORM MANNER.  WHEN THE COMBAT UTILITY UNIFORM IS PRESCRIBED FOR PARADES, REVIEWS AND CEREMONIES, THE HELMET WITH CAMOUFLAGE COVER MAY BE PRESCRIBED. 4.  THE COMBAT UTILITY GARRISON CAP WILL BE WORN

This sounds exactly like Sixties US Army policy on how to wear fatigues in hot weather.  The bit about bloused boots has been standard in the Army for a long time.

If anyone has information that will contradict this please advise.  Otherwise, I will consider this well known photo a doctored or altered photo.  I think this photo might have been altered to show Oswald may have known more about shooting than otherwise known.  This photo of Oswald is a textbook photo on how to fire a weapon in a kneeling position.  If he could do this perfectly well then he could shoot perfectly.  After all, he had to kneel in the Sniper's Nest to shoot out the window of the TSBD.

 

Hasn't this photo been debunked as far as the ID being that of LHO? I could've swore Ochelli or someone debunked it. Could've been a post here as well but I cannot recall. 

[Jim Hargrove]

For more than two decades, I've had "The Evolution of Lee Harvey Oswald" poster hanging on my office door (in two different homes).  Jack White did the graphics and John Armstrong worked with him and did much of the research.  Below is the highest resolution version of the poster I've been able to share on forums such as this.  If you maximize the image and download it, you should be able to read every text caption.  The captions are important.  Here 'tis (click on the image to enlarge it):

  

[John Butler]

B.A,

I don't know anything about who debunked this photo.  It always bothered me and I finally figured out why. 

I've always thought this photo was Robert Oswald rather than Lee.

The bottom part may be an army guy and the top a marine guy.  That's based on the bloused boot.  If so, they have done an amazing job of putting the two parts together which leads me to suspect what I just wrote isn't so.

Anyway, this photo raises doubt.

[Jim Hargrove]

On 8/18/2019 at 8:36 PM, John Butler said:

   Jim,

For some reason or another this editor won't accept a link to Mary Ferrell's page on this.

So, use this search term in google;   CIA 201 File Volume 32 Item 21

And, that will take you to Mary Ferrell's page on the Oswald 201 file.  Go down the list to Volume 32 and item 21 and you will have access to the 448 photos supposedly taken from the Oswalds/Paine's garage. 

John,

Thanks again for this link.  I’ve gone through the pictures and, if we are to believe the FBI, of the 448 items, just over 300 hundred of them belonged to Ruth and Michael Paine.  According to the report, these pictures were the Paine’s, not the “Oswald’s.”

371-1 through 371-197
372-1 through 372-66
376-1 through 376-10
377-1 through 377-30

The airport photo in which “Keflavik” is clearest is numbered 372-7, which would put it in the second sequence of Paine photos listed above.  I didn’t go through the list again to pick out the other Keflavik photos, but my bet is they are also listed among the Paine’s collection.  The real question, of course, is can we trust the FBI report? 

Here is image 372-7 from the "201" file on the Mary Ferrell site: