Robert L Oswald

[J. Raymond Carroll]

[quote name='Kathleen Collins' post='94456' date='Feb 18 2007, 06:32 PM'

Kathy: Do you know who is instigating this? Has one or both of Marina's daughters requested this or consented to this?

I would say someone connected to jfkresearch.com

Thanks,

Kathy

Kathy: Thanks for the response. What about Rachel and June Lee? Has either of them been approached about this project and do they consent?

PS most people call me Ray.

[John Geraghty]

One question,

What is achieved from knowing what the roof of his or anyone else's house look like? I would consider it an invasion of privacy to have my address, phone number and a photo of my house placed on the internet for all to see.

Frankly, I find it quite improper to do this. Whatever your opinion of Robert oswald, I find it in poor taste to publicise his details.

John geraghty

[Dixie Dea]

POsted by John G.

One question,

What is achieved from knowing what the roof of his or anyone else's house look like? I would consider it an invasion of privacy to have my address, phone number and a photo of my house placed on the internet for all to see.

Frankly, I find it quite improper to do this.

Whatever your opinion of Robert oswald, I find it in poor taste to publicise his details.

John geraghty.

___________________________________________________

Thank you, John! I totally agree with you. It also seems like an invitation for someone that doesn't have a clue, to do something very foolish. I am thinking that with some, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!! In addition, sometimes when the kids are all grown and leave home, many choose to find a smaller home, a retirenment village or a mobile home park.

___________

Dixie

[Kathleen Collins]

[quote name='Kathleen Collins' post='94456' date='Feb 18 2007, 06:32 PM'

Kathy: Do you know who is instigating this? Has one or both of Marina's daughters requested this or consented to this?

I would say someone connected to jfkresearch.com

Thanks,

Kathy

Kathy: Thanks for the response. What about Rachel and June Lee? Has either of them been approached about this project and do they consent?

PS most people call me Ray.

As far as I know, no one was approached about a DNA test. It's just if this was done, we'd know something peculiar attached Robert Oswald to Harvey Oswald -- and it wasn't blood.

[Kathleen Collins]

One question,

What is achieved from knowing what the roof of his or anyone else's house look like? I would consider it an invasion of privacy to have my address, phone number and a photo of my house placed on the internet for all to see.

Frankly, I find it quite improper to do this. Whatever your opinion of Robert oswald, I find it in poor taste to publicise his details.

John geraghty

You can look at the building from different angles. Robert Oswald was always asked questions about his "brother" Lee. His address is listed. He's not hiding. Google Earth only shows areas that are not bothered by residents/communities. Otherwise the place would be blurry.

Kathy

[Thomas Graves]

Robert L. Oswald's has lived for approx 4 decades at 2530 Shepherds Glen, Wichita Falls, TX 76308

But as of March (or earlier) 2006, his address changed to 2303 Antigua St, Wichita Falls, TX 76308

I heard a strong rumor that he was departing Wichita Falls. Evidently not. He only moved blocks away. He was born in April 1934. His # is (940) 691-3519. The same as at the previous address.

These are public records. I looked him up because I thought he may have moved due to Kennedy researchers wanting a DNA sample from him and one of the Oswald girls (who were adopted by Marina's 2nd husband). As I don't believe Robert was Harvey's brother, I'm sure he would reject giving a DNA sample. But there are ways to get it. For instance, if he eats in a restaurant, a glass he drank out of or a fork or spoon may have the required DNA.

I hope Bill Kelly doesn't think I'm "stalking" Robert Oswald.

Kathy

$20.00 and a talk with his barber would probably do it.

___________________________

I strongly suspect that the barber I had as a kid in La Jolla many moons ago was providing the local vampires (or J.E.H.) with pints of my blood for free...

--Thomas

___________________________

[Kathleen Collins]

POsted by John G.

One question,

What is achieved from knowing what the roof of his or anyone else's house look like? I would consider it an invasion of privacy to have my address, phone number and a photo of my house placed on the internet for all to see.

Frankly, I find it quite improper to do this.

Whatever your opinion of Robert oswald, I find it in poor taste to publicise his details.

John geraghty.

___________________________________________________

Thank you, John! I totally agree with you. It also seems like an invitation for someone that doesn't have a clue, to do something very foolish. I am thinking that with some, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!! In addition, sometimes when the kids are all grown and leave home, many choose to find a smaller home, a retirenment village or a mobile home park.

___________

Dixie

Google Earth is a free program. It shows houses and streets. It's public information. If someone objected to their residence appearing on this program, they'd basically get in touch with Google and their houses would be blurry -- and you'd see nothing.

I don't see anything wrong about putting this photo on an Internet website. We're all interested in Robert Oswald. Many researchers believe he is not related to Lee Harvey Oswald at all.

I think plumbing the Internet constitutes research. Though some here want to show their method of researching is more politically correct than my Internet searches. It sounds like a morality judgement and a very biased reaction.

[Dixie Dea]

Kathy...

I am sure all my own info can also be found at google as well as yours. Public info, of course. But I sure wouldn't want anyone broadcasting all that info, to all the world, would you?

You accused me of using a moral judgement...and having a very biased reaction....you are right on both counts. I believe in descretion. If I ran across some info that I knew related to something, someone was researching, then I might decide to share that info. That is on a one-on-one basis, not for all the world to see. I do believe that a persons privacy is very important and I do not ever apologize for that.

I am well aware of the question of Robert Oswald vs Lee Harvey Oswald. Most of us would like to know if they are or are not actual brothers. However, I don't see Robert cooperating at all in our curiosities. I also believe that invading his privacy is not going to bring us any closer to the truth. In fact, it may even have the opposite effect.

____________

Dixie

[John Geraghty]

Kathleen,

I know that it is available, but what purpose does it serve to post this information. I don't think that we will learn very much about Robert Oswald's character from the roofing of his house. It is completely irrelevant. I am listed in the phone book, but that does not mean that I would wish for anyone to post all of my details on the internet.

Many are not frequent users of the internet and are not aware of google earth. Most people would assume that people that did not know them would look up their house and accompany a photo of it with their phone number.

If you can give me a good explanation as to why an aerial picture of the house is relevant, I'm all ears.

John

[Kathleen Collins]

Kathy...

I am sure all my own info can also be found at google as well as yours. Public info, of course. But I sure wouldn't want anyone broadcasting all that info, to all the world, would you?

You accused me of using a moral judgement...and having a very biased reaction....you are right on both counts. I believe in descretion. If I ran across some info that I knew related to something, someone was researching, then I might decide to share that info. That is on a one-on-one basis, not for all the world to see. I do believe that a persons privacy is very important and I do not ever apologize for that.

I am well aware of the question of Robert Oswald vs Lee Harvey Oswald. Most of us would like to know if they are or are not actual brothers. However, I don't see Robert cooperating at all in our curiosities. I also believe that invading his privacy is not going to bring us any closer to the truth. In fact, it may even have the opposite effect.

____________

Dixie

Dixie, thanks for answering me. If Robert Oswald wanted privacy, he wouldn't have his name and address published in the phone book. He seems fairly assessible. Since it's already known where he lives, I don't see where I'm invading his privacy.

Donald O. Norton has 2 residences in Avon Park, FL. And a doctor's office came up in my search. These 3 properties are located at 1006, on different streets. I think that's very curious.

Bill Kelly said to me online: are you still going to continue to "stalk" Donald O. Norton? Norton lives 2 hours from me. This man had something to do with the assassination. And Ralph Geb meant nothing to me. But his recent picture looked like the "yearbook" photo. I wrote the name down. Later, I searched his name and he was listed as having taken part in the Kennedy assassination. I was shocked. I couldn't believe I had stumbled onto something like this.

But to answer your main comment, I don't see what's wrong with showing a picture of where these people live. It's accessible to the public. A man died in a violent manner with his wife as a witness. I want to know more about that occurrence. If they were involved in the assassination, in any capacity, I don't have too much sympathy for them.

Donald O. Norton has had a better photo of where he lived and his picture published by someone in the research community already. John Armstrong followed Norton for years. Norton said he was Lee Oswald (as opposed to Harvey). In Harvey and Lee, Lee Oswald was in the TSBD and shot from the 6th floor. So if this man claimed to Mae Brussels in front of witnesses that he was Lee Oswald, and the book says that Lee shot from that 6th floor window, I don't see why I should walk on eggshells with a possible assassin.

Again, thank you for your comments, Dixie.

Kathy

[Kathleen Collins]

Kathleen,

I know that it is available, but what purpose does it serve to post this information. I don't think that we will learn very much about Robert Oswald's character from the roofing of his house. It is completely irrelevant. I am listed in the phone book, but that does not mean that I would wish for anyone to post all of my details on the internet.

Many are not frequent users of the internet and are not aware of google earth. Most people would assume that people that did not know them would look up their house and accompany a photo of it with their phone number.

If you can give me a good explanation as to why an aerial picture of the house is relevant, I'm all ears.

John

Google Earth is a research tool. It isn't always accurate in pinpointing someone's home. It's like driving past the house where Robert Oswald lives. Or Donald O. Norton. John Armstrong followed Norton for years, but Norton was always one step ahead of him. You might not be curious about these people, what they do for a living or how they live, but I bet others are. I have never tried to contact these people.

Since your name is in the book, presumably with your address, you are now very accessible to someone curious about you. In effect, you're on the Internet already, John.

Kathy

[John Geraghty]

Kathleen,

Can you answer my question, what purpose does it serve to show the roof of a house? You have made clear that this info is easily accessible and that contact details are public. I'm not disputing that these things are available.

I will say it again, what purpose does it serve to the roof of a house?

John

[Terry Mauro]

Kathleen,

Can you answer my question, what purpose does it serve to show the roof of a house? You have made clear that this info is easily accessible and that contact details are public. I'm not disputing that these things are available.

I will say it again, what purpose does it serve to the roof of a house?

John

**********************************************************

Hi John and Dix,

I've always considered the Norton-Oswald-Lee aspect as, more than likely, another "red Herring," thrown into the mix, if you will. Even if there were a connection, in all probability, it would have been that of a cut-out, or possibly another "rabbit hole" to be chased down, as a diversionary tactic. And, as you well pointed out, Dix. If, by blatantly making these parties' information available on the World Wide Web, in an attempt to somehow coerce them into being more accessible, or amenable to the suggestion that they submit DNA evidence to an amateur, no less, is laughable, not to mention preposterous. I'm sure all the legal aspects of this suggestion have been mulled over by the professionals in the field, in the last twelve to fifteen years since the submission of DNA as evidence has been used in the court of law. But, the thought of relegating the acquisition of such, into the hands of the unqualified, or the inexperienced, might nullify the results, making it suspect, on the grounds of either contamination, or by the unauthorized manner in which it was retrieved.

On the point of broadcasting someone's name, address, or phone number on the internet, without their permission, regardless of whether it's listed or not. Wouldn't that constitute more than just an invasion of privacy? It would seem as though a person who would take the liberty of making another person's information accessible in that manner, would be intentionally setting that person up as a target for harassment, as well. The listing of a person's phone number, and access to their address is a far cry from assuming they're advertising their accessibility to all "comers." There's a charge for having your phone number "unlisted." If I'm not mistaken, I believe it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $11.00 a month, out here in California. Therefore, a person living on a fixed or limited income, might not find that financially feasible, nowadays.

[Kathleen Collins]

I've always considered the Norton-Oswald-Lee aspect as, more than likely, another "red Herring," thrown into the mix, if you will. Even if there were a connection, in all probability, it would have been that of a cut-out, or possibly another "rabbit hole" to be chased down, as a diversionary tactic. And, as you well pointed out, Dix. If, by blatantly making these parties' information available on the World Wide Web, in an attempt to somehow coerce them into being more accessible, or amenable to the suggestion that they submit DNA evidence to an amateur, no less, is laughable, not to mention preposterous. I'm sure all the legal aspects of this suggestion have been mulled over by the professionals in the field, in the last twelve to fifteen years since the submission of DNA as evidence has been used in the court of law. But, the thought of relegating the acquisition of such, into the hands of the unqualified, or the inexperienced, might nullify the results, making it suspect, on the grounds of either contamination, or by the unauthorized manner in which it was retrieved.

On the point of broadcasting someone's name, address, or phone number on the internet, without their permission, regardless of whether it's listed or not. Wouldn't that constitute more than just an invasion of privacy? It would seem as though a person who would take the liberty of making another person's information accessible in that manner, would be intentionally setting that person up as a target for harassment, as well. The listing of a person's phone number, and access to their address is a far cry from assuming they're advertising their accessibility to all "comers." There's a charge for having your phone number "unlisted." If I'm not mistaken, I believe it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $11.00 a month, out here in California. Therefore, a person living on a fixed or limited income, might not find that financially feasible, nowadays.

Terry, there's a website called zabasearch.com. I bet you'll find yourself mentioned therein. I don't believe Donald Norton was a red herring. Stuff is still going on with him. He owns 2 residences in Avon Park, FL. Both houses are numbered 1006 on different streets. A doctor's office also came up. The address? 1006 W. Pleasant St. So I wanted to see his house like I was riding in his neighborhood. And I posted one or two pictures. I thought someone would find it interesting. Why are we protecting these people as time is running out fast?

Regarding Norton, I was looking up businesses related to him. And I happened on this website with a lot of photos. There was a man who looked exactly like Donald Norton. This man spends the summer up in Canada and the winter in Florida. I believe it's either Donald O. Norton himself or a brother. Donald Norton has a brother close in age. Could that be he or his brother?

On the same site, I came across a photo of a man who looked like the "yearbook" picture. As his photo was scrolling down, a name appeared under it: Ralph Geb. I wrote it down and didn't think very much of it. I decided to look him up later. When I did, I discovered Ralph Geb was one of the LHO impersonators in Mexico. He, too, had a brother -- in Army Intelligence. Tell me, what are the odds that something like that will happen? I never heard of Ralph Geb.

On the blog thecloakofdarkness.blogspot.com starting Feb and March 2006, there is more about this topic.

Kathy

Edited February 22, 2007 by Kathleen Collins

[Terry Mauro]

I can google my name and find anything I've chosen to put out there because I'M THE ONE WHO'S WRITTEN IT DOWN AND CHOSE TO PUT IT OUT THERE. Relatives and old boyfriends have found me. Why? Because I made myself known and I have nothing to hide. On the other hand, someone such as the people you're trying to track may not want that information thrown around, or a trail etched to their doorway.

"I don't believe Donald Norton was a red herring. Stuff is still going on with him. He owns 2 residences in Avon Park, FL. Both houses are numbered 1006 on different streets. A doctor's office also came up. The address? 1006 W. Pleasant St. So I wanted to see his house like I was riding in his neighborhood. And I posted one or two pictures. I thought someone would find it interesting. Why are we protecting these people as time is running out fast?"

Who cares what he owns in Florida? Especially if he's a paid asset or agent. So, the numbers come up the same on different streets. Well, you can find that on alot of streets, and in alot of towns. Especially if the houses were built in the early part of the twentieth century, and were part and parcel of a block of lots owned by someone who's surname will also appear on a map of the area as the "edition" of so and so's, or "Located in the So and So edition," who originally bought it in say, 1902, and had it subdivided.

If someone was cruising my street and taking pictures of my house, I might just report it to the local authorities. I'd sure be interested to find out if that person was in the real estate business, or not, and perhaps was trying to market my house? Otherwise, why would they be taking the time to shoot photographs of where I lived?

And who's protecting whom from whom? You need incriminating evidence to build a case. Do you actually believe there'll ever be a case brought against Norton, or the Oswald's will somehow be forced to submit blood samples, for what?

Read Prouty, Donald Gibson, Harold Weisberg, Jim Garrison, Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio, Lyndon LaRouche and Carroll Quigley. Sterling Seagrave has a real good handle on what's really going down. You need to delve into the "deeper politics" of this case before you go off half-cocked chasing waterfalls. You might just end up getting yourself arrested one of these days.

David Lifton gave me a good tip on researchers when he mentioned that it's one thing to think you know what you're looking for. You can pull the damned archives of NARA apart, but if you don't know how to interpret what you're looking at, you're wasting yours and everybody else's time. And, if you don't know how to interview someone once you've made contact with them, you'll end up blowing your wad for nothing, and risk contaminating the waters for someone else who's more experienced at doing that sort of thing.

Besides, the perps are right under your nose, but so well insulated and so goddamned rich they'll never be hauled in for questioning. They could never make it stick to one of the masterminds, who just recently passed away peacefully, in his old age. If you're going to track down anybody with the real answers, go after G. Gordon Liddy, or Felix Rodriguez. Donald Norton and Robert Oswald are small fish, most likely closer to compartmentalized patsies, and already psy-op'd to answer on que.

"On the same site, I came across a photo of a man who looked like the "yearbook" picture. As his photo was scrolling down, a name appeared under it: Ralph Geb. I wrote it down and didn't think very much of it. I decided to look him up later. When I did, I discovered Ralph Geb was one of the LHO impersonators in Mexico. He, too, had a brother -- in Army Intelligence. Tell me, what are the odds that something like that will happen? I never heard of Ralph Geb."

So what? There were at least 8 LHO impersonators and some of them were running around in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63, as well. They're called "cut-outs," the scenarios they perform, in the tasks they're assigned, are called "cut-outs." They're diversionary tactics.

BTW, why do you use such gothic, vampiric pseudonyms for your web/blogsite, and e-mail address? Sardonicus? Isn't that the smile of a corpse after the body has reached a stage in the decay process where the lips become pulled back to the ears, exposing the teeth in a hideous smile? In forensic terminology, known as The Sardonicus Smile? Didn't they make a horror movie of the same name, back in the 1950's?