Deep Politics Forum

[quote name='Jack White' post='188029' date='Mar 28 2010, 12:37 AM']
Reply segment number two.
.............
So here are my questions:

(1) The man who died, according to you, was "Harvey", whom Judyth
knew as "Lee" and who was shot to death by Jack Ruby on 24 November.

That is correct.

(2) Although Robert was the brother of the one you call "Lee" and not of
the one Judyth knew and Ruby shot, they were "dead ringers" of each other.

This "Harvey" and "Lee" business is driving me up the wall. I am talking
about the guy who was in the Marine Corps AND who was at Thanksgiving
dinner with Marina in relation to Robert, whose face you partially impose
over the one I am talking about and who is sitting in front of him at the
Thanksgiving dinner. I do not believe there is anyone who looks like the
"Hunting Lee", which appears to me to be a very crude fabrication. I am
impressed by Judyth's analysis of the photos that the ones you seem to
find most distinctive of "Lee" versus "Harvey" can be explained by a far
simpler theory on the basis of distortions in the images that are either
accidental or deliberate--where I am inclined to believe that they have
been manufactured to support the fantastic theory of "Harvey & Lee".

No. You misunderstood. Robert and Lee were "dead ringers"...NOT
Robert and Harvey.

But of course if there really was only one guy and a variety of photos,
which may or may not withstand critical inspection, then the brother
Robert would have resembled Harvey no less than he did Lee, right?

(3) According to your latest, #678, you have always insisted that Robert
was involved in framing the man that Judyth knew and that Ruby shot.

I have not always insisted that Robert was involved in framing Harvey
BEFORE NOVEMBER 22. I do admit that some of his actions AFTER NOVEMBER 22
were suspicious. This is especially true since he knew of the false defector
activity. Speculating, I'd say that AFTER the assassination Robert may have
been pressured by the Secret Service to "help" by doing certain things like
"discovering" that he had LHO's camera. His failure to reveal the false defector
program can be interpreted, I suppose, into failing to assert the innocence
of Harvey.

Robert, of course, has not only not asserted "Harvey's" innocence but has
actively declared his guilt, and I explained in relation to his PBS interview,
which I found shocking, not to mention that he has written a book in which
he explains why he is convinced that his brother--he certainly affirms that
they were brothers here!--and provides a classic vindication of the Warren
commission's lone-gunman theory. Given his affair with Marina, his "find"
of the Imperial Reflex, and coming into a new home he could not afford, I
cannot imagine why any student of the assassination would believe in him.

(4) In your earlier, #674, however, you state (a) that Robert likely was an
unwitting participant and ( was astounded when "Harvey" was fingered.)

Yes. Read Robert's testimony about his reaction on 11-22. Also about his
testimony on the return of LHO from Russia. He was AWARE OF THE FALSE
DEFECTOR PROGRAM, but was unwitting on any involvement in the murder.

I can't wait to learn more about "the false defector program". This sounds
like something dreamed up just for this occasion as an ad hoc explanation.

(5) Now, if Robert was helping to frame "Harvey", how could he possibly
have been astounded when "Harvey" was blamed for the the assassination?

See above. Same answer. He went for a long nighttime drive "to sort
things out." The reported conversation in jail between Robert and LHO
has some strange clues.

Judyth has been accused of being a "fantasist" when you offer this?

(6) Reading his testimony for his reaction to the event sounds like a waste
of time when we know that (a) he "found" the Imperial Reflex camera no one
had been able to locate in the Paine's garage;

I believe the Secret Service pressured him to "discover" the camera.

So he held his brother in such regard that he was willing to frame him!

(B) he had an affair with Marina following her husband's death;

This is undocumented and unbecoming speculation and gossip by JVB and
others. Show me some documentation for this.

Jack, if we start asking for documentation, I don't think there is much
left of your "defense" of Robert, but I will ask Judyth to address the issue.

and, © he move into a nice, new brick home, which he previously could not
have afforded.

I know of no documentation on this. Please show me. Robert had worked
for many years as a brick salesman for Acme Brick Company. What is
extraordinary about a brick salesman acquiring a brick house?

Well, I suppose it has to do with income and cost and mortgages and stuff
like that, don't you think? But I will invited Judyth to say more about it.

What speaks louder to you?

(7) Moreover, Judyth has shown that, when you correct for distortion, the
images of "Lee" and of "Harvey" tend to converge

Distortion did not exist until someone PUT it there (JVB claimed 10%).
Laymen do not understand that a digitized image properly copied can
produce identical images an almost unlimited number of times without
ANY distortion. Back in the pre-digital days, however, it was common
for prints to be distorted, because of photo paper shrinkage. Most
8x10 prints had an eighth-inch distortion one direction because of
the paper grain shrinkage one direction...UNLESS plastic based
print materials were used. I always used them to insure no distortion.
I can easily ALSO distort an image 10% as was done by someone
with the Bringuier photo ON PURPOSE. It definitely was not "compression."
I am not accusing anyone, because I do not know the source of the photo;
however, a 10% shrinkage in one direction does not just happen; anyone
with a graphics program can do it.

So I take it you and she agree that distortion is present in that photo,
even though you had previously asserted that they were identical?

which suggests to me that, while there may have been "two Oswalds",
they are not adequately identified as "Harvey & Lee" but instead more
plausibly as "Robert & Lee":

That makes no sense at all. Robert was not involved in any way in the
plot to kill JFK. But he did have knowledge of the false defector program
and that Harvey was substituted for Lee for defection to Russia. Robert
conidered this a patriotic act during the cold war. All Marguerite did was
lend the identity of her son to someone. Nobody ever dreamed that it
would involve them in a murder.

Well, this is called "begging the question" by taking for granted an answer
that requires independent establishment. IF ROBERT WAS IMPERSONATING
HIS BROTHER (WHOM YOU CALL "HARVEY"), THEN IT CASTS AN ENTIRELY
NEW LIGHT UPON THE SITUATION. GIVEN HIS OBVIOUS LACK OF LOYALTY
TO "HARVEY" AND HIS ONGOING EFFORTS TO CONVICT HIM OF A CRIME
THAT WE ALL KNOW, ON INDEPENDENT GROUNDS, HE DID NOT COMMIT,
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ADOPT SUCH A NAIVE ATTITUDE HERE.

So my question for you, my friend, is how can you reconcile what I have
just presented, especially your claims (i) that Robert was involved in the
framing of "Harvey" and (ii) that he was an unwitting participant who was
"astounded" when "Harvey" was fingered as the assassin? I don't get it.

Read Robert's testimony to the WC. Read Harvey&Lee. Then you may
get it. And again, I do NOT claim that Robert was "involved in the framing
of Harvey" with the possible exception of "finding" the Imperial Reflex...
plus his failure to exonerate Harvey when he could have.

It is plausible to me that Robert was impersonating Lee on some occasions.

That is not plausible to me. The "Lee" you speak of was HARVEY, who was
NOT his brother. Robert Oswald was NOT a part of the plot to kill JFK.
He would have NO reason to impersonate his brother unless he was a
conspirator. There is NO reason to suspect this.

THE STUNNING DEGREE OF FAMILY RESEMBLANCE STRONGLY SUGGESTS
THAT YOU ARE WRONG. AND JUDYTH HAS PROPOSED WAYS TO PURSUE
IT. I MUST ADMIT THAT, WHEN YOU HAVE INSISTED SO STRONGLY THAT
ROBERT AND "HARVEY" WERE NOT BROTHERS, I'VE HAD TO ASK MYSELF,
"Well, then, what were they? Step-brothers? Was one of them adopted?"
NOW I DISCOVER THAT THIS CLAIM IS SIMPLY PART OF AN ELABORATE
THEORY FOR WHICH THE EVIDENCE APPEARS TO BE HIGHLY DUBIOUS.

And I hope you are not going to suggest that Robert "found" the Imperial
Reflex camera, had an affair with Marina, and purchased a new brick home
because he had to "play along" with the perpetrators "for safety reasons"!

Yes, when he found the situation he had been thrust into, he did whatever
the Secret Service asked him to do. Except I highly doubt the "affair with
Marina" gossip.

NOTE GRAPHIC ADDED AT BOTTOM OF POSTING.

Jack

Jim

[quote name='Jack White' post='188017' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:27 PM']
Reply segment number one...my responses in bold.

...........

OK. Let's see if we can sort some of it out together. By "you guys", I am
referring to you, John Armstrong, and David Lifton, whom I have taken
to be the leading experts on Lee Harvey Oswald. I know that John and
you believe there were two, one "Lee", the other "Harvey", and that the
one Judyth knew in New Orleans was the one to whom you refer to as
"Harvey".

This is correct.

According to Dawn Mededith, the one you call "Lee" (not the
one whom Judyth knew) was short-tempered, non-intellectual and could
not speak Russian, while the one you call "Harvey" was mild-mannered,
intellectual and fluent in Russian.

This is essentially correct, but Dawn Meridith is just a researcher and
what you quote is her research, not mine.

You say the one called "Harvey" was born in Hungary and liked the name
"Harvey",

This is the conclusion of Armstrong, who has studied LHO more intensively
than anyone. I accept John's research.

while Judyth's says that he was born in Louisiana, had a slight Cajun accent,
and hated the name
"Harvey".

Harvey had a NEW YORK (BROOKLYN) type of accent, not Cajun. He
was raised in New York, not Louisiana. Brooklyn accents are often
mistaken for Cajun. Cajun is a corruption of Arcadian, as many
Louisiana residents were Arcadians (from Canada) who spoke French.
As they learned English, it was with a French accent, which is close
to Brooklynese. As for hating the name Harvey, JVB is unfamiliar
with the teacher at Beauregard Junior High interviewed by John,
Myra LaRouse, who remembered LHO well, and insisted that she
call him Harvey.

So we know that at least some of this has to be wrong. OK?

I do not agree with that. For instance, someone mistaking an accent
for Cajun is not "wrong", but a misinterpretation.

I do not know if Lifton believes there were "two Oswalds", but I rather
suspect he does not.

I cannot speak for Lifton. Before H&L was published, David had worked
on an LHO book, but had not determined anything about two LHOs. I
know that David bought the H&L book, and presumably read it. He thereafter
cancelled publishing his own book. I do not know why nor what he thinks.
So what we know about "Oswald" is very obscure.

There is absolutely NO BASIS for this statement.

Now, in this new post you say that you have been suggesting for years
that Robert was involved in framing "Harvey", the man Judyth knew in
New Orleans as "Lee", who, according to you, was not his brother, even
though they looked enough alike that they were virtually "dead ringers"
for one another. In addition, in a recent post, you make this observation:

NO. I do not suggest that Robert was involved in framing Harvey. What
I said was that Robert KNEW that Harvey was not his brother, but
REFRAINED FROM REVEALING THIS as a matter of self preservation.
He could have blown the whistle on the whole affair by telling what
he knew. The fact that photos of Lee and Robert make them look like
"dead ringers" was used by the perpetrators, not by Robert. Robert
was an innocent bystander. He was NOT one of the celebrated
LHO IMPOSTERS.

It may be a while before I answer more questions. My yard man is
due to be here in 30 minutes...and all of tonight is scheduled for
March Madness basketball. I will reply to the remainder of the questions
later.

Jack[/quote]
[/quote]

JUDYTH OFFERS OBSERVATIONS ABOUT JACK'S POSTS:

Jim, Jack's reply is a classic example of cognitive dissonance behavior.

He says he isn't reading my posts but then says that he "seldom read(s)
them carefully because they are repetitive and predictable." As anyone
knows who has been following this thread, this is a false characterization
of the nature of these posts. I have been presenting new information all
along, or little-known information. Jack prefers to mow the grass because
that is a different behavior--it is avoidance behavior. When pigeons are
frustrated and cannot reach grain behind a plate of glass, in cognitive
dissonance frustration, they peck at something they can reach instead!

Jack cuts grass and decides not to read the posts, like the fox and the
grapes, which the fox calls "sour" because he cannot reach them --
Jack is saying my posts are repetitive and predicable, when they are
no such thing, and he would rather mow grass. And at time like this!==

Jack can choose to: (1) attack, (2) apologize and join wholeheartedly
into trying to find out the whole truth, in a good spirit of cooperation --
hard on the ego but wonderful as to having his great skills available in
the matter -- or (3) he can ignore, and peck a something else besides
the glass -- in this case, at his grass==

I have not evaded anything. I have been busy with doctor and dental
appointments and mowing my grass. I spend little time on the computer
now that the weather is nice. The long ALL CAPS

==because of vision problems--I apologize wish I could do better==

and abusive ramblings of JVB

==Not ramblings. Not abusive. Trying to speak kindly and with respect,
despite the way I am being described by Jack. Now you see what Jack
'means' when he said I was 'abusive' at the DellaRosa forum....Am I
being abusive, or just pointing out what should not be ignored or even
proclaimed without careful inspection?==

are very difficult to wade thru, and I seldom read them
carefully because they are repetitive and predictable.

==Sorry -- he's 'seldom' reading my posts, but yet he expects me to
read his posts and answer him and, if not, I am being evasive.==

JVB

[quote name='Jack White' post='188000' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:23 PM']
I have not evaded anything. I have been busy with
doctor and dental appointments and mowing my grass.
I spend little time on the computer now that the weather
is nice. The long ALL CAPS and abusive ramblings of JVB
are very difficult to wade thru, and I seldom read them
carefully because they are repetitive and predictable.

To learn John Armstrong's methodology, read the book.
He footnotes extensively and tells about every source.
If you can find a questionable documentation, please
let us know about it.

He depended VERY LARGELY on interviews of people
who knew the Oswald family. He and Robert Groden
videotaped many of these interviews. He specifically
quotes interviews as sources. Interviews cannot be faked.
If there are fake documents, the WC was taken in by them
because most assassination documents he uses were also
used by the WC. There is no way other public record
documents can be faked, because he made extensive use
of city directories, phone books, court records, real estate
transactions, etc...none of which can be fabricated because
they pre-existed 1963. Fabrication of a telephone book
that was a print run of 200,000 is obviously impossible.

I am not aware of anything I have purposely evaded
if I know the answer. Please rephrase (brief one sentence
questions) any thing you want me to answer. I may have
missed them in the mass of ALL CAPS TYPING used by
JVB. The reason the previous posting seemed a combination
of writing by you and JVB was the ALL CAPS TYPING that
is her trademark. Some of the remarks seemed to be hers.

I do not understand your questioning of the authenticity of
certain publicly published photos. The funeral photo of
Marina, Robert and Marguerite, for instance, was taken and
published by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram the next day.
There was no reason for the newspaper or anyone else
to "fake" it, yet you question whether it is authentic.

As for his uncle Murret tying LHO to the mafia, that is
undocumented and undocumentable. LHO's association with
Uncle Dutz was under the age of 5 and around the age of 14.
It is most dubious that these childhood associations with
a relative would have made either LHO a mafioso.

I am growing very tired of unwarranted accusations about
me, my intelligence, my motives and my research.

I have nothing but pity for this poor quixotic person who has
abandoned a potentially productive life for a person of her
obvious intelligence in order to promote her illicit affair with
a married man.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187989' date='Mar 27 2010, 01:45 PM']
JIM DIRECTS SOME QUESTIONS TO JACK ABOUT ROBERT:

WHEN I ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES OF SELECTION
THAT JOHN ARMSTRONG USED TO DETERMINE WHICH RECORDS
AND DOCUMENTS WERE GENUINE AND WHICH NOT, YOU OFFER
NO RESPONSE. THAT SUGGESTS HE VACUUMED ALL OF THEM UP.

I AM ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE PROVENANCE OF THE PHOTOS
OF THE SECOND MARGUERITE. MY FATHER'S SECOND WIFE WAS
ALSO NAMED "MARGUERITE". I COULD OFFER PHOTOGRAPHS OF
HER AND IDENTIFY HER AS A "SECOND MARGUERITE" AS WELL.

THE POINT I AM MAKING, JACK, IS THAT IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO
FIND PHOTOS AND MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THOSE
SHOWN. IF JOHN HAD NO PRINCIPLES FOR SORTING DOCUMENTS,
WHAT DID HE DO TO DETERMINE THE PROVENANCE OF PHOTOS?

AND IT APPEARS RATHER OBVIOUS AT THIS POINT IN TIME THAT
SOME OF THE IMAGES OF "THE TWO OSWALDS" ARE PHONY OR
FAKED. KATHY SPOTTED IT AND JUDYTH AGREES AS DO I THAT
ONE ON WHICH YOU HEAVILY DEPEND APPEARS TO BE ALTERED.

I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
MORE AND MORE, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
CHILD'S PLAY TO CREATE A PARALLEL IMPERSONATION. I HAVE
HIS BOOK, BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE HAVING SOME ANSWERS.

AND HASN'T ROBERT BEEN DISPOSED TO SUPPORT THE THEORY
THAT HIS BROTHER WAS THE ASSASSIN? SINCE THAT IS PURE
FANTASY, DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST THAT HE (ROBERT) MAY HAVE
BEEN DEEPLY INVOLVED? WHO BETTER TO IMPERSONATE LEE?

IF YOU AND JOHN DON'T HAVE DIRECT, CONVINCING ANSWERS
TO THESE QUESTIONS, THEN I AM GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME
TAKING ALL OF THIS SERIOUSLY. YOU HAD AN OBVIOUS DOUBLE
AT HAND. HOW MUCH TIME HAVE YOU SPENT IN STUDYING HIM?

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187966' date='Mar 27 2010, 03:18 AM']
IS IT POSSIBLE ROBERT COULD HAVE BEEN A "SECOND OSWALD"?
DID YOU AND JOHN ATTEMPT TO TRACK ROBERT'S WHEREABOUTS
ON CRUCIAL DATES? THE PHOTO ABOVE ON THE LEFT DOES NOT
LOOK TO ME REMOTELY LIKE LEE OSWALD. I DOUBT THAT IT IS.

[quote name='Jack White' post='187962' date='Mar 27 2010, 03:04 AM']
Lee and Robert were almost as interchangeable as twins.

Jack[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

JIM COMMENTS ON THE ALLEGED "HUNTING PHOTO OF LEE"

Let me state that his "hunting photo of Lee" categorically falsifies your
theory. "Lee", of course, on your scenario, was in the Marine Corps. I
can assure you that no one who had ever served in the Marine Corps
would hold a rifle or shotgun in the manner shown here. They would
have the weapon across their arms, cradled with the end pointed up-
ward. They would never display the casual, grab-ass behavior that is
displayed by the "Lee" of your photograph, which, as I have observed
before, looks like a completely phony photo in any case. But once a
man has served in the Marine Corps and acquired a minimal degree of
competence with a rifle, they would not handle a long gun as shown.
Either the man in the photo is not your "Lee" or the photo is a phony.

[quote name='Jack White' post='188015' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:59 PM']
I will reply to your questions in segments, because the forum format is
not good for a "mass reply".

Segments to follow.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188010' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:38 PM']
Jack,

OK. Let's see if we can sort some of it out together. By "you guys", I am
referring to you, John Armstrong, and David Lifton, whom I have taken
to be the leading experts on Lee Harvey Oswald. I know that John and
you believe there were two, one "Lee", the other "Harvey", and that the
one Judyth knew in New Orleans was the one to whom you refer to as
"Harvey". According to Dawn Mededith, the one you call "Lee" (not the
one whom Judyth knew) was short-tempered, non-intellectual and could
not speak Russian, while the one you call "Harvey" was mild-mannered,
intellectual and fluent in Russian. You say the one called "Harvey" was
born in Hungary and liked the name "Harvey", while Judyth's says that
he was born in Louisiana, had a slight Cajun accent, and hated the name
"Harvey". So we know that at least some of this has to be wrong. OK?

I do not know if Lifton believes there were "two Oswalds", but I rather
suspect he does not. So what we know about "Oswald" is very obscure.
Now, in this new post you say that you have been suggesting for years
that Robert was involved in framing "Harvey", the man Judyth knew in
New Orleans as "Lee", who, according to you, was not his brother, even
though they looked enough alike that they were virtually "dead ringers"
for one another. In addition, in a recent post, you make this observation:

Today, 05:23 PM
Post #674

Super Member
****
Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: 26-April 04
Member No.: 667

Robert Oswald, of course, knew that Harvey was not his brother, and to this
day he "cooperates" with the perpetrators, as does Marina...for safety reasons.

Robert, Marina and Ruth Paine are the only remaining living persons who
knew both Harvey and Lee. If they were to tell what they know, the case
would be solved.

Robert likely was an unwitting participant. Because both he and Lee were
Marines, and they looked very much alike, the military had photos and
records of both to use in creating confusion in the official record. I am
fairly certain that photos of Robert were in some cases used to portray
Lee. Of course Robert was ASTOUNDED when the assassination happened
and Harvey was named the assassin. What he had assumed was a rather
benign assignment of Lee took a very terrible turn. Read his testimony for
his reaction to the event.

Jack

So here are my questions:

(1) The man who died, according to you, was "Harvey", whom Judyth
knew as "Lee" and who was shot to death by Jack Ruby on 24 November.

(2) Although Robert was the brother of the one you call "Lee" and not of
the one Judyth knew and Ruby shot, they were "dead ringers" of each other.

(3) According to your latest, #678, you have always insisted that Robert
was involved in framing the man that Judyth knew and that Ruby shot.

(4) In your earlier, #674, however, you state (a) that Robert likely was an
unwitting participant and (B) was astounded when "Harvey" was fingered.

(5) Now, if Robert was helping to frame "Harvey", how could he possibly
have been astounded when "Harvey" was blamed for the the assassination?

(6) Reading his testimony for his reaction to the event sounds like a waste
of time when we know that (a) he "found" the Imperial Reflex camera no one
had been able to locate in the Paine's garage; (B) he had an affair with Marina
following her husband's death; and, © he move into a nice, new brick home,
which he previously could not have afforded. What speaks louder to you?

(7) Moreover, Judyth has shown that, when you correct for distortion, the
images of "Lee" and of "Harvey" tend to converge, which suggests to me
that, while there may have been "two Oswalds", they are not adequately
identified as "Harvey & Lee" but instead more plausibly as "Robert & Lee":



So my question for you, my friend, is how can you reconcile what I have
just presented, especially your claims (i) that Robert was involved in the
framing of "Harvey" and (ii) that he was an unwitting participant who was
"astounded" when "Harvey" was fingered as the assassin? I don't get it.

It is plausible to me that Robert was impersonating Lee on some occasions.
And I hope you are not going to suggest that Robert "found" the Imperial
Reflex camera, had an affair with Marina, and purchased a new brick home
because he had to "play along" with the perpetrators "for safety reasons"!

Jim

[quote name='Jack White' post='188002' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:36 PM']
Who are the YOU GUYS you refer to?

What are your questions?

I have always said that Robert Oswald participated in the framing of Harvey.
Harvey was not his brother, so he cooperated in framing him. Now what is
your question about this opinion? Are you saying I am wrong about Robert?
I have long said that some photos of "Lee" are really of Robert. Are you
disputing this? Your questions are not clear.

It is clear to me that Robert helped frame "LHO". I have said this for about
thirty years. Are you disputing this? I do not understand your accusation.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187998' date='Mar 27 2010, 05:53 PM']
JIM HAS MORE QUESTIONS FOR JACK ABOUT ROBERT OSWALD:



In post #469 on page 32, Judyth made the following observations:

I knew that Lee was aware of and even wanted impersonations. We covered up our tracks very well and after Lee left Reily, I could never dare meet him outside there anymore.

Just trying to say, when you know the man, you know some things simply aren’t true.

Then it's easy to find what is true and present it.

Lee told me he even had a relative there. In New Orleans, two of his relatives were working for Reily when he was, and one worker describes a relative as smoking who was actually Lee, as Lee mentioned his male relative smoked.

People should notice that the boy is leaning back...the photo itself has been altered slightly around the nose ...as many other photos, as well...also, though this is supposed to be the Bronx Zoo, Robert Oswald has a fuzzy memory on a lot of stuff, and remember, Lee was visiting John Pic's home, not Robert's, in New York.

Robert has committed various errors and told lies as well, due to his affair with Marina shortly after Lee's death.

He 'found' the damning Imperial Reflex camera in the PAINE garage that had been so thoroughly searched...



Right after being caught with Marina....

Robert then moved into a nice new brick house that he could not have afforded before then.


Then catch what Robert has to say about his brother Lee as the assassin of JFK during a PBS "Frontline" interview:

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ews/oswald.html)

Robert Oswald:

In your mind, are there questions about whether Lee shot President Kennedy?

There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired, two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. There is no question in my mind that he also shot Officer Tippit. How can you explain one without the other? I think they're inseparable. I'm talking about the police officer being shot and the president. You look at the factual data, you look at the rifle, you look at the pistol ownership, you look at his note about the Walker shooting. You look at the general opportunity -- he was present. He wasn't present when they took a head count [at the Texas School Book Depository].

I watched the deterioration of a human being. You look at that last year -- his work, his family, trying to go to Cuba, trying to go back to Russia. His wife is wanting to go back to Russia. Everything is deteriorating.

You look at all the data there, and it comes up to one conclusion as far as I'm concerned -- the Warren Commission was correct.

JIM'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE ALLEGED "EXPERTS" ON LEE HARVEY OSWALD:

These observations suggest to me that Robert was a key player in framing Lee. This is quite outrageous. You guys are supposed to be the "experts" on Lee Harvey Oswald and I have to learn about Robert having what appears to be motive, means, and opportunity to frame him from Judyth? And you guys have the nerve to challenge her background and her competence and her qualifications? The situation here is entirely outrageous. This woman appears to me to be doing more to solve the case in relation to Lee Harvey Oswald than you and John Armstrong and David S. Lifton put together.

[quote name='Jack White' post='187962' date='Mar 27 2010, 04:04 AM']Lee and Robert were almost as interchangeable as twins.

Jack[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

COMMENTS ON "THE TWO OSWALDS" AND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE

Judyth and I are gravitating toward the same position about this "two Oswalds"
business, which she has expressed here as well as I could have put it myself:

FROM WHAT WE ARE SEEING, THIS "HARVEY AND LEE" THING HAS BEEN A
DISTRACTION OF MAJOR PROPORTIONS IN THIS CASE...SUCCESSFUL, NEARLY,
IN ISOLATING "HARVEY" AS HAVING LITTLE TO DO WITH THE PLOT AND VERY
CONVENIENT TO SAY HE WAS UNWITTINGLY TRAPPED, SO THAT HIS HEROIC
ACTIONS IN TRYING TO SAVE JFK WOULD NEVER BE RECOGNIZED OR EVER
BELIEVED BY SOME VERY FINE RESEARCHERS...AND IF A WITNESS COMES
ALONG SAYING OTHERWISE, THEN THEY COULD BE QUICKLY DISMISSED.

I THANK GOD I KNEW THE REAL LEE. I HAVE NOT YET BEGUN TO FIGHT.

But of course all of this will be explained by "the false defector program"!

WHILE TAKING A SHOWER, I STARTED TO THINK ABOUT SUCH A PROGRAM:

1) IT MUST HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED NATIONALLY, SO MARGUERITE WOULD
BE ABLE TO READ ABOUT IT;

2) CHILDREN AND PARENTS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY WOULD HAVE
DESCENDED UPON NEW YORK;

3) WITH ALL THE ATTENTION, THE SOVIETS AND THEIR ASSOCIATES WOULD
NO DOUBT HAVE LEARNED ABOUT IT;

4) IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED UNDER SURVEILLANCE AND THOSE WHO
WERE RECRUITED WOULD HAVE BEEN TRACKED;

5) SO WHEN THE TIME CAME FOR A FAKE DEFECTION, THE SOVIETS WOULD
HAVE ALREADY KNOWN WHO WAS COMING;

6) WHICH MEANS THAT A PROGRAM OF THAT KIND WOULD SURELY HAVE BEEN
SELF-DEFEATING; WHICH MEANS

7) ANY RECRUITING PROGRAM WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN COVERT
AND RUN THROUGH THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS;

8) WHERE INVITATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTENDED UNDER THE MOST
CAREFULLY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS; AND,

9) SECRECY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE WATCHWORD--MASSIVE, TOTAL, AND
COMPLETE AND UTTER SECRECY.

SO FAR AS I AM ABLE TO DISCERN. THE PROGRAM DESCRIBED HERE WOULD
HAVE BEEN A MANIFEST ABSURDITY.

[quote name='Jack White' post='188037' date='Mar 28 2010, 03:06 AM']
The above reply indicates a lack of understanding of the FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM.

Here is the probable scenario.

1. With her family's knowledge, Marguerite took Lee to New York for "mental testing".

2. The mental testing turned out to be a CIA operation to look for candidates to LEND
THEIR IDENTITY TO THE CIA for a FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM.

3. Marguerite, Robert and John Pic all considered this PATRIOTIC.

4. There was NO RISK to Lee; all he was doing was allowing his identity to be used.

5. This happened when Lee was 12 or 13 years old; he probably liked the intrigue of it...
his name being used by a spy being trained.

6. Marguerite likely received much needed compensation for doing this.

7. Armstrong documents how when Marguerite returns to Fort Worth, she began
buying real estate, though said to be destitute.

8. John Pic was first to say that there was a substitute for his half brother. A photo
of Harvey playing hookey at the Bronx Zoo during the New York stay Pic said was
not anyone he recognized.

9. Robert knew of the operation from the beginning, but did not meet HARVEY
until the Thanksgiving Reunion.

10. Lee and Harvey clearly knew each other according to Armstrong's timelines.

11. Ruth Paine was clearly the handler for both Lee and Harvey, and both of them
were involved in the JFK plot, though not witting that Harvey was to be the PATSY.

12. It was arranged that Harvey lived in a rooming house during the week, while
Lee lived at the Paine house.

13. Lee lived at the Paine house on weekends only; it is not known where Lee
lived on weekends.

14. It should be remembered that Marina said: I HAD TWO HUSBANDS, HARVEY
AND LEE.

(“I had two husbands: Lee, the father of my children, an affectionate and kind man;
and Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy.”)

Jack[/quote]

DAVID LIFTON/JIM FETZER EXCHANGE ABOUT JUDYTH

NOTE: This is such an illuminating exchange with David Lifton
that I wanted to share it with the members of the forum. Based
upon a phone conversation with Judyth on 4 March 2000, David
concluded that she was a fake, a "fantasist", if you will, who has
concocted an elaborate fantasy in order to inject herself onto the
pages of history regarding the alleged assassin of JFK. This is a
strong stance to take, for which he believes he is fully justified.

The elements of his conversation with Judyth that led him to be
uncharitable in his estimation of her truthfulness and integrity
included (i) her description of how Lee was dressed on the day
that they met, (ii) her claim that she and Lee had known the
name of Lee's handler (David Atlee Phillips) (iii) and her claim
to have suggested that Lee take laxatives to excuse himself
from even being present on the day of the assassination.

Another claim that she made that he could not believe was the
story of them meeting for a rendevous at a hotel in the middle
of the jungle in Mexico in the resort of Cancun, which he found
incredible, especially since Cancun did not exist at the time. As
Judyth has explained in post #665 on page 45, the hotel was not
situated in the city of Cancun but in the village called Kan Kun,
where it has existed since the 1930s. Lifton made a mistake
over the phone, because they are both pronounced the same.

HE ONLY TELLS YOU TO FOCUS ON "CANCUN" AS HE HEARD IT
OVER THE PHONE. I WAS CRUCIFIED OVER THAT ISSUE UNTIL
DEB BERT AND OTHERS NOTED THAT MAYALAND WAS BUILT
RIGHT THERE AT CHICHEN-IZA, WHERE I SAID LEE AND I
WOULD MEET. LOOK AT A MAP AND POINT YOUR FINGER
HERE -- THE OLD MAPS WE LOOKED AT SAID "KANKUN",
THE NEW ONES SAY THE CITY "CANCUN". And she's right!

In that same post, she has explained that David Lifton made
a second mistake in assuming that Lee had arrived in New
Orleans on the same day he went for an interview. As she
corrects the record, Lee arrived on April 25th, they met the
morning of the 26th, and he arrived in presentable clothing
for his interview that afternoon. This is the second blunder
that David Lifton has made in dismissing Judyth's account.

With regard to knowing the name of Lee's handler, which,
as we know today, was David Atlee Phillips, Judyth has also
explained--in that post but also others--that they overheard
the name "Phillips" being mentioned by Boatner's secretary
and Bill Monaghanm which they used as data in fashioning
a conjecture about his identity. It was less certain that we
often associate with knowing but not without supporting
evidence. I would refer to it today as "an educated guess".

What Judyth has to say in response to David's rejection is
completely reasonable to me, especially when she has her
own supporting evidence about the existence of the hotel
in the middle of the jungle. She even explained to him at
the time of their telephone conversation--which is quoted
in part in post #408 on page 28--so David should have
known that he was imposing too strong an interpretation
upon what Judyth had said to him about figuring it out.

He also debunks the laxative story, which is his right.
But think about it. He faulted Judyth on three counts,
where in each case she appears to have been right and
Lifton was wrong. If we used a "three strikes" rule, then
it would follow that Lifton has "struck out"! What is most
important about all of this, however, is that the points he
took to be false about Judyth's story were implausible.

In other words, they sounded "far-fetched", beyond the
realm of plausibility in his mind. And they were highly
implausible--but they turned out to be true! And there
is more than one aspect to this. Not only are they true,
but they are so implausible that only someone who knew
they were true would offer them as elements of a story
about their relationship with Lee on any other grounds!

The situation, from a logical point of view, means that
these implausible but true elements of Judyth's story
demonstrate (a) that she is not "a fantasist" making
this stuff up--I mean, ask yourself, if you were making
up a story would you included elements like these?--
and (B) that her credibility is dramatically enhanced
each time one of the implausible elements turns out
to be true. That is the case here but also elsewhere.

The story about the laxatives strikes me as fascinating
on several counts, because with her knowledge about
medicine and physiology--wanting to have Lee out of
the picture on the day of the assassination but without
raising alarm among his associates--she came up with
a very practical and easily implemented solution to the
dilemma: create the simulation of a physical illness. I
can't imagine how anyone could fantasize about ExLax!

David tells me that he is "sorry to see you taken in by
all this malarky." But it's only "malarky" if it isn't true.
So far as I can see, the efforts to debunk Judyth have
backfired again and again. Even the most implausible
elements of her story have turned out to be true. And
each time that happens, it enhances her credibility. So,
as I explained to him, I am very comfortable being in
my position--standing with Judyth, in whom I believe.

Here is our email exchange and David's attachments:

Third Email from me to David Lifton:

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 09:00:44 -0500 [09:00:44 AM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Your Judyth phone call transcript . . .

David,

Thank you for this very appropriate letter, which I appreciate. I will
discuss the matter with Judyth and find out if she would be willing to
sign a release. Debra is a flyweight and her conduct does not surprise
me. The three points you make about meeting Lee, Cancun, and laxative
have been rebutted by Judyth on the Simkin forum. Many of her replies
are also appearing on the Deep Politics Forum. While I understand your
concern--given your beliefs about her, based upon your interpretation of
the facts of the matter--I remain convinced that she is "the real deal"
and serves as a enormous reservoir of information about the man accused
of the crime. The very initial implausibility of what she said to you,
in light of "the rest of the story", only reinforces my belief in her.

I am not about to abandon her. Not only does she know more about Lee
than anyone else in the world but she is far better at research than
95% of those who have ever studied the case. You may find this rather
ironic, but as I became more and more convinced of her authenticity, I
contemplated suggesting that you collaborate with her in producing the
definitive study of Lee! That of course is not about to occur, but I
am proud to stand with her and do all I can to bring her story to the
public for the light that it sheds on the murkiest aspect of the case.
I presume you have no objection to my sharing this letter with Judyth
and I do appreciate having the attachments. Thank you for all of this.

Warm regards, my friend!

Jim

P.S. I hope you will contribute to discussion of "the two Oswalds",
which I am coming to believe is the greatest scam perpetrated
in the history of the study of JFK--apart from accusing Lee!

Second Email from David Lifton to me:

Quoting "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>:

Jim,

There was a time, years ago--and specifically, 10 years ago--when the
cassette tape of Judyth (and some copies) sat nearby. This was in the
aftermath of that March 2000 phone call, when I reviewed it multiple times,
with a good friend, and with Robert Chapman, and formed the opinions I did.

As you know, I concluded she was a very smart (but deluded) woman who was a
fantast, and who was methodically inserting herself into the record,
wherever she could. The proper medical word for this was "pseudologia
fantastica" and it has also been referred to as "mythomania."

As I have already said, I am very sorry to see you taken in by all this,
because there's little question in my mind that this will impact negatively
on your work in other areas--and I am very interested in those "other
areas," especially those involving the falsification of the medical evidence
in this case, and the Zapruder film.

But back to Judyth:

It was very obvious what she was doing, and how she was going about doing
it, and rather early on, I decided to opt out, because I did not want to
engage in further debate on the matter. But I watched as Paul Hoch, Reitzes,
and others, systematically destroyed just about every claim she was making.

As to my phone call with her on March 4, 2000:

I offered to have the phone call transferred to an MP-3 file and posted on
the internet--IF Judyth would sign a proper release, so there would be no
legal issues.

At the time, Shackelford, et al, were screaming this was unfair, that she
would certainly NOT sign a release, etc.

And so there the matter rested.

But with this one footnote, or postscript, and that concerns the only
transcript that was ever made of the conversation.

THE DEBRA CONWAY TRANSCRIPT

The only transcript that was ever made was one created by Debra Conway. She
offered to make a transcript, but the experience was very disappointing. At
the time (as I recall) Debra was going through a phase where she thought
Judyth was authentic, and so she was protective of her.

After she heard the tape, Debra behaved peculiarly. She refused to send me
the transcript, or return my tape, unless I agreed never to post it on the
internet. Since, by that time, I had had enough of this nonsense, and
really had no interest in posting it, I agreed. Shortly thereafter, the
transcript was sent to me, and the tape returned.

Then, the fun and games started.

THE DEBRA CONWAY INTERLUDE

Some two years later, the matter of Cancun came up, and I dug up the
transcript to verify something. To my surprise,there was no mention of
"Cancun" on the transcript. For a few days, I was confused. I consulted
with Paul Hoch and Robert Chapman. Had we all imagined this? Was Cancun
mentioned only in the manuscript, but not in the phone call?

Then I had to dig up the tape, which I did, and set aside time to check the
tape. Within minutes, I had verified that the Cancun statement was there,
and then --checking the transcript--confronted the fact that Debra Conway
had omitted the Cancun statement from the transcript. Let me say that
again: Debra Conway prepared a transcript which OMITTED the Cancun
statement, which was on the tape.

As far as I was concerned, that was the end of the line for me, as far as
Debra Conway was concerned. I could not believe that this omission was
anything but deliberate.

I spent a few minutes checking other parts of the transcript, and found
other errors, and decided it was an unreliable document.

So I never relied on it, never posted it anywhere, and simply filed it away.

As I said, I put the whole Judyth episode behind me, some eight years ago
(at least).

As to your request:

First of all: I never made a word-for-word transcript.

Second: The only transcript that was ever made, to my knowledge, is the
inaccurate one that Debra Conway made, and which omits the Cancun reference,
an omission I believe to have been deliberate.

As I have said before: if Judyth will sign a proper legal release, I will be
willing to have the entire conversation, from beginning to end, transferred
to an MP3 or a WAV file, and post it on the Internet.

Then there will be a level playing field, and everyone can hear her the
manner in which she conducted herself in that conversation, and what she
said.

Everyone can then hear, among other things, the following:

* Judyth's reference to that last conversation with LHO, in which she talked
of intending to meet him in Cancun.

*Judyth's statements in which she suggested to Lee that he take a laxative
and pretend to be sick, so that he would not have to show up and fire shots,
etc.

€My careful questioning of her as to what Lee was wearing at that very first
meeting at the U.S. Post Office, where she claimed--repeatedly (and with
considerable emphasis, as I recall) -that he was dressed in workman's
clothes, looked somewhat grubby etc., whereas I very well know otherwise.
Specifically, from my own research and careful study of the chronological
data in the 26 Volumes (and specifically, the Rachal exhibits, and the
Rachal affidavit) that she was supposedly dressed in a suite and tie.
Specifically, and now quoting the Warren Report (which quotes that record):
"Neat. Suit.Tie. Polite." (Rachel Exhibit No. 1) And, in the June, 1964
Rachal affidavit: "I reacll that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit,
dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview." (11 WCH
475).

When Judyth signs a release, I'll post the entire conversation on the
Internet.

Meanwhile, attached find 3 items that may be of interest.

--the Rachal exhibit, an affidavit, which offers evidence contradicting the
way Judyth says LHO was dressed on 4/26/63, the day she first met him



--Her statements about knowing both the name Bishop and Phillips, when she
worked at Reily



--The laxative story







Again, I'm sorry to see you taken in by all this malarky.

DSL

First Email from me to David Lifton:

David,

Judyth has asked me to request a copy of
the transcript (which I am sure you have
created) of your phone call with Judyth.
I would be most appreciative if you would
provide a copy to me so that I can verify
its contents with Judyth. She is actually
very good at this, as I discovered when we
verified the transcript of my first YouTube
interview with her. Thanks for sending it.

Warm regards,

Jim

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT HIS ACCOUNT OF THE FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM:

The above reply indicates a lack of understanding of the FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM.

Here is the probable scenario.

==NOTE JACK CANNOT SAY THIS IS "THE SCENARIO". I HAVE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
ACCOUNT FROM LEE H. OSWALD, AND I WILL EVENTUALLY BRING OUT DETAILS.==

1. With her family's knowledge, Marguerite took Lee to New York for "mental testing".

'FAMILY KNOWLEDGE'? WE HAVE JOHN PIC'S SHOCK THAT MARGUERITE SHOWS UP WITH
LEE AND SEEMS TO WANT TO STAY. MARGUERITE ELSEWHERE GIVES A MULTITUDE OF
REASONS WHY THEY WENT TO NEW YORK, ESPECIALLY WANTING LEE TO BE NEAR HIS
BROTHER.

2. The mental testing turned out to be a CIA operation to look for candidates to LEND
THEIR IDENTITY TO THE CIA for a FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM.

==THE "MENTAL TESTING" OCCURRED AT A YOUTH HOUSE, WHERE LEE WENT ONLY
AFTER MANY MONTHS OF TRUANCY. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT LEE DIDN'T ORIGINALLY GO
TO NEW YORK FOR TESTING.==

3. Marguerite, Robert and John Pic all considered this PATRIOTIC.

WHERE DO THEY SAY THAT TESTING LEE OSWALD IN A FACILITY FOR JUVENILE
DELINQUENTS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH PATRIOTISM? QUOTES, PLEASE.

4. There was NO RISK to Lee; all he was doing was allowing his identity to be used.

CITATIONS, PLEASE. FROM ANY SOURCE BUT WHITE AND ARMSTRONG.

5. This happened when Lee was 12 or 13 years old; he probably liked the intrigue of it...
his name being used by a spy being trained.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO LEE IS ALMOST AS EXCITING AS WHAT HAS
BEEN MADE UP HERE. HOW DID JOHN ARMSTRONG MISS CHARLES THOMAS?
PERHAPS BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SPEND NEARLY THREE YEARS SEARCHING FOR A
GERMAN-ACCENT CUSTOMS AGENT FROM NEW YORK WHO HAD ONCE LIVED IN MIAMI,
HAD TATTOOS ON HIS FINGERS, SPOKE FLUENT SPANISH, AND WAS MARRIED TO A
CHITIMACHA INDIAN WOMAN. WHO HAD PLENTY OF GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT
LEE IN NEW YORK, SOME OF WHICH I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVE OCCURRED.

6. Marguerite likely received much needed compensation for doing this.

HOW LIKELY IS THAT? ARMSTRONG ALSO SAYS SHE SOLD HER HOUSE IN 1952.

7. Armstrong documents how when Marguerite returns to Fort Worth, she began
buying real estate, though said to be destitute.

SHE SOLD HER HOME IN 1952 AND OTHER THINGS OCCURRED, WHICH I CAN EXPLAIN.

8. John Pic was first to say that there was a substitute for his half brother. A photo
of Harvey playing hookey at the Bronx Zoo during the New York stay Pic said was
not anyone he recognized.

I HAVE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED THAT HE PHENOTYPE IS OSWALD. THE STRONG FAMILY
RESEMBLANCE IS UNMISTAKABLE. IF PIC COULD NOT RECOGNIZE THE PHOTO, WE MUST
NOTE THAT THE PHOTO ITSELF HAS BLACK SPOTS ON IT AROUND THE NOSE AND EYES,
WHICH DO NOT BELONG THERE.

9. Robert knew of the operation from the beginning, but did not meet HARVEY
until the Thanksgiving Reunion.

WHO TOLD HIM TO STAY MUM ABOUT 'HARVEY' WHEN 'HARVEY' SHOWED UP FROM RUSSIA? T
THE US GOVERNMENT? WHEN? BEFORE 'HARVEY' ARRIVED? WHAT ABOUT THE PHOTOS ON THE
WALL SHOWING BOTH 'LEE' AND 'HARVEY'? WHEN WAS ROBERT TOLD? WHO GAVE ROBERT THE
IMPERIAL REFLEX CAMERA BEFORE 'LEE' WENT TO RUSSIA?

IT'S TIME FOR A DNA TEST, PEOPLE. THIS IS TOO MUCH. WE HAVE TO HAVE TWO MARGUERITES
-- ONE OF WHOM VANISHES FOREVER. ARMSTRONG IS RELYING ON RECORDS WHEN LEE TOLD
ME PLAINLY THAT SOME RECORDS ABOUT HIM HAD BEEN FAKED. YOU MUST NEVER BELIEVE
EVERY RECORD YOU FIND ABOUT A FAKE DEFECTOR. LEE SAID HE HAD A WAY TO 'SLIP BACK
INTO SOCIETY' AS IF HE HAD NEVER LEFT DUE TO ALTERED RECORDS, SO HE COULD HAVE A
NORMAL LIFE AFTER HE LEFT THE AGENCY. HE TRIED TO LEAVE--THEY SAID HE COULD LEAVE
AFTER CHRISTMAS, 1963. THEY KEPT HIM HOPING. YOU CAN EVEN SEE [HIS OPTIMISM IN]
THAT IN THE THANKSGIVING MOVIE PHOTOS -- OR CORRECT ME, IF I AM WRONG, PLEASE.

10. Lee and Harvey clearly knew each other according to Armstrong's time lines.

OF COURSE THEY DID. THEY WERE ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.

11. Ruth Paine was clearly the handler for both Lee and Harvey, and both of them
were involved in the JFK plot, though not witting that Harvey was to be the PATSY.

RUTH PAINE'S HOSTILITY TOWARD LEE COULD NOT BE MORE OBVIOUS. WHEN HE CALLED FROM
JAIL ASKING HER TO CONTACT A LAWYER -- JOHN ABT OF NEW YORK -- FOR HIM, SHE FAILED
TO DO SO. SHE HAS CIA WRITTEN ALL OVER HER. WHAT SHE DID THE NIGHT OF NOV. 21 IS
TRULY SUSPICIOUS AND I HOPE TO ALERT EVERYONE TO READ HER ACCOUNT OF THAT NIGHT
VERY CAREFULLY.

SHE ALSO FOOLED LEE INTO THINKING SHE WAS GOING TO STAY WITH HIS WIFE WHEN MARINA
HAD HER SECOND CHILD, THEN JUST DROPPED POOR MARINA AT THE HOSPITAL AND RETURNED.
INFURIATING LEE WHO HAD STAYED BEHIND TO WATCH HER CHILDREN AND HIS DAUGHTER. HE
REFUSED TO SPEAK TO HER AND PRETENDED HE WAS ASLEEP WHEN HE HEARD HER CALL AND
FOUND OUT MARINA WAS OK AND HAD DELIVERED HER BABY ONLY AN HOUR OR SO AFTER BEING
DROPPED OFF TO HAVE THE BABY WITHOUT ANY RUSSIAN-SPEAKING PERSON PRESENT. THE
PAINES DID NOT CARE ONE HOOT ABOUT LEE, EITHER. HE WAS THEIR ASSIGNMENT. PERIOD.

12. It was arranged that Harvey lived in a rooming house during the week, while
Lee lived at the Paine house.

THIS IS THE MOST ABSURD OF ALL, AS LEE LOVED TO PLAY WITH THE KIDS THERE AND NEXT DOOR
AND THEY LOOKED FORWARD TO HIS VISITS. SO THEY BOTH SHARE MARINA, RIGHT?

13. Lee lived at the Paine house on weekends only; it is not known where Lee
lived on weekends.

BECAUSE HE WAS LEE H. OSWALD.

14. It should be remembered that Marina said: I HAD TWO HUSBANDS, HARVEY
AND LEE.

==SHE MEANT THAT THE WAY RUSSIANS ALWAYS SPEAK. A STUDY OF LINGUISTICS AND CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY WOULD HELP A GREAT DEAL HERE. ONE MAN WAS A SPY, THE OTHER HER "WORKMAN
HUSBAND" WHO WAS A 'BOOKWORM' (HER WORDS). THE BAD JOB DONE ON LEE BY THE MORTICIAN
INCLUDED NOT INJECTING ENOUGH EMBALMING FLUID IN THE FACE, PUTTING ON TOO MUCH MAKEUP,
AND SEWING HIS LIPS TOO TIGHT. THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS ARE CLEARLY LEE.

POOR MARINA WAS IMPOSED UPON TO OPEN THE GRAVE AND HAVE HIM EXHUMED BECAUSE THE SCAR
LEE HAD HIDDEN UNDER HIS EAR TO HIDE HIS MASTOID OPERATION WAS NOT IN HE AUTOPSY. SURE
ENOUGH, THEY FOUND THE MASTOID BONE PROCESS BLUNTED BY HE OPERATION AND THE INFECTIONS.
THERE'S MORE, BUT THAT'S ENOUGH FOR NOW.==

(“I had two husbands: Lee, the father of my children, an affectionate and kind man;
and Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy.”)

BECAUSE LEE'S ENEMIES PRESENTED TO HER A DICHOTOMOUS IMAGE. SHE KNEW THAT LEE WAS AN
AFFECTIONATE AND KIND MAN--HE HAD STOPPED MISTREATING HER AND WAS DECENT TO HER, EVEN
THOUGH HE ULTIMATELY PLANNED TO DIVORCE HER. HE LEFT HIS WEDDING RING BEHIND -- FOR GOOD
REASON, IF HE GOT OUT ALIVE, WE WOULD HAVE MET IN MEXICO....

MARINA SAID YEARS LATER SHE HAD BEEN PRESENTED MUCH FALSE INFORMATION AND HAD BEEN
PERSUADED THAT HER HUSBAND WAS THE ASSASSIN. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT MARINA OSWALD
WAS SLEEPING WITH TWO SEPARATE MEN. LET'S SEE THE LIST [ACCORDING TO JOHN ARMSTRONG]:

1) TWO MARGUERITES -- ONE VANISHES

2) TWO OSWALDS -- ONE VANISHES

3) ROBERT OSWALD KNOWS BUT NEVER TELLS

4) RUTH PAINE KNOWS BUT NEVER TELLS HER SHE HATES ALL THAT LAUNDRY IN HER SMALL HOME
WHERE 'LEE' MUST SLEEP ON THE COUCH OR WITH MARINA ALL WEEK!

5) MICHAEL PAINE ALSO KNOWS BUT DOESN'T TELL

7) DO WE EVER HAVE ANOTHER CASE OF A SPY "DUAL PAIR" IDENTITY FROM CHILDHOOD KNOWN IN
THE RECORDS LATER THAN LEE OSWALD "LEE" AND "HARVEY"?

8) WHY HASN'T A SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED IN THIS COMPLEX SCENARIO EVER LEAKED A WORD?
THEY'RE STILL ALIVE, TOO. DID ARMSTRONG EVER ASK ANY OF THEM, FACE TO FACE? CAN WE SEE
THOSE INTERVIEWS WHERE HE ASKED THEM?

AND,

9) FINALLY, JAMES OLMSTEAD TELLS US:

From: James K. Olmstead

Subject: Re: Harvey & Lee by John Armstrong

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

Date: 2003-11-12 14:31:11 PST

Harvey: You seem to be well versed in Armstrong's work so I would like to ask you a question
concerning the need to provide the "youth" with a new identity (Oswald's).

>From your first post

"HARVEY & LEE: HOW THE CIA FRAMED OSWALD" by John Armstrong

Two young boys, AMERICAN-BORN Lee Oswald and an eastern European refugee who spoke Russian
and was given the name "Harvey Oswald," were selected by the CIA for inclusion in a super-secret
project known as MK/ULTRA in the early 1950s. The plan was to merge the identity of the two over
a period of years and then, if successful, to place the Russian-speaking refugee with an American
identity into the Soviet Union as a spy.

Several years ago.....when Jack White was pushing the work of Armstrong I asked this same question
with no answer..... perhaps you can address the issue.

OLMSTEAD REPLIES:

First, there was no need to adopt the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald to provide a "new cover" for the
"refugee". Under Title 10 USC Subtitle C-Navy and Marine Corps Chapter 537, sec 5532 and 5533,
once the "refugee" was 14 years of age, he could enlist in the service under Sec 5533.

If there was no birth certificate for the young boy...the enlisting officer only had to "confirm" that
this individual was who he said he was. It was quite simple to give somebody a new name and a new
life...without involvement of "another". This law was changed after 1964......but was in effect during
the 1948-1964 period.

Why go through all the "trouble"...when things could be done quickly and legally as well as "deep undercover"?

jko

Jack

JVB
[quote name='Jack White' post='188037' date='Mar 28 2010, 03:06 AM']The above reply indicates a lack of understanding of the FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM.

Here is the probable scenario.

1. With her family's knowledge, Marguerite took Lee to New York for "mental testing".

2. The mental testing turned out to be a CIA operation to look for candidates to LEND
THEIR IDENTITY TO THE CIA for a FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM.

3. Marguerite, Robert and John Pic all considered this PATRIOTIC.

4. There was NO RISK to Lee; all he was doing was allowing his identity to be used.

5. This happened when Lee was 12 or 13 years old; he probably liked the intrigue of it...
his name being used by a spy being trained.

6. Marguerite likely received much needed compensation for doing this.

7. Armstrong documents how when Marguerite returns to Fort Worth, she began
buying real estate, though said to be destitute.

8. John Pic was first to say that there was a substitute for his half brother. A photo
of Harvey playing hookey at the Bronx Zoo during the New York stay Pic said was
not anyone he recognized.

9. Robert knew of the operation from the beginning, but did not meet HARVEY
until the Thanksgiving Reunion.

10. Lee and Harvey clearly knew each other according to Armstrong's timelines.

11. Ruth Paine was clearly the handler for both Lee and Harvey, and both of them
were involved in the JFK plot, though not witting that Harvey was to be the PATSY.

12. It was arranged that Harvey lived in a rooming house during the week, while
Lee lived at the Paine house.

13. Lee lived at the Paine house on weekends only; it is not known where Lee
lived on weekends.

14. It should be remembered that Marina said: I HAD TWO HUSBANDS, HARVEY
AND LEE.

(“I had two husbands: Lee, the father of my children, an affectionate and kind man;
and Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy.”)

Jack[/quote]

THIS IS A CORRECTED REPOSTING OF POST #658 ON PAGE 44. AS
INDICATED, I WAS GOING TO VERIFY WITH JUDYTH THAT I HAD IT
RIGHT, AND IT TURNS OUT THAT I HAS MISSED A CRUCIAL PHOTO.
I HAVE CORRECTED A COMMENT ON THE PHOTOS OF MARGUERITES
AND AN ADDITIONAL PHOTO OF MARGUERITE NEEDS TO BE ADDED.

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON KATHY'S CATCH ON TWO PHOTOGRAPHS

[NOTE: I am going to verify with Judyth that I have this post right.]

WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

KATHY C. MADE SOME GOOD REMARKS ABOUT THE PHOTO TO THE
LEFT OF LEE OSWALD OF NOV. 22 –TAKEN WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER.

I DECIDED TO COPY A MORE PRISTINE PHOTO ON THE INTERNET.



IN FACT, IT IS FROM JACK WHITE’S COLLECTION – A PASTICHE THAT
INCLUDES A COUPLE OF PHOTOS, SOME OF WHICH I DO NOT ACCEPT
AND WANT TO KNOW THEIR TRUE PROVENANCE.



THE PHOTO SHOWN ON THE LEFT IS THE ONE JACK WHITE POSTED AT
THE EDUCATION FORUM.

1) IT HAS BEEN COPIED SO MUCH THAT MANY DETAILS THAT ARE ON
THE PHOTO TO LEFT ARE MISSING. MANY OF THESE DETAILS (WASHED
OUT) WOULD HAVE MATCHED TO THE NOV. 22 PHOTO OF LEE H. OSWALD.

THAT WAS SHOWN NEXT TO IT. THE DETAILS CAN BE SEEN JUST FINE
IN THE MORE PRISTINE PHOTO.

2) THIS PHOTO, OF ‘LEE’ TOO, IS TOO WIDE, AGAIN BY ABOUT 10% --
BUT CURIOUSLY, THIS TIME THE EXTRA WIDTH BEGINS JUST WHERE THE
‘LINE’ IS SHOWN (MUCH MORE CLEARLY, FOR SOME REASON, IN PHOTO
TO THE LEFT)…WHERE THIS LINE, IN FACT, SHOULD HAVE FADED OUT MORE,
AS DID OTHER DETAILS. INSTEAD, THIS LINE IS STRONGER. AND NOT ONE
BUT TWO LINES ARE VISIBLE.

3) THE TRULY DISTURBING THING IS THAT ONLY A SECTION OF THIS PHOTO
HAS BEEN WIDENED — AN AREA EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY AT THE JUNCTION
WHERE EARS ATTACH AT THE TOP OF THE EARS TO THE HEAD, AND JUST BELOW
THE LINE OF THE LOWER LIP, CENTER. THE DISTORTION ENHANCES THE WIDTH
OF THE FACE IN JUST THIS AREA, MAKING ONLY HIS PART OF THE FACE MARKEDLY
WIDER THAN THE ORIGINAL PRISTINE PHOTO.



THE DIFFERENCE CAN BE SEEN BY THE UNAIDED EYE.

THE HUMAN EYE SCANS THIS LENGTH DIFFERENCE AUTOMATICALLY.

A LONGER DISTANCE RADICALLY CHANGES IDENTIFICATION FACTORS
FOR PEOPLE.

4) TAKE A RULER AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. IT’S AMAZING, ACTUALLY.

5) THIS KIND OF DISTORTION COULD NOT BE MADE UNDER A SCANNER,
OR BY PHOTOS REPHOTOGRAPHED TOO MANY TIMES. THE DISORTION IS
ACROSS ONLY A CERTAIN AREA — NOT THE WHOLE PHOTO — WHICH IS A
PHOTOSHOP EFFECT.

THE CHANGES FROM THE PRISTINE PHOTO ARE SO EXTREME THAT THE PHOTO
JACK SUPPLIED SHOULD BE DISCARDED AS HOPELESSLY DISTORTED FOR ID
PURPOSES.

6) I HAVE NOW SEEN THREE INSTANCES OF DISTORTED OR MISREPRESENTED
PHOTOS:

1) THE FEET OF MARGUERITE NOT LINED UP PROPERLY TO ACCOUNT FOR
WEARING HEELS IN ONE PHOTO AND FLOPPY SLIPPERS IN THE OTHER…



IN ADDITION, THE STATEMENT SAYING BOTH PHOTOS WERE TAKEN IN 1947
IS NOT CORRECT. THE WOMAN ON THE LEFT ON THE ORIGINAL DUAL PASTICHE
WAS MARGUERITE WHEN LEE WAS IN THE SERVICE. CLEARLY, HOWEVER, IT
WAS NOT TAKEN IN 1947 WHEN LEE WAS ONLY 8 YEARS OLD AND COULD NOT
YET HAVE BEEN IN THE MARINES. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG...

2) THE NOV. 22 PHOTO OF LEE WAS DISTORTED 10% -- WHICH MADE HIS FACE
LOOK TOO FAT AND THUS DID NOT MATCH THE PHOTO HERE AT UPPER RIGHT.

WHEN CORRECTED, THERE WAS A BETTER MATCH…THEN KATHY POINTED OUT THE
ODDITIES OF THE PHOTO ON THE UPPER LEFT.

3) SURE ENOUGH, SHE WAS RIGHT. THE LINE SHOLD HAVE BEEN FADED OUT.
IT’S ALMOST AS IF SOMEBODY CUT THE PHOTO THERE AND BLEW THAT PART
UP AND THEN CONNECED IT AGAIN, USING PHOTOSHOP OR A LITERAL PRINTOUT
THAT WAS CUT.

THAT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, BUT SOMETHING HAPPENED TO IT.

THE PHOTO AT THE UPPER LEFT, HERE, HAS BEEN DISORTED IN A VERY PARTICULAR
SECTION. WHEN CORRECTED (BY REMOVING THE EXTRA WIDTH OF THE DISTORTED
SECTION), HOWEVER, IT THEN MATCHES THE PRISTINE PHOTO’S SECTION.

7) PRINT THIS OUT 3 TIMES, CUT OUT THE PHOTOS, REMOVE THE EXTRA LIP AMOUNT
(USE RULER) AND THEN THE FEAURES OF BOTH PHOTOS LINE UP JUST FINE.

8) WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FADED-OUT EDUCATION FORUM PHOTO THAT IT HAS
SIGNIFICANT DISTORTION IN A KEY FACIAL I.D. AREA, FORENSICALLY SPEAKING?

NOW I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE PROVENANCE AND HANDLING OF THESE
PHOTOS.

WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?

WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT FROM EARLIER, CLEARER PHOTOS?

WHO GAVE THEM TO JACK WHITE, OR TO JOHN ARMSTRONG?

JVB

Dr Jim...try this photgraphs link to m/f....http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.ph...ibits_-_p4 LINK NOW WORKING...:hello:


for one...
as Jack has mentioned previously many, most of lho's photo came from the government investigations such as his passport photo..etc //the hunting photo, was included and as far as i know taken by robert oswald,printed in his book, you would have to run each of them down...i would personally and have gone by jack's information on where they have originated from, i have not known him to have been in error in all these years but too each their own, if that is what one must do to satisfy themselves but an extensive time investment.will be needed, .there are others some, on the web copied from such as groden's book, and others, perhaps they may state where they came from originally, some do, but will give the same answers in the end i do believe also some came from different newspapers, photographers at the time etc...a huge endeavour if wanting to trace each and every and not relying on our own expertise of jack white, that is what he does and has forever, there has been no doubting of such in the past,that i know of except by accusations of some L/NRS.. i would hate to think now that it seems to me, that your new contact may have put that doubt in your thoughts now, perhaps she has the time to run each down.if so and then hope that no one will have any doubts, all works both ways..imo... for now//best b..

Dr Jim...for instance...and Jack i would be most appreciative if you would follow up this with the correct photos, i believe i am quite sure but not positive..thanks...

''Lee's crew cut portrait was photographed in front of a height chart at some unknown location. He is 5' 9'' .and an OVERLAID strip at the bottom shows his serial number, 1653230, On the back is the handwritten ''Lee H.Oswald photograph taken 28 December 1956. It was found in an ONI FILE many years after the assassination. it looks just like the young man on the 1959 passport, but not like the young man who defected to Russia. although similar. The defector's baby face cheeks give him a plumper facial oval.''( info found in my files.).that is just one more example to hunting them all down..and finding and giving the documentation for each and every.best b

Bernice, Thanks for your posts, which I greatly appreciate. Jack has made a response to my comments on the "Hunting photo" as follows:



Today, 02:55 AM
Post #709

Super Member

Group: Members
Posts: 7140
Joined: 26-April 04
Member No.: 667

The "hunting photo" is NOT my photo, but was a personal photo allegedly
taken by Robert when he took Lee hunting just before Lee "departed
for New Orleans" for his defection. I copied the photo from LEE, written
by Robert Oswald. The way a Marine handles a rifle is not necessarily
indicative of what he would do when out hunting. Not everyone behaves
according to any preconceived notion. I have no opinion on the veracity
of the photo. It may be genuine, it may be faked. But it does not resemble
the LHO of Dealey Plaza.

Jack

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Mar 28 2010, 02:49 AM)
JIM COMMENTS ON THE ALLEGED "HUNTING PHOTO OF LEE"

Let me state that his "hunting photo of Lee" categorically falsifies your
theory. "Lee", of course, on your scenario, was in the Marine Corps. I
can assure you that no one who had ever served in the Marine Corps
would hold a rifle or shotgun in the manner shown here. They would
have the weapon across their arms, cradled with the end pointed up-
ward. They would never display the casual, grab-ass behavior that is
displayed by the "Lee" of your photograph, which, as I have observed
before, looks like a completely phony photo in any case. But once a
man has served in the Marine Corps and acquired a minimal degree of
competence with a rifle, they would not handle a long gun as shown.
Either the man in the photo is not your "Lee" or the photo is a phony.

Bear in mind that I supervised recruit training at the Recruit Depot in San Diego from June 1964 to June 1965, when I was moved up to Regimental Headquarters. I was a Series Commander with 15 DIs and 300 recruits under my command in taking them through the training cycle, which, at the time, was eleven weeks in duration with a week at the rifle range. I have no idea whether or not Jack has any military experience, but the training in handling a rifle is extreme and no one who had successfully completed it would ever be so careless as to hold a long gun in the fashion shown in that photo. It cannot be a photograph of any former Marine, because they would have been reprimanded on the spot and censured for such conduct.

So this photo is either not of Lee or it is a fake. Indeed, the oddest aspect about it is that it doesn't look like any actual person. Since Robert is the one who is supposed to have taken it, my suspicions about his role in all of this are growing by leaps and bounds. Can the JFK research community have been so dumb as to ignore that (a) he is the spitting image of his brother, (b) that he could effortlessly have impersonated him, and © that he has gone out of his way to implicate him in the crime, even though the proof of his innocence is manifest and abundant. I have not studied this aspect of the case before, but I am simply astonished at the apparent naivete of those who are willing to give Robert a free pass. He was deeply involved.

I am also taken aback that, after all of this research on "Harvey & Lee", it takes Judyth Baker to point out that one of the crucial photos--the "passport" photo--is distorted by the "plumper facial oval" in ways that should have been apparent to those undertaking these studies. When we have a fake "Hunting photo" and a distorted "passport photo" which have been taken to be forms of proof of the existence of "Harvey & Lee", I am completely dumbfounded. It appears to me this entire dimension of the case has to be completely rethought, because it seems to be littered with rubbish. I have the greatest respect for my dear friend, Jack, but something is not right about all this to-do about "Harvey & Lee". Something is very wrong.