+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee (/thread-11170.html)
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jim Hargrove - 26-09-2013
David Josephs Wrote:Give me a minute Jim... I will do an overlay and show you and everyone else... Phil has a GREAT eye...
DJ
Not only is the writing VERY similar... the names of the Science teacher at the top of the card is not the same as the bottom (R. Beaver and S. Bush - hey... did someone pull a pretty suggestive joke at our expense here... or was that vernacular more recent ?? )
This almost makes it sound like the real science teacher was trying to be funny. Have you ever seen any humor (crude or otherwise) EVER displayed by anyone in the FBI? No idea when those terms came into our lexicon, but it sure sounds like a joke.
David Josephs Wrote:Jim... there was what looks like only 5 absences not 12... someone must have known the 180 day rule... Please address the FACT only one term report appears for both part-time classes... STILL suggests he was there during that term.. only means to me that possibly HARVEY did not enter BJHS until much later in the year (Nov/Dec) and may have spent time in Ft Worth or elsewhere those months... sorry, I am still not convinced the 179 plus 5 absences is an accurate reflection of ANY child's time there, let alone indicative of a child having been there the entire FALL TERM... but only a part of it.
That's not so clear to me. The 53-54 Science report seems to indicate an isolated grade of 70 for the FIRST TERM, and then the card seems to be cut off where the second term info would be. Did you cut that off, or is that how it appears in the WC? Grades for both terms are shown for Phys Ed.
David Josephs Wrote:I am inclined to first believe the "89" is part of the forgery and designed to have it add to 180 again and NOT the # of days HARVEY attended BJHS in the FALL... but he DID attend while he was supposedly at PS44 in NYC....But 89 days weren't needed if the goal was to reach 180. Look at the second term: 90 days present plus 4 days absent. I'm guessing, but I'm not sure fall and spring terms had to have an equal number of days. The lengthy Christmas vacation occurs in the fall term, plus New Year's, so perhaps it was a little shorter, but these records are strange indeed!!
and that's the important point.
Jim
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Phil Dragoo - 26-09-2013
David
Yes, that's what occurs to me
One may find a Miss Phipps who was the school secretary--probably Steven Witt's cousin
Or one may find the thousand-and-first example of revision of the record to a) fit the narrative; b) remove the anti-narrative
So now there are schools in the Warren Commission volumes which exist solely to protect the legend of the monad Oswald
A ps 44 Schrödinger's cat mascot for its physics
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - David Josephs - 26-09-2013
Jim Hargrove Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:Give me a minute Jim... I will do an overlay and show you and everyone else... Phil has a GREAT eye...
DJ
Not only is the writing VERY similar... the names of the Science teacher at the top of the card is not the same as the bottom (R. Beaver and S. Bush - hey... did someone pull a pretty suggestive joke at our expense here... or was that vernacular more recent ?? )
This almost makes it sound like the real science teacher was trying to be funny. Have you ever seen any humor (crude or otherwise) EVER displayed by anyone in the FBI? No idea when those terms came into our lexicon, but it sure sounds like a joke.
David Josephs Wrote:Jim... there was what looks like only 5 absences not 12... someone must have known the 180 day rule... Please address the FACT only one term report appears for both part-time classes... STILL suggests he was there during that term.. only means to me that possibly HARVEY did not enter BJHS until much later in the year (Nov/Dec) and may have spent time in Ft Worth or elsewhere those months... sorry, I am still not convinced the 179 plus 5 absences is an accurate reflection of ANY child's time there, let alone indicative of a child having been there the entire FALL TERM... but only a part of it.
That's not so clear to me. The 53-54 Science report seems to indicate an isolated grade of 70 for the FIRST TERM, and then the card seems to be cut off where the second term info would be. Did you cut that off, or is that how it appears in the WC? Grades for both terms are shown for Phys Ed.
Jim - the comparison I am making is between the SPRING 54 TERM where we know a child attended since 1-13-54 shows 3 TERM REPORTS.
The two classes from the FALL TERM (if they were indeed from the fall term) only have 1 TERM REPORT before the final TERM grade. (yes - the card is cut off yet all I wanted to show was the 1 TERM report)
If you can, reconcile why one FULL TERM's GRADES do not mirror another FULL TERM's grades as they do for the rest of his time at BJHS. If he was attending BJHS from day one FALL TERM we should expect to see 3 TERM REPRTS for just those two classes and no grades for anything else. That's not what we see. I am NOT syaing HARVEY didn't attend in the FALL, just that these cards suggest he did not start at the beginning of the TERM -
My concern is if the SPRING TERM does not start until later, these 2 FALL grades could be for a 4-5 week period AFTER 1-13-54 and not be related to HARVEY at all. Even DeRouse did not see HARVEY in the FALL and the PE absences are 2, not 1. What happened to the other absence from this FALL term on the final cumulative form? (like the 12 absences for the next year yet only 5 recorded on most of the grade cards)
David Josephs Wrote:I am inclined to first believe the "89" is part of the forgery and designed to have it add to 180 again and NOT the # of days HARVEY attended BJHS in the FALL... but he DID attend while he was supposedly at PS44 in NYC....But 89 days weren't needed if the goal was to reach 180. Look at the second term: 90 days present plus 4 days absent. I'm guessing, but I'm not sure fall and spring terms had to have an equal number of days. The lengthy Christmas vacation occurs in the fall term, plus New Year's, so perhaps it was a little shorter, but these records are strange indeed!!
and that's the important point.
The MINIMUM was 180... that school year had 184 days imo, and I still believe the Re-Ad column represents TOTAL DAYS in the school year... there does not seem to be any record of ATTENDED DAYS in the BJHS records... does it not make sense to put "absences" and "total days" and not worry about attended days which SHOULD always be a very large # (TOTAL - Absent). That NYC kept records of days attended is still unknown - have you ever seen another of either form for any other student?
That would help settle quite a lot.
DJ
Jim
I think I need to add this line so it will take my post... I guess if you post within another post it doesn't recognize any new characters...
DJ
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jim Hargrove - 27-09-2013
David Josephs Wrote:The MINIMUM was 180... that school year had 184 days imo, and I still believe the Re-Ad column represents TOTAL DAYS in the school year... there does not seem to be any record of ATTENDED DAYS in the BJHS records... does it not make sense to put "absences" and "total days" and not worry about attended days which SHOULD always be a very large # (TOTAL - Absent). That NYC kept records of days attended is still unknown - have you ever seen another of either form for any other student?
That would help settle quite a lot.
DJ
David,
We've been over this before. According to the FBI's description of the interview with Wilfred Head, Louisiana state law required 170 school days, but regularly there were 180 school days in a year, at least, I assume, for Beauregard and Warren.
How can you argue that the "RE AD" column equals total days in the school year when the summation "Re Ad" column for 1954-55 was only 168, two days less than the legal requirement of Louisiana, and 12 days less than the regular 180 days Head described? If the "Re Ad" column equaled, as you suggest, total school days available, then this report would be clear evidence that Beauregard JHS was violating Louisiana law! It doesn't make any sense, unless your goal is to dispute the 89 days of attendance indicated in the "Re Ad" for the fall term of 1953-54. The supporting docs for that term do look peculiar, but no sleight-of-hand can make those 89 days of attendance claimed by this Beauregard report disappear.
JIm
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - David Josephs - 27-09-2013
Jim Hargrove Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:The MINIMUM was 180... that school year had 184 days imo, and I still believe the Re-Ad column represents TOTAL DAYS in the school year... there does not seem to be any record of ATTENDED DAYS in the BJHS records... does it not make sense to put "absences" and "total days" and not worry about attended days which SHOULD always be a very large # (TOTAL - Absent). That NYC kept records of days attended is still unknown - have you ever seen another of either form for any other student?
That would help settle quite a lot.
DJ
David,
We've been over this before. According to the FBI's description of the interview with Wilfred Head, Louisiana state law required 170 school days, but regularly there were 180 school days in a year, at least, I assume, for Beauregard and Warren.
How can you argue that the "RE AD" column equals total days in the school year when the summation "Re Ad" column for 1954-55 was only 168, two days less than the legal requirement of Louisiana, and 12 days less than the regular 180 days Head described? If the "Re Ad" column equaled, as you suggest, total school days available, then this report would be clear evidence that Beauregard JHS was violating Louisiana law! It doesn't make any sense, unless your goal is to dispute the 89 days of attendance indicated in the "Re Ad" for the fall term of 1953-54. The supporting docs for that term do look peculiar, but no sleight-of-hand can make those 89 days of attendance claimed by this Beauregard report disappear.
JIm
Jim -
how does a FORGED DOCUMENT with FAKE INFO violate Louisiana law?
How do you reconcile 5 absences on most 54-55 grade cards yet 12 on the cumulative based on what?? (I see only that 168 + 12 = 180 ON A FORGERY that does not match the source info if THEY are not FOGERIES - if they are then someone at the FBI messed up real good)
Please tell us the number of days in the 54-55 school year in NOLA at BJHS... for OSWALD to have attended 89 out of 90 days IN THE FALL he would have to start Sept 1st and end January 12 - is that when BJHS classes started?
Do NEW TERMS usually begin on a WED 1/13/54 - did it in THIS case?
This is very important info to find before we can move on...
DJ
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jim Hargrove - 28-09-2013
David Josephs Wrote:Jim -
how does a FORGED DOCUMENT with FAKE INFO violate Louisiana law?
This document seemed important to you when you thought the "Re Ad" column meant total school days. Now that you recognize it means total days attended by Oswald it is no longer important? I don't understand.
David Josephs Wrote:How do you reconcile 5 absences on most 54-55 grade cards yet 12 on the cumulative based on what?? (I see only that 168 + 12 = 180 ON A FORGERY that does not match the source info if THEY are not FOGERIES - if they are then someone at the FBI messed up real good)
I'm not trying to reconcile anything; but if you want me to hazard a guess, I'd say the safest way to run a cover-up would be to modify only what what was necessary to maintain the ruse; in this case, that there were overlapping LHO attendance records indicating two separate kids. It took a long time for both of us to understand that there simply were not enough days in any fall term scenario to account for this conflict. The FBI probably missed it too--which probably explains why the anomaly remained in the record. All we have to go on are the things the FBI and WC neglected to hide; in other words, their mistakes.
David Josephs Wrote:Please tell us the number of days in the 54-55 school year in NOLA at BJHS... for OSWALD to have attended 89 out of 90 days IN THE FALL he would have to start Sept 1st and end January 12 - is that when BJHS classes started?
Do NEW TERMS usually begin on a WED 1/13/54 - did it in THIS case?
I have no idea, but I'd like to know as well. I found online school calendars at the NYC Board of Education website that went back to the mid-1970s, but not even that far back in New Orleans. But regardless of the school year calendars, the fact that the WC published records indicating that a Lee Harvey Oswald attended at least some classes for the full or nearly full 1953-54 fall term at both PS 44 in NYC and Beauregard JHS in New Orleans is undeniable, although we can argue the legitimacy of these records forever.
Jim
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jim Hargrove - 29-09-2013
[URL="http://harveyandlee.net/4LHO/Mexico%20City.html"]
http://harveyandlee.net/4LHO/Mexico%20City.html[/URL]
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - David Josephs - 30-09-2013
Jim Hargrove Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:Jim -
how does a FORGED DOCUMENT with FAKE INFO violate Louisiana law?
This document seemed important to you when you thought the "Re Ad" column meant total school days. Now that you recognize it means total days attended by Oswald it is no longer important? I don't understand.
David Josephs Wrote:How do you reconcile 5 absences on most 54-55 grade cards yet 12 on the cumulative based on what?? (I see only that 168 + 12 = 180 ON A FORGERY that does not match the source info if THEY are not FOGERIES - if they are then someone at the FBI messed up real good)
I'm not trying to reconcile anything; but if you want me to hazard a guess, I'd say the safest way to run a cover-up would be to modify only what what was necessary to maintain the ruse; in this case, that there were overlapping LHO attendance records indicating two separate kids. It took a long time for both of us to understand that there simply were not enough days in any fall term scenario to account for this conflict. The FBI probably missed it too--which probably explains why the anomaly remained in the record. All we have to go on are the things the FBI and WC neglected to hide; in other words, their mistakes.
David Josephs Wrote:Please tell us the number of days in the 54-55 school year in NOLA at BJHS... for OSWALD to have attended 89 out of 90 days IN THE FALL he would have to start Sept 1st and end January 12 - is that when BJHS classes started?
Do NEW TERMS usually begin on a WED 1/13/54 - did it in THIS case?
I have no idea, but I'd like to know as well. I found online school calendars at the NYC Board of Education website that went back to the mid-1970s, but not even that far back in New Orleans. But regardless of the school year calendars, the fact that the WC published records indicating that a Lee Harvey Oswald attended at least some classes for the full or nearly full 1953-54 fall term at both PS 44 in NYC and Beauregard JHS in New Orleans is undeniable, although we can argue the legitimacy of these records forever.
Jim
And that was my only point Jim... based on the availble FORGED RECORDS, he attended SOME of the FALL semester - MAYBE... If the SPRING TERM did not start until Feb 15 for example, it would give LEE the chance to take a few classes, get one TERM REPORT as is reflected on the grade cards (also FORGED?) and still not interfere with Myra seeing a HARVEY in the SPRING. Doesn't change the H&L conclusion yet does give THIS SET OF DOCS an alternative meaning and conclusion that does not need HARVEY at BJHS in the FALL 1953.... but it does seem that HARVEY went from NYC in the summer (after the Robert Zoo photo) to North Dakota and then to Ft. Worth (one of two houses by Stripling both since torn down)
In term of your first admonishment... "Re-Ad" is always important and it's not what I THOUGHT Jim, but the conflicting story HEAD tells us. Read true first half of his statement, not just the H&L quoted part:
"Re ad" regularly represented "Re Admitted" and added that his oterpretation of the numbers set forth opposite this abbreviation would represent a total listing of the school days for given school year.
The FBI goes on to say that HEAD says the complete opposite... that these numbers now reflect the number of days Oswald attended... So which to believe?
Finally, please do not tell me you aren't trying to reconclie anything...we are ALL trying to reconcile the evidence related the H&L... Some of it obvious, some not.
I added this statement to my last post to you - Just because I may find something lacking in a single piece of the PUZZLE, does not mean I can no longer see what the puzzle picture is... H&L is proven in hundreds of ways...
That a few items in this proof may not be as strong or conclusive as first offered is not a condemnation of the conclusion... I simply perfer to seperate SOLID evidence from conjuecture.... and HARVEY attending BJHS in the FALL 1953 has not yet been proven to my standard... In fact there is evidence that Ft. Worth could have been a stop before NOLA... for how long, we do not know
DJ
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jim Hargrove - 01-10-2013
David Josephs Wrote:I added this statement to my last post to you - Just because I may find something lacking in a single piece of the PUZZLE, does not mean I can no longer see what the puzzle picture is... H&L is proven in hundreds of ways...That a few items in this proof may not be as strong or conclusive as first offered is not a condemnation of the conclusion... I simply perfer to seperate SOLID evidence from conjuecture.... and HARVEY attending BJHS in the FALL 1953 has not yet been proven to my standard... In fact there is evidence that Ft. Worth could have been a stop before NOLA... for how long, we do not knowDJFair enough, David. Rightly or wrongly, I believe I've been rhetorically beaten up by professionals a few times over the years, and I may be a bit too sensitive to criticism, even the mildest and most constructive sort. If you come up with anything concrete indicating John is wrong about the fall '53 semester at PS 44 and Beauregard JHS, I'll try to keep an open mind.JIm
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jim Hargrove - 01-10-2013
FBI manipulation of evidence
In 1996, one of the FBl's top scientists, Frederick Whitehurst, disclosed that the FBI crime lab had fabricated evidence in the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings. This is nothing new. In 1963 the FBI manipulated, altered, and fabricated a lot of evidence in the Kennedy assassination, and it is fairly easy to show why and how this was done.


November 22. The Dallas Police searched Oswald's rooming house (1026 N. Beckley) and Ruth Paine's garage (2515 W. 5th, Irving, TX), where the majority of evidence consisted of Oswald's personal possessions (225 items). Each and every item taken was initialed by the Dallas Police, listed on a handwritten inventory, listed on a typed inventory at DPD headquarters (WC Ex-Stoval A, Stoval B, Turner 1), and around midnight all items were photographed on the floor of the Dallas Police station.
Within hours of the assassination FBI director J. Edgar Hoover told President Lyndon Johnson, "We have up here the tape recording and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy using Oswald's name. That picture and tape recording do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there." The FBI Director told President Johnson, on a tape recorded conversation, that a second "Oswald" visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Johnson immediately understood that a 2nd Oswald indicated the likelihood of a conspiracy, though he may not have known the identity of the conspirators. Johnson also knew that if there was a conspiracy, his close friend Hoover and his FBI could make the conspiracy "disappear".
Johnson told his aide, Cliff Carter, to contact Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade and order him "not to allege a conspiracy", and then to order Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry to immediately turn over all of the evidence collected by the Dallas Police to the FBI. Curry told the Warren Commission, "We got several calls insisting we send this, and nobody would tell me exactly who it was that was insisting, 'just say I got a call from Washington, and they wanted this evidence up there,' insinuated it was someone in high authority that was requesting this...." When former CIA Director and Warren Commission member Allen Dulles heard Curry's answer, he abruptly adjourned the hearing. When Curry's testimony resumed not another word was mentioned about "someone in high authority." Curry later said, "about midnight Friday night --- November 22 --- we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it, return it to us." During the early morning hours of November 23, FBI agent Vincent Drain took the items of evidence, boarded an Air Force C130 at Carswell AFB, and departed at 3:10 am (11/23/63) for Washington, DC.
Later that day (11/23/63) FBI Associate Director Clyde Tolson sent a memo to FBI official Alan Belmont. Tolson wrote, "Shanklin said results of the investigation have been reduced to written form and consequently the information will all be available for these two supervisors. We can prepare a memorandum to the Attorney General [Robert Kennedy] to set out the evidence showing that Oswald is responsible for the shooting that killed the President. We will show that Oswald was an avowed Marxist, a former defector to the Soviet union and an active member of the FPCC, which has been financed by Castro. We will set forth the items of evidence which make it clear that Oswald is the man who killed the President." The FBI had already decided that Oswald killed Kennedy. and all they needed to do was to make sure the items of evidence and documentation supported their report. FBI official William Sullivan knew the FBI's capabilities and said, "When an enormous organization like the FBI with tremendous power still can sit back and shuffle the deck of cards and pick up the card they want to show you it may be you're not going to get the entire picture as fully as you would otherwise.... If there were documents that possibly he [Hoover] didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those documents no longer exist, and the truth will never be known." 

Around 9:00 am on November 23, FBI document specialist James Cadigan received Oswald's possessions (225 items) in Washington, DC. Warren Commission attorney Melvin Eisenberg questioned Cadigan about certain documents included among Oswald's possessions. Cadigan said, "On November 23, when the vast bulk of this material came in it was photographed......to select one item out of four or five hundred, I cannot, in all honesty, say I definitely recall seeing this...." Eisenberg, and the WC, now knew the FBI had received the evidence gathered by the Dallas Police (Oswald's possessions-225 items) on November 23, several days before the FBI became involved in the investigation.
Oswald's possessions were immediately treated for fingerprints with a brown "fingerprint ink". After examination for fingerprints, a special chemical was added that neutralized the fingerprint ink and caused it to disappear. The FBI lab was still processing the items of evidence for fingerprints when they were ordered to gather the items and return them to Dallas. Many of these items had not yet been "desilvered" and still contained the brown fingerprint ink. This process was known as "desilvering". Eisenberg asked Cadigan about Oswald's FPCC card (CE 820) and said, "Do you know why CE 820 was not processed or desilvered?" Cadigan replied, "Time was of the essence and this material, I believe, was returned to the Dallas Police within two or three days....." The typewritten transcript of Cadigan's original testimony is in the National Archives, but it has been altered. Someone (probably Allen Dulles) drew lines thru the words, "this material, I believe, was returned to the Dallas Police within two or three days..." This portion of Cadigan's testimony was deleted and does not appear in his testimony as published on page 434 of Volume VII of the Warren Volumes.
After listening to James Cadigan, WC attorney Eisenberg, and Commission members, now knew that the hundreds of items confiscated by the Dallas Police (Oswald's possessions) were quietly taken to FBI headquarters on November 23 and then secretly returned 3 days later to the Dallas Police (11/26/63). At DPD headquarters the FBI and Dallas Police jointly photographed, numbered, and inventoried all items of evidence that were returned by the FBI. Each item is listed and numbered individually, line by line, on Warren Commission Exhibit CE 2003, pp 263-283. But there are now 455 items of evidence on this listnot the 225 items of evidence originally sent to the FBI on November 23there are now 455 items of evidence !! From November 23 thru November 26, the FBI added over 230 items of evidence to the original 225 items, and then quietly returned the "evidence" to the Dallas Police. After the joint FBI/DPD inventory and photographing was complete, on 11/26/63, the FBI took the evidence, and the 5 rolls of undeveloped film, to Washington, DC. The Dallas Police requested the FBI to process the film and return three photographs of each item of evidence. That afternoon (11/26/63) President Johnson announced the FBI was taking over the investigation. And that evening, with WFAA film crews recording the event, all items of "evidence" and the 5 rolls of undeveloped film were turned over to the FBI by the Dallas Police and immediately taken to Washington, DC.
The 5 rolls of undeveloped film contained photographs of 455 items, and many of those items were still covered with the brown fingerprint ink. Any private citizen, researcher, or investigator who looked at these photographs (taken at DPD headquarters on 11/26/63) would want to know how and when these items had been treated with the brown fingerprint ink. To avoid questions that would show the items of evidence were in FBI custody from 11/23/63 to 11/26/63, the FBI deleted the negatives that showed any trace of the brown fingerprint ink.
A large number of evidence items were still covered with the brown fingerprint ink when photographed by the FBI/DPD on 11/26/63. This was the reason that original film rolls #2, #3, and #4 disappeared. The FBI also deleted negatives on roll #1 and roll #5, and then made copies of these two rolls of film before returning the film copies to the Dallas Police on December 1, 1963. When the film arrived in Dallas, Police Chief Jesse Curry noticed that the FBI had not provided any photographs. He also noticed that many negatives were missing and immediately notified the FBI by letter. Hoover responded (by letter) to Curry and blamed the missing negatives on the Dallas Police photographer. Hoover said the DPD photographer had used "faulty technique" when photographing Oswald's possessions. But if there was any 'faulty technique' it could be seen, frame by frame, on the original film. The fact is that each of the original 5 rolls of film disappeared while in FBI custody. The FBI returned roll #1 and #5 to the Dallas Police, and both of those rolls were copies made by the FBI.
The two rolls of copied film are all that remains in the Dallas Police Archives, and these rolls show which frames the FBI removed and which frames the FBI altered.
The FBI knew as early as 11/22/63 that (HARVEY) Oswald worked at the Pfisterer Dental Lab in 1957-58 (CE 1386). And they knew this created a serous problem because (LEE) Oswald was in the Marines in Japan at this time. In an honest investigation, to learn Oswald's employment history, the FBI would simply have to request a schedule of payments made to the Social Security Administration on behalf of Oswald by former employers. They also could have asked the IRS or the Louisiana Dept. of Revenue for a schedule of taxes (federal or state) withheld from Oswald's payroll. But such information would place (HARVEY) Oswald in New Orleans (Pfisterer Dental Lab) while (LEE) Oswald was in the Marines in Japan.
Each item of evidence was photographed with the same number that appeared on the inventory (CE 2003). The first roll of film ends at negative 163. Negatives 168, 169 and 175 are among the negatives deleted by the FBI. These negatives show Oswald's (fabricated) w-2 tax forms for Dolly Shoe (1955), Tujague's (1955 & 1956), JR Michels (1956) and the Pfisterer Dental Lab (1956). None of these w-2 forms were found by the Dallas Police among Oswald's possessions, but all are listed on the joint DPD/FBI inventory of November 26. The original negatives were removed from the film because the w-2 forms are forgeries, created at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, and were not initialed by Dallas Police officers. None of these w-2 forms were listed on the handwritten or typed Dallas Police inventories. None are among the items photographed on the floor of the Dallas Police station. And, none of these w-2 forms were treated with the brown fingerprint ink.
These w-2 forms appear for the first time on the joint FBI/Dallas Police inventory of November 26, only after Oswald's possessions were returned from FBI headquarters in Washington, DC. Each w-2 form has the initials of FBI laboratory technician Robert Frazier, and each of these w-2 forms was created in Washington, DC. The negatives of these w-2 forms were removed for a good reason--if photographs of any of these w-2 forms had been seen by DPD officials or officers, they would have been recognized as forgeries because they had not been initialed by the Dallas Police during their search of Oswald's room at 1026 N. Beckley or Ruth Paine's house.
The creation of w-2 forms within days of the assassination is proof positive the FBI knew intimate details of HARVEY Oswald and LEE Oswald's backgrounds on or before 11/22/63. The w-2 forms were created in order merge the backgrounds of HARVEY and LEE and show that one "Lee Harvey Oswald" could have worked at these companies and attended junior high and high school prior to joining the US Marine Corps. Their creation shows that top FBI officials were very familiar with HARVEY Oswald and LEE Oswald.
Many items of evidence, such as the w-2 forms, were added to Oswald's possessions by the FBI and today are very easy to identify, if you know what to look for. The original 225 items were initialed by Dallas Police officers, appear on the original handwritten and typed inventories, and were photographed on the floor at DPD headquarters. But the 230 items of evidence that were added by the FBI do not have initials by Dallas Police officers, they do not appear on either the handwitten or typed Dallas Police inventories, and were not photographed on the floor at DPD headquarters. Why would the FBI add over 230 items of evidence? The items obtained by the Dallas Police belonged to HARVEY Oswald, but most of the 230 items added to the original DPD inventory belonged to LEE Oswald. Combining these possessions helped to merge the historical background of HARVEY Oswald and LEE Oswald into one fictional "Lee Harvey Oswald".
After the FBI completed their manipulation and alteration of Oswald's possessions, Hoover sent a letter to DPD Chief Jesse Curry in March, 1964. The letter stated, "the Bureau has re-photographed all of the material in possession of the Bureau and will send a complete set of these photographs to you by separate mail." Included among the hundreds of new FBI photographs were photographs of the w-2 forms (each initialed by FBI lab technician Robert Frazier). To complete the charade, Hoover also sent a new inventory list and explained, "The inventory list submitted by your office November 26, has been superseded by the list furnished to your office by the FBI Laboratory dated February 1, 1964. The list submitted by your office is incomplete and is not completely accurate." Hoover attempted to blame the Dallas Police and his Dallas field office for producing the "incomplete and inaccurate" inventory-the joint FBI/DPD inventory of November 26, 1963 (WC exhibit #2003).

A few days after the assassination United Press International (UPI) stated that an exhaustive FBI report now nearly ready for the White House will indicate that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone and unaided assassin of President Kennedy. Hoover had leaked information from the report to United Press hoping to blunt the drive for an independent investigation of the assassination. His efforts failed and President Johnson created the Warren Commission on November 29. The most important member appointed to the Commission was former CIA director Allen Dulles, who attended more Commission meetings than any other member.. The FBl's number three official, William Sullivan, said "Hoover did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence. He showed marked interest in limiting the scope of it or circumventing the scope of it and taking any action that might result in neutralizing it." Hoover was concerned the Warren Commission would take testimony from witnesses that conflicted with the FBl's already completed report naming Oswald as the lone assassin. But Hoover was probably more concerned the Commission would discover the existence of a second "Lee Harvey Oswald," known to Hoover since June 1960 (memo to the State Department), and the numerous FBI reports that show (LEE) Oswald was in the USA (Florida, New Orleans, Dallas) while HARVEY Oswald was in the Soviet Union. Hoover would make sure the evidence showed that one "Lee Harvey Oswald" was responsible for the assassination, while Allen Dulles attended WC meetings when key witnesses gave testimony, "adjourned" meetings when witness provided conflicting testimony, and he kept a watchful eye on WC members.
William Sullivan also said "if there were documents that possibly Hoover didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those documents no longer exist, and the truth will never be known." In that one sentence, Sullivan told us how the FBI handled an investigation: if they (FBI) didn't want documents to come to the light of the public, then those documents would disappear."

The FBI followed a consistent pattern which they used again and again to manipulate evidence in their attempt to merge the backgrounds of HARVEY and LEE and to frame Oswald (HARVEY) for the assassination:
1) confiscate all original items of evidence
2) alter, manipulate, or fabricate new items of "evidence"
3) photograph the newly created or altered "evidence"
4) destroy the original items of "evidence"
5) provide the Warren Commission with photographic copies of the FBI's newly created "evidence"
This was the pattern used to fabricate evidence that allowed the Warren Commission to conclude that "Lee Harvey Oswald" purchased a mail order rifle that he used to assassinate President Kennedy and purchased a mail order pistol that he used to murder DPD office J.D. Tippit. Now, let's look at how and why the FBI altered, manipulated, and withheld documents from the WC and the public in 1964.

_________________________________________ END ____________________________________
More to come. Apologies because I couldn't keep JA's careful use of boldface, underlines, etc. Check H&L website soon for a better formatted and more complete version of above. Suggestions for FBI cover-up topics appreciated, especially if related to LHO.
Jim