+- 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: Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence (/thread-12240.html)
Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence - Greg R Parker - 24-03-2014
Quote:So, Parker's story is that poor, poor "Marguerite" had no idea where her "son" was, despite the fact that his "defection" to the Soviet Union had been front page news on her local newspaper, despite the fact that she had talked to her son by phone in Moscow, despite the fact that she had received mail from her "son" in Russia, and despite the fact that she sent money to him in Moscow.
Then Parker, pretending to inform us about things John Armstrong had already written about more than a decade earlier, tells us about the memos to FBI HQ written by SA Fain, but he fails to point out that "Marguerite" had testified under oath that she had never been questioned by the FBI or the Secret Service, AND NEITHER THE WARREN COMMISSION NOR THE FBI QUESTIONED HER ON THAT STATEMENT. And, of course, Parker didn't feel it was worth mentioning.
PARKER'S "BACKGROUND" STORY IS AS QUEER AS A 3 DOLLAR BILL, SOMETHING HE DIDN'T BOTHER TO TELL US. BUT JOHN ARMSTRONG DID!! AND PARKER DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT!
Do you even bother to think about what you write? Where did I say anything that you claim in that first paragraph?
Here (yet again!) is what I said. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Feel free to remind me not to do to you, if I ever do.
The Hoover Memo has been taken way out of context. There is background to this which apparently Armstrong is unaware of, or would rather his readers did not know about. Marguerite had sent 3 letters to Lee. Those letters got returned unopened. Marguerite wrote to State. She then got interviewed by SA John Fain. The New York Field office then summarized Fain's report and sent it to HQ. In that summary, they advised of the returned mail and opined that Oswald may in fact be elsewhere in Europe (Albert Schweitzer College) and that since he had taken his Birth Certificate, there is a possibility it was stolen and is being used by another in the Soviet Union.
So there it is - there was never any evidence the birth certificate was stolen or that anyone else was using it... it was all looking at worst case scenarios based on the returned mail. By the time Hoover wrote his memo to state "the Chinese Whispers-like effect had kicked in... what was no more than a vague thought was transformed into a major possibility.
What don't you understand in the above? There was NEVER any evidence that indicated that anyone else was using Oswald's BC, period. That was the point being made.
Do you enjoy humiliation? You sure seem to.
This statement is a prime example:
"but he fails to point out that "Marguerite" had testified under oath that she had never been questioned by the FBI or the Secret Service, AND NEITHER THE WARREN COMMISSION NOR THE FBI QUESTIONED HER ON THAT STATEMENT. And, of course, Parker didn't feel it was worth mentioning."
Again - Marguerite testified that she had not been interviewed by the FBI in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. She LATER brought Fain up all by her wittle self.
There is an FBI agent by the name of Mr. John Fain. I will ask you, Mr. Rankin, if you have his address, or do you know about Mr. John Fain?
Mr. RANKIN. I know of Mr. John Fain as one of the agents that had some interviews with your son.
Mrs. OSWALD. Now, Mr. John Fain is the agent that I called upon myself after Lee's defection. I read where the Secret Service were investigating the family background, and I mistook it for the FBI. So I called the FBI and he came to my home. And he is the agent who recommended me to talk to Jim Wright and Sam Rayburn as a friend, and to write the letters.
Now, the one point I am going to bring out is this. When Lee returned from Russia and was at Robert's home, Mr. Fain--in the meantime he had come over to Robert and talked to him several times, and to me, supposedly as a friend--he said he was not on the case. I do not know this. But he came to Robert's home and said to Lee--my daughter-in-law is a witness there "Lee, I am not on the case, but I would like you voluntarily to come to the office at your convenience and tell me your story, because I am interested in your case. Your mother was the one who contacted me. And I have been to see Robert. And I am quite interested in a young boy going to Russia. And you must have a story."
So Lee voluntarily went with Mr. Fain to the FBI office.
Then when Lee returned, his remark was "Well, he didn't believe me. He wanted me to take a lie detector test, which I refused."
Now, Mr. John Fain may have the story we are looking for, you see because Lee went and gave the story.
And I want to make sure you know where he is now.
I have information from Senator Mike Monroney that in March--I am ahead of my story.
The FBI agents now in Fort Worth have told me they do not know Mr. John Fain. I said I happen to know that is his name.
"Well, Mrs Oswald, I worked in this office 9 years, and there has never been such a person as Mr. John Fain."
So I have investigated. And Senator Mike Monroney gave this information. He did work in the Fort Worth office from March 1949 to October 1962, and then he retired in January 15, 1963. He is not a man to retire as far as age, as far as I am concerned. I don't think Mr. John Fain is that old.
In regard to that last bit of the testimony posted above, Marguerite, elsewhere in her testimony, got the FBI and Secret Service confused. She has probably done the same here -- contacted the Secret Service asking about Fain. I'm sure you guys however, have woven all sorts of novel ideas around it.
APOLOGY HERE and can I please have it in this font and this color?
Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence - Jim Hargrove - 25-03-2014
Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald began assuming American-born Lee Oswald's identity while both were in the U.S. Marines. From Japan, HARVEY Oswald departed for Taiwan aboard the USS Skagit (AKA 105) on Sept. 14, 1958. Unit Diary shows HARVEY Oswald was in Ping Tung, Taiwan, on Oct. 6, 1958.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5805[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]5806[/ATTACH]
While HARVEY Oswald was in Taiwan, LEE Oswald was being treated for a venereal disease in Atsugi, Japan, more than one thousand four hundred miles away (see below).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5807[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5808[/ATTACH]
Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence - Jim Hargrove - 25-03-2014
By the fall of 1959, when the "defection" took place, Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald had replaced American-born Lee Oswald, at least in the record reported after the assassination. The two young men were similar enough in appearance to sometimes fool casual observers, but many people in the Dallas Ft. Worth area knew American-born Lee Oswald. The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram ran LEE Oswald's picture, although HARVEY Oswald was actually the "defecting" spy.
Does the man in the photo at left (Lee Oswald) look to you like a younger version of Harvey Oswald, the man killed by Jack Ruby?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5810[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5809[/ATTACH]
Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence - Dawn Meredith - 25-03-2014
I asked Greg on facebook the same question. Has he actually read Harvey and Lee. If he replied I did not see it. So I am asking again, seeing as how he did not reply to this same question posed by DJ.
Having just returned from a twelve day vacation in Costa Rica and have much work to get back to I am keeping this post to that one question. If the reply is no then there will be -for me- no reason to read further replies.
Also Jim thanks for posting about the bs around the paper I delivered for JA. He was on the phone with me that weekend as well with updates and changes.
However I do not expect to see a retraction from the "reviewer" of the events of COPA 2013..
Dawn
Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence - David Josephs - 25-03-2014
Quote: Do you enjoy humiliation? You sure seem to.
Since when do we condone and allow this sort of dialogue in response to simple questions like... Have you read the book you are attacking?
Sure looks like attacking the person and not the evidence.Mr. P misquoted me repeatedly and here paraphrased words into my post regarding Myra DeRouse I never wrote... and did so immediately following my words...
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13173-Detailed-discussion-and-analysis-of-the-H-amp-L-evidence&p=84468#post84468
Quote: DJ: (Note: Please take the time to familiarize yourself with some of the newer thought on this... Since our last discussion I've spent a lot of time digging deeper... Some of the conclusions in H&L have indeed needed to be revised and updated, just as Horne updated Lifton's work as well as his exposing the NPIC Zfilm charade... time and knowledge marches on as layer after layer of the onion gets peeled back)
GP: Have done! I'm impressed that you now believe the likes of Good Ol' Myra were coached. Nothing else explains how this was done on paper and in retrospect only when you have witnesses to "Harvey" all over the place.
Yet he appears allowed to exhibit his righteous indignation without consequence... and has the nads to ask for an apology on top of it?
Quote: The Hoover Memo has been taken way out of context.
How is this not a judgement statement based on a woefully suspect SUMMARY of a report of an interview with just as much evidence that it did not even happen.
Which Mr P cherry-picked and appears to have gotten completely wrong.... when one actually reads the evidence referenced...
I started this thread and asked for it to be Sticky so that we could discuss the evidence... The EVIDENCE is the only thing here that matters and remains the only thing Mr P does not seem to want to us to bother looking at in favor of his completely uninformed opinions...
Last time - How much of Harvey & Lee have you read?
How much of the CD have you looked at?
How much of the Baylor Evidence have you used as reference while you vehemently attack the messengers,
Sport?
:
:
Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence - Albert Doyle - 25-03-2014
While I disagree with Mr Parker I believe his posts show enough knowledge of Harvey & Lee to merit response. Fair is fair. A new JFK forum was started basically because a group felt they were above answering basic arguments of evidence. If I am wrong on this I humbly yield.
Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence - David Josephs - 25-03-2014
Albert Doyle Wrote:While I disagree with Mr Parker I believe his posts show enough knowledge of Harvey & Lee to merit response. Fair is fair. A new JFK forum was started basically because a group felt they were above answering basic arguments of evidence. If I am wrong on this I humbly yield.
I'm sorry you feel that way Albert... From my vantage point GP chery-picks a topic, finds a few quotes that may support his opinion and leaves it at that.
I urge you to go review the FBI report of the BJHS students they "interviewed".... The period in question remain 1953-1954 as accoring the the records Oswald did not begin there until January 1954. Not a single person is asked about those years while ALL are asked about the 54-55 year... That was the level of deep understanding he had 2 years ago...
Please notice the years he is referring to - if you were to go back and read thru the entire thread he accuses H&L supporters as being cultish and akin to Devil worshipers.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18558&page=7
Please take moment and follow the "links to the evidence" Mr P provides.... summaries of unsigned interviews which are strikingly similar in text - and STILL no mention of the 1953-54 school year... he even says so in the post... THIS is what he passes of as evidence to refute... while adding this along the way... no bias here, right?:
Quote: Not bullshit. It's fact. Belief in mythical beings is a cornerstone of cults, as is being impervious to any argument against such belief, as is having a head guru with multiple lieutenants doing his talking. Armstrong is the L. Ron Hubbard of JFK research
He asks an awful lot of questions about what John did, to have had any real knowledge of what the book and supporting documentation says... and it is obvious that 1 year and a half later he has done little to improve that knowledge...
Quote: Posted 22 August 2012 - 07:33 AM
David,
this is the problem I have. When I debunk one part of the theory, it gets ignored and all I get in response is "but what about..." and then I have to go about checking that out to verify or disprove.
What amazes me, David, is that you are very obviously a good researcher -- yet you don't appear to have applied your skills to verifying anything to do with this theory.
The foundation stone of Armstrong's theory was the memory of Palmer McBride. I have clearly and unequivocally shown McBride's memory to have been in error - yet not a peep from anyone about that.
From AJ Weberman's nodule on McBride
QuoteQuote
In April or May 1958 OSWALD stated he was moving to Fort Worth, Texas, with his mother. In about August 1958, I received a letter from him saying he was employed as a shoe salesman in Ft. Worth. In this letter he stated he had gotten mixed-up in an anti-Negro or an anti-Communist riot in a high school grounds in Ft. Worth, Texas.
I have checked google news archives and cannot find any news stories from 1958 about any riots in Forth Worth. Period. Regardless of their nature.
The official timeline has Oswald moving to Collinswood St, Fort Worth in July, 1956...
and Lo... I found a number of stories of riots in and around Fort Worth from early September, 1956
Here is one of those stories
Ft Worth riot one
Here is another
scroll down to this sub-head
violence threatens
The timing of those riots shoots down McBride. Oswald was most certainly NOT in the Marines AND living simultaneously in Ft Worth in 1958. Not sure how anyone can possibly dispute that - and indeed, no one seems to want to try - they seem to hope it will just somehow go away. Anything to keep this fairy tale going - meanwhile they have the audacity to accuse others of having an "agenda".
Okay. So here I go again:
Myra Darouse - Beauregard
Myra "claimed" to be Oswald's home teacher because she was. Just not in any part of 1953 as she apparently thought some 40 years later.
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=34
He attended Beauregard from 1/13/54 to 6/10/55.
http://www.maryferre...971&relPageId=3
My guess is that Armstrong honed in on her because the FBI report on her doesn't give any time frame and because she described him as "physically small". Both of those things suited Armstrong's theory. But the FBI was more thorough than you'd imagine for an agency allegedly trying to hide certain facts.
They also interviewed:
Fellow Beauregard students -
Peggy Zimmerman - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=26
Mrs Bernierita Smith - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=26
Mrs Anna Langlois - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=27
Fred O'sullivan - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview him?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=27
Jack Loyakano - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview him?
http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=715120
Carroll Battistella - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=28
Joan Burgard - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=29
Teachers -
There were a number of teachers interviewed. Outside of Myra Dalouse, none had any vivid memory of Oswald - or simply no memory of him at all.
Why did Armstrong rely on the 40 year old memory of one teacher and ignore the 10 year old memories of 7 former students?
On the height issue -- she stated in '64 that Oswald was "physically small" - which sounds more like a description of physique rather than height. Her 40 year old memory that he was only about 4' 8" I have little doubt is attributable to a combination of faulty memory and leading questions.
On the issue of wanting to be called "Harvey" - as above.
From Dave Reitzes early work on Harvey & Lee:
QuoteThis author spoke to Myra DaRouse on October 4, 1998. She told me precisely the same thing as she told John Armstrong, with one only slightly disturbing difference. I asked Ms. DaRouse if he had introduced himself to her as "Harvey." (A leading question, true; I took the answer for granted.) She said, "No, he always called himself, or wanted to be called by his full name." By full name, I wondered, did she mean "Lee Harvey Oswald?" "That's right," she said. "I called him 'Lee Harvey.'"
Would I normally cite David Reitzes? No. But there is absolutely no corroboration from any of the above witnesses that they knew him as "Harvey" at Beauregard or that he wanted to be called "Harvey" - and any theory not only imagining the existence of "Harvey" but also imaging that "Harvey" was part of a CIA plan to create "a single person's history ... from two people" is really pushing the caca uphill when you have one of the two entities wanting to be called by a different name.
One final thing - in Louisiana, a Census Form was completed for EVERY child attending school in that state. Did Armstrong check Census records?
http://www.maryferre...07&relPageId=83
Robert Oswald and Stripling
Robert proved his memory was hopeless with the "I Led Three Lives" stuff up.
His testimony:
Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.
In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.
He would be attending... Robert seems to be making an assumption based on his erroneous arithmetic. Lee did not turn 13 until October, 1952.
Kudlaty
This friend of Jack White from their old college days claimed he was ordered to get Oswald's school records from the school and give them to the FBI. Yet in every single other case, school records were kept, and could only be obtained from, the School District Board.
The NYC school records
I have no idea what you think they show or prove. I do know I have scrutinized them in the past and found them to be unremarkable and non-contradictory. What the record does show is an absence covering his time in Youth House, and the fact that he did not start truanting until after his 13th birthday and ceased again as soon as John Pic left his Coast Guard position as a commie chaser.
The Bronx Zoo photo
Your composite shows the same boy. I don't know how you can say with such certainty that one is a "big boy". The only difference appears to be the hair style. Then, like now, young boys liked to experiment with different hair styles. Robert took the photo when he visited in the Summer of '53. In this instance, it was John Pic who miss-remembered. But in Armstrong's usual fashion, all statements are true so long as they fit with the theory. So... one visit becomes two... and Pic never said the photo was not his brother - only that he didn't recognize his brother in the photo. Hardly surprising. There were large time gaps in between seeing each other, and the next time pic saw lee after '54 was not until late 1962. I've looked at photos of one of my brothers when he was a kid and doesn't look as I recall him - and that is without any large gaps in seeing each other over the years. It's both a product of memory and of the nature of photographs.
David, whether you and others will ever accept it, this theory is dead in the water.
Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence - Lauren Johnson - 25-03-2014
Albert Doyle Wrote:While I disagree with Mr Parker I believe his posts show enough knowledge of Harvey & Lee to merit response. Fair is fair. A new JFK forum was started basically because a group felt they were above answering basic arguments of evidence. If I am wrong on this I humbly yield.
Hold the phone, Albert. You yourself said you haven't read H&L because it cost too much. Fine. Same with me. But before you can say that about Mr. Parker, you have to have done your homework. :
:
Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence - Albert Doyle - 25-03-2014
David Josephs Wrote:I'm sorry you feel that way Albert... From my vantage point GP chery-picks a topic, finds a few quotes that may support his opinion and leaves it at that.
From what I understand the two arguments here are whether mention of Schweitzer College informing Marguerite Oswald of Lee's intention to attend in April is what made Hoover suspect two Oswald's or whether this was indirect evidence of Hoover's background knowledge of the Harvey & Lee program. Didn't the embassy retain Oswald's passport when he went into Russia? Next, I believe the second argument is whether Marguerite's lack of memory about the Fain interview was because it wasn't the same Marguerite who was interviewed therefore they slipped and allowed a Marguerite with no memory of the interview to speak at the Commission hearing.
I tend to side with you, David, for the reasons you say above. While not having read Harvey & Lee I believe Parker's arguments are evasive of the greater surrounding evidence that confirms it like the fluidness in Russian, doubles in Dallas, etc. Whether that is prolonging the debate needlessly is up to others. As far as valid content I believe Parker fairly possesses that from his input. Valid conclusions, I'm not sure.
Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence - David Josephs - 25-03-2014
Quote: As far as valid content I believe Parker fairly possesses that from his input. Valid conclusions, I'm not sure
Albert... here is what you refer to as "valid content"... The 1954-55 school year begins in September 1954.
According to Kudlaty, Oswald attended Stripling JR High in Fort Worth - the work permit issued to Lee HARVEY Oswald in March 1955 so he could join MO at Dolly show (she had been there since January 1955) has the 126 Exchange street Address at the same time LEE and his mother resided at 1454 St Mary's... Myrtle Evan's place. Reading her testimony is very illuminating and terribly important to understanding this most critical of time periods...
Cheers
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5814[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]5815[/ATTACH]