Jim Hargrove Wrote:I said, "You've read John Armstrong's book?" and he answered, "No all this is from a book published a couple of years ago called JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass." I never heard of it before, but It is probably based on some of JA's work. He said Oliver Stone mentioned the Douglass book in a recent interview and said the two Oswald interpretation was the only thing that made sense.
You really need to read that book Jim. A great book!
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Just got off the phone with J.A. and I was telling him how great this forum is. He asked me to post a link to his November 22 write-up on the website. This is much more recent than any of his other articles on assassination day, and he hopes everyone here will give it a read.
Some assassination scholars seem to accept the concept of Two Oswalds during the months leading up to the assassination, but find it harder to believe that the Two Oswald project dated back to the 1950s. For those skeptics especially, I'd like to suggest a look at the following page:
[/URL]This page attempts to prove that Social Security records covering Oswald's pre-Marine's employment were altered because they conflicted with the official timeline. It's a bit of a slog, and I wish some of the docs were a little clearer, but they are all legible. JA says this is his favorite write-up because it is simply irrefutable, though it does take some concentration.
WC attorney John Hart Ely was responsible for gathering information on the background of Marguerite Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald. His task was to construct a chronology, based on data available to the Commission, of the backgrounds--life, school, residences, etc.--of Mrs. Oswald, her several marriages, her husbands, and her three children, especially Lee Harvey Oswald. Ely realized that some of the information provided by the FBI conflicted with information gathered by the Commission (such as the FBI's photograph of a 1956 W-2 form from Pfisterers; and an FBI report of Palmer E. McBride who said that LHO worked at Pfisterers in 1957-58). On April 10, 1964 WC attorney Albert Jenner wrote a memo to WC General Counsel J. Lee Rankin and stated, "Our depositions and examination of records and other data disclose that there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda, which will require material alteration and, in some instances, omission." Alteration, omission, and fabricating records, testimony, and documents was necessary in order to merge the identities of LEE and HARVEY into the legend of one "Lee Harvey Oswald" as presented by the WC.
~ ~ ~
On November 22, 1996, Marina Oswald Porter and the Assassination Record Review Board's John Tunnheim appeared on the Oprah Winfrey television program. On that broadcast, Tunnheim asked Marina point blank to release Oswalds tax forms and said, "We're asking her to cooperate as well with help getting access to Lee Harvey Oswald's tax files...." Marina refused, adding: "It's not important." But the missing information was and is very important.
SSA records relating to Oswald's pre-1962 earnings either disappeared or were withheld in 1963. Their disappearance was actively managed and continued through 1978 and beyond, and someone knew the reason. Someone knew and someone still knows. Today, if the SSA "magically" produced Oswald's pre-1962 records, there is little doubt those records would be "sanitized." If Oswald's earnings from employment at Dolly Shoe, Tujague's, JR Michaels, and the Pfisterer Dental Lab had been properly maintained and reported by the SSA fifty years ago, then those records would show that two people were using the name and social security number of Lee Harvey Oswald.
~ ~ ~
So much for the lone gunmanmultiple gunmen, multiple patsies, the trail of the assassins followed by warriors' ponies dragging branches.
And as for Marina coming clean"It's not important." ("What difference does it make?")
Lee Harvey Oswald doubled from the period at which Allen Dulles ascended to the position of Director of Central Intelligence, dba sword and shield of the cabal
--surely a coincidence. (Shirley was his tennis partner as German military sent Lenin to Petrograd on a sealed train)
Lee doubled from the year CD Jackson wrote Ike's October speech advising all government agencies to speak with a single voiceand in the case of the patsy, they did. . . .
============================ QUOTE ON =========================
I would like to share a thought with JFK researchers interested in Oswald's alleged purchase of the rifle.
While HARVEY and Marina were in New Orleans (specifically, at Lake Pontchartrain with the Murrets), LEE Oswald arrived at Robert McKeown's home in Baytown, TX (early Sept, 1963, Saturday morning). LEE Oswald introduced himself to McKeown and repeatedly asked McKeown to acquire and sell rifles to him. McKeown had previously supplied guns and armaments to Castro, and had become a very close personal friend of Castro. McKeown refused to sell rifles to Oswald and he left. If Oswald had purchased a rifle from McKeown, then that rifle would have been found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and an irrefutable link from Oswald to Castro would have been established.
Oswald's attempt to purchase a rifle from McKeown occurred during the first week in Sept., 1963. The thought occurred to me that as of September, the "plotters" had not yet chosen/selected the rifle to be placed on the 6th floor. The FBI took possession of the original Klein's microfilm in the early morning hours of 11/23/63. Photographs of Klein's documents showing that Oswald purchased a MC rifle, allegedly taken from the microfilm, were shown to Klein's VP Waldman for identification (as was the money order). The microfilm subsequently disappeared (not in the National Archives) and FBI photographs are all that remain.
McKeown was interviewed for several hours by the HSCA (I have tape recordings of his interview, obtained from the National Archives). Oswald and McKeown's meeting was discussed at length in Harvey and Lee.
=========================== QUOTE OFF ===========================
In John's book, he says that McKeown ran a coffee processing plant in Santiago in the early 1950s with the blessing of Carlos Prio, who was overthrown by Batista in 1952. McKeown was deported by the Batista regime when it was discovered he was supplying weapons to Prio's backers.
By 1956 McKeown was running guns from Miami to Castro's forces, and then the narrative REALLY gets interesting. Here's how John wrote it up on p. 178 of Harvey and Lee:
=========================== QUOTE ON ============================
In 1957 McKeown returned to his native Texas and lived in Baytown, the small community adjacent to Kemah, Texas, where Jack Ruby collected and stored guns and ammunition for shipment to Mexico. It was in Houston, at the Shamrock Hotel, that McKeown first met Fidel Castro, with whom he began a long and close relationship.
McKeown soon began delivering large quantities of arms, munitions, and supplies to Mexico for delivery to Castro. He was paid with CIA cash bundled in Pan American Bank of Miami wrappers. Castro himself piloted his boat to Mexico, picked up the arms from McKeown, and returned to Cuba....
========================== QUOTE OFF ============================
The book goes on to describe a letter from Hoover to the Warren Commission describing the "conspiracy" of McKeown and others to send munitions to Castro. Other discussions about LEE Oswald and McKeown are scattered throughout the book in chronological order.
Since the alleged ownership of CE 139 by Lee Harvey Oswald is generating some interest, I think all would benefit from reading the following passages from And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence and Analysis in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by George Michael Evica.
Chapter One, pages 7-10
Did Oswald Ever Possess Any Rifle?
Marina Oswald was the [Warren] Commission's sole witness cited for the Report's conclusions that Oswald possessed a rifle before the alleged attack on General Edwin Walker and that the alleged rifle was moved from Dallas to New Orleans and from New Orleans to Irving, Texas. The Commission's own records help to establish that no piece of the Oswalds' luggage or any other container used in moving the Oswalds was large enough to hold the Commission's disassembled rifle.
…
The Commission attempted to prove that a rifle was stored in the Paine's garage prior to the assassination: it failed. Marina Oswald testified to the Commission that she had entered the Paine's cluttered garage to look for parts to a baby crib; lifting a corner of a folded blanket on the floor, she said she saw part of a rifle stock (in another version of this incident Marina decided it was the barrel she had seen). But Marina's testimony was not corroborated; she could not distinguish either between kinds of rifles or between kinds of pieces (rifles and shot-guns, for example) … When shown a rifle on November 22nd, at about 9:00 p.m., she was unable to identify it:
"Marina Oswald advised an Agent of this Bureau on November 22, 1963, that she had been shown a rifle at the Dallas Police Department … She advised that she was unable to identify it positively as the same rifle kept in the garage at [the] Paine residence … "
Three months after the assassination, Marina's memory improved so that on February 6th, 1964, when shown what the Commission alleged to be the same rifle, she said, "This is the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald." But Sunday, September 6th, 1964 … the following odd exchange occurred:
Senator Russell: Did you testify that you thought this [CE 139] was Lee's rifle that was shown to you?
Marina (translation): No I'm sorry. As far as she knows about the arms, the rifle which was shown to her looked like the one he had.
Translator (Peter Gregory, an important member of the Dallas/Ft. Worth White Russian community) in English: Yes; That's right.
Senator Russell: That's all I asked her. That's just exactly what I asked her.
Translator (in English): Yes, that's right.
Most crucially, Marina's testimony on the alleged assassination weapon was coached, altered, or corroborated by individuals associated with Jack Ruby, the Great Southwest Corporation, George de Mohrenschildt (who admitted consulting with a Dallas C.I.A. agent concerning Oswald), and two of de Mohrenschildt's associates (the co-founders of a C.I.A.-subsidized Russian Orthodox church in Dallas). The F.B.I. reported that a Marina Oswald interview had taken place on February 18th, 1964, in the office of attorney William A. McKenzie, who had been recently associated with the law firm representing both the Great Southwest Corporation (owned by the Murchisons' lawyers, the Bedford Wynne family, and the Rockefellers) and George de Mohrenschildt. The F.B.I. reported that:
"Marina said to her knowledge Oswald had only one rifle and that rifle is the one he maintained in the Paine Garage."
"… Mr. McKenzie didn't know what they would talk about but he advised her [Marina], They will ask you if there were two guns, you tell them there was one gun that was used … '"
William A. McKenzie, in whose office the February 18, 1964 Marina Oswald interview as recorded, and who Mrs. Declan Ford asserted had supplied Marina with the Line " … there was one gun that was used," had resigned from the Wynne family law firm to represent Marina Oswald. McKenzie had been a law partner of attorney Bernard Wynne whose law firm represented the Wynne/Murchison/Rockefeller Great Southwest Corporation at whose motel Marina Oswald was hidden by the Secret Service.
While acting as Marina's lawyer, McKenzie was associated with attorney Peter White, who in 1954 arranged for the dismissal of charges against Jack Ruby. The Warren Commission ignored the fact that Peter White's name, address, and phone number all appeared in Jack Ruby's notebook Peter White, the office mate of Marina Oswald's attorney and representative though the Commission questioned Ruby's roommate George Senator about other entries in that same notebook.
With evidence available of coached and altered Marina Oswald testimony on the very existence of a weapon and on that weapon's characteristics, directly traceable to individuals associated with an organized crime figure (Jack Ruby) and with the C.I.A. (George de Mohrenschildt), Marina's uncorroborated testimony on a "rifle" must remain dubious and suspect.
AND MORE:
Did Oswald Take Any Rifle to the Depository?
The Warren Commission did establish (or seemed to have established) that a folded blanket had once rested on the floor of Ruth and Michael Paine's garage (at least Marina and the Paines thought so, and the police allegedly found such a blanket). The Commission was unable to place a rifle in that blanket except for Marina's testimony about seeing the stock (or the barrel) of a rifle when she peeked but then Marina was an incredible witness and admittedly could not recognize a rifle. Mrs. Paine testified she did not "see" the blanket in her crowded garage any earlier than October 7th, 1963. Ruth Paine also testified that the rifle she allegedly saw in Oswald's possession had a sling unlike the one on the CE 139 rifle. Michael Paine tried to help; he testified that on some unspecified date before November 22nd, 1963, he remembered "moving about this package [in his garage] which, let's say, was a rifle, anyway it was a package wrapped in a blanket." But Paine didn't help Marina's credibility much:
"I have read … that Marina looked in the end of this [garage] package and saw the butt end of a rifle. Now I didn't remember that it was something easy to look into like that. I thought it was well wrapped up." (italics added)
The Warren Commission seemed to have discovered an ill-identified "rifle" (which could not be placed in the Oswald's possession during their various moves) in an alleged package/blanket allegedly in the Paine garage but not before October 7th, 1963.
The Commission did establish that Lee Harvey Oswald was present at the Paine's residence, Thursday evening, November 21st, but could not place him in the Paine garage. It also could not establish whether he left the Paine residence on Friday morning, November 22nd, with a paper bag, a rifle, or anything in his hands. To suggest that Oswald might have taken a rifle in a paper bag, the Commission took testimony from four witnesses. The Commission's intention was to suggest that Oswald might have (1) stolen the paper-bag materials from the Depository; (2)constructed the paper gun-case at the Paine house on Thursday night; (3) dismantled the rifle (thereby saving himself only a few inches in length but increasing the time necessary to prepare for the assassination when he would be forced to re-assemble the rifle; (4) placed the rifle in his home-made bag; (5)transported it to the Depository, and (6) carried it to the sixth floor of that building. The Commission was unable to establish as fact any one of these six sequential speculations. (emphasis added by Drago)
Had the Commission been able to establish Oswald's possession of the CE 139 Mannlicher-Carcano through the evening of November 21st, or the fact of that possession any time on the 22nd, its "reconstruction" of possibilities could have been accepted as circumstantial evidence for the transportation of the Mannlicher-Carcano to and into the Depository on November 22nd. In fact, the Commission neither established Oswald's possession of any rifle through November 22nd nor his transportation of any rifle on November 22nd. Its four paper bag/rifle transportation witnesses offered abundant material for the counter argument that Lee Harvey Oswald did not transport the rifle to or into the building, could not have borrowed the paper bag materials, and did not take those materials to the Paine house. Two of those witnesses testified on March 11th, 1964 the only two alleged to have seen Oswald with his "bulky" package that it was too short for even a disassembled Carcano. The difference in lengths given was significant: the CE 139 rifle (dismantled, according to F.B.I. agent Frazier), 35 inches; Oswald's alleged package, about 28 inches.
The Warren Commission was unable to place any rifle in Oswald's possession and was even unable to argue persuasively that Oswald might have transported a package containing a rifle to (or into) the Depository.
Did Oswald Possess a Rifle Inside the Depository?
Was Lee Harvey Oswald in possession of a rifle or a short or long package inside the Depository on November 22nd, 1963? No testimony was elicited, either by the Commission or by its investigators and staff members, in answer to that question; it was not, it seems, asked. The Commission tried neither to establish how Oswald got any rifle from the Depository's first floor to the sixth floor nor to determine whether it was possible to transport a weapon. The Commission could have asked the Depository's first-floor workers, but it seems to have avoided asking them any questions about Oswald's possible rifle-carrying trip. Why?
The Warren Commission was unable to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) took delivery of a rifle; (2) possessed a rifle; (3) practiced with a rifle; (4) transported a rifle to the Depository; and (5) carried a rifle to the Depository's sixth floor.
And, of course, it was unable to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald ever fired a rifle on November 22nd, 1963. (emphasis added by Drago)
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Harvey and Lee now available from:
Available for purchase from:
Quasar, Ltd.
848 N. Rainbow #85
Las Vegas, NV 89107
(702) 613-8263
1030 pgs with CD containing 736 documents and photos
$65 plus $15 shipping (check/money order or PayPal)
(7.5 lbs/bubble wrap/double wall box/insurance included)
Dawn
New web site is also up. Marty Bragg just posted it on fb and I shared then copied this from the site as I know people have been trying to get the book at a decent price and Andy is "all out".
That sounds like a decent price. Ive heard people mention prices of over $100. And with the CD you could be reading that for months.
