18-12-2013, 05:31 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2013, 05:43 PM by Bruce Baird.)
Hi again David,
I've inserted my responses in BOLD to your comments where it was appropriate
David Josephs Wrote:Hey there Bruce... glad you are embracing all this... yet I am not sure where you are trying to go... H&L is not about microanalyzing the situation but looking at the conflicts...
By looking at what the FBI chose to ignore or drop as soon as they were aware.
I am not sure, David, what you think I am "embracing" or what you mean by "H&L is not about microanalyzing the situation but looking at the conflicts..." I would say what I was doing was simply looking at the evidence carefully. As to where I was going with this discussion about Ed Voebel I would agree that I am trying to do what you say we should be trying to do -- looking at what the FBI (and I would throw in the Warren Commission) chose to ignore or drop (or manipulate or destroy or whatever). What I think would be interesting is to build up a timeline of what Voebel said and when he said it to see if there is some pattern that suggests the presence of coaching by the FBI, Warren Commission, or whomever.
VOEBEL is pretty clear about MO. That VOEBEL meets a small HARVEY in early 1954 and the much bigger LEE in OCT 1954 (HARVEY had already moved to FT Worth 2220 Thomas by Stripling)
To ED, HARVEY had gone from a smaller boy in JAN 1954, to the much bigger boy in OCT 1954 and had not seen him since JUNE 1954 as was NOT aware of the school records from NYC showing OSWALD as 5'4" and 115lbs, he simply sees his old friend (who is 6 months older than VOEBEL) as a bigger kid.
I would have to disagree with everything you say here. Voebel is not at all clear about MO. Voebel NEVER in any interview or testimony talks about knowing two Oswalds. Voebel NEVER talks about knowing "a small HARVEY" and a "much bigger LEE". Indeed Voebel told the New Orleans police on 27 Nov 1963 that he had known "Lee Oswald" about 1 1/2 years.
excerpted from
Commission Exhibit No. 1413--WC Volume 22, p. 826
Department of Police
Interoffice Correspondence
To: Major P.J. Trosclair
Date: November 27, 1963
From: Sgt. H. Austin & Det. R. Frey
Subject: Relative to Oswald Case - Interview with one Sidney Edward Voebel, this date.
The undersigned officers respectfully report that at about 11:45 a.m. this date, Wednesday, November 27, 1963, they entered the Quality Florists, located 4916 Canal Street, for the purpose of meeting with and interviewing Sidney Edward Voebel relative to his knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Sidney Voebel identified himself to the officers and stated that he is 23 years of age, D.O.B. 4/24/40. He stated that he was born in New Orleans and has resided at 4916 Canal Street, the Quality Florists, owned by his parents, since that time.
Voebel stated that he attended Beauregard Junior High School until 1955, and that he met Oswald while at this school as Oswald attended school there also. Voebel stated that he joined the Civil Air Patrol Cadets at Moisant Airport in 1954 or 1955 (not sure). Voebel asked Oswald to join also and Oswald did join a short time after Voebel, but only stayed about one month. Voebel stated that Oswald bought his uniform and that he, Voebel, believes Oswald received his membership card.
Voebel further stated that he first met Oswald in 1954 or 1955 and knew him for about 1 1/2 years. Voebel stated that he took music lessons at Werleins on Canal Street and would go to Oswald's home at 126 Exchange Place to see Oswald on these dates. Voebel also stated that Oswald had mentioned distributing advertising circulars while in school. When asked if Oswald ever expressed political views to Voebel, Voebel stated that Oswald had not, and that he, Voebel, believed Oswald had no leftist political views until later in his life. Voebel stated that he believed Oswald attended a party (not sure) at the home of Dave Ferrie (Captain) right after the members of the C.A.P.C. received their stripes. [http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace../09/fp.b.../misc.html]
Since Voebel claims that the last time he saw Lee was some time in the summer of 1955, this would mean that Voebel had known "Lee Oswald" since about January 1954, and ONLY one "Lee Oswald". So if you want to go with the Warren Commission, there is NO two Oswalds.
I would also emphasize that the one image of Oswald that everyone refers to is the 1955 Beauregard Junior High School Yearbook photo of "Lee Oswald" that would have been taken in the fall of 1954. John Armstrong seemingly refuses to deal with this CRUCIAL piece of evidence. I know, David, that you believe this photo is "Lee". In a subsequent post I will try to put together a timeline of classroom photos of "Lee Harvey Oswald" from elementary school up to that 1955 Beauregard yearbook photo to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that there is NO WAY that this 1955 Beauregard yearbook photo is the kid who grew up in Ft. Worth.
=====
Few points to make first:
You start the analysis off with:
Quote:according to the Warren Commission
According to the WCR Oswald was guilty, the SBT happened, and all the other untruths about the case are defined.... if you read any part of H&L you'd know there are a number of people the WC investigators never spoke with due to the fact they knew HARVEY in 1953/54... and later LEE in the Marines .... (CE1961 and 1962 are in direct conflict... ALLEN FELDE tells us he was with HARVEY and where and when... the dates and places simply do not match)
When you say the WC investigators never spoke with anyone who knew HARVEY in 1953/54 I assume you are excepting Ed Voebel who you have said DID know Harvey in 1953/54? I guess this would make Ed Voebel a very important witness! Also you are ignoring the teachers who according to the report cards taught LHO in the 1953/54 school year and were interviewed by the FBI. And all the other students who were interviewed by the FBI and do not actually refer to the 1954/55 school year but simply to the time that LHO was at Beauregard.
Quote:Q: And uhh what type of boy was he at 15? I understand uhh this was about the age of that year?
VOEBEL: Well, uhh he didn't uhh seem to mix too well with the uhh the rest of the uhh boys or the girls and anyone there at the school. He didn't seem to have any uhh friends. Uhh he didn't seem to be really interested in anything uhh. He didn't participate in any extra-curricular activities. Uhh he was just a loner, it seemed like. (licks lips)
OSWALD turned 15 in OCTOBER 1954... why is it that the FBI NEVER asks or reports anyone about knowing OSWALD in 1953/54? (Each and every person related to BJHS was asked about the 55-56 school year when LEE was at BJHS and HARVEY was at Stripling and then Truant (TX does not have the same rules about Truancy as NYC)
I am not clear what you are saying here, David. Are you saying that the interviewer was wrong in his interview with Voebel on WWL-TV on November 23, 1963? I have no qualms with an interviewer being wrong. Are you suggesting the interviewer was trying to deliberately manipulate Voebel into getting Voebel? I have no qualms with a conclusion that the interviewer was trying to manipulate an interviewee, but I think looking at the actual interview would suggest the interviewer was just going on what he knew. Are you saying that Voebel should have stepped up and disagreed with the interviewer to correct the impression that Voebel had only known LHO since he was 15, and not 14? I would think it highly unlikely that any interviewee would have corrected an interviewer on this point unless they somehow saw it as extremely important, which I am certain Voebel would not have.
August 1, 1955 (15 months prior to 10/9/56)[TABLE="width: 491"]
[TR]
[TD]
HARVEY letter states he's been studying MARXISM for 15 months until he finally makes a request for Socialist Party info dated Oct 9 1956.
"EDWARD VOEBEL, who resides at 4916 Canal (locationof Quality Florist Company) advised he knew OSWALD at Beauregard
Junior High School during 1955 and 1956."
Is your point that the FBI sometimes get the facts wrong. I would agree with that. Or that in the context of the interview, Voebel might have misremembered when he knew Oswald. I would agree with that. I would say this kind of statement is EXACTLY the reason why looking at what Voebel said and when he said it and to whom he said it is important.
HARVEY begins attending WARREN EASTON in SEPT 1955 yet leaves to San Diego in mid OCTOBER 1955.
LEE works at Tujages thru the summer of 1956 and does NOT attend high school
I agree with you that here we have evidence of two different Oswalds but I would assert that the kid who attends Warren Easton and then moves to San Diego (or somewhere out of New Orleans) is the same kid who had been going to Beauregard and who is pictured in the 1955 Beauregard yearbook. The Oswald that works at Tujages is the Oswald raised in Ft. Worth.
During the time that ED VOEBEL visited HARVEY at 126 Exchange (Jan-June 1954) he never meets MO; MO and LEE are living with Myrtle Evans at 1454 St Mary's.
In the FALL 1954, ED meets LEE and is friends with him thru CAP in the summer of 1955. He meets the tall, good-looking MO at Exchange during this time.
I don't find any statement from Voebel that he visited Oswald at 126 Exchange until around the time of the supposed Warren Easton orientation which must have happened sometime in the late spring of 1955. The only reference to Voebel meeting Oswald's mother is in the Warren Commission hearings:
Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet his mother?
Mr. VOEBEL. I think I met her one time, and for some reason I had a picture in my mind which was different from when I saw her in the paper after all of this happened. I didn't recognize her. She was a lot thinner, and her hair wasn't as gray, as I recall it, when I met her. Of course, this was about 8 years ago, but I can remember she had a black dress on, and she was sitting down smoking a cigarette; now, maybe she wasn't smoking, but this is a picture that comes to my mind as I recall that.
Voebel NEVER refers to Oswald's mother as "tall" or "good-looking". Voebel's rather vague description here could easily refer to the same person 8 years apart.
Mr. JENNER - Who else was in the apartment besides Marguerite?
Mrs. EVANS - Just her and Lee.
Mr. JENNER - You did see Lee after they returned from New York?
Mrs. EVANS - Oh, yes; they lived at my house for, oh,I guess about 6 months.
(DJ: They arrived January 12, 1954 at MO sister's LILLIAN MURRET and stayed only a couple weeks - the address on the BJHS record is 809 French. This is a photo of the MO caregiver at 126 Exchange in Feb 1954)
Mr. JENNER - Including Lee?
Mrs. EVANS - Oh, yes.
Mr. JENNER - She and Lee lived in your home for 6 months?
Mrs. EVANS - In this apartment, yes.
Mr. JENNER - In the No. 6 apartment?
(NOTE: The WCR testimony lists "Mrs. Myrtle Evans, 1910 Prytania Street, New Orleans, La" what they fail to tell you is this is the same situation as CAMP street... the FRONT of her house/apartments was 1454/1452 St Mary's (below), while the side entrance to the same house and apartments is at 1910 Prytania.... to the right of that is 126 Exchange )
VOEBEL stated that OSWALD did not tell him when
he was leaving town. He stated that one day he stopped by
OSWALD'S apartment on Exchange Place and OSWALD was gone.
This was sometime around 1955
Mr. JENNER - Do you know how it was that she went to live at 126 Exchange Place in New Orleans?
Mrs. MURRET - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Was that 1954 or 1955?
Mrs. MURRET - I don't know--whatever you have down there probably is the right year, but they lived at Myrtle's house first.
Mr. JENNER - Could it have been that Myrtle Evans lived, in the spring of 1954, at 1454 St. Mary Street?
Mrs. MURRET - I don't know. Maybe that's right. I know this was a very old house where she lived. I was told that she had a family home---Myrtle and that she had renovated it into a lot of apartments for tenants.
Mr. JENNER - How long did they stay at your house?
Mrs. MURRET - At my house?
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mrs. MURRET - Well, like I said, 2 weeks or 3 weeks at the most, somewhere in there.
Mr. JENNER - And you are pretty sure that they moved directly from your house into this place on Exchange Alley?
Mrs. MURRET - Well, either there or to Myrtle's apartment. I don't know which, to be truthful with you.
In APRIL 1955 we learn that both MO/HARVEY are gone from DOLLY SHOE and head back to Ft Worth
In MARCH 1955 the apartment at 1454 St Mary's becomes too expensive so they move to Exchange... on APRIL 15, 1955 LEE and MO move into 126 Exchange (the pattern of LEE and/or HARVEY following each other to the same apartments and schools allows for a more believeable cover story.)
Mrs. EVANS - Well, he would yell, "Maw, come and fix my supper," and he had a
loud voice, and I could hear him more and more up there, and it got to be quite
disturbing, actually. It seemed to be a situation that was getting worse all the
time; so I thought maybe it would be better if I didn't have them around; so,
since the apartment wasn't fixed up anyway, and she wasn't very happy next door,
she up and moved, and that's when she went to Exchange Alley.
Mr. JENNER - O.K. That was in April of 1955; is that right? Mrs. EVANS - Yes, and I never saw her after that.
Mr. JENNER - You never saw her again?
Mrs. EVANS - No; I didn't.
Mr. JENNER - You didn't see her at Exchange Alley?
Mrs. EVANS - No.
Mr. JENNER - Give me your impression of Marguerite Oswald.
Mr. EVANS - Marguerite?
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mr. EVANS - I think she's a fine woman, myself, a fine woman; intelligent, very soft spoken - a beautiful woman, with black hair streaked with a little gray, but when you saw her on television since this thing happened, she really looked awful; nothing at all like she used to look. She has really aged. She looked like a charwoman, compared to what she used to look like. She used to be a fashion plate. She dressed beautifully, but when we saw her on television just recently, after all this happened, she looked awful. There's no way to describe it, the change that has come over her. You wouldn't have recognized her if they hadn't told you who she was; she looked that different. Where her hair used to be black, now it's entirely gray, and she really looks Old
Mr. JENNER - Well, she's 57, I believe.
Mr. EVANS - That's right; she's the same age as my wife, but she looks about 70 now. That's about all I can remember about her, and then I saw this thing
on television when the President was assassinated, and when it showed her picture,we just couldn't believe it was Marguerite.
Now this is good stuff but I would have to disagree with you what is going on here. I think Mr. and Mrs. Evans are being quite truthful here and are indeed quite accurate. Now I know what I am going to say will be seen as heretical by the Armstrong community, but please bear with me. As part of my working hypothesis I think that all of the seeming contradictions can be resolved if you accept that a boy who was not her son, the boy you call HARVEY, was living with the "real" Marguerite at 1454/1452 St. Marys between Febuary 1954 and May 1955. Mrs. Evans certainly knew the "real" Marguerite and she simply assumed the boy who was with her was her son. The same with the Murrets. They had not seen LHO since he was a small child. Meanwhile the "fake" Marguerite and the Texan Lee moved from Ft. Worth to 126 Exchange Place
Although this kind of claim might be seen as heresy, I think the switch off of sons with the "real" Marguerite taking "Harvey" was quite sensible. Even within the Armstrong framework, wouldn't the managers of the "Oswald project" want to lump "Harvey" with the "real" Marguerite in order to pass off "Harvey" as her son? I think this switch can also explain the letters that the "real" Marguerite sent to her son John Pic with return address "126 Exchange" in October and November 1954 when she was living at 1454/1452 St. Marys according to the Evanses. Perhaps followers of the two Oswalds have not wanted to think that the "real" Marguerite was knowledgeable about what was going on with her son. I think she was up to her eyeballs in the scheme.
But before we can explore where this was all going, David, I really think we need to back up and go back to the 1955 yearbook picture. If you continue to think that this photo was "Lee" I don't think you will buy any of this. So in my next post I want to go back and explore the topic I raised in my first post in this thread. I've had trouble posting pictures to my posts so far. I'll see if I can get some help to figure out how to do it.
David Josephs Wrote:Seems to me Umbrella man was much thinner...
I do see a resemblence to THIS guy though...
No, no, not that man...the one to the left of him on the four photos!
This guy then.... Is there any more info for the photo on the left?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5566[/ATTACH]
To me, the biggest noticeably difference is the man in Mexico seems older than does TUM. There is some resemblance, but it's not a startling one...but who knows (or nose).
No, not a startling resemblance. But, the low quality of the image/images is apparent, and the gentleman on the right seems to have a portion of his chin "whited out", more than likely by accident or age of the photo and/or storage neglect.
18-12-2013, 10:50 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2013, 11:05 PM by Bruce Baird.)
OK, so I would like to go back to this 1955 Beauregard Junior High School Yearbook photo. I really think coming to terms with this photo is the key to breaking through the Beauregard puzzle (or at the least the key to starting to breakthrough!). Let's see if I can present this better this time around.
So here are the set of pictures of "Lee" Oswald (top) and "Harvey" Oswald (bottom) at harveyandlee.net
As I mentioned in a previous post, if you point your mouse at the picture of "Lee" (top row) in 1952 the caption reads:
American-born Lee Oswald in his 6th grade class photo at Riglea [sic] West Elementary School in Ft. Worth. Classmate Richard Garrett told the FBI that Oswald was the "tallest, most dominant" boy in his class.
If you point your mouse at the picture of "Lee" (top row) in 1954 the caption reads:
Ed Voebel took this picture of LEE Oswald in Oct,1954, in the 8th grade at Beauregard Jr. High in New Orleans, shortly after his fight with Johnny Neumeyer. LEE, according to the Warren Commission. Lee was assigned to homeroom #303 on the upper floor. After studying this photo, Myra Darouse said this was not the Oswald she had known in her homeroom in the basement cafeteria of the same school. Click to see interview with Myra DaRouse.
If you point your mouse at the picture of "Harvey" (bottom row) in 1954 the caption reads:
This is HARVEY Oswald, the boy in Myra Darouse's homeroom class in the basement cafeteria during the Spring of 1954. In the fall of 1954 HARVEY was in the 8th grade at Stripling Jr. High in Ft. Worth, while LEE Oswald was still in New Orleans. Click to watch former assistant principal Frank Kudlaty discuss his memory of handing HARVEY Oswald's Stripling school records to FBI agents soon after the assassination. This evidence all disappeared. Also on You Tube is an interview with former student Fran Schubert, who remembered Harvey at Stripling.
Now look at the top two rows of Jack White's collection of 77 photographs of LHO. (I'm sorry I tried to use iPhoto to crop the top two rows here but I couldn't paste it. I think you can just click on the image below and you can open up the poster to see more clearly the 77 photos).
When I look at the top row of Jack White's collection of photos, I have no trouble recognizing that this is the same kid. I am a teacher at a K-12 school and have bought a yearbook for the last 14 years. In each yearbook they print the pictures chronologically arranged of students who have attended the school for 12 years. Even though it might be difficult sometimes to match a kindergartener with a 12th grader without the intermediate pictures, whenever you look at the complete series you note there is no break in continuity.
David Josephs has written that he believes that the 3rd picture from the left on the 2nd line -- the 9th grader "Lee Oswald" in the 1955 Beauregard yearbook -- IS the "Lee" Oswald who is pictured in the top line. But I am 99.9% certain that the 3rd picture from the left on the 2nd line is NOT the "Lee Oswald" who showed up in all those pictures in the top line. The website harveyandlee.net would seem to agree with me that the boy in this photo is NOT "Lee" but does not deal with the FACT that this picture of "Harvey" was taken in the fall of 1954 at Beauregard Junior High School at a time when "Harvey" was supposed to be far away in Ft. Worth.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, this 1955 Beauregard yearbook photo is critical because THIS was the photo that the people of New Orleans saw and understood as the historical LHO. The photo showed up in no other city and pretty much disappeared from public memory, to be replaced by the English 202 picture when that was published in Life magazine in February 1964. John Armstrong did not mention or include the 1955 Beauregard yearbook picture in Harvey and Lee and, as far as I know, has never addressed what his position is on this picture.
Is there some way we can settle this once and for all? I wonder if Mr. Hargrove would like to comment with respect to harveyandlee.net? Does Mr. Hargrove believe this picture is "Harvey" Oswald? Also perhaps somebody could get John Armstrong to go on the record whether he believes this picture is "Harvey" Oswald. As I understand it harveyandlee.net is the outlet for John Armstrong's latest and greatest thoughts on Harvey and Lee so I assume the information presented on the website represents his opinions as well, but I would like clarification.
People have spent a lot of time on this thread trying to compare and contrast very fuzzy pictures of Umbrella Man, etc. Surely we should be able to sort out the relatively clear class photos? How about it?
Thanks for the well thought out response Bruce - I hope to do it some justice:
Quote:Since Voebel claims that the last time he saw Lee was some time in the
summer of 1955, this would mean that Voebel had known "Lee Oswald"
since about January 1954, and ONLY one "Lee Oswald". So if you want
to go with the Warren Commission, there is NO two Oswalds.
Again Bruce, if you want to go with the WCR you must be prepared to accept MANY lies as truth.
Ed VOEBEL does not know LEE until OCTOBER 1954... he met HARVEY in early 1954 just after he turned 14 and was obviously going thru "changes" like the rest of the boys that age.
I will say once again: THE PROOF OF HARVEY OSWALD ATTENDING BJHS IN 1953-54 IS :
1) THE CUMULATIVE & INDIVIDUAL BJHS GRADE CARDS SHOWING 2 CLASSES WITH GRADES IN THE LAST TERM of the 1ST SEMESTER OF THE 53-54 8TH GRADE SCHOOL YEAR. While LEE was supposedly still in NYC at PS44
2) THE PHOTO OF MO AT 126 EXCHANGE WHILE LEE & his mother LIVED AT 1454 St. Mary's - Murtle Evans' place
3) The memories of Myra DeRouse, Dorothy Duvik, Mr/Mrs Evans, Lillian Murret and Ed Voebel... to name a few.
4) Myra taking HARVEY home to 126 Exchange while LEE is living on St Mary's
LEE and MO do not move to Exchange until April 1955 where VOEBEL does visit LEE and sees the real mother who he says is NOT who he recognizes as Mrs. O.
Quote:I would also emphasize that the one image of Oswald that everyone refers
to is the 1955 Beauregard Junior High School Yearbook photo of "Lee
Oswald" that would have been taken in the fall of 1954. John Armstrong
seemingly refuses to deal with this CRUCIAL piece of evidence. I know, David,
that you believe this photo is "Lee". In a subsequent post I will try
to put together a timeline of classroom photos of "Lee Harvey Oswald"
from elementary school up to that 1955 Beauregard yearbook photo to demonstrate
beyond a reasonable doubt that there is NO WAY that this 1955 Beauregard
yearbook photo is the kid who grew up in Ft. Worth.
I wrote John Armstrong to ask about the 54-55 yearbook photo and why he thinks that is HARVEY... Will let you know ASAP.
John A says he believes it is HARVEY even though the yearbook suggests it is LEE - but that the photo has alwyas been of concern to him...
The people who printed the yearbook told him that : IF A STUDENT WAS SICK, ABSENT, ETC. ON THE DAY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN THEY WOULD USE THE PHOTO FROM EITHER
THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR RE-TAKE THE PHOTO AT THEIR STUDIO
yet there is a list of those without photos in the yearbook.... (please rememebr that we are looking at a single record comprised of two student's history - FAKED AND FORGED documents designed to tell a story.
And they simply do nothing but give themselves away.)
HARVEY arrives at BJHS in the FALL of 1953, not 1954... photos taken for the 54-55 yearbook in SEPT 54 could not possibly be HARVEY HARVEY IS LONG GONE attending Stripling and living at 2220 Thomas. So I fail to see how it can be HARVEY.
The FIRST and one of the only PHOTOs of the boy to be called HARVEY OSWALD is the BRONX ZOO photo taken by Robert in August 1953 just before HARVEY & MO leave NYC (a good question Bruce is HOW do they get from NYC to NOLA in January?)... HARVEY goes to North Dakota for a bit and then shows up mid semester at BJHS as has been his way all along. (LEE attends school regularly and is the good, big kid)
JA has another at Marde Gras NOTE: The student in the photograph, taken in the fall of 1954, was thetall, husky, Lee Oswald. I showed Myra a photograph of a boy taken during Mardi Gras in1954, which she identified as "Harvey." 54-04
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5586[/ATTACH]
AUGUST 1953 comes only a month before 9/53 - which is the date on the NYC school records for a 5'4" 115lb OSWALD entering 8th grade
I dug up the data about the height of the Bronx zoo railings and found they were 36".
If your assumptions about school pix are true, the photo at the top right of LEE was taken in FALL 1952.. LEE was the biggest in his class and the leader of most of the kids.
The boy in this photo is barely 4'10" and slender as described by the YOUTH HOUSE doctors and anyone else who EVER came into contact with LEE HARVEY in NYC.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5587[/ATTACH]
Quote:When you say the WC investigators never spoke with anyone who knew
HARVEY in 1953/54 I assume you are excepting Ed Voebel who you have said DID
know Harvey in 1953/54? I guess this would make Ed Voebel a very important
witness! Also you are ignoring the teachers who according to the report cards
taught LHO in the 1953/54 school year and were interviewed by the FBI. And all
the other students who were interviewed by the FBI and do not actually refer to
the 1954/55 school year but simply to the time that LHO was at Beauregard.
Then I misposted... I am saying that everyone that was approached about BJHS was asked about 54-55 not 53-54. and YES, Mr. V is one of the very few who was in contact with both LEE and HARVEY although I do not think he knew it...it had been from June to OCTOBER 1954 that Ed does not see Oswald....
LOOK at each of these "reports" - they are carbon copies of each other with thename changed:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=26 and CE2233 She (Peggy Zimmerman) said she has had no contactor information concerning OSWALD since she remembered seeing him at Beauregard Junior High School in 1955
The FBI report continues with name after name yet no related YEAR at BJHS for these Oswald witnesses...
Not a single soul is asked about 53-54.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=35
Breeland - whose name appears on one of the grade cards - stated that after seeing photos AFTER THE ASSASSINATION of Oswald - he "tried to recall Oswald as a student at the school, however, without success.
Basically Bruce, the man arrested was NOT at BJHS in 54-55 - and these people all but confirm it.... 1953 was a year carefully ignored by the FBI
In each and every FBI report about BJHS we are told about 54, 55 and/or 56... and we both know that by AUGUST 1955 they go their seperate ways NOT 1956.
FBI REPORT: EDWARD VOEBEL, who resides at 4916 Canal (location
of Quality Florist Company) advised he knew OSWALD at Beauregard
Junior High School during 1955 and 1956.
VOEBEL advised that after losing contact with LEE HARVEY OSWALD in 1956,
Not a single one is asked about the SPRING 1954 (54-55 year starts in Sept 54 as we both know)... and these reports were created to give a very specific impression and to form only one conclusion... that there was only one OSWALD even though the records of this one child are not possible in the real world of people and time.
(What you might do is look at the NYC records and reconcile a real conflict... from MARCH 23, 1953 until JUNE 4, 1953 this student supposedly attended 109 3/2 days and was absent 15 3/2 which is 109+15+3/2+3/2=130 days OF SCHOOL between 3/23 and 6/4/53.
There aren't 130 school days in a complete semester, but 90. The NYC records claim he transferred from 117 on 1/16/53 yet does not attend until 3/23/53. (yet only has 15 3/2 absences?)
He spends 4/23 - 5/7 at the YOUTH HOUSE and STILL can attend 109 days of school in a single SPRING SEMESTER ?? (I posted the 3 NYC records side by side earlier) https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post80649
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5588[/ATTACH]
Quote:Are you saying that Voebel should have stepped up and disagreed with the interviewer to correct the impression that Voebel had only known LHO since he was 15, and not 14? I would think it highly unlikely that any interviewee would have corrected an interviewer on this point unless they somehow saw it as extremely important, which I am certain Voebel would not have.
I am saying that the interviewer was asking about the OCTOBER 1954 OSWALD, not the boy involved with the piano in early 1954.
Quote:August 1, 1955 (15 months prior to 10/9/56)
[TABLE="width: 491"]
[TR]
[TD]HARVEY letter states he's been studying MARXISM for 15 months until he finally makes a request for Socialist Party info dated Oct 9 1956.
My point here is that by August 1955 HARVEY is already talking about MARXISM (the story is about a lady and pamphlet that he is given that changes his life) while LEE is with ED at CAPS meeting David FERRIE.
Quote:I agree with you that here we have evidence of two different Oswalds but
I would assert that the kid who attends Warren Easton and then moves to San
Diego (or somewhere out of New Orleans) is the same kid who had been going to
Beauregard and who is pictured in the 1955 Beauregard yearbook. The Oswald that
works at Tujages is the Oswald raised in Ft. Worth.
I think you;ve mixed them up and together here.... Warren Easton would have been where BJHS sends LEE's records.
LEE was working at Tujage's all thru the 55-56 school year.... the only record from EASTON are the dates 9/8/55-10/4/55, and then HARVEY leaves.
Quote:Ed Voebel took this picture of LEE Oswald in Oct,1954, in the 8th grade at Beauregard Jr. High in New Orleans,
In OCT 1954 LEE was in the 9th grade, not 8th.
In SEPT 1953 LEE is attending PS44 in NYC - ACCORDING TO THESE FORGED AND FAKED RECORDS...
How can we know WHICH PS44 he attended (there were three in New York City - Queens, Bronx and Manhattan)
We KNOW that the attendence record for SPRING 1953 is completely wrong whereas they got the right # of days from Sept 53 thru Jan 54 for LEE before he leaves NYC.
Have you read the Louise Robertson statement Bruce? This was a woman hired by the destitute MO as a maid who out of the blue calls the FBI on 11/27 to make a statement about the summer of 1953...
She claims MO told her that they came from TX to NYC for "mental tests at Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx"
Problem being that Hospital was not finished and opened until 1955. Ooops.
She lived just around the corner from the Oswalds and adds to the back story of OSWALD being mentally unstable.
Bruce - at some point don't you think you should add in some of the other numerous points I am making about the CONTEXT of the situation, not just your opinion about photographs?
Some of the records were forged, some not... Attendence was forged... but the size and weight of the 7th and 8th grader is corroborated by those who knew LEE in 6th grade.
Can you please take a moment and address the Bronx zoo photo of a young OSWALD in the summer of 1953 taken 10 months AFTER the 6th grade photo...
You are claiming that these two boys are the same?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5589[/ATTACH]
and these two images, taken only a couple weeks apart, are also of the SAME person?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5590[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
David Josephs Wrote:I wrote John Armstrong to ask about the 54-55 yearbook photo and why he thinks that is HARVEY... Will let you know ASAP.
John A says he believes it is HARVEY even though the yearbook suggests it is LEE - but that the photo has alwyas been of concern to him...
The people who printed the yearbook told him that : IF A STUDENT WAS SICK, ABSENT, ETC. ON THE DAY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN THEY WOULD USE THE PHOTO FROM EITHER
THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR RE-TAKE THE PHOTO AT THEIR STUDIO
yet there is a list of those without photos in the yearbook.... (please rememebr that we are looking at a single record comprised of two student's history - FAKED AND FORGED documents designed to tell a story.
And they simply do nothing but give themselves away.)
This is the best news yet in this thread. Instead of perhaps agreeing to disagree, I am glad that JA and I can agree to agree that the 1955 Beauregard Junior High School Yearbook photo (pictured 2nd from the left in the bottom row below) identified as "Lee Oswald" is NOT a picture of the boy Lee Harvey Oswald born in New Orleans and raised in Fort Worth. Indeed, I believe there is no better proof of some kind of early and deliberate conspiracy to create two Lee Harvey Oswalds than this yearbook picture. I would be quite willing to stand with JA and take on all challengers to would like to reject out of hand the idea of two Oswalds.
And I would like to once again emphasize that this yearbook photo is not some obscure photo left to be discovered in the Paines' garage. This was THE photo of LHO that the people of New Orleans saw on the front pages of their two leading newspapers, the Times Picayune and the States-Item the weekend of the assassination. As I have noted in a previous post, the photo was published above the caption "9TH GRADER LEE OSWALD At Beauregard School." on the front page of the New Orleans States-Item (the afternoon paper) in the Final Edition, Saturday, November 23, 1963 .
THe next morning (November 24, 1963) the photo was published on the front page of the big Sunday edition of The Times-Picayune above the caption "LEE HARVEY OSWALD From school yearbook here." accompanying an article by Paul Atkinson titled "School Doesn't Recall Oswald: Principal, Students Can't Remember Him".
[URL="http://www.knowla.org/image/3959/"] http://www.knowla.org/image/3959/[/URL]
It would seem then that with this consensus on the 1955 yearbook picture it would be a matter of sorting through the rest of the confusing evidence related to these two Oswalds to reach an understanding of how this "Oswald project" worked.
With that I think I will stand by on responding to David Josephs good posts to await John Armstrong's explanation of how this photo of HARVEY could have found its way into that 1955 Beauregard yearbook, seeing as JA completely rejects Harvey's presence in New Orleans in the fall of 1954. I await John's response which I think will be an excellent point to pick up this thread again.
First off JA did NOT agree that that photo is definitely NOT HARVEY... He does admit it COULD be LEE... and I think your/our argument against it being HARVEY is pretty strong...
only means the labeling on the site is not right... nothing sinister about the use of the photo, that was the photo that was available... and in fact the LAST PHOTO of OSWALD in NOLA public school.
I posted: J[B]ohn A says he believes it is HARVEY even though the yearbook suggests it is LEE - but that the photo has always been of concern to him...[/B]
Quote: I am glad that JA and I can agree to agree
JA has not come to that conclusion - yet.
So Bruce, with JA's position understood (I will continue to discuss with him and see if he doesn't consider changing the website and graphic... )
Let's just continue our discussion...
Let's for a second suppose it IS Lee. So what? LEE was at BJSH in the FALL of 1954 when this photo would have been taken.
LEE in 9th grade is not so different looking than HARVEY at this point....
WHO would know that wasn't the same person as the man Ruby killed? No one other than those directly involved.
Can you please associate sinister intent with the publishing of this photo in NOLA... I am missing it.
----
Bruce - Nothing will be forthcoming from JA at this point... There is no way to definitively prove who that is...
but as I say and agree with you.. the support for that being HARVEY is waning.
Please address my reply which I thought illustrated my POV pretty well....
Quote:In OCT 1954 LEE was in the 9th grade, not 8th.
You are doing the same thing the FBI did... make his 53-55 BJHS years become '54-'56... which is simply not true...
and there is no visual evidence of Stripling, Easton or Arlington... just copies of copies of school records taken within the first week of the assassination.
JENNER tries it as well... everyone is trying to skip past OSWALD at 14 since they know there is a serious problem with the records... which had already been entered as evidence.
Mr. JENNER - Now, at that time Lee was about 15 years old; is that right?
Mrs. EVANS - He was, somewhere around there--maybe 13 or 14. I don't know exactly.
OCTOBER 1954 is when OSWALD turns 15.... the 53-54 school year and summer is shrouded in mystery.
Did you get a chance to follow the links to the statements about 54-55 by ALL the witnesses where a date is mentioned?
Did you notice the carbon copy nature of these "statements" which were in fact unsigned FBI write-ups of statements...
(you will find that most of the WCR's most valuable "evidence" is unsigned,unsourced, uncorroborated FBI reports)
Quote: seeing as JA completely rejects Harvey's presence in New Orleans in the fall of 1954
You are concluding that the PHOTO must be LEE... and I agree with you...
(NOTE: Bruce, I have been taking a fine tooth comb to H&L now for months... this is not a text book although it comes very close to being THE definitive alternate narrative for the assassination
THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES in the text and in the conclusions... that there are so few in 1000 pages of text, 500mb of files and another 2100 FOLDERS on line is a testament to the man's work)
WOULD you know if they used HARVEY's photo from the year before, taken in the fall/winter of 1953 for this book? No...
---
Yet from all indications and supporting evidence, it appears to be LEE.
I posted images of LEE and HARVEY both in 52/53 and in 59/60...
We talked about a variety of OTHER EVIDENCE that supports the two OSWALDS at various ages...
Let's keep this discussion going and not worry about JA's conclusions at this point.
IF this is LEE, please illustrate the connection to evil intent by them using the most recent publically available photo of OSWALD in NOLA
thanks
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Yes, you are absolutely correct! The refrain of the past few months has once again been to release those government files that have been sealed for so long. If unsealed, the files would pertain primarily to the biography of Oswald. If disclosed to the public, much of the "new" information would help uncover the truth about a life heretofore presented to us by forgery. Much of the new material would be utterly mundane, such as tax and school records. If revealed, the files would help resolve the issues debated in the hundreds of posts that comprise this thread. The ARRB did an outstanding job in getting the truth of the JFK autopsy before the public. Unfortunately, it did not nearly address the Oswald story as successfully.
:
![[Image: H&L%20multiple.jpg]](http://harveyandlee.net/H&L%20multiple.jpg)
