Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence

[David Josephs]

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....558&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?:

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...

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



Quote

Quote

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:
Quote

This 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.