John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee

[Karl Kinaski]

--Three Key Areas That Disprove the Armstrong Theory
Newsgroup Post by W. Tracy Parnell
July 2001


Internet Newsgroup readers may have noticed an ongoing debate between myself and Jim Hargrove who is the "Internet voice" for researcher John Armstrong. Recently, the Armstrong camp (which consists primarily of Armstrong, Hargrove, Jack White and to a lesser degree Art Swanson) has stepped up their efforts to discredit me in the wake of the publication in the Kennedy Assassination Chronicles of two of my articles. My approach from the beginning has always been that in a theory as complex as the one Armstrong has presented, there must be parts of it that are demonstrably false as shown by the official record. For those that are new to the debate, here are just a few of the reasons Armstrong is wrong.
1. HSCA Fingerprint and Photo Analysis.


The HSCA had some of the top experts in the country take a look at handwriting, fingerprints, and photographs in an effort to debunk "two Oswald" theories in general. It should be noted of course that Armstrong's theory did not exist at that time since he did not begin to study JFK until the early 90's.


The October 15, 1956 induction of "Lee" Oswald creates a huge problem for the Armstrong team. On that day "Lee" was fingerprinted and assigned serial number 1653230. In December of the same year he was photographed (popularly known as the 13-inch head photo which BTW also has been debunked) with his serial number displayed at the bottom of the picture. These two records disprove the Armstrong theory since the HSCA matched the fingerprints from October 1956 to prints taken of LHO in custody in Dallas and New Orleans in 1963. The problem is, those are supposed to be the prints of "Harvey" Oswald. Similarly, the December photo is said to be that of "Lee" while the HSCA photo panel proved using morphological data that it matched photos of "Harvey".
2. HSCA Handwriting Analysis


One of the most powerful arguments for rebutting the Armstrong theory is made by the HSCA handwriting analysis. The HSCA panel examined 63 handwriting samples when conducting their study. I reasoned that by classifying these samples as "Harvey" and "Lee" I could check for any discrepancies. I was surprised to find many such discrepancies and I selected six samples (three of each man) as the basis for my article "The Handwriting is on the Wall". The bottom line is that the same individual wrote many of the samples that should be either "Harvey" or "Lee". See the current issue of the KAC or my website for more information.


So it seems that unknown to them, the HSCA was laying the groundwork for a complete debunking of Armstrong's theory some 15 years before it even existed!
3. Oswald Exhumation.


In 1981, the body of LHO was exhumed in order to disprove the theory of Michael Eddowes whose book, The Oswald File, postulated a Soviet look-alike was buried in the LHO grave. The body was positively identified primarily by dental records as that of Oswald. That killed Eddowes' theory but interestingly once again Armstrong's theory was defeated by an event that predated it.


Although the Norton team's primary charge was the use of dental records, they could not help but notice the obvious presence of a mastoidectomy defect on the left side of the head that corresponded with the one LHO was known to have. The team noted the defect in their report and also photographed it for the record. The problem for Armstrong is that the body Norton looked at was supposed to be "Harvey" while it was "Lee" who had the mastoid operation. So once again the Armstrong theory is shown to be wrong and totally disproved. For information about the exhumation and a debunking of the allegations of Paul Groody (who postulated a head-switch in the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy) see the articles section of this site.


These three areas provide substantial proof that the theory of John Armstrong is on shaky ground. I am sure all researchers appreciate the time and effort that Mr. Armstrong had expended in his efforts and he has uncovered some interesting documentation. However, his theory of two men leading separate but parallel lives is demonstrably incorrect.

--

[Jim Hackett II]

A timeline for "the" one or both or many "Oswalds" and Jack Ruby and Jefferson Davis Tippet is a great idea.
A collaboration of efforts.

This effort would fly in the face of the efforts one of the best "fable-makers" in the game,
manipulations of the record and like efforts of the FBI and Allen Dulles secret empire
have rendered the pool of data muddy, just as clear as mud.

However this does not mean no efforts would be productive.
The broken twigs and sullied tracks of the beast we fight against are still present after 50 years.

We know what was done. And can prove the fable is junk science or BS.

[Jim Hackett II]

I actually think that is the best part of John's book.

It convinced me that Oswald never ordered that rifle.

The second best part of his book is the chapter on Mexico City.

It is one of the best and most important essays ever written on the subject along with the Lopez Report, Newman's book,and Newman's essay in Probe.

Anytime someone says we know Oswald was in Mexico, like Albarelli, I refer them to John's book.

====================================================================================

Thanks Jim, agreed.

"H & L" ( speaking, er writing for myself alone), proved to me that "LHO" (the arrested one) DID NOT have ANY connections to the weapons.
None, nada, zip, nix nein, nyet and no damn way.

It is quite a nice RR y'all built for shipping people into hell on earth.

Just as President Kennedy could not be allowed to escape alive from Big D,
LHO (the TV "assassin") could never be allowed to stand trial as the fable would explode in the exposure of the sunlight disinfectant.
Not even Texas and Big Money could have held out in BS.

Any real investigation would have exposed the fascist imports of AWDulles involved in the plot.
The "far-right" would have been ridden out of town on a rail.
Banished to South America to mourn the fuhrer in person.

See how they run ........

And I like Albarelli's work on LSD but like all researchers I don't agree completely with any one researcher,
except Fletcher Prouty and the like as truth tellers from the inner council circles.
Best to you Jim.

[Jim Hargrove]

• LEE OSWALD: two scars from a gunshot wound
  
  
  On October 27, 1957 Richard Cyr was standing about 15 yards from his barracks in Atsugi, Japan and heard a gunshot. Cyr and other marines ran into the building and found (LEE) Oswald sitting on his locker with a nickel-plated .22 derringer laying nearby on the floor. (LEE) Oswald said, "It seems as though I've shot myself." Oswald was taken to the sick bay for treatment and then taken to the U.S. Navy Hospital in nearby Yokosuku. A Navy surgeon closed the wound with stitches and allowed the .22 slug, which lay just below the surface on the back side of Oswald's upper left arm, to remain in his arm. A week later, on November 4, Dr. Greenlees made an incision on the back side of Oswald's arm, removed the .22 caliber slug, and closed the wound with stitches which were removed 10 days later.
  
  LEE Oswald had two incisions and now had two scars.
  
  After (HARVEY) Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963, an autopsy was performed by Dr. Earl Rose of Dallas. Dr. Rose listed and described numerous small scars on Oswald's body, including "a pale, white, oblique 1/4 inch scar." But nowhere, in the lengthly and precise autopsy report, did Dr. Rose observe or report any scars on Oswald's left arm. Photographs were taken of Oswalds arms, but show no scars from a bullet wound.
  After the autopsy, (HARVEY) Oswald was taken to the funeral home where he was embalmed and prepared for burial by mortician Paul Groody. Groody was subsequently interviewed by the Secret Service and asked if there were any scars on Oswald's arms and he (Groody) repeatedly said there were no scars on Oswald's upper left arm.
  
  
  LEE OSWALD: three-inch mastoidectomy scar
  
  
  When LEE Oswald was 6 years old, he had a mastoidectomy operation behind his left ear. In 1956, at age 17, LEE Oswald's Marine medical examination report listed a three-inch mastoid scar behind his left ear. When (HARVEY) Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby, Dr. Earl Rose performed the autopsy and noted scars in his report as small as one-sixteenth inch. Dr. Rose also took 27 color slides of Oswald's body which are now in the National Archives. There is no three-inch mastoidectomy scar shown on the autopsy report nor can such a scar be seen in any of the color slides. LEE Oswald had the three-inch mastoidectomy scar, but not HARVEY Oswald, who was shot and killed by Jack Ruby (Ruby knew LEE and HARVEY).
  A missing front tooth, scars from a medical operations, and scars from a gunshot wound have long puzzled JFK researchers, but the solution is simple enough. It was LEE Oswald who had a mastoidectomy operation in 1945, lost a tooth from a fight in 1954, and shot himself in the left arm in 1957. But it was HARVEY Oswald who was killed by Jack Ruby, and had no such scars.
  
  
  After his arrest (HARVEY) Oswald told DPD officer Adamcik and FBI agent Clements, "I am 5 ft. 9 in., weight 140 lbs., have brown hair, blue-gray eyes, and have no tattoos or permanent scars." But (LEE) Oswald had a large mastoidectomy scar and upper-arm scars that were both noted in Marine Corps records (Warren Report, pp 614-618).
  
  
  

[Tracy Riddle]

I'm pretty sure Parnell is a lone-nutter. Karl, you haven't debunked the Pfisterer lab story I posted earlier. Further confirmation of the time period comes from Oswald's friends, who remembered the Sputnik launch happening at the time, and going to a performance of "Boris Godounov" in New Orleans (both October 1957).

You don't have to agree with every aspect of Armstrong's theory to realize there is something seriously wrong, and there are a lot of indications that at least two people were using Oswald's identity.

[Karl Kinaski]

Quote Greg Burnham: Judyth Vary Baker in Exile Thread Ed-Forum, page 51.

(The thread mutated in a Armstrong vs Baker threat on that pages)

...if we are to accept Armstrong's account, the Oswald that Judyth knew was HARVEY not LEE. And the one Judyth claims to have known was (according to Armstrong) HARVEY (who could not drive) -- but who was known to Judyth (according to Judyth) as Lee (who could drive). Mind boggling--

Personally, I have a very difficult time accepting that any Soviet double-agent, or false defector, or infiltrator, or--in other words--SPY-- would not have been taught to drive for purposes of "cover story" if nothing else.

A LNter, can proof a CTer wrong on certain aspects. Parnell did so (if he is a LNter at all):

Quote Parnell:

The October 15, 1956 induction of "Lee" Oswald creates a huge problem for the Armstrong team. On that day "Lee" was fingerprinted and assigned serial number 1653230. In December of the same year he was photographed (popularly known as the 13-inch head photo which BTW also has been debunked) with his serial number displayed at the bottom of the picture. These two records disprove the Armstrong theory since the HSCA matched the fingerprints from October 1956 to prints taken of LHO in custody in Dallas and New Orleans in 1963. The problem is, those are supposed to be the prints of "Harvey" Oswald. Similarly, the December photo is said to be that of "Lee" while the HSCA photo panel proved using morphological data that it matched photos of "Harvey".

KK

[Karl Kinaski]

Quote James Fetzer Judyth Vary Baker in Exile Thread, Ed-Forum page 61:

John Armstrong doesn't know the difference between the 26 supporting volumes and
THE WARREN REPORT and falsely claims that Dulles was so skillful in
managing the commission that he was able to exclude any mention of
the CIA from its index! Since the 26 volumes HAD NO INDEX but the
888-page REPORT has an index, which actually includes around TWO
DOZEN ENTRIES about the CIA, he committed an egregious blunder.

KK

[Jim Hargrove]

Quote Greg Burnham: Judyth Vary Baker in Exile Thread Ed-Forum, page 51.

(The thread mutated in a Armstrong vs Baker threat on that pages)

...if we are to accept Armstrong's account, the Oswald that Judyth knew was HARVEY not LEE. And the one Judyth claims to have known was (according to Armstrong) HARVEY (who could not drive) -- but who was known to Judyth (according to Judyth) as Lee (who could drive). Mind boggling--

Personally, I have a very difficult time accepting that any Soviet double-agent, or false defector, or infiltrator, or--in other words--SPY-- would not have been taught to drive for purposes of "cover story" if nothing else.

A LNter, can proof a CTer wrong on certain aspects. Parnell did so (if he is a LNter at all):

Quote Parnell:

The October 15, 1956 induction of "Lee" Oswald creates a huge problem for the Armstrong team. On that day "Lee" was fingerprinted and assigned serial number 1653230. In December of the same year he was photographed (popularly known as the 13-inch head photo which BTW also has been debunked) with his serial number displayed at the bottom of the picture. These two records disprove the Armstrong theory since the HSCA matched the fingerprints from October 1956 to prints taken of LHO in custody in Dallas and New Orleans in 1963. The problem is, those are supposed to be the prints of "Harvey" Oswald. Similarly, the December photo is said to be that of "Lee" while the HSCA photo panel proved using morphological data that it matched photos of "Harvey".

KK

The purpose of the HSCA was to HIDE the CIA's Oswald project, not shed any light on it. Jack White repeatedly told us that when he tried to introduce a photo montage of different Oswald faces, he was told by one of the HSCA attorneys that he would be charged with contempt if he did. Anything we learn from the HSCA (or the Warren Commission) about Oswald's intelligence connection is an accident, something they forgot to hide.

In 1996 former HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum testified to the ARRB about what the HSCA should have done, but didn't: "The major area, and I can't overemphasize this, focused on the government and what the government knew about Lee Harvey Oswald... and what the CIA was doing with Lee Harvey Oswald. And what he was doing in New Orleans with anti-Castro Cubans, rabid anti-Castro Cubans, and to get everything you could get from the government with respect to it. And how this government today could want to hold that information and feed the kind of anti-government feeling that results from non-disclosure is really beyond my comprehension."

There is clear evidence that both Oswalds were in the USMC. Gosh, can you think of any government agency that had the power to make sure the HSCA got the RIGHT fingerprints for Agent Oswald??? Golly, just couldn't happen, right? HSCA my ass....

Now why don't you tell me how two 6-year-old gunshot wounds disappeared from Agent Oswald's left arm?

[Karl Kinaski]

Quote James Fetzer Judyth Vary Baker in Exile Thread, Ed-Forum page 62: Fetzer is addressing Jack White of the "Armstrong-Team."

Jack,

The fantastic theory of HARVEY & LEE is disintegrating before your eyes, but you are so convinced you aren't even reading the posts or else are not comprehending them. Judyth has most recently (in case you missed it) explained that the alleged distinction between "Harvey" and "Lee" based upon the "missing tooth" has no foundation. She has already shown that you do not even have the photographic record straight. And you may recall the sensation when Sylvia Meagher published her INDEX to the 26 supporting volumes, which was welcomed by one and all. And that Allen Dulles could not have been very successful in excluding reference to the CIA from the commission's publications when, in the 888-page volume known as THE WARREN REPORT, which has its own index, there are some two dozen reference to the CIA! So what was John Armstrong talking about?

You ask me to read his book, and when I do, I immediately stumble over a colossal blunder in the first four or five pages. I have asked you repeatedly what principles were used to select between the documents that were published in the public domain that had TRUE content and that had FALSE content. I have heard nothing from you but silence. How did you and John determine that the documents you were including had accurate content and were not part of an elaborate documentary trail to create a false "parallel history" for one man, Lee Harvery Oswald, whom Judyth would meet in New Orleans and Jack Ruby, who was his friend, would shoot before the eyes of the nation? What did you do to cope with the all-too-real possibility that you were actually dealing with a counterfeit history to allow this one man, who was working for the CIA, to return to society with an appropriate cover story based upon the false history that you and John, alas!, appear to have mistaken for real?

I have asked you this question several times now, my friend, but you have never answered it. Just tell me which documents you excluded because you thought that, although they were real documents, their content was false? In the meanwhile, please CEASE TOUTING "THE TWO OSWALDS". I am already convinced that you and Armstrong vacuumed up a mass of documents where, for the most part, you have no idea which have TRUE CONTENT and which have FALSE. Judyth appears to know more than you, John, and David S. Lifton combined with it comes to Lee Harvey Oswald and "the second Oswald", his brother Robert, of whom none of you seem to have the least knowledge. I cannot believe what I am discovering here. HARVEY & LEE is a fanstasy--and you have the nerve to accuse Judyth of being a "fantasist"! I'm sorry, Jack, but I think you have it exactly backwards.

Jim

[Tracy Riddle]

Is this the same HSCA photo panel that pronounced the Backyard Photos genuine? I thought so.