Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence

[Jim Hargrove]

I'll be away for a few days, but can quickly address this before I go since it's the only post that is actually on subject:

So, you make a dramatic debut on this website, start a fight, and then announce you'll "be away for a few days." That's WEIRD!

Here is what I said about it at my forum a little while back:

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.

Guess that settles that! Except for what REALLY happened. From Harvey and Lee, pages 294-295:

When "Marguerite" met with Fain she told him that she was employed by the

Methodist Orphans Home, located at 1111 Herring Avenue in Waco, under the name

Mrs. Edward Lee Oswald and explained that she was able to meet with him because

it was her day off. "Marguerite" allegedly told Fain that Lee Harvey Oswald had taken

his birth certificate with him when he left the country. According to Fain's memo,

"Marguerite" provided him with photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald-photographs that

have since disappeared.

NOTE: Following the assassination the FBI failed to contact or obtain any employment

information from the Methodist Orphans Home in Waco.

"Marguerite" also told Fain that she recently received a letter from the Albert

Schweitzer College indicating that her son was expected there on April 20.26 According

to "Marguerite," it was this letter that alerted her to the possibility that Lee Harvey

Oswald was attending ASC in Switzerland.

But Marguerite had known for 5 months that her "son" was in Russia and not attend-

ing school in Switzerland. When Oswald defected in October, 1959, Fort Worth newspa-

pers reported his defection after interviewing "Marguerite." With the assistance of a Fort

Worth reporter "Marguerite" contacted "her son" via telephone in his Moscow hotel

room. Both she and Robert received letters from Oswald, and on January 22nd she

purchased and sent a $25 foreign draft to him in Moscow. There is no doubt that "Marguer-

ite" knew Lee Harvey Oswald was in Russia. But why she told SA Fain that her son might be in

Switzerland remains unanswered.

On May 12 SA Fain sent a report of his interview with "Marguerite" to FBI

Headquarters in Washington, DC and wrote, "Since Oswald had his birth certificate in

his possession, another individual may have assumed his identity."27

On May 23 the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the FBI's New York office sent

an Airtel (air telegram) to FBI Director Hoover referencing Fain's report of 5/12/60. The

subject of the memo was "Funds transmitted to residents of Russia" and stated, "Since

Oswald had his birth certificate in his possession, another individual may have assumed

his identity."28

NOTE: When "Marguerite Oswald" testified before the Warren Commission in 1964 she

denied being interviewed by SA Fain or any FBI agent prior to the assassination. She

said, "I will state now emphatically that I have never been questioned by the FBI or the

Secret Service--never, gentlemen. "29 The FBI had interviewed "Marguerite" on April 28,

1960 (SA Fain), April 10 , 1961 (SA Fain) and October 13, 1961 (SA Jarrell Davis

in Vernon, TX.). 30 Without a doubt "Marguerite" lied to the Warren Commission, but

why?

Isn't the full story much better than the half-assed Parker version? I kind of started in the middle because I didn't want to make it too long, and I didn't bother with the footnotes either.

Let's take a closer look at Parker's post from the top:

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.

Parker has underscored the fact that he is DEAD WRONG! Mr. Armstrong HAS provided more information about the background of the imposter memo than Parker has, AND PARKER IS COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF THAT FACT! PARKER APPARENTLY HAS NOT READ THE BOOK HE IS TRYING TO CRITICIZE!

Here is some space reserved for an apology from Parker to Mr. Armstrong:

(SPACE RESERVED FOR APOLOGY)

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, 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!

DJ, if you want the type of "debate" you're currently trying to make this, you'll get it when I get back. If you had an ounce of decency and any sort of ethic, you would of course, simply log on to my site and address your concerns there. Your pretending that this is all based on my OPINION is utter nonsense. If I have to copy and paste everything here, I'll do it. Along with addressing your utter vileness and cowardice towards people not here to defend themselves.

Oh, this is rich. "Cmon to my house, little boy, I'm going to give you candy. It's real good. I made it myself. And EVERYONE THERE LOVES YOU."

Jim

PS. Hey Parker, have you read Harvey and Lee? You sure don't seem to know much about it.

[David Josephs]

DJ, if you want the type of "debate" you're currently trying to make this, you'll get it when I get back. If you had an ounce of decency and any sort of ethic, you would of course, simply log on to my site and address your concerns there. Your pretending that this is all based on my OPINION is utter nonsense. If I have to copy and paste everything here, I'll do it. Along with addressing your utter vileness and cowardice towards people not here to defend themselves.

I'm sure you'd prefer to be playing in your own backyard without anyone looking and your few minions cheering you on... Yes I did register (you can delete my account if not done already) and I spent a few days going thru your "forum".
I found Richard's posts particularly interesting but mostly see it as a pulpit for you to spout off anything you wish and call it fact....

If it were not wholey your opinion you'd post or reference and/or link to the source materials you base your "factual conclusions" upon and let readers see for themselves the pathetically poor excuse for evidence you misinterpret as facts, while berating others on their inabilities to read or understand simple documents.

We're all right here Greg... copy/paste whatever you like as long as the moderators here allow it... and it will be addressed and revealed for what it is.

----

Once again Jim... excellent job and why Mr Parker would prefer we come to him rather than offer his vapid, unsupported opinions here...

[Greg R Parker]

So, you make a dramatic debut on this website, start a fight, and then announce you'll "be away for a few days." That's WEIRD!

What is "weird" is the ultra-sensitivity and defensiveness on display by you and David. You guys are simply shitting bricks.

Or maybe you CAN explain in what way this - my initial post was - "a dramatic debut" OR "starting a fight"?


David,

I assume any detailed discussion is going to go into minutia at some stage. I'd just like to know the difference between "going into minute details" (that is being "detailed"), "minutia" and "false minutia". If you could provide an example of what you specifically refer to as "detailed" and what defines "minutia" as opposed to "false minutia", that'd be great.

Thanks. Once I have your definitions down pat, I have a starting point for discussion.

When "Marguerite" met with Fain she told him that she was employed by the
Methodist Orphans Home, located at 1111 Herring Avenue in Waco, under the name
Mrs. Edward Lee Oswald and explained that she was able to meet with him because
it was her day off. "Marguerite" allegedly told Fain that Lee Harvey Oswald had taken
his birth certificate with him when he left the country. According to Fain's memo,
"Marguerite" provided him with photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald-photographs that
have since disappeared.

Let me straighten you out yet again.

1. We don't know that she told Fain that was using the name "Mrs Edward Lee Oswald" at the orphanage. Fain's report does not state that. It simply notes that she is aka "Mrs Edward Lee Oswald".

2. Fain's report does not state she gave him photographs. It states she gave him a photograph (singular). To say that this photo has "since disappeared" is disingenuous since we don't know what photo it was. It could well have been a copy of any of the known photos of LHO.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...PageId=728

NOTE: Following the assassination the FBI failed to contact or obtain any employment
information from the Methodist Orphans Home in Waco.

It's not the only job they made no inquiries about - that we know of. How does that prove your contention that Oswald was being impersonated?

to be continued...

[Jim Hargrove]

[Jim Hargrove]

Here is my favorite graphic showing multiple impersonations of "Lee Harvey Oswald:"


[ATTACH=CONFIG]5804[/ATTACH]

[Lauren Johnson]

David and Greg (I don't recall you, Jim, at EF) having this "discussion" at Education Forum. The signal to noise ration was pretty low, IMO. Now it's moved over here at DPF. I am hoping that all of you can try to keep it civil before the Moderators and Magda and David start having discussions.

I honor your mutual passion for truth.

OK, my question. I am not a researcher. But for the sake of my enlightenment and that of any others who are out there puzzled, could you three try to clarify what is at stake for you all. Maybe you could include something about the some of the basics about what you DO agree on? Would this take too much work?

[David Josephs]

HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK? or is this you just cherry-picking and trolling for attention?

What is "weird" is the ultra-sensitivity and defensiveness on display by you and David. You guys are simply shitting bricks.

In most cases, Sport, a person becomes defensive when another is being offensive... Your inability to offer supporting documentation for your uninformed opinions is offensive...
Your transparent desire to get members over to your bully pulpit is offensive...
Your never addressing the questions in our responses and creating straw men instead - is offensive.
Your continued use of Summaries of reports - which are then refuted as more inauthentic FBI mumbo jumbo - IOW never happening to begin with... is offensive.

Here's an idea... READ THE BOOK... Post some evidence you disagree with... and explain why WITH SOURCES - you disagree with it...

Or just keep doing what you're doing....:

Let me straighten you out yet again.

::face.palm:: nope... nothing offensive about that statement...
So set me straight about a few things Sport... Who was Velma Marlin...?

Better yet... 1410 Hurley Ave Ft Worth - MO's return address from the April 6, 1960 letter she sent ASC (CE231) and on June 10 her address was still 1410 Hurley...

The Methodist Orphanage in Waco is 90 miles south... that's quite a commute each day... Good thing Thursday April 28, 1960 was her day off!
Mr. STERN. I think these reports largely speak for themselves, Mr. Fain, but I would like to ask you a few details to clarify statements in the report. On page 3 in the report of your interview of Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, you say in the
second line, "She volunteered for interview." What does that mean in this connection?
Mr. FAIN. You will notice that on the lower left-hand corner it indicates I talked to her on the 28th, April 28, which was the day after I talked to her son Robert Lee, and evidently he had gotten in touch with her on the same afternoon that I talked to him or that night. Anyway she knocked on the door the next day and wanted to talk to me; and she came in voluntarily. I believe Robert told me that he would get in touch with her. He gave me her address, at least, and I was going to send out a lead to have her interviewed down there, but she came In to talk to me, voluntarily

=====
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't recall him asking any questions. It could be. But I frankly do not recall him asking any questions. But it was a very short session. And that is the way I ended the tape. I said, "My thoughts have left me because I see my son crying bitterly." That is the way I ended the tape. And it was a very short tape. I do not remember him questioning me. I think I started to tell my story. And that is the only time.
It was from my persistence that I got on tape just that little while. They did not want to hear anything from me.
Mr. RANKIN. You don't think, then, that at that time there were questions and answers for about 28 pages taken from you?
Mrs. OSWALD. From me no, sir. Definitely not. If they have that, what they have is my talking, like I said, when I saw on television. They said--they were showing Lee's gun. And I was not watching television--I am getting snatches of it, and I said, "Now, how can they say, even though it is Lee's gun, that Lee shot the President. Even being his gun doesn't mean that he shot the President. Someone could have framed him."
If they have 28 pages of that, they have me doing that kind of talking, and had the room bugged, or whatever you want to say. But no, sir, I did not sit and testify. I swear before God 10 times I never have. And that is the point that
has bothered me. Even before Lee's defection no one came along to the house. I called Mr. John Fain in the FBI myself to make friends with him. If they have 20 pages of testimony--that is when they got it, my talking. They got it with a tape recorder going. But I did not, no, sir.

====

Mrs. OSWALD. I certainly need to know what I am supposed to have said. 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. [So, sport, how is it that Rankin is not aware of Fain's interview with Mrs. O?]

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.

The CHAIRMAN. We will check that out.

[David Josephs]

David and Greg (I don't recall you, Jim, at EF) having this "discussion" at Education Forum. The signal to noise ration was pretty low, IMO. Now it's moved over here at DPF. I am hoping that all of you can try to keep it civil before the Moderators and Magda and David start having discussions.

I honor your mutual passion for truth.

OK, my question. I am not a researcher. But for the sake of my enlightenment and that of any others who are out there puzzled, could you three try to clarify what is at stake for you all. Maybe you could include something about the some of the basics about what you DO agree on? Would this take too much work?

Lauren... I'm simply doing the job Charles would have done if someone began trolling the boards here as Parker is doing....

He appears to have some thorn in his paw over H&L... and yet, when given the opportunity to actually do something constructive, he uses evidence which has nothing to do with the questions at hand to make arguments that are easily refuted.

Yes, I dealt with him at EF... In the almost 2 years since I've increased my understanding and knowledge about the H&L evidence beyond anything he can comprehend...
I've seen where I made mistakes in coimprehension, and I've seen where there is much more evidence supporting this creation than he cares to acknowledge or even READ for that matter.

Do we at least see it as fair that he READ THE BOOK before he condemns it's conclusions and supporting evidence?
That he acquire the CD which has many of the documents and photos?
That he visit the Baylor site and look at the source materials?

Is my expecting others to do their homework before coming here to debate a topic they disagree with so out of line?

I'd urge you to go visit the links from his earlier post and get a flavor of the "open forum" with "unbiased moderators" he is so proud of sharing with us.

I am passionate about the subject - period.
I've done my homework and it is STILL complicated and difficult to grasp...

I'd think that by now the moderators here would be able to spot a troll and his tactics in a heartbeat...
As I do not see that yet happening with the posts Mr Parker offers, I provide the evidence and the questions to flush him even more out into the open...

"Let me straighten you out yet again." - GParker

Is not a discussion and debating tactic I am aware of... but one where a closed mind with nothing to back it begins spouting opinions as facts and expects no one to notice..
Well.. I notice.

He attacks John and Jim and I as if WE created the evidence fromwhich we defend out arguments...
He attacks the interviewee's memory, when ALL non-physical evidence is based on memory..
He attacks PEOPLE Lauren, not the evidence...

And I thought that was not allowed here.

Respectfully
DJ

[Jim Hargrove]

David and Greg (I don't recall you, Jim, at EF) having this "discussion" at Education Forum. The signal to noise ration was pretty low, IMO. Now it's moved over here at DPF. I am hoping that all of you can try to keep it civil before the Moderators and Magda and David start having discussions.

I honor your mutual passion for truth.

OK, my question. I am not a researcher. But for the sake of my enlightenment and that of any others who are out there puzzled, could you three try to clarify what is at stake for you all. Maybe you could include something about the some of the basics about what you DO agree on? Would this take too much work?

Hi, Lauren,

I believe John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee is a breakthrough book about the Kennedy Assassination. For anyone who is not familiar with it, a pretty good synopsis can be found in the first few paragraphs here:

harveyandlee.net

David can speak for himself, of course, but I think the two of us basically agree on John's work with the possible exception of the state of CIA involvement in the assassination. OTOH, as the top post on this page shows, I think Greg Parker misrepresents John's work, either deliberately or by simply not knowing what is in the book. In the first substantive squabble after Parker came here, he clearly, I think, misrepresented what is written in Harvey and Lee. Again, the first post on this page proves it, IMO.

That strikes me as disgraceful, but I'll try to reign in my anger and moderate the personal attacks. Thanks for being so calm.

Jim

[Greg R Parker]

Hah-hah! Is it STILL your contention that John Armstrong was either unaware of the Fain report or deliberately kept his readers in the dark about it? Perhaps you should scroll back up to the top of this page to refresh your memory. Where is your apology?

maybe you'd be good enough to point out where I said he was unaware of it? I said he was either unaware of the background TO the report, or was deliberately ignoring it.

The appropriate time to introduce any photographic evidence given to Fain by "Marguerite Oswald" into the official chain-of-custody for the proceedings would have during Fain's testimony. If the photo were still extant, Fain would have been shown it and asked, "Is this the photograph given to you by Marguerite Oswald?" Instead, we have this:


Mr. MCCLOY. Could you remember the photograph that Mrs. Oswald presented
to you of Lee Oswald?
Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; I don't remember the details right now, but I believe
it was a photograph of him in the service.
Mr. M&Lox. So far as you can recollect it was in uniform?
Mr. FAIN. I just don't recall the facts.
Mr. MCCLOY. You don't recall that he was carrying any weapons?
Mr. FAIN. He was not. I am sure he was not carrying any weapons. I don't
believe, I am certain-I don't believe--he was in uniform at all. I think it was
a picture of him. The picture, as I recall it, was not a recent picture. It was
3 or 4 years old.
Mr. MCCLOY. All right.


If the photo still existed, it would have introduced it into evidence and looked at, instead of having the witness and examiner do all the guesswork above.

None of this proves that the photo was not a copy of one already known and in the records.

NOTE: When "Marguerite Oswald" testified before the Warren Commission in 1964 she
denied being interviewed by SA Fain or any FBI agent prior to the assassination. She
said, "I will state now emphatically that I have never been questioned by the FBI or the
Secret Service--never, gentlemen. "29 The FBI had interviewed "Marguerite" on April 28,
1960 (SA Fain), April 10 , 1961 (SA Fain) and October 13, 1961 (SA Jarrell Davis
in Vernon, TX.). 30 Without a doubt "Marguerite" lied to the Warren Commission, but
why?

A prime example of why Armstrong is not to taken at his word without checking the evidence. Marguerite was denying having been interviewed by the FBI in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Later in her testimony, she herself brings up her past dealings with Fain - as since posted by someone on YOUR side, Mr Hargroves.