Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910
Results 91 to 100 of 100

Thread: Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Hargrove View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawn Meredith View Post
    Oswald's phony "friend" tried to take over the q and a and show that JA was wrong but I was ready for him.
    Comrade "Ernst Titovets," no?

    Will you consider going on the record here about that encounter, or post a url about it? Any additional info would be much appreciated!!! J Armstrong--quite unfairly--has left me--one of his most sincere fans--completely in the dark about this entire situation!

    Please... give us the story of this "Titovets" encounter.
    Yes him. Someone sent me his book some time back and I never read it, instinctively knowing it was a con job. Then he spoke at length at COPA, I must confess I missed much of it due to sitting and chatting with Cyril Wecht, we were laughing at the guy. He had tape recordings of himself and the person he claimed to be LHO. One was really laughable as it had "LHO" making some sort of future threat- shooting someone? I don't recall the details any longer nor does my husband. Nor do I recall the details of the short q and a except he was attempting to show that John's work was bogus. I cut him off quickly is all I remember. I don't think John and I discussed much of it. Sorry I can't be more helpful. What stands out is that he came to the front row before I began the presentation and just stared at me the entire time, clearly preparing for his effort to refute. I diffused it a bit by encouraging people to order Harvey and Lee. And decide for themselves, based on all the evidence.

  2. #92

    Default l Marguerites post 63

    I suppose I became a somewhat reluctant believer in the two Oswald's after looking into the information only a few months ago. However, there is an area I have a question about. That is in regard to the two Marguerite's after 1963-4 where I believe a couple of questions arise We do apparently know the real Marguerite C Oswald is born in 1907 and dies in 1981, at least according to the official record. I am not clear if there is a continuous tracking of the women publicly known as the Marguerite Claverie and mother of LHO, but, according to Armstrong, is not. Is this the person who can be known to have apparently have been tracked by media or others, the person who died in 1981. This also raises the obvious question that there should be two different death dates for two different people post 63? What happened to the real Margurite Claverie after 60 to 64 since it seems that we only see the other Marguerite at this point? I could be off on the last time Armstrong officially identifies the whereabouts of the real Marguerite during this period In general I do not see a lot from Armstrong's site in regard to John Pic, Robert Oswald, and the two Marguerite's, after 63. Hopefully this is not too extraneous or esoteric, it just struck me as a bit of a strange void in the continuity of the information.

    Sorry for previous unedited version I was in a hotel room and my mouse died which is pretty catastrophic Also under some strong meds. I should have just surrendered until getting a mouse
    Last edited by Matt Grantham; 07-06-2018 at 04:38 PM.

  3. Default

    I've avoided looking at the two Oswalds stuff too deeply, although a number of critics I respect do not dismiss it, and a couple of others who I also respect dismiss it vehemently. John Newman says he'll be running back through the Harvey and Lee evidence and assessing it when he hits volume 5 of his ongoing JFK series (1,2 are out already, 3 is out this Christmas, 4 and a revised version of 2 are scheduled for 2020 and the wrap-up volume 5 is scheduled for 2022, although if he decided to make the final volume twice as long and kick it across to the 60th anniversary in 2023 I wouldn't have a problem).

  4. #94

    Default

    Hi Anthony yes I understand the point that one can draw a general conclusion of of the two Oswald without delving into the minutiae Also one can just dismiss the theory on what many might call a common sense belief of what lies beyond the realm of plausible possibility Maybe that sounds critical, but i have no real objection to those who dismiss some theories as just simply "too outrageous,
    alternatively it might be logical to dismiss said conclusions by certain critiques leading proponents of the theory who may have questionable qualities of one sort or another. sloppy fact checking, poor citations, wrong on specific points etc I am very much open to the idea that i do not know all the facts, though i had a fairly long dialogue with W Tracy Parnell that I did not finding particularly enlightening. Also i hoped you noticed my post was very much oriented towards questioning what is perhaps a hole in the Armstrong narrative, and that I am not therefore just parroting the official Armstrong narrative I get it that many are not interested in pursuing this, and in many ways i have more questions for the supporters of the Armstrong narrative than those who question it I do appreciate it Anthony that you took the time to explain your position



    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Thorne View Post
    I've avoided looking at the two Oswalds stuff too deeply, although a number of critics I respect do not dismiss it, and a couple of others who I also respect dismiss it vehemently. John Newman says he'll be running back through the Harvey and Lee evidence and assessing it when he hits volume 5 of his ongoing JFK series (1,2 are out already, 3 is out this Christmas, 4 and a revised version of 2 are scheduled for 2020 and the wrap-up volume 5 is scheduled for 2022, although if he decided to make the final volume twice as long and kick it across to the 60th anniversary in 2023 I wouldn't have a problem).
    Last edited by Matt Grantham; 07-06-2018 at 04:59 PM.

  5. #95

    Default

    Anthony apologies that you had to read my unedited post yesterday. I edited it now if you would like to take a look again and you might better understand what I meant to say




    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Thorne View Post
    I've avoided looking at the two Oswalds stuff too deeply, although a number of critics I respect do not dismiss it, and a couple of others who I also respect dismiss it vehemently. John Newman says he'll be running back through the Harvey and Lee evidence and assessing it when he hits volume 5 of his ongoing JFK series (1,2 are out already, 3 is out this Christmas, 4 and a revised version of 2 are scheduled for 2020 and the wrap-up volume 5 is scheduled for 2022, although if he decided to make the final volume twice as long and kick it across to the 60th anniversary in 2023 I wouldn't have a problem).

  6. Default

    This photo does not look like either of them. How weird.




    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Hargrove View Post
    By the fall of 1959, when the "defection" took place, Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald had replaced American-born Lee Oswald, at least in the record reported after the assassination. The two young men were similar enough in appearance to sometimes fool casual observers, but many people in the Dallas Ft. Worth area knew American-born Lee Oswald. The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram ran LEE Oswald's picture, although HARVEY Oswald was actually the "defecting" spy.

    Does the man in the photo at left (Lee Oswald) look to you like a younger version of Harvey Oswald, the man killed by Jack Ruby?


    Attachment 5810
    Attachment 5809
    Last edited by Dawn Meredith; 07-06-2018 at 11:37 PM.

  7. #97

    Default John Pic WC Testimony

    Here is a brief excerpt where John Pic Lee Harvey Oswald's half Brother, states he could not identify the photograph of the Lee Oswald passing out communist propaganda in New Orleans in the summer of 63 as his brother


    Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet?
    Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him.
    Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother?
    Mr. PIC - That is correct.
    Last edited by Matt Grantham; 07-07-2018 at 08:18 AM.

  8. #98

    Default DNA evidence

    I have been curious whether or not there has been an effort to procure DNA samples from the offspring of the supposed two different Lee Oswald's. Comparing the DNA from the Lee Oswald that married Marina, and who he had two Daughters with, to the progeny of Robert Oswald, or John Pic, should decide the question once and for all. Yet nobody seems to talk about it
    Last edited by Matt Grantham; 08-27-2018 at 03:59 PM.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Grantham View Post
    I have been curious whether or not there has been an effort to procure DNA samples from the offspring of the supposed two different Lee Oswald's. Comparing the DNA from the Lee Oswald that married Marina, and who he had two Daughters with, to the progeny of Robert Oswald, or John Pic, should decide the question once and for all. Yet nobody seems to talk about it
    I highly doubt that this has been undertaken, mostly because an educated guess will tell you that Rachel Oswald would probably agree to this but that none of Robert Oswald or John Pic's children would.

    Interesting quote from Rachel Oswald regarding Oliver Stone's film JFK:

    “Everything about my father is accurate.”

    The only way to go about doing this would be as a pretext. You'd have to somehow get DNA from one of Robert or Pic's children without them knowing what it was for, and that of course would introduce all kinds of things regarding ethics that would reflect very negatively on this subject.

    My .02
    email: rbooth@protonmail.com
    “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
    —Winston Churchil

  10. Default From Weisberg's last (unpublished) work -- H&L related material

    I was browsing the Weisberg archive at hood.edu, reading Harold Weisberg's manuscript "Inside the Assassination Industry."

    That manuscript, for those who haven't seen it, is sort of a biographical work and an exercise in bashing all of the critics. It has some good information in it. (and some bad.)

    As with all Harold Weisberg works ...the book features awful prose that may require cryptology skills to decipher what the hell Harold is trying to say. I must note that I appreciate some of Weisberg's real research, but am not a fan of his written works. I also find some of the bashing in the book to be too aggressive and even unwarranted. I wondered if Weisberg had made up entirely a section where he recounts Jim Garrison writing a speech wherein Garrison steals a line from one of Weisberg's books, which includes the word 'fagots', which allegedly made Jim Garrison laugh uncontrollably. I find that entire passage very hard to believe. Weisberg makes the claim in this manuscript that (1) Garrison's entire investigation was based on Weisberg's books and (2) Jim Garrison's entire investigation was unfounded. (Prompting me to wonder "Which is it, did he crib everything from you or was it unfounded, or both and your own work is unfounded??")

    Ironically, in the passage about Garrison, Weisberg writes "Aside from not being able to speak it without breaking up, he had not phrased it well." Weisberg has no place stating someone didn't phrase something well given his convoluted and ridiculously laborious prose.

    Anyhow. As it relates to H&L, the work has some good stuff in it on LEE Oswald (and HARVEY Oswald) that meshes with John's work.

    See [CH17 - The Not So Jolly Green Giant]. Some lengthy excerpts below:

    [..]
    Exchange Alley was a narrow street before French Quarter rebuilding eliminated it. It ran parallel with Decatur and was next to it. The Oswalds and Mildred "Mom" Sawyer both lived at 126, on the same floor, the second floor. Mrs. Sawyer's son had the apartment between them. Mrs. Sawyer is my source on this. She operated the then nearby "Society Page" bar. She called it a "cocktail lounge.
    [..]
    The morning I interviewed her I also interviewed the bartender then on duty, Johnny Kormundi (phonetic). Both remember Oswald as a boy clearly. Both remember that as a kid he was frequently around that homosexual bar and both told me that he had nothing to do with the bar's homosexual patrons. It was well known as a homosexual bar.
    [..]
    Both also told me what tended to confirm the dependability of the man who spoke to me on that Oakland talk show. They both said that as a child Oswald loved to shoot pool and that he was a kid "pool shark." You will not find this in the Commission's "biography" of him in its Report's 68-page "Biography of Lee Harvey Oswald" (pages 669-737) or elsewhere in its Report.
    [..]
    I had not only shared with Garrison what I learned from that man, who requested anonymity. I included it in Oswald in New Orleans. Garrison was well familiar with it beginning with his reading of it before it was published so he could write the Foreword the publisher had asked of him.
    His foreword is short and it is eloquent, as he could be and often was. It is replete with allegations that the government had not investigated the JFK assassination and that it had covered the assassination up a la Orwell, who he quotes in it. He refers to the government in Orwell's term as The Ministry of Truth. And he said that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination, as he had over and over again.
    He wrote,
    "Above all it has been decided that you are not to know of Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency. Nor or you to know that a number of the men actually involved in the assassinations had been employees of the Central Intelligence Agency. You are not to know of these matters because of something called 'national security.'" (pages 12-3)

    Yet with all he attributed to the CIA and "national security" he had no interest in Oswald, who as a Marine of lowly rank, held both TOP SECRET and CRYPTO clearances!
    This I had told him and have in Oswald in New Orleans (pages 85-94).
    Or in the fact that Oswald's Marine records do not include his having these very high security clearances, at least as those records that were disclosed after he had been officially anointed the Presidential assassin.
    Just before one o'clock in the morning of December 16, 1966, when I was in California promoting my second book and on the popular talk show of Joe Dolan, a Harvard lawyer who then broadcast on KNEW, in Oakland, a listener phoned to talk to me. He waited until the show signed off at one and then talked for an hour and a half.
    This man was deeply troubled and there was no question about it. He had, as he said, served with Oswald. Otherwise he could not have known what was not known about Oswald and I later did check out and confirm. Such as his liking for classical music, that he was a "pool shark," the kind of person he was and even those clearances.
    Some of the Oswald clearance information was known to and ignored by the Commission. The commissioned officer under whom Oswald worked and several of the Marines who were in his unit, a few engaged in the same work with him, testified that Oswald had had "at least" SECRET clearance. When in hopeful anticipation of getting evidence that Oswald had killed a fellow Marine the Commission looked into that, it got from the Navy what I later got from it. These records hold the official proofs of Oswald high TOP SECRET and CRYPTO clearances. These are not Oswald's records. The navy responded to my FOIA request by telling me it had no Oswald records. We come to that soon. But as of this writing, although I told other besides Garrison of it, it has not been published other than by me.
    Oswald in New Orleans was published in 1967, more than 25 years ago. That alone justifies my quoting some of what it reported about this man, his information, what the Commission did know about and did do nothing about, including that counsel whose only client was truth, Liebeler:
    "It was part confessional, part shame mixed with self-pity and self-derogation, part fear, and all worry. This man had been in the Marine Corps with Oswald. From his personal experience, he did not believe a single word about the Oswald of this period that became public with the Report. He had agonized in silence for three years between the issuance of the Report and our conversation because he knew things, he said, that had not been made public and were not in accord with what had been publicized- and he was certain what he knew was correct. [It had been only two years.]
    "Following his military service, he had built a successful life, had a family, and was worried about the possible consequences of being associated with any account not in consonance with the official Oswald "line." He feared he or his business might be hurt or that his family might suffer. ...
    "Briefly, it is his story that Oswald was bright, not a kook of any kind, not a blatant or proselytizing Marxist, and really a quiet, serious guy. They knew each other socially and engaged in certain recreational activities together. He never heard Oswald say anything about Communism, for or against, in all this time.
    "More important is what he disclosed about Oswald's position in the Marine Corps. The unit in which both served, said my informant, was one of three similar ones of which one was always in Japan and the others in the United States. Their function was classified. Every man in the outfit carried security clearance. ...
    "Of all the men in the outfit, five had special "top" security approvals. The entire complement carried a minimum of "confidential." ... Above this there were "secret," "top secret," and a special one, "crypto." Of all the man, only five were "crypto."
    "One of these was Lee Harvey Oswald.
    "'Can you possibly be wrong?' I asked him.
    "He insisted not.
    "'Could your memory be playing tricks?'
    "No, he was positive. He went farther when I questioned him about "crypto," which he indicated was "black box" stuff. ...
    "If correct, this is more than in disagreement with the entire official story of Oswald, his relations with the government and the assassination. It is an assault on the integrity of many of the members of the staff of the Commission and of the investigative agencies. It raises questions about the transcripts of Oswald's official Marine Corps records. In every way he could, this man insisted he was not in error, that he knew.
    "And he went into more detail. Correctly stating that Oswald got a "hardship" discharge so he could care for an allegedly destitute mother (it was common knowledge among his mates that Oswald had said he planned to go to Switzerland for study instead), the mysterious caller specified that Oswald spent his last two or three weeks in the service "with CID." It is, obviously, not a requirement of a "hardship" discharge that the enlisted man stay with military intelligence.
    "Immediately my mind flashed back to my first book on this subject, Whitewash: The Report on the Warren Report, where I had exposed certain unorthodox aspects of Oswald's discharge (pages 123-4) that are here appropriate. That section reads:
    "With but 43 days of his Marine Corps enlistment remaining, or three months if the penalties of the courts martial had been imposed (19H725), Oswald received a "hardship discharge" (19H676). This was a clear fraud about which neither the Marine Corps nor any other government agency ever did anything. Why? ...
    "Of Oswald's personal activity in the Marines, the Report states: 'He studied the Russian language, read a Russian-language newspaper and seemed interested in what was going on in the Soviet Union.' ... But his clearance to handle classified information was not revoked. It was granted May 3, 1957, 'after careful checks.' Upon discharge he signed a form acknowledging he had been informed about penalties for revelation of classified information. This included awareness 'that certain categories of Reserve and Retired personnel ... can be recalled to duty ... for trial by court-martial for unlawful disclosure of information ...' (19H680). When Oswald defected and appeared in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, he declared his intention to tell the Russians all he knew, and he knew about the radar installations in which he served and of codes (R262, 265, 393). The Report is barren on the subject, but there have been accounts published of the necessity for changing codes after his defection.
    "Yet on his return to the United States, Oswald was not kept under regular surveillance (R439), was not charged with breach of security, and was not even confronted with the fraudulent nature of his hardship discharge. Explanations of lack of proof might be offered, no matter how unacceptably, for the failure to charge him with breach of security. But the failure to keep him under surveillance or to do anything about his fraudulent discharge are not susceptible to such facile pleadings. And the Report is incomplete on even this unsatisfactory explanation. It reads, 'No evidence has been found that they used him for any particular propaganda or other political or informational purposes' (R393). There is no reference here to military or security information. ["They" here refers to the Soviets.]
    "The hardship discharge was to enable Oswald to care for his mother. He made not even a gesture in this direction and the Marine Corps would appear to have been aware that he had no such intention. The effective date of his discharge was September 11, 1959 (19H680; 22H79). On September 4, 1959, he applied for a passport from Santa Anna, California. It was issued September 10, 1959. Accompanying this application was a Marine Corps certification that had to be filed with the passport application and submission of which is noted on the application. 'This is to certify,' it read, 'that PFC (E-2) Lee Harvey Oswald, 1653230, U.S. Marine Corps is scheduled to be released from Active Duty and transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve (Inactive) on 11 September 1959.' ...
    "The Marine Corps certification of Oswald's imminent discharge that accompanied his passport application at the very time it was processing a hardship discharge was not lost in the mass of the Commission's documentation. Nor is it suppressed in the Report. Instead, the Report ignores both this and the fraudulent nature of the discharge in the text and, in a 13-line section of Appendix XV in which the nature of this discharge is not referred to, notes that a statement that 'he was about to be discharged' accompanied the passport application (R746). Why did not the Marine Corps revoke Oswald's security clearance; why did it keep him in a classified job and cooperate in getting him a passport while it was discharging him so he could support his mother?
    "This is the background of Oswald's now famous trip to the Soviet Union, where he arrived in mid-October 1959. ..."

    When I was home I started reading Commission testimony I recalled. Kerry Thornley, who was in Oswald's outfit when he returned from the Far Eat and was at the Santa Anna base in Southern California, was questioned by Commission counsel Albert Jenner. Among other things Thornley confirmed what that caller-in had told me about security clearances. What is important to bear in mind is that those who did not have proper security clearances were denied access to classified areas that required those clearances. While awaiting discharge, as that caller-in had also told me, Oswald worked in an intelligence section:
    [..]


    You can read the rest here:

    http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisb...apter%2017.doc

    The Garrison stuff is distasteful, and as I said I wonder if some of it is made-up. Specifically the allegation that Garrison spent the better part of 15 minutes uncontrollably laughing about the word 'fagots', present in a quote from Weisberg's book 'Photographic Whitewash' in which Weisberg claims Garrison cribbed material from---right in front of Weisberg's face no less, without apology. The entire 'scene' just seems 'off' and in fact like a scene from a movie. Weisberg's movie. Right down to Weisberg asking Jim "hey, do you have a copy of Photographic Whitewash?" and right then and there Jim pulls it conveniently right off the shelf behind him, hands it to Weisberg, and Weisberg turns to page 9 and shows Garrison the line he's cribbing for his own speech. (and laughing uncontrollably over)

    Weisberg is equally dismissive of Mark Lane -- this book reminding me of Harrison Livingstone's 'Killing The Truth' in that it pisses all over everyone and elevates the author above the rest.
    email: rbooth@protonmail.com
    “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
    —Winston Churchil

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •