Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Display results as :
Advanced Search
Log in
Social bookmarking
Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking google      

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website
Thinking of dumping Facebook? Join the new social media platform that is not weaponizing your private information or using it for profit

Go down
Posts : 7556
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 64
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

Lifton - David Lifton: tall tales and true... Empty David Lifton: tall tales and true...

Wed 12 Sep 2012, 5:27 pm
Here is how it unfolded at the Ed Forum:

the participants:
GP = Greg Parker
DSL = David S Lifton
LF = Lee Farley
DJ = Don Jeffries
JS= John Simkin
The post that started it all:
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

So long McBride... so long "Harvey"...
GP post 33, Dec 27, 2011

Note that in the very first instance, DSL was claiming HE found those stories at the Ft Worth Libraries
2. As Greg Parker has noted, Fort Worth news stories, published in 1956, support the fact that when Oswald wrote a letter to Pfisterer (mentioning civil disorders in Fort Worth), the year being referred to was 1956, and not one or two years later. (FYI: Pre -internet, I found those same stories the "old fashioned" way, via microfilm at the Ft Worth library). Its interesting that, in the world of the Internet, they are now a mouse-click away.
DSL post 41 Dec 27, 2011

My response was in the form of perfectly sensible, polite questions.

Did you publish anything about those stories? If so, can you point me to where I can find what you had to say about them at the time? Was there any reaction?
GP post 44 Dec 27

After 2 days of no response to those questions, Lee Farley made the above query. If there was a hint of cynicism by now, it was warranted.
Still waiting, Greg?
LF post 60 Dec 29, 2011

My reply to Lee, and still maintaining that all important Ed Forum decorum.
Seems I forgot the magic work. David, can you please point me to the information you found and what reaction there was to it? I am very interested in the way people ignore information when it goes against their beliefs -- and this seems like a very good example.
GP post 64 Dec 29, 2011

The following day, I made another attempt to elicit some sort of response from David Lifton
Mr Lifton, why are you ignoring this request? I have asked politely and given what I think is a very good reason for wanting to know. The thought that you demolished any credence given to McBride with unimpeachable evidence regarding the timing of Fort Worth riots, and no one paid a lick of notice, is a major issue confronting those trying to narrow the field of possibilities in this case in order to gain some sort of consensus.
GP post 71 Dec 30, 2011

David finally gave a reply. Note how the story is starting to morph and has gone from saying he found them himself, to PAYING some un-named party to search the Star Telegram at the Ft Worth Library. Conveniently, he cannot now locate the clippings, nor did he ever publish anything about them
The stories were in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. I cannot locate them at this time. Just pay someone (as I recall I did) to go to the FWST in the vicinity of those dates, and I'm sure you'll find them. ](FYI: I never published anything about them. Once I spoke to McBride, and filmed him, I had no doubt that his original statement, as to the date, was simply an error. Of course, there's lots of people who just can't give up on the Amrstrong interpretation of all this, just like there are people who can't let go of the idea that Steve Witt and his umbrella are innocent. Since you found similar stories through your own Internet search, I've been assuming you realize McBride simply had the date wrong.

Right about now, the smell of rat was starting to choke the air. This was my reply.
Thank you, David.

You found proof that McBride had got his years mixed up, but have never mentioned it in any debate on him, nor published it in any article on the subject.

That tells me all I need to know.
GP Post 74 Dec 30, 2011

The next day I made the further comment:
I was just wondering if others here share David's views that, when attempting to debunk a theory, the most effective way is to locate absolute proof that the theory is based on faulty memory - and then deep-six that evidence and never mention it again - that is until someone else locates it.
GP post 75, Dec 31, 2011

To which Lee Farley replied with a list of recent unsupported claims by Mr Lifton
It's hard to make a judgment on this, Greg.

We've only had the recent admission that he heard from a friend who heard from a dentist that Steve Witt was the real deal but mentioned nothing about it to anyone and wouldn't give us the name of the woman who told him.

We've only had the admission that he interviewed Michael Paine and listened to Paine admit that he lied to the DPD, the FBI, the Secret Service and the Warren Commission about the rifle - and he didn't bother challenging it or publishing it.

We've only had him recently proclaiming that Todd Vaughan "discovered" that Mary Bledsoe had a stroke.

Now we have him discovering indisputable evidence that Palmer McBride was mistaken regarding the year he met Lee Oswald but said nothing about it to anyone - up to and including a recent thread he posted on when I brought up McBride and Lifton's arguments with John Armstrong.

I'll probably need a litle more evidence before I can answer your question. But I'm sure if I stick around here for another three months he won't disappoint...
LF post 76 Dec 31, 2011[

Nine months down the track and David came out with this...
Not only do the Oswald tax records establish that Oswald worked at Pfisterer in 1956, there's the corroboration coming from the William Wulf episode. (There's also the fact that McBride reports Oswald having written their supervisor a letter, from Fort Worth, saying "hello" to everybody, and talking about the racial demonstrations in Ft Worth--which occurred in late summer of 1956). Only by doing a lot of pulling and hauling is it possible to "argue" that the year all this occurred (i.e., when McBride knew Oswald at Pfisterer) was 1957 or 1958, and not 1956, which is obviously the correct date.
DSL post 128 Sept 5, 2012

A few days later, he dug himself in a little deeper by claiming he had someone go through those Ft Worth newspapers and ACTUALLY LOCATE those stories. What he is claiming here, is that the search had the specific intent of locating them.
As has been pointed out (and according to McBride, himself) Oswald –who, with his mother, moved to Fort Worth on July 1, 1956—subsequently wrote a letter to a supervisor at Pfisterer. In that letter, he talks of racial tensions and demonstrations in Fort Worth. Back around 1995, I had someone go to the Fort Worth library, pull microfilms of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and actually locate news stories mentioning that. More recently, Greg Parker, using Google, came up with similar corroboration. There were no “digital scanners” back in 1995—certainly, I did not have one—or I would have scanned those items). My point is that that data also corroborates the fact that we are dealing with the year 1956, and certainly not 1957 or 1958.
DSL post 135 Sept 8, 2012

This is where I'd had enough of the bullshit...
David, if you make this claim in your book, I will ensure everyone knows you are lying. You wrote to the ARRB (and I have a copy of the fax) in 1998 urging them to get the record straightened out regarding McBride. Nowhere in that lengthy letter did you mention unearthing irrefutable proof to back up your claim that McBride's memory was in error.
GP post 136, Sept 9, 2012

To which David replied by reaffirming HE made the connection between the newspaper stories and Oswald's letter contents. He has now however changed the reason for the search as simply being due to Oswald moving there. What did he expect to find? The ONLY logical reason to look in those papers was the reason I did - and the reason Lifton originally suggested - to find verification of what was in the letter Oswald sent. And once finding that verification - as he claims he did - the only logical thing to do next would be to publish the results. But not only has he never mentioned the newspaper articles, he has never written about them. Unbelievable? I think so.
As I mentioned previously, back around 1995 (plus or minus) I had someone carefully go through the Fort Worth Star Telegramarchives (or microfilms, at the Fort Worth Library) for the summer of 1956, simply because Oswald and his mother moved there on July 1, 1956, and that was his residence until the day he enlisted in the Marines on 10/24/56. That search happened to turn up one or two news stories about the racial situation in Fort Worth; and yes, at that time, I made the connection between the letter Oswald reportedly wrote his former supervisor at Pfisterer, and that news story.

Making that connection was not exactly rocket science. I had studied McBride's WC affidavit, and I had already interviewed him--in September, 1994 over the telephone, and then on October 2, 1994, on camera.

No, I did not mention that Fort Worth "newpaper information" in the fax that I wrote the ARRB on 9/4/98 suggesting that certain tax records be obtained and placed in the JFK Collection. I didn’t mention the Fort Worth Star Telegram news stories because, frankly, that wasn’t the focus of my suggestion to the ARRB. My focus was on the (Social Security Administration) tax records. Anyone can obtain a microfilm record of a newspaper. That is already in the public record. I wanted the ARRB to do something only they were legally empowered to do: obtain tax records, declare them to be “assassination records,” and place them in the JFK Records Collection.
DSL post 137 Sept 9, 2012

If it looks like bullshit and smells like bullshit... it is...

You laid out the problem and told them the SOLUTION was in the tax records. But according to you - you already had the the solution for 3 years. If you had those stories, it would have underlined the need to obtain the tax records. If you had those stories, you would have, in all your voluminous writings on Armstrong's theory, mentioned them at some stage.
GP post 138 Sept 9, 2012

More huff and bluff from DSL:
Your focus is apparently on the news story (or stories) that you turned up through a Google search years quite a few years later, and your apparent reluctance to believe that, years earlier, I had discovered similar press accounts (or perhaps the source press accounts) actually published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram.

Frankly, I don't care what you believe (or don't believe). Your post, with its juvenile threats to supposedly “expose” me if I make some claim in my own work, is typical Greg Parker.

My response:
If you publish this as your work, you will be exposed as the liar and thief you are. Your choice.
GP post 138 Sept 9, 2012

David was hoping that posting his ARRB fax would somehow rescue him. It doesn't. The tax records are all well and good, but of course, being government records, the old standby could be invoked: they're forged! Which is exactly what happened. It would be much more difficult to make that claim about newspaper reports which give credence to the official time-line. That made any discovery back then EXTREMELY important. But what did Lifton do? He did nada. Didn't tell anyone about them. Didn't write about them. Because his story is bullshit.
In the interest of demystifying this situation, below my typed signature is the text of the 9/4/1998 fax I sent to ARRB [not copied here: GP] suggesting/urging that they obtain certain tax records which would establish –without question—just when Palmer McBride worked at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories., which in fact was the Spring of 1956.

The fact is that the ARRB, thanks to the diligent work done by Doug Horne, Chief Analyst for Military Records, made a complete hash of the Armstrong “two Oswald hypothesis” when he produced the Oswald tax records, which showed that Oswald was employed at Pfisterer in 1956.

As I have mentioned (and as I am sure you are well aware) the response of Armstrong was to then argue that the tax records had been falsified, which, imho, is ridiculous. ]Exactly. And that is exactly why you should have provided the newspaper stories. He could not, with any conviction, claim those as falsified. You didn't simply because you didn't have them, and didn't know about them. GP]

He didn't even confront Armstrong with them - even though Armstrong was predictably claiming the tax records were bogus.
Yes. And what was it he said about the Ft Worth stories from 1956 you got someone to dig up again? Oh, that's right. No response to that because somehow you forgot to mention it to him.
GP post 138, Sept 9, 2012

Nothing like a good old fashioned lecture and psych evaluation from a good old fashioned bully boy. Note that he is sticking to saying someone else found the articles, but is also going back to claiming the discovery as his own. That is to say, if one of my minions makes a discovery, that discovery belongs to me.
Greg Parker,

You’re behaving like an adolescent who is more concerned with who discovered the “Fort Worth news stories first” than with the truth.

Your entire psyche seems to be focused on that issue. When I patiently explained that I already knew about the Ft Worth newspaper accounts, at the time I wrote the ARRB (because, back around 1995, I had a researcher carefully go through the Fort Worth newspapers from July 1, 1956 until October 24, 1956) and that my (9/4/98) fax to the ARRB was to urge them (with under 30 days left) to get the critical tax information, all you can see (apparently) is that, via Google, you discovered Fort Worth data years later.

Do you not know that Google didn’t even go public until 2004? [which has what to do with anything except DSL's need to blather? GP]

When I state the truth about what I discovered, and when I discovered it (circa 1995), and how I discovered it—i.e., the “old fashioned way” by actually having someone go to the Fort Worth Library and examine microfilms of the 1956 Fort Worth Star Telegram--all you can see, in your limited universe, is that you found this Fort Worth data via Google (and apparently mentioned in some other non-Fort Worth newspaper) and that, by God, you want to be known as the first person who discovered. Well, apparently you’re not. But you can’t deal with that, so you respond by writing “Bullshit.”.

Then you write (of what I did): “You laid out the problem and told them the SOLUTION was in the tax records. But according to you - you already had the solution for 3 years. If you had those stories, it would have underlined the need to obtain the tax records. If you had those stories, you would have, in all your voluminous writings on Armstrong's theory, mentioned them at some stage.”

“. . .the solution. . .” ??

What you don’t seem to understand (and perhaps this is the source of our difference here) is that I never viewed the Fort Worth newspaper stories that I found, circa 1995, as “the solution.” I just noted as a "fact in passing." Really, that's the way I viewed it, and no, I did not then go and check the 1957 or 1958 newspapers--and if you do that, well, "more power to you," as the saying goes. That I certainly did not do.

But back to the word "solution" which you seem so fond of.[Really? I used it twice in this whole thread. You really are a clown.You used it twice in your ARRB fax - including as a header and then FIVE times in your lecture about how fond I am of the word. You really a sad person.]

You’re free to believe that (and to keep using that terminology) but that’s certainly not the way I viewed the problem. I always believed that the definitive records –the unimpeachable records which proved Palmer McBride’s 11/23/63 statement was in error—were the tax records. Those tax records would prove –without question[but it wasn't without question, was it? They were labelled forgeries. The newspaper articles were not and could not, be forgeries] —when Palmer McBride worked at Pfisterer Dental Labs, and when Oswald did. And that’s what I urged the ARRB to locate, declare to be assassination records, and place them in the JFK Collection. Moreover, not only did I write ARRB Director Laura Denk about that in early September, 1998, I had already spoken to Jeremy Gunn about it back when I testified to the ARRB, on 9/17/96. (So none of this was "new." I was just putting it all in writing, and "for the record"--as the saying goes, hoping they would do everything possible in the month left to their existence, to pursue the matter).

You also seem to be drawing unwarranted inferences as to what I believed and why I believed it, and whether, if I had this or that piece of data, I "would have mentioned it" by this or that date. What you don't seem to understand is the way I viewed the issue. My job was not to win a debate with the ARRB staff; or to persuade the ARRB to believe this hypothesis or that. My goal was to explain the problem in terms of their legislative mandate—i.e., to lay out a problem, note that it was part of their mission to “clarify the record,” and explain why these tax records were relevant and would do exactly that. (And so they should pursue the matter).

You clearly have an over-inflated view of your own importance and discoveries. Whatever you discovered through Google (years later), is fine; I’m not disputing that. But you’re way out of line if you think I did not do what I said I did, or when I said I did it.

This paragraph contradicts two assertions. But firstly I again ask what the point was of going through the newspapers for the period Oswald was there, if not to find confirmation of him being there when the record says he was. I mean, did Lifton and his researcher expect to find stories about Marguerite or Oswald? Of course not! The ONLY reason to conduct such a search was to find something that would confirm Oswald's letter was written in 1956 and not 1958. And what does he do when that confirming information is found? NOTHING. Now to the contradictions. His previous claim was that HE was the one who noted the correlation between letter and article. He is now giving that accolade to his researcher. The other one is that whereas he ends this rant by stating the find was important, a mere couple of paragraphs earlier, he claimed he never put much emphasis on it. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
I indeed had a researcher go through the Fort Worth Star Telegram, on microfilm, for the period July 1, 1956 through October 24, 1956 (the brief period that LHO lived in Ft Worth, with his mother, after the 2-1/2 years in New Orleans). That person mailed me a number of news clips, and one of them concerned the civil rights demonstrations, and that person noted the correlation between those stories and what Palmer McBride had said about someone at Pfisterer receiving a letter from Oswald about that. Did that register in my mind? Yes. Did I place a whole lot of emphasis on it? No.

Furthermore, where do you come up with the nutty notion that if I knew this or that, I would have included it in this or that communication to the ARRB? I have all kinds of data that I have not yet made public. So what?

I think you ought to reconsider your entire thinking on this issue.

[u]Yes, the Fort Worth newspaper stories are important,
[then why, David, have you never uttered or written a word about them UNTIL after I did? The answer is obvious. GP] and no doubt you made the discoveries you did, and when you said you did; and no doubt you have argued that point very persuasively in your posts on the London Forum. All very well, and I congratulate you for that. (Remember, there was no "internet" in 1995, as we know it today). But I happened to have also “discovered” those news stories back around 1995.

But again, so what?
DSL post 139, Sept 9, 2012

In jumps a moderator with a misleading suggestion that I have been using profanity and labeling DSL a liar as part of some debate tactic.

You have to know it's against the forum rules to call someone a liar. Yet you called David Lifton a liar twice in this thread. There are other ways to make your point without resorting to such childish tactics. You also threw in a gratuitious bit of profanity. How does any of this strengthen your arguments?

I wish everyone would consider that your posts are being read by many, many people all over the world. Your real names are attached to these posts- do you really want to leave this kind of impression?
DJ post 142, Sept 10, 2012

I could have and should have said more in reply than this:
Yes, Don, I know it is against forum rules to tell the truth in some circumstances. I have no problem with my name being seen attached to these posts. Protection of liars is, ironically, the very thing we all agree is being done via the withholding of documents, and other ways and means of hiding behind "rules". If people get the wrong "impression" it is because you are pushing that wrong impression.

If you want this place populated solely by liars, their sycophants, and assorted snake oil salesmen, please enforce your "rules". You're certainly helping to drag in that direction.
GP Post 143, Sept 10, 2012

Then the big revelation from DSL. He is in contact with his researcher once again and this person, according to DSL, confirms DSL
I recently re-contacted the person who did this research for me. The year was 1995, and this researcher went to the Fort Worth library and carefully examined all issues of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram between July 1, 1956 and October 24, 1956.

That's when the articles in question were found.

I'm sorry that your ego can't handle that fact--but it is a fact.

Your response (to finding that you were not the first person to learn of this data) is to curse and hurl profanities. As my long gone grandmother used to say, someone should wash your mouth out with soap.

Also, I looked up you bio. You're apparently a ninth grade drop-out with a highly over-inflated view of himself. (No, your bio doesn't say the second fact; that's just my inference). Maybe you don't understand, but in the real world, one is supposed to offer evidence for your allegations. The fact that you found some out of town news articles, using Google, post-2004, does not mean that this information wasn't discovered, by this researcher, back in 1995, at the Fort Worth Public Library. In fact, that's exactly what happened.

Furthermore, the fact that I chose not to mention that data in the September, 1998 fax to the ARRB does not mean --I emphasize, does not mean--that I didn't know about it. Its simply a fact that I did not believe it to be relevant to the suggestion I was making: that the ARRB should pursue the matter of McBride's tax records (and Oswald's tax records) because that would prove when these two persons were working at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories. In fact, the ARRB obtained --i.e., made public--Oswald's tax records, and they established exactly that: that LHO worked at Pfisterer in 1956. I regret that, by 9/30/98, which was the 'sunset' date for their operations, the ARRB did not locate McBride's tax records, also.

Keep up the good work, Greg Parker. Maybe someday you'll learn some manners, and behave as an adult.
DSL post 144, Sept 11, 2012

My reply:
This isn't about my ego, no matter how hard you try to turn it around. It is about honesty and YOUR ego.

It is not just that you never mentioned it in your fax to the ARRB. It is that you have written about McBride extensively since 1995 and not mentioned those news stories once in all those writings. Your first mention was when? That's right, David. It was right here in this thread after I posted about them. YOUR ego could not handle the fact that you had not found those stories in all those years of debates about McBride, so you invented your little story about dispatching some researcher to the Ft Worth library and discovering them back in the day.

I'm quite happy to drop this for now in deference to poor Don's delicate sensibilities, so long as you fully understand that you will be exposed if you publish this lie in your book.
GP post 148, Sept 11, 2012

John Simpkin, not having read the thread, was taken in by his moderators misleading comments and assumes I had been critiquing Lifton's work. The opposite is in fact true, at least insofar as his take on Armstrong went, I had more than once, expressed agreement.
I see no reason why you need to use the word "liar" in your criticism of David's work. Like Don, I think your approach to David only damages your own reputation.
JS post 151 Sept 11, 2012

My reply to John
Thank you John.

Since I have not been critical of Mr Lifton's work in any way, shape or form in this thread, I can only assume you have read no more than the post to which you have replied.

My use of the word "liar" was in regard to - of all things - a lie. My approach to Mr Lifton regarding that lie has been direct and honest. If directness and honesty adversely affects whatever reputation I have, so be it.

Since we're dispensing advice, I believe your reputation is adversely affected by your support of anyone willing to spread evidence-free gossip and innuendo about JFK's private life. But I don't believe for a second you'll heed that advice any more than you did when you were warned about some of your moderators.

I have high regard for you on a personal level John, but we have some fundamental differences which largely boil down to how we view substance and surface appearance.

From post #148 in reply to Mr Lifton: I'm quite happy to drop this for now in deference to poor Don's delicate sensibilities, so long as you fully understand that you will be exposed if you publish this lie in your book.

Unless someone else has something to say about it, this issue is dropped pending Mr Lifton's book coming out and what it contains.
GP post 152, Sept 11, 2012

the BIG revelations from DSL continue and he names his reseacher...
Greg Parker: Your statements (about what I found, and when) are false, and complete nonsense. And no, I did not "invent" a "little story about dispatching some researcher to the Ft Worth Library".

The person who was working with me at the time, and who kindly did this research was Debra Conway (who founded JFK Lancer). Debra spent hours at the Fort Worth Public Library, back in 1995, going through microfilms of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and looking up other relevant records as well. We talked on the phone quite a bit, as to what she found, and then she mailed me one or more packets of news clippings, that she printed out. At the time, she was also pursing the matter of obtaining real-estate records as to where Oswald lived, what houses Marguerite Oswald bought, and when, etc. (Furthermore, I gave four talks at JFK Lancer in their November, 1996 conference).

So it was Debra Conway who--back in 1995 (yes, 1995, that's seventeen years ago)-- was at the Fort Worth Library going through various records; and it was she who found the news stories, and it was she who made the link between those news stories and the McBride statement.

The Palmer McBride Statement - - 11/23/63 (WCE 1386)

Now let's go to McBride's 11/23/63 statement, which is Warren Commission Exhibit 1386 (in which he clearly makes a mistake as to when he knew Oswald and which, towards the end, refers to a letter from Oswald which he incorrectly states was received in 1958: "I received a letter from him saying he was employed as a shoe salesman in Ft. Worth. In this letter he also stated he had gotten mixed up in an Anti-Negro or Anti-Communist riot on a high school grounds in Ft. Worth, Texas. OSWALD did not elaborate on this statement."

Debra Conway (not I) made the connection between one or two of the news stories she had found and this statement in the McBride FBI report. Note: She wasn't at the library seeking such a statement. She was there carefully perusing the Fort Worth Star Telegram for various other information, and happened to come across the information. And, as I said, one of the other things she did, at that time (either at the Ft Worth Library, or the one in Dallas) was obtain records for when Marguerite Oswald bought and sold various properties in the Dallas/Ft Worth area.

So, Greg Parker, your statements and accusations are false. I did not "invent" any of this; and you're completely wrong. Moreover, in a recent email, Debra recalls doing this work in the Fort Worth Library and confirms that the year was 1995.

There's another thing you do not seem to understand, and which perhaps, if you did--i.e., if you came down off your "I was there first!" and "nobody-could-have-discovered-any-of-this-before-me" pedestal --- would place everything in proper context.


I first contacted Palmer McBride back in September, 1994. At that time, I was writing up drafts of the period of Oswald's life both for the "New York City" period (roughly, August, 1952 - end of December, 1953) and the New Orleans period (Jan 13, 1954 through June 30, 1956). Of course, in connection with that work, I was closely studying all relevant FBI reports, and in particular, the testimony of Eddie Voebel (Oswald's "best friend" during the academic year 1954/1955 when he was in the ninth grade at Beauregard Junior High School); and, finally, all records pertaining to the following year--the "academic year" 1955/56, when Oswald was no longer in school and was working--first at Tujagues, then J.R. Michels, and, finally, at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories (as a dental messenger). And, of course, that's where he met McBride.

Warren Commission Exhibit 1386--Palmer McBride's statement (and which pertained to the Spring 1956, when Oswald was at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories, but claiming he knew him years later) was obviously in error. (Certainly, that was my take on it).

During that general time frame (1994, as I recall) Iearned from another JFK researcher (Wallace Milam) that someone named John Armstrong was taking the "1958" statement seriously, and was constructing this elaborate theory that there were two Oswalds (which, as you may be aware, then led to the additional extrapolation that there were "two Marguerite's" etc etc)

At the time, I had no idea where Palmer McBride lived; but then received a telephone call from the late Robert Chapman (a good friend of mine, and another JFK researcher, who was very close to Mary Ferrell). Chapman told me that either he (or Mary) had located McBride and that he lived out here in Southern California. I remember Robert Chapman saying, "He's right in your back yard! You should speak with him!" I was supplied his address and phone number. As a consequence, I telephoned McBride in late September, 1994.

From that conversation, it became evident to me that McBride's memory was in error about the year he knew Oswald--but. . .so what? People make mistakes. But because of that, and other detail he provided about Oswald, and because I was already familiar with the way Armstrong was functioning (lobbying witnesses as to when they knew Oswald, as if Kennedy research was a "political process") I thought it would be a good idea to get McBride's account on film.

Working with film was not new to me. I had already done that in the case of the key autopsy witnesses. In October, 1980, I had professional film crew film my interviews with Paul O'Connor, Dennis David, Jerrol Custer, Aubrey Rike, and James Jenkins. I found it important to preserve the integrity of the record.

Consequently, I arranged for McBride to sit for an interview that would be recorded by a professional camera person. All of that occurred on October 2, 1994.

There's one other fact that perhaps you ought to know.


In 1990, I was introduced to another person--who knew Oswald during the period Fall 1954/Spring 1955 (LHO's ninth grade at Beauregard Junior High School). This person --who I am calling "Joe Doe" in this post--was a good friend of Eddie Voebel, and as a consequence, also spent time with Oswald, when the three of them would hang out together. There is one FBI document which mentions his name, but it was not followed up properly. I interviewed this person over the telephone, and then flew to New Orleans and conducted a serious multi-hour in-person interview; and, in addition, a multi-hour filmed interview.

This witness--who I am calling John Doe in this posting--provided all sorts of interesting information about Oswald; and, as ar as I am concerned, what he said completely blows the "Harvey and Lee" hypothesis out of the water.

I will be presenting his account, in considerable detail, in a future writing.

As you may (or may not) know, Voebel died some years back; and, unfortunately, so did this "best friend of Eddie," but I can assure you that he, and Lee Oswald, and Eddie Voebel "hung out together". And I have his account recorded on audio, and then in a splended multi-hour filmed interview.


I'm writing the above to point out that (a) my interest in Palmer McBride and his erroneous account (as to date) goes way back, to the early 1990s (at least); and (b ) that I was a close student of what he had to say (even though I believed--and still do--that he had the date wrong).

I was very sorry to see John Armstrong go off on what appeared to me (then) to be a "witness recruitment program," attempting to persuade a host of people that they didn't know Oswald when they said they did, but rather at a later time--all in the pursuit of this "double Oswald" hypothesis, which I believe is completely incorrect. Then, after all this effort, he published this whole hypothesis which he called "Harvey and Lee" in 2003.

And, of course, I'm very glad that I spoke with Palmer McBride in September, 1994, filmed him in October 1994 (all of this, nine years prior to Armstrong's date of publication); and filmed the other witness--who knew Oswald during the ninth -grade at Beauregard Junior High School and over the summer of 1955, and into very early fall 1955 (when LHO attended Warren Easton High School, for just a few weeks).

Finally, when the ARRB opened up for business, I spoke with Jeremy Gunn (and probably others) about the importance of obtaining the tax records of McBride and Oswald; and, as a matter of record,sent the fax that I did, my final plea that they should do something about all this, in early Septemer, 1998.

Perhaps, with this as context, you will now understand that of course I was interested in the Fort Worth newspapers--in the period 7/1/56 (when LHO and his mom left New Orleans and moved to Fort Worth) through 10/24/56 (when he enlisted in the Marines).

You were not the only person, Greg Parker, who was interested in these matters--and from your own bio on the London Forum, it is rather obvious that I was deeply involved in the JFK case, and in studying Oswald's biography, years before you ever got interested in the Kennedy assassination.
DSL post 155, Sept 11, 2012

Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
              Lachie Hulme            
The Cold War ran on bullshit.

"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." 
Don Jeffries

"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum