|
The work
that many, many people have been waiting for is available, and everyone
reading these words should clear about three inches of space on their
JFK book shelf, as this one is, literally, "required reading."
To those who know John Armstrong well, they are aware of the years,
the cost, and the travel that went into this work. This is not a book
that results from sitting in one's library perusing other JFK books
-- and there are places where the book would have benefited slightly
if some of the more well-known JFK books were perused.
But any qualms suggested in this review are marginal at best, and given
the book's 983 pages, and by my best "guesstimate," 750,000 words, there
are bound to be the occasional lapse, omission, or error.
Considering what Armstrong has found, nobody -- NOBODY has the right
to criticize what he overlooked, as it is very fair to say that he has
found more people, and published more documentation (on the dvd that
accompanies the book) than any previous researcher has in any one book.
By far.
Harvey and Lee is the story of the two "Lee Harvey Oswalds," the one
born on October 18, 1939, who grew up sizable and husky, and the other
one, the substitute, "Harvey," (somebody must have loved Jimmy Stewart
movies), who was eventually substituted for Lee, although he was smaller
and of different personality, the facial similarities allowed for people
who saw Lee posturing with some in-your-face attitude to later see photos
of Harvey, under arrest in Dallas, and say, "Yeah. That's the fellow."
The challenge Armstrong throws down is that the government, in the form
of the CIA, "sponsored" the "Oswald Project," in which two people shared
one identity to allow for easier penetration for covert purposes. Throughout
the work, he notes that many, many people who saw either Lee or Harvey
(outside of the accepted resume that we have been handed regarding "Lee
Harvey Oswald") were told they "were mistaken" because the person they
saw could not have been LHO, and that is proven by the fact that LHO
was elsewhere, andverifiably so, at the given moment in time. Armstrong
opines that if Lee had been put in the Dallas police line-ups, a lot
of people who were told they were "mistaken" would have quickly identified
Lee, because as adults, despite differing physical sizes, temperaments,
and only one having a mastoidectomy scar, they were facially interchangeable.
It would not be possible in this, plus the July and October issues of
this journal, to explore all that Armstrong has found and documented.
Just as well -- get the hints here and then get the book and set aside
a good bit of time, several note pads, and everything you've previously
read about what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.
Armstrong became interested in this "two Oswald" story many years ago,
when he read about Palmer McBride, who was employed by Pfisterer Dental
Laboratories from October, 1957 to May, 1958. When President Kennedy
was killed and "Oswald" was arrested, McBride, then in the Air Force,
notified AF Security that he knew "Oswald" and that "Oswald" had said,
while working with McBride at Pfisterer, that Eisenhower should have
been assassinated for some of his policies.
It was a jackpot for those who were willing to rush to judgment, but
there was only one small problem: at the time McBride and "Oswald" worked
at Pfisterer, "Oswald" was a US Marine and stationed in the Far East.
Oops. McBride must be wrong. Except that he wasn't. Harvey made the
Eisenhower threat, while Lee was in the Marines. The FBI insisted McBride
must have worked at Pfisterer earlier, but McBride could not have. As
for Oswald, employment records were jimmied beyond belief But the kicker
was that McBride and "Oswald" also discussed the book Dr. Zhivago, which
was published in 1958, when "Oswald" was not in the country. Perhaps
the authorities arranged for an advanced printing of the book for two
kids down south ....
And the US government, in the form of the CIA knew of it, because it
was their brainstorm and the FBI knew because they knew there were two
odd blips on the radar screen, so to speak.
Harvey and Lee is NOT the end of the story, but it will someday win
the respect of future historians (not stooges picked to verify the veracity
of a television show) in that it will be seen as the book that was either
the end of the beginning of the JFK investigation.
Or the beginning of the end.
To whet the reader's appetite:
(A small example) Remember the famous "Albert Schweitzer College" in
Chur Walden, Switzerland? "Oswald" applied for admission there while
still in the Marines, and, when offered an opening, sent a $25 check.
It would make a good "passport excuse" down the road.
But what do all the other books tell us about Schweitzer College? Not
a lot.
Armstrong went there. Flew in, went up the winding mountain roads (noted
as having no guard rails), and actually visited the place. Seems they
only had thirteen students back in the late 1950s, and had no accreditation
from Switzerland, since none of the students were Swiss. Tuition was
$2800 a year, which was far too steep for the likes of Oswald, yet he
went through the charade. Of greater import, the US government (either
CIA or FBI) would later make a request to the Swiss Federale Police
for data about Schweitzer College and be told that the SFP could not
find any such thing. Four months later, they had located it, and didprovide
the requested data. Armstrong, using italics freely, would ask: If the
Swiss
Federale Police cannot learn about a college within their ownsmall nation
in four months, how did the average Marine, in California, know about
it? The inference is easily drawn that Oswald had would pay the ultimate
price down the road. Lee, wearing a light jacket and a white t-shirt,
killed J.D. Tippit and intentionally left behind an incriminating wallet
with the names "Oswald" and "Hidell."
Harvey left the TSBD, went back to 1026 N. Beckley by bus (McWatters)
and cab (Whaley), got a pistol, and went to the Texas Theatre and was
arrested.
I've noted in past issues that the one thing I could never get past
was the "official story" of Oswald teaching himself Russian. It is a
guttural language wholly unlike English, and its alphabet requires mastery.
I'd estimate that a person with an IQ of 120 attempting to teach him
or herself Russian in spare time, would require a minimum of four to
five years, yet "Oswald" did it in part of his Marine tour. Nobody in
Japan noticed any Russian -- only at Santa Ana, where Harvey, who could
speak Russian long before he entered the USMC, was stationed. If my
concern is valid, Armstrong has solved it totally.
Armstrong gradually and tightly builds a case that the CIA, using assets
like David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, Sergio Arcacha Smith (one
of my top five among the "Why didn't the WC take testimony from this
person department"), Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, Guy Banister,
David Ferrie, Ann - Goodpasture, Cuban gun-runner Jack Ruby, and most
definitely Ruth and Michael Paine (along with an assortment of Cuban
malcontents) wanted Kennedy out of office because of his cowardice at
the time of the Missile Crisis AND as a provocation for the US to go
to war against Cuba on November 22, because "Lee Harvey Oswald" was
clearly their boy, and he did it.
All by himself.
The FBI was aware of the duplicate Oswalds, and maintained a constant
investigation (mostly centering on Harvey) prior to the assassination,
only to deny that they had ever heard of LHO on November 22. Once they
heard of him, of course, they had him convicted by 3:01 pm, CST,on November
22, 1963.
Despite stories in the JFK literature about people being CIA and FBI
informants, very little could be further from the truth. The reality
is that the two agencies hated each other from inception, and continue
to do so to this day, giving the lie to the farcical "homeland security"
bureau. They just don't cooperate.
Yet they did, on a limited basis in 1963, because Hoover knew something
was up, so he alerted the CIA to all of it -- but they already knew,
since it was their show. Hoover had to cover his butt, so he sent the
memos (I know what you're thinking about the "cover his butt" comment,
and don't go there...). The ultimate reason Hoover DID cooperate in
this one instance was very simple: job security. With JFK gone, Hoover
could maintain the fiction that the FBI was the "S.O.G." (seat of government).
The reader will be amazed by the number of new names--people interviewed
by John Armstrong, going back to the early childhood of the "known"
LHO. In speaking with neighbors, childhood acquaintances, school teachers,
the picture emerged, and did so clearly, of two youths: one who lost
a tooth in a fight (Lee), and another who was autopsied after being
killed by CIA asset Jack Ruby (Harvey), and who showed no evidence of
having lost a tooth at age fifteen. In 1953, Armstrong gives convincing
evidence that Harvey was at Beauregard Junior High School, while Lee
was attending,or dodging, school in New York City. The following year,
Harvey was at Stripling when Lee returned from NY and attended Beauregard.
Marina spoke excellent English while in the USSR, and her charade of
not speaking any English after being in the US for eighteen months is
shown to be just that-- a charade.
Ruth and Michael Paine, according to Armstrong, should have been arrested
for complicity, as Armstrong points out item after item of evidence
provided by Ruth to investigating authorities after the Dallas Police
conducted a thorough search of the Paine residence. Ruth apparently
had some help in this chore from CIA-alleged asset Priscilla McMillan.
Armstrong also addresses and quickly silences a long-debated concern:
the finances of "Oswald." Armstrong shows that in his USMC career, the
historical Lee Oswald would have earned just over $3400; but the vast
majority of that was overseas, and was thus paid in military scrip,
which is not convertible to US dollars. Oswald's earnings, in dollars,
were about $1000, which would not pay for much, if anything.
As I went through the book, I found two concerns that I discussed with
just about everyone I spoke with, and I asked if they'd read the book,
don't ruin the ending.
The first concern is about Harvey's career in the Marines. Because Armstrong
began the project because Palmer McBride spoke of working with Oswald
in 1957-1958, there is serious confusion about Harvey, and his USMC
career is very odd. In the first 214 pages, he goes into the Marines,
and is then trained for some specialty beyond "rifleman," but then he's
gone, out of the Corps, to work with McBride. That accomplished, he's
back in the Marines, and there is no adequate explanation of how that
came to be. For one thing, the Marine Corps does not train its "grunts"
just before they leave the Corps. If someone is on the way out, they
sweep floors, cut lawn, or swab the deck. And there's no sense of discharge
or closure involving Harvey, just a hiatus at Pfisterer drug lab to
talk about Eisenhower and Lara's Theme.
The second concern is even larger, and it is clearly brought into the
narrative, but in no way resolved. The short, dumpy woman who was on
television and in Life magazine and anywhere else she could stick her
nose for a shiny dime is seen as the "guardian/caretaker" of Harvey,
not the taller, attractive mother of Lee, Robert Oswald, and John Pic.
If that's true, how--how in God's name-- could Pic and Robert Oswald
NOT disavow the "short, dumpy impostor"? Or does that explain the lengthy
silence imposed, to this day, by Pic, and the "Count me in for the lone
nut" attitude of Robert? It just does NOT seem possible that two men
could go before a blue-ribbon Presidential commission (admittedly with
no purpose other than convicting a relative of theirs) and not say,
"Look guys, I'll answer your questions, but tell me, who is that shrew
that is impersonating my mother?"
I think I'd stand before one of Hussein's firing squads -- two if necessary,
before I would let my mother's memory be so shabbily tarnished as that.
Yet that seems to be what Armstrong is implying -- a tall, handsome
woman, who disappears in 1960-1961, was the mother of John, Robert,
and Lee, and then there is the clueless shrew, who shills for Harvey.
I do believe, however, that when John Armstrong reads my thoughts (and
again accepts my deep gratitude for dedicating the book to, among others,
me), that he will be able to explain this confusion.
In a sense, he has already begun that process, as he has thrown down
the gauntlet for a DNA comparison which will prove him right or destroy
the entire corpus of the book. If Robert Oswald were to give a DNA sample
(want us to believe you, Robert?), and it was compared with either of
Oswald's daughters, Armstrong believes there would be "no match" because
Robert was not brother to Harvey, the man married to Marina and father
of the two children. If Robert Oswald has any guts at all, he'll take
the challenge; I'm just not going to sit in New Jersey snow until he
does. I'd like to add that some people to whom I've spoken about the
book, upon recalling the "who is whose mom?" confusion, think that both
Pic and Robert Oswald should be put under citizen's arrest for obstruction
of justice, and that would perhaps FORCE a DNA comparison.
Volume IX, #3 April, 2004
Food for thought.
Getting back to dedications, as I read the names of people to whom the
book is dedicated, I got down, alphabetically, to "Porter, Marina Oswald,"
only to discover, in the narrative, many references to Marina as arguably
being the biggest liar that ever falsified her way across the human
stage.
Odd.
It's no major criticism of Harvey and Lee to note that there are a handful
of factual mistakes; in 983 pages, there would have to be. Regretfully,
they seemed to fall within the last 83 pages or so, making one wonder
if the 900 pages previous, with "new and unknown" witnesses," are accurate.
I have enough faith in John to think they are.
In one place, he raises the possibility that one mystery individual
might be Daryl Click, and the reality is that there is no such person.
News reporters heard Henry Wade say "In Oak Cliff' and wrote down "Daryl
Click" in the haste of the moment. The mistake was later corrected,
but Armstrong, relying on thousands of man hours in the Archives, would
not know that. (In that regard, there were many places where an Archives
document was cited, and it was interesting to go back years and remember,
oh, yeah, I read that one .... this one, here, too. Ah but this is new.
Deja vu all over again.
In another place it's noted that the description of the suspect was
initially broadcast at 1:43 pm, CST, but it was 12:43 CST, or else Tippit
would not have known which males to stop and which to leave alone.
Without going into details, Tippit and Roscoe White are brought well
into the thick of things.
Towards the very end, Armstrong posits the notion that LBJ, in early
1968, found himself in JFK's shoes. He either had to give in to the
Joint Chiefs' demands for more men and money in Vietnam, or stop riding
around in convertible automobiles. Johnson took the middle ground and
announced he would not run again. Armstrong then notes that after that
March 31 declaration, RFK was killed three days later, on April 3. (MLK
was killed fourdays later, on 4/4, and RFK was killed on June 5, Pacific
time) The 1968 presidential campaign is then cited as a cakewalk for
Nixon, but I watched those 1968 returns and Humphrey was still in the
thick of it at 5:30 am EST.
What is extremely troubling about Harvey and Lee is the editing, or
perhaps it should be said, "the total lack of editing." While I noted
and happily accepted the inevitability of some factual errors in 983
pages, I was not in any way prepared for the thousands of grammar and
usage errors that have the ability to distract a reader like myself,
who does professional manuscript editing. Armstrong's narrative is so
riveting in many places (possibleexception: the lengthy story of C2766)
that many readers may well (and fortunately) miss many of the mistakes
that litter the pages. Let's hope so.The book is just too good to lose
style points.
For anyone who has been a reader of this journal for any length of time,
there should be an awareness that I'm frugal when it comes to giving
high praise, but Armstrong's work clearly deserves that and more. Get
it. Read it. And let's dot the remaining i's and cross the remaining
t's, and have a solution that we can agree to, consensus wise. Given
that the media caved in on "TMWKK," (see elsewhere) it is unlikely that
anyone in the mainstream media is going to read this book and accept
its premise. On the contrary, it will be written off as "Two Oswalds?
What's next, the moon landings were faked?"
If I could make a suggestion for those who have not yet read the book,
but plan to: begin by reading the final chapter, "To the Victors Belong
the Spoils." It is a powerful, highly- charged indictment of the intelligence
community, from the assassination of JFK, to the CIA frame job of Nixon,
to the ascension of former CIA "asset" and later director, George H.
W. Bush, seen as a man who pardoned just about every CIA related crook
possible. One that was pardoned for high crimes was Eliot Abrams, and
he was appointed to a high government position in 2002 by, you guessed
it, George Bush (different one); so not to worry-- the whole flap about
not furnishing documents to the 9/il investigation, or to the CIA leak
investigation, or to the WMD investigation, -- it's just the Warren
Commission revisited.
Irony department: I finished the book earlier today (Valentine's Day),
and it took a lot of time to go through it, as I thoroughly annotated,
and probably wrote more words in the margins than are contained in Chuck
Crenshaw's first book. John Armstrong has done sooooo much digging,
that to me, his credibility is unquestioned. Yet the concept of 'the
two" does not find easy or quick acceptance. I can think of authors
I'd doubt, if they had published it.
That said, I was on line at the post office before the noon closing,
and when I left the window, the man on the end of the line was, literally,
mylate father-in-law, Raymond, whom I dearly loved until and beyond
his passing in mid-1994. The man on the end of the line was Raymond.
The same compact body, hair, facial features; the same walk; the same
way he carried himself, even the same eye contact when I could not help
but stare at him.
Moral to that story: anything IS possible.
|
