"Harvey & Lee" Part 04: The Forged W-2 Forms

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/12/98

to

H A R V E Y A N D L E E :

T H E F O R G E D W - 2 F O R M S

From Warren Commission Exhibit 1386:

In about June, 1955, I went to work as a dental messenger for the
Pfisterer Dental Laboratory Company in the 200 block of Dauphine
Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. In about December, 1957, a young man
named LEE OSWALD was employed in the same capacity. Because we both
enjoyed classical music I invited him to my home at 1416 Baronne
Street, New Orleans, and he did visit my home perhaps two or three
times. I was living with my parents at that time, and during his
visits we would listen to records in my room.

During his first visit to my home in late 1957 or early 1958 the
discussion turned to politics and to the possibility of war. At this
time I made a statement to the effect that President DWIGHT EISENHOWER
was doing a pretty good job for a man of his age and background, but I
did feel more emphasis should be placed on the space program in view of
Russian successes. OSWALD was very anti-Eisenhower, and stated that
President EISENHOWER was exploiting the working people. He then made a
statement to the effect that he would like to kill president EISENHOWER
because he was exploiting the working class. This statement was not
made in jest. . . .

Excerpt from 11/23/63 statement to
FBI by Airman Palmer E. McBride
(CE 1386--WC vol. XXII)

You would think the Warren Commission would have taken formal testimony of
anyone who heard Oswald say he wanted to assassinate a U.S. president, but
Airman McBride never appeared before the Commission, nor did any other
employees of Pfisterer Dental Lab. All of Oswald's employment records at
Pfisterer were collected by the FBI and were never seen again. Why?
Because McBride (and other Pfisterer employees interviewed by JFK researcher
John Armstrong) recalled that Oswald worked for Pfisterer in late 1957 and
early 1958, when the WC had Oswald serving as a radar operator for the
Marines in Japan. McBride's recollection that Oswald and he discussed
"Russian successes" in space surely means they surely talked at least after
the launch of the first Russian space success: Sputnik on October 4, 1957.

Reports about McBride's recollection and that of another man, William Wulf,
indicating Oswald was at Pfisterer's when he was supposed to be in Japan
were compiled by WC staff attorney John Hart Ely. Ely's report so alarmed
another staff attorney, Albert Jenner, that Jenner wrote a 4/10/64 memo to
chief counsel Rankin saying, in part: "our depositions and examination of
records and other data disclose there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda
which will require material alteration and, in some cases, omission."

Unknown to Jenner, though, the FBI had already galloped to the rescue.

Available right now at the Archives are three W-2 IRS tax forms supposedly
from "Lee H. Oswald" of New Orleans. They are Items 168, 169, and 175 of
the extensive collection of documents included in CE 2003. As we will soon
see, they are all forgeries, created by the FBI in January, 1964. All were
supposedly found by the Dallas Police Department among Oswald documents at
the Paine residence.

(For an extensive discussion of how the FBI immediately after the
assassination secretly obtained most of the evidence gathered by the Dallas
Police Department, how it modified the evidence and lost much of the DPD
film of the original evidence before returning it, see "The FBI and the
Framing of Oswald," by John Armstrong in _Probe_ magazine, March-April,
1997, p. 1 ff. That same article shows how the WC tried to hide the FBI's
misdeeds by materially altering sworn testimony.)

Anyway, one of those forged W-2 forms at the Archives is from Lee Harvey
Oswald's employment at Pfisterer Dental Labs. Contrary to Airman McBride's
specific recollections, the tax form indicates that Oswald was employed by
Pfisterer in 1956 (because the information is on a 1956 W-2 form). The
taxpayer identification number near the top of the form is: 72-0444599.
Suspicious of that number, the current Pfisterer Dental Labs president,
Linda Faircloth, wrote to the IRS about it in September 1995. Here is the
letter she received in response:

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Memphis, TN 37501
In reply refer to: 4916503261
Oct. 17, 1995 LTR OC
72-0444599 0000 00 000 0003

PFISTERER DENTAL LABORATORY
c/o LINDA FAIRCLOTH
3100 27TH ST
METAIRIE LA 70002

Taxpayer Identification Number: 72-0444599

Dear Taxpayer,

I have received your correspondence of September 28, 1995, concerning the
established month and year of your identification number 72-0444599.
Unfortunately I find no record of this number. However, I have reviewed our
files starting with the number 72-0444550 through 72- 0444650. I can only
find four numbers which are active.

Two of these four numbers are before yours and two are after. All four
numbers indicate that they were established in January 1964. Employer
identification numbers are computer generated in numerical order.
Therefore, I feel confident in stating that although your number is not
available, it was never the less established in January 1964.

If you have any questions. . . [remainder of letter deleted for brevity].

So, the W-2 form currently in the National Archives purporting to indicate
that Oswald worked at Pfisterer in 1956, contrary to the recollections of
Palmer McBride and others, is clearly a forgery. It is beyond the scope of
this post, but John Armstrong's _Probe_ article referenced above clearly
proves that the original, and now vanished Oswald-Pfisterer W-2 form was in
FBI hands in January 1964. The FBI therefore forged the document.

In his 1997 November in Dallas presentation, Armstrong similarly showed how
two other Oswald W-2 forms, one from Dolly Shoe Co. Inc. and the other from
Gerard Tujague, Inc., were also forged by the FBI.

Why were these forgeries made? Because there were two young men named
Harvey Oswald and Lee Oswald whose biographies had been merged into a single
legend, and reality was colliding with fiction on IRS tax forms. LEE, the
tall Southern kid, was serving, probably honorably, with the U.S. Marines in
Japan at the very time HARVEY, the shorter alleged Communist sympathizer was
working at Pfisterer Dental Labs. Anyone familiar with John Armstrong's
work will immediately recognize Palmer McBride's description of HARVEY, the
anti-social leftist ready to assassinate a sitting U.S. president for his
beliefs.

--------------------------------------------------------------

This post was based on the research of John Armstrong,
who made corrections for this revision of 5/27/98.

--Jim Hargrove

Clark Wilkins

unread,

Sep 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/13/98

to

We appreciate your interest in the case, Jim. However, the conclusion
that the FBI issued the dental Lab's tax ID # in 1964 based on the IRS
letter has been shown to be without merit. IRS record keeping changed in
that year resulting in the date change.
The CTers and the LNers argued this one back and forth and the LNers won.
They don't win too many, but this one they did.

.Clark

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/13/98

to

Nonsense. We are supposed to conclude that the written determination by an
IRS representative that tax numbers were issued in 1964, not only for
Pfisterer's, but also for Dolly Shoe and Tujaque's is erroneous just because
some CIA flack trying to prop up support for the Warren Commission's
discredited conclusions says so??

You've got to be kidding!!!

--Jim Hargrove

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/13/98

to

Jim Hargrove wrote:

Hi Jim,

There is a way to resolve this issue...and it needs to be resolved. Apparently,
an entire region was put on this new computer system in January 1964. There's a
couple of ways to approach this...and both probably should be done. One....get
Pfisterer to pull documents on other employees from that era and see if the same
employer number shows on their records....not to mention Pfisterer should have
records of what their ID number was back in those olden days anyway. And second,
locate other busineeses in that same general area that were in business in the
50's...and have them check their records. If they have ID numbers that the IRS
also says were issued in January 1964, then what they say about the records from
Oswald's employers fits...if those numbers don't come back with the same
explanation/history...then you've got something. As I see it, there has been an
official explanation proffered for what seemed to be an "AHA" on the Oswald
records....now the ball is back in the court of those who believe otherwise. So
those who believe otherwise now have to do some further legwork.

Barb :-)

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/13/98

to

Jim Hargrove wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:29:15 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There is a way to resolve this issue...and it needs to be resolved. Apparently,
> >an entire region was put on this new computer system in January 1964. There's a
> >couple of ways to approach this...and both probably should be done. One....get
> >Pfisterer to pull documents on other employees from that era and see if the same
> >employer number shows on their records....not to mention Pfisterer should have
> >records of what their ID number was back in those olden days anyway. And second,
> >locate other busineeses in that same general area that were in business in the
> >50's...and have them check their records. If they have ID numbers that the IRS
> >also says were issued in January 1964, then what they say about the records from
> >Oswald's employers fits...if those numbers don't come back with the same
> >explanation/history...then you've got something. As I see it, there has been an
> >official explanation proffered for what seemed to be an "AHA" on the Oswald
> >records....now the ball is back in the court of those who believe otherwise. So
> >those who believe otherwise now have to do some further legwork.
>

> Hi, Barb,
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about, but why do I think John McAdams
> or McNally/Fletcher/Amethyst is somehow part of the punchline? I assume it
> is their position that the original IRS agent was "mistaken" now that it has
> been shown how inconvenient his information is to the Official Legend that
> is so vital to the CIA's health.
>
> Tell me this isn't so.
>
> --Jim Hargrove

Huh?? I don't have a clue what McAdams or McNally thinks about this...though I think
McAdams once posted the letter from the IRS (or was it social security?) saying that
the whole region had gone to some new computer system in January '64.

I think what I said is fairly clear...there are ways to prove or disprove that the
number on Oswald's three W-2's from three separate employers are unique in having
been issued in January of 1964. If they are unique...then something's obviously
rotten. If they are not unique, and a random sampling of employer ID numbers from the
50's show up as having been also issued in January 1964, then the IRS explanation
holds water. And,the same would be true if old Pfisterer records indicate they had
that same employer ID# in use on other employees records from the same time Oswald
was employed there as well.

It's not good enough to sit back and mouth down the contrary evidence....it has to be
proven one way or the tuther.

Barb ;-)

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/13/98

to

Thpa2d wrote:

> In article <35FC554A...@ix.netcom.com>, Barb Junkkarinen

> <bar...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >As I see it, there has been an
> >official explanation proffered for what seemed to be an "AHA" on the Oswald
> >records....now the ball is back in the court of those who believe otherwise.
> >So
> >those who believe otherwise now have to do some further legwork.
> >

> >Barb :-)
>
> Very logical approach Barb.....one that I support since it may lead
> in several directions.....all of which are of interest.
>
> jko

Thanks, Jim.....it is the logical approach and something that should have been
done long ago by those wishing to prove their pudding, imo.

Barb ;-)

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/13/98

to

Jim Hargrove wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:33:48 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Hi, Barb,
> >>
> >> I have no idea what you are talking about, but why do I think John McAdams
> >> or McNally/Fletcher/Amethyst is somehow part of the punchline? I assume it
> >> is their position that the original IRS agent was "mistaken" now that it has
> >> been shown how inconvenient his information is to the Official Legend that
> >> is so vital to the CIA's health.
> >>
> >> Tell me this isn't so.
> >>
> >> --Jim Hargrove
> >
> >Huh?? I don't have a clue what McAdams or McNally thinks about this...though I think
> >McAdams once posted the letter from the IRS (or was it social security?) saying that
> >the whole region had gone to some new computer system in January '64.
>

> Ah, so Dr. McAdams is behind this "discovery." What a surprise!
>
> Let's see if I undersand this: The IRS changes its computer system in
> January 1964, and therefore gives out incorrect information about the
> issuance of tax numbers that year, eh? Funny how they never seem to forget
> that I owe them plenty of dough every April 15 no matter how many new
> computers they get. Did Dr. McAdams offer any EVIDENCE that the IRS gave a
> generation of taxpayers and employers incorrect information about the
> issuance of tax numbers in 1964 (and other years?). This is BIG news!!!

>
> >I think what I said is fairly clear...there are ways to prove or disprove that the
> >number on Oswald's three W-2's from three separate employers are unique in having
> >been issued in January of 1964. If they are unique...then something's obviously
> >rotten. If they are not unique, and a random sampling of employer ID numbers from the
> >50's show up as having been also issued in January 1964, then the IRS explanation
> >holds water. And,the same would be true if old Pfisterer records indicate they had
> >that same employer ID# in use on other employees records from the same time Oswald
> >was employed there as well.
> >
> >It's not good enough to sit back and mouth down the contrary evidence....it has to be
> >proven one way or the tuther.
>

> Once more, let me see if I understand your position. The people who owned
> Pfisterers said Lee Harvey Oswald did not work for them in 1956, but rather
> in 1957 and 1958. Coworker Palmer McBride recalls the same thing, and gives
> specific reasons (he and LHO discussed Sputnik I, launched in October 1957).
> But W-2 forms indicating employment at Pfisterers are discovered, naturally,
> at the Paine residence.
>
> The current president of Pfisterers writes the IRS, does not mention Oswald
> or the forged W-2 form, but is told by an IRS representative on IRS
> letterhead that the tax number was issued in 1964.
>
> Then, faced with total embarrassment for the Official Legend<tm>, Dr.
> McAdams discovers that it was all a computer error. Sheesh! We could play
> the same game with the forged W-2s for Dolly Shoe and Tujague.
>
> If you have proof that the IRS was wrong, please post it. Now that the IRS
> can be told the significance of it, perhaps some new proof can be found at
> the Paine residence. I'm just trying to be helpful.
>
> --Jim Hargrove

Wow....quite a tossed salad.<g> I don't think McAdams was the discoverer of
anything....I'm not sure who dug out that IRS letter, but seems to me I saw it elsewhere
before McAdams posted it. I have no proof of anything one way or the other...but then I am
not the one trying to support evidence that Oswald was two people. ;-) All I am saying is
that the W-2 evidence is contradicted...and anyone who wants to be able to use it as proof
of two Oswalds has some legwork to do. No reason anyone working on this facet of the case
wouldn't want to follow it up and prove or disprove the W-2 evidence once and for all, is
there? Afterall, truth and conclusive proof is the quest...right?

Just trying to be helpful.

Barb ;-)

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:29:15 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>There is a way to resolve this issue...and it needs to be resolved. Apparently,

>an entire region was put on this new computer system in January 1964. There's a
>couple of ways to approach this...and both probably should be done. One....get
>Pfisterer to pull documents on other employees from that era and see if the same
>employer number shows on their records....not to mention Pfisterer should have
>records of what their ID number was back in those olden days anyway. And second,
>locate other busineeses in that same general area that were in business in the
>50's...and have them check their records. If they have ID numbers that the IRS
>also says were issued in January 1964, then what they say about the records from
>Oswald's employers fits...if those numbers don't come back with the same

>explanation/history...then you've got something. As I see it, there has been an

>official explanation proffered for what seemed to be an "AHA" on the Oswald
>records....now the ball is back in the court of those who believe otherwise. So
>those who believe otherwise now have to do some further legwork.

Hi, Barb,

Thpa2d

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

In article <35FC554A...@ix.netcom.com>, Barb Junkkarinen
<bar...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>As I see it, there has been an
>official explanation proffered for what seemed to be an "AHA" on the Oswald
>records....now the ball is back in the court of those who believe otherwise.
>So
>those who believe otherwise now have to do some further legwork.
>

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:33:48 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>> Hi, Barb,

>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about, but why do I think John McAdams
>> or McNally/Fletcher/Amethyst is somehow part of the punchline? I assume it
>> is their position that the original IRS agent was "mistaken" now that it has
>> been shown how inconvenient his information is to the Official Legend that
>> is so vital to the CIA's health.
>>
>> Tell me this isn't so.
>>
>> --Jim Hargrove
>

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 22:19:48 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

> All I am saying is that the W-2 evidence is contradicted [. . . .]

Really? Do you have any EVIDENCE that the IRS representative was mistaken?

I have posted EVIDENCE that the WC's exhibit is fraudulent, EVIDENCE
provided by an IRS representative on IRS letterhead.

What is your contradictory EVIDENCE???? Please post it below.

>Just trying to be helpful.

Really?

--Jim Hargrove

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

Jim Hargrove wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 22:19:48 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> > All I am saying is that the W-2 evidence is contradicted [. . . .]
>
> Really? Do you have any EVIDENCE that the IRS representative was mistaken?

I didn't say he was mistaken, Jim...if you're talking about the guy who
reported back re Pfisterer labs. He said the employer ID# was issued in 1964.
I'm sure that's exactly what the computer shows. You miss the point,
however...that being, that further investigation turned up the fact that that
region of the country went online with the new IRS computer system in January
of 1964 and EVERY employer's ID# shows that it was issued in January of
1964....or so this other letter that I have seen seems to indicate. THAT is
what needs to be checked out.

>
>
> I have posted EVIDENCE that the WC's exhibit is fraudulent, EVIDENCE
> provided by an IRS representative on IRS letterhead.

This other letter is from some official sort on official letterhead too, Jim. I
don't doubt what this guy said....it just doesn't go far enough given the other
info about everyone being plunked into that computer and officially assigned
their employer ID #'s as of January 1964.

>
>
> What is your contradictory EVIDENCE???? Please post it below.

It's not "contradictory" evidence, Jim...it's evidence that indicates that
further steps (as I have outlined) need to be taken in order to prove that the
situation with Oswald's three W2 forms is unique to Oswald.....and not because
of this new computer system they had.

I've asked someone to forward me a copy of the letter...will post it when I get
it...unless someone else has it and goes ahead and posts it. As I recall, it
was posted a few months ago. Anybody??

>Really?

Yes...really. It's just a suggestion as to how those of you working on this can
tie up this W2 thing and prove it once and for all. I would think you would
want to tie it up with no loose ends (and contradictory evidence) left
dangling. If you're not interested in that...that's your business.

Barb :-)

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:55:32 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>I didn't say he was mistaken, Jim...if you're talking about the guy who

>reported back re Pfisterer labs. He said the employer ID# was issued in 1964.
>I'm sure that's exactly what the computer shows. You miss the point,
>however...that being, that further investigation turned up the fact that that
>region of the country went online with the new IRS computer system in January
>of 1964 and EVERY employer's ID# shows that it was issued in January of
>1964....or so this other letter that I have seen seems to indicate. THAT is
>what needs to be checked out.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????

You are calling into jeopardy the ENTIRE IRS tax base for 1964 just to
discredit John Armstrong??????????????????

Are you serious???????

--Jim Hargrove

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

Jim Hargrove wrote:

WHAT? Really, Jim. What does this have to do with anybody trying to discredit
Armstrong? I have made suggestions that if they pan out will make his case
stronger. Apparently you are choosing not to see that and to make this something
it is not. In research, you have to be willing to go to the wall to prove your
case....and you have to be willing to report when you hit a brick wall just as
readily as when you make a breakthrough. This W2 thing ain't complete...that's all
I have said. And I have given suggestions on how to nail it down.

>
>
> Are you serious???????

The question is...are you? You seem happy with the status quo on this particular
piece of Armstrong's puzzle. It's not good enough...it's been contradicted and
needs to be nailed down. If you're serious, you'd want to do that.

Barb :-)

Bill Hamley

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:55:32 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I didn't say he was mistaken, Jim...if you're talking about the guy who
> >reported back re Pfisterer labs. He said the employer ID# was issued in 1964.
> >I'm sure that's exactly what the computer shows. You miss the point,
> >however...that being, that further investigation turned up the fact that that
> >region of the country went online with the new IRS computer system in January
> >of 1964 and EVERY employer's ID# shows that it was issued in January of
> >1964....or so this other letter that I have seen seems to indicate. THAT is
> >what needs to be checked out.
>
> ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????
>
> You are calling into jeopardy the ENTIRE IRS tax base for 1964 just to
> discredit John Armstrong??????????????????
>

> Are you serious???????

Hi Jim,

This seems like a very easy issue to resolve. All we need to do is compare
W-2's from two employees of the same time period and see if they match and
there is a real easy solution to that. Palmer McBride! Have him request a
copt of his W-2 from the time in question and compare the Employer ID numbers.
Fighting computer default dates is a constant battle. What I don't understand
this the reluctance to strengthen ones case.

Bill

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

Bill Hamley wrote:

Exactly, Bill...it's really very straightforward and easy. Another Pfisterer
employee record would be good to check, but probably wouldn't end the controversy
because Pfisterer records could be considered tainted.......an easy place to start
though since it is a lady currently at Pfisterer who wrote the letter to the IRS in
the first place. Any other employer still in existence in the same general area,
that was in business in the 50s as well would be a good check. I don't understand
the reluctance to make a case stronger either.

Barb :-)

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:25:34 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Exactly, Bill...it's really very straightforward and easy. Another Pfisterer

>employee record would be good to check, but probably wouldn't end the controversy
>because Pfisterer records could be considered tainted.......an easy place to start
>though since it is a lady currently at Pfisterer who wrote the letter to the IRS in
>the first place. Any other employer still in existence in the same general area,
>that was in business in the 50s as well would be a good check. I don't understand
>the reluctance to make a case stronger either.

I have asked, and asked, and asked again for ANY EVIDENCE you have that the
IRS was mistaken about the year the tax numbers were issued. Where is it???

--Jim Hargrove

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

Jim Hargrove wrote:

I have replied and replied and replied......I never said the IRS guy was
mistaken......the computer may think that all those employers who were entered into the
computer that January had their ID #s issued at that time. So when you write the IRS and
ask them for when a certain ID# from within that region was issued...it will always say
January 1964. Now, if the three employer numbers where Oswald worked (Pfisterer, the
shoe store...and I forget the other one) are the ONLY three that come back as being
issued in January 1964...then you have something concrete...it would mean that something
hinky went on with these three employer numbers, and what these three employer numbers
have in common is Oswald....wah-lah. BUT....if you submit other random employer ID#s
from the same region, who were also in business before, say 1960, and they also come up
as having been issued in January 1964, then it is likely that the January 1964 thing was
a computer log thing and not anything to do with Oswald.

If you really do not understand what I am trying to say, I will be patient and try again
to explain it to you...or maybe someone else like Bill can explain it better to you than
I have. But this is the way to conclusively prove or disprove your pudding.

Barb :-)

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:27:42 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>I have replied and replied and replied......I never said the IRS guy was
>mistaken......the computer may think that all those employers who were entered into the
>computer that January had their ID #s issued at that time. So when you write the IRS and
>ask them for when a certain ID# from within that region was issued...it will always say
>January 1964. Now, if the three employer numbers where Oswald worked (Pfisterer, the
>shoe store...and I forget the other one) are the ONLY three that come back as being
>issued in January 1964...then you have something concrete...it would mean that something
>hinky went on with these three employer numbers, and what these three employer numbers
>have in common is Oswald....wah-lah. BUT....if you submit other random employer ID#s
>from the same region, who were also in business before, say 1960, and they also come up
>as having been issued in January 1964, then it is likely that the January 1964 thing was
>a computer log thing and not anything to do with Oswald.

This is a lovely story, but we are trying to deal here with EVIDENCE. I
have transcribed John Armstrong's EVIDENCE--a letter on IRS stationery from
an IRS representative--indicating that one aspect of the Official Legend<tm>
is dog meat. You respond with stories and then tell me that I need more
EVIDENCE.

I began by producing EVIDENCE. It is your turn to discredit it--not with
uncorroborated anecdotes from John McAdams, but with EVIDENCE. You know,
like something on an IRS letterhead from an IRS representative stating they
goofed.

No rhetorical sleight-of-hand can make it appear that it is my turn to
produce MORE EVIDENCE when you have produced NONE WHATSOEVER to debunk the
EVIDENCE originally presented by me.

For the fourth time, please produce your EVIDENCE below. Not a story. Not
an "explanation." EVIDENCE!

>If you really do not understand what I am trying to say, I will be patient and try again
>to explain it to you...or maybe someone else like Bill can explain it better to you than
>I have. But this is the way to conclusively prove or disprove your pudding.

I'm not asking for explanations. I'm asking for EVIDENCE, such as I
provided way up at the top of this stupid thread.

--Jim Hargrove

P.S. Please respond with EVIDENCE!

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

Jim Hargrove wrote:

Below is something from the IRS files that MAY provide a clue as to why the employer ID#s on
Oswald's records came back from the IRS noting the numbers had been issued in January 1964.
As I said before, the IRS got that area up and running on their new computer system...also in
January 1964. The info that came back on Oswald's employer ID#s may or may not be
*unique*....and that is what you need to know/prove. This is the only written document I have
in my possession about this at this time...I expect more later. It should be enough though to
make a serious researcher want to know more about this situation.....like one person wrote to
me in e-mail yesterday, he wouldn't be happy with his evidence until he had turned over every
last possible stone. This is one more stone you need to turn over. Now, don't screech at me
about this...this is the way I see it....you can take it or leave it. But if you're not
interested in nailing down the only other possible explanation for the January 1964
designation on the employer ID numbers, then.....well, I think people will have to wonder and
will remain less than convinced. Again...that's your choice...I'm just trying to be helpful
in suggesting a way you can nail it down. :-)

This was posted on the moderated group some months back.....McAdams had it on his website. I
have extracted only the information...not the whole post.

QUOTE

Below are some quotes from IRS annual reports which may offer an inkling
of an explanation. Basically, Jaunary 1964 is when the Southwest IRS
region, of which La. was then a part, began using the "master file." My
guess then is that any pre-1964 account which was still active was added
to the master file in January, 1964 and that's why an IRS check today
might make seem that the id number was "issued" in 1964. The catalog
number for these reports was T22.1.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue
1964 Annual Report
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1964

-
p.xxi

-
[This is a map of the IRS regions and districts. It shows
that the Louisiana district was in the Southwest Region]
p. 12

Effective January 1, 1964, as planned, two more regions
began processing returns under the master file concept.
With new service centers located at Austin, Tex., and
Cincinnati, Ohio, serving the Southwest and Central regions,
respectively. The expansion of the Business Master File was
accomplished without major problems. At the end of the [fiscal]
year, the Business Master File contained over 2.3 million
tax-payer entities, or accounts, and increase of 95 percent
since July 1, 1963.

-

Commissioner of Internal Revenue
1961 Annual Report
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1961
-
p.24
-
The National Computer Center at Martinsburg, W. Va., due for
completion in the fall of 1961, will be the "heart" of the
ADP [Automatic Data Processing] system. When the system is
fully implemented nationwide, the center will maintain on
magnetic tape, a master file of some 75 million tax accounts
of individual and business taxpayers."

END QUOTE

It should be worth it to you and to Armstrong to check out another possible explanation for
the January 1964 designation of "issued" for the Oswald employer ID#s. And it will be easy to
do.....so why not make sure there's nothing hiding under the last rock?

Barb :-)

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/14/98

to

This is pitiful, Barb. You call this EVIDENCE? The SW division of the IRS
gets a new computer system in 1964, and therefore IRS employees are so
stupid that for three decades they give American taxpayers and employers
erroneous information about the creation dates of every tax number issued
before 1964?

If this is true, you should find your debunking EVIDENCE in newspaper
headlines and Congressional hearings over a period of at least 30 years.

Where in Dr. McAdams' "information" below is there even the SLIGHTEST HINT
that anything like what you and McAdams are suggesting actually happened?
Please point out the phrase to me.

--Jim Hargrove

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:32:36 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Below is something from the IRS files that MAY provide a clue as to why the employer ID#s on

Howard J. Rogers

unread,

Sep 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/15/98

to

Jim, I think she's saying simply that it ought to be possible to check
*whether* this is a satisfactory explanation, not that it *is* a
satisfactory explanation. The check means finding one other person where
this has happened. If you do, your thesis is nullified. If you can't, then
your thesis is reinforced. Seems a small ask to me.

Regards
HJR

Jim Hargrove wrote in message <35fdaa5d...@news.wwa.com>...

>
>This is pitiful, Barb. You call this EVIDENCE? The SW division of the IRS
>gets a new computer system in 1964, and therefore IRS employees are so
>stupid that for three decades they give American taxpayers and employers
>erroneous information about the creation dates of every tax number issued
>before 1964?
>
>If this is true, you should find your debunking EVIDENCE in newspaper
>headlines and Congressional hearings over a period of at least 30 years.
>
>Where in Dr. McAdams' "information" below is there even the SLIGHTEST HINT
>that anything like what you and McAdams are suggesting actually happened?
>Please point out the phrase to me.
>
>--Jim Hargrove
>
>

>On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:32:36 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>

Bill Parker

unread,

Sep 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/15/98

to

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:43:36 GMT, ji...@wwa.com (Jim Hargrove) wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:27:42 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>

Hey Barb, I think he want to see the letter from the IRS saying that all business in that region
were part of some sort of computer upgrade/foul-up resulting in all businesses being assgined
employer ID no.s which appear to be issued in JAN 1964.

In other words, what is the source of this "Theory" or "Buff Factoid" as McAdams would say....

You can't expect us to take your word for it, can you?

Bill Parker

unread,

Sep 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/15/98

to

OK, belay my last.

I read above that this buff factoid is only Buff McAdams "Guess" which he derived from his "inkling"
(his own words above).

He may or may not be right.

I think the test you proposed makes sense, Barb.

Bill Parker

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/15/98

to

Bill Parker wrote:

Thank you, Bill. :-) It is a way to take this another step...and another step is needed given what was
going on with the computer system at the same time.

Bests,
Barb :-)

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/15/98

to

Bill Parker wrote:

> Hey Barb, I think he want to see the letter from the IRS saying that all business in that region
> were part of some sort of computer upgrade/foul-up resulting in all businesses being assgined
> employer ID no.s which appear to be issued in JAN 1964.
>
> In other words, what is the source of this "Theory" or "Buff Factoid" as McAdams would say....
>
> You can't expect us to take your word for it, can you?
>
> Bill Parker

Hi there...

I thinks this was the "last" you wanted to "belay" in the post I saw first...for some reason my
posts seem to be coming up backwards....go figure.<g> Anyway...nope, I don't expect anyone to take
my word for anything...and this may not be anything, but to be sure, it needs to be checked out.

Barb :-)

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/15/98

to

Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> Jim, I think she's saying simply that it ought to be possible to check
> *whether* this is a satisfactory explanation, not that it *is* a
> satisfactory explanation. The check means finding one other person where
> this has happened. If you do, your thesis is nullified. If you can't, then
> your thesis is reinforced. Seems a small ask to me.
>
> Regards
> HJR

Exactly, howard...and thank you. I'm afraid what started out as a simple comment
and suggestion turned into quite a big deal...and for no reason. Basically, I'm
just saying that given the IRS plunking people into a new computer system at
that same time, the "issued" date needs to checked out. It's a way to give
weight to what they already have....or to show there's nothing to that piece of
evidence. There is a difference between evidence and proof. Right now they have
evidence...it needs to be proved. A small thing to ask, indeed.

Barb :-)

>
>
> Jim Hargrove wrote in message <35fdaa5d...@news.wwa.com>...
> >
> >This is pitiful, Barb. You call this EVIDENCE? The SW division of the IRS
> >gets a new computer system in 1964, and therefore IRS employees are so
> >stupid that for three decades they give American taxpayers and employers
> >erroneous information about the creation dates of every tax number issued
> >before 1964?
> >
> >If this is true, you should find your debunking EVIDENCE in newspaper
> >headlines and Congressional hearings over a period of at least 30 years.
> >
> >Where in Dr. McAdams' "information" below is there even the SLIGHTEST HINT
> >that anything like what you and McAdams are suggesting actually happened?
> >Please point out the phrase to me.
> >
> >--Jim Hargrove
> >
> >

> >On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:32:36 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >wrote:
> >

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/15/98

to

Just for the record, John McAdams did not write the post I...uh, posted. It did come
from his website.....initial comments and cites from IRS reports that had come to him
from another person. If I wrote the intro to what I posted sloppily, so that it
seemed as if I was attributing those comments to McAdams, I apologize.

Barb ;-)

Jim Hargrove wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:56:59 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Exactly, howard...and thank you. I'm afraid what started out as a simple comment

> >and suggestion turned into quite a big deal...and for no reason. [. . . .]
>
> Well, Barb, please don't feel compelled to thank me for taking a closer look
> at the recent history here. Let's see how it all began way back, uh, three
> days ago. So. . . .
>
> The trouble begins when I post "Harvey and Lee: The Forged W-2 Forms." The
> first followup is from Clark Williams, who writes, in part:

>
> We appreciate your interest in the case, Jim. However, the conclusion
> that the FBI issued the dental Lab's tax ID # in 1964 based on the IRS
> letter has been shown to be without merit. IRS record keeping changed in
>
> that year resulting in the date change.
>

> In a followup to Mr. Williams' post, I then express my amazement that the
> IRS information is "without merit." You enter the thread next and write, in
> part:

>
> As I see it, there has been an official explanation proffered for what
> seemed to be an "AHA" on the Oswald records....now the ball is
> back in the court of those who believe otherwise. So those who believe
> otherwise now have to do some further legwork.
>

> I then ask four times for your evidence of an "official explanation" for
> what Clark Williams determined to be IRS information "without merit."
>
> And, finally, finally it arrives... in the form of a John McAdams "inkling"
> that it was all a computer error. An inkling that the IRS, in 1995, was
> giving out false information about its own internally developed number
> system based on a computer upgrade three decades earlier. Bad information
> about Pfisterer's, bad information about Dolly Shoe, bad information about
> Tujague's. Bad, bad information.
>
> Please pardon my personal peculiarities, but I will never again do one
> minute of research based on anything John McAdams writes, be it an "inkling"
> or a damned epiphany. Until I see contrary evidence, I'm satisfied that the
> IRS knows when it issued its own tax numbers. Since you seem to feel
> strongly to the contrary, perhaps you should do some research yourself.
> I'd be willing to bet that Dr. McAdams can help you find a "helpful" source
> at the IRS, especially now that the significance of the issue dates is
> clear. And if that happens it WILL motivate me to do the additional
> research you have suggested.
>
> Until then, when you write that there has been an "official explanation
> proffered for what seemed to be an 'AHA' on the Oswald records," perhaps you
> should remind your readers that the "official explanation" is actually a
> McAdams "inkling." For many of us, that will speak volumes.
>
> Thanks for your attention.
>
> --Jim Hargrove

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/16/98

to

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:56:59 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Exactly, howard...and thank you. I'm afraid what started out as a simple comment

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/16/98

to

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:10:42 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Just for the record, John McAdams did not write the post I...uh, posted. It did come

>from his website.....initial comments and cites from IRS reports that had come to him
>from another person. If I wrote the intro to what I posted sloppily, so that it
>seemed as if I was attributing those comments to McAdams, I apologize.

Have you or McAdams found any evidence yet that the IRS representatives'
statements about the tax number creation dates were wrong?

If so, please post it.

--Jim

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Sep 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/16/98

to

Jim Hargrove wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:10:42 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Just for the record, John McAdams did not write the post I...uh, posted. It did come
> >from his website.....initial comments and cites from IRS reports that had come to him
> >from another person. If I wrote the intro to what I posted sloppily, so that it
> >seemed as if I was attributing those comments to McAdams, I apologize.
>
> Have you or McAdams found any evidence yet that the IRS representatives'
> statements about the tax number creation dates were wrong?
>
> If so, please post it.
>
> --Jim

Please read innumerable previous posts. I said I don't have any reason to think the info
the IRS man gave IS wrong. Geesh, Jim...please don't be turning this into something it's
not. I've given my opinion...and why; I've made a suggestion...and told you why. I really
don't have anything more to add.

Barb ;-)

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Sep 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/16/98

to

On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:27:30 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Please read innumerable previous posts. I said I don't have any reason to think the info

>the IRS man gave IS wrong. Geesh, Jim...please don't be turning this into something it's
>not. I've given my opinion...and why; I've made a suggestion...and told you why. I really
>don't have anything more to add.

I'm sorry, Barb, but this is about an American President shot dead in the
street like a rabid dog, the entire Federal government then turned against
him. . . .

Here's what you said two days ago:

As I see it, there has been an official explanation proffered for what
seemed to be an "AHA" on the Oswald records....now the ball is back in
the court of those who believe otherwise. So those who believe otherwise
now have to do some further legwork.

And here's what I say: