P. McBride Replies to D. Lifton -- text version (short)
Jim Hargrove
Following is a letter to David Lifton from Palmer McBride in reaction to Mr.
Lifton's ARRB correspondence (quoted in its entirety in my post above). Mr.
McBride recently sent a copy of this letter to me, which follows
immediately.
<QUOTE ON>
March 10, 1999
Mr. David Lifton
11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Dear Mr. Lifton,
Enclosed is a letter you wrote to the ARRB on September 4, 1998 In
that letter you state that "McBride erred by a year, and said he
knew Oswald in 1957 (and 1958), rather than the Spring of 1956". You
are just plain wrong and for unknown reasons you are unwilling to
accept mine and other peoples statements that they worked with
Oswald at Pfisterers in 1957/1958 instead of 1956.
When you spoke with the current Pfisterer President, Linda
Faircloth, she told you Oswald worked at Pfisterers in 1957 and
1958. You immediately told her she was wrong and began to brow
beat her until she finally hung up on you.
When you interviewed me you already knew that I told the FBI I
worked with Oswald in 1957 and 1958. You handed me Oswalds
marine records which showed Oswald was in Japan in 1957 and
1958. You then insisted that I must have known Oswald in 1956--
before he went in the marines. You insisted again and again that
Oswald was in Japan in 1957 and 1958 and that my FBI statement
was wrong. In order to bring the interview to a close I reluctantly
said that perhaps I was mistaken in view of the marine records you
presented. I agreed to give you an interview because I thought you
were interested in what I told the FBI in 1963. I had no idea that
your real intention was to insist that I knew Oswald in 1956 and
use this interview to support your viewpoint.
After you left I began to re-think the years that I worked with
Oswald. I worked with Oswald every day for over six months, visited
his apartment, played records with him at my house, went to the
movies together, to lunch, on double dates, etc., etc. My first memory
of Oswald was pegged to Sputnik (Russian space successes) and no
one in America knew the word "Sputnik" until October 4, 1957. There
were no known Russian space successes of any kind prior to that date.
After Sputnik was launched is when Oswald and I discussed Eisenhowers
failure to support the US space program even though the
armed forces of the US feared that Russian rocket launchers gave
them superiority over the US. Because of these dates I know with
------------------------ END OF PAGE 1 ----------------------------
absolute certainty that I worked with Oswald during late 1957 and
approximately 6 months in 1958. I quit Pfisterers in August, 1958
and clearly remember that Oswald quit about a month before I quit. I
do not understand why you keep insisting that I knew Oswald in
1956, but I do know you are wrong. In addition to the statement I
gave the FBI on November 23, 1963, I would like to inform you of
the following people and their statements. I challenge you to address
and explain the following:
• How I could have spoken to Oswald about "Russian space successes"
in 1956 (there were none known until October 4, 1957).
• I visited the Oswalds apartment at the Hotel Senator (across the
street from Pfisterers-an address which was unknown to the
Warren Commission). The Warren Commission says Oswald was
living at 126 Exchange Place when he was working at
Pfisterers. But in order to get to Exchange Place you must walk
west from the Pfisterer Dental Lab (225 Dauphine St.) to Canal
Street, turn south and walk past Bourbon Street, Royal Street,
and then to Exchange Place. You then turn left and walk a block
east to 126 Exchange (Oswalds apartment). Oswald and I
walked across the street (less than 30 feet) to his apartment
at the Hotel Senator (where he showed me Das Kapital) and not
several blocks to 126 Exchange Place.
• I told the FBI that I had taken Oswald with me to a meeting of the
NOAAA at the home of Walter Gehrke. Walter subsequently told
the FBI that none of the meetings of the NOAAA were held at
his house until 1958 (Walter was not even a member of the
NOAAA in 1956, 50 we could not have held a meeting at his
house in 1956 !!)
• My good friend and fellow NOAAA member Harry Vance took my
place at Pfisterers for one day in 1958 and met Oswald at
that time.
• Linda Faircloth, current President of Pfisterers, spoke to the
owners of Pfisterers (Leveque, Cagel, Bischoff, and
Kline) in 1984. They told her Oswald had worked there in 1957
and 1958. She also told you Oswald worked at Pfisterers in
1957 and 1958.
• Paul Fiorello, whose first job was at Pfisterers, and began work in
February, 1956, remembered Oswald began work at Pfisterers
"a couple of years after he started"--circa 1958.
• William Wulf testified before the Warren Commission. The Warren
Commission attorney asked Wulf about knowing Oswald in
1954-55 at the NOAAA. These dates are just plain silly!! Wulf
------------------------------- END PAGE 2 ----------------------------
was not even a member of the NOAAA at that time. Wulf, when
interviewed in 1995, stated he definitely met Oswald in early
1958. Wulf remembered he was sick the entire 1956-57 school
year. He re-entered school in the fall of 1957 and met Oswald
shortly after Christmas of 1957.
I encourage you to interview the above witnesses and obtain their
statements. I then look forward to your comments. If you ignore all
of these people and my November 23, 1963 FBI statement (WC
#1386), then you are simply not interested in the truth and I am
sorry for you. I was there in 1957 and 1958 and you weren't.
If you or anyone have any questions or would like to discuss this
further, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Palmer McBride
8741 Lehigh
Sun Valley, CA 91352
818-252-0912
cc: JFK researchers and publishers
<QUOTE OFF>
I've tried to make these OCR scans as accurate as I can, but for those
interested in seeing graphic representations of the actual documents,
bitmaps of the correspondence follow this post.
--Jim Hargrove
Richard Martin
To Jim Hargrove:
None of this changes the fact that LHO's tax records and Social Security
records were in fact located, and they do not support McBrides account.
So that should really be the end of it.
All you're doing, by continuing to spread this stuff around, is to
demonstrate the fact that faced with documentary evidence that demolishes
the Armstrong thesis, you are willing to ignore that evidence and instead
attempt to rely on faulty recollections that are 30 and even up to 45 years
old.
Much of John Armstrong's "investigation" unfortunately is based on the fact
that he doesn't grasp what common sense dictates and what any freshman is
taught in a law school class on evidence: the man doesn't understand the
difference between the power of a real-time computer record, and a 40 year
old recollection. In that sense, he has invented his own version of the
best evidence "concept"---if it agrees with my hypothesis, it must be true.
Never mind the documentary record.
Consequently, Armstrong's "investigation" has much in common with what
Garrison used to do---it resembles more of a "witness recruitment program"
than an exercise in fact finding. Armstrong is a guy who goes around to
witnesses and attempts to sell them on his version of history, even to the
point of persuading them that their 30, even 40 year old recollections, are
superior to documented records (and I suspect, selling them on the idea
that they will get fame and fortune because of some view he wants them to
espouse). And then provides plane tickets to conventions where they can
indulge themselves in this idea.
I don't fault any witness for making an honest error of memory. That
happens all the time. But when Armstrong methodically goes around to
people in the 1990s and attempts to get them to change their recollections,
or urges them to place their recollections over documents such as
computerized Social Security records, the guy is behaving like a used car
salesman, or worse; and doing a real disservice to history and the truth.
Unfortunately, history isn't determined by those who make the best pitch
for their brand of snake oil. It is determined by evidence, and the ARRB
analysis of the situation, as set forth in the Doug Horne memo, and backed
up by the LHO tax records and the LHO Soc Security records---an
investigation which I (among others) lobbied heavily for---should be the
final word on where Oswald worked, and when.
But to fantasts like Armstrong, of course, it will not be. Because to them,
the faulty hypotheses to which they cling is more important than the solid
evidence that is in the record---in this case, in the tax records of LHO
and in Social Security records.
DSL
Jim Hargrove
<richwi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>[FORWARDED FOR DAVID LIFTON]
>
>To Jim Hargrove:
>
>None of this changes the fact that LHO's tax records and Social Security
>records were in fact located, and they do not support McBrides account.
>
>So that should really be the end of it.
The "records" that "were in fact located" are, in fact, graphic files on
somebody's Web page and at this point little more. The National Archives,
as recently as four months ago, long after these "records" were "located"
informed me that "the documents you requested are still postponed in full.
We are awaiting a decision by the Internal Revenue Service."
A scanned image of that letter is included as a follow-up to this post.
Why have Oswald's pre-Marine IRS records been kept secret for 36 years?
Because they collide with the Official Legend, that's why.
--Jim Hargrove
AnthonyMarsh
>
> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 13:07:56 -0700, Richard Martin
> <richwi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >To Jim Hargrove:
> >
> >None of this changes the fact that LHO's tax records and Social Security
> >records were in fact located, and they do not support McBrides account.
> >
> >So that should really be the end of it.
>
> somebody's Web page and at this point little more. The National Archives,
> as recently as four months ago, long after these "records" were "located"
> informed me that "the documents you requested are still postponed in full.
> We are awaiting a decision by the Internal Revenue Service."
>
> A scanned image of that letter is included as a follow-up to this post.
>
> Why have Oswald's pre-Marine IRS records been kept secret for 36 years?
> Because they collide with the Official Legend, that's why.
>
> --Jim Hargrove
There is some type of legal principle involved here. I forget what it is
called, but Roger Feinman spoke about it at one of the conferences. It
goes something like this: If the prosecution deliberately withholds,
alters or destroys a piece of evidence, there is a legal presumption
that the piece of evidence is genuine and important.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Joe Backes
Armstrong's theory I must point out two errors here so far.
1.) The tax records collected by the ARRB are not being released NOT (please
excuse the double negative) because their disclosure would enhance Armstrong's
theory, which apparently Hargrove agrees with but because they cannot release
them by law. I would refer people to reading the ARRB's final report. And my
campaign to change Section 6103 of the IRS Code which was on the JFK Lancer
LINE site. It may still be on the Lancer site somewhere.
2.) I don't know what Marsh is talking about.
"Evidence" is not being withheld, altered or destroyed here. The IRS wanted
this material released. The Archives wanted it released. It is Congress who
said no. Section 6103 of the IRS Code must be amended then LHO's tax records
and employment records, which are separate from tax records and involve the
Social Security Administration would be released, as well as similar records
for many other individuals and groups relating to the assassination of
President Kennedy.
Marsh might be referring to Brady, a law that came out of a Supreme Court Case
(Maryland vs. Brady ?) wherein if the prosecution has any evidence pointing to
the innocence of the accused they must turn it over to the defense.
Unfortunately, this law is not exactly vigorously enforced or even applied as
it should be. How would the defense know what the prosecution has, especially
something pointing to the innocence of a client? Yes, there is "discovery" but
if the prosecution decides to withhold something and never tells anyone,
there's little the defense can do about it if they don't know.
Wayne Chastian tried to apply Brady to get at material evidence for James Earl
Ray only to have the judge in the case say he was not entitled to Brady! I
think it was the first Brady motion applied in Tennessee at the time. I
believe I wrote about this in "Memphis Miasma part II" on Fair Play.
Joe Backes
Sam McClung
> Without getting into the point of Hargroove vs. Lifton on the validity of
> Armstrong's theory I must point out two errors here so far.
>
> 1.) The tax records collected by the ARRB are not being released NOT (please
> excuse the double negative) because their disclosure would enhance Armstrong's
> theory, which apparently Hargrove agrees with but because they cannot release
> them by law. I would refer people to reading the ARRB's final report. And my
> campaign to change Section 6103 of the IRS Code which was on the JFK Lancer
> LINE site. It may still be on the Lancer site somewhere.
>
> 2.) I don't know what Marsh is talking about.
> "Evidence" is not being withheld, altered or destroyed here. The IRS wanted
> this material released. The Archives wanted it released. It is Congress who
> said no. Section 6103 of the IRS Code must be amended then LHO's tax records
> and employment records, which are separate from tax records and involve the
> Social Security Administration would be released, as well as similar records
> for many other individuals and groups relating to the assassination of
> President Kennedy.
I believe you are absolutely correct.
In a somewhat recent case out of Galveston, Texas, a "victim" of unauthorized
disclosure of taxpayer data by the IRS and / or IRS employees was awarded damages
of over 1 million dollars, if I recall correctly.
Maintaining the confidentiality of taxpayer data is strictly adherred to by the
IRS, with few exceptions that I have heard of.
Sam
Jim Hargrove
>Without getting into the point of Hargroove vs. Lifton on the validity of
>Armstrong's theory I must point out two errors here so far.
>
>1.) The tax records collected by the ARRB are not being released NOT (please
>excuse the double negative) because their disclosure would enhance Armstrong's
>theory, which apparently Hargrove agrees with but because they cannot release
>them by law. I would refer people to reading the ARRB's final report. And my
>campaign to change Section 6103 of the IRS Code which was on the JFK Lancer
>LINE site. It may still be on the Lancer site somewhere.
That LINE release contained a couple of minor errors, Joe, and in case
anyone reads it, I want to repost here a correction I noted last December.
<QUOTE ON>
On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 05:54:27 GMT, Debra Conway <de...@jfklancer.com> wrote:
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
[. . . .]
>These tax records would answer questions about Lee Harvey Oswald's employment
>history that arise from him appearing to be in two places at the same time.
>While Oswald was a Marine in Japan, many still-living individuals claim he was
>working in New Orleans for Pfisterer Dental Lab Co., The Dolly Shoe Company,
>and an import/export firm, Gerald F. Tujague. He could not be at both places
>at the same time. They would also answer questions as to his earnings,
>specifically while a Marine and how he could possibly afford to travel on his
>own money to Russia to "defect." They may also answer lingering questions as
>to whether Oswald was an employee of an American intelligence agency.
[. . . .]
Megathanks to Debra Conway and JFK Lancer for this much-needed suggestion.
The release through U.S. government channels of Lee Harvey Oswald's tax and
Social Security records is of paramount importance to a number of
researchers, especially John Armstrong, who are analyzing wildly conflicting
evidence concerning his early employment.
There is, however, a minor correction needed in the paragraph above. Of the
three employers listed (Dolly Shoes, Tujague, and Pfisterer Dental Lab) the
recollections of eyewitnesses indicate that only Oswald's employment at
Pfisterer Dental Lab conflicts with the time the Warren Commission had
Oswald in the Marines. Palmer McBride and others recall that Oswald worked
at Pfisterer in 1956 and 1957, when he was supposed to be in Japan.
Eyewitness recollections of Oswald's employment at Dolly Shoes and Gerard
Turjague's conflict not with his service in the Marines, but with his
attendance at various schools and his employment at J.R. Michels.
DOLLY SHOES
Oswald worked at Dolly Shoes during the early months of 1955. Because he
was also attending Beauregard school, the Warren Commission stated that he
was only a part-time employee at Dolly Shoes. But store manager Louis
Marzialle recalled that Oswald was employed full-time and worked during the
day. The question becomes, then, will Oswald's tax records reflect
part-time or full-time earnings at Dolly Shoes?
TUJAGUE'S
The Warren Commission reported that Oswald worked at Tujague's for only
about two months, from 11/55 to 1/56. But eyewitnesses such as Robert
Oswald, Frank DiBenedetto (Oswald's supervisor at Tujague's) and Gloria
Callaghan (a secretary at Tujague's) have indicated that he worked there
much longer, roughly from the summer of 1955 until the summer of 1956. This
extended period of employment conflicts with Oswald's attendance at Warren
Easton High School in the fall of 1955 as well as his employment at J.R.
Michels in January 1956.
<QUOTE OFF>
>2.) I don't know what Marsh is talking about.
>"Evidence" is not being withheld, altered or destroyed here. The IRS wanted
>this material released. The Archives wanted it released. It is Congress who
>said no. Section 6103 of the IRS Code must be amended then LHO's tax records
>and employment records, which are separate from tax records and involve the
>Social Security Administration would be released, as well as similar records
>for many other individuals and groups relating to the assassination of
>President Kennedy.
Bureaucrats have been dancing for years through the U.S. Code trying to find
reasons not to release Oswald's pre-Marine earnings reports. In a letter
dated (stamped) July 28, 1978, SSA Associate Commissioner Robert P. Bynum
wrote to Jackie Hess of the HSCA and cited 42 U.S.C. 405(c)2 and 26 U.S.C.
6103 as reasons for not releasing employer statements for Oswald's
pre-Marine years.
Instead, Bynum offered the HSCA three pages from the Warren Report, as
follows: "23. Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re
employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps."
Remarkably, though, Bynum provided detailed earnings statements for Oswald's
post-Marine employment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, William B. Reily, and the
TSBD. I've never heard a logical explanation for this, and I know the
reason why one will not be forthcoming.
--Jim Hargrove
Jim Hargrove
wrote:
>Palmer McBride and others recall that Oswald worked
>at Pfisterer in 1956 and 1957, when he was supposed to be in Japan.
Ooops! The above should have read "Oswald worked at Pfisterer in 1957 and
1958...." Now I'm doing it!
--Jim Hargrove
dli...@earthlink.net
seriously.
LHO's tax records AND real-time Social Security records were located by the
ARRB, analyzed carefully, and were the subject of a detailed memo by ARRB
analyst Doug Horne.
That memo---with its numerous attachments (including LHO's tax returns)---
completely refutes the Armstrong thesis, insofar as it depends on the notion
that Oswald worked at Pfisterer for any period later than Spring of 1956.
That memo---with its IRS attachments---was given by Doug Horne to Debra Conway
and has been available at JFK Lancer for $25. Moreover, by
IRS attachments I am referring to LHO's IRS records for 1956 (when the form
makes clear he worked at Pfisterer), 1958, 1959, and 1962.
So statements that the only source for the IRS documents is a fuzzy copy at
someone's website are just plain false.
Moreover, those same tax records had been obtained by Marina Oswald and given
to the La Fontaines, with the understanding that they would be made public.
(The LaFontaines never kept their promise. But Bill Adams did post the
returns, after McAdams posted the 1956 return)
No matter. Oswald's tax records are available as attachments to the Doug Horne
memo, and as noted can be obtained from JFK Lancer.
As to the Social Security records, they were also obtained by the ARRB, and
are also discussed in detail in the same ARRB memo. As required by law,
PFisterer reported quarterly on a Form 941 to the Social Security
Adminstration as to each of its employees. These Form 941s for Pfisterer
were obtained by the ARRB and show that Oswald worked at Pfisterer in Spring
of 1956, and no later.
This is all discussed in the Horne memo. Obviously there are federal laws
that govern the actual release of tax and Social Security information. In
the case of certain forms, the actual documents were placed at the Archives
with RIFS that say that they will be released when the law creating the ARRB
is changed.
But the fact is that Doug Horne found that the actual IRS documents had been
released to the HSCA during its life; located those particular documents,
made them attachments to his memo; and when his memo was released, he then
brought all that to Dallas and provided it to Debra Conway who then made it
avialable to the public.Again I repeat: the LHO tax data is available because
they were attachments to the ARRB memo authored by Horne.
In view of this, it should be obvious that:
a. THe Armstrong thesis is wrong; because the 1956 tax return that Oswald
filed showed he worked at Pfisterer that Spring.
b. The Armstrong thesis is wrong because the Social Security Agency form 941
also shows that he worked at Pfisterer that spring, this based on information
that Pfisterer reported to the Social Security Agency at that time, and that
has been on their computers ever since.
c. All the statements by Hargrove that Oswald's tax returns are not available
are wrong. They are available as attachments to the ARRB Memo authored by
Horne, and sold by JFK Lancer for $25
d. All the statements by Hargrove that they are being withheld because they
conflict with some US Government "legend" re Oswald are wrong. That is an
Armstrong/Hargrove fantasy, and represents the "paranoid style" of reasoning
that has become so famous in this country, and with regard to some issues.
Finally, the letter that I wrote the ARRB ---which is available and which
Hargrove posts as if he has discovered some secret to the universe--represents
nothing more than my own genuine effort to tell the ARRB to do their job, and
make sure they get these records before they closed shop. Which they did.
I was not the only person to urge the ARRB to do so. Armstrong himself, and
his cohort Carol Hewitt also made such requests.
All in all, the ARRB did the job they were supposed to do, and got the
documents. ANd the documents refute the theory.
Too bad. But that's life.
What did Doug Horne get for all this work? When he was at Lancer, John
Armstrong didn't even speak to him, and Carol Hewitt came over to his table
when he was having breakfast in the restaurant raised her voice and scolded
him for writing a memo that went against Armstrong's theory; which, she said,
he had "no right" to do.
Go figure.
What would it take to convince fantasts like Armstrong, Hargrove, and the
rest of them that Oswald didn't work at Pfisterer past Spring, 1956? I don't
know. Perhaps a time machine. Then they could go back to New Orleans, and to
Pfisterers, in Spring of 1956, and go make the rounds with Oswald when he did
his duties as a messenger. And speak to him about how he was looking forward
to joining the Marines the next fall, when he turned 17.
Because that's what the record indicates is what happened.
And using such a device, they perhaps could watch as Oswald left Pfisterer on
his last day; and then at the end of June, moved with his mother to Fort
Worth; and then, in October, joined the Marines. Because that is also what
the documentary record shows happened.
But since no such device exists, Armstrong, Harvgrove et al can persist in
their foolish theory on this point, even though it is refuted by the
documentary record. Even though they have to drag the whole Oswald family
into a conspiracy theory to pretend events happened some other way.
Re the tax and Soc Security records---that is the kind of documentary record
that any real historian would take (and should take) seriously.
Of course, Armstrong isn't a historian. Instead, he runs around looking up
people from Oswald's past, and is trying to sell them on the idea that his
theory is right, that incorrect memories should prevail, and that the
documentary record has either been falsified, or is being withheld---both of
which are false.
David Lifton
In article <370d543a...@news.enteract.com>,
harg...@enteract.com (Jim Hargrove) wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 13:07:56 -0700, Richard Martin
> <richwi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >[FORWARDED FOR DAVID LIFTON]
> >
> >To Jim Hargrove:
> >
> >None of this changes the fact that LHO's tax records and Social Security
> >records were in fact located, and they do not support McBrides account.
> >
> >So that should really be the end of it.
>
> The "records" that "were in fact located" are, in fact, graphic files on
> somebody's Web page and at this point little more. The National Archives,
> as recently as four months ago, long after these "records" were "located"
> informed me that "the documents you requested are still postponed in full.
> We are awaiting a decision by the Internal Revenue Service."
>
> A scanned image of that letter is included as a follow-up to this post.
>
> Why have Oswald's pre-Marine IRS records been kept secret for 36 years?
> Because they collide with the Official Legend, that's why.
>
> --Jim Hargrove
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Joe Backes
someone's website are just plain false. >>
David, correct me if I'm wrong but the tax returns on Bill Adams site are not
in the Horne memo.
This is wrong:
<< In the case of certain forms, the actual documents were placed at the
Archives
with RIFS that say that they will be released when the law creating the ARRB
is changed. >>
It's not the law that created the ARRB that needs to be changed. It's Section
6103 of the IRS Code that needs to be changed. That's what the RIF's say.
Joe Backes
Jim Hargrove
>The post below is a good example of why Armstrong et al should not be taken
>seriously.
Well, you seem to be working hard.
>That memo---with its IRS attachments---was given by Doug Horne to Debra Conway
>and has been available at JFK Lancer for $25. Moreover, by
>IRS attachments I am referring to LHO's IRS records for 1956 (when the form
>makes clear he worked at Pfisterer), 1958, 1959, and 1962.
I don't believe it. Please prove your point. Please scan LHO's pre-Marine
IRS forms you say are attached to Mr. Horne's memo and post them here. Not
some graphic from a Website, but an official release. I believe it would
have "RELEASED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES" or similar wording very close to
the trim line.
Thank you.
--Jim Hargrove
AnthonyMarsh
JFK Lancer can be an important research tool. We are all anxiously
awaiting your book on Oswald. I hope that it comes out before the
Bugliosi book so that we will have some facts to rebut his errors.
These Internet newsgroups can also be a sounding board for some
controversies and I hope that you will try to answer some of the
controversies in your book. For example, we have been debating what
Oswald told Frazier about going to Irving to pick up some curtain rods
and curtains that Marina was making for Lee. Perhaps you can help
resolve that by tracking down whether Oswald had ever owned any curtain
rods of his own. And you could ask Marina if she even knew how to sew
and if Lee had ever asked her to make curtains for him.
--
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 13:07:56 -0700, Richard Martin
><richwi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>[FORWARDED FOR DAVID LIFTON]
>>
>>To Jim Hargrove:
>>
>>None of this changes the fact that LHO's tax records and Social Security
>>records were in fact located, and they do not support McBrides account.
>>
>>So that should really be the end of it.
>
>The "records" that "were in fact located" are, in fact, graphic files on
>somebody's Web page and at this point little more. The National Archives,
>as recently as four months ago, long after these "records" were "located"
>informed me that "the documents you requested are still postponed in full.
>We are awaiting a decision by the Internal Revenue Service."
>
>A scanned image of that letter is included as a follow-up to this post.
>
>Why have Oswald's pre-Marine IRS records been kept secret for 36 years?
>Because they collide with the Official Legend, that's why.
>
>--Jim Hargrove
Hey Jim...have you talked to Armstrong yet and asked if he did a
proofing study on the 1964 issuance of the EINs....by researching EINS
from other emploeyers in business at the same time in the same area
and seeing if their EINs come back noted as generated in January 1964?
As I've said before, that's the simple (not to mention logical...sigh)
way to solve this part of the debate. You said you'd ask Armstrong. I
suggested you do it yourself. Is anything being done about this? If
not....one has to ask *why not*....it would prove your thesis about
the EINs from Oswald's employers once and for all if done correctly.
Any reason Armstrong or one of his enclave is reluctant to research
this?
Barb :-)