Oswald's High School

[Matt Grantham]

As Denis pointed out, it is unlikely that anyone in the Oswald family will go along with such a project. They were told when the exhumation occurred that would be the end of the double Oswald theories, in other words, that would prove or disprove them. Of course, the theorists (even Eddowes himself) went right back to work undaunted.

As for Pic, he simply did not think the photo looked like his brother (whom he had not seen for 10 years) and since he was under oath was trying to be careful. But at no time in his testimony, including at the end when he was asked if there was anything he would like to add, did he imply that there were two Oswalds. Armstrong also contacted him in the nineties and if he were interested in promoting such theories had the perfect chance to do so then. He declined and stuck by his WC testimony.

 Several points here

There are several photos, including when Oswald is young, where he cannot identify him

 One is whether Armstrong and Hargrove are being forthright and transparent

 Pic saw the Oswald who married Marina in on Thanksgiving 62 This was the first time he had seen him in 9 years

 The premise that it's unusual that someone would be able identify their half brother that they had known since age 12 after 9 years apart is questionable at best

[Bill Chapman]

I heard back from Jim Hargrove thanks to some help from one of the members here My main question was of course whether there was any effort to get DNA from some of the prodigy involved His advice read the book look at the website Oh well

Progeny, not prodigy

[Matt Grantham]

Progeny, not prodigy

Thanks Bill Somewhere in the back of my mind I felt something was a little funny I do take pride, or something similar, in my vocab, so this is a major demerit I did know the difference as soon as you mentioned it, so perhaps it is more of a neuron glitch than not actually not knowing the word. An F up for sure, but today I am cutting back on my pain killers

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Several points here

There are several photos, including when Oswald is young, where he cannot identify him

 One is whether Armstrong and Hargrove are being forthright and transparent

 Pic saw the Oswald who married Marina in on Thanksgiving 62 This was the first time he had seen him in 9 years

 The premise that it's unusual that someone would be able identify their half brother that they had known since age 12 after 9 years apart is questionable at best

Haven't you seen a family photo in a group setting and someone says "that doesn't even look like you." I personally have had this experience many times especially in years past when photography wasn't what it is now. He simply didn't think those photos looked like his brother and was being careful and truthful because he was under oath. Never does he say or imply that there were two of his brother and if you read his testimony that is clear. Armstrong uses the fact that he didn't think the photos looked like his brother to his advantage to persuade gullible readers (who are predisposed to believe his theories) that he has found some great truth.

In a case like this (especially when the family in question moved many times) there will be photos, documents and witness statements that do not jibe with the rest of the record. You have to look at the totality of the evidence to find the truth. Armstrong does not do that. He seizes on the expected inconsistencies to persuade those who are ready to be persuaded.

[Matt Grantham]

Haven't you seen a family photo in a group setting and someone says "that doesn't even look like you." I personally have had this experience many times especially in years past when photography wasn't what it is now. He simply didn't think those photos looked like his brother and was being careful and truthful because he was under oath. Never does he say or imply that there were two of his brother and if you read his testimony that is clear. Armstrong uses the fact that he didn't think the photos looked like his brother to his advantage to persuade gullible readers (who are predisposed to believe his theories) that he has found some great truth.

In a case like this (especially when the family in question moved many times) there will be photos, documents and witness statements that do not jibe with the rest of the record. You have to look at the totality of the evidence to find the truth. Armstrong does not do that. He seizes on the expected inconsistencies to persuade those who are ready to be persuaded.

 Sorry I disagree Pic could have easily qualified the statement by saying yes it looked a lot like my Brother but he had changed so much and it had been so long etc Nothing like that is stated it is a flat denial that has significance

[Matt Grantham]

 
This requires some reading between the lines, but it seems pretty odd at best


Ruth and Michael Paine responded exactly the same way when news broke that shots were believed to have originated from the Texas School Book Depository: they both immediately assumed that Oswald was involved. During a phone call placed at one pm November 22, 1963, Michael Paine calling from his office at Bell Helicopter to Ruth at home in Irving, this assumption receives a qualification: ?the male voice was heard to comment that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President, but did not feel OSWALD was responsible, and further stated, ?We both know who is responsible.?1 Whoever it is Michael Paine believed ?responsible? for the assassination it has remained closely held, as neither he or Ruth Paine have faced official scrutiny since 1968.