Hi Ralph, I see that thanks to Duncan's most benevolent amnesty you are free again to clog this forum with your baseless claims.
John Armstrong provides zero evidence that Robert Oswald "was in on the plot", that "He was a conspirator" or that "He
was involved in framing Oswald." Please provide some specific citation for your claims. I guess you still haven't read Robert Oswald's book on his brother or Jean Stafford's book on their mother, because those books are bogus, right? Remember this earlier brain fahrt of yours?
You didn't provide any credible evidence there and then as to why Robert Oswald and his book are bogus either and you kindly deleted this further head implosion of yours from your own blog:
So could you now please supply your exact John Armstrong sources that prove your latest claims about Robert Oswald?
What???????????? Are you completely in the dark about what John Armstrong claims?
John Armstrong claims that Robert Oswald was not even really the brother of the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame. And he claims that neither of them were the sons of the Marguerite Oswald of fame.
I recall John citing a specific reference to Robert Oswald's WC testimony, which was lead by Allen Dulles himself, in which they deliberately misconstrued the facts pertaining to Lee's education in order to hide the fact that there were two LHOs.
And it so happens that my recent blogpost concerns Robert Oswald and his lies about the photo he took of LHO, who was not the LHO of fame. It was his real brother- not the LHO of fame- and it was taken when the LHO of fame was in Russia. The LHO of fame was NEVER this stocky at any time in his short life.
I'm telling you that that is not the LHO of fame, and so is John Armstrong. Here's my recent post:
And regarding the issue of Marguerite, I still stand behind what I said- in spades. It is macabre to think that a real mother would hang pictures on the wall of her son battered and bruised. It is unthinkable that she would hang a piece of art which made him look twisted and demented. But, furthermore, she had no access to those images. One was a magazine cover. So how could she get the original art? All she could do is hang the cover, right? But, that isn't the cover; it's the art, apart from the cover. So, where did she get it? Inquiring minds want to know, but that obviously does not include you. And, the other battered and bruised photo was just a press photo published in the newspapers, but where did she get an actual photo of it to hang on the wall? All she could do was cut the clipping out of the newspaper, right? But, that isn't a newspaper clipping; it's a photo. So, where did she get it?
You better take a look at this again. Somebody is farting here, but it isn't me.
Could you really be stupid enough to think that I'm the one who has anything to answer for here? Amazingly, the answer is yes.