Lee Harvey Oswald’s application to work at the Texas School Book Depository

Take a look. See anything suspicious?

Oswald's TSBC application

88 comments

  1. Brian Kelshaw says:

    The address is the Paine’s, which isn’t the address they had on record when he was supposedly the only one missing from the TSBD?

  2. Yeah, that copy is a complete forgery. Where did that version come from, Jeff? It’s certainly not the original TSBD application in LHO’s handwriting (which is CE496). Here’s what the real one filled out by Oswald looks like….
    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/lho-tsbd-work-application.html

    • Remarkably I find myself in agreement with David Von Pein here. It appears that this copy is a forgery. The handwriting is not the same as Oswald’s handwriting on the original.

      I think Von Pein’s assessment of Oswald as a liar is excessive, and his finally conclusions that Oswald was the loan assassin absurd, but this document is a forgery – OR the first copy is.

      How can that issue be resolved?
      \\][//

      • WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

        I think Von Pein’s assessment of Oswald as a liar is excessive.

        DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

        But there’s no doubt that Oswald DID tell some lies when he filled out his TSBD application. Hence, Oswald was a “liar” (and provably so) when it comes to certain portions of his Texas School Book Depository application.

        ———

        NOTE — More of my response to Willy can be found at the link below (because I was told my last comment was too long to be accepted here at JFKFacts)….

        http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-920.html

          • BTW,

            V.J. Brian was a detective for the DPD, and he did provide WC testimony (but not with respect to this topic of the copy of the LHO job application)….

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brian.htm

          • Addendum….

            Here’s the “Brian” copy as seen on the “Texas History” site….

            http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190981/m1/3/

          • pat speer says:

            Here’s the note explaining the Brian “copy” contained within the Dallas Archives.

            http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190981/m1/1/sizes/

            Note that it claims it’s a copy, and not a reproduction! I took a internet trip through the Dallas JFK Archives, moreover, and confirmed that Brian was in the intelligence division, who interviewed people about Jack Ruby, etc, and that there is no record of him investigating Oswald’s employment history, etc, whereby he might have “innocently” asked for a job app from the TSBD and then “copied” Oswald’s answers onto it, y’know, just for his own use, yadda yadda yadda. This is bizarre to say the least. I mean, it’s not as if they didn’t have photocopiers back then. The Dallas Archives is filled with ’em.

          • pat speer says:

            By “filled with ’em” I meant filled with photocopies, not photocopiers!

          • pat speer says:

            Roy Truly’s testimony regarding the job application is slightly curious, IMO. Note that CE 496 is a copy, and not the original. Note that Truly refuses to say he recognizes the handwriting on the form as Oswald’s, and refuses to recognize the form as the one he gave Oswald to fill out. It seems from this he had some doubts about the form. Note also then that Belin doesn’t ask him if this is a copy of the form he supplied the ?????

            Where was the original job app, and who gave the WC the copy of the original? Not the DPD. The only App in their files was the re-production. The FBI, then. I’ll keep looking until I find something in the FBI’s files acknowledging they acquired the job app and had someone double-check the handwriting to make sure it was Oswald’s, etc, the way they did with so many other documents.

            Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 496, which appears to be a photostatic copy of a document, and I ask you to state if you know what that is.

            (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 496 for identification.)

            Mr. TRULY. This is a copy of the application blank that Oswald filled out. I am not familiar with his handwriting, because he didn’t do anything that we have records of. All the work that he ever did was put his number or something.
            Mr. BELIN. Well, my first question is this: Is this particular form a form of your company?
            Mr. TRULY. That is one form; yes. We changed it a little bit, and this might have been just one that I pulled out. I can’t recall whether it is the one we use now or the one we did use.
            Mr. BELIN. Well, was this a form that you were using at about the time he came for employment?
            Mr. TRULY. Yes.
            (At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)
            Mr. BELIN. Did you see him fill this out? Was it in your office or not?
            Mr. TRULY. Yes. He was sitting opposite me, and he filled it out on my desk.
            Mr. BELIN. He filled this Exhibit 496 out on your desk?
            Mr. TRULY. Yes.
            Mr. BELIN. At this time we offer in evidence Exhibit 496.

          • pat speer says:

            Sure enough, there is an FBI report indicating they acquired the original job app from the TSBD.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=178

            1. Note the date. The FBI scooped up the original job app before the DPD–who was at that time in charge of the case–could get a look at it.
            2. Why did the FBI give the WC a copy?
            3. What happened to the original? Is it still in the FBI’s files?
            4. Does anyone know what happened to the TSBD’s files? The thought occurs that the copy retained by the TSBD might be different than the one entered into evidence as CE 496.
            5. On the other hand, this report might help explain why the DPD had a reproduction and not a copy. IF the copy of the job app provided the TSBD when the FBI took the original was of poor quality, Det. Brian may have simply decided he was better off reproducting the app than asking the FBI for a decent copy.

          • John Rowell says:

            For Mr. Pat Speer: the memo you supplied reads “Attached is a copy made by Detective V.J. Brian of the Intelligence Section, of the application SUBJECT made at the TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY at the time he made application for employment at that location.”

            This means Det. Brian made the copy on or about October 15th. Do you read it the same?

      • George says:

        “I think Von Pein’s assessment of Oswald as a liar is excessive, and his finally conclusions that Oswald was the loan assassin absurd, but this document is a forgery – OR the first copy is.” Willy W.

        Nonsense. THIS Oswald could certainly have been a loan assassin since he had accounting experience in the Marines.

        • “Nonsense. THIS Oswald could certainly have been a loan assassin since he had accounting experience in the Marines.”~George

          So is this the “George” that is actually a 12 year old girl?
          \\][//

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Please George or whoever,quit teasing Willy.
          What do either of you think about Oswald’s application? Or who told him to apply?

          • George says:

            Take your pick between the FBI, FBI informants inside the TEC and Ruth Paine.

            The only absolute is that Roy Truly was inside man for the operation.

            Oswald believed he was placed in there to keep on eye on Joe Molina since Molina’s regular FBI snitch/stalker, William Lowery, had outed himself in September – just prior to the intrepid duo of Frazier and Oswald appearing on the scene and around the time the media reported the Trade Mart luncheon had been added to the itinerary, which would take the motorcade down Main and inevitably past the TSBD…

          • “What do either of you think about Oswald’s application?”~Ronnie Wayne

            I think it is a tempest in a thimble, like many issues in this case.
            \\][//

          • “Please George or whoever…”~Ronnie Wayne

            “George” is Greg Parker, why he uses an alias here is a mystery, other than he is probably ashamed of his known history by now.

            He seems to be adept at passing himself off as a clueless juvenile on web forums.
            \\][//

          • Georgia,

            While there is a chance that you may overcome the dreadful first impressions you made when you first began posting here, I think it would really be beneficial if you would dispense with the pretense of omniscience as displayed in this sentence:
            “Oswald believed he was placed in there to keep on eye on Joe Molina…”

            A novelist can use such devices as this and get away with it through “artistic license”.
            Honest researchers only appear foolish when they pretend they know what the characters in these events were thinking.

            It is simply a matter of taking care in the construction of your writing, and avoiding the appearance of presumption.

            It would also be good of you to offer sources for your assertions.
            \\][//

    • Robert Paul says:

      True, but it is marked “Copy” at the very top – center. All the information is identical to CE496. Note that LOH’s signature is marked “by Brian” with an ID number. Brian’s handwriting is easier to read than Oswald’s chicken scratch.

      • Robert Paul,

        As you say the info is identical. I think it was a “copy” made to be more easily read. I agree with you, this is the most simple explanation.
        \\][//

        • JohnR says:

          If that were the case, Mr. Whitten, then why didn’t he type it? This makes no sense to me.

          • JohnR says:

            I’m sure it doesn’t mean anything, but I find it curious that “Brian” does not correct Lee’s spelling when transcribing the word “michine,” even though he does correct “honourable.” Like I said, it probably doesn’t mean anything. Maybe “Brian” couldn’t spell the word, either. What can I say? I’m a nerd.

    • gerry campeau says:

      Looks like Von Pein is right but who is to say that both are not fakes
      http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_496.pdf

    • Frank says:

      Ignoring the handwriting for a moment and focusing instead on the typewritten text of the copy, it appears that it is indeed identical to the apparent original with the exception that the letter images show gaps and light areas compared with the apparent original that I would characterize as consistent with a carbon, or pressure copy of the apparent original.

      Wasn’t this how business forms were configured back then; with pressure sensitive multiple sheets? The idea was of course that not only would the typed parts be transferred to copies, but that the later inscribed handwritten parts would also transfer. Apparently one of the secretarial tasks would have been to source a stack of these typewritten application forms for ready access and use. If each application form was done separately by a typist, one would expect to see inconsistencies between them but with various minor differences and typos transferred to the underlying pressure sheets within a given application form. These two appear to have no inconsistency between them except for the differences noted. So maybe the typist was excellent and they are from two separate application forms where one is an original and one is a pressure copy but with original handwriting on it (a possibility) or the process was automated, teletype style, at a printer or within the office so all forms were indeed identical and again, we see a top sheet and an underlying pressure sheet from two disassembled application forms, and both with original handwriting by two people. A definitive technical interpretation along these lines is beyond my knowledge but if these observations are deemed worthy, maybe someone can clarify. Plus we do need to know who Brian is and who he worked for.

      So while it is obvious that there is different handwriting, what is the explanation for both the differences and the similarities in type text between the apparent original and the apparent pressure copy, if pressure copies were indeed used?

      • Frank says:

        I didn’t delve into photocopies because I didn’t think it likely that they were using them in the TSBD, but it is definitely possible and would explain a lower quality second generation copy, but then it’s a new set of questions as to the story behind what we are seeing. Who made the copy and why?

    • Roy W Kornbluth says:

      David,
      You are joking, right? As someone who was in the education game for a lucky 13 years and nearly ruined my eyesight on tens of thousands of pages of scribbling, OBVIOUSLY CE 496 is in cursive and the “COPY” they asked him to put in printing. They are both the same person. The signatures vary in flamboyance, which is a major point in FAVOR.
      In all modesty, I should be FBI’s highest paid handwriting analyst. Penmanship is not produced by machines.
      Were you born after schools gave up teaching the Palmer Method, or any quick handwriting, like 20 years ago?

    • Frank says:

      On another note, the Oswald signature on the Copy more closely aligns with the signature on the Alex Hidell ID card than it does with the signature on DVP’s supposed original. Look specifically at the H character in both. Looks like the same hand for Copy and ID, but not for DVP original and ID. It would be interesting to compare it with other known/alleged Oswald signatures.

    • Frank says:

      I see above where the Texas History image is blue type, like I remember the old dittos as looking. Weren’t dittos created with pressure transfer and solvent that removed the transfer a little bit at a time, once for each copy? Is this a ditto copy that was filled in with a pen? Here again, were the original forms hand typed and how were they reproduced to create a stack of originals in a drawer for new applicants to use?

  3. Robert Harper says:

    He makes it appear that he is just out of the marines (“last job”); says he was “honorably” discharged; and lists weight at 150lbs.
    All untrue, but they seem like white lies (marines) and imprecision in weight(his autopsy said 135 I think).

  4. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    LHO gave Ruth Paine´s address instead of 1026 N Beckley in Oak Cliff, where he was actually in a “room and board” status, which he also denied in the application.
    He erased all the jobs he had after leaving the Marines in September 1959, and hid the dishonorable discharge.
    He also erased his previous residences in Fort Worth and New Orleans by claiming he had lived “continueously” (sic) in Dallas.
    It seems hard to explain each why. Some lies could have been aimed to get the job, and it´s even plausible he remembered Paine´s address better than his own one, since he rented the room at Oak Cliff on October 14.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Which brings up the question of why did he rent the room over the river from the TSBD the day before he filled out the application? The room rented under the name O.H. Lee. Did he know he had the job before he applied? Did he not want others besides Ruth and Marina knowing exactly where he stayed?
      Also while he went to school in Fort Worth in younger years I thought the last of his public education came in New Orleans.

  5. David Regan says:

    He submitted this application on the same day Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission phoned the Paine residence with a much better job prospect for Oswald. Adams spoke with someone at the Paine’s number about this and left a message for Oswald to call back. He tried calling again the next day (Oct 16) and was told Oswald was not there and had started working.

    • Lee Farley says:

      David,

      Robert Adams was an FBI informer.

      On Monday 25th of November, 1963, Adams was in a panic that he had gotten Lee Harvey Oswald the job at the TSBD and he arrived at work and immediately looked for the Oswald employment file.

      It was gone.

      His superior told him the FBI had already collected it and informed Adams that he shouldn’t be worried and he DID NOT get the job at the TSBD for Oswald.

      Question: Adams is an FBI informer. On record. FBI informers pass information onto FBI Agents. The Oswald case was James Hosty’s case. So, if information was being passed from the TEC to the FBI it was more than likely being passed from Adams to Hosty. Why would Adams be concerned that he got the TSBD job for Oswald? We have to make an assumption here, do we not, that the TEC must have had the TSBD as a client for Adams, a long standing and very experienced TEC employee, to believe he had gotten Oswald the job there?

      When Adams gave his testimony to the Warren Commission he started to give the name of the person who he was liaising with at Trans Texas Airways. It was a “Mr. Roy -” is all he gets out. My guess is he was stopped mid-sentence.

      I’m all for coincidences, and we have to swallow a lot of them when looking into this case, but to believe that we had a Mr Roy wanting Oswald for TTA and a Mr Roy Truly for the TSBD – well I’m not willing to swallow that one.

      Oswald was SURROUNDED by informers – everywhere he went. His position in the TSBD was carefully planned and well executed.

  6. Robert Paul says:

    In addition the false prior employment history, note the date of application – October 15, 1963 – a TUESDAY.

    Oswald rented a room (about 15 miles from his wife and child) under the false name of O.H. Lee on MONDAY, October 14 – before he had his job the TSBD. He applied for, and interviewed at the TSBD on TUESDAY, October 15 and started the following day, WEDNESDAY, October 16. See: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leejob2.txt See also: “Later that night (MONDAY, October 14), Lee, who was staying at a rooming house in Dallas, called Marina at the Paines’. Marina asked her friend to explain to Lee, in English, about the TSBD, and that he should go down the next day, (TUESDAY)October 15, and talk with Mr. Truly. (3H34-35)

    LOH paid his weekly room rent IN FULL in the AFTERNOON of MONDAY October 14, BEFORE he knew about the job opportunity at the TSBD (a day before he interviewed there and two days before he started work). Oswald paid cash (in advance) $8 per week for the tiny room – that’s $32/month ($250 in 2015 dollars) – not exactly pocket change for someone without a job and no visible signs of income.

    The rented room was about two miles from the Triple Underpass – an easy walk. Is it reasonable to consider that he chose his rented residence based on its proximity to JFK’s route, rather than for his (previously unknown) and then eventual employment at the TSBD?

    Was the TSBD was just one of many potential snipers’ nests? Perhaps that building, and LOH’s employment there, was just sheer luck for the plotters. They may have had a variety of possible locations and plans for the assassination (a competent kill-team would). LOH’s premeditated room rental’s location may point out some early pre-planning by either Oswald and/or others.

    • Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

      How did he know JFK route in advance?

      • “How did he know JFK route in advance?”~Arnaldo M. Fernandez

        I don’t think he necessarily did, however, I think his handlers knew.

        I remain convinced that Oswald was ONI, and had been given the chore of routing out the dangerous Cuban exiles community in conjunction with FBI handlers.

        This would answer Robert Paul’s assertions as to Oswald “routinely lied about almost everything to everyone,for his entire researched life.” That is the MO of an undercover agent. The reason his “just a patsy” claim is accepted as granite-engraved gospel by almost everyone in the “CT community”, and visa versa why the Warren Commission cult deny the patsy claim.
        \\][//

        • Paul May says:

          “I think his handlers knew”? How exactly did his handlers communicate with him? Witnesses at the boarding house stated he received no phone calls. Are you claiming Oswald was an Intel operative for ONI and killed Kennedy as part of a black op? Why then would his sponsors allow him to walk the streets after the killing to be captured? Were his sponsors unconcerned about him spilling the beans?

      • he didnt have to know the precise motorcade. All motorcades at that time went up or down main street. Thus, the motorcade was going to pass through Dealey Plaza. The only issue was where the luncheon would be held. The selection of the Trademark necessitated the route went down Elm. JFK would have been exposed to any gunman located in any of the Dealey Plaza buildings regardless of the precise route of the motorcade through Dealey Plaza.

      • David Regan says:

        There is no proof he ever did. The Warren Commission explained that the “only permissible route to the Stemmons Freeway from Main Street is via Houston and Elm Streets” but Oswald was not a licensed driver and may not of been aware of that.

      • Robert Paul says:

        Arnaldo – Thank you for your good and often debated question. JFK’s Dallas trip was made public in September. Although the exact motorcade route wasn’t officially announced until a few days before November 22, it would be easy to figure out because of its finale at the Trade Mart and previous downtown parade routes. Dozens of people would know the general plans. For example, police (local, county, and state) hotel managers, chefs, invitation printers, local politicians, etc. PODUS’ planners would need to start the trip’s process in September. Hundreds of people (invitees and Trade Mart managers and employees) would know about the planned luncheon. The approximate route could easily be anticipated months before the actual trip.

        May I politely suggest that part two of your question could be: Why did LOH choose a neighborhood in close proximity to Dealey Plaza as the home-office for his job pursuit? He rented rooms in that area three times in October (at the Y, Marsalis, and Beckley). Do the three “L’s” of real estate apply to his decision? If truly seeking employment, the fast growing and bustling City of Irvine offered a wide variety of jobs, but instead, he opted to travel 15+ miles away from his wife and child to rent rooms at fairly pricey rates (for an unemployed man with little reported money). Why?

      • Photon says:

        It was in the newspaper. What is the big deal-he couldn’t read?

        • Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

          The big deal is not the reading, but the timing. What information was available to LHO about WHEN the presidential motorcade would pass by the TSBD? The luncheon at Trade Mart was scheduled at noon. So, the motorcade would have to pass by TSBD between 11:55 am and 12:10 pm, well before 12:30. Was Oswald waiting about half an hour to shoot JFK?

          Eddie Piper saw Oswald on the 1st floor around noon with neither a bag nor a rifle. Carolyn Arnold claims to have seen him around 12:15 pm in a floor lower than the 6th, while Bonnie Ray Williams was having lunch 10 feet from the SE corner of the 6th floor between 12 and 12:15 pm.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      Without making any comment on whether Oswald was intentionally steered to the TSBD job or not, the trip to Texas had been discussed often in the 7 months prior to the assassination. Any such visit was bound to have a motorcade, and given the layout of Dallas at that time, it could take only a very limited number of routes, all of which went through Dealey Plaza. So anyone considering Dallas as a possible assassination site would be able to take that into account long before the map detailing the motorcade route was publicized.

      • David Regan says:

        It’s worth noting the many similarities between Oswald and Thomas Arthur Vallee.

      • “Any such visit was bound to have a motorcade, and given the layout of Dallas at that time, it could take only a very limited number of routes, all of which went through Dealey Plaza.”

        This is true, but the route to the Women’s Building favored by Jerry Bruno would have had the motorcade going in the opposite direction and there would have been no Main-Houston-Elm Street turn and no driving right next to the grassy knoll. So the location of the luncheon at the Trade Mart altered the motorcade route quite dramatically as noted by Kenney O’Donnell in his WC testimony:

        Mr. O’DONNELL. Dallas, as I recollect, was going to be an evening affair. The Governor [Connally] thought the evening affair should be in Austin, and that we should hit Dallas around noontime.

        Mr. SPECTER. Were there any factors peculiar to Dallas which delayed the determination of the motorcade route?

        Mr. O’DONNELL. The only factor that really did hold up a final decision was we had not been able to finally agree on where he would end up and where he would deliver the [luncheon] speech. There was a controversy between the Governor, and between some of the local democratic figures, and between our people, as to whether the place finally selected was the best place for the President to give the address. The Governor felt very strongly on it. And we finally acquiesced to his views. But I would think that came rather late in the game, and it would have altered the [motorcade] route quite dramatically.

    • Peter says:

      I don’t think there’s anything too suspicious about Oswald renting in that area in Oct-Nov. He’d recently lived in the area for over 6 months so it would have been familiar too him and he probably felt comfortable living there. I would have thought Oakcliff’s proximity to the Dallas CBD would have been ideal for someone looking for a job who relied on public transport.
      As far as the $8 per week for a room at the Johnsons being expensive, a room at the YMCA cost $2.25 a night at the time. I don’t think Oswald had too many other options.

  7. Robert Paul says:

    It always amazes me that LOH routinely lied about almost everything to everyone,for his entire researched life. Paradoxically, his “just a patsy” claim is accepted as granite-engraved gospel by almost everyone in the CT community – and quoted, more than anything else, as proof positive of his innocence. Why is that?

    • Fearfaxer says:

      Largely because in light of what happened to him that declaration is one of the few things about that awful weekend that makes any sense.

      • Robert Paul says:

        Fearfaxer – Thanks. I agree. “Patsy” is the ONLY logical conclusion and may be one of the few candid/honest things LOH ever said. Just wish we had more creditable headline because “Patsy” is so overused. It’s become a code word for “Oh yea, he’s a CT Nutcase.”

      • Bogman says:

        It should have been the starting point of the WC instead of the lone assassin theory, as Dulles pushed in their first meeting. But it was a dishonest investigation whose stated purpose by LBJ was to avoid the US public from learning about ‘that little incident in Mexico City.’

        A fact never mentioned by any mainstream media and most history books.

    • bogman says:

      And the CIA has been honest about what exactly in regards to the assassination? Or the FBI?

  8. ed connor says:

    Yes, Jeff, very suspicious.
    LHO claimed he was experienced in “Ditto, Adding and some Typing.”
    What about being fluent in Russian?
    Wouldn’t that be a feather in his cap? Being able to sort and organize Russian language textbooks for the millions of cold war era Texas high school students who were studying Russian?

    P.S.- I once had a boss who had served at Atsugi in the Air Force. When our BIG boss hired a new secretary, who was the mistress of one of his union referral sources, Dave was concerned that she might be reading his file notes. So he wrote them in Russian!
    It seems LHO wasn’t the only service member making the most of his language training.

  9. Dave Johnson says:

    He claimed to have lived in Dallas continuously and as Arnaldo M. Fernandez mentioned he left out Fort Worth and New Orleans but he also left out Minsk in the old Soviet Union where he lived and worked.

  10. pat speer says:

    So where did this re-written copy come from? Is it in the government’s files?

    And, if so, does this raise the question of how many other documents in the files have been re-written, and why?

    I mean, since we know this “copy” isn’t an actual copy, does this leave open the possibility someone wrote this “copy” as a draft, and that someone then copied this draft in Oswald’s hand? And, if so, is it reasonable to wonder if there was something on the original job app that we weren’t supposed to know about? Did Oswald mention some company that was a CIA front?

    I mean, we know the FBI had professional forgers on its staff who were tasked with forging letters in the hands of KGB agents, etc. Is it really so crazy to believe one or more of them was asked to whip up some evidence in Oswald’s hand?

    • There’s no limit to the number of things a healthy imagination can contemplate. Right, Pat? 🙂

      • Fearfaxer says:

        Since no explanation, credible or otherwise, has been given for the existence of this document, it’s only natural to wonder just where this came from, who produced it, and for what reason. Nor is this the only weird and unexplained thing in this case, c.f., those photos showing a Dallas cop recreating Oswald’s alleged backyard pose.

        Speaking of imagination, your attempt at flippant condescension has the opposite effect of that you what imagine it to be. As does your emoticon, try this one next time. 😉

      • Pat Speer says:

        That’s right, David. So what’s the “innocent” explanation for a “copy” that’s not a copy? if you don’t have an answer’ then everything I’ve mentioned is still on the table. Right, David?

      • Jordan says:

        You have that right…. Just look at the SBT…!

    • I think you could have a viable theory there Pat. Von Pein seems to take a sardonic swipe at “healthy imagination”, but the ‘healthy’ is indeed the operative word in that phrase.
      Imagination is a very important aspect to problem solving.

      There very well may be an authentic ORIGINAL that predates either one of these documents.
      \\][//

      • Mariano says:

        “Imagination is a very important aspect to problem solving.”
        Precisely! Without it, peeling away all of the obfuscation would be vastly more difficult.
        The vast array of evidence not seemingly directly related to the assassination, some of which remains classified (not just the assassination files), will assist in finding the pieces of the puzzle.
        Without this uninhibited pursuit of the truth, JFK’s assassination history would remain in the dark and dishonest Warren-Commission-Ages.

  11. Roy W Kornbluth says:

    Suspicious application? NO, not on LHO’s part. There are omissions:
    –work history since USMC, at least 3 serious jobs. But what does welding or map photography or coffee have to do with taking books from one box and putting them in another box? Though it’s kind of cute he’s angling for a cushier office job with “filing, some typing.”
    –school history. What, he’s going to reconstruct 11 years of, at times, moving around like a hobo?
    –change of discharge status. He’s not working for FBI here, for TSBD at least.

    Gosh, the guy’s applying for a job that pays $1.25 an hour. There wasn’t a Kinko’s to go to and perfect his Resumay. All Lee was thinking was keep it simple and git er done.

    What’s suspicious was how this crappy job (though LO could comfort himself that it was working with almighty Books, and it wasn’t too physical or toxic) just FELL into his lap with a lot of help from the Paines, who incidentally sabotaged a much better, though harder, job.

  12. kennedy63 says:

    Parsimony explains the least cumbersome explanation. A copy of a copy that was itself “lifted” from Oswald’s original application. Perfect. Where is the original and why did Brian produce this “record?” One would have to imagine for the truth is obscured by classification that, in effect, deprives us of the truth. Parsimony inclines towards what is knowable, not that which is speculative. We should except that those handling Oswald also could effectively deconstruct, then manipulate his legend. There are two sides to Oswald and the one that is discordant with known facts is the legend, or in this case, the copy.

  13. MDG says:

    “The big deal is not the reading, but the timing. What information was available to LHO about WHEN the presidential motorcade would pass by the TSBD? The luncheon at Trade Mart was scheduled at noon. So, the motorcade would have to pass by TSBD between 11:55 am and 12:10 pm, well before 12:30. Was Oswald waiting about half an hour to shoot JFK?”
    Arnaldo M. Fernandez April 21

    I agree with you that the motorcade was late, and the timing does not make sense with LHO. Oswald was also only employed at the TSBD for a short time.

  14. Richard Turnbull says:

    Some of the comments raise the question of how Oswald would have known about the parade route in mid-October. But that entire line of questioning presumes that, had some other route been chosen, LHO wouldn’t have been framed in some other way in some other location, by requiring him to show up nearby. Besides, the supposedly damning evidence connecting him with shooting at JFK that led to his arrest in the Texas theater was his supposed murder of Patrolman Tippet. Thus, he could still have been diverted near the putative Tippet ambush and an “incriminating” Mannlicher-Carcano left at another sniper’s nest or other location.
    In other words, assume LHO is indeed hired and working at the TSBD, but the parade route diverts a bit. As his handler, you tell him to call in sick and go to location x to do action y, and frame him from there. In fact, if absolutely necessary, you go ahead with the plot and find another patsy — maybe not one so ostensibly culpable or ripe form framing up as LHO, but in a pinch, even that might have worked out. After all, it looks like the possible Chicago and Tampa plots went awry and had Dallas been foiled, some other opportunity found by the plotters.

  15. Jordan says:

    After having read, reviewed and assessed hundred, if not thousands of job applications during my professional life, I see nothing suspicious on the face of this particular application.

    The reality is that people looking for work tend to include qualifications that they think may help them secure employment, and tend not to provide information that might discourage a potential employer from hiring them.

    LHO was far from unique in that aspect.

    • Jordan says:

      P.S.

      If there is anything suspicious about the application, it’s that there appears to be more than one of them…..

  16. George says:

    “George” is Greg Parker, why he uses an alias here is a mystery, other than he is probably ashamed of his known history by now.

    He seems to be adept at passing himself off as a clueless juvenile on web forums. -: Willy W

    That’s right Willy. Unlike mature grown men who like to imagine they’re talking here to 12 year old girls.

    • “That’s right Willy. Unlike mature grown men who like to imagine they’re talking here to 12 year old girls.”~“George” aka Greg Parker

      That is another of your cheesy innuendos, attempting to frame something I said in a manner in which I am characterized as a lech.

      And THAT is another tactic of a jejune ineffective commentator such as Mr Parker.
      \\][//

      • George says:

        Wow, grown men who think they are conversing with 12 girls online usually are “leches” as you put it. That’s just a fact.

        The real definition of jejune is pretending someone is a 12 year old girl and then crying foul when you’re called on it.

        By the way, how far are you from Sanibel in Florida?

  17. George says:

    Georgia,

    While there is a chance that you may overcome the dreadful first impressions you made when you first began posting here, I think it would really be beneficial if you would dispense with the pretense of omniscience as displayed in this sentence:
    “Oswald believed he was placed in there to keep on eye on Joe Molina…”

    A novelist can use such devices as this and get away with it through “artistic license”.
    Honest researchers only appear foolish when they pretend they know what the characters in these events were thinking.

    It is simply a matter of taking care in the construction of your writing, and avoiding the appearance of presumption.

    It would also be good of you to offer sources for your assertions.
    Willy W
    —————————-
    Willy, your fantasies about speaking to 12 year old girls are going to get you into trouble some day. Just sayin’.

    Let me put you mind at ease. I don’t give a flying fruit bat about what impressions I’ve made here. I came here to contribute and immediately found my first post – an ON TOPIC contribution – was moved with a personal attack thrown in on top. If you are offended by my defending myself against such “moderation”, that’s your problem.

    Then I have idiots asking that I stop teasing someone who has just called me a 12 year old girl. FFS.

    As for your complaint… if I have to write “I believe” or “I think” in relation to all OBVIOUS speculation, then everyone else here should be held to the same rule. Ditto for citing every single thing.

    Let’s take this claim of yours as one example…

    “There is a lot of evidence the Jonestown massacre was a large government operation”. Not one cite to back that up.

    Like most who nitpick others, your posting history shows the same alleged flaws.

    Anyhow… back to your fantasies, Willy. Sorry to interrupt them.

    • Let’s skip the BS “George”,

      Why are you avoiding this thread like the plague:

      http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-week-21-3/

      I understood that you had something of substance to contribute about your “Prayerman” fantasy. You got something on that? Let’s have it.
      \\][//

      • George says:

        Don’t speak for me, Willy. You’re admitting your own BS because it backfired on you.

        Not avoiding it. Had no idea that the “comment of the week” was any more than a stand-alone post.

        Having read it, I do owe Max a thank you for his even-handed appraisal. So… thank you, Max. It’s appreciated.

        Who said I have anything substantial to ADD about Prayer Man? My first post here was merely adding my 2 cents as to what the most important new research is.

        The facts about PM are out there now in multiple formats. That includes a number of very large threads, a book and a video.

        If you think I am going to reproduce all of that work here, you’re dreaming.

        As for any responding to any contrary evidence you think you have – again – all of your claims have been dealt with in the above.

        Go and educate yourself, Willy.After that if you can come up with anything NEW that has not been addressed, it is at that point I’ll respond.

        • Lee Farley says:

          Having read some of old Willy’s contributions here, George, and I use a very loose definition of the word contributions, it seems to me that he is one of those people who will argue against anybody, on any topic, that he has taken an instant dislike to. Attitudes like his generally serve politicians well but in the field of collaborative research it is a complete waste of time trying to discuss anything with them. Interacting with someone who claims they have all the answers, and I mean to everything that manifests into their field of perception, is like arguing with a politician. You won’t win, they won’t give up any ground, they are devoid of anything that could be described as having a sense of humour and they will take you around in circles – FOREVER!

          Unfortunately for Willy his so-called contributions here are the contributions of someone who knows virtually nothing about the nuances of this case and its evidence, knows nothing of any import concerning the TEC and its team of FBI informers, and knows absolutely jack about Bill Lowery and his associations with Joe Molina.

          People like Willy are best left to their own devices. He would sooner discuss the properties of light and film emulsions, pretending that these have some bearing on Prayer Man, than to spend any time wondering why NBC and the 6FM have blocked access to films that should be accessible to the public AND should be preserved in the best available format for future generations of historians and researchers.

          Anyone arguing against preservation of these films and the right of access to them should be ashamed of themselves.

          • “Anyone arguing against preservation of these films and the right of access to them should be ashamed of themselves.”~Lee Farley

            I have never argued against the preservation of these films and the right of access to them.

            My argument is simple and straight forward; As it stands, until access is given, there is nothing but a smudged and blurred image that is utterly useless for identifying anyone in that doorway.
            \\][//

          • David Hazan says:

            The Praying Man issue is such a simple one from an investigative perspective that our Aussie friends’ passion and attitude and outright hostility makes one go “Hmmmmm?”

            Here we have a blurry image that gives us an unidentifiable depiction of a man standing in the shadow of the TBD doorway. The contention is that this man might be Oswald.
            I have to say that it is hard not to agree with the Praying Man-ers (so to speak) that if this guy is indeed Oswald, it turns on its head not just the WC narrative, but most of the conspiracy theories as well. Some of which are purely built on one person’s testimony about having seen Lee drinking a soda.

            From what I understand, the claim is that the original footage is being kept at the 6thFl and/or NBC. Attempts are being made to have them release it, or provide high resolution scans of the pertinent scans.

            This “discovery” would be BIG… No ifs or buts about that. But what are the chances of this happening, really?

            Rationally thinking, the proposition is simple: This man is either Oswald, or he is not. No gray area there…

            If he is LHO, then, by default, it proves a conspiracy and the existence of conspirators. Which implies that these conspirators are aware of Oswald location at any given moment. Since the main post-assasination purpose of the conspiracy machine is the cover up, it is unthinkable that they have not gotten hold of the original film and destroyed it in the past 50 years, or simply made it disappear along with any other damning evidence.

            The museum, not unlike presidential libraries, is a place where evidence goes to die and disappear… Not to get preserved!! If, by some miracle, a court orders the museum to release the original footage (not a chance, but…) the reply would be that it is not there, or has been destroyed in a fire, or has been accidentally discarded. I find this hope for forcing their hands to release this stuff either foolish, or naive, or based on an ulterior motive.

            Classifying it as one of the most important new areas of research, and copping such hostile attitude towards anyone who questions or disagrees with the notion, and the style of the triangular attacks being employed in their arguments is an all too familiar divisive dynamic in the blogosphere… Otherwise I know of no one here or anywhere else who does not believe the WC, who’d be opposed to such a discovery. So, where exactly is this friction coming from?

            Do “they” feel that there is a concerted effort by some group or another to squash their efforts to get the film released? Or, do they feel we are all too dumb and ignorant to realize the significance of Praying Man?

            And, why the hell are you so hostile and aggressive, Mr. Farley? Are you one of those who get in a fight at every pub he goes, or one of those who go to pubs expressly to pick a fight?

            “Anyone arguing against preservation of these films and the right of access to them should be ashamed of themselves.” – JFarley

            Who are these people for god’s sake?

          • David Hazan says:

            Two side notes to my comment above:

            Personal observation: Praying man is either in eye contact, or in the process of talking to what seems to be a female at the top of the stairs, who is fully facing our praying mantis… I will leave it to those a lot more knowledgeable than I to see if that female is accounted for in the list of witnesses.

            Secondly, there are also other possibilities for this man’s identity. He could be a nobody (as in not relevant to assassination), or he could just as well turn out to be not Oswald, but some other recognizable character, which may or may not expose yet another link in the chainlink fence of cover up.

            But, irrespective of how damning or not the man’s identity may be, it is almost certain that we shall not find out via the release of the said original footage.

          • Lee Farley says:

            David,

            Please, whatever you do, do not ever apply for a job that deals with diffusing arguments, arbitration, collective bargaining, reconciliation, marriage guidance, or any other form of dispute resolution.

            If you think you are dealing with someone who is “aggressive” then why would you post such an aggressive sounding post? Wouldn’t that just make the “aggressive person” even more “aggressive?” Oh, I guess you just have a talent for recognising the aggressiveness that exists in the writings of other people – – not your own. I get it.

            I only became aware of the “comment of the week” replies this morning because since being told that my comment was going to be comment of the week I have been busy with other things. So, since finding out that the replies are there I have been composing a reply of my own. Whilst I appreciate that the self-proclaimed skill-sets held by some of this venue’s “members” is something that one would expect to find in the faculty of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, I will admit that my own skill set is quite limited and I am unable to respond to replies that I know nothing about. Shame on me I know. I will look into addressing this in the future.

            Just to prove to you that BS can permeate the minds of men and take on it’s own false truth I would like to point out to you that I am not an “Aussie”, I have never been to Australia, and have no family members who have ever migrated there. I wonder why you think I am? One of those things that make ME go “Hmmmmmmm.”

            My reply to the comment of the week will be forthcoming in good time, at my own pace and when I am good and ready to post it.

            Lee “Not an Aussie” Farley

          • Tom S. says:

            ……My reply to the comment of the week will be forthcoming in good time, at my own pace and when I am good and ready to post it.

            Lee “Not an Aussie” Farley

            http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13143798-jefferson-morley-redefining-facts?page=last

          • David Hazan says:

            My sincere apologies for being mistaken about your Aussie-ness. I suppose I should also change my usage of “pub” to “bar”.

            I firmly stand by the rest of my comments.

            Thanks, Lee.

          • “Jefferson Morley: Redefining facts
            by Hasan Yusuf 109 minutes ago”
            –http://reopenkennedycase.org/

            So they have a so-called “Open Forum”, but it is a Secret Room where only the insiders can read the stories.

            ROKC is in fact structured just like a secret society; ‘Initiates’ led by the nose by a priesthood with special privileges. It is nothing but another Internet Cult.

            Prayer Man FAQ
            1. We believe in giving credit wherever it is due, so with that in mind, we have striven to obtain details of any previous investigation of this enigma. As far as it has been ascertained, the first discussion of the figure came in correspondence between Dick Sprague, Dick Bernabei and Harold Weisberg in 1968. That investigation ground to a halt due to their inability to obtain the original frame from NBC and they were left with a 7th generation copy.

            http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq#Question1

            7th generation!!! 48 years of rumination over globs of grain structure on celluloid…
            And these clowns expect us to take them seriously!

            This Prayerman nonsense is the biggest hoax attempted on JFKfacts since I have been a member.
            \\][//

  18. George says:

    “My argument is simple and straight forward; As it stands, until access is given, there is nothing but a smudged and blurred image that is utterly useless for identifying anyone in that doorway.”

    Which is the argument I would want people to make if I had anything to hide. Concentrate on the image and pretend there is nothing else.

    The fact is, there is more than sufficient circumstantial evidence to state that it is Oswald without the film. A clear frame is simply the cherry on top.

  19. George says:

    David, you can add mind-reader to the growing list of jobs to avoid. You were right the first time with “pub”. You seem to have jumped from one false conclusion to another. He is not North American either. And another thing… we have both pubs and bars in Australia…

    Now… who is this female you think Oswald is talking to? The only person stood next to him is Beull Wesley Frazier. Frazier has ID’d himself but continues to claim he has no idea who the person is next to him. He has also always maintained he saw no strangers.

    “Do “they” feel that there is a concerted effort by some group or another to squash their efforts to get the film released?”

    Yes.

    ” Or, do they feel we are all too dumb and ignorant to realize the significance of Praying Man?”

    Nope. The significance of it is EXACTLY why some are hostile to even discussing this. At least two forums have barred discussion on it, while others in this community quite deliberately try and conflate PM with the Cinque-Fetzer Doorway Man – Lovelady fiasco. Why is this happening? Because they don’t give a damn about reopening this case. They want an endless debate on the same old crap or they have pet theories to protect.

    “But, irrespective of how damning or not the man’s identity may be, it is almost certain that we shall not find out via the release of the said original footage.”

    Don’t take up fortune-telling, either. You don’t know any of us, or the efforts being made. We WILL get the film.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more