Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 29, 2022 20:35:22 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/lee-harvey-oswald-8.jpg
1.bp.blogspot.com/-9D4VvsoSfDs/WG1RiEqZyWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/K5Ultz6sIBQPrRjwYDrQS5rLRPzMmVNVACPcB/s1600/LHO%2BBC.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963. They spent a good bit of their report looking into his life and background, but oddly they do not address his birth certificate at all in their 888-page report.
This post will look at this issue and see what we find.
********************************************
The inspiration for this post comes from John Armstrong’s book “Harvey & Lee” as he brings up the issue of LHO’s Birth Certificate. I had never really thought about it as there are so many other things in this case to think about. The odd thing is the WC avoided this issue completely so that in and of itself made me curious as the WC only avoided things that pointed to a conspiracy.
What makes this really intriguing for me is that it may alter how the "two Oswalds" are thought about. Since the topic arose in 1964, it has always been assumed that the double was the Eastern European Oswald. If there is no birth certificate for the American Oswald, and there appears not to be, then the double could be the American and not the Eastern European one. What are the ramifications of this possibility?
Now, some of you may be thinking, “Who cares? It’s only a birth certificate.” Yes, it is – but – don’t you think they should have covered every aspect of the man's life they accused of killing the 35th President? I do. And his birth is part of that life. Why would they ignore this area? Could it be they suspected more than one Oswald themselves? Could they have feared that their designated patsy was a cutout for an intelligence operation gone wrong?
The doctor who delivered LHO was Bruno Mancuso and the WC spent very little time on him. A two-paragraph report dated December 10, 1963, spends more time on how Marguerite Oswald rented her home to Dr. Mancuso for four years than they did on his involvement in LHO’s birth. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 2200) Why were the details of this birth not given? I mean we are talking about the accused assassin here.
Here is what John Armstrong wrote about this in “Harvey & Lee” (H&L).
Quote on
The Recorder of Births, Marriages, and Deaths in New Orleans Parish recorded Oswald's birth in Book 207, Folio 1321. The record on file is a "Declaration of Birth" for Lee Harvey Oswald, was witnessed by Harvey F. Oswald, and dated October 25, 1939. This declaration is NOT a birth certificate. A "Declaration of Birth" is a document that was used when births occurred outside of a hospital and without an attending physician, such as births that occurred on a rural farm. A "Certificate of Birth" was routinely issued for children born in hospitals or delivered at a private home by a physician, especially in a large city such as New Orleans. A "Certificate of Birth" should have been issued by either the Old French Hospital or Dr. Bruno F. Mancuso within a day of Oswald's birth. A birth certificate for Lee Harvey Oswald has never been made public.
NOTE: After the assassination Dallas Police detectives found a document that has been incorrectly identified as Oswald's birth certificate. This document is listed as item #448 in Warren Commission Exhibit 2003 and identified as "Birth Certificate #17034." This document is NOT a birth certificate nor is it the "Declaration of Birth" mentioned above.
Item #448 is merely an acknowledgment by the New Orleans Parish Office of Records of Births, Marriages and Deaths that Oswald's birth was recorded in Book 207, Folio 1321. Upon payment of a small fee, anyone can obtain such a certificate. The original "Declaration of Birth" has never been found, nor was a copy published in the Warren Volumes. The FBI obtained a copy of this document from an unknown source, which was released by the FBI along with thousands of other JFK related documents in 1978. (H&L, pp. 16-17)
CE 800: historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0356a.jpg
CE 2003: historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0181a.gif
Quote off
The bottom line is there is doubt that CE 800 is LHO's birth certificate. Those that defend the WC say there is nothing to see here. Of course CE 800 is LHO’s birth certificate because the WC said it was. They cannot produce any evidence showing that it is, but it is. Heck, CE 800 doesn’t even say “Birth Certificate” on it! It instead says “Recorder of Births, Marriages and Deaths.”
Ironically Armstrong would receive confirmation for his assessment from official theory believer Vincent Bugliosi when he wrote this in his book entitled “Reclaiming History. “
Quote on
The document reprinted in the Warren Commission volumes (CE 800, 17 H 685) that was seized from Oswald’s room on Beckley Street pursuant to a search warrant on the afternoon of the assassination (Potts Exhibit A-2, 21 H 142), is not, as the Dallas Police Department listed it (21 H 142), Oswald’s birth certificate. It is merely a certification by Henry Lanauge, the deputy recorder of New Orleans, that Oswald’s birth on October 18, 1939, had been recorded in book 207, folio 1321 of the recorder’s office on October 25, 1939. Indeed, the document is not even denominated “Birth Certificate,” but instead, “Recorder of Births, Marriages and Deaths,” and there is no attestation on the document of Oswald’s birth by his doctor or the hospital. (Vincent Bugliosi, “Reclaiming History”, p. 360)
Quote off
The WC defenders just say Bugliosi is wrong here. Like the WC’s assertions they simply pick and choose what they like and what they don’t like.
Armstrong wraps up this point with this comment.
Quote on
Following the assassination of President Kennedy, US Senator Richard Russell … asked former intelligence officer Phillip Corso to conduct a discreet inquiry into the assassination. After contacting Francis Knight, head of the US Passport Office, Corso reported to Senator Russell that Knight had told him there were two passports issued to “Lee Harvey Oswald” and they had been used by two different people. (H&L, p.17)
Quote off
The reason this issue is important is because of the possibility of there having been two Oswalds. This isn’t just an Armstrong idea as this thought first surfaced in 1964. Could this be why LHO’s birth certificate has never been produced? What other viable reason could there be for the authorities never releasing this document?
The WC defenders like to deflect by claiming the person asking this question is “kooky" and guilty of making everything “suspicious.” Well it is suspicious when the authorities will not release something as basic as a birth certificate for the accused assassin of a president. They should try and answer the question, but they can’t. Could the real Birth Certificate show details different from what is claimed about the LHO killed on November 24, 1963?
We again have doubt regarding the official narrative and conclusion, therefore, we have to say that the WC’s conclusion is sunk once more.
www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/lee-harvey-oswald-8.jpg
1.bp.blogspot.com/-9D4VvsoSfDs/WG1RiEqZyWI/AAAAAAAAAKw/K5Ultz6sIBQPrRjwYDrQS5rLRPzMmVNVACPcB/s1600/LHO%2BBC.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963. They spent a good bit of their report looking into his life and background, but oddly they do not address his birth certificate at all in their 888-page report.
This post will look at this issue and see what we find.
********************************************
The inspiration for this post comes from John Armstrong’s book “Harvey & Lee” as he brings up the issue of LHO’s Birth Certificate. I had never really thought about it as there are so many other things in this case to think about. The odd thing is the WC avoided this issue completely so that in and of itself made me curious as the WC only avoided things that pointed to a conspiracy.
What makes this really intriguing for me is that it may alter how the "two Oswalds" are thought about. Since the topic arose in 1964, it has always been assumed that the double was the Eastern European Oswald. If there is no birth certificate for the American Oswald, and there appears not to be, then the double could be the American and not the Eastern European one. What are the ramifications of this possibility?
Now, some of you may be thinking, “Who cares? It’s only a birth certificate.” Yes, it is – but – don’t you think they should have covered every aspect of the man's life they accused of killing the 35th President? I do. And his birth is part of that life. Why would they ignore this area? Could it be they suspected more than one Oswald themselves? Could they have feared that their designated patsy was a cutout for an intelligence operation gone wrong?
The doctor who delivered LHO was Bruno Mancuso and the WC spent very little time on him. A two-paragraph report dated December 10, 1963, spends more time on how Marguerite Oswald rented her home to Dr. Mancuso for four years than they did on his involvement in LHO’s birth. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 2200) Why were the details of this birth not given? I mean we are talking about the accused assassin here.
Here is what John Armstrong wrote about this in “Harvey & Lee” (H&L).
Quote on
The Recorder of Births, Marriages, and Deaths in New Orleans Parish recorded Oswald's birth in Book 207, Folio 1321. The record on file is a "Declaration of Birth" for Lee Harvey Oswald, was witnessed by Harvey F. Oswald, and dated October 25, 1939. This declaration is NOT a birth certificate. A "Declaration of Birth" is a document that was used when births occurred outside of a hospital and without an attending physician, such as births that occurred on a rural farm. A "Certificate of Birth" was routinely issued for children born in hospitals or delivered at a private home by a physician, especially in a large city such as New Orleans. A "Certificate of Birth" should have been issued by either the Old French Hospital or Dr. Bruno F. Mancuso within a day of Oswald's birth. A birth certificate for Lee Harvey Oswald has never been made public.
NOTE: After the assassination Dallas Police detectives found a document that has been incorrectly identified as Oswald's birth certificate. This document is listed as item #448 in Warren Commission Exhibit 2003 and identified as "Birth Certificate #17034." This document is NOT a birth certificate nor is it the "Declaration of Birth" mentioned above.
Item #448 is merely an acknowledgment by the New Orleans Parish Office of Records of Births, Marriages and Deaths that Oswald's birth was recorded in Book 207, Folio 1321. Upon payment of a small fee, anyone can obtain such a certificate. The original "Declaration of Birth" has never been found, nor was a copy published in the Warren Volumes. The FBI obtained a copy of this document from an unknown source, which was released by the FBI along with thousands of other JFK related documents in 1978. (H&L, pp. 16-17)
CE 800: historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0356a.jpg
CE 2003: historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0181a.gif
Quote off
The bottom line is there is doubt that CE 800 is LHO's birth certificate. Those that defend the WC say there is nothing to see here. Of course CE 800 is LHO’s birth certificate because the WC said it was. They cannot produce any evidence showing that it is, but it is. Heck, CE 800 doesn’t even say “Birth Certificate” on it! It instead says “Recorder of Births, Marriages and Deaths.”
Ironically Armstrong would receive confirmation for his assessment from official theory believer Vincent Bugliosi when he wrote this in his book entitled “Reclaiming History. “
Quote on
The document reprinted in the Warren Commission volumes (CE 800, 17 H 685) that was seized from Oswald’s room on Beckley Street pursuant to a search warrant on the afternoon of the assassination (Potts Exhibit A-2, 21 H 142), is not, as the Dallas Police Department listed it (21 H 142), Oswald’s birth certificate. It is merely a certification by Henry Lanauge, the deputy recorder of New Orleans, that Oswald’s birth on October 18, 1939, had been recorded in book 207, folio 1321 of the recorder’s office on October 25, 1939. Indeed, the document is not even denominated “Birth Certificate,” but instead, “Recorder of Births, Marriages and Deaths,” and there is no attestation on the document of Oswald’s birth by his doctor or the hospital. (Vincent Bugliosi, “Reclaiming History”, p. 360)
Quote off
The WC defenders just say Bugliosi is wrong here. Like the WC’s assertions they simply pick and choose what they like and what they don’t like.
Armstrong wraps up this point with this comment.
Quote on
Following the assassination of President Kennedy, US Senator Richard Russell … asked former intelligence officer Phillip Corso to conduct a discreet inquiry into the assassination. After contacting Francis Knight, head of the US Passport Office, Corso reported to Senator Russell that Knight had told him there were two passports issued to “Lee Harvey Oswald” and they had been used by two different people. (H&L, p.17)
Quote off
The reason this issue is important is because of the possibility of there having been two Oswalds. This isn’t just an Armstrong idea as this thought first surfaced in 1964. Could this be why LHO’s birth certificate has never been produced? What other viable reason could there be for the authorities never releasing this document?
The WC defenders like to deflect by claiming the person asking this question is “kooky" and guilty of making everything “suspicious.” Well it is suspicious when the authorities will not release something as basic as a birth certificate for the accused assassin of a president. They should try and answer the question, but they can’t. Could the real Birth Certificate show details different from what is claimed about the LHO killed on November 24, 1963?
We again have doubt regarding the official narrative and conclusion, therefore, we have to say that the WC’s conclusion is sunk once more.