In Defense Of An Innocent Man (Pt. 2)

the Oswald Project

If you haven’t already read Pt. 1 of this series, I highly recommend you check that post out first -

---

[If you don’t know a lot about the official story, and would like to read more on it, I encourage you to check out Wikipedia’s article on the JFK assassination. As a disclaimer, I reject most of the article. And a lot of it is just pure lies. But it’s still valuable to get an idea of where the politically correct stance is.]

Also, an audio version of this blog post is available on my podcast—episode 016 (publishing Friday, Jan 3, 2025)

---

The following are four photos, taken from 1958-1963, all supposedly of the same man…..Lee Harvey Oswald.

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

   ---

So, according to the Warren Commission, “Lee Harvey Oswald” acted alone in killing President Kennedy, wounding Texas Governor John Connally, and murdering Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit. A neat, tidy, one-man show. Case closed.

But…..here’s the million-dollar question: which Oswald?

Yeah, I know what you’re thinking—there’s only one Oswald, right? That guy with the blank stare and a rifle.

Well, if we dig a little deeper, that’s not what everyone else thought. Even Chief Justice Earl Warren—the head of the very commission tasked with tying a bow on this case—was quoted in The New York Times saying, “Full disclosure [of Oswald’s background] was not possible for reasons of national security.”

Now, hold up.

If Oswald was just some random loner with a gun and no government ties—and there was no conspiracy—then why the sudden need for “national security”? What, exactly, was so sensitive about Lee Harvey Oswald’s past that it had to stay locked up tighter than Fort Knox?

Unless, of course, the truth wasn’t about a Lee Harvey Oswald… but about multiple Oswalds.

Let’s fast-forward to Senator Richard Russell—one of the Warren Commission members. Turns out, even he wasn’t convinced by the official story. Russell openly admitted, “We haven’t been told the truth about Oswald.” He wasn’t the only one, either. Representative Hale Boggs challenged the official narrative, just like Russell. He disappeared in a still-unsolved plane crash in Alaska under mysterious circumstances.

But Russell wasn’t just shrugging it off—he went as far as asking Colonel Phillip James Corso, a former Army Intelligence officer, to quietly look into it.

Corso came back with a bombshell: two different birth certificates existed for Lee Harvey Oswald. Two names, two identities, and reportedly… two people. Corso even had sources—big names, like Francis Knight, head of the U.S. Passport Office, and William Sullivan, the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence chief. According to Russell, this double-Oswald trail led straight to rogue CIA agents teaming up with anti-Castro Cubans.

But wait—it gets better. Or worse, depending on how much faith you had in the official narrative. In 1978, a former CIA accountant named James B. Wilcott swore under oath that Oswald wasn’t some random ex-Marine with a communist fetish—he was a paid employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. Wilcott said Oswald was on a full-time CIA salary, and get this: Wilcott himself processed funds for something nicknamed “the Oswald project.”

“Oswald project”? Doesn’t that just scream “nothing to see here”?

But of course, Wilcott’s testimony—along with so many others—was buried. Locked away in secrecy for decades. Because transparency is overrated, right?

And speaking of buried truths, let’s not forget Robert Tanenbaum, former Deputy Counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. In 1996, Tanenbaum testified that Texas Attorney General Henry Wade and his colleagues allegedly informed Chief Justice Warren that they had rock-solid, unimpeachable sources claiming Oswald was a contract employee of both the CIA and the FBI. That’s right, both. Two agencies, one scapegoat.

So here we are, sifting through layers of official lies and shadowy half-truths. If Oswald acted alone, why the constant whispers of dual identities and government ties? Why the cryptic references to “projects” and national security? And most importantly—who really was Lee Harvey Oswald?

---

Well, according to JFK researcher John Armstrong, the official story handed to the Warren Commission wasn’t just flawed—it was a complete fabrication. The FBI and the CIA allegedly cooked up what Armstrong calls “The Oswald Project,” a Frankenstein of identities designed to mislead the public. The result? The Lee Harvey Oswald we know today—a mashup of two very different lives.

Meet HARVEY Oswald: a quiet, Russian-speaking youth of small stature, possibly Hungarian by birth, who came to the U.S. after World War II. Harvey was thin, malnourished, and lived with a short, heavy-set woman posing as his mother—someone who rarely smiled and was introduced to the world as “Marguerite Oswald.”

Then there’s LEE Oswald: New Orleans born, tall, husky, and all-American. This Lee grew up with his half-brother John Pic, his brother Robert Oswald, and his actual mother, Marguerite Claverie Oswald—a tall, attractive woman who couldn’t have been more different from HARVEY’s so-called “mom.”

Now here’s where things get interesting—or disturbing, depending on how much faith you’ve got left in the government. According to Armstrong, U.S. intelligence created a program to merge these two identities. Harvey, the Russian speaker, was given the American background and birth certificate of Lee Oswald. Why? So Harvey could pose as an undercover defector to the Soviet Union—a young man who spoke fluent Russian but conveniently came wrapped in an all-American origin story.

And boy, did Harvey play his part well. He “defected” to the USSR, married a Russian girl, returned to the U.S. two years later, and then—just to really keep us on our toes—started passing out pro-Castro pamphlets in New Orleans. A perfect chameleon, right?

But here’s the kicker: while Harvey was busy playing the role of a disillusioned Marine turned Castro sympathizer, Lee Oswald was lurking in the background. Armstrong suggests Lee began impersonating Harvey in the months leading up to the assassination. Why? To set Harvey up as the perfect patsy—a scapegoat with a shady past and all the breadcrumbs needed to point straight to him.

Now, let’s talk about visuals. Armstrong points out that photos of “Oswald” from 1952 to 1963 tell a different story. [SEE ABOVE PHOTOS]. Side-by-side comparisons reveal two distinct men: Harvey on one side, Lee on the other.

Some photos even appear to be composite images—cut in half, like some bizarre government arts-and-crafts project—to create a single, usable ID card that could pass for either man. Because, clearly, there’s no better way to frame someone for murder than to confuse the entire planet about who they actually are.

If Armstrong is right, “The Oswald Project” wasn’t just a cover story—it was a long-term operation designed to create a fall guy. A man whose past could be manipulated, whose face could be duplicated, and whose life could be stolen. And, in November of 1963, it worked.

For John Armstrong, what started as a standard investigation quickly spiraled into something much stranger. Armstrong uncovered a mountain of inconsistencies: conflicting records of Oswald’s height, weight, eye color, scars, medical history, school enrollment, military service—you name it. It was less a biography and more like a tangled web of “choose your own Oswald.”

One of the first major discrepancies Armstrong stumbled upon was from 1953, when the Warren Commission—our trustworthy beacon of clarity—claimed Oswald was sent to the Youth House in New York City for truancy. Sounds straightforward, right? Except it wasn’t.

Armstrong noticed that Oswald’s school records from the spring semester of 1953 showed he attended Public School #44 in New York full time. He was there, day after day, with barely any absences. So… truancy? Not exactly adding up. But wait—it gets better.

The Warren Commission also published Oswald’s fall 1953 records from the very same school, PS #44, which makes sense—until you realize they also published records showing that Oswald attended Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans during the exact same semester.

Yes, you heard that right. According to the official story, Oswald was in New York City and New Orleans at the same time. Either Lee Harvey Oswald had mastered the art of teleportation, or we’re dealing with two entirely different people.

This was just the beginning. Armstrong found that between 1953 and 1963, there were endless overlapping records—school transcripts, medical files, military documents, even photographs—that pointed to not one, but two distinct individuals.

On one side, we have LEE Harvey Oswald: the tall, athletic, all-American kid. And on the other, HARVEY Oswald: the smaller, quiet, malnourished youth with a knack for Russian. Two young men, living parallel lives, with their records crossing and contradicting each other at every turn.

---

So the question is: Why? Why would anyone go through the trouble of creating two identities for one person—or two people posing as one? And if this was some kind of intelligence operation, what was the endgame?

To anyone researching this before 1963, they would be mystified. There’s no apparent motive, and no obvious reason why the Oswald Project would be carried out. But now, down the road from 1963, we know exactly why the Oswald Project was carried out.

“They” needed someone whose life was messy enough, whose story was confusing enough, and whose identity was malleable enough to fit their needs. Someone who could be molded into a villain, framed with a past they’d never fully control.

Lee Harvey Oswald—whether he was one man or two—became the perfect patsy. A ghost of conflicting records, shadowy connections, and unanswered questions. And in the chaos of all this, the real culprits disappeared.

When you control the narrative, you control the truth. And when you control the truth, you control everything.

So here we are, decades later, still picking through the rubble of lies, misdirection, and silence. Still asking the all-important question: who really killed John F. Kennedy? And maybe more importantly—why did they need Oswald to take the fall?

Was it about power? Control? Or was it about something even worse?

Whatever the reason, one thing is certain: the truth did not die in Dealey Plaza that day. It’s still out there, hidden in the shadows, waiting for someone brave—or reckless—enough to uncover it.

---

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!! You can email me at carsonwagner@substack.com, comment below, or DM me here on Substack :)