Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

What proof do we have that "back in March, 1963, Roscoe White clearly hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald?"

BTW, whenever a member of a JFK assassination forum uses a word like "obviously" or "clearly," I become very apprehensive and skeptical.

--Tommy

Well, Tommy, the "evidence" that I find convincing was provided by Jack White in a 1991 "Special Report" which demonstrated with painstaking accuracy that the body of the person in Lee Harvey Oswald's backyard photographs was always of Roscoe White.

That is, the face was indeed Oswald's, but the chin, the neck, the shoulders, the right wrist and the stance, all belong to Roscoe White.

Now, Oswald and White were at Atsugi together in the 1950's. Also, in the 1960's Roscoe White ran with some of the same people that Oswald ran with in New Orleans -- including David Ferrie and Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Also, since Lee Harvey Oswald signed one of these Fake Photographs and sent it to George De Mohrenschildt, this confirmsthat the ownership of Lee Harvey Oswald -- although the body is of Roscoe White.

IMHO, Oswald made the Backyard Photographs at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall when he worked there in early 1963. That's how he knew that the Photo was a "Fake" when he was shown a copy at the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/1963. He said he could prove it was a Fake. Of course he could -- because he was the one who Faked it.

Since Roscoe White was part of the Backyard Photographs -- as Jack White ably demonstrated -- that suggests the real possibility that Roscoe White was also the accomplice of Oswald in the attack on General Walker.

If all this is true, then even though Roscoe White joined the DPD in October, 1963 -- back in March, 1963 Roscoe clearly hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now -- here's the rest of my theory. The identification of Roscoe White as the body-double of Oswald in the Backyard Photographs practically breaks the JFK murder case wide open. The solution -- a Dallas rightist plot -- was not far from the finish line with Jack White's discovery.

THEREFORE -- IMHO Jack White was prevailed upon by Disinformation Agents inside Dallas (not the CIA) to stomp on his own discovery, and cancel it by using this ridiculous Harvey & Lee theory.

So, Jack White, under pressure, published the H&L theory, and then Disinformation Agent John Armstrong has built upon it ever since. Not that Armstrong was a member of the Dallas pressure group -- it's only that he knew a great business opportunity when he saw it.

That's my current theory.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 16, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Paul,

What proof do we have that "back in March, 1963, Roscoe White clearly hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald?"

BTW, whenever a member of a JFK assassination forum uses a word like "obviously" or "clearly," I become very apprehensive and skeptical.

--Tommy

Well, Tommy, the "evidence" that I find convincing was provided by Jack White in a 1991 "Special Report" who demonstrated with painstaking accuracy that the body of the person in Lee Harvey Oswald's backyard photographs were always of Roscoe White.

That is, the face was indeed Oswald's, but the chin, the neck, the shoulders, the right wrist and the stance, all belong to Roscoe White.

Now, Oswald and White were at Atsugi together in the 1950's. Also, in the 1960's Roscoe White ran with some of the same people that Oswald ran with in New Orleans -- including David Ferrie and Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Also, since Lee Harvey Oswald signed one of these Fake Photographs and sent it to George De Mohrenschildt, this confirms that the ownership of Lee Harvey Oswald [sic] -- although the body is of Roscoe White.

IMHO, Oswald made the Backyard Photographs at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall when he worked there in early 1963. That's how he knew that the Photo was a "Fake" when he was shown a copy at the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/1963. He said he could prove it was a Fake. Of course he could -- because he was the one who Faked it.

Since Roscoe White was part of the Backyard Photographs -- as Jack White ably demonstrated -- that suggests the real possibility that Roscoe White was also the accomplice of Oswald in the attack on General Walker.

If all this is true, then even though Roscoe White joined the DPD in October, 1963 -- back in March, 1963 Roscoe clearly hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now -- here's the rest of my theory. The identification of Roscoe White as the body-double of Oswald in the Backyard Photographs practically breaks the JFK murder case wide open. The solution -- a Dallas rightist plot -- was not far from the finish line with Jack White's discovery.

THEREFORE -- IMHO Jack White was prevailed upon by Disinformation Agents inside Dallas (not the CIA) to stomp on his own discovery, and cancel it by using this ridiculous Harvey & Lee theory.

So, Jack White, under pressure, published the H&L theory, and then Disinformation Agent John Armstrong has built upon it ever since. Not that Armstrong was a member of the Dallas pressure group -- it's only that he knew a great business opportunity when he saw it.

That's my current theory.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

That's tantalizing and fascinating and fine and dandy, but unfortunately it doesn't show that "Roscoe White clearly hung out with Oswald in March, 1963."

Why would Oswald put together a photo of himself like that at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, anyway?

Why not just have Marina take some photos of him brandishing a rifle, wearing a pistol, and holding some contradictory Communist literature in the air?

Ahhh. I get it. So he could point to the photo later and say it was faked.

If that's the case, then it sounds like Oswald was planning on assassinating somebody, and was preparing his defense. But why incriminate himself so badly in the first place? Who was he trying to impress? George DeMohrenschildt? Roscoe White? Guy Banister?

--Tommy

Edited July 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Steven Gaal]

[Thomas Graves]

Different lighting. Different lenses. Different ages.

Which one was killed by Jack Ruby, the one on the left or the one on the right?

"Both" of them are so young that "neither" of them looks like "Marina's husband."

LOL

--Tommy

Edited July 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Bruce Fernandez]

Different curvature on the nose openings, now that's hard to change, regardless of age and timing.

[Bruce Fernandez]

Not "LOL", unless you're just jesting. Bottom lip thickness is different, as well. Or do a better job yourself than Gaal at comparing extant likenesses and show it to us. I imagine that it's a bit of work, but if you're looking for credibility, deal with the issue, not LOL, or perhaps start a new topic titled "LOL" and post there. I, for one, am tired of posts that have no competing substance, just sarcasm and time (and bandwidth, though I think mine is nearly infinite) wasting obfuscation. The issue, sir, is not the credibility of the poster, but the credibility of his/her post. Deal with it.

Do you and DVP communicate regularly?

[Thomas Graves]

Not "LOL", unless you're just jesting. Bottom lip thickness is different, as well. Or do a better job yourself than Gaal at comparing extant likenesses and show it to us. I imagine that it's a bit of work, but if you're looking for credibility, deal with the issue, not LOL, or perhaps start a new topic titled "LOL" and post there. I, for one, am tired of posts that have no competing substance, just sarcasm and time (and bandwidth, though I think mine is nearly infinite) wasting obfuscation. The issue, sir, is not the credibility of the poster, but the credibility of his/her post. Deal with it.

Do you and DVP communicate regularly?

"Do you and DVP communicate regularly?"

Only on these threads, Bruce.

Why? Do you think DVP and I are conspiring with each other? Haven't you been reading our exchanges on a couple of the other current threads?

If you are insinuating that DVP and I are in private communication with each other and conspiring against "you," then you're not only paranoid but you're also casting aspersions against other two EF members, me and DVP (whom, just between you me, I'm coming to loathe), which happens to be against EF rules. So if that's the case, then why don't you just go uhhh... obfuscate yourself, Sir.

Are you a H&L groupie and have I hurt your feelings by pointing out some of the H&L inaccuracies?

Tough beans, Bruce.

The point I was trying to make above, Sir, is that I don't recognize the young man in either of those photos as "Marina's husband" / the man Jack Ruby killed on 11/24/63. Probably mostly because of the person's youth in the photos. The different lighting conditions, the possibility that different focal-length lenses were used, and the different head tilts would also explain why they look different from each other. In the photo on the left, his head is tilted up a little compared to the photo on the right, and the lighting is obviously different, too. The different head tilts create different perspectives of the bottom of his nose, and the different lighting conditions make his lower lip look thicker in the left photo because said photo doesn't have as much shadow hiding the bottom of his lower lip as the right photo does. The upward tilting head in the left photo also makes his head look shorter and rounder than it really was.

Is that substantive enough for you, Bruce?

--Tommy

Edited July 16, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[W. Tracy Parnell]

The point I was trying to make above, Sir, is that I don't recognize the young man in either of those photos as "Marina's husband" / the man Jack Ruby killed on 11/24/63. Probably mostly because of the person's youth in the photos. The different lighting conditions, the possibility that different focal-length lenses were used, and the different head tilts would also explain why they look different from each other. In the photo on the left, his head is tilted up a little compared to the photo on the right, and the lighting is obviously different too. The different head tilts create different perspectives of the bottom of his nose, and the different lighting conditions make his lower lip look thicker in the left photo because said photo doesn't have as much shadow hiding the bottom of his lower lip as the right photo does. The upward tilting head in the left photo also makes his head look shorter and rounder than it really was.

Is that substantive enough for you, Bruce?

--Tommy

Very good analysis here Tommy. Most people don't consider how much factors such as lighting and tilt of the head will effect the photos.

[Jim Hargrove]

So, Jack White, under pressure, published the H&L theory, and then Disinformation Agent John Armstrong has built upon it ever since. Not that Armstrong was a member of the Dallas pressure group -- it's only that he knew a great business opportunity when he saw it.

And the potentially libelous statement above comes from a man who seems anxious to shift blame for the Kennedy assassination away from American Intelligence. And what have the insiders said over the years about “Lee Harvey Oswald” and the CIA? Let's take a brief look:

* In 1978, CIA accountant James Wilcott testified as follows: “The specific incident was soon after the Kennedy assassination, where an agent, a Case Officer--I am sure it was a Case Officer--came up to my window to draw money, and he specifically said in the conversation that ensued, he specifically said, 'Well, Jim, the money that I drew the last couple of weeks ago or so was money' either for the Oswald project or for Oswald.”

* Richard Sprague, chief counsel to the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations said, if he had it to do over again, he would begin his investigation of the Kennedy assassination by probing “Oswald's ties to the Central Intelligence Agency."

* Sen. Richard Schweiker said, "We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there're fingerprints of intelligence."

* Victor Marchetti was the former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA. Marchetti said, "The more I have learned, the more concerned I have become that the government was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

* Dan Hardway (co-author of HSCA's so-called “Lopez Report”) said to Len Osanic, “I still think that he was killed by a conspiracy, I still think that he was killed by a conspiracy that involved both mobsters and rogue elements of the Central Intelligence Agency, whether or not the agency itself was complicit in it I don’t know.”

* CIA Agent Donald Norton said, "Oswald was with the CIA, and if he did it then you better believe the whole CIA was involved."

* Former CIA agent Joseph Newbrough said, "Oswald was an agent for the CIA and acting under orders."

* CIA Agent John Garrett Underhill told friends, just before he died, "Oswald is a patsy. They set him up. They've killed the President. I've been listening and hearing things. I couldn't believe they'd get away with it, but they did."

* CIA Agent William Gaudet said, "The man who probably knows as much as anybody alive on all of this... is... I still think is Howard Hunt"----CIA Agent and Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt.

* CIA employee Donald Deneslya read reports of a CIA agent who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child--that agent could only have been Oswald.

* CIA officer David Phillips provided the Warren Commission with information that Oswald was at the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City, then later admitted that the information he had provided was false.

* Marvin Watson, an adviser to President Lyndon Johnson, said that Johnson had told him that he was convinced that there was a plot in connection with the assassination. Watson said the President felt the CIA had something to do with this plot.

* HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum in 1996 told the ARRB, "the major area, and I can't overemphasize this, focused on the government and what the government knew about Lee Harvey Oswald... and what the CIA was doing with Lee Harvey Oswald. And what he was doing in New Orleans with anti-Castro Cubans, rabid anti-Castro Cubans, and to get everything you could get from the government with respect to it. And how this government today could want to hold that information and feed the kind of anti-government feeling that results from non-disclosure is really beyond my comprehension.

The idea that John Armstrong gave up more than a decade of his life as a custom home builder and petroleum distributor to research the Kennedy assassination because he saw a "great business opportunity" to write a book is laughable on its face.

[Greg Parker]

The idea that John Armstrong gave up more than a decade of his life as a custom home builder and petroleum distributor to research the Kennedy assassination because he saw a "great business opportunity" to write a book is laughable on its face.

Not quite as laughable as the theory he came up with on its face.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

So, Jack White, under pressure, published the H&L theory, and then Disinformation Agent John Armstrong has built upon it ever since. Not that Armstrong was a member of the Dallas pressure group -- it's only that he knew a great business opportunity when he saw it.

And the potentially libelous statement above comes from a man who seems anxious to shift blame for the Kennedy assassination away from American Intelligence. And what have the insiders said over the years about “Lee Harvey Oswald” and the CIA? Let's take a brief look:

As far as Jack White, you can't libel the dead and the fact that John Armstrong put out his latest theory about Steve Landesberg the actor shows that he knows that. As for Paul's claim of Armstrong being a disinformation agent...

[Jim Hargrove]

In secret testimony to the HSCA, Tokyo-based former CIA accountant James Wilcott said he was told by CIA case officers in his Tokyo Station that funds he personally disbursed to an encrypted account as late as 1963 were for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.” Wilcott's complete testimony, withheld from the American people for decades, is here: http://harveyandlee.net/Wilcott/Wil_full.htm

HSCA notes below obviously refer to Wilcott.

Reference copy, JFK Collections: HSCA (RG 233)

3

9-16-78 Station Finance Tokyo

Bill Schaap – Committee did stress analysis on Jim Wilcott. Cuban

stress analysis verified Wilcott validity. Available

if needed.

Insert (such verification is needed if competent investigation is performed.)

Approximately April-June 1963, Cryptonym for Oswald Project approx. RX-ZIM

Standard two consonants followed by 2, 3, 6 letter pronouncable [sic] word.

Two case officer money dispersal methods:

USSR SR Branch – believed responsible for Oswald Project.

Korea Korea Branch

All stations operate the same, especially Class A Station.

Dpecial Base deep cover CIA base – Atsugi.

True name file destroyed in seconds – told to Committee.

Principle agents – subsidiary agents. Wilcott- includes Diet members.

Code ex. AN AIM 1, AN AIM 2, AN AIM 3, etc.

AN AXCL (approx.) project code name.

Moral Rearmament – CIA project funding (talking to ministers, etc.)

One goal: placing CIA agents in strategic locations.

Washington, D.C. Sept. 64 – May 65: disbursed and audited funds to National Student Association, AFL-CIO, universities (Columbia U.).

Oswald Project Summary:

submit project outline to Chief of Japan Brnach [sic];

submit outline to desk of Japan Branch HDGT.

Project returned to Japan Station.

Nothing sent by mail. Use diplomatic courier. Allotment determined.

Quarterly allocations from approved disbursement. Two withdrawal methods. Advance request signed:

a. agent

b. branch officer

c. fiannce [sic]

d. station auditor checks project code number under cryptonym.

TSD – logistics, etc. all under number code.

Funds withdrawn accounted by agent monthly:

a. difficu,t [sic] to account for all agents expenditures;

b. if balance existed, refunded.

c. If deficit, advance to cover deficit.

d. some advance requests. Some revolving funds. Some agents used own funds.

Year-

[W. Tracy Parnell]

And the HSCA found his statements to be without merit, everyone knows all of this already.

[Michael Morrow]

My personal opinion is that these are clearly the same man, taken at different points in his life. Lighting, head tilt, pursing of the lips in the marine photo (edit: I mean photo on the right, I mistook that for a photo of Oswald in the marines) can easily account for many of the subtle differences between photos. I think there is some interesting evidence suggesting there were sightings of "Oswald" in more than one place at once, but this set of photos doesn't convince me we are looking at two different men.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Michael Morrow

[Ray Mitcham]

My personal opinion is that these are clearly the same man, taken at different points in his life. Lighting, head tilt, pursing of the lips in the marine photo (edit: I mean photo on the right, I mistook that for a photo of Oswald in the marines) can easily account for many of the subtle differences between photos. I think there is some interesting evidence suggesting there were sightings of "Oswald" in more than one place at once, but this set of photos doesn't convince me we are looking at two different men.

When did his ears drop? Puberty?