Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Greg Parker]

Who said she was channeling Allen Dulles ?? Marguerite has a story to tell and that's her job. The photo wasn't deep sixed because nobody reads/looks and the photos of that LHO time frame are scarce and an intell tale of H & L is being told. If someone did look they would see a child experiencing a normal time and that's the tale the CIA wants to tell. //,gaal

So the fake Marguerite's job was to tell a story which included producing a photo of the fake Lee which might blow the whole scheme, but the risk was worth it because they wanted to show Lee was a normal child with sever psychiatric problems per Hartogs which would eventually manifest in killing Kennedy. Intriguing!

And completely idiotic.

[Steven Gaal]

Who said she was channeling Allen Dulles ?? Marguerite has a story to tell and that's her job. The photo wasn't deep sixed because nobody reads/looks and the photos of that LHO time frame are scarce and an intell tale of H & L is being told. If someone did look they would see a child experiencing a normal time and that's the tale the CIA wants to tell. //,gaal

So the fake Marguerite's job was to tell a story which included producing a photo of the fake Lee which might blow the whole scheme, but the risk was worth it because they wanted to show Lee was a normal child with sever psychiatric problems per Hartogs which would eventually manifest in killing Kennedy. Intriguing!

And completely idiotic.

Never said that LHO was presented as normal. Marguerite gave a story that she gave him normal things as a child and yet he turned 'COMMUNIST'. GOVERNMENT Monitor your children closely for you don't know if they could turn out commie traitor. Monitor monitor ...you don't want your child to be a POTUS murderer !!! monitor for any sign and put them on the right path to love the wonderful system we have !! .gaal.

++++++++++++++++++++++

lobotomy Parker

channeling Parker

Completely idiotic Parker ))))) >>>>> ITS possible you are not self aware of how many insults you throw out. ,gaal

Edited August 3, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Greg Parker]

Who said she was channeling Allen Dulles ?? Marguerite has a story to tell and that's her job. The photo wasn't deep sixed because nobody reads/looks and the photos of that LHO time frame are scarce and an intell tale of H & L is being told. If someone did look they would see a child experiencing a normal time and that's the tale the CIA wants to tell. //,gaal

So the fake Marguerite's job was to tell a story which included producing a photo of the fake Lee which might blow the whole scheme, but the risk was worth it because they wanted to show Lee was a normal child with sever psychiatric problems per Hartogs which would eventually manifest in killing Kennedy. Intriguing!

And completely idiotic.

Never said that LHO was presented as normal. Marguerite gave a story that she gave him normal things as a child and yet he turned 'COMMUNIST'. GOVERNMENT Monitor your children closely for you don't know if they could turn out commie traitor. Monitor monitor ...you don't want your child to be a POTUS murderer !!! monitor for any sign and put them on the right path to love the wonderful system we have !! .gaal.

++++++++++++++++++++++

lobotomy Parker

channeling Parker

Completely idiotic Parker ))))) >>>>> ITS possible you are not self aware of how many insults you throw out. ,gaal

More self-aware than you of the insults to intelligent life everywhere that your posts are.

[David Josephs]

So the fake Marguerite's job was to tell a story which included producing a photo of the fake Lee which might blow the whole scheme, but the risk was worth it because they wanted to show Lee was a normal child with sever psychiatric problems per Hartogs which would eventually manifest in killing Kennedy. Intriguing!

And completely idiotic.

Greg... these are your speculations - not anyone's conclusions. "might blow the whole scheme" is YOUR attempt at creating a tautology again. You set up the circumstance with a preconceived WRONG assumption and then build an argument around it...

Let's start this way Greg... Have you ever in your life encountered documentation illustrating the details of a long-term, intelligence-agency-run covert action?

Can you explain what the plan was in 1952 (before and beyond) related to the creation of duplicates for the purposes of intelligence?

I know I can't. So if we don't know the plan... how can we judge what would blow it up or not or what is related to JFK or not?

------------

Hartogs will be another discussion...

[Greg Parker]

So the fake Marguerite's job was to tell a story which included producing a photo of the fake Lee which might blow the whole scheme, but the risk was worth it because they wanted to show Lee was a normal child with sever psychiatric problems per Hartogs which would eventually manifest in killing Kennedy. Intriguing!

And completely idiotic.

Greg... these are your speculations - not anyone's conclusions. "might blow the whole scheme" is YOUR attempt at creating a tautology again. You set up the circumstance with a preconceived WRONG assumption and then build an argument around it...

Let's start this way Greg... Have you ever in your life encountered documentation illustrating the details of a long-term, intelligence-agency-run covert action?

Can you explain what the plan was in 1952 (before and beyond) related to the creation of duplicates for the purposes of intelligence?

I know I can't. So if we don't know the plan... how can we judge what would blow it up or not or what is related to JFK or not?

------------

Hartogs will be another discussion...

Not my speculations. Gaal said her job was to tell a story. Gaal's speculations, if anyone's.

I think it is about time I referred you to a dictionary on the meaning of "tautology".

Here are some examples of real tautology:

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-tautology.html

Have you ever in your life encountered documentation illustrating the details of a long-term, intelligence-agency-run covert action?

Yes I have.

Myra's photo? Anything?

[Steven Gaal]

Oswalds Mothers blogspot

===============================

There Is a Second Margret–The First Wife
Robert Oswald’s first wife was Margret Keating (1892-1972). They were married 13 years and divorced in 1933. Keating never remarried and lived in the same house she shared earlier with Robert Oswald for many years. One peculiar thing was the 1956 telephone directory in New Orleans lists her as Margret Oswald, at the correct street address. This is a name she had not used in 23 years, since the court awarded her maiden name back to her in the 1933 divorce. Notice the year as well–1956. The same year Marguerite’s tax returns are withheld. It could have been a typo but certainly an odd occurrence.

[David Josephs]

Thanks Greg... but I don't need any lectures from you on the meanings of words. We are talking about arguments in logic, not that simplistic page of elementary phrases you linked us to...

In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion.

pl.tau·tol·o·gies (from your link if you click on Tautology)

1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
   b. An instance of such repetition.
2. Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow

When you include the conclusion in the question "the fake Marge's job was to tell a story...." whether yours or Steve's, the conclusion cannot be part of the question as an assumption of the answer...

Try, "Why did Marge produce the photo for the WC?" and then maybe we can have a discussion.

Whether that photo accomplishes this or that is part of the analysis, not part of the question.

but hey, nice try...

[Greg Parker]

Thanks Greg... but I don't need any lectures from you on the meanings of words. We are talking about arguments in logic, not that simplistic page of elementary phrases you linked us to...

In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion.

pl.tau·tol·o·gies (from your link if you click on Tautology)

1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
   b. An instance of such repetition.
2. Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow

When you include the conclusion in the question "the fake Marge's job was to tell a story...." whether yours or Steve's, the conclusion cannot be part of the question as an assumption of the answer...

Try, "Why did Marge produce the photo for the WC?" and then maybe we can have a discussion.

Whether that photo accomplishes this or that is part of the analysis, not part of the question.

but hey, nice try...

You still have no idea. What you refer to is begging the question. You do it constantly.

Now you tell me I should ask a question... which is exactly what I did, Here it is from the other thread: Why did (presumably the fake) Marguerite provide it to the WC, when it might give the game away? That is not a logically fallacious question or in any way tautological.

But even stranger, after telling me to ask a question here (that I've already asked), you then tell me in the other thread that questions are useless ("WHY questions do not help any of us Greg... how would we know why anyone does anything related to these events other than to guess?" You really are a very confusing - and confused individual.

[Paul Trejo]

...In October 1977 Carl Bernstein, in an article for Rolling Stone magazine, wrote about the relationship between the CIA and major media organizations. Bernstein discovered long-standing cooperation between the Agency and the three major television networks (especially CBS), Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, the Associated Press, and United Press International. Following President Kennedy's assassination the CIA sent a dispatch to their stations with instructions on how to handle and employ CIA media assets to support the conclusions of the Warren Commission:

* Discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

* To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets ..…

* In private or media discussion not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider .....

b. Critics usually overvalue items and ignore others .....

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States .....

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride ..... ^VICTORS-11

This CIA dispatch helps to explain why those who support the government's position on President Kennedy's assassination receive full and widespread coverage, while assassination critics receive little, if any, coverage from the mainstream media and are often ridiculed.

--From Harvey and Lee, pp. 979-980

However, Jim, the CIA was not keen to promote the Lone Shooter scenario until forced into the position by J. Edgar Hoover with the force of LBJ behind him.

Until that point, the record shows, the CIA was keen to perceive Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist asset. So, the current Lone Shooter position of the CIA was not originally their position -- but was forced upon them.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

Hey Greg... Look up disingenuous... And then ponder the why of your posting...

Read the book. I'm tired of being your kindergarten teacher.

If the rest of your book attacks H&L with as much inaccuracy, should make for a great fictional tale...

Why do you do what you do Parker? Surely you realize how transparent you are... Lol

[Greg Parker]

Hey Greg... Look up disingenuous... And then ponder the why of your posting...

Read the book. I'm tired of being your kindergarten teacher.

If the rest of your book attacks H&L with as much inaccuracy, should make for a great fictional tale...

Why do you do what you do Parker? Surely you realize how transparent you are... Lol

I am for transparency, unlike those with hidden agendas. I told it like it is. You tell me to ask a question that I have already asked. Erroneously label the question as being a tautology, then claim questions are uselesss, and now spit your dummy and try and deflect by attacking me some more.

[Paul Trejo]

Moderators:

It makes no sense to suspend Greg Parker from this thread (even for a few days) without also suspending David Josephs, because it takes two to tango.

Their several months long trading of insults in this thread is less than instructive about facts, and says more about the literary talents of these combatants.

For those of us who are interested in the issues and the facts, it is exhausting to read through months of insult-trading.

Moderators, please don't suspend Greg Parker from this thread again without also suspending David Josephs, for one may justly argue that Greg Parker is also engaged in self-defense in all these witty (and time-wasting) exchanges.

I don't have a solution -- I agree with Greg Parker that the Harvey & Lee theory is constructed on a foundation of sand, but that is precisely what is at issue here. How can we plead with the combatants to strictly stick to the facts and only the facts in question?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

Paul...

Aren't you the one who keeps pushing uncorroborated evidence as FACT related to Hoover. And when repeatedly shown how this was false you STILL post with that as FACT...

Your MO appears to be to post something you have no clue as to whether it is true or not, supported with evidence or not and then go 15 pages round and round while you do what you can NOT to find the evidence.

When you finally do get shown you're wrong... you shrug it off as no big thing and go back to the same MO...

Greg and I are debating. We have strong personalities and are passionate about our positions.

Go back over this thread and jot down every post Greg has posted supporting evidence to his conclusions... then do the same for my posts. We both have our share of outbursts... the difference is Greg simply doesn't BELIEVE in something regardless of the evidence whereas I expect those with a contrary position to present authetnic evidence in their support.

The records could not be more clear. 127 + days of attendance and absence in what amounts to no more than 70 days of potential school days WITHOUT going to Youth House from mid-April to May. I'm sorry he doesn't BELIEVE yet math is math.

There are simply not enough days from 3/23/53 to 6/29/53 to attend 105 days of school. Sorry.

Why the FBI chose 3/23 thru 1/12/54 to say there were 200 days of combined school comes from them putting 127+ days into 3 1/2 months of school. It comes from them counting 55 summer school days. It is a construct andnothing offered by Greg refutes this. You will notice his replies are all "I've done the math and it's correct" without showing anything.

I HAVE a solution Paul... Read the book... I know, radical idea but rather than hoping Greg or I have it right... do your own work.

Do you trust what the WCR says without checking the footnotes and sources to see how disingenuous they are? of course not.

Why would you accept any less from posters here?

Another suggestion... don't like the thread... leave. Go to harveyandlee.net and READ. Check the sources. Find the proof of something BEFORE you post it Paul... maybe then people would take you seriously.

by the way Greg, simply because the moderators don't look up "spit the dummy" to see what an offensive insult that is and hold you to task for it does not mean I don't find you funny in a juvenile sort of way. I'm sorry you don't understand tautologies or how you're disingenuous as you present them as your arguments... the rest of us do and find your lame attempts at H&L attack - even so far as to put them in your book - to be motivated by some need for attention.

Greg Parker gets so much more attention when he attacks H&L, John, me, Steve and Jim H. Like a politician trying to shift the focus by running attack ads... until we find that your own presentation is so lacking you have no other choice but to hitch your wagon to a topic that people are actually interested in.

Is a positive campaign focused on your own work and it's sources not within your abilities? People are tired of this bickering and thread since you offer nothing for them to hold onto when reviewing H&L but your unsupported opinions and even worse math skills.

SHOW US Greg... if you can. So far on this long thread you've not been able to even accurately count to 200 or explain the problems found in the records... all due to your BELIEF there was no Harvey... your pre-conceived conclusion that regardless of what the evidence shows, you BELIEVE it not possible.

Just like DVP BELIEVES the SBT to be real... Belief is great Greg... Faith allows you never to have to prove anything...

or listen to anyone else about possible problems within the FAITH... Lucky you.

The rest of us use evidence, research and authentication to come to our conclusions. Belief and Faith are for religions, not logic and corroboration which is the antithesis of Faith...

I focus on the evidence, what it says and whether it is authentic and how it is or isn't. No belief or faith involved.

When and if you post something other than faith and belief, it will be obvious. As obvious as your current arguments being grounded in pure faith, belief and hope that no one notices you have no idea what you're talking about.

To wrap up Paul (and mods) - I put images in my posts. Images of evidence and their corroboration, their connections and the reasons why I conclude certain things. You can make up your own minds based on the actual data itself, not the tautological para-phrasing of those who never have bothered to read the work in the first place.

If Greg had something with which to refute Ping Tung (or any of the H&L evidence), he would post it rather than another tautology which makes it appear he has a clue about what we are discussing. He was wrong about the ship's doctoring, wrong about the med records, wrong about the DoD/HSCA/Blakey fiasco and wrong about Oswald being in both places at the same time... yet he still claims he is right that there was only one person in either place.

that's pure blind FAITH. Like the FAITH that the WCR is correct in its conclusions. Amusing for sure, but tiresome when you expect more from someone claiming to know so much about our man Oswald....

[Steven Gaal]

Author Jim Marrs mentions in his book, Crossfire, that Specter threatened witness Jean Hill with institutionalization if she did not recant her story of,’witnessing a rifleman firing from the Grassy Knoll and immediately being grabbed by two men who claimed to be Secret Service agents,’ and ‘between four and six shots.’ Ms. Hill recalled in 1986 that Specter’s exact words were, ‘Look, we can make you look as crazy as Marguerite Oswald(Oswald’s mom) and everybody knows how crazy she is. We could have you put in a mental institution if you don’t cooperate with us.’

https://jfkplayersandwitnesses.wordpress.com/page/3/

============================================================

######################################################

Guest Post: The Curious Case of the American Bakeries Pay Voucher

=

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SYq5Du2CcygJ:gaylenixjackson.com/jfk-assassination/guest-post-the-curious-case-of-the-american-bakeries-pay-voucher/+&cd=58&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

=====================

Conclusion

Lee Rankin, general counsel of the Warren Commission, made some interesting connections when questioning Marguerite Oswald during her testimony. He was in the process of asking her of any names she may recognize as Oswald’s personal friends, one of the names he mentioned was James Arthur Jackson. What followed is nothing less than astonishing. Her response is "No, you know, a few of those names sound to me like they might be on the back of both these pictures. I am not sure." Mr. Rankin continues by saying, "They are supposed to be associated or friends of people that Mr. Ruby knew and associated with closely." If this is, in fact, true and the commission knew about it, it would appear that Mr. Jackson gave false information when he claimed he had no knowledge of either Jack Ruby or Lee Harvey Oswald in his witnessed statement to authorities. Under normal circumstances, this could be considered obstruction of justice. Perhaps, this was a misstatement on Rankin’s part, but it clearly demonstrates that Rankin was fully aware of the paystub. If his statement was accurate, this would add a much deeper (and potentially sinister) dimension to the case of this paystub.

What is clear, however, is that the complete contents of the paystub have been hidden away from public view. In an interview with researcher Ed LeDoux, Jackson claimed that when he was questioned about the paystub by the FBI, he was not shown the document. Internal memos suggest that even the Warren Commission was not shown the stub. If there was, indeed, an innocent explanation as to how Oswald got Jackson’s pay document and if the stub did have Jackson’s proper information on it, why the secrecy? Other items found on Oswald at the time of his arrest have been made public, including his wallet, ID cards, bus transfer, and bullets. So, why was this paystub, which could have provided evidence that Oswald was potentially stealing other people’s pay cheques (adding credibility to the argument that he was, indeed, a criminal), scrubbed from the public record? What is also clear is that when one compares the officially recorded dates of Jackson’s earnings to the actual date the cheque was cashed, the FBI (or American Bakeries, the source of Jackson’s employment information) was, evidently, forced to fabricate a backstory for this cheque to fit someone’s new version of "the facts." What researchers are left with, then, in regards to the pay stub, is secrecy and dishonesty. The fact that the records for temporary employees of 1960 (the year of the cheque) were completely ignored, was an oversight that was both incompetent and inexcusable. The fact that crucial dates were made confusing or seemingly changed (the date of the discovery of the stub, the dates of the pay periods) should have caused honest investigators to ask some serious questions. If the investigation into the President’s assassination had been open, transparent, and just, such apparent actions should not have occurred. Is it possible that the pay stub contains information that links directly to Oswald? If so, what information was being obstructed? The possibility, however seemingly remote, exists that this cheque stub may have shown that Oswald was not in the Soviet Union, or that there was some sort of Oswald imposter actively in the United States. In short, that would have poked an enormous hole in the official story of Oswald’s activities and the investigation would have taken on a whole new angle, an angle that would have been very troublesome to Warren Commission investigators. However, until this information is rediscovered, the mystery of the pay stub will remain just that: a mystery; one of many mysteries surrounding the tragic death of John F. Kennedy

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Steve Gaal wrote:

Author Jim Marrs mentions in his book, Crossfire, that Specter threatened witness Jean Hill with institutionalization if she did not recant her story of,’witnessing a rifleman firing from the Grassy Knoll and immediately being grabbed by two men who claimed to be Secret Service agents,’ and ‘between four and six shots.’ Ms. Hill recalled in 1986 that Specter’s exact words were, ‘Look, we can make you look as crazy as Marguerite Oswald(Oswald’s mom) and everybody knows how crazy she is. We could have you put in a mental institution if you don’t cooperate with us.’

And what is the evidence for this? I am guessing this came from directly Jean and there is no other basis for it. Pardon me if I don't consider her a very reliable source.