Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Greg Parker]

Jim,

As you probably already know, Joesten has it wrong. The Newsday article says:

"Several bars and coffee-houses in the Village that cater to the college crowd

reported that FBI agents had been around and showed a color snapshot of a

dark-haired, bearded man in his early or mid-20s. The man was dressed in a

blue coat and wore a red scarf."

This was probably just a typo on his part and he picked up the red from the red scarf in the following sentence. But don't take my word for it, check out the original article at Armstrong's own files (page 2):

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/41611/rec/24

Now, is Armstrong going to re-write this business about the red-bearded man or let it stand? Or are you going to claim that this is "documentation" when we can see the original source?

Tracy how many ways do you need it spelled out that facts are just a nuisance and should not be allowed to interfere with the H & L Truthers version of reality?

All you have to do is trust Big Brother when he says:

War is Peace

Ignorance is Strength

Harvey is Lee

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim,

As you probably already know, Joesten has it wrong. The Newsday article says:

"Several bars and coffee-houses in the Village that cater to the college crowd

reported that FBI agents had been around and showed a color snapshot of a

dark-haired, bearded man in his early or mid-20s. The man was dressed in a

blue coat and wore a red scarf."

This was probably just a typo on his part and he picked up the red from the red scarf in the following sentence. But don't take my word for it, check out the original article at Armstrong's own files (page 2):

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/41611/rec/24

Now, is Armstrong going to re-write this business about the red-bearded man or let it stand? Or are you going to claim that this is "documentation" when we can see the original source?

Tracy how many ways do you need it spelled out that facts are just a nuisance and should not be allowed to interfere with the H & L Truthers version of reality?

All you have to do is trust Big Brother when he says:

War is Peace

Ignorance is Strength

Harvey is Lee

I hear you Greg and I know you have been down this road with the H&L crowd as well. Unless they have another source on this (and I don't know of one) they have a problem with the new article since much of it is based on the red beard thing. All they have left without that is Al Fowler (who was a heroin addict) and the same stuff they had before. We will see what they do. I have one or two other things to run by them as well before I finish my rebuttal.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

More questions for the Armstrong supporters:

In his new article, Armstrong has the following timeline for the FBI/Gray/Rizzuto meetings:

8:30 pm (11-22) Rizzuto calls Gray who invites him to the station for an interview.

1:30 am Gray calls the FBI and tells them Rizzuto is coming.

3:00 am Gray interviews Rizzuto on the air while the FBI agents listen.

23rd The FBI interviews Rizzuto and he tells them his now well known story.

My questions:

What are the sources for these statements?

Since when does the FBI let someone else handle their interview duties?

Where does it say that Gray interviewed both L'Eandes and Rizzuto?

Edited July 7, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

Posted by Albert Doyle on another forum:

==================== QUOTE ON =====================

Jim,

The deniers are desperate on the Landesberg issue.


1) SHL lived at 66 W 10th. L'eandes lived on 8th St or Macdougal. Those are 2 different places for 2 different people.


2) FBI could have just shown the photo of L'eandes to Fowler and asked him if it was SHL? They could also have brought Fowler in to their office to meet SHL and ask if this was the same person. They could have just looked themselves and compared. The deniers have no problem with the fact they didn't. They are obviously aware of this and desperate since they are now trying to discredit Fowler by calling him a heroin addict (As if that would have anything to do with a simple ID of L'eandes)


3) Barry Gray specifically told FBI that Rizzuto and L'eandes were definitely two different people. I guess he was a heroin addict too? The deniers ignore this.


4) SR Landesberg specifically said I wish I never got involved with Oswald. The deniers are ignoring this too.


5) The trick of these craven deniers is to pretend FBI is an honest truth-seeking boy scout-like institution that reports honestly and wasn't complicit in covering-up a deep CIA doubles program linked to the assassination. Not to mention the need to see themselves as honest critics with sound motives who are only out to vet the evidence. These deniers are basically saying FBI had no agenda and you can trust them and their investigation into Landesberg. What these crass deniers are doing is asking you to focus on the red beard while they ignore serious evidence they haven't yet answered.


There's probably some others that I missed.

We don't need the red beard. If that's all they have they are grasping at whiskers.

========================== QUOTE OFF =====================

[Jim Hargrove]

More questions for the Armstrong supporters:

In his new article, Armstrong has the following timeline for the FBI/Gray/Rizzuto meetings:

8:30 pm (11-22) Rizzuto calls Gray who invites him to the station for an interview.

1:30 am Gray calls the FBI and tells them Rizzuto is coming.

3:00 am Gray interviews Rizzuto on the air while the FBI agents listen.

23rd The FBI interviews Rizzuto and he tells them his now well known story.

My questions:

What are the sources for these statements?

Since when does the FBI let someone else handle their interview duties?

Where does it say that Gray interviewed both L'Eandes and Rizzuto?

Please do your own research, Tracy. John has made this work easy for you by posting all his documents at Baylor. When you have your rebuttal piece ready, publish it! I'll at least try to get John to read it.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

More questions for the Armstrong supporters:

In his new article, Armstrong has the following timeline for the FBI/Gray/Rizzuto meetings:

8:30 pm (11-22) Rizzuto calls Gray who invites him to the station for an interview.

1:30 am Gray calls the FBI and tells them Rizzuto is coming.

3:00 am Gray interviews Rizzuto on the air while the FBI agents listen.

23rd The FBI interviews Rizzuto and he tells them his now well known story.

My questions:

What are the sources for these statements?

Since when does the FBI let someone else handle their interview duties?

Where does it say that Gray interviewed both L'Eandes and Rizzuto?

Please do your own research, Tracy. John has made this work easy for you by posting all his documents at Baylor. When you have your rebuttal piece ready, publish it! I'll at least try to get John to read it.

Oh he reads it for sure. That is where he got the idea to use Fowler in his latest article.

Edited July 7, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Posted by Albert Doyle on another forum:

==================== QUOTE ON =====================

Jim,

The deniers are desperate on the Landesberg issue.

1) SHL lived at 66 W 10th. L'eandes lived on 8th St or Macdougal. Those are 2 different places for 2 different people.

The source here is the Newsday article that got a few things wrong such as L'Eandes being bearded. There are no other reports of 8th street or McDougal which Armstrong originally had as "8th and McDougal" until I corrected him. EDIT-one other report of 8th street only by NY Times, but that was an early article that undoubtedly relied on second hand information. All sources such as FBI and Landesberg's mother say no 8th or MacDougal.

2) FBI could have just shown the photo of L'eandes to Fowler and asked him if it was SHL? They could also have brought Fowler in to their office to meet SHL and ask if this was the same person. They could have just looked themselves and compared. The deniers have no problem with the fact they didn't. They are obviously aware of this and desperate since they are now trying to discredit Fowler by calling him a heroin addict (As if that would have anything to do with a simple ID of L'eandes)

There is no indication of when Fowler made his statements to Sanders but it almost certainly was not until years later. I am not calling Fowler a heroin addict-he WAS a heroin addict as Sanders his friend documents in the book.

3) Barry Gray specifically told FBI that Rizzuto and L'eandes were definitely two different people. I guess he was a heroin addict too? The deniers ignore this.

Wrong. Gray simply stated that he had interviewed "L'Eandes" previously, he never said that they were two different individuals and Gray probably interviewed "L'Eandes" by phone. Doyle gets this idea from Armstrong but there is no proof of this.

4) SR Landesberg specifically said I wish I never got involved with Oswald. The deniers are ignoring this too.

I am not ignoring it and covered this in my original article and will be discussing it in my rebuttal. The bottom line is since there is no tape recording of the statement or other documentation, Armstrong can continue to say this as long as he likes and it cannot be disproven.

5) The trick of these craven deniers is to pretend FBI is an honest truth-seeking boy scout-like institution that reports honestly and wasn't complicit in covering-up a deep CIA doubles program linked to the assassination. Not to mention the need to see themselves as honest critics with sound motives who are only out to vet the evidence. These deniers are basically saying FBI had no agenda and you can trust them and their investigation into Landesberg. What these crass deniers are doing is asking you to focus on the red beard while they ignore serious evidence they haven't yet answered.

I'm asking people to focus on the fact that Armstrong uses non existent and inaccurate sources and apparently does so knowingly and with the blessings of his supporters.

Edited July 7, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Greg Parker]

I'm asking people to focus on the fact that Armstrong uses non existent and inaccurate sources and apparently does so knowingly and with the blessings of his supporters.

Bingo!

Another of the follies of the theory was pointed out by "Drew" at the Foo:

Why on earth would your highly placed, devious, and conniving architects of this double Oswald deception deliberately go out of their way to set up "Oswald sightings" in the USA, when it is clearly a matter of public knowledge that Oswald defected and was in Russia, thereby ruining the plausibility of whatever story "they" are attempting to mastermind?

And of course, he is absolutely right to question that aspect.

But Brian Doyle (who has taken on his deceased father Albert's profile online) responded with his usual gibberish:

To get double their money's worth on sheep-dipping Oswald as a nut. The target wasn't the public. The target was persons or groups of interest and political targets that wouldn't know which side it was coming from. This was a cutting-edge intel program seeking maximum effect. Oswald was then switched to patsy in a presidential assassination.

.

This cutting-edge intel program to "sheep-dip" Oswald as a nut failed tho', didn't it? I mean, it was known he was out of the country, therefore every single one of those sightings was dismissed. I don't believe Brian even believes most of what he writes.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg Parker,

Let's suppose in 1963 you want the U.S. to do "A".

JFK is opposed to A. But others, who operate levers of power, favor A strongly.

If you have the chance, do you sign up with the others who favor A?

[Steven Gaal]

This cutting-edge intel program to "sheep-dip" Oswald as a nut failed tho', didn't it? I mean, it was known he was out of the country, therefore every single one of those sightings was dismissed. I don't believe Brian even believes most of what he writes. // PARKER

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

every single one of those sightings was dismissed ....for one and only one scenario.

The whole project gave the possibility of multiple scenarios : Montreal peace marcher, FPCC agitator, mental asylum worker or is that patient ? , gun runner, Mexico adventurer, family man with immigrant wife moving to Wisconsin or other northern state, Marxist that abuses wife , member homosexual underground ,confused repatriation bound USSR man and/or Cuban asylum seeker. GAAL

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

If you understand the Spiders Web ,its possible that Oswald would have been reported to have not worked at the TSBD but the airport . (was never at TSBD and shooting of the POTUS done at the airport)

An airport scenario would have been given by CIA assets telling a tale. // gaal

Edited July 7, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Paul Trejo]

Greg Parker,

Let's suppose in 1963 you want the U.S. to do "A".

JFK is opposed to A. But others, who operate levers of power, favor A strongly.

If you have the chance, do you sign up with the others who favor A?

I'll chime in with an opinion, Jon.

A back-stabbing, JFK-hating traitor and his quislings will definitely sign up with the "others" who favor A.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 7, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Greg Parker,

Let's suppose in 1963 you want the U.S. to do "A".

JFK is opposed to A. But others, who operate levers of power, favor A strongly.

If you have the chance, do you sign up with the others who favor A?

If those "others" operate the levers of power, what does it matter if JFK is dead or alive, let alone who I sign up with?

[Greg Parker]

This cutting-edge intel program to "sheep-dip" Oswald as a nut failed tho', didn't it? I mean, it was known he was out of the country, therefore every single one of those sightings was dismissed. I don't believe Brian even believes most of what he writes. // PARKER

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

every single one of those sightings was dismissed ....for one and only one scenario.

The whole project gave the possibility of multiple scenarios : Montreal peace marcher, FPCC agitator, mental asylum worker or is that patient ? , gun runner, Mexico adventurer, family man with immigrant wife moving to Wisconsin or other northern state, Marxist that abuses wife , member homosexual underground ,confused repatriation bound USSR man and/or Cuban asylum seeker. GAAL

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

If you understand the Spiders Web ,its possible that Oswald would have been reported to have not worked at the TSBD but the airport . (was never at TSBD and shooting of the POTUS done at the airport)

An airport scenario would have been given by CIA assets telling a tale. // gaal

I don't talk to those who bait and then run to momma when the bait is chewed off. Go and suck an egg.

[Jim Hargrove]

Like with Ralph Yates the intel bastards who were setting up SH Landesberg as a destroyable patsy got carried away and failed to consider he might squeal after realizing the context of the assassination. SHL is kind of like Gary Underhill. SHL is lucky he wasn't killed before he got to the radio station. SHL is kind of like Nagell too. Those who argue CIA was water-tight are ignoring these huge breaches. They do so by carefully stilting their arguments on the dismissive assumption of their denial.

FBI was in a bind. The uninvolved members had to respond to SHL normally. They probably figured SHL was doing some kind of covert disinformation op and let him continue up until they got orders to stop him and destroy his story. They probably figured if he was dangerous to intel that intel would have handled it. After they were brought up to speed on how to handle SHL they crushed him and his story by using an insanity method similar to Ralph Yates.

Deniers are forced into a position of pure sophistry in order to get around the obvious. They practice the Lone Nut method of demanding perfect purity of evidence, holding the hoops and hurdles higher and higher as their bs gets exposed. You could pop their denial with a pin xxxxx it is so obviously disingenuous. It's clear they aren't answering the points and are trying steer the conversation into their dishonest evasions. They never answer that 10th St is a different address than 8th St. Nor do they make any attempt to answer why FBI didn't just ask Fowler to ID SH Landesberg? Or ask Gray if the two men were different people? Or question the numerous Village Voice​ reporters who met L'eandes. Or the people at the Circle bar. Or the 9 people and their addresses that Rizutto gave FBI. Their argument method is clearly the form of evasive deniers. Its worst irony is if you do the further rigor they call for it only works in Armstrong's favor. Also - It's goofy to try and ignore that Fowler was recorded reaching out to FBI at the time. Ignoring this and trying to say Fowler talked to Sanders years later is a self-destruction of credibility and giving away of personal dishonesty.

I'm not sure the photo FBI was showing around didn't have a beard. Deniers enjoy the advantage of hiding behind obvious FBI deception and hiding of evidence while pretending everything is normal. They operate on a purely dishonest assumption that FBI was perfectly validated in this deception because SH Landesberg was a nut and fraud just like FBI claimed so they don't have to answer the rest. The inherent dishonesty of that approach should be obvious to most honest people.

I'd also question the doubt over Barry Gray saying L'eandes and Rizzuto were 2 different people. I think there might be a credible FBI record on that that the deniers are gambling H&L backers won't be able to produce. That's just a straight-out and direct dishonesty.

--Posted here with permission of Albert Doyle, who posted the above in another forum.

[Jim Hargrove]

While being enormously concerned about the color of SR Landesberg's beard, the Harvey & Lee Hit Squad that works so diligently here seems quite content to be totally unconcerned about the following:

1. Credible reports indicating different addresses for the two different Landesbergs. L'eandes/SR Landesberg (the future actor) on 8^th St. or McDougal St. and Landes/SH Landesberg, the student, who lived at 66 W. 10^th St. We're told, and offered no evidence whatsoever, that Newsday “got a few things wrong” and the NY Times “relied on second hand information.” Two NY newspapers, according to H&L critics, are simply incapable of getting NYC addresses straight.

2. When WMCA's Barry Gray called the FBI at 1:30 AM on 11/23/63, he said he knew L'eandes (SR Landesberg, the future actor) and had interviewed him two years earlier. But Gray did not know Rizzuto (SH Landesberg, the student) when he first met him an hour and a half or so later.

3. The Hit Squad totally ignores the fact that Dallas journalist Earl Golz said that he had seen a televised interview with the SR Landesberg (the actor) from the 1990s when Landesberg said he was “sorry he ever got mixed up with Oswald”

4. Perhaps the Hit Squad can do some actual research based on documents NOT in the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University. Perhaps they can produce an FBI report, or any evidence at all, showing agents actually bothered to ask Al Fowler to identify L'eandes/SR Landesberg (the actor), or interview ANY of the Village Voice reporters who met L'eandes (the actor), or speak to any of the nine different people identified, with addresses for each, by Rizutto/SH Landesberg (the student), who Rizutto said knew L'eandes (the actor), including the actor's former roommate, Michael Dunn, who lived at 169 East 49^th St. in apt. 5C.

5. The H&L Hit Squad is totally unconcerned that, when the FBI attempted to locate a man named “Regan” who Rizzuto (the student) said paid L'eander (the actor), they bothered to travel all the way to the Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans, forgetting to visit the Roosevelt Hotel in New York, where Rizzuto said Regan lived. This, we're told, is a perfectly understandable mistake.

6. The H&L Hit Squad seems totally unconcerned that all court records and backup records for the arrest and incarceration of Stephen Harris Landesberg (the student) have disappeared. Perhaps members of the Hit Squad can contact the US District Court House for the Southern District of NY at 40 Foley Square in NYC, ptoduce those records, and prove John Armstrong wrong. I won't hold my breath.

This list can, and hopefully soon will be, a whole lot longer, but right now I've got a few other things to do.