Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Jim Hargrove

New Article by John Armstrong

Recommended Posts

A brand new article by John Armstrong explains how Harvey Oswald was set up as the designated patsy for the assassination of JFK.  The setup began in earnest in May 1963 when Harvey was instructed to move from Dallas to New Orleans while Lee remained in Dallas.  It continued through November 20, 1963, the dates of both the Ralph Leon Yates and Redbird Airport incidents, as well as through November 22, 1963 and beyond.

Instead of allowing the  H&L critics to tell you what’s in this article and why it is all wrong, why not take a look for yourself?  Here’s the link....

Setting up Harvey Oswald as the "Patsy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent article! And while I don't begrudge Armstrong his larger H&L theory, the value of this article is appreciated by the fact that it delves into nothing prior to 1963. 

Cudos, Mr Armstrong..

and thank you for sharing, Jim,

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s a good point, Michael.  There is quite a bit of information in John’s book about Morales, but not in this new article. I’ll try to remember to ask him about that, though I suspect he’ll say that Morales was primarily a tool of Phillips and therefore more of a mechanic than a plotter.  Thanks for the kind words about the new essay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're expected to believe this:

After a few drinks the subject of President Kennedy's assassination came up. Benson told the agent that he had visited the slain President's grave and had "peed" on it. The Cuban agent later identified a photograph of David Atlee Phlllips as "Harold Benson." 

I've been to ANC...numerous times.  I live about 40 minutes away from it. There is no way anyone would have stood at Kennedy's grave, pulled out his penis, and urinated on it without someone having said something. No way.  Which brings me to this...

This is exactly what's wrong with the entire Hardly Lee story - it's a bunch of grabbing words from the WC testimony, dubious antedotes, and misinterpreting of the record to create the fairy tale. That's all it is. If you are new to this site, I invite you to go here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/

It begins with a former member here critiquing Lee Harvey Oswald's clone's - the same clone fantasy believers of the Hardly Lee story think was found in Hungary - ability to speak Russian. But of course Hardly Lee supporters will literally take words out of the record and out of people's mouths to make the story fit their round peg into a square hole.

A while back the guy who wrote this fairy tale was charging $60 bucks for the 1,000 page book and CD.  He recently announced that it's now free.  I wonder why.  But going to the link above you will find many suckers who have bought into the story. And then you will also find those (like myself) who think the whole thing is a ridiculous fairy tale.  Which it is.

You may also want to go here, which is site that also critiques the Hardly Lee story. Lots of good, solid rebuttals.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence

And here is a third:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That’s a good point, Michael.  There is quite a bit of information in John’s book about Morales, but not in this new article. I’ll try to remember to ask him about that, though I suspect he’ll say that Morales was primarily a tool of Phillips and therefore more of a mechanic than a plotter.  Thanks for the kind words about the new essay.

Roger that Jim, but, Mechanic or plotter, he was Bona Fide CIA, was he not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mr. Armstrong’s article has highlighted how the best and brightest assassination planners in the world appear to have designed the framing of Lee Oswald in such an absurdly inept manner that The Three Stooges should be green with envy. 

As Mr. Armstrong so expertly points out, nearly every framing element falls to pieces on close examination. A well designed frame should have led to an open and shut case, but there are so many contradictions and impossibilities that that didn’t happen. 

There are a number of possibilities why this is so. My take is that Lee Oswald, his twin, and their handler, were secretly sabotaging Oswald’s patsy bona fides while also trying to sabotage the coup. In my amateurish way, I’ve been suggesting that they also left us a trove of explanatory puzzles to solve. 

My guess is that the sabotaging work of Oswald and his crew is why we’re still studying and talking about many of these things today. While getting a handle on the “big picture” is critical, I think the minutia surrounding Oswald’s frame-up is important too. 

 
Edited by Tom Hume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

We're expected to believe this:

After a few drinks the subject of President Kennedy's assassination came up. Benson told the agent that he had visited the slain President's grave and had "peed" on it. The Cuban agent later identified a photograph of David Atlee Phlllips as "Harold Benson." 

I've been to ANC...numerous times.  I live about 40 minutes away from it. There is no way anyone would have stood at Kennedy's grave, pulled out his penis, and urinated on it without someone having said something. No way.  Which brings me to this...

This is exactly what's wrong with the entire Hardly Lee story - it's a bunch of grabbing words from the WC testimony, dubious antedotes, and misinterpreting of the record to create the fairy tale. That's all it is....

...........

Well, Armstrong's book has citations for his passages. And instead of rambling incoherently about something that you never read, you could have taken the time to check that citation. That's called research. Research is fun and interesting because invariably you come upon many more interesting documents and sources. And, I found the source for the quote that you seem to be soooo hurt-about, but rather than check it out you decided howl-foul with the Walton-Whine.

Here is the larger quote and a link for that quote. FYI, a group of Cuban's, exiles, researchers, investigators and authors got together in the Bahamas in 1995 to sort out and document what they could, while they were alive. 

"Without billing, fancy brochures, press conferences, book marts, and the frills of the agenda, a group of highly motivated individuals gathered to put their collective minds toward trying to resolve some of the issues surrounding the JFK assassination at Nassau. Three Cubans attended the meeting to report on what they had found in regards to Cuban documentation on several issues.  Carlos Lechuga, former Cuban diplomat, attended, as did two retired Cuban State Security officials,  General Fabian Escalante Font and  Arturo Rodriguez

Wayne Smith from the Center for International Studies acted as moderator. Others in attendance were: Gaeton Fonzi,  Jeremy Gunn (Council and Chief Investigator for the Assassination Review Board),  John Judge, Andy Kolis,  Peter Kornbluh * (National Security Archives), Mary and Ray LaFontaine*, Jim Lesar  (AARC), John NewmanAlan RogersDick RussellTony Summers, Russ Swickard, Peter Dale ScottEd SherryNoel Twyman  and Gordon Winslow."

From that conference.....

"In 1972, this CIA official had an interview with our agent. Our agent at
that time had a different case official. But this man came as a.... as a leader, as a boss or something.
Had an interview with our agent. This interview was... took place in Mexico they were just having a few drinks. In between, Kennedy [Kennedy's name] came into the conversation they were talking about... into the conversation, not Kennedy came to, into... So when the subject comes up this character explains to our agent that after Kennedy's death, he visited his grave and peed on it and said he [JFK] was a communist and such and such. We still didn't know who Harold Benson was but when Claudia Furiati did her research, among the people we interviewed was this agent. We showed him a group of photographs. Plus we already knew about David Phillips. I'm speaking of 92 and 93. And the photograph that we showed him was a photograph of David Phillips. And so he pointed out as Harold Benson. This is all the information I can give you. There are some other informations. 

 

..................

So Mr. Walton says that DAP could not get near JFK's grave to desecrate it. And Mr. Walton knows this because he lives nearby. 

And Mr. Walton would rather cry foul about Armstrongs passage, because the book used to be priced beyond his budget, but he does not bother to check it out now, even though it's free.

And this goes on day after day after day.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

We're expected to believe this:

After a few drinks the subject of President Kennedy's assassination came up. Benson told the agent that he had visited the slain President's grave and had "peed" on it. The Cuban agent later identified a photograph of David Atlee Phlllips as "Harold Benson." 

I've been to ANC...numerous times.  I live about 40 minutes away from it. There is no way anyone would have stood at Kennedy's grave, pulled out his penis, and urinated on it without someone having said something. No way.

Thanks to Michael Clark for refuting Mr. Walton's usual no-nothing venom so handily, but since I spent twenty minutes composing my own rebuttal, I guess I'll just pile on.

Mr. Walton appears incapable of understanding that the question here is not whether, in Mr. Walton’s opinion, it is possible to desecrate a grave in Arlington National Cemetery. The question is whether David Atlee Phillips said that he did such a desecration.  Since Mr. Walton cannot do the simple research required to examine this claim, I’ll do it for him.

Retired Cuban State Security official General Fabian Escalante Font was among the Cubans who attended a well known 1995 seminar at the Nassau Beach Hotel between JFK researchers and various representatives of Cuba.  Among the researchers giving papers at the seminar were Wayne Smith, Cyril Wecht, Gaeton Fonzi, Gordon Winslow, John Newman, James Lesar, Fabian Escalante Font, Arturo Rodriguez, William Turner and Eric Hamburg.

The page reproduced below is part of a partially redacted transcript of a conversation Escalante participated in at the conference.  In the bottom paragraph of this page, Escalante says, just as John wrote in this article, that in 1972 an undercover Cuban intelligence agent met with a man who identified himself as "Harold Benson." After a few drinks the subject of President Kennedy's assassination came up. Benson told the agent that he had visited the slain President's grave and had "peed" on it. The Cuban agent later identified a photograph of David Atlee Phlllips as "Harold Benson."

Escalante.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Michael Walton's criticisms are correct -- but Walton didn't have enough time to deal with the flaws in John Armstrong's points one at a time.

John Armstrong does indeed take material from the Warren Commission and twist it to suit his science fiction fantasy of Two Oswalds.

Armstrong's modus operandi is taking the "mistaken identity" testimony about all these false sightings of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas and Fort Worth as true and correct -- and from this fabricating an entirely different person, operating under CIA control.   Actually, the cases of seeing "Lee Oswald" in a barbershop, driving Ruth Paine's station wagon, with a young boy, with Marina shopping, at a Lincoln car dealership, at a gun range, at the Carousel Club with Jack Ruby -- and all these "mistaken identity" cases -- all fall apart quickly when one reads the WC testimony.  The witnesses are so shallow that their stories just crumble under cross examination.

And so does the basic Harvey & Lee theory, by direct proxy. 

On the other hand -- if we were to agree that "Harvey Oswald" was actually "Lee Harvey Oswald," then there are several points with which I can agree with John Armstrong -- in particular:

1.  LEE HARVEY OSWALD's behavior was orchestrated order to blame him as a Communist Assassin working for Fidel Castro.

2.  The "set-up" of LEE HARVEY OSWALD began when he agreed to relocate to New Orleans from Dallas in late April, 1963.

3.  David Atlee Phillips was working with Guy Bannister and David Ferrie in New Orleans to make things appear that LEE HARVEY OSWALD was a supporter of Castro through the FPCC

4.  The JFK plotter's ultimate goal was to convince America that Cuba and LEE HARVEY OSWALD killed JFK, so that the USA would invade Cuba.

HOWEVER -- like most CIA-did-it CTers, John Armstrong presumes that David Atlee Phillips was giving orders to Guy Banister.  That's a basic error, according to me.  Actually, Guy Banister was manipulating David Atlee Phillips, with a promise that Fidel Castro's death was their only target. That alone was what enabled Banister to get a few CIA rogues on his side.

The plot that killed JFK was a US Radical Right plot led by CIVILIANS.  That has been the best-kept secret for more than a half-century.  It is mainly these old, moldy CIA-did-it make-believe tales that delay the Truth from coming forward.  A tremendous amount of JFK Research is wasted on the CIA-did-it CT -- as much or more today as 50 years ago.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Actually, Michael Walton's criticisms are correct -- but Walton didn't have enough time to deal with the flaws in John Armstrong's points one at a time.

That's rubbish Paul. All he does is pick one sentence and rants and  rants about about a thousand page book that he's never read. Then he comes back again in a few days because he is hurt about something and repeats his hit and run. That is his modus operandi.

John Armstrong does indeed take material from the Warren Commission and twist it to suit his science fiction fantasy of Two Oswalds.

Cherry picking, word-twisting and nuance fumigation are your area of expertise. You are wrong again and you have also not read the book.

Armstrong's modus operandi is taking the "mistaken identity" testimony about all these false sightings of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas and Fort Worth as true and correct -- and from this fabricating an entirely different person, operating under CIA control.   Actually, the cases of seeing "Lee Oswald" in a barbershop, driving Ruth Paine's station wagon, with a young boy, with Marina shopping, at a Lincoln car dealership, at a gun range, at the Carousel Club with Jack Ruby -- and all these "mistaken identity" cases -- all fall apart quickly when one reads the WC testimony.  The witnesses are so shallow that their stories just crumble under cross examination.

What cross examination Paul? There was no cross examination. In the case of the furniture mart, even the WC didn't have to obfuscate the truth, because they got several witnesses (Marina, store owner and friend) together and no one could sort out the truth. The obfuscation was already done by the Oswald double.

And so does the basic Harvey & Lee theory, by direct proxy. A contradiction in terms, a classic Trejo absurdity. But you did not read the book.

On the other hand -- if we were to agree that "Harvey Oswald" was actually "Lee Harvey Oswald," then there are several point with which I can agree with John Armstrong -- in particular:

1.  LEE HARVEY OSWALD's behavior was orchestrated order to blame him as a Communist Assassin working for Fidel Castro.

2.  The "set-up" of LEE HARVEY OSWALD began when he agreed to relocate to New Orleans from Dallas in late April, 1963.

3.  David Atlee Phillips was working with Guy Bannister and David Ferrie in New Orleans to make things appear that LEE HARVEY OSWALD was a supporter of Castro through the FPCC

4.  Their ultimate goal was to convince the USA that Cuba and LEE HARVEY OSWALD killed JFK, so that the USA would invade Cuba.

HOWEVER -- like most CIA-did-it CTers, John Armstrong presumes that David Atlee Phillips was giving orders to Guy Banister. Does he? Citation please . You are making stuff up. 

That's a basic error, according to me.  Actually, Guy Banister was manipulating David Atlee Phillips, with a promise that Fidel Castro's death was their only target. That alone was what enabled Banister to get a few CIA rogues on his side.According to whom? You are just making this up.

 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Bold is mine. Rubbish is Paul Trejo's

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Walton appears incapable of understanding that the question here is not whether, in Mr. Walton’s opinion, it is possible to desecrate a grave in Arlington National Cemetery. The question is whether David Atlee Phillips said that he did such a desecration.


Right. Phillips was likely engaging in "big talk" when he said he peed on Kennedy's grave. (Assuming the man was correctly identified as Phillips.)

My thanks go out to Jim Hargrove and Michael Clark for having the patience to deal with lazy and venomous "researchers."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo even though we don't  agree on your right wingers did it theory I'm  glad you too see through the rubbish  that the Hardly Lee story is.

Amazingly  that now makes a CT right wingers, CT intel, and LN (Tracy) that don't  buy the fantasy  HL story plus many many more.

Now all we need is a female and we've  completed a sweep LOL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

I think Mr. Armstrong’s article has highlighted how the best and brightest assassination planners in the world appear to have designed the framing of Lee Oswald in such an absurdly inept manner that The Three Stooges should be green with envy. 

And this is a key reason I believe the H&L theory is not credible.  If I, as a complete novice assassination planner, were orchestrating an H&L scenario, I would make damn sure there were no screaming, obvious inconsistencies between Harvey and Lee.  If one of them couldn't drive, the other certainly wouldn't be observed driving in circumstances where this was completely unnecessary and only served to call attention to himself.  If we begin with the H&L theory as our gospel, then we are indeed forced to conclude that "the best and brightest assassination planners in the world" turned into the Three Stooges when it came to the framing of LHO.  I and others have pointed out this problem with every elaborate conspiracy theory - the conspirators are geniuses at steps 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 but inexplicably become the Three Stooges or Keystone Cops at steps 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10.  If one does not begin with an elaborate conspiracy theory as his gospel, one is not forced to pound round evidence into square theories.

19 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Well, Armstrong's book has citations for his passages. And instead of rambling incoherently about something that you never read, you could have taken the time to check that citation.

You may recall that, in connection with the "mail order rifle" threads, I did check some of Armstrong's citations - and they did not check out.  They did not check out at all.  I pointed out that they did not check out and requested an explanation.  There was none.  The same bogus statements supported by those "citations" appear throughout the conspiracy literature because the "noted researchers" obviously did not check them out.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance...

Leaving conflicting memories in witnesses minds is one of the main rules in these duality plans...

Both witnesses are telling the truth when one says they saw him drive while others say he couldn't at all...  this creates doubt in people's minds over their memories reducing their credibility.

What you call "3 stooges" winds up being very beneficial to the plot...

I'm still surprised by members who still assume that CIA counter-intel and covert planning follows some logic... like 1,2,3,4,5...
The very point is to confuse the onlooker.  Motivations are hidden, agendas and connections are misrepresented... and on and on...

Claiming H&L is not credible because of your understanding of CIA logic holds little water Lance...  that is unless you spent 20 years planning covert operations.

Despite all the criticism of the plan...  55 years later and LEE OSWALD is still History's JFK killer and we have no idea who actually did it...

What are your metrics for success here Lance?  As for H&L... you have hundreds if not thousands of items of conflict in the official record pointing the existence of 2 men with the same name used for different intelligence/military purposes...  simple things like reconciling his being in Ping Tung and Atsugi concurrently...  his being in New Orleans yet also with Ruby in Dallas over the late spring and early summer of 1963...  2220 Thomas ave across from Stripling is another "coincidence" of H&L that remains unanswered...

Regardless... a few paragraphs of opinionated rebuttal does not scratch the surface of decades of work illuminating the evidence of these two men or the conflicts when the same time periods are reviewed by different sets of investigators...

If you "checked citation" for the rifle please offer the links... I for one - having done my own extensive work into the rifle and money order - would love to see it

DJ  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×