Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Article by John Armstrong


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

I fail to see your so-called point.   Are you saying that those who criticize the H&L CT are causing problems "for the rest of society," and are "despicable"?

If not, then what are you trying to say here?

If so, then please refrain from name-calling and personal attacks, and stick to the issues.  If you can't defend the H&L CT with valid arguments, then kindly admit that and move on.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Michael used the term "vermin" to describe certain forum members who come to H&L threads for the sole purpose of disrupting them and belittling H&L adherents. I merely pointed out which part of the definition pertains to those individuals.

What I highlighted in red is an accurate portrayal IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 327
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

If so, then please refrain from name-calling and personal attacks, and stick to the issues.  If you can't defend the H&L CT with valid arguments, then kindly admit that and move on.


Why don't you tell that to the folks who come here to disrupt and belittle?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul Trejo said:  ...please refrain from name-calling and personal attacks, and stick to the issues...

Why don't you tell that to the folks who come here to disrupt and belittle?

Sandy,

OK -- despite our many differences, I admit that there is no good reason for anybody to belittle anybody else here.   It's a weakness I've seen on all sides of the JFK debate. 

I apologize for any times that I myself have fallen into the temptation to insult people -- which I have always justified by saying that I was defending myself from the insults of others.   I often was -- but then again -- it's hard to keep track of who started which train of insult when that begins to predominate in members' posts here.

I will commit to a polite discourse with everybody -- and I will ask everybody to commit to a polite discourse.   I will ask those who have insulted Michael Walton so harshly to recognize the likelihood that he probably regards his own negative remarks as self-defense -- because I have seen some horrible insults hurled at Michael Walton (out of the blue, I thought).

I think our Forum would be so much more productive if people would cease all personal attacks -- and stick to the ISSUES.   Try to prove a point, or criticize a point or defend a point -- but please stop attacking members of the Forum with whom we engage in these heated debates.

It really wastes time and energy.  You don't like it -- I don't like it -- I truly believe nobody likes it.    I'll commit to stopping it.  If everybody would stop it, I believe we would all feel an increasing sense of accomplishment in our many hours of contributions here.

Agreed?
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Bernie I am not even and H&L adherent. I don't even know how else to describe the way that a few folks, yourself included, make it impossible to debate anything remotely related to H&L or Armstrong. Armstrong's new article only covers 1963, makes no claim about the larger H&L story, and you guys come out and start with the same old stuff, disrupting the thread with off topic stuff. It really resembles animalistic behavior: roaches, dogs, pirhana, vermin, whatever. You could bring an unsuspecting friend, and say, "watch this"; then drop an Armstrong quote in the forum and watch the madness ensue. You could take it humorously if you want. It is kind of funny except for the bad blood and ill will that it generates. I have questions for Jim about certain things but I just don't bother, because it's impossible to have a debate about anything H&L, even about a small limited, related incident. That's sad and frustrating. 

Debate it, Mike.  Go ahead and mention what you want to say about it,. Jim and the other Hardly people keep posting.  Myself and others who do not support it continue to do so as well. But to call people names just because people can't buy into fantasy stories is not the way to go.

So go ahead and mention it - it's a "debate" here after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The fact that multiple workers as the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Department said that "Lee Harvey Oswald" had a Texas drivers license, and that it was returned to the office less than a week after the assassination proves NOTHING AT ALL unless we can see the license to confirm that it was the same "Lee Harvey Oswald" who was shot by Jack Ruby -- because neither John Anderson nor David Joseph nor yourself have done due diligence in demonstrating that no other Texans in 1963 were named "Lee Harvey Oswald." 

There WERE two "Lee Harvey Oswalds" in the Dallas area at the time of the assassination.  There is a lengthy book about them called Harvey and Lee.  Mr. Trejo is now asking if there was a THIRD "Lee Harvey Oswald" in the area at the time.  That strikes me as extremely unlikely, but I'll try to remember to ask John about it.  He DID get a copy of the 1956 telephone dirctory from New Orleans, which shows no "Lee Oswalds", no "Harvey Oswalds" and no "Lee Harvey Oswalds," but, interestingly enough, two "Marguerite Oswalds," one abbreviated as "Margt."

NO%20Phone.jpg

 

Clearly, though, no amount of "homework," and no amount of evidence would lead Mr. Trejo to publicly admit that there were two "Lee Harvey Oswalds" involved in a U.S. Intel operation when Harvey "defected" to the U.S.S.R. and around the time JFK was assassinated.  He just will not admit this sort of thing.

Another example is when Mr. Trejo and I argued about the testimony of CIA accountant James Wilcott, who testified that he made payments to an encrypted account for "Lee Harvey Oswald" and that the cryptonym for the "Oswald Project" was RX-ZIM. Even though Mr. Wilcott passed a voice stress analysis test apparently called a "Cuban stress analysis," and even though he said that he would "gladly submit to a polygraph examination," Mr. Trejo will have none of it.      

Wilcott_Lie_Detector.jpg

 

RX-ZIM.jpg

 

RX-ZIM_2.jpg

 

Mr. Trejo refuses to consider any information indicating there were two "Lee Harvey Oswalds" deeply involved in U.S. Intel operations of the era, and that the "Oswald Project," as Mr. Wilcott referred to it, was funded by the CIA.  He refuses to recognize this fact citing any number of objections, including improperly vetted testimony and statements, poor or non-existent follow-ups,  and rhetorical tricks of the debating trade, despite the fact that he knows full well that official investigations into the assassination and the biography of "Lee Harvey Oswald" were nothing but expensive cover-ups.

No amount of evidence will be sufficient for Mr. Trejo if it points to the fact that the "Oswald Project" was a creature of the CIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul, If you cannot abdmit that you made a mistake, and you continue to blow smoke, obfuscate, redirect, distract or pull some other kind of faux intellectual stunt to avoid correcting your mistake, this then, is itself, an insult. You hold some bogus personal myth about yourself that tells you that you can pull that kind of bogus BS and it's ok. It's not. It's insulting. People around you are smarter than you think they are and your belief to the contrary is condescending. Your ongoing inability to correct your false claims makes you a pathological prevaricator. There is no way around it. You see it as a weakness to admit a mistake. Intelligent, decent people see it as honorable admirable and, really, the only way forward..

So Paul Trejo, no more smoke, obfuscation redirection or prevarication, because those things are insulting, and we are smarter than you would like to believe,. Admit that you were wrong, it's that simple.

Admitting mistakes goes both ways, Mike.  There are many, many, many mistakes in the Hardly Lee story.  Many.  Yet, when we point them out, the Hardly crowd just ignores them and switches to another topic.  As in, "Well what about this?  See!"

A perfect example or two - I made the point of photo touch ups.  There's just no reasoning with Hardly crowd - they won't admit that the whole ugly LHO photo could be just a matter of a botched touch up with no sinister implications.

Another - I made a face transition and an ear comparison.  Josephs says it's all in the CONTRAST of the photos, if you can believe or comprehend that.

I then made another facial comparison showing that the faces are one and the same.  Josephs then says it's all in the shoulders - one LHO had non-sloping shoulders and the other had drooping shoulders.  I then pointed out that there's another photo showing LHO with both kinds of shoulders.  They quickly changed tactics.

Others have done this as well.  I could go on, but there's not a one iota of fessing up that maybe, just maybe the rock-solid case has some flaws in it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

There WERE two "Lee Harvey Oswalds" in the Dallas area at the time of the assassination.  

So what Jim? There are many, many people with the same names, born on the same dates, and so on. It doesn't mean there was a clone discovered back in 1953 in Hungary and has been shadowing the US born Oswald for 10 years.  It also doesn't mean the clone had a Mom who looked exactly like the US born LHO's Mom but was dumpy and never smiled LOL

As for the Wilcott story yes, maybe there was a SINGLE LHO working for the government.  That suspicion has always been there and because of State Secret, the possibility of LHO being a low-level agent is certainly viable.

But it DOES NOT mean there was a LHO CLONE for goodness sake discovered back in 1953 in Hungary and has been shadowing the US born Oswald for 10 years.  It also doesn't mean the clone had a Mom who looked exactly like the US born LHO's Mom but was dumpy and never smiled LOL

You can keep arguing this all you want but the plausibility and ring of truth factors - and State Secret - completely demolishes this fantasy story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Wilcott passed a voice stress analysis test apparently called a "Cuban stress analysis,

As Greg Parker pointed out at his forum, what is a "Cuban stress analysis" anyway? I originally thought that it might refer to a test that Wilcott may have submitted to while he was in  Cuba. But that happened in August, 1978 and his HSCA testimony was earlier in the year. So what is this analysis that we are supposed to be impressed with?

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys wouldn't be impressed with signed, notarized confessions by Phillips and Hunt. You'd just make excuses that they were both senile, or trying to become famous, or that they both laughed inappropriately.

You guys clearly don't have any interest at all in asking why the HSCA didn't even bother to find out what a "Cuban stress analysis" was in the first place... or if they did why they hid the information from us. After all, we're only talking about the alleged assassin of JFK.

You don't want to think about the fact that Wilcott clearly wanted to take a lie detector test, in addition to the fact that a "Cuban stress analysis verified Wilcott validity," in addition to the fact that he and his attorney clearly told the HSCA far more than he was allowed to say in open testimony.

By all means, let's just pretend we believe you and trust the Warren Report!    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hunt. You'd just make excuses

Jim, Hunt was an author of fictional secret agent capers. He had been a bonafide CIA agent for many years, learning at the feet of Angleton. I'm sorry to say but it'd be very difficult to believe *anything* this man said, especially to his son on his deathbed.  How do we not know that he said the things he did simply for his son, so he could then write a book about revealing the "shocking" revelation that JFK was murdered as part of a conspiracy? They were all professional liars and connivers - it was part of their daily job LOL

I mean have you not seen liars and crooks lie and fudge the truth even after swearing to telling the truth, even after having 50 notarizations stamped on the papers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

You don't want to think about the fact that Wilcott clearly wanted to take a lie detector test, in addition to the fact that a "Cuban stress analysis verified Wilcott validity," in addition to the fact that he and his attorney clearly told the HSCA far more than he was allowed to say in open testimony.

First, since we don't know what type of voice analysis he underwent and when, it diminishes the significance of it. Secondly, Wilcott testified in executive session and I am not aware of any limitations on what he could say. In fact, at the end of his testimony this exchange occurred indicating he had said all he wanted to:

Mr. Preyer. Under our committee rules, Mr. Wilcott, a
witness is entitled, at the conclusion of the questioning, to
make a five-minute statement if he wishes or to give a fuller
explanation of any of his answers; so that at this time we
make that five minutes available to you if you care to
elaborate or say anything further.
Mr. Wilcott. I don't really have anything and maybe I
would just like to say I think it is time we got this thing
cleared up; and I think for the good of the country and for
good of the people I think it is really time that all of
the facts were brought out and the people really get the facts.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As Greg Parker pointed out at his forum,

Since you continue to invoke Mr. Parker as if he matters here, let me offer up the following analysis of Mr. Parker's work from my e-pal of many years. My e-friend thinks Mr. Parker is nothing but a fraud. My e-friend's YouTube commentary is presented here with the express permission of the original poster. Here is what he said about Greg Parker:

You have to have a total grasp of where Parker is coming from in order to understand the exact flaws in what he is trying to do... I'm glad however that you once again sussed out the critical flaws in his approach without any understanding of the "Harvey & Lee" background of this issue...

Greg is the first person to demand precise methodology and evidence when he is dodging someone else's good claims, but typical of his ROKC group does not demand the same from himself..."Grandiose" might be one way of describing Parker's approach... I have some other words to add....

Because you haven't participated in the general debate you are not aware that Parker is trying to hide symptoms of Lee Oswald being doubled-over by the CIA double "Harvey" behind pseudo analyses of psychiatric conditions.... Parker is trying to portray the anti-social secretive behavior of a CIA spy as being due to Asperger's syndrome, but as you cleverly figured out it doesn't wash according to common sense and Oswald's real profile that Parker avoids by drawing you to his bogus lectures...

What Parker isn't being honest about is the fact Lee probably showed those psychiatric quirks because he was part of a CIA program that went back to his childhood and may have even murdered his father.... Because Lee was raised in this intel bubble in a dysfunctional family he exhibited mental traits equal to such an average southern boy in such a situation.... Maybe even Marguerite too....

Parker ignores the true cause and interpretation of this diagnosis in order to contrive his specious Asperger's theory...A wise observer would realize that Parker is making up this Aspergers explanation exactly because he is aware that Oswald's learning of Russian has no good explanation if it was just Oswald alone... Also, Parker is not honestly mentioning that Oswald had no time to learn Russian according to his Marine schedule... Moreover the Asperger's Parker refers to is an extreme condition that displays overt symptoms that military doctors and overseers would not miss... The savant aspects of Aspergers exist in an inverse relationship where the worse the condition the more the individual is able to perform the intuitive skill he focuses on... So just like you said, this would leave the individual unable to perform in the normal range and the Marines do not miss such defects...But even further, in his response Parker seems to confuse what Moorek is saying....

This is typical of Parker because he avoids information he can't give an honest answer to....  Moorek was not talking about Oswald's learning of Russian she was talking about the fact that the Oswald heard in the police station and on radio shows did not have the noticeable southern accent of Lee Harvey Oswald and that it was not linguistically normal to 'unlearn' such a core language feature under Oswald's circumstances...

This is what John Armstrong was also saying in his book 'Harvey & Lee' and the explanation for it is that the Oswald you are seeing in those scenes is a CIA double from Manhattan whose family had a background in Russian language through Hungary... Mr Parker is not explaining why his language savant Oswald did not pick-up Spanish in his interactions with the Cuban exiles?...Oswald also showed skill in concealing his covert activities for an alleged Asperger's victim....

Why do you continue to invoke Mr. Parker to defend the Warren Commission? Why is Mr. Parker always endorsed by Warren Commission apologists like you? Do you think any of us believe him?  Explain to us why Mr. Parker was banned from this forum, and the Deep Politics forum, and why we should believe you that we should believe him.  Why should we consider him to be anything but yet another shill for the Warren Commission, just like you?  Just askin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Jim, I don't see how the asperges's has a definitive affect on the larger H&L story, and indeed I don't think it should at all. I think it only has relevance inasmuch as one side or the other is afraid to give a nanometer to the other side and I think that's sad. I think it is at least clear that there was some legitimate confusion about the identity of LHO and anti-Armstrong radicals would not even admit that.

That said, I independently came to the conclusion that the NOLA-TV interviewed LHO may have had Aspergers. Also, I don't think the statements from your correspondent claiming that the Marines would have been aware of this are correct. Back in 1958 I don't think they had a full grasp of the condition, and I don't think, given what they may have known then, that they would have cared. The NOLA-DPD  LHO had some combination of exploitable talents and possibly weaknesses. He certainly does not look like a prime candidate for typical Marine Corp. service. I think Aspergers is possible, and some related gifts were part of the reason he was selected for Marine and, IMO, intelligence service.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

There are many, many, many mistakes in the Hardly Lee story.  Many.  Yet, when we point them out, the Hardly crowd just ignores them ....


Mike,

Every one of those things you pointed out was your opinion. Having a different opinion regarding something doesn't necessarily make you right and your opponent wrong. So why should your opponent admit being wrong?

(In contrast, the mistake Paul made -- which is what began this discussion -- was a demonstrable error.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...