New Article by John Armstrong

[Tom Hume]

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

We look for evidence that cuts through the cover-up and we try to figure out what really happened.

If you’re honest with yourself, you KNOW there was a government cover-up in this case.  I have shown you a video proving that the authorities altered the statements of at least three Dealey Plaza witnesses indicating that shots may have been fired outside the School Depository.

I have shown you that the Warren Commission altered the testimony of an FBI evidence technician who inadvertently implied there was a secret transfer of “Oswald’s possessions” from Dallas to FBI headquarters in D.C., where they were altered, and then secretly returned to Dallas before being publicly sent back to Washington.  Can you seriously doubt more sworn testimony was altered over the years?  Other witnesses have said their words were changed.  

It is clear from the notes of HSCA staffers that James Wilcott wasn’t permitted to say all he knew even in secret testimony at the House committee.  It is also clear that the U.S. government has gone to great lengths to hide the details of what Wilcott called American Intel’s “Oswald Project” from the American people and the world.

Since there clearly was a cover-up, why should we spend our time parsing documents that merely shore up that false story?  We look for the documents the U.S. government neglected to destroy or alter.  And there are a lot of them that escaped the dragnet.

Look at it this way.  You’re a police detective looking into the robbery of a liquor store on Saturday night.  The store clerk says a couple of the robbers were wearing green and gold patches, colors of a local gang,  So you haul all the known gang members into headquarters for questioning.  Seventeen of them swear they were at Blessed Virgin Mary Church all Saturday night deep in prayer.  The eighteenth breaks down and says they robbed the store.  Who are you going to pay a whole lot more attention to?  It’s that simple.
 

Nicely put. 

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Tom Hume

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Exactly!

I'm glad to see that you recognize they were separate boys. We call them Harvey and Lee.

Wow, Sandy.  What a huge leap of faith. I guess the next time I see another Mike Walton on Facebook I'll be sure to remember that's my CIA manufactured clone LOL And oh my look at this!

If the other Mike Walton was born the same day as you, and has a mother with the same name, and the two of you moved to other states and cities at close to the same time, etc., etc., then I'd say yes, you and a double are up to something fishy. And if one of you defects to Russia, then yeah, it's an intelligence operation. I'd be a fool not to suspect that.

 

 

[Michael Walton]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If the other Mike Walton was born the same day as you, and has a mother with the same name, and the two of you moved to other states and cities at close to the same time, etc., etc., then I'd say yes, you and a double are up to something fishy. And if one of you defects to Russia, then yeah, it's an intelligence operation. I'd be a fool not to suspect that.

Good point. And which one of my Moms would  have  smiled a lot and which  one would have frowned?

LOL

 

[Jim Hargrove]

On 12/11/2017 at 10:10 AM, Michael Walton said:

LOL

 

On 12/11/2017 at 4:29 PM, Michael Walton said:

LOL

 

10 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

LOL

 

10 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

LOL

 

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

LOL

Even if Michael Walton pretends to laugh out loud more often, he still won't be funny!

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

Nicely put. 

Thanks, Tom.

Despite our differences regarding the details of the two Oswalds, your assertion that the guy framing Classic Oswald® deliberately left behind clues to the frame-up is interesting.  Can you cite any evidence for that beyond the encoded clues you've described here?

[Jim Hargrove]

TO READERS OF THIS TOPIC:

A few posters here, particularly Michael Walton, consistently misrepresent John Amrstrong's research and then try to mock their own misrepresentations.  Why let trollers tell you what they pretend is in John's research?  Why not take a look at it and judge for yourself?  To see how LEE Oswald set up HARVEY Oswald as the patsy in JFK's assassination, click on the link below.

Setting up HARVEY Oswald as the "Patsy"

To start to understand the full picture of what CIA accountant James Wilcott called "Oswald Project" and how it was run by American Intel, visit the Harvey and Lee home page here....

HarveyandLee.net

 

[Paul Trejo]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Excuse me Paul. My mistake for thinking you were being sincere when you wrote:  I can be persuaded by evidence. 

Clearly you've already made up your mind.

Sandy,

You're mistaken yet again.  I'm sincere when I say my mind is open for evidence.  I haven't made up my mind -- my CT is fluid and adaptable.

Yet you've provided no conclusive evidence -- only some coincidence that you've interpreted in a one-sided manner.

There were IN FACT multiple people named Lee Harvey Oswald in the USA in 1963.   Exactly how many?  That is really a task for the H&L people to complete -- since it is their CT that multiple people named Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 were actively involved in the JFK Assassination plot at some level or another.

For example -- for decades I believed I was the only "Paul Edward Trejo" in the USA -- because I had never met anybody else named even "Paul Trejo".   It's not a common name.  But with the advent of the Internet, I found that there are dozens of other folks named "Paul Trejo" and at least three named "Paul Edward Trejo."

Now, let's talk about a far more common last name of "Oswald" in the USA.  How many folks named "Lee Harvey Oswald" do you suppose there were in the USA in 1963?

Whatever the number -- will you then argue that ALL OF THEM were involved in the JFK Assassination?    No?   Only TWO?

Then -- even if it is only TWO -- then you must show carefully -- slowly -- how each of the "sightings" claimed for Lee Oswald in 1963 was genuine -- and not a case of "mistaken identity" reported soon after the most famous Assassination story in the world.

This you have failed to do -- and in fact y'all shy away from the task.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 13, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

16 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

...IF you’re honest with yourself, you KNOW there was a government cover-up in this case.  I have shown you a video proving that the authorities altered the statements of at least three Dealey Plaza witnesses indicating that shots may have been fired outside the School Depository.

I have shown you that the Warren Commission altered the testimony of an FBI evidence technician who inadvertently implied there was a secret transfer of “Oswald’s possessions” from Dallas to FBI headquarters in D.C., where they were altered, and then secretly returned to Dallas before being publicly sent back to Washington.  Can you seriously doubt more sworn testimony was altered over the years?  Other witnesses have said their words were changed.  

It is clear from the notes of HSCA staffers that James Wilcott wasn’t permitted to say all he knew even in secret testimony at the House committee.  It is also clear that the U.S. government has gone to great lengths to hide the details of what Wilcott called American Intel’s “Oswald Project” from the American people and the world.

Since there clearly was a cover-up, why should we spend our time parsing documents that merely shore up that false story?  We look for the documents the U.S. government neglected to destroy or alter.  And there are a lot of them that escaped the dragnet.

Jim,

You must know by now that many of your detractors here already accept the idea of a US Government Cover-up of the JFK Assassination.

The US Government actually admitted it -- twice.   First, US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that the US Government would not release all the evidence in the JFK Assassination "in your lifetime."   This was the first confession of the US Government that they were withholding the Truth about the JFK Assassination "for National Security."

The second confession was the HSCA, which concluded that JFK was "probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy."

So, astute and objective readers of the JFK Assassination history have always recognized a Cover-up by the US Government.   Nor is it disloyal to the US Government to consider this historical aspect.

HOWEVER -- that proves exactly nothing about the H&L CT.  

The attitude of the H&L literature is one-sided.  You repeat it here.  Just because the Warren Commission arrives at a "Lone Shooter" conclusion, y'all feel justified in making up your own CIA spy story fiction to explain what happened. 

For one thing, just because the US Government Covered Up the core facts of the JFK Assassination, you have leaped to the conclusion that the US Government actually plotted and executed the JFK Assassination.   That conclusion is simply unwarranted by the fact of a US Government Cover-up.   The US Government told us why they had to withhold the core facts, namely, "National Security."

It is a leap of unfaith to conclude that the US Government, e.g. the CIA, was the killer of JFK.

James Wilcott, in my reading, was a clerk who jumped to conclusions, based on almost no data at all.  The closest corollary to James Wilcott in the WC testimonies is the sporting goods store repair man and clerk, Dial Duwayne Ryder, of the Irving Sports Shop.   He said he mounted a scope for a man named "Lee Oswald" there during the first 2 weeks of November.  His only evidence was the repair ticket with the name "Oswald" on it.   And he lost it.  Nor were the details clear in his memory.

In the same way, CIA accounting clerk James Wilcott testified in 1978 -- 15 years after the JFK Assassination -- that "he believed" he had personally disbursed money for "the Oswald Project or for Oswald."  This was based on what another CIA agent had told him.  But he lost the paperwork.  

These are like Bigfoot sightings.  They are clearly "mistaken identity" cases.  If you have better evidence than this, Jim, kindly present it here.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 13, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Walton]

15 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Really Jim?  I mean...you're serious? To say that secret agents found a near look a like of Lee Oswald in Hungary and as an extra bonus the look a like's mother even looks like the US born Oswald's Mom EXCEPT this one is frumpy and never smiles.  And this all happened in 1953. And the secret agents had these two mothers and sons practically living in each other's shadows in Texas, NO, Japan, and NYC.

That's what you and other members of Team Hardly believe?

We all know the sky is blue and the grass is green. But according to Team Hardly, the sky's really yellow and the grass is magenta. They know this because, you know, the evidence...

And if you're so 100% sure of this, why haven't you at least taken this to present your case to Consortium News. Jim DiEugenio has been published over there and if they could verify beyond a doubt * the Hardly story, that'd be an earth-shattering revelation.

* Oh that's right. None of this has been confirmed and verified except by Team Hardly

Jim in all seriousness  care to reply with a serious (meaning believable) answer?

[Michael Walton]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Yet you've provided no conclusive evidence -- only some coincidence that you've interpreted in a one-sided manner.

Exactly Paul. Well said.

[Jim Hargrove]

To Paul Trejo,

You take my answer completely out of context.  I was responding to a post by W. Tracy Parnell, who says he believes the Warren Report, which is why I answered him as I did.  I’ll answer you from a different perspective. 

John A. has shown that two young men, part of an intelligence operation, shared the identity of “Lee Harvey Oswald.”  If you believe there was a third “Lee Harvey Oswald” of roughly the same age in the U.S. in the 1950s and early 1960s in roughly the same region as our boys, prove it!  It should be easy to do.  I cannot  prove a negative.

It is clear from the reports of HSCA staffers that James Wilcott knew far more than he was allowed to say during his executive testimony.  It is also clear that he passed something called a “Cuban stress analysis,” though we aren’t told what that is, and that he was eager to take a lie detector test.

There is an enormous amount of evidence that what Wilcott called the “Oswald Project” was a creation of the CIA.  We have been through this a number of times before, but you have never given a credible rebuttal.  Here’s my list again….

21 Facts Indicating the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA

1. CIA accountant James Wilcott said he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.”

2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963.

3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s.

4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962.

5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 

6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA "contact" who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child.

7. Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and probably monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death.

8. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE.

9. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA.

10. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination.

11. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report.

12. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots.

13. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear.

14. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story.

15. CIA Richard Case Nagell clearly knew about the plot to assassinate JFK and LHO’s relation to it, and he said that the CIA and the FBI ignored his warnings.

16. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.”  For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. In the summer of 1963, he once again seemed to have enough money to travel abroad to Communist nations.

17. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs….

18. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again!

19. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.”

20. CIA's Ann Egerter, who worked for J.J. Angleton's Counterintelligence Special Interest Group (CI/SIG), opened a "201" file on Oswald on December 9, 1960.  Egerter testified to the HSCA: "We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel....”  When asked if the purpose was to "investigate Agency employees," she answered, "That is correct."  When asked, "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?" she answered, "No, I can't think of one."

21. President Kennedy and the CIA clearly were at war with each other in the weeks immediately before his assassination, as evidenced by Arthur Krock's infamous defense of the Agency in the Oct. 3, 1963 New York Times. “Oswald” was the CIA’s pawn.

 

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

To Michael Walton….

Show me a mainstream newspaper or media outlet in the U.S. that has carried an article, with real evidence like  John Armstrong has presented, showing there was ever a successful coup de’tat in America and I’ll try to get John to submit his write-up to it in a heartbeat.  No mainstream journalist would keep a job promoting a story that truthfully stated what the assassination of JFK meant, one Oswald or two.  I have no interest in publishing in Russia Today, which might well present it.

[Michael Walton]

14 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

To Michael Walton….

Show me a mainstream newspaper or media outlet in the U.S. that has carried an article, with real evidence like  John Armstrong has presented, showing there was ever a successful coup de’tat in America and I’ll try to get John to submit his write-up to it in a heartbeat.  No mainstream journalist would keep a job promoting a story that truthfully stated what the assassination of JFK meant, one Oswald or two.  I have no interest in publishing in Russia Today, which might well present it.

Consortium News is a start.  It's alt news yes, but seems respectable.  Jim DiEugenio has been published there.  They've been writing a lot about how Russia Gate is a scam (and I agree with them for the most part).  And about how the Democrats lost the election due to their own incompetence, which is also true. They do publish JFK stories too.

Or what about Jeff Morley and JFK Facts? Let him take a look at everything and see if he'll publish it on his website.

Contact Cy Wecht and see what he thinks. I never said anything about you going to Russia Times - I'm talking about a respectable media outlet. Why not one in the UK even? The Guardian perhaps?

Team Hardly really really seems 100% confident that you're 100% accurate with 0% errors or let downs. There are other JFK researchers who have written outstanding work but even they admit that it's not perfect.  Simpich is one example. But Team Hardly is batting 1.000 so why not take it to the next step and try to get it out to the public at large?

Instead of going round and round here and spinning your wheels over and over again, why not take it to the next step? You seem confident that everything we've said here is wrong and everything you've said is right.  Fine - take it up a notch.

[Michael Walton]

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

TO READERS OF THIS TOPIC:

A few posters here, particularly Michael Walton, consistently misrepresent John Amrstrong's research and then try to mock their own misrepresentations.  Why let trollers tell you what they pretend is in John's research?  Why not take a look at it and judge for yourself?  To see how LEE Oswald set up HARVEY Oswald as the patsy in JFK's assassination, click on the link below.

Jim - and readers here -

I'd appreciate it if you could show a little bit of honesty here.  You KNOW I'm not the only one here who has rebutted the Hardly Lee story. And for those readers go here because this is where it really all started:

...and elsewhere...

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

[Michael Walton]

2 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Right. 

I am right. And I have posted plenty of rebuttals that I developed on my own.  They're all over on the Gems thread and you've never once posted counter arguments to them.  You just get all mad and upset about them and then start using insults like the above. As in NOOB.

The whole Hardly story deserves a rational person's disdain because it's an irrational, fake story that does nothing in the way of advancing the truth of the Kennedy case.

But don't just take my word for it.  Here's what Paul Trejo said earlier and it's one of the better summaries of the Hardly Story. So I guess you'll call him a noob now too and go yelling to EF's admins right? That's pretty much par for the course - when you have nothing else, you then revert to insults:

FROM PAUL TREJO:

Jim,

You must know by now that many of your detractors here already accept the idea of a US Government Cover-up of the JFK Assassination.

The US Government actually admitted it -- twice.   First, US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that the US Government would not release all the evidence in the JFK Assassination "in your lifetime."   This was the first confession of the US Government that they were withholding the Truth about the JFK Assassination "for National Security."

The second confession was the HSCA, which concluded that JFK was "probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy."

So, astute and objective readers of the JFK Assassination history have always recognized a Cover-up by the US Government.   Nor is it disloyal to the US Government to consider this historical aspect.

HOWEVER -- that proves exactly nothing about the H&L CT.  

The attitude of the H&L literature is one-sided.  You repeat it here.  Just because the Warren Commission arrives at a "Lone Shooter" conclusion, y'all feel justified in making up your own CIA spy story fiction to explain what happened. 

For one thing, just because the US Government Covered Up the core facts of the JFK Assassination, you have leaped to the conclusion that the US Government actually plotted and executed the JFK Assassination.   That conclusion is simply unwarranted by the fact of a US Government Cover-up.   The US Government told us why they had to withhold the core facts, namely, "National Security."

It is a leap of unfaith to conclude that the US Government, e.g. the CIA, was the killer of JFK.

James Wilcott, in my reading, was a clerk who jumped to conclusions, based on almost no data at all.  The closest corollary to James Wilcott in the WC testimonies is the sporting goods store repair man and clerk, Dial Duwayne Ryder, of the Irving Sports Shop.   He said he mounted a scope for a man named "Lee Oswald" there during the first 2 weeks of November.  His only evidence was the repair ticket with the name "Oswald" on it.   And he lost it.  Nor were the details clear in his memory.

In the same way, CIA accounting clerk James Wilcott testified in 1978 -- 15 years after the JFK Assassination -- that "he believed" he had personally disbursed money for "the Oswald Project or for Oswald."  This was based on what another CIA agent had told him.  But he lost the paperwork.  

These are like Bigfoot sightings.  They are clearly "mistaken identity" cases.  If you have better evidence than this, Jim, kindly present it here.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo