Jump to content
The Education Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. The larger point is that, according to your own source, at least four individuals believed that an imposter was posing as Oswald at a time when it would have been impossible for that impersonation to be part of a plan to frame him for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This alone proves that Oswald was not just "some guy". Regarding your first link, “The Possessions of Lee Harvey Oswald: Identification Documents” which, as far as I am able to determine, has no credited author. In a separate post in this thread, Jeremy Bojczuk makes a specific point that not all H&L opponents are LN’s, yet you cite an apparently anonymously-written article that seems to assume Oswald really was JFK’s assassin, and then you go on to characterize that same article as “a clear-eyed analysis” of the facts. https://debunked.wordpress.com/the-possessions-of-lee-harvey-oswald-identification-documents/ Let’s take a look at the article you chose to cite to support your position. The article you cited tells the story of a budding young Marxist so desperate to join the United States Marines that he drops out of school specifically to enlist and pressures his mother to falsify a birth certificate to let him enlist a year before he was old enough to be eligible. The article you cited implies that Oswald’s birth certificate shenanigans did occur and might have happened/started as early as 1955. The article then says that either young Lee or someone unidentified party working on his behalf apparently took it upon themselves to start the process of enlisting early with a forged note to his high school. Nothing suspicious about that, right? Lee was just your typical 15-year-old high school dropout self-starter wanting to go behind his mother’s back in order to obtain his school records and his own birth certificate in order to illegally join the military, right? I'm sure this was typical behavior of teenagers in the 1950's, especially fledgling Marxists. According to the article you posted, Lee Oswald seems to have had encouragement to join the Marines early by: Oswald’s uncle, Charles “Dutz” Murret “Family friend” politically connected attorney Clem Sehrt Both of whom appear to have had connections to Mafia boss Carlos Marcello. According to the article you posted, in addition to Murret and Sehrt, Lee was apparently also encouraged to illegally join the Marines early by: An unnamed “colonel on the street” An unnamed uniformed Marine recruitment officer Also, according to the article you cited, it was not only J. Edgar Hoover who expressed a belief in the possibility that Oswald’s identity was being used by an impostor. In addition to Hoover, an Oswald imposter was also suspected by at least three other individuals: Soviet section officer Bill Bright An unnamed author of a March 31, 1961 memo sent from the passport office to John White, an official at the consular section of the State Department The head of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Agency, William Sullivan The article you cited also poses the possibility that either the aforementioned unnamed “colonel on the street” or the unnamed uniformed Marine recruitment officer might have been David Ferrie, a key suspect in the JFK assassination who was: Accomplished at forging documents Had a confirmed connection to Lee Oswald in 1955 And, like Murret and Sehrt, also had a connection to Carlos Marcello You have not only failed to debunk the 1960 Hoover memo, you’ve actually gone a long way to confirming it with multiple supporting statements from the article you chose to reference. You’ve also moved the timeline of suspicious activity concerning the falsification of Oswald's birth certificate from 1960 to possibly as early as 1955. So, thanks to you and the article you chose to cite, we’ve gone from questioning a 3 or 4 year period to possibly as long as an 8 year period. And somehow you continue to insist there is “ZERO” evidence of a long-term plan. It seems that the article that you chose to cite to support your position suggests otherwise. The very last sentence of the article you cited states the following: No part of the last sentence of the article, indeed nowhere in the article itself, does it say definitively that it has been proven without a doubt that the second Oswald never existed, only that the existence of a second Oswald has "never been determined." The article does reference multiple individuals who believed Oswald's identity was possibly co-opted by an impersonator. This seems to be a far cry from your emphatically definitive statement of “ZERO” evidence for a second Oswald. It also seems to directly contradict the emphatically definitive statements posted by another forum member in this thread that the non-existence of a second Oswald is an absolute, concrete, and unquestionable fact: -------------------------------- Addendum: “Crossfire” by Jim Marrs, Second Edition, 2013, Pgs. 97 - 98.
  3. Jim: the idiot in this video can't even match verb to subject in reading the first sentence of Stone & Kuznick's book. Then he drops syllables in multisyllabic words in the second sentence, demonstrating that he doesn't understand the meanings. Dante created a circle in Hell for such people, and I'm all for it.
  4. I guess Merrick Garland is coming after everyone who rubs the establishment the wrong way, not just Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and Nazis. U.S. MILITARY TRAINING DOCUMENT SAYS SOCIALISTS REPRESENT “TERRORIST” IDEOLOGY https://theintercept.com/2021/06/22/socialists-counterterrorism-political-terrorists-navy-antifa/
  5. From the article: “Since time began,” Ike reminded his comfortable corporate listeners, “opulence has too often paved for a nation the way to depravity and ultimate destruction.” That depravity, Eisenhower’s remarks went on to suggest, could also destroy us — if we foolishly chose to let the rich “contribute far less than they should in taxes.” Our political elite, sadly, refused to follow Ike’s advice. His successor in the White House, John Kennedy, asked Congress to drop the tax rate on top-bracket income from 91 to 65 percent. That rate would drop, soon after Kennedy’s death to 70 percent and then, under Ronald Reagan, to as low as 28 percent. The current top rate: 37 percent. ttps://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/22/can-we-conquer-our-grand-dynastic-family-fortunes/
  6. Will Ollie Keep this up? If he does, the entire world will notice. https://www.bitchute.com/video/0yFD1O6pyfA/ The vid calls out Japan WWII Saturation Fire Bomber Curtis LeMay, who happens to be a Royalist and Imperialism backing Canadian Mason, that hated JFK with a Passon. LeMan ran the SAC and did the movie A Gathering of Eagles to Hero make himself. Meanwhile, the JFK gang was making the Lemay Pun movie called "Dr. Strangelove" that has LeMay actor ride a nuke out the Bomb Bay drop doors. Seems old Ollie left that out. Humm. How much more did Ole Ollie leave out? Looks like a whole whole lot. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything-in-dr-strangelove-was-true
  7. This man is an idiot. How could America have elected him as their President in the first place? Can we go back and impeach someone retroactively for just being completely stupid? Trump issues unhinged new statement about 'winning' Georgia -- and gets quickly shot down by fact checker by Brad Reed June 22, 2021 https://www.rawstory.com/trump-georgia-2653492637/ “Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday issued yet another statement falsely claiming to have won the 2020 presidential election in Georgia -- but a fact checker for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution quickly shot down his false claims. In his statement, Trump praised Georgia officials for removing over 100,000 names from their voter rolls -- but then demanded to know why those names weren't removed before the last election, which he narrowly lost to President Joe Biden. "WHAT ABOUT THE LAST ELECTION?" Trump demanded. "WHY WASN'T THIS DONE PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER 3RD PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, where they had us losing by a very small number of votes, many times less than the 101,789 figure?" Trump then falsely asserted that "this means we (you!) won the Presidential Election in Georgia." However, Atlanta Journal Constitution reporter Mark Niesse explained that Trump's claims have zero basis in reality. "Exactly 0 registered Georgia voters who may be canceled voted in last year's election," he explained. "Voters aren't purged until they miss 2 general elections. Federal law bans list maintenance within 90 days of federal elections."” Steve Thomas
  8. Grant Cameron is a native Canadian and has followed UFO/Alien Presence developments for 20 years. He is an expert on this topic just as there are experts in this forum on the JFK assassination. His interview is worth listening to as it is a fire hose of information.
  9. CNBC's Jim Cramer Says He Sold 'Almost All' of His Bitcoin (mediaite.com)
  10. All I know is that the people who identified the rifle as a Mauser were all Sheriff's Deputies; Eugene Boone, Seymour Weitizman, Roger Craig. Once the Dallas City Police Department personnel arrived on the scene, the County Sheriff Department Deputies were told to leave and go back to work, and the Mauser became a Carcano. Steve Thomas
  11. Secret Agent Man No wonder Miles Copeland’s kids formed the Police https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/secret-agent-man-52557/
  12. Do you read your posts before you post them? You just used the word "nonsense" in the same post that you say that you are going to stand by an opinion that is based on imaginary opinions.
  13. Will be looking forward to reading the updates. Do you know if he has found any connection between Edwin Ekdahl and ONI?
  14. The problem with this alternative explanation is that it is not based on fact instead it is based on the assumption that the poster makes that he knows how they could have done it in an easier way. Based on this assumption the poster concludes that the H&L program can't be true. Basing a conclusion on an assumption does not make sense, conclusions can only be based on facts.
  15. The answer, quite simply, is that nobody really knows what this memo was all about, but it appears to be a rather benign mix of paranoia on the part of Marguerite Oswald and imprecise language on the part of Hoover. This article offers a clear-eyed analysis and provides valuable background information. Tracy Parnell has also covered this subject extensively on his own site. Again, the larger point is that EVEN IF someone was (or was attempting to) impersonate Oswald as far back as 1960, there is ZERO evidence it was connected to some larger, decades-long conspiracy to pass off two distinct people (and their mothers) as one.
  16. Someone suggested that the lady taking a photo was shading her eyes in the Altgens 3 photo. No one else is doing that in the photo. I take it she was taking a photo. The entire photo shows this clearly. She has a camera rather than her purse shading her eyes. OBTW, this photo demonstrates that the man thought to be Seymour Weitzman in comparison to others is not that tall and not Hemming's height. But, there is a giant man with a black hat there directly behind the motorcycle policeman. This blowup of that portion of Altgens 3 shows the lady with a camera.
  17. Dana, That is an interesting notion. The policeman (I see as very vague) has a black hat on which says he was probably a Dallas Police reserve officer. The person who you identified could be Weitzman, but I am not sure since the magnification of area is still very blurred. I can't find any information on how tall Seymour Weitzman was. Some one suggested he was short. But, I don't think that person was sure of his height. It would be good to know.
  18. I stand by my assertion that scientists and professional investigators would not agree with the methodology of the H&L supporters. I am not going to take it to them just to satisfy you since they (nor anyone else) should not have to spend a minute on nonsense. As for "reviewing and critiquing" the H&L theory, that is what I have done since the nineties. Thankfully, I don't spend much time doing that anymore since a group of responsible CTs who are concerned that the theory is hurting legitimate inquiry into the assassination has taken on that job.
  19. Here's an interesting thing about Weitzman. According to an internet video he identified, from a photo, a man who he thought was a Secret Service man. The SS man was Bernard Barker, former FBI agent and future Watergate burgler. BERNARND BARKER WAS FAKE SS AGENT BEHIND FENCE JFK MURDER WATERGATE CIA AGENTS - YouTube Right click and select open in a new window.
  20. Gil, Thanks for this info. I didn't know there was bushes around the TSBD. Trees, yes. That made me wonder about the location. That would be important for shooting from one side of the TSBD or another (east vs west). Weitzman said a number of interesting things. One (from an internet video) thing he said was that he found two Cuban men waiting in his home. This induced fear with the knowledge that strange things had happened to JFKA witnesses. It is a possible reason he changed his testimony concerning the 7.65mm Mauser. Other sources claim he was a knowing participant in the assassination. His job was to "discover" the rifle. All in all, Weitzman is an interesting character.
  21. The problem with having so much evidence is that if you present 10 pieces and your opponents are able to poke holes in 1 or 2 of them, they think they've knocked down all 10. I've not been a proponent of the Harvey and Lee theory. I understand completely why someone would find it hard to believe. I instinctually find it difficult to believe myself; that's why I've never been a proponent. It is asking a lot of anyone to believe in the possibility that Oswald had a double shadowing him since childhood. I don't take giving an opinion on that lightly. But in reading this thread, learning more about the case outside this forum, and doing a considerable amount of thinking about it in the past few months, I have to call it as I currently see it. In my opinion, despite my own personal inclination to reject it, I now believe there's more evidence pointing toward the possibility of Harvey and Lee being true than away. That doesn't make me a True Believer© saying that all the evidence and arguments presented are 100% flawless. I can't even claim to understand it all. But if I find what I believe are flaws or errors in some pieces of evidence or arguments, I don't then go throw the baby out with the bathwater and call the whole thing a ridiculous farce. Even if the possibility of it being true is minimal or remote, I believe it would still be a worthy area of study because that possibility exists at all. I certainly don't believe it's worthy of being repeatedly ridiculed so voraciously. If some people want to disagree with it, debate it, or dismiss it entirely, that's their right. But IMHO the constant repetitive ridicule is tiring and unhelpful in reaching what I hope is our common goal: furthering our understanding of the JFK assassination.
  22. Then who was impersonating Oswald in 1960 and why? If Harvey and Lee opponents truly do have alternative explanations as you seem to imply, then please provide one. I'm fairly confident in saying no person on the planet believes that Oswald was being set up for the assassination of President Kennedy in April 1960 or earlier, because Kennedy wasn't elected president until November 1960. If all the opponents of the Harvey and Lee theory continually parrot about how unimaginably difficult it would be to have such a complicated long-term scheme as posited by the Harvey and Lee theory, then they should also realize and acknowledge that, logistically speaking, offing a Senator would have been easier than offing a President. If we are truly not debating the basic fact that at some undetermined time before his death Oswald was being impersonated, then we are just disagreeing about the length of that time. Was it only 3 or 4 years, or did it date back a decade or more? If we are only debating the length of time, then in my opinion it's illogical for the Harvey and Lee opponents to be absolutely dismissive of any possibility that it might have been more than just 3 or 4 years. Clearly, that possibility, no matter how remote, exists. And if anyone says that possibility doesn't exist at all, they must then provide some sort of answer (hopefully with at least one fact to support it) to the question "Who was impersonating Oswald in 1960 and why?" because it certainly was not part of a plan to implicate Oswald in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
  23. Who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in 1960 or earlier, and why? If you have so many answers and know so much, answer that question, please.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...