David Josephs

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 11:44 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Where is it?

Same place most any of the incriminating evidence went... up in smoke.

But there is an unsigned application and the testimony of the workers who saw and handled it...
Of course you'll say they are all mistaken.... 

Some files I had

One has to wonder about a child-like man who needs to borrow pet names from others just to find a little acceptance...

Kinda sad Mike - this anger you carry around...  

and the fact that you and Trejo are peas in a pod...

   Perfect.

Here's a newsflash for ya Tracy...

You've convinced no one but yourself and a handful of disgruntled posters that of Johns thousands of supporting items of evidence, you found a couple from the outskirts of the theory to pull on and get all jolly over finding in the first place...

You tug at shirt tails and pretend like you've accomplished something...

As for Jim H... he can fence with you if he likes...  people like you come and go with very little notice...

You spend an awful lot of time on his work...   hoping maybe someone will spend some time on yours...  if you had any to offer that is...

Was he using the name MACK at that point?

----

Another example that Tracy et al don't like to consider....

The FBI offers this report WCD131... p2, claiming that while we know where he went, we aren't going to tell you who went with him...  directly from Military records... hmmmm

except the Marine Unit diaries tell us exactly who and when and where...

Now why would they claim the records did not show who went to Keeler... when the diary shows BANDONI, BREHNTON, CAMARATA, POWERS and Lee Oswald??

Because another Marine named Lee Oswald was with ALLEN FELDE and had different travel plans.  Notice too that POWERS chimes in - you know, one of the men the FBI couldn't find from this portion of his service...

The FBI does not want you to know about the men who traveled with, bunked with and served with Oswald... for as ELY found out... there are scores of Marines who do not have the same recollection or the same locations as the one the FBI and the WCR want you to follow....

But you keep swinging away... maybe you'll connect with something, someday...

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Are these the people you had in mind?

When I walked into [Jim [Marrs'] classroom there were some thirty "students" of all ages and backgrounds. Jim and his friend, Jack White, discussed the assassination while students and guests were invited to give presentations. I soon noticed two middle-aged men sitting at the back of the classroom and became annoyed when they began talking loudly, mocked nearly every speaker, and were very disruptive. These two men were self- proclaimed "experts" in the Kennedy assassination and questioned and criticized most of the speakers. Week after week they argued continuously with Jim Marrs, Jack White, guest speakers, and students.

 

Sandy... I do believe this was the more apropos line for this situation:

"He hasn't done anything constructive in the JFK assassination in years-all he does is sit around and criticize and nit-pick other people's work.

9 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

David,

I am not a professional proofreader and I do the best I can. I certainly have not proofread the entire book or was that ever my desire. I stated that there are many errors in the book related to citations and you seemed doubtful. I provided two cases where Armstrong made something up out of whole cloth and you are very dismissive of these. This fact may be indicative of  your willingness to let Armstrong off the hook despite these very serious errors of logic or something else. I assure you if I had the time and inclination I could provide many more examples of his sloppy or non existent sourcing. I could also provide many examples of typos and the like.  Some of these have been confirmed and commented on by Jim Hargrove who is a professional writer and would know. But I will drop the matter since I have proven my original point-that Armstrong doesn't know what a correct citation is or doesn't care. I think it is the latter and he believes in the old adage of the end justifies the means. In this case, any means.

You know Tracy... for someone who has done so little themselves you sure give the impression you have a large enough pair AND THE RIGHT to go after the work of others.

Yet you do so little to persuade or convince...   the 2 or 3 minions who'd buy anything you post as long as it was contrary to Armstrong will forever agree with whatever you post...

The legions of those convinced by your work that John is somehow wrong about H&L can be counted on a single hand....

Yet for years and years the concept and evidence for the two Oswalds has been explored, researched and verified.

That you find a mistake, or 10, or 100 will not change that fact....

... it just burns and tugs at you - every day - right Tracy?  

So you dedicate an entire blog and a good portion of every single day to this pursuit....  and simply cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that in the 1000 pages and thousands of supporting documents there is a very compelling and real case for there being two men....

Is it pride?  Visions of self-worth?  What is it that leads you to attack yet never to support?  You find NOTHING in the minimal amount you've investigated to support the theory....

If that's truly the case then cherry-picker is your next vocation... for you surely have not read even 1/10th of the work...

Then again, if John's right, your buddy Parker is wrong....  and we can't have or support a world where that's possible...

Thanks again for helping us all understand more fully your ability to condone and condemn that which you barely read...

26 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Now I don’t have time to proofread Armstrong’s book to find all the errors and misrepresentations in his 1000-page tome.

But that's not what you posted Tracy...  ??

"And BTW, Lance is correct. Many of the sources are incorrect (in other words do not say what he claims) or nonexistent. I checked them myself."

you checked "them"...   

so what is it Tracy?  are you serious about this H&L hatchet job you seem to live for... or are you just half-assing it on the subjects that interest you... 

GORSKY... with FBI interview and other related documentation...
Ping Tung...  

try to focus Tracy...  the Marines have OSWALD in two places at the same time...  but you seem to avoid all that...
More records than you can shake a stick at... 
My guess is you never SAW a Marine Diary before this book...
My guess is most of the few pages you bothered to read exposed you to things you hadn't even thought of or considered before...

But it's in your personal interest to wage a war based on you finding a mis-sourced reference in a book with thousands of them?

Congrats Tracy...  you may have caught and posted someone else's mistake....  him not being mentioned in that one reference proves to you that the Dept of Defense's Diaries are not accurate? 

This is direct and incontrovertible evidence of the existence of two Oswalds....  there's so much more but you can't be bothered with tracking down more than one or two sources - you've got a life....  right?

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

So after 380 pages and you finally found a source offered that does not support his assertion that Oswald and others were where he says they were.....

Well done Tracy...   at 380 pages per error... you should find one or two more!
Really not the point though is it?

If  you paid attention when you read your little snippet, you'd know there exists two distinct sets of people who knew 2 different people both named Lee Oswald...   As hard as you'd like - you'll never be able to deal with the overwhelming evidence clearly showing the 2 different men...

But please...  keep trying.

7 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And BTW, Lance is correct. Many of the sources are incorrect (in other words do not say what he claims) or nonexistent.

 

That's BS and you know it Tracy....  Many are to sources that could only have been found at the Archives or in his notebooks FROM the Archives....
Thousands of footnotes... and you couldn't find sources?

"MANY"?  how many is that Tracy?  5%?  2%?  50%?  How many of the thousands of footnotes did you check and come up empty or non-corroborative...

Please post the work you did...  or a link to your blog where you surely made a big deal out of each and every one...  by my count you challenge a half dozen concepts...

but have nothing to say about GORSKY... or ELY other than "mistakes were made"....

You claim to have done the work...

show it.

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 9:50 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

BTW, I challenge the H&L followers to document every report about LHO that exists and then make each and every one fit into their theory.

It's been done...   The book is called HARVEY AND LEE and is available to download for free.

It's got footnotes to the sources... relates to the BAYLOR POAGE collection with all of John's notebooks, and there's a CD with thousands of images and docs....

There is a website that Jim H runs with quite a lot of information and repeated thread where people like you Tracy put forth your rebuttal arguments...

"Keep It Simple S...."

There are more than enough marine records proving Oswald went to Ping Tung
There are more than enough medical records for Atsugi for Oswald at the same time.
There is no dispute that Oswald was in Ping Tung and did take the ships there and back
There is no dispute that Lee Oswald was treated for STDs in Atsugi during the same period
There is no dispute that the DoD lied and tried to claim that Oswald NEVER WENT to the Philippines.

There is no dispute that GORSKY stated that Oswald left the marines in March 1959 and that all his records were taken to DC...

There is no dispute that ALLEN FELDE was with one man while other Marines traveled and bunked with the other

There is no dispute that the bio John Ely compiled conflicts with the memories of a great many men who were stationed with Lee Oswald....
and needed extensive alteration and omission before it could be published...

The H&L crowd is sick to death of those with just enough info and knowledge to THINK they understand posting like they lived with the man and know his inner thinking...

But hey... without Armstrong these people would have nothing to say... and since the whole point was to GO READ THE BOOK YOURSELF... go follow the sources YOURSELF

I find it amazing that those like you can continue to deny 98% of the work since 2% is not to your liking...

Maybe one's time would be better spent promoting the theories you have...   do you have any that don't hinge on H&L? 
Start a thread and put forth YOUR work for scrutiny...  let's see how you do... 

Or is forging a path where others haven't been just too much for ya?

8 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Oh Dave for goodness sake. Where in the world is your citation for this?!

This statement of yours is one  of  the  most ridiculous  ones  yet right up there with your it's  CONTRAST and the SLOPING SHOULDERS nonsense.

The more fibs and silliness you and others mention about Hardly Lee the more you and others look foolish.

So I've  gotta ask when will the foolishness end?

Do you  not realize that the good work others have done on the case is lessened with thid ridiculous story, just like Fetzer did with his craziness?

Who ARE you and why do you keep posting here? 

When you finally leave this forum to those who actually have something to say... the foolishness stops...

But then you come back....     Not since PM and CL have we had posters as lost and uninformed as you...  and yet you just keep going

a confused and lost little boy who just can't grasp why adults have serious conversations...

run along little boy...  we're all so sorry this is too tough for you...  but it's best to know one's limits....

now, let the adults get back to our regularly scheduled discussions...

bu bye now

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  

6 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ruth Paine is entirely innocent of any involvement in the JFK plot, by my reading

Yeah... Gonna stop right there...  

Your statements of assumed fact... Are not anything with which I can agree...

So I'll leave you to your path.... 

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

My question, why didn't the FBI simply disappear the alleged Mexico trip. (Poof! Problem solved.)

Is that the same question as yours?

 

It was the CIA who left the trail....  phase 1 Castro Conspiracy.... Alvarado, Oswald, 6500$$$

Oswald is in Dallas with 2 men visits Odio, goes to the shooting range, etc.....

His trip took him thru Austin where he was interviewed...

anyway... JFK is killed by Oswald... OMG, the Oswald from Mexico?

but we looked, he wasn’t there (cause we know where he was)... says Hoover.

We can’t have a ww3 says LBJ.... he must have been alone says everyone....

he couldn’t have been in Dallas with conspirators.... he was in Mexico, yeah, that’s it.... 

Mexico on a bus, alone....

17 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Hi Sandy - glad to see your sense of humor is shining through today!

Buzzzzzzzzzzz

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

These are very interesting points.

Not too many can argue the logic that a 5 foot box from Klein's to Oswald's PO box

in March of 63 would be something the USPS or FBI should be reporting on....

Same with the REA pistol.... The FBI didn't know he had been shipped a pistol on the same day as the rifle?

Uh, ok

Your take on Hosty is quite interesting Paul....  In essence, only Ruth knew the day to day of Oswald in Oct.....  And I'm guessing she and Hosty did some talking.

Her calendar for Oct would be worth a look....

Hosty, thru Woosley at INS knows of the Oct 16th Win Scott memo and that the CIA is placing his guy in Mexico.   By the 4th of Nov, FBI agent Peck is filing reports looking for any sign of Ozzie in Mexico and coming up empty...

Recently released a mexican informant working inside the Cuban consulate repeatedly says there was no Oswald....

It makes sense the CIA would orchestrate MX.   My question again, why Does Hoover cover for the CIA and create the LN bus trip when he obviously knows it was not Oswald down there?

10 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks David - how on earth do you travel with a visa that gets your name wrong? Why fake something and get it so wrong? As usual the facts present more questions than answers.

As Salandria wrote, the conspiracy was suppose to break down upon examination putting those inside to a decision to investigate or cover it up.

I introduced the concept of a "evidentiary closed loop" iow the evidence works as long as you don't look at how things normally work.  By only looking at the items of evidence which relate to Oswald... They only need corroborate themselves....  Like the rifle evidence....

The FBI and CIA had been watching Oswald.  Yet from Sept 25 to Oct 31 there are virtually no reports written and those that were claimed they didn't know where he was until the Kaack report saying he was now in Irving....    Does it really make sense that the FBI would suddenly go dark on the man?  

Remember, the USPS was also reporting on Oswald... Which magazines coming in, destination of letters going out along with content....  Yet the FBI not once mentions his getting a 5 foot box with a rifle in it....   ??   

Like the money order... All the stamps and forms and such were at the disposal of the man collecting and creating the evidentiary story...   

Within hours of the shooting, Mexican presidential staff went to all 4 bus lines and took manifests only for Sept 26 thru Oct 3.....and from Mex city, Monterrey and 3 border towns.

I see Gaudet acquiring the necessary forms or actually acquiring the visa that day....  Our man Oswald was not involved in that plan.. He was the object of it.

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 1:01 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Would Oswald’s Mexican tourist visa show proof that he went to MC? Does it exist in evidence? I’ve never heard it referred to.

It indeed was used as proof Paul...   It was made out to LEE, Harvey Oswald...  H.O. LEE was how it was used on the return trip...

Signed Lee Oswald....

What we find though, was when the FM-11 master list was compiled, Mr. LEE was filed under "O" for Oswald.
We also find problems with the stamps, those working at the border, and a whole host of other things which make this document suspect as a creation...

I also go into the evidence about GAUDET at the Consulate to get the VISA (his #24084) ... he fabricates a story of what occurred that conflicts with the few non-CIA assets there that morning. 

#99 was stamped on the front of the VISA - you can see it above and to the left of the "24"

This is the detailed listing for the FM-11...  he was given #99 based on the alphabetizing...

97. M
98. O'
99. O swald
100. P

There's more of course...  that's some of the story related to that Visa...

DJ

I've seen, read and commented within that thread...  another attempt - this time Tommy  Graves.... to get some attention and traction for posts at which no one would otherwise look twice.  I wonder if Tracy or Greg or the others would have even known 1% of these things had it not been for the 10 years of research John put in...

As for the newest documents being - how'd you put it? right - a big turd...  I expect nothing less from you Mike...  you wouldn't even know what to look for or have the awareness IF anything was new or not...  you simply don't know nor care to find out...  

It doesn't dawn on you that the time and effort I put into the other work - which you seem to find palatable - was also put into H&L? 
It doesn't dawn on you that H&L at its core makes Parker's and Tracy's work irrelevant - there is a vested interest in proving it wrong...  John could care less whether you accept it, understand it or even look at it... you don't know John yet feel it in your right to abuse his work...  pathetic. 

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

Again, I appreciate the work Jeff put into it...  but there are some simple assumptions he makes which preclude him from coming to any other conclusion...

What does he say about film 0184 and the film sent to Rowley...   0184 does not appear in either article

What becomes of the Rowley film ?   Since this is part 2 of his work, maybe in part 1?  The ROWLEY copy of the film, in DC Friday night after midnight and then gone to history allows over 20 hours before it gets to Dino and almost 50 hours before Homer.  

Somehow, Mr. Carter did not include discussion of the Rowley Copy and what occurs between Zapruder, Schwartz, Max Phillips and Sorrells...

I'm curious how one can conclude there was no time to alter the film when the one film that was actually in Washington DC that night is not discussed?

Any ideas Mike - or should I just talk to Jeff as you haven't the first clue how to answer me since you've done none of the work?

Real problem here is you know just enough to be annoying but not enough to know you're wrong...
So you make it every one else's problem.  Real credit to the effort buddy...  

----

As for the MATH RULES thread...  do you really want me to count how many worthless posts you offered on that thread? 

You posted:

"Uhh, your point, Chris? Just because you bought into what this surveyor wrote about in an interview written by Marrs doesn't make it so. Just like what Truly said about the "Oh, um, the limo almost rode up onto the curb" in his statement. Do you see that in the Towner film? I don't."

You may think this thread is helping other researchers but it's not. It's moved into absurdist territory. "

So says the JFK expert...  what a joke.  I wonder how is it that you are the first to criticize those areas for which you have the least understanding or exposure?
You have this NEED to comment on things you know nothing about rather than ask a few questions and maybe learn something...

Again thanks, you're a real credit to the effort....  

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Absolutely none (of course). Cronkite merely got LHO's middle name wrong in that one instance on 11/25/63. And, as I said previously, Walter messed up LHO's name on other occasions that weekend too---first calling him "Leo H. Oswald"; and one other time calling him "Lee Harvey Osburn". So, should I now attach some kind of conspiratorial "significance" of some kind to those two other incorrect monikers too (Leo and Osburn)?

Of course not....  I can chalk it up to a simple mistake as well....    and a mighty coincidence that this 201 file would be opened with HENRY and used to describe the Mr. Oswald in the cables.

We do agree though that Angleton and Egerter could have had a reason for entering HENRY on the 201...
I also understand that most 201 files have a secret counterpart which contains files not allowed in the "public" one...  "Public" to other CIA personnel that is.
https://books.google.com/books?id=j7iN57YRRBIC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=agee+201+files&source=bl&ots=sn734I4CI9&sig=aui7MYRtIYMo7a8E8qhsmIQ13Sw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO1JSm0enXAhUhqlQKHWoUAbkQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=agee 201 files&f=false

News tended to get fact-checked...  So I do find it somewhat strange....  the word "Henry" appears on his cards or prompter?  IDK

Yes, people make mistakes....  people also plan covert assassination...

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

I finally found the CBS footage showing Cronkite saying "Lee Henry Oswald". It's at the 25:40 mark in this video, and it was on Monday, Nov. 25th (after JFK's funeral)....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTwSedFirxtSHBDTmU1eldNNU0/view

 

Thanks Dave....

What significance do you attach to this - if any?

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 9:42 AM, Michael Walton said:

Call it whatever you want, David.  You, too, don't believe everything you read.

This is a tactic Mike... One used by Trump and his admin....

It's the "But what about what YOU do" argument...  We're not talking about me here Mike... we're talking about you repeatedly posting an attack on John and his book without the understanding or qualifications to do so...  So you read something by someone whose work hinges on there NOT being 2 men...  and you take up the battle cry so, what... you'll be liked at ROKC?   And then after your belittling... are you expecting anyone here to take what you post seriously?

Agreeing to disagree is fine with me...  offering blatantly incorrect analysis simply because the conclusion of others doesn't fit your needs is another thing. 
Yet you guys look at 1000 offered conclusions, pick a dozen and offer an alternative analysis...   in some case very good alternatives to THAT conclusion...
In your mind debunking 12 of a 1000 negates the other 988 - even before you've ever looked at them?

Does that sound like a path the knowledge... or the cherry picking of a perceptibly easy target?   ie...  Harvey is in Ping Tung while Lee is in hospital for STDs... proven.
You guys chalk it up to administrative mistakes... unless of course it HELPS your case... then the records are fine... Gorsky lied, Donovan lied, Felde lied, Marine Unit Diaries are all incorrect, John Ely is wrong, the list of men in Oswald's life that does not compute with Ely...

There remains thousands of examples for which you'll need an alternate explanation...  I see Tracy and Greg and others working hard at their alternatives...  again, fine.

What do YOU do Mike... other than comment of other people's work? Not that you have to do anything to have an opinion ala PT...  yet if you actually did some of the source work maybe you wouldn't be so quick to criticize...  

As for my attacking those with whom I disagree....  you offer PT as example...  PT doesn't offer anything but his opinions which conflict with the source material from which they are formed...    He posts absolutes like - "No proof anywhere ever that Marina lied under oath"... and when I show him how wrong he is... he just keeps on posting.. no recusal, no explanation...  just onto the next opinion from which there is no basis.

So no Mike... everyone I disagree with who DOES NOT fail to offer even a shred of supporting evidence...  I read into, check the sources and make a decision.

The ignorance I refer to in your case is only that you feel qualified to belittle the work of someone else when you admit not having read the material in the first place...
The ignorance I refer to in PT's case is his inability to incorporate proven fact into his opinions.. while still spouting the same conclusions

Jeff Carter does amazing work.  So do many contributors to the cause.  You failed to mention David Healy who brought forth the means to alter years and years ago.  Or Chris Davidson who has helped explain the survey charades perpetrated by the FBI and SS and how the alteration of CE884 was accomplished....  there are so many contributions to knowledge and discussion offered on these pages - yet you choose to spend a majority of your time criticizing that which you haven't read or even try to comprehend.

   "The Zapruder film is (most probably) an intact and authentic 8mm motion picture sequence."

Jeff writes this as the first sentence.   The Zfilm which is in the Archives contains numerous splices and does not have on it the "0183" identification punch holes...  furthermore, these spliced together pieces add to more than 50% more film than a side of film contains...  "INTACT" it is not.

AUTHENTIC?
How to prove Authenticity Mike?   How could 0184 have been skipped?  Why does Max Phillips refer to a 4th COPY being sent to Rowley?
One of the most important question which has NEVER been answered:  What did ROWLEY do with his copy of the film that night?

Mike - how can anyone read that work and consider the writer ignorant?  you can't.   Neither can I....  but I'm allowed to disagree and state the reasons why...

I don't belittle him, or his work...   Paul, on the other hand derives his opinions and conclusions from thin air and hope.  He presents and builds upon info which remains provably false.

You, just spout off.... as if you've earned some right to do so....  and then give us a link or references to some rebuttal work that Tracy or Parker or one of the other ROKC minions has done...

Do you know John Armstrong, personally, so you can make that statement without it sounding as uninformed as it does?
How do you know enough to post the following about a "scam"...  or "bloated fiction" when as you say, you didn't read it?

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 3:45 AM, Michael Walton said:

At least we now know John is not scamming anyone any more with this bloated work of high fiction.

Maybe the excellent rebuttals to his fairy tale on this forum finally made him realize that enough was enough.

Out of the blue, mean-spirited BS is all you seem to be able to offer on the subject....  that and a glimpse into an ignorance that knows no bounds.

No worries Mike...  been on these boards for 15 years and sadly have suffered worse fools...  
I've been wrong about things more times than you've been right.. and know that many use my work to gain a deeper and better understanding...

We are seeing with the release of docs that my hypothesis about Oswald in Mexico is gaining authentication....
I worked extensively on those articles for over a year and continue to work and discover new things....

I firmly see that the CIA's auto evidence was also part of the charade....

If Oswald was flown into and out of Mexico Friday morning... ok... authenticate and we can incorporate it into the analysis
Until then, one of THE pivotal events in the painting of Oswald as JFK assassin - was created, not experienced.

I am currently trying to find out when the FBI's asset in the Immigration area of the Mex gov't providing all the incriminating evidence,
 became an asset....   it may go as far back as the University of Mexico in the late 40's....

So again, what is it that YOU do to improve understanding for all in this case?

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Sandy - this is the only forum I belong to.  Greg Parker is a good writer and often times very funny too.  So I go there to get a little bit of levity from the sadness I find on EF. Sadness as in the absolute bat-xxxx craziness over here.  And believe me when I say there is A LOT of that here LOL. I saw the other forum that was supposedly hacked a while back and there's some pretty crazy stuff there. I work FT so it'd be a stretch for me to be jumping around from one to the other. And sane writings here from JD, PS, Bernie, Jeremy, Tracy and others balances out the craziness just enough for me.

I did not buy his book and did read his website, Sandy. There was something I learned there that I found very interesting. How Nixon said something along the lines of he knew Ruby from back in '47.  I mean, what are the odds?

But IMO I think it's shameful that John Armstrong has passed this complete and phantastical story on as research about a young boy being found in Hungary who looks like LHO, and his Mom looked like LHO's Mom (except she didn't smile a lot and had a unibrow) and for 10 whole years before 11/22 these two are living their lives in each other's shadows for some unknown reason until - BAM - the clone is set up to take the blame for Kennedy's murder and the other one disappears forever.

Not even Steven King could come up with a story that outlandish. And sadly there are people who actually believe it. But to keep saying I should go over to ROKC is beside the point - there are many, many people out there who have read this crazy story and roll their eyes but they don't belong to Parker's site neither.

You wear your ignorance so proudly... 

You find insulting the work of other people...  funny?
You find making up derogatory names for other writers/researchers...  amusing?

It's truly sad that people like you must resort to calling out what you don't understand just so people will read it....

Put out something of your own Mike...  what have you done which can be held up to scrutiny...

Oh, right.  Nothing.

Makes you supremely qualified to judge others who have....  

51 minutes ago, Brendan Boucher said:

Would we expect the Cultural Attache to have had any encounters with the individual identified as Oswald on 9/27?  And on that same page above he reports that Duran confirmed the Visa visit.

 

I was going through these reports last night and I just come away thinking, what was this all for?  Obviously in the midst of the Cold War these people thought they were doing their part to take down the monstrous USSR and it's Communist brethren.  But in the end the information gleaned from the extensive surveillance operations around the Globe, and Mexico City in particular, amounted to a hill of beans.  It's truly hard to fathom the amount of time and energy that went into these colossal intelligence gathering efforts and in the highest profile investigation ever undertaken they are shown by the historical record to be little more than Keystone Cops.  Whether that was actually the case or a gigantic ruse is a worthy debate and the MEXI Station should really face much more scrutiny on this front.   

 

 

Brendan - have you read State Secret?

The primary objective in Mexico City was to turn agents... to encourage defection and the sharing of information...

Castro sent agents to get doubled on purpose to infiltrate the US planning process...  I see that working much better than what we accomplished...  which as you say... was next to nothing from an informational POV...

We should remember that the CIA was last to the party.... 
Intelligence agencies from all over the world had been playing their games in Mexico..  The FBI had been entrenched since 1940 and the SIS... The Military intel agencies also had their agents as did the STATE dept....

No doubt the CIA took a while to ramp up effectiveness... sadly they found they were better at doing illegal, covert actions than gathering and interpreting intelligence...  Same with the FBI of the time....

That's why today's wholesale striping of the State Dept will have terrible consequences... diplomacy gives way to military and covert actions since these boys and girls are not thinning their ranks at all....