John Kowalski

I now understand why you have a problem with H&L. You just admitted saying that certain people would not agree with his book and then you say that you had not polled them. You made it up, you are basing your belief on imaginary opinions. If you want to critique H&L please do. John Armstrong welcomes it. But if you do, do not make up opinions, instead review the evidence presented by John Armstrong and critique it. That is how it is done.

Can you provide us with the names of the these scientists and investigators and their proof regarding the two boys?

Jim has made a simple request, to discuss Harvey and Lee on this forum and not elsewhere. If you are so confident in your your beliefs, why don't you make an argument here on this forum? Are you able to do so? Can you demonstrate that you can make a rational argument based on facts on this forum or will you respond with your usual emotional responses?

I agree, it is a waste of time to respond to their derisive statements. However, I disagree with your choice of words i.e. "argument". An argument is made when someone expresses a conclusion based on an analysis of facts. Their snide remarks do not do that. What they do show is emotion. They respond with emotion because they can't argue with facts and sound logic. One thing I have learned over the years is that you can't argue with emotion.

Jim: You have won the debate. This response clearly shows that Parker's posse can't respond with facts and logical argument. If they had these they would have posted them now.

Jim: Do you have any theories about the Bolton Ford incident? Why did it happen and why was someone with Oswald's name involved in it?

Thanks John.

The problem with approaching her is getting by the woman who lives with her, who I believe is her grand-daughter or some other relative of hers. Contacted her twice after speaking to her on the phone and both times she would not let me speak to her. Was she doing this on her own accord I do not know. If she was then another attempt at contacting her may well be worth it. Another attempt could be fruitful if we could find someone who knows Tina Tippit. This person would be better able to convince her to release her notes to us. If we could find someone who lives near by who would be willingly to speak to her on our behalf, would be our best chance to get her to open up to us. What does John Armstrong think about this? He has a lot experience locating and interviewing people. Would he know how to locate people who are connected to her? I mentioned John's book to her, maybe he can contact her and make an impression on her because he wrote a book. He deceased husband had a lot of entertainment contacts. If we can find someone with an entertainment background a connection may be established.

That explains why they are suspects in JFK's murder.

You're welcome.

The link below is for 20 pictures of anti-Castro Cubans. Pictures include pictures of Tony Cuesta. The photographer is Dickey Chapelle who was a correspondent during WWII, the Korean a war and the Vietnam war. She died in Vietnam in 1965. https://archive.org/details/20210608_20210608_1805/1 - Commandos L Meeting and Lecture.jpg Photo descriptions: 1 - Commandos L Meeting and Lecture DESCRIPTION: A meeting of the anti-Castro group Commandos L. A man stands at the front of the room writing on a chalkboard and other members sit listening. 2 - CIA Truck Observes Commandos L Truck DESCRIPTION: Moving truck across the street from the house of the anti-Castro group, Commandos L, purportedly occupied by CIA observers of the group. The moving van reads "Bader Bros. Inc." and "Daily Trips to Florida California" and is parked on a lawn in a suburban neighbourhood. 3 - Commandos L Meeting with Radio: Tony Cuesta – 1 DESCRIPTION: Meeting of the anti-Castro group Commandos L. Men sit and stand around a kitchen table with a radio receiver and transmitter. Tony Cuesta sits at one end of the table in a red plaid shirt. 4 -Commandos L Meeting with Radio: Tony Cuesta – 2 DESCRIPTION: Meeting of the anti-Castro group Commandos L with radio transmitter and receiver. Four men sit around a kitchen table with a radio transmitter and receiver on it looking at manuals and instructions. A fan also sits on the table and Tony Cuesta is sitting next to it. 5 - Commandos L Armoury DESCRIPTION: Members of the anti-Castro group Commandos L in a garage functioning as an improvised armoury. Group members gather around a stack of crates and are watching a man handle a shotgun. 6 - Commandos L Marksmanship Class - 1 DESCRIPTION Members of the anti-Castro group Commandos L practice rifle marksmanship in the Everglades. A man with a rifle crouches on the ground next to boxes of ammo and two other men look on in an open gravelly area. 7 - Commandos L Marksmanship Class – 2 DESCRIPTION: Two members of the anti-Castro group, Commandos L, at rifle marksmanship training in the Everglades. One man lies on the gravelly ground aiming a rifle and another crouches next to him observing his technique. 8 - Commandos L Marksmanship Class – 3 DESCRIPTION: Rifle marksmanship class of the anti-Castro group Commandos L in the Everglades. A man lies on the gravelly ground operating the bolt action of a rifle. A few spent cartridges lies near him on the ground. 9 - Commandos L Radio Testing DESCRIPTION: A member of the anti-Castro group Commandos L sits on a bed testing a new radio transmitter-receiver. 10 - Commandos L Radio Installation DESCRIPTION: Members of the anti-Castro group Commandos L install a radio transmitter on a roof. Two men crouch working with a wire on the flat roof. A row of palm trees is growing in the background and there are other roofs nearby. 11 - Commandos L with Green Explosive Devices DESCRIPTION: Members of the anti-Castro group Commandos L talking in their arms factory/barrack. There are spray-painted homemade explosive devices on the table and a piece of machinery in the middle of the room. 12 - Commandos L Making Explosives DESCRIPTION: Member of the anti-Castro group Commandos L manufacturing explosives in a kitchen. The man is pouring a liquid from a small pot into a bundle of metal tubes. 13 - Commandos L Covering Explosive Devices DESCRIPTION Member of the anti-Castro group, Commandos L, putting covers over newly manufactured explosive devices. 14 - Commandos L Taping Explosive Device Closed DESCRIPTION: Two members of the anti-Castro group Commandos L working together to tape a homemade explosive device closed. 15 - Commandos L with First Aid Supplies DESCRIPTION: Three members of the anti-Castro group Commandos L with a cardboard whiskey box full of first aid supplies. 16 - Explosive Testing in Everglades DESCRIPTION: Member of the anti-Castro group Commandos L setting up to test an incendiary device in the Everglades. A man stands above a brown package in a gravel clearing holding a roll of wire. 17 - Commandos L Incendiary Testing DESCRIPTION: Two members of the anti-Castro group Commandos L test a homemade incendiary device in a gravelly clearing in the Everglades. One man holds a brown box and the other holds a length of wire. 18 - Incendiary Fire, Commandos L DESCRIPTION: Fire set by an incendiary device made by the anti-Castro group Commandos L. In the extreme foreground the blurred image of a member of the group frames a small fire on the rocky ground in the Everglades. 19 - Commandos L Making Explosives DESCRIPTION: Two members of the anti-Castro group Commandos L making explosive devices at the group's barracks/armoury. One member is hammering cans closed on a table while the other watches. 20 - Commandos L Camouflaging Explosive DESCRIPTION: Member of the anti-Castro group Commandos L spray painting a homemade explosive device with a camouflage pattern under a covered porch. Parked cars and trees can be seen in the background.

Steve: my point was that you refer to this theory as "silly". It's not a contrary view that is been questioned it is your dismissive attitude. If we conspiracy theorists have silly ideas, then why debate them?

If these stories are silly then why are you here debating them? You have made a number dismissive remarks about the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. If the belief that a conspiracy occurred on November 22, 1963 in Dallas is so difficult for you to accept that you need to make snide remarks about them, then why do you devote so much time trying to challenge them?

Oliver will have to distribute his film by selling dvds.

Have been waiting for this film for a long time.

Steve: Staking a reputation does not add credibility to an argument. Only conclusions based on proven facts can do so.

Look like Fred has put Jim on ignore. He should be here defending what he wrote but he is not.

Why should Jim or anyone on this forum have to stake their reputation on anything discussed here? Are you going to stake your reputation on what you have said? If so, what will you do when you are proven wrong? I know what you will do, the same thing you always do when proven wrong, you keep posting because you and the other WC supporters will never accept that there was a conspiracy.

Thanks Douglas, am looking forward to both his presentation and new books. Was wondering what happened to him as he has not published anything in a long time.

Jim: Glad to see that you are back on the forum. Looking forward to more research from John Armstrong.

Received my copy today and do not like faction. Hopefully it will not be too difficult to separate fact from fiction in this book.

Good suggestions John, we'll see what happens. Tracy: I doubt that a debate is going to happen because Fred must realize that his books are without substance, otherwise he would have debated Jim by now.

I asked the Canadian archives for their JFK documents which was transferred to them by the RCMP. They sent me a very small number of documents and I suspect that they have more documents they are not telling me about.

Have you contacted the American Historical Association and asked them to join you in the fight to release these documents? Their website has an advocacy page that indicates that they advocated in a large number of issues related to history. https://www.historians.org/news-and-advocacy/aha-advocacy

You just did it again. Your question does not prove anything. It's clear to me that you are not getting the point I have been trying to make.