The JFK Conspiracy - Versions

[John Bevilaqua]

Jack, glad to see you read Evan's clear instructions as to what he required of this thread as closely as I did before replying!

You say,

Any study of Lee Harvey Oswald which ignores the monumental

work of John Armstrong (Harvey & Lee) is woefully lacking in

accuracy.

Jack

to which there is really only one response...

This is the type of accuracy readers can expect from Armstrong:

Armstrong on Decker's report - was Armstrong dishonest or incompetent?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry121089

Armstrong on LHO's NYC school records - was Armstrong dishonest or incompetent?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;mode=threaded

Armstrong's twisting of Lillian Muret's testimony. Dishonesty or incompetence?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mode=linearplus

Welcome back, Jack. I needed the laugh...

Apologies to Evan, but I put a lot of effort into getting the facts right, and I'm not inclined to allow a shill for a theory held together only by the author's cozening to suggest otherwise. I mean, it's the thin end of the wedge and on a par with... "You play cricket like a Pom" or some equally egregious and vile insult...

Hello again Greg, long time no hear... I also agree with you that Armstrong's research is fatally biased and therefore fatally flawed.

Anyone who used to cite Colonel Philip J. Corso as a reputable source even AFTER Corso claimed to have witnessed Alien Autopsy's

in Area 51 surely deserves to have at least his motivations examined. Do a search for Corso Area 51 or Corso Alien Autopsy and

yes you will find hits. And Armstrong still cites Prouty even after his anti-JFK comments at COPA in 1993-94 and after Prouty was

do thoroughly denounced as an anti-Semite, a racist and a proto-Fascist. In fact Armstrong and Jack White once accompanied

the artist who did Connie Kurtzberg's first book on a walking tour of Dallas in 1993-94 and he was witness to what he called over 25

racist comments and vulgarities as they made their way from the hotel to the ARRB hearing rooms. So why would both Jack White

and John Armstrong continue to cite Corso and Prouty and spout deliberate deflections? Birds of a Feather Flock Together.

[Evan Burton]

*sigh*

I just wanted to hear what people thought happened - whatever that may be. Asking it to be kept concise may have been a naive request.

It is to try and help me understand why some people think various films may have been faked, and what effect that has on various theories (most of you all agree that it was not a lone gunman). Why if someone was standing there and not over here is important. If a consensus believe it was carried out in a certain way, then why do people argue passionately over to what appears to me insignificant details.

To help me get a feeling for the whole thing.

I really didn't want people arguing over someone being right or wrong, something being flawed or not.

I really would prefer if people did not comment on other people's theories.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

*sigh*

I just wanted to hear what people thought happened - whatever that may be. Asking it to be kept concise may have been a naive request.

It is to try and help me understand why some people think various films may have been faked, and what effect that has on various theories (most of you all agree that it was not a lone gunman). Why if someone was standing there and not over here is important. If a consensus believe it was carried out in a certain way, then why do people argue passionately over to what appears to me insignificant details.

To help me get a feeling for the whole thing.

I really didn't want people arguing over someone being right or wrong, something being flawed or not.

I really would prefer if people did not comment on other people's theories.

Evan, this thread could stand as testimony to why I seldom post in the JFK section these days, no great loss I suppose, Rather than post here, I will send you my thoughts in a P/M. FWTW. Steve.

[Tim Gratz]

Peter wrote:

Sadly, the infighting is part of the texture of the case and due to both internal dissentions and disagreements and infiltration by the very same forces that did the assassination and the coverup [Emphasis supplied.]

To which the only response can be, in the words of the immortal Charlie Brown: "Good grief!"

Edited October 15, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Peter, you implied that the forces that killed JFK have infiltrated this Forum. At least that is the way I read that sentence.

You wrote:

Why the NYT still has never given an inch to questioning the WC? [Just old news? I think not!!]

Peter, in 1966 the NYT did indeed question the WC. As I recall, it even suggested a new investigation.

[Greg Parker]

You might want to read them again. (See below)

QUOTE(Evan Burton @ Oct 13 2007, 05:16 AM)

I would ask people NOT to refute other peoples versions of events.....

P.S. Please treat this thread as what it is intended - a place to put forward various theories. NOT a place to dispute the various theories. ANY theory is valid.

Michael, no, I did not miss it.

This is what Jack said:

Any study of Lee Harvey Oswald which ignores the monumental

work of John Armstrong (Harvey & Lee) is woefully lacking in

accuracy.

And this is what you said:

Evan, it would seem your ground rules were not clear enough for some people or they preferred to ignore them.

John Armstrong's book is almost a thousand pages, with copious footnotes referring to primary documents on virtually every page. One does not have to agree with his conclusions nor does one have to believe that his research is flawless in order to recognize that much of what he wrote contains value.

Understanding the cryptic life of Lee Oswald can be perplexing to even the most respected researchers. Even to this day Oswald's actions are shrouded in mystery and marked by speculation and debate. There can be little doubt that Armstrong's work has advanced our understanding. As soon as Oswald was pronounced dead, people realized that he would take very important secrets to his grave with him. Sadly, that is exactly what happened.

Oswald's death while in custody is probably the foremost reason why the murder of President Kennedy remains unsolved.

By the way Evan, are you planning to divulge your explanation? If you have one, I would be interested.

Neither you nor Jack outlined any theory. It follows that I did not "refute" or "dispute" any theory. I called it what it was: shilling. Don't like it? There is a complaints process here. I'd encourage you to utilize it.

At any rate, my comment did not single you out; it applied to others as well.

You defended/supported what Jack said. If you did not single me out, have the intestinal fortitude to name all the names and accompanying "sins" you were referring to. To leave it as is, is to tarnish all those who responded up to that point with the same brush.

-----------------------------------

Bill, thanks for your support. I hope it hasn't come at a cost to your personal standing.

-----------------------------------

Myra, thanks for your interest, too. Somehow I missed seeing your post in my previous reply.

-----------------------------------

Hello again Greg, long time no hear.

JB, that's because you apparently keep finding a life…

-----------------------------------

the enemy is out there and we can't be a bit more kind to one another?.

Peter, if I had a tumor, I'd want it excised, regardless of whether it was malignant or benign. I certainly wouldn't be embracing it merely because it's part of me.

He or she who has not made a mistake on this case at sometime in the past and claims to understand it perfectly, please cast the first stone.

I'll give you a clue as to who cast the first stone here. His name starts with Jack and ends with White. As for who claims to understand the case perfectly... that same person won't even admit "Havey and Lee" is just a theory. He (and others) always discuss it as if it is fact.

But will you ever quote your bible to Jack in admonishment of stone throwing and delusions of having perfect understanding?

I've tried being nice in the past. But the Two Oswald crowd are as bad as Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. A little civility only encourages them to keep coming back and logic only flies over the faith-filled heads.

[Dawn Meredith]

*sigh*

I just wanted to hear what people thought happened - whatever that may be. Asking it to be kept concise may have been a naive request.

It is to try and help me understand why some people think various films may have been faked, and what effect that has on various theories (most of you all agree that it was not a lone gunman). Why if someone was standing there and not over here is important. If a consensus believe it was carried out in a certain way, then why do people argue passionately over to what appears to me insignificant details.

To help me get a feeling for the whole thing.

I really didn't want people arguing over someone being right or wrong, something being flawed or not.

I really would prefer if people did not comment on other people's theories.

Evan, this thread could stand as testimony to why I seldom post in the JFK section these days, no great loss I suppose, Rather than post here, I will send you my thoughts in a P/M. FWTW. Steve.

Steve,

That' s really a shame. I miss your posts and your terrific sense of humor. I hope you will reconsider and post your thoughts re Evan's question here. I agree that the back biting is horrendous. And that is the reason many serious researchers will not post on forums. Not because they are afraid of having their work challenged but because of the never ending attacks that go on.

Evan

This case is pretty complex so trying to nutshell is difficult. Very briefly: I believe JFK was killed by the CIA, DIA and other high level millitary intelligence movers and shakers. They did not want normalized realtions with Russian or Cuba, or a pull out in Viet Nam. JFK was furious with the CIA after to Bay of Pigs. Made comments about splintering it to a thousand winds, some say he'd actually begun theis process. Others had means motive and opportuniny (The Dallas right wing monied fascists who considered JFK a treasonous sob), so it may well have been done in concert with this crowd. (Many are mentioned in Myra's post). Cover-up by the entire government, 99.9999% of the media and all school history books, save for the few dilligent teachers who teach truth on this subject. (One of our new members will shortly join this small group- yea Courtney!) .

Dawn.

LHO shot no one. He was, as he said of himself, "a patsy"

[Guest Stephen Turner]

That' s really a shame. I miss your posts and your terrific sense of humor. I hope you will reconsider and post your thoughts re Evan's question here. I agree that the back biting is horrendous. And that is the reason many serious researchers will not post on forums. Not because they are afraid of having their work challenged but because of the never ending attacks that go on.

Dawn.

Hey Dawn, thank you Darlin. Its not that I worry about being attacked, hell I've done my fair share, just that every thread these days seems almost predestined to follow this tiresome route, plus I have said just about all I have to say on the subject for the present time.

Evan, a clue, Lemnitzer, LeMay Dulles----Walker, and the minutemen.

[Jack White]

Someone here mistakenly wrote:

"In fact Armstrong and Jack White once accompanied

the artist who did Connie Kurtzberg's first book on a walking tour of Dallas in 1993-94"

This is clearly untrue. I do not know Conie Kurtzberg nor her artist. I have often been

in Dealey Plaza, and am not accountable for knowing anyone in the crowd which is

usually there. If this person approached John and me, I had no idea of their identity,

and I certainly have no idea about the relevance of this comment nor what it means.

John Armstrong is one of the most honest and dedicated persons I know. He spent

12 years researching ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION on Oswald. When he found

everything he could, he made timelines of all LHO materials. He did not present

any theories in his book, but showed that on numerous occasions the official record

put LHO in two different places at the same time. Rather than theorize, he to the

best of his ability separated the record into two different persons, and he leaves the

reader to decide what is accurate.

Above all, John is NOT an "arrogant jerk". After he completed his LHO studies and

book, he returned to having a life. Printing his book in China was not unAmerican,

but strictly financial. It cost him about a fourth as much as in the US. John is basically

a very shy person who hates conflict, and he considers forums a waste of time...

and he is likely correct. When one can make thousands of dollars a day trading

commodity futures, any time spent on a forum is like throwing money away.

He did his part. Others should do theirs, instead of criticizing him for NOT DOING

MORE.

Jack

[Michael Crane]

I think that the assassination was planned in New Orleans,carried out in Dallas,and covered up in Washington.

IMHO there must have been a small group or individuals in the government,military & organized crime that were involved in this conspiracy.That a decision was made,that JFK had to be eliminated,and the guilty parties,would never have to worry about being brought to justice.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Michael Crane

[Evan Burton]

Thanks to all who have replied. It has given me a lot to read about.

To be honest, I am not a 'civilian' in this thread. Only in rare cases should a moderator not carry out their duties. The fact I started this thread gives me a reasonable case to close it - and I will. I think that people who have strong disagreements with other peoples beliefs regarding JFK have had their say, and I'd like everyone to return to the serious study and research on the subject that you already do.

Once again, thanks for all the replies. If someone feels I am being seriously misled, and they strongly feel the need to warn me of this, then contact me via PM.