Jack White Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Clay Shaw..............................I DOUBT THAT HE KNEW LHO Seriously? You have documentation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 (edited) JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEE I don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey". When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features. So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here? Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong! Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them. Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work? Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information. On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete". Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed, "The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index. It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes. There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas. There is no Moscow. No Minsk. There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI. It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned. This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of names happens to be incomplete. For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed." So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research. Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong: John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK. Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income). I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people. Dawn Dean: Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired. John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. Best, Doug Weldn Edited April 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Weldon Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEEI don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey". When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features. So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here? Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong! Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them. Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work? Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information. On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete". Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed, "The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index. It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes. There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas. There is no Moscow. No Minsk. There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI. It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned. This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of names happens to be incomplete. For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed." So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research. Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong: John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK. Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income). I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people. Dawn Dean: Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired. John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. Best, Doug Weldn As a side note I have the 26 volumes. I have not seen Sylvia's index but have used Walt Brown's index quite extensively. Doug Weldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 (edited) ON THE MANIFEST ABSURDITY OF DOUG WELDON'S POSITION According to Doug Weldon, I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. What Doug does not seem to appreciate--even though I have made the point repeatedly in this thread--is that David Lifton does not buy into HARVEY & LEE. I have entreated him to state his position, which he has not done. But Doug's ringing endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong--of standing "unequivocally behind" them!--is going to be demonstrated as a manifest absurdity when Lifton finally comes clean. A good time would be NOW! JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEEI don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey". When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features. So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here? Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong! Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them. Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work? Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information. On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete". Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed, "The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index. It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes. There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas. There is no Moscow. No Minsk. There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI. It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned. This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of names happens to be incomplete. For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed." So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research. Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong: John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK. Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income). I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people. Dawn Dean: Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired. John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. Best, Doug Weldn As a side note I have the 26 volumes. I have not seen Sylvia's index but have used Walt Brown's index quite extensively. Doug Weldon Edited April 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything she says is merely her OPINION. You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions as being not worthy of wasting time over. Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK. What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation. It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking. As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's. I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes. But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book. And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most ill-considered comparison you have ever made. Jack JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEEI don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey". When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features. So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here? Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong! Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them. Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work? Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information. On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete". Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed, "The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index. It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes. There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas. There is no Moscow. No Minsk. There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI. It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned. This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of names happens to be incomplete. For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed." So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research. Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong: John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK. Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income). I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people. Dawn Dean: Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired. John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. Best, Doug Weldn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before (Armstrong probably meant after, m.h.) the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before (Armstrong probably meant after, m.h.) the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete".Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Armstrong also "blundered" by claiming the 5-volume FBI report was completed within 48 hours of the assassination. Hoover did release a statement to the media on November 25 that suggested Oswald was a lone assassin. From Breach of Trust by Gerald D McKnight, Page 91: During the December 12 executive session, the first meeting after the commissioners had a chance to review the 833-page* FBI report, it was evident that DeLoach's campaign to exonerate the FBI for the leaking had made no headway. Twice during this session Warren mentioned that he had not found 'anything in the report that had not been leaked to the press....... There was no December 12 executive session, as McKnight erroneously stated. The footnotes make it clear that McKnight meant the December 16 executive session. By all accounts, McKnight's book is a masterful dissection of "how the Warren Commission failed the nation and why." This error in no way detracts from his findings. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/con...ents_wcexec.htm Unfortunately many similar types of errors have crept into Armstrong's book. Careful readers are left to assiduously check his footnotes and other sources in order to determine for themselves if Armstrong's conclusions are supported by the evidence he presents. McKnight's Breach of Trust was published by the University Of Kansas Press with their attendant editing resources. Harvey & Lee is almost 1000 pages in length and was self-published and printed in China. I believe Armstrong may be entitled to some slack. *Bugliosi claims the FBI report was 384 pages (Reclaiming History, page 329) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH AND HARVEY & LEE Jack, your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I have spelled out very specific blunders in Armstrong's book. The first was his claim that Dulles had been so effective in managing the Warren Commission that the index to its 26 volumes did not even have a reference to the CIA. But, as I observed, the 26 supporting volumes did not have an index and THE WARREN REPORT, which did, had dozens of references to the CIA. If you cannot acknowledge that as a "blunder", then we have different standards of rationality. Again, as Pat Speer observed when I posted a section in which John was explaining how the FBI had played a fast one on the public by secretly taking the physical evidence (the Oswald possessions) to Washington and then laundering them, returning the evidence to Dallas and later making a big to-do about it with a public loading into a vehicle, where John adds that this was weeks before the Warren Commission was formed. Since I explained all of this in my posts, I suppose you are no more reading my posts than you are Judyth's. The quality of an argument, Jack, is independent of its source. If McAdams had posted the same critiques as Judyth about some of the photographs or explained why the alleged eye- color difference carries no weight, they would still stand as arguments that have to be dealt with on their own. You love to commit the genetic fallacy, which is to discount arguments on the basis of their origin. I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of that kind, Jack, and I am not going to accept them from you. Your conduct has been irresponsible. The existence of "two Oswalds" largely rests upon accounts like that from Beauregard Jr. High School. But when I notice that, while "Lee" is supposed to be the one with the tooth missing but Lillian, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, pays the dental bill, you dismiss it with the back of your hand, conjuring up some nonsense about how they, too, must have know of the existence of "Harvey" and of "Lee". Your defense is indefensible. You spend all your time begging the question by taking for granted that there were both "Harvey" and "Lee". The Doug Weldon, whom I have also admired in the past, comes on with this fawning pap about how wonderful Armstrong is and how cautious Weldon is and yet he stands behind the work of both LIFTON and ARMSTRONG, clearly oblivious of the fact that LIFTON does not buy HARVEY & LEE, even though I had been pointing this out repeatedly. When you combine this worshipful attitude toward Armstrong with the unwillingness to even consider arguments to the contrary that Judyth and I have presented, the result is simply stunning. It is now becoming apparent that we (Judyth and I) are dealing with a cult, which can be defined by its core beliefs (such as the existence of "two Oswalds", who had mothers by the same name and led parallel lives), even if there is mounting evidence that disconfirms some of the crucial evidence--photographic and historical--that has been used to support those core beliefs, where Judyth has added further arguments based upon her personal knowledge of Lee H. Oswald. The members of this cult will not read our posts or reply to our arguments other than by reaffirming the faith, an irrational and irresponsible attitude. In your efforts to blunt serious criticism, you resort to ad hoc hypotheses, such as that Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them has ever breathed a word about it! Do you not realize the absurdity of your position by inventing all of this knowledge of "two Oswalds" which you have no evidence to support? I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong. Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything shesays is merely her OPINION. You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions as being not worthy of wasting time over. Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK. What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation. It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking. As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's. I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes. But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book. And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most ill-considered comparison you have ever made. Jack JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEEI don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey". When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features. So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here? Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong! Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them. Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work? Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information. On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete". Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed, "The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index. It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes. There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas. There is no Moscow. No Minsk. There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI. It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned. This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of names happens to be incomplete. For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed." So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research. Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong: John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK. Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income). I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people. Dawn Dean: Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired. John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. Best, Doug Weldn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Jim...your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I asked that you or others submit errors ONE AT A TIME in a specific manner, and I will ask John about them. Instead I get yet another lecture about what a terrible researcher I, Doug Weldon, David Lifton and others are. Doug, David, I and others are entitled to our opinions, just as you and JVB are. I have read your posting, but it is not suitable for me to submit to John. Please use the following format to submit what YOU THINK ARE ERRORS: ....... ERROR: H&L page 234, states SUCH AND SUCH DOCUMENTATION OF ERROR: (SOURCE) states the contrary is true, SUCH AND SUCH, ETC. in less than 100 words. ........ This is very simple. 1. Point out the error and page number 2. Provide documentation to the contrary (100 words or less) 3. Only one error at a time, please...not a bushel basket! No LONG essays. No emotional harangues. Keep it simple and objective. No personal insults. Remember, opinions by JVB are not proofs of errors. No part of John's book was based on her opinions. She was UNKNOWN at the time he did his research, and unknown by all the agencies controlling LHO. Please produce just one document naming her, if you can. And remember, an author has to be selective. Failure to say something that you think should have been said is not an error. Surely you are capable of following these simple instructions. A genuine listing of genuine errors will move research forward. Thanks for your cooperation. Jack JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH AND HARVEY & LEEJack, your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I have spelled out very specific blunders in Armstrong's book. The first was his claim that Dulles had been so effective in managing the Warren Commission that the index to its 26 volumes did not even have a reference to the CIA. But, as I observed, the 26 supporting volumes did not have an index and THE WARREN REPORT, which did, had dozens of references to the CIA. If you cannot acknowledge that as a "blunder", then we have different standards of rationality. Again, as Pat Speer observed when I posted a section in which John was explaining how the FBI had played a fast one on the public by secretly taking the physical evidence (the Oswald possessions) to Washington and then laundering them, returning the evidence to Dallas and later making a big to-do about it with a public loading into a vehicle, where John adds that this was weeks before the Warren Commission was formed. Since I explained all of this in my posts, I suppose you are no more reading my posts than you are Judyth's. The quality of an argument, Jack, is independent of its source. If McAdams had posted the same critiques as Judyth about some of the photographs or explained why the alleged eye- color difference carries no weight, they would still stand as arguments that have to be dealt with on their own. You love to commit the genetic fallacy, which is to discount arguments on the basis of their origin. I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of that kind, Jack, and I am not going to accept them from you. Your conduct has been irresponsible. The existence of "two Oswalds" largely rests upon accounts like that from Beauregard Jr. High School. But when I notice that, while "Lee" is supposed to be the one with the tooth missing but Lillian, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, pays the dental bill, you dismiss it with the back of your hand, conjuring up some nonsense about how they, too, must have know of the existence of "Harvey" and of "Lee". Your defense is indefensible. You spend all your time begging the question by taking for granted that there were both "Harvey" and "Lee". The Doug Weldon, whom I have also admired in the past, comes on with this fawning pap about how wonderful Armstrong is and how cautious Weldon is and yet he stands behind the work of both LIFTON and ARMSTRONG, clearly oblivious of the fact that LIFTON does not buy HARVEY & LEE, even though I had been pointing this out repeatedly. When you combine this worshipful attitude toward Armstrong with the unwillingness to even consider arguments to the contrary that Judyth and I have presented, the result is simply stunning. It is now becoming apparent that we (Judyth and I) are dealing with a cult, which can be defined by its core beliefs (such as the existence of "two Oswalds", who had mothers by the same name and led parallel lives), even if there is mounting evidence that disconfirms some of the crucial evidence--photographic and historical--that has been used to support those core beliefs, where Judyth has added further arguments based upon her personal knowledge of Lee H. Oswald. The members of this cult will not read our posts or reply to our arguments other than by reaffirming the faith, an irrational and irresponsible attitude. In your efforts to blunt serious criticism, you resort to ad hoc hypotheses, such as that Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them has ever breathed a word about it! Do you not realize the absurdity of your position by inventing all of this knowledge of "two Oswalds" which you have no evidence to support? I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong. Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything shesays is merely her OPINION. You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions as being not worthy of wasting time over. Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK. What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation. It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking. As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's. I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes. But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book. And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most ill-considered comparison you have ever made. Jack JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEEI don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey". When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features. So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here? Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong! Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them. Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work? Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information. On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete". Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed, "The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index. It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes. There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas. There is no Moscow. No Minsk. There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI. It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned. This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of names happens to be incomplete. For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed." So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research. Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong: John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK. Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income). I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people. Dawn Dean: Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired. John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. Best, Doug Weldn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Weldon Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 ON THE MANIFEST ABSURDITY OF DOUG WELDON'S POSITIONAccording to Doug Weldon, I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. What Doug does not seem to appreciate--even though I have made the point repeatedly in this thread--is that David Lifton does not buy into HARVEY & LEE. I have entreated him to state his position, which he has not done. But Doug's ringing endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong--of standing "unequivocally behind" them!--is going to be demonstrated as a manifest absurdity when Lifton finally comes clean. A good time would be NOW! JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEEI don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey". When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features. So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here? Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong! Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them. Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work? Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information. On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete". Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed, "The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index. It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes. There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas. There is no Moscow. No Minsk. There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI. It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned. This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of names happens to be incomplete. For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed." So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research. Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong: John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK. Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income). I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people. Dawn Dean: Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired. John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. Best, Doug Weldn As a side note I have the 26 volumes. I have not seen Sylvia's index but have used Walt Brown's index quite extensively. Doug Weldon I understand perfectly that Lifton may not agree with Armstrong. It does not affect my opinion of the importance of the work of either of them. Best, Doug Weldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 "I understand perfectly that Lifton may not agree with Armstrong. It does not affect my opinion of the importance of the work of either of them. Best, Doug Weldon" Doug...absolutely correct. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 (edited) RESPONSE TO JACK AND COMMENT ON DOUG WELDON: IT WAS NOT WELL-DONE! REPLY TO JACK I have already done that. In each case, I have given specific pages, except, of course, in case you haven't noticed, his "Introduction" does not have page numbers! Now, so far, I and Pat Speer and Michael Hogan have all pointed out mistakes (or "blunders") in HARVEY & LEE. Several occur on the first five pages of the book, so it should not tax you overly much to track them down. I have also identified pages 92-93 as the place where the Beauregard Junior High School "lost tooth" episode occurs, where Lillian Murret remembered having paid for the dental bill, except that the one who is supposed to have lost the tooth was "Lee" while Lillian was "Harvey"'s aunt. Start with the "index" error, the founding of the commission error, and Lillian's payment. You seem to have me in a quandary, my friend. You excoriate me into reading the Armstrong book but, when I do and turn up mistakes, you don't want to hear them, even when they bear on crucial aspects of the fundamental thesis of HARVEY & LEE. COMMENT ON WELDON Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. Well, nice try but no cigar. If Weldon had known, he could not possibly have made such an unqualified endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong, especially given how "cautious" he is as a student of JFK. So now three scholars whom I have esteemed and defended in the past are playing fast and loose with the situation: Lifton, who claims that he dis- credited Judyty during a phone call, but won't share the cassette; and who has such moral integrity that he won't even state on this forum that he does not buy the "two Oswalds" HARVEY & LEE scenario; Jack White, who won't even read Judyth's posts and is now asking me to do something I have already done, while committing the kinds of fallacies of reasoning I taught freshmen to avoid; and Doug Weldon, who is trying to cover his ass from a manifest absurdity and who has thereby lost more of my respect than from simply coming clean and admitting that he made a mistake! NOTE TO ALL Let me make this point very clear. I am not denying that Armstrong may have some- thing serious to contribute. I am asserting that, when I begin to read his book, I am finding mistakes--some rather elementary, some impinging upon his basis thesis--but when I point them out, Jack White is non-responsive and, in other respects, Lifton and Weldon are playing games. Weldon solemnly declares his unswerving support for both Lifton and Armstrong yet, when I point out that yields a contradiction, he acts as if he always knew that anyway--and Jack backs him up! This is turning into a carnival act. It is not the kind of response to genuine criticism that I expect from serious scholars. And after all the insults I have endured from Jack White (no doubt, at least in part, on the basis of emails from Lifton and Weldon), I am just not going to take it any longer! When they have something serious to offer, I'll be glad to hear from them--not before. Jim...your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I asked that you or otherssubmit errors ONE AT A TIME in a specific manner, and I will ask John about them. Instead I get yet another lecture about what a terrible researcher I, Doug Weldon, David Lifton and others are. Doug, David, I and others are entitled to our opinions, just as you and JVB are. I have read your posting, but it is not suitable for me to submit to John. Please use the following format to submit what YOU THINK ARE ERRORS: ....... ERROR: H&L page 234, states SUCH AND SUCH DOCUMENTATION OF ERROR: (SOURCE) states the contrary is true, SUCH AND SUCH, ETC. in less than 100 words. ........ This is very simple. 1. Point out the error and page number 2. Provide documentation to the contrary (100 words or less) 3. Only one error at a time, please...not a bushel basket! No LONG essays. No emotional harangues. Keep it simple and objective. No personal insults. Remember, opinions by JVB are not proofs of errors. No part of John's book was based on her opinions. She was UNKNOWN at the time he did his research, and unknown by all the agencies controlling LHO. Please produce just one document naming her, if you can. And remember, an author has to be selective. Failure to say something that you think should have been said is not an error. Surely you are capable of following these simple instructions. A genuine listing of genuine errors will move research forward. Thanks for your cooperation. Jack JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH AND HARVEY & LEEJack, your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I have spelled out very specific blunders in Armstrong's book. The first was his claim that Dulles had been so effective in managing the Warren Commission that the index to its 26 volumes did not even have a reference to the CIA. But, as I observed, the 26 supporting volumes did not have an index and THE WARREN REPORT, which did, had dozens of references to the CIA. If you cannot acknowledge that as a "blunder", then we have different standards of rationality. Again, as Pat Speer observed when I posted a section in which John was explaining how the FBI had played a fast one on the public by secretly taking the physical evidence (the Oswald possessions) to Washington and then laundering them, returning the evidence to Dallas and later making a big to-do about it with a public loading into a vehicle, where John adds that this was weeks before the Warren Commission was formed. Since I explained all of this in my posts, I suppose you are no more reading my posts than you are Judyth's. The quality of an argument, Jack, is independent of its source. If McAdams had posted the same critiques as Judyth about some of the photographs or explained why the alleged eye- color difference carries no weight, they would still stand as arguments that have to be dealt with on their own. You love to commit the genetic fallacy, which is to discount arguments on the basis of their origin. I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of that kind, Jack, and I am not going to accept them from you. Your conduct has been irresponsible. The existence of "two Oswalds" largely rests upon accounts like that from Beauregard Jr. High School. But when I notice that, while "Lee" is supposed to be the one with the tooth missing but Lillian, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, pays the dental bill, you dismiss it with the back of your hand, conjuring up some nonsense about how they, too, must have know of the existence of "Harvey" and of "Lee". Your defense is indefensible. You spend all your time begging the question by taking for granted that there were both "Harvey" and "Lee". The Doug Weldon, whom I have also admired in the past, comes on with this fawning pap about how wonderful Armstrong is and how cautious Weldon is and yet he stands behind the work of both LIFTON and ARMSTRONG, clearly oblivious of the fact that LIFTON does not buy HARVEY & LEE, even though I had been pointing this out repeatedly. When you combine this worshipful attitude toward Armstrong with the unwillingness to even consider arguments to the contrary that Judyth and I have presented, the result is simply stunning. It is now becoming apparent that we (Judyth and I) are dealing with a cult, which can be defined by its core beliefs (such as the existence of "two Oswalds", who had mothers by the same name and led parallel lives), even if there is mounting evidence that disconfirms some of the crucial evidence--photographic and historical--that has been used to support those core beliefs, where Judyth has added further arguments based upon her personal knowledge of Lee H. Oswald. The members of this cult will not read our posts or reply to our arguments other than by reaffirming the faith, an irrational and irresponsible attitude. In your efforts to blunt serious criticism, you resort to ad hoc hypotheses, such as that Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them has ever breathed a word about it! Do you not realize the absurdity of your position by inventing all of this knowledge of "two Oswalds" which you have no evidence to support? I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong. Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything shesays is merely her OPINION. You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions as being not worthy of wasting time over. Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK. What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation. It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking. As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's. I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes. But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book. And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most ill-considered comparison you have ever made. Jack JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEEI don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey". When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features. So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here? Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong! Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them. Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work? Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information. On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete". Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed, "The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index. It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes. There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas. There is no Moscow. No Minsk. There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI. It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned. This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of names happens to be incomplete. For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed." So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research. Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong: John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK. Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income). I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people. Dawn Dean: Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired. John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. Best, Doug Weldn Edited April 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Harris Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 YouTube: Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exilehttp://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews Judyth Vary Baker, with whom I and others within the JFK community are in contact, lives in exile due to persecution in the US because of what she knows as a witness concerning Lee Harvey Oswald. The covert operation against Judyth is very serious and takes its toll upon her. She is now 66 years of age and has been forced to live in exile in Europe, where she resides in virtual poverty, even though she is a talented artist who has sold her paintings around the world for more than thirty years. The objective of this campaign appears to be to minimize awareness of her existence as a link to the alleged assassin. My Blog: Judyth Vary Baken: Living in Exile http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010...-in-exile.html Dr. Fetzer, Judyth contacted me in 1999, long before she was on television and even before most researchers had heard of her. After a number of email exchanges, in which she related her story (or that version of it), we spoke on the phone for about three hours. At that time, she talked about double dating with Oswald, with an old high school friend and her fiance, who married her in August of that year. My response was, that this would be a great way to corroborate her affair with Oswald. What were their names? At that point, she was silent for a moment and then said she didn't remember his surname, nor did she have any interest in tracking down the girl's parents, nor did she want to look at the wedding announcements in the newspaper for August, the month in which she said they got married. This is from an email exchange, she and I had in 2002 1. You said you and LHO double dated with a friend from school and her fiance, and that you saw her wedding announcement in the paper in August of 1963. It should be fairly easy to find that woman, through a yearbook or the newspaper. Have you done so and do you have her name yet? 2. You said people at Alba's garage saw you with Oswald there. Have you figured out yet, which of them saw you? Did Mr. Alba himself, see the two of you? If not, then who did? 3. You said that you and LHO were inseparable during your affair and that you felt sorry for Marina because she was left alone at night, on numerous occasions. But, Marina was asked, by the La Fontaines (in a totally different context), if Lee was frequently gone at night, or even late coming home. She replied that he was always there on time, and never missing. (in New Orleans, only) Was Marina wrong about that? If not, then when did you and LHO have the opportunity to see each other? And why did you tell me that you monopolized his (non-working) hours? As I said before, I still hope/wish your story is true. But if it is not, then you are doing a grave disservice to this country and to history. It is already almost impossible for serious researchers to get anything published on the JFK case, which because of all the red herrings and bogus theories, many editors equate with UFO tales and Big Foot sightings. She replied: I did respond. I sent an answer through another person because I do not have an email address for you. PLEASE simply send me an email with a current address. If this email arrives, I made one error; where it says "Anita" it should say "Annette" and is not to be confused with "Anna," as these people are two different witnesses. I am still recovering from an auto crash and do not look at the ne3wsgroup every day by any means. Of course, she never could come up with the name of her "best friend" in high school, who was replaced by Anna Lewis as the woman, who with her husband, David Lewis, was supposed to have double dated with them. David Lewis, is the same guy who had a lot of stories to tell about Oswald, but never once, mentioned any double dates, or any kind of social activities with Oswald. In her private emails to me, she totally changed her story about feeling sorry for poor lonely Marina, which she mentioned several times in our phone conversation. In version II, their flaming romance was carried on during daylight hours only, apparently sneaking out from work. And of course, she never could come up with anyone who saw her at Alba's garage. And one more thing. Judyth had always spent a lot of time, following the JFK usenet groups. In 2005, I wrote a piece on Oswald and his obsession with "I led three lives", and Herbert Philbrick's influence on him. When did she first start talking about Philbrick and IL3L's? Judyth also told me during that phone conversation that some sinister character stole the hard drive from her computer. And she told me a story about being on a plane in which they had to make an emergency landing because a passenger had a heart attack. Sitting next to her, was a men-in-black type who said, "If we can do that to him, we can do that to you.". FWIW, I have no respect at all, for most of the people who have been actively attacking her, in alt.assassination.jfk. And I have no doubt at all, that David Ferrie was involved in setting up the assassination. But Judyth is totally phony. Maybe she doesn't even realize what she is doing. My sense was, when I spoke with her, that this woman has some very serious mental and emotional issues. But her story is just not true. I wish it was, because a legitimate Oswald girlfriend might have given us a lot of important answers. Robert Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Robert, Judyth has been subjected to a lot of abuse and has not always handled situations most effectively. She has often not been sure whether or not to provide additional information to those challenging her, especially in a case where it might put her friend on the spot without asking in advance. But she has been very responsive here. Her friend's name is Anna Lewis and a video of her talking about their double-dating may be found archived on my blog, including "The Love Affair", especially, at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html The LaFontaine's OSWALD TALKED is such rubbish I can't believe anyone would take it seriously, which, I am sorry to say, raises questions in my mind about your competence. I think you need to get up-to-speed on Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html . He (Ed Haslam) was on "Coast to Coast" for four hours last night. I suggest you check it out before drawing such damning conclusions. I have had a huge amount of contact with Judyth in the meanwhile and I am quite sure that she is "the real deal". Jim YouTube: Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exilehttp://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews Judyth Vary Baker, with whom I and others within the JFK community are in contact, lives in exile due to persecution in the US because of what she knows as a witness concerning Lee Harvey Oswald. The covert operation against Judyth is very serious and takes its toll upon her. She is now 66 years of age and has been forced to live in exile in Europe, where she resides in virtual poverty, even though she is a talented artist who has sold her paintings around the world for more than thirty years. The objective of this campaign appears to be to minimize awareness of her existence as a link to the alleged assassin. My Blog: Judyth Vary Baken: Living in Exile http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010...-in-exile.html Dr. Fetzer, Judyth contacted me in 1999, long before she was on television and even before most researchers had heard of her. After a number of email exchanges, in which she related her story (or that version of it), we spoke on the phone for about three hours. At that time, she talked about double dating with Oswald, with an old high school friend and her fiance, who married her in August of that year. My response was, that this would be a great way to corroborate her affair with Oswald. What were their names? At that point, she was silent for a moment and then said she didn't remember his surname, nor did she have any interest in tracking down the girl's parents, nor did she want to look at the wedding announcements in the newspaper for August, the month in which she said they got married. This is from an email exchange, she and I had in 2002 1. You said you and LHO double dated with a friend from school and her fiance, and that you saw her wedding announcement in the paper in August of 1963. It should be fairly easy to find that woman, through a yearbook or the newspaper. Have you done so and do you have her name yet? 2. You said people at Alba's garage saw you with Oswald there. Have you figured out yet, which of them saw you? Did Mr. Alba himself, see the two of you? If not, then who did? 3. You said that you and LHO were inseparable during your affair and that you felt sorry for Marina because she was left alone at night, on numerous occasions. But, Marina was asked, by the La Fontaines (in a totally different context), if Lee was frequently gone at night, or even late coming home. She replied that he was always there on time, and never missing. (in New Orleans, only) Was Marina wrong about that? If not, then when did you and LHO have the opportunity to see each other? And why did you tell me that you monopolized his (non-working) hours? As I said before, I still hope/wish your story is true. But if it is not, then you are doing a grave disservice to this country and to history. It is already almost impossible for serious researchers to get anything published on the JFK case, which because of all the red herrings and bogus theories, many editors equate with UFO tales and Big Foot sightings. She replied: I did respond. I sent an answer through another person because I do not have an email address for you. PLEASE simply send me an email with a current address. If this email arrives, I made one error; where it says "Anita" it should say "Annette" and is not to be confused with "Anna," as these people are two different witnesses. I am still recovering from an auto crash and do not look at the ne3wsgroup every day by any means. Of course, she never could come up with the name of her "best friend" in high school, who was replaced by Anna Lewis as the woman, who with her husband, David Lewis, was supposed to have double dated with them. David Lewis, is the same guy who had a lot of stories to tell about Oswald, but never once, mentioned any double dates, or any kind of social activities with Oswald. In her private emails to me, she totally changed her story about feeling sorry for poor lonely Marina, which she mentioned several times in our phone conversation. In version II, their flaming romance was carried on during daylight hours only, apparently sneaking out from work. And of course, she never could come up with anyone who saw her at Alba's garage. And one more thing. Judyth had always spent a lot of time, following the JFK usenet groups. In 2005, I wrote a piece on Oswald and his obsession with "I led three lives", and Herbert Philbrick's influence on him. When did she first start talking about Philbrick and IL3L's? Judyth also told me during that phone conversation that some sinister character stole the hard drive from her computer. And she told me a story about being on a plane in which they had to make an emergency landing because a passenger had a heart attack. Sitting next to her, was a men-in-black type who said, "If we can do that to him, we can do that to you.". FWIW, I have no respect at all, for most of the people who have been actively attacking her, in alt.assassination.jfk. And I have no doubt at all, that David Ferrie was involved in setting up the assassination. But Judyth is totally phony. Maybe she doesn't even realize what she is doing. My sense was, when I spoke with her, that this woman has some very serious mental and emotional issues. But her story is just not true. I wish it was, because a legitimate Oswald girlfriend might have given us a lot of important answers. Robert Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Weldon Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 RESPONSE TO JACK AND COMMENT ON DOUG WELDON: IT WAS NOT WELL-DONE!REPLY TO JACK I have already done that. In each case, I have given specific pages, except, of course, in case you haven't noticed, his "Introduction" does not have page numbers! Now, so far, I and Pat Speer and Michael Hogan have all pointed out mistakes (or "blunders") in HARVEY & LEE. Several occur on the first five pages of the book, so it should not tax you overly much to track them down. I have also identified pages 92-93 as the place where the Beauregard Junior High School "lost tooth" episode occurs, where Lillian Murret remembered having paid for the dental bill, except that the one who is supposed to have lost the tooth was "Lee" while Lillian was "Harvey"'s aunt. Start with the "index" error, the founding of the commission error, and Lillian's payment. You seem to have me in a quandary, my friend. You excoriate me into reading the Armstrong book but, when I do and turn up mistakes, you don't want to hear them, even when they bear on crucial aspects of the fundamental thesis of HARVEY & LEE. COMMENT ON WELDON Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. Well, nice try but no cigar. If Weldon had known, he could not possibly have made such an unqualified endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong, especially given how "cautious" he is as a student of JFK. So now three scholars whom I have esteemed and defended in the past are playing fast and loose with the situation: Lifton, who claims that he dis- credited Judyty during a phone call, but won't share the cassette; and who has such moral integrity that he won't even state on this forum that he does not buy the "two Oswalds" HARVEY & LEE scenario; Jack White, who won't even read Judyth's posts and is now asking me to do something I have already done, while committing the kinds of fallacies of reasoning I taught freshmen to avoid; and Doug Weldon, who is trying to cover his ass from a manifest absurdity and who has thereby lost more of my respect than from simply coming clean and admitting that he made a mistake! NOTE TO ALL Let me make this point very clear. I am not denying that Armstrong may have some- thing serious to contribute. I am asserting that, when I begin to read his book, I am finding mistakes--some rather elementary, some impinging upon his basis thesis--but when I point them out, Jack White is non-responsive and, in other respects, Lifton and Weldon are playing games. Weldon solemnly declares his unswerving support for both Lifton and Armstrong yet, when I point out that yields a contradiction, he acts as if he always knew that anyway--and Jack backs him up! This is turning into a carnival act. It is not the kind of response to genuine criticism that I expect from serious scholars. And after all the insults I have endured from Jack White (no doubt, at least in part, on the basis of emails from Lifton and Weldon), I am just not going to take it any longer! When they have something serious to offer, I'll be glad to hear from them--not before. Jim...your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I asked that you or otherssubmit errors ONE AT A TIME in a specific manner, and I will ask John about them. Instead I get yet another lecture about what a terrible researcher I, Doug Weldon, David Lifton and others are. Doug, David, I and others are entitled to our opinions, just as you and JVB are. I have read your posting, but it is not suitable for me to submit to John. Please use the following format to submit what YOU THINK ARE ERRORS: ....... ERROR: H&L page 234, states SUCH AND SUCH DOCUMENTATION OF ERROR: (SOURCE) states the contrary is true, SUCH AND SUCH, ETC. in less than 100 words. ........ This is very simple. 1. Point out the error and page number 2. Provide documentation to the contrary (100 words or less) 3. Only one error at a time, please...not a bushel basket! No LONG essays. No emotional harangues. Keep it simple and objective. No personal insults. Remember, opinions by JVB are not proofs of errors. No part of John's book was based on her opinions. She was UNKNOWN at the time he did his research, and unknown by all the agencies controlling LHO. Please produce just one document naming her, if you can. And remember, an author has to be selective. Failure to say something that you think should have been said is not an error. Surely you are capable of following these simple instructions. A genuine listing of genuine errors will move research forward. Thanks for your cooperation. Jack JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH AND HARVEY & LEEJack, your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I have spelled out very specific blunders in Armstrong's book. The first was his claim that Dulles had been so effective in managing the Warren Commission that the index to its 26 volumes did not even have a reference to the CIA. But, as I observed, the 26 supporting volumes did not have an index and THE WARREN REPORT, which did, had dozens of references to the CIA. If you cannot acknowledge that as a "blunder", then we have different standards of rationality. Again, as Pat Speer observed when I posted a section in which John was explaining how the FBI had played a fast one on the public by secretly taking the physical evidence (the Oswald possessions) to Washington and then laundering them, returning the evidence to Dallas and later making a big to-do about it with a public loading into a vehicle, where John adds that this was weeks before the Warren Commission was formed. Since I explained all of this in my posts, I suppose you are no more reading my posts than you are Judyth's. The quality of an argument, Jack, is independent of its source. If McAdams had posted the same critiques as Judyth about some of the photographs or explained why the alleged eye- color difference carries no weight, they would still stand as arguments that have to be dealt with on their own. You love to commit the genetic fallacy, which is to discount arguments on the basis of their origin. I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of that kind, Jack, and I am not going to accept them from you. Your conduct has been irresponsible. The existence of "two Oswalds" largely rests upon accounts like that from Beauregard Jr. High School. But when I notice that, while "Lee" is supposed to be the one with the tooth missing but Lillian, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, pays the dental bill, you dismiss it with the back of your hand, conjuring up some nonsense about how they, too, must have know of the existence of "Harvey" and of "Lee". Your defense is indefensible. You spend all your time begging the question by taking for granted that there were both "Harvey" and "Lee". The Doug Weldon, whom I have also admired in the past, comes on with this fawning pap about how wonderful Armstrong is and how cautious Weldon is and yet he stands behind the work of both LIFTON and ARMSTRONG, clearly oblivious of the fact that LIFTON does not buy HARVEY & LEE, even though I had been pointing this out repeatedly. When you combine this worshipful attitude toward Armstrong with the unwillingness to even consider arguments to the contrary that Judyth and I have presented, the result is simply stunning. It is now becoming apparent that we (Judyth and I) are dealing with a cult, which can be defined by its core beliefs (such as the existence of "two Oswalds", who had mothers by the same name and led parallel lives), even if there is mounting evidence that disconfirms some of the crucial evidence--photographic and historical--that has been used to support those core beliefs, where Judyth has added further arguments based upon her personal knowledge of Lee H. Oswald. The members of this cult will not read our posts or reply to our arguments other than by reaffirming the faith, an irrational and irresponsible attitude. In your efforts to blunt serious criticism, you resort to ad hoc hypotheses, such as that Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them has ever breathed a word about it! Do you not realize the absurdity of your position by inventing all of this knowledge of "two Oswalds" which you have no evidence to support? I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong. Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything shesays is merely her OPINION. You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions as being not worthy of wasting time over. Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK. What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation. It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking. As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's. I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes. But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book. And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most ill-considered comparison you have ever made. Jack JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEEI don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey". When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features. So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here? Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong! Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them. Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work? Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information. On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete". Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed, "The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index. It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes. There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas. There is no Moscow. No Minsk. There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI. It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned. This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of names happens to be incomplete. For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed." So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research. Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong: John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK. Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income). I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people. Dawn Dean: Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired. John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. Best, Doug Weldn So that I am clear I have known Armstrong very well since 1998 and spent many hours on the phone with him in conversation as he was gathering his evidence and writing his book. I spoke with a couple of his witnesses. I knew there was a conflict between him and Lifton about Oswald though I have no idea what, if any, conflict still exists. (Yes, I know it is unusual for JFK researches to disagree with one another) I do know David had an extensive interview with Robert Oswald where Armstrong did not. I have also spent hours talking with Marina myself, even as recent as last year. I do not know what Lifton's conclusions about Oswald are as I have not seen any portion of Lifton's book though I have exchanged a few e-mails with him. I highly respect the work he has done and the observations made by Doug Horne. As I noted before I do not agree with everything Armstrong has presented and there were some things he thought very important that I found to be very innocuous. However, there is other evidence he presents which has virtually floored me. John ran many things by me. He would mail me things for comment. This is not a soft shoe. I have trenendous respect for Armstrong and Lifton and if there is something I disagree with from either of them I am not hesitant to express it. I stand by my comments. I am concerned that you seem to perceive that I have shared my private concerns about Judyth, which I have raised in private e-mails to you, with Jack and David, thus stirring up Jack. Nothing is further from the truth. I have not raised those concerns in this forum at all or to Jack or David and yet I am now included in the personal attacks on my integrity. You even edited the post and removed the endorsement of my work by your psych-ops. I can only infer that it is because of my lack of endorsement for Judyth. I have read every single post on this thread and have followed her in the past. I even have a couple of personal e-mails from her. My opinion about her has not changed but I have not attempted to influence anyone else's opinion. The whole tenor of this thread has become as surreal as Judyth. Doug Weldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 17, 2010 Share Posted April 17, 2010 Thanks for your comments, Doug. I agree. And to Jim...I have read every post and they are getting surreal. Your claims are exaggerated or non existent. I do not know whether to reply or not, since each reply brings a new onslaught of insults. And no, Doug and I and others are not conspiring against you. Let me repeat again. I will bring any documented errors to John's attention. But they must be BRIEF and ONE AT A TIME, and NOT EMBEDDED IN A LONG TREATISE WHY ALL OF US ARE FOOLS. I am sure we can get John to respond to any DOCUMENTED ERRORS. So far nobody has brought to my attention a DOCUMENTED ERROR. He will NOT RESPOND to messages like you keep posting. Any questions must be objective and calm...not an attack. I have lost interest in whether or not you read HARVEY AND LEE. You have lost all objectivity, and would read it only looking for errors that would entrap John. So don't read the book. I don't care any more after all of your insults. As for Lifton, ask him to speak for himself. I do know that he worked for many years on a LHO book. I do know that he purchased a copy of H&L. I do know that after getting the book, he changed the focus of his book, which I assume he is still writing. Any more than that will have to come from him. I do not understand how you can disown researchers you formerly embraced and put you credibility and objectivity on the line in support of this unfortunate woman. I have received at least a dozen emails from researchers asking what is going on with you. It is distressing and disturbing. Your attacks on a book that you refuse to read is plainly baffling. Jack RESPONSE TO JACK AND COMMENT ON DOUG WELDON: IT WAS NOT WELL-DONE!REPLY TO JACK I have already done that. In each case, I have given specific pages, except, of course, in case you haven't noticed, his "Introduction" does not have page numbers! Now, so far, I and Pat Speer and Michael Hogan have all pointed out mistakes (or "blunders") in HARVEY & LEE. Several occur on the first five pages of the book, so it should not tax you overly much to track them down. I have also identified pages 92-93 as the place where the Beauregard Junior High School "lost tooth" episode occurs, where Lillian Murret remembered having paid for the dental bill, except that the one who is supposed to have lost the tooth was "Lee" while Lillian was "Harvey"'s aunt. Start with the "index" error, the founding of the commission error, and Lillian's payment. You seem to have me in a quandary, my friend. You excoriate me into reading the Armstrong book but, when I do and turn up mistakes, you don't want to hear them, even when they bear on crucial aspects of the fundamental thesis of HARVEY & LEE. COMMENT ON WELDON Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. Well, nice try but no cigar. If Weldon had known, he could not possibly have made such an unqualified endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong, especially given how "cautious" he is as a student of JFK. So now three scholars whom I have esteemed and defended in the past are playing fast and loose with the situation: Lifton, who claims that he dis- credited Judyty during a phone call, but won't share the cassette; and who has such moral integrity that he won't even state on this forum that he does not buy the "two Oswalds" HARVEY & LEE scenario; Jack White, who won't even read Judyth's posts and is now asking me to do something I have already done, while committing the kinds of fallacies of reasoning I taught freshmen to avoid; and Doug Weldon, who is trying to cover his ass from a manifest absurdity and who has thereby lost more of my respect than from simply coming clean and admitting that he made a mistake! NOTE TO ALL Let me make this point very clear. I am not denying that Armstrong may have some- thing serious to contribute. I am asserting that, when I begin to read his book, I am finding mistakes--some rather elementary, some impinging upon his basis thesis--but when I point them out, Jack White is non-responsive and, in other respects, Lifton and Weldon are playing games. Weldon solemnly declares his unswerving support for both Lifton and Armstrong yet, when I point out that yields a contradiction, he acts as if he always knew that anyway--and Jack backs him up! This is turning into a carnival act. It is not the kind of response to genuine criticism that I expect from serious scholars. And after all the insults I have endured from Jack White (no doubt, at least in part, on the basis of emails from Lifton and Weldon), I am just not going to take it any longer! When they have something serious to offer, I'll be glad to hear from them--not before. Jim...your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I asked that you or otherssubmit errors ONE AT A TIME in a specific manner, and I will ask John about them. Instead I get yet another lecture about what a terrible researcher I, Doug Weldon, David Lifton and others are. Doug, David, I and others are entitled to our opinions, just as you and JVB are. I have read your posting, but it is not suitable for me to submit to John. Please use the following format to submit what YOU THINK ARE ERRORS: ....... ERROR: H&L page 234, states SUCH AND SUCH DOCUMENTATION OF ERROR: (SOURCE) states the contrary is true, SUCH AND SUCH, ETC. in less than 100 words. ........ This is very simple. 1. Point out the error and page number 2. Provide documentation to the contrary (100 words or less) 3. Only one error at a time, please...not a bushel basket! No LONG essays. No emotional harangues. Keep it simple and objective. No personal insults. Remember, opinions by JVB are not proofs of errors. No part of John's book was based on her opinions. She was UNKNOWN at the time he did his research, and unknown by all the agencies controlling LHO. Please produce just one document naming her, if you can. And remember, an author has to be selective. Failure to say something that you think should have been said is not an error. Surely you are capable of following these simple instructions. A genuine listing of genuine errors will move research forward. Thanks for your cooperation. Jack JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH AND HARVEY & LEEJack, your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I have spelled out very specific blunders in Armstrong's book. The first was his claim that Dulles had been so effective in managing the Warren Commission that the index to its 26 volumes did not even have a reference to the CIA. But, as I observed, the 26 supporting volumes did not have an index and THE WARREN REPORT, which did, had dozens of references to the CIA. If you cannot acknowledge that as a "blunder", then we have different standards of rationality. Again, as Pat Speer observed when I posted a section in which John was explaining how the FBI had played a fast one on the public by secretly taking the physical evidence (the Oswald possessions) to Washington and then laundering them, returning the evidence to Dallas and later making a big to-do about it with a public loading into a vehicle, where John adds that this was weeks before the Warren Commission was formed. Since I explained all of this in my posts, I suppose you are no more reading my posts than you are Judyth's. The quality of an argument, Jack, is independent of its source. If McAdams had posted the same critiques as Judyth about some of the photographs or explained why the alleged eye- color difference carries no weight, they would still stand as arguments that have to be dealt with on their own. You love to commit the genetic fallacy, which is to discount arguments on the basis of their origin. I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of that kind, Jack, and I am not going to accept them from you. Your conduct has been irresponsible. The existence of "two Oswalds" largely rests upon accounts like that from Beauregard Jr. High School. But when I notice that, while "Lee" is supposed to be the one with the tooth missing but Lillian, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, pays the dental bill, you dismiss it with the back of your hand, conjuring up some nonsense about how they, too, must have know of the existence of "Harvey" and of "Lee". Your defense is indefensible. You spend all your time begging the question by taking for granted that there were both "Harvey" and "Lee". The Doug Weldon, whom I have also admired in the past, comes on with this fawning pap about how wonderful Armstrong is and how cautious Weldon is and yet he stands behind the work of both LIFTON and ARMSTRONG, clearly oblivious of the fact that LIFTON does not buy HARVEY & LEE, even though I had been pointing this out repeatedly. When you combine this worshipful attitude toward Armstrong with the unwillingness to even consider arguments to the contrary that Judyth and I have presented, the result is simply stunning. It is now becoming apparent that we (Judyth and I) are dealing with a cult, which can be defined by its core beliefs (such as the existence of "two Oswalds", who had mothers by the same name and led parallel lives), even if there is mounting evidence that disconfirms some of the crucial evidence--photographic and historical--that has been used to support those core beliefs, where Judyth has added further arguments based upon her personal knowledge of Lee H. Oswald. The members of this cult will not read our posts or reply to our arguments other than by reaffirming the faith, an irrational and irresponsible attitude. In your efforts to blunt serious criticism, you resort to ad hoc hypotheses, such as that Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them has ever breathed a word about it! Do you not realize the absurdity of your position by inventing all of this knowledge of "two Oswalds" which you have no evidence to support? I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong. Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything shesays is merely her OPINION. You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions as being not worthy of wasting time over. Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK. What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation. It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking. As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's. I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes. But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book. And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most ill-considered comparison you have ever made. Jack JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEEI don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey". When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features. So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here? Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong! Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them. Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work? Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information. On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete". Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed, "The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index. It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes. There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas. There is no Moscow. No Minsk. There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI. It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned. This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of names happens to be incomplete. For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed." So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research. Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong: John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK. Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income). I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people. Dawn Dean: Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired. John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. Best, Doug Weldn So that I am clear I have known Armstrong very well since 1998 and spent many hours on the phone with him in conversation as he was gathering his evidence and writing his book. I spoke with a couple of his witnesses. I knew there was a conflict between him and Lifton about Oswald though I have no idea what, if any, conflict still exists. (Yes, I know it is unusual for JFK researches to disagree with one another) I do know David had an extensive interview with Robert Oswald where Armstrong did not. I have also spent hours talking with Marina myself, even as recent as last year. I do not know what Lifton's conclusions about Oswald are as I have not seen any portion of Lifton's book though I have exchanged a few e-mails with him. I highly respect the work he has done and the observations made by Doug Horne. As I noted before I do not agree with everything Armstrong has presented and there were some things he thought very important that I found to be very innocuous. However, there is other evidence he presents which has virtually floored me. John ran many things by me. He would mail me things for comment. This is not a soft shoe. I have trenendous respect for Armstrong and Lifton and if there is something I disagree with from either of them I am not hesitant to express it. I stand by my comments. I am concerned that you seem to perceive that I have shared my private concerns about Judyth, which I have raised in private e-mails to you, with Jack and David, thus stirring up Jack. Nothing is further from the truth. I have not raised those concerns in this forum at all or to Jack or David and yet I am now included in the personal attacks on my integrity. You even edited the post and removed the endorsement of my work by your psych-ops. I can only infer that it is because of my lack of endorsement for Judyth. I have read every single post on this thread and have followed her in the past. I even have a couple of personal e-mails from her. My opinion about her has not changed but I have not attempted to influence anyone else's opinion. The whole tenor of this thread has become as surreal as Judyth. Doug Weldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now