David Josephs Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Greg... Fair enough... I know LEE started BJHS on 1/13/54... we both know this Greg. I am not saying that date does not mean something... it creates reasonability... the records that are missing are HARVEY's... It means the same as Waldman supposedly writing C2766 on HIDELL's order.. it connects to a PART of the story... LEE's start date because LEE was in NYC and moved in January... Moved in with Lillian and then to St Marys and attended BJHS.... the boy known as HARVEY is on Exchange... I know you follow but you just dont think it is the correct interpretation... Would you agree that Waldman's C2766, the ONLY THING LINKING the rifle to Hidell to Oswald, is an accurate piece of evidence as to which rifle KLEINS says was "shipped" for that order? Do you believe C2766 was shipped for that order? That Kleins was shipping FC rifles for all of those C20-T750's ordered? I don't. And I believe that there is enough coroborrated evidence for a smaller boy named Harvey Oswald to have been thru Stanley ND and to BJHS in Sept 1953. A boy different enough from LEE as to cause a number of people to notice - any idea why Pic is able to ID LEE from HARVEY in each and every case? Did Armstrong get to him too? Finally... would you say you have a handle on everything Gottlieb did? You are privy to know whether Angleton did or did not create numerous programs to influtrate, expose, dangle, or whatever he needed to do to catch communists... ? Is the concept of H&L so beyond the pale given what we KNOW the US and other governments have done? You want cut and dried here Greg... it's not... just like the shooter(s) in DP... we KNOW shots came from other locations..we KNOW it.... not having a photo of a man firing a weapon does not change this. H&L does not just "pop up"... it provides a plausible explanation for what amounts to YEARS of deception and planning (if true)... Is this another thing beyond the capabilities of the CIA... Long term planning? Could there be other explanations? Yes Greg... you're explanations for some of the events discussed could be correct... and they could be wrong... That you cannot entertain that possibility, given what you know, is disappointing - You might as well tell us that Oswald took the rifle in the paper bag into the TSBD, built the Snipers Nest and pulled it off and took the bus and cab home, killed Tippit after teleporting to 10th&Patton by 1:06... against ALL of the evidence to the contrary. Cause in the end... We really don't know, Do we. ====================== Bernie, I am presuming that the most impressive facts to back up the Harvey/Lee story are available online and not just guarded exclusively for use in the hard copy book. No doubt you can look at the stars and pick out constellations... if you want to learn a bit more about the stars themselves you need to get specific.... take a closer look and do some research. H&L is a theory to explain what was presented as evidence in the WCR... Evidence that repeatedly suggests that two people may have been used to create one history for SOME reason... What reason? I believe we need to understand J.J. Angleton and all that he did... The CIA and all it did, and the Intelligence structures of the USA to fully comprehend what was happening... There were a number of "defectors" at this time... one even going to and coming from Russia around the same time as Oswald... Marina even refers to an event in this other man's life when speaking of meeting Oswald... Robert E Webster was the man's name (Man Who Knew Too Much) Anyway... Rather than sift thru the Baylor raw materials... The book makes its case in one place... the CD that offers many many images of the documents inquestion is invaluable... searching and finding some of these requires time and effort at the archives, let alone if it's even available on-line ... and even then it can be difficult.... Yes of course you can go online and find 1000 puzzle pieces in 100 different places as you try to build your picture... but doesn't it make sense to acquire the 1000 pieces all in the same box with a photo of the completed image on the cover? If you don't want to "make" that picture, fine.... but believing you can see the completed image by looking in places that dont even let you know if that piece belongs to that puzzle, is pure folly I think you do a disservice to the theory and to the man when you can pull together 20 of 1000 pieces and say you can see how he is wrong... To conclude, what was happening in 1953 has nothing to do with 11/22/63 Bernie... NOBODY makes that leap, which is why you ought to read first and condemn after... Wilderness of Mirrors.... is something I am just now getting into... Nexus, by Larry Hancock... currently reading as well... We were in a do or die fight with the KGB, and there was simply NOTHING not considered.. evidenced by Operation Northwoods.... Developing ASSETS ala H & L does not seem so far fetched... Cheers DJ DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) Greg... Fair enough... I know LEE started BJHS on 1/13/54... we both know this Greg. I am not saying that date does not mean something... it creates reasonability... the records that are missing are HARVEY's... David, I'm glad that has been resolved. The document is worthless as evidence regarding the existence of "Harvey". But that's the problem. The web is infested with claims that this document is proof that "Harvey" was in New Orleans in 1953: In in the fall of 1953 this Warren Commission exhibit (LEFT-SLIDE 9) shows Lee Oswald attended 62 days of school in the 8th grade at Public School #44 in the Bronx. At the same time this Warren Commission exhibit (RIGHT-SLIDE 9) shows an "Oswald" attended 89 days of school in the 8th grade at Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans. Once again, we have two different sets of school records published in the Warren volumes: Lee in New York, Harvey in New Orleans during the Fall Semester of 1953. http://www.mindserpe...ong/UMinn99.htm Next, look once again at the NY school records for PS 44 (look for the last day of LHO's (LEE) attendance--early January, 1954). Now, locate and examine the cumulative record for Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans (WC volumes). Specifically, look at LHO's (HARVEY) attendance in thefall semester of 1953. Now, place these two junior high school records side by side and try to explain how LHO (LEE) can attend PS 44 in the fall of 1953 in New York (near perfect attendance record) and LHO (HARVEY) can also attend Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans in the fall of 1953 (near perfect attendance record). While you're at it, look at the FBI interview of Louise Robertson (Oswald's housekeeper) who said the Oswald's (HARVEY and his caretaker/mother) left New York in the summer of 1953. They moved 1st to Stanley, North Dakota and then to New Orleans, while LEE and his mother remained in New York City until mid-January, 1954. http://jfkhistory.co...hp?topic=1961.0 And we see this stuff repeated and repeated and repeated all over the web. The same goes for the now fully discredited McBride recollections. It is a virulent disease and the only way to stop it's spread is by exposing it to the light. It's no different with those who fall for the likes of Alford and her sex fantasies. There is a willful suspension of disbelief whereby whatever comes out of her mouth is regarded as true without any effort at all put into verifying one word of it. And so it is with Armstrong. He waves around the records and tells you what they mean -- and that becomes the Gospel Truth. And even as it dawns on you that McBride and the school records are not what you were told they were -- you are still unable to lance this noli me tangere you call "Harvey" precariously protruding from the rump of our quest for historical accuracy. Do it, David. Cut this nonsense loose and concentrate on the areas you've shone in - areas where you actually did your own thinking. Edited September 23, 2012 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 “To conclude, what was happening in 1953 has nothing to do with 11/22/63 Bernie... NOBODY makes that leap, which is why you ought to read first and condemn after...” in response to... I am presuming that the CIA's interest in this project is solely confined to a 'defection' and not, way back in 1953, looking at a future patsy option for an assassination ten years later! “In the early 1950's an intelligence operation began that involved two teenage boys--Lee Oswald, from Fort Worth and a Russian speaking boy who was given the name "Harvey Oswald", from New York. In 1952, these boys were brought together in New York City. They lived parallel but separate lives, often in the same city. The ultimate purpose of this operation was to switch their identities and eventually send Russian speaking Harvey Oswald into the Soviet Union. This is exactly what happened, 7 years later, when Harvey participated in a CIA sponsored defection program in 1959.” (Armstrong) How in 1952 could anyone have known that the facial features of these 'two' individuals would be almost symmetrical seven years later? We already know that phsyically there was, apparently, a huge discrepency at this time, one tall well built and the other like a concentration camp victim, so was the fact they grew through adolescence ending up looking almost identical just an unexpected bonus? Best regards, Bernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Your selective cut and paste is yet another con job Greg... nicely done... It is NOT resolved... far from it... I make the comparison of the 1/13/54 to the handwritten notation on the HIDELL order by Waldman... it relates to a real rifle, just that the rifle had nothing to do with that order.. You neither quote the section or address it. So I gather you believe Kleins shipped Oswald a FC weapon in place of the rifle ordered... simply because Waldman hand wrote a serial number of the order... No need to look at any of the other evidence related tot he rifle... this one piece will do... That's what you are doing with the BJHS record... while ignorning the testimonies and records from MANY, MANY sources. and you never bother to address how mangled Lee's "mother"'s testimony about her history is... That woman confidently and emphatically recalls dates and events that happen for one child and not the other... that happen years out of sequence.... etc... Yes we know Greg... MISTAKES.... And here I thought I could get away from more of this with you... and I am, I have neither the strength or desire to convince you of anything, I make the case as I understand it... you make yours... anyone willing to do more than armchair QB from the sidelines should actually read the book for themselves. I will return to my other areas... the FACT, for example... that z132, 133, 134 is a splice and not a stop/start of the camera for one... http://www.jfkassass...pic,7009.0.html enjoy.. DJ Same with the records.. This is not Alford telling stories, this is the records of the WCR... your claiming of VICTORY is hollow and insincere... as I believe you are discounting the first indications in 1952/53, of what was happening. and what became of it Greg... Fair enough... I know LEE started BJHS on 1/13/54... we both know this Greg. I am not saying that date does not mean something... it creates reasonability... the records that are missing are HARVEY's... David, I'm glad that has been resolved. The document is worthless as evidence regarding the existence of "Harvey". But that's the problem. The web is infested with claims that this document is proof that "Harvey" was in New Orleans in 1953: In in the fall of 1953 this Warren Commission exhibit (LEFT-SLIDE 9) shows Lee Oswald attended 62 days of school in the 8th grade at Public School #44 in the Bronx. At the same time this Warren Commission exhibit (RIGHT-SLIDE 9) shows an "Oswald" attended 89 days of school in the 8th grade at Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans. Once again, we have two different sets of school records published in the Warren volumes: Lee in New York, Harvey in New Orleans during the Fall Semester of 1953. http://www.mindserpe...ong/UMinn99.htm Next, look once again at the NY school records for PS 44 (look for the last day of LHO's (LEE) attendance--early January, 1954). Now, locate and examine the cumulative record for Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans (WC volumes). Specifically, look at LHO's (HARVEY) attendance in thefall semester of 1953. Now, place these two junior high school records side by side and try to explain how LHO (LEE) can attend PS 44 in the fall of 1953 in New York (near perfect attendance record) and LHO (HARVEY) can also attend Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans in the fall of 1953 (near perfect attendance record). While you're at it, look at the FBI interview of Louise Robertson (Oswald's housekeeper) who said the Oswald's (HARVEY and his caretaker/mother) left New York in the summer of 1953. They moved 1st to Stanley, North Dakota and then to New Orleans, while LEE and his mother remained in New York City until mid-January, 1954. http://jfkhistory.co...hp?topic=1961.0 And we see this stuff repeated and repeated and repeated all over the web. The same goes for the now fully discredited McBride recollections. It is a virulent disease and the only way to stop it's spread is by exposing it to the light. It's no different with those who fall for the likes of Alford and her sex fantasies. There is a willful suspension of disbelief whereby whatever comes out of her mouth is regarded as true without any effort at all put into verifying one word of it. And so it is with Armstrong. He waves around the records and tells you what they mean -- and that becomes the Gospel Truth. And even as it dawns on you that McBride and the school records are not what you were told they were -- you are still unable to lance this noli me tangere you call "Harvey" precariously protruding from the rump of our quest for historical accuracy. Do it, David. Cut this nonsense loose and concentrate on the areas you've shone in - areas where you actually did your own thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 “To conclude, what was happening in 1953 has nothing to do with 11/22/63 Bernie... NOBODY makes that leap, which is why you ought to read first and condemn after...” in response to... I am presuming that the CIA's interest in this project is solely confined to a 'defection' and not, way back in 1953, looking at a future patsy option for an assassination ten years later! “In the early 1950's an intelligence operation began that involved two teenage boys--Lee Oswald, from Fort Worth and a Russian speaking boy who was given the name "Harvey Oswald", from New York. In 1952, these boys were brought together in New York City. They lived parallel but separate lives, often in the same city. The ultimate purpose of this operation was to switch their identities and eventually send Russian speaking Harvey Oswald into the Soviet Union. This is exactly what happened, 7 years later, when Harvey participated in a CIA sponsored defection program in 1959.” (Armstrong) How in 1952 could anyone have known that the facial features of these 'two' individuals would be almost symmetrical seven years later? We already know that phsyically there was, apparently, a huge discrepency at this time, one tall well built and the other like a concentration camp victim, so was the fact they grew through adolescence ending up looking almost identical just an unexpected bonus? Best regards, Bernie My bad Bernie... I misread. With regards to knowing whatever you think they needed to know in 1952... was it necessary that these two men look so much alike... no Bernie, of course not... the ultimate target would have no idea what the "real" story behind the scene was.... I think that they did wind up looking somewhat alike... and it is only somewhat... no where near as much as you make it sound Which is why you have very few photos of LEE after 1956..... or why we never see LEE smile... finally, they were NOT trying to look the same in 1953, agree? They were simply creating a false history, combining histories, and removing one... I do not live and breath this theory... but it is much more compelling and supported that either two of you try to make it sound... If you look,... you find out how many people who were asked and who knew Oswald in the SPRING of 1954, were never asked WHEN this person started BJHS... whether there were any times in 1953 at BJHS that they spent time with Oswald.... Nope, what we get are boilerplate FBI, unsigned statements stating that Oswald was remembered in 1954... and those that DID KNOW HARVEY are never called and whose statements are mysteriously GONE. Cheers DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 “To conclude, what was happening in 1953 has nothing to do with 11/22/63 Bernie... NOBODY makes that leap, which is why you ought to read first and condemn after...” in response to... I am presuming that the CIA's interest in this project is solely confined to a 'defection' and not, way back in 1953, looking at a future patsy option for an assassination ten years later! “In the early 1950's an intelligence operation began that involved two teenage boys--Lee Oswald, from Fort Worth and a Russian speaking boy who was given the name "Harvey Oswald", from New York. In 1952, these boys were brought together in New York City. They lived parallel but separate lives, often in the same city. The ultimate purpose of this operation was to switch their identities and eventually send Russian speaking Harvey Oswald into the Soviet Union. This is exactly what happened, 7 years later, when Harvey participated in a CIA sponsored defection program in 1959.” (Armstrong) How in 1952 could anyone have known that the facial features of these 'two' individuals would be almost symmetrical seven years later? We already know that phsyically there was, apparently, a huge discrepency at this time, one tall well built and the other like a concentration camp victim, so was the fact they grew through adolescence ending up looking almost identical just an unexpected bonus? Best regards, Bernie My bad Bernie... I misread. "With regards to knowing whatever you think they needed to know in 1952... was it necessary that these two men look so much alike... no Bernie, of course not... the ultimate target would have no idea what the "real" story behind the scene was.... I think that they did wind up looking somewhat alike... and it is only somewhat... no where near as much as you make it sound Which is why you have very few photos of LEE after 1956..... or why we never see LEE smile... finally, they were NOT trying to look the same in 1953, agree? They were simply creating a false history, combining histories, and removing one... I do not live and breath this theory... but it is much more compelling and supported that either two of you try to make it sound... If you look,... you find out how many people who were asked and who knew Oswald in the SPRING of 1954, were never asked WHEN this person started BJHS... whether there were any times in 1953 at BJHS that they spent time with Oswald.... Nope, what we get are boilerplate FBI, unsigned statements stating that Oswald was remembered in 1954... and those that DID KNOW HARVEY are never called and whose statements are mysteriously GONE. Cheers DJ David, "...was it necessary that these two men look so much alike... no Bernie, of course not... the ultimate target would have no idea what the "real" story behind the scene was.... I think that they did wind up looking somewhat alike... and it is only somewhat... no where near as much as you make it sound" and "finally, they were NOT trying to look the same in 1953, agree? They were simply creating a false history, combining histories, and removing one..." Only somewhat alike? Their faces are interchangeable! How much more alike can you get? How did everyone mistake the individual Lee as Harvey if they didn't resemble each other? At what point did whoever was handling this operation realise this? That must have been one hell of a spooky moment! I'd like to know the odds on such an operation that is concerned solely with "creating a false history, combining histories, and removing one..." for two seperate unrelated people that just happen to grow up looking almost identical: identical enough for both to use a joint ID, so compatible were their facial features. Was this astonishing resemblance just a bonus? Where can I find the book David? I saw it on Amazon for £1,350 two days ago: by yesterday it had gone! (I've lived in houses that cost less than that!) Any suggestions? Best regards, Bernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 The photos are supposedly 11 days apart... September... 1959. not the same person to me... Send me a PM and we'll find a way regarding the Book and CD... the content. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 Sorry David, I was not trying to misrepresent you. I know you still cling to Harvey having been there in '53, but I thought you were conceding that the Beauregard record could no longer be used to support such a notion. It would help if you would state what you believe a bit more clearly. On reflection , you seem to be wanting it both ways. You say on the one hand "Fair enough... I know LEE started BJHS on 1/13/54..." but then seem to suggest the date was forged. Your original position (as I understood it) was that this paperwork was genuine and that it showed proof that "Lee" (actually "Harvey") was there for a period of time going back into 1953, and moreover that this paperwork had slipped through the FBI clean-up squad. Slipped through, or forged.. which is is it? Can you just maybe give a simple "yes" or "no". Do you still believe that this exhibit is proof that "Harvey" attended Beauregard in 1953? Your selective cut and paste is yet another con job Greg... nicely done... It is NOT resolved... far from it... I make the comparison of the 1/13/54 to the handwritten notation on the HIDELL order by Waldman... it relates to a real rifle, just that the rifle had nothing to do with that order.. You neither quote the section or address it. So I gather you believe Kleins shipped Oswald a FC weapon in place of the rifle ordered... simply because Waldman hand wrote a serial number of the order... No need to look at any of the other evidence related tot he rifle... this one piece will do... That's what you are doing with the BJHS record... while ignorning the testimonies and records from MANY, MANY sources. and you never bother to address how mangled Lee's "mother"'s testimony about her history is... That woman confidently and emphatically recalls dates and events that happen for one child and not the other... that happen years out of sequence.... etc... Yes we know Greg... MISTAKES.... And here I thought I could get away from more of this with you... and I am, I have neither the strength or desire to convince you of anything, I make the case as I understand it... you make yours... anyone willing to do more than armchair QB from the sidelines should actually read the book for themselves. I will return to my other areas... the FACT, for example... that z132, 133, 134 is a splice and not a stop/start of the camera for one... http://www.jfkassass...pic,7009.0.html enjoy.. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 Talking about things slipping through... "ANOTHER con job"? Firstly, what you were responding to was not a con job. Your own lack of clarity was to blame. "Yes it's genuine -- but it's STILL forged!" Now what OTHER "con jobs" are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 Photo of Louis Weinstock - the man Armstrong claims is the father of "Harvey" http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t87-the-mrs-jack-d-tippit-phone-call#931 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 The photos are supposedly 11 days apart... September... 1959. not the same person to me... Send me a PM and we'll find a way regarding the Book and CD... the content. DJ Thanks David, I'll PM you shortly. I'm not sure I understand: we have a doppleganger so convincing that many people mistake him for 'Harvey' and who's faces when spliced neatly fit together to create a perfect composite usuable by either as ID. How did they know in 1952, at the beginning of this project, that that would be the case in 1959? They didn't, you say. It was an operation designed for "creating a false history, combining histories, and removing one..." etc... So again I ask; how coincidental would it be for two unrelated boys, whose identities are being manipulated into one single entity for future espionage purposes over a seven year period, fortuitously and beyond anyone's intervention, also grow to strongly resemble each other as well? The odds are too mind-blowing to even contemplate. Wouldn't you agree? Best, Bernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Can you just maybe give a simple "yes" or "no". Do you still believe that this exhibit is proof that "Harvey" attended Beauregard in 1953? Greg.... Looking again at CE1413 I am rethinking my position... I do not believe that THIS RECORD is proof of HARVEY... any longer. His grade cards Show the two 70's .... I believe this is solely LEE's records of BJHS and we must rely on other proof of HARVEY being in NOLA that FALL. Obviously there is nothing but memories of an Oswald there during that time.... FBi is more thorough than I give credit for.... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 So again I ask; how coincidental would it be for two unrelated boys, whose identities are being manipulated into one single entity for future espionage purposes over a seven year period, fortuitously and beyond anyone's intervention, also grow to strongly resemble each other as well? The odds are too mind-blowing to even contemplate. Wouldn't you agree? If you're asking what the odds are of two boys from the late 30's growing up to look alike... it would take some work (I'min the idds business)... yet I still think you have missed the point... the likeness is really not all that similiar... and I don;t understand why I cannot convey that to you... I do NOT believe the LEE was used to impersonate HARVEY... LEE was always Lee... the mystery is who HARVEY was and that HE becomes the Marine who defects... WE say they looked alike from the images, but they don't... they look similiar... I cannot tell you the "plan" for how and why OSwald was created... CIA?? KBG?? other? I don't know Bernie... What I do know is the "plan" makes sense in the context of the times... the more I study the TIMES the more I appreciate the level of depravity in the planning and implementation of COUNTER intelligence and the attempts to uncover it. I wish I could give you more... besides the books avaiable DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) Sorry David, I was not trying to misrepresent you. I know you still cling to Harvey having been there in '53, but I thought you were conceding that the Beauregard record could no longer be used to support such a notion. It would help if you would state what you believe a bit more clearly. [...] [emphasis added by T. Graves] I agree, Greg. Perhaps David should start proof reading his posts before (and after) he posts them. I find some of them hard to follow. --Tommy Edited September 24, 2012 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 So again I ask; how coincidental would it be for two unrelated boys, whose identities are being manipulated into one single entity for future espionage purposes over a seven year period, fortuitously and beyond anyone's intervention, also grow to strongly resemble each other as well? The odds are too mind-blowing to even contemplate. Wouldn't you agree? If you're asking what the odds are of two boys from the late 30's growing up to look alike... it would take some work (I'min the idds business)... yet I still think you have missed the point... the likeness is really not all that similiar... and I don;t understand why I cannot convey that to you... I do NOT believe the LEE was used to impersonate HARVEY... LEE was always Lee... the mystery is who HARVEY was and that HE becomes the Marine who defects... WE say they looked alike from the images, but they don't... they look similiar... I cannot tell you the "plan" for how and why OSwald was created... CIA?? KBG?? other? I don't know Bernie... What I do know is the "plan" makes sense in the context of the times... the more I study the TIMES the more I appreciate the level of depravity in the planning and implementation of COUNTER intelligence and the attempts to uncover it. I wish I could give you more... besides the books avaiable DJ No David I'm not just asking, what "the odds are of two boys from the late 30's growing up to look alike"?...I'm asking that about two boys who are also the subject of a long term intelligence plan that has had their identities manipulated to create one entity. WE say they looked alike from the images, but they don't... they look similiar But apparently similar enough to share a face on an ID card! There are differences in some of those photos above, no question. Especially the 1959 'Lee' who looks nothing like ANY of the others (but that one was taken by Robert who apparently knew 'both' so we shouldn't take that photo seriously anyway!). But all those others are either the same person or someone spookily like him, surely you must see that. My further skepticism is fuelled by the lack of 'legs' this theory has generated beyond what can be read from H/L. Where is the avalanche of further information corroborating the theory, above and beyond Armstrong's research? How many new people have come forward, say from BJHS or from his marines days further underlining and solidifying the H/L scenario? I cannot tell you the "plan" for how and why OSwald was created... CIA?? KBG?? other? I don't know Bernie... What I do know is the "plan" makes sense in the context of the times... the more I study the TIMES the more I appreciate the level of depravity in the planning and implementation of COUNTER intelligence and the attempts to uncover it. David, I have read your work on here for many years now...quite a fan I am. You never descend to the gutter and you passionately argue your case nearly always with well thought out, well researched reasoning. I have not made even a fraction of the contribution you have made to the ideas on this forum... but, the above statment I find quite amazing for a researcher of your standing. That something is possible is no proof that it has been done. That it is consistent with the type of subterfuge of the time also isn't proof that it was therefore done. How do you not know what the plan was for the how and the why...but know that it "makes sense"? When I first came across the whole Harve/Lee a few years ago I thought it was "exciting". Exotic almost. I wanted to believe it. I wanted to believe it, if not to see illustrated the lengths and depths some intelligence agencies went in order to create an advantage during the Cold War. But the more I read the more I realise it's a diversion...like all the others. It's a red herring. It's an avenue that leads over a cliff. Like the extreme Zapruder claims. It's the same pattern as well. Evidence of some tampering is tarnished because of the extreme claims of total tampering. I believe it is the same with the impersonation of Oswald, the truth is being hidden by this extreme version of such impersonation. Talking of the depravity in the planning and implementation of COUNTER intelligence would that depravity extend to compiling a massive tome of facts, dates documents and records which teases out any anomolies that could then be glued to a Hollywood scripted premise? That would be a much cheaper way of covering tracks surely? Just a thought. Best regards, Bernie 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