Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Paul Trejo]

Marina Oswald was born July 17, 1941, which would have made her "22" years old at the time of the Salvation Army incident. It would be interesting to know if she had given her age as "21".

"Salvation Army" is 13 letters, the preferred puzzle length of Oswald's "ICO" group of anagram puzzlers. "Salvation Army" anagrams to:

"MARINA STAY 21. LO"

(The number "21" was translated from the letter "V". See footnote #1)

"MARINA STAY 21. LO" decodes and anagrams to (#2):

"ICO MO. VV"

"MO" is Method of Operation, and "VV" is V Vaganov.

"ICO MO. VV" decodes and anagrams to (3):

"IVB"

"IVB" is Igor V Baganov (Vaganov), one of the two puzzle makers. Richard Case Nagell was the other.

My hypothesis predicts that many, if not most, of the hard-to-explain Oswald sightings and events were stunts being pulled by Oswald's group, "ICO", to create enigmas, enigmatic events with ICO's puzzles imbedded in them.

ICO had two goals; one was tell their story of the assassination, and the other was to prevent it. And both with a touch of enigmatic flamboyance.

Tom

Footnote #1 Letter/Number translation device:

(A=0)(B=1)(C=2)(D=3)(E=4)(F=5)(G=6)(H=7)(I=8)(J=9)(K=10)(L=11)(M=12)(N=13)(O=14)(P=15)(Q=16)(R=17)(S=18)(T=19)(U=20)(V=21)(W=22)(X=23)(Y=24)(Z=25)

Footnote #2 "MARINA STAY 21. LO"

MARINA STAYVL = 001010 010011, and, 110101 101100, plus tag O

Yield: CVI

LOVYAT SANIRA = 101001 001010, and, 010110 110101, plus tag M

Yield: IOVN, Total yield: CVOIOVM

Footnote #3 "ICO MO. VV"

ICOMOV = 000001, and, 111110, plus tag V

Yield: BV

VVOMOC = 110000, and, 001111, plus tag I

Yield: I. Total yield: IVB

Footnote #4 Bonus Material:

"TEST DRIVE MERC" is 13 letters, and anagrams to "I.V. TEST RED MERC". Once anagrammed, it turns into a large puzzle to be solved and learned from.

"JOHN HURT. Ral NC" is 13 letters, and anagrams to "ALT JOHN H RUN. RC" ("Alt John H" would be John Hoover, and "RC" would be Richard Case).

"JOHN HURT. Ral NC" also anagrams to, "H. L. HUNT JR CO-RAN". Once anagrammed, this likewise turns into large informational puzzle.

"HISTORIC DIARY" is 13 letters, and anagrams to "RICHARDS 88 TOY". There are 88 puzzles to be solved in Oswald's Historic Diary.

"HISTORIC DIARY" also anagrams to, "DAISY RR HIT. ICO". Kennedy being mortally wounded by a BB gun is a large topic of the ICO puzzles. I assume that the Daisy Red Ryder would be the one found, not the one actually used.

"LO CURTAIN RODS" is 13 letters, and anagrams to, "RCN ULTRA: S ODIO".

("MICRO DOTS" is not 13 letters, but anagrams to "RC 'TM': S ODIO" ("RC" is Richard Case, and "TM" is Trade Mark)).

"LO CURTAIN RODS" also anagrams to, "LO, RR CUSTODIAN". If Red Ryder was what was in Oswald's short bag on the morning of the 22nd, the puzzles have not revealed this to my satisfaction yet.

"HANDS OFF CUBA" is 12 letters, but it has an exclamation point at the end, and in ICO puzzles, the E.P. is to be regarded as an upside-down letter "i" - the 13th letter. The puzzle itself tells us so, and I have done an entire post on this puzzle trick.

"I'M JUST A PATSY" is likewise 12 letters, but the puzzle itself tells us to add an exclamation point.

"LEE OSWALD GUNS" is 13 letters and might be an intended caption for one of the backyard photos. It anagrams to, "W USES LO DANGLE", and "W" would be the first initial of W G Banister.

"RICHARD NAGELL" is 13 letters, and it anagrams to, "RCN, A HIDELL RAG". The meaning of "RAG" here would be a stunt, or a prank.

Your ruminations, Tom, are every bit as creative as those by John Anderson.

You must be an artist of some sort -- or a musician, right? A composer? You see patterns easily that other people might never see.

The role that Richard Case Nagell played in the life of Lee Harvey Oswald has never been fully explored -- even after 50 years. If anybody is able to crack that code, Tom, it will be you.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

If you are right about all that Paul, why is the FBI still covering up? If the document release in 2017 does not provide the material you seem certain it will, can I assume you will back down from your theory? After all, there can be no reason to keep Hoover's shenanigans secret any longer. All of your theory relies on FBI lying about nearly everything relating to Lee Harvey Oswald...

Well, Paul B., the explanation for the FBI continuing to cover-up the "Lone Nut" Big Lie, is, IMHO, simple loyalty combined with bureaucratic inertia.

Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren set the date for the JFK Truth at the year 2039. The FBI was fine with 2039.

Then President GHW Bush moved the date forward 22 years, when he signed the JFK Records Act of 1992 (two years after the fall of the USSR) and gave us a new solid date: 26 October 2017.

The FBI was fine with that date, too.

Now, Paul B., in answer to your question whether I will publicly admit that I'm wrong if the JFK Records Act fails, on 26 October 2017, to confirm my hard-won theory of the right-wing murder of JFK: you have my word on it. I'll publicly admit it if I'm wrong. In the meantime, I'll continue to call 'em like I see 'em.

My theory does indeed make Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory of Lee Harvey Oswald into the centerpiece of the JFK saga. This is precisely because: (1) Oswald had accomplices; and (2) Hoover, LBJ, Warren and Dulles knew exactly who they were.

(Jim Garrison identified two-thirds of them -- but he couldn't get a close enough look at Dallas, unfortunately.)

The main difference between my CT theory and most other CT theories out there is that I say that Hoover was right to cover-up the JFK murder, because it really was a matter of National Security. The riots of the 1960's and 1970's (and even more recent riots) in the USA would have seemed small compared to the riots that would have erupted if the JFK TRUTH had been told in 1963-1964.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[W. Tracy Parnell]

In a book called The Glories of the Early '60s, author Ed Sanders provides information that shows that the actor Steve Landesberg and the agitator Steve Landesberg were both working together as a team. Here is a summary of the information from the book:

Not by my reading of the book. It is clear that Sanders thinks the actor and agitator were one and the same person, which they were not-Armstrong disproved that theory himself. From the Sanders book:

By November 29, the FBI office in NYC sent out a notice that the investigation was to cease. They had learned by then that Rizzuto, the original source to radio host Barry Gray, and L’Eandes and Landesberg were one and the same! Steve Landesberg later became a well-known television comedian, starring on the “Barney Miller”sitcom, and why he claimed that Oswald had disrupted political meetings in Greenwich Village remains a mystery.

So it appears to me that Sanders believes the FBI was right that Landesberg/L'Eandes/Rizzuto were the same person and that person was the actor Landesberg. He also doesn't seem to buy the Oswald stuff. Nothing about a "team" here.

Edited June 17, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Steven Gaal]

In a book called The Glories of the Early '60s, author Ed Sanders provides information that shows that the actor Steve Landesberg and the agitator Steve Landesberg were both working together as a team. Here is a summary of the information from the book:

Not by my reading of the book. It is clear that Sanders thinks the actor and agitator were one and the same person, which they were not-Armstrong disproved that theory himself. From the Sanders book:

By November 29, the FBI office in NYC sent out a notice that the investigation was to cease. They had learned by then that Rizzuto, the original source to radio host Barry Gray, and L’Eandes and Landesberg were one and the same! Steve Landesberg later became a well-known television comedian, starring on the “Barney Miller”sitcom, and why he claimed that Oswald had disrupted political meetings in Greenwich Village remains a mystery.

So it appears to me that Sanders believes the FBI was right that Landesberg/L'Eandes/Rizzuto were the same person and that person was the actor Landesberg. He also doesn't seem to buy the Oswald stuff. Nothing about a "team" here.

Hollywood crowd loved the JFK / Camelot story ,thus to say you are part of the Oswald 'team" does not make sense if you want a Hollywood career. Unless its true ,NO ??? GAAL

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

Hargrove//

Posted Yesterday, 09:05 PM

In a book called The Glories of the Early '60s, author Ed Sanders provides information that shows that the actor Steve Landesberg and the agitator Steve Landesberg were both working together as a team. Here is a summary of the information from the book:

Al Fowler was a National Merit Scholar in High School, and later a poet. In the early 1960s Fowler knew and associated with Steve Landesberg, and saw him cause disruptions at various liberal rallies using a strong Southern accent. On one occasion, Landesberg talked at length about Castro, Cuba, and the FPCC. He discussed his family, life in New Orleans, and talked in detail about the French Quarter.

A couple of years later, Fowler saw Landesberg again, now wearing a nice suit but no longer sporting a Southern accent. Landesberg offered Fowler $600 to fly to Montreal and bring back a small package, contents unknown. Fowler refused the offer, and clearly stated that the man he knew creating disturbances at liberal rallies was Steve Landesberg, the actor.

The account of Fowler and Landesberg is described in the book The Glories of the Early '60s, by Ed Sanders.

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

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many mistaken about IDs RE FOWLER/Landesberg (GAAL)

Edited June 17, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Steve,

My point is there is nothing in the source Hargrove cites about a team. The book seems to show a belief in one Landesberg who Sanders/Fowler believe was the actor (which it was not). They also believe the FBI and there was no Oswald. So it doesn't say what he says it does. If he wants to speculate he can, but there is no basis for it based on his source.

I talked to an expert on 60's radical politics while working on my article and he mentioned the Sanders/Fowler/Landesberg thing to me, so I included it in my article endnotes as an example of a documented account of Landesberg posing as L'Eandes. I am going to have to go back and edit that to reflect the fact that Fowler thought it was the actor which lessens the veracity of the report to me.

Edited June 18, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Posted by Mark Valenti at Duncan MacRae's forum:

Picking up on a theory offered by G reg P arker, the whole Harvey and Lee debacle feels less like a sincere research project and more like a Trojan horse designed to upend serious efforts, and sow serious discord within the research community. Created by independently wealthy John Armstrong, who somehow has the means to travel the world in the pursuit of information he can use to further his mission, the book and its devoted followers routinely offer ridiculously circuitous data, distracting side issues, unprovable theories and a loosely constructed narrative that can safely be called cringe-worthy by most rational thinkers.

Armstrong's followers are passionate in an almost ecstatically religious manner; they devote hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours to its promotion and protection. The theory - wherein Cold War era spies raised two young boys from different continents who looked alike, for nefarious future purposes - has never gained serious traction in the mainstream press.

But if it ever does, it will surely spell the end of any kind of respect that researchers may have gained over the decades. The entire community will collapse like Tower 7, and the Warren Report will rise to a permanent throne of respectability.

Here are some interesting statements from Major Ed Rouse

Psychological Operations or PSYOP are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals. Used in all aspects of war, it is a weapon whose effectiveness is limited only by the ingenuity of the commander using it.

Psychological Operations (PSYOP) or Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR) is simply learning everything about your target enemy, their beliefs, likes, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities. Once you know what motivates your target, you are ready to begin psychological operations.

Psychological operations may be defined broadly as the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behavior ... to create in target groups behavior, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives. The form of communication can be as simple as spreading information covertly by word of mouth or through any means of multimedia.

There can be no greater harm done to the JFK research community than to sow discord within and position it as a laughingstock from without. Harvey and Lee does both, in spades. It is a well-funded, religiously-promoted, in-your-face theory with extremely energetic and pugnacious defenders willing to spread the gospel as far as possible.

If it ever truly moves out of the shadowy fringes and into daylight, it's curtains for any meaningful chance to gain access to those still-hidden government files. Any request coming from the JFK community will be laughed out of court.

Edited June 18, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Bernie Laverick]

Posted by Mark Valenti at Duncan MacRae's forum:

Picking up on a theory offered by G reg P arker, the whole Harvey and Lee debacle feels less like a sincere research project and more like a Trojan horse designed to upend serious efforts, and sow serious discord within the research community. Created by independently wealthy John Armstrong, who somehow has the means to travel the world in the pursuit of information he can use to further his mission, the book and its devoted followers routinely offer ridiculously circuitous data, distracting side issues, unprovable theories and a loosely constructed narrative that can safely be called cringe-worthy by most rational thinkers.

Armstrong's followers are passionate in an almost ecstatically religious manner; they devote hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours to its promotion and protection. The theory - wherein Cold War era spies raised two young boys from different continents who looked alike, for nefarious future purposes - has never gained serious traction in the mainstream press.

But if it ever does, it will surely spell the end of any kind of respect that researchers may have gained over the decades. The entire community will collapse like Tower 7, and the Warren Report will rise to a permanent throne of respectability.

Here are some interesting statements from Major Ed Rouse

Psychological Operations or PSYOP are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals. Used in all aspects of war, it is a weapon whose effectiveness is limited only by the ingenuity of the commander using it.

Psychological Operations (PSYOP) or Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR) is simply learning everything about your target enemy, their beliefs, likes, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities. Once you know what motivates your target, you are ready to begin psychological operations.

Psychological operations may be defined broadly as the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behavior ... to create in target groups behavior, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives. The form of communication can be as simple as spreading information covertly by word of mouth or through any means of multimedia.

There can be no greater harm done to the JFK research community than to sow discord within and position it as a laughingstock from without. Harvey and Lee does both, in spades. It is a well-funded, religiously-promoted, in-your-face theory with extremely energetic and pugnacious defenders willing to spread the gospel as far as possible.

If it ever truly moves out of the shadowy fringes and into daylight, it's curtains for any meaningful chance to gain access to those still-hidden government files. Any request coming from the JFK community will be laughed out of court.

Nailed!

[W. Tracy Parnell]

It seems that much of the H&L talk has moved over to DPF. For example, our own Dawn Meredith said:

And John told me on Sat that Parnell used to write glowing stuff about H and L.

For the record, I never wrote anything "glowing" about H&L. I wrote a couple of letters to Armstrong to feel him out although I had a pretty good idea what he was about. He replied to me in a very courteous manner, which I appreciated and I told him that. He offered some suggestions on research and of course tried to steer me to his way of thinking. This was in 1997 when you could not find everything on the Internet like you can now. But all of my public writings, articles, forum posts, etc. have been critical.

[Paul Trejo]

It seems that much of the H&L talk has moved over to DPF. For example, our own Dawn Meredith said:

And John told me on Sat that Parnell used to write glowing stuff about H and L.

For the record, I never wrote anything "glowing" about H&L. I wrote a couple of letters to Armstrong to feel him out although I had a pretty good idea what he was about. He replied to me in a very courteous manner, which I appreciated and I told him that. He offered some suggestions on research and of course tried to steer me to his way of thinking. This was in 1997 when you could not find everything on the Internet like you can now. But all of my public writings, articles, forum posts, etc. have been critical.

Well, Tracy, I want to thank you for your energetic efforts here on the EF. I agree with your assessment of H&L, which I regard as a mind-game, mocking its very readers.

The ultimate result (intended or not) is to mock all JFK Research. Sadly, some of the mockery is deserved, especially at the point where Anderson pushes, namely, the CIA-did-it theory, which is the most common CT of all (including such luminaries as Lane, Garrison, Weisberg, Marrs, Newman, Scott).

It seems to me, however, that the H&L detour will be the last stage of the CIA-did-it theory, and anyway, it will all be laid to rest by 26 October 2017, when the JFK Records Act deadline is reached.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[W. Tracy Parnell]

It seems that much of the H&L talk has moved over to DPF. For example, our own Dawn Meredith said:

And John told me on Sat that Parnell used to write glowing stuff about H and L.

For the record, I never wrote anything "glowing" about H&L. I wrote a couple of letters to Armstrong to feel him out although I had a pretty good idea what he was about. He replied to me in a very courteous manner, which I appreciated and I told him that. He offered some suggestions on research and of course tried to steer me to his way of thinking. This was in 1997 when you could not find everything on the Internet like you can now. But all of my public writings, articles, forum posts, etc. have been critical.

Well, Tracy, I want to thank you for your energetic efforts here on the EF. I agree with your assessment of H&L, which I regard as a mind-game, mocking its very readers.

The ultimate result (intended or not) is to mock all JFK Research. Sadly, some of the mockery is deserved, especially at the point where Anderson pushes, namely, the CIA-did-it theory, which is the most common CT of all (including such luminaries as Lane, Garrison, Weisberg, Marrs, Newman, Scott).

It seems to me, however, that the H&L detour will be the last stage of the CIA-did-it theory, and anyway, it will all be laid to rest by 26 October 2017, when the JFK Records Act deadline is reached.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Thanks for your kind words. One question about the 2017 documents while I'm thinking of it. Didn't the ARRB say they had seen all of the JFK documents and there is nothing indicating conspiracy there. Does this refer to the 2017 documents in your view or I am I off in my thinking here? I would appreciate your comments.

[Steven Gaal]

Picking up on a theory offered by G reg P arker, the whole Harvey and Lee debacle feels less like a sincere research project and more like a Trojan horse designed to upend serious efforts, and sow serious discord within the research community. Created by independently wealthy John Armstrong, who somehow has the means to travel the world in the pursuit of information he can use to further his mission, the book and its devoted followers routinely offer ridiculously circuitous data, distracting side issues, unprovable theories and a loosely constructed narrative that can safely be called cringe-worthy by most rational thinkers.......It is a well-funded,// PARNELL

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

less like a sincere

.......It is a well-funded,// PARNELL LIE & PAID TO POST ?? gee forum rule violation ?? GAAL

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

debacle ??

ID stamped on clinic records ........addressed

Marguerite Oswald ID testimony ....addressed

Odio testimony ........................addressed

Photo re Frankenstein ................addressed

School attendance ....................addressed

Bronx zoo photo ......................addressed (real research with call to ZOO for height of rail)

Landesberg ............................addressed (Armstrong left it as a question mark and there was a ID of him in the 60s Book Parnell posted on)

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

To use the term debacle is ,IMHO, really bravado and bluster. GAAL

Edited June 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[W. Tracy Parnell]

At the DPF Jim Hargrove said

Sure, Tracy, and this is the kind of balance any mature researcher without a hidden agenda would adopt. In a 1,000+ page book filled with as much info as H&L, there are bound to be some mistakes. How could there not be?

But what is going on over at EF strikes me as going far beyond personal differences and disagreements over facts. It strikes me as a professional disinfo campaign, which begs the question, What has John Armstrong uncovered that requires a response like that?

John is currently revising an article on the Steven Landesberg affair, and it is shaping up to be every bit as dangerous to the status quo as the rest of H&L. When it's done, and it's nearly there, I'm hoping EF will feel compelled to erupt in some sort of nuclear way, not just the usual panties in a twist snits. Should be fun!

Of course I have an agenda Jim, I disagree with the H&L theory and have for years. I can't say with 100 percent certainty there was no conspiracy in the JFK case. But I know for certain the H&L theory didn't happen because of the exhumation and other evidence. Its not just errors in the book that bother me-you notice I don't mention typos etc.

Take the most recent thing, the Orvie Aucoin error which Gary Mack pointed out. Armstrong makes this big thing about how everyone connected to the leafleting incident and the WDSU interviews was either FBI or CIA. Then he has this list to prove his point and it looks to me like he put Aucoin on the list even though he knows he was not the cameraman. I can't see any other reason since he mentions Rush in other parts of the book. In other words, it looks like a deliberate distortion rather than a simple mistake. He insists everyone (he has this underlined on one page and underlined and italicized on the other) was CIA/FBI so he includes Aucoin to make his point even though he apparently knows better. This is summarized on my page:

http://wtracyparnell.com/orvie-aucoin/

As far as a professional disinfo campaign, I have had these unfounded charges placed against me since the beginning. I am just a semi-retired guy in my pajamas doing what I think is right. Who do you think is funding me?

I was just finishing my response to Armstrong but he is writing another article on Landesberg if I read you right so I guess I will wait to see that. My main question is why you and DJ have left here? I felt that we had a good debate going. I certainly have nothing personal against you or DJ. I think you are both smart guys but you are being run by a puppet master.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Steve Gaal said:

.......It is a well-funded,// PARNELL LIE PAID & paid TO POST ?? gee forum rule violation ?? GAAL

As I have said for years Steve, I am acting on my own accord for my own reasons (I believe in what I am doing) and am paid by no one. I am a little disappointed that you have made this allegation without proof since I though you and I got along ok here.

Edited June 18, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Steven Gaal]

Steve Gaal said:

.......It is a well-funded,// PARNELL LIE & paid TO POST ?? gee forum rule violation ?? GAAL

As I have said for years Steve, I am acting on my own accord for my own reasons (I believe in what I am doing) and am paid by no one. I am a little disappointed that you have made this allegation without proof since I though you and I got along ok here.

NO SIR !!! YOU MADE THE ALLIGATION the H & L PEOPLE are the ones that LIE and are PAID TO POST !!!!!! GAAL

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

less like a sincere

.......It is a well-funded,// PARNELL QUOTES !! Parnell does forum rule violation. GAAL

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

see Parnell post http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=306022

Edited June 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Jon G. Tidd]

Re H & L:

Those who planned and plotted JFK's murder were highly sophisticated, IMO. And also were and are able to wield great power in the United States. To posit anything humanly possible as being beyond these persons' capability is to deny their insider knowledge and their power.