Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Greg Parker]

Here is the essense of it, Randy...

The following truth-telling of Butch Burroughs, Bernard Haire, T. F. White, Wes Wise, Robert G. Vinson, and Ralph Leon Yates allows us to peel back layers of obfuscation and unspeakable deception that have been directed at this country’s people for fifty years about why their beloved President was murdered by elements of U.S. national security state personnel that evermore direct the affairs of this corporate empire state. Peace is possible and can manifest when we are willing to see and acknowledge the unspeakable.

"Truth-telling"

Butch Burroughs - who knows what to make of his evolving stories.

Bernard Haire - saw a witness being taken in (it's in the godamn records that they took a witness in)

Robert Vinson - another late arriving witness whose account lacks credibility

TF White - Maybe a valid witness

Wes Wise - an honest man, no doubt

Ralph Yates - if he picked up anyone, it was most likely Larry Crafard

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

Doesn't add up to diddly-squat.

[Greg Parker]

Second that. I really want to understand what you post Steve,but often run out of patience.

You're not worried about brain damage from the effort?

[Larry Hancock]

In regard to Jon's comment, I'm afraid that "passion" is the last thing we need....patience, perseverance, critical thinking, and even healthy skepticism would really be good at this stage in the research. Passion in terms of understanding the overall conspiracy and its meaning is good, passion at the micro level is a lot like stirring an already boiling pot.

[Jim Hargrove]

Megathanks to Steve Gaal for posting the excerpts from JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass. It is an important work, including not only the technical details of the use of lookalike(s) to set up "Lee Harvey Oswald," but also for providing background information on President Kennedy's foreign policy positions, especially on Cuba and the Soviet Union, and how unpopular these positions were with the National Security and military/industrial apparatus in the U.S.

Among the people contributing words of praise for Mr. Douglass's work in the front pages are Gaeton Fonzi, Daniel Ellsberg, Vincent Salandria, Peter Dale Scott, Marcus Raskin, Gerald McKnight and quite a few others. Although it is less than ten years old, JFK and the Unspeakable has already become a very influential book.

Several people have said that it is just too difficult to read Steve Gaal's post, although the only substantial lacking I can see is that it doesn't include a blank line between each paragraph. For those who can't cope with that, a nicely formatted version of the same material, with blank lines between paragraphs, can be found here:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html

[Greg Parker]

Megathanks to Steve Gaal for posting the excerpts from JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass. It is an important work, including not only the technical details of the use of lookalike(s) to set up "Lee Harvey Oswald," but also for providing background information on President Kennedy's foreign policy positions, especially on Cuba and the Soviet Union, and how unpopular these positions were with the National Security and military/industrial apparatus in the U.S.

Among the people contributing words of praise for Mr. Douglass's work in the front pages are Gaeton Fonzi, Daniel Ellsberg, Vincent Salandria, Peter Dale Scott, Marcus Raskin, Gerald McKnight and quite a few others. Although it is less than ten years old, JFK and the Unspeakable has already become a very influential book.

Several people have said that it is just too difficult to read Steve Gaal's post, although the only substantial lacking I can see is that it doesn't include a blank line between each paragraph. For those who can't cope with that, a nicely formatted version of the same material, with blank lines between paragraphs, can be found here:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html

When you have to rely on people like Haire, Burroughs, Vinson and Yates to help sell your theory, you've already traded in your ethics and common sense to appease the Gods of Popular Opinion.

Or as someone said earlier... "Doesn't add up to diddly-squat."

Oh, wait! That was me!

[Steven Gaal]

You're not worried about brain damage from the effort? // Parker rely on ..Vinson // Parker

RE-Check my post. and I find no real use of Vinson.....brain ....LOL ??? // GAAL

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

Reformatted/edit my post partially. My computer dose not let me paste in "word" and used notebook which can lose an indentation. // Gaal

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

Butch Burroughs - who knows what to make of his evolving stories.// Parker

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

Evolving stories Re Burroughs is something the Lone-Nutters bring up. The WC never asked Burroughs what time "Oswald" snuck into the balcony nor what time he sold "Oswald" popcorn (1:15 PM). // Gaal

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

According to Warren "Butch" Burroughs, the ticket taker of the Texas Theatre, Oswald arrived for the 1:00 show between 1:00 and 1:07 PM. He also told author Jim Marrs in 1987 that he sold Oswald popcorn right around 1:10 PM.
• http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter6#ftn12
=
• Jack Davis claimed in an interview with Jim Marrs during the fall of 1988 that Oswald squeezed by him at 1:15 PM in the Texas Theatre during the opening credits to the movie.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41&relPageId=19
====================
Armstrong Probe
Butch Burroughs, an employee of the Texas Theater, heard someone enter the theater shortly after 1:00 PM and go to the balcony. Harvey Oswald had apparently entered the theater and gone to the balcony without being seen by Burroughs. About 1:15 PM Harvey came down from the balcony and bought popcorn from Burroughs. Burroughs watched him walk down the aisle and take a seat on the main floor. He sat next to Jack Davis during the opening credits of the first movie, several minutes before 1:20 PM. Harvey then moved across the aisle and sat next to another man. A few minutes later Davis noticed he moved again and sat next to a pregnant woman. Just before the police arrived, the pregnant woman went to the balcony and was never seen again. In addition to Harvey there were seven people watching the movie on the main level (six after the pregnant woman left). Within 10 minutes, he had sat next to half of them.
...The Warren Commission did not ask Butch Burroughs what time "Oswald" snuck into the balcony nor what time he sold "Oswald" popcorn (1:15 PM). Jack Davis was not interviewed by the Warren Commission. He could have told them Oswald (man in brown shirt) was sitting next to him before 1:20 PM.
=====================================================================================================================
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/web-exclusive-jfk-why-he-died-and-why-it-matters below
=
The problem with this scenario is that the concession stand operator at the theatre, Warren H. Butch Burroughs, confirmed that Oswald bought popcorn from him at 1:15 p.m. and had to have arrived even before that. When author Douglass interviewed Burroughs and asked him why he hadn’t said that to the Warren Commission, Burroughs replied that the Commission never solicited that information from him, asking, instead, simply whether he had seen Oswald come in to the theatre? to which he responded, truthfully, “No”. No further questions your honour.
In fact, another witness, patron Jack Davis, also noticed Oswald in the theatre before 1:15, this because of Oswald’s odd behaviour. Oswald, according to Davis, appeared to be looking for someone and successively sat down next to a number of different moviegoers, including himself, before moving on.
Oswald was finally arrested by police at 1:50 and taken out the front entrance of the theatre. However, Burroughs witnessed another arrest only minutes later in which a man remarkably resembling Oswald was taken out the rear of the theatre. An independent witness, Bernard J. Haire, saw this rear arrest from a different perspective. He had gone to the alley at the back of the theatre hoping to escape the crowds in the front and arrived just in time to see Oswald being put in a police car and driven off. Haire never testified before the Commission because, for years, he was convinced that the Oswald he had seen was the Oswald who was shortly to be killed by Jack Ruby. Only in 1987 did he learn, to his amazement, that the real Oswald had been taken out the front of the theatre.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[David Lifton]

Steve:

Prompted by your post, I went to Amazon looking for "The Improbable Triumvirate"--which I remember seeing many years ago. The listing there says it was published in 1984 (by Norton); but--for reasons I do not understand--its not " $ 0.01" or a bit more; rather, even a used copy is up in the vicinity of 38 pounds. Yikes! (And then comes shipping).

I'm curious as to where you obtained your copy, because perhaps --with that information---I can order one via Interlibary Loan.

Please reply to me directly at dsl74@cornell.edu

Many thanks.

DSL

5/24/15 - 5:15 a.m. pdt

Los Angeles, California

[Greg Parker]

If Burroughs couldn't see anyone enter, how can he possibly answer "no" to this question:

Mr. BALL. Did anybody come in there that day? Up to the time of the struggle between the man and the police who didn't have a ticket?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir.

And how could he follow that up with:

Mr. BALL. Later on the police came in your place?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. They asked you if you had seen a man come in there without a ticket?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I said, "I haven't seen him myself. He might have, but I didn't see him when he came in. He must have sneaked in and run on upstairs before I saw him."

Doesn't the highlighted section suggest the only reason Butch didn't see him was because he sneaked in and ran up the stairs too quick for Butch to spot him - not that he could not see anyone come in at all?

Where I come from, that's a change in the story.

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

Mr. BALL. Did you see any struggle or fight between this man and any police officer?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No; not exactly, because I just had one door open and that was the middle door, and I couldn't see them----that was the main thing.

Yet you wrote: "Butch Burroughs, who witnessed Oswald’s arrest,"

And on and on it goes...

Mr. BALL. They asked you if you had seen a man come in there without a ticket?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I said, "I haven't seen him myself.

Yet according to you and your sources, Burroughs claims to have sold him popcorn, see him jumping from seat to seat, witness his arrest and then witness his double's arrest.

No evolding story? You're kidding?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Hi,

This is my first post to the Education Forum. For the past 15 or 20 years or so, I've run John Armstrong's HarveyandLee.net website, which, in the last year or three, John Armstrong actually noticed and made significantly longer. Among the MANY people who seem to hate me and John are John McAdams, Dave Reitzes, David Lifton, Greg Parker, and Tracy Parnell, though there are clearly others. From reading what they say, there can be little doubt that JA and I are TOTAL IDIOTS, though I'd like to thank Steve Gaal and David Josephs for their support. Before agreeing with Mr. Lifton and declaring the entire John Armstrong camp totally daft, please visit my website here:

HarveyandLee.net

Thank you.

For the record, I certainly do not hate Jim Hargrove, John Armstrong or anyone else associated with the Harvey & Lee theory. I respect anyone who studies the assassination or any historical event for that matter. It takes a lot of time and work to do so. John Armstrong has added to the historical record on Oswald and even Bugliosi acknowledged this. I just disagree with the Harvey & Lee theory and believe that it sidetracks researchers whose time is better spent elsewhere.

[Greg Parker]

Hi,

This is my first post to the Education Forum. For the past 15 or 20 years or so, I've run John Armstrong's HarveyandLee.net website, which, in the last year or three, John Armstrong actually noticed and made significantly longer. Among the MANY people who seem to hate me and John are John McAdams, Dave Reitzes, David Lifton, Greg Parker, and Tracy Parnell, though there are clearly others. From reading what they say, there can be little doubt that JA and I are TOTAL IDIOTS, though I'd like to thank Steve Gaal and David Josephs for their support. Before agreeing with Mr. Lifton and declaring the entire John Armstrong camp totally daft, please visit my website here:

HarveyandLee.net

Thank you.

For the record, I certainly do not hate Jim Hargrove, John Armstrong or anyone else associated with the Harvey & Lee theory. I respect anyone who studies the assassination or any historical event for that matter. It takes a lot of time and work to do so. John Armstrong has added to the historical record on Oswald and even Bugliosi acknowledged this. I just disagree with the Harvey & Lee theory and believe that it sidetracks researchers whose time is better spent elsewhere.

He did a good thing making his research holdings available publicly.

But there is a disturbing cult-like aspect that has grown around the "Harvey & Lee" theory, and the signs were there from the get-go with people being ostracised during the development stage for daring to question aspects of it. The cult-like qualities have flourished because of the widespread regard for key supporters and a lack of confronting these people with the huge problems with the theory. We saw what happens when these people are confronted. Jack White blatantly changed his story regarding his personal relationship with Kudlaty and then, despite the evidence staring him in the face, denied there was any contradiction. And now we have a proveable case of the use of an image designed to deceive.

The lightweights that defend it now are only good for the amusement factor as they slip on every banana skin they throw out.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Paul Trejo]

I remember watching photographer Jack White's narrative about the photographic data on Oswald -- and at first I was very impressed with it.

For one thing, Jack White correctly (IMHO) showed that the chin, the shoulders, the lumpy right-wrist and the stance in the Fake Backyard Photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald were clearly and unmistakably those of (soon-to-be) DPD Officer Roscoe White.

This observation played well with my own theory that Lee Harvey Oswald created his own Fake Backyard Photographs at his place of employment at that time, namely, Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, with their high-tech photographic equipment.

IMHO, Oswald was fired from J-C-S precisely because he was caught abusing company equipment in this way.

This observation also played well with my own theory that Lee Harvey Oswald used Roscoe White in April 1963 (five months before Roscoe became a DPD Officer) as a helper in his plan to assassinate Ex-General Edwin Walker.

This observation also lent itself to Ricky White's claim that his father, Roscoe White, was part of the JFK Kill-Team in Dallas on 11/22/1963. (I name Oswald as a member of the JFK Kill-Team, only because Oswald was the Patsy -- so he was an unwitting member, but a member nevertheless). As I see it, Roscoe White betrayed Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK murder plot.

In my theory, Roscoe White helped Oswald create the Fake Backyard Photographs, and this was demonstrated when a fourth photo, in a previously unknown pose of Lee Harvey Oswald, was found among the possessions of Geneva White in 1976 (CE-133c).

So, Jack White had my full attention in that video presentation -- it was brilliant up to that point. Then White dropped his Double-Oswald theory on the viewer -- and I watched it five times to verify that I hadn't missed any steps.

I hadn't.

White's unassailable logic in his discovery of Roscoe White inside Oswald's Backyard Photographs was somehow lost in space as he flailed around to show a Double-Oswald from old photographs gleaned from the USSR and USA -- where the USSR photos were very likely modified for security purposes.

White failed to make his point, IMHO. His photographic skills failed him in that part of his theory.

Still -- the Roscoe White exposition was brilliant -- and I grimace to think that his brilliant work in exposing Roscoe White inside the Backyard Photograph Fakes was lost -- overshadowed by his weaker work showing an (admittedly more sensational) alleged "Double-Oswald".

I rationalized the whole thing to myself with the theory that the DPD (or whoever was "handling" witnesses in Dallas) had "persuaded" Jack White to step on his correct ID of Roscoe White with this nonsense about a Double-Oswald. I will hold to that theory until something better appears.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 25, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

Whichever way you cut it, tonsils regrow. I don't care how rare you think that may happen. It happens.

That's what I enjoy about the minions... don't bother them with actual evidence, actual research studies, actual stats.

And then they call the corroborating evidence what I "think", not what the Nat'l Inst of Health has to say...

Less than 15% of the time in children with a mean age of 5, and it usually occurs within 3 years of the operation...

You guys must really HATE it when actual evidence trumps your speculation and opinions...

"Less than 15% of the time in children with a mean age of 5, and it usually occurs within 3 years of the operation..."

WHAT "usually occurs within 3 years" David?

Regrowth?

is this what you are trying to prove? That regrowth only occurs in less than 15% of children with a mean age of five? So this your rock solid proof that regrowth of tonsils couldn't possibly happen? Because only 15% of children experience that?

This is a deliberate wind up or a desperate attempt to create a firewall. Sorry, but I'll just politely stick to the facts. Tonsils regrow.

It's pure baiting because you have humiliatingly lost the argument.

Then you actually take a haughty condescending swipe at "minions" who's sole point is this...TONSILS CAN REGROW AFTER REMOVAL!!

Can you point me to where on the extensive HarveyLee site this tonsil issue is given any prominence? Do you agree it should be removed or hidden?

I realize that keeping up is very hard for you Bernie so please try...

The links you obviously did not visit reveal that of the 15% of regrowth that did occur due to partial operations (which you boy Parker has still yet to prove, only suggest since he has no clule) and that the average time of regrowth is within the first 30 months after the operation - the mean age of the children was 5 years old.

See now here'e the tought part Bernie... if 15% of 5 years old showed regrowth within 30 months... 85% of these children DID NOT EXPERIENCE REGROWTH...

85% is larger than 15% which means there is over a 5 times chance that by age 8 a child with a partial tonsillectomy will NOT experience regrowth. (prove again that the operation was "partial" to begin with)

Do you have anything to post which shows our little Lee experiencing ongoing sorethroats and many missed sick days at school from age 6 to 17?

Do you have anything related to regrowth after the inital 30 month period?

do you have ANYTHING other than standing on Parker's shoulders to deal with the actual stats from the NIH - or is this "national speculation without evidence" day?

Better yet... ask Parker if the Dr. used Radionics to telepathically remove the tonsils - he seems to take stock in obscure witchcraft related evidence as fact...

Edited May 26, 2015 by David Josephs

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Here is the way I see the debate.

Reasonable possibilities that would explain why Oswald was diagnosed with tonsillitis:

1. The tonsils grew back as CAN happen.

2. The tonsils were never removed since there is only an insurance document based on a statement by Marguerite who frequently lied when it suited her purposes.

3. A misdiagnosis-it can happen Doctors are not Gods and make mistakes.

Armstrong Camp-possibilities that would explain why Oswald was diagnosed with tonsillitis:

There were two Oswalds being run by a secret CIA program for some unknown future purpose that ended up being the killing of JFK.

[Paul Trejo]

Here is the way I see the debate...

...There were two Oswalds being run by a secret CIA program for some unknown future purpose that ended up being the killing of JFK.

Well, that's how I see it, too, Tracy. The Double-Oswald theory evidently presumes that the CIA (or whoever) was also able to foretell the future -- and so as early as the 1950's the "CIA" realized that JFK would be elected President in 1960, and would be so inept at the job that he would need to be assassinated in 1963.

Like many (or most) CIA-did-it theories, it makes the CIA into godlike entities with superhuman powers.

Sadly, the "Lone Nut" theory that Hoover enforced on the FBI (soon after the JFK murder) is behind most of the lies that lend themselves to the Double-Oswald theorists (and to most CIA-did-it theorists).

So, I'm really counting on the JFK Records Act of 1992, that promises to finally reveal all the US Top Secret data on Lee Harvey Oswald once and for all.

Until then, the field is just swimming in so many lies that the lies are breeding baby lies all over the place.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Rigor policeman here. Rigor policeman vets logic.

Proposition: Young Oswald did not have his tonsils removed. Corresponding proposition: No need to consider the probability the tonsils grew back. None.

Any questions? Good.

New proposition: Young Oswald had his tonsils entirely or partially removed. Corresponding proposition: Now it's important to know the frequency coupled with the extent of grow-back. And also the frequency of tonsillitis associated with grow-back.

Any questions? Good.

"But Mr. Tidd," the student says, "Why if the tonsils weren't removed is it not necessary to say something about grow-back?" Answer: If the tonsils weren't removed, they couldn't have grown back.

"But Mr Tidd," the student says, "Why if the tonsils were removed is it important to consider frequency and extent of grow-back?" Answer: It's important, to be able to assess the probability tonsillitis occurred in an individual who had his or her tonsils removed.

"But Mr. Tidd," the student says, "I want it both ways. The tonsils were never removed. And the tonsils never removed might have grown back." Response: Go to the Education Forum. Give David Josephs a pat on the back. Ask your question of Greg and Bernie. Class over.