Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Vanessa Loney]

More Aussie-bashing, David? Is this allowed mods?

How about you substitute 'the blacks' or 'the jews' for 'down under' David? Doesn't scan quite so nicely, does it?

Are you getting my point, David?

[Greg Parker]

More Aussie-bashing, David? Is this allowed mods?

How about you substitute 'the blacks' or 'the jews' for 'down under' David? Doesn't scan quite so nicely, does it?

Are you getting my point, David?

Leave him alone. Don't take his last argument away from him.

[Greg Parker]

Stick to the evidence Parker and deal with IT, All I'm doing here is posting it and watching you and your brigade stumble over yourselves trying and debunk it with nothing but the air in your lungs...

Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...

Did you ever stop and wonder how it is that you, Armstrong and the rest of the klan are the only ones who can see the problem... er... "problem"?

Have a think about that, David and get back to me about how brilliant you are for reading a full school year into a single semester.

Wow... you really are this bad.

March 23, 1953 to May 30, 1953... is to you a full school year? The Fall semester and Jan/Feb do not count.

Yet if you look only a few lines above

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=29#entry304931

It shows Sept '52 and that semester's (defined as the first half of a school year in the english language) attendance (15 3/2 attend 47 3/2 missed) until he skips and does not go to any school for over 2 months.

There are at least 40 school days in the 2 missed months... so 40 + 15 + 47 + 109 + 15 = the total # of days in this boy's record's school year.

180 days in a school year Greg... this adds to 226 and Youth House is still not counted.

I'm exceedingly brilliant Greg... just getting back to you.

If drawing utterly rancid conclusions from various types of evidence is brilliant. You're a died-in-the-wool genius.

school record is talking about a whole school year - not a semester.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10765&search=%22school_records%22#relPageId=14&tab=page

Note just after data for PS 44 it states: Year beginning | 9 - 52 | 3 - 23 -53 | 9 - 53 |

9/52 was the start of the school year. 3/23/53 was when he started at PS 44. 9/53 is the start of another school year.

So the calculation is 15 + 47 + 109 + 15 + part days. This is still only approximate due to the fact that we don't know the exact date the school year finished. There was also a spring break in there.

Are you really going to continue to argue that the paperwork says he did 109 days in one semester?

[Jim Hargrove]

Well, Jim, I've also read that before. Some try to use that quote to prove that Marina Oswald was fluent in English back in Russia, and so her troubles with English in the USA were all a sham.

But that's pushing too hard with too little data. Some dude heard Marina Oswald speak a few words of English, in some social gathering in Russia, and concluded that she spoke English "fluently?" Where's the scientific testing?

Almost any American can speak a few words of Spanish in a social gathering in the USA, but would be like a fish out of water if they were in Mexico City talking to a cab driver.

Without scientific testing, such anecdotal evidence is a weak foundation to conclude that Marina was "fluent" in English. Also, it's virtually impossible to FAKE trouble with a foreign language. Also, Marina was a teenager when she married Lee Harvey Oswald -- so its very unlikely that she was already a skilled superspy.

Also, Marina's confusion of Oswald's background with Webster's background isn't really unusual; she knew Oswald very little time before they were married -- and no Russian teenage girls were virgins in the USSR. The fact that her uncle was affiliated with the KGB may have influenced her social life, but she married poorly with Lee Harvey Oswald -- I think she'd agree when she was in Fort Worth, under the sneering eyes of Oswald's mother. So, this wasn't part of any spy planning. It was dumb fate.

No -- the evidence suggests that Oswald was poor as a Church mouse, and struggling like thunder to get a good paying job to support his growing family. Oswald was desperate, really, but he truly believed he could get a job with the CIA if he just did MORE.

Yet Oswald had left the USSR like a Maverick -- my guess is that his contract with the ONI wasn't yet finished when he left -- and that is why his Marine discharge was downgraded -- and why he never got that job with the CIA that he had been promised.

Sorry -- he doesn't look or quack like a duck to me, Jim. Instead, Lee Harvey Oswald looks and sounds like a CIA "wannabe" from start to finish.

There is no way that Oswald could have been made the Patsy of the JFK murder if he was a bona fide CIA Officer.

The best explanation -- using Occam's Razor -- for Oswald being the JFK Patsy is that he got too close to the fire and got burned, i.e. he craved for a job in the CIA, and so he fell prey to liars and plotters who used this weakness to exploit him for evil.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

We may just have to agree to disagree, Paul, but to me the connection of “Lee Harvey Oswald” to the CIA is obvious both by circumstantial evidence and by sworn testimony. In fact, I argue (as John A. does more thoroughly) that what CIA accountant James Wilcott called “the Oswald Project” was, in fact, a creation of American Intelligence involving two young men using the same identity. But let's back up a bit….

You wrote that Oswald “never got that job with the CIA he had been promised.” That is an interesting thought, but it is hard to accept that all he did was done as part of some elaborate job application. That strikes me as unlikely. Although Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald was indeed, as you say, poor as a church mouse most of his short life, it is weird how well he travelled to Russia, staying at top-notch European hotels and hiring expensive private tour guides once in Moscow. There is no evidence that he ever before or after lived so well. The Warren Commision told us Oswald used his Marine Corps income to finance—barely-- his “defection,” but failed to tell us that much of that income was in non-convertible military script.

The information on Robert Webster was not included primarily to discuss Marina's English skills but to show that the striking similarites of the false “defections” of Robert Webster and “Lee Harvey Oswald,” strongly suggesting that both were under the same management. Can you suggest any managerial candidates other than the CIA? Why wasn't Oswald arrested for espionage when he returned to the U.S? Why was he allowed by the U.S. to “defect” yet again just weeks before the assassination of JFK?

CIA accountant James Wilcott swore under oath in secret testimony to the HSCA that he was told by other CIA employees at his station in Japan that money he had personally disbursed to an encrypted account was for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.” HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum testified to the ARRB that he read a WC secret transcript of a conversation in which the Attorney General of Texas, Henry Wade the District Attorney, and Leon Jaworsky, counsel to the Attorney General, told Earl Warren that Oswald was a contract agent of both the CIA and the FBI.

You wrote, “There is no way that Oswald could have been made the Patsy of the JFK murder if he was a bona fide CIA Officer.”

Oswald was hardly a bona fide CIA officer. Instead, the evidence suggests he was a paid operative, of both the FBI and the CIA. And here's where the evil genious of the assassination plot becomes most clear.

No doubt we will both agree that if you are plotting to murder the president of the United States, you simply have to have a pre-ordained fall guy. If not, the hunt for you will be relentless. It will not stop until you're caught. Unless you can figure out a way to shut down the investigation quickly, you will be doomed. What better way than to pick a patsy, and plant some evidence, even if it doesn't hold up well to scrutiny, against a guy with ties to both Hoover's FBI and the CIA? Assuming he wasn't one of the plotters, what do you suppose Hoover's reaction was when he realized that his own contract employee had been set up for the hit?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Steve,

Armstrong only mentions Sehrt on page 14 of the book and then only to refute an assertion of Marguerite's. There have been other theories concerning Sehrt over the years including the connections you mention. But Armstrong doesn't talk about any of that, so that is the "position" I am referring to. He apparently doesn't believe Sehrt fits into the H&L theory in any way.

I think the Evans' would be able to recognize the person that they had known for years. You feel they were told who it was so they just accepted it, so we can disagree on that point. But to me, the greater point is what Armstrong cherry picks and what he leaves out to make his case. And believe me, there are many examples of that in the book. That would bother me if I were a H&L adherent.

Edited June 6, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[David Josephs]

Stick to the evidence Parker and deal with IT, All I'm doing here is posting it and watching you and your brigade stumble over yourselves trying and debunk it with nothing but the air in your lungs...

Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...

Did you ever stop and wonder how it is that you, Armstrong and the rest of the klan are the only ones who can see the problem... er... "problem"?

Have a think about that, David and get back to me about how brilliant you are for reading a full school year into a single semester.

Wow... you really are this bad.

March 23, 1953 to May 30, 1953... is to you a full school year? The Fall semester and Jan/Feb do not count.

Yet if you look only a few lines above

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=29#entry304931

It shows Sept '52 and that semester's (defined as the first half of a school year in the english language) attendance (15 3/2 attend 47 3/2 missed) until he skips and does not go to any school for over 2 months.

There are at least 40 school days in the 2 missed months... so 40 + 15 + 47 + 109 + 15 = the total # of days in this boy's record's school year.

180 days in a school year Greg... this adds to 226 and Youth House is still not counted.

I'm exceedingly brilliant Greg... just getting back to you.

If drawing utterly rancid conclusions from various types of evidence is brilliant. You're a died-in-the-wool genius.

school record is talking about a whole school year - not a semester.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10765&search=%22school_records%22#relPageId=14&tab=page

Note just after data for PS 44 it states: Year beginning | 9 - 52 | 3 - 23 -53 | 9 - 53 |

9/52 was the start of the school year. 3/23/53 was when he started at PS 44. 9/53 is the start of another school year.

So the calculation is 15 + 47 + 109 + 15 + part days. This is still only approximate due to the fact that we don't know the exact date the school year finished. There was also a spring break in there.

Are you really going to continue to argue that the paperwork says he did 109 days in one semester?

Sorry Greg but you're wrong... Semesters do not start in March. They run, in this case, from Sept-Jan, Feb -June. Each semester is approx 90 days for a 180 day school year. (When he starts in 9/15/53 he attends 65 (62 + 8 1/2 days) and is gone 7 (3 + 8 1/2 days) and leaves in Mid Jan.. see how that adds up to a semester - the semester would be ending by the end of Jan beginning of Feb for a total of approx 90 days)

From 3/32/53 thru the end of the semester adds to 124 6 1/2 days in that record. A semester is 90 days.

Semester do not start over for a child in the middle of one just because they transfer... there are only so many days in a school year, period.

The following is simply a recap of what the record, the evidence says... and how it conflicts with a real school year.

The semester started 9/8/52 when he attends Trinity until 9/26/52 which is also part of the 52-53 school year and is 15 (9+6) more days of school to be added to that year

15 + 47 is his time at PS117 from 9/30/52 (each month has about 20 school days - Oct, Nov Dec Jan with holidays is the 62 + 6 1/2 days)

he transfers to PS44 on 1/16/53 (BEFORE THE END OF THE FALL SEMESTER) yet does not attend until 3/23/53 (AFTER THE START OF THE SPRING SEMESTER) - that's still part of the school year yet is not counted as potential days he attends on this record... the 109 days begins 3/23)

from 1/16-3/23 is 40 school days he DOES NOT ATTEND yet are part of the semester and are not counted

from 3/23/53 - 5/30/53 he completes the semester with an attendance record of 109 3 1/2 days and absent 15 3 1/2 days 124+ days

Sept 1953 has nothing to do with the 52-53 school year.

According to this record for the 52-53 year the boy could have attended 20 days at Trinity, 62 & 6 1/2 days at PS117, Missed 40 days from Jan to March 53, could attend up to 124 & 6 1/2 days to bring us to the end of the 52-53 years

15 + 15 + 47 + 40 + 109 + 15 = 241+ potential days of school according to this record for the 52-53 school year - that's over 3 months too many Greg... sorry, but that's not how the school year works.

9/8 thru 9/26 + 9/30 thru 1/16 + 1/16 thru 3/23 + 3/23 thru the end of spring 52-53.

The YOUTH HOUSE occurs between 3/23 and 5/30 (4/15-5/7) - wonder why does the record not reflect this?

Greg, you can hold your breath and turn blue if you like but you're wrong about how a semester works and how many days a school year was.

This record is a combination of two children into one.. it is predominantly the 5'4" Lee's record once at PS44 yet it's our Harvey up to that point at Trinity and being truant for over 2 months out of 3 in the FALL SEMESTER. The large, southern Lee Oswald never went to Youth House.

Thanks for finding the worst possible copy of that record too btw... try this, it's a bit more clear.

The 3/23 semester start date is HIS start date, not the semester's... the calendar is included again for you assistance, just point and count

you can do THAT right mate?

But hey, nice try in any case..

[Greg Parker]

Stick to the evidence Parker and deal with IT, All I'm doing here is posting it and watching you and your brigade stumble over yourselves trying and debunk it with nothing but the air in your lungs...

Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...

Did you ever stop and wonder how it is that you, Armstrong and the rest of the klan are the only ones who can see the problem... er... "problem"?

Have a think about that, David and get back to me about how brilliant you are for reading a full school year into a single semester.

Wow... you really are this bad.

March 23, 1953 to May 30, 1953... is to you a full school year? The Fall semester and Jan/Feb do not count.

Yet if you look only a few lines above

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=29#entry304931

It shows Sept '52 and that semester's (defined as the first half of a school year in the english language) attendance (15 3/2 attend 47 3/2 missed) until he skips and does not go to any school for over 2 months.

There are at least 40 school days in the 2 missed months... so 40 + 15 + 47 + 109 + 15 = the total # of days in this boy's record's school year.

180 days in a school year Greg... this adds to 226 and Youth House is still not counted.

I'm exceedingly brilliant Greg... just getting back to you.

If drawing utterly rancid conclusions from various types of evidence is brilliant. You're a died-in-the-wool genius.

school record is talking about a whole school year - not a semester.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10765&search=%22school_records%22#relPageId=14&tab=page

Note just after data for PS 44 it states: Year beginning | 9 - 52 | 3 - 23 -53 | 9 - 53 |

9/52 was the start of the school year. 3/23/53 was when he started at PS 44. 9/53 is the start of another school year.

So the calculation is 15 + 47 + 109 + 15 + part days. This is still only approximate due to the fact that we don't know the exact date the school year finished. There was also a spring break in there.

Are you really going to continue to argue that the paperwork says he did 109 days in one semester?

Sorry Greg but you're wrong... Semesters do not start in March. They run, in this case, from Sept-Jan, Feb -June. Each semester is approx 90 days for a 180 day school year. (When he starts in 9/15/53 he attends 65 (62 + 8 1/2 days) and is gone 7 (3 + 8 1/2 days) and leaves in Mid Jan.. see how that adds up to a semester - the semester would be ending by the end of Jan beginning of Feb for a total of approx 90 days)

From 3/32/53 thru the end of the semester adds to 124 6 1/2 days in that record. A semester is 90 days.

Semester do not start over for a child in the middle of one just because they transfer... there are only so many days in a school year, period.

The following is simply a recap of what the record, the evidence says... and how it conflicts with a real school year.

The semester started 9/8/52 when he attends Trinity until 9/26/52 which is also part of the 52-53 school year and is 15 (9+6) more days of school to be added to that year

15 + 47 is his time at PS117 from 9/30/52 (each month has about 20 school days - Oct, Nov Dec Jan with holidays is the 62 + 6 1/2 days)

he transfers to PS44 on 1/16/53 (BEFORE THE END OF THE FALL SEMESTER) yet does not attend until 3/23/53 (AFTER THE START OF THE SPRING SEMESTER) - that's still part of the school year yet is not counted as potential days he attends on this record... the 109 days begins 3/23)

from 1/16-3/23 is 40 school days he DOES NOT ATTEND yet are part of the semester and are not counted

from 3/23/53 - 5/30/53 he completes the semester with an attendance record of 109 3 1/2 days and absent 15 3 1/2 days 124+ days

Sept 1953 has nothing to do with the 52-53 school year.

According to this record for the 52-53 year the boy could have attended 20 days at Trinity, 62 & 6 1/2 days at PS117, Missed 40 days from Jan to March 53, could attend up to 124 & 6 1/2 days to bring us to the end of the 52-53 years

15 + 15 + 47 + 40 + 109 + 15 = 241+ potential days of school according to this record for the 52-53 school year - that's over 3 months too many Greg... sorry, but that's not how the school year works.

9/8 thru 9/26 + 9/30 thru 1/16 + 1/16 thru 3/23 + 3/23 thru the end of spring 52-53.

The YOUTH HOUSE occurs between 3/23 and 5/30 (4/15-5/7) - wonder why does the record not reflect this?

Greg, you can hold your breath and turn blue if you like but you're wrong about how a semester works and how many days a school year was.

This record is a combination of two children into one.. it is predominantly the 5'4" Lee's record once at PS44 yet it's our Harvey up to that point at Trinity and being truant for over 2 months out of 3 in the FALL SEMESTER. The large, southern Lee Oswald never went to Youth House.

Thanks for finding the worst possible copy of that record too btw... try this, it's a bit more clear.

The 3/23 semester start date is HIS start date, not the semester's... the calendar is included again for you assistance, just point and count

you can do THAT right mate?

But hey, nice try in any case..

David, the school is only interested in totals for ENROLLED students. He did not enrol until 3/23. THose 40 days to PS44 are irrelevant. He was akin to a stateless person during that period. Why? Because the school is only responsible for ENROLLED students.

The 15 days in YH are the days shown as absent from PS44.

Now which of your arsenal of logical fallacies are you going to employ to try and wiggle out of this...?

Edited June 6, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

I said before that the sum of those days was an approximation because the end date for the school year was unknown.

The end date CURRENTLY in New York is 6/23.

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/32DF8AD8-D1E0-4228-A919-818C6B12D8C3/0/201516SchoolYearCalendarFamilyFriendly.pdf

If it was the same or similar in 1953, you can have your 40 days, back but you need to subtract all days between 23/6 and September - about 49. I think that brings it back to approximately 192. You have also doubled up on the 15 days at YH. Those are the 15 days absence. You can't count it twice. So take off another 15 = 177 (again -it's approximate).

So... in summary... I may have been wrong about the 40 days not being counted - but only if the school year in 1953 ended around the same time as it currently does.

The bottom line is that there is a logical explanation that doesn't need a parallel universe to explain it.

[Jim Hargrove]

Yo, Porker,

John A's newest research... about the two Steven Landesbergs... will be ready for publication as early as tomorrow or Monday, and will be posted RIGHT HERE, along with the newest DEFECTION PHOTO info and TONSILS REPORT data on LHO.

Again, Porker (YOU LOOK SO MUCH THINNER IN YOUR BS PHOTO) ... please make posts soon along the lines of your FRANKENSTEIN OSWALD!! And by all means... DON'T CLICK HERE!

And remember....

WE LOVE YOU!!!

Bye-bye...

[Greg Parker]

Yo, Porker,

John A's newest research... about the two Steven Landesbergs... will be ready for publication as early as tomorrow or Monday, and will be posted RIGHT HERE, along with the newest DEFECTION PHOTO info and TONSILS REPORT data on LHO.

Again, Porker (YOU LOOK SO MUCH THINNER IN YOUR BS PHOTO) ... please make posts soon along the lines of your FRANKENSTEIN OSWALD!! And by all means... DON'T CLICK HERE!

And remember....

WE LOVE YOU!!!

Bye-bye...

Looks like Jim has finally taken a leaf out of David's book and is going all out to get kicked off so he doesn't have to face any more pain and go back to the bosom of the DeepFoo claiming Martyrdom.

Trouble is, it didn't work for Josephs. He has an adoring fan base behind the scenes acting as his clean up crew. No doubt you'll get the same treatment and will have to stay and keep getting your backside slapped.

[Paul Trejo]

A couple of new additions to my site. First, Armstrong is caught misrepresenting witnesses again:

http://wtracyparnell.com/myrtle-julian-and-clem/

And a surprising statement by Jim Hargrove from an old Dellarosa forum post:

http://wtracyparnell.com/so-what/

Well, Tracy, these are interesting arguments.

It's seems to me that John Armstrong is having fun with the readers -- and has created a new game to play with the data of the JFK assassination.

Of course, J. Edgar Hoover started it with his "Lone Shooter' theory of 11/22/1963, which he maintained with force and authority despite an avalanche of evidence against it.

By pushing the "Lone Shooter/Lone Nut" theory for 15 years, with all the funding and resources of the FBI, the massive lies built up by the US Government became a compost pile for fiction.

The confusion created by CT'ers imagining wild CIA scenarios (which seems to account for the bulk of JFK literature in the past 50 years), exaggerating every case of mistaken identity with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald, and the vast exaggeration of "Oswald Impersonation", was fresh fertilizer for John Armstrong and his Science Fiction Fantasy series on a Double-Oswald.

Jack White's speculations were quick to be absorbed -- as Jack White fairly well showed the USSR photos of Lee Harvey Oswald had been doctored in a predictable manner. Here was more fertilizer for Armstrong's Science Fiction.

I don't think that John Armstrong believes (or cares) about a Double-Oswald, but that he has created a lucrative market for his Science Fiction -- and his only planning today is how to increase that market share.

As for most of the CT community, I believe they get what they deserve -- by blaming the CIA so blindly for 50 years, they deserve every bit of the nonsense of the Double-Oswald theory.

My point is, REASON IS NOT THE CURE, because Armstrong is more interested in book sales and market share than in the TRUTH, or anything to do with logic anymore.

On the contrary -- he's having a laugh -- all the way to the bank.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Vanessa Loney]

Yo, Porker,

John A's newest research... about the two Steven Landesbergs... will be ready for publication as early as tomorrow or Monday, and will be posted RIGHT HERE, along with the newest DEFECTION PHOTO info and TONSILS REPORT data on LHO.

Again, Porker (YOU LOOK SO MUCH THINNER IN YOUR BS PHOTO) ... please make posts soon along the lines of your FRANKENSTEIN OSWALD!! And by all means... DON'T CLICK HERE!

And remember....

WE LOVE YOU!!!

Bye-bye...

Yo, Porker,

John A's newest research... about the two Steven Landesbergs... will be ready for publication as early as tomorrow or Monday, and will be posted RIGHT HERE, along with the newest DEFECTION PHOTO info and TONSILS REPORT data on LHO.

Again, Porker (YOU LOOK SO MUCH THINNER IN YOUR BS PHOTO) ... please make posts soon along the lines of your FRANKENSTEIN OSWALD!! And by all means... DON'T CLICK HERE!

And remember....

WE LOVE YOU!!!

Bye-bye...

Mods, really - personal attacks like this are okay?

Come on. Enforce your rules. Where are you James?

[Greg Parker]

Yo, Porker,

John A's newest research... about the two Steven Landesbergs... will be ready for publication as early as tomorrow or Monday, and will be posted RIGHT HERE, along with the newest DEFECTION PHOTO info and TONSILS REPORT data on LHO.

Again, Porker (YOU LOOK SO MUCH THINNER IN YOUR BS PHOTO) ... please make posts soon along the lines of your FRANKENSTEIN OSWALD!! And by all means... DON'T CLICK HERE!

And remember....

WE LOVE YOU!!!

Bye-bye...

Yo, Porker,

John A's newest research... about the two Steven Landesbergs... will be ready for publication as early as tomorrow or Monday, and will be posted RIGHT HERE, along with the newest DEFECTION PHOTO info and TONSILS REPORT data on LHO.

Again, Porker (YOU LOOK SO MUCH THINNER IN YOUR BS PHOTO) ... please make posts soon along the lines of your FRANKENSTEIN OSWALD!! And by all means... DON'T CLICK HERE!

And remember....

WE LOVE YOU!!!

Bye-bye...

Mods, really - personal attacks like this are okay?

Come on. Enforce your rules. Where are you James?

The lack of originality is borderline criminal. Porker? Looney?

[Karl Kinaski]

The Judyth in EXILE thread of this forum is worth reading because there Jim Fetzer and Vary-Baker are ragging the HARVEY AND LEE BS...and Jack White, defending the HARVEY AND LEE BS, appears like a cornered rat...

Fetzer hat das Buch (H&L) zerfetzt!

KK

PS

Armstrong and his cronies are living in a historical parallel-universe...

Edited June 7, 2015 by Karl Kinaski

[Bernie Laverick]

Yo, Porker,

John A's newest research... about the two Steven Landesbergs... will be ready for publication as early as tomorrow or Monday, and will be posted RIGHT HERE, along with the newest DEFECTION PHOTO info and TONSILS REPORT data on LHO.

Again, Porker (YOU LOOK SO MUCH THINNER IN YOUR BS PHOTO) ... please make posts soon along the lines of your FRANKENSTEIN OSWALD!! And by all means... DON'T CLICK HERE!

And remember....

WE LOVE YOU!!!

Bye-bye...

"YOU LOOK SO MUCH THINNER IN YOUR BS PHOTO"

Since when is it ok to make vile personal attacks based on someone's appearance?

I hope admin don't moderate him. I really do.

Those who lurk on here because they have a keen interest in this subject are not stupid people. Before I was a poster I used to devour these threads and observe the characters behind them. I've seen them all come and go; Carlier. Cinque, Fetzer, Tim Gratz, Miller, the list goes on and on. They think they are neatly disrupting, but most lurkers soon see through them. Patterns emerge. Turns of phrases recur. Outright baiting. Bullying aggression. Starting flame wars. "Pushing buttons" (Josephs). And so on...

The difference with H&L is this. Whereas all the above were acting alone in their disruptive idiocy, the H&L crowd are an organised 'bloc'. When Cinque bangs on about the touched up Lovelady photo, he's acting alone. He's a crazed gunman firing from the hip in full view. H&L represents a more insidious form of disruption, they're organised, with a battle plan and a strategic overview - they even have a 1,000 page guide book to give the trolling some unified focus. This is different to the normal pattern of stifling honest debate. It's cleverer. A lot more work has gone into it. But ultimately, as with Cinque, pull a thread here and a thread there and the whole fabric soon becomes a pile of rags.

The biggest criticism that the H&L crowd have of us non believers is that we obviously do not understand the cunning depths to which the CIA FBI and ONI would go in order to create a conclusion they very much desire. By not agreeing with H&L we simply don't understand the depths to which these people will sink, or the extent of their power and influence to manipulate events in order to achieve their objectives.

Let me turn that in on itself then. Is it in any way possible that this power and influence could meticulously create a highly intriguing 1000 page scenario to run as a 'side show', that doesn't in any way answer the salient questions regarding the assassination but rather acts as a spoiler to divert researchers' attention, either by believing it or having to refute it? Would they ever go that far?

That would be a neat thing to do from the POV of those who still may have lots to lose, wouldn't you think?

Whilst Jim knows all this and just enjoys playing along, David really believes it. Bless.

Jim's attitude if H&L all turns out to be nonsense is "So what?" The only reason I can possibly offer for that answer is the unspoken follow up sentence...

It has achieved its purpose