Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Jim Hargrove]

Thanks, but as my wife will attest to, I'm not God. My "wrath" won't and can't stop you doing anything.

Are you going to have me killed on the Education Forum? You seem to have ALL THE POWER here!!

[Greg Parker]

Thanks, but as my wife will attest to, I'm not God. My "wrath" won't and can't stop you doing anything.

Are you going to have me killed on the Education Forum? You seem to have ALL THE POWER here!!

Really? Was that me who thanked a moderator here for having his back?

IIRC, it was.... that's right. It was David.

Have you killed on the Ed Forum? Even if I could, why would I? You are doing a great job of suicide by a thousand self-inflicted cuts. You don't need help.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim Hargrove wrote:

Yo, Tracy,

You have a recent article up somewhere on Steven Landesberg, which I mentioned to JA, and he asked me to post the following, which is a write-up he did years ago and felt was too long to be included in the 1000+ pages of Harvey and Lee. So he dusted it off, put in a few updates, and asked me to post it here: Sooo... uh... here 'tis....

Let me say that I have an 8600 word article on the subject so there is no need for me to spend much time with this. Lurkers can read the piece Hargrove has posted here and then read my piece and make up their own minds. My article is at:

http://wtracyparnell.com/the-hoaxster-and-the-conspiracy-theorists/

But I will make a few points. First, one has to wonder why Armstrong didn't include all of this information in his book if it is so relevant. A quick search of the H&L PDF shows very little about Landesberg at all. One very good reason is that Armstrong was threatened with possible legal action by the representatives for the actor Steve Landesberg. And let me be clear. There was absolutely no evidence that the actor Landesberg had anything to do with the assassination in any way. And that is the reason Armstrong dropped it like a hot potato. There is absolutely no physical resemblance between the actor and the agitator who was arrested by the FBI. The actor Landesberg had reddish brown hair and the agitator (who was Jewish) had dark brown hair. Anyone can go to my article and see photos of the two men for themselves.

The fact that the actor could do a southern accent proves nothing again as a southern accent is probably the easiest to do. The comment that the actor made that shows his "knowledge" of Oswald was reported second hand to Armstrong by a reporter and was something he remembered from years before. If it even happened it was probably Landesberg just trying to make a joke (he was a comedian after all). But in a situation reminiscent of Mrs. Jack Tippit, Palmer McBride, etc., Armstrong takes one thing and runs with it, creating something out of nothing.

As far as Landesberg the agitator's mental problems, Armstrong, as he has done with so many issues in the past, is misrepresenting the evidence. Landesberg stuttered throughout his childhood and attended speech therapy, Armstrong tries to make it look like this was something that came on suddenly. He was also a loner in school and all of this hinted at later problems. Landesberg dropped out of school and this was the beginning of a downward spiral that culminated in his mental breakdown. After that breakdown he made a statement about being used for a guinea pig and Armstrong tries to insinuate that the military was doing something funny. Landesberg was in full paranoid breakdown and this is the obvious reason behind his statement. Lurkers may read the original eleven page document and see if they believe the story told there is that of a person being persecuted unjustly (for some unstated reason) or that of a very sick individual.

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/4133

Again, there is no need for me to spend much time here as anyone can read my piece and make up their own mind. There is nothing to the story of Stephen H. Landesberg except that he was a mentally ill individual spurred into action by the trauma of the JFK assassination. And Armstrong doesn't have a single piece of evidence to implicate the actor Steve Landesberg in the case as indicated by the fact that he dropped the matter when threatened with possible legal action.

http://wtracyparnell.com/the-hoaxster-and-the-conspiracy-theorists/

Edited June 13, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

As for the handwriting issue, Jim Hargrove points out that document examiners prefer to use original documents instead of copies and that is correct. And not all of the documents the HSCA handwriting experts looked at were originals-but most were. That is why for my article, The Handwriting is on the Wall I focused on six original documents, three of "Lee" and three of "Harvey". And the examiners concluded that the documents were written by the same individual.

Edited June 13, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[David Josephs]

The FBI gave the Warren Commission photographic copies of documents rather than originals, and the HSCA's own expert witnesses explained how copies can be manipulated to "prove" whatever is wanted. Now the question becomes, Would the FBI lie and cheat to prove whatever it wanted? And the answer, then and now, is a resounding yes.

Look at the evidence from this year alone....

"Pseudoscience in the Witness Box: The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science," is the headline from the April 22, 2015 online edition of Slate Magazine.

The same Slate article quoted a Washington Post story of a few days earlier, which stated: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

Things look pretty bad for the FBI recently, but how about in earlier days? Surely they were better then, right?

Of course not.... Remember the Frederick Whitehurst scandal from the 1990s? Whitehurst was one of the Bureau's top scientists, and he complained for more than a decade toward the end of the last century about the FBI's vaunted crime lab faking evidence and slanting it toward the prosecution. According to the Feb. 27, 1998 edition of CNN:

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

For 10 years Whitehurst complained mostly in vain about lab practices. But his efforts finally led last April to a scathing 500-page study of the lab by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.

Bromwich blasted the famed lab for flawed scientific work and inaccurate, pro-prosecution testimony in major cases, including the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings.

Bromwich recommended major reforms, discipline for five agents that is still under consideration and transfer of Whitehurst to other duties.

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

Whitehurst, of course, was pilloried endlessly by defenders of the FBI, eventually resulting in the award of more than a million dollars to Whitehurst as compensation, and a new federal law protecting whistleblowers!

So... for a quarter century and probably more, the FBI has clearly been cooking the evidence to favor the prosecution. But that didn't happen back in the good ole' days, right? Not when J. Edgar was in charge.

William Sullivan (a top-ranking FBI official) said, "Hoover did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence. He showed a marked interest in limiting the scope of it and taking any action which might result in neutralizing it."* He added, "If there were documents that possibly he (Hoover) didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those docu­ments no longer exist, and the truth will never be known."**

NOTES:

* Interview of William Sullivan by Robert Fink, November, 1975; Memo from James P. Kelly to G. Robert Blakey, 11/18/77; HSCA 108-10112-10133, Numbered Files 003406

** Ibid.

For detailed information on how the FBI cooked the books in the case against "Lee Harvey Oswald", CLICK HERE.

None of this, and also Armstrong's article points to actual fabrication/falsification of LHO signature. I really find all this stuff rather manipulative in making people believe something happened when there is zero evidence in place that directly supports what you state..

That page you link to is terrible, and I mean terrible...

there is good reason to believe that FBI Director Hoover learned about the CIA's “Oswald project” show me

For example, LEE Oswald would not have approached Robert McKeown, a former gun-runner and close friend of Fidel Castro, and attempted to purchase rifles from him without orders (probably from the CIA's David Phillips). show me

The orders probably originated with his CIA handlers (David Phillips, Mexico City), and were given to someone with close connections to the FBI, perhaps Guy Bannister in New Orleans show me

HARVEY may have been told that he could help the FBI by starting a local FPCC chapter and recruiting new members, while working for the Bureau as an undercover confidential informant. show me

If Oswald was working undercover for the FBI this could explain why, after arrested in New Orleans, he spoke with FBI agent John Lester Quigley for an hour and a half. show me that BIG IF

Oswald may have thought his assignment as an undercover confidential informant was to identify and report Castro sympathizers to the FBI show me

But the real reason for the CIA to initiate (HARVEY) Oswald's undercover assignment was to have him working for the FBI on November 22, 1963. show me

Hoover knew that HARVEY Oswald was working for the CIA when he “defected” to the Soviet Union. show me

And now, on the day President Kennedy was assassinated, HARVEY Oswald was not only a CIA asset but was also probably working undercover for the FBI. Probably? Show me!

I stopped reading for obvious reasons, you know people read these threads and it is time they understand that H&L is filled to the brim with speculation and conjecture and the whole thing is sexed up.

No offence but you guys are getting pushed further and further in the corner, and it is not a pretty sight.

Bart...

Not sure it is fair to go see one page of thousands related to H&L and make these claims. This is not some neat little box which can be wrapped up for you... this is akin to studying the WCR and finding its conflicts - which is the basis for the H&L book to begin with....

For example, "Showing You" that the Kleins evidence is a fraud takes some undersatanding of the background info...

"The answer was likely because ...." Is how the last sentence from that paragraph begins before you turned on your quotes. "LIKELY" along with words like, "Possibly" "Probably" & "IF" tell people who read them that the following is speculation based on the evidence found and reseach done... that the author, like the Parker Radionics assumptions, are his best explanation for what he is explaining.

So when evidence such as the following surfaces - the assumption one can make after authenticating the evidence is that Oswald was doing work via Bannister for the FBI - where it is then speculated that as a CIA connected asset, his being associated with the FBI would virtually guarantee cooperation from the FBI. Hoover hated the CIA yet still provided them CYA via the evidence related to Mexico... why would he do that if he had a choice?

Bannister's investigator, George Higgenbotham, told Bannister that he saw Oswald and another young man handing out FPCC leaflets in front of the Trade Mart. Bannister replied, “Cool it. One of them is mine.” Bannister told his secretary, Delphine Roberts, “He's with us, he's associated with this office.” Mrs. Roberts said, “I presumed then, and am now certain, that the reason for Oswald being there was that he was required to act undercover.” Oswald's leaf-letting was filmed by an FBI agent with a 35 mm camera. WDSU-TV cameraman Orvie Aucoin, an active FBI informant, filmed Oswald as he passed out leaflets. CIA agent William Gaudet watched Oswald hand out literature from his office in the Trade Mart. If Oswald was working undercover for the FBI this could explain why, after arrested in New Orleans, he spoke with FBI agent John Lester Quigley for an hour and a half.

Can you say with 100% certainty how many bullets hit JFK? JC? How many fired from the front versus the rear? Or can we only speculate based on the evidence available to us...

"The Throat was an entrace wound" then becomes a speculative statement regardless of how crazy the SBT sounds since the evidence for a frontal shot remains speculative... we can try and SHOW YOU why this is true, but there is nothing definitive, nothing which cannot be argued against... it's just an accepted speculative FACT of the case from a Conspiracy Realist's POV... like Oswald being connected to Intel be it Military, CIA or FBI.

Whether you believe Jean Hill or not... her EVIDENCE suggests that shots came from the Knoll... as did the evidence of a large number of witnesses...

WCD298 is the FBI lying about that and all the other evidence related to the shooting while CE884 is the SS doing the same.

So I ask in all sincerety for which of the above statements would you like me to SHOW YOU the supporting evidence ? Pick one and then we can move on...

I think the above related to Bannister gives some indication that Oswald was working with Intel in New Orleans and was representing himself to be one thing while working with those representing another...

At the same time there are multiple sighting os Lee Oswald and Ruby together in Dallas all that summer...

I'll do whatever I can to help people understand were and how H&L was derived and post the evidence which points us in that direction... take it or leave it.

There are those who still believe that the Parkland wounds and Bethesda wounds are the same AND there was a conspiracy... to each their own Bart.

Unlike JVB, John could care less about selling books... H&L is a launching point - if you find it to be supportive of a way to view the events, fine. If not, fine as well...

The only thing I take issue with is the rebuttal posting of speculation without a hint of supporting evidence or outright misrepresentation of the info.

No matter how hard anyone tries, they cannot get 127 days of school into less than a semester when an entire school year is 180-190 days... in the one year in which all these changes and switches are occurring...

Bart, I have a quesation for you

Can you explain how a 5'4" 115lb boy in Sept of 1953 can be this same 4'10" little runt of a boy in a photo from just a month earlier - Aug 1953 - which his brother Pic tells us he cannot ID this boy as his brother?

David this is a very dangerous smoke and mirrors game you are playing here and so does Hargrove, I'd like you to stay on topic and show me what I asked for! And yes it is only one page, but it is very telling of how Armstrong strings things together and manipulates the whole story for his own 'scenario'.

Regarding your photographic evidence, I already mentioned this a month ago. It is worthless.

Drawing a line and putting some numbers next to it doesn't mean it is actually true.

You measure that fence, you tell me what camera/lens that was taken with, and do some heavy duty math and then I might be convinced until then this is just make it up as you go along....

You see Bart, I called the Bronx zoo instead since you can't measure 3d objects in a 2d image without photogrammetry...

Funny thing Bart.. you can't do it yourself so you think criticizing is your only other option...

Talk about worthless... what a child you are that you believe a little bully tactic is going to have an effect... Insult and run Bart, I've read you other "work" if you can call it that...

seems to me if you know I have a body of photographic work you take the time to look... amazingly, I have found nothing of your photographic work... care to point some out which justifies your opinion having any value in the first place?

And his brother....ever considered the thought of how hard the govt got down on him, like they did with Marina?

Now that would be worth exploring instead of leading the many peeps here to believe in fairy tales instead.

"Thoughts" are nice Bart... I deal in Evidence... ever read the Pic testimony? ever do anything without Parker's okay first?

And with that I am done since I do not get the answers I asked for but instead am being led around anywhere near the actual subject matter.

Thank God... another wanna be critic toddles off ... yet you don't ever really go away do you?

You can't help yourself - interjecting your baseless opinions as if they have value while offering and proving nothing...

yes Bart... this is without a doubt your "Best"

Best

B

PS: Among all these veteran researchers (at 49 I am the youngest there!) at the last DPUK meeting Saturday gone, out of 15 people only one subscribed to the H&L theory.

Go figure.

Yet all 15 of them have heard about it... what have you written that anyone cares to comment on? No one seems to gives a 2nd thought to Parker's work enough to discuss it anywhere...

Sure sounds like a bunch of disgruntled little boys whining about being ignored in favor of a presentation they barely understand which seems to garner all sorts of attention, even after all these years...

Let's see how long BK can be "gone" and "done" with this - my experience is they just can't help themselves to comment, yet can't bring themselves to show up with anything more than rhetoric and air...

Let's watch and see, shall we?

[Paul Trejo]

As for the handwriting issue, Jim Hargrove points out that document examiners prefer to use original documents instead of copies and that is correct. And not all of the documents the HSCA handwriting experts looked at were originals-but most were. That is why for my article, The Handwriting is on the Wall I focused on six original documents, three of "Lee" and three of "Harvey". And the examiners concluded that the documents were written by the same individual.

Tracy, I find this very interesting. I'd like to see more linguistic analysis done on Oswald's Russian documents -- most importantly the controversial "Walker Letter" of 10 April 1963, and about Oswald's Russian language letters written in the USSR.

Do you have material about this as well?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

No there isn't. The issue is that those pushing this theory simply don't know how to read the school reports. If you want to run with Robert Oswald and Frank Kudlaty and claim that Oswald attended Stripling you have the right to believe whomever and whatever you want. But Robert's memory was shoddy in other areas, and Kudlaty is compromised as a witness by his undeclared longstanding friendship with a key figure in the development of this story-line.

After the assassination SAC John Malone, the FBI agent in charge of the New York Office, inspected "Oswald's" original court file in the presence of Judge Florence Kelley. Malone took notes and sent a report to FBI Director Hoover the following day. Malone wrote, "Oswald's attendance record at PS #44 from 3/23/53 to 1/12/54 was 171 and 11 half-days present and 18 and 11 half days absent. If LEE Oswald's 182 days of attendance (171 full days, 11 1/2 days) and 18 absences are plotted on 1953 and 1954 calendars it is easy to see that LEE Oswald attended PS 44 full time during the entire 1953 school year.

The Warren Commission also published 1953 Beauregard Junior High Schools records showing that Oswald attended 89 days of school during the fall semester of 1953. Conflicting school records from both New York City and New Orleans are published in the Warren volumes.

Those are not direct quotes from Malone. It is YOUR interpretation - - and it is wrong.

Still waiting to see the actual paperwork you claim to quote here.

I don't believe Malone's math was really that bad.

171 days + 11 HALF days does not = 182. If he had 11 half days at school, it means he also had 11 half days off school. Using your math that would be 11 half days at school + 11 half days absent = 22 schools days. In the world I live in, it equals 11 days.

And you have an accountant saying he favors your maths? Mr Tidd, how long have you been cooking books?

[Greg Parker]

As you notice Greg, your name is nowhere to be seen. No one seems to care enough about what you are doing to even bother discussing it.

"Reminded me of Jim Douglass's book... so pleasantly surprised I could have listened to this stuff all day..."

Len Ocanic after listening to an audio version of 'Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War' during his interview with Jim DiEugenio on Black Op Radio, March 27, 2014

“According to Oliver Lee, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii”

I sent the man a note – be interesting to get his take on you and the use of his work. From which “thesis” does Lee’s work that you use come from – you know, a footnote or document reference so we can see if you are true to your source… like the thousands of footnotes and docs offered by JA.

Ahem. The book does have the citation. It was too difficult for CTKA to include any of them.

South Korea Likely Provoked War with North by Oliver Lee, Star-Bulletin, June 24, 1994.

Since quoting from such a work is considered fair usage, and since I agree with his findings and actually added to them, I'm sure he will be delighted to see his work has been picked up and used.

Any word back yet from Prof. Lee, bud?

[Greg Parker]

Philben was not a real doctor. He was an osteopath. Yes yes, I know. Thanks to a very powerful lobby group, these quacks get to be called "doctor" in the US. But nowhere is in the world is that desperate.

Dr. Patrick Philben was, among other things, chief of staff of Dallas Memorial Hospital.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=24833435

Which proves what?

Certainly not that he performed a tonsillectomy at Parkland Hospital on Lee Harvey Oswald as claimed by Armstrong. Where is that citation for that claim again?

Still waiting for the evidence that Lee's tonsils were taken out at Parkland as claimed By armstrong.

[Greg Parker]

Parker, as usual, expands on any little tidbit he believes he hears and adds his own spin to create "facts" which are nothing of the sort.

You know better than to make allegations like that without providing examples. If you had any, I assume you would have provided them.

Are you now going to tell us the revelations of the ARRB and Doug Horne are not worth the paper they are written on due to the time which passed for the witnesses who spoke out?

If the ARRB and Horne did such a great job, where is the new investigation? Where is the public outcry?

That Kudlaty completely invented being called to his school on a saturday for the FBI? That's up to you Tracy. Are you saying that Robert attended only for those 6 weeks in 1954?

If the FBI wanted to speak to him, it was about Robert.

One of the options you do not mention in your "Another explanation" scenarios is that Kudlaty is telling the truth, which his reputation suggests, versus Parker whose posts and offered supporting documentation here do not support the same conclusion.

What evidence regarding his reputation do we have? The say-so of Jack White that he was impeccably honest? The same Jack White who claimed to be a friend of 50 years standing, only to downgrade Kudlaty to a mere long unseen acquaintance - the same Jack White who allegedly told Armstrong that he never knew Kudlaty at all? And what supporting documentation would you like from me? I have told you repeatedly that schools do not keep historical student records - they are kept by the school district. I have also told you that standard procedure is NOT to take original documents - UNLESS they are questioned documents. When all that is needed is the information on the documents, copies only are taken. That is because the originals belong to the school board and to those former students who are the subject of the documents.

You can go with what others say about the situation or you can read this letter and the Palmer reply and hear it from those who did it.

Palmer McBride can say what he wants. His memory doesn't change the real history, The facts are that there were riots in FW in early September, 1956 due to the implementation of the Brown decision. There were NO riots in 1958. That places the REAL HISTORICAL Oswald in FW in 1956 - not 1958. I have also told you in the past that McBride never mentioned the Sputnik launch to the FBI - why? Because it was still 2 years away! What he mentioned was the success of the Russian space program - and I have provided headlines from 1956 which verify that the Soviets were regarded as successful long before Sputnik.

So how about we stick with FACTS

YES! What a novel idea from your side of the fence! Let's look at this fact. On page 3 of Armstrong's Stripling file, it states clearly at the bottom that historical school records are kept by the district board.

http://reopenkennedy...the-early-years

Quick response which I will expand on later if needed...

......

7. The alleged collection and destruction of evidence is extremely questionable around Armstrong's claims. One example - Stripling. Did you know that the star witness here - Frank Kudlaty - was an old college friend of Jack White and that Jack White was one of the creators of this theory? You won't find that out in "Harvey and Lee" because that relationship is not declared. It only came to light at all because I questioned Kudlaty's story and the late JW sprung to his defense by declaring he had been a friend since college and he could therefore vouch for his honesty. When I told Jack I thought that the relationship should have been declared in the book because it creates a kind of "conflict of interest" situation, JW backtracked at a hundred mile an hour and suddenly changed his story. Kudlaty was now transformed into a mere acquaintance who JW hadn't actually seen in 50 years. So I then asked, if this second story was true, how he could vouch for his honesty? I don't think I ever got a straight answer to that - just abuse.

Since this is only on a forum post, the freedom to say whatever one wants is understood. Like DVP, he can state and defend whatever he likes regardless of the reality of the situation or the number of times he is exposed to the evidence involved.

Does Greg have anything to prove White says all this... or are we simply to believe whatever GP offers ?

What did Greg find out when he asked White what he meant by "Friends since college" - do we get any proof of this?

Did anyone else witness this "back tracking" you claim occurred or is this just your story of what was said between you and someone who cannot now defend himself?

Hmmm. That puzzled me. Armstrong googled "Jack White Frank Kudlaty" and all he found of relevance was a post on my old forum? Well, I just googled the same thing and guess what? In the search results BEFORE my site was... the discussion with White showing what his ORIGINAL claim was AND what he changed it to when challenged on the grounds of conflict of interest. Here it is right here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9297&page=3

Why exactly would Kudlaty (who was superintendent of schools in Waco, TX at the time) risk being caught lying about the FBI's actions knowing it would be in a book with his name and all...? Kudlaty was not a nobody Greg... he was fairly accomplished in his circle. (the FBI never did have him arrested for liable or slander nor was JA ever sued for making false statements)

If the FBI went after everyone who made outlandish claims about them, they wouldn't have time to cover anything up in the first place!

At some point along this line we need to begin separating what GP believes or creates as facts and what the facts of the situation really were.

What "facts" have I created? Be specific.

The truth is, you want the "facts" to be accepted on the evidence provided by a bunch of witnesses who spent X amount of time with Armstrong and team before going before a camera under no threat of cross-examination - let alone perjury. In the only cases I've looked at, 3 of the 4 - Kudlaty, McBride and Darouse - are beaten by historical facts and the testimonies of others. The only one I now give any credence to is Kurian - who I admit I have flip-flopped back and forward on over the years. But even Kurian doesn't help you. The real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald WAS a short kid at the time. You guys are misreading 54" as 64".

Can you deal with the facts outlined here, or are you going to ( a ) change the subject again? ( b ) run off again, or ( c ) start trying to bait me again?

Well boys? Nothing to say?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

As for the handwriting issue, Jim Hargrove points out that document examiners prefer to use original documents instead of copies and that is correct. And not all of the documents the HSCA handwriting experts looked at were originals-but most were. That is why for my article, The Handwriting is on the Wall I focused on six original documents, three of "Lee" and three of "Harvey". And the examiners concluded that the documents were written by the same individual.

Tracy, I find this very interesting. I'd like to see more linguistic analysis done on Oswald's Russian documents -- most importantly the controversial "Walker Letter" of 10 April 1963, and about Oswald's Russian language letters written in the USSR.

Do you have material about this as well?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

No, I have not done any work in this area. One of the handwriting experts even refused to give an opinion on some of the documents in Russian saying he wasn't qualified to comment on those. An interesting idea though.

[Paul Trejo]

As for the handwriting issue, Jim Hargrove points out that document examiners prefer to use original documents instead of copies and that is correct. And not all of the documents the HSCA handwriting experts looked at were originals-but most were. That is why for my article, The Handwriting is on the Wall I focused on six original documents, three of "Lee" and three of "Harvey". And the examiners concluded that the documents were written by the same individual.

Tracy, I find this very interesting. I'd like to see more linguistic analysis done on Oswald's Russian documents -- most importantly the controversial "Walker Letter" of 10 April 1963, and about Oswald's Russian language letters written in the USSR.

Do you have material about this as well?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

No, I have not done any work in this area. One of the handwriting experts even refused to give an opinion on some of the documents in Russian saying he wasn't qualified to comment on those. An interesting idea though.

I ask, Tracy, because Greg Parker has a friend who is a Russian language expert, and he briefly analyzed the Walker Letter, comparing it with Russian language letters that Lee Harvey Oswald wrote while he was in the USSR.

That expert said that there were significantly more grammatical errors in the Walker Letter than in the USSR letters -- which could tend toward a conclusion that the writers were different -- however -- HE ALSO SAID MORE ANALYSIS WAS NECESSARY.

I should say so; this expert didn't show his work -- about the specific errors. IMHO the jury is still out on this, while Greg seems ready to draw a conclusion today, even before more analysis is done.

I maintain, in my non-expert opinion, that the increase in errors in the Walker Letter could be explained by the situation at hand -- Oswald was nervous and in a rush.

But that is only speculation, until we can actually see the actual grammatical errors themselves. Are there repeating patterns?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

I should say so; this expert didn't show his work -- about the specific errors.

Firstly, he never claimed to be an expert - just someone who grew up with the language living in a satellite country and someone with an interest in linguistics. In other words, he had no formal qualifications.

Secondly, he did indeed, give examples. You just need to read the entire thread.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Greg Parker

[W. Tracy Parnell]

It seems Armstrong has been caught in yet another error. On 6/09/15 I received the following from Gary Mack which was also sent to David Lifton:

Gentleman,

Tonight I sent a PM to Jim Hargrove asking about Armstrong's source for writing that WDSU-TV's "Orvie Aucoin" filmed his leafletting in New Orleans.

That's nonsense. WDSU assigned Johann Rush to cover the event that, in advance, looked like it might become a news story. Similarly, WWL-TV assigned their Mike O'Connor to do the same thing (WDSU was the NBC affiliate, WWL was CBS). The ABC affiliate, WVUE-TV, which was Aucoin's employer, ignored the event.

If either of you knows otherwise, please let me know. I know Rush and he's explained for years that Oswald tipped off WDSU in advance by calling the news room the day before and telling them what he'd be doing and where. Ha! He was his own PR firm?

[Greg Parker]

It seems Armstrong has been caught in yet another error. On 6/09/15 I received the following from Gary Mack which was also sent to David Lifton:

Gentleman,

Tonight I sent a PM to Jim Hargrove asking about Armstrong's source for writing that WDSU-TV's "Orvie Aucoin" filmed his leafletting in New Orleans.

That's nonsense. WDSU assigned Johann Rush to cover the event that, in advance, looked like it might become a news story. Similarly, WWL-TV assigned their Mike O'Connor to do the same thing (WDSU was the NBC affiliate, WWL was CBS). The ABC affiliate, WVUE-TV, which was Aucoin's employer, ignored the event.

If either of you knows otherwise, please let me know. I know Rush and he's explained for years that Oswald tipped off WDSU in advance by calling the news room the day before and telling them what he'd be doing and where. Ha! He was his own PR firm?

With all due respect, Tracy - if that was a lie and not an inadvertent error, it's an innocuous one since it does nothing to advance the theory.

I would much rather get an explanation for lies that did advance the theory.

Let's start with White's lies about his relationship with Kudlaty.

Did he not know Kudlaty at all, as Armstrong claims White told him?

Or did White have a 50+ year old friendship with Kudlaty?

Or did White know Kudlaty as an acquaintance at college and not see him again for 50+ years?

Both of the latter stories being given to me a few years ago on this forum by White.

After that's answered, I'd like to return to the dishonest use of the Frankenstein image because the explanations thus far have been less than adequate.