Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

The errors in the Walker letter are far more fundamental than grammatical. It's bad grammar to say, "I ain't going to do no such thing." But at least the person who says this has a decent grasp of English word order and meaning.

The errors running through the Walker letter are analogous to this: "I will not go do no thing such as that thing." Errors that don't so much reflect poor spelling as poor grasp of the language.

In addition, some of the cyrillic characters are mal-formed.

Furthermore, the translation of the Walker note is smooth and clean, giving no indication of how jagged the writing is.

[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?

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.

Greg,

I probably should have set it up a little better. On page 575 of Harvey & Lee Armstrong says:

"It is worth remembering and repeating that everyone associated with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee leafletting incident on August 9th and 16th, and Oswald’s radio interviews of August 17th and 21st, were connected to intelligence agencies-everyone including Oswald."

In support of this statement he has a list of people he says are connected to intelligence agencies. Aucoin appears on the list as the cameraman for the leafleting incident. So while this is probably not advancing the theory as a whole it is an example of Armstrong using bogus information to make a point.

I agree with you though that I would like some answers to the points you made.

[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.

Greg,

I probably should have set it up a little better. On page 575 of Harvey & Lee Armstrong says:

"It is worth remembering and repeating that everyone associated with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee leafletting incident on August 9th and 16th, and Oswald’s radio interviews of August 17th and 21st, were connected to intelligence agencies-everyone including Oswald."

In support of this statement he has a list of people he says are connected to intelligence agencies. Aucoin appears on the list as the cameraman for the leafleting incident. So while this is probably not advancing the theory as a whole it is an example of Armstrong using bogus information to make a point.

I agree with you though that I would like some answers to the points you made.

Thanks for the clarification, Tracy.

Johann himself may have had some intelligence connections. But even if he did, I'm not sure it would necessarily mean anything.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Greg Parker

[David Josephs]

I have to say, you've all made some very valid points about a few of the thousands of bits of info contained in the work...

Little of which having to do with the evidence of duplicity... but good examples of the perils of writing a 1000 page book from 100,000 pages of research on your own.

I am sure you will find many more inconsistencies and a license to conclude from his POV working with the evidence so closely.. at least you;re reading it and looking stuff up... the entire point of the book in the first place... so even when you're "winning", we're all winning by separating fact from fiction...

Let us know how you fare with the important stuff...

Prove Allen Felde, the correct Felde, is wrong about his timeline CE1962 compared to CE1961

(As you go thru the book, write down two lists, the marines with LEE and those with HARVEY... see where that takes you.)

Who visits McKeown to buy rifles?

Who visits Odio?

Who does Anna Lewis meet in Feb 1962 in New Orleans?

Who is having a scope mounted

Who is at the Sports Drome while in Irving with his family?

Who does Craig see?

How is Oswald in Dallas and New Orleans during the summer of 1963 simultaneously?

Who did they take out the back of the theater?

Why are his years at Pfisterer's and a potential conflict with the "official record" a problem at all...the first week after the assassination?

I know... inconvenient but much more important to the H&L issue than than the name of a cameraman... and whether 92% or 99% of those there were connected to intelligence.. they were ALL connected and it was ALL staged... IMo had nothing to do with anything but building street cred for Harvey to get closer or deeper with Cuban groups. Instead he was played.

Whatever... point is it would sincerely be great to see a rebuttal to something that matters to the H&L issue...

[Larry Hancock]

With a focus on actual events related to Dallas I'd love to see you guys jointly do a dialog on a subset of David's questions:

Who visits McKeown to buy rifles?

Who visits Odio?

Who is having a scope mounted?

Who is at the Sports Dome while in Irving with his family?

Who did they take out the back of the theater?

......I would also add Who was at Red Bird air field with the young couple talking about renting an airplane?

Not saying that any of those can't be challenged or are simply mis-identification but I'd like so see your thoughts on each of them.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

David Josephs said:

but good examples of the perils of writing a 1000 page book from 100,000 pages of research on your own.

While I'm thinking of it, the 100,000 pages of research are not really anywhere near that figure. In my research for the Landesberg piece, I noticed that there are copies of nearly everything in Armstrong's archive and in some cases there are three or four copies. So I would guess it is more like 35-40,000 documents. Still a great deal of material for sure and Armstrong is to be commended for providing it.

[Greg Parker]

(As you go thru the book, write down two lists, the marines with LEE and those with HARVEY... see where that takes you.)

If you start with the presumption that there is a "Harvey", it is no surprise that you will find one. It is the same logical fallacy you employ over and over again.

How about you sort that out in your own head, and then start your own investigation with no such presumptions. Instead, look for alternatives to your conundrums. If you can positively rule out all other alternatives in each case, you're on your way to a possible real live "Harvey". But here's a clue. Blanket or cover-all statements that the FBI covers up stuff and changes documents cannot be allowed without specific evidence supporting each contention. Same goes for accusations that the FBI put perfectly sane witnesses into mental asylums and murdered them. Allowable only if there is specific evidence in specific cases.

New found witnesses cannot be counted where contemporaneous accounts tell a different story and there is no valid reason OTHER than the new witness to discount the old witness/es.

Old friends of those close to the Armstrong investigation cannot be used where there has been no disclosure of said friendship.

Photos that are represented as being of two different people need to be verified as such by external experts (i.e. not Jack White or any other "expert' already with a dog in this fight)

School records need to be explained by someone actually familiar with the school systems involved. Let those chips fall where they may.

Do all of that and see where it takes you...

Edited June 15, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Jim Hargrove]

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/

On the contrary, John would have welcomed legal action from the actor Landesberg. This would have provided the opportunity, through legal discovery and depositions, to learn more about Landesberg and his background. This case is way more interesting than you make it appear. Let's just consider the basics:

As a child growing up Landesberg (the agitator) was normal, except for a speech impediment. He was on the Dean's honor roll at Rutgers University, earned an MBA from Columbia, and became a successful businessman. It was 5 days after he joined the Marine Corps that his troubles first began, after refusing to sign a statement that he had read and understood the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When interviewed by psychiatrists he was very apprehensive, said he did not use drugs, did not believe in drugs, and didn't want to be used as a guinea pig. He was sent to mental institution for 6 months, and later discharged for a physical (not mental) disability. After his incarceration Landesberg, according to statements made to the FBI, was paid to participate and disrupt liberal rallies in the NYC area.

Within ten hours of Oswald's arrest, Landesberg (using the name "Rizzuto") contacted radio host Barry Gray and was invited to the studio for an interview. He told Gray that in 1961-62 “Lee Harvey Oswald" attended and photographed disruptions at these liberal rallies (while another Oswald was in Russia). It is important to remember that Gray gave no indication that the man he knew as "Rizzuto" in 1963 was the same individual who identified himself as "L'Eandes" when interviewed by Gray in 1961.

When interviewed by the FBI, Landesberg told the agents that he was a paid agitator and that someone else gave him the information about Oswald. There is no indication these agents asked Landesberg anything about his knowledge or involvement with Oswald in 1961-62. Nor did they ask Landesberg who paid him to disrupt rallies. Nor did they ask Landesberg who paid him to provide information about Oswald in NYC in 1961-62. Nor did they contact Thunderbolt Magazine to identify the individual who provided one or more photos taken at liberal rallies in NYC (allegedly Oswald, circa 1961-62). Instead, the Bureau charged Landesberg with lying to Federal agents and had him committed to Bellevue Hospital for a 10 day psychiatiric observation. All charges against Landesberg were later dropped and there was no investigation to determine if Oswald had been in NYC in 1961-62.

John Armstrong thought the US District Court file might have additional information on Landesberg, so he traveled to 40 Foley Square in NYC to examine Court records (USA vs. Stephen Harris Landesberg). Rosemarie Fugnetti, supervisor of the court's Records Control Division, discovered that both the original paper file and the microfilm record of the case had disappeared. She was unaware of another time when both sets of records for a single case had disappeared.

John's interest in Steve Landesberg, the actor, began only after talking with well-known Dallas newspaper reporter Earl Golz in the mid-1990s. Golz said that he had watched a television interview with Landesberg, and the actor said that he was “sorry he ever got mixed up with Oswald.” Yes, the information provided by Golz to John is second hand, as is every article written by Golz and published in Dallas newspapers. There was no indication that the actor's comment was made in jest and there has been no retraction made either publicly or privately.

John drew no conclusions as to either the actor or the agitator's involvement with Oswald in 1961-62. However, the fact that SOMEONE was publicly disclosing information about Oswald (in 1961-62) within hours of the assassination is difficult to explain and deserves more research. Should future researchers have an interest in the "Landesberg" story, John's material at Baylor is a good starting point.

[Paul Trejo]

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.

I did read the entire thread, Greg; thanks for sharing it.

Certainly your Russian language friend is qualified, if only informally. I once studied under a professor of linguistics who said that a person who grows up with a language from infancy will normally have a greater command of that language than any foreigner studying the same language later in life, even a PhD. So, growing up with the Russian language is qualification, all by itself.

Also, your friend is a very careful thinker, who insisted at the end of his analysis that much more analysis was needed. He was clearly right.

You say he provided examples -- largely a count of how many errors -- not the kind I have in mind.

If the Walker Letter is really in question, then a thorough linguistic analysis should be done. This involves: (1) a transliteration of the documents in question; (2) a specific identification of every grammatical or linguistic error; and (3) a systematic comparison of the writing styles and the specific errors from document to document.

No reliable conclusion can be drawn from that thread as it currently stands, even in the opinion of the author himself -- more work needs to be done.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

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?

John did NOT make an error in his write-up, but this minutia about camermen and witnesses is minor stuff. What is in error here, is to focus on unimportant little details while ignoring the enormous elephant in the room here. When shown one of the photographs taken of "Oswald" while distributing FPCC literature, here is what "Oswald's" own half brother told the Warren Commission:

Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him.

Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother?

Mr. PIC - That is correct.

Jenner then switches topics. Isn't Jenner's lack of interest in this information remarkable?? Why don't you talk about that?

[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?

John did NOT make an error in his write-up, but this minutia about camermen and witnesses is minor stuff. What is in error here, is to focus on unimportant little details while ignoring the enormous elephant in the room here. When shown one of the photographs taken of "Oswald" while distributing FPCC literature, here is what "Oswald's" own half brother told the Warren Commission:

Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him.

Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother?

Mr. PIC - That is correct.

Jenner then switches topics. Isn't Jenner's lack of interest in this information remarkable?? Why don't you talk about that?

How is this not an error? Maybe Armstrong's definition of "error" is different than mine-that would explain alot. In an attempt to tie the cameraman at the leafleting incident to the FBI or CIA he states Aucoin was the cameraman when he wasn't-Rush and Mike O'Connor were. Aucoin didn't even work for WDSU. And talk about switching topics, that is what is going on here-what does Pic have to do with this? Aucoin was not the cameraman, that is my point or rather Gary's point.

Edited June 15, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim Hargrove said:

On the contrary, John would have welcomed legal action from the actor Landesberg. This would have provided the opportunity, through legal discovery and depositions, to learn more about Landesberg and his background.

Then why, when told to drop the matter by Landesberg's head of security, did he immediately do so? If he would have "welcomed" legal action there was his opportunity to have it. Landesberg was simply a private person who preferred to keep his personal life to himself. But, in fact, he intimated what he was doing in the years before he made it big-working as a credit clerk. No mystery here at all, except to John Armstrong.

As a child growing up Landesberg (the agitator) was normal, except for a speech impediment. He was on the Dean's honor roll at Rutgers University, earned an MBA from Columbia, and became a successful businessman. It was 5 days after he joined the Marine Corps that his troubles first began...

One again, Armstrong and his followers are misrepresenting the actual situation-your chronology is off. He may indeed have eventually become a successful businessman, but after dropping out of Rutgers he started bumming around the country and lost 25 pounds. His family was very concerned for his well being during this time. He eventually returned home and joined the Marines which triggered his full mental breakdown. He was sent to the Provost Marshal after exhibiting "bizarre and unusual behavior. He then described a history of “aberrant sexual behavior” and his attitude was so “unusual” that he was remanded to the psychiatric unit.

From my article:

While under observation at the psychiatric ward, Landesberg behaved in a “belligerent demanding manner” and, after yelling at staff, was sedated with Thorazine and placed in a quiet room. He did not react favorably to this change of circumstances and became “more loosened in his associations and far more suspicious.” He then began to threaten the examining physician and stated that he would “demand to see the Commandant of the Marine Corps because his rights had been violated.” The admission diagnosis was confirmed as “Schizophrenic Reaction N.E.C # 3007, manifested by loosened associations, tangential and concrete thought processes, paranoid ideation, grandiose ideation and a long history of nomadic wandering and poor interpersonal relationships.”

In other words, he had a full schizophrenic mental breakdown. When you have one of those, you are paranoid and suspicious of everything. That was the reason for his behavior, not the fact that the Marines were trying to do something nefarious to him.

He was sent to mental institution for 6 months, and later discharged for a physical (not mental) disability.

At the time, Schizophrenic Reaction N.E.C # 3007 was technically classified as a physical disability. If anyone has any doubt about his mental condition being the reason for his discharge, they can read the eleven page document here:

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

After his incarceration Landesberg, according to statements made to the FBI, was paid to participate and disrupt liberal rallies in the NYC area.

But the statements you refer to were made by Landesberg himself posing as Rizzuto. There is no other evidence for any of his story including that a man name Regan paid him or that Regan even existed. Indeed, the entirety of the evidence of Oswald in NYC in 61&62 comes from Landesberg's statement.

Within ten hours of Oswald's arrest, Landesberg (using the name "Rizzuto") contacted radio host Barry Gray and was invited to the studio for an interview. He told Gray that in 1961-62 “Lee Harvey Oswald" attended and photographed disruptions at these liberal rallies (while another Oswald was in Russia). It is important to remember that Gray gave no indication that the man he knew as "Rizzuto" in 1963 was the same individual who identified himself as "L'Eandes" when interviewed by Gray in 1961.

Armstrong assumes the interview was at the studio, but I can find nothing to confirm that or that Gray was present. Why would he be? I don't think the FBI is in the habit of letting radio show hosts sit in on interviews. In fact, I saw one document that stated Landesberg went to the FBI office for the interview. But for the sake of argument, lets say Gray saw "Rizzuto". It is likely, and I can find nothing to the contrary, that Landesberg (posing as L'Eandes) called in to the studio when he spoke to Gray in 1961 so he wouldn't know what he looked like in any case.

When interviewed by the FBI, Landesberg told the agents that he was a paid agitator and that someone else gave him the information about Oswald. There is no indication these agents asked Landesberg anything about his knowledge or involvement with Oswald in 1961-62. Nor did they ask Landesberg who paid him to disrupt rallies.

The reason Landesberg said someone else gave him the information is not too tough to figure out. At some point he realized he was going to be in trouble so he was trying to pass the buck. The agents didn't ask about Oswald because they knew it never happened. They, like most reasonable people, knew there was only one Oswald and he was not in NYC at the time. And Landesberg had already stated that it was "Regan" who paid him so the FBI didn't need to ask. Funny thing the FBI couldn't find any Regan. That is because Regan and Earl Perry existed only in the mind of Landesberg.

Nor did they contact Thunderbolt Magazine to identify the individual who provided one or more photos taken at liberal rallies in NYC (allegedly Oswald, circa 1961-62).

100 per cent false. The FBI contacted the magazine and could find no such photo.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62289&relPageId=33&search=thunderbolt

The most powerful evidence (other than Oswald was in Russia) that Oswald or Earl Perry were not at the rallies is provided by the Village Voice articles. The Voice covered political rallies very closely and were very familiar with Landesberg (posing as L"Eandes). Lurkers can find the various articles they wrote online (some are in my endnotes). They described Landesberg's antics in detail and although they mentioned a girl who seemed to be working with him at one point, they never mentioned anyone taking pictures. It defies belief when one reads their detailed reporting that they would have neglected to mention a cameraman or anyone else assisting Landesberg. By the way, Armstrong cites the Village Voice as a source for his assertion that Oswald was taking photos at a rally. When you go to the article there is nothing about Oswald, of course, or even about anyone taking photos.

Instead, the Bureau charged Landesberg with lying to Federal agents and had him committed to Bellevue Hospital for a 10 day psychiatiric observation. All charges against Landesberg were later dropped and there was no investigation to determine if Oswald had been in NYC in 1961-62.

They charged him with lying because that is what he did. He was sent to Bellevue when his previous mental trouble became known. The charges were probably dropped because of his condition. There was no investigation for obvious reasons-obvious to everyone but John Armstrong that is.

John Armstrong thought the US District Court file might have additional information on Landesberg, so he traveled to 40 Foley Square in NYC to examine Court records (USA vs. Stephen Harris Landesberg). Rosemarie Fugnetti, supervisor of the court's Records Control Division, discovered that both the original paper file and the microfilm record of the case had disappeared. She was unaware of another time when both sets of records for a single case had disappeared.

From my article:

I can think of a few reasons why the records were allegedly not there. They could have been misplaced or routinely or accidentally destroyed. Perhaps Ms. Fugnetti didn’t want to bother finding them, especially if she became aware of the nature of Armstrong’s interest. Of course, Armstrong hopes that the reader will draw the most sinister meaning possible from his allegation that the records are missing. What shocking truth might be in the records that would cause the government to hide or destroy them he doesn’t say.

John's interest in Steve Landesberg, the actor, began only after talking with well-known Dallas newspaper reporter Earl Golz in the mid-1990s. Golz said that he had watched a television interview with Landesberg, and the actor said that he was “sorry he ever got mixed up with Oswald.” Yes, the information provided by Golz to John is second hand, as is every article written by Golz and published in Dallas newspapers. There was no indication that the actor's comment was made in jest and there has been no retraction made either publicly or privately.

This is all covered in my article. Armstrong did the same thing in this case that he did with Mrs. Jack Tippit, Palmer McBride and Aline Mosby. He takes one small thing and makes it into a federal case. Does Armstrong have any confirmation of the actor Landesberg's alleged comment such as a video clip? No. Does he know the context the alleged remark was made in? No. As far as a retraction-for what? A statement that has no proof of having ever been made?

John drew no conclusions as to either the actor or the agitator's involvement with Oswald in 1961-62. However, the fact that SOMEONE was publicly disclosing information about Oswald (in 1961-62) within hours of the assassination is difficult to explain and deserves more research. Should future researchers have an interest in the "Landesberg" story, John's material at Baylor is a good starting point.

No conclusion, just a bunch of rhetorical questions. The someone was Landesberg and he was "disclosing information" that was a blend of publicly available information about Oswald, kernels of truth from his own experiences (he was in the Marines, he may have known an Earl Perry) and complete fabrications. Should anyone have an interest in Landesberg, a better starting point is my 8600 word article that took me two months to write. Even though the Landesberg case is a very confusing one (partly because of the aliases used by Landesberg) and my article is lengthy, I urge researchers to take the time to look at my article. The Landesberg case is a microcosm of what is wrong with John Armstrong's research methods and conclusions.

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

[Paul Trejo]

...When shown one of the photographs taken of "Oswald" while distributing FPCC literature, here is what "Oswald's" own half brother told the Warren Commission:

Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet?

Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him.

Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother?

Mr. PIC - That is correct.

Jenner then switches topics. Isn't Jenner's lack of interest in this information remarkable?? Why don't you talk about that?

There are just too many simple explanations why Mr. Pic didn't recognize his half-brother, Lee Harvey Oswald, in that photograph:

(1) The photograph was poor in quality

(2) Oswald's half-brother had not seen him for many years

(3) Oswald's behavior (Communist leafleting) was incomprehensible to Mr. Pic. As when any close person's behavior changes, we commonly say, "I don't recognize you anymore."

Jenner's question wasn't clear about the word, "recognize;" whether regarding facial features as shown in a given (poor) photograph, or regarding behavioral features as shown in Un-American behavior in 1963.

Mr. Pic's answer was equally brief and non-descript -- showing his grasp of the question and the situation at hand.

For Mr. Pic, IMHO, the elephant in the room was that his brothers were all in the Marines -- and here is one of them in New Orleans behaving likes a Communist FPCC agitator, and also being blamed for the murder of JFK.

No wonder Mr. Pic didn't "recognize" him.

The framing of Lee Harvey Oswald as the "Lone Nut" killer of JFK was enforced by the FBI, the CIA, the State Department and the Justice Department, and finally the whole US Judiciary, Executive and Legislature.

The stigma of this Big Lie upon the Oswald family -- especially Oswald's two daughters, June and Audrey -- was overwhelming.

After the Top Secret TRUTH about Lee Harvey Oswald is finally published by the US Government on 26 October 2017, and it becomes clear that Oswald was merely a Patsy in a larger Conspiracy, I propose that the US Government also award June and Audrey two well-deserved Congressional Medals, because of the lifelong stigma that they wore for the USA in the interest of National Security.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

(As you go thru the book, write down two lists, the marines with LEE and those with HARVEY... see where that takes you.)

If you start with the presumption that there is a "Harvey", it is no surprise that you will find one. It is the same logical fallacy you employ over and over again.

How about you sort that out in your own head, and then start your own investigation with no such presumptions. Instead, look for alternatives to your conundrums. If you can positively rule out all other alternatives in each case, you're on your way to a possible real live "Harvey". But here's a clue. Blanket or cover-all statements that the FBI covers up stuff and changes documents cannot be allowed without specific evidence supporting each contention. Same goes for accusations that the FBI put perfectly sane witnesses into mental asylums and murdered them. Allowable only if there is specific evidence in specific cases.

New found witnesses cannot be counted where contemporaneous accounts tell a different story and there is no valid reason OTHER than the new witness to discount the old witness/es.

Old friends of those close to the Armstrong investigation cannot be used where there has been no disclosure of said friendship.

Photos that are represented as being of two different people need to be verified as such by external experts (i.e. not Jack White or any other "expert' already with a dog in this fight)

School records need to be explained by someone actually familiar with the school systems involved. Let those chips fall where they may.

Do all of that and see where it takes you...

I've done all that Greg... and placed it on a spreadsheet side-by-side to illustrate these conflicts...

You can hold onto whatever little tidbits of info you think discredits the work you like, mate. First you explain the NYC school records incorrectly a few times THEN you suggest we talk to an expert.

The 55 days of summer are counted to reach the 200 day total... Ozzie did not attend summer school, nor does the record account for Youth House... as you freely admit.

Not hard from there Greg...

You want to believe that you know more about the Kudlaty-White relationship than is offered... great! How does that change his account of what happened or what he saw and what proof do you offer that they actually knew each other other than your word about a discussion with a man who cant refute you? or how it changes the witnesses who saw Oswald at 2220 Thomas during that time period? or why the FBI refused to ask a single witness from BJHS about the 53-54 school year, only the following one?

Finally - and a big thank you to Larry - how about focusing on the meat and potatos of the issue...

Was Anna Lewis lying when she met Oswald in Feb 1962?

Where was Harvey when the FBI/CIA/State/I&NS make up the fraudulent evidence for the Mexico trip?

Who is the Alice TX radio station job hunting Oswald?

How many people does it take to have seen Ruby and Oswald together in the summer of 1963 while he and his family are in New Orleans?

Here's another interesting tidbit from the Robert Oswald file:

On Sept 14, 1953 (the day thru which you and the FBI can't understand is not 200 school days from March 23) Robert tells us where Oswald is going to school after they have moved to 825 E 179th Street in the Bronx.

PS 44 in the Bronx (the "x" in the school records youposted Greg) is located at 1845 Prospect in the Bronx

PS 44 on Columbus and 76th street is in Manhattan.

Hmmm. TWO different PS 44's being referred to as the school Oswald went to in NYC... hmmmm

So what does Carro #1 tell us?

on page 317 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0168a.htm

Carro let's us know that on Sept 1953 when Lee Oswald would be entering 8th grade at PS44 in the Bronx, he is actually entering 9th grade at PS44 - in Manhattan or the Bronx I wonder....?

Help us out here Greg... what's with all the conflicts between the correct schools, # of days, grade level, etc.... in 1952-3 he was supposedly just another kid... yet a "veteran PO" doesn't know what grade he's in?

His brother doesn't know which school he is attending while writing a book with the time to check these little facts out...

THIS is the crux of the H&L creation... 1952 and 53 in NYC and then the return to New Orleans. THIS is where the early records are most confused and very conflicting... and they continue this way from then on... John Pic chooses the correct Lee up to NYC and then the photos conflict for him

What are your alternative circumstances for these conflicts? Does Asperger's account for the incorrect school records and Carro's 9th grade statement too?

The map at the bottom lays out where all these places are and their relation to each other...

Enjoy!

This comes less than a month or so after Robert's photo of Oswald at the Zoo - which compares terribly to the actual physical attributes of Lee at 5'4" 115lbs...

These are obviously two different children - who and where LEE was living when attending PS 44 in Manhattan is unknown at this point. Neither mentions 9th grade while Carro, whose job it is to know, places him in 9th grade, skipping an entire year and fairly obvious is he has any of the school records...

[David Andrews]

As I posted in a thread prior to 2009, I personally witnessed a story in the Village Voice, sometime between 1980 and 1983, that associated the actor Steve (R.) Landesberg with the activities ascribed to Stephen H. Landesberg / L'Eandes. So this topic has had some coverage in what was, by the early 1980s, a mainstream newspaper; and it predates John Armstrong's 1993 letter to the actor by a decade or more, and also Armstrong's meeting with the broadcaster Golz.

My recollection was that the Voice story was written by a regular columnist to that paper and appeared in its front pages, where regular columns routinely appeared. I cannot vouch for the contents of the story, but they were substantially similar to the L'Eandes history in Parnell's article.

Interested parties with access to a Voice index for those years may be able to track this coverage down. I cannot promise how much satisfaction it will bring. But it happened.