Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Paul Trejo]

According to the Education Forum....

Harvey and Lee are

PUBLIC ENEMY # 1

Click HERE to read the Ed Forum's version of the CRIMES OF H&L

Well, Jim, your link to your "Harvey and Lee" home page contains this blurb:

"In 1978 former CIA accountant James B. Wilcott swore under oath before the House Select Committee on Assassinations that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "regular employee" of the Central Intelligence Agency, and that Oswald received "a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work." (Hargrove)

Yet that statement is inaccurate. Actually, in the HSCA testimony of James Wilcott, who worked in the accounting department of the CIA from 1957-1966, all he says is that he heard RUMORS inside the CIA that Oswald was a CIA Agent.

Rumors, dude. That's all Wilcott would swear to.

Also, regarding the "money" that Wilcott paid out, it was to a CIA Case officer, who told Wilcott "two or three months after the assassination" that the money he had been withdrawing for "the last couple of weeks ago or so," was "either for the Oswald project or for Oswald."

So, there was no talk of CIA money going to Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 or 1963 -- this was money going to some Case Officer (Wilcott couldn't remember his name) "months" after the JFK murder, i.e. in 1964, when Lee Harvey Oswald was long dead.

And since Wilcott was openly spreading these rumors he heard at the CIA, it's even odds that this "Case Officer" was merely teasing Wilcott for a laugh.

So, Jim, one of your leading blurbs is misleading. Doesn't that bother you?

By the way, I don't regard the H&L doctrine to be "Public Enemy #1" because, after all, it's only the latest variation on one of the oldest JFK theories; that the CIA-did-it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - I object!! Harvey and Lee is no variant of the CIA did it theory. That is just you trying to browbeat the world into thinking that there is no way in hell the CIA, or any of its top operatives, had anything to do with the assassination. It's your way of saying that the CIA did it theory is just as unlikely as the H & L theory. Many top researchers over decades disagree with you, and they were mainstream investigators, unlike Armstrong.

Can't you stop conflating this really weird debate about H &L into your own pet theory for one post?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - I object!! Harvey and Lee is no variant of the CIA did it theory. That is just you trying to browbeat the world into thinking that there is no way in hell the CIA, or any of its top operatives, had anything to do with the assassination. It's your way of saying that the CIA did it theory is just as unlikely as the H & L theory. Many top researchers over decades disagree with you, and they were mainstream investigators, unlike Armstrong.

Can't you stop conflating this really weird debate about H &L into your own pet theory for one post?

Well, Paul B., I must note here that the "top JFK researchers" in the past 50 years have failed to solve the JFK murder -- and as you note, most of them hold to some variant of the CIA-did-it theory.

It's time, finally, to admit that the CIA-did-it theory is almost as silly as the H&L theory.

Yes, two CIA Officers did confess -- David Morales and Howard Hunt. (A few others are suspect, e.g. David Atlee Phillips and William Harvey, but they have alibis.)

Still, Bill Simpich's 2014 book, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, is ample evidence that the CIA high-command had no clue about the JFK plot. Brilliant work by Simpich.

In fact, several Non-CIA people confessed to some role in the JFK murder, and I take them at their word. They include: Frank Sturgis, Jack S. Martin, David Ferrie, Tom Beckham, Johnny Martino, Johnny Roselli, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Harry Dean, Roscoe White (via his son) and Lee Harvey Owald (I'm a Patsy!).

Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen tried to palm these guys off as CIA "assets," and that was their main error -- that was the reason they could never crack the JFK murder case.

All these guys were actually CIA "groupies," and the CIA could never control these wild cards. It is precisely because they were wild cards that they killed JFK in their own cabal.

All the CIA-did-it theories are now fit for the trash-can of history. All of them, including H&L. After 2017 I predict we will hear no more about them.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 19, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

Steve Gaal wrote:

this post unaddressed by ANTI H & L side

Speaking of unaddressed issues, when is the H&L team going to address the 1981 exhumation? Oswald or "Harvey" according to H&L was dug up and he had a mastoid operation that he wasn't supposed to have. Also, in Russia "Harvey" was examined by doctors and again he had the mastoid scar that wasn't supposed to be there (CE 985). Armstrong just ignores this in H&L.

Paul Groody had a theory about what happened. For years, I didn't realize this-I just thought Groody was playing devil's advocate and saying something was not right. Then I listened to his 2006 appearance of Coast to Coast and it turns out he thought the head only was switched prior to the exhumation. Now Groody was always adamant that the body was the one he buried in 1963 as he recognized the clothes, rings and even the viscera bag which contained the internal organs. But he believed the body was that of a double (who had been shot by Ruby) and had been dug up (even though he said in 1963 it would be almost impossible to do that) at some point and the real Oswald's head (which was somehow readily available) was somehow reattached to the double's body. This explained, in Groody's mind, the fact that he didn't see the craniotomy incision on the skull (even though photos show it and witnesses remember it), rather than his own mistaken memory. This is all detailed here:

http://wtracyparnell.com/paul-groodys-theory/

But the question is how does the H&L team explain the exhumation? Do they think "Harvey" was dug up and "Lee's" head attached to "Harvey's" body? And how was this accomplished? That would also get rid of "Lee" although Armstrong has always said he could still be alive. But what of CD 985? A head switch wouldn't explain that. Do they agree with Jack White who said on the JFK Research forum there were multiple "Harveys"?

These issues need to be addressed as they kill H&L as it stands today.

A simple request then Tracy... as you seem to be very close to this issue and most knowledgeable about it

Please provide a timeline of activites between burial and exhumation that takes an intact and sealed casket and produces what we see when dug up...

If the casket was still sealed and complete there would be less of a question... but from what I remember it wasn't. In fact is was only damaged above the man's head area... hmmmm.

Are we to believe the coicidence of "natural causes" destroyed that casket and that the question of craniotomies and a detached spinal column or not...

I've read your work on the subject http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/lhox2.htm

In 2002 Groody appeared in a documentary entitled Infamous Grave Sites on the Travel Channel to discuss his allegations. In Groody’s first quote he states, “Who was this man? I don’t know and like I’ve always said, I don’t care-none of my business, I only buried the guy.” Groody stayed with his basic story even when confronted with photos of the head, “That head that was now on that body was not the head that I embalmed. I know that the body had not been changed, because I recognized various things about the body that I had done.” But Groody seemed to offer no explanation for how a head switch could have occurred. When asked if a conspirator could have been disguised as a policeman or security guard he unequivocally stated, “No sir, no possible way that could have been done because all the security was around it and there was no way that anybody could carry a head in a sack or anything and do a head change at that time.”

In the same vein as Dulles claiming that we MUST have an explanation for what actually happened to be able to refute the WCR, Tracy here suggests that because Groody does not know how it happened, he is somehow wrong about the head. That is was not possible that by inserting something about cutting mummified tissue completely negates the possibility that THAT was the lie and not that the head was already detached...

Hard to tell from here - and just because they cut between vertibrea didn't mean they had to... or that the head was actually still attached...

[W. Tracy Parnell]

David,

Before I address your comments, let me clear up one thing. You are not saying that this still is in any way from the video tape of the LHO exhumation are you? This is merely included as an example of an exhumation. I ask because the caption says "Lee open coffin".

[Greg Parker]

David,

Before I address your comments, let me clear up one thing. You are not saying that this still is in any way from the video tape of the LHO exhumation are you? This is merely included as an example of an exhumation. I ask because the caption says "Lee open coffin".

ROFL!!!!

[David Josephs]

David,

Before I address your comments, let me clear up one thing. You are not saying that this still is in any way from the video tape of the LHO exhumation are you? This is merely included as an example of an exhumation. I ask because the caption says "Lee open coffin".

Most assuredly not Tracy... are you aware of any photos or films showing the contents as they were discovered in the casket or the head during autopsy?

I am reading the Norton report and doing some due diliogence so I can discuss this with some level of knowledge... give me a little time

DJ

Parker... We understand you are still trying to find a way to get 200 days to fit into 123... all that time rolling on the floor must have affected your counting skills

[W. Tracy Parnell]

David,

Before I address your comments, let me clear up one thing. You are not saying that this still is in any way from the video tape of the LHO exhumation are you? This is merely included as an example of an exhumation. I ask because the caption says "Lee open coffin".

Most assuredly not Tracy... are you aware of any photos or films showing the contents as they were discovered in the casket or the head during autopsy?

I am reading the Norton report and doing some due diliogence so I can discuss this with some level of knowledge... give me a little time

DJ

OK-I didn't think so. No, I don't think there was anything at the time the grave was opened. There were apparently no photos at the original autopsy of the head post-craniotomy. There are the head photos from the exhumation which I assume you have seen and there was a film made at the exhumation that has been seen by a few people but is not publically available.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

David Josephs said:

Please provide a timeline of activities between burial and exhumation that takes an intact and sealed casket and produces what we see when dug up...

All it takes is a cracked vault and the water damage resulting from it. Once you have a crack the casket is vulnerable and Oswald's was a cheap one. The vault can crack for a few reasons, shifting of the ground for various reason is one. This is most often caused by the heavy equipment that is common in cemeteries for digging-it compresses the earth and pushes down on the vault. The Wilbert (the same brand LHO was buried in) Vault Company’s own web site admits the problem and advises customers to seek:

…superior long-lasting protection against subsoil elements and the weight of heavy cemetery maintenance equipment.

This quote is from the book Profits of Death a critical evaluation of the "death care" industry:

“No vault is impervious to eventual disintegration, and there is very little chance of placing anything underground and having it remain waterproof. I have personally witnessed as many as forty disinterments from vaults (even those made by the leading manufacturers) that were guaranteed waterproof from which water had to be drained before they could be moved. Often, they were full of water. It’s frequently necessary, when disinterring one of these vaults, to knock drainage holes in the bottom before it can be moved. Only then can the vault-still with the hole in the bottom-and casket be reinterred in another location.”

If the casket was still sealed and complete there would be less of a question... but from what I remember it wasn't. In fact is was only damaged above the man's head area... hmmmm.

According to Gary Mack's Coverups! series, the missing piece was 18 inches long x3-4 inches wide, probably not large enough to allow for any funny business even considering anyone could overcome the innumerable other issues fakery would require.

Are we to believe the coicidence of "natural causes" destroyed that casket and that the question of craniotomies and a detached spinal column or not...

Believe me, the power of water damage is immense. It will destroy anything unprotected as this casket was after the vault cracked. of course, the official photos show the craniotomy so then you are into a conspiracy involving all who attended which was something like 12 people. The head was attached according to the report and witnesses and even Groody has admitted this. He thinks the head was switched and reattached.

That head that was now on that body was not the head that I embalmed. I know that the body had not been changed, because I recognized various things about the body that I had done.

Groody said in 2006 that the skull was a "Halloween skull", in other words bare bones. But again, the official photos refute this and they show the craniotomy.

Edited June 20, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Greg Parker]

Parker... We understand you are still trying to find a way to get 200 days to fit into 123... all that time rolling on the floor must have affected your counting skills

As I am unable to locate my past calculations I assume they were removed. I guess I have to keep a copy this time...

After doing this for the second or third time, I expect you will reciprocate and finally give me your opinion on Bennierita Smith's testimony and why Armstrong avoided her like the plague. Then when move on to the FW riots and - and for those at the DeepFoo who only seem to be familiar with what Armstrong claims about the evidence - we can revisit what McBride actually said about the Soviet Program. Fair enough?

The 52-53 School year. Sept 1952 - June 1953.

Trinity

9 days attendance + 6 days absence (period of enrolment 9/8/52 - 9/26/52 = 15 school days which matches total of both figures)

PS 117

15 days attendance + 47 days absence + 2 part days attendance and 2 part days absence (period of enrolment 9/30/52 - 1/10/53 = 64 school days which matches total of all figures)

PS 44

109 days attendance + 15 days absence at Youth House + 3 part days attendance + 3 part days absence (period of enrolment 3/23/53 - 9/11/53 = approximately 127 to 129 depending on number of festive days off - less 55 summer recess = approximately 72 school days. So here, the days attendance column + days absent + part days = 127 - and that is where the confusion is coming in. They have simply included summer recess in days attended column because if you take 55 away from 127, you get 72 - the actual number of available school days. If you want to posit that they should not have done this unless he attended Summer School, please provide the records of another child from New York circa 1953 where those 55 days are accounted for differently.

Moreover, this is yet another example of you not thinking your position through to a logical conclusion because here - what your maths leads to in terms of your theory is that "Harvey" did indeed go to Summer School while Lee didn't (or the other around, as if it matters).

Now it's your turn.

Address the things I have asked you to address countless times.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Steven Gaal]

READERS PLEASE SCHOOL THIS from H & L site

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

After HARVEY Oswald departed Iwakuni he returned to the United States and was assigned to the Marine Corps Air Facility--MACS 9--near the city of Santa Ana, California (HARVEY was always assigned to Sana Ana, CA; LEE was always assigned to El Toro, CA). HARVEY worked in a radar bubble with Sergeant Nelson Delgado, 5 enlisted men, and 3 officers. Sergeant Erwin Lewis remembered that Oswald transferred to MACS 9 in either October or November, 1958. Lewis said, "It was a matter of common knowledge that Oswald could read, write, and speak Russian. Marine Corps medical records confirm that HARVEY Oswald was at the Marine Corps Air Facility in Santa Ana, CA on October 29. But on October 29 LEE Oswald was still in Japan. Four days later, on November 2, LEE Oswald boarded the USS Barrett in Yokoska, Japan for a 13-day voyage to San Francisco. Marine corps medical records that show HARVEY Oswald was in California on October 29, 1958, while military records that show that LEE Oswald was in Japan and departed on November 2, 1958--an obvious "smoking gun."

[Greg Parker]

READERS PLEASE SCHOOL THIS from H & L site

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

After HARVEY Oswald departed Iwakuni he returned to the United States and was assigned to the Marine Corps Air Facility--MACS 9--near the city of Santa Ana, California (HARVEY was always assigned to Sana Ana, CA; LEE was always assigned to El Toro, CA). HARVEY worked in a radar bubble with Sergeant Nelson Delgado, 5 enlisted men, and 3 officers. Sergeant Erwin Lewis remembered that Oswald transferred to MACS 9 in either October or November, 1958. Lewis said, "It was a matter of common knowledge that Oswald could read, write, and speak Russian. Marine Corps medical records confirm that HARVEY Oswald was at the Marine Corps Air Facility in Santa Ana, CA on October 29. But on October 29 LEE Oswald was still in Japan. Four days later, on November 2, LEE Oswald boarded the USS Barrett in Yokoska, Japan for a 13-day voyage to San Francisco. Marine corps medical records that show HARVEY Oswald was in California on October 29, 1958, while military records that show that LEE Oswald was in Japan and departed on November 2, 1958--an obvious "smoking gun."

Change of subject. What a shock.

[Greg Parker]

Some interesting testimony from MIchael Paine:

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever discuss with him driving an automobile or obtaining a driver's license?

Mr. PAINE - I probably said it would be well to get a driver's license. It would be well--I probably said, "You probably need a car to get around here." In other words, effectively; no.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did he ever indicate to you that he planned to purchase an automobile?

Mr. PAINE - I bought this second-hand car for $200.

Mr. LIEBELER - What kind of a car is that?

Mr. PAINE - That is a 1956 Oldsmobile.

Mr. LIEBELER - When did you buy it?

Mr. PAINE - I bought it while they were there, while Marina was staying with us, which was sometime in November. Either October or November, probably the early part of November. They went out to admire the car. $200, I suppose, didn't seem out of their reach then.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did he indicate to you that he was thinking--

Mr. PAINE - Therefore, I think Ruth, they went out to admire the car and, of course, I was thinking that it, this might make it appear to them that the car was within reach, and driving was something to be sought.

So...around or just prior to Oswald going to see about buying a car, Mikey is showing him how affordable it is to get one... and how great it would be.

But no. Oz didn't go looking for a car.

Who does that? Ridiculous! Lone Nuts and doppelgangers should know their place in the scheme of things! They wouldn't dare do something outside the parameters set for them by future crusaders.

The Milli Vanilli Everything is Fake Brigade and the Warren Commission are as one. Oswald couldn't drive, didn't drive, never applied for a license and never attempted to buy a car.

What a hoot.

Toot toot!

Edited June 20, 2015 by Greg Parker

[David Josephs]

Parker... We understand you are still trying to find a way to get 200 days to fit into 123... all that time rolling on the floor must have affected your counting skills

As I am unable to locate my past calculations I assume they were removed. I guess I have to keep a copy this time...

After doing this for the second or third time, I expect you will reciprocate and finally give me your opinion on Bennierita Smith's testimony and why Armstrong avoided her like the plague. Then when move on to the FW riots and - and for those at the DeepFoo who only seem to be familiar with what Armstrong claims about the evidence - we can revisit what McBride actually said about the Soviet Program. Fair enough?

The 52-53 School year. Sept 1952 - June 1953.

Trinity

9 days attendance + 6 days absence (period of enrolment 9/8/52 - 9/26/52 = 15 school days which matches total of both figures)

PS 117

15 days attendance + 47 days absence + 2 part days attendance and 2 part days absence (period of enrolment 9/30/52 - 1/10/53 = 64 school days which matches total of all figures)

PS 44

109 days attendance + 15 days absence at Youth House + 3 part days attendance + 3 part days absence (period of enrolment 3/23/53 - 9/11/53 = approximately 127 to 129 depending on number of festive days off - less 55 summer recess = approximately 72 school days. So here, the days attendance column + days absent + part days = 127 - and that is where the confusion is coming in. They have simply included summer recess in days attended column because if you take 55 away from 127, you get 72 - the actual number of available school days. If you want to posit that they should not have done this unless he attended Summer School, please provide the records of another child from New York circa 1953 where those 55 days are accounted for differently.

Moreover, this is yet another example of you not thinking your position through to a logical conclusion because here - what your maths leads to in terms of your theory is that "Harvey" did indeed go to Summer School while Lee didn't (or the other around, as if it matters).

Now it's your turn.

Address the things I have asked you to address countless times.

Except the report does not stop at 9/11/53 Greg... it includes the Fall semester at one of the PS44's.

The FBI says there are 200 days of attendance between 3/23/53 and 1/12/54... All your previous month's info is not involved in this discussion.

Stay on topic Greg... focus. 171 + 11 1/2 days plus 18 + 11 1/2 days 11+11 1/2 days = 11 TOTAL days, 11+18= 29 29+171=200 days between 3/23 and 1/12/54

The FBI says there are 200 days of school in THAT time period which Oswald either attended or was absent.

We are not talking about PRIOR to 3/23 Greg... we are authenticating the report below.... which includes the 9/14/53 thru 1/12/54 (62 8/2 + 3 8/2) added to the 109 3/2 and 15 3/2.

There are only 210 TOTAL weekdays during that period. Now one last time, show us how 200 days of records fit into these 210 days of possible attendance...

Got it, mate?

[Jon G. Tidd]

DJ,

You write:

"171 + 11 1/2 days plus 18 + 11 1/2 days 11+11 1/2 days = 11 TOTAL days,"

I don't know what you mean here.