Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Greg Parker]

HARVEY was said to be spouting off on Communism and Marxism a great deal of the time... This is NOT Harvey Mr. Powers here is talking about... but LEE and helps to illustrate the existence of these two separate men seen and traveling with different Marines.

When you are cornered, you have a tendency to call whatever you are stuck on as a "minor issue" which does not negate "the bigger picture".

So far, this is "minor issue #249". I'm beginning to wonder what this bigger picture is actually made of.

So I will ask again. Provide your evidence that Oswald was ever "spouting communism and Marxism a great deal of the time" until he returned from SEA. If it was such a minor issue, why even bother writing about it? Same goes for the 248 other "minor issues".

Edited July 22, 2015 by Greg Parker

[David Josephs]

You mean a little issue like how you're wrong about the application versus driver's license...

Greg, all you do here is grasp at the brass ring but you keep falling off your little horsey...

You're great at excuses and diversion as long as you don't have to deal with the USMC or any of the actual evidence since you seem to always get it wrong.

But at least this keeps you busy ... all those little wheels churning away, all excited about maybe finding something which refutes or negates the evidence for H&L and you always come up short... story of your life?

On top of it all you can't even remember the arguments you've made... which come back around to who you wrong yet again... like you were about the Jiffy store... Yates, and just about everything else

Now you claim that Donovan puts Oswald in the Taiwan to HELP the WC's case? what a joke..

Get all your stories straight and keep trying mate... the more you post the more foolish you look and the more those reading your work see you for who you are... yet another wannabe H&L critic who barely knows the evidence and even less about the work.

Keep promising those big new things and amazing discoveries... the build up, oh the build up. If book #1 is any indication...

{yawn}

[Jim Hargrove]

http://harveyandlee.net/Temp/victors-01.jpg

Thanks Jim. Perhaps the others should read it.

BTW, I neglected to properly identify the document. It's an April 3, 1967 internal FBI memo from Deputy Director Cartha DeLoach to Associate Director Clyde Tolson. It's often referred to but seldom reproduced. John A. copied it at the National Archives in the 1990s.

[Paul Trejo]

http://harveyandlee.net/Temp/victors-01.jpg

Thanks Jim. Perhaps the others should read it.

I agree, Ray, that Jim's offer was of interest. Here's the relevant passage by FBI Deputy Director Cartha DeLoach:

"In this connection, Marvin Watson called me late last night and stated that the President told him, in an off moment, that he was now convinced that there was a plot in connection with the assassination. Watson stated the President felt that CIA had had something to do with this plot."

Yet we have no choice but to take this report with a grain of salt --- because LBJ said contradictory things to many different people when he was President. For example, LBJ told Walter Cronkite that "Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices," and then forced Cronkite to withhold that statement, due to "National Security." That's a famous story from Cronkite himself. Or, watch the interview yourself on YouTube: []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd1wuXrVPjo] (Skip to 00:36)

Furthermore, remember what LBJ told Howard K. Smith. Here's the famous blurb:

"Johnson publicly embraced the rumor that a Cuban conspiracy was responsible for the assassination of Kennedy, and when he was interviewed by television newsman, Howard K. Smith, he dramatically asserted: "I'll tell you something that will rock you. Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got him first."

So, LBJ, sworn to secrecy about the JFK murder for purposes of National Security, nevertheless continued to spout contradictory stories to impress newspaper people he hung out with.

But the "Harvey & Lee" fans will grab hold of their favorite story with both hands -- as it seems to confirm their version of the CIA-did-it theory. What, then, do they say about the contradictions? They typically change the subject.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

You mean a little issue like how you're wrong about the application versus driver's license...

Greg, all you do here is grasp at the brass ring but you keep falling off your little horsey...

You're great at excuses and diversion as long as you don't have to deal with the USMC or any of the actual evidence since you seem to always get it wrong.

But at least this keeps you busy ... all those little wheels churning away, all excited about maybe finding something which refutes or negates the evidence for H&L and you always come up short... story of your life?

On top of it all you can't even remember the arguments you've made... which come back around to who you wrong yet again... like you were about the Jiffy store... Yates, and just about everything else

Now you claim that Donovan puts Oswald in the Taiwan to HELP the WC's case? what a joke..

Get all your stories straight and keep trying mate... the more you post the more foolish you look and the more those reading your work see you for who you are... yet another wannabe H&L critic who barely knows the evidence and even less about the work.

Keep promising those big new things and amazing discoveries... the build up, oh the build up. If book #1 is any indication...

{yawn}

1. the driver's license is not the subject here, and neither side on that issue can claim 100% certainty.

2. horsey? More bitter mumbling to yourself.

3. Avoiding the USMC? I'm trying to get you to support one of your claims for it, and all I get you mumbling about horseys? Who's diverting here? I have a full run-down of his time in the USMC coming out soon and it includes information not previously published.

4. If I have come up short, it should be easy for you to prove, yet you continually refuse to supply the evidence which would shut me up. You know -- the evidence that Oswald was "spouting communism and Marxism a great deal of the time" prior to shipping out to SEA. Why won't you support that claim, David?

5. I can't remember the argument's I've made? Please remind me. I'm all ears, unless you plan to just keep repeating this mantra until you're convinced everyone believes it.... which is a tried and method of the propagandist.

6. What you claim my take is on Donovan is just another poor attempt to words in my mouth. You must be taking lessons from DVP. My claim about Donovan is that he was helping tie Oswald to a communist conspiracy.

7. Your advice to "get my stories straight" is as about as honest and useful as anything else you say.

8. Book no. one was compared by Len Ocenic to JFK and the Unspeakable. I doubt you even read it. But thanks for the plug, Yes indeed, I do have a lot of new material to role out. You are not going to find the facts about the false defector program in any other book, you are not going to find out who Lee's recruiter for it was in any other book, you are not going to learn who was involved behind the scenes in any other book, you are not going to learn about the Nazi connections to the Albert Schweitzer college in any other book... and all of that in the next volume, with the plotters exposed in future volumes.

So sorry... but there is not a doppelganger in sight.

[David Josephs]

well done Greg...

No facts about the false defector program in any other book around? interesting

Lee's recruiter huh... Nazi connections, then we add in Radionics & Witchcraft and we have the basis for your novel. perfect.

The arrogance of your believing you are privy to that which has not been discussed is amazing. It takes a very select group to KNOW they have info others don't... of course I'll plug your books Greg... if you're right - more power to you mate...

Break it wide open for us... lay it out so your work can also be picked apart if anyone cared to take the time to do so... and be substantiated.

You see Greg, it's not about you and me...it's about the evidence and what it says about the investigation.

Maybe someday you'll get that and stop being such a "dunny" - isn't that what you called me in trying to get your local insults past the moderators?

what was that other thing? I forget but I'm pretty sure it was yet another 2nd grade insult that you and the kids at ROKC laugh about... so witty!

Dunny or dunny can is Australian slang for toilet, either the room or the specific fixture, especially an outhouse or other outdoor toilets

[Greg Parker]

Wrong again, mate. What I said was "I hope your chooks turn into emus and kick your dunny down." It is an ancient Australian curse. Some believe it goes right back to the pre-Bogancean Dreamtime. But that is a question that has never been properly settled by historians, much like the question of whether Harvey's left testicle hung lower than his right.

[David Josephs]

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. IOW you're just a thug with a vocabulary and a sense of history. Nice.

No doubt you have the inside scoop on the testicle controversy, you being such a putz and all...

Let us know a year or two in advance of when that revelation will come out... The marketing hype will barely be palpable...

Edited July 23, 2015 by David Josephs

[Jim Hargrove]

http://harveyandlee.net/Temp/victors-01.jpg

Thanks Jim. Perhaps the others should read it.

I agree, Ray, that Jim's offer was of interest. Here's the relevant passage by FBI Deputy Director Cartha DeLoach:

"In this connection, Marvin Watson called me late last night and stated that the President told him, in an off moment, that he was now convinced that there was a plot in connection with the assassination. Watson stated the President felt that CIA had had something to do with this plot."

Yet we have no choice but to take this report with a grain of salt --- because LBJ said contradictory things to many different people when he was President. For example, LBJ told Walter Cronkite that "Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices," and then forced Cronkite to withhold that statement, due to "National Security." That's a famous story from Cronkite himself. Or, watch the interview yourself on YouTube: []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd1wuXrVPjo] (Skip to 00:36)

Furthermore, remember what LBJ told Howard K. Smith. Here's the famous blurb:

"Johnson publicly embraced the rumor that a Cuban conspiracy was responsible for the assassination of Kennedy, and when he was interviewed by television newsman, Howard K. Smith, he dramatically asserted: "I'll tell you something that will rock you. Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got him first."

So, LBJ, sworn to secrecy about the JFK murder for purposes of National Security, nevertheless continued to spout contradictory stories to impress newspaper people he hung out with.

But the "Harvey & Lee" fans will grab hold of their favorite story with both hands -- as it seems to confirm their version of the CIA-did-it theory. What, then, do they say about the contradictions? They typically change the subject.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

No changing the subject here, Paul. You're quite right that LBJ made a number of different PUBLIC statements about the assassination. But the significance of this FBI memo is that LBJ apparently told a trusted advisor PRIVATELY that he felt the CIA had something to do with the assassination of JFK.

Some people thought the revelation was significant back around the time it was “released” in a 40,000-file FBI evidence dump in 1977. Some daily newspapers even picked it up, rare for conspiracy evidence during the last 50 years. For example, "LBJ Reportedly Suspected CIA Link in JFK's Death," The Washington Post (Washington, D.C.). December 13, 1977. p. A10.

When his book Robert Kennedy and His Times was published the following year, Arthur Schlesinger, no fan of conspiracy theories, included the following passage: "In 1967 Marvin Watson of Lyndon Johnson's White House staff told Cartha DeLoach of the FBI that Johnson "was now convinced there was a plot in connection with the assassination. Watson stated the President felt that CIA had had something to do with this plot."

This, of course, is hardly proof that the CIA was involved in JFK's murder. At some point I believe DeLoach testified that he felt Watson's statement was “sheer speculation,” or some words to that effect, but what else would we expect him to say? I doubt many people, even among JFK researchers, are aware (or remember) these statements about LBJ's personal thoughts regarding the Agency's possible involvement in the assassination.

[Bernie Laverick]

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. IOW you're just a thug with a vocabulary and a sense of history. Nice.

No doubt you have the inside scoop on the testicle controversy, you being such a putz and all...

Let us know a year or two in advance of when that revelation will come out... The marketing hype will barely be palpable...

And once again we see David Josephs palpably seething with jealousy...

It must be awful seeing your nemesis with his own ideas and his own research making exciting new inroads into this puzzle while your role is reduced to delivery boy for someone else's.

You Dawn and Jim used to go on about "minions" but you just cannot see the irony can you?

None of what you promote is your own work David. You do know that don't you?

Just because you are being used as a conduit does not therefore make it YOUR research. As I said, you are merely the delivery boy.

With that in mind maybe a more humble and less aggressive approach would more befit your small time status in the promotion of H&L.

I'm not holding my breath...

[Jim Hargrove]

Actually, John A. has told me personally how pleased he is that David Josephs has been able to take his original research and build upon it with important new findings. A number of David's essays that go well beyond what John originally published in Harvey and Lee, especially about Mexico City, are featured at Jim DiEugenio's site, CTKA.net.

[Paul Trejo]

Actually, John A. has told me personally how pleased he is that David Josephs has been able to take his original research and build upon it with important new findings. A number of David's essays that go well beyond what John originally published in Harvey and Lee, especially about Mexico City, are featured at Jim DiEugenio's site, CTKA.net.

-----

CIA accountant James B. Wilcott: Oswald received "a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work." – 1978

HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum: “Lee Harvey Oswald was a contract employee of the CIA and the FBI.” – 1996

Well, Jim, I've read David Joseph's work on Oswald in Mexico City, and I found it to be almost identical with John Armstrong's work -- with minor variations. Basically, Josephs doubles down on Armstrong.

Still, the Armstrong version of Oswald in Mexico City falls apart under scrutiny.

That reminds me, Jim -- you continue to quote James B. Wilcott, an accountant at CIA, who allegedly said that "Oswald received a full-time salary for agent work doing CIA operational work."

Yet upon closer scrutiny that turns out to be incorrect -- what James B. Wilcott testified under oath was that while in the CIA he heard this *rumor* that Oswald received a full-time CIA salary.

The way you present it (as John Armstrong would present it) one would think that this CIA accountant himself signed the checks. That happens to be flatly false.

As for HSCA Robert Tanenbaum's opinion about Lee Harvey Oswald being "a contract employee of the CIA," it was simply a carbon copy of Jim Garrison's opinion in 1968 -- without any new data to confirm it. That is, it was wild speculation then, and it remains wild speculation now.

Oswald was a CIA wannabe. That's what the evidence shows.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Bernie Laverick]

Actually, John A. has told me personally how pleased he is that David Josephs has been able to take his original research and build upon it with important new findings. A number of David's essays that go well beyond what John originally published in Harvey and Lee, especially about Mexico City, are featured at Jim DiEugenio's site, CTKA.net.

Exactly what new evidence for a doppelganger programme has David unearthed that can't be found in Armstrong's work?

Please list these "new findings".

Should you not ne able to do so and hurl insults instead we can all conclude, as I said earlier, that he has provided a big fat zero to the theory he spends nearly all his life promoting. Just like you Jim...

[Ray Mitcham]

James B Walcott

Mr. Wilcott. Well, it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an employee of the agency and was an agent of the agency.

Mr. Goldsmith. What do you mean by the term "agent?"

Mr. Wilcott. That he was a regular employee, receiving a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work.

Mr. Goldsmith. How did this information concerning Oswald first come to your attention?

Mr. Wilcott. The first time I heard about Oswald being connected in any way with CIA was the day after the Kennedy assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And how did that come to your attention?

Mr. Wilcott. Well, I was on day duty for the station. It was a guard-type function at the station, which I worked for overtime. There was a lot of excitement going on at the station after the Kennedy assassination. Towards the end of my tour of duty, I heard certain things about Oswald somehow being connected with the agency, and I didn't really believe this when I heard it, and I thought it was absurd. Then, as time went on, I began to hear more things in that line.

Mr. Goldsmith. I think we had better go over that one more time. When, exactly, was the very first time that you heard or came across information that Oswald was an agent?

Mr. Wilcott. I heard references to it the day after the assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And who made these references to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. I can't remember the exact persons. There was talk about it going on at the station, and several months following at the station.

Mr. Goldsmith. How many people made this reference to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. At least--there was at least six or seven people, specifically, who said that they either knew or believed Oswald to be an agent of the CIA.

Mr. Goldsmith. Was Jerry Fox one of the people that made this allegation?

Mr. Wilcott. To the best of my recollection, yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. And who is Jerry Fox?

Mr. Wilcott. Jerry Fox was a Case Officer for his branch, the Soviet Russia Branch, [REDACTED] Station, who purchased information from the Soviets.

Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, did I ask you to prepare a list of CIA Case Officers working at the [REDACTED] Station in 1963?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, you did.

snip

Mr. Wilcott. The specific incident was soon after the Kennedy assassination, where an agent, a Case Officer--I am sure it was a Case Officer--came up to my window to draw money, and he specifically said in the conversation that ensued, he specifically said, "Well, Jim, the money that I drew the last couple of weeks ago or so was money" either for the Oswald project or for Oswald.

snip

Mr. Wilcott. I believe that Oswald was a double agent,

was sent over to the Soviet Union to do intelligence work,

that the defection was phoney and it was set up and that

I believe that Marina Oswald was an agent that had been

recruited sometime before and was waiting their in Tokyo

for Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Goldsmith. What is the basis for that opinion?

Mr. Wilcott. The basis for that is discussions that

I had with people at the XXXXX Station. Those are discussions

with people who gave the indication that there was every cer-

tainty that Oswald was an agent of CIA, runout of XXXXXXX

Station, and that he was freed from Russia there in the

final courses in Russia and was trained by CIA people at

Atsugi.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Paul Trejo]

James B Walcott

Mr. Wilcott. Well, it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an employee of the agency and was an agent of the agency.

Mr. Goldsmith. What do you mean by the term "agent?"

Mr. Wilcott. That he was a regular employee, receiving a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work.

Mr. Goldsmith. How did this information concerning Oswald first come to your attention?

Mr. Wilcott. The first time I heard about Oswald being connected in any way with CIA was the day after the Kennedy assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And how did that come to your attention?

Mr. Wilcott. Well, I was on day duty for the station. It was a guard-type function at the station, which I worked for overtime. There was a lot of excitement going on at the station after the Kennedy assassination. Towards the end of my tour of duty, I heard certain things about Oswald somehow being connected with the agency, and I didn't really believe this when I heard it, and I thought it was absurd. Then, as time went on, I began to hear more things in that line.

Mr. Goldsmith. I think we had better go over that one more time. When, exactly, was the very first time that you heard or came across information that Oswald was an agent?

Mr. Wilcott. I heard references to it the day after the assassination.

Mr. Goldsmith. And who made these references to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. I can't remember the exact persons. There was talk about it going on at the station, and several months following at the station.

Mr. Goldsmith. How many people made this reference to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. At least--there was at least six or seven people, specifically, who said that they either knew or believed Oswald to be an agent of the CIA.

Mr. Goldsmith. Was Jerry Fox one of the people that made this allegation?

Mr. Wilcott. To the best of my recollection, yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. And who is Jerry Fox?

Mr. Wilcott. Jerry Fox was a Case Officer for his branch, the Soviet Russia Branch, [REDACTED] Station, who purchased information from the Soviets.

Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, did I ask you to prepare a list of CIA Case Officers working at the [REDACTED] Station in 1963?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, you did.

snip

Mr. Wilcott. The specific incident was soon after the Kennedy assassination, where an agent, a Case Officer--I am sure it was a Case Officer--came up to my window to draw money, and he specifically said in the conversation that ensued, he specifically said, "Well, Jim, the money that I drew the last couple of weeks ago or so was money" either for the Oswald project or for Oswald.

snip

Mr. Wilcott. I believe that Oswald was a double agent,

was sent over to the Soviet Union to do intelligence work,

that the defection was phoney and it was set up and that

I believe that Marina Oswald was an agent that had been

recruited sometime before and was waiting their in Tokyo

for Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Goldsmith. What is the basis for that opinion?

Mr. Wilcott. The basis for that is discussions that

I had with people at the XXXXX Station. Those are discussions

with people who gave the indication that there was every cer-

tainty that Oswald was an agent of CIA, runout of XXXXXXX

Station, and that he was freed from Russia there in the

final courses in Russia and was trained by CIA people at

Atsugi.

Thank you, Ray, for posting the exact language of Wilcott's testimony.

Clearly the unbiased reader can see that Wilcott's statement "under oath" was NOT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE.

Wilcott began hearing rumors from people inside the CIA -- RUMORS! That's all he had.

So much for proof.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo