Jump to content
The Education Forum

Harvey & Lee poll


Recommended Posts

Cliff Varnell,

I agree except for this: Oswald was chosen deliberately as the patsy, I believe. I don't believe the choice was made on impulse or at the last minute. The two key questions are: [1] Why was JFK killed? [2] Why was Oswald chosen to be patsy?

As to [2], I believe it was to spike the FBI and CIA, who definitely didn't want any investigation into Oswald's life.

Perhaps the FBI and CIA didn't want any investigation into his life because such an investigation would have revealed something the two agencies wanted to keep and have kept secret: that there were two boys who were superficially similar, whose life paths overlapped, and whose identities could be merged. No law enforcement agency or intelligence agency would ever admit to such a thing. Ever.

Were there two such boys? I don't know. I do believe firmly, however, that certain photos (e.g., Lee in the marines, looking cleanly and clearly into the camera, and Harvey in Russia, NOLA, and Dallas revealing a clear, clean facial view to the camera) are of different individuals.

I don't believe the CIA , as an organization, plotted and executed JFK's murder.

I do believe the murder was caused by very powerful insiders who would stop at nothing to kill JFK and shift the blame to a perceived loser. By insiders I do not exclude foreign intelligence agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Manson was a nice guy who pleaded he himself killed no one, nor ordered any of his followers to - so I have no qualms about accepting what you say.

Why am I not surprised at ANOTHER meaningless response from the man DOWN UNDER!

And a Bugliosi groupie, to boot!

You seeing this Vanessa? And you want John to "debate" someone who compares him to Manson? A poll? Why does Greg have such an obsession with John? It's very very odd. o he does a poll here where there are a bunch of lone nutters to begin with and declares victory. "Education" indeed.

Most of the folk on that Against H&L list are CTs.

No we're not, Kathy.

We're LNer "shills" and highly-paid CIA disinformation agents.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] Oswald was chosen deliberately as the patsy, I believe. I don't believe the choice was made on impulse or at the last minute. [...]

Dear Mr. Tidd,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you saying just a few months ago that Oswald wasn't set up as a patsy in advance, just "framed" at the last minute, or even after the fact ???

When did you change your mind on that?

--Tommy

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By insiders I do not exclude foreign intelligence agents.

Please give us a clue as to which foreign intelligence agents might have wanted Lyndon Johnson to be President,

and why.

  • GAAL ANSWER TO RAYMOND
  • CLUE www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a256718.pdf (search with coup word and see Khrushchev)
  • Nikita Khrushchev and a fellow with the initials JFK wanted to talk about ending cold war.
  • The USA MIC and LBJ didn't want to end cold war.
  • Russian military didn't want to end cold war.
  • Marina went to Moscow to be a teenage prostitute, caught, turned by intell uncle into Russian honey trap. ( I write this if you want to counter argue - if you say >> "well why didn't they say LHO was a USA spy." (made up RAYMOND QUESTION, gaal) Because the BACK AT YOU GAME THE RUSSIAN INTEL PLAYED BY HOOKING UP MARINA/LHO HAD GONE TO A NEW AND MORE DANGEROUS LEVEL WITH THE ASSASSINATION. gaal
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn...

Little boys playing games... the less they know about the subject, the more against it they can be...

Oxymorons the lot of them...

And no Cliff, H&L is not a red herring... it permeates the evidence...

but people aint gonna learn what they dont wanna know

David, I think the entire subject of Oswald is a red herring, not just H&L.

Don't think he/they had anything to do with the murder and his handlers were, in all likelihood, back-up patsies.

I'm not saying Oswald isn't important.

He's important to a study of the cover-up of JFK's murder but a red herring in regard to the actual killing.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas Graves @post #72:

I've not changed my mind about Marina's husband. He was a walking, talking patsy all by himself.

The fact he was selected as patsy by the perps is consistent with his behavior.

There was no set up. Oswald was chosen in advance because, all by himself, he was the perfect patsy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas Graves @post #72:

I've not changed my mind about Marina's husband. He was a walking, talking patsy all by himself.

The fact he was selected as patsy by the perps is consistent with his behavior.

There was no set up. Oswald was chosen in advance because, all by himself, he was the perfect patsy.

Mr Tidd - IMO, you could not be farther from the truth with this post... nobody behaves like a "perfect patsy" all on their own... no one who is truly innocent says they are a Patsy, they say they are innocent... A Patsy denotes an understanding of a planned set-up which did not kick into gear until needed.

FPCC chapter set-up and cards and handbills etc... was not an original Oswald thought one day... he was put in a position to perfomr these tasks which at the time where not related to JFK - UNLESS IT BECAME NECESSARY - as all assets which are expendible ultimately become.

The behavior you claim to be identifying all occurs AFTER the USMC and his Russian stay... .in fact only after he meets the Dallas/Irving White Russian community thru the Paines and DeMor's...

If you believe he went to Russia on his own, cause he felt like it... there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale with a small downpayment I'd like to show you. ;)

His behavoir was orchestrated Jon... all the "patsy" behavior you claim was not a set-up was indeed part of other, ongoing plans as an informant/asset.

When JFK did not die in Tampa or Chicago, Dallas appears to be next on the list.

While snipers are being arrested in Chicago the FBI is trying to prove Oswald was in Mexico without success.... he is removed from the FBI Watch list...

The I&NS is at a loss for how he came and went into and out of the USA without record. Where IS Oswald???

From the time he returns from Russia in June 1962 until April 1963 Oswald does little if anything that could be considered "setting himself up as a Patsy"

In April 1963 Ruth invites the Oswald's to dinner and has Michael go to Dallas to get them from the Neely Street address...

On April 24th Oswald leaves Dallas for New Orleans.... (Wilcott tells us the "Oswald Project" begins in April 1963)

He starts work at a CIA front around the corner from 544 Camp on May 10th

the New Orleans credit bureau provides a credit report to Reily/Standard Coffee on May 16th stating

""Lee Harvey Oswald is employed as a Maintenance Man for the Standard Coffee Company (Reily Coffee), and has been so engaged in this occupation for the past one week and enjoys a favorable business reputation. Previous to this, he was in the US Marines for some three years ..... his prospects for the future appear to be favorable."."

Except in 1963 he had not been in the Marines since 1959... was in Russia as a defector for 2 years and worked at two jobs before New Orleans. How does a report like this even exist given his SS# and past?

"Osborne" places his order for FPCC flyers on May 29th. and for the rest of that summer Oswald is both doing the FPCC/FBI bidding as well as creating the incriminating evidence on which he will be presumed guilty.

If you can illustrate the actions you believe he performed on his own prior to May 1963 which set himself up as an incriminated Patsy, please share them. That which happens after the Oswald Project begins looks to me as an orchestrated plan to accomplish a variety of objectives with the option of using the man as a Patsy for a crime in the works.

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Count, let me know if anyone disputes anything:

Pro-H&L

Hargrove

Josephs

Gaal

Blank

Mitcham

Jeffries

Tidd

Against-H&L

Parker

Parnell

Sorensen

Graves

Brancato

Kamp

Loney

Kinaski

Carroll

Laverick

Speer

Dolva

Charles-Dunn

Cohen

Murr

Healy

Currently 16-7, I had Tidd wrong.

As silly as I think this is, please add my name to the pro side, also Mike Hogan, who no longer posts here. I received a lovely email from him yesterday to this effect, as well as several others he for whom he bought the book and are pro H and L. So this really is just a poll of who posts here. Most of the serious researchers I know do not post on forums, and are pro H and L. So this poll is really meaningless in the long run.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Count, let me know if anyone disputes anything:

Pro-H&L

Hargrove

Josephs

Gaal

Blank

Mitcham

Jeffries

Tidd

Against-H&L

Parker

Parnell

Sorensen

Graves

Brancato

Kamp

Loney

Kinaski

Carroll

Laverick

Speer

Dolva

Charles-Dunn

Cohen

Murr

Healy

Currently 16-7, I had Tidd wrong.

As silly as I think this is, please add my name to the pro side, also Mike Hogan, who no longer posts here. I received a lovely email from him yesterday to this effect, as well as several others he for whom he bought the book and are pro H and L. So this really is just a poll of who posts here. Most of the serious researchers I know do not post on forums, and are pro H and L. So this poll is really meaningless in the long run.

Dawn

Why have you bothered then?

And no, I don't take your word that someone else has asked you to vote on their behalf. Doesn't count. Sorry.

I'm surprised you even have the time to vote Dawn; after all, you never did find the time to actually read H&L did you?

Didn't JA playfully scold you about that just recently.

That must have been quite embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Count, let me know if anyone disputes anything:

Pro-H&L

Hargrove

Josephs

Gaal

Blank

Mitcham

Jeffries

Tidd

Against-H&L

Parker

Parnell

Sorensen

Graves

Brancato

Kamp

Loney

Kinaski

Carroll

Laverick

Speer

Dolva

Charles-Dunn

Cohen

Murr

Healy

Currently 16-7, I had Tidd wrong.

As silly as I think this is, please add my name to the pro side, also Mike Hogan, who no longer posts here. I received a lovely email from him yesterday to this effect, as well as several others he for whom he bought the book and are pro H and L. So this really is just a poll of who posts here. Most of the serious researchers I know do not post on forums, and are pro H and L. So this poll is really meaningless in the long run.

Dawn

"As silly as I think this is" It's only "silly" because you're losing by 16-8 - a ratio of two to one. That you are actually concerned about it is shown by trying to include non-posters in the count.

"Most of the serious researchers I know do not post on forums, and are pro H and L" What a slight you have just delivered to your brethren at the DeepFoo! But I'm curious, Dawn, to know who these researchers are that stay in the background. So... who are they and what happens with all the great research they do? Does it just collect dust in their garages? Is it shared privately, never to see the public light of day? Is it done on behalf of authors and/or journals - and if so, where can I read some examples? This is all very exciting! It's like learning about a lost tribe in darkest Africa! Please Dawn, tell me more!

"So this poll is really meaningless in the long run." which you are desperate to win, or to disparage if you don't. We get it already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas Graves @post #72:

I've not changed my mind about Marina's husband. He was a walking, talking patsy all by himself.

The fact he was selected as patsy by the perps is consistent with his behavior.

There was no set up. Oswald was chosen in advance because, all by himself, he was the perfect patsy.

Dear Mr. Tidd,

The fact that your Oswald was, as you say, not only "a walking, talking patsy all by himself," but also just happened to be one of two "superficially-similar" boys whose identities may have been manipulated and merged, by some U.S. intelligence service, for several years, makes him a highly improbable character, doesn't it?

The bad guys were very fortunate indeed to "spot" such an easy-to-cover-up-after-the-fact patsy a few months before the assassination!

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...