Jump to content
The Education Forum

Harvey & Lee poll


Recommended Posts

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!

Just off the to of my head: Walt Brown, Steven Jones, Mili Cranor, Jerry Policoff, Richard Bartholomew, Lisa Pease. I did not say they "stay in the background" I said they don't post on forums. And I do consider the people at DPF serious researchers too, but I know many many more who refuse to come to forums for this very reason. Being attacked, wasting time arguing with people who will only twist their words.

Or just dealing with nasty like yourself. I find it interesting that you and your forum buds make fun of me due to my profession. I am sure you have searched long and hard to try to find some "dirt" on me in that regard, but there is none. So the worst you can do is refer to the fact that I am "busy". I have no clue what your or Bart or Farley etc. do for a living. You could be a garbage man for all I know or a hit man but I would not waste time making fun of it. How childish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

bumped for Mr. Tidd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Marina's husband, the guy buried in Lee Harvey Oswald's grave, strikes me as an unusual individual.

How many kids in the 1950s joined the Marines, learned to speak Russian, "defected" to the USSR, married a Russian woman with intelligence connections, and returned to the USA with his wife and a baby? The answer is one.

Ok, you have him as a CIA agent. Or whatever.

I have him as an odd duck who would have come at the time to the attention of any intelligence service looking at the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Marina's husband, the guy buried in Lee Harvey Oswald's grave, strikes me as an unusual individual.

How many kids in the 1950s joined the Marines, learned to speak Russian, "defected" to the USSR, married a Russian woman with intelligence connections, and returned to the USA with his wife and a baby? The answer is one.

Ok, you have him as a CIA agent. Or whatever.

I have him as an odd duck who would have come at the time to the attention of any intelligence service looking at the USA.

So Jon, you have him doing all this on his own?

Marina meeting Webster AND Oswald... a coincidence?

The man has an off books Minox camera with him... the serial # shows it was never sold to the public... which the FBI turns into a "light meter" - another case of evidence going missing in the hands of the FBI

Were you going to address my reply to your post above? It is not until April 1963 that he becomes "odd" and connected with US intelligence... yet his recap of his time in Russia is pretty extensive - have you read thru that at all?

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!

Just off the to of my head: Walt Brown, Steven Jones, Mili Cranor, Jerry Policoff, Richard Bartholomew, Lisa Pease. I did not say they "stay in the background" I said they don't post on forums. And I do consider the people at DPF serious researchers too, but I know many many more who refuse to come to forums for this very reason. Being attacked, wasting time arguing with people who will only twist their words. Trolls.

Or just dealing with nasty sobs like yourself. I find it interesting that you and your forum buds make fun of me due to my profession. I am sure you have searched long and hard to try to find some "dirt" on me in that regard, but there is none. So the worst you can do is refer to the fact that I am "busy". I have no clue what your or Bart or Farley etc. do for a living. You could be a garbage man for all I know or a hit man but I would not waste time making fun of it. How childish.

Hmmm. Jones did some good work on the Paines once, IIRC, and in my albeit rare dealings with Lisa, I have to say I find her sincere and a bit of a sweetie to boot. I also think her work on RFK has merit. The rest I won't comment on because I either don't know enough about them, or don't have much respect for them. If they want to believe in "Harvey", the Tooth Fairy, Scientology or the Redskins, that's their business. They're not trying to ram it down my throat. And it's too late to try and smooth things over with the DeepFooers. No two ways about it, You insulted them.

I know many many more who refuse to come to forums for this very reason. Being attacked, wasting time arguing with people who will only twist their words. Trolls. I feel for them, Dawn. It reminds me of the time here when I couldn't make a post about Oswald without some loon jumping in and saying "Oh, that wasn't Lee. That was Harvey" or similar dreck. Those are some of the same people whining now that the tables have been turned. You guys crossed a line with me. You brought this Armageddon on yourselves. And make no mistake, Dawn. It is Armageddon for this theory.

Or just dealing with nasty sobs like yourself. People get labelled "nasty" for all sorts of reasons that have sod all to do with actual nastiness. I can live with that reality.

I find it interesting that you and your forum buds make fun of me due to my profession. No, Dawn. It's because of your constant reminders that you're a loyer - and a busy one at that. I don't know of any oh say garbage collectors who feel the need to constantly tell people they are a garbage collector and how busy they are doing it.

I am sure you have searched long and hard to try to find some "dirt" on me in that regard, but there is none. So the worst you can do is refer to the fact that I am "busy". Just like you are "sure" that Armstrong is right, no doubt. But You're wrong. It must be flattering to think there is a small army of people beavering away at a dirt file on you, Dawn. But it just ain't so. You gave yourself the nickname. But you'll no doubt keep blaming others.

I have no clue what your or Bart or Farley etc. do for a living. You could be a garbage man for all I know or a hit man but I would not waste time making fun of it. How childish. You have no clue because we're not referencing it in nearly every post. Again - it's not what you do for a living that is the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Marina's husband, the guy buried in Lee Harvey Oswald's grave, strikes me as an unusual individual.

How many kids in the 1950s joined the Marines, learned to speak Russian, "defected" to the USSR, married a Russian woman with intelligence connections, and returned to the USA with his wife and a baby? The answer is one.

Ok, you have him as a CIA agent. Or whatever.

I have him as an odd duck who would have come at the time to the attention of any intelligence service looking at the USA.

Jon,

"Marina's husband" was not only an "odd duck," ready-made patsy, but let's not forget that he was inexplicably taken off the FBI's "watch list" about two months before the assassination and that he was working at the Texas School Book Depository on 11/22/63. Most fascinating of all is that, according to the Harvey and Lee theory, which you seem to subscribe to, he was also one of two boys whose identities had been merged by some U.S. intelligence agency many years earlier!

What are the chances that all four of those things could be said about any one person, much less one who also happened to be an ex-Marine?

Highly unlikely, but it's elegant, it's beautiful, it's like a mathematical equation.

Because if you are right, the bad guys must have marveled at their great good luck when they "spotted," a few weeks before the assassination, such a perfect, self-made patsy who could also be invaluable as far as the future coverup was concerned. Invaluable because they knew that the responsible agency would do everything it could to keep it's "Oswald doppelganger project" from becoming known.

All of which suggests that, if you are right, the bad guys were insiders at that U.S. intelligence agency, or "outsiders" who were privy to some of that agency's most sensitive information.

It's a nice theory.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Josephs,

I understand you believe many of Oswald's actions were orchestrated. You may be correct. If you are, I want to know by whom, when, in what way, for what purpose, and how. Those BTW are basic interrogatories drilled into army C.I. students circa 1971.

Oswald does unusual things, I agree. Is that fact an indication he was working for an intel agency or was otherwise being orchestrated?

Let me describe a person I know:

-- helped friends in college get credit for tests the friends didn't take

-- learned to blow things up using both common and dangerous chemicals in high school

-- learned several languages

-- knew about various weapons

-- served in a war

-- bumped up against CIA and ONI officers

-- had a political history of far right and far left views

-- never was arrested

-- had as an adult few friends

-- kept to himself

-- made money in a way not understood by others

-- spent considerable time in L.A., Dallas, Washington, D.C.

-- created paintings and drawings

-- said some outrageous and ridiculous things

-- knew about intelligence work and math

-- followed politics closely

So, is this individual like Marina's husband? No, because Marina's husband is different. He takes the plunge and goes to the USSR. And marries a Russian woman. And Impregnates her.

No, David. The individual described understands much. As Oswald would have. The individual described is not Oswald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Josephs,

I understand you believe many of Oswald's actions were orchestrated. You may be correct. If you are, I want to know by whom, when, in what way, for what purpose, and how. Those BTW are basic interrogatories drilled into army C.I. students circa 1971.

Oswald does unusual things, I agree. Is that fact an indication he was working for an intel agency or was otherwise being orchestrated?

Let me describe a person I know:

-- helped friends in college get credit for tests the friends didn't take

-- learned to blow things up using both common and dangerous chemicals in high school

-- learned several languages

-- knew about various weapons

-- served in a war

-- bumped up against CIA and ONI officers

-- had a political history of far right and far left views

-- never was arrested

-- had as an adult few friends

-- kept to himself

-- made money in a way not understood by others

-- spent considerable time in L.A., Dallas, Washington, D.C.

-- created paintings and drawings

-- said some outrageous and ridiculous things

-- knew about intelligence work and math

-- followed politics closely

So, is this individual like Marina's husband? No, because Marina's husband is different. He takes the plunge and goes to the USSR. And marries a Russian woman. And Impregnates her.

No, David. The individual described understands much. As Oswald would have. The individual described is not Oswald.

Did he play the piano in Vietnam?

--Tommy :sun

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...