Jump to content
The Education Forum

John Armstrong blasts the mail order rifle “evidence”


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 424
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks, Bart.

That's equivalent to $983 in today's money.

-- Tommy :sun

He wouldn't have spent that much money. It was, after all, really just a light meter. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
On 2/4/2016 at 3:22 PM, Jon G. Tidd said:

A key question is, why did the FBI fabricate so many documents, as John Armstrong alleges?

I believe Armstrong's allegations are correct.

I don't believe any FBI employee had a hand in killing JFK. The cover-up is another matter. So why did FBI agents fabricate those documents? I believe Hoover didn't want any official conclusion other than that LHO killed JFK acting alone. No one in any position of power in the U.S. government wanted any other conclusion. I believe the plotters anticipated this unfolding of events; which tells me the plotters had an unerring take on D.C. power politics.

That narrows the field for me.

Jon,

I think John Armstrong's case is weak, because he gloms onto typographical errors in documents and newspapers, and makes mountains out of mole-hills.

That said -- I perceive a few valid points within Armstrong's mountain of mole-hills.

First, I do perceive that at least one FBI agent had a hand in killing JFK, namely, Dallas FBI agent James Hosty.  I agree that the Cover-up is a separate matter -- and that FBI Headquarters merely wanted a Cover-up of a Domestic Assassination.

But IMHO, James Hosty was part of the plot, going way back into 1963, along with Robert Alan Surrey, a secret Nazi in Dallas, and his business partner, Ex-General Edwin Walker of Dallas.  

Hosty had been persecuting Lee Harvey Oswald for much of 1963.  Oswald was marked to be a Patsy of SOMETHING at some point, because the Radical Right in Dallas didn't like his personality.

Also, when Oswald tried to kill General Walker (as reported to the FBI by Natalie Voshinin on 4/14/1963, per Dick Russell, TMWKTM) Hosty got the message and told Surrey and Walker. Oswald was a marked man.

All the people at the John Birch Society meetings at Austin's BBQ in Dallas bad-mouthed Oswald after that -- and that would include JD Tippit as well as Dallas Postmaster Harry Holmes.

So -- yes -- as a function of the Dallas Radical Right -- I do believe that Dallas FBI agent James Hosty went rogue in 1963, and joined the plot by General Walker to kill both JFK and Oswald on the same day, by using JD Tippit.  Harry Holmes was part of the plot, as were many officials in the Dallas Police.

It almost worked to a T.

This CT is well-documented in Jeff Caufield's recent book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Trejo

You have shown us you have neither the analytical skills nor the supporting evidence to take on what Mr Armstrong accomplished.

You continue to throw unsupported BS against the Forum Walls yet none sticks, it all just slides off leaving behind what only can be described as your tell tale signature.

I see you preface one statement with "IMHO" yet your opinions are never humble and are never stated as opinions but only unsupported statements you call "opinion".

You know this for a fact?

Quote

Also, when Oswald tried to kill General Walker (as reported to the FBI by Natalie Voshinin on 4/14/1963, per Dick Russell, TMWKTM) Hosty got the message and told Surrey and Walker. Oswald was a marked man.

All the people at the John Birch Society meetings at Austin's BBQ in Dallas bad-mouthed Oswald after that -- and that would include JD Tippit as well as Dallas Postmaster Harry Holmes.

So you can support all this... including how Oswald was now a "marked man";  How you know what happens at the JBS meetings at Austin's...  Please do.

On this forum, "opinions" are only worth a read from those who have shown some level of understanding, some level of analytical accomplishment whereby the "opinion" actually carries some weight.  You sir have yet to enter the ballpark...   

You include descriptive adjectives in your "opinions" which also have no basis in reality and then need to explain how your opinions are colored by information you never seem able to supply.

I stick up for John here since he can't seem to find the strength to suffer the fools after actually DOING those things you've only read about.

Quote

First, I do perceive that at least one FBI agent had a hand in killing JFK, namely, Dallas FBI agent James Hosty. 

Perceive from what Paul?  What evidence do you have that supports Hosty having a hand in actually killing JFK beyond your own already debunked theories about the Walker shooting?

Considering you probably have not read 10% of the H&L material (which is double your normal effort) you are supremely unqualified to quibble with JA over the deeper meanings to the information he's uncovered.

The real bottom line is your inability to see the evidence staring you in the face, much like Mr. Von Pein.  If you cannot see how, where and why the FBI "interfered" with the evidence, the documentary evidence as well as the physical evidence in order to remove conflicting accounts as much as possible as well as insert incriminating evidence to strengthen the already weak case they had... I feel sorry for you.

The Evidence is the Conspiracy.  And no one had more control over the evidence than the FBI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PT,

Case in point...  here is page 1 of a FBI memo explaining how CURRY told the truth to reporters in Dallas
and another one regarding SHANKLIN and the same thing.

The FBI squashed to truth, regardless, and in its place the "Oswald is Guilty" along with the "FBI can do no wrong" stories.

Virtually every place the FBI could lie, they did.  and we have proof of virtually every one of them.  Walker shooting being yet another place for them to lie....  "steel-jacketed bullet" was used... Ooops

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2017 at 5:02 PM, David Josephs said:

Mr. Trejo

... What evidence do you have that supports Hosty having a hand in actually killing JFK beyond your own already debunked theories about the Walker shooting?

Mr. Josephs,

My evidence is the very book that FBI agent James Hosty wrote, entitled, Assignment Oswald (1996) which attempts to link Oswald with KGB agent Valery Kostikov in Mexico City, at the end of summer, 1963.  I gather that you're unfamiliar with this CT.

Also, Penn Jones, Jr. printed that James Hosty was the bridge partner of Robert Alan Surrey -- for years.   I gather you don't get what that implies.

Regards,
--Paul Treo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir,

With a basket and nine hands you couldn't gather a thing...

So one of the key FBI perpetrators writes something "which attempts to link"...  

Nothing wrong with the FBI (fox) explaining how Oswald (chicken) was doing something nefarious... AFTER the fox has eaten the chicken.

Good thing the sources you chose to hang your POV upon don't have an agenda.... :rolleyes:

HOSTY on the honesty of the FBI's investigation...

How about Hoover attempting all thru November to find any shred of evidence independent of the CIA, that Oswald was down there.

20 informants, an asset at the Gobernacion, And as of the 22nd the FBI was not able to independently corroborate Oswald being in Mexico

You ever see this Hoover handwritten comment in Jan 64?  What "Mexico City double dealing" you think he was referring to here?

Yet HOSTY is your authority on Oswald in Mexico...  whatever Paul.

591893a91d594_63-11-04FBIMexifile105-3702NARA124-10230-10426-Thoroughcheck11-4-63thru11-23OswaldnotseenorknowninMExico.thumb.jpg.526a436747ab9585aceb9e2cfb6b44e1.jpg 5918942e413ce_64-01-15HooverwrittennotesabouttheCIAlieaboutOswaldinMexico.jpg.2a435a2e899fe4d4f5a67868fe0e6f0f.jpg

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 0:32 PM, David Josephs said:

Sir,

With a basket and nine hands you couldn't gather a thing...

So one of the key FBI perpetrators writes something "which attempts to link"...  

Nothing wrong with the FBI (fox) explaining how Oswald (chicken) was doing something nefarious... AFTER the fox has eaten the chicken.

Good thing the sources you chose to hang your POV upon don't have an agenda.... :rolleyes:

HOSTY on the honesty of the FBI's investigation...

How about Hoover attempting all thru November to find any shred of evidence independent of the CIA, that Oswald was down there.

20 informants, an asset at the Gobernacion, And as of the 22nd the FBI was not able to independently corroborate Oswald being in Mexico

You ever see this Hoover handwritten comment in Jan 64?  What "Mexico City double dealing" you think he was referring to here?

Yet HOSTY is your authority on Oswald in Mexico...  whatever Paul.

Mr. Josephs,

Your insults only weaken your case.  You haven't learned that yet.

You insult freely as though the majority here agree with you and your "Harvey and Lee" obsession.

Yet you're entirely mistaken, Mr. Josephs.  Your insults fall flat because readers here consider the source.

As for James Hosty's book, Assignment Oswald (1996), he was trying to clear his name and sooth his guilty conscience.  The theme of this little gem is that Oswald was working with KGB agent Valery Kostikov in 1963 to kill JFK, and that the FBI knew it, the CIA knew it, and the whole US Government knew it, and refused to tell poor little James Hosty.

Yet the only people in 1996 who tried to link Oswald with Valery Kostikov were the people inside the plot of the Telephone Impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City, where some Mole (likely David Morales, according to Bill Simpich (2014)) tried to link the name of Kostikov with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Since Hosty published this in 1996, he signed his own confession.  He was part of the plot.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul -

I, like so many others here, am wondering how someone who fails to follow the sources and footnotes and only relies on his own interpretation of other people's work, can be relied upon to present a coherent argument in support of their conclusions.

I don't quote Armstrong, I go and look at the source documents from which the conclusion arises.  The interpretation/authentication/corroboration of the source material is all we have these days...  If all we needed to do was read the book and agree - why aren't you using Bugliosi's book as reference?

Bill's own replies illustrate your inability to understand the points he makes and the suppositions they are built upon... you continually regurgitate the conclusions of others like a parrot without a thought as to how the evidence does or does not support such conclusions.

Take your conclusions for example...  repeatedly you are informed about how the basis for your conclusions are severely flawed yet instead of attempting to learn anything... you proceed as if you're deaf dumb and blind to thoughts other than your own.

Quote

he was trying to clear his name and sooth his guilty conscience

Paul - you haven't the first clue regarding the man's motives and mindset...  yet you state them and most everything else as a foregone conclusions...  it is this main reason so many here are tired of seeing your name.  When challenged you NEVER deliver...  why is that you suppose?

Quote

The theme of this little gem is that Oswald was working with KGB agent Valery Kostikov in 1963 to kill JFK

As usual you come thru every time.   Are you truly so lost that you fail to see how it was the CIA and State Dept who created and nurtured the Kostikov story.  It was the TRANSCRIPT which attempts to link the two and it is the RUSSIAN END OF THE CALL who mentions Kostikov, not the Oswald impersonator.  It was the letter from Goodpasture and the Russian Desk (LADILLINGER).  And then Scott informing Ambassador Mann...

As we both know, the "YES" reply from the Oswald impersonator may or may not have anything to do with the Russian person's mention of Kostikov.

DO YOU GET THAT PAUL?  Oswald, the man Ruby killed, had nothing at all to do with the calls that pushed the name "Kostikov"... the impersonator and whoever they supposedly spoke to at the Russian Embassy created that connection.... Scott and Mann supported and propagated the lie... Hosty claiming it was Lee Harvey in Mexico just shows how far the FBI would go to cover its tracks and how naive you as a researcher remain.  

Even Hoover says there was another person impersonating Oswald.. a 2nd person down in Mexico... NOT that it was never Oswald in the first place...

Paul...  if you took the time to back up your arguments, you'd never argue for or against anything...  I guess you're just lazy?

We're all just getting very tired of your opinions backed with books written to purposefully confuse...or your confused offerings of interpretation on books written exposing the crimes.  Next you'll tell us the Clint Hill book is THE source for evidence related to the shooting...  and the true activities of the SS that day... :rolleyes:

From all angles you present as a parrot.  Mindlessly repeating the conclusions of others arrived at after years of work without any understanding of what created these conclusions in the first place... and when you do attempt to delve deeper you consistently show the lack of insight for which you're famous.  You paraphrase others incorrectly and then argue with them.  You attempt to stand on the shoulders of others as you try to attack JA for example, a man so far out of your league as to make you laughable by comparison yet you somehow feel it your right to attack using borrowed tactics and work that eludes you.

But you go right on sticking to your guns Paul.  Stay with the Walker angle and Oswald being in Mexico...  DON'T look into the sources and records for H&L as that requires work, time and interest...  

We realize you can't be bothered with facts, evidence or interpretation as you make your case...

B)

 


 

 

58bddc95ecebd_63-10-08104-10418-10327LADILLINGERsendsinitalcablereLIMPROVEACCLIENVOY1OCT63onOswaldinMexicotowho.thumb.png.1c16a06eb8aef7ffb090f79c7af2ff02.png58b5e0833a628_63-10-16WINSCOTTsaysLeeHENRYinMexicoandseesKostikov.thumb.jpg.05c2f157ae65a5f323663ee50e8dff3d.jpg.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Paul -

I, like so many others here, am wondering how someone who fails to follow the sources and footnotes and only relies on his own interpretation of other people's work, can be relied upon to present a coherent argument in support of their conclusions.

I don't quote Armstrong, I go and look at the source documents from which the conclusion arises.  The interpretation/authentication/corroboration of the source material is all we have these days...  If all we needed to do was read the book and agree - why aren't you using Bugliosi's book as reference?

Bill's own replies illustrate your inability to understand the points he makes and the suppositions they are built upon... you continually regurgitate the conclusions of others like a parrot without a thought as to how the evidence does or does not support such conclusions.

Take your conclusions for example...  repeatedly you are informed about how the basis for your conclusions are severely flawed yet instead of attempting to learn anything... you proceed as if you're deaf dumb and blind to thoughts other than your own.

Paul - you haven't the first clue regarding the man's motives and mindset...  yet you state them and most everything else as a foregone conclusions...  it is this main reason so many here are tired of seeing your name.  When challenged you NEVER deliver...  why is that you suppose?

As usual you come thru every time.   Are you truly so lost that you fail to see how it was the CIA and State Dept who created and nurtured the Kostikov story.  It was the TRANSCRIPT which attempts to link the two and it is the RUSSIAN END OF THE CALL who mentions Kostikov, not the Oswald impersonator.  It was the letter from Goodpasture and the Russian Desk (LADILLINGER).  And then Scott informing Ambassador Mann...

As we both know, the "YES" reply from the Oswald impersonator may or may not have anything to do with the Russian person's mention of Kostikov.

DO YOU GET THAT PAUL?  Oswald, the man Ruby killed, had nothing at all to do with the calls that pushed the name "Kostikov"... the impersonator and whoever they supposedly spoke to at the Russian Embassy created that connection.... Scott and Mann supported and propagated the lie... Hosty claiming it was Lee Harvey in Mexico just shows how far the FBI would go to cover its tracks and how naive you as a researcher remain.  

Even Hoover says there was another person impersonating Oswald.. a 2nd person down in Mexico... NOT that it was never Oswald in the first place...

We're all just getting very tired of your opinions backed with books written to purposefully confuse...or your confused offerings of interpretation on books written exposing the crimes.  Next you'll tell us the Clint Hill book is THE source for evidence related to the shooting...  and the true activities of the SS that day... :rolleyes:

From all angles you present as a parrot.  Mindlessly repeating the conclusions of others arrived at after years of work without any understanding of what created these conclusions in the first place... and when you do attempt to delve deeper you consistently show the lack of insight for which you're famous.  You paraphrase others incorrectly and then argue with them.  You attempt to stand on the shoulders of others as you try to attack JA for example, a man so far out of your league as to make you laughable by comparison yet you somehow feel it your right to attack using borrowed tactics and work that eludes you.

 

Mr. Josephs,

Oswald was in Mexico City during the final week of September, 1963.  That is a historical fact as indicated by The Lopez Report.   Edwin Lopez himself admitted it -- although he recognizes that without photographic evidence from Mexico City Embassy Compound, he couldn't officially declare it.

J. Edgar Hoover cannot be presented as a witness in the case -- because he was too busy upholding his Lone Nut theory of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO).  Almost everything that the FBI presented to the Warren Commission about LHO was a fiction.  The bus ride.  The bus ride witnesses (whose stories fall apart like dandelions). 

When you say, "we're all just getting tired of your opinions," Mr. Josephs, you are speaking for yourself and who else?  Your pets?  James DiEugenio?  Who else?  Nobody of any importance, I daresay.

The "Harvey and Lee" nonsense is the most tiresome CT in the world, as I count it.   Your advocacy of that CT is what is most tiresome.

According to the Lopez Report -- which includes input from Anne Goodpasture and other CIA officials in Mexico City at the time -- the Oswald Impersonator was known to be somebody other than Oswald within MINUTES of the Impersonation.  MINUTES!

Finally -- this nonsense that Kostikov, a KGB assassin, was "secretly working for the CIA" -- is among the most ludicrous nonsense of the "Harvey and Lee" production.  For John Armstrong -- your hero whom you parrot -- there is no difference between the CIA and the KGB.  That's the Spy Fiction that y'all call a CT.  It's ludicrous.

DO YOU GET THAT, MR. JOSEPHS?

Y'all take perfectly good evidence -- like the Dallas Postmaster Harry Holmes manipulating data along with the Dallas police in order to frame LHO for the JFK murder -- and then you fumble it with this "Harvey and Lee" Spy Fiction.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, 

Quote

inally -- this nonsense that Kostikov, a KGB assassin, was "secretly working for the CIA" -- is among the most ludicrous nonsense of the "Harvey and Lee" production.  For John Armstrong -- your hero whom you parrot -- there is no difference between the CIA and the KGB.  That's the Spy Fiction that y'all call a CT.  It's ludicrous.

Nothing worse than someone attempting to "one-up" you using your own insults...  

Point to it Paul... where does John claim Kostikov worked for the CIA? or is this you being you and blurting out "alt-facts" to support your argument  

I've just been thru the entire book and in every case KOSTIKOV is described the same way.  If you can't post a excerpt from the book to support your statement I expect an apology to this forum for all the BS you continually throw out as fact which only winds up being your unsupported imagination at work.

"Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov was the senior Consular officer and handled matters relating to the issuance of visas."
"The October 16 memo identified VALERIY VLADIMIROVICH KOSTIKOV as a member of the Consular Section"
"Following the assassination Oswald's contacts at the Cuban Consulate, the Soviet Embassy, and his alleged meeting with Kostikov were known immediately"
"The other CIA officer to receive the October 8 cable was Tennent Bagley, who waited until the day after the assassination (November 23) to identify Kostikov as a KGB officer working in KGB Department 13"
"After the Warren Commission was created Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton used Oswald's alleged contact with alleged KGB assassin Kostikov to have his department act as liaison with the Commission."

"On January 31 1964 Raymond Rocca, probably at the direction of James Angleton,
sent a memo to the Warren Commission that read, "Kostikov is believed to work for Department
Thirteen ..... The Thirteenth Department headquarters, according to very reliable
information, conducts interviews or, as appropriate, file reviews on every foreign
military defector to the USSR (a clear reference to Oswald) to study and to determine the
possibility of using the defector in his country of origin."

You simply don't get it.  I see that.  The LOPEZ report starts with the assumption the WCR was correct about Oswald's travel to and from Mexico.

I prove that to be false. https://kennedysandking.com/content/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-index 

Simply because the conclusion is ACCEPTED does not make the WCR right.  Even the Lopez report acknowledges the real possibility of Oswald's impersonation.  In fact, they cannot find a single item of evidence that Oswald existed outside the consulates...  I go thru each and every item of evidence offered to put Oswald in Mexico... and illustrate how not only was the evidence wrong but it was created solely to support the CIA's story of Oswald in MC.

But if you think you have something - share it please.

"It is the conclusion of this committee that the WC correctly established that Oswald traveled to Mexico"    

If you take a few days and actually read thru the work on the FBI manufactured evidence of Oswald's Mexico City travel.  

 

img_799_15_300.png

img_799_17_300.png

 

img_799_18_300.pngimg_799_19_300.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

The alleged bus ride of Oswald to Mexico City was laughed at for DECADES before your article.

The witnesses are ludicrous, and contradict each other.

Your article, by the way, misses the key fact that destroys the testimony of Pamela Mumford, when she said that the grey sweater Oswald was wearing when he was shot was the same sweater that he was wearing on the Mexico City bus trip.

But Oswald got that grey sweater from Jesse Curry the very morning he was shot!

So, Jesse Curry proved her wrong, even aside from her self contradictions.

You missed many other important facts in your article.

There was no bus ticket.  Mexican Immigration recorded that Oswald entered and exited Mexico AS A PASSENGER IN A CAR.

Your article failed to deal with the facts of history, David, especially the historical truth that Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City during the final week of September, 1963.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
On 2/20/2016 at 9:24 PM, James DiEugenio said:

See, on the show BOR did with Armstrong, I mentioned the following: about two years ago, John Armstrong found a postal worker who is about 85 years old. And he had retired for many years and had moved to Hawaii. John showed him a facsimile of the envelope and asked him what the 12 meant. He said it was for a postal zone.

Where did Armstrong say this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...