Michael Walton Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 To actually, and I'm assuming seriously, think that Jimmy and John think that the image on the left is supposedly an Oswald clone, and he's up there signaling to the police to come up to capture his clone proves: He did a lousy job since his clone got away and was captured later The two J's are desperate and are now pulling anything they can find out of their hats to bolster the HL caper They have no shame. At all. All for the dollars to hook the next gen of newbies interested in the case. They're not interested in the truth, despite what Dawn and others think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 11, 2017 Author Share Posted April 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Michael Walton said: To actually (and I'm assuming seriously) think that Jimmy and John think the image on the left is an Oswald clone, and that he's up there in the TSBD signaling to the police to come on up and capture "Harvey," proves that he did a lousy job, since "Harvey" got away and was captured later. The two J's are desperate and are now pulling anything they can find out of their hats to bolster the HL caper They have no shame. At all. All for the dollars to hook the next gen of newbies interested in the case. They're not interested in the truth, despite what Dawn and others think. [edited without permission by T. Graves] Michael, I'm starting to think the Russians have been paying them for a long time to spread this "National Security State" paranoiac way of thinking. Or maybe they're not getting paid for it, but are simply incredibly gullible and have, therefore, swallowed "hook, line, and sinker" all of the misinformation the KGB, etc, have been churning out over the decades. -- Tommy Edited April 11, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 On 07/04/2017 at 5:11 PM, Jim Hargrove said: Do you think these images are all of the same person? For those wanting to be kept abreast of things, wouldn't it be nice if the above image implicitily stated which ones are which Oswald... ... is, say, number 19 & 20 meant to be the same one was number 66 & 67? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Alistair, The last photo of LEE is the 1959 Passport photo... 3rd row #7 from the left 3rd row, #'s 1, 3, 7 (#4 has been retouched... I have a version which shows what's underneath... it's not Harvey.) 2nd row - #'s 2, 8, 9,10 from left to right 1st row is all Lee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 5 hours ago, Dawn Meredith said: Jim I hardly ever come here anymore. Seems a waste of time. Answering all these questions and proving over and over that John Armstrong's research is valid goes no where. Naysayers don't care about truth, just argument for the sake of argument. All of the witnesses who testified as to the perfection of Harvey's Russian had zero motive to lie. And was pointed out he had not mastered the English language. Typical of someone whose second language is English. Thanks, Dawn. This thread was started by Tommy Graves to try and criticize Harvey and Lee, but it just gives me a chance to explain it some more. You'd be surprised how many notes and letters I get from people who are reading, but not posting, to this thread. They are amazingly supportive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 5 hours ago, Michael Clark said: It's like watching a tennis match. Your neck gets sore, but you just can't stop watching because you are amazed at Jim's stamina and skill in single-handedly holding his own against a team on the other side of the court. Cheers, Michael It's amazing what having the truth on my side can do. Despite all the names they call me, at some point they have to at least pretend to be interested in the facts, and that's where I can beat them all day long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: It's amazing what having the truth on my side can do. Despite all the names they call me, at some point they have to at least pretend to be interested in the facts, and that's where I can beat them all day long. Yes Jim, I wish there was less mocking and ridiculing. I said before that this story has tremendous breadth and width, and covers ground that even detractors accept. The theory necessarily entertains all extremes by its fully researched nature. It's a shame that people want to have fun by going to the waekest points on the structure and take a sledge hammer to it just to prove a point. I posted a thread, weeks back, hoping to get some clarification on some truly "what-the-heck!" moments in the case that really could use some explanation, but there were no takers. I guess it's just more fun to point out the weakest areas of the structure, and harp about that, and sling dung at the researcher. Cudos-to-you, and... Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 You'd be surprised how many notes and letters I get from people who are reading, but not posting, to this thread. They are amazingly supportive. That is an amazingly scary thought, Jim. People have a right to believe what they want but anyone who really believes this caper I can't help but think they're the ones who think 9/11 was fixed, little green men crawl around in bed with them, we never landed on the moon, and they live in rooms with tin foil draped walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: Alistair, The last photo of LEE is the 1959 Passport photo... 3rd row #7 from the left 3rd row, #'s 1, 3, 7 (#4 has been retouched... I have a version which shows what's underneath... it's not Harvey.) 2nd row - #'s 2, 8, 9,10 from left to right 1st row is all Lee. As I mentioned before, this poster really has no bearing on the H&L theory. Jack White thought there were 3 or 4 Marguerites and perhaps as many or more Oswalds as evidenced by the text preceding the photos. Most of the photos are "Harvey" yet White thought something was strange about all of the photos. So this really does nothing to promote the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 54 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Alistair, The last photo of LEE is the 1959 Passport photo... 3rd row #7 from the left 3rd row, #'s 1, 3, 7 (#4 has been retouched... I have a version which shows what's underneath... it's not Harvey.) 2nd row - #'s 2, 8, 9,10 from left to right 1st row is all Lee. The 3rd row #4 looks really weird indeed - especially the size of the nose. lol Anyway, specifically, is number 20 (2nd row, 9th from the left) and number 66 (6th row, 11th from left) both Lee, or both Harvey, or one and the other. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 54 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: I posted a thread, weeks back, hoping to get some clarification on some truly "what-the-heck!" moments in the case that really could use some explanation, but there were no takers. I guess it's just more fun to point out the weakest areas of the structure, and harp about that, and sling dung at the researcher. Cudos-to-you, and... Cheers, Michael Well, if any of them had to do with "Lee Harvey Oswald," why don't you bring them up on this thread? (I really don't have the free time to participate in much other than this thread, which is the one I'm interested in.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: Well, if any of them had to do with "Lee Harvey Oswald," why don't you bring them up on this thread? (I really don't have the free time to participate in much other than this thread, which is the one I'm interested in.) I would Jim, but the problem is two-fold. First. My thread was directed at nay-sayers; kind of trying to meet on common ground. And my single, noted instance would already be acknowledged by an adherent such as, if I may, yourself. Second, this thread, as the title implies, was meant to deride the H&L phenomenon. There is no point bringing up a particular instance when folks are half-cocked with the aim of knocking it down. Heck, I could knock it down, calling the witnesses fibbers or unreliable. To be sure, this is just a bad-blood thread. I am glad that you are enjoying the challenge. Also, to be sure, the one instance that I mentioned in my thread was the Furniture Mart incident. I can't discount all the testimony. On top of that, it suggests an impersonation of the entire Oswald Family.... baffling! Cheers, Michael Edited April 11, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 48 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said: The 3rd row #4 looks really weird indeed - especially the size of the nose. lol Anyway, specifically, is number 20 (2nd row, 9th from the left) and number 66 (6th row, 11th from left) both Lee, or both Harvey, or one and the other. Regards #20 is of LEE entering the Marines with the gigantic head... #66 is Harvey's arrest photo from New Orleans in Aug 1963 Row 3 #4 is the "after" of an altered photo. At this post you can see what I'm talking about. I know of no photo of Lee after 1959 in the JFK records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 11 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Row 3 #4 is the "after" of an altered photo. At this post you can see what I'm talking about. I just had a quick scan through the first couple of pages of that thread to find out who 'altered' it - did I read it right that it was 'altered' by Jack White? Or by someone else? 16 minutes ago, David Josephs said: #20 is of LEE entering the Marines with the gigantic head... #66 is Harvey's arrest photo from New Orleans in Aug 1963 'gigantic head' indeed compared to what the 'average' size of head is... lol Was it Lee or Harvey that was 2 inches taller than the other? Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 15 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said: I just had a quick scan through the first couple of pages of that thread to find out who 'altered' it - did I read it right that it was 'altered' by Jack White? Or by someone else? 'gigantic head' indeed compared to what the 'average' size of head is... lol Was it Lee or Harvey that was 2 inches taller than the other? Regards I seem to remember Jack having something to do with it, but I don't think he originally changed it from the John Woods image... IDK Harvey was shorter than Lee by a couple of inches and was a few dozen pounds lighter... Here are "some real gems" from the testimony of Oswald's brother Edward... where Mom and little Ozzie lived when they first came to NY. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Or how about in New Orleans in 1963? Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother? Mr. PIC - That is correct. Edward tried to play along... but was quickly corrected Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is. Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture. Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee. Mr. PIC - No, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now