New Article by John Armstrong

[Paul Trejo]

4 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Typical garbage from Michael "Oh-so-hurt!" Walton. Sandy must have not noticed Walton's genius at some point and so he now, repeatedly, over and over, takes something that Sandy said and fabricates a story around it, making stuff up, in an effort to mock Sandy.  Michael here is making a bogus synopsis of Sandy's thoughts feelings and opinions and it is totally out of place. He does similar things to me. He should be banned from this forum, all he does is criticize and fabricate slander about other members...

Michael,

How dare you accuse anybody else, by saying, "He should be banned from this forum, all he does is criticize and fabricate slander about other members..."  You're describing yourself to a "T".

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

You claim you want to see evidence, and not mere opinions.  So, I offered a link from YouTube featuring Jack White himself.  Here it is again:   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LClaOlzslJk

Start the video at minute 27:45, and watch for about 5 minutes (until about minute 33:00).

Jack White here recognizes that the alleged "Marine" photograph which Jim displayed, is taken from an original that massively enlarges Lee Harvey Oswald's head.   It's photographically altered. 

Do you deny that?   The "enormously enlarged head" of Lee Harvey Oswald is the ORIGINAL of the alleged "Marine" photograph that Jim presented.   Do you deny that?  If so, tell me why.  You asked for material evidence and I presented it.    Instead of paying attention to it, you go off into Michael's opinions.   Do you want evidence or not?   If so, please stick to the issues, and try to avoid personal insults.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Paul,

In the your original post, the photo inset below is the one you said Jack White claimed to be fake:

 

•  

Now if you go to the video you posted, you will find that Jack White does NOT say that that photo is fake. Nor does it have anything to do with the photo showing Oswald with a 13" head (the one you described as an "enormously enlarged head"). The photo above was taken a couple years later, according to Jack White in the video.

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Clark]

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Paul,

In the your original post, the photo inset below is the one you said Jack White claimed to be fake:

 

•  

Now if you go to the video you posted, you will find that Jack White does NOT say that that photo is fake. Nor does it have anything to do with the photo showing Oswald with a 13" head. The photo above was taken a couple years later, according to Jack White in the video.

 

Yes Sandy, and Jack makes no claim that the inset photo is fabricated. It is shown briefly, and it is clear that he was working with it but he makes no claim as Paul stated.  Paul made this up and can't bear to admit it.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

7 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

How dare you accuse anybody else, by saying, "He should be banned from this forum, all he does is criticize and fabricate slander about other members..."  You're describing yourself to a "T".

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, you fabricate garbage all the time and you get called on it. That is what it is and unfortunately must be accepted, I guess. Michael Walton fabricates slander of other members all the time. I don't see how that is acceptable.

 

 

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul,

In the your original post, the photo inset below is the one you said Jack White claimed to be fake:

Now if you go to the video you posted, you will find that Jack White does NOT say that that photo is fake. Nor does it have anything to do with the photo showing Oswald with a 13" head (the one you described as an "enormously enlarged head"). The photo above was taken a couple years later, according to Jack White in the video.

Sandy,

What Jack White said was that both the 13" head photo of Oswald and the one that Jim posted (a Fake) were both taken in the Marines.

Although Jack said they were taken two years apart, they look identical to me.   The only difference was that the second one in Jack's line-up was used for a passport. 

Jack White showed a very fuzzy copy of the 13" head photograph.  Here it is again in a much clearer format.  It looks the same as the Fake photograph to me, where BOTH were retouched.

In any case -- you're technically correct -- Jack White himself said that these two photographs were taken a "couple of years" apart.  It's just that I see it differently.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

28 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul, you fabricate garbage all the time and you get called on it. That is what it is and unfortunately must be accepted, I guess. Michael Walton fabricates slander of other members all the time. I don't see how that is acceptable.

Says you -- the number one insult-meister on this Forum.

--Paul

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Paul, I don't know if you know this but just an FYI - Sandy Larsen claims to be agnostic about this whole case.  In other words, he claims that he still has not decided if there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy or not.  He claims he's still "studying" the evidence if you can believe that.

But to give you an idea of how he weighs the evidence he reads here and elsewhere, a long while back, he actually claimed that one of the bystanders down on the knoll was holding a "black object," meaning a pistol.  He claimed to see this in one of the films (either Muchmore or Nix...can't remember which one).  So to summarize, he actually believed that one of the old guys may have been involved in shooting Kennedy.  When I called him out on it, he actually said he was joking ("heh heh") which I'm assuming after giving it more thought, knew that his outrageous claim was a complete out in left field bogus theory.

Of course Sandy is also a 100% supporter of the Hardly Lee story too. So I just wanted to let you know what kind of "researcher" you're working with here.

Regards - Michael Walton

Michael,

Thanks for the courteous advice.  I've dealt with Sandy for most of 2017, so I know his style fairly well.   His position is harder to define, yet that may be, as you suggest here, because Sandy is still working out his own CT.  It's sad that he's been taken in by the H&L CT, yet I believe that Sandy is sincere, and so he'll soon see beyond it.

By the way, Sandy and I agree on a few points -- for example, that Antonio Veciana could have met David Atlee Phillips and Lee Harvey Oswald during the summer of 1963 in Dallas.  I'm still trying to convince Sandy that this was in the context of a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

20 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

What Jack White said was that both the 13" head photo of Oswald and the one that Jim posted (a Fake) were both taken in the Marines.

Although Jack said they were taken two years apart, they look identical to me.   The only difference was that the second one in Jack's line-up was used for a passport. 

Jack White showed a very fuzzy copy of the 13" head photograph.  Here it is again in a much clearer format.  It looks the same as the Fake photograph to me, where BOTH were retouched.

In any case -- you're technically correct -- Jack White himself said that these two photographs were taken a "couple of years" apart.  I see that now.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

More obfuscation from Paul Trejo who can't admit that he was wrong when he said that Jack claimed that the Carousel or the passport picture was faked. When you don't admit that you were wrong that becomes something else.

[Michael Clark]

19 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Says you -- the number one insult-meister on this Forum.

--Paul

I would gladly put together a list of esteemed researchers, with quotes, who have called you out as one who makes stuff up, chronically, if you like.

[Paul Trejo]

On 12/8/2017 at 9:38 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

All of this nit-picking is, of course, completely irrelevant.  Mr. Trejo knows full well there was never an adequate investigation into this case or the real biography of “Lee Harvey Oswald.” The point Mr. Trejo doesn’t want to admit is that multiple workers at the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Dept. said that “Lee Harvey Oswald” had a Texas driver’s license and that it was returned to the office less than a week after the assassination.

Mr. Trejo writes that because the license was worn and stained, as if carried in a wallet for some time, it was probably not carried by Classic Oswald®, who only lived in Texas for a short time before the assassination.  And that is reasonable.  Many people, including Marina, Robert, and both Paines said Classic Oswald® did not have a driver’s license and did not drive.

The man who DID have a diver’s license was the man born as “Lee Harvey Oswald,” who was active in the U.S. working with anti-Castro paramilitary forces while Classic Oswald® (Harvey) was in the Soviet Union.  The same American-born "Lee Harvey Oswald" worked with Jack Ruby in Dallas in 1963 while Harvey and Marina were in New Orleans.  For details on the Russia/U.S. Oswalds,  see:

Harvey in Russia... Lee in the USA

Lee framed Harvey for the assassination of JFK.  That is what John Armstrong’s new write-up is about.  Read it here:

Setting up HARVEY Oswald as the “Patsy”

Jim, 

You're mistaken on numerous accounts in this post.  I have read all of the WC testimony (several thousand pages) as it refers to Lee Harvey Oswald.   The material produced by his mother, Marguerite Oswald, and his brother, Robert Oswald, and his half-brother, John Pic, as well as various people from his childhood, including a psychiatrist who saw him when he was a youth in New York City, provides a very rich biography of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The fact that multiple workers as the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Department said that "Lee Harvey Oswald" had a Texas drivers license, and that it was returned to the office less than a week after the assassination proves NOTHING AT ALL unless we can see the license to confirm that it was the same "Lee Harvey Oswald" who was shot by Jack Ruby -- because neither John Anderson nor David Joseph nor yourself have done due diligence in demonstrating that no other Texans in 1963 were named "Lee Harvey Oswald." 

You have long argued that there was a "Lee Oswald" and a "Harvey Oswald" and now you seem to be arguing that that BOTH were named "Lee Harvey Oswald??"

There are a number of WC witnesses who claimed a one-time "sighting" of JFK's alleged killer, based only on the NAME.  This was at a rifle-repair shop, at a gun range, at a car dealership, and many others.  Now we have this "memory" of a "driver's license" which nobody can show us, because it doesn't exist.

I will answer the weak arguments in John Armstrong's "Setting up HARVEY Oswald as the "Patsy" in another post.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Michael Walton]

55 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

You have long argued that there was a "Lee Oswald" and a "Harvey Oswald" and now you seem to be arguing that that BOTH were named "Lee Harvey Oswald??"

Paul that's  one  of  the  slipperest of slopes of the Hardly Lee team. Elsewhere they actually believe now after I  stressed  over and  over  again the importance  of State Secret which pretty much nullifies  the entire Hardly Lee fiction. They've  now bought into  SS yet tongue cheek and when it suits them will dive back into  the comedic  Hardly Lee story.

Ironically  Larsen believes Hardly  yet also say he'll  read SS when he gets around to it

LOL X 2

LOL

Edited December 9, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Bernie Laverick]

4 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul, you fabricate garbage all the time and you get called on it. That is what it is and unfortunately must be accepted, I guess. Michael Walton fabricates slander of other members all the time. I don't see how that is acceptable.

 

 

 

 

Says the man who two pages ago referred to us as "vermin"!!!! Did you seriously not get suspended for that?

Michael thinks it is slanderous to criticise the H&L story and he gets very angry with those that do.

This is the bargain basement mentality we are up against.

[Michael Clark]

28 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Says the man who two pages ago referred to us as "vermin"!!!! Did you seriously not get suspended for that?

Michael thinks it is slanderous to criticise the H&L story and he gets very angry with those that do.

This is the bargain basement mentality we are up against.

Bernie I am not even and H&L adherent. I don't even know how else to describe the way that a few folks, yourself included, make it impossible to debate anything remotely related to H&L or Armstrong. Armstrong's new article only covers 1963, makes no claim about the larger H&L story, and you guys come out and start with the same old stuff, disrupting the thread with off topic stuff. It really resembles animalistic behavior: roaches, dogs, pirhana, vermin, whatever. You could bring an unsuspecting friend, and say, "watch this"; then drop an Armstrong quote in the forum and watch the madness ensue. You could take it humorously if you want. It is kind of funny except for the bad blood and ill will that it generates. I have questions for Jim about certain things but I just don't bother, because it's impossible to have a debate about anything H&L, even about a small limited, related incident. That's sad and frustrating. 

[Sandy Larsen]

ver·min

ˈvərmən/

noun

plural noun: vermin

1. wild mammals and birds that are believed to be harmful to crops, farm animals, or game, or that carry disease, e.g., foxes, rodents, and insect pests.

   synonyms:

   pests, parasites; More infestations; undesirables, lowlifes "an apartment crawling with vermin"

   • parasitic worms or insects.

     synonyms:

     pests, parasites; More infestations; undesirables, lowlifes "an apartment crawling with vermin"

   • people perceived as despicable and as causing problems for the rest of society.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Paul Trejo]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

ver·min

ˈvərmən/

noun

plural noun: vermin

1. wild mammals and birds that are believed to be harmful to crops, farm animals, or game, or that carry disease, e.g., foxes, rodents, and insect pests.

   synonyms:

   pests, parasites; More infestations; undesirables, lowlifes "an apartment crawling with vermin"

   • parasitic worms or insects.

     synonyms:

     pests, parasites; More infestations; undesirables, lowlifes "an apartment crawling with vermin"

   • people perceived as despicable and as causing problems for the rest of society.

Sandy,

I fail to see your point.   Are you saying that those who criticize the H&L CT are causing problems "for the rest of society," and are "despicable"?

If not, then what are you trying to say here?

If so, then please refrain from name-calling and personal attacks, and stick to the issues.  If you can't defend the H&L CT with arguments that stand up under scrutiny, then kindly admit that and move on.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2017 by Paul Trejo