New Article by John Armstrong

[Jim Hargrove]

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can we get this out in the open?  

The two people were the late Gary Mack and Dave Perry.

Mack of course that that mid life conversion, like St Paul on the road to Damascus, and Perry was Gus Russo's old buddy who transferred to Texas just in time to help Posner on his book.

Thank you, Jim.  I remembered Gary Mack, but not Mr. Perry. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Paul Trejo wrote: First, about Probe.  It's not online -- it's still being sold as a 'back issue' deal by DiEugenio et al.

OK thanks Paul...   

Michael,

About the Harvey & Lee series and Probe Magazine in the 1990's, I can say this much with certainty:.

Harvey and Lee: The Case for Two Oswalds, Part 2, appeared in PROBE, Vol. 5, No. 1 November-December, 1997

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael Walton said:

Exactly right.  And the funniest thing of all, it seems like all Hardly Lee believers DO NOT buy into anything the government wrote.  In other words, they think EVERYTHING is fake in the Warren Report.  Richly ironic.  But when it suits them, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll start reciting chapter and verse ANYTHING  in that so-called fake record to suit their fun-and-games HARDLY LEE story. LOL, indeed.

 

What you do Mike is generalize about everything you hate and place it all at the feet of H&L folks, whether it is justified or not.

Sandy,

I thought that Michael W's point above was anything but hateful.  He had a good humor about his observation.   Further, his observation was intriguing and accurate, from everything I've seen and heard about the Harvey & Lee series, which mocks the Warren Report until it wants to quote some witness or other.

Nice observation by Michael W.

What I think that Michael Walton might be missing (and maybe Tracy Parnell, too) is that the Harvey & Lee writers may be hoping for some Hollywood movie deal from all of this spy-fantasy that they're spinning out.  True balderdash, but sometimes for Hollywood, the more balderdash the better -- and the money is huge.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 5, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

19 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

And here's John's write-up of THE PATSY...

THE PATSY

Jim,

In reading this article by John Armstrong, it's clear that Tracy Parnell has raised a valid objection about Armstrong's big deal about those witnesses who claimed Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't drive, and those who claimed he could drive. 

In this article, Armstrong sort of downplays all those who said Oswald couldn't drive -- but he emphasizes, with a graphic table, the 32 who claimed that Oswald could drive .

Yet Tracy Parnell offered a valid critique -- those who said Oswald couldn't drive knew Oswald for months and even years -- while those who said Oswald could drive were largely those who had never seen Oswald before in their lives, and anyway could have been mistaken that it was Oswald at all.

Tracy's remarks are calm and not-hateful.  They are fact-checking, which is quite different.

I suggest -- for those who really want to probe the Harvey & Lee CT, that we concentrate for a long time on this one doctrine by John Armstrong -- and get down into every single witness on both sides -- for a sincere critique and defense.

That's only fair.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 5, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Jim Hargrove]

Sure, but in an article also on my website specifically about the driving issue, John makes it abundantly clear that Marina and Robert and Ruth and Michael Paine all clearly said Lee HARVEY Oswald couldn’t drive.  Read it here:

The Man Who Could—and Couldn’t—Drive

The first paragraph in that article reads as follows, 

Marina Oswald, Robert Oswald and Ruth and Michael Paine all told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that Lee Harvey Oswald did not drive an automobile and did not have a driver's license. But more than thirty witnesses said Oswald did drive, including former employees of the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Department who saw, touched and handled Oswald's driver's license after he was killed. This article explores these seeming contradictions.

[Jim Hargrove]

On 12/3/2017 at 2:25 PM, Tom Hume said:

I think Mr. Armstrong’s article has highlighted how the best and brightest assassination planners in the world appear to have designed the framing of Lee Oswald in such an absurdly inept manner that The Three Stooges should be green with envy. 

As Mr. Armstrong so expertly points out, nearly every framing element falls to pieces on close examination. A well designed frame should have led to an open and shut case, but there are so many contradictions and impossibilities that that didn’t happen. 

There are a number of possibilities why this is so. My take is that Lee Oswald, his twin, and their handler, were secretly sabotaging Oswald’s patsy bona fides while also trying to sabotage the coup. In my amateurish way, I’ve been suggesting that they also left us a trove of explanatory puzzles to solve. 

My guess is that the sabotaging work of Oswald and his crew is why we’re still studying and talking about many of these things today. While getting a handle on the “big picture” is critical, I think the minutia surrounding Oswald’s frame-up is important too. 

 

Tom,

Sorry, I meant to respond to this earlier but forgot.  At any rate….

I’ve thought a lot about why the plotters weren’t more careful setting up Lee HARVEY Oswald as the would-be assassin.  For one thing, they knew he couldn’t be allowed to live and defend himself at a trial; that would have been unthinkable.  But they were more clever than that.

There is no discernible reason why Harvey moved back to New Orleans in May 1963 other than, as most  researchers suspect, to begin the public sheep-dipping process painting the patsy-to-be as a Castro-loving commie.  But I think there was a more important reason.  In New Orleans, the CIA’s Clay Shaw handed off Oswald to the FBI’s Guy Banister, thereby linking him to both the CIA and the FBI.  In his book, Gerald Ford wrote that Oswald became an FBI informant in 1962, but I think that date is incorrect.  At any rate, as a paid informant of the FBI, it was clear that J. Edgar Hoover would be all to happy to sweep the whole "Oswald Project" under the carpet, which is exactly what happened.

Some researchers have suggested that the setup was deliberately sloppy to send a message to other politicians and power-brokers.  Something like, "Mess with the Cold War Money Train and we'll mess with you."  I don't know if that is true or not.  Your posts are always interesting, even if we don't agree about some of the specifics of the two Oswalds.

[Bernie Laverick]

12 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I without the same three hooligans throwing sucker punches, and kiscks to the head, like rabid dogs, thugs or vermin. 

This article stood clear of the the larger Harvey and Lee work, but a hurt-child and dedicated ramshackle couldn't leave it be.

lay dome some straight-up criticism, find fault with references citations or arguments, that's fine. 

Waltons hurt and despondency over his works bending ignored has created a disturbed child who needs to be removed from tha class of normal students.

Walton has whined about no one paying attention to his garbage before, and we all have to pay for his delinquent, childish acting out.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/7252-michael-walton/?do=content&type=forums_topic&change_section=1

Rabid dogs? Thugs? VERMIN?????? That's what the Nazis called the Jews!! Proud of that are you?

I think you need a bit of anger management buddy.

In the meantime the mods should suspend you until you can learn to be civil.

And the loser starts the post by saying...."It's just really disappointing that we can't have a decent discussion about a decent article..." Without your nasty name calling Michael? Is that what you meant to ask?

[Paul Trejo]

9 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Sure, but in an article also on my website specifically about the driving issue, John makes it abundantly clear that Marina and Robert and Ruth and Michael Paine all clearly said Lee HARVEY Oswald couldn’t drive.  Read it here:

The Man Who Could—and Couldn’t—Drive

The first paragraph in that article reads as follows, 

Marina Oswald, Robert Oswald and Ruth and Michael Paine all told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that Lee Harvey Oswald did not drive an automobile and did not have a driver's license. But more than thirty witnesses said Oswald did drive, including former employees of the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Department who saw, touched and handled Oswald's driver's license after he was killed. This article explores these seeming contradictions.

Jim,

This is what I mean about downplay.   Armstrong names the Oswalds and the Paines -- but he neglects to name all the Russian Émigrés in Fort Worth and Dallas who also knew the Oswalds, and who largely agree that Oswald never drove a car -- and there's about twenty of them.   Then there was Oswald's mother -- also his Marine buddies  -- many people who knew Oswald for months and even years -- who said he couldn't drive.

The "more than 30 witnesses" who said Oswald did drive, were mainly one-time viewers of Oswald, so the likelihood of "mistaken identity" is great.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 5, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Jim Hargrove]

The White Russians in Dallas knew Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald, and a number of them, George de Mohrenschildt for example, were amazed by his fluency in Russian.  Harvey Oswald, as they believed, did not have a driver's license and did not drive.  American born Lee Oswald did have a driver's license.  That license was turned into the Department of Public Safety License Records Department in Austin soon after the assassination.

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That license was turned into the Department of Public Safety License Records Department in Austin soon after the assassination.

Where is it?

[Jim Hargrove]

Uh... Tracy... the answer can be found in this book called Harvey and Lee.  It's written by a fellow named John Armstrong.

Perhaps you can use some research skills and answer your own question.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

58 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Uh... Tracy... the answer can be found in this book called Harvey and Lee.

No it can't because the alleged license is nowhere-it doesn't exist. However, it fits in perfectly with the other elements of the H&L theory-mistaken witnesses, misinterpreted documents and so on.

[David Josephs]

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 11:44 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Where is it?

Same place most any of the incriminating evidence went... up in smoke.

But there is an unsigned application and the testimony of the workers who saw and handled it...
Of course you'll say they are all mistaken.... 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by David Josephs

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Uh... Tracy... the answer can be found in this book called Harvey and Lee.  It's written by a fellow named John Armstrong.

Perhaps you can use some research skills and answer your own question.

Jim,

The fact remains that the name, "Lee Harvey Oswald" was not a unique name in the USA in 1963.

This would lead a number of people to presume that the most infamous man in America in 1963 had come close to their own lives -- but it was "mistaken identity."

So -- we need to LOOK AT this alleged driver's license to determine if it really belonged to the most infamous man in the USA in 1963 -- OR NOT.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 5, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

3 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Same place most any of the incriminating evidence went... up in smoke.

But there is an unsigned application and the testimony of the workers who saw and handled it...
Of course you'll say they are all mistaken.... 

David,

The point is that the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" was not a unique name in the USA in 1963.

The PHOTOGRAPH is crucial.  The ADDRESS is crucial.  The DATE OF ISSUE is crucial.   All this is CRUCIAL.

The name alone is not enough! 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo