For Messrs. Hargrove, Zartman, Kowalski, et al...

[Paul Brancato]

23 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Paul Brancato, in the book Armstrong theorizes that Lee, the original Lee Harvey Oswald from birth, is a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD. He is wearing a white T shirt while Harvey on the 2nd floor lunchroom wears the long sleeve brownish shirt buttoned up about halfway with a white T underneath. He also subscribes to the theory that Lee is the shooter of Tippit.

So I presume Lee was never taken into custody. Did harvey and Lee know each other?

btw I’m not too keen on H&L theory, though I know there are lots of discrepancies in LHO life that make one wonder what the heck was going on. 

[Jamey Flanagan]

Yeah, Lee was never "officially" taken into custody. Harvey gets to the Texas theater first and is actually in the theater while Lee is shooting Tippit. As theorized in the book of course. He's probably supposed to meet someone there. He sits beside several people. Lee comes in much later and goes to the balcony area while Harvey is in one of the floor seats. If I remember correctly at least one of the police reports (maybe more) stated that the suspect was arrested in the balcony. A couple of officers in on the plan actually escorted Lee out the back. This was witnessed by a local store owner who always thought he had witnessed the arrest of LHO only to find out many years later that LHO (Harvey) was brought out front by cops after his arrest inside. So, Lee is last seen being put into the back of a police car. Who knows what happens after this? But when the body of LHO was exhumed in the early eighties the head was not attached to the body. They used dental records to ID the body. Records of the real Lee while he was in the marines. So presumably he met his maker at some point between 1963 and 1981 (I think it was). The vault had been compromised when they dug it up. Apparently the head of Harvey was taken and replaced by the head of Lee at some point. Paul Groody, the mortician, said that this head that was examined upon exhumation did not have a craniatomy done on it which he had personally performed on the man shot by Jack Ruby. 

Sorry, I forgot, yes they knew each other if I remember correctly.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Jamey Flanagan
Forgot to answer a question I was asked.

[Michael Clark]

Warren commission investigators/ panelists/  (I can’t recall who was who, or their titles). as well as witnesses, were baffled by some of the twisted accounts that clearly pointed to an alter-identity / personality / agent, that explicitly left them dumbfounded, and stating that the situation needed to be sorted out ( eg. the Furniture Mart / The Barber shop LHO)). 

The length and breadth of the deep research done for H&L is extraordinarily valuable. Specific and ultimate conclusions cannot take that away.

Some of Marguerite’s alleged associations are beyond remarkable, if true.

I have always found the characterization of H&L researchers as a camp or squad as extremely unhelpful in getting the answers from those who are being queried. The inquiries are almost always framed in a manner that is fairly described as ridicule. I am saddened to see RCD pose his question in the same manner. He is so far above that. If I were truly curious about, and wanted an answer to, a question, I would never pose a question in such a manner: knowing that I would invoke defensiveness rather than a thoughtful response.

It is strange that the H&L queries almost always shake-out this way.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

While I admire Jamey Flanagan's wide-eyed enthusiasm, he needs to balance this with a bit of skeptical questioning. The example he gives, of an Oswald doppelganger arrested in the Texas Theater, was shown a couple of years ago to have been nothing of the sort. Only one person was arrested: the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170

Even Jim Hargrove, when he gets in trouble, no longer uses this example as one of his "look over there!" copy-and-paste distraction exercises.

As Robert points out, there are plenty of threads available for discussion of individual 'Harvey and Lee' talking points. You can find them by using the search function. This thread is about trying to get an answer to the claim that Edwin Ekdahl had a connection to US intelligence.

It's an interesting claim. It wouldn't be impossible for Ekdahl to have had such a connection, which might have some bearing on the biography of the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. It might shed some light on why Oswald was chosen to take the rap for the assassination. But it won't shed any light on a ludicrous long-term double-doppelganger scheme that could never have happened.

We've seen that Denny Zartman hasn't found any evidence to support this claim. We haven't yet heard from John Kowalski or Jim Hargrove. If anyone sees them around, could you let them know that their input would be appreciated, if only to acknowledge publicly that they have no evidence?

As things stand, the notion that Ekdahl had intelligence connections is just unsupported speculation.

[Jamey Flanagan]

I was answering a question that was asked directly to me. And just seeing this I haven't had the chance yet to check out the thread you posted. However,, I didn't say anyone else was arrested in the theater. I said that in police reports some said that LHO was arrested in a balcony seat and that witnesses saw a man being escorted out back. If no arrest record is found then obviously you can say that no one else was arrested. But no one doubted that 3 so called tramps were arrested even though no record could be found of their arrests until mysteriously, out of the blue, 30 years later after the movie JFK came out they found arrest records for 3 individuals. 

[Tony Krome]

4 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

I didn't say anyone else was arrested in the theater.

Not arrested, but some white guy was held by an officer;

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

19 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Warren commission investigators/ panelists/  (I can’t recall who was who, or their titles). as well as witnesses, were baffled by some of the twisted accounts that clearly pointed to an alter-identity / personality / agent, that explicitly left them dumbfounded, and stating that the situation needed to be sorted out ( eg. the Furniture Mart / The Barber shop LHO)). 

With all of which I’m in agreement.  Had the WC met its mandate, just think how different the past 5+ decades would have been.  Imagine all the spare time we would have had.

This thread is specifically devoted to questions re: Edwin Ekdahl and certain assertions made about him.  If you have something on the topic, I welcome it.  If not, perhaps those other comments might best be made in another thread.  (Or start one.)

19 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

The length and breadth of the deep research done for H&L is extraordinarily valuable. Specific and ultimate conclusions cannot take that away.

I have gone out of my way to extol the virtues of Armstrong’s research when it has led to hitherto unknown documents and people.  Anyone who won’t give him that credit is churlish.  But, again, today’s topic is Ekdahl.

19 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Some of Marguerite’s alleged associations are beyond remarkable, if true.

Wise use of “if true.”

 

19 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I have always found the characterization of H&L researchers as a camp or squad as extremely unhelpful in getting the answers from those who are being queried. The inquiries are almost always framed in a manner that is fairly described as ridicule. I am saddened to see RCD pose his question in the same manner. He is so far above that. If I were truly curious about, and wanted an answer to, a question, I would never pose a question in such a manner: knowing that I would invoke defensiveness rather than a thoughtful response.

It is strange that the H&L queries almost always shake-out this way.

You know, I kept my mouth shut on this topic for 15 years.  I was asked 20-ish years ago to vet early portions of the book.  I did as asked.

I made known some of my reservations, and my absolute insistence that the Lonsdale comparison was inappropriate, at least, deceptive at worst.  

And since it was the beginning of the book, it predisposed a careful reader to assume that all that followed was equally.... dubious.  I suspect the bulk of my comments were not entirely to their liking.  But I gave H&L a 15-year head start.  I’d call that fair.

After a week of expecting an answer to questions in another thread re: Ekdahl, to no reply, I thought I’d ask the question in a specific dedicated thread, addressed to those who had made assertions.

I’m pleased to say that Denny Zartman showed up, albeit to admit that further facts about Ekdahl wouldn’t be forthcoming.  It takes courage and honor to admit the limitations of one’s argument, and he’s a bigger man for having done so.  (Plus, he’s a good writer, and I like reading his stuff.... but don’t tell him I said that.)

I’m disappointed to report that all others to whom this thread is directed - both named and unnamed co-conspirators - have either posted nothing of significance, or nothing at all, and have studiously avoided posting a comment in this thread.  

They’re not required to answer questions put to them honestly, but these are opportunities to display the depth of their argument.  Why is such a grand opportunity being squandered?

And, Michael, I know you’ve been around the block enough times that I don’t even need to tell you the rest, because you know it by rote.

Assertions made re: H&L.

Questions posed re: assertions.

Silence.  

Or worse yet, “what about Bolton Ford?” and “what about...” everything but the topic at hand.

In this case, the issue is Ekdahl, and whether those who have him serving some kind of intel functions actually have any specific reason for the suspicions.  Thus far - nada.

Now the thread will be populated by any number of people who don’t speak to the issue of Ekdahl.  But feel compelled to say little, but at great length, here.

Assertions made re: H&L.

Rinse and repeat.

Now, who knows anything about Edwin Ekdahl's purported espionage activities?

[Sandy Larsen]

 

On 7/8/2021 at 1:52 PM, Paul Brancato said:

May I ask a question? Do the H&L theory supporters think either of both Harvey and Lee were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK? 

 

I just want to point out that most H&L supporters probably don't believe the whole theory the way John Armstrong writes it. For example, Armstrong's theory --as I understand it -- has only two LHOs. And that this was the case from their middle school years till Harvey was shot by Ruby. In the end it is like a Spy vs. Spy episode (from Mad Magazine) where the black spy is on the side killing JFK and the white spy is on the patsy side, and is the patsy. To me the whole spy vs. spy thing is silly... it's like a bad movie.

To me it makes a lot more sense that the original Lee Harvey Oswald was used only to provide a childhood background for the defector/spy Harvey. After the Marines switcheroo, Harvey (the one later shot by Ruby) became the "one and only" LHO as far as U.S. intelligence was concerned.

Now, clearly there were Harvey impostors after the switheroo took place. And who knows, maybe some of these missions were fulfilled by the original LHO. But by this time, as an adult, the original LHO likely no longer looked so much like Harvey. There was no reason the CIA had to keep using the original LHO as an imposter. If they needed someone who looked like Harvey, they could choose one from their ranks. If they needed one willing to kill (think Tippit), they could find one to do that.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

To me it makes a lot more sense that the original Lee Harvey Oswald was used only to provide a childhood background for the defector/spy Harvey. After the Marines switcheroo, Harvey (the one later shot by Ruby) became the "one and only" LHO as far as U.S. intelligence was concerned.

Now, clearly there were Harvey impostors after the switheroo took place. And who knows, maybe some of these missions were fulfilled by the original LHO. But by this time, as an adult, the original LHO likely no longer looked so much like Harvey. There was no reason the CIA had to keep using the original LHO as an imposter. If they needed someone who looked like Harvey, they could choose one from their ranks. If they needed one willing to kill (think Tippit), they could find one to do that.

I don't want to further sidetrack this thread (which at this point clearly demonstrates that H&L proponents do not have a shred of evidence to support the claim that Edwin Ekdahl was involved with U.S. intelligence), but I cannot let Sandy Larsen's latest post go without comment. Let's just break this down a bit, shall we?

Is Sandy claiming that, "after the Marines switcheroo," the original Lee Harvey Oswald was just off somewhere living his normal life, while his doppelganger "Harvey" was doing all the things we would normally have associated with the birth Oswald? Is Sandy actually claiming that there was some baseball team bullpen of lookalike imposters from which the CIA simply chose at their leisure to perform such missions as killing Officer Tippit? Would this then also mean that Marina Oswald was actually married to "Harvey" and never even met or knew the original Lee Harvey Oswald? And that Marina's children were fathered by "Harvey," and not Lee? And that Marguerite Oswald was unable to realize that her son Lee had been replaced by the doppelganger "Harvey" upon "his" return from the Soviet Union?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Although not about Ekdahl, Sandy Larsen’s post reveals some intriguing things:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I just want to point out that most H&L supporters probably don't believe the whole theory the way John Armstrong writes it.

Presumably Sandy Larsen can speak on behalf of “most H&L supporters.”

There is evidence for Sandy’s contention in this very thread, when Denny Zartman truthfully wrote:

On 7/7/2021 at 11:31 PM, Denny Zartman said:

I'm not even a strong supporter of the h&l theory; I just can't dismiss it.

Not sure why people gingerly back away from their H&L adherence in a thread dedicated to Edwin Ekdahl, But here we are.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

For example, Armstrong's theory --as I understand it -- has only two LHOs. And that this was the case from their middle school years till Harvey was shot by Ruby. In the end it is like a Spy vs. Spy episode (from Mad Magazine) where the black spy is on the side killing JFK and the white spy is on the patsy side, and is the patsy. To me the whole spy vs. spy thing is silly... it's like a bad movie.

And yet one notes a goodly portion of your 5,600 posts here at the Ed Forum is in defense of precisely that book of that “bad movie.”  

I have noticed in passing that there are H&L acolytes who will pick and choose which pieces of H&L theory they will invest with meaning, and which they feel free to reject.  

Perhaps it is why the H&L “moment” never attained critical mass: even devotees balked at having to buy in to everything.

  

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

To me it makes a lot more sense that the original Lee Harvey Oswald was used only to provide a childhood background for the defector/spy Harvey. After the Marines switcheroo, Harvey (the one later shot by Ruby) became the "one and only" LHO as far as U.S. intelligence was concerned.

This is the Gordon Lonsdale scenario with a twist, a persona provided by a living child rather than a dead one.  But it sticks a stake into the very heart of H&L, which requires two Oswalds, not one,  or even one and a half.

Edwin Ekdahl, anyone?

 

 

 

 

[Joseph McBride]

The 11/22/63 DPD HOMICIDE REPORT against in the Tippit

shooting says, "Suspect ran south on Patton

from location toward Jefferson. Suspect was later arrested in the balcony

of the Texas Theatre at 231 W. Jefferson."  Armstrong did

a lot of great research, but I disagree with his claim that Oswald (either one) killed Tippit.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Joseph McBride

[John Butler]

On 7/11/2021 at 5:59 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Now, clearly there were Harvey impostors after the switheroo took place. And who knows, maybe some of these missions were fulfilled by the original LHO.

Which of these is Harvey Oswald?  The man shot at the Dallas DPD.  How to compare.  Compare the width of their hips.  I don't want to hear anything about camera angles and lighting.  All 3 figures are in a stance directly in front of the camera.  The New Orleans Oswald has wider hips and wears his trousers lower on his hips.  How high or low you wear your trousers on your hips is variable from one person to the next.  But, individually does not vary for a single person.  

[Andrew Prutsok]

On 7/8/2021 at 3:05 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Even if Ekdahl was one of them, that by itself wouldn't imply that he was playing a part in a ludicrously improbable top-secret double-doppelganger project.

 

So, if someone answers the question directly and provides evidence, it still doesn't mean anything?

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Which of these is Harvey Oswald?  The man shot at the Dallas DPD.  How to compare.  Compare the width of their hips.  I don't want to hear anything about camera angles and lighting.  All 3 figures are in a stance directly in front of the camera.  The New Orleans Oswald has wider hips and wears his trousers lower on his hips.  How high or low you wear your trousers on your hips is variable from one person to the next.  But, individually does not vary for a single person.  

None of them are Harvey Oswald, because Harvey Oswald never existed. All three of those photos are of the same person. Also, to suggest that one person never in his or her life would wear trousers at a different level on their hips is rather absurd...

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

None of them are Harvey Oswald, because Harvey Oswald never existed. All three of those photos are of the same person. Also, to suggest that one person never in his or her life would wear trousers at a different level on their hips is rather absurd...

Can you prove that?  What about the width of the hips of the 3 figures?  I understand your bias.  Your bias is based on strong conviction rather than the facts.  As a gentleman said earlier there are no facts you will agree to other than your personal bias.

Edited July 12, 2021 by John Butler