Jump to content
The Education Forum

John Armstrong on Black Op Radio tonight


Jim Hargrove
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just pointing out that it would seem odd to anyone - let alone someone embroiled in the spy game - to be told he needed to pack his lunch in a particular long, brown paper bag and bring it to work.  One might figure out that one's fingerprints were desired...on a bag sized to fit a rifle.

It might seem more natural to Oswald if he were told to deliver the rifle to someone for sale in that bag, but didn't pick it up at the P.O.  Irrespective of what is said or implied by the Jean-Pierre Lafitte datebook entry, Oswald may have just sold the rifle without the bag.  Maybe he was suspicious of leaving prints, purposely didn't go fetch the bag, and sold the rifle in wiped-down condition, since the FBI had to apply his prints post-mortem.

And who might he be selling it to at that late date?  Bill Shelley?

Jim, please pass this by John Armstrong.  The "lunch bag" supposition seems untenable.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Not that I’m aware of, but multiple witnesses have claimed that LEE Harvey Oswald was active among anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Florida while Lee HARVEY Oswald was in Russia.  The Florida mercenaries were  a rough crowd, including Frank Fiorini/Sturgis.

I thought of those you mentioned.  I had no definite data that Lee Oswald was into any violent activity there with anti-Cuban/mercenary forces.  It is very possible.  He could have received training violent in nature which would top off his basic military training.  

The reason I ask is the Tippit murder was done by someone who could only be a trained professional.   I have reason to believe that Officer Tippit once shot and down suffered a coup de grace shot at the last shot fired.  This was done by inserting a gun into his mouth and firing a round.  How do I know this since there is a clear and present gunshot wound to the forehead area of Tippit?   No one saw Tippit being shot.  Does that make sense?   Rose made two descriptions of the head wound.   I'll explain. 

I can't explain the gunshot wound to the forehead area seen in photos.  I have no real information saying that someone delivered a gunshot wound to Tippit's forehead area after he was dead and out the Methodist Hospital.   Supposedly, there were 3 wounds described at the Methodist Hospital by Dr. Liquori and not four.  Earl Rose said there were 4 shots.  It is wound No. 1 which is the head shot and is described by Rose two different ways.

If you really examine the Tippit Autopsy you will see that "it" which was either the bullet or wound track begins at the bottom of the skull at the middle right cranial fossa, rather than what was shown in the photo in the forehead wound.

I did come across a prior incident of violent behavior on the part of Lee Oswald.  This was from The Oswald Code by Alan Weberman.  He reports Gary Hemming as the source of this info.  How reliable this is questionable since it came from Hemming.  Hemming said when the marines were at Subic Bay near the city of Angeles the marines would go out hunting Huks, communist guerillas, on the weekends.  It was stopped when 4 marines were killed.  Oswald is said to be wounded by a grenade.

The Tippit head shot would suggest a professional being involved.  The thought was that it might not be Lee Oswald who delivered that hidden shot.  If so, that would make Lee Oswald as a trained killer or someone who was trained as an assassin.  This is the gun in the mouth suicide technique.  It is a shot that reaches the back of the skull to disrupt the cerebellum and brain stem area ensuring death and no chance of recovery.

It is like Jack Ruby shooting Harvey Oswald.  The across the body shot from Ruby insures as much damage to organs, arteries, etc will be made.  With proper medical care Tippit might have survived his chest wounds.  Someone, probably Lee Oswald, made sure that he didn't survive.

Once you understand the Tippit autopsy and the other shenanigans such as the second wallet at the scene suggests a professonial, pre-planned killing. 

 

 

  

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Without having studied the Tippit autopsy, I can’t be much help with that.  Nevertheless, the evidence I’m familiar with seems to show that the man who killed Tippit made a final execution-style head shot, suggesting, perhaps, a pro.

Hemmings may be tricky, but John A. is quite certain it was the taller, huskier LEE Harvey Oswald who was stationed briefly in Subic Bay, which makes sense with your analysis.

For what it’s worth, Frank Fiorini/Sturgis seems to have been well aware that the LEE Harvey Oswald he knew was only one of two different Oswalds.  Here’s a very brief excerpt from an old interview he did with Bill O’Reilly.

Frank Sturgis on two Oswalds


David,

That Lee HARVEY Oswald might have used the undelivered long brown bag to carry his lunch is, of course, speculation and may seem unlikely.  But we believe one of the reasons he was chosen to be the designated patsy was that he had repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to carry out instructions, even difficult ones.  For example, when the Russkies decided to kick him out, he slit his wrist to avoid failure.  

We believe that he was following instructions for almost everything he did on 11/22/63.  He simply had to be at the right places at the right time.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

We believe that he was following instructions for almost everything he did on 11/22/63.  He simply had to be at the right places at the right time.

 

Is his name and address label affixed directly to that posted bag?  Would he be called on to deliver that up, as well as his fingerprints?  This would also point to no lunch sack, and areas of the patsy's suspicion.

The DPD Oswald comes off as one stubborn cuss.  What do we make of his supposed tractability?

What happened to the "curtain rods" in Buell Frazier's pickup?  That's another mystery package with Oswald prints.

Where does the DPD fit in, since that outfit had to manufacture a paper bag to explain the rifle in the building?

I'm not quarreling with Armstrong's theory.  I'm suggesting areas needing refinement and consideration.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to say:  this is absolutely MUST listen!

Set aside any “Harvey and Lee” feelings or bias.  Substitute “man who shot Tippet” for LEE Harvey Oswald.  Focus on Westbrook’s and Croy’s statements versus reality.

Whether or not every little detail is correct, I find the overall narrative very compelling.

Westbrook was the man in the DPD.  A true conspirator.  That I believe.

Thank you John Armstrong for a great presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2021 at 9:44 PM, Micah Mileto said:

I mean, yeah, but what's this about a second paper bag? Where did this information come from? Sounds like gold if Armstrong's summary is correct.

Micah the undelivered envelope is real and a mystery, but the part about a brown paper bag in the envelope that was undelivered is total invention, not known, no evidence or basis. There was a mystery of what was mailed to Lee that was undeliverable, and the envelope was empty meaning whatever was in it had been removed by someone. But there is no evidence whatsoever that someone was mailing Lee a paper bag inside of a paper envelope. That was made up by someone who said "could be!" and that was then transmitted by someone else as "it was a paper bag!" It was invented out of thin air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Micah the undelivered envelope is real and a mystery, but the part about a brown paper bag in the envelope that was undelivered is total invention, not known, no evidence or basis. There was a mystery of what was mailed to Lee that was undeliverable, and the envelope was empty meaning whatever was in it had been removed by someone. But there is no evidence whatsoever that someone was mailing Lee a paper bag inside of a paper envelope. That was made up by someone who said "could be!" and that was then transmitted by someone else as "it was a paper bag!" It was invented out of thin air.

Ah, kind of like the "half dollar bill" thing John Armstrong was talking about, narratively with Oswald recieving the half bills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Ah, kind of like the "half dollar bill" thing John Armstrong was talking about, narratively with Oswald recieving the half bills.

Exactly. As I recall, the "half dollar bills" derived from some unidentified evidence photo in the Dallas Police Department archives, no evidence it was related to the Tippit/Oswald case, but that identification was invented, probably first as a conjecture ("could be!") and then became repeated as if it was a viable near-fact. When there was just no basis for it other than invention of possibility. Apart from lack of evidence for it, it would seem the police officers who searched Oswald, if they had found something as odd as torn dollar bills, etc., would have documented that and spoken of it but, as I recall, there was none of that. It is entirely something someone found in the Dallas Police archives of a multi-year period and attached a photo caption in publication saying it was related to Oswald. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Exactly. As I recall, the "half dollar bills" derived from some unidentified evidence photo in the Dallas Police Department archives, no evidence it was related to the Tippit/Oswald case, but that identification was invented, probably first as a conjecture ("could be!") and then became repeated as if it was a viable near-fact. When there was just no basis for it other than invention of possibility. Apart from lack of evidence for it, it would seem the police officers who searched Oswald, if they had found something as odd as torn dollar bills, etc., would have documented that and spoken of it but, as I recall, there was none of that. It is entirely something someone found in the Dallas Police archives of a multi-year period and attached a photo caption in publication saying it was related to Oswald. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20160703001218/http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/22/2288-001.gif

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0105a.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Al Fordiani said:

I just want to say:  this is absolutely MUST listen!

Set aside any “Harvey and Lee” feelings or bias.  Substitute “man who shot Tippet” for LEE Harvey Oswald.  Focus on Westbrook’s and Croy’s statements versus reality.

Whether or not every little detail is correct, I find the overall narrative very compelling.

Westbrook was the man in the DPD.  A true conspirator.  That I believe.

Thank you John Armstrong for a great presentation.

Thanks, Mr. Fordiani!

I think John has shown that reserve officer Ken Croy was probably Westbrook’s partner in crime.   John has been working with David Josephs recently on the Ruby/Oswald slaying, and David uncovered an interesting new (as far a I know) fact about Croy’s responsibilities that day.  More soon.

As to who shot Tippit, Joe McBride has shown in great detail how the witness descriptions of the shooter varied wildly.

But when considering the Tippit witnesses, few researchers pay enough attention to how close the witnesses were to the actual shooting.  And so….

The closest was surely Domingo Benavides, who was about 15 feet away.  Benavides testified that the shooter looked like Oswald except for the fact that his hair was cut differently in the back.  

Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - Were they newspaper pictures or television pictures, or both, or neither?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, television pictures and newspaper pictures. The thing lasted about a month, I believe, it seemed like.
Mr. BELIN - Pardon.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I showed--I believe they showed pictures of him every day for a long time there.

. . . . .

Mr. BELIN - Okay, well, I thank you. I was flying from St. Louis to Des Moines, Iowa. at about this time. Is there anything else?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

Oz_back_hair.jpg

 

Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2021 at 12:12 AM, Matt Allison said:

From that link:

"When the bus turned left, Tippit would follow the bus to Jefferson Blvd., probably to make sure that Oswald boarded a 2nd bus and arrived at the Texas Theater. But two things happened—#1) Oswald got off of the Marsalis bus on Elm St. when it was stalled in traffic, before the two police officers boarded the bus. I believe that Westbrook and Croy were the two police officers who boarded the Marsalis Ave bus (stopped near Elm and Houston) intending to locate and perhaps murder HARVEY Oswald."

Why would Tippit follow the bus to make sure Oswald made it to the theater if Westbrook was boarding the bus to kill Oswald?

Also, the times posted in this article regarding when Tippit's murder was reported to the dispatcher are wildly incorrect.

There is bunch of other speculative fiction as well. Pretty much impossible for me to take this article seriously.

There are some speculative bits.  Armstrong admits when he does.

But I’m surprised that you say that it is “impossible” to take this article seriously.

Armstrong’s concern in this talk are the actions and testimonies of DPD officers Westbrook and Croy.  His basic thesis is that Westbrook was a witting pre-assassination conspirator whose job on November 22 was to manage: the planned murder of Tippit, the planting of evidence incriminating Oswald at the Tippit murder scene; importantly, planting the ID cards linking Oswald to the name Hidell; the leading of police to the Texas Theater.

I think he puts forth a very compelling case.  Westbrook testimony is farcical.  Mr. Armstrong presents a meticulous body of facts and knows the ground.

What is also important is that Armstrong follows the trail of investigation afterwards. He shows how every important question that could have unraveled Westbrook’s story — like any questions to the original driver of DPP car 207  — are never asked by anybody; or, even better, get to be answered by Westbrook himself.  Everywhere in his and Croy’s story are “unknown officers.”
Westbrook was everywhere on Nov. 22 and his story is a lie.

I think Armstrong makes a compelling case that the 2 photo IDs linking Oswald to Hidell were placed into evidence at a different time than the 14 pieces of evidence from the Texas Theater wallet, and that they were in the 10th and Paxton wallet (that we wouldn’t even know about except for Hosty’s book years after the fact.)  That 10th and Paxton wallet was a Westbrook plant.  Westbrook of the personnel department ends up handling all the crucial Oswald evidence, is first on the scene at the Texas theater, but can never remember anyone in DPD’s name?

I am going to stay out of the more general “Harvey and Lee” debate.   Irrelevant to Westbrook.  I will agree that Oswald arrested in Texas Theater did not shoot Tippit.

“Why would Tippit follow the bus?”  That was his job.  He was following orders.  In all likelihood he was being led to where he and Oswald would “kill each other” in a double murder, but the original plan got derailed a bit when Oswald got off the bus and went home first.  

Debate the points.  But not take seriously?

Edited by Al Fordiani
Fixed typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Al Fordiani said:

“Why would Tippit follow the bus?”  That was his job.  He was following orders.  In all likelihood he was being led to where he and Oswald would “kill each other” in a double murder, but the original plan got derailed a bit when Oswald got off the bus and went home first.  

Al,

That really is an interesting idea.  I have never thought of it that way.  Tippit did have his pistol out.  It was found under his body.  If he was quicker and shot the shooter, then things would be different.  The old saying about the quick and the dead is true.  There would be no need for the Texas Theater farce.  The killer of President Kennedy would have died at 10th and Patton.  No need to arrest Harvey.  Case closed.  The "boys" could go on to other CIA adventures.  Maybe they would have eventually gotten one of those stars or medals they post inside the CIA headquarters for agents that have done a good job.  

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2021 at 10:12 PM, Matt Allison said:

There is bunch of other speculative fiction as well. Pretty much impossible for me to take this article seriously.

 

If Armstrong's theory didn't have "speculative fiction," then it wouldn't be a theory... it would be fact.

Theories always includes speculation to fill gaps in the evidence.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If Armstrong's theory didn't have "speculative fiction," then it wouldn't be a theory, would it?

Sandy,

What is speculation?  In this case "speculative fiction"?  It is a hypothesis that can be tested against the known facts.  Even a rejection or falsification of a hypothesis is worth knowing about.  And, that is the scientific method. 

Quantum Physics.  Spooky action at a distance.  Singularity.  Inflation.  Dark Matter.  Dark Energy.  String Theory.  Quantum Loop Gravity.  Anti-matter/matter annihilation.  And, many more all have their weaknesses.  All have some problem that leaves them questionable or open to interpretation.  As an example, the speed of light can't be exceeded yet there are said to be galaxies moving away from us faster than the speed of light. 

But, as you say they are the best explanation available in science for what is known and from there to a projection into the unknown.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...