Prayer Man More Than A Fuzzy Picture

[Karl Kinaski]

 

@David Josephs/Tom Gram ... I am a JVB guy. Yes. But I am a Lifton guy too. I am a DiEugenio guy. A Oliver Stone guy. I am a Mark Shaw guy. I am a Garrison guy. Not so much a Joan Mellen guy ... I am a Mark Lane/Penn Jones/Harold Weisberg guy./ No so much a edward Jay Epstein guy. I am a Joachim Joesten and I am a James W. Douglas guy.  I am a Hans Habe guy. I am a Prouty guy. I am a FRUS guy. And I am a ROTC guy. I am a Mary Ferrell Foundation guy where I currently read the "Jack Ruby trial transcripts."  Sometimes I am a Gil Jesus and Vince Palamara guy. I am  a Warren Commission guy in the sense that I have as one big pdf the whole 26 Volumes of the awful construct  and I am an interested reader of it ...  I could go on for hours but I stop the name dropping here ... and you are right  I am not so much a Bart Kamp guy. Or Malcolm Blunt guy. I am definitely no John Armstrong, Bugliosi or Posner guy ...  

BTW@Tom Gram. Malcolm Blunt said he worked with Armstrong till 1999.  In 1997 Armstrong gave is first major speech about his crazy two Lee H.Oswalds/ two Maguerite Oswalds theory which later became his book HARVEY AND LEE.  You can read it here and convince yourself that you are simply wrong by claiming, quote: 
 

Quote

Blunt worked as a researcher for Armstrong but disowned the book once Armstrong decided to go with the doppelgänger theory. He and Armstrong didn’t speak for over a year. 

 

KK

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

They do if they have the evidence to show that the report was altered as part of the coverup.

 

Let's be clear. We have reason to believe the report is in error. And one is within one's rights to muse that it was altered to hide something, and even what that something was. But you have taken to claiming that you know what it is hiding, and, if I recall, that you have proven it, or some such thing. That is not truth-seeking. That is what LNers do when they say they know what was in the bag observed by Frazier. One does not seek truth by knowing the unknowable.

I apologize if I'm exaggerating your stance, whereby you are willing to admit your impression of the evidence is guesswork.  

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

They do if they have the evidence to show that the report was altered as part of the coverup.

Which, of course, nobody has. Not even Mr. Larsen.

 

This from the guy who is forced to believe that Oswald ate lunch twice.

 

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 

@David Josephs/Tom Gram ... I am a JVB guy. Yes. But I am a Lifton guy too. I am a DiEugenio guy. A Oliver Stone guy. I am a Mark Shaw guy. I am a Garrison guy. Not so much a Joan Mellen guy ... I am a Martk Lane/Penn Jones/Harold Weisberg guy./ I am a Joachim Joesten and I am a James W. Douglas guy.  I am a Hans Habe guy. I am a FRUS guy. And I am a ROTC guy. I am a Mary Ferrell Foundation guy where I currently read the "Jack Ruby trial transcripts."  I am  a Warren Commission guy in the sense that I have as one big pdf the whole 26 Volumes of the awful construct and are an interested reader of it ...  I could go on for hours... and you are right: I am not so much a Bart Kamp guy. Or Malcolm Blunt guy. I am definitely no John Armstrong, Bugliosi or Posner guy ...  

BTW@Tom Gram. Malcolm Blunt said he worked with Armstrong till 1999.  In 1997 Armstrong gave is first major speech about his crazy two Lee H.Oswalds/ two Maguerite Oswalds theory which later became his book HARVEY AND LEE.  You can read it here and convince yourself that you are simply wrong by claiming, quote: 
 

 

KK

 

FWIW, I am good friends with someone who is close to Malcolm, and he says Malcolm does not buy into H and L and is somewhat embarrassed that his research helped Armstrong push such a wild theory. Malcolm is a documents guy. He has worked with Joan Mellen and John Newman as well, if I recall. When he has spoken at conferences he has spoken on the documents--what is unappreciated and what is still unavailable. It is incorrect to paint him as a wide-eyed theorist of any sort. 

[Karl Kinaski]

 

@David Josephs/Tom Gram ... I am a JVB guy. Yes. But I am a Lifton guy too. I am a DiEugenio guy. A Oliver Stone guy. I am a Mark Shaw guy. I am a Garrison guy. Not so much a Joan Mellen guy ... I am a Martk Lane/Penn Jones/Harold Weisberg guy./ I am a Joachim Joesten and I am a James W. Douglas guy.  I am a Hans Habe guy. I am a FRUS guy. And I am a ROTC guy. I am a Mary Ferrell Foundation guy where I currently read the "Jack Ruby trial transcripts."  I am  a Warren Commission guy in the sense that I have as one big pdf the whole 26 Volumes of the awful construct and are an interested reader of it ...  I could go on for hours... and you are right: I am not so much a Bart Kamp guy. Or Malcolm Blunt guy. I am definitely no John Armstrong, Bugliosi or Posner guy ...  

BTW@Tom Gram. Malcolm Blunt said he worked with Armstrong till 1999.  In 1997 Armstrong gave is first major speech about his crazy two Lee H.Oswalds/ two Maguerite Oswalds theory which later became his book HARVEY AND LEE.  You can read it here and convince yourself that you are simply wrong by claiming, quote: 
 

Quote

Blunt worked as a researcher for Armstrong but disowned the book once Armstrong decided to go with the doppelgänger theory. He and Armstrong didn’t speak for over a year. 

 

KK

 

[David Von Pein]

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This from the guy who is forced to believe that Oswald ate lunch twice.

Incredible silliness coming from Mr. Larsen here. He seems to be implying that I, DVP, a long-time LNer who knows Oswald was a Lying Machine on 11/22/63, actually believe Oswald "ate lunch twice" on Nov. 22nd. When, in fact, it couldn't be more obvious that my belief really is that Oswald ate no lunch at all on 11/22 and that every single thing Oswald said about his "lunch" was a lie.

But even CTers are dead regarding the chronology of the statements (i.e., lies) made by Oswald about his "lunch" after his arrest. Because even if Oswald couldn't keep his own alibi attempts straight in his head (which he couldn't), there's still no reason under the sun why he couldn't have been implying by his statements (lies) that he had STARTED to eat his lunch on the 1st floor, then he went to get a Coke on Floor #2, and then went back to Floor #1 to CONTINUE eating the lunch he had started minutes earlier.

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Karl Kinaski]

 @Pat Speer

Thx for the info about Blunt. I am sure he is a capacity in the JFKA domain. That does not remove the fact that Blunt is on Y Tube saying that he worked with Armstrong on the "Oswald thing through 98, 99" (Blunt's own words)  And Armstrong was running around at least since 1997 promoting his wild theory. Did he really need two years to realizes that Armstrong is just another b..sh ... artist?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

But you have taken to claiming that you know what it is hiding, and, if I recall, that you have proven it, or some such thing.

 

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me.

Earlier in this thread I took an excerpt from the official Oswald interrogation report and removed from it the part about the supposed Baker/Oswald second-floor encounter. After which it made sense. Well that is something I came up with several years ago, and I posted it here on this forum a couple times hoping to get some believers. But I never got a response.

Then a few years ago, Bart Kamp and Malcolm Blunt discovered the Hosty handwritten note where he wrote that Oswald went outside to watch the P. Parade! It says pretty much the same thing as what I proposed were Oswalds original words.

This proved that what I had claimed to be the original content of the autopsy report was indeed the original content, or close to it. The only difference being that what I rewrote said that Oswald went outside with Bill Shelley. Hosty's note doesn't give that detail.

 

Pat, you really shouldn't comment on things you haven't studied and don't understand. I suspect that Bart Kamp spent years working on his second-floor encounter analysis. I did my own independent research over a span of a year or so and came up with nearly the same conclusions. I can't speak for Bart, but for me it is now second nature to ponder how the coverup artists used the fabricated second-floor encounter to achieve their goals.

 

[David Josephs]

@Pat Speer @Karl Kinaski

It is kind of sad that a "documents" guy doesn't take the time to actually review these documents.  

Difference here being that none of you traveled to interview these people to get the information from the source.
None of you, from what I can tell by how you post, have actually read thru and followed the footnotes from the book.

Rather than tell us 2nd hand what Blunt thought of a man he went to NARA with virtually yearly for almost a decade, that he disagrees with a conclusion he was never looking for in the first place.

John and I are good friends.  We have our differences as I've said in the past.  I do not buy 100% of the book, and after many discussions he has seen some of the things for the time-based conclusions they were.  Hargrave keeps a website where the more current work is posted.

I don't believe JVB because I have personally debunked her.

When you can show us how you've "debunked" the conflicts John Ely encountered... or the blatant declaration. by Jenner that his bio required "work", to put it mildly. (below)

I've personally dug up the Tarrant county records of what occurred with Ekdahl, Korth, and Mrs. M Ekdahl Oswald.  
Ebasco, a piece of GE from NY for which Ekdahl worked, was consolidating energy companies in the Fort Worth area among other...  The connection he has to the IRC and what they do - no impact or connection with Pic's Hungarian family in NYC where little Lee and mama stayed upon arrival.

 

Point is - you're talking out of your hats when you say you've come to some conclusion about H&L and have done none of the work.  

Actually debunk something without supposition or squinty-eyed justifications as to what "else" it could be.  Deal with the evidence offered.

 

 

 

 

The passport photo from 1959 and mugshot.  Images were sized to match his left eye.

Skepticism is fine...  if you'd like to go down the dyslexia route, so be it.  Dyslexia does not explain the Lawyer's memo or Ely's findings...  or Allen Felde's for that matter.

These CE's are next to each other in the WCR.  And then when they went to find Felde, they wrote a report about the wrong one.

Yep.. all coincidences. 

 

  

 

[Karl Kinaski]

 

 @David Josephs; Obviously even Malcolm Blunt who was working for Armstrong on his "Two Ossis AND two Marguerites" stuff was turning his back to that crazy theory. But Armstrong I must confess is generating new fanboys from time to time. 

BTW Can you tell me which Ossi had no encounter with Baker on the 2nd floor ... Harvey or Lee? ... and was the mother of Harvy or Lee the chubby one? And why exactly didn't Marina Oswald realize that she had sex with two different guys HARVEY and LEE all the time? 🤡

Back to Kamp and Blunt. Blunt seems to have a habit of working with the wrong guys. First Armstrong, now Bart Kamp. Does Kamp know if HARVEY or LEE had no encounter with Marion Baker on the 2nd floor? 

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[David Josephs]

55 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

@David Josephs; Obviously

Karl, you're so witty.  You work up that trick Baker question all on your own?  

Pathetic how someone knowing so little about a subject - stands so tall to yell so loud.

Poor Malcolm... aligning himself with people who actually do the work instead of finding some little corner of the internet to criticize other's.

You sure whine an awful lot on this forum Karl.  Maybe too much SciFi - lost you're ability to be factual or objective?

Why do you think you whine so much when you're here?

Obviously?

edit: Nevermind KK...  easier just to ignore you,,,  nothing really much to miss in what. you post

 

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by David Josephs
to be rid of Karl K

[Karl Kinaski]

  @David Josephs.  I really don't know what you are talking about anymore. I bow out at this point. 

[Scotty Moore]

15 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 

BTW Kamp is a fan of Malcolm Blunt and Malcolm Blunt was a cooperator of John Armstrong and his crazy "Harvey and Lee" doorstopper in which they claim that there not only were two Oswalds around (which is IMO an understatement) but two Marguerite Oswalds too. (Which is crazy.) This kind of "research" does more harm to the truth than the WCR. 

 

Hi Karl.

Having listened to a good few interviews/chats between Bart and Mr Blunt in the last couple of years, it’s always come across that he does not hold Mr Armstrongs Harvey and Lee in that high a regard.  Hansel and Gretzky I think he has called it.  Although I think the respect is there with the actual time put in to the research of going to archives etc to look at documents.

Also fairly sure that Mr Blunt as time went on disagreed with the direction Mr Armstrong was going on for his research and conclusions.  
 

 

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 @Pat Speer

Thx for the info about Blunt. I am sure he is a capacity in the JFKA domain. That does not remove the fact that Blunt is on Y Tube saying that he worked with Armstrong on the "Oswald thing through 98, 99" (Blunt's own words)  And Armstrong was running around at least since 1997 promoting his wild theory. Did he really need two years to realizes that Armstrong is just another b..sh ... artist?

My understanding is not far from yours. I believe Blunt knew where Armstrong's interest lay, but was disappointed with the finished product. I have heard several times that he rejected the H and L theory and thought Armstrong put the pieces together incorrectly. But I've never heard him say or heard of his saying that "if he only knew what Armstrong was up to, he would have stopped helping him" or some such thing. My feeling is that he is proud of his research, but saddened by what Armstrong did with it. 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

My understanding

@Scotty Moore 

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I have heard

 

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

My feeling is

Have either of you spoken to either Malcolm or John about the time they spent together at the archives during the 90's or is all of this 2nd and 3rd hand guessing based on what one has heard?  

People disagree ...  You want to dismiss the documents from the same if not better sources from which you get yours, which clearly outline the existence of both men... dismiss them.  You want to dismiss the interviews as you may have heard something may have been wrong with them, maybe... fine. 

Lifton did the same thing to Palmer and Palmer replied.  From Sept 1957 thru late 1958 Oswald was stationed in Japan with a short stay in CA.

Pfisterer's is in New Orleans.

This Thread is about Bart's work on the person in the NW corner of the landing and not KK's insistence that other researcher's, whose work is easily checkable from extensive footnotes - is somehow the problem here leading to his condemnation of Bart as well.   What a surprise.

This will be the last I post on this I promise. Sorry for stepping into defend a friend and a man who has revealed a huge number of directly applicable documents and provided personal knowledge, prime source interviews on subjects related to the immediate activities of the FBI and CIA within days of the assassination.  These activities only making sense in the context of removing evidence of the duality of the man known as "Lee H. Oswald".

When those with any sense of integrity look at the documentary trial, it becomes as obvious as Oswald never firing that rifle that day.