Michael Griffith Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 3 hours ago, Tom Gram said: Malcolm Blunt has said that this is why he had a falling out with Armstrong and they didn’t speak for a year or so. Blunt believed that the anomalies he’d uncovered in Oswald’s background as Armstrong’s researcher were evidence of use of the Oswald identity by intelligence agencies. Then when Armstrong told him he was going with the long-term two Oswald theory for his book he disowned the project. I might be missing something here but that’s what I remember from listening to a couple of Blunt’s interviews. I can't see a huge difference between (A) two Oswalds and (B) two Oswald identities being used by the real Oswald and by a fake Oswald. I know they're not the same, but I don't see a gigantic difference between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said: I can't see a huge difference between (A) two Oswalds and (B) two Oswald identities being used by the real Oswald and by a fake Oswald. I know they're not the same, but I don't see a gigantic difference between them. Yes. There is a difference between some spookery, creating a shadow Oswald on paper, and occasional impersonations vs. the full-on from childhood LHO-HLO theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 31 Author Share Posted January 31 On 1/30/2024 at 5:07 AM, Mark Ulrik said: On 1/29/2024 at 9:40 PM, Sandy Larsen said: But from your response I can see that you really don't get my analogy, if that is what it can be called. Perhaps because English is your second language. Or maybe different thinking due to cultural differences. On 1/30/2024 at 5:07 AM, Mark Ulrik said: Or maybe your "analogy" was lacking. Oh my god. You couldn't just drop it. I'm a native English speaker pal. It's more likely your English is lacking. Jeremy got my "analogy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 31 Author Share Posted January 31 20 hours ago, Tom Gram said: Malcolm Blunt has said that this is why he had a falling out with Armstrong and they didn’t speak for a year or so. Blunt believed that the anomalies he’d uncovered in Oswald’s background as Armstrong’s researcher were evidence of use of the Oswald identity by intelligence agencies. Then when Armstrong told him he was going with the long-term two Oswald theory for his book he disowned the project. I might be missing something here but that’s what I remember from listening to a couple of Blunt’s interviews. Tom, I've thought for some time that HARVEY (one of the two Oswalds) assumed the identity of LEE (the other, real Oswald) because his true background* would be problematic for his mission, which was to gather intelligence on Russia's working environment and structure. And hopefully more (from the CIA's POV). But that the later Oswald doubles were most likely other CIA assets, not LEE (the real Oswald). Is that your understanding of what Blunt believed? I'm just curious to know if other people agree with my take on H&L. *I believe that HARVEY's true background was that he was living in a Russian speaking household as a child. And that is what explains his fluency in the Russian language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Ulrik Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Oh my god. You couldn't just drop it. I'm a native English speaker pal. It's more likely your English is lacking. Jeremy got my "analogy." Hey, even native English speakers make blunders sometimes. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. PS: You completely misunderstood Jeremy B and even managed to work an absurdly stereotypical version of WC apologists into your response ‒ which was so nonsensical that you can hardly fault anyone (yes, including Jonathan C) for not being on the same wavelength. Edited February 1 by Mark Ulrik Added PS for clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: Yes. There is a difference between some spookery, creating a shadow Oswald on paper, and occasional impersonations vs. the full-on from childhood LHO-HLO theory. Yes, I agree there is a difference. However, the CIA program of using one identity that was played by two people was more involved and detailed than you may realize. In any event, I never paid much attention to the two Oswalds theory until I read journalist and author Joe Patoski's article on the subject in Texas Monthly and learned of the evidence that Oswald attended a junior high school in Fort Worth and that the school's vice principal handed over Oswald's school records to the FBI after the assassination: When Patoski decided to write an article about the two Oswalds theory for Texas Monthly, he did so only because he thought it was ludicrous and crazy. But, after spending some time looking at the evidence, he came away stunned by some of it and concluded that there might be something to it. Patoski was impressed by two pieces of evidence: Hoover's 1960 memo about someone possibly using Oswald's birth certificate and the account of Frank Kudlaty that Oswald attended a junior high school in Fort Worth and that he handed over Oswald's school records to the FBI. Patoski tracked Kudlaty, and Kudlaty confirmed the account: There is in fact a memo from J. Edgar Hoover written in 1960 saying “there is a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald’s birth certificate.” But an even more intriguing moment occurred for me when Armstrong began talking about Frank Kudlaty. Kudlaty was the vice principal at Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth, where I was a student on November 22, 1963. Kudlaty told Armstrong of handing over Oswald’s school records to two agents from the FBI the day after the assassination. According to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald attended junior high schools in New York and New Orleans but not in Fort Worth. The FBI denies the existence of the Stripling records. I tracked down Kudlaty in Waco, where he now lives in retirement after a lengthy career as a school administrator in several Texas cities. He related the incident that turned out to be his brush with infamy. The day after the assassination, Mr. Wylie, Stripling’s principal, asked him to pull Oswald’s records and hand them over to FBI agents. Kudlaty recalled those events and briefly examined the records before handing them over. “I do recall the grades were not good,” he told me. That has bothered him ever since. “A person of that mind could teach himself Russian and pass himself as Russian? I don’t think so,” Kudlaty said. The Hoover memo and that short conversation with Kudlaty put more doubt in my mind than the two days I spent with Armstrong and his blizzard of documents. Is there a good explanation for what happened to those records? Was Kudlaty wrong? And what was Hoover talking about in that memo, and what’s the story behind it? I don’t know the answers and I’m not going to devote my life to finding out. But here was one undeniable, strange, and tantalizing fact in the memo and the personal testimony of a man I knew and respected, and that almost had me going. It was enough to let me understand why a man like Armstrong has fallen under the spell of the Two Oswalds. (https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-two-oswalds/) All this being said, I really don't like to talk about Armstrong's two Oswalds theory because it just seems so exotic and fantastic--and disturbing. Yet, I must admit that there seems to be credible evidence for it. Edited January 31 by Michael Griffith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: Tom, I've thought for some time that HARVEY (one of the two Oswalds) assumed the identity of LEE (the other, real Oswald) because his true background* would be problematic for his mission, which was to gather intelligence on Russia's working environment and structure. And hopefully more (from the CIA's POV). But that the later Oswald doubles were most likely other CIA assets, not LEE (the real Oswald). Is that your understanding of what Blunt believed? I'm just curious to know if other people agree with my take on H&L. *I believe that HARVEY's true background was that he was living in a Russian speaking household as a child. And that is what explains his fluency in the Russian language. I can’t speak for Blunt, but the impression I got from listening to his interviews is that he believes the Oswald “legend” was used at various times for various purposes by the intelligence community, not necessarily involving an actual impersonator and certainly not a long-term “Oswald” doppelgänger. However, Blunt has also made some comments suggesting intelligence interest in Oswald at a very early age. If I recall, he told Bart Kamp that he found the New York witnesses he interviewed who remembered a “husky kid” credible, and he has expressed ongoing support for Palmer McBride. Personally I think Greg Parker’s take on the McBride saga makes the most sense: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t435-why-palmer-mcbride-was-wrong I could be completely wrong about everything in this comment, so don’t take my word for it, but I’m pretty sure Blunt’s also believes that Oswald was a witting false defector, which is what Pete Bagley suggested when Blunt presented him with the Betsy Wolf notes and other CIA documents on the defection. Personally I do not believe in H&L, but Armstrong’s Baylor archive is an extremely valuable resource with a ton of documents that are not available anywhere else online. Armstrong is also one of the few people to actually look at the records of the Postal Inspection Service at NARA, and I used many of those documents in my analysis of Oswald’s mail forwarding and the (provable) cover-up of the Oswald family postal records. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I tend to agree with Jeremy that particularly “far-fetched” theories can be a potential turn-off for neutral prospective researchers of the assassination, and fodder for the media etc. to denigrate serious study of the JFKA. Attracting new talent to JFK research is very important IMO, especially with full digitization of the ARC on the horizon, but the image projected by the research “community” is sometimes less than welcoming, to put it mildly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 2 hours ago, Tom Gram said: . . . I tend to agree with Jeremy that particularly “far-fetched” theories can be a potential turn-off for neutral prospective researchers of the assassination, and fodder for the media etc. to denigrate serious study of the JFKA. Attracting new talent to JFK research is very important IMO. . . . Yes, indeed, indeed, indeed. This is why I have railed against L. Fletcher Prouty's nutty, wild claims and have urged that other researchers repudiate them. This is also why it is so harmful when people get on this forum and defend the fringe, discredited conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, John Lennon's murder, and Princess Diana's death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Michael Griffiths writes: Quote Is there a good explanation for what happened to those records? Was Kudlaty wrong? And what was Hoover talking about in that memo, and what’s the story behind it? I don’t know the answers and I’m not going to devote my life to finding out. The school records storm-in-a-tea-cup has been covered numerous times here and elsewhere. These threads should provide a useful introduction: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1444-the-stripling-bullshit-rears-its-ugly-head-again https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ The last of these links illustrates why no-one should take any of Armstrong's claims at face value, let alone his claims about witnesses seeing Oswald at a school he never attended. As for the Hoover memo, it's just a misunderstanding. Hoover was referring to the possibility of Oswald's birth certificate getting into the hands of the Soviet regime, not to any mythical long-term double-doppelgänger projects by US intelligence. See: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2419-the-mullberry-bush#36818 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 16 hours ago, Michael Griffith said: Yes, indeed, indeed, indeed. This is why I have railed against L. Fletcher Prouty's nutty, wild claims and have urged that other researchers repudiate them. This is also why it is so harmful when people get on this forum and defend the fringe, discredited conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, John Lennon's murder, and Princess Diana's death. What may be even more unhelpful is cherrypicking in an environment where we can choose what to focus on and ignore the rest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kowalski Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) On 1/31/2024 at 11:57 AM, Tom Gram said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I tend to agree with Jeremy that particularly “far-fetched” theories can be a potential turn-off for neutral prospective researchers of the assassination, and fodder for the media etc. to denigrate serious study of the JFKA. Attracting new talent to JFK research is very important IMO, especially with full digitization of the ARC on the horizon, but the image projected by the research “community” is sometimes less than welcoming, to put it mildly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why is it an extraordinary claim, because you think so? Is there an objective way by which a theory can be evaluated in terms of being far-fetched? When I first heard about Harvey and Lee, with its 2 Oswalds, it seemed like the the type of of theory that gives serious JFK researchers a bad reputation. But I decided to buy the book, and was convinced by the vast amount of evidence John Armstrong provided to support his theory. Edited February 3 by John Kowalski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Davies Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 There are many theories on this case. Would the average person consider them to be far fetched? Would the average assassination researcher/ buff consider them to be far fetched? What about the average scientist or criminal investigator? I find many theories to be far fetched based on 50 plus years of reading , critical analysis, and common sense. (eg. the defective AR-15, Greer shooting JFK, a person hiding in the trunk shooting JFK, Jackie shooting him, and various religious groups plotting the hit). It seems clear that other people/ agencies were using the Lee Harvey Oswald name / identity (or a slight variant of it) at various times and in different places. It seems clear that various alphabet soup agencies had connections to Oswald. It seems clear that those at the top of the CIA, as well as the military strongly disagreed with (hated is perhaps a better word) JFK and his policies. It seems clear that LBJ ' political life was saved by JFK's death. The war in Vietnam was also "saved" and millions were subsequently killed. It seems clear that the mob ( pick your favourite James Cagney name ) could not control the autopsy, Warren Report, MSM coverage, and control of records for 60 years. Theories dealing with any of the above,either alone, or in any combination may have credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 12 hours ago, Ken Davies said: There are many theories on this case. Would the average person consider them to be far fetched? Would the average assassination researcher/ buff consider them to be far fetched? What about the average scientist or criminal investigator? I find many theories to be far fetched based on 50 plus years of reading , critical analysis, and common sense. (eg. the defective AR-15, Greer shooting JFK, a person hiding in the trunk shooting JFK, Jackie shooting him, and various religious groups plotting the hit). It seems clear that other people/ agencies were using the Lee Harvey Oswald name / identity (or a slight variant of it) at various times and in different places. It seems clear that various alphabet soup agencies had connections to Oswald. It seems clear that those at the top of the CIA, as well as the military strongly disagreed with (hated is perhaps a better word) JFK and his policies. It seems clear that LBJ ' political life was saved by JFK's death. The war in Vietnam was also "saved" and millions were subsequently killed. It seems clear that the mob ( pick your favourite James Cagney name ) could not control the autopsy, Warren Report, MSM coverage, and control of records for 60 years. Theories dealing with any of the above,either alone, or in any combination may have credibility. That's a good concise summary on some of the theories, imho. I'm not an attorney like you, regarding legal aspects. Regarding theories in general since JFK, many here have probably already seen this, I had not until tonight. The film Conspiracy Theory starring (of all people) Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts from 1997. Gibson as a freaked-out creature of MKULTRA (mentioned), he tries to explain it to Justice Department lawyer Roberts. Patrick Stewart seems a combination of Allen Dulles and Sidney Gottlieb. Whoever wrote this knows a bit about the CIA/JFKA. Yes, it's drama, a little comedic, but somewhat historically based in fact. Maybe Mel Gibson's best performance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 It seems to me that our accepting the term 'theory' is just playing into the hands of the WCR apologists. A better term might be "hypothesis" or even "working hypothesis"... Should we decide to present on an hypothesis that we have tested and believe to be valid, the hypothesis becomes a thesis, which can then be debated at the level of the public... We can also say "my position" (on this issue, on this day) is... I should think there might be less hysterical reaction if we were to tweak our terminology... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 14 hours ago, Ron Bulman said: That's a good concise summary on some of the theories, imho. I'm not an attorney like you, regarding legal aspects. Regarding theories in general since JFK, many here have probably already seen this, I had not until tonight. The film Conspiracy Theory starring (of all people) Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts from 1997. Gibson as a freaked-out creature of MKULTRA (mentioned), he tries to explain it to Justice Department lawyer Roberts. Patrick Stewart seems a combination of Allen Dulles and Sidney Gottlieb. Whoever wrote this knows a bit about the CIA/JFKA. Yes, it's drama, a little comedic, but somewhat historically based in fact. Maybe Mel Gibson's best performance? I liked this movie, though I found it unsatisfying. But now I am intrigued...I will watch it again... I am also a fan of Parallax View and Executive Action... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now