Rob Reiner talks about two Oswalds

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Details do get deep.  Burroughs thought Oswald came in the front doors then went up the stairs, before entering the concession area/1st floor seat access doors.  Which is why he missed seeing him while stocking candy there. 

There is a back stairs from the balcony to the concession area /lobby/bathrooms.  Following this straight through the theater leads to the back door.  Where somebody was taken out of into a police car and taken away.   

So, Burroughs didn't confirm LHO — or an Oswald Look Alike  — was in the balcony; he only concluded he (one of the Oswalds) had been in the balcony because one of them entered the concession area through the other access doors?

But, isn't there additional testimony that someone in the theatre pointed to someone in the balcony, that's the guy you're looking for (paraphrasing)?

And speaking of the back door: "At approximately 2 p.m., November 22, 1963, I was informed by an unidentified policeman of the DPD that a suspect had been seen entering the back door of the Texas Theater. I immediately proceeded to the Texas Theater...." — FBI SA Bardwell Dewitt Odum

Is this why Odum was never called to testify?  From the outset, he knew too much? He had walked with Lt. Day out of the TSBD carrying the alleged rifle; he's partially responsible for the misidentification of that rifle; he rushes to the Texas Theatre to witness the arrest of an alleged police killer in the middle of a manhunt for the assassin of the President; he discredits Helen Markham; he receives the photos from MC and takes them to show Marguerite in spite of Hosty telling him, "that's NOT Oswald;" he interviews Sylvia Odio; he is known personally to both Michael and Ruth Paine prior to the assassination; he's involved in the confusion regarding CE 399 . . . and yet, his obituary some decades later does not make a single reference to his role in the investigation into the assassination of the president in Dallas.

 

Edited January 26 by Leslie Sharp

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

I made a post a couple of days ago showing how numerous spies assumed the identity of others for a protracted period of time.

And I replied to that post, pointing out that the three examples Jim provided do not support his far-fetched double-doppelgänger fantasy:

• Konon Molodiy was one person who took on a false identity in his thirties.
• Antonio and Patricio DeLaGuardia were a pair of identical twins.
• Michael Ross was one person who took on false identities as an adult.

None of Jim's three examples contained any of the far-fetched features which are essential elements of his double-doppelgänger fantasy:

• Two unrelated children recruited by an intelligence agency in the hope that when they had grown up, a decade or more later, they would be so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for one another.
• Two unrelated women recruited into the scheme who also were virtually identical; one of the women being the mother of one of the children, while the other woman was unrelated to any of the other three participants.

Would Jim please provide even one real-life example of that precise arrangement, or a near equivalent?

As I also pointed out, not only are there no known examples of such doppelgänger boys with doppelgänger mothers, but there does not appear to be any direct evidence that such a scheme has been set up, by any intelligence agency, anywhere in the world, ever:

• There are no internal memos proposing such a scheme.
• There are no internal memos giving official approval to implement such a scheme.
• There are no internal memos discussing candidates for the roles of doppelgänger boys or doppelgänger mothers.
• There are no progress reports about how closely the growing boys continued to resemble each other (or, much more likely, increasingly failed to resemble each other).
• There are no financial accounts to do with any such scheme, which would have involved the employment of support staff over more than a decade.
• There are no official employment records for any of the hypothetical support staff.
• There are no reports from whistle-blowers about any such scheme.
• There aren't even any internal memos refusing the setting-up of such a scheme ("You want us to recruit two unrelated boys with two unrelated mothers, in the hope that they'll turn out to be virtually identical a decade later? What have you been smoking? And one of the boys must be a native speaker of Russian, but then you're going to let him forget most of his Russian so that he has to learn the language all over again? What's the point of setting up the scheme, then? Get outta here!").

There appears to be no direct evidence at all.

Does Jim (or Sandy, or any other believer) have any direct documentary evidence which the rest of us don't know about? Internal memos, progress reports, pay slips, that sort of thing?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

The Texas Theater misunderstanding was resolved here and on the ROKC forum a few years ago. See, for example:

• https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2051-time-to-kill-another-myth-there-was-no-second-oswald-arrested-at-the-theater
• http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170

There was only one Oswald in the Texas Theater. This wasn't even a case of a plausible short-term impersonation, let alone an implausible scheme involving a pair of imaginary long-term doppelgängers.

The person whom Burroughs erroneously claimed (three decades after the event, having failed to mention it to Jim Marrs) he saw being arrested was George Jefferson Applin, Jr, who had not been arrested but was being escorted by the police to one of their cars parked at the rear of the building. From there, Applin was taken to the police station, where he gave a statement. The police then drove him back to the Texas Theater.

Applin, a 21-year-old white man, was the person whom Bernard Haire saw at the rear of the building. Haire assumed that Applin was being arrested, and jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the young white man he saw was the young white man who was accused of shooting JFK.

This incident illustrates the main problem with Douglass's book. He takes all sorts of dubious evidence at face value and weaves an unlikely narrative out of it. People read his book, take it at face value (it's got endnotes in it, with references and stuff, so it must be true!), and the myth continues that a second Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Whenever faced with an inherently implausible claim involving lizard people, imaginary doppelgängers, or little green men, readers should use their critical faculties and get into the habit of checking primary sources, e.g.:

• George Applin's affidavit: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338846/
• Applin's Warren Commission testimony: Hearings, vol.7, pp.14-17 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41#relPageId=24)

The ROKC thread I mentioned is worth reading in full. One remark by Greg Parker stands out:

Quote

But we know the Hargroves of this world are impervious to facts, so we should expect to still be reading in another 50 years how a second Oswald was taken out the back and arrested.

[Leslie Sharp]

So, in all the confusion, Odum's statement he had been advised that a suspect had been seen ENTERING the back door is irrelevant, or it might translate to "Applin was taken OUT the back door"?

 

Does anyone venture a guess why an FBI agent was on the scene for the arrest of a suspect in the murder of a city cop? (I belive there may have been more than one federal agent at the theatre.) 

 

Was a suspect pointed out in the balcony, regardless of possible resemblance to Oswald? 

Edited January 26 by Leslie Sharp

[Benjamin Cole]

47 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The Texas Theater misunderstanding was resolved here and on the ROKC forum a few years ago. See, for example:

• https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2051-time-to-kill-another-myth-there-was-no-second-oswald-arrested-at-the-theater
• http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170

There was only one Oswald in the Texas Theater. This wasn't even a case of a plausible short-term impersonation, let alone an implausible scheme involving a pair of imaginary long-term doppelgängers.

The person whom Burroughs erroneously claimed (three decades after the event, having failed to mention it to Jim Marrs) he saw being arrested was George Jefferson Applin, Jr, who had not been arrested but was being escorted by the police to one of their cars parked at the rear of the building. From there, Applin was taken to the police station, where he gave a statement. The police then drove him back to the Texas Theater.

Applin, a 21-year-old white man, was the person whom Bernard Haire saw at the rear of the building. Haire assumed that Applin was being arrested, and jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the young white man he saw was the young white man who was accused of shooting JFK.

This incident illustrates the main problem with Douglass's book. He takes all sorts of dubious evidence at face value and weaves an unlikely narrative out of it. People read his book, take it at face value (it's got endnotes in it, with references and stuff, so it must be true!), and the myth continues that a second Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Whenever faced with an inherently implausible claim involving lizard people, imaginary doppelgängers, or little green men, readers should use their critical faculties and get into the habit of checking primary sources, e.g.:

• George Applin's affidavit: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338846/
• Applin's Warren Commission testimony: Hearings, vol.7, pp.14-17 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41#relPageId=24)

The ROKC thread I mentioned is worth reading in full. One remark by Greg Parker stands out:

"This incident illustrates the main problem with Douglass's book. He takes all sorts of dubious evidence at face value and weaves an unlikely narrative out of it."--JB

 

I agree with this, and it is too bad, as parts of the book are excellent. 

Douglass even goes so far as to state that a large cargo plane landed in a wash near downtown Dallas and spirited an LHO look-a-like away. Based on one witness statement.

And that Jack Ruby was seen outside the TSBD---again based on a lone witness statement. 

Douglass even waxes spiritual about these witnesses. 

Whether CT'er or LN'er, relying on lone eyewitness accounts...well, anyone who ever worked in courts knows witness statements are a crapshoot.

The advent of webcams is a big boost to law enforcement. 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Let's look at what the document ACTUALLY said, and what John A. said about it.  Despite all the confusion in the previous post, note that the FBI teletype indicated that Mrs. Tippit said her husband "WAS DISTANTLY RELATED TO OFFICER TIPPIT."  

The following FBI document, an internal teletype from 11/30/63, was withheld from public view for three decades.

URGENT 11-30-63 7-37 PM EST MB
TO DIRECTOR, AND SACS DALLAS AND NEW YORK
FROM SAC, NEW HAVEN /100-18158/
NEW YORK VIA WASHINGTON
LEE HARVEY OSWALD, IS - R
ON NOV. THIRTY INSTANT, JACK D. TIPPIT, SELF EMPLOYED
CARTOONIST FOR NATIONAL MAGAZINES AND WIFE, ONE SIX FOUR
NEW TOWN TURNPIKE, WESTPORT, CONN., ADVISED AS FOLLOWS. AT
APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN THIRTY AM ON INSTANT DATE MRS. TIPPIT
RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM UNKNOWN WOMAN WHO ASKED IF
MR. TIPPIT WAS A POLICEMAN AND IF HE WAS RELATED TO THE POLICE-
MAN TIPPIT WHO WAS SHOT IN DALLAS. MRS. TIPPIT REPLIED HER
HUSBAND WAS NOT A POLICEMAN, WAS DISTANTLY RELATED TO OFFICER
TIPPIT AND ASKED IDENTITY OF CALLER. ON ANOTHER EXTENSION
JACK TIPPIT LISTENED TO BALANCE OF PHONE CALL. THE WOMAN SAID
SHE COULD NOT GIVE HER NAME AS SHE WAS AFRAID OF BEING KILLED,
THAT SHE WAS FROM NEW YORK AND HAD TO COME "HERE" TO MAKE THE
CALL SO THAT SHE COULD NOT BE TRACED AS SHE WAS IN FEAR OF HER
END PAGE ONE

PAGE TWO:

LIFE. THE WOMAN REQUESTED THAT NOTHING BE SAID TO THE PRESS
ABOUT A WOMAN CALLING AS THEY WOULD KNOW HER IDENTITY AND SHE
WOULD BE KILLED.
THE WOMAN SAID SHE KNEW OSWALD-S FATHER AND UNCLE WHO
WERE HUNGARIANS AND COMMUNISTS. THE WOMAN CONTINUED THAT
OSWALD-S FATHER AND UNCLE HAD LIVED AT SEVENTY SEVENTH AND SECOND
AVENUE, YORKVILLE, NYC, THAT WHILE LIVING THERE BOTH WERE
UNEMPLOYED, GOT THEIR MONEY FROM COMMUNISTS AND SPENT ALL THERE
TIME IN COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES.
THE WOMAN THEN BEGAN SPEAKING INDISTINCTLY, DISJOINTEDLY,
AND NERVOUSLY. SHE STATED SHE HAD TWO NAMES TO GIVE AND
MENTIONED THE NAME EMILE KARDOS AND SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A
BROTHER IN LAW. WHEN MRS. TIPPIT TRIED TO FIND OUT WHOSE
BROTHER IN LAW THE WOMAN KEPT REPEATING THE WORD BROTHER IN LAW.
THE WOMAN STATED KARDOS IS HEAD OF THE COMMUNISTS AND THAT THIS
GROUP IN NEW YORK NOW HAS CHARTS AND MAPS. THE WOMAN SAID
SOMETHING ABOUT WEINSTOCK THE EDITOR OF QUOTE WOMAN-S WORLD
UNQUOTE BUT DID NOT GIVE FURTHER DETAILS.. THE WOMAN SAID THE
END PAGE TWO

PAGE THREE:

GROUP IN NEW YORK PLANS TO TAKE OVER THE GOVERNMENT, THAT OF
COURSE THEY WOULD DENY THIS BUT SHE KNEW IT TO BE TRUE.
SHE THEN HUNG UP ABRUPTLY. THE WOMAN NEVER GAVE ANY REASON
FOR HER CALL WHICH SOUNDED LOCAL. MRS. TIPPIT THOUGHT THE
WOMAN HAD AN AUSTRIAN OR GERMAN ACCENT WHILE MR. TIPPIT
BELIEVED IT WAS SPANISH. BOTH FELT THE WOMAN SOUNDED LIKE
A MATURE ADULT AND DID NOT HAVE A YOUTHFUL VOICE.
MR. TIPPIT EXPLAINED WOMAN MAY HAVE OBTAINED HIS IDENTITY
FROM AN ARTICLE ON PAGE ONE OF NORWALK, CONN. QUOTE HOUR
UNQUOTE FOR NOVEMBER TWENTYFIVE LAST, WHICH STATED THAT WE MAY
BE A DISTANT RELATIVE OF THE DALLAS POLICEMAN. TIPPIT SAID
ARTICLE RESULTED FROM TELEPHONE CALL FROM REPORTER WHO WAS
CHECKING ALL TIPPITS IN LOCAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES.
BUREAU REQUESTED TO COORDINATE ABOVE WITH ANY OTHER
INFORMATION TO DETERMINE IF PERTINENT AS NEW HAVEN HAS NO
KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATES OF OSWALD-S FATHER
AND UNCLE.

END AND ACK PLS
7-45 PM OK FBI WA LLD FOR RELAY
6-47 PM CST OK FBI DL FL
TU PLSDISC M
CC-MR_ROSEN

An image of the actual document can be seen HERE.

Here's what John A. ACTUALLY said about it:

In January 1962, while in the Soviet Union, Russian speaking HARVEY Oswald wrote a letter to U.S. Senator John Tower (CE 1058). The letter was later read by Vladimir Petrov, a professor and head of the Slavic Language Department at Yale University. After studying the letter Professor Petrov wrote to Senator Tower and said, "I am satisfied that that letter was not written by him (HARVEY     Oswald). It was written by a Russian with an imperfect knowledge of English." But the letter was written by HARVEY Oswald and, if Professor Petrov was correct, then the writer of the letter was a NATIVE Russian speaking person with an imperfect knowledge of English. Petrov's professional opinion, and conclusion, is that HARVEY Oswald (the writer of the letter) was a native speaking Russian with an imperfect knowledge of English. Russian speaking HARVEY Oswald was recruited by the CIA and sent to the Soviet Union precisely because of his ability to speak the Russian language. We are now left to ponder the early life of Russian speaking HARVEY Oswald, his ancestors, and his place of birth.

According to the Warren Report, Lee Harvey Oswald was born in New Orleans in 1939, the son of Marguerite and Robert E. Lee Oswald. But JFK researcher John Armstrong believes the FBI and the Warren Commission distorted and merged the biographies of two very different young men who both used the name Lee Harvey Oswald. The tall, husky New Orleans born LEE Oswald preferred to be called "LEE." The short, thin, and quiet boy who spoke Russian preferred to be called "HARVEY." The early life of LEE Oswald, from 1939 thru 1947, closely follows the Warren Commission legend. But nothing is known about the early life of HARVEY Oswald (prior to 1947). HARVEY first appears in Benbrook, TX, in June 1947, while at the same time LEE Oswald was living with his family in Ft. Worth. Beginning in 1947 and continuing through Nov 22, 1963, the backgrounds of both LEE and HARVEY were merged in order to create the fictional "legend" we know as Lee Harvey Oswald. We know that LEE was born in New Orleans in 1939, but what about HARVEY? Who was HARVEY and where did he come from?

The day after the assassination Mrs. Jack Tippit, of Westport, Connecticut was telephoned by an unidentified woman. This woman said she personally knew Oswald's father and uncle in New York City, who were from Hungary, promoted communism and lived at 77th and 2nd Avenue in Yorkville (NYC). This woman asked Mrs. Tippit to relay her information to Dallas authorities. This woman may have thought Oswald's relatives were communists, but in reality they were most likely working undercover for our government.

There are literally millions and millions of documents relating to the assassination of President Kennedy in the National Archives. But there is only one document, among the millions, that suggests a possible origin for Russian speaking HARVEY Oswald. An anonymous telephone tip can hardly be considered proof of anything, but it does offer an intriguing clue as to the possible location and origin of a very young HARVEY Oswald (prior to 1947) and possible family members. It should be noted that Russian is an often-spoken second language in Hungary, and it would hardly be surprising that Hungarian immigrants could speak Russian fluently.

The woman who telephoned Mrs. Tippit said she knew Oswald's father and uncle, who, she said, were Hungarians and communists. If this is true then it is probable the FBI and Director Hoover knew about these people from the early 1950s. A New York Times story of June 21, 1951 (page 16) indicated that during the previous year (1950) 21 people had been arrested in New York City and were awaiting trial for Communist related activities. One of the people arrested was Louis Weinstock, the Hungarian born leader of the Communist Party USA. Weinstock, born in 1903, was one of two names mentioned by the anonymous woman who called the Tippits of Westport, Connecticut. In December 1962, HARVEY Oswald corresponded with Weinstock, who was then general manager of The Worker.

In the early 1950s the majority of active members of the American Communist Party were actually FBI agents working under cover. These people may have acted like communists, but in reality they were agents provocateur and their mission was to uncover and identify domestic communists for the FBI. It is difficult to believe that a supporter of communism would consider participating in Communist demonstrations in the heart of New York City at the height of the McCarthy era. But it is easy to believe the FBI, through their undercover informants, knew the identities of any and all persons suspected of being communists or supporting communist activities. The fact that Louis Weinstock was active in communist activities in NYC from the early 1950s through the early 1960s is a good indication that he was an FBI agent provocateur or informant.

The woman who called Mrs. Tippit apparently knew that Oswald's father and uncle were communists and lived at 77th and 2nd Ave. in Yorkville. The House on Un-American Activities in New York had a file on a Marguerite Oswald in January, 1953. This file contained references to 1941, Nazis, and New Jersey, and was eventually discovered in a CIA office of Security file. The Assassination Records Review Board requested this file, but the request was denied. It is reasonable to assume the FBI should also have known about these "communists" Mrs. Tippit referenced. In 1959, after Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald "defected" to the Soviet Union, the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover knew about Oswald. Eight months later (in June 1960) Hoover wrote a memo to the State Department stating, "Since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning the subject will be appreciated." During the time HARVEY Oswald was in the Soviet Union, the FBI received numerous reports that (LEE) Oswald was in the USA (Florida, New Orleans, Dallas). After HARVEY Oswald returned to the USA with wife and child in June, 1962, the FBI monitored his activities.

One month before the assassination (10/24/63) FBI SA Milton Kaack reviewed the birth records of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans. By November 22, 1963 Hoover knew a great deal about the two Oswalds, and he knew that a thorough investigation into their backgrounds could expose HARVEY and LEE and the US government agency that created the "Oswald project." That afternoon (11/22/63) FBI SA James Hosty sat in on Oswald's first interrogation with the Dallas Police. Hosty was soon ordered, by an unidentified FBI counterintelligence officer, to have no further discussions with Oswald and not to investigate his background. Local FBI agents in Dallas and New Orleans would not be allowed to conduct their own, unsupervised investigations into the Oswalds or into their family backgrounds. Hoover and senior FBI officials knew perfectly well they had to manage and control their well-trained agents by telling them exactly where to go, exactly what evidence to confiscate, and specifically which people to interview and not to interview. Original FBI reports of "field" investigations and original evidence confiscated by the Dallas Police were sent to FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, where Hoover and senior FBI officials were waiting, were in complete control, and knew how to manipulate the evidence. As top FBI official William Sullivan said, "When an enormous organization like the FBI with tremendous power still can sit back and shuffle the deck of cards and pick up the card they want to show you it may be you're not going to get the entire picture. If there were documents that possibly he (Hoover) didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those documents no longer exist, and the truth will never be known."

Hoover's knowledge of HARVEY and LEE was so extensive that he knew exactly where to send his agents in order to confiscate 6-8 year old employment records, elementary and junior high school records from New York City, Ft. Worth, New Orleans, and other material that could expose the two Oswalds. Oswald's possessions, collected by the Dallas Police, were sent to FBI headquarters only 14 hours after the assassination. Within 72 hours most of the documentation that could have exposed HARVEY and LEE was already in Washington, DC. Two days later, on November 24, FBI Associate Director Clyde Tolson wrote, "Shanklin said results of the investigation have been reduced to written form and consequently the information will all be available for these two supervisors. We can prepare a memorandum to the Attorney General [Robert Kennedy] to set out the evidence showing that Oswald is responsible for the shooting that killed the President. We will show that Oswald was an avowed Marxist, a former defector to the Soviet union and an active member of the FPCC, which has been financed by Castro. We will set forth the items of evidence which make it clear that Oswald is the man who killed the President." Two days after the assassination, and five days before the Warren Commission was established, FBI leadership had already decided that Oswald was the lone assassin. The remaining task was to distribute their manipulated and fabricated evidence to the Warren Commission, which supported the Bureau's two-day old investigation that concluded "Lee Harvey Oswald" had shot and killed JFK.

 

OMG Jim, this anonymous telephone call is better evidence than I had realized. The real kicker is the fact that the caller mentioned Weinstock, the editor of Woman's World, which in all likelihood was a mishearing of Worker's World given that the anonymous caller had an accent. Worker's World was a communist newspaper of that time period.

Oswald had months earlier exchanged letters with Louis Weinstock, manager of The Worker newspaper. Given his high position in the communist party, and the fact that we was born in Hungary, it seems likely that this was the Weinstock mentioned by the anonymous caller. (And I wouldn't be surprised if the anonymous caller meant The Worker when she said Worker's World. Though this is of no consequence.)

The anonymous call certainly seems real and not some kind of prank. Taking it seriously, I think the most important question about the call is how it is she related the boy she spoke of to Oswald. Did they have the same name? Did they look the same?

I suppose we'll never know.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hosty was soon ordered, by an unidentified FBI counterintelligence officer, to have no further discussions with Oswald and not to investigate his background. Local FBI agents in Dallas and New Orleans would not be allowed to conduct their own, unsupervised investigations into the Oswalds or into their family backgrounds.

 

Jim,

Is what I've quoted here a well known fact among researchers?

I don't recall ever seeing that before.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

To Jonathan Cohen:

The two-Oswald project was quite real.  The evidence for two Oswalds runs like a river through the entire decade leading up to the assassination of JFK.  

You obviously don’t care that you quote demonstrably false statements by Tracy Parnell even though you have the original document right in front of you for comparison.

For example, you wrote, 

Armstrong says that the woman caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit." This statement is apparently an attempt to give weight to the woman's allegations. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. The FBI document states, "Mrs. Tippit received a telephone call from unknown woman who asked if Mr. Tippit was a policeman and if he was related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas”.

And yet, the actual FBI teletype says, in capital letters no less:

 MRS. TIPPIT REPLIED HER HUSBAND WAS NOT A POLICEMAN, WAS DISTANTLY RELATED TO OFFICER TIPPIT AND ASKED IDENTITY OF CALLER.

I’ll ask you to spot another inaccuracy in the material you quoted, but I doubt you’ll even try. 

 

Jim,

It is, in fact, a violation of forum rules to post something that is knowingly false.

Since Jonathan now knows that it is false, he needs to remove it as per your request. If he doesn't, he will get double the normal penalty points.

Edit:  I just noticed that you didn't actually request Jonathan to remove the offending post. So I will.

Jonathan, kindly remove the quote from Tracy Parnell's article that Jim has proven to be false.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

What exactly is "knowingly false" about the passage in Tracy's article that's quoted by Jonathan?

The quotation makes this claim:

Quote

Armstrong says that the woman caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit." This statement is apparently an attempt to give weight to the woman's allegations. Unfortunately, it is incorrect.

The item which Tracy says is incorrect is John Armstrong's statement that the woman caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit." The quotation marks here imply that these words were written by Armstrong. Is that the "knowingly false" claim which Jim and Sandy find objectionable? Are Jim and Sandy claiming that Armstrong did not write those words? (This is a genuine question. Tracy is quoting from a presentation by Armstrong which I don't have access to.)

I don't see anything in the FBI's account of the telephone call which contradicts Tracy's claim about Armstrong's statement. The FBI document states that the caller "asked if Mr Tippit was ... related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas." It does not state or imply that the caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit" as Armstrong appears to have claimed.

Tracy's point seems to be that:

• Armstrong claimed the woman knew that Mr Tippit of Westport, Connecticut, was related to Officer J.D. Tippit.
• But the FBI document shows that the woman did not know this. The woman "asked if Mr Tippit was ... related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas." She didn't state it to be a fact; she asked whether or not it was a fact.

If John Armstrong did in fact write the words attributed to him by Tracy Parnell, then Jonathan Cohen did not violate the forum rule which prohibits the posting of "knowingly false" statements, because Tracy's conclusion ("Unfortunately, it is incorrect") is justified: Armstrong's claim was indeed incorrect.

Now, Jim Hargrove has made a claim of his own: "you [Jonathan] quote demonstrably false statements by Tracy Parnell". But the statement of Tracy's which Jim brings up as an example of a "demonstrably false" statement appears not to be "demonstrably false" at all, but demonstrably accurate (unless Tracy misquoted Armstrong's text which I don't have access to).

Who exactly is breaking the forum's rules here? And who needs to apologise to whom?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If John Armstrong did in fact write the words attributed to him by Tracy Parnell,

Thank you Jeremy (and Jonathan) for mentioning my work and coming to my defense. First, let me say that I try and stay out of these threads because I think when a CT person (or at least an agnostic-I am unsure of the position of some) speaks out against the Armstrong theory it has more impact than my own statements as an LN do-especially here at what is essentially a CT forum.

Next let me mention that I no longer have the source material that I quoted from (Denial #2). I sold all my Armstrong material years ago (at a profit I might add). I would say that my quote was almost certainly accurate though. It was my experience that Armstrong's early material was even more inaccurate than his book (if you can believe it).

Jeremy has accurately represented the point I was trying to make, which I will concede is a minor one. That was written around the beginning of the anti-Armstrong movement (2002), so we were looking at everything, I guess. It is good to see that LNs and CTs alike have pointed out the absurdity of the Armstrong theories in the years since and have greatly expanded on my work. As a result, very few researchers pay much attention to the theory these days. But when it comes up, you can always rely on Jim to have a "data dump" ready to go.

One other thing I do want to comment on is Sandy Larsen. A moderator is supposed to be someone with a neutral mindset. Now, we all know that everyone has bias and since we are all human beings that bias will show through. But Sandy is not even trying to hide his. I think a moderator should remember his role and temper his comments if he/she is to be effective. I don't see Sandy doing that unfortunately.

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I don't see anything in the FBI's account of the telephone call which contradicts Tracy's claim about Armstrong's statement.

 

Here is what Tracy wrote in his article and what Jonathan posted:

Armstrong says that the woman caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit." This statement is apparently an attempt to give weight to the woman's allegations. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. The FBI document states, "Mrs. Tippit received a telephone call from unknown woman who asked if Mr. Tippit was a policeman and if he was related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas”.

 

I did a quick investigation and found the following about each of Tracy's sentences:

1. Armstrong says that the woman caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit."
   
   This is most likely a true statement. The anonymous caller in all likelihood discovered from reading a local news article that relatives of J.D. Tippit lived in nearby Connecticut. So she knew that the Tippits she was trying to contact were indeed related to J.D. Tippit in Dallas. So when she asked Mrs. Tippit if they were related to J.D., that was merely to confirm she was talking to the correct Mrs. Tippit.
    
2. This statement is apparently an attempt to give weight to the woman's allegations. Unfortunately, it is incorrect.
   
   Nope. As I showed in #1, it is a correct statement.
    
3. The FBI document states, "Mrs. Tippit received a telephone call from unknown woman who asked if Mr. Tippit was a policeman and if he was related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas”.
   
   The FBI documents doesn't state that. Though it looks like somebody's paraphrase of what the FBI document states. Probably it was Armstrong who said it.
   
   Next, I assume Armstrong wrote it.
    
4. [John Armstrong wrote], "Mrs. Tippit received a telephone call from unknown woman who asked if Mr. Tippit was a policeman and if he was related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas”.
   
   This is correct.

 

The bottom line is that everything that Armstrong wrote is accurate. Therefore, Tracy's comment about the item Armstrong wrote being inaccurate is wrong.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

One other thing I do want to comment on is Sandy Larsen. A moderator is supposed to be someone with a neutral mindset. Now, we all know that everyone has bias and since we are all human beings that bias will show through. But Sandy is not even trying to hide his.

 

I believe in being 1) honest, and 2) transparent.

You wouldn't want me to hide any bias I might have, would you Tracy?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

21 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Jim Hargrove Can you refresh my memory as it's been years since I studied Armstrong and I don't have a copy of his work at hand.  Does he address the possibility of two Oswalds in play during the arrest at the Texas Theatre?

Hi, Leslie,

Having read some more of this thread, it seems to me you know a whole lot more than your initial post suggested <g>.

Anyway, Ron Bulman pointed to a good Education Forum discussion about the two Oswalds at the Texas Theater.  John A. and I think Mr. Burroughs sold popcorn to the Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald who, holding two torn-in-half dollar bills, was told to find a safe “contact” at the Texas Theater.  We think it was American-born Lee Oswald who was detained in the balcony and ushered out the back door of the theater, seen by Bernard Haire.

THIS PAGE on the Harvey and Lee website discusses all this, and includes the following:

Three or four minutes after HARVEY Oswald was taken out the front of the theater the concessionaire, Butch Boroughs, saw "an Oswald lookalike" arrested by the Dallas Police. Burroughs said the second man "looked almost like Oswald, like he was his brother or something." The young man was handcuffed and escorted by police out the rear of the Texas Theater and into the alley. Bernard Haire, owner of a hobby shop two doors east of the theater, saw police escort a young man, in handcuffs, out the rear of the theater. Police put the young man into a squad car and drove away. For the next 25 years Mr. Haire thought he had seen the arrest of LEE Harvey Oswald. Bernard Haire and Butch Burroughs saw police take a young man (LEE Oswald) out the back of the theater. Who, if not Captain Westbrook, had reason to escort LEE Oswald out of the back of the theater? And who at the Texas theater, if not Capt. Westbrook, had the authority to quickly release this young man and make sure that no police report was filed? Who, if not Capt. Westbrook? Bernard Haire saw this young man placed into a squad car, but there is not a single police report relating to a suspect, or anyone, escorted by police out the rear of the Texas Theater, just like there is no report of the 2nd Oswald wallet displayed by Capt. Westbrook to fellow police officers at 10th & Patton. There are, however, two police reports that state Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater.

[Leslie Sharp]

Thanks, Jim.

Before I respond in full about Westbrook, I'm trying to get my head around what's at stake here for the "Prayer Man" camp who appear to be represented on this thread.  How do two arrests conflict with the hypothesis they've argued so vehemently (and dare I add obnoxiously, having been on the receiving end) for years?

[Jim Hargrove]

First of all, I "Prayer Man’s" picture is too fuzzy to determine anything!  Second, the provenance of the oft-cited “Fritz’s notes” is ludicrous. Third, as the designated patsy, it would be insane to allow Oswald to be seen on the TSBD steps at the time of the assassination.  He was ordered to stay inside, no doubt.