Leslie Sharp Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) 7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Lesley continues: As I explained on page 4, there was only one arrest in the Texas Theatre. George Applin was assumed, erroneously, to have been arrested when he was in fact escorted out of the rear of the building in order to give a statement to the police: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30101-rob-reiner-talks-about-two-oswalds/?do=findComment&comment=526979 More worryingly, Lesley also writes: Is Leslie seriously suggesting that Greg Parker, or anyone connected to him, was behind such threats? She would need to produce some pretty strong evidence to justify that claim. I hope she will either produce that evidence or make it very clear indeed that she isn't accusing anyone ("Aussies ... these fellows ... Greg") of such behaviour. You are correct. Suggesting there were two arrests is misleading. Odum was advised that a suspect was seen entering the rear door and he rushed to the TT; Applin was escorted out the rear door to give a statement. Odd that you choose not to discuss why a federal agent felt compelled to witness any arrests related to the murder of a city police officer when his duty was to pursue the assassin of the president. Had authorities already determined Oswald was the assassin? How? You can ask Greg if he recalls the incident. Edited January 29 by Leslie Sharp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 The following statements by LBJ in his September, 1969 interview by Walter Cronkite are stunningly jaw dropping imo. Just listen to what LBJ is saying starting at the 1 minute 7 second mark of the video! Here he is "6 years after 11,22,1963" telling Cronkite that he's never been sure that others weren't involved in the JFK assassination !? Are you kidding me? Which, as a shocked Cronkite responded, would indicate that LBJ didn't have full confidence in the WC, to which LBJ ( while shifting wildly left and nervously in his seat ) immediately gives a vague misdirection answer about the integrity of it's members. LBJ then proposes he wasn't convinced that there wasn't more to the assassination than the "lone gunman" who just wanted attention finding of the WC ... ie a conspiracy? If that isn't a mind blowing important statement in and of itself and coming from the man himself...what is? I've always been disturbingly confused that this interview and what LBJ says in it never got the bombshell revelation national media recognition my common sense says it should have. 1:29 NOW PLAYING LBJ Speaks on a conspiracy in JFK Murder 93K views13 years ago montycombs In September 1969, Walter Cronkite conducted an interview with former President, Lyndon B. Johnson. Cronkite asked LBJ about ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted January 29 Author Share Posted January 29 The “Oswald lookalike” in the balcony that Butch Burroughs saw detained by police was NOT George Applin, because Applin was seated on the main floor, relatively close to Oswald. I’ll be back in 10 or 15 days to continue this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted January 29 Author Share Posted January 29 21 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: BTW, in a couple of days I’ll have to take a week or so off from the Ed Forum for some family matters. It would be an excellent time for the anti-H&L folk to come back and for at least the ten thousandth time declare Total Victory over the Harvey & Lee Menace®. Maybe this time will be the charm for them! Just as predicted! I'll be back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: The “Oswald lookalike” in the balcony that Butch Burroughs saw detained by police was NOT George Applin, because Applin was seated on the main floor, relatively close to Oswald. I’ll be back in 10 or 15 days to continue this discussion. I for one look forward to your return. I was just reading that Bentley was in the balcony. I wonder why he would look for a white guy in the coloreds only, unless someone pointed him there or unless he calculated the suspect would be hiding in the dark. (to be continued.) And relevant to the Bard Odum angle, we overlooked that he was in the loop with the Walker bullet: ' . . . Also, on May 28, 1964, Dallas Police Lieutenant J. C. Day advised an FBI Agent that on April 25, 1963, ". . . he took the bullet from the CSSS, marked it for identification . . . " and then personally took it to the City-County Criminal Investigation Laboratory (CCCIL), Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas, where he gave it to F. T. Alexander and Louie L. Anderson. Lieutenant Day also advised that he retrieved the Walker bullet from the CCCIL on December 2, 1963, and gave it to FBI Special Agent Bardwell D. Odu7m on the same date. Special Agent Odum forwarded the Walker bullet to FBI Laboratory where it arrived for examination on December 4, 1963 . . . ' https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10040#relPageId=15 Edited January 29 by Leslie Sharp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 17 hours ago, Ron Bulman said: After the assassination. The CIA began obfuscation before it. Having the DRE ready to say Oswald was a Commie, Cuban, Castro supporter. They kept going with Operation Mockingbird. Ron, Like you, I believe that the CIA painted Oswald as a commie, Castro supporter. And that the assassination was based on Operation Mockingbird. I suppose that those operations could be called coverups given that they covered up the truth about Oswald. I prefer to call them parts of the assassination plot. That way it leaves the word "coverup" to mean what the WC did to hide the part of the plot where Oswald supposedly conspired with the Cubans and Russians. And what the WC did to make it look like Oswald shot Kennedy. But it is interesting that the WC actually promoted parts of the assassination plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: Sandy, I think there is a misunderstanding. Greg, Now that I understand the misunderstanding, here is what I maintain. I believe that Oswald was out on the TSBD steps during the motorcade. It is likely that a few people noticed him being there. The government couldn't have these people going around and telling their families, neighbors, and newspapers that they knew Oswald was innocent because he was standing right next to them when the president went by. Something had to be don't to keep them quiet for the rest of their lives. And so the government did something to keep them quiet. I can only guess what the government did. I believe it is likely that the government appealed to their patriotism. I believe it is likely that somebody who was highly regarded explained to them that if word of Oswald's innocence got out, it would open a can of worms that would implicate Russia in the assassination and that this could lead to WW3. I have reason to believe that precisely three people on the steps noticed that Oswald was there. Somehow you got from that that I was talking about a "large-scale subornation to perjury of civilian witnesses." Now I understand that, when you said that, you were referring to something entirely different and completely unrelated. You explain what you meant here: 18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: I am referring to your claim of large-scale subornation to perjury of false stories told and sworn under oath by those witnesses at the instruction of alleged--never named, never identified, but invoked by you and others--"handlers". People who had handlers were, generally speaking, FBI and CIA assets. I've only spoken of the latter, CIA assets. Likely CIA assets are Oswald, Shelley, Ruth Paine, and either Truly or -- if there was such a person -- someone who could control Truly. As CIA assets, there would have been little trouble controlling their statements and testimonies. CIA assets lie all the time. 18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: You have Shelley and Lovelady with their testimony of their timing and movements after the shots. You have the second-floor lunchroom witnesses, Truly and Baker... Shelley, Lovelady, Baker, and Truly all lied. Their statements, the Darnell film, and handwritten interrogation notes prove it. The second-floor Oswald/Baker encounter never occurred. Shelley's and Lovelady's walk over to the railroad yard never occurred. The WC fabricated the second floor encounter so they could identify where Oswald supposedly was after he supposedly shot Kennedy. (In reality he was outside watching the P. Parade.) Unfortunately, Vickie Adams' testimony debunked the encounter. So the WC recruited Shelley and Lovelady into a lie that would discredit Adams' testimony. I believe that Shelley and Lovelady were chosen to lie for the WC because they had already been talked into lying about seeing Oswald standing next to them on the TSBD steps. I think that Buell Frazier was also one of those who saw Oswald out on the steps. I believe that he was also chosen to lie for the WC because he had already been asked to lie about Oswald watching the P. Parade next to him. So he lied about the bag. I'm not sure how they got Linnie Mae to lie. 18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: And who knows how many dozens more. No, just four people. Not counting the CIA assets, given that they are trained to lie. 18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: All these people marionette-stringed told to perjure by unseen handlers, and voila!--in every single case it goes off successfully for life with all of those witnesses, not one refusing at the time and reporting the attempt, not one saying in later years... Four people. Why are you surprised that people can remain silent for life? Hundreds of thousands of CIA officers and assets have done it over the decades. You think four more couldn't have as well? 18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: You see, you just decide what you want to believe... No, I don't. My claims are backed by solid evidence, and even proof in some cases. And maybe you haven't noticed, but most of my beliefs are widely held by the conspiracy community. What doesn't make sense is that you can't believe people lied in this massive government coverup. That's a real howler if you ask me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 16 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: The caller appears to have learned of the existence of the Westport Tippits by reading that newspaper article. But she did not learn from the newspaper that those Tippits were relatives of the Dallas policeman, because the newspaper did not make that claim. Let me get this straight... You believe that the reporter of the news article just randomly picked a Tippit out of the local Connecticut phonebook and wrote in a newspaper article that the Connecticut Tippits might, just MIGHT be related to the Tippits in Dallas! Well, dang, that's certainly newsworthy! And then BY SHEAR COINCIDENCE, it turns out that that Connecticut Tippits WERE INDEED related to the ones in Dallas. (The FBI report states that the Connecticut Tippits said they were related.) Yet, knowing this, the reporter FAILED TO MENTION IT in his article! Oh Puleeze! Obviously the person who who wrote the FBI report made a mistake. Of course the news article stated that the Connecticut Tippits were related to the Dallas Tippits. That is what made it newsworthy. (Something that might be reported in a small community.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 16 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: I haven't checked the forum's rules, but I'd be surprised if members are allowed to accuse other members of making and quoting "demonstrably false statements" when no such statements were made. My investigation showed that 1) what Armstrong said in most likelihood was true, but 2) Tracy's misunderstanding and misreporting on it didn't rise to the level of being "demonstrably" false. Nobody reported it and nobody received a warning or penalty for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: If you are saying that Shelley was Oswald's CIA handler, that might be true. But I don't see that there is any way for us to know that for sure. No Sandy, I don't think Shelly was Oswald's CIA handler. I think it's Possible he Might have been Oswald's contact in the Texas School Book Depository. I think his handler may have been someone like David Altee Phillips, likely through a lower level CIA agent used as a cutout. For example. The cutout agent might have told Shelly to tell Oswald something along the lines of "eat you lunch in the domino room while the Presidential Parade is passing by, so you won't be seen outside and associated with the demonstration." Or, "Go out on the front steps and watch the parade, so you will be seen and not associated with the demonstration" I'm not saying That's what happened, but maybe something along this line. Because the official/WC story just doesn't make sense. I've come to not trust Fritz's notes, I read somewhere once, written a couple of day's after the assassination, cribbed from Hosty and/or Bookout's. Any notes from the FBI for the WC had to have been approved by Hoover. Blame these thoughts on Corporate America. They sent me to couple of hours a day two day presentation on brainstorming. Even if maybe outlandish, throw the spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 17 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Whether or not Sandy is justified in repeatedly suspending those who disagree with the far-fetched beliefs he actively promotes, his actions will generate suspicion. I've never penalized, or even warned, a person for believing a theory is farfetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Sandy Larsen writes: Quote You believe that the reporter of the news article just randomly picked a Tippit out of the local Connecticut phonebook and wrote in a newspaper article that the Connecticut Tippits might, just MIGHT be related to the Tippits in Dallas! No, I don't believe that. The FBI report tells us what happened: "TIPPIT SAID ARTICLE RESULTED FROM TELEPHONE CALL FROM REPORTER WHO WAS CHECKING ALL TIPPITS IN LOCAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES." Evidently the reporter contacted all the available Tippits in the area, and came to the conclusion that the couple in Westport may have been related to the policeman. Quote Obviously the person who who wrote the FBI report made a mistake. Or the reporter made a mistake. Or the reporter got the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Westport Tippits weren't sure that they were distantly related to the Dallas policeman. "May be distantly related" would be newsworthy enough for a local paper in the context of the biggest news story for years. Has anyone checked the newspaper in question and found out exactly what the reporter wrote? That would resolve the uncertainty, but until then, all we have to go on is the FBI's account of what Mr Tippit said: the newspaper mentioned that the Tippits "may be" related to the policeman. There's no good reason to assume that the crank caller knew something for a fact that wasn't reported in the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Jim Hargrove writes: Quote The "Oswald lookalike" in the balcony that Butch Burroughs saw detained by police was NOT George Applin, because Applin was seated on the main floor, relatively close to Oswald. Applin was indeed on the ground floor, not the balcony, when he was escorted out of the building in order to give a statement at the police station. Butch Burroughs assumed, erroneously, that Applin was being arrested. Burroughs never claimed to have seen anyone detained in the balcony. I dealt with this particular 'Harvey and Lee' canard some time ago in the following comment: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170 Scroll down to the headline, 'Reasons to doubt Burroughs' story'. You'll find out: that Burroughs' story, about seeing an Oswald lookalike being arrested, didn't emerge until 30 years after the event; that Burroughs failed to mention it to the Warren Commission in 1964; that he failed to mention it in 1987 to Jim Marrs, who would surely have asked him if he had noticed anything suspicious; that he never claimed to have seen anyone come down the stairs from the balcony; and that Burroughs could not have seen into the balcony from his location at his concession stand. Elsewhere in that comment you'll find out : that the police reports about an arrest in the balcony were made by officers who probably weren't there; and that there is no chance at all that two members of a top-secret long-term doppelgänger project would give the game away by each telling the police that his name was Oswald. The story of a second Oswald being arrested in the Texas Theater is a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted January 30 Author Share Posted January 30 1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Applin was indeed on the ground floor, not the balcony, when he was escorted out of the building in order to give a statement at the police station. So, are we to believe that good ole’ George Applin was arrested by the police, handcuffed, placed in a squad car and driven away, BUT HE FORGOT TO MENTION ALL THAT ON HIS AFFIDAVIT AND FBI INTERVIEW? AND NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES OBJECTED? From James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable (emphasis added): Butch Burroughs, who witnessed Oswald’s arrest, startled me in his interview by saying he saw a second arrest occur in the Texas Theater only “three or four minutes later.”[444] He said the Dallas Police then arrested “an Oswald lookalike.” Burroughs said the second man “looked almost like Oswald, like he was his brother or something.”[445] When I questioned the comparison by asking, “Could you see the second man as well as you could see Oswald?” he said, “Yes, I could see both of them. They looked alike.”[446] After the officers half-carried and half-dragged Oswald to the police car in front of the theater, within a space of three or four minutes, Burroughs saw the second Oswald placed under arrest and handcuffed. The Oswald look-alike, however, was taken by police not out the front but out the back of the theater.[447] What happened next we can learn from another neglected witness, Bernard Haire.[448] Bernard J. Haire was the owner of Bernie’s Hobby House, just two doors east of the Texas Theater. Haire went outside his store when he saw police cars congregating in front of the theater.[449] When he couldn’t see what was happening because of the crowd, he went back through his store into the alley out back. It, too, was full of police cars, but there were fewer spectators. Haire walked up the alley. When he stopped opposite the rear door of the theater, he witnessed what he would think for decades was the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. “Police brought a young white man out,” Haire told an interviewer. “The man was dressed in a pullover shirt and slacks. He seemed to be flushed, as if he’d been in a struggle. Police put the man in a police car and drove off.”[450] When Haire was told in 1987 that Lee Harvey Oswald had been brought out the front of the theater by police, he was shocked. “I don’t know who I saw arrested,” he said in bewilderment.[451] Butch Burroughs and Bernard Haire are complementary witnesses. From their perspectives both inside and outside the Texas Theater, they saw an Oswald double arrested and taken to a police car in the back alley only minutes after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. Burroughs’s and Haire’s independent, converging testimonies provide critical insight into the mechanics of the plot. In a comprehensive intelligence scenario for Kennedy’s and Tippit’s murders, the plan culminated in Oswald’s Friday arrest and Sunday murder (probably a fallback from his being set up to be killed in the Texas Theater by the police). There is a hint of the second Oswald’s arrest in the Dallas police records. According to the Dallas Police Department’s official Homicide Report on J. D. Tippit, “Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas theatre at 231 W. Jefferson.”[452] Dallas Police detective L. D. Stringfellow also reported to Captain W. P. Gannaway, “Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater.”[453] NOTES: 444. Author’s interview of Burroughs, July 16, 2007. Butch Burroughs is a man of few words. When asked a question, he answers exactly what he is asked. Burroughs told me no one had ever asked him before about a second arrest in the Texas Theater. In response to my question, “Now you didn’t see anybody else [besides Oswald] get arrested that day, did you?” he answered, “Yes, there was a lookalike—an Oswald lookalike.” In response to further questions, he described the second arrest, that of the “Oswald lookalike.” Ibid. Because Butch Burroughs saw neither Oswald nor his lookalike enter the Texas Theater, each must have gone directly up the balcony stairs on entering. Oswald crossed the balcony and came down the stairs on the far side of the lobby. There he entered the orchestra seats and began his seat-hopping, in apparent search of a contact. His lookalike sneaked into the theater at 1:45 P.M. and, like Oswald, went immediately up the balcony stairs. By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby, either on his own or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony. 445. § Ibid. 446. § Ibid. 447. § Ibid. 448. § In the data base of the JFK Records Act at the National Archives, there is no record of Bernard Haire. Archivist Martin F. McGann to James Douglass, July 20, 2007. 449. § In a photo taken about 1:50 P.M., November 22, 1963, that shows people gathering around the police cars in front of the Texas Theater, Bernard Haire can be seen at the edge of the crowd, leaning on a parking meter and trying to see. Photo by Stuart L. Reed; on p. 68, Myers, With Malice. 450. § Bernard J. Haire interview by Jim Marrs, summer 1987. Crossfire, p. 354. 451. § Ibid. 452. § Dallas Police Department Homicide Report on J. D. Tippit, November 22, 1963. Reproduced in With Malice, p. 447 (emphasis added). 453. § Letter from Detective L. D. Stringfellow to Captain W. P. Gannaway, November 23, 1963, Dallas City Archives. Cited in Harvey & Lee, p. 871 (emphasis added). This has to be my last post for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Jim Hargrove writes: Quote So, are we to believe that good ole’ George Applin was arrested by the police, handcuffed, placed in a squad car and driven away, BUT HE FORGOT TO MENTION ALL THAT ON HIS AFFIDAVIT AND FBI INTERVIEW? AND NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES OBJECTED? No, we are not to believe that Applin was arrested and handcuffed. The reason he didn't mention either of those things is that neither of them happened. I explained this in the post Jim is responding to. Didn't Jim read it? James Douglass's account is flawed, as I explained in the comment from 2019 which I linked to and which Jim also appears not to have read. Here it is again: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170 In that comment, I pointed out that Jim had made some claims that were untrue, including these two: Burroughs had seen an arrest in the balcony - untrue; Burroughs told more than one interviewer that the man he saw was in handcuffs - untrue. Jim puts in boldface Douglass's claim that "Burroughs saw the second Oswald placed under arrest and handcuffed." But, as I explained, there is no good reason to believe that Burroughs's ever-changing story was accurate: Burroughs first made his 'arrested and handcuffed' claim 44 years after the event; it was 30 years after the event when he first mentioned the 'arrested' part, while failing to mention anything about handcuffs; six years before that, in 1987, Burroughs was questioned by Jim Marrs but failed to mention anything about an arrest or handcuffs; in 1964, he failed to tell the Warren Commission anything about an arrest or handcuffs; no other person in the building reported seeing anyone other than the one and only Oswald being arrested or handcuffed; and we have a perfectly plausible explanation for what Burroughs did see: George Applin talking to the police and accompanying them out of the rear of the building so that they could take him to the police station where he gave a statement. New members may not be aware that Jim has been doing this sort of thing for years: making a claim; seeing that claim debunked; failing to respond to the points made in the debunking; and repeating his original claim as though the debunking had never happened. This is not the behaviour of someone who is genuinely interested in finding out the truth of the matter. Quote This has to be my last post for a while. That's a relief! 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