Rob Reiner talks about two Oswalds

[Steve Roe]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

New members may not be aware that Jim has been doing this sort of thing for years:

1. making a claim;
2. seeing that claim debunked;
3. failing to respond to the points made in the debunking;
4. 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.

Couldn't agree with you more. Very well stated.

BTW, the man Bernard Haire saw going out the back door of the Texas Theater, could have been Applin. 

[Leslie Sharp]

One might ask if Reiner talks about two Oswalds has poked the bear at ROKC?

The following is better suited to an independent topic; henceforth I'll respond only after@Jeremy Bojczuk et al launch the appropriate thread.

for now:

Greg Parker Facebook messaged me Sunday Jan 28, full of the joys of pending spring . . . 

Hi Linda. I'm just writing a piece on alternative facts, conspiracies, the deep state, and a few other things, including a response to some comments you have recently made at the ed forum concerning me. I was looking for any explanation you have supplied in the past regarding why you use a pen-name, but can't find anything. Would you care to fill me in?  Pretty sure I can guess, but hey, I've been wrong before and best to check with the one person who actually does know.  [emphasis added]

So, let me get this straight?  With this runaround (not uncommon for the prayer men), Greg decided that in one instance — the question of a pen name —  It's best to check with the one person who actually does know  — but in all other instances, he thought to himself: I think I'll just roll with speculation, supposition, innuendo, the whole lot, rather than taking advantage of the same opportunity to check with the one person who actually does know before penning my insult-riddled biased screed because - after all, LESLIE still won't get on board with Prayer Man.


@Jeremy Bojczuk Please tell Greg for me, "bring your knife to the gunfight here, personally, and I might respond in detail" beginning with what a sleazy tactic.

 

Opening salvo ...

Greg Parker: Hi Linda. I'm just writing a piece on alternative facts, conspiracies, the deep state, AND A FEW OTHER THINGS [emphasis added], including a response to some comments you have recently made at the ed forum concerning me. I was looking for any explanation you have supplied in the past regarding why you use a pen-name, but can't find anything. Would you care to fill me in?  Pretty sure I can guess, but hey, I've been wrong before and best to check with the one person who actually does know.

[I responded with the full text of a comment I posted on Ed Forum outlining the history of my decision to write under a pen name. Greg continues with benign questions regarding timing.]

Leslie Sharp: July-ish 2017. Why do you ask?

Greg Parker: curiosity

Leslie Sharp: that's a given. specifically?

Greg Parker:  i like timelines. and this, regardless of whether or not i use them. If the timeline makes sense my curiosity is satisfied.

Leslie Sharp: Mine or Hank's?

Greg Parker: Yours. You came out of nowhere using a pen name, going to the extent of having social media in that name and continuing with the pen name apparently after you had no need to, if I read your explanation for it correctly. That is more than enough to arouse curiosity, no? 
 

The exchange continued with Greg insisting that EF rules require members to sign on with "official" identities to which I suggested  that his issue is with the Ed Forum not me. Little did I realize. With stealth, he switched gears from the actual reason for his message to argue about "Prayer Man". 

A credible journalist would have continued and asked questions he intended to pose in his piece. Instead? Greg answers them himself.  Having a bit of experience with vipers, I should have suspected.

Edited January 30 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

 

Not to relitigate what has been debated on this forum over the years, but for the sake of a degree of continuity in this discussion:

Item

Mr. Ball. Why did you go to the front?

Mr. Shelley. Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.

Mr. Ball.  And who was out there?

Mr. Shelley.  Well, there was Lloyd files of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton she’s with Texas School book, and Wesley Frazier and Bill Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.

Mr. Ball.  You were standing where?

Mr. Shelley. Just outside the glass doors there.

Mr. Ball.  That would be on the top landing of the entrance?

Mr. Shelley. Yes.

Mr. Ball.  Did you see the motorcade pass?

Mr. Shelley.  Yes.

 

This was Shelley’s first opportunity to state that Lee Oswald was also standing “just outside the glass doors on the top landing of the entrance.”  He didn't.

 Do Prayer Man aficionados argue: (simple, succinct answers please?)

a) Shelley failed to notice Oswald

b) Shelley wasn’t asked so he didn’t offer

c) Shelley knowingly lied by omission

d) Shelley was pressured to lie by omission

e) other

 

To clarify: (Prayer Man advocates: a simple few lines in response will suffice)

1) Interview notes that Capt. Fritz relied on for his own initial report included SA James Bookhout’s which suggested Oswald stated during one interview he was out front with Shelley

2) William Shelley doesn’t testify that Oswald was out front with him.

3) William Shelley doesn’t appear in the WC transcript of the testimony of SA Bookhout.

4) The question of Oswald’s whereabouts during the assassination does not surface during Bookhout’s testimony.

5) The most egregious flaw in their WC testimony is the line of questioning, not Shelley’s nor Bookhout’s responses.

6) However, there was ample time in the ensuing years, particularly during the HSCA investigation, for both Shelley and Bookhout to correct the record that Oswald was standing outside the depository building during the barrage of gunfire that took Kennedy’s life.

Did they?

Edited January 30 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

19 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jim Hargrove writes:

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.

Jeremy, you might pass this on to Greg Parker for his edification. Note: Austin, capitol city of Texas was and remains markedly more progressive than Dallas. 

March 8, 2021

60 Years Ago this spring: The struggle to desegregate Austin's movie theaters

AUSTIN, Texas — Austin in 1960 was slowly outgrowing its image as just a “college town” as the population approached 200,000. But like most cities in the South, Austin was actually two towns: one for white residents and one for Black residents, with white residents generally living west of what was to become Interstate 35 and Black and Hispanic residents living east.

. . . McCulloch and McNealy were among a number of former students who participated in the 1960-61 protests who were interviewed for the documentary "The Stand-ins," produced by People’s History in Texas. The documentary tells the story of how the protests eventually led to change. 

By the next year, the “stand-ins” had forced the Texan and Varsity theaters to open their doors to Black patrons. Other movie houses in town remained whites-only for a few more years until 1964 when civil rights for all became the law of the land. . . .

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/history/austin-movie-theaters-segregation-the-backstory/269-f1046ea2-0522-40b4-b400-ea7caa8ae35e

Edited January 31 by Leslie Sharp

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

New members may not be aware that Jim [Hargrove] has been doing this sort of thing for years:

1. making a claim;
2. seeing that claim debunked;
3. failing to respond to the points made in the debunking;
4. and repeating his original claim as though the debunking had never happened.

 

To new members:

I can't comment on the topic of a second Oswald in the balcony of the theater, because I haven't studied it.

But I've been following Jim Hargrove's presentations of H&L evidence for years and I have never seen Jim do what Jeremy Bojczuk claims he does in the quote above. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing a substantial debunking of what Jim has argued regarding H&L theory.

Note that I speak only for early H&L theory... before the time Oswald defected to Russia.

Jeremy is full of it.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Leslie Sharp writes:

Quote

Please tell Greg for me, "bring your knife to the gunfight here, personally, and I might respond in detail"

Leslie must be aware that Greg is unable to participate here, not being a member.

Quote

Jeremy, you might pass this on to Greg Parker for his edification.

I'm sure Greg reads this forum, even though he can't respond to Leslie here.

Leslie and Greg are free to continue their conversation on Facebook or wherever. (I personally don't do FaceChat or InstaTwit or any of those things.) Greg has written about his interactions with Leslie here:

https://gregrparker.substack.com/p/let-me-explain

This all started when Leslie, in this thread, appeared to accuse Greg or people associated with him of threatening her. I asked her to either provide some evidence to back up her accusation, or withdraw what is quite a serious accusation. So far, she hasn't done either of these things.

If she has no evidence, she really ought to do the decent thing and acknowledge that she has no evidence to back up her accusation.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Steve Roe writes:

Quote

BTW, the man Bernard Haire saw going out the back door of the Texas Theater, could have been Applin.

The man Haire saw must have been Applin. There are no other candidates.

Haire saw one young white man being escorted by one or more police officers out of the rear of the building, placed in a police car, and driven away. He later heard that a young white man had been arrested in the building and accused of shooting JFK. It's understandable that he came to the conclusion that 2 + 2 = 5.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

I've been following Jim Hargrove's presentations of H&L evidence for years and I have never seen Jim do what Jeremy Bojczuk claims he does in the quote above.

Sandy only needs to read page 9 of this thread! Jim commented:

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.

I replied, explaining why Burroughs was an unreliable witness, and why there is no good reason to believe that Burroughs saw any Oswald lookalike detained by the police in the balcony. I even gave a link to a previous comment of mine which explains these things in more detail.

Jim replied, quoting a passage from Douglass's book, but not acknowledging any of the points I made which contradicted that passage in Douglass's book.

1. Someone makes a claim.
2. You explain why that claim is mistaken.
3. The person repeats the claim, without acknowledging any of the points you made.

What can you do? It's like debating a religious fundamentalist!

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

[I explained] why Burroughs was an unreliable witness, and why there is no good reason to believe that Burroughs saw any Oswald lookalike detained by the police in the balcony. I even gave a link to a previous comment of mine which explains these things in more detail.

Jim replied, quoting a passage from Douglass's book, but not acknowledging any of the points I made which contradicted that passage in Douglass's book.

 

I'll bet that the points made by Jeremy -- and not responded to by Jim -- were either matters of opinion; trivial solutions like a silly mistake was made; or some other lame points for which there is no reply other than something equally lame like, "okay, that's your opinion."

Just look at Jeremy's first sentence quoted above. He says, "[I explained] why Burroughs was an unreliable witness." How does Jeremy expect Jim to reply to that? By saying, "By golly, your opinion is right! What was I thinking? Silly of me to think that Burroughs said something true!" ?

 

[Leslie Sharp]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:41 PM, Ron Bulman said:

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.

 I think his handler may have been someone like David Altee Phillips, likely through a lower level CIA agent used as a cutout.

Ron, "Caretaker" identified in Lafitte's datebook was on the scene in Dallas in the spring of 1963 within a few weeks of the de Mohrenschildts' departure for Haiti.  He goes dark in the datebook through the summer, resurfaces briefly in September when his name appears with Walker, and then he's active in Dallas in October, a critical month during which Oswald is "set in place." The last mention of caretaker is November 14 when he meets with "Crichton" — Jack Crichton of Empire Trust, Continuity of Gov't, the 488th, and the Skorzeny-Meadows scheme in Madrid.

It was anticipated that researchers would tend to cherry pick the datebook entries to fit any number of long-standing hypotheses. However, once we had access to the full datebook, we pursued an invaluable exercise; use Lafitte's record as the standard to compare 'sacred cow' theories. Would those theories that are backed by the most credible evidence hold up against the datebook entries.  Cases in point: LBJ was the mastermind. Marcello was the mastermind. Army Intelligence orchestrated the assassination soup to nuts.  ONI similar. The Cubans were behind all of the alleged attempts to assassinate Kennedy including Dealey. Dulles called for the head of John Kennedy. The Pentagon planned and executed the plot and the WC covered it up. Etc. Etc.

The recent re-focus on Shelley prompted consideration of a possible conduit from Caretaker to Oswald's day-to-day movements while at work. I angry with you that "handler" by definition doesn't apply to Shelley.  

If Shelley was an employee of CIA, then an FBI SA in the role of Oswald's handler might not be comfortable relying on Shelley. (I should pause with the caveat: it is apparent from Lafitte's records that those involved in Lancelot Project were not "rogue," nor were they acting in official capacities. They used their official status as cover.)  

The Lancelot Project was tightly contained, and tightly knit, and if it can be established that Shelley had developed a rapport inside the bureau in Dallas over the years, either with Shanklin or one of his prized SAs like Bard Odum, that personal/professional relationship might have been sufficient bond for Caretaker to assign Shelley the responsibility of keeping Oswald "on point," and if not inside the building on Friday, then at least Shelley was in a position to confuse and distort the patsy's whereabouts.

This is a working hypothesis out of respect for the thousands of hours (collectively) expended by presumably well-meaning researchers who continue to argue that Oswald was photographed standing on the top level of the steps leading to the entrance of the depository building as Kennedy was gunned down. I would be the last to dismisss Malcolm Blunt out of hand, btw.

Edited January 31 by Leslie Sharp

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 I think his handler may have been someone like David Altee Phillips, likely through a lower level CIA agent used as a cutout.

Ron, "Caretaker" identified in Lafitte's datebook was on the scene in Dallas in the spring of 1963 within a few weeks of the de Mohrenschildts' departure for Haiti.  He goes dark in the datebook through the summer, resurfaces briefly in September when his name appears with Walker, and then he's active in Dallas in October, a critical month during which Oswald is "set in place." The last mention of caretaker is November 14 when he meets with "Crichton" — Jack Crichton of Empire Trust, Continuity of Gov't, the 488th, and the Skorzeny-Meadows scheme in Madrid.

It was anticipated that researchers would tend to cherry pick the datebook entries to fit any number of long-standing hypotheses. However, once we had access to the full datebook, we pursued an invaluable exercise; use Lafitte's record as the standard to compare 'sacred cow' theories. Would those theories that are backed by the most credible evidence hold up against the datebook entries.  Cases in point: LBJ was the mastermind. Marcello was the mastermind. Army Intelligence orchestrated the assassination soup to nuts.  ONI similar. The Cubans were behind all of the alleged attempts to assassinate Kennedy including Dealey. Dulles called for the head of John Kennedy. The Pentagon planned and executed the plot and the WC covered it up. Etc. Etc.

The recent re-focus on Shelley prompted consideration of a possible conduit from Caretaker to Oswald's day-to-day movements while at work. I angry with you that "handler" by definition doesn't apply to Shelley.  

If Shelley was an employee of CIA, then an FBI SA in the role of Oswald's handler might not be comfortable relying on Shelley. (I should pause with the caveat: it is apparent from Lafitte's records that those involved in Lancelot Project were not "rogue," nor were they acting in official capacities. They used their official status as cover.)  

The Lancelot Project was tightly contained, and tightly knit, and if it can be established that Shelley had developed a rapport inside the bureau in Dallas over the years, either with Shanklin or one of his prized SAs like Bard Odum, that personal/professional relationship might have been sufficient bond for Caretaker to assign Shelley the responsibility of keeping Oswald "on point," and if not inside the building on Friday, then at least Shelley was in a position to confuse and distort the patsy's whereabouts.

This is a working hypothesis out of respect for the thousands of hours (collectively) expended by presumably well-meaning researchers who continue to argue that Oswald was photographed standing on the top level of the steps leading to the entrance of the depository building as Kennedy was gunned down. I would be the last to dismisss Malcolm Blunt out of hand, btw.

Leslie, I found your essay in Coup In Dallas on Caretaker informative and plausible, for Oswald's time in Dallas in October and November 1963.  I do wonder who was shepherding Lee in the Spring/Summer in New Orleans, I wouldn't think Odum if he's based in Dallas. 

Odum's brothers' intelligence position led me to wonder if he might have more connections than just the FBI.  I've thought for several years now somebody prompted Ruth to call the TSBD/Truly on Oswald's behalf.  Which brings me to a quote from your essay that really intrigues me.

"Over the ensuing months, . . . Bardwell would have cordial visits with Ruth Paine and Michael at least ten more times.  In fact, Ruth referred to Bardwell as her "primary contact" . . . " 

[Leslie Sharp]

47 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Leslie, I found your essay in Coup In Dallas on Caretaker informative and plausible, for Oswald's time in Dallas in October and November 1963.  I do wonder who was shepherding Lee in the Spring/Summer in New Orleans, I wouldn't think Odum if he's based in Dallas. 

Odum's brothers' intelligence position led me to wonder if he might have more connections than just the FBI.  I've thought for several years now somebody prompted Ruth to call the TSBD/Truly on Oswald's behalf.  Which brings me to a quote from your essay that really intrigues me.

"Over the ensuing months, . . . Bardwell would have cordial visits with Ruth Paine and Michael at least ten more times.  In fact, Ruth referred to Bardwell as her "primary contact" . . . " 

Credit to Bill Simpich in addition to Gallagher. Have you read Bill's lengthy piece on Bard?

That said, Linnie Randle is the suspect related to Oswald's job at the depository — if you believe his hiring was part of the plot.  Certainly Lafitte indicates it was essential. There were other reasons to doubt that Ruth was an actual "handler" which we lay out in that chapter.  And you're right. Odum disappears through the summer because Oswald is in New Orleans, indicating Lafitte himself was tracking him or responsible for hiring someone else to.

Arthur Odum is a key, in my fairly educated opinion. What were the odds he was posted in Maracaibo in the timeframe the cache of weapons was "discovered." What were the odds he was suddenly recalled for "a top level secret operation" on behalf of the "president."  Which president?

There were two other Odum brothers, one a Presbyterian minister in San Angelo who appears to have made annual trips to Russia. Arthur had served under the US Ambassador to Russia, twice.  The other brother was a well known Dallas architect.

Brothers tend to stick together, and keep secrets.  

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Brothers tend to stick together, and keep secrets.  

Like Allen and John Foster Dulles in the 1950's, and before?

[Leslie Sharp]

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Thanks, Sandy. That's fair enough. 

 

3 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Like Allen and John Foster Dulles in the 1950's, and before?

And, in fairness, the Kennedy bros.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

On the subject of Jim Hargrove ignoring objections and simply repeating claims that have just been debunked, those of you who were browsing the forum in 2020 may remember this classic example:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/

Mark Stevens demolished an important batch of H&L eye-witness 'evidence'. Jim Hargrove's reply began with the words:

Quote

I haven't read the post above, but here is the Stripling School evidence the H&L critics can’t make go away.

This is what Jim did:

1. he actually admitted that he hadn't even read the debunking in question;
2. he failed to acknowledge, let alone deal with, any of Mark's objections;
3. and then he went on to repeat for the umpteenth time the 'evidence' that had just been debunked.

Jim has been doing this sort of thing for years. If this behaviour isn't already against the rules, the rules should be changed.