The Anonymous Phone Call to the Tippits of Connecticut

[Matt Cloud]

• 15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

   

  It is several pages back and I don't have the time or patience to search for it. But I will reconstruct it the best I can if you like.

   

  Is this what you are referring to?  It is short of reasoning, notwithstanding your claims of not knowing what you "don't buy" and what "seems more likely."  

   

  However the case, the entire point, which you have now spent several posts on, is of unclear legitimacy in the first place.  You think the report should not be questioned but you do think the FBI "deep-sixed" it.  Okay.  I think the report should be questioned and the FBI deep-sixed it.  Now what?  Should your view control?  What are you driving at?

   

  •  
  •  
  • 
  • Admin
  • •  8.9k
  • Gender:Male

   

  Posted March 5

    On 3/5/2024 at 11:36 AM, Paul Jolliffe said:

  She may have mentioned other names, but we only have the FBI's version of whatever Mrs. Jack D. Tippit told them. (It is at least possible that the FBI omitted from the record other names.)

   

  Paul,

  I don't know if I buy the idea that the FBI altered the name and the magazine title in order keep the lid on what the document was about. To me it seems more likely that Mrs. Tippit just heard those names incorrectly.

  Though I do buy the idea that those reading the document knew who the people and the magazine really were, and so deep-sixed the document.

 

Edited March 28 by Matt Cloud

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Is this what you are referring to?

 

No.

 

[Matt Cloud]

Hide the ball.  

 

Feel free then to elaborate your reasoning for whatever it is you think is at issue here, something about the contents of an at-least 3rd generation hearsay document being beyond question at this thread.  Please elaborate your thinking as to why the contents of that report are themselves beyond the scope of permissible inquiry.  

[Sandy Larsen]

24 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

You think the report should not be questioned but you do think the FBI "deep-sixed" it.  Okay.  I think the report should be questioned and the FBI deep-sixed it.  Now what?  Should your view control?

 

I never said the report should not be questioned. And I never said that other people should agree with my opinion*.

I don't know what your problem is. But I do know it's an attitude that we would be better off without.

(*An opinion based on sound reasoning, BTW. So you don't make a big deal about it again.)

 

[Matt Cloud]

I could surmise -- and indeed make a reasonable case -- that you do not want enquiries that might challenge John Armstrong's, and I gather Jim Hargrove's as well, work.  If so, that's an unfortunate position to be in as a moderator of an ostensibly public thread in which your role as such should be neutral as to point-of-view on matters discussed here.  

That is the evident and necessary conclusion -- you have shut down discussion of the identification of the Tippits, anything that is that goes beyond a description of him as a mere "cartoonist," as well as any suggestion that the Tippits may have ulterior or even self-interest in reporting the details of the alleged call.  Their notes about it -- still forthcoming, mind, are sacrosanct and a gold mine no doubt. 

What's especially odd is that, according to Jim Hargrove, with whom you seem to share an alliance, the HARVEY Oswald that you allege to have existed wasn't even in NY in the late 1940s -- Hargrove states it is documented he was in Texas -- all of which calls the entire discussion of the contents of the Tippit call into question in the first place.  In other words, If Jim and/or you know the back story as to the Harvey you claim existed, and it doesn't involve NY until 1953 circa, what has been the point of running this thread around and around in circles?  This thread has existed in one form or another since at least 2015.  No one but me has mentioned that Louis Weinstock is in the Warren Commission.  No one still has offered any analysis connecting that fact with his presence in the Tippit call memo.  Instead, we have make-work projects evidently handed out to John Kowalski wherein he is told to go look through the phone books for various years.  He dutifully reports back he didn't find anything -- no surprise -- and yet it keeps going.  What kind of spinning-of-the-wheels is this thread really about? 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28 by Matt Cloud

[Jim Hargrove]

27 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

What's especially odd, is that according to Jim Hargrove, with whom you seem to share an alliance, the HARVEY Oswald that you allege to have existed wasn't even in NY in the late 1940s -- Hargrove states it is documented he was in Texas -- all of which calls the entire discussion of the contents of the Tippit call into question in the first place. 

Matt,

There is evidence that Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald lived in Texas from July 1947 to Aug. 1948.  Before then and after then, for the rest of the 1940s up until mid-1952, there is no strong evidence indicating where he was.  This is complicated, because both of the LHOs moved often.  Even after studying this material for a quarter century, I still have to review notes sometimes to remember the specifics.

One VERY helpful document is a lengthy spreadsheet developed over the years by David Josephs. It shows where each Oswald was on a month to month, sometimes even day by day, basis.  I’d be happy to send it to you if you’d like.  

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Matt,

There is evidence that Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald lived in Texas from July 1947 to Aug. 1948.  Before then and after then, for the rest of the 1940s up until mid-1952, there is no strong evidence indicating where he was.  This is complicated, because both of the LHOs moved often.  Even after studying this material for a quarter century, I still have to review notes sometimes to remember the specifics.

One VERY helpful document is a lengthy spreadsheet developed over the years by David Josephs. It shows where each Oswald was on a month to month, sometimes even day by day, basis.  I’d be happy to send it to you if you’d like.  

As I indicated before, I think it would be helpful to have such data inserted here to the extent possible -- how lengthy and detailed could it actually be? -- along with the evidentiary materials in support of the places and dates enumerated.  Otherwise, what results here is slight of hand trick: the thread is open for discussion on a certain subject and then certain details and analysis are offered, then the possessors of certain information, albeit without ever properly introducing or supporting such information, re-enter the discussion and say "we" don't believe that.  Oh.  Okay.  If the thread is actually the John Armstrong thread, state it as such.  Otherwise saying what is known when it is not known and, again vetoing certain analyses that "we" -- by which I mean you et al.-- believe is a silly and obvious charade.

[Jim Hargrove]

Matt,

Like a number of other JFK assassination researchers, I believe John Arrmstrong has essentially solved this case (though we’ll probably never know the actual shooters).  I’ve been presenting evidence here for many years.  Just because you came along in the last few months demanding this and demanding that doesn’t mean I’m going to go over it all again. I would be criticized if I did.  If you’re interested, though, there are many lengthy threads on this board about Harvey and Lee that I started and/or made major contributions to.  Try this one.

I created the Harvey and Lee website a quarter century ago, which was always based on John Armstrong’s work, even in the years before he started contributing to it and making it so much better.  Just about anything you want to know about the evidence for the Two Oswalds can be studied there. 

Hopefully none of the material presented on this forum is about my claims, or yours, or John Armstrong’s.  It is about the EVIDENCE. 

On the previous page, I just showed you school records, published in the Warren volumes, that show one LHO attended school in NYC throughout the fall semester of the 1953-1954 school year, while another attended school in New Orleans during the same period.  Is this kind of evidence what you call a charade?

[Matt Cloud]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Matt,

Like a number of other JFK assassination researchers, I believe John Arrmstrong has essentially solved this case (though we’ll probably never know the actual shooters).  I’ve been presenting evidence here for many years.  Just because you came along in the last few months demanding this and demanding that doesn’t mean I’m going to go over it all again. I would be criticized if I did.  If you’re interested, though, there are many lengthy threads on this board about Harvey and Lee that I started and/or made major contributions to.  Try this one.

I created the Harvey and Lee website a quarter century ago, which was always based on John Armstrong’s work, even in the years before he started contributing to it and making it so much better.  Just about anything you want to know about the evidence for the Two Oswalds can be studied there. 

Hopefully none of the material presented on this forum is about my claims, or yours, or John Armstrong’s.  It is about the EVIDENCE. 

On the previous page, I just showed you school records, published in the Warren volumes, that show one LHO attended school in NYC throughout the fall semester of the 1953-1954 school year, while another attended school in New Orleans during the same period.  Is this kind of evidence what you call a charade?

Dealing with this thread alone, your claims are replete throughout it, as well as those of Armstrong's when you have relayed them.  Notwithstanding that, neither you nor he as his collaborator evidently have addressed the issue which I have brought up numerous times, the question John Armstrong himself raises, as to the possibility that Louis Weinstock was working on behalf of the U.S. Government.  That's Armstrong's question, from his book, p. 61.  That question cannot seem to get an ounce of traction but for my repeated attempts at pointing it out, and adding numerous further details that support or at least further along details that add to that hypothesis.  

Failure to do that, here, would be an example of a charade I would cite.  I'm well aware of the school records in the WC.  Your posting those here is not what I was referring to.  To say again, the reference was to an ostensible open thread that is in reality an adjunct for John Armstrong's work.  That's not stated anywhere and yet it is evidently the controlling factor of participation here

 

To be clear: I support in general the concept of a Oswald Project.  I support consideration of the possibility of one or more youths being raised in furtherance of this, as well even of other dopplegangers inserted at multiple place along the timeline, where/when necessary.    

 

The evidence that there are two and only two, or that it was run -- if I understand the thesis correctly -- as a Soviet penetration INTO the US in the 40s needs some substantiation -- in this thread.  A scenario I claim that is worthwhile to pursue is the concept that a child was taken OUT of the US and put into, say Hungary circa 1948, and then swapped in some way or at very least performed some activities inside the USSR after November 1959.  Such a candidate would of course be the son of Emile Gardos, one of the persons mentioned by the anonymous caller, who may or may not have been Elizabeth Bentley, in her alleged call to the Tippits of Connecticut, the topic after all that this thread IS about.  It is NOT the "John Armstrong says" thread.  If that's what you intend, start it up again.  Re-name it, but identify it somehow accordingly.  That is the charade here.

Edited March 29 by Matt Cloud

[Sandy Larsen]

55 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

I could surmise -- and indeed make a reasonable case -- that you do not want enquiries that might challenge John Armstrong's, and I gather Jim Hargrove's as well, work. 

 

I don't know how you can possibly believe that, given that I have just disagreed with the Elizabeth Bentley identification favored by most the party's here.

But in some cases I defer to Jim Hargrove because he's the resident expert on Harvey & Lee.

 

55 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

If so, that's an unfortunate position to be in as a moderator of an ostensibly public thread in which your role as such should be neutral as to point-of-view on matters discussed here.

 

Moderators are allowed to have opinions as long as any resulting conflict of interest doesn't influence their moderation decisions.

I have two other moderators I have to answer to.

 

55 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

That is the evident and necessary conclusion -- you have shut down discussion of the identification of the Tippits, anything that is that goes beyond a description of him as a mere "cartoonist," as well as any suggestion that the Tippits may have ulterior or even self-interest in reporting the details of the alleged call.

 

You're imagining things. I never shut anything down.

The only thing I did was to stop your spamming of this thread with mostly irrelevant data.

 

55 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

What's especially odd is that, according to Jim Hargrove, with whom you seem to share an alliance, the HARVEY Oswald that you allege to have existed wasn't even in NY in the late 1940s -- Hargrove states it is documented he was in Texas -- all of which calls the entire discussion of the contents of the Tippit call into question in the first place. 

 

The caller to the Connecticut Tippits didn't state that HARVEY Oswald was in New York in the late 1940s.

 

55 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

No one but me has mentioned that Louis Weinstock is in the Warren Commission. 

 

Don't flatter yourself. Even I knew about that communication before you mentioned it. It's in Armstrong's book.

I haven't pursued it because, in reality, Oswald didn't even write to Weinstock... he wrote to the Communist Party headquarters in NYC IIRC. Weinstock just happened to be a guy who replied to it, thanking Oswald for his offer to help out with photographic work. It is something to keep in mind, but probably just a coincidence.

 

[Matt Cloud]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

"I don't know how you can possibly believe that, given that I have just disagreed with the Elizabeth Bentley identification favored by most the party's here.

But in some cases I defer to Jim Hargrove because he's the resident expert on Harvey & Lee."

n/a, except to the extent that you are confirming that this thread is actually a "Harvey & Lee" advertisement thread.  The Bentley id was really only solidified by Paul Joliffe.  It is not central to Armstrong's work at all.

 

"Moderators are allowed to have opinions as long as any resulting conflict of interest doesn't influence their moderation decisions.

I have two other moderators I have to answer to."

 

Yes.  As they should I would think too you would try to set an example by offering posts that add-to, that is add data or analysis, whenever possible, and refrain from posts stating mere beliefs -- provided again w/o rationale.

 

"You're imagining things. I never shut anything down.

The only thing I did was to stop your spamming of this thread with mostly irrelevant data."

 

No, you ignored the Tippit data, and reduced it to a dry "coincidence list," which you evidently found significant of nothing.  Tippit was active Air Force rserve, not a mere cartoonist, with a high-level job in Washington.  You dismissed it.  I can provide the quote.  The material was not irrelevant; you just didn't understand it, or care to ask.

 

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

"The caller to the Connecticut Tippits didn't state that HARVEY Oswald was in New York in the late 1940s."

Neither here nor there.  Are you using the secret HARVEY code or the secret LEE code that no one else knows about.  20 pages of this thread have been spent by you and Jim and John looking for "an orphan" in NY in Yorkville in the 1940s.  

 

"Don't flatter yourself. Even I knew about that communication before you mentioned it. It's in Armstrong's book.

I haven't pursued it because, in reality, Oswald didn't even write to Weinstock... he wrote to the Communist Party headquarters in NYC IIRC. Weinstock just happened to be a guy who replied to it, thanking Oswald for his offer to help out with photographic work. It is something to keep in mind, but probably just a coincidence."

He wrote to Louis Weinstock at The Worker on 26th Street which is also the CPUSA HQ.  You didn't know that.  Okay.  Weinstock personally wrote him back.  Even signed the letter himself, sent to Oswald's PO Box. It takes on whole new potential significance in THIS thread because of the caller mentioning Weinstock.  Yet that goes unaddressed, over and over.

 

Edited March 29 by Matt Cloud

[Matt Cloud]

To summarize for anyone following along at this point.  The memo about the call to the Tippits actually hurts the Armstrong thesis.  Because if it is correct, and the Oswald double was the child of the Gardos's, then HARVEY as it is claimed around here, the HARVEY of Armstrong's thesis, didn't come into the US but went out of the US circa 1948.  For that reason, certain voices on this thread (Jim Hargrove specifically), have not wanted to parse too closely the words of the FBI memo about the call.  As they have so stated.  Instead they have seemingly preferred a needle in a haystack search for a Russian-speaking orphan somewhere in the US in the 1940s.  It is actually quite simple what is going on.  That's my reasoned belief.

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

To summarize for anyone following along at this point.  The memo about the call to the Tippits actually hurts the Armstrong thesis.  Because if it is correct, and the Oswald double was the child of the Gardos's, then HARVEY as it is claimed around here, the HARVEY of Armstrong's thesis, didn't come into the US but went out of the US circa 1948.  For that reason, certain voices on this thread (Jim Hargrove specifically), have not wanted to parse too closely the words of the FBI memo about the call.  As they have so stated.  Instead they have seemingly preferred a needle in a haystack search for a Russian-speaking orphan somewhere in the US in the 1940s.  It is actually quite simple what is going on.  That's my reasoned belief.

 

Since you think this thread is therefore a dead end, and is the end of the Harvey & Lee theory, maybe you will go away.

 

[Matt Cloud]

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Since you think this thread is therefore a dead end, and is the end of the Harvey & Lee theory, maybe you will go away.

 

I can understand why you would wish that.  But, Sandy, I'm moving over to your little mole-hunt / paitsification false dichotomy thread, and watching they way you've acted toward Bill Simpich.  See you there.  

Edited March 29 by Matt Cloud

[Jim Hargrove]

11 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

To summarize for anyone following along at this point.  The memo about the call to the Tippits actually hurts the Armstrong thesis.  Because if it is correct, and the Oswald double was the child of the Gardos's, then HARVEY as it is claimed around here, the HARVEY of Armstrong's thesis, didn't come into the US but went out of the US circa 1948.  For that reason, certain voices on this thread (Jim Hargrove specifically), have not wanted to parse too closely the words of the FBI memo about the call.  As they have so stated.  Instead they have seemingly preferred a needle in a haystack search for a Russian-speaking orphan somewhere in the US in the 1940s.  It is actually quite simple what is going on.  That's my reasoned belief.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting our position?  Did you read the very first post of this thread after the actual document (emphasis added)?  

So, since "Oswald"/Harvey was NOT the biological son of Emil Gardos, then there is only one other possibility: Emil and Grace Gardos (and their real son, John) were his caretakers for a bit in Yorkville in the 1940's. The woman caller saw them together and made the natural (but wrong) assumption that our little boy "Oswald"/Harvey was their other son.