Jump to content

John Armstrong [Hold the Harvey and Lee?]


Recommended Posts

Neither of these combatants appears to personally know Mrs. Porter nor have talked to her.

If you had read my previous posts with any attention, jack, you would have seen that I personally know Marina. In fact I have spent much more time in her company than the one hour you say that you have spent. As to phone conversations, well Marina does like to talk on the phone, and I have had many long phone conversations with her.

There is no question in 2006 that...

...Marina in Russia had an association with intelligence

...Marina's association with LHO was an "assignment"

Maybe in your mind, but these are very scurrilous accusations, unsupported by a shred of credible evidence (unless you are a CIA agent and are privy to information unavailable to the rest of us). Scurrilous accusations like these are unworthy of any serious JFK researcher.

...because of her position in the assassination, she necessarily lied or

did as she was told, out of fear

Marina had no "position" in the assassination, beyond being a victim.

...she believes that the "Lee" she knew was innocent.

Congratulations, Jack. You finally got one thing right.

Marina believes her husband was innocent, and she is completely correct about that.

So what exactly are you trying to make us believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Neither of these combatants appears to personally know Mrs. Porter nor have talked to her.

If you had read my previous posts with any attention, jack, you would have seen that I personally know Marina. In fact I have spent much more time in her company than the one hour you say that you have spent. As to phone conversations, well Marina does like to talk on the phone, and I have had many long phone conversations with her.

There is no question in 2006 that...

...Marina in Russia had an association with intelligence

...Marina's association with LHO was an "assignment"

Maybe in your mind, but these are very scurrilous accusations, unsupported by a shred of credible evidence (unless you are a CIA agent and are privy to information unavailable to the rest of us). Scurrilous accusations like these are unworthy of any serious JFK researcher.

...because of her position in the assassination, she necessarily lied or

did as she was told, out of fear

Marina had no "position" in the assassination, beyond being a victim.

...she believes that the "Lee" she knew was innocent.

Congratulations, Jack. You finally got one thing right.

Marina believes her husband was innocent, and she is completely correct about that.

So what exactly are you trying to make us believe?

It's nice to see this thread being utilized to it's fullest, geez. I think I am starting to get an idea of how members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee must have felt during the COINTELPRO era. Maybe this party could be moved over to the 'Marina' thread

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Unfortunately, during the middle of this thread I posted some things and replied to some things that were decidedly off topic. I hope I've learned my lesson. But as I stated in the beginning, the only way to really discuss Armstrong's assertions about a Ruby-Oswald connection is go to the source documents that he cites in his book.

As you know, Armstrong even went to the thoughtful effort to provide a CD-Rom containing source photographs with Harvey & Lee. When this thread began, I searched for my copy of it in vain.

Having recently been outed as a member of the "John Armstrong" cult, I might as well confess that I am also the proud recent graduate of the Andy Walker Internet Crash Course in Basic Historical Skills for Gullible Conspiracists and 14 Year Olds. I'm not going to hold my breath for Mr. Walker to send me a diploma.

Having said that, I really wonder how many members of this Forum that post on a regular basis have actually purchased and read Armstrong's book. My guess is not too many.

In fact, about a month ago I asked that question in another Armstrong related thread. No one responded.

Thanks for starting the thread in the first place, Robert.

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go and light some candles and stare at Jack White's poster of The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mike Hogan

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever hear of "How To Win Friends And Influence People, " by Dale Carnegie?

While I admire your loyalty to Marina, I think it comes at the cost of your objectivity...might be wrong, but that's how it appears to me. I don't doubt that Marina's a lovely person who was placed in a difficult situation 42 years ago, and I believe that some of her questioners/"interrogators" were probably not as kind--or as intelligent, apparently--as they might have been. I believe that Marina was victimized by the system. But apparent inconsistencies in her testimony cannot be overlooked simply because she's a lovely person.

And THAT is where your pit-bull persona comes to the forefront, Mr. Carroll. It's NOT harassment to seek answers to LEGITIMATE questions about inconsistencies. And it is at that point that it becomes apparent to me that you have surrendered any objectivity you may have once had concerning Marina.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, I really wonder how many members of this Forum that post on a regular basis have actually purchased and read Armstrong's book. My guess is not too many.

It looks like a fascinating book with lots of useful information but unfortunately the price is pretty steep. If only it was $20 less. I know its over 1,000 pages, has a slipcase and a CD etc., but still...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever hear of "How To Win Friends And Influence People, " by Dale Carnegie?

Yes, I read the book some years ago. Since you are such a fan of Dale Carnegie, I am sure you know that he was a fervent opponent of JFK in 1960, on the grounds that JFK was a Catholic. It seems he did not win enough friends or influence enough people to stop JFK. Maybe he got his revenge by participating in the assassination, you think?

And THAT is where your pit-bull persona comes to the forefront, Mr. Carroll. It's NOT harassment to seek answers to LEGITIMATE questions about inconsistencies. And it is at that point that it becomes apparent to me that you have surrendered any objectivity you may have once had concerning Marina.

I assume you have read the thread I opened on Marina, but if not, please do so. If there are any "inconsistencies" in Marina's testimony that you are concerned about, I will be perfectly happy to address them, if you will just tell me what they are.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever hear of "How To Win Friends And Influence People, " by Dale Carnegie?

Yes, I read the book some years ago. Since you are such a fan of Dale Carnegie, I am sure you know that he was a fervent opponent of JFK in 1960, on the grounds that JFK was a Catholic. It seems he did not win enough friends or influence enough people to stop JFK. Maybe he got his revenge by participating in the assassination, you think?

It seems that my memory is more fallible than Marina's. I did read Dale Carnegie's book, though apparently it did me no good, at least in Mr. Knight's eyes. However I confused him with the Reverand Norman Vincent Peale, author of The Power of Positive Thinking. It was Peale who campaigned against JFK in 1960, so I owe Mr. Carnegie a profound apology. Apparently the voters in 1960 decided that JFK was an even more positive thinker than Norman Vincent Peale.

I respectfully request that questions/comments about Marina be addressed on the thread entitled "Marina Oswald."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever hear of "How To Win Friends And Influence People, " by Dale Carnegie?

Yes, I read the book some years ago. Since you are such a fan of Dale Carnegie, I am sure you know that he was a fervent opponent of JFK in 1960, on the grounds that JFK was a Catholic. It seems he did not win enough friends or influence enough people to stop JFK. Maybe he got his revenge by participating in the assassination, you think?

It seems that my memory is more fallible than Marina's. I did read Dale Carnegie's book, though apparently it did me no good, at least in Mr. Knight's eyes. However I confused him with the Reverand Norman Vincent Peale, author of The Power of Positive Thinking. It was Peale who campaigned against JFK in 1960, so I owe Mr. Carnegie a profound apology. Apparently the voters in 1960 decided that JFK was an even more positive thinker than Norman Vincent Peale.

I respectfully request that questions/comments about Marina be addressed on the thread entitled "Marina Oswald."

Even though I have been guilty of posting confrontational accusatory et cetera material on the Forum when I percieved a real or supposed insult or whatever, I recently had an epiphany of sorts. "When a thread or topic on the Forum deteriorates into name calling, verbal abuse, clash of ego's and clash of perceptions over indeed 'very important' aspects of the various sub-plots in the JFK Assassination, not only does it hurt the cause of genuine investigatory matters, but it also reflects badly on the Forum because, to coin a phrase 'the whole world [or at least a portion of it] is watching."

While this dynamic is due [in some part] to the fact that some just 'voice their opinions' while [hopefully more and more] Forum members approach the subject using true 'investigatory' or, at least scholarly techniques. One can justifiably state 'much of it is needless.'

I do remember the HSCA investigation of the 1970's what Gaeton Fonzi called 'The Last Investigation.' Years later, it became clear that there were individuals who deliberately set out to torch the work of the HSCA.

See Richard Sprague feud with Henry Gonzalez, in the end the resultant firestorm, left G. Robert Blakey more or less, heading the investigation. Not exactly a victory for Truth, Justice and the American Way, but that is just my opinion.

In Dante's Inferno there is the famous sign stating 'Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here,' one can only hope that, the ultimate legacy of the Education/Forum/JFK Debate does not recall that particular epitaph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, I really wonder how many members of this Forum that post on a regular basis have actually purchased and read Armstrong's book. My guess is not too many.

It looks like a fascinating book with lots of useful information but unfortunately the price is pretty steep. If only it was $20 less. I know its over 1,000 pages, has a slipcase and a CD etc., but still...

If you have not already done so, Mr. Parsons, you might want to check out this piece by Dave Reitzes, along with the links attached, on the McAdams site

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/dr1.htm

Dave Reitzes is a really good, thorough researcher, but he seems to be attracted to cults. He was at one time a member of the Garrison cult, then he joined the John Armstrong cult, and now he is a member of the McAdams cult. I'm not sure which one is the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, I really wonder how many members of this Forum that post on a regular basis have actually purchased and read Armstrong's book. My guess is not too many.

It looks like a fascinating book with lots of useful information but unfortunately the price is pretty steep. If only it was $20 less. I know its over 1,000 pages, has a slipcase and a CD etc., but still...

If you have not already done so, Mr. Parsons, you might want to check out this piece by Dave Reitzes, along with the links attached, on the McAdams site

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/dr1.htm

Dave Reitzes is a really good, thorough researcher, but he seems to be attracted to cults. He was at one time a member of the Garrison cult, then he joined the John Armstrong cult, and now he is a member of the McAdams cult. I'm not sure which one is the worst.

I am indeed familiar with Mr. Reitzes. Just about all of his writing on Garrison is total garbage. If I had both the time and the energy I could write out a refutation of just about everything relating to Garrison he has written (and he has written a lot).

As for Armstrong, I'm almost totally agnostic on his central theory. I'm just saying that it appears to have lots (and lots) of useful material for research.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

Even though I have been guilty of posting confrontational accusatory et cetera material on the Forum when I percieved a real or supposed insult or whatever, I recently had an epiphany of sorts. "When a thread or topic on the Forum deteriorates into name calling, verbal abuse, clash of ego's and clash of perceptions over indeed 'very important' aspects of the various sub-plots in the JFK Assassination, not only does it hurt the cause of genuine investigatory matters, but it also reflects badly on the Forum because, to coin a phrase 'the whole world [or at least a portion of it] is watching."

While this dynamic is due [in some part] to the fact that some just 'voice their opinions' while [hopefully more and more] Forum members approach the subject using true 'investigatory' or, at least scholarly techniques. One can justifiably state 'much of it is needless.'

I do remember the HSCA investigation of the 1970's what Gaeton Fonzi called 'The Last Investigation.' Years later, it became clear that there were individuals who deliberately set out to torch the work of the HSCA.

See Richard Sprague feud with Henry Gonzalez, in the end the resultant firestorm, left G. Robert Blakey more or less, heading the investigation. Not exactly a victory for Truth, Justice and the American Way, but that is just my opinion.

In Dante's Inferno there is the famous sign stating 'Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here,' one can only hope that, the ultimate legacy of the Education/Forum/JFK Debate does not recall that particular epitaph.

Well put Robert. It's been very sad to see this forum turn into one flame war after another. It also makes for mighty boring reading. FOr example I completely ignore the Z film fights....and was angered when the thread on the DC press conference devolved into that crap. I wanted to hear more from the presenters who really had something to offer. Alas, the never ending debate over the legitimacy of the Z film ended that initial conversation. (One wonders if this was perhaps the intent?).

As for Marnia, it has long been clear that she told differing stories. I have never held this against her in any fashion but felt she must have been terrified by the position she found herself in. Married to the man accused of killing a popular president. The patsy. No legal status in the US...Had her inquisitors told her to say the moon is green cheese she would not doubt have repeated it. And so would the rest of us in her situation. I have nothing but respect for Marnia. I was thrilled when she began speakig out on her belief in her husband's innocence. I do not know her but I did obtain her phone number in 1985 and on 11/22 dialed part of the number but, out of respect for her privacy, did not complete the call.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owen wrote:

As for Armstrong, I'm almost totally agnostic on his central theory. I'm just saying that it appears to have lots (and lots) of useful material for research.

Jack writes:

Armstrong has few theories. He shows evidence that there were multiple

Oswalds and multiple Marguerites. Most of his evidence is indisputable...

different Oswalds in different places at the same time.

One of his few "theories" is that both Harvey and Lee were present in the

TSBD on 11-22, when evidence is not too strong.

A necessary conclusion from his work (but not presented as a theory) is

that Marina was acquainted with both Lee and Harvey. One of her

most intriguing quotes says "I had two husbands..."

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...