Search
Display results as :
Advanced Search
Latest topics
Log in
Social bookmarking
Social bookmarking digg  Social bookmarking delicious  Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking stumbleupon  Social bookmarking slashdot  Social bookmarking yahoo  Social bookmarking google  Social bookmarking blogmarks  Social bookmarking live      

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website
RSS feeds

Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 
Like/Tweet/+1
Affiliates
free forum
 



Share
Go down
avatar
Posts : 987
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 55
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sat 04 Mar 2017, 12:07 pm
Well, we've had 6 pages of school records on a thread about 2 MO's

'Nuff said.

_________________

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it....... confused


Checkmate.

avatar
Admin
Posts : 5037
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 60
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sat 04 Mar 2017, 1:16 pm
steely dan wrote:Well, we've had 6 pages of school records on a thread about 2 MO's

'Nuff said.
That's how they roll, Steely. When they start to get smashed, they change topics. Doesn't matter that they've been smashed on those things as well in the past - especially not when you have someone actually asking you to "tell me how to interpret the documents" as well. May as well ask Gerald Ford to explain the back wound and give tacit agreement that you won't look into it personally.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
avatar
Posts : 987
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 55
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sat 04 Mar 2017, 1:26 pm
greg parker wrote:
steely dan wrote:Well, we've had 6 pages of school records on a thread about 2 MO's

'Nuff said.
That's how they roll, Steely. When they start to get smashed, they change topics. Doesn't matter that they've been smashed on those things as well in the past - especially not when you have someone actually asking you to "tell me how to interpret the documents" as well. May as well ask Gerald Ford to explain the back wound and give tacit agreement that you won't look into it personally.
Gets better, Greg. Knowing full well you can't post on the FOO or the EF, Hargrove wants to "talk".

I suggest you ask him a tough question on here.

He will then contact Armstrong.

Armstrong will ring Dawn.

Dawn will answer "motives"

The world will turn.

_________________

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it....... confused


Checkmate.

avatar
Posts : 3199
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 65
View user profilehttps://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sat 04 Mar 2017, 1:46 pm
steely dan wrote:
The world will turn.
Laughing
avatar
Posts : 1444
Join date : 2012-01-04
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Tue 14 Aug 2018, 9:12 pm
Ask him to post the picture of the old hungarian Harvey.
The big burly guy he said was the living Harvey.
That should be a great question to not get an answer to.
Posts : 101
Join date : 2017-06-02
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Tue 21 Aug 2018, 8:08 am
You know the one interesting aspect of this theory is actually cited by Malcolm Blunt where he states that there seems to genuinely be 2 different individuals when it comes to New York ([url=http://www.jfklancer.com/audio/Conversations/Conversations Malcolm Blunt 2.mp3]Dale/JFK Conversations 2[/url]) and that he seems to believe that there is really no way around it but cautions not to throw all of the research out (not that I believe anyone here does that, not even with JA's amazing research) but it does give great pause for a moment. As I look at it lightly (much more lightly than many of you) I cannot help but to see a few insanely mysterious areas where there seems to be more than one, where people, if not every single witness but at least a few genuinely speak as if they did go to school with Oswald, etc, when he officially (or actually) isn't supposed to be there, etc. Its just insane in some ways.
avatar
Admin
Posts : 5037
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 60
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Tue 21 Aug 2018, 9:31 am
BC_II wrote:You know the one interesting aspect of this theory is actually cited by Malcolm Blunt where he states that there seems to genuinely be 2 different individuals when it comes to New York ([url=http://www.jfklancer.com/audio/Conversations/Conversations Malcolm Blunt 2.mp3]Dale/JFK Conversations 2[/url]) and that he seems to believe that there is really no way around it but cautions not to throw all of the research out (not that I believe anyone here does that, not even with JA's amazing research) but it does give great pause for a moment. As I look at it lightly (much more lightly than many of you) I cannot help but to see a few insanely mysterious areas where there seems to be more than one, where people, if not every single witness but at least a few genuinely speak as if they did go to school with Oswald, etc, when he officially (or actually) isn't supposed to be there, etc. Its just insane in some ways.
Brent,

As  I've said many times, any reasonable person would be grateful for Armstrong putting his document collection online.

In line with that, we're all grateful for the slew of documents Malcolm has been supplying to Barto and for his talks with Alan.

But he is wrong when he dips his toe into the mess Armstrong has created with his smoke and mirror interpretations of evidence and witnesses.

I just listened to the part of the part of the conversation you refer to. Let's take it one small step for mankind at a time.

1. He states that he talked to people who knew the Oswald's before they moved to NYC and states categorically that they are not talking about the same person we now know as Lee Harvey Oswald. Unfortunately he does not explain how. But we are talking about 50 yar old memories about a boy on the verge of puberty. It is insane to take this seriously without knowing in exactly what way he was "not the same boy". If he had two heads before leaving for NY and then suddenly when he is there, he only has one - you got me. Different boy - otherwise it is fuzzy memories of a pre-pubescent kid vs an older kid in a different environment. 

2. Why is anyone surprised that the New York Court system wanted to protect it's records on privacy grounds? That's what courts do all the time. Why is it any surprise that they gave copies instead of originals? Why should the WC even need originals? If -- and it is a big if - if there was anything to hide, why would it need to be about a second Oswald? If there was anything fishy going on with Oswald, it had to do with all the NY investigations into communist influence on the docks and in the classrooms. Teen informants are not uncommon. 

3. Palmer McBride - here, Malcolm has apparently not read the documents on McBride's interviews, but is accepting the Armstrong version. Let me spell this out clearly. McBride NEVER EVER Said he spoke to Oswald about Sputnik He spoke to him about Soviet successes in space. There is a thread here where I provided headlines of Soviet pace successes that pre-date sputnik. It was Armstrong who decided that "Soviet Space Success" could only be a reference to Sputnik and seems to have convinced McBride that it must have been Sputnik. That's the shit that Armstrong pulls - convincing witnesses that his interpretation of what they meant, has to be true because it fits the Two Oswald theory. 

4. Next he talks about Kudlaty --- Kudlaty was an old friend of Jack White, co-conspirator in this mess. Any and I mean any administrator would seek clearance - not from the principal - but from the school board before handing the documents over. And even then, it would be copies - not originals. If they insisted on originals, then the very least he should have done was get a receipt and a promise of return. The story is bunk. Absolute bunk. No one in their right mind hands personal records over like that without getting proof of who it was given to.  And sure as hell, no one keeps quiet about it until an old friend knocks on the door looking for such "proof".

Francesca Schubert is just a naive individual manipulated by Armstrong.

----------------------

Any one who reads the Armstrong book or website would come away thinking there may be something to it That's is because you are getting the Armstrong interpretations - not the raw data (though he provides quite a bit of it, few bother cross-checking it against what he says).  I am a bit surprised that someone like Malcolm is fooled by any part of it. But there you go...

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
Posts : 813
Join date : 2013-08-27
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Wed 22 Aug 2018, 7:46 pm
The Two Marguerite's nonsense is back in fashion at Ed Forum. Guess that is a safe subject there unlike Prayer Man.
avatar
Posts : 678
Join date : 2013-07-26
Location : Melbourne Australia
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Thu 23 Aug 2018, 8:34 am
greg parker wrote:
BC_II wrote:You know the one interesting aspect of this theory is actually cited by Malcolm Blunt where he states that there seems to genuinely be 2 different individuals when it comes to New York ([url=http://www.jfklancer.com/audio/Conversations/Conversations Malcolm Blunt 2.mp3]Dale/JFK Conversations 2[/url]) and that he seems to believe that there is really no way around it but cautions not to throw all of the research out (not that I believe anyone here does that, not even with JA's amazing research) but it does give great pause for a moment. As I look at it lightly (much more lightly than many of you) I cannot help but to see a few insanely mysterious areas where there seems to be more than one, where people, if not every single witness but at least a few genuinely speak as if they did go to school with Oswald, etc, when he officially (or actually) isn't supposed to be there, etc. Its just insane in some ways.
Brent,

As  I've said many times, any reasonable person would be grateful for Armstrong putting his document collection online.

In line with that, we're all grateful for the slew of documents Malcolm has been supplying to Barto and for his talks with Alan.

But he is wrong when he dips his toe into the mess Armstrong has created with his smoke and mirror interpretations of evidence and witnesses.

I just listened to the part of the part of the conversation you refer to. Let's take it one small step for mankind at a time.

1. He states that he talked to people who knew the Oswald's before they moved to NYC and states categorically that they are not talking about the same person we now know as Lee Harvey Oswald. Unfortunately he does not explain how. But we are talking about 50 yar old memories about a boy on the verge of puberty. It is insane to take this seriously without knowing in exactly what way he was "not the same boy". If he had two heads before leaving for NY and then suddenly when he is there, he only has one - you got me. Different boy - otherwise it is fuzzy memories of a pre-pubescent kid vs an older kid in a different environment. 

2. Why is anyone surprised that the New York Court system wanted to protect it's records on privacy grounds? That's what courts do all the time. Why is it any surprise that they gave copies instead of originals? Why should the WC even need originals? If -- and it is a big if - if there was anything to hide, why would it need to be about a second Oswald? If there was anything fishy going on with Oswald, it had to do with all the NY investigations into communist influence on the docks and in the classrooms. Teen informants are not uncommon. 

3. Palmer McBride - here, Malcolm has apparently not read the documents on McBride's interviews, but is accepting the Armstrong version. Let me spell this out clearly. McBride NEVER EVER Said he spoke to Oswald about Sputnik He spoke to him about Soviet successes in space. There is a thread here where I provided headlines of Soviet pace successes that pre-date sputnik. It was Armstrong who decided that "Soviet Space Success" could only be a reference to Sputnik and seems to have convinced McBride that it must have been Sputnik. That's the shit that Armstrong pulls - convincing witnesses that his interpretation of what they meant, has to be true because it fits the Two Oswald theory. 

4. Next he talks about Kudlaty --- Kudlaty was an old friend of Jack White, co-conspirator in this mess. Any and I mean any administrator would seek clearance - not from the principal - but from the school board before handing the documents over. And even then, it would be copies - not originals. If they insisted on originals, then the very least he should have done was get a receipt and a promise of return. The story is bunk. Absolute bunk. No one in their right mind hands personal records over like that without getting proof of who it was given to.  And sure as hell, no one keeps quiet about it until an old friend knocks on the door looking for such "proof".

Francesca Schubert is just a naive individual manipulated by Armstrong.

----------------------

Any one who reads the Armstrong book or website would come away thinking there may be something to it That's is because you are getting the Armstrong interpretations - not the raw data (though he provides quite a bit of it, few bother cross-checking it against what he says).  I am a bit surprised that someone like Malcolm is fooled by any part of it. But there you go...
Well put Greg, The whole JFK thing is littered with nonsensical garbage. FFS. Two teenage Oswald's - two Marguerite's, two adult Oswald's and impostors on every f' ing corner. Do they not realise how insane that all is?
avatar
Admin
Posts : 5037
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 60
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Thu 23 Aug 2018, 9:07 am
greg parker wrote:
Mick Purdy wrote:
greg parker wrote:
BC_II wrote:You know the one interesting aspect of this theory is actually cited by Malcolm Blunt where he states that there seems to genuinely be 2 different individuals when it comes to New York ([url=http://www.jfklancer.com/audio/Conversations/Conversations Malcolm Blunt 2.mp3]Dale/JFK Conversations 2[/url]) and that he seems to believe that there is really no way around it but cautions not to throw all of the research out (not that I believe anyone here does that, not even with JA's amazing research) but it does give great pause for a moment. As I look at it lightly (much more lightly than many of you) I cannot help but to see a few insanely mysterious areas where there seems to be more than one, where people, if not every single witness but at least a few genuinely speak as if they did go to school with Oswald, etc, when he officially (or actually) isn't supposed to be there, etc. Its just insane in some ways.
Brent,

As  I've said many times, any reasonable person would be grateful for Armstrong putting his document collection online.

In line with that, we're all grateful for the slew of documents Malcolm has been supplying to Barto and for his talks with Alan.

But he is wrong when he dips his toe into the mess Armstrong has created with his smoke and mirror interpretations of evidence and witnesses.

I just listened to the part of the part of the conversation you refer to. Let's take it one small step for mankind at a time.

1. He states that he talked to people who knew the Oswald's before they moved to NYC and states categorically that they are not talking about the same person we now know as Lee Harvey Oswald. Unfortunately he does not explain how. But we are talking about 50 yar old memories about a boy on the verge of puberty. It is insane to take this seriously without knowing in exactly what way he was "not the same boy". If he had two heads before leaving for NY and then suddenly when he is there, he only has one - you got me. Different boy - otherwise it is fuzzy memories of a pre-pubescent kid vs an older kid in a different environment. 

2. Why is anyone surprised that the New York Court system wanted to protect it's records on privacy grounds? That's what courts do all the time. Why is it any surprise that they gave copies instead of originals? Why should the WC even need originals? If -- and it is a big if - if there was anything to hide, why would it need to be about a second Oswald? If there was anything fishy going on with Oswald, it had to do with all the NY investigations into communist influence on the docks and in the classrooms. Teen informants are not uncommon. 

3. Palmer McBride - here, Malcolm has apparently not read the documents on McBride's interviews, but is accepting the Armstrong version. Let me spell this out clearly. McBride NEVER EVER Said he spoke to Oswald about Sputnik He spoke to him about Soviet successes in space. There is a thread here where I provided headlines of Soviet pace successes that pre-date sputnik. It was Armstrong who decided that "Soviet Space Success" could only be a reference to Sputnik and seems to have convinced McBride that it must have been Sputnik. That's the shit that Armstrong pulls - convincing witnesses that his interpretation of what they meant, has to be true because it fits the Two Oswald theory. 

4. Next he talks about Kudlaty --- Kudlaty was an old friend of Jack White, co-conspirator in this mess. Any and I mean any administrator would seek clearance - not from the principal - but from the school board before handing the documents over. And even then, it would be copies - not originals. If they insisted on originals, then the very least he should have done was get a receipt and a promise of return. The story is bunk. Absolute bunk. No one in their right mind hands personal records over like that without getting proof of who it was given to.  And sure as hell, no one keeps quiet about it until an old friend knocks on the door looking for such "proof".

Francesca Schubert is just a naive individual manipulated by Armstrong.

----------------------

Any one who reads the Armstrong book or website would come away thinking there may be something to it That's is because you are getting the Armstrong interpretations - not the raw data (though he provides quite a bit of it, few bother cross-checking it against what he says).  I am a bit surprised that someone like Malcolm is fooled by any part of it. But there you go...
Well put Greg, The whole JFK thing is littered with nonsensical garbage. FFS. Two teenage Oswald's - two Marguerite's, two adult Oswald's and impostors on every f' ing corner. Do they not realise how insane that all is?
As I understand it, Malcolm does not buy into the theory holus-bolus, but sees merit in the key component of a "second Oswald". That's the gray area where a number of esteemed authors and researchers reside. 

I would just urge them to do what they do with the Warren Commission - check what the report says against the evidence used. Simply taking Armstrong's interpretations and misrepresentations on face value is just as big a folly.

Case in point from the Harvey and Lee website: 

In January 1960, five months after Harvey Oswald “defected” to the Soviet Union, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo stating that someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's birth certificate (click here to see memo).

Anyone who bothers to read the memo will find what Hoover actually said was "since there is the possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate birth certificate..." 

There is a big difference between the possibility that x happened and the certainty that x happened.

Moreover, if you drill down into the memos Hoover was basing his comments on -- there is no mention at all of any possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's ID. The simple fact that he took his birth certificate was magically transformed by Hoover into "the possibility" that someone else was using it and then magically transformed again by Armstrong into the certainty that someone else was indeed using it. And this alternative fact gets repeated as an actual fact so often, it becomes a mainstream fact and people who should know better get sucked into the vortex of lies created by this snake oil salesman and his online goons.


Last edited by greg parker on Thu 23 Aug 2018, 1:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
avatar
Posts : 678
Join date : 2013-07-26
Location : Melbourne Australia
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Thu 23 Aug 2018, 12:53 pm
greg parker wrote:
greg parker wrote:
Mick Purdy wrote:
greg parker wrote:
BC_II wrote:You know the one interesting aspect of this theory is actually cited by Malcolm Blunt where he states that there seems to genuinely be 2 different individuals when it comes to New York ([url=http://www.jfklancer.com/audio/Conversations/Conversations Malcolm Blunt 2.mp3]Dale/JFK Conversations 2[/url]) and that he seems to believe that there is really no way around it but cautions not to throw all of the research out (not that I believe anyone here does that, not even with JA's amazing research) but it does give great pause for a moment. As I look at it lightly (much more lightly than many of you) I cannot help but to see a few insanely mysterious areas where there seems to be more than one, where people, if not every single witness but at least a few genuinely speak as if they did go to school with Oswald, etc, when he officially (or actually) isn't supposed to be there, etc. Its just insane in some ways.
Brent,

As  I've said many times, any reasonable person would be grateful for Armstrong putting his document collection online.

In line with that, we're all grateful for the slew of documents Malcolm has been supplying to Barto and for his talks with Alan.

But he is wrong when he dips his toe into the mess Armstrong has created with his smoke and mirror interpretations of evidence and witnesses.

I just listened to the part of the part of the conversation you refer to. Let's take it one small step for mankind at a time.

1. He states that he talked to people who knew the Oswald's before they moved to NYC and states categorically that they are not talking about the same person we now know as Lee Harvey Oswald. Unfortunately he does not explain how. But we are talking about 50 yar old memories about a boy on the verge of puberty. It is insane to take this seriously without knowing in exactly what way he was "not the same boy". If he had two heads before leaving for NY and then suddenly when he is there, he only has one - you got me. Different boy - otherwise it is fuzzy memories of a pre-pubescent kid vs an older kid in a different environment. 

2. Why is anyone surprised that the New York Court system wanted to protect it's records on privacy grounds? That's what courts do all the time. Why is it any surprise that they gave copies instead of originals? Why should the WC even need originals? If -- and it is a big if - if there was anything to hide, why would it need to be about a second Oswald? If there was anything fishy going on with Oswald, it had to do with all the NY investigations into communist influence on the docks and in the classrooms. Teen informants are not uncommon. 

3. Palmer McBride - here, Malcolm has apparently not read the documents on McBride's interviews, but is accepting the Armstrong version. Let me spell this out clearly. McBride NEVER EVER Said he spoke to Oswald about Sputnik He spoke to him about Soviet successes in space. There is a thread here where I provided headlines of Soviet pace successes that pre-date sputnik. It was Armstrong who decided that "Soviet Space Success" could only be a reference to Sputnik and seems to have convinced McBride that it must have been Sputnik. That's the shit that Armstrong pulls - convincing witnesses that his interpretation of what they meant, has to be true because it fits the Two Oswald theory. 

4. Next he talks about Kudlaty --- Kudlaty was an old friend of Jack White, co-conspirator in this mess. Any and I mean any administrator would seek clearance - not from the principal - but from the school board before handing the documents over. And even then, it would be copies - not originals. If they insisted on originals, then the very least he should have done was get a receipt and a promise of return. The story is bunk. Absolute bunk. No one in their right mind hands personal records over like that without getting proof of who it was given to.  And sure as hell, no one keeps quiet about it until an old friend knocks on the door looking for such "proof".

Francesca Schubert is just a naive individual manipulated by Armstrong.

----------------------

Any one who reads the Armstrong book or website would come away thinking there may be something to it That's is because you are getting the Armstrong interpretations - not the raw data (though he provides quite a bit of it, few bother cross-checking it against what he says).  I am a bit surprised that someone like Malcolm is fooled by any part of it. But there you go...
Well put Greg, The whole JFK thing is littered with nonsensical garbage. FFS. Two teenage Oswald's - two Marguerite's, two adult Oswald's and impostors on every f' ing corner. Do they not realise how insane that all is?
As I understand it, Malcolm does not buy into the theory holus-bolus, but sees merit in the key component of a "second Oswald". That's the gray area where a number of esteemed authors and researchers reside. 

I would just urge them to do what they do with the Warren Commission - check what the report says against the evidence used. Simply taking Armstrong's interpretations and misrepresentations on face value is just as big a folly.

Case in point from the Harvey and Lee website: 

In January 1960, five months after Harvey Oswald “defected” to the Soviet Union, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo stating that someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's birth certificate (click here to see memo).

Anyone who bothers to read the memo will find what Hoover actually said was "since there is the possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate birth certificate..." 

There is a big difference between the possibility that x happened and the certainty that x happened.

Moreover, if you drill down into the memos Hoover was basing his comments on -- there is no mention at all of any possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's ID. The simple fact that he took his birth certificate was magically transformed by Hoover into "the possibility" that someone else was using it and then magically transformed again by Armstrong into the certainty that someone else was indeed using it. And this alternative fact gets repeated as an actual fact so often, it becomes a mainstream fact and people who should know better get sucked into the vortex of lies created by this snake oil salesman and his online goons.
Point taken Mate, Malcolm Blunt is not whom I'm referring to as you might've guessed. I am however referring to the utter crap and nonsense from some of the authors who peddle their insane Oswald doppleganger theory's without any facts or evidence.
The JFK case is a basket case for sure....we just need the Weigman and Darnell frames and we can all go home.
Posts : 813
Join date : 2013-08-27
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sat 25 Aug 2018, 1:31 am
The JFK case is a basket case for sure....we just need the Weigman and Darnell frames and we can all go home.

Exactly Mick.
avatar
Posts : 3199
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 65
View user profilehttps://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sat 25 Aug 2018, 5:36 am
Vinny wrote:The JFK case is a basket case for sure....we just need the Weigman and Darnell frames and we can all go home.

Exactly Mick.

A lot of people don't want to go home.
avatar
Posts : 678
Join date : 2013-07-26
Location : Melbourne Australia
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sat 25 Aug 2018, 7:48 am
Stan Dane wrote:
Vinny wrote:The JFK case is a basket case for sure....we just need the Weigman and Darnell frames and we can all go home.

Exactly Mick.

A lot of people don't want to go home.
Too True. Maybe they just might have to though. We've got the bat in our hands just gotta find a way to play the final shot.
avatar
Posts : 401
Join date : 2016-08-15
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sat 25 Aug 2018, 9:38 am
It's where they eat and that makes it home.

_________________
Release clear scans. Reveal the truth about Prayer Man. Preserve the history of the assassination of JFK.
Posts : 813
Join date : 2013-08-27
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sat 25 Aug 2018, 8:11 pm
Right.For many it is just a hobby.They don't want their hobby coming to an end.They wish to prolong the case rather than actually solve it.
avatar
Posts : 1444
Join date : 2012-01-04
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sun 26 Aug 2018, 9:07 am
Can' t explain a document, ...its two Oswald's.
Can't explain confused dates, Its two Oswald's.
Can't analyze photos properly, Its two Oswald's.
These bunch of 'cants' are the lowest possible denominator.
Cheers, Ed
avatar
Posts : 678
Join date : 2013-07-26
Location : Melbourne Australia
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sun 26 Aug 2018, 10:38 am
Ed. Ledoux wrote:Can' t explain a document, ...its two Oswald's.
Can't explain confused dates, Its two Oswald's.
Can't analyze photos properly, Its two Oswald's.
These bunch of 'cants' are the lowest possible denominator.
Cheers, Ed
Thank-you Ed, you made me laugh out loud. Made my day!
avatar
Posts : 1444
Join date : 2012-01-04
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Sun 26 Aug 2018, 3:39 pm
My pleasure Mick.
Cheers, Ed
Posts : 101
Join date : 2017-06-02
View user profile

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

on Fri 31 Aug 2018, 8:47 am
greg parker wrote:
BC_II wrote:You know the one interesting aspect of this theory is actually cited by Malcolm Blunt where he states that there seems to genuinely be 2 different individuals when it comes to New York ([url=http://www.jfklancer.com/audio/Conversations/Conversations Malcolm Blunt 2.mp3]Dale/JFK Conversations 2[/url]) and that he seems to believe that there is really no way around it but cautions not to throw all of the research out (not that I believe anyone here does that, not even with JA's amazing research) but it does give great pause for a moment. As I look at it lightly (much more lightly than many of you) I cannot help but to see a few insanely mysterious areas where there seems to be more than one, where people, if not every single witness but at least a few genuinely speak as if they did go to school with Oswald, etc, when he officially (or actually) isn't supposed to be there, etc. Its just insane in some ways.
Brent,

As  I've said many times, any reasonable person would be grateful for Armstrong putting his document collection online.

In line with that, we're all grateful for the slew of documents Malcolm has been supplying to Barto and for his talks with Alan.

But he is wrong when he dips his toe into the mess Armstrong has created with his smoke and mirror interpretations of evidence and witnesses.

I just listened to the part of the part of the conversation you refer to. Let's take it one small step for mankind at a time.

1. He states that he talked to people who knew the Oswald's before they moved to NYC and states categorically that they are not talking about the same person we now know as Lee Harvey Oswald. Unfortunately he does not explain how. But we are talking about 50 yar old memories about a boy on the verge of puberty. It is insane to take this seriously without knowing in exactly what way he was "not the same boy". If he had two heads before leaving for NY and then suddenly when he is there, he only has one - you got me. Different boy - otherwise it is fuzzy memories of a pre-pubescent kid vs an older kid in a different environment. 

2. Why is anyone surprised that the New York Court system wanted to protect it's records on privacy grounds? That's what courts do all the time. Why is it any surprise that they gave copies instead of originals? Why should the WC even need originals? If -- and it is a big if - if there was anything to hide, why would it need to be about a second Oswald? If there was anything fishy going on with Oswald, it had to do with all the NY investigations into communist influence on the docks and in the classrooms. Teen informants are not uncommon. 

3. Palmer McBride - here, Malcolm has apparently not read the documents on McBride's interviews, but is accepting the Armstrong version. Let me spell this out clearly. McBride NEVER EVER Said he spoke to Oswald about Sputnik He spoke to him about Soviet successes in space. There is a thread here where I provided headlines of Soviet pace successes that pre-date sputnik. It was Armstrong who decided that "Soviet Space Success" could only be a reference to Sputnik and seems to have convinced McBride that it must have been Sputnik. That's the shit that Armstrong pulls - convincing witnesses that his interpretation of what they meant, has to be true because it fits the Two Oswald theory. 

4. Next he talks about Kudlaty --- Kudlaty was an old friend of Jack White, co-conspirator in this mess. Any and I mean any administrator would seek clearance - not from the principal - but from the school board before handing the documents over. And even then, it would be copies - not originals. If they insisted on originals, then the very least he should have done was get a receipt and a promise of return. The story is bunk. Absolute bunk. No one in their right mind hands personal records over like that without getting proof of who it was given to.  And sure as hell, no one keeps quiet about it until an old friend knocks on the door looking for such "proof".

Francesca Schubert is just a naive individual manipulated by Armstrong.

----------------------

Any one who reads the Armstrong book or website would come away thinking there may be something to it That's is because you are getting the Armstrong interpretations - not the raw data (though he provides quite a bit of it, few bother cross-checking it against what he says).  I am a bit surprised that someone like Malcolm is fooled by any part of it. But there you go...

Thanks Greg. Point well taken and it really just encourages me to tread lightly. Personally I don't agree with JA's hypothesis or interpretation of the documents. It is what I appreciate about your approach, that literally its not some "secret" knowledge and thanks for working through what you listened to. 

I might also add that I believe I read somewhere (or heard, no proof....dammit) that Snyder was good friends with Kudlaty? Hell it may have been from JA himself but I cannot remember. Any info on that?
Sponsored content

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum