Time to Kill another Myth: There was no second Oswald arrested at the theater

First topic message reminder :

Over at the Uneducated Forum, a Mr Ron Bulman started a thread titled Two Oswalds In the Texas Theater.

After pages and pages of interminable bullshit, Steve Thomas posted this




It is not hard to solve from there. The witness taken out the back and taken in for a statement (not under arrest, as some idiots claim), was George Applin. The above document says the witness heard the pistol click (actually a chair click) 

Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything? 
Mr. APPLIN - Well, about the only thing I heard was the snap of the gun and the officer saying, "Here he is." 
Mr. BALL - You heard the snap of a gun? 
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir. 


The document goes on to say that the three officers stayed and took contact details of all the patrons. Again confirmed by Applin.

Mr. BALL - And did you go out and follow them out? 
Mr. APPLIN - No, sir; I went out to the candy counter out there and the officer said, if there's anybody in there that seen it--and asked--there was about two or three, the candyman himself, and said--that one boy said that he seen him, through the front--I mean out from behind the picture where it came out---supposed to came out behind the picture. 
Mr. BALL - Did you give them your name there? 
Mr. APPLIN - He asked my name and address and where I was staying at the time. 

Lastly, the document says that this witness was taken by the three into City Hall.

Mr. BALL - Later did you go down to the police station and make a statement? 
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; I did. 
Mr. BALL - When? 
Mr. APPLIN - Well, it was after--I guess after they got everybody's name. I rode down with three officers. 
Mr. BALL - That same day, did you? 
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL - You didn't go back to the picture show? 
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; I did. There was a patrolman that carried me back out and I was going to see the rest of it, but I never did get back in time to. 
Mr. BALL - You didn't get to see the show? 
Mr. APPLIN - Well, I seen part of it, but I didn't get to see all of it. 

But we know the Hargroves of this world are impervious to facts, so we should expect to still be reading in another 50 years how a second Oswald was taken out the back and arrested.

Jeremy,

It is comical that he chides you, saying it does not matter what either of you think. Only the evidence matters... and then proceeds to quote speculation from a book.  But he knows that is not cutting the mustard. You backed him so far into a corner, he has had to unleash the full H & L floodgates to divert from his non-response.

He's like a puffer fish. When H&L is threatened, he puffs up a voluminous balloon post to make his H&L arguments appear bigger than they really are. Some are fooled by that defense mechanism. 

On second thought, would a squid's ink be a better analogy? I'll have to think about this.

Thanks for that background, Greg. I wasn't aware that H & L was ever considered respectable. The first time I heard about it, maybe six or seven years ago, I chuckled to myself and filed it away with all the other paranoid speculation that most unsolved mysteries tend to attract.

I'd read a few books over the years, but I came to the wonderful online JFK world relatively late. My first encounter with Jack White was in one of Fetzer's books, which included a section apparently based on a slide-show presentation by White. It contained little other than paranoid speculation, as far as I recall. The highlight was a comparison of three photos of the sixth-floor rifle, taken from slightly different angles, so that the proportions of the rifle looked slightly different each time. The idiot White was claiming that they must therefore show three different rifles.

Once I'd picked my jaw up from the floor I concluded that either the guy knew zero about photography or he was certifiably insane. When I later learned that White had had a hand in cooking up the H & L nonsense, and that he thought the moon landings were faked, I wasn't too surprised. The fact that idiocy like this could make it into a published book woke me up to the danger that the far-out paranoid stuff poses to the public perception of the JFK assassination debate.

I've just tried to look up White's moon landings article. The original link I found some time ago, http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html , is no longer live, but there is a selection of his work at http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2009/08/jack-whites-apollo-hoax-evidence.html . It's mind-bogglingly stupid. He also gets a good kicking at http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html .

https://web.archive.org/web/20130607011218/http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

Jeremy Bojczuk wrote:Thanks for that background, Greg. I wasn't aware that H & L was ever considered respectable. The first time I heard about it, maybe six or seven years ago, I chuckled to myself and filed it away with all the other paranoid speculation that most unsolved mysteries tend to attract.

Armstrong was the star attraction at a number of Lancer conferences.

I think we can lay some of the blame on Stone, alongside the thanks for helping create the JFK Act and creating new interest in the case.

The thing is, the movie made it easy to believe just about anything. And the explosion of the web helped the spread of a whole lot of "just about anything".  

Then there is the fact that there was not a lot to choose from in the way of Messiahs for the leaderless tribes. John Newman and Peter Dale Scott were too dry and academic for most internet forum posters, while the likes of Groden and White were seen as bona fide heroes who took on The Man at the HSCA.

John Armstrong's book contains more than 1,000 times the word "probably"......

As the sun sets upon H&L, may Prayer Man have his day.

jeremy wrote:What Burroughs did state, according to Douglass, is that a fake Oswald was "placed under arrest and handcuffed". This must have happened on the ground floor, for reasons I've already given several times (Burroughs never went up to the balcony, and could not have seen into the balcony).

hargrove's reply wrote:Not necessarily.  Because Burroughs said he saw someone arrested does not mean he saw the entire arrest process.  As Douglass stated and I have repeated perhaps a dozen times now, the cops may have taken the second Oswald down from the balcony where he was then seen by Burroughs.  Burroughs would describe that, as would almost anyone, as seeing a guy who looked like Oswald arrested. Bernard Haire also saw the second Oswald arrested, although he clearly saw him only after he was brought outside into the alley--he didn't see the entire arrest process.

Hargrove is being cute again.

He knows full well that what Douglass wrote was "by the time Burroughs witnessed Oswald double's arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby, either on his own, or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony." 

We know from this, that no balcony arrest had taken place regarding this particular double because - unless police were on the habit of allowing handcuffed arrestees to wander off ahead of them - it could not have happened. If he was already handcuffed, then the police must have escorted him, leaving no room to speculate that he may have come down on his own. 

So... we are stuck with Burroughs witnessing this double being handcuffed. And we are stuck with the police reports of a second double being arrested on the balcony... where Applin was also being questioned by police before escorted out the back. Oddly, Applin makes no mention of these other two arrests and nor does Burroughs mention anything of a thrrd arrest. 

It is all very perplexing when you have to assume witness infallibility whenever it fits your theory. 

Bottom line: BUrroughs mentioning the person being handcuffed but guessing he came down the stairs escorted OR on his own... kills any notion that the person was already handcuffed hen he came down. And therefore BUrroughs MUST have seen the actual arrest of this individual.

More nonsense from Hargrove

Yeah, but I’m told a surgical scar that old would be pretty faint.  I’m pretty sure John A. doesn’t agree with me, but I think it was the Russian-speaking Oswald all along who had the mastoidectomy.  Hoover knew it, and just faked a page or two to make it seem as if the American-born Oswald had the operation.

hargroves at the 13\" Ed Forum wrote:It just occurred to me that James Douglass answered this critique in endnote 444 of JFK and the Unspeakable.  Here’s what he wrote:

Butch Burroughs is a man of few words. When asked a question, he answers exactly what he is asked. Burroughs told me no one had ever asked him before about a second arrest in the Texas Theater. In response to my question, “Now you didn’t see anybody else [besides Oswald] get arrested that day, did you?” he answered, “Yes, there was a lookalike—an Oswald lookalike.” In response to further questions, he described the second arrest, that of the “Oswald lookalike.” Ibid.

Yet here is what he wrote on page 291:

"Butch Burroughs, who witnessed Oswald's arrest, startled me in his interview when he said he saw a second arrest occur in the Texas Theatre..."

The author does not say "he startled me when he answered my question regarding any other arrests by saying 'yes, there was another one...'" and nor does it appear that Jim Glover asked about any second arrest. The information was simply given on both occasions.

Douglass was well on board the Two Oswald train wreck before he started... that he did the same as Hargrove does in trying to conflate the alleged balcony arrest with what Burroughs witnessed, tells us all we need to know. Did Douglass perhaps preference one of his questions by mentioning a balcony arrest? These author interviews are worthless when it comes to looking for real answers. They are only good for what they were conducted for: support of a theory.

hargroves at the 13\" Ed Forum wrote:It just occurred to me that James Douglass answered this critique in endnote 444 of JFK and the Unspeakable.  Here’s what he wrote:

Butch Burroughs is a man of few words. When asked a question, he answers exactly what he is asked. Burroughs told me no one had ever asked him before about a second arrest in the Texas Theater. In response to my question, “Now you didn’t see anybody else [besides Oswald] get arrested that day, did you?” he answered, “Yes, there was a lookalike—an Oswald lookalike.” In response to further questions, he described the second arrest, that of the “Oswald lookalike.” Ibid.

Yet he is what he wrote on page 291:

"Butch Burroughs, who witnessed Oswald's arrest, startled me in his interview when he said he saw a second arrest occur in the Texas Theatre..."


The author does not say "he startled me when he answered my question regarding any other arrests by saying 'yes, there was another one..." and nor does it appear that Jim Glover asked about any second arrest. The information was simply given on both occasions.

Douglass was well on board the Two Oswald train wreck before he started... that he did the same as Hargrove does in trying to conflate the alleged balcony arrest with what Burroughs witnessed, tells all we need to know. Did Douglass perhaps preference one of his questions by mentioning a balcony arrest? These author interviews are worthless when comes to looking for real answers. They are only good for what they were conducted for: support of a theory.

RC-D wrote:While I am not as hostile to “Harvey & Lee” as many other posters, neither do I accept its basic premise. Finding and using the persona of a dead child (Gordon Lonsdale from northern Ontario ) is NOT the same as raising two kids to share or become one genuine persona. As a predicate for Armstrong’s putative Oswald project, Lonsdale is inaccurate, inappropriate and used misleadingly. As it is the very cornerstone of Armstrong’s hypothesis, the remainder is built on that shaky ground. I state this up-front so there will be no confusion about the following.

It is great to see Robert posting again, but he is exaggerating the number of "hostile" posters. There is only one "hostile" poster in that thread - and only one other in total at the Ed Forum when it comes to the Two Oswald Cult. To claim there are "many" there is only feeding into Hargrove's appeal for martyrdom.  

But he is bang on with his "inappropriate and misleading" comment about the use of Lonsdale. I am not sure however, why this does not lead to much more skepticism about the rest of the house of cards. The man misinterprets evidence, uses it inappropriately, uses friends of friends as witnesses without declaring the relationships, and above all else, misleads with the evidence. Misleading did not start and stop with Lonsdale. It is the mortar that holds the flimsy dreck together. 

And if Butch Burroughs saw someone other than Applin simply being led out the back by cops, who, like Applin, wasn't struggling or making a scene, then why does Burroughs not recall TWO such people being led out in that manner? The two being Applin and the putative 2nd Oswald? Separately of course!

The idea that an Oswald double was led out the back and released back into its natural habitat, never to be heard of again is... overkill. I have to agree with Jeremy. Why make a scene that may be recalled later by witnesses? And why would a double give his name as Oswald - again giving it away? Much better to just leave him to watch the rest of the show and later to melt back into the shadows from whence he came. No pesky witnesses to tell the tale 30 years later.

"Much better to just leave him to watch the rest of the show and later to melt back into the shadows from whence he came."


Absolutely. That would be the common sense move and lest we forget, these players were smoothly operating professional by virtue of the H&L standard model. But no, it's just another puff of the H&L hookah pipe. I don't think you're supposed to put crack in those things boys.

Jake Sykes wrote:As the sun sets upon H&L, may Prayer Man have his day.

It's sad that the Prayer Man evidence, which has the potential to make an enormous impact on the case, is virtually ignored over at the Ed Forum, while Hargrove keeps plugging Armstrong's evidence-free fantasy.

We mustn't forget that H & L doctrine, just like WC doctrine, has Oswald up there on the sixth floor, taking pot shots at Kennedy, rather than watching the P. parade from the steps or (the only realistic alternative to the Prayer Man option) eating his lunch in the domino room. I'd be interested to see Hargrove try to make a case that Oswald (any one of them, take your pick) was actually on the sixth floor at 12.30.

Jeremy Bojczuk wrote:

Jake Sykes wrote:As the sun sets upon H&L, may Prayer Man have his day.

It's sad that the Prayer Man evidence, which has the potential to make an enormous impact on the case, is virtually ignored over at the Ed Forum, while Hargrove keeps plugging Armstrong's evidence-free fantasy.

We mustn't forget that H & L doctrine, just like WC doctrine, has Oswald up there on the sixth floor, taking pot shots at Kennedy, rather than watching the P. parade from the steps or (the only realistic alternative to the Prayer Man option) eating his lunch in the domino room. I'd be interested to see Hargrove try to make a case that Oswald (any one of them, take your pick) was actually on the sixth floor at 12.30.

Hi Jeremy. What is it, 20 years wasted on that stuff? Sad.

"We mustn't forget that H & L doctrine, just like WC doctrine, has Oswald up there on the sixth floor, taking pot shots at Kennedy"

Yes, that caught my attention when you mentioned that in one of your posts, plus he has Oswald shooting Tippet as well. Fundamentally it's the same old same old. Just a different pathway for getting to the same WC conclusions while making anyone who agrees with it look like an utter and complete idiot. Kind of slick that way.

Absolutely brilliant stuff on EF. Every time you post, not only do you demonstrate the blatant flaws, but you thwart the effort to bury your posts under garbage dumps. Please hang in there.

Jake Sykes wrote:

Jeremy Bojczuk wrote:

Jake Sykes wrote:As the sun sets upon H&L, may Prayer Man have his day.

It's sad that the Prayer Man evidence, which has the potential to make an enormous impact on the case, is virtually ignored over at the Ed Forum, while Hargrove keeps plugging Armstrong's evidence-free fantasy.

We mustn't forget that H & L doctrine, just like WC doctrine, has Oswald up there on the sixth floor, taking pot shots at Kennedy, rather than watching the P. parade from the steps or (the only realistic alternative to the Prayer Man option) eating his lunch in the domino room. I'd be interested to see Hargrove try to make a case that Oswald (any one of them, take your pick) was actually on the sixth floor at 12.30.

Hi Jeremy. What is it, 20 years wasted on that stuff? Sad.

"We mustn't forget that H & L doctrine, just like WC doctrine, has Oswald up there on the sixth floor, taking pot shots at Kennedy"

Yes, that caught my attention when you mentioned that in one of your posts, plus he has Oswald shooting Tippet as well. Fundamentally it's the same old same old. Just a different pathway for getting to the same WC conclusions while making anyone who agrees with it look like an utter and complete idiot. Kind of slick that way.

Absolutely brilliant stuff on EF. Every time you post, not only do you demonstrate the blatant flaws, but you thwart the effort to bury your posts under garbage dumps. Please hang in there.

Hargrove is now claiming Jeremy's argument amounts to calling Burroughs a liar.

He knows full well that is not the argument being put forward. He  is a despicable tool who couldn't lie straight in bed.

Leading questions, a desire to please, help or claim a place in history, a huge amount of info in the media, and good ol' father time all contribute to distorting memory. That has been proven in study after study.

Of course, Jim actually does call both witnesses and investigators liars by the truckload, including, but not limited to:

members of the Oswald family, and FBI agents (except where their report can be used in H & L Theory), the New York Court system, school district boards, Youth House, managers of private companies, banks and postal employees.

The full list of Hargrove's liars would be hugely impressive - and all to support the Twilight Zone version of the Warren Commission Report.

Meanwhile, the biggest liar of all is the Voice in Jim's 13" head.

you thwart the effort to bury your posts under garbage dumps

I even predicted that Hargrove would do what he always does when he's cornered: change the subject. And then he goes and does it, yet again. Armstrong on a bike!

Who does he think he's kidding? I'm sure that anyone who is still following that thread, as well as anyone who reads it in the future, in fact anyone who has read any of the H & L-related threads, knows what his game is.

The only way out I can see for Hargrove is to find an excuse to abandon the thread. It'll be interesting to see how long he lasts. Of course, he could always admit that he's wrong and bow out honourably, but he isn't very likely to do that, is he? Not ony because he's as mad as a tin-foil hatter but because the loss of the Texas Theater episode means there's an enormous, unpluggable hole in the H & L fantasy narrative.

The next time the Bolton Ford nonsense or school records nonsense gets debunked, it'll be "Forget about that! There was an Oswald doppelganger who was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater! It's true, I tell you!"

the Twilight Zone version of the Warren Commission Report

That's exactly what it is!

Jeremy Bojczuk wrote:

you thwart the effort to bury your posts under garbage dumps

I even predicted that Hargrove would do what he always does when he's cornered: change the subject. And then he goes and does it, yet again. Armstrong on a bike!

Who does he think he's kidding? I'm sure that anyone who is still following that thread, as well as anyone who reads it in the future, in fact anyone who has read any of the H & L-related threads, knows what his game is.

The only way out I can see for Hargrove is to find an excuse to abandon the thread. It'll be interesting to see how long he lasts. Of course, he could always admit that he's wrong and bow out honourably, but he isn't very likely to do that, is he? Not ony because he's as mad as a tin-foil hatter but because the loss of the Texas Theater episode means there's an enormous, unpluggable hole in the H & L fantasy narrative.

The next time the Bolton Ford nonsense or school records nonsense gets debunked, it'll be "Forget about that! There was an Oswald doppelganger who was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater! It's true, I tell you!"

the Twilight Zone version of the Warren Commission Report

That's exactly what it is!

He has moved on to distraction D - I think this is the second or third time his danger meter has gone this high.

hargroves at the 13\" Ed Forum wrote:Shortly before he was banned from this forum, Mr. Parker claimed that some image files I linked contained a virus.  I wanted to make sure the bogus claim wasn’t deleted later, and so I captured an image of it.  Here ‘tis: WARNING_ DO NOT OPEN THESE LINKS. YOUR COMPUTER WILL BECOME INFECTED WITH THE DELTA HOME VIRUS. Thanks a bunch for that Hargroves...

I didn't delete anything in that thread. But someone named Don Jeffreys did - including a screen shot of the actual warning I got.

Funnily enough, the only post that Jeffreys didn't delete was the very one Jim claims he saved in case I deleted it.  It was left in place simply so Jim could make up any bullshit story he wants to.

It's what he does.

It was easy to prove my files contained no viruses.  My webhost helped and at least one of the moderators here indicated that no one except Mr. Parker seemed to get a virus.

And it is easy to pretend this was never previously addressed since you pal deleted it. 

When I opened the thread in which this took place, there was only myself and Hargroves logged in. 

I would think it would be easy enough for him to put the virus in, wait for me to click the links and then take it out before contacting the webhost which he knew would now find nothing.

The moderator who confirmed to Jim that no one else except me got such a warning clicking the link  was Mr Jeffreys - who would have no way of knowing if anyone else got the warning at Hargroves' site. But I guess when you indulge in magical thinking, anything becomes possible and Jeffreys could see every computer of every member. In any case, no one else got it because no one else was logged in. 

But it got me thinking that Mr. Parker clearly has viruses on his mind, and one of the reasons I don’t go to his site is just to be certain I don’t, uh, catch anything there.  There are various types of malware now that don’t even require browser clicks to propagate.

LOL. Once in 2015 I advised other forum members that I got a virus warning when clicking a link to a third party website and that means I have viruses on my mind? Lay off the crack Jim. 

Mr. Parker’s endless attention to me is amusing, though.  Perhaps there just isn’t much to do down there in Aussie land.

Don't flatter yourself. You have been a member of the 13" Ed Forum since Jan 2015. In that time, you have posted 2,574 times, which I estimate to be about 2 posts a day on average. 

The real problem though, friend is that all 2,574 posts are on a single theme where you repeat the same half a dozen or so pieces again, again and again.

I was running my own business and working 15 hours a day in 2015 and still managed to write a book and run a conference while doing it. What were doing? That's right, posting about school records for the 242nd time.

Jimbo Baggins is up to his old tricks on Mings Intergalactic Finishing School for boys with 13 inch heads..regurgitating stuff that's been thoroughly debunked. Obviously he went t the hobbit equivalent of the Paul Trejo Hegelian Detective school..i wonder what Ruth Paine looks like after a hobbit makeover..for all Trejo establishments MUST by law have a 15 foot nude reclining statue of the Quaker Charity Lady in the foyer.
Personally i always suspected Ruthie was more likely t have cloven hoofs than big hairy hobbity feet..
Prime Directive for Trejo Hegelian gumshoe graduates- KEEP REPEATING THE LIE. No matter how often it's been disproved..the more outrageously unbelievable the lie the more likely it is that the tin foil hat wearers at Mings will believe it.( Addendum t Prime Directive)
Alumni of the Trejo Hegelian Detective school include a certain J Armstrong( praised be his name). The late J White, mr B Doyle D Macrae and J Butler