Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

steely dan wrote:Well, we've had 6 pages of school records on a thread about 2 MO's

'Nuff said.

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.

steely dan wrote:
The world will turn.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...