Deep Politics Forum

John Armstrong will be interviewed by Len Osanic for Black Ops radio on Sunday, July 5, 2015. I'll have transcripts of the interview available as soon as Len gives me or John the OK to release.

I am hoping to listen to it. John told me that his plan was to do ten ten minute segments. But we all know he can go overtime pretty easily.

Good timing to counter the ogres.



I looked at the Black Op Radio site. This must be a pre-recording of the show since no show with Armstrong is scheduled.



.

John Armstrong and Black Op Radio's Len Osanic talked for more than three hours yesterday. David Josephs and I listened in on phone lines and occasionally commented and asked questions. John talked about the evidence for the existence of two children sharing the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald dating back to the early 1950s. His talk followed the development of the two boys through American-born Lee Oswald's service in the Marine Corps and Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald's more irregular Marine service.


Len said it could take several months to put together the final production, and he was still debating whether to do it in audio format or as a video production featuring reproductions of documents. A second interview between the two researchers is planned for the relatively near future.


John has been interviewed by Len before. From experience, I can say that Len's website must have a sizable audience, because whenever Len puts up a link to harveyandlee.net, we get thousands of new visitors directly from his referral. In terms of their abilities to drive traffic to a site, Black Op Radio and Jim Di's CTKA.net appear to be in a league of their own. Black Op Radio's home page is here:

Jim,

The deniers are desperate on the Landesberg issue.


1) SHL lived at 66 W 10th. L'eandes lived on 8th St or Macdougal. Those are 2 different places for 2 different people.


2) FBI could have just shown the photo of L'eandes to Fowler and asked him if it was SHL? They could also have brought Fowler in to their office to meet SHL and ask if this was the same person. They could have just looked themselves and compared. The deniers have no problem with the fact they didn't. They are obviously aware of this and desperate since they are now trying to discredit Fowler by calling him a heroin addict (As if that would have anything to do with a simple ID of L'eandes)


3) Barry Gray specifically told FBI that Rizzuto and L'eandes were definitely two different people. I guess he was a heroin addict too? The deniers ignore this.


4) SR Landesberg specifically said I wish I never got involved with Oswald. The deniers are ignoring this too.


5) The trick of these craven deniers is to pretend FBI is an honest truth-seeking boy scout-like institution that reports honestly and wasn't complicit in covering-up a deep CIA doubles program linked to the assassination. Not to mention the need to see themselves as honest critics with sound motives who are only out to vet the evidence. These deniers are basically saying FBI had no agenda and you can trust them and their investigation into Landesberg. What these crass deniers are doing is asking you to focus on the red beard while they ignore serious evidence they haven't yet answered.


There's probably some others that I missed.

We don't need the red beard. If that's all they have they are grasping at whiskers.

Thanks again, Albert. I posted your info on the other forum.

Jim,


It is simply criminal detection incompetence to not realize FBI would let Barry Gray interview Rizutto because Rizutto volunteered to talk with Gray about what he knew. FBI was smart enough to let Rizutto say what he wanted to say to Gray under his own terms before they grabbed him and possibly intimidated him into shutting-up. Police work 101. The deniers show their lack of credible approach through this one example.

Yeah, Albert, I can see the advantage to letting "Rizzuto" clue the FBI in on what he knew without intimidation during the 3 am broadcast (gotta have limited listeners even in the "city that never sleeps") but not sure I understand your point about the deniers' reaction to this.

Also, I've also wondered what the motivation was for Rizutto/SH Landes/SH Landesberg to go public with his information in the first place. Some sort of civic duty is the best I can come up with.

Jim Hargrove Wrote:Yeah, Albert, I can see the advantage to letting "Rizzuto" clue the FBI in on what he knew without intimidation during the 3 am broadcast (gotta have limited listeners even in the "city that never sleeps") but not sure I understand your point about the deniers' reaction to this.

Also, I've also wondered what the motivation was for Rizutto/SH Landes/SH Landesberg to go public with his information in the first place. Some sort of civic duty is the best I can come up with.

They clearly did not know the can of worms they were opening up. "Harvey" being in Russia during the NY encounters.
Just speculation here but I think everyone was in such shock that day and anyone who had had personal contact - especially of a negative kind- with someone calling him self Lee Oswald would probably call someone in authority and report it.

Dawn

Jim Hargrove Wrote:Also, I've also wondered what the motivation was for Rizutto/SH Landes/SH Landesberg to go public with his information in the first place. Some sort of civic duty is the best I can come up with.

Like with Ralph Yates the intel bastards who were setting up SH Landesberg as a destroyable patsy got carried away and failed to consider he might squeal after realizing the context of the assassination. SHL is kind of like Gary Underhill. SHL is lucky he wasn't killed before he got to the radio station. SHL is kind of like Nagell too. Those who argue CIA was water-tight are ignoring these huge breaches. They do so by carefully stilting their arguments on the dismissive assumption of their denial.

FBI was in a bind. The uninvolved members had to respond to SHL normally. They probably figured SHL was doing some kind of covert disinformation op and let him continue up until they got orders to stop him and destroy his story. They probably figured if he was dangerous to intel that intel would have handled it. After they were brought up to speed on how to handle SHL they crushed him and his story by using an insanity method similar to Ralph Yates.


Deniers are forced into a position of pure sophistry in order to get around the obvious. They practice the Lone Nut method of demanding perfect purity of evidence, holding the hoops and hurdles higher and higher as their bs gets exposed. You could pop their denial with a pin prick it is so obviously disingenuous. It's clear they aren't answering the points and are trying steer the conversation into their dishonest evasions. They never answer that 10th St is a different address than 8th St. Nor do they make any attempt to answer why FBI didn't just ask Fowler to ID SH Landesberg? Or ask Gray if the two men were different people? Or question the numerous Village Voice​ reporters who met L'eandes. Or the people at the Circle bar. Or the 9 people and their addresses that Rizutto gave FBI. Their argument method is clearly the form of evasive deniers. Its worst irony is if you do the further rigor they call for it only works in Armstrong's favor. Also - It's goofy to try and ignore that Fowler was recorded reaching out to FBI at the time. Ignoring this and trying to say Fowler talked to Sanders years later is a self-destruction of credibility and giving away of personal dishonesty.


I'm not sure the photo FBI was showing around didn't have a beard. Deniers enjoy the advantage of hiding behind obvious FBI deception and hiding of evidence while pretending everything is normal. They operate on a purely dishonest assumption that FBI was perfectly validated in this deception because SH Landesberg was a nut and fraud just like FBI claimed so they don't have to answer the rest. The inherent dishonesty of that approach should be obvious to most honest people.

I'd also question the doubt over Barry Gray saying L'eandes and Rizzuto were 2 different people. I think there might be a credible FBI record on that that the deniers are gambling H&L backers won't be able to produce. That's just a straight-out and direct dishonesty.


.