Deep Politics Forum

Tom Scully Wrote:

Dawn Meredith Wrote:..........
You consider interviewing someone "intrusive"? "Put on a budget"? He spent his own money for 12 years tracking down witnesses.
Since your arrival here the only thing you seem to want to do is attack JA's research. Is that why you joined? Just curious.

Dawn

Dawn,

If I had read this before posting my rather tongue in cheek comment comparing resources JA is able to apply to his research efforts, vs. my minimalist approach, I would not have posted it. Please accept my apology, and I hope
John will considering accepting it, as well.
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/67



I had no intention to join this forum with any agenda other than to post and discuss the facts as I've collected
and sorted them, to gain new ones through discussion and presentation. I want to put what I believe is well supported, to the test.

A primary reason I joined this forum is because Jim DiEugenio seemed to have made it the primary place where
he was making timely posts. He and I have a history, (hang together or assuredly ..... hang separately) and incidently, the following is an example of a tactic to discredit and diminish the deliverer of details an embarrassed individual would rather not see come to light, but has no substantive counterargument.:

At the black mark, lower left.:


I considered what happened here, intrusive, my own opinion fwiw. Again, if I had read JA's candid comments about his purpose and his openness, I probably would have not posted the comment you quoted. :

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/65
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/67
Two page letter at links above is related to this letter.:
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/64

I much prefer to post about and research other issues, and I have not and will not set out to discredit JA's opinions. I will ask those who post them and agree with them to post support for them, as I have asked Mr. Doyle and Mr. Hargrove to do. I only asked them to post a primary source in support of their conclusion that Barry Gray met Rizzuto aka SH Landesberg, face to face.

You are an attorney, Dawn. Is it not considered, in your line of work, that a claim that an FBI report is fake or otherwise unreliable, is an extraordinary claim? What are the obligations (burden of proof) of the party who makes such a claim?

I am banned from the Parker forum, I do not tow a party line there, or anywhere. I've watched members from Parker's forum comment here and conduct themselves in a very similar (predictable) way. It is not my way. The bulk of them hold those they disagree with to a standard of proof they do not hold themselves to as they press their group opinion that PM is LHO as if this was obvious and well supported by available evidence.

They are blind to the observable irony that their belief system related to PM is not founded more soundly on fact than the Harvey & Lee belief system. Anticipated "new evidence," (an elusive, hopefully conclusive, yet to be found (or possibly, rendered via image enhancing software) photo image of a back corner of the TSBD vestibule) is not a justification for an obnoxious, smug, mocking air of superiority. A look in the mirror might do wonders.

I do not, for example, have an adversarial relationship with David Josephs, as I am fairly certain he will confirm.

I did not intend to post a lengthy response to you, Dawn, but I wanted to emphasize that I am not coming here with an agenda and my limited posting history here, initially in a blog post, and in a recent back and forth with Scott Kaiser supports what I am saying to you, and may help answer your question.

Hey Tom, I was a bit trigger happy myself. I see that you ARE posting on other subjects here. I also recall your long battle over MM at the Ed forum. I took no 100% stance on that particular area, Mitchell, but I do remember having disagreements with Jim about Crump, the accused. Yes people came here from Parker's forum with that agenda and it was quickly observed by myself. That said, and due to all the trash talk about H and L by that crowd and some of them over at EF I now admit to becoming defensive when I see someone new here like yourself diving in. Or what appears to BE the case. Of course proof is required for extraordinary claims. John has discussed all of this recent research with me in detail on the phone and I have read the posts here. But I see no reason to augment what Jim and DJ and Albert are already posting. John is exactly the person from the words-his- you have posted. He shares his work for other researchers to advance that area of the case. He has no agenda. He simply puts out his research. I am on record as a believer in Harvey and Lee. From the start many witnesses saw more than one LHO, so it was just a matter of time til someone like John put the solid time and effort into tracking down just what all this could actually mean. That is was it LHO impersonators or actually more than one person? I mean who has not wondered how on earth LHO could learn to speak flawless Russian? My former Pastor is brilliant in language and spent two years in Russia but as proficient as he managed to become, it was way less than that attributed to "Harvey".

So debate away. I at this point in my life take that advice of dear Vince Salandria. I no longer get into the micro analysis and allow myself to be worn down by the arguments. I look at this case in the big picture. The why he was murdered and the resulting consequences. The Nazi history with the CIA that permitted this sort of thinking in our hidden government well before the advent of JFK. The police state we now live in since the phony "war on terror" began. Operation Northwoods gone operational. I fear for what kind of world our grand daughters -15 and 12- will inhabit.

And finally, as I have told John several times, I did not begin this JFK assassination in 2000 or the 90's. It's been there since day one for me so I am really burnt out on it. By the time I was 25 I had read every book on the case that was at that point in print, to do two research papers for college. And continued to read almost ever book after that, as well as my own research, not for a book, but often to assist others who were writing books.

So welcome to our little "home" and we will agree where we agree, and disagree where that occurs. Everyone sees this case through their own lens and discourse has lead to advancements in thinking as often as not.

Dawn

Scully, I consider your referring to me as "Long time respected member" to be trolling.



I notice you never responded to my last post which makes it impossible for Rizzuto to be L'eandes. The personality profile differences between those two men are so obvious that the two can't possibly be reconciled as being the same person. Again, I can't believe you are trying to get away with defending FBI files verbatim. All FBI files must be viewed in terms of a criminal, above suspicion government organization seeking to deceive and spin things their way. You might as well go and attack the HSCA in the CIA's favor and then finally do what you are getting at fully by defending the Warren Commission. Or praise the level of rule of law at the Dallas Police Station.

It's nice that you present the FBI's claim that they showed a photo of L'eandes to the interviewing agents and trust them at their word, but if you follow your own demands of scrutiny of evidence that photo violates just about every rule of evidence you can imagine. You are presenting a piece of evidence for which the total validation of it sourcing is an entry in an FBI file saying "a photo was obtained through a source of NYO". And this is in a case where intel forged backyard photos. Scully, how do you know that FBI didn't pull a dirty trick and get a photo of SH Landesberg and use it to frame him as the patsy he was intended to be? I've asked you several times if you ever wondered why those men had the same name? How dare you violate your own suggested level of rigor by taking the FBI at their word and referencing a photo that was then buried that you've never seen and can't produce as evidence. You're the worst example of the evidence standards you pretend to promote.

Meanwhile you ignore everything that was written in this thread. The FBI could have easily verified Rizzuto's identity by having the many friends of L'eandes that they were notified of, and in possession of their identities, come in and ID him. If you look at the FBI's behavior they used this identification of Rizzuto to quickly shut down any further investigation. This ruse was used to avoid any follow-through in a very precise manner that gives away its purpose. There's a very telling and precise fault line in the investigation that runs right along the boundary of this photo ID that was used to avoid investigating the rest of those leads. For you to use it as if it were credible and ignore all that exposes it is to come right out and employ the agenda and method of David Von Pein while pleading that you are only seeking rigor and confirmation of evidence. DiEugenio is pretty good at sniffing this stuff out. It has always puzzled me that he gives certain people a pass on it. If you study your pleas for rigor you will see you have just failed them worse than anybody in this bogus offering that blindly takes the word of the violators who were documented practicing wicked corruption in this case. Your Mr MaGoo reference to FBI documents misses the current understanding of them to a remarkable degree.

I suppose Scully is trying to hang an entire premise on the fact the report says Gray and Rizzuto met at a 42nd St restaurant (as if he's scored a big evidentiary coup) but that's just nitpicking t-crossing and i-dotting. Better researchers would be more concerned that the previous media article said that Rizzuto had gone to several other media outlets to tell his story. Those same researchers would ask why FBI chose to ignore those other media outlets and what Rizzuto said there or what people witnessed. More credible researchers would realize that FBI is trying to bury those other witnessings and this is the flavor and tone of those same FBI reports. In fact what this tells you is if Barry Gray had not reported Rizzuto that FBI probably would have ignored the whole incident. Just like they ignored the entire history of L'eandes' witnessing that Scully seems to have no problem with while he seeks uncredible outs by blindly defending FBI against their victim.

Dawn Meredith Wrote:............

Hey Tom, I was a bit trigger happy myself. I see that you ARE posting on other subjects here. I also recall your long battle over MM at the Ed forum. I took no 100% stance on that particular area, Mitchell, but I do remember having disagreements with Jim about Crump, the accused. Yes people came here from Parker's forum with that agenda and it was quickly observed by myself. That said, and due to all the trash talk about H and L by that crowd and some of them over at EF I now admit to becoming defensive when I see someone new here like yourself diving in. Or what appears to BE the case. Of course proof is required for extraordinary claims. John has discussed all of this recent research with me in detail on the phone and I have read the posts here. But I see no reason to augment what Jim and DJ and Albert are already posting. John is exactly the person from the words-his- you have posted. He shares his work for other researchers to advance that area of the case. He has no agenda. He simply puts out his research. I am on record as a believer in Harvey and Lee. From the start many witnesses saw more than one LHO, so it was just a matter of time til someone like John put the solid time and effort into tracking down just what all this could actually mean. That is was it LHO impersonators or actually more than one person? I mean who has not wondered how on earth LHO could learn to speak flawless Russian? My former Pastor is brilliant in language and spent two years in Russia but as proficient as he managed to become, it was way less than that attributed to "Harvey".

So debate away. I at this point in my life take that advice of dear Vince Salandria. I no longer get into the micro analysis and allow myself to be worn down by the arguments. I look at this case in the big picture. The why he was murdered and the resulting consequences. The Nazi history with the CIA that permitted this sort of thinking in our hidden government well before the advent of JFK. The police state we now live in since the phony "war on terror" began. Operation Northwoods gone operational. I fear for what kind of world our grand daughters -15 and 12- will inhabit.

And finally, as I have told John several times, I did not begin this JFK assassination in 2000 or the 90's. It's been there since day one for me so I am really burnt out on it. By the time I was 25 I had read every book on the case that was at that point in print, to do two research papers for college. And continued to read almost ever book after that, as well as my own research, not for a book, but often to assist others who were writing books.

So welcome to our little "home" and we will agree where we agree, and disagree where that occurs. Everyone sees this case through their own lens and discourse has lead to advancements in thinking as often as not.

Dawn

Dawn, thank you, and I want to make it clear I have learned much from several topics of JA's unique and in depth research, Osborne/Bowen and the postal money order "sold" by the Dallas P.O. and "found' by Holmes are
two examples that come to mind. I do not dismiss Harvey & Lee out of hand, and I do not think it is unreasonable to support it. I find it manageable to look closely, one claim at a time, no matter the big picture of any complex subject.

I am adding a separate reply to make amends for all of the space my recent posts have taken up in this thread.:

Albert Doyle Wrote:Scully, I consider your referring to me as "Long time respected member" to be trolling.


I notice you never responded to my last post which makes it impossible for Rizzuto to be L'eandes. The personality profile differences between those two men are so obvious that the two can't possibly be reconciled as being the same person. Again, I can't believe you are trying to get away with defending FBI files verbatim. All FBI files must be viewed in terms of a criminal, above suspicion government organization seeking to deceive and spin things their way. You might as well go and attack the HSCA in the CIA's favor and then finally do what you are getting at fully by defending the Warren Commission. Or praise the level of rule of law at the Dallas Police Station.

It's nice that you present the FBI's claim that they showed a photo of L'eandes to the interviewing agents and trust them at their word, but if you follow your own demands of scrutiny of evidence that photo violates just about every rule of evidence you can imagine. You are presenting a piece of evidence for which the total validation of it sourcing is an entry in an FBI file saying "a photo was obtained through a source of NYO". And this is in a case where intel forged backyard photos. Scully, how do you know that FBI didn't pull a dirty trick and get a photo of SH Landesberg and use it to frame him as the patsy he was intended to be? I've asked you several times if you ever wondered why those men had the same name? How dare you violate your own suggested level of rigor by taking the FBI at their word and referencing a photo that was then buried that you've never seen and can't produce as evidence. You're the worst example of the evidence standards you pretend to promote.

Tom Scully Wrote:(.... and i understand that no matter how compelling the proof I present in challenges of your poorly or entirely unsupported assertions, you either ignore my posted proof or you shift to
the tactic of making it about me, personally.

This is new proof, included in my most recent post about this disagreement we are having. It contradicts your and Mr. Hargrove's repeated claims that WMCA's Barry Gray laid eyes on Rizzuto in the early hours of 23 November, and it confirms that Barry Gray's WMCA colleague, Roger Winslow Turner, did lay eyes on Rizzuto and was able to compare his recent view of Rizzuto with the photo image of L'eandes, whereas Barry Gray was
comparing his memory of L'eandes (see text in FBI report image displayed and linked below) as he last saw him during a 1961 interview. Doyle, Hargrove, and I, all trust Barry Gray, and Barry's I.D. of the L'eandes photo as also being a likeness of Rizzuto, is good enough for me!
I am displaying the bottom of page 3 to you and Mr. Hargrove for the second time in just a few hours, and here is the link to the first page
which I also already shared an image of, with you both. This link is to pg. 1 of 3 of an FBI report stating that Barry and Turner and a BUagent used a deception to lure Rizzuto to a 42nd st. restaurant after Rizzuto made
a second call to WMCA radio station at 2 am on 23 November.:
[URL="https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62288&search=rizzuto_and+Barry#relPageId=90"]https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62288#relPageId=88&tab=page
[/URL]bottom of pg. 88=


And, you both summarily dismiss the relevance or integrity of ALL FBI reports, but your own inaccurate sources relied heavily on them, (embellishing and misintrepreting them) according to their footnotes.: first two pages of links to those footnotes -
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/41
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/uti...ge/page/42 )

...............
Page 3 of 3 :
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html...lPageId=90

Mr. Doyle's comments continue.:

Meanwhile you ignore everything that was written in this thread. The FBI could have easily verified Rizzuto's identity by having the many friends of L'eandes that they were notified of, and in possession of their identities, come in and ID him. If you look at the FBI's behavior they used this identification of Rizzuto to quickly shut down any further investigation. This ruse was used to avoid any follow-through in a very precise manner that gives away its purpose. There's a very telling and precise fault line in the investigation that runs right along the boundary of this photo ID that was used to avoid investigating the rest of those leads. For you to use it as if it were credible and ignore all that exposes it is to come right out and employ the agenda and method of David Von Pein while pleading that you are only seeking rigor and confirmation of evidence. DiEugenio is pretty good at sniffing this stuff out. It has always puzzled me that he gives certain people a pass on it. If you study your pleas for rigor you will see you have just failed them worse than anybody in this bogus offering that blindly takes the word of the violators who were documented practicing wicked corruption in this case. Your Mr MaGoo reference to FBI documents misses the current understanding of them to a remarkable degree.

I suppose Scully is trying to hang an entire premise on the fact the report says Gray and Rizzuto met at a 42nd St restaurant (as if he's scored a big evidentiary coup) but that's just nitpicking t-crossing and i-dotting. Better researchers would be more concerned that the previous media article said that Rizzuto had gone to several other media outlets to tell his story. Those same researchers would ask why FBI chose to ignore those other media outlets and what Rizzuto said there or what people witnessed. More credible researchers would realize that FBI is trying to bury those other witnessings and this is the flavor and tone of those same FBI reports. In fact what this tells you is if Barry Gray had not reported Rizzuto that FBI probably would have ignored the whole incident. Just like they ignored the entire history of L'eandes' witnessing that Scully seems to have no problem with while he seeks uncredible outs by blindly defending FBI against their victim.

Jim Hargrove Wrote:[quote=Tom Scully]
You are an attorney, Dawn. Is it not considered, in your line of work, that a claim that an FBI report is fake or otherwise unreliable, is an extraordinary claim? What are the obligations (burden of proof) of the party who makes such a claim?

Tom: Fortunately in my work I have never had to deal with the FBI. I practice in several areas, and in my criminal defense work it is the local police not the FBI. I have considered the FBI 100% unreliable since the WCR. In 1992 a friend of mine had discovered massive and serious corruption the legal system of a county north of us. He wanted to call the FBI. I convinced him otherwise while at his lake house on Lake Travis. Sadly I never learned what he had uncovered as before he could tell me he died of a heart attack while we were in the water. He was 47. So no I assume ANYTHING connected with this case by the FBI inherently UNreliable. I think only LNs think otherwise.

Dawn

ps So burden's of proof on FBI reports never come up in my work, thank God.

Scully,


You're dodging what I wrote. If you apply your own evidence standards to the FBI photo you keep quoting it fails your own demands. You are assuming FBI found a legitimate photo of Rizzuto being L'eandes at some New York City rally in 1961 or 1962. But you have no proof because you don't have the photo. Parnell is a total phony because he would be the first person to attack this if it came from the other side. In fact he does that with the talk show video of SR Landesberg admitting he got mixed-up with Oswald. Yet he then turns around and claims victory via a photo he has no evidence of and can't produce.


Scully, you are getting away with murder by trying trying to ignore just about everything else that was written in both threads. David Von Pein would probably love to hang with you since you both practice identical methods. You've already gotten a good friend in Parnell.


You're citing trivial technicalities that make no difference. Whether it was WMCA's Turner or Barry Gray who actually saw Rizzuto makes no difference. Gray spoke to both men and one had a southern accent. Gray said the men were two different people and FBI conveniently didn't include it in their report. I'm also surprised you don't notice you are offering Turner, who only witnessed Rizzuto, over Gray, who witnessed the voices of both men. Again - you're all wet Scully.


Heck Scully, if that's the standard you're going to practice I refer to Golz's witnessing that SR Landesberg outright admitted he knew Lee Oswald. Please explain to me why that talk show reference isn't valid while your FBI photo (that you can't produce) is? Golz is good enough for me if all the rest the evidence you are ignoring wasn't. Parnell's hypocritical claims of victory over your nonsense here just shows what a cheap hack he is. Meanwhile both of you offer no explanation how L'eandes could be witnessed performing a flawless execution of a southern accent in interviews while at the same time you claim he had a schizophrenic, close to the surface speech defect? Why don't you answer something directly for a change Scully? Pretty good for an unstable schizophrenic who had a noticeable chronic stuttering problem.


Scully, do you think the backyard photos presented by the Commission were also similarly good enough?


Would you use a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald doing street promotion of Castro as proof he was a real communist?


What's your opinion about what the records and witnesses at the New York Roosevelt Hotel would have revealed?


You've got real balls backing the word of FBI that Barry Gray also ID'd the photo as being L'eandes when in fact you have no clue as to when or where FBI did that or what photo they actually showed Gray. Apparently you have no problem with the fact this doesn't match Gray's own statement that he didn't know Rizutto but did recognize L'eandes.



.

Albert Doyle Wrote:Scully,


You're dodging what I wrote. If you apply your own evidence standards to the FBI photo you keep quoting it fails your own demands. You are assuming FBI found a legitimate photo of Rizzuto being L'eandes at some New York City rally in 1961 or 1962. But you have no proof because you don't have the photo. Parnell is a total phony because he would be the first person to attack this if it came from the other side. In fact he does that with the talk show video of SR Landesberg admitting he got mixed-up with Oswald. Yet he then turns around and claims victory via a photo he has no evidence of and can't produce.


Scully, you are getting away with murder by trying trying to ignore just about everything else that was written in both threads. David Von Pein would probably love to hang with you since you both practice identical methods. You've already gotten a good friend in Parnell.


You're citing trivial technicalities that make no difference. Whether it was WMCA's Turner or Barry Gray who actually saw Rizzuto makes no difference. Gray spoke to both men and one had a southern accent. Gray said the men were two different people and FBI conveniently didn't include it in their report. I'm also surprised you don't notice you are offering Turner, who only witnessed Rizzuto, over Gray, who witnessed the voices of both men. Again - you're all wet Scully.


Heck Scully, if that's the standard you're going to practice I refer to Golz's witnessing that SR Landesberg outright admitted he knew Lee Oswald. Please explain to me why that talk show reference isn't valid while your FBI photo (that you can't produce) is? Golz is good enough for me if all the rest the evidence you are ignoring wasn't. Parnell's hypocritical claims of victory over your nonsense here just shows what a cheap hack he is. Meanwhile both of you offer no explanation how L'eandes could be witnessed performing a flawless execution of a southern accent in interviews while at the same time you claim he had a schizophrenic, close to the surface speech defect? Why don't you answer something directly for a change Scully? Pretty good for an unstable schizophrenic who had a noticeable chronic stuttering problem.


Scully, do you think the backyard photos presented by the Commission were also similarly good enough?


Would you use a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald doing street promotion of Castro as proof he was a real communist?


What's your opinion about what the records and witnesses at the New York Roosevelt Hotel would have revealed?


You've got real balls backing the word of FBI that Barry Gray also ID'd the photo as being L'eandes when in fact you have no clue as to when or where FBI did that or what photo they actually showed Gray. Apparently you have no problem with the fact this doesn't match Gray's own statement that he didn't know Rizutto but did recognize L'eandes.
.

You quoted for the last four pages from research supported by misinterpretation of the same source, FBI reports, but now that they prove you incorrect, you rail against them as a source and talk about my balls.....

first two pages of links to those footnotes -
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu...dfpage/page/41
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu...dfpage/page/42

Okay then..... henceforth, depart from all sources, resort only to unsupported speculation, and make everything up or pull it out of wherever you house your speculation apparatus. It must be located in a Walmart
distribution hub sized space. How many loading docks does it take to load up and truck as much BS as you can be seen delivering here and on the other sites you post your speculation on. I get it, load and clear. You do
not like your sources and opinions to be impeached. As David Joseph posted, nobody does like that. But either come better prepared, or do not lecture me with erroneous assumptions I can take apart in short order....

You can still exhibit enough class to apologize for this and for the smears you've laid on me to compensate for your inability to support this still unproven claim you posted with such confidence.:

Albert Doyle Wrote:If you read my posts you'll see they refute the deniers and validate Armstrong. ......
.................
You can't get away with ignoring that Barry Gray specifically said L'eandes and Rizzuto were definitely different people (as all the rest of the evidence shows).

What constitutes "evidence" in your unpredictably narrow confines? You accepted and confidently posted (and are still pushing) the misinterpretations that turned out to be wrong that were backed by these footnotes.:
first two pages of links to those footnotes -
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu...dfpage/page/41
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu...dfpage/page/42

Quote:Am I correct, and there is unfortunately no diplomatic way to ask you this..... in thinking that you do
not want to settle for serial no. confirmation to track a name because there is the idea that Lee served in California with Felde serial no. 1641924 and Harvey served with Felde serial no. 1641924 in Memphis, (and Jacksonville ?), but there is no Harvey or a serial no. representing Harvey, so far found in USMC records also listing Felde serial no. 1641924 ?

Not exactly Tom...

I am fine understanding that OSWALD only has one serial # in the evidence - that FELDE, Allen R and Alexander/Alesander D. shared a serial # - and that ROBERT ALLEN has a third sn# and was never associated with the situation other than by the FBI from a search in St Louis. Other than their sharing the one #, I have seen nothing to connect Alexander D with Allen R. and yours was the first document I ever saw that # and Allen R together.

imo, Lee never served with Felde. Lee was on the radar school path while Harvey was the Aircraft Mechanic, greaser, oiler, machinist he always was... and whose cover always would be...

No WAY a "Harvey" type gets near radar... too much thinking and questioning...

Folsom 1, page 7... the aircraft mechanic is tested for Russian... in Feb 1959. According to Gorsky, Oswald leaves the marines in March 1959.





"but there is no Harvey or a serial no. representing Harvey, so far found in USMC records also listing Felde serial no. 1641924 ?"




I assume you mean different from 1653230... agreed... or if you mean did they ever appear together, not Allen R... only Alexander D, same #.

So Tom... using only the # we are left with the FBI copies of the records differing from the memory of the actual witness, AGAIN.
It couldn't be a double so it MUST be something else... regardless if it was actually Lee or not.

The way of intel is camouflage, multiple names... these reports all stumble over NOT SAYING that someone else used Oswald's name in places when Oswald could be proven elsewhere.
And some members who do not subscribe to H&L seem amazed that this is a plausible the evidentiary record goes out of its way to downplay and refute these conclusions.

Odio is THE prime example. Ruby not knowing Oswald... a close second. Oswald never at 544 Camp... trifecta.

One also is called to wonder why the FBI could only find ROBERT ALLEN... if the "Felde article" was simply an Oswald comrade relaying his story (like Palmer McBride and his) - after an anonymous call puts a reporter on the trail... in Wisconsin... you'd have to look pretty hard in 1963 to know about Oswald and Felde together given the "official" record, as of Nov 23rd

No?

You're obviously not answering what I'm writing Scully.


You fluster and link an index that has nothing to do with anything and then accompany it with a bizarre barrage of sophist filibuster, but after you are done you have said nothing and made no attempt to answer the very precise arguments I made in my previous post. I personally think you are a document magician who doesn't do very well in open debates of the evidence. Your last response appears to be very indignant about something but after I read it I can't figure out what it is or how it has anything to do with the necessary responses my last post requires.


You are trying to claim total victory over whether Barry Gray actually met and interviewed Rizzuto. I have already explained that is a minor irrelevant point compared to the overall evidence we are talking about. You ignore that and return again with the claim that this somehow refutes us. It doesn't, and the fact you try claim victory with it while ignoring my explanation of why you can't, displays a rather outstanding condition of desperation or bombast on your behalf. You're obviously trying to do too much with too little and trying to shut something down without ever having acknowledged the reasoning of why you can't. The precise circumstances of Rizzuto's interactions with WMCA does not preclude or vacate the full case of evidence I have been discussing and you have been avoiding. And it cannot be used to avoid recognizing or discussing it like you are attempting to do (FBI and Parnell do that too).



Please explain to me how your unstable, easily disturbed schizophrenic with a chronic stuttering problem could pull off numerous interviews and infiltration operations with a passable, lengthily-sustained, and undetected faked southern accent?



Shoot, why don't you just come right out and defend the FBI documents in the Kennedy assassination while you're at it?

Quote:Okay then..... henceforth, depart from all sources, resort only to unsupported speculation, and make everything up or pull it out of wherever you house your speculation apparatus. It must be located in a Walmart
distribution hub sized space. How many loading docks does it take to load up and truck as much BS as you can be seen delivering here and on the other sites you post your speculation on. I get it, load and clear. You do
not like your sources and opinions to be impeached. As David Joseph posted, nobody does like that. But either come better prepared, or do not lecture me with erroneous assumptions I can take apart in short order....

Scully,

Could you please explain to me how the above answers my point that you are the worst violator of that standard you keep pontificating by referring to an FBI photo that you have no evidence of? Your offerings are mostly a bombastic lecture on quality of evidence that never answers the direct points and then proceeds to shoot itself in the foot by proceeding to enter evidence that violates every single thing you've said about the rules of evidence.

The questions we keep posting about the FBI's handling of the Landesberg case do not arise because there are FBI reports that SEEM to back the official story the FBI put forward. OF COURSE THERE ARE! John refers directly to them in his article and makes them available to all at the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University. John is charging yet another FBI cover-up in this case, one of many accepted by an enormous number of JFK researchers.


Here are some of John's reasons (Tom--I'm leaving out the issue of whether SH Landesberg and the talk radio host actually met in person since so far you have only responded to that question):


1. A lot of evidence appears to be missing from this case. Where is an FBI report, or any evidence at all, showing agents actually bothered to ask Al Fowler to identify L'eandes/SR Landesberg (the actor), or interview ANY of the Village Voice reporters who met L'eandes (the actor), or speak to any of the nine different people identified, with addresses for each, by Rizutto/SH Landesberg (the student), who Rizutto said knew L'eandes (the actor), with the exception of the actor's former roommate, Michael Dunn?


2. There are credible reports indicating different addresses for the two different Landesbergs. L'eandes/SR Landesberg (the future actor) on 8th St. or McDougal St. and Landes/SH Landesberg, the student, who lived at 66 W. 10th St.Two NY newspapers, according to H&L critics, are simply incapable of getting NYC addresses straight.


3. When the FBI attempted to locate a man named "Regan" who Rizzuto/Landesberg (the student) said paid L'eander (the actor), they bothered to travel all the way to the Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans, forgetting to visit the Roosevelt Hotel in New York, where Rizzuto said Regan lived. This, we're told, is a perfectly understandable mistake.


4. Rizzuto/Landesberg (the student) told the FBI that Oswald, L'eandes and a man named Earl Perry worked together in New York City in 1961-62 (when Harvey Oswald was in Russia). Perry was from El Paso, Texas and was stationed at Barstow, CA. SA J. Richard Nichols contacted Major Robert C. Whitebread of the USMC in an attempt to locate Earl Perry, who knew L'eandes (the actor) and Oswald. Nichols learned that the only Earl Perry on active duty was assigned to the Marine Supply Center in Barstow, CA., and was from El Paso, TX. But on Nov 26, instead of requesting the military file for Earl Eugene Perry (El Paso, TX), SA Leonard Lewis obtained the file for Earl Sheldon Perry from the Military Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. Earl Sheldon Perry was from Casper, Wyoming, joined the US Army in 1954, and was discharged in 1956. The FBI avoided contacting Earl Eugene Perry from El Paso.


5. Many people seem totally unconcerned that all paper court records and backup microfilm records for the arrest and incarceration of Stephen Harris Landesberg (the student) have disappeared. Researchers might want to contact the US District Court House for the Southern District of NY at 40 Foley Square in NYC, to see if the records have reappeard, but I won't hold my breath.


WHY DOES THE FBI INTERVIEW THE WRONG EARL PERRY, THE MOST CRITICAL CO-WITNESS IN THE WHOLE LANDESBERG AFFAIR? SURE LOOKS LIKE YET ANOTHER FBI COVER-UP!

WHY DOES THE FBI GO TO THE WRONG ROOSEVELT HOTEL, MORE THAN A THOUSAND MILES FROM THE CORRECT ROOSEVELT HOTEL IN NEW YORK CITY, TO LOOK FOR CLUES ABOUT THE MAN WHO ALLEGEDLY PAID SR LANDESBERG! HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN SUCH UTTER INCOMPETENCY?