Quote:Most Americans believe we went to the moon but, as you and I are aware, the evidence tends to discount that.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Jack, have you been following this link? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14604 There is a fellow Bill Simpich who has good things to say. I have the feeling that Judyth didn't know everything about Lee, even if she knew a lot. What interests me is whether John Armstrong was aware of these kinds of considerations about building false identities, using variations on names, and all the rest:

With or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency

The names of both Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Marina Prusakova were repeatedly misspelled as "Lee Henry Oswald" and "Marina Pusakova" in CIA messages during the time that Oswald was reported to have visited the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City. It wasn't just a typographical error. This error and others like it had been made repeatedly by the same person.

The CIA's Ann Egerter (also known as Egeter) told Congressional investigators that she worked at the office that spied on their own spies, known as the Counter-Intelligence/Special Investigations Group, or CI/SIG. Egerter assisted in the preparation of two separate CIA messages on 10/10/63, both referring to him as Lee Henry Oswald. One message inaccurately referred to Oswald as "approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build" and the other message more accurately described him as "born 18 Oct 1939, five foot ten inches, light brown wavy hair". In fact, Oswald's central CIA file was wrongly entitled by Egerter as "Lee Henry Oswald" several years earlier when he had defected from the Marines to the Soviet Union. By the time of the weekend of the assassination, even Walter Cronkite was calling him "Lee Henry Oswald".

There was another common practice among the agencies to invert Oswald's name as "Harvey Lee Oswald". Like most people, Lee Oswald never used his middle name except for official purposes. This practice of transposing his names emanated from CIA and military sources, and the FBI eventually picked up on it as well.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) knew about this practice and looked for Oswald files under these various names during their investigation of this case during the 70s.

Just a few of many examples:

1. A remarkable 1972 handwritten memo entitled "Harvey Lee Oswald" states: "Today the DC/CI (Deputy Chief, Counter-intelligence) advised me that the Director had relayed via the DDP (Deputy Director of Plans) the injunction that the Agency was not, under any circumstances, to make inquiries or ask questions of any source or defector about Oswald."

2. Thomas Casasin, chief of CIA's Soviet Russia Division 6, wrote that at one point he had "operational interest in the Harvey story" that involved the theme of defection.

3. The Warren Commission documented someone named "Harvey Oswald" appeared at the Selective Service office in Austin to complain about his military discharge at the same time that another Oswald was heading to Mexico City.

4. Lt. Harvey Oswald was reported to be seen in a well-known bar in Havana with leading FPCC leader Robert Taber right after the Bay of Pigs invasion.

5. "Harvey Lee Oswald" has a list of approximately a hundred documents attributed to him. Many of them have been destroyed or cannot be found, including an entire FBI file under that name.

In the intelligence practice of having two or more files on a subject, the regular name is used for material that is meant for the public domain, while the transposed or misspelled name is for covert information. In that manner, an agency can tell the "truth" about the contents of their overt file, and hide its covert information in the covert file with the transposed or misspelled name.

Author and professor Peter Dale Scott cites many of the errors discussed above (and more) in his groundbreaking essay Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole. Most of these errors were committed by highly educated agents like Egerter, whose careers depend on getting names right and accurately spelling the names of relevant parties.

Scott suggests that these errors are wholly deliberate, and that this pattern is one of the essential methods used by the CIA in a "molehunt" looking for Soviet spies that might be trying to penetrate the CIA itself. If a spy without proper clearances to the document were to repeat the misspelled name to another party, this "marked card" would point to the errant spy. Scott has written:

"In the game of molehunting, of course, the distinction between targeter and targeted is not a secure one. The situation is something like the parlor game of Murder, in which the culprit is"likely to be one of the investigators."

Egerter's boss James Angleton was the head of CIA counterintelligence. Angleton used CI/SIG in a ruthless manner, destroying the lives of innocent officers and anyone else who stood in the way of his hunt for Soviet agents supposedly penetrating the CIA. By the time Angleton was fired in the midst of the Watergate era, he was accused of being a Soviet mole himself. By 1980, Congress was forced to pass a bill to compensate the unfairly accused officers in what became known as the "Mole Relief Act".

This is from post #35 on the new thread. Very interesting stuff. I ask because it seems to be to raise the possibility that Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" thesis may have been constructed by selecting from evidence that he (Armstrong) himself may not have completely understood. Is something like that possible?

Quote:but NASA recently acknowledged that it had "taped over" the Apollo moon landing tapes, which, I dare say, is on a par with LIFE magazine inadvertently damaging the Zapruder film, perhaps the world's other most precious footage.

Quote:And I guess I'm baffled as indicated earlier why so much energy and time has been spent on debunking the Apollo missions. What has it achieved, besides providing a short-cut for critics to conflate and smear all "conspiracy theory"? Do you honestly expect to persuade a critical mass of people that we didn't land on the moon? And if you did - and you won't - what then?

Adrian Mack Wrote:Dr. Fetzer, I appreciate your considerate response, thank you. I also made it all the way to your last paragraph. And you're right that I'm not likely to shake my subjective conviction about moon hoax theories. At a minimum, I don't understand why the hoax needed to be repeated six times or why an aborted mission also needed to be faked (Apollo 13). But more importantly, I'm not sure why it matters. So I take issue with this statement:

Quote:but NASA recently acknowledged that it had "taped over" the Apollo moon landing tapes, which, I dare say, is on a par with LIFE magazine inadvertently damaging the Zapruder film, perhaps the world's other most precious footage.

I don't think these two things are on par. Not even close, since one is evidence in a murder. And I guess I'm baffled as indicated earlier why so much energy and time has been spent on debunking the Apollo missions. What has it achieved, besides providing a short-cut for critics to conflate and smear all "conspiracy theory"? Do you honestly expect to persuade a critical mass of people that we didn't land on the moon? And if you did - and you won't - what then?

Why choose to die on that hill?

I feel much the same way about Kennedy, although I'm as guilty as anyone of wallowing in detail that has trapped the research community in a closed loop for almost half a century. Why take on the burden of proof when it's the government that should be made to account for the failures of the WC and the HSCA? This is why I'm more heartened by Jefferson Morley's attempts to seal the release of the Joannides records than I am by pretty much anything else going on in the research community at the moment, including endless rancor over Judith Baker's bona fides (and just to be clear, I think Ms. Baker is the real thing).

In other words, I don't see how it's up to us to explain the plot, or how-they-did-it, or even why, when it's so much simpler to eviscerate the official bodies that presided over the cover-up; something that can be achieved beyond a shadow of a doubt with the existing research.

Ditto 9/11. You lose by trying to foist your speculation on everybody else, when the 9/11 Commission was so clearly and blindingly compromised.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Jack, have you been following this link? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14604 There is a fellow Bill Simpich who has good things to say. I have the feeling that Judyth didn't know everything about Lee, even if she knew a lot. What interests me is whether John Armstrong was aware of these kinds of considerations about building false identities, using variations on names, and all the rest:

With or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency

The names of both Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Marina Prusakova were repeatedly misspelled as "Lee Henry Oswald" and "Marina Pusakova" in CIA messages during the time that Oswald was reported to have visited the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City. It wasn't just a typographical error. This error and others like it had been made repeatedly by the same person.

The CIA's Ann Egerter (also known as Egeter) told Congressional investigators that she worked at the office that spied on their own spies, known as the Counter-Intelligence/Special Investigations Group, or CI/SIG. Egerter assisted in the preparation of two separate CIA messages on 10/10/63, both referring to him as Lee Henry Oswald. One message inaccurately referred to Oswald as "approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build" and the other message more accurately described him as "born 18 Oct 1939, five foot ten inches, light brown wavy hair". In fact, Oswald's central CIA file was wrongly entitled by Egerter as "Lee Henry Oswald" several years earlier when he had defected from the Marines to the Soviet Union. By the time of the weekend of the assassination, even Walter Cronkite was calling him "Lee Henry Oswald".

There was another common practice among the agencies to invert Oswald's name as "Harvey Lee Oswald". Like most people, Lee Oswald never used his middle name except for official purposes. This practice of transposing his names emanated from CIA and military sources, and the FBI eventually picked up on it as well.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) knew about this practice and looked for Oswald files under these various names during their investigation of this case during the 70s.

Just a few of many examples:

1. A remarkable 1972 handwritten memo entitled "Harvey Lee Oswald" states: "Today the DC/CI (Deputy Chief, Counter-intelligence) advised me that the Director had relayed via the DDP (Deputy Director of Plans) the injunction that the Agency was not, under any circumstances, to make inquiries or ask questions of any source or defector about Oswald."

2. Thomas Casasin, chief of CIA's Soviet Russia Division 6, wrote that at one point he had "operational interest in the Harvey story" that involved the theme of defection.

3. The Warren Commission documented someone named "Harvey Oswald" appeared at the Selective Service office in Austin to complain about his military discharge at the same time that another Oswald was heading to Mexico City.

4. Lt. Harvey Oswald was reported to be seen in a well-known bar in Havana with leading FPCC leader Robert Taber right after the Bay of Pigs invasion.

5. "Harvey Lee Oswald" has a list of approximately a hundred documents attributed to him. Many of them have been destroyed or cannot be found, including an entire FBI file under that name.

In the intelligence practice of having two or more files on a subject, the regular name is used for material that is meant for the public domain, while the transposed or misspelled name is for covert information. In that manner, an agency can tell the "truth" about the contents of their overt file, and hide its covert information in the covert file with the transposed or misspelled name.

Author and professor Peter Dale Scott cites many of the errors discussed above (and more) in his groundbreaking essay Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole. Most of these errors were committed by highly educated agents like Egerter, whose careers depend on getting names right and accurately spelling the names of relevant parties.

Scott suggests that these errors are wholly deliberate, and that this pattern is one of the essential methods used by the CIA in a "molehunt" looking for Soviet spies that might be trying to penetrate the CIA itself. If a spy without proper clearances to the document were to repeat the misspelled name to another party, this "marked card" would point to the errant spy. Scott has written:

"In the game of molehunting, of course, the distinction between targeter and targeted is not a secure one. The situation is something like the parlor game of Murder, in which the culprit is"likely to be one of the investigators."

Egerter's boss James Angleton was the head of CIA counterintelligence. Angleton used CI/SIG in a ruthless manner, destroying the lives of innocent officers and anyone else who stood in the way of his hunt for Soviet agents supposedly penetrating the CIA. By the time Angleton was fired in the midst of the Watergate era, he was accused of being a Soviet mole himself. By 1980, Congress was forced to pass a bill to compensate the unfairly accused officers in what became known as the "Mole Relief Act".

This is from post #35 on the new thread. Very interesting stuff. I ask because it seems to be to raise the possibility that Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" thesis may have been constructed by selecting from evidence that he (Armstrong) himself may not have completely understood. Is something like that possible?

David Guyatt Wrote:

Quote:And I guess I'm baffled as indicated earlier why so much energy and time has been spent on debunking the Apollo missions. What has it achieved, besides providing a short-cut for critics to conflate and smear all "conspiracy theory"? Do you honestly expect to persuade a critical mass of people that we didn't land on the moon? And if you did - and you won't - what then?

The logic of this argument is that a Big Lie that has been perpetrated on the public should be ignored simply because it succeeded so magnificently.

Joseph Goebbels would be flushing with delight.

Surely, public incredulity needs to be confronted rather left in a dark mushroom cellar?

The mounting evidence that the Appollo missions moon landing pictures were faked is now very strong. I don't know if that means that US astronauts didn't go to the moon or not, but having started off a sceptic on this subject, I am now convinced that the photo's/films are not genuine, but rather cutting edge studio imaging for their time.