+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee (/thread-11170.html)
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jim Hackett II - 24-08-2013
Mr. Josephs and all,
This is an example of cross pollination of "researchers".
"the invisible Dr Bateman" ... this intrigues the devil out of me.
Sometimes a point of fact will lie on dry ground and not be consumed by the Mockingbird's flock of crows.
Waiting for the cool rain to fall..... to sweep the wayward kernel to fertile soil.
Saturday will be too hectic but I want to look into this disappeared witness.
I can see why anyone of integrity would either choose to disappear from history or be forced into a new identity or killed by the machinations of the Empire after seeing what is now obvious and had to have been the case in Bethesda in 1963.
No where and in no interpretation can any of this Bethesda Game of Deception be defined as conforming with the consent of the governed, only the service of the Empire, the hidden Empire of 1963.
The US Govt. threw away the faith of WeThePeople in 1964 by deception to hide the Empire.
"The Sixties" followed as consequence.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Charles Drago - 24-08-2013
David Josephs Wrote:Jim Hargrove Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:Are you that well versed in the strategies and planning of the CIA - specifically Angleton, Harvey and Helms - to know how such programs and long term plans work?
Hi, David,
I would definitely add Phillips and Hunt (E.H.) to that short list.
--Jim
To be honest with you Jim, I don't feel these two were even in the same league as the three I named. They were mechanics left to devise ways to implement the facilitator's plans... who in turn are acting under the expressed desires of the Sponsors, who, imo, comprised the top eschelon of the Military Industrial (Congressional) Complex...
Perhaps, as a co-originator of the Evica-Drago model, I can provide some degree of clarity.
In that model, Angleton, Harvey and Helms, along with Phillips and Hunt, are appropriately placed in the Facilitator Level.
Those who designed the conspiracy and drove it to the point of execution (pun intended) are Facilitators. This segment of the conspiracy model is by far the largest; it encompasses a broad range of players, from the brilliant and powerful planners to the three stooges who rang Sylvia Odio's doorbell.
In the Evica-Drago model, the term "Mechanics" narrowly and for the sake of clarity refers to the Dealey Plaza shooting teams and individuals providing their immediate E and E support.
Why wouldn't, say, the murderers of David Ferrie appropriately be labeled Mechanics? After all, the term commonly is used to describe hired killers who take out designated targets.
Because the raison d'etre of the conspiracy which they served was to kill JFK; the act of taking out Ferrie, like the act of ringing Sylvia Odio's doorbell, facilitated efforts to bring the designated target under the Mechanics' guns.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - David Josephs - 24-08-2013
JimHackett II Wrote:Mr. Josephs and all,
This is an example of cross pollination of "researchers".
"the invisible Dr Bateman" ... this intrigues the devil out of me.
Sometimes a point of fact will lie on dry ground and not be consumed by theMockingbird's flock of crows.
Waiting for the cool rain to fall..... to sweep the wayward kernel to fertilesoil.
Saturday will be too hectic but I want to look into this disappeared witness.
I can see why anyone of integrity would either choose to disappear from historyor be forced into a new identity or killed by the machinations of the Empireafter seeing what is now obvious and had to have been the case in Bethesda in1963.
No where and in no interpretation can any of this Bethesda Game of Deception bedefined as conforming with the consent of the governed, only the service of theEmpire, the hidden Empire of 1963.
The US Govt. threw away the faith of WeThePeople in 1964 by deception to hidethe Empire.
"The Sixties" followed as consequence.
Jim….
Dr. Bateman was not so much a witness as potentially a Dr.who assisted or performed the surgery to the Top of the head…. At least that's how I read it….
Humes was not a practicing surgeon… IMO we should consider one oftwo things as to WHY the head was in such a terrible condition after the "alterations"
1) Humes was a hack and butchered the job or
2) a skilled surgeon did a normal craniotomy and the resultwas just as shocking…
Was Humes skilled enough to do the job? Was he THAT GOOD AN ACTOR as to be able to FAKE surprise when the sheet comes off at 8pm?
And why, when the gov't tried to find the man listed by theFBI as attending the autopsy, were they completely unsuccessful?
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jim Hargrove - 24-08-2013
Charles Drago Wrote:Perhaps, as a co-originator of the Evica-Drago model, I can provide some degree of clarity.
In that model, Angleton, Harvey and Helms, along with Phillips and Hunt, are appropriately placed in the Facilitator Level.
Those who designed the conspiracy and drove it to the point of execution (pun intended) are Facilitators. This segment of the conspiracy model is by far the largest; it encompasses a broad range of players, from the brilliant and powerful planners to the three stooges who rang Sylvia Odio's doorbell.
In the Evica-Drago model, the term "Mechanics" narrowly and for the sake of clarity refers to the Dealey Plaza shooting teams and individuals providing their immediate E and E support.
Why wouldn't, say, the murderers of David Ferrie appropriately be labeled Mechanics? After all, the term commonly is used to describe hired killers who take out designated targets.
Because the raison d'etre of the conspiracy which they served was to kill JFK; the act of taking out Ferrie, like the act of ringing Sylvia Odio's doorbell, facilitated efforts to bring the designated target under the Mechanics' guns.
Hi, Charles,
Those definitions seem extremely logical ... so, let's talk Facilitators.
For Angleton, it's hard to believe the Oswald project would escape the radar of the CI/SIGgers, if there wasn't even more intimate involvement. And with the number of statements released over the years from CIA veterans about Oswald, it's easy to imagine surprisingly broad knowledge of the Oswald project at the Agency.
But turning a Cold War spy effort into an assassination operation is a whole different issue. Is there real evidence connecting the higher level officials to the assassination? (I'm not as well read as many of the people here, so I hope someone will correct me if I'm missing something obvious.)
But the circumstantial evidence, at least, for Hunt and Phillips seems a lot clearer. During the whole Mexico City business, whatever it was, Hunt was, according to Hunt, temporarily running the American embassy there and Phillips was in charge of the Cuban mayhem. Perfect! Who better to hatch a plot to murder a president and blame Cuba?
And almost as if it was planned in Mexico City, a matter of weeks later we have Oswald at the Sports Drome rifle range, Oswald at the Statler Hilton, Oswald at Dial Ryders to get his scope mounted (again!!--and despite the fact that a certain rifle from Kleins already had a scope--sloppy, but surely not part of the original plan), Oswald at Downtown Lincoln Mercury, Oswald at the Southland Building, always creating enough of a scene to make a lasting memory. It's a tidy package, but lacking in proof.
It seems exceptionally unlikely that Hunt and Phillips hatched the whole plot on their own, and I would expect higher Agency involvement, as well as some of the officials David Josephs is brainstorming about, but I'm just not aware of much evidence, sadly.
Jim
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Charles Drago - 24-08-2013
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Perhaps, as a co-originator of the Evica-Drago model, I can provide some degree of clarity.
In that model, Angleton, Harvey and Helms, along with Phillips and Hunt, are appropriately placed in the Facilitator Level.
Those who designed the conspiracy and drove it to the point of execution (pun intended) are Facilitators. This segment of the conspiracy model is by far the largest; it encompasses a broad range of players, from the brilliant and powerful planners to the three stooges who rang Sylvia Odio's doorbell.
In the Evica-Drago model, the term "Mechanics" narrowly and for the sake of clarity refers to the Dealey Plaza shooting teams and individuals providing their immediate E and E support.
Why wouldn't, say, the murderers of David Ferrie appropriately be labeled Mechanics? After all, the term commonly is used to describe hired killers who take out designated targets.
Because the raison d'etre of the conspiracy which they served was to kill JFK; the act of taking out Ferrie, like the act of ringing Sylvia Odio's doorbell, facilitated efforts to bring the designated target under the Mechanics' guns.
Hi, Charles,
Those definitions seem extremely logical ... so, let's talk Facilitators.
For Angleton, it's hard to believe the Oswald project would escape the radar of the CI/SIGgers, if there wasn't even more intimate involvement. And with the number of statements released over the years from CIA veterans about Oswald, it's easy to imagine surprisingly broad knowledge of the Oswald project at the Agency.
Thanks for checking in on all this, Jim.
If by "the Oswald project" you mean LHO's role in the assassination conspiracy, I don't agree with your conclusion -- at least insofar as it would pertain to the pre-assassination period. Certainly the future patsy's role in any other on-the-books agency op would be known to his respective handlers and other essential personnel. And after the president's murder, a whole lot of 2's and 2's were put together.
But not before.
Jim Hargrove Wrote:But turning a Cold War spy effort into an assassination operation is a whole different issue. Is there real evidence connecting the higher level officials to the assassination? (I'm not as well read as many of the people here, so I hope someone will correct me if I'm missing something obvious.)
The best argument for Angleton's key role in the conspiracy is made by John Newman in the 2008 revised edition of Oswald and the CIA:
"In my view, whoever Oswald's direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswald's files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the president's assassination. Whoever those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to kill Kennedy were [the Sponsors -- CD], their reach extended into the national intelligence apparatus to such a degree that they could call upon a person who knew its inner secrets and workings so well that he could design a failsafe mechanism into the fabric of the plot. The only person who could ensure that a national security cover-up of an apparent counterintelligence nightmare was the head of counterintelligence." (p. 637)
Jim Hargrove Wrote:But the circumstantial evidence, at least, for Hunt and Phillips seems a lot clearer. During the whole Mexico City business, whatever it was, Hunt was, according to Hunt, temporarily running the American embassy there and Phillips was in charge of the Cuban mayhem. Perfect! Who better to hatch a plot to murder a president and blame Cuba?
See above for the answer to the question you pose in the final sentence. And whenever you're tempted to bolster the bona fides of any deep political story by typing "according to Hunt," take a step back from the old Smith Corona until reason returns.
Also -- and forgive me, I don't intend to nit-pick or offend -- the term "hatch a plot" is all too vague and simplistic to be of any use in the study of deep politics.
Jim Hargrove Wrote:It seems exceptionally unlikely that Hunt and Phillips hatched the whole plot on their own, and I would expect higher Agency involvement, as well as some of the officials David Josephs is brainstorming about, but I'm just not aware of much evidence, sadly.
The Newman quote provided above is argued in full by its author and should be read critically in its entirety before you reach judgement on it.
I'm certain that significant JFK conspiracy tactics were contributed by high level Facilitators both in advance of and in response to developments.
Finally, I'll again suggest to one and all that failure to consider third alternatives in favor of either/or choices almost always spells disaster for deep politics researchers.
Hope this helps. Make no mistake, we're all in this thing for the long, challenging haul.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jan Klimkowski - 24-08-2013
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Hi, Charles,
Those definitions seem extremely logical ... so, let's talk Facilitators.
For Angleton, it's hard to believe the Oswald project would escape the radar of the CI/SIGgers, if there wasn't even more intimate involvement. And with the number of statements released over the years from CIA veterans about Oswald, it's easy to imagine surprisingly broad knowledge of the Oswald project at the Agency.
Charles Drago Wrote:If by "the Oswald project" you mean LHO's role in the assassination conspiracy, I don't agree with your conclusion -- at least insofar as it would pertain to the pre-assassination period. Certainly the future patsy's role in any other on-the-books agency op would be known to his respective handlers and other essential personnel. And after the president's murder, a whole lot of 2's and 2's were put together.
But not before.
Charles - precisely.
In my judgment, knowledge of Oswald's early spying history and missions would be available to very few.
My earlier post about the Harvey and Lee hypothesis is relevant here:
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:This hypothesis involves the creation of two Lee Harvey Oswalds in childhood, before LHO was assigned to any mission.
What is important is the selection by the Facilitators, in 1962 or 1963, of LHO as the patsy for the most dangerous and high profile of missions: the assassination of JFK.
My working assumption is that the Facilitator or Facilitators who selected LHO knew of his covert background in detail. This narrows down the search quite considerably.
Charles Drago Wrote:Jim Hargrove Wrote:But turning a Cold War spy effort into an assassination operation is a whole different issue. Is there real evidence connecting the higher level officials to the assassination? (I'm not as well read as many of the people here, so I hope someone will correct me if I'm missing something obvious.)
The best argument for Angleton's key role in the conspiracy is made by John Newman in the 2008 revised edition of Oswald and the CIA:
"In my view, whoever Oswald's direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswald's files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the president's assassination. Whoever those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to kill Kennedy were [the Sponsors -- CD], their reach extended into the national intelligence apparatus to such a degree that they could call upon a person who knew its inner secrets and workings so well that he could design a failsafe mechanism into the fabric of the plot. The only person who could ensure that a national security cover-up of an apparent counterintelligence nightmare was the head of counterintelligence." (p. 637)
Fantastic excerpt.
John Newman may be unaware of the Evica-Drago Sponsor-Facilitator-Mechanic Model, but his original research fits like a glove.
Or a deep political epiphany.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jim Hargrove - 24-08-2013
Charles Drago Wrote:Jim Hargrove Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Perhaps, as a co-originator of the Evica-Drago model, I can provide some degree of clarity.
In that model, Angleton, Harvey and Helms, along with Phillips and Hunt, are appropriately placed in the Facilitator Level.
Those who designed the conspiracy and drove it to the point of execution (pun intended) are Facilitators. This segment of the conspiracy model is by far the largest; it encompasses a broad range of players, from the brilliant and powerful planners to the three stooges who rang Sylvia Odio's doorbell.
In the Evica-Drago model, the term "Mechanics" narrowly and for the sake of clarity refers to the Dealey Plaza shooting teams and individuals providing their immediate E and E support.
Why wouldn't, say, the murderers of David Ferrie appropriately be labeled Mechanics? After all, the term commonly is used to describe hired killers who take out designated targets.
Because the raison d'etre of the conspiracy which they served was to kill JFK; the act of taking out Ferrie, like the act of ringing Sylvia Odio's doorbell, facilitated efforts to bring the designated target under the Mechanics' guns.
Hi, Charles,
Those definitions seem extremely logical ... so, let's talk Facilitators.
For Angleton, it's hard to believe the Oswald project would escape the radar of the CI/SIGgers, if there wasn't even more intimate involvement. And with the number of statements released over the years from CIA veterans about Oswald, it's easy to imagine surprisingly broad knowledge of the Oswald project at the Agency.
Thanks for checking in on all this, Jim.
If by "the Oswald project" you mean LHO's role in the assassination conspiracy, I don't agree with your conclusion -- at least insofar as it would pertain to the pre-assassination period. Certainly the future patsy's role in any other on-the-books agency op would be known to his respective handlers and other essential personnel. And after the president's murder, a whole lot of 2's and 2's were put together.
But not before.
Jim Hargrove Wrote:But turning a Cold War spy effort into an assassination operation is a whole different issue. Is there real evidence connecting the higher level officials to the assassination? (I'm not as well read as many of the people here, so I hope someone will correct me if I'm missing something obvious.)
The best argument for Angleton's key role in the conspiracy is made by John Newman in the 2008 revised edition of Oswald and the CIA:
"In my view, whoever Oswald's direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswald's files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the president's assassination. Whoever those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to kill Kennedy were [the Sponsors -- CD], their reach extended into the national intelligence apparatus to such a degree that they could call upon a person who knew its inner secrets and workings so well that he could design a failsafe mechanism into the fabric of the plot. The only person who could ensure that a national security cover-up of an apparent counterintelligence nightmare was the head of counterintelligence." (p. 637)
Jim Hargrove Wrote:But the circumstantial evidence, at least, for Hunt and Phillips seems a lot clearer. During the whole Mexico City business, whatever it was, Hunt was, according to Hunt, temporarily running the American embassy there and Phillips was in charge of the Cuban mayhem. Perfect! Who better to hatch a plot to murder a president and blame Cuba?
See above for the answer to the question you pose in the final sentence. And whenever you're tempted to bolster the bona fides of any deep political story by typing "according to Hunt," take a step back from the old Smith Corona until reason returns.
Also -- and forgive me, I don't intend to nit-pick or offend -- the term "hatch a plot" is all too vague and simplistic to be of any use in the study of deep politics.
Jim Hargrove Wrote:It seems exceptionally unlikely that Hunt and Phillips hatched the whole plot on their own, and I would expect higher Agency involvement, as well as some of the officials David Josephs is brainstorming about, but I'm just not aware of much evidence, sadly.
The Newman quote provided above is argued in full by its author and should be read critically in its entirety before you reach judgement on it.
I'm certain that significant JFK conspiracy tactics were contributed by high level Facilitators both in advance of and in response to developments.
Finally, I'll again suggest to one and all that failure to consider third alternatives in favor of either/or choices almost always spells disaster for deep politics researchers.
Hope this helps. Make no mistake, we're all in this thing for the long, challenging haul.
No, no, no, by the "Oswald project" I meant the Russian episode and the planning for it, which surely was ultimately judged a failure. The evidence that I'm aware of doesn't suggest that the Oswald project got entangled in the assassination until the Mexico City business, or soon after. That's why I'm so suspicious that Hunt and Phillips played a more important role than might be expected from officials at their level.
As for believing Hunt's Cigar Aficianado (sp?) report, well, call me naive, but I always thought he was kind of bragging. Yeah... I tend to believe him... silly me (though your humor made me laugh.
From what I remember of Newman's book, he makes an EXCELLENT case for Angleton, with reams of logic but no smoking guns. (Though I may be wrong.) Thanks for the info.
--Jim
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jim Hargrove - 24-08-2013
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:This hypothesis involves the creation of two Lee Harvey Oswalds in childhood, before LHO was assigned to any mission.
Hi, Jan,
Yes, as outlandish as that sounds, that is precisely our contention! We believe the long-term project was to take a Russian-speaking child, give him an American identity and experiences, and make him a spy somewhere in the Soviet Block. The evidence John has collected for two Oswalds goes back to 1952 and 1954.
Here's the first paragraph from the website:
- JFK researcher John Armstrong has shown the Warren Commission combined the biographies of two different people to arrive at the classic legend of Lee Harvey Oswald. A Russian speaking youth, possibly of Hungarian parents, was brought to the U.S. following World War II and given the name HARVEY Oswald. HARVEY was of small stature, quiet, slightly malnourished, and lived with a short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor who never smiled. New Orleans born LEE Oswald was tall, husky, and athletic. As a youth LEE lived with half-brother John Pic, brother Robert Oswald, and his tall, nice-looking mother, Marguerite Claverie Oswald. A program created by US intelligence merged the identities of Russian-speaking HARVEY and American-born LEE Oswald. The result, ten years later, was that young Russian-speaking HARVEY had an American background and birth certificate. HARVEY was an ideal candidate to "defect" to the Soviet Union and work as an undercover agent who secretly understood Russian. HARVEY "defected" and two years later returned to America with a Russian wife and child. A year later this former "defector" was handing out literature in support of Castro and Cuba. Unknown to HARVEY, he had become the ideal candidate to frame for the assassination of President Kennedy. And also unknown to HARVEY were the activities of LEE Oswald in the summer and fall of 1963, when LEE was impersonating HARVEY and helping to set up HARVEY as the accused assassin of President Kennedy.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jan Klimkowski - 24-08-2013
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Jan Klimkowski Wrote:This hypothesis involves the creation of two Lee Harvey Oswalds in childhood, before LHO was assigned to any mission.
Hi, Jan,
Yes, as outlandish as that sounds, that is precisely our contention! We believe the long-term project was to take a Russian-speaking child, give him an American identity and experiences, and make him a spy somewhere in the Soviet Block. The evidence John has collected for two Oswalds goes back to 1952 and 1954.
Here's the first paragraph from the website:Jim
- JFK researcher John Armstrong has shown the Warren Commission combined the biographies of two different people to arrive at the classic legend of Lee Harvey Oswald. A Russian speaking youth, possibly of Hungarian parents, was brought to the U.S. following World War II and given the name HARVEY Oswald. HARVEY was of small stature, quiet, slightly malnourished, and lived with a short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor who never smiled. New Orleans born LEE Oswald was tall, husky, and athletic. As a youth LEE lived with half-brother John Pic, brother Robert Oswald, and his tall, nice-looking mother, Marguerite Claverie Oswald. A program created by US intelligence merged the identities of Russian-speaking HARVEY and American-born LEE Oswald. The result, ten years later, was that young Russian-speaking HARVEY had an American background and birth certificate. HARVEY was an ideal candidate to "defect" to the Soviet Union and work as an undercover agent who secretly understood Russian. HARVEY "defected" and two years later returned to America with a Russian wife and child. A year later this former "defector" was handing out literature in support of Castro and Cuba. Unknown to HARVEY, he had become the ideal candidate to frame for the assassination of President Kennedy. And also unknown to HARVEY were the activities of LEE Oswald in the summer and fall of 1963, when LEE was impersonating HARVEY and helping to set up HARVEY as the accused assassin of President Kennedy.
Jim - my original post is #87, on page 9, here.
I am intrigued by the hypothesis that two children, Harvey and Lee, may have been part of a highly compartmentalised inteligence operation, whereby either could pass as the individual known as Lee Harvey Oswald in adulthood.
I am happy to explore the hypothesis that Harvey/Lee Oswald was used in a false defection operation against the USSR, by intelligence and possibly MK-ULTRA elements.
My fundamental point though is that, if there was a Harvey and Lee operation, at its beginning, during the childhood of Lee and Harvey, they were simply experimental subjects who could be used in future operations which were not then known.
In 1952, those handling Lee and/or Harvey did not have the remotest conception as to the nature of the operations in which the children would be used as adults.
There could certainly have been no conception that LHO would be used in an operation to assassinate an American President.
So, as posted above, the key question is who, in 1962-3, had knowledge of the intelligence operations in which LHO had been used, and of the childhood experimentation to which he/they had - hypothetically -been subjected.
The answer to this question - who had knowledge of LHO's inteligence files and background - provides major clues pointing towards the identity of the Facilitator(s) who selected him as a patsy in the assassination of JFK.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Phil Dragoo - 24-08-2013
The initiation of the Dopplegangers from Dresden (with apologies to Ira Levin and Gregory Peck) may have foreseen precisely the need which greenlighted their final act.
In 1952 Eisenhower, who had used C.D. Jackson for psyops, chose C.D. Jackson for psyops.
The general who organized D-Day (which utilized a Man Who Never Was) left the world to the Dulles Brothers ("Regime Change R Us").
Would the men who mastered outthinking (then incorporated) the likes of Gehlen et al, who were in the sauna with the Heydrich op and Valkyrie not see that the game would rely on Ike II: Nixon the Understudy assuming the role as figurehead.
Would these men not also have foreseen the unthinkable, that an anti-fascist might displace this heir apparent.
In which case we have at hand a universal patsy in the uniform of the Enemy.
We're always presented with ad hoc "plots"--when there was nothing ad hoc about the security state, the shadow government, neither then nor at any time of the Century of the Fed.
Did Forrestal decide to sky dive; did Acheson innocently omit Korea.
Are there coincidences.
If the Opposition might cooperate in the removal of the inconvenient Patton, might Marina be a part of a continuing wink/nod arrangement.
If Dulles were present when Lenin was sent to Petrograd (and helped Bormann with his travel bookings) isn't planning what a director of plans does?
Didn't Helms have a plan for Nixon when the time was ripe?
Hunt is in his own words a benchwarmer--and when the coach said, Hunt, in you go, K-38 Left, there's our man in fill-in-the-blank.
Coincidence and happenstance are part of the costumes called for from the wardrobe girl.
I have the massive Harvey & Lee tome--it bespeaks the work of those used to writing the encyclopedia.