![]() |
Statement from John Armstrong - Printable Version +- 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: Statement from John Armstrong (/thread-3741.html) |
Statement from John Armstrong - James H. Fetzer - 22-05-2010 Jack, Does this mean that certain oddities I have discovered in HARVEY & LEE are not oddities, after all? Such as claiming that Alan Dulles was so successful in protecting the CIA that the name of the CIA does not appear in the index to the 26 volumes--which has only a name index, while the 888-page WARREN REPORT, which has an index, includes dozens of entries about the CIA? Or a few pages further, when John suggests that the FBI had issued its report about the assassination two weeks before the Warren Commission was created, which took place on 29 November 1963? Does that mean these are not errors? Or, more significantly, does this mean that he was also correct when he reported that "Lee" lost a tooth at Beauregard Junior High School, which is one of the differences between "Harvey" and "Lee", and yet Lillian Murret, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, paid for "Lee"'s dental work? Which led you to speculate that Lillian and Dutz, Robert, Marina, and even Marguerite ALL KNEW THERE WERE TWO OSWALDS, although none of them has ever uttered a peep about it? And that, while you are emphatic toward everyone else that the must DOCUMENT their arguments, here you have a whopper for which there is no evidence? And while I hate to disturb the euphoria that emerges here when his name appears, has none of you considered that, in order to prove the existence of "two Oswalds", John and Jack would actually have had to prove the existence of THREE, since, as Lee told Judyth on more than one occasion, the agency was creating a false history for him so that he could return to a norma life. Unless they separated the life of the real "Harvey" from the life of the fictitious "Harvey", it is surely more reasonable to infer that the fictional history has been mistaken for a real history in the absence of any effort to differentiate between them. John has made a dignified statement, but that does not show his theory is true. And there are many other indications that evidence that has been take to support the theory of "two Oswalds"--such as alleged eye- color difference, alleged difference in height supported by photographs) and other alleged differences in their appearance--are not difficult to be shown to be mistaken or unjustifiable. So while I certainly agree that John and Jack have done a marvelous job of compiling documents and other records, I cannot support the enthusiasm for this theory, which, for reasons I have addressed and other other grounds that I am going to address subsequently, the "two Oswalds" appears to be overblown and, in all probably, represents a bold conflation of facts with fiction. Jim Jack White Wrote:Jack, Statement from John Armstrong - John Kowalski - 23-05-2010 Buy it from Andy!! I bought a copy from Andy. Given the lengths that both the US and the USSR went to spy on each other during the Cold War, using deception and other covert means, the possibility of two Oswalds is clearly plausible. John Statement from John Armstrong - Jack White - 24-05-2010 James H. Fetzer Wrote:Jack, I forwarded Jim's questions to John for comments. Here is John's reply: [COLOR="DarkRed"]Jack, You asked if I had a comment about Fetzer's comments. My answer is Yes. Everyone is entitled, and encouraged, to comment. Year by year, decade by decade, the work of serious minded researchers and scholars has brought us closer to understanding and resolving the JFK mystery. As the research community continues to piece together known and previously unknown witnesses, documents, etc., it is essential and necessary that opinions and ideas are shared and debated. Nobody has all of the answers. Nobody is infallible. Encourage and welcome the thoughts and opinions of the best minds in the research community, because these people are our best chance for learning the truth. I spent many months, over many years, at the National Archives with my good friend Malcolm Blunt reviewing, discussing, copying documents, and physically examining every single piece of evidence relating to LHO that was collected by the Dallas Police (physical examination of the evidence is no longer allowed-only photos). I know what an expensive, time consuming, exhausting, and frustrating experience this can be. I wrote Harvey and Lee in 2003, used thousands of footnotes, and included a CD-ROM with hundreds of documents with the intended purpose of sharing my work with fellow researchers. From 2002-2009 all of my documents were in storage in Ft. Worth. In 2009 I took my documents to Baylor University, in Waco, TX so that my collection (over 100,000 items) could be copied and made available, on-line. In 2010 I made arrangements to have videotaped interviews of witnesses placed on-line at Baylor. I encourage all serious minded researchers to review, examine, criticize, debate, and SHARE any and all JFK material (wherever available), find and interview new witnesses, and focus your attention on the CIA. John [/COLOR] Statement from John Armstrong - Jack White - 24-05-2010 John asked me to tell everyone that he will be at COPA in Dallas again this November, and will be glad to have discussions with Jim or ANYONE regarding anything in Harvey and Lee. He does not have time to answer questions on the internet, since it has been 7 years since the book was published, and rather than rely on memory, he would have to research any question before answering. Jack Statement from John Armstrong - Dawn Meredith - 24-05-2010 Jack White Wrote:John asked me to tell everyone that he will be at COPA in DallasJack,That is GREAT news!!!!! Now if only we can get the rest of the line-up from last year. Perhaps then you would consider attending too ? That gives everyone arguing here and on ef time to get the book and read it, then...have their opinions. Dawn Statement from John Armstrong - Phil Dragoo - 26-05-2010 John Armstrong on Harvey and Lee at COPA 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxn_nZlKuPg Statement from John Armstrong - Charles Drago - 26-05-2010 I just watched a bit of the COPA video, and I'm struck by the radical change in John Armstrong's appearance. Statement from John Armstrong - Jack White - 26-05-2010 Charles Drago Wrote:I just watched a bit of the COPA video, and I'm struck by the radical change in John Armstrong's appearance. Charles...John makes no secret of wearing a nice hairpiece for special occasions. It is an expensive one. The first time he showed it to me, he joked..."OK, get all of your laughing done at one time." It takes about 20 years off of his appearance. Jack Statement from John Armstrong - Charles Drago - 26-05-2010 It looks like a dead squirrel. Unless, of course, there are two Armstrongs ... Statement from John Armstrong - Jack White - 26-05-2010 Charles Drago Wrote:It looks like a dead squirrel. Hey, he likes it, I like it. He hates barbers and prefers the mod long hair casual look. Parts of it around the edge are his own long strands, which blend in well. Jack |