James H. Fetzer Wrote:I think Jack and I have been here before! My take is that, unless he and John had exposed THREE Oswalds--and here I'm not talking about Robert, even though I am convinced that he impersonated his brother on more than one occasion--namely, their "Harvey", their "Lee", and the false history for "Harvey" created by the CIA so he could return to a normal life, the most likely explanation for HARVEY & LEE is that they were turning up records and documents that had been planted on behalf of Lee H. Oswald of New Orleans. That's my take and I'm sticking to it--where I expect to do more with John's voluminous work than I have done before, which is, of course, also archived on this forum on the "Judyth Vary Baker" thread, which is easy to access.

Jack White Wrote:A TRUE film on OSWALD can be based ONLY on HARVEY & LEE.

Jack

Phil Dragoo Wrote:I commented online regarding Robert's usefulness in his false history that Lee was “still watching reruns of I Led Three Lives when I went off to the Marines.”


Then imagine my surprise to receive an email correction from the helpful tool with no name.


Who presented as Stalin's New Soviet Man, Hoffer's True Believer, Orwell-Blair's Inner Party newthinker.


Of course Richard Carlson as Herbert J. Philbrick sponsored by Phillips 66 premiered 1953 the year following Robert's enlistment in 1952.


The series sunsetted in 1956; reruns would be expected thereafter; and we know the seventeen-year-old enlisted in that year, 1956.


Robert is so helpful, painting the assassin black; and the tool with no name is so obvious a touchstone of falsehood.


I wanted to add the excellent visual on the cover of the newest edition of A Certain Arrogance as it depicts perfectly the flat two-dimensional fictional construct of the assassin floating on the glass icy unreality of the agency which acknowledges no master.


The key to the issue is indeed the identity of the assassin.


The flesh and blood Oswald was an undercover intelligence operative living the dream in service to the cabal of conspirators.


Judyth Vary Baker and John Armstrong and John Newman and others are as so many film cameras arrayed in that magic spiral surrounding Keanu Reeves in the iconographic rooftop bullet-dodging magic piece.


The character created has many dimensions, each crafted to serve an operational purpose, all combining to create the fictional character subject as the target of all the two-minute hates of Oceania since 1963.


It was digital before digital was cool, virtual before virtual was the new wet for the fish-peasants, the fish-consumers, the fish-subjects.


FREE OSWALD

Jack White Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:I think Jack and I have been here before! My take is that, unless he and John had exposed THREE Oswalds--and here I'm not talking about Robert, even though I am convinced that he impersonated his brother on more than one occasion--namely, their "Harvey", their "Lee", and the false history for "Harvey" created by the CIA so he could return to a normal life, the most likely explanation for HARVEY & LEE is that they were turning up records and documents that had been planted on behalf of Lee H. Oswald of New Orleans. That's my take and I'm sticking to it--where I expect to do more with John's voluminous work than I have done before, which is, of course, also archived on this forum on the "Judyth Vary Baker" thread, which is easy to access.

Jack White Wrote:A TRUE film on OSWALD can be based ONLY on HARVEY & LEE.

Jack

If Jim is accusing John Armstrong of being CIA, as it appears above,
he is 180 degrees off course. He has the book, but has never bothered
to read it yet, it seems. Of course, even if he reads it, he will have
a prior bias looking for ways to debunk it to fit the Judyth story.

Jack

Albert Doyle Wrote:In my opinion the strongest evidence for conspiracy is exposing Oswald's true background and the government's attempt to cover it up. Once Oswald's true background is shown to the public it becomes obvious who and what he was. Forget bullet and shot analysis and endless pouring over pictures, the strongest evidence for conspiracy is a plain look at Oswald and those he surrounded himself with.

A quick look at Oswald shows he was an impressionable fatherless boy who tried to emulate and copycat Herbert Philbrick. From there he ended up a CIA operative during his Marine service at Atsugi Airbase. He was then used as a false defector into Russia for unknown purposes, but purposes nevertheless that can be predictably estimated. Upon his return to the US he then worked with the FBI as an agent provocateur pretending to be a pro-Castro communist.

An individual's Kennedy Assassination validity can be automatically litmus tested by gauging how they react to this true background. If they reject it and consider Oswald a Lone Nut who did all this stuff on his own then they are a Warren Commission apologist and have automatically dismissed themselves as such and can not be taken seriously or have their input considered in Kennedy Assassination matters. However, if they recognize it then they are valid observers and understand the truth behind the Assassination.

So the point I'm getting at is once you understand how deeply involved Oswald was with the FBI/CIA underground it then becomes impossible to consider he somehow broke-off from this group and its influences on November 22 1963 and decided to kill Kennedy on his own for whatever reasons. What Warren Commission apologists are asking us to believe is Lee Harvey Oswald was a deep operator within CIA's most active anti-Castro program, and mingled with all those who would be the ones associated with killing Kennedy and having reasons to do so, yet he somehow broke away from all this on November 22 1963 and did it on his own.


That's how you prove the Kennedy Assassination conspiracy. The best way to show this obvious proof is to make an Oliver Stone-type movie of this approach. It's something the dummy public would understand upon seeing.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Of course, I am not suggesting John or Jack are CIA. I am suggesting an alternative interpretation of the documents and records they have turned up. And of course, fabricating photographs--and even films!--can be part of the exercise, as I presume we know from the study of the Zapruder. Hosty actually tore up the note from Lee and flushed it rather than burned it, but Myra makes the appropriate point: Why would anyone have done that if they had not wanted to conceal their contacts with Oswald? Why, indeed!

Jack White Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Of course, I am not suggesting John or Jack are CIA. I am suggesting an alternative interpretation of the documents and records they have turned up. And of course, fabricating photographs--and even films!--can be part of the exercise, as I presume we know from the study of the Zapruder. Hosty actually tore up the note from Lee and flushed it rather than burned it, but Myra makes the appropriate point: Why would anyone have done that if they had not wanted to conceal their contacts with Oswald? Why, indeed!

Jim harbors the false assumption that Armstrong's book relies only
on CIA documents. He needs to read the book. John conducted dozens
of interviews with living witnesses. He relied on Warren Commission
documents which were published in 1964 and could not have been
altered at a later time. He relies on other historical records and books.
Only a small portion of his evidence could have been altered at a
later date as part of a coverup. If Jim would take time to read John's
book, he would realize this.

Jim harbors the false assumption that living witnesses interviewed by
John somehow could have been tampered with by the CIA. Witnesses
like Frank Kudlaty, who said LHO attended Stripling Junior High School
in Fort Worth, when the WC says he was at Beauregard Junior High
in New Orleans. It is faulty research to dismiss this witness without
bothering to read the book.

Jack