+- 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 - Peter Lemkin - 20-09-2013
Mr. Mooney, you avoid questions posed to you; you avoid looking at the wide spectrum of evidence and focus on micro-issues - attacking them with a seeming agenda, one by one. What's the game you're playing and are you so narrow minded or not really against the official version? I took GREAT offense at your snide statements about Jack White, who I often worked with, and considered a close friend and champion of JFK research. You made it sound as if his choice of clothes were wrong, this would affect his research on JFK. What in the world is your overall view of what happened in and around 11/22/63?! - as it seems like you paint a very simplified 'stick-figure drawing' of what was a most complex, intricate, highly compartmentalized operation; and then equally complex, intricate, highly compartmentalized cover-up. Add to that you expound upon and condemn books you have not read nor researched. I really begin to wonder what your agenda is here. IMO, the events of Dallas can never be considered 'too complex'. It was a MOST complex and convoluted operation; complete with false actors, blind research/investigation trails, fake and planted 'evidence', stolen evidence, denied evidence, tampered evidence, threatened and murdered witnesses, and more. You paint, IMO, a simple, almost cartoonish version of about three frames in length - one too simple to be believable, from the massive and complex evidence at hand.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - John Mooney - 20-09-2013
Hello Peter,
I don't mean to cause offence, but would you like some examples of Jack White getting it wrong? I can provide plenty.
As I said his Apollo analysis was embarrassing and did little for his credibility.
We can do it in another thread if you like.
I don't think I'm alone in thinking Harvey and Lee is absurd.
For the record, if you want to know where I stand - I stand by what James Douglas wrote in JFK and The Unspeakable (the best JFK book to date IMO). Sylvia Meagher too. I like much of what Jim DiEugenio writes too (although I can't agree with him about Harvey and Lee and I'm not sure he 100% embraces it).
The "50 Reasons for 50 years" videos are mostly excellent (I have a few quibbles but nothing major).
None of these need the compexity of Oswald mother and son dopplegangers. Although I do agree that Oswald seems to have been impersonated at some points.
Greg Parker on the EF highlighted many areas where Armstrong was simply wrong and the people he was up against either ignored it, said it wasn't important or moved the goalposts. The normal MO is to quickly skip onto the next item on the list without due acknowledgement - I've seen this over and over in Apollo Hoax debates (which usually entails a Jack White analysis popping up at some point), also 9/11 debates (September Clues nonsense) - it's always the same... look at this photo.. look at this photo... you nail each one in turn but it's never enough to make them stop and question themselves... on to the next "gottcha".
If my view on Harvey and Lee is unwelcome on this forum I will of course leave and let you get on with it.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - John Mooney - 20-09-2013
Dear David,
Was Greg right about Palmer McBride?
Was he right about the school registration form? (You said he was in the end but then moved the goal posts).
Was he right about the 7 witnesses who Armstrong ignored in favor of one that fitted his theory?
I haven't read Harvey and Lee, I haven't read the Book of Mormon either.
I've seen enough of both demolished to know there is no point (yes I have engaged Mormons about it extensively - I really didn't need to read the whole thing to do so - it's about knowing salient points).
I haven't read the whole Warren Commission Report either (not many have if you catch my drift).
Armstrong came up with the doppleganger theory because of McBride, McBride gets demolished and suddenly it's not important (goal posts moved)...
But Greg already did this debate.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18558
It's a great thread.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Charles Drago - 20-09-2013
John Mooney Wrote:Armstrong came up with the doppleganger [sic] theory[.]
He most certainly did not.
It was philosopher and first generation JFK assassination researcher Richard H. Popkin who, in 1966, published The Second Oswald -- the first dedicated, book-length examination and deep political contextualization of the multi-LHO phenomenon.
The argument later was expanded upon by, among others, George Michael Evica in conference presentations and in his own books, And We are All Mortal and A Certain Arrogance.
Thanks to those and subsequent related works, there can be no reasonable doubt that the doppelgänger gambit, as I have coined the term, was and remains a critical component of the ongoing cover-up.
John Armstrong's challenging, perhaps in certain subsets flawed hypothesis remains in its general contours consistent with what we might expect to observe in mid-20th century iterations of a very old game.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - John Mooney - 20-09-2013
Charles, your point is a semantic one. McBride came up with his doppelgänger theory when he read the FBI McBride report which is now deemed not important anymore since Greg Parker (or David Lifton) showed McBride was mistaken. I think David Lifton said he also admitted it.
One of the Harvey and Lee foundation bricks gone.
Greg removed others too. Read the thread, it's good. You can even buy some popcorn for the Parker v Lifton bout.
And my spelling is indeed [sic]. Thanks.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - John Mooney - 20-09-2013
I have some questions.
What was the (presumably) CIA idea in 1952 in regarding creating two Oswalds?
Was the plan in 1952 to eventually swap them in 1959 when one of them defects to Russia?
And what was to be gained from this very long term plan?
Wasn't seven years enough time to teach someone to understand Russian and be a lot less complicated?
Was it just lucky they these two grew up over seven years looking almost identical?
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Charles Drago - 20-09-2013
John Mooney Wrote:Charles, your point is a semantic one.
It most certainly is not.
Your language in this instance is imprecise and as a consequence might misinform those who are not on familiar terms with the literature.
You wrote, "Armstrong came up with the doppleganger theory... " [emphasis added]
For the sake of accuracy and in service to overall clarity, you would have been well advised to write, "Armstrong came up with his doppelganger theory ... "
Thanks.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Jim Hargrove - 20-09-2013
John Mooney Wrote:Charles, your point is a semantic one. McBride came up with his doppelgänger theory when he read the FBI McBride report which is now deemed not important anymore since Greg Parker (or David Lifton) showed McBride was mistaken. I think David Lifton said he also admitted it.
From Palmer McBride:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5290[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5291[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5292[/ATTACH]
John, this is a researchers' group. Rather than expressing opinions and declaring victory all the time, why don't you post some EVIDENCE once in a while?
Jim
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - Tracy Riddle - 20-09-2013
John Mooney Wrote:I have some questions.
What was the (presumably) CIA idea in 1952 in regarding creating two Oswalds?
Was the plan in 1952 to eventually swap them in 1959 when one of them defects to Russia?
And what was to be gained from this very long term plan?
Wasn't seven years enough time to teach someone to understand Russian and be a lot less complicated?
Was it just lucky they these two grew up over seven years looking almost identical?
I have a lot of questions about Armstrong's theory as well. I've read the book twice (and taken notes), and while he has definitely assembled a lot of evidence that things are wrong with the official story of Oswald's life, I don't go all the way with this theory (at least I'm an agnostic about it). For example, his scenario of the Tippit murder is highly selective in the witnesses and evidence he presents to the reader.
I still find his book valuable; I learned a lot from it. I highly recommend that you read it; his detailed history of the Carcano rifle and how the authorities created a fake paper trail "proving" that Oswald ordered it through the mail is worth the price alone.
But a person can have 80% or 90% of their facts right and still leap to the wrong conclusion. We ALL need to keep a skeptical, critical mind about ALL researchers and theories in this case. Jack White did some great work, and I don't question his sincerity, but I don't agree with all of his conclusions. I watched the Youtube video of his presentation at Fetzer's symposium on the Z-film, and found it pretty weak.
John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee - John Mooney - 20-09-2013
Did anyone ever read Palmer McBride's report on 11/23/63 as the perfect "look... I'm a raving communist and I want to kill the President" as a bit too perfect?
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1386.pdf
Much like the backyard photos.. "look... I'm a communist, I have papers, I have a rifle, I have a pistol.. what more do you need?".
McBride says Oswald was proclaiming Communism to everyone, employees at Pfisterers say he wasn't according to FBI reports.
There are FBI reports of two other employees that say Oswald was there early 1956 (Firorello and Slater).
There are also the 1956 tax returns that Doug Horn looked into.
There is the mention of the letter of Oswald to McBride (after he left Pfisterers) from Ft Worth during school riots (that happened in 1956).
Russia annouced it's space satellite program in 1956 shortly after America announced theirs.
A 1956 article about the Russian space program:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/MechanixIllustrated/6-1956/russians_beating_space/russians_beating_space_0.jpg
McBride is mistaken (or worse), his appeal to other workers like Firorello fails because Firorello is quoted in reports as saying Oswald was there in 1956.
His appeal to the current executives of Pfisterers fails because they were not there nor do they have any employment records for 1956/57/58.