+- 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: Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? (/thread-5051.html)
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Jim Hargrove - 09-10-2015
Hi, D.J....
No doubt there is wriggle room on the IDs (or lack thereof) by McWatters and Roy Milton Jones, just as you would expect during a brief encounter on a public bus. And, of course, you can argue that Mary Bledsoe was a co-conspirator. The bus transfer requires more co-conspirators, though, including several Dallas policemen (Boyd and Sims at a minimum), and it requires them on the job within a few hours of the assassination. As John notes in his article, Who at Dallas PD was in a position to put together a conspiracy like this in just an hour or two after the hit? And Whaley's ID of "Oswald" is clearly much stronger than that of McWatters, just as you would expect considering Whaley had a single passenger.
According to Fritz's notes, Oswald said he took the bus, and in a subsequent interview Oswald said he took the bus and taxi--and he even stated that the ride cost 85 cents, confirmed by Whaley himself. There were many witnesses to those interrogations, some of whom repeated the bus and taxi remarks by Oswald in sworn testimony. Over the years not one of them came forward to question those statements.
Very few men wear bracelets with their name printed on them. The fact that Whaley correctly saw one on Oswald's left wrist seems more significant to me than the fact that he MAY have gotten some details about it wrong.
John is almost finished with his piece, so if you don't mind I'd hate to argue it all out here before it is posted. Should be just another couple of days. Considering how good the evidence is for the Nash Rambler station wagon, this is REALLY fascinating....
Jim
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - James Lewis - 15-10-2015
Joseph McBride Wrote:Ed Sanders of the Fugs wrote the best book I've read
on the Manson gang, THE FAMILY.
Yes, he did. It was so good that the Process Church Of The Final Judgement sued them to make Sanders remove their name and any discussion of them from the book. I got lucky and found the original for $3.95 at Half Price Books. They fetch upwards of $300 on EBay now.
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Jim Hargrove - 16-10-2015
Because so many eye-witnesses saw Lee Harvey Oswald enter a green Nash Rambler station wagon near the Texas School Book Depository at 12:40 PM on 11/22/1963, some researchers now suspect that the official bus and taxi ride described by the Warren Commission never actually happened. In a new essay, John Armstrong examines the evidence, and shows that "Lee Harvey Oswald" did indeed take a bus and taxi ride, while a man described by eyewitness Helen Forrest as "his identical twin" surely got in a green Nash Rambler. Read this new research here:
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Drew Phipps - 16-10-2015
As usual, John's work is meticulous and thorough in details. His review of the bus/cab ride witnesses and their stories is a far better summation of that portion of Oswald's day than even the Warren Commission bothered to make.
That makes his lack of such scrutiny of, and attention to, the other half of the Harvey/Lee scenario, the Roger Craig story, all the more puzzling. As we all know, at the start of these events, Craig is a decorated rising star at the DCSO; and yet, by the end of his life, Roger Craig was emotionally and physically troubled, and in constant pain. According to his daughter, Craig probably was bi-polar. (According to her, his emotional problems existed before the assassination.)
As John merely alluded to, Craig was deemed to have taken his own life. But the circumstances are not so mysterious as you might believe, if you just read John's article. The rifle he used to shoot himself was his father's rifle. His place of death was his father's house. According to his daughter, Craig had threatened to take his own life on a number of occasions, and it was such threats that ended his marriage and sundered his family.
Given those facts, it is unfortunate that John chooses to direct his laser reasoning at the "naysayers" of the bus/cab story, which I might remind everyone, is and always has been, the official finding of the government. Craig, who escapes John's searing analysis in this article, unfortunately, is one of the few evidentiary supports of the "multiple Oswalds at the scene," which, as far as I can tell, is a key foundational element to the Harvey/Lee scenario (though not the only such key foundational element).
I also note that John mentions Oswald's arrival at the Texas Theater in support of his argument. Somehow, though, (and in contrast to the Rambler and bus/cab portion of the article), John has neglected to mention the countervailing evidence: the witnesses' discrepancies about Oswald's arrival time at the theater, the "on-foot" discarding of a white jacket similar to one worn by Oswald, the fact that Tippet's murder, and the discarding of the pistol shells used to kill him, was accomplished by someone who was a pedestrian, etc. Such might be beyond the original scope of his article, and yet, John is the one citing this event in support.
It is the unseen other half of the official story, a complete analysis of the "the Rambler ride", and the uncertainties and ambiguities of that evidence, which truly merits the attention and scrutiny of a researcher like John Armstrong.
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - David Josephs - 16-10-2015
Drew... you are aware of the terrible strain the DPD put upon Craig, right?
The denials by Fritz of Craig's validity as well as anything he supposedly said.
Like a fairly large handful of witnesses Craig was treated to attacks from all angles designed to undermine his credibility... people like Yates and Bolden, Benavidas and so many others who were targeted for everything from forced insanity to outright execution.
"Craig probably was bi-polar" yet he was able to be this "rising star" and well decorated officer.... until his statements ran contrary to the official story.
Let's please try and remember that The Evidence IS the Conspiracy Drew... that virtually every single item and story offered comes with it tons of baggage which remders it moot and misrepresentative of what actually happened.
"Never believe anything the government says until it has been officially denied" is one of the laws of Watergate politics
Try watching the news or re-reading history with that in mind and you will see how this consistently bears out.
Next look at the JFK evidence.. case in point, on Jan 27, 1964 a discussion was had about the autopsy evidence.
In this one passage we learn
1) the extant autopsy report contradicts Rankin's parahrasing of what it says
2) it confirms the back entry wound was lower than the exit requirinig the path to be UPWARD at 11 degrees
3) it confirms the FBI Siebert/O'Neill report about what Humes said about the wound
4) it confirms that the bullet would need to TURN in mid air for any of this to work.
5) and finally - it shows how this autopsy report which is NOT in evidence "officially denies" what was first said and written about the wound.
Mr. Rankin:
Then theres a great range of material in regards to the wound and theautopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of theneck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the presenttime.
We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragmentcame out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have comefrom, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture ofwhere the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below theshoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where thepicture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, andthe bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, thatparticular bullet, and go through.
So that how it could turn, and --
Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.
Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said
Followed by Redlich, a few months later in April telling Rankin: this first statement sums up the entirety of the LNer and WCR effort... it was all smoke and mirrors
DJ
Our intention is not to establish the point with completeaccuracy, but merely to substantiate the
hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald wasthe sole assassin.
.....
I should addthat the facts which we now have in our
possession,submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and
SecretService, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will
present acompletely misleading picture.
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Albert Doyle - 16-10-2015
Armstrong's coverage is brilliant. His Marsalis bus theory fits. Tippit waiting for the Marsalis bus and panicking when it didn't show up fits. Oswald getting on the Marsalis bus could be a simple as wanting to get off the street. The Marsalis bus was close enough so he boarded. It is interesting that Armstrong suggests it was Tippit who honked the horn outside the Beckley boarding house.
The blonde CIA woman getting on the bus is also a brilliant new wrinkle. Was her announcement that she had to catch a 1pm train a ploy to remind Oswald to keep on schedule? In any case any coordinators would have to know Oswald would be likely to show-up at his rooming house. The Dallas police knowing about Oswald's Beckley address before they had knowledge of it was a good clue.
The Panama civilian army employee being in the right place and taking photos of McWatters' bus is very good sleuthing. How did he end up at the Texas Theater in time to photograph Oswald's arrest? The Military Intelligence station in Panama was a very important one and was the Intel center that killed Che Guevara.
If you view Oswald's previous statements in New Orleans when arrested he practiced a form of anti-interrogation training by mixing up and confusing his statements. It is possible he lied about the taxi at first in order to lessen the tracing of the two Oswalds.
Armstrong makes another brilliant point when he points out that the Dallas police never applied the same amount of detailed questioning to how Oswald got from Beckley to the Texas Theater. This is condemning and shows a deliberate disinterest by the Dallas Police in this particular detail. Armstrong suggests Tippit drove Oswald to the Texas Theater.
It sounds to me like the Oswald at the police station who knew about the station wagon might have been Lee. Unless of course it was Harvey who overheard Craig saying he saw Oswald get into a station wagon on the phone. In any case the Oswald at the police station knowing about Ruth Paine would mean Harvey had knowledge of the Paines and therefore had to know Craig had seen an Oswald getting into her station wagon. This is important because it shows evidence that Harvey had knowledge of the doubles operation. Oswald saying now they'll know who I am and the lack of police follow through on that statement likely shows DPD knew Oswald was a CIA spook.
There's no reason to doubt Craig. His witnessing of Oswald getting into the station wagon was backed up by Robinson, Cooper, Forrest, and Pennington.
In some versions Burroughs says Oswald entered just after 1 (like 1:03 or so).
Did Oswald get lucky leaving McWatters' bus before the police searched it or was he hinted off the bus somehow?
.
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Tom Scully - 16-10-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:Armstrong's coverage is brilliant. His Marsalis bus theory fits. Tippit waiting for the Marsalis bus and panicking when it didn't show up fits. Oswald getting on the Marsalis bus could be a simple as wanting to get off the street. The Marsalis bus was close enough so he boarded. It is interesting that Armstrong suggests it was Tippit who honked the horn outside the Beckley boarding house.
The blonde CIA woman getting on the bus is also a brilliant new wrinkle. Was her announcement that she had to catch a 1pm train a ploy to remind Oswald to keep on schedule? In any case any coordinators would have to know Oswald would be likely to show-up at his rooming house. The Dallas police knowing about Oswald's Beckley address before they had knowledge of it was a good clue.
The Panama civilian army employee being in the right place and taking photos of McWatters' bus is very good sleuthing. How did he end up at the Texas Theater in time to photograph Oswald's arrest? The Military Intelligence station in Panama was a very important one and was the Intel center that killed Che Guevara.
If you view Oswald's previous statements in New Orleans when arrested he practiced a form of anti-interrogation training by mixing up and confusing his statements. It is possible he lied about the taxi at first in order to lessen the tracing of the two Oswalds.
Armstrong makes another brilliant point when he points out that the Dallas police never applied the same amount of detailed questioning to how Oswald got from Beckley to the Texas Theater. This is condemning and shows a deliberate disinterest by the Dallas Police in this particular detail. Armstrong suggests Tippit drove Oswald to the Texas Theater.
It sounds to me like the Oswald at the police station who knew about the station wagon might have been Lee. Unless of course it was Harvey who overheard Craig saying he saw Oswald get into a station wagon on the phone. In any case the Oswald at the police station knowing about Ruth Paine would mean Harvey had knowledge of the Paines and therefore had to know Craig had seen an Oswald getting into her station wagon. This is important because it shows evidence that Harvey had knowledge of the doubles operation. Oswald saying now they'll know who I am and the lack of police follow through on that statement likely shows DPD knew Oswald was a CIA spook.
There's no reason to doubt Craig. His witnessing of Oswald getting into the station wagon was backed up by Robinson, Cooper, Forrest, and Pennington.
In some versions Burroughs says Oswald entered just after 1 (like 1:03 or so).
Did Oswald get lucky leaving McWatters' bus before the police searched it or was he hinted off the bus somehow?
.
Your lack of citations (this is on the internet, but you almost never post supporting links for any of your strongly asserted opinions) are not compensated for by your tone. You can't bully your way to overcoming well supported opinions, try as you might. (Example, "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a etc.....etc..... has to be a ....... must be a .........) You've probably been getting away with it for many years so you've just kept doing it. Special Forces participated in hunting down Che, and they had a training base in Panama, but it was only that. Planning, strategy, and command originated elsewhere.
You do the opposite of a researcher. You recite only what fits your agenda and the less you research the better your
approach works for your messaging, almost never complicated by facts you might unearth if you were not back filling..
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Assassination%20Inquiry%20Committee%20Newsletter/Item%2016.pdf
Quote:Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin ... - Page 55
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0742568709
J. Patrice McSherry - 2012 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
(In fact, CIA station chief in Bolivia, John Tilton, said, "The operation to locate and capture if possible Che Guevara was a CIA operation run by the station with the cooperation in the field of Bolivians.""4) In 1970, Juan José Torres, a populist ...
BTW, the research details you launched from, about the photographer Stuart L. Reed, is your basis for pure speculation. I should know, as I was first to introduce an expanded background of Reed, a civilian US Army manager of the personnel dept. in the Cana Zone. Reed was fairly transparent and retired in Dallas. I'll let you carry on, now.
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16712&p=227419
Posted 03 June 2011 -
.....If Mary Ferrell was correct about SL Reed working at Terrell Hospital, it seems it must have been after his 1968 retirement and return from the Canal Zone to Dallas. I documented his 31 years of service as a civilian employee of the Dept. of the U.S. Army. If Reed was employed at Terrell after his retirement from the army, I don't see any relevance. We can assume that Mary had almost nothing on Reed. The release he signed for the 35 mm slides he had left behind in Dallas, indicate the FBI was aware he was employed in the Canal Zone and was in a rush to head back there via a (comparatively slow) boat from NOLA.
Yet as recently as earlier this year, the only info about his background on this forum were a post or two linking him to an unrelated Stuart L Reed, Jr., associated with a sod farm in NJ. I find the lack of info on Reed all the more curious since he had family in Dallas, you show he had worked for the Army in Dallas, and he retired in Dallas. He snapped important slide images, yet he seems the most overlooked person in that category.
The information in the posts on this thread is now more detailed than what is available anywhere else on the background of Stuart L Reed, Jr. I would like to know why no one in Reed's family has claimed rights to any of the images he snapped, they are historic. Maybe it was because they were snapped with government owned equipment in the course of a government instigated assignment?
BTW...was George DeM a member of National Campers and Hikers Assoc.?
![[Image: 5440018349_e4efed83f3_b.jpg]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5440018349_e4efed83f3_b.jpg)
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Albert Doyle - 16-10-2015
Tom Scully Wrote:Your lack of citations (this is on the internet, but you almost never post supporting links for any of your strongly asserted opinions) are not compensated for by your tone. You can't bully your way to overcoming well supported opinions, try as you might. (Example, "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a etc.....etc..... has to be a ....... must be a .........) You've probably been getting away with it for many years so you've just kept doing it. Special Forces participated in hunting down Che, and they had a training base in Panama, but it was only that. Planning, strategy, and command originated elsewhere.
You do the opposite of a researcher. You recite only what fits your agenda and the less you research the better your
approach works for your messaging, almost never complicated by facts you might unearth if you were not back filling..
Please stop stalking my posts Tom.
I personally spoke to the Panama US Military Intelligence agent who claimed he located Che. I'm guessing you have no idea of what you're talking about and are only seeking cheap snipes at me.
I think Tom has a chip on his shoulder because he can't answer the good Mary Meyer evidence (or can't deny it). I'm still waiting for you to describe where you draw the line on FBI reports?
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Jim Hargrove - 16-10-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:It sounds to me like the Oswald at the police station who knew about the station wagon might have been Lee. Unless of course it was Harvey who overheard Craig saying he saw Oswald get into a station wagon on the phone. In any case the Oswald at the police station knowing about Ruth Paine would mean Harvey had knowledge of the Paines and therefore had to know Craig had seen an Oswald getting into her station wagon. This is important because it shows evidence that Harvey had knowledge of the doubles operation. Oswald saying now they'll know who I am and the lack of police follow through on that statement likely shows DPD knew Oswald was a CIA spook. .
Harvey's leap to mentioning Ruth Paine is really odd. We'll assume he didn't know enough about Craig's description of the station wagon to know that it didn't fit Ruth's Chevy wagon, but still... assuming he knew about Lee, why would he think Ruth was picking him up? Too bad he didn't live to tell his tale under oath.
Drew, DJ and Tom also raise some interesting points. I'm going to post some more material asap that should clear up a few more objections. For now, though, it is important to remember that at least five witnesses saw Oswald or his "identical twin" get into the Nash Rambler, and I'll be providing the footnotes later today. It's also interesting how many times Craig was nearly killed. More on that later today also. Sorry to be this way, but I'm being told it is time to go outside.
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Tom Scully - 16-10-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:.............
Please stop stalking my posts Tom.
I personally spoke to the Panama US Military Intelligence agent who claimed he located Che. I'm guessing you have no idea of what you're talking about and are only seeking cheap snipes at me.
I think Tom has a chip on his shoulder because he can't answer the good Mary Meyer evidence (or can't deny it). I'm still waiting for you to describe where you draw the line on FBI reports?
It would be a cause for concern if you only failed to provide supporting links in your posts on the internet for almost everything you assert in your posts on the internet.
But you take it two steps further. You either bully anyone who disagrees with you, or your try to shift why you are being challenged....
Quote:........Please stop stalking my posts.....
You're not being stalked, you're being challenged (your tactic of empty but assertive interpretation) and you will not meet the challenge by supporting your claims and opinions. There is nothing in your response to my challenge, the part of your response that was not a manipulation. You claim you received information from a nameless individual who claimed he was such and such. Your hypocrisy knows no limits because you challenge every well supported (with links) point in disagreement,
yet you trot out your unnamed source with his unsupported "credentials". Why bother doing that when you would never ever admit that a well supported claim made by anyone else sways you in the least?
All of it take place in your own alternative universe...... your interpretations and a counterclaim with definitive (only to you) "some guy told me" support.
We know you just did two things, you wiped away the troubling controversies about the credibility of Roger Craig, as I supported with the LINKED Weisberg opinion of controversial Craig, with just some strokes on your keyboard,
and you made false claims about my research related to Peter Janney and his book. Combine these problems with your track record of posting your link free interpretations as if they were obvious and relliable.
When you are not manipulating with the Roger Craig cannot be doubted, or the Tom Scully does not know what he is talking about with regard to Mary's Mosaic, despite the actual record and Scully's penchant for providing supporting
links and Janney's own, painted into a corner rerelease of his book with a sequel and later admission that he thinks Mitchell was not a CIA assassin, you are bullying with your, "WELL YOU MUST BE a blah, blah, blah if you dare disagree
with empty, unsupported Doyle-Yates interpretations.
Albert Doyle Wrote:..............
Jim, if you noticed, what Tom does is no different than what a person defending the government would do. There's a fine line between rigor and devil's advocacy and outright pro-government defense I think you should be more mindful of than you seem to be. Tom Scully is a person who refuses to answer where exactly he draws the line in his defense of FBI reports. He is endorsing and quoting reports that were the same source of the definition of Oswald from the Warren Report without recognizing how that taints the information. It scares me when I see credible researchers criticizing the flaws in Janney while using FBI reports and staying non-committal as to those reports and their credibility. Do you get what I mean here? ...................
It is bullying akin to red baiting George Will and Anderson Cooper performed....... "How was your honeymoon in the Soviet Union, Bernie ?" It is a bullying tactic, not a constructive response to LINKED, well supported details posted in rebuttal to your unsupported claims.
Try moving toward imposing on yourself the same impossible to meet demands you make on others.
Nice!