Deep Politics Forum
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - 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: Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? (/thread-5051.html)



Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Albert Doyle - 16-10-2015

Tom Scully Wrote: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....
...



Tom, I appreciate your apology for being dead wrong about the Panama US Army Military Intelligence station having located Che. I spoke to one of the agents involved. He told me the he and other members of his unit located Che in Bolivia and sent those Special Forces operatives to kill him. So you were just plain dead wrong on that.


I feel sorry for anyone who labels facts they are being refuted by "bullying". Or not seeing who the real bullies were.


Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Drew Phipps - 16-10-2015

Craig was brave to speak out against the official story, to be sure. He co-wrote (?) a book. He went on TV. For what it's worth, he seems sincere. No doubt the pressure put on him by the Powers That Be (probably the DCSO, not the DPD) to conform, would have put a great deal of strain on him. But that didn't seem to affect his ability to publish, or be interviewed on TV.

Being a police officer is a dangerous business. They risk their lives on a day to day basis for me, and for you, and for everyone else, and we rarely even know their names, until they make a mistake. There is a rather high occupational rate of alcohol addiction, drug addiction, and suicide. There are other behaviors as well that become problematic for people who occasionally learn to see themselves as "above the law." I have a high respect for police officers, and they deserve it; although that doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes, which I see happen on a regular basis.

As a last note, it would be perhaps significant for that same photographer to be in those key places on that day, but you can see the large number of people that gather in Dealy Plaza (and take pictures, and pick up bullets, and skull fragments...), and then of course there is the rather rapidly-forming mob outside the Texas Theater while Oswald is subdued. So perhaps there is nothing sinister about a photographer heading to where the action is. I would suppose if Reed was "assigned" to cover Oswald's escape route he would have snapped a shot of him leaving the TSBD (which picture would then have great evidentiary value).

I would have enjoyed John finding out how Reed managed to get around to take those shots... car, bus, taxi... magical CIA teleport pad...? Or how the angry mob made it to the theatre in time?


Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Drew Phipps - 16-10-2015

Tom: Your research on Reed has unearthed some sinister evidence. He's a Banker!
(Boo!...Hiss!)

And a banker for the Lions Eye Bank, which (I presume) has some connection to the Lions' Club, and of course from there to freemasonry and the Templars etc...

Seriously, it is curious how his REMF Army experience, and his well known love for bowling and hiking, qualifies him to be a bank President upon retirement from the Army.


Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Tom Scully - 16-10-2015

Drew Phipps Wrote:Tom: Your research on Reed has unearthed some sinister evidence. He's a Banker!
(Boo!...Hiss!)

And a banker for the Lions Eye Bank, which (I presume) has some connection to the Lions' Club, and of course from there to freemasonry and the Templars etc...

Seriously, it is curious how his REMF Army experience, and his well known love for bowling and hiking, qualifies him to be a bank President upon retirement from the Army.

Yup..... a well known CIA or mil intel "front" role. I'm going to check the Baylor archive donated by John Armstrong, but I'm getting the impression he did no independent research on Stuart L. Reed, as he has Reed dropping out
of "sight," the same damning device author Janney featured to turn Crump murder trial witness Mitchell into the CIA "wet work" operator assassin of Mary Meyer.

If the Lions eye bank is still in business, I wonder if they exchange carnival barker eyes for plain ole prying eyes, like the ones a lot of the rest of use to attempt to be accurate much more often than not.

Quote:http://harveyandlee.net/November/November_22.htm
HARVEY, WEARING A LONG-SLEEVED BROWN SHIRT, LEAVES DEALEY PLAZA

.................

......NOTE: Stuart L. Reed took a second photograph of McWatters' bus a few minutes later while the bus was stalled in traffic close to the TSBD. This was very near the time two police officers boarded the bus, looking for HARVEY Oswald. Reed then took a photo of the 6th floor window of the TSBD, and one hour later he took several photos of HARVEY Oswald as he was being escorted from the Texas Theater in handcuffs. Stuart Reed took all of these photos, which sequentially followed Oswald's movements, within 1 1/2 hours. Reed dropped his film off at a photo lab in Dallas, and then hurried to New Orleans to catch a boat to the Canal Zone. Prior to boarding the boat, Reed signed an authorization that allowed the FBI to pick up his developed photo slides in Dallas. The FBI told the WC that a government executive (Reed), answering to the military, took the photos. This seemed to satisfy the WC, and Reed dropped out of sight without ever seeing his photos........

Reed simply returned to work after vacationing at his Dallas residence occupied at the time by his daughter. We do not know when "he" took the snap shots of the bus or of the TSBD window, now do we? I've actually done and shared
research on Reed, proving he was not "out of sight". The HSCA could have pursued him, and the FBI could also have on behalf or the WC. I suspect, but have no way of confirming, that Reed may have simply been a front for several army intel photographers which would explain, if all the photos attributed to Reed were taken at the times Armstrong is inferring they were taken, how others besides the shots in front of the Texas Theater seem too relevant and well timed to have been randomly snapped by a "tourist". IOW, the Reed photos could have come from film pooled from several cameras. It seems routine for this sort of surveillance to be covered up with "a vacationing tourist" in a rush to get on a slow boat to Panama scenario, by an FBI cooperating with military intel.

Does anyone accept that a line repairr technician just happened to listen in on a 1:00 pm tel con, a collect call between Michael and Ruth Paine in which one said to the other that they both knew who was responsible for JFK's murder?
I think the Stuart L. Reed photos were presented in the same SOP as that allegedly accidentally obtained tel con intel. Bill Kelly has posted in the past his opinion that Ruth went to Michael's office and Michael was not yet back from lunch at a bowling alley that the testimony of his lunch campanion and co-worker Frank S. did not corroborate, and finding Michael's office empty, called her own number collect from the phone on Michael's Bell Helio desk, and the tel
con was recorded by Bell internal security. As in the Reed photo scenario, it is reasonable that Reed's name was presented to conceal sources and methods, and the FBI had an ongoing technical installed on Ruth's Irving home phone for
sometime before 22 November, and how could the WC have ever explained that illegal monitoring to the American people?

I expect much of what is perceived as an all encompassing criminal cover up of the JFK assassination crime itself is actually too many cover ups of numerous illegal domestic surveillance that was SOP and still is. It fascinates me to
observe the reactions of those who do not appreciate seeing any air let out of any of the balloons no matter if they should be inflated in the first place.

The government did not behave candidly or transparently. Does that entitle us to behave similarly? Is commitment to accurate and well supported detail really an indication of an FBI, WC, or a CIA "apologist" or is claiming that it is, merely an excuse for
pushing a particular belief system?

The choice of the photographed subjects is another matter, entirely. It is curious, it seems troubling. My point about Roger Craig is that it is a leap to proceed on his word. That fact was wiped away with a few keystrokes. It is also
ridiculous to quote from "Fritz's notes" if you are in the midst of declaring Roger Craig a reliable source and condemning anything and everything sourced from DPD, FBI, or CIA. It makes for an incoherent read.


Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Albert Doyle - 17-10-2015

Drew Phipps Wrote:I would have enjoyed John finding out how Reed managed to get around to take those shots... car, bus, taxi... magical CIA teleport pad...? Or how the angry mob made it to the theatre in time?



Maybe Reed got drawn to the Tippit shooting and then the Texas Theater.


Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Drew Phipps - 17-10-2015

You're probably right about the phone tap. Hoover and his boys used such euphemisms as "informant" for a phone tap and "well placed informant" for an actual listening device. In this increasing era of surveillance, I've no doubt they still have and use these "little white lies."

There is one other thing, though, the (unidentified) male voice from Bell need not have been Michael Paine, it could have been Michael Paine's stepdad Arthur Young...and they could have been discussing Michael.


Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Jim Hargrove - 17-10-2015




Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Albert Doyle - 18-10-2015

Jim,

I'd be curious if Armstrong is going to go with my Baker-Oswald doubles theory on the 4th floor and in the lunch-room.


Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Jim Hargrove - 18-10-2015

Albert Doyle Wrote:Jim,

I'd be curious if Armstrong is going to go with my Baker-Oswald doubles theory on the 4th floor and in the lunch-room.

John said it was "certainly possible," or something like that, but don't know if he's thought more about it.

Also, I just uploaded to my website Stuart Reed's 11/26 "unrestricted permission" to the FBI to use the photos of the bus, TSBD, and arrest scene he just happened to shoot. What luck! This release was witnessed by Regis Kennedy and another NOLA FBI SA. Reed appears to be well connected!

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=7554&stc=1]


Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Tom Scully - 18-10-2015

Jim,

Do you allow for the possibility John's interpretation could be admired even more if it was first put through a vetting process before you stenograph it? I would think you both would want to present it in the most encompassing and thorough light, letting the facts speak for themselves? Could the process of putting his research and interpretations on your website be tweaked to improve the presentation? I think it can, but (if what you've recently been adding is an indication) you both seem opposed to the suggestion. I would like nothing morethan to read one of your site's updates under the influence of an impression that if you've attributed it to John, it must be rock solid, take it to the bank. I am not feeling that, yet.

Jim Hargrove Wrote:.............
Also, I just uploaded to my website Stuart Reed's 11/26 "unrestricted permission" to the FBI to use the photos of the bus, TSBD, and arrest scene he just happened to shoot. What luck! This release was witnessed by Regis Kennedy and another NOLA FBI SA. Reed appears to be well connected! .........

Looks like a nosy photo processor started this ball rolling, but you probably are influenced to post strong opinions weighing less information than I've been sharing for the past four years.

Tom Scully Wrote:..... I'm going to check the Baylor archive donated by John Armstrong, but I'm getting the impression he did no independent research on Stuart L. Reed, as he has Reed dropping out of "sight," the same damning device author Janney featured to turn Crump murder trial witness Mitchell into the CIA "wet work" operator assassin of Mary Meyer.

Quote:http://harveyandlee.net/November/November_22.htm
HARVEY, WEARING A LONG-SLEEVED BROWN SHIRT, LEAVES DEALEY PLAZA

.................

......NOTE: Stuart L. Reed took a second photograph of McWatters' bus a few minutes later while the bus was stalled in traffic close to the TSBD. This was very near the time two police officers boarded the bus, looking for HARVEY Oswald. Reed then took a photo of the 6th floor window of the TSBD, and one hour later he took several photos of HARVEY Oswald as he was being escorted from the Texas Theater in handcuffs. Stuart Reed took all of these photos, which sequentially followed Oswald's movements, within 1 1/2 hours. Reed dropped his film off at a photo lab in Dallas, and then hurried to New Orleans to catch a boat to the Canal Zone. Prior to boarding the boat, Reed signed an authorization that allowed the FBI to pick up his developed photo slides in Dallas. The FBI told the WC that a government executive (Reed), answering to the military, took the photos. This seemed to satisfy the WC, and Reed dropped out of sight without ever seeing his photos........
..................

Either the ending in the quote box above is written with incomplete mastery of this material, or it is intended to sensationalize what is on the surface, trivial. "... Reed dropped out of sight without ever seeing his photos ....." What is your message to your site's readers, considering Reed went back to his civilian D.O.D. job in the Canal Zone, considering his daughter had all the photos attributed to Reed and there likely was mail service to and from the Canal Zone? If you leave that up on your site I'll be influenced to examine everything you present there with even more scrutiny[URL="http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57772&search=dyna#relPageId=63&tab=page"].

http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57772&search=dyna#relPageId=63&tab=page[/URL]
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=7555&stc=1]
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=7556&stc=1]
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=7557&stc=1]
[URL="http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16712&p=227419"]
[/URL]
Quote: Guest_Tom Scully_* Posted 03 June 2011

[Image: 5440018349_e4efed83f3_b.jpg]