John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee

[Greg Burnham]

In his response above, Mr. Mooney exhibits the classic "no answer ever will suffice" gambit commonly employed by agents provocateur.

I haven't the slightest idea if Mr.Mooney is acting out of malice or ignorance. Or both.

Are we dealing with Mr. Mooney or "Mr. Mooney"?

Again, your guess is as good as mine.

After all, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it could be Mel Blanc.

But in the final analysis, we're still dealing with duck shit.

[John Mooney]

Let readers see JA's interview with Pfisterer president Linda Faircloth and decide for themselves. I know, I know, all these lying witnesses... we just have to trust the FBI.

Did you not see the circular reasoning in this video?

They all referred back to McBride for the date. "Every time I asked the question the response would come back, the one you really need to talk to is.... ...the one that you really need to speak to is Palmer McBride".

And this!!!

"I also talked to Palmer McBride after speaking to John Armstrong".

Is John Mooney deliberately misrepresenting this interview, or did he simply not bother to listen to it, like he didn't bother to look at Greg Parker's so-called evidence, evidence that doesn't even relate to the school year in question, evidence in which names are inserted into otherwise identical paragraphs and boiler plate language?

In the interview with John Armstrong, Linda Faircloth mentions Johnny Lepez six or seven times, as well as Louis Fischer, John Otterer, Arthur Stumpf, George Bishoff, and Lionel Slaterer (phonetic spellings). She mentions Palmer McBride twice, and it's really the same reference since the mentions are just a couple of words apart. ONE MENTION!!

FORUM MEMBERS: Here again is the link to the six-minute Faircloth interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_A_tKDaJPY

Ask yourself, is John Mooney honestly describing this interview, or is he indulging in the same kind of thing most of us here are all too familiar with? I'll be gone for part of today, so no doubt Mr. Mooney will have the time to twist the truth into a pretzel and declare victory eight or ten times, but hey, it's an old story, eh?

Jim

Jim I listened to the video.. it was "the one you need to speak to is... the one you need to speak to is..." all down the line UNTIL we get to "and then I spoke to "John Armstrong and Palmer McBride".

It's the truth.

You know it and I know it.

I have not misrepresented anything.

[John Mooney]

In his response above, Mr. Mooney exhibits the classic "no answer ever will suffice" gambit commonly employed by agents provocateur.

I haven't the slightest idea if Mr.Mooney is acting out of malice or ignorance. Or both.

Are we dealing with Mr. Mooney or "Mr. Mooney"?

Again, your guess is as good as mine.

After all, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it could be Mel Blanc.

But in the final analysis, we're still dealing with duck shit.

I guess it will be ad hominem from here on in.

Oh well.

As Obiwan would say "this is not the forum for you".

Shame, I like some of you.

Anyway.

Bye.

[Jim Hargrove]

I first got introduced to the online con artists defending the WC and the USG in general ten to 15 years ago when I was active on the Usenet group alt.conspiracy.jfk. After watching Stone's JFK and reading a half dozen or so books on the assassination, I didn't have a whole lot to say, but nevertheless found it odd that no matter what small observations I made, there were always several posters who would come along without fail to defend the USG position in the most strident and inflexible way.

Then I became interested in John Armstrong's work and some of his early speeches and articles, and before long I felt I had a whole lot to say, and it didn't take long for the online rebuttals to change dramatically. What had once been arguments about facts related to the Kennedy assassination suddenly became very personal diatribes against me. One fellow posted, again and again, personal attacks on me that must have been the equivalent of 20 or 30 typed pages. Rather than fight a battle that had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination, I quit reading alt.conspiracy.jfk and allowed the bastards to win.

I'd like to thank the DPF founders for creating a place that encourages honest research and productive debate and discourages the con artists. No doubt the new JFK Wikl will continue this tradition and soon make its mark.

Jim

[Kenneth Kapel]

Just about twenty minutes ago my copy of "Harvey & Lee" arrived about ten minutes ago. I'm thumbing throught it now, it is fascinating. My usual routine with newly purchased books is first to thumb through them and then read beginning to end.

[Magda Hassan]

I first got introduced to the online con artists defending the WC and the USG in general ten to 15 years ago when I was active on the Usenet group alt.conspiracy.jfk. After watching Stone's JFK and reading a half dozen or so books on the assassination, I didn't have a whole lot to say, but nevertheless found it odd that no matter what small observations I made, there were always several posters who would come along without fail to defend the USG position in the most strident and inflexible way.

Then I became interested in John Armstrong's work and some of his early speeches and articles, and before long I felt I had a whole lot to say, and it didn't take long for the online rebuttals to change dramatically. What had once been arguments about facts related to the Kennedy assassination suddenly became very personal diatribes against me. One fellow posted, again and again, personal attacks on me that must have been the equivalent of 20 or 30 typed pages. Rather than fight a battle that had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination, I quit reading alt.conspiracy.jfk and allowed the bastards to win.

I'd like to thank the DPF founders for creating a place that encourages honest research and productive debate and discourages the con artists. No doubt the new JFK Wikl will continue this tradition and soon make its mark.

Jim

Thank Jim. Looking forward to getting it all up and running too!
As well as the Mockingbirds and paid government shills on forums etc there also seems to be a type of American who can say no wrong about their government. I've never been able to understand that position. It must mean a whole lot of cognitive dissonance to hold that stance in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. My country right or wrong types. I don't think I have seen this sort of craven abrogation of thinking outside a game of russian roulette. Most Brits and Australians and Italians I know are only too happy to acknowledge and talk about government failings and hypocrisy.

[Magda Hassan]

Just about twenty minutes ago my copy of "Harvey & Lee" arrived about ten minutes ago. I'm thumbing throught it now, it is fascinating. My usual routine with newly purchased books is first to thumb through them and then read beginning to end.

Any chance of a review when you're done reading?

[Jim Hackett II]

Gee I'm glad in not one of those ugly Americans.

[Magda Hassan]

Gee I'm glad in not one of those ugly Americans.

I'm glad too :: I know not everyone is.

[Jim Hargrove]

Thank Jim. Looking forward to getting it all up and running too!
As well as the Mockingbirds and paid government shills on forums etc there also seems to be a type of American who can say no wrong about their government. I've never been able to understand that position. It must mean a whole lot of cognitive dissonance to hold that stance in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. My country right or wrong types. I don't think I have seen this sort of craven abrogation of thinking outside a game of russian roulette. Most Brits and Australians and Italians I know are only too happy to acknowledge and talk about government failings and hypocrisy.

The "America Firsters and Onlyers," or whatever we should call them (probably not that), always seemed like relatively dim bulbs to me; low-information voters, not terribly well educated, and so on, UNLESS THEY WERE PROFESSIONALS, whether practicing politicians or paid information shills from network news broadcasts to internet chat groups. No proof of that, just my suspicion.

The sad thing is, radical conclusions such as are contained in John Armstrong's work can always use honest, constructive criticism. There are bound to be errors here and there, and correcting them will only make the remaining realities stronger. But when the disinfo campaigns are invoked, perception is obviously more important than reality, and we all suffer if we are denied an understanding of our own history.

Jim