Trolls and proxy posts against Harvey and Lee.

[Peter Lemkin]

The purpose of provocation on Forums is at least two-fold. First, to harass and if possible make researchers/forum members with a contrary view look defensive and 'silly' by having to 'defend' a theory that often needs no defense. Second, to rewind the clock on already settled [for the majority of intelligent and open-minded researchers] with the nth 'debate' from the beginning on the already settled issue(s), making them look unsettled and up for contest over and over and over again. While some do this out of conviction or naivete, others are part of an established system of disinformation on this case - that has been ongoing from the day of the assassination - and has many foci, but primarily run out of the intelligence apparat of the USA.

While Armstrong has some additional ideas, it is established fact (to me) that there were more than one 'Oswald' at certain times - certainly in the weeks and months before the assassination there were often two persons claiming to be an 'Oswald' at mutually exclusive places. Even on the day OF the assassination there were to my satisfaction TWO 'Oswalds'. All that Armstrong does is go further with his theory/evidence, which I subscribe to in most of its aspects, that the doubling of 'Oswald' went back AT LEAST to his/their days in the Marines, and possibly back to their childhood days. Obviously, this was not originally with the JFK assassination as its aim...but for some other intelligence-related purpose, as needed.

Even if one doesn't 'buy' the childhood doubling [though the evidence seems quite convincing even there], to me it is established fact that there were two 'Oswalds' by Marine times, when one was a false defector in the USSR, and upon that one's return...right up to the day of the Assassination when two Oswalds were seen, and two arrested - one to be eliminated before he could tell his real story, and the other to be whisked away by the architects of the assassination.

Even if one doesn't subscribe to everything in Armstrong's book, there is no other book with as much useful and valid research on certain aspects of 'Oswald' and a few others in his circle of friends and family, etc.

I really can't understand how someone who has not read the book and has no intention to can claim to 'debate' the topic - other than to say something like 'all the people I respect think this is an invalid theory - so I do as well'.

As far as I'm concerned, tag-team posting for persons on other forums is not valid and shouldn't be tolerated beyond a very very few posts. We've all been reminded that GP thinks ill of H&L - so what of it?! [Some still think that LHO shot JFK from the front from the rear; with more than six bullets with three of them; from multiple positions from one he wasn't even at, etc.] GP has his own Forum to spout on about whatever he wants. What NEW and substantive problems/debate do people have with Armstrong's work? - or be gone.....IMHO. Not everyone on this forum subscribe to Armstrong's views [or all of them], but I think most agree that there were at various times more than one 'Oswald' and that Armstrong's research - both in the book and available in the archives - are some of the best ever done on 'Oswald' and things related to 'Oswald'. Extreme 'Armstrong bashing' to me is only a surrogate for LN-ism.