19-10-2016, 12:21 AM
TO TOM SCULLY:
The fact that "Dial Ryder was brother of Jack Leslie Bowen's (John Ceasar Grossi's) wife..." and that Jack Bowen's name is on "Oswald's" alleged library card IS mildly interesting. It doesn't, however, prove that "Oswald" did or didn't go to Ryder's shop, or that Ryder did or didn't tell the truth in his various statements. It proves nothing.
Normally, though, I'd be inclined to mention it to John Armstrong, but I probably won't in this case. It just isn't worth it to me. If I did, and John added it to a write-up, you would surely accuse him of plagiarism, demand that I take down my website, and do all the things you usually do to be a pain in the ass. Why should I bother?
You accuse me of not responding to your post, although I just saw it today. (I don't read some of your often very long and barely relevant posts. What does Dial Ryder and his sister's husband have to do with the subject of this thread?) Your demand that I respond instantly to you is pretty funny, since when I demanded something like 17 times starting last January that you back up your claims of plagiarism, you just ran away and hid for months. Shall we resurrect that thread? I checked, and it's still on page 7 if you would like to finally answer it at this late date.
I have promoted the work of my friend John Armstrong for nearly 20 years now, not because I can't speak for myself, but because I think he has essentially solved this case. He can't name the shooters, and neither can anyone else honestly, but just about everything else becomes remarkably clear under his lens.
The fact that "Dial Ryder was brother of Jack Leslie Bowen's (John Ceasar Grossi's) wife..." and that Jack Bowen's name is on "Oswald's" alleged library card IS mildly interesting. It doesn't, however, prove that "Oswald" did or didn't go to Ryder's shop, or that Ryder did or didn't tell the truth in his various statements. It proves nothing.
Normally, though, I'd be inclined to mention it to John Armstrong, but I probably won't in this case. It just isn't worth it to me. If I did, and John added it to a write-up, you would surely accuse him of plagiarism, demand that I take down my website, and do all the things you usually do to be a pain in the ass. Why should I bother?
You accuse me of not responding to your post, although I just saw it today. (I don't read some of your often very long and barely relevant posts. What does Dial Ryder and his sister's husband have to do with the subject of this thread?) Your demand that I respond instantly to you is pretty funny, since when I demanded something like 17 times starting last January that you back up your claims of plagiarism, you just ran away and hid for months. Shall we resurrect that thread? I checked, and it's still on page 7 if you would like to finally answer it at this late date.
I have promoted the work of my friend John Armstrong for nearly 20 years now, not because I can't speak for myself, but because I think he has essentially solved this case. He can't name the shooters, and neither can anyone else honestly, but just about everything else becomes remarkably clear under his lens.
HarveyandLee.net
Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security." – 1964
CIA accountant James B. Wilcott: Oswald received "a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work." – 1978
HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum: “Lee Harvey Oswald was a contract employee of the CIA and the FBI.†– 1996
Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security." – 1964
CIA accountant James B. Wilcott: Oswald received "a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work." – 1978
HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum: “Lee Harvey Oswald was a contract employee of the CIA and the FBI.†– 1996