30-05-2012, 06:25 PM
In the work of John Armstrong is a thesis that Lee Harvey Oswald is a Janus with Harvey, meticulously created, perhaps from age 13, circa 1952, in the manner of a classic method of intelligence tradecraft.
Certainly from John Newman, e.g., Oswald and the CIA, as well as Lisa Pease, and George Michael Evica and L. Fletcher Prouty, we find the Mexico City gambit and the corollary World War III virus to have been the exclusive creation of one in a position of familiarity, mastery, and control of the agency files, no doubt one James Jesus Angleton, famously croaking he wasn't privy to who struck John, the mansion having so many rooms.
Indeed he used Eliot's Gerontion line in regards to a wilderness of mirrors. Loki's likeness making use of such a mirror. And some say Loki was set up, a patsy:
http://www.nordic-life.org/nmh/loki.htm
Two insist the figure is Oswald and the world is wrong. They are willing to add as many epicycles as there are counters to their arguments.
For many or most but not all others, the figure is Lovelady.
Perhaps Arlen Spector's Scottish Law citation applies as a third alternative:
The verdict of not proven is essentially one of acquittal. In all respects the verdicts of not guilty and not proven have exactly the same legal effects. In practice it is thought that a verdict of not proven simply means that the judge or jury have reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt. The not proven verdict is used in one third of acquittals by juries, and in one fifth of acquittals in non-jury trials. Because of the higher number of non-jury trials ninety per cent of all not proven verdicts are returned in such cases. It is generally thought that the verdict gives juries, and judges, an option between not guilty and guilty where they feel that the charges have not been proved but they equally cannot say the accused is "not guilty" because of its moral connotations.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac...EoN042QnRQ
Was Hunt a tramp? Was Hunt crossing Elm in trenchcoat and fedora and shades?
One: Perhaps a doppelganger in either or both cases.
Two: A bit of trickery, tricksterism. Just one Witt of poseurismo.
Three: It was, and it wasn't; beyond proof, and not relevant vis-Ã -vis the clear nature of the termination with extreme prejudice on behalf of sponsors not identified.
In the last gasp the lying spy indicts the dead terra cotta Texan.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3827[/ATTACH]
Certainly from John Newman, e.g., Oswald and the CIA, as well as Lisa Pease, and George Michael Evica and L. Fletcher Prouty, we find the Mexico City gambit and the corollary World War III virus to have been the exclusive creation of one in a position of familiarity, mastery, and control of the agency files, no doubt one James Jesus Angleton, famously croaking he wasn't privy to who struck John, the mansion having so many rooms.
Indeed he used Eliot's Gerontion line in regards to a wilderness of mirrors. Loki's likeness making use of such a mirror. And some say Loki was set up, a patsy:
http://www.nordic-life.org/nmh/loki.htm
Two insist the figure is Oswald and the world is wrong. They are willing to add as many epicycles as there are counters to their arguments.
For many or most but not all others, the figure is Lovelady.
Perhaps Arlen Spector's Scottish Law citation applies as a third alternative:
The verdict of not proven is essentially one of acquittal. In all respects the verdicts of not guilty and not proven have exactly the same legal effects. In practice it is thought that a verdict of not proven simply means that the judge or jury have reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt. The not proven verdict is used in one third of acquittals by juries, and in one fifth of acquittals in non-jury trials. Because of the higher number of non-jury trials ninety per cent of all not proven verdicts are returned in such cases. It is generally thought that the verdict gives juries, and judges, an option between not guilty and guilty where they feel that the charges have not been proved but they equally cannot say the accused is "not guilty" because of its moral connotations.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac...EoN042QnRQ
Was Hunt a tramp? Was Hunt crossing Elm in trenchcoat and fedora and shades?
One: Perhaps a doppelganger in either or both cases.
Two: A bit of trickery, tricksterism. Just one Witt of poseurismo.
Three: It was, and it wasn't; beyond proof, and not relevant vis-Ã -vis the clear nature of the termination with extreme prejudice on behalf of sponsors not identified.
In the last gasp the lying spy indicts the dead terra cotta Texan.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3827[/ATTACH]