29-04-2015, 02:46 AM
Don't get me wrong. John Armstrong is an amazing researcher who has done an incredible job documenting these inconsistencies in Oswald's history and background. I just don't agree with his conclusion: That there are two separate and distinct Oswalds, and had been for years.
I believe what John has done is to uncover the legend created for Oswald when he "defected". Whether Oswald was a willing participant in a spy game or not, whether he was a dangle or a defector, there would damn fine reasons for altering his background to make Russian spies and/or counter-intelligence either more wary or less wary of him, and the disinformation in the alternate history would help Angleton and crew identify and catch Soviet moles.
The problem with John's conclusion is that it becomes a cul-de-sac for investigation, ultimately yielding no valuable conclusion as to who was impersonating Oswald, and why; and we know from time to time it did happen. The fact that the impostor knew a great deal about Oswald should help us identify them; the more the impostor knows, the smaller a circle of people it could be. If someone was impersonating Oswald in preparation for the assassination, that should lead us directly to the conspirators - but it won't, if we just conclude that there were two of them, and then construct an elaborate scenario around that conclusion.
I believe what John has done is to uncover the legend created for Oswald when he "defected". Whether Oswald was a willing participant in a spy game or not, whether he was a dangle or a defector, there would damn fine reasons for altering his background to make Russian spies and/or counter-intelligence either more wary or less wary of him, and the disinformation in the alternate history would help Angleton and crew identify and catch Soviet moles.
The problem with John's conclusion is that it becomes a cul-de-sac for investigation, ultimately yielding no valuable conclusion as to who was impersonating Oswald, and why; and we know from time to time it did happen. The fact that the impostor knew a great deal about Oswald should help us identify them; the more the impostor knows, the smaller a circle of people it could be. If someone was impersonating Oswald in preparation for the assassination, that should lead us directly to the conspirators - but it won't, if we just conclude that there were two of them, and then construct an elaborate scenario around that conclusion.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."