Drew Phipps Wrote:By "gem" do you mean the Stringfellow letter? I have no explanation for the balcony/orchestra dichotomy. I have read hundreds of police reports in the last 20 years. Many of them contain factual errors; some serious, some not.
Haire, at least, is credible enough witness that a second detention occurred at the theatre. However, I can't quite wrap my mind around why an imposter who was cooperating with the police, to frame someone for murder, would put up a struggle with the police, after his mission was successfully completed.
By voice of reason, I mean to say that I am seemingly the only regular poster here that doesn't take the "Harvey and Lee" research, namely, a lifelong pattern of impersonation by a specific individual, as established fact. I am aware that there are specific acts of impersonation. It appears from the photographs, at least, that there are several individuals involved.
I am unwilling to abandon the search for an individual impersonator at or near the time of the assassination. I believe that the H&L elaborate scenario required for Oswald to obtain the Tippet murder weapon and ammunition from his "double" is unrealistic. I believe that Oswald was smart enough not to willingly do something so stupid to incriminate himself, and yet then be unwilling to take credit for the act later.
Dawn: I've read Harvey and Lee. I have the highest respect for John Armstrong. I just don't agree with his conclusions.
Well put Drew... thanks.
Until I did that 2 years of work with John, I too could not see the forest for the leaves... there were just too many of them.
There are hundreds of smoking guns in the H&L text... right down to El Toro and Santa Ana being expressed in the evidence as the same place, when they were most obviously not.
That people knew Oswald as he lived across from Stripling at 2220 Thomas is downright eerie... and that Marg was at 2220 Thomas on 11/22 even moreso.
Add the info from Kudlaty and that there were RECORDS of two Oswalds does not of course mean there were two... yet the drastic difference in the description of these boys in NYC between Summer 52 and Summer 54, the Youth House experinece not reflected on the permenant records, the wrong number of days, the smae perm form recopied at least 3 times... North Dakota, Myra Rouse and Palmer McBride....
As you know from the book, it goes on and on. The day of the assassination speculation is interested and supported by corroborating witnesses and reports... Kitrell, Allen Felde, Gorsky, these are all independent recollections of involvement with Oswald that directly conflict with the established and offered military records...
A serious issue John, Jim and I have discussed is How do we break thru to a wider audience if we can't convince you?
How many conflicts do there need to be before H&L is seriously considered along with body & film alteration which we know occurred?
I have everything of John's at my fingertips... what can I do to illustrate the existence of these two men simultaneously that would convince?
Look at the hair in the CAP photo and the one in Minsk with Marina.
I don't see how a man's shoulders and frame can be so different - while consistent with each different man as he ages - yet be the same man... do you?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Drew Phipps Wrote:I believe that the H&L elaborate scenario required for Oswald to obtain the Tippet murder weapon and ammunition from his "double" is unrealistic. I believe that Oswald was smart enough not to willingly do something so stupid to incriminate himself, and yet then be unwilling to take credit for the act later.
We don't believe Harvey got the Tippit murder weapon and extra bullets from Lee. He probably got them from a contact both Oswalds met, most likely the pregnant lady Harvey was seen sitting next to briefly as he wandered about the theater sitting next to various patrons, surely looking for a contact. (Can you think of a more logical explanation for why he would behave that way?) The pregnant lady, an unlikely candidate to watch a war movie alone, left the Texas Theater soon after Harvey sat next to her. This is clearly speculation, but she could easily have walked past that shoe store and given the signal that the patsy was ready to arrest.
The question of why Harvey would accept a gun and bullets under the circumstances is a good one, and I started asking John A. about it immediately after he changed his theory that Lee's job was not to lure police to the theater, but to get the Tippit murder weapon into the patsy's hands. Why would Harvey accept it?
Orders is an easy answer. Both these guys did what they were told, on assassination day and earlier. I have no idea what story Harvey would be told, but it was no doubt a well though out one, to give the gun to someone else, to get rid of it; who knows.
But if you don't like those possibilities, then please explain why the WC's Seaport Traders "evidence" that Harvey bought the pistol in the first place is so god-awful. It's every bit as bad as the rifle "evidence." It's clear the WC attorneys who worked on the pistol didn't have the slightest idea how it got into Harvey's possession.
Harvey and Lee was published in 2003, not 1999. In any case, I don't agree with every single detail of Armstrong's theory (the Tippit murder scenario in particular, I think is pretty weak), but there is a lot of good material in it. Especially the discussion of the mail order rifle.
02-05-2015, 03:58 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2015, 04:26 AM by Albert Doyle.)
Drew Phipps Wrote:I'd merely like to point out that Burroughs apparently (since it seems many "corrections" were made to the WC transcript) described his whereabouts in a very different way to the Warren Commission. He did not testify at the HSCA. In addition, he waited until 2007 (45 years?), when Douglass interviewed him, to tell this version of events to anyone.
I wouldn't doubt he was either discouraged from telling this story, convinced it was a mistake, or simply had his testimony altered by the Commission. It's not like it didn't happen to many other witnesses and Burroughs' story was something they would definitely not want known. If you read Douglass' description of Burroughs he was not a man who volunteered anything. His not testifying at HSCA is similar to other things HSCA ignored. Waiting 45 years is sometimes an indication of dangerous information rather than untruth.
As Douglass points out, I doubt the Dallas police had trouble distinguishing between the balcony and ground floor seats in the Texas Theater. Plus you have the arrest record and Haire.
Another thing Douglass mentioned was that Julia Postal kept breaking down and running away when she was asked if she sold a ticket to Oswald. She had obviously been coerced into not answering this but couldn't tell a lie so she started crying and ran away each time she was asked. The suggestion is that, yes, she had sold the 1 o'clock Oswald a ticket but couldn't answer it and didn't want to lie.
Tippit might have to die if he tried to arrest the wrong Oswald.
Tippit had to die because he knew both Oswalds. He was waiting at the Gloco station to meet Harvey when Harvey got off McWatter's bus, and when it was clear Harvey wasn't on board, Tippit began improvising (and made that phone call) before he met Lee near 10th & Patton and died. Stuart Reed was clearly documenting the planned movements of Harvey when he photographed Tippit's bus, the TSBD, and finally Harvey's arrest at the Texas Theater. Prior to boarding a boat for his assignment in the Canal Zone, Reed signed an authorization that allowed the FBI to pick up his developed photo slides in Dallas.
In Crossfire, Jim Marrs said that Burroughs was one of a number of witnesses who publicly complained that his Warren Commission testimony was altered. That certainly doesn't mean that Burroughs necessarily talked to the WC about two Oswalds in the theater, but before declaring him to be yet another lying witness, it would be good to keep in mind how well his statement fits into Bernard Haire's recollection, police reports of the balcony arrest, conflicting reports of Oswald's arrival time at the theater, and the whole, enormously detailed body of evidence indicating that two young men where sharing the identity of "Lee Harvey Oswald."
The story of two Oswalds in the Texas Theater was not well known in 2007, when Douglass interviewed Burroughs. Armstrong's book was out, but it was buried in oblivion at the Last Hurrah bookshop. My website had been down for several years, thanks to Time-Warner.
Drew Phipps Wrote:By "gem" do you mean the Stringfellow letter? I have no explanation for the balcony/orchestra dichotomy. I have read hundreds of police reports in the last 20 years. Many of them contain factual errors; some serious, some not.
Haire, at least, is credible enough witness that a second detention occurred at the theatre. However, I can't quite wrap my mind around why an imposter who was cooperating with the police, to frame someone for murder, would put up a struggle with the police, after his mission was successfully completed.
By voice of reason, I mean to say that I am seemingly the only regular poster here that doesn't take the "Harvey and Lee" research, namely, a lifelong pattern of impersonation by a specific individual, as established fact. I am aware that there are specific acts of impersonation. It appears from the photographs, at least, that there are several individuals involved.
I am unwilling to abandon the search for an individual impersonator at or near the time of the assassination. I believe that the H&L elaborate scenario required for Oswald to obtain the Tippet murder weapon and ammunition from his "double" is unrealistic. I believe that Oswald was smart enough not to willingly do something so stupid to incriminate himself, and yet then be unwilling to take credit for the act later.
Dawn: I've read Harvey and Lee. I have the highest respect for John Armstrong. I just don't agree with his conclusions.
Wow Drew that is surprising. I don't see how anyone can read this book and come away with a different conclusion. Sounds like you have read a LOT on JFK case. I remember back when I still practiced in Travis county- now 20 years ago!!- we talked about this a bit but I had no clue you were such a avid researcher/reader of the assassination. Few lawyers are.
If you are looking for a wider audience I suggest a web documentary like "In Plane Sight" or "Loose Change." Much of John's material is visual, so that should lend itself to that format. I suspect that you could find plenty of contributors from the folks around here.
Dawn: I've read everything I could get my hands on, and kept many of the books as reference material. I either lent (or sold) "Harvey and Lee" to someone at the courthouse who saw me carrying it about.
"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."
If the Oswald project was created through sperm experiments designed to produce doubles it is possible Oswald's father was given a heart attack in order to remove a potential threat to the program.
I worked with the Committee to restore the Texas Theater in 1993. In fact, I lived in the Texas Theater for six months. During that time I was in daily contact with Butch and his wife as they were part of the restoration effort. In all of our conversations, Butch never mentioned the second arrest. I would also comment that I knew James Douglas, while at the museum and we sold his pamphlet on prisons. He is the most thorough researcher I have known. We discussed Ruth Paine extensively since she and James' wife (I recall it as his wife) worked together in Central America. Therefore, I believe James was quoting Butch accurately. Butch had talked to so many researchers over years and probably recalled the incident based on conversations not on his memory.
Ahimsa….may you live in a world of non-forcefulness.
