Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Did Dillard film American-born LEE Oswald on sixth floor?
#1
[FONT=&amp]A brand new on the Harvey and Lee website....

[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]John Armstrong believes American-born LEE Oswald framed Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald for the assassination of JFK. Was LEE Oswald filmed on the sixth floor west end window by Tom Dillard seconds after the shooting?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]
[Image: Lee_on_6th.jpg?dl=0]

Read John's new write-up:


MEN ON THE SIXTH FLOOR

Enjoy!
[/FONT]


Attached Files
.jpg   Lee_on_6th.jpg (Size: 86.44 KB / Downloads: 2)
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
Reply
#2
I've asked myself the same thing before. If it was the second Oswald it would explain Intel's orders to Harvey to be in the lunchroom. But even if this wasn't the American Lee Oswald, Harvey was still ordered to be out of the way just to keep him out of the way of the frame job on the 6th Floor. He was probably told to stay out of the way in the Lunchroom to avoid identification by the Secret Service. Parker offers imbecilic reasoning on why his single Asperger's Oswald was out on the landing, but avoids the common sense explanation that Intel kept the patsy Harvey buried and out of the way in the lunchroom or Domino Room.


If the Dillard T-Shirt Man is Lee then that might explain why Baker was so vague in his 1st day affidavit because he and Truly saw both Oswald's and combined them into one witnessing, avoiding specifying the lunchroom.


Anyhow, there's a photo of a white T-shirt-wearing man on the 6th Floor some think may have been Dougherty. I'll post it in a separate post because the site froze when I last tried to post it. Of course there is Mrs Reid's white T-shirted Oswald with a Coke as well...I'm not sure how the timing works between Mrs Reid's Oswald and Dillard's shot. I think it would favor the man in the photo with the cops being Dougherty.


Michael Walton is mocking the idea of there being two Oswalds in the Depository, however he is ignoring the clear witnessing of two Oswalds as seen by Frazier walking up Houston from the back of the Depository and by Roger Craig seen walking down the grass and getting into the station wagon.



.
Reply
#3
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=9098&stc=1]


Attached Files
.gif   Dougherty.gif (Size: 10.37 MB / Downloads: 56)
Reply
#4
Thanks, Albert, for the tip. It's already up!
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
Reply
#5
Somehow I haven't passed muster with Gordon even though Miller has now stolen my height argument without attribution and has pretty much won the Prayer Man debate over on the Education Forum with it. That's pretty dirty and dishonest.
Reply
#6
That thread has been closed since, as I noted months ago, the arguments have become too polarizing. I am surprised Gordon let it run as long as he did.

Miller was not arguing height at the end, he was arguing the width of the figure. That issue has been around since the start.

Miller buys the second floor lunch encounter en toto, and he does not think there is any problem with Baker's first day affidavit. Which is a bit shocking.

One good thing about the last few pages is that some people are finally beginning to see that there is problem with Wesley Frazier's credibility.
Reply
#7
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:...some people are finally beginning to see that there is problem with Wesley Frazier's credibility.
For many years I've believed that Frazier has been keeping an important secret. He appears to be ridden with guilt. It could be because he doesn't believe Lee did it, yet he had to tell the truth that he did bring a package to work that day. However, I'm hoping that upon his death his family will produce a signed statement from him that Lee did NOT take ANY "package" to work that day, and he was given the choice of making a false statement or being charged as a willing accomplice. Fearing for his life he did the best he could with the contention that the package was too short to have been the Carcano. Tom
Reply
#8
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:That thread has been closed since, as I noted months ago, the argument shave become too polarizing. I am surprised Gordon let it run as long as he did.

Miller was not arguing height at the end, he was arguing the width of the figure. That issue has been around since the start.

Miller buys the second floor lunch encounter en toto, and he does not think there dis any problem with Baker's first day affidavit. Which is a bit shocking.

One good thing about the last few pages is that some people are finally beginning to see that there is problem with Wesley Frazier's credibility.




Wrong Jim. You once again show you have no operating knowledge of the subject and are way behind on where it is due to your ROKC patronage. The polarizing is what you're doing here. You are ignoring evidence that precludes your ROKC-mirroring call for a better scan. We don't need that better scan. Davidson has already provided its equivalent in his Wiegman enhancement and proven it with his metadata. Jim - you are helping ROKC ignore good evidence by ignoring Davidson's metadata. That metadata proves that the woman's face brought out by Davidson in Wiegman was part of the original film. You avoided answering this by accusing this evidence of coming from MacRae (whom I agree is a nut) and saying it was too polarizing. "Too polarizing" is just a subjective opinion. Metadata is firm science. You are violating your research ethics by putting opinion (on an issue that you took the faulty side on yourself and presented a favorable article on your CTKA website about it, as well as speaking at an ROKC conference) before science. When we get to this impasse my posts end up being deleted and the science is once again avoided by persons who happened to back Murphy previously in public.


Jim, you're way behind on this. After I was banned without explanation for making it back in December, Miller has now presented my height analysis without attributing it to me. I have been backed up on this claim by Phipps, Gilbride, Trotter, and others but those who see the validity in my arguments are not regular posting persons. You're doing it again. You're going after Miller instead of answering his credible argument. That argument shows that Miller has proved Lovelady can never be taller than Prayer Man like he clearly is in Wiegman and still be Oswald. Miller stole that from me, by the way, and it took him 4 months of endless bullshit on the Education Forum thread to finally catch on to my height analysis. You're wrong Jim. Miller IS making my height analysis. It is legitimate, and any researcher who honestly practices objective research ethics would not ignore it and its obvious significance towards the Prayer Man issue.


What's really pathetic here is if we could find a surviving relative of Sarah Stanton and show them the clearly visible female face in Davidson they would probably recognize her and finally end years of rotten ROKC corruption of the JFK research community. I'm honestly surprised that I would have to argue such obvious evidence this hard amongst people who refer to themselves as the best of the critical community...


I also buy the 2nd floor encounter because the real evidence is backing it and the claim it didn't happen is based on more ROKC-type attacking of the evidence in order to produce a favorable spin...ALL of the weak contrived speculation the anti-2nd floor encounter propaganda is based on has been overturned lately and persons like Prudhomme have not honestly answered for it.


Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton, which means that Oswald is in the lunchroom where Carolyn Arnold saw him at 12:24 - 12:25... "Polarization" does not answer for the metadata, height, and Sarah's face Jim...


ROKC is ignoring that Frazier said he was talking to "Sarah" in the infamous Darnell frame. And now you are helping ROKC with the dishonest tactic of going after Frazier. Jim, ROKC is exploiting Frazier's being compromised by the murderous Dallas Police in order to insert their Prayer Man claim into the void created by Frazier's capitulation. ROKC needs Frazier to be lying about Stanton because otherwise they know their Prayer Man claim doesn't work...


There you have Jim D backing Gordon's incompetent, tyrannical moderation on Deep Politics. It is part of the reason Gordon felt safe banning me instead of making Stancak answer my facts. There's a huge double standard here...Jim, you're constantly complaining that the Education Forum moderation has driven off good posters but then turn around and back one of the worst examples of that, and do so by technicality instead of addressing the direct evidence...



.
Reply
#9
Thomas Neal Wrote:
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:...some people are finally beginning to see that there is problem with Wesley Frazier's credibility.
For many years I've believed that Frazier has been keeping an important secret. He appears to be ridden with guilt. It could be because he doesn't believe Lee did it, yet he had to tell the truth that he did bring a package to work that day. However, I'm hoping that upon his death his family will produce a signed statement from him that Lee did NOT take ANY "package" to work that day, and he was given the choice of making a false statement or being charged as a willing accomplice. Fearing for his life he did the best he could with the contention that the package was too short to have been the Carcano. Tom




Thank you. ROKC knows this is the source of Frazier's dubiousness. Typical of them they are exploiting the need of researchers who fell for Murphy to have an out and therefore conflate Frazier lying about seeing Oswald right in front of him with his other witnessings.. I also totally agree that Frazier is not telling the full truth, but I am not using it dishonestly to try to suggest an already-disproven bogus theory that people are brazenly ignoring the evidence for and punishing those who stood behind the valid evidence. Reliability is a double-edged sword...
Reply
#10
Doesn't take much to set him off on this does it?

Anyone can check the last few pages of the thread. Miller was presenting arguments about the width of the figure not the height. Which I think has been around since the start. I know because I made that criticism at the start, PM was too husky.

Miller does buy the second floor lunch encounter en toto. I do not see that relating to the PM issue. To me its separate and distinct. And I think Bart's work on that is good. Lancer gave him an award for that. And we will be excerpting some of his latest essay on that issue.

Miller sees no problem with the first day Baker affidavit. Repeat: that is shocking to me. I don't see how anyone can reconcile that evidence with what the WC came up with. In fact, in Reclaiming Parkland, the original edition, I made my arguments against the encounter largely based on that affidavit. To me, it simply makes no sense for anyone to try and compare that affidavit with the WC lunchroom encounter and say there are no problems with it. But the clincher is the later witness room meeting with Oswald sitting across from Baker. Baker is writing his affidavit right opposite Oswald. And he doesn't recognize him.

What makes that even better is this: Dulles knew about it. And he tried to give Baker an out by saying that Baker was only there a few seconds.

LOL. :Tongue:

As per me and the ROKC, I have no idea what in tarnation Doyle is talking about. I don't go there. I have been there maybe once or twice in the last six months. And the reason for that is I was looking for a dialogue between Reitzes and a doctor that was housed at their old site. I do not plan on doing anything on PM until the first generation or original is recovered. And if that evidence says its not Oswald, fine, we will print it. If it says it is Oswald, we will print that also. I don' t have a dog in this fight. I mean what is this? Guilt by (non) association.

The one good thing about it, as I said, is that Frazier's credibility has come into question a bit. Which I consider a good development, since I have some problems with his story. And anyone who reads RP can see that.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Creating the Oswald Legend Pt 3 Jim DiEugenio 0 753 26-05-2020, 09:34 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  The Carbine on the Sixth Floor Jim DiEugenio 0 1,042 09-03-2020, 09:13 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Creating the Oswald Legend --part 2 Jim DiEugenio 1 4,940 16-10-2018, 08:12 PM
Last Post: Alan Ford
  Jim DiEugenio Critiques CNN's American Dynasties Jim DiEugenio 0 12,863 20-07-2018, 09:40 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Jack Ruby - What the FBI knew after he shot Oswald James Lewis 4 11,970 15-06-2018, 01:40 PM
Last Post: James Lewis
  Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter Jim DiEugenio 255 145,193 29-05-2018, 04:45 PM
Last Post: David Josephs
  AMMUG-1: Azcue says Consulate closes at 2 - so how do DURAN/OSWALD call after 4pm? David Josephs 0 1,502 06-04-2018, 09:03 PM
Last Post: David Josephs
  "Oswald" Was a CIA Agent Jim Hargrove 15 10,361 17-03-2018, 06:12 PM
Last Post: Jim Hargrove
  OSWALD never did speak extensively with KOSTIKOV - but Yatskov his superior David Josephs 3 2,364 15-03-2018, 01:42 PM
Last Post: David Josephs
  Oswald and the mysterious Albert Schweitzer University James Lewis 9 5,402 14-03-2018, 08:23 PM
Last Post: David Josephs

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)