Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 98

Thread: Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence

  1. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Josephs View Post
    Unless it was LEE...
    The image doesn't look at all like Lee to me, but it does look like Robert. Just my opinion....

    Jim

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Hargrove View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David Josephs View Post
    Unless it was LEE...
    The image doesn't look at all like Lee to me, but it does look like Robert. Just my opinion....

    Jim
    Fair enough Jim... yet what would be the point of pasting in Robert unless it was purely an exercise well after the fact as I do with my work... That we cannot find an original of Robert in that pose is more the concern... no?
    Once in a while you get shown the light
    in the strangest of places if you look at it right.....
    R. Hunter

  3. #83

    Default

    Sure, all valid questions. I searched and searched through Google images without success before posting the Harvey/Robert/Cathy composite. It isn't all that surprising that the Robert portion of the image, assuming it is Robert, can't be located. There aren't very many pictures of Robert prior to 1963 floating around the web, at least that I've been able to find.

    OTOH, the purpose of the composite might have been to link Harvey with his official "family," which immediately begs the question: Why is the composite so badly done? But then, so much of the so-called evidence is shoddy at best, and so it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to consider it part of the mountain of BS that goes along with the saga of LHO.

    It certainly could have been made by an amateur fooling around, but my guess is that John found it in some USG-based collection at the Archives or in his other travels. Maybe we'll yet be able to find it.

  4. Default

    First off the entire image is poor... given we have a quality version of the Oswald side of it I have to think the finished file of the composite is painfully small... when blown up we get those obvious squares... if those squares were only on the Robert side... you get my drift.

    My first inclination is that this was done purposefully... especially since the Oswald/Kathy image is easily found... It is obviously a composite and not even pretending not to be like the BYP.

    Until the source for the right side of the image is found we have little conclusion to make. There are those who believe that Robert impersonated Harvey/Lee. so maybe this was just to see them side by side.. IDK.

    DJ
    Once in a while you get shown the light
    in the strangest of places if you look at it right.....
    R. Hunter

  5. #85

    Default

    Yes, I agree. Please see private note (in a minute or two).

    Jim

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Hargrove View Post
    John Armstrong's analysis of the CIA's "Oswald Project," including sworn testimony by a CIA accountant that Oswald was paid by the CIA, is available online here:

    http://harveyandlee.net


    Bumping.. I had the name of the site incorrect.
    Dawn

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawn Meredith View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Hargrove View Post
    John Armstrong's analysis of the CIA's "Oswald Project," including sworn testimony by a CIA accountant that Oswald was paid by the CIA, is available online here:

    http://harveyandlee.net


    Bumping.. I had the name of the site incorrect.
    Dawn
    Also this update on Tippit appears to be shorter than the one I delivered. I remember the talk I had going into all the detail of Harvey moving from seat to seat in the theatre, clearly looking for his contact.

    Never mind. I was just looking at the end of the essay. I sent back and all the Harvey moves are further up in the body.

  8. #88

    Default

    If memory serves (and it may not) John was having trouble making the script for your talk fit into the allotted time. Over the phone, we timed the whole thing and it was fifteen to twenty minutes too long, and so we kept looking for things to cut. Didn't he get you the final copy just a few hours before your speech? That's the way I recall it. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the original was longer than the material you read.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Hargrove View Post
    If memory serves (and it may not) John was having trouble making the script for your talk fit into the allotted time. Over the phone, we timed the whole thing and it was fifteen to twenty minutes too long, and so we kept looking for things to cut. Didn't he get you the final copy just a few hours before your speech? That's the way I recall it. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the original was longer than the material you read.
    Ya John and I talked several times on that Sat as well and some of the paper was deleted. But it was actually only more like 5 minutes over. JJ had said to just leave off the end but the end was far too important, so together we made some deletions. I was able to get it all in in time. And had about 5 min for q and a. Oswald's phony "friend" tried to take over the q and a and show that JA was wrong but I was ready for him.

  10. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawn Meredith View Post
    Oswald's phony "friend" tried to take over the q and a and show that JA was wrong but I was ready for him.
    Comrade "Ernst Titovets," no?

    Will you consider going on the record here about that encounter, or post a url about it? Any additional info would be much appreciated!!! J Armstrong--quite unfairly--has left me--one of his most sincere fans--completely in the dark about this entire situation!

    Please... give us the story of this "Titovets" encounter.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •