Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Although I've been interested in JFK research for decades, I only discovered John Armstrong's research into "Harvey and Lee" just a few days ago.  After spending hours at HarveyAndLee.net, I find Armstrong's conclusion that there were two LHO's from an early age to be quite plausible.

However, I don't know which is more insane, that the CIA actually conceived and executed such a bizarre scheme, or that two separate LHO families actually went along with it.

To execute the plan where the life histories of two boys were deliberately confused meant two families moving MANY times across different states, and both Margueite Oswald's almost constantly changing jobs.  In short, both LHO families dedicated their whole lives to make this "Oswald Project" a success.

But why ??

What was the motive of either LHO family to cooperate in a bizarre scheme that took over their whole lives for years ?  Getting paid a lot of money seems like an obvious answer, but neither LHO family seemed very afffluent.  Furthermore, is all the money in the world worth turning your entire life over to a long term CIA scheme ?  Also, even before the assassination, Project Oswald meant two mothers sacrificing their sons' lives to the government.  What mother (even a stepmother) would do that ?

Although Armstrong's research is impeccable, there is much more to Project Oswald than even Armstrong knows.  Around the same time that both LHO's were growing up, the CIA was also conducting the MKULTRA experiments.  Is it possible that both LHO families were coerced to cooperate with the CIA because they were also subject to some kind of mind control techniques ?

Although you find the H&L theory "plausible" you seem to have a good degree of skepticism which is good. You ask a few questions for which there are no common sense answers and that, of course, is because the theory is total nonsense. A couple points.

One, Armstrong's research is not impeccable" far from it. It was voluminous, but there are innumerable typos, incorrect or non-existent citations and simple mistatements of fact. A quick example that I uncovered during my extensive research of Armstrong's claim that the student Stephen Harris Landesberg and the actor Steve Landesberg were the same person. On page 380 of Harvey and Lee, Armstrong states:

[quote on] Stephen Yves L'Eandes (aka Steve Landesberg), who had recently appeared on New York radio programs to uphold the concept of segregation, was in the audience along with Earl Perry and Lee Oswald, who had a camera.[quote off]

Armstrong's source for the allegation that Oswald was present and taking pictures is a January 18, 1962 article from The Village Voice. Such an early report of Oswald in New York with or without a camera would be powerful confirmation of Armstrong's theories. It is not too surprising therefore, that the article contains no mention of Oswald, Earl Perry or a camera. Now perhaps Armstrong never learned what the purpose and meaning of citations are, but they are susposed to support the statement you are making. If you read the two articles I did on Landesberg, you will see numerous other examples of Armstrong taking liberties with the facts. So, the idea that Armstrong is this amazing researcher who uncovered all of these amazing facts is not true.

The other thing is, you seem to want to add your own ideas to the Armstrong theory. Just don't present these to Hargrove or anyone in the Armstrong camp because you will be quickly expelled from the group as Armstrong does not permit any changes to his doctrine.

You say you have spent hours at the Hargrove site, why not do the same at the following sites:

My own (scroll down to Harvey and Lee):

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Greg Parker:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Jeremy Bojczuk:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



22
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Prayer Woman
« Last post by Larry Trotter on Today at 03:09:42 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Brian, Repeat Request -  3rd Time Of Asking

Could you please ask contact Sarah's family again and record via Audio the question and answer to a simple question, ie, "Is the lady with the scarf Sarah Stanton?"

Do not ask any leading questions which might influence their conclusion, and include any pre and post question and answer conversations.

They know what she really looked like.

We, the members of this Forum, including yourself, don't know what she really looked like at various stages of her life from viewing just one photograph.

It's a simple request I am asking of you.

It is important to question everything.

There is no room for arrogance or personal ego to dictate what is investigated and what is not.

This is a viable question that requires a simple yes, no, or could be answer, irrespective of how good You, Me, Kamp, Stancac, the man on the Moon, or anyone else thinks they are at photo analysis.

If you refuse to do it, and it's your choice,  please let me know and send me via PM the contact details and I'll ask them the question myself.



If in fact the PrayerPersonImage and the ScarfLadyImage do represent different individuals, so be it. But, either way, it needs to be reviewed for conclusion.
23
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Prayer Woman
« Last post by Larry Trotter on Today at 02:50:18 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sarah Stanton's sighting of LHO with a coke before the assassination blows a gaping wide hole in the story told to the Warren Commission by Baker & Truly.

Before you make "further contributions" to this thread you might review your inability to offer anything beyond banal restatements of your LNerish sentiment 'I trust witness statements and testimony and deplore any attempt to examine them critically'!

In another AlanFord Edsel Effort, he has produced a post indicating a quote of something I supposedly said. I challenge him to produce a provable quote of me posting and/or making said statement.

As is a common practice, although I try very hard to discuss evidence, the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayermanTheory promoters have to resort to false claims, insults, and character assassination. Where is the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory reliable provable positive evidence?
24
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Although I've been interested in JFK research for decades, I only discovered John Armstrong's research into "Harvey and Lee" just a few days ago.  After spending hours at HarveyAndLee.net, I find Armstrong's conclusion that there were two LHO's from an early age to be quite plausible.

However, I don't know which is more insane, that the CIA actually conceived and executed such a bizarre scheme, or that two separate LHO families actually went along with it.

To execute the plan where the life histories of two boys were deliberately confused meant two families moving MANY times across different states, and both Margueite Oswald's almost constantly changing jobs.  In short, both LHO families dedicated their whole lives to make this "Oswald Project" a success.

But why ??

What was the motive of either LHO family to cooperate in a bizarre scheme that took over their whole lives for years ?  Getting paid a lot of money seems like an obvious answer, but neither LHO family seemed very afffluent.  Furthermore, is all the money in the world worth turning your entire life over to a long term CIA scheme ?  Also, even before the assassination, Project Oswald meant two mothers sacrificing their sons' lives to the government.  What mother (even a stepmother) would do that ?

Although Armstrong's research is impeccable, there is much more to Project Oswald than even Armstrong knows.  Around the same time that both LHO's were growing up, the CIA was also conducting the MKULTRA experiments.  Is it possible that both LHO families were coerced to cooperate with the CIA because they were also subject to some kind of mind control techniques ?

You've just entered ....   The Twilight Zone......
25
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's got helium balloons in it lifting him to an upright position.

Ahhhh...at last....  A glimmer of intelligence from Mr Howsley.....
26
If everyone could just look CLOSELY at where President Kennedy's hands go to...

 The hands are never at "neck level", they never go near the throat, and he never "clutched his throat".  Sadly, this entire idea seems to stem from no one having made blow ups of the Z frames for a cursory examination of the film to examine exactly what happened, before 1966 when John Connally examined blown up frames trying to determine when he was shot.  Life Magazine is responsible for claiming that the President "clutched his throat" in its October 1964 edition, in one of the captions for the Zapruder frames they published in that issue.

 The right hand is the first to go into position in a cupped fashion, over the mouth.  The left hand comes up, every finger except for the index finger are curled. The index finger is slightly curled but in a near straight position as the hand forms into a semi-fist and comes up against the bottom the right hand.  It looks like he could very well be dry heaving after the bullet that ripped through his back exited the throat.   As he starts to turn his head to his left, his right hand--now in a semi-cupped position-is now at cheek level as his head turns and the hand remains in the upward position.  He doesn't start to bring the left hand/arm down until after Mrs. Kennedy grasps his left arm and pulls him slightly downward and toward her.  His right hand then moves from cheek level down to chest level where it remains until the fatal shot is fired. 
27
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 Thumb1:

Thanks for reinforcing the back shot as Kennedy emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign!



JohnM

  Thumb1:

 
28
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Prayer Woman
« Last post by Duncan MacRae on Today at 10:27:09 AM »
Brian, Repeat Request -  3rd Time Of Asking

Could you please ask contact Sarah's family again and record via Audio the question and answer to a simple question, ie, "Is the lady with the scarf Sarah Stanton?"

Do not ask any leading questions which might influence their conclusion, and include any pre and post question and answer conversations.

They know what she really looked like.

We, the members of this Forum, including yourself, don't know what she really looked like at various stages of her life from viewing just one photograph.

It's a simple request I am asking of you.

It is important to question everything.

There is no room for arrogance or personal ego to dictate what is investigated and what is not.

This is a viable question that requires a simple yes, no, or could be answer, irrespective of how good You, Me, Kamp, Stancac, the man on the Moon, or anyone else thinks they are at photo analysis.

If you refuse to do it, and it's your choice,  please let me know and send me via PM the contact details and I'll ask them the question myself.

29
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'd love you to explain how the bag the guy in the photo is carrying is acting as a counterweight.

It's got helium balloons in it lifting him to an upright position.
30
General Discussion & Debate / Re: The Backyard Photos Have Insomnia
« Last post by Ray Mitcham on Today at 10:05:07 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL. I've experienced that position more than once, as I've slipped in winter while carrying heavy bags of groceries a few times. The groceries acted as a counterweight and kept me from falling down.

I'd love you to explain how the bag the guy in the photo is carrying is acting as a counterweight.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10