A couple of questions re Harvey and Lee
Richard Coleman
been going back and rereading parts, skipping around. I have a couple of
questions.
Author John Armstrong refers to the short dumpy Marguerite as an imposter.
When did she begin her impersonation? Was she working for someone? Who? Was
she being paid? (It doesn't appear so) If not, why was she doing it? Was
she aware of the other tall good-looking Marguerite and the other LEE
Oswald?
Also: What ever happened to the tall, good looking Marguerite? What did she
do when the assassination happened and lo and behold here was Lee HARVEY
Oswald, NOT HER SON, accused of shooting the president, who had a mother
named Marguerite, had lived in NO, etc......?
Also: It's hard for me to believe that LEE became a willing conspirator to
frame someone WITH HIS NAME, who had lived where he had lived, and had been
a marine as he had, as a fall guy for KILLING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES. How could he possibly be so stupid as to think he would be allowed
to live after that?
Am I missing something?
Rich DellaRosa
Richard Coleman <richc...@sysmatrix.net> wrote:
> I've read Harvey & Lee pretty much straight through, more or less, and have
> been going back and rereading parts, skipping around. I have a couple of
> questions.
>
> Author John Armstrong refers to the short dumpy Marguerite as an imposter.
> When did she begin her impersonation?
She began when LHO was 15 and living briefly in NYC.
>Was she working for someone?
Yes, she assumed that role at the behest of CIA.
>Who? Was
> she being paid? (It doesn't appear so) If not, why was she doing it?
She was being paid.
> Was she aware of the other tall good-looking Marguerite and the other LEE
> Oswald?
Yes on both questions.
>
> Also: What ever happened to the tall, good looking Marguerite?
Armstrong never found out what happened to her.
>What did she
> do when the assassination happened and lo and behold here was Lee HARVEY
> Oswald, NOT HER SON, accused of shooting the president, who had a mother
> named Marguerite, had lived in NO, etc......?
We don't know specifically since she faded into history before that
incident.
>
> Also: It's hard for me to believe that LEE became a willing conspirator to
> frame someone WITH HIS NAME, who had lived where he had lived, and had been
> a marine as he had, as a fall guy for KILLING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
> STATES. How could he possibly be so stupid as to think he would be allowed
> to live after that?
When Harvey and Lee were recruited as teenagers, they were to
participate in the false defector program of CIA. Nothing to do with
any future assassination.
The 2 Oswalds lived in separate towns, in separate states, and went to
different schools.
The weekend of the assassination, FBI agents turned up at both schools
and seized their records. This is well documented in the CD which
accompanies the book and which I authored (the CD).
Harvey believed he was protected. He was working as a low level FBI
informant. Once in custody, he then realized he was set up as a patsy.
>
> Am I missing something?
Perhaps. But it is a tough read for everyone. The ~1,000 pages were
pared down from ~3,000 pages prior to publication. In doing so some
amount of detail must have omitted.
Rich DellaRosa
http://www.jfkresearch.com
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
David Von Pein
What a load of crap from Rich DellaRosa. Not a single thing he asserts
is even close to being true (or provable). Rich and Armstrong are
living in a fantasy world.
There was one Marguerite Oswald. And there was one Lee H. Oswald.
Period. Anyone believing in sinister "doubles" for each person should
have their head examined.
=========================================
ADDENDUM:
"John Armstrong actually went on to publish a 983-page book in
2003 called "Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald", in which he
carries his fantasy about a double Oswald to such absurd lengths that
not only doesn't it deserve to be dignified in the main text of my
book, but I resent even having to waste a word on it in this
endnote. ....
"Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the things he
charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only
source is his exceptionally fertile imagination. ....
"On the day of the assassination, Armstrong has both Lee Harvey
Oswald and Harvey Oswald, two people [per kook Armstrong] who are
spitting images of each other, in the Depository. .... At the moment
of the assassination, HARVEY Oswald was in the second-floor lunchroom
having lunch and LEE Harvey Oswald was on the sixth floor firing at
Kennedy. ....
"Lee Harvey Oswald escaped arrest, but Armstrong doesn't tell
his readers what happened to him thereafter, though...he tells them
near the beginning of the book that he may be "very much alive"." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 565-567 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)
============================================
Rudy Lasparri
<08a02058-8e40-4aa8...@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> What a load of crap from Rich DellaRosa. Not a single thing he asserts
> is even close to being true (or provable). Rich and Armstrong are
> living in a fantasy world.
>
> There was one Marguerite Oswald. And there was one Lee H. Oswald.
> Period. Anyone believing in sinister "doubles" for each person should
> have their head examined.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. There exists. and
presented, work records for both women. "Harvey and Lee" for better or
worse, is the best documented book in the JFK case. The only
vulnerability is that documents can be falsified. But that is an issue
you can take up with the government since they would have been
responsible for their falsification. I bet you are one of those gifted
researchers who can pass judgement on a book without ever reading it. I
could be wrong but I can check the sales records since my wife was the
sole distributor of the book from 2003 to 2007.
Bugliosi actually bought the book -- I personally shipped it to him.
But he is quite incorrect regarding Armstrong not presenting the
evidence he accumulated. See, Armstrong made no claims in his book for
which he did not have documented evidence.
If it's crap you're interested in, read the WCR.
Stick with Judyth Dave -- so I can agree with you on something.
David Von Pein
>>> "There exists, and presented, work records for both women [named Marguerite Oswald]." <<<
Yeah, right. And one was pudgy and homely; while the other one was
slender and a fox. (Gee, who WOULDN'T think they could be the very
same person, huh?)
>>> ""Harvey and Lee"[,] for better or worse, is the best documented book in [sic] the JFK case." <<<
LOL.
Remember my bladder! It's still tiny!
>>> "I bet you are one of those gifted researchers who can pass judgement on a book without ever reading it." <<<
In the case of "Harvey And Lee" -- yes. That's correct. I am gifted
enough to know that that book is 100% bullshit, without ever turning
even one of its 983 pages. The same goes for Lifton's "Best Evidence".
(But I actually did read Lifton's trash--in 1981.)
>>> "I could be wrong[,] but I can check the sales records[,] since my wife was the sole distributor of the book from 2003 to 2007." <<<
Who cares?
But, yes, some trash will always sell well. Lifton's proof of that
too. (As well as Fetzer.)
>>> "Bugliosi actually bought the book -- I personally shipped it to him." <<<
Poor Vince. He had to wade through dozens of fantasy books like
Armstrong's. I feel sorry for him (a lot).
>>> "But he [VB] is quite incorrect regarding Armstrong not presenting the evidence he accumulated." <<<
Vince isn't wrong when he said:
"If Armstrong had a source for any of the things he charges, he
would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only source is his
exceptionally fertile imagination." -- VB
Common sense alone debunks everything Armstrong writes in his book
about two sets of "Doubles". Only a top-notch idiot could possibly
believe that any of it is the truth.
>>> "Armstrong made no claims in his book for which he did not have documented evidence." <<<
LOL. Please stop! Have SOME pity on a weak bladder, for God's sake!
So, there's "documented evidence" of a (nearly)-identical twin for
LHO, eh? And they BOTH went to work at the Book Depository on November
22nd? Great plan there.
Nobody would ever notice two men who look exactly alike wandering
around in the same building on the same day, right? And there were
EXTRA workers in the TSBD on 11/22, too (the floor-layers on the 6th
Floor).
I wonder if Jarman or Williams or Lovelady or Norman or Dougherty (et
al) thought they were working in The Twilight Zone that day--what with
TWO identical "Oswalds" in the building at the same time to be
potentially seen by all these workers who knew LHO on sight?
And just think -- some kooks actually BELIEVE this retardedness!
That's the biggest hoot of all!
>>> "If it's crap you're interested in, read the WCR." <<<
Naturally, being the obviously retarded conspiracy-happy kook you must
be (in order to buy into Armstrong's absurdity for even two seconds),
you have no choice but to consider the WR as "crap".
But in actuality, the WR is the most factual book ever written on the
JFK case (of course). With "Reclaiming History" right up there with
it.
Can you just see the 7 Warren Commissioners coming to the conclusion
that John Armstrong came to regarding the TWO Oswalds and the TWO
Marguerites (or were there three Marguerites?)? Warren and his team
would have been laughed out of the country by September 28, 1964
(after one day of having such a theory in circulation amongst the
American public).
But thank heavens for the conspiracy-loving clowns of Planet Earth
that there are upright and reasonable researchers like John Armstrong
on the scene to perpetuate the most preposterous and retarded theories
imaginable in their attempts to re-write the truth about the way John
Kennedy died in 1963.
And the most amazing thing is -- Armstrong gets patted on the back
with many "Attaboys" after dishing up his ridiculous claptrap.
>>> "Stick with Judyth[,] Dave -- so I can agree with you on something." <<<
Why not invest in a comma key sometime? It doesn't cost much.
But after hearing your stance on Armstrong, I don't really want you
agreeing with me on anything.
I'll stick with documented facts regarding a double-murderer named Lee
H. Oswald (like those facts disclosed by the Warren Commission). You
can have the retards like Armstrong. Deal?
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> Stick with Judyth Dave -- so I can agree with you on something.
I think you may have your Daves mixed up. Not uncommon around here.
Dave
curtjester1
It's not surprise, Dave Here, doesn't say much about Marguerite, since
he was at one time Armstrong's 'pal', and did work on the article
about the Marguerite(s). Dave likes people to believe he had an
'epiphany' and walked away. Dave Here is not one to be trusted, since
he has done 'fine work' on things that would point to Conspiracy,
namely, Oswald at The Sports Drome Shooting Range (when TSBD was
elsewhere), and meticulous work in the Ruby-Oswald relationship. Of
course Dave has hidden this fine work from his site. Wonder why?
Here is some stuff on the Marguerites:
When closely scrutinized it is readily apparent that the people
whogrew up surrounding the Oswald family, their friends, teachers,
andrelatives had a more interesting story to tell than what is
justpurported in the way of THE 'investigation' or 'the usual'
research. It would be impossible to write in detail all the
experiences of people like Myra DaRouse, a homeroom teacher of a boy
she called onlyHarvey in her basement place at Beauregard in New
Orleans, who had apiano fall on him, who took him to the medical
clinic and knew how hewas tohow tall he was exactly. People like these
can tell a lot, and ofcourse were avoided by those who knew that their
testimonies would betoo explosive. Myra knew that the photo of Lee in
the classroom inher school was a phony, because Lee came the next
semeser and had a homeroom at the third floor in room 303, and was
depicted by many asthe biggest in his class, while Harvey stood at
around 4'8" and to her was small and scrawny. Many, many people
crossed similar paths likeMyrtle and Julian Evans who Myrtle was best
friendswith Marguerite from 1934-5 where they played bridge and knew
exaclty how Lee and the real Marguerite were. Of course Myrtle when
shownpictures of a Marguerite that was well more than a half a
footshorterthan the woman she knew, knew that the pictures surrounding
Harveyandhis 'mom' were not the same woman. People who will look into
thisfurther will find that Harvey's mom was frumpy, and
notsophisticatedly dressed, and usually wore nurses uniforms, and
didsitting type jobs and once was a bartender. The taller Marguerite
was a fashion plate, worked in many clothing jobs, and did well in
aninsurace company setting. Myrtle also was the landlord of Marguerite
and Lee when it was vitally important to those who would check
residences and school records, often with the WC ignored or
refusedtoadd into their repetoirre. Anyway, here is some glimpses of
researchinto the man who went to the towns and schools, and
interviewed theteachers, and friends, and also a few photos that may
whet your researching appetites.
A Mother In History - 'Marguerite' Oswald
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr05.html
5'7" Marguerite with 6 foot + Edwin Ekdahl
http://www.jfkresearch.com/101/jfk101-05.jpg
Marina, Ruth Paine, Imposter
'Marguerite' in kitchen
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/kitchen.htm
CJ
curtjester1
> >>> "There exists, and presented, work records for both women [named Marguerite Oswald]." <<<
>
> Yeah, right. And one was pudgy and homely; while the other one was
> slender and a fox. (Gee, who WOULDN'T think they could be the very
> same person, huh?)
>
> >>> ""Harvey and Lee"[,] for better or worse, is the best documented book in [sic] the JFK case." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> Remember my bladder! It's still tiny!
>
> >>> "I bet you are one of those gifted researchers who can pass judgement on a book without ever reading it." <<<
>
> In the case of "Harvey And Lee" -- yes. That's correct. I am gifted
> enough to know that that book is 100% bullshit, without ever turning
> even one of its 983 pages. The same goes for Lifton's "Best Evidence".
> (But I actually did read Lifton's trash--in 1981.)
>
and Lee scenarios and avoid all the intricate stuff on the history of
the MC Carcano, the Mexico City stuff (where there was already a file
and history of LHO down there while 'LHO" was in Russia!), and all the
uncovering of the records they had to obfuscate and fabricate and
destroy on employment, and military, and school, friends and
employment. And especially the medical anomalies that when you look
at Oswald laid out in the autopsy room, you can SEE that none of the
MEDICAL RECORDS/HISTORY match THAT MAN!!
> >>> "I could be wrong[,] but I can check the sales records[,] since my wife was the sole distributor of the book from 2003 to 2007." <<<
>
> Who cares?
>
> But, yes, some trash will always sell well. Lifton's proof of that
> too. (As well as Fetzer.)
>
> >>> "Bugliosi actually bought the book -- I personally shipped it to him." <<<
>
> Poor Vince. He had to wade through dozens of fantasy books like
> Armstrong's. I feel sorry for him (a lot).
>
> >>> "But he [VB] is quite incorrect regarding Armstrong not presenting the evidence he accumulated." <<<
>
> Vince isn't wrong when he said:
>
> "If Armstrong had a source for any of the things he charges, he
> would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only source is his
> exceptionally fertile imagination." -- VB
>
HE CITES EVERYTHING!!!
> Common sense alone debunks everything Armstrong writes in his book
> about two sets of "Doubles". Only a top-notch idiot could possibly
> believe that any of it is the truth.
>
Of course, being a disinformationalist is their job. The only deal
with I-Can't-Fathom's ----and AVOID EVIDENCE!!
> >>> "Armstrong made no claims in his book for which he did not have documented evidence." <<<
>
> LOL. Please stop! Have SOME pity on a weak bladder, for God's sake!
>
He always does this song and dance. Not old yet?
> So, there's "documented evidence" of a (nearly)-identical twin for
> LHO, eh? And they BOTH went to work at the Book Depository on November
> 22nd? Great plan there.
>
Nothing true here as the one LHO is there only during shooting time.
Of course he is documented with the clothing differentiation of what
Mrs. Reid saw, and what was seen on the sixth floor, that TSBD LHO
couldn't have. That description fit perfectly to people saw him enter
the Rambler station wagon who swore as in no mistake, that it was
indeed LHO. The Rambler stopped in Oakcliff as seen by witnesses where
a phone call was made, and then this 'LHO' was seen in a short time by
witnesses and businesses five blocks east of the Tippit shooting down
by Jefferson and E. Tenth walking toward the crime scene. Sure was a
great plan when the smoke lifted, there was a cloud of suspicion so
thick that it was able to fool the public at the onset and give any
clearance to Conspirators a wide avenue of separation from the
crime.
> Nobody would ever notice two men who look exactly alike wandering
> around in the same building on the same day, right? And there were
> EXTRA workers in the TSBD on 11/22, too (the floor-layers on the 6th
> Floor).
>
Why would the setting up LHO, work?????? (As in punch in a clock)
> I wonder if Jarman or Williams or Lovelady or Norman or Dougherty (et
> al) thought they were working in The Twilight Zone that day--what with
> TWO identical "Oswalds" in the building at the same time to be
> potentially seen by all these workers who knew LHO on sight?
>
> And just think -- some kooks actually BELIEVE this retardedness!
> That's the biggest hoot of all!
>
How about a flight of stairs!! The seventh floor was empty!!
Now go pick up your paycheck. This is what you are paid to do.
CJ
curtjester1
> In article <hIqdnTW3tt4QGQLUnZ2dnUVZ_jKWn...@sysmatrix.net>,
research. On the living in separate towns, I think many times they
did live in the same town...and probably knew each other as a
collective all. There is some good stuff in the new Russell book on
On The Trail of JFK's Assassins about the use and documentation of
Harvey, and that name popping up on it's own with 'Lee'. I would also
say since the real fashion plate Marguerite knew people that would
have been CIA especially with her sphere of people she knew, and even
a relative in the CIA, that it would be inevitable that she would have
to leave and separate herself from the dumpy Marguerite just on the
fact that the assignment project of the Oswalds could easily be
broken. There is also an interesting bit in The Great Zapruder Film
Hoax about what might have happened to Lee after the assassination
where some CT's along with Mae Brussell went to meet him. The photo
comparison, the adopted name (one of his Mexico City contacts with the
middle initial changed to an O), his signature compared along with the
face features is quite startling, IMO.
CJ
> --
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/http://www.jfkresearch.com
Rich DellaRosa
<21670d69-c341-4f88...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "There exists, and presented, work records for both women [named
> >>> Marguerite Oswald]." <<<
>
> Yeah, right. And one was pudgy and homely; while the other one was
> slender and a fox. (Gee, who WOULDN'T think they could be the very
> same person, huh?)
What gave you the idea that they were intended to impersonate each
other??
They used the same name but lived separate lives in separate locations.
Nowhere did Armstrong indicate they tried to pass as each other.
If you read the book and looked at the evidence you'd know that.
>
> >>> ""Harvey and Lee"[,] for better or worse, is the best documented book in
> >>> [sic] the JFK case." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> Remember my bladder! It's still tiny!
So, I guess are your little gray cells.
>
>
> >>> "I bet you are one of those gifted researchers who can pass judgement on
> >>> a book without ever reading it." <<<
>
> In the case of "Harvey And Lee" -- yes. That's correct. I am gifted
> enough to know that that book is 100% bullshit, without ever turning
> even one of its 983 pages.
Oh, I don't know if you'd know bullshit if you stepped in it.
> The same goes for Lifton's "Best Evidence".
> (But I actually did read Lifton's trash--in 1981.)
>
>
> >>> "I could be wrong[,] but I can check the sales records[,] since my wife
> >>> was the sole distributor of the book from 2003 to 2007." <<<
>
> Who cares?
>
> But, yes, some trash will always sell well. Lifton's proof of that
> too. (As well as Fetzer.)
I made no statement regarding whether or not H&L sold well. It had a
limited printing.
>
>
> >>> "Bugliosi actually bought the book -- I personally shipped it to him."
> >>> <<<
>
>
> Poor Vince. He had to wade through dozens of fantasy books like
> Armstrong's. I feel sorry for him (a lot).
>
>
> >>> "But he [VB] is quite incorrect regarding Armstrong not presenting the
> >>> evidence he accumulated." <<<
It's all there, but I'm not surprised that Bug couldn't find it.
>
> Vince isn't wrong when he said:
>
> "If Armstrong had a source for any of the things he charges, he
> would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only source is his
> exceptionally fertile imagination." -- VB
>
>
> Common sense alone debunks everything Armstrong writes in his book
> about two sets of "Doubles". Only a top-notch idiot could possibly
> believe that any of it is the truth.
I guess the SBT uses common sense.
>
>
>
> >>> "Armstrong made no claims in his book for which he did not have
> >>> documented evidence." <<<
>
> LOL. Please stop! Have SOME pity on a weak bladder, for God's sake!
>
>
> So, there's "documented evidence" of a (nearly)-identical twin for
> LHO, eh? And they BOTH went to work at the Book Depository on November
> 22nd? Great plan there.
Armstrong never said they both worked at the TSBD. Nor did he say they
were identical in appearance. One was 5'7" and the other 5'10". One
was 135 lbs, the other was 165. One had blue eyes, the other hazel.
>
> Nobody would ever notice two men who look exactly alike wandering
> around in the same building on the same day, right? And there were
> EXTRA workers in the TSBD on 11/22, too (the floor-layers on the 6th
> Floor).
See above.
>
> I wonder if Jarman or Williams or Lovelady or Norman or Doughterty (et
> al) thought they were working in The Twilight Zone that day--what with
> TWO identical "Oswalds" in the building at the same time to be
> potentially seen by all these workers who knew LHO on sight?
See above.
>
> And just think -- some kooks actually BELIEVE this retardedness!
> That's the biggest hoot of all!
Some claim to believe the WCR when its authors admitted they themselves
didn't believe it.
>
>
>
> >>> "If it's crap you're interested in, read the WCR." <<<
>
>
> Naturally, being the obviously retarded conspiracy-happy kook you must
> be (in order to buy into Armstrong's absurdity for even two seconds),
> you have no choice but to consider the WR as "crap".
>
> But in actuality, the WR is the most factual book ever written on the
> JFK case (of course). With "Reclaiming History" right up there with
> it.
No, RH is on the top of the crap pile -- I know, because I read it.
>
> Can you just see the 7 Warren Commissioners coming to the conclusion
> that John Armstrong came to regarding the TWO Oswalds and the TWO
> Marguerites (or were there three Marguerites?)? Warren and his team
> would have been laughed out of the country by September 28, 1964
> (after one day of having such a theory in circulation amongst the
> American public).
If you knew what you're talking about you'd know that they were aware
that the FBI located and seized school records of both men. If there
was only one, how did he attend 2 schools, one in Ft Worth and one in
New Orleans, at the same time?
>
> But thank heavens for the conspiracy-loving clowns of Planet Earth
> that there are upright and reasonable researchers like John Armstrong
> on the scene to perpetuate the most preposterous and retarded theories
> imaginable in their attempts to re-write the truth about the way John
> Kennedy died in 1963.
>
> And the most amazing thing is -- Armstrong gets patted on the back
> with many "Attaboys" after dishing up his ridiculous claptrap.
>
>
>
> >>> "Stick with Judyth[,] Dave -- so I can agree with you on something." <<<
>
> Why not invest in a comma key sometime? It doesn't cost much.
Here stock up:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>
> But after hearing your stance on Armstrong, I don't really want you
> agreeing with me on anything. I'll stick with documented facts
> regarding a double-murderer named Lee H. Oswald (like those disclosed
> by the Warren Commission).
>
> You can have the retards like Armstrong. Deal?
Deal. Everyone who disagrees with you is retarded. OK, I understand
(who the real retard is).
Over and out!
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
lazu...@webtv.net
Lifton's great books is using the brown matter, instead of the grey
matter.
There is so much detail in both works that points to conspiracy over and
over...even if one can't fully accept the Author's main thesis.
David Von Pein
>>> "He [LHO] is documented with the clothing differentiation..." <<<
Great patsy plot there, huh? The stupid plotters formulating this plan
can't even manage to have their two "Oswalds" dress in the same color
clothing on Game Day.
Maybe all of the handlers/conspirators involved in this "Double
Oswald" deception were all color-blind, eh?
Continue, kook....
>>> "Now go pick up your paycheck. This is what you are paid to do." <<<
And you kooks make it so extremely easy (believing in Double Oswalds
and Double Marguerites the way you do and all).
BTW, did Robert Oswald have a double too? How about Junie? Or Ruth
Paine?
Why should they be left out in the cold without a double?
David Von Pein
>>> "What gave you the idea that they [the two "Marguerite Oswalds" that appear in John Armstrong's 2003 book "Harvey And Lee"] were intended to impersonate each other??" <<<
Okay. Whatever.
There's nothing like needless complications surrounding the MOTHER of
the "patsy" to make your Patsy Plot go off smooth as clockwork. Right,
Rich?
>>> "They used the same name but lived separate lives in separate locations. Nowhere did Armstrong indicate they tried to pass as each other." <<<
Using the "same name" certainly sounds like a form of "impersonation"
to me.
Or was it a mere coincidence that the "fake" Marguerite decided to use
the name of the real Marguerite?
Just make up an answer. After all, I'm sure that's what Armstrong does
in his case-solving gem "Harvey And Lee". Right, Rich?
>>> "If you read the book and looked at the evidence[,] you'd know that." <<<
I'm fairly certain that my weak bladder wouldn't last beyond the table
of contents.
>>> "Oh, I don't know if you'd know bullshit if you stepped in it." <<<
Sure I would. After all, I'm talking to you about this silly nonsense
that never happened regarding LHO and his mother, aren't I? And
nothing stinks worse than this BS we're talking about in this thread.
>>> "I made no statement regarding whether or not H&L sold well. It had a limited printing." <<<
Well, since I wasn't talking to you when I said what I said (I was
replying to Rudy Lasparri's post there), your comment here doesn't
mean much.
But, just for the record, I did misunderstand and misinterpret Rudy's
response on that point regarding his wife and the distribution of the
book from 2003 to 2007.
I guess he meant he could check the sales records for "Harvey And
Lee" (aka: Tripe Between Book Covers) and find out if I personally had
bought a copy between '03 and '07.
Obviously, he's not going to find my name in his records. But since he
also apparently has me mixed up with David A. Reitzes, perhaps he
wouldn't even be looking for DVP when conducting such a search.
~shrug~
>>> "It's all there, but I'm not surprised that Bug [Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.] couldn't find it." <<<
Funny, though, that not a single soul who worked for the Warren
Commission or the HSCA or the Rockefeller Commission, or anybody else
on the planet, could come up with this definitive "evidence" that
there were double L.H. Oswalds AND double Marguerite Oswalds wandering
around prior to JFK's assassination.
I guess you're probably not surprised, though, that the big, bad
Government couldn't find any hint of this "evidence" either. Right,
Rich?
After all, the WC and HSCA (15 years apart) probably couldn't find a
streetcar if they had a transfer in their hands and the steetcar was
pointed out to them. (Per Jim Garrison's funny comment to Johnny
Carson on January 31, 1968.) Right, Rich?
It took John Armstrong to come to the rescue and reveal the real truth
about the assassination and its participants. Right?
Gotcha.
>>> "I guess the SBT uses common sense." <<<
Yep. Sure does. Every step of the way. Like here:
A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
But I guess an anti-SBTer's "THREE BULLETS DID THE SAME JOB AS JUST
CE399 AND NOBODY IN GOVERNMENT REALLY NOTICED (OR CARED)" theory is
supposedly much higher up on the "Common Sense" scale than is the
Single-Bullet Conclusion.
Right, Rich?
>>> "Armstrong never said they [the two "Oswalds"] both worked at the TSBD. Nor did he say they were identical in appearance. One was 5'7" and the other 5'10". One was 135 lbs, the other was 165. One had blue eyes, the other hazel." <<<
LOL. Another great job by the Patsy Plotters there! They're going to
try to pass off one of those "Oswalds" as the other one, despite the
differences in appearance you just mentioned.
Or wasn't the "second" Oswald supposed to be "impersonating" the first
Oswald at all? If not, then what the hell was he doing in the
Depository along with the "other" Oswald on November 22nd? (Or did
Vince B. supposedly get that wrong too?)
Great plot you're placing your faith in there, Rich. You might be only
a couple of baby steps away from endorsing Brian David Andersen at
this rate:
From having talked with you a year or two ago during my short stay as
a participant on your forum at www.JFKResearch.com, I had the
impression that you were a reasonable CTer (vs. being really "out
there" in cuckoo land). I can see now I should re-evaluate that
original assessment.
And your last Black Op Radio appearance didn't help either. I couldn't
believe some of the shit you uttered on that program. Will next
Thursday's BlackOp appearance be any better in the "reasonable"
department?
REPLAY:
>>> "One was 5'7" and the other 5'10". One was 135 lbs, the other was 165." <<<
LOL. So, then, I guess the Lee H. Oswald who was picked up by the
Dallas Police in the Texas Theater is yet a THIRD "Oswald", huh Rich?
Because the "Texas Theater" Oswald was 5'9" tall and weighed 150
pounds. And yet you've described NEITHER of your two "Oswalds" as
having those physical stats.
Care to go for a fourth?
>>> "RH ["Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"] is on the top of the crap pile -- I know, because I read it." <<<
Well, then, tell me -- how did you like this excellent part of that
book?:
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or
she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal
witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the
equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to
the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain
everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Page xliii of "RH" (c.2007)
>>> "If you knew what you're talking about[,] you'd know that they were aware that the FBI located and seized school records of both men." <<<
Let's see those records. Does Armstrong have copies of them, by
chance?
>>> "If there was only one [Lee Harvey Oswald], how did he attend 2 schools, one in Ft Worth and one in New Orleans, at the same time?" <<<
Beats me. This is Armstrong's batch of nonsense. Let him figure it
out. (And he has figured it out to his "Double Oswald" satisfaction,
right? Right.)
>>> "Here stock up [on commas]: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," <<<
Give some of those to Rudy. He's the one I was talking to anyway.
You're replying to a reply I made to Rudy, not you.
>>> "Everyone who disagrees with you is retarded." <<<
Not necessarily. But everybody who puts a lot of faith and stock in a
stupid, never-could-have-happened-in-a-million-years fairy tale of a
theory like John Armstrong's theory could be looked upon as being kind
of "retarded", yes.
But sometimes CTers are just "wrong" -- not really "retarded". Of
course, when we're talking about the conspiracy-loving kooks at the
acj forum, then being retarded is a prerequisite for posting there,
yes.
>>> "OK, I understand (who the real retard is)." <<<
Mr. Armstrong?
(Or were you going to choose somebody else, Rich?)
>>> "Over and out!" <<<
Ten-four. Roger and wilco.
I'll send my best to the "second Oswald" (who is currently living in
my crawl space...so as to keep a low profile).
Richard
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e58761dc-63a1-43d3...@v31g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> On Feb 21, 7:39�am, "dreit...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)"
>
> <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 6:45 am, Rudy Lasparri <Rudy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Stick with Judyth Dave -- so I can agree with you on something.
>
> > I think you may have your Daves mixed up. Not uncommon around here.
>
> > Dave
>
> It's not surprise, Dave Here, doesn't say much about Marguerite, since
> he was at one time Armstrong's 'pal', and did work on the article
> about the Marguerite(s). �Dave likes people to believe he had an
> 'epiphany' and walked away. �Dave Here is not one to be trusted, since
> he has done 'fine work' on things that would point to Conspiracy,
> namely, Oswald at The Sports Drome Shooting Range (when TSBD was
> elsewhere), and meticulous work in the Ruby-Oswald relationship. �Of
> course Dave has hidden this fine work from his site. �Wonder why?
For any newcomers out there who may be wondering who I am and why I get
referenced and attacked so much here, please allow me to introduce myself.
My name is David Reitzes. I was introduced to the subject of John F.
Kennedy's assassination through Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" during its
initial theatrical release. I have since devoted thousands of hours to
studying the assassination and the resulting investigations. I was an
ardent believer in conspiracy for most of the first decade, and did a fair
amount of writing on the subject at the alt.conspiracy.jfk and
alt.assassination.jfk Usenet groups. A few researchers found what I was
doing to be of value, and a number of my early writings were archived by a
very nice lady named Deanie Richards. They're still there (see below).
I was also highly critical of some conspiracy theories that were still in
common circulation, despite having been completely discredited years
before. I thought that clearing the table of these discredited ideas was
every bit as important as promoting what I considered the more credible
theories, so I wrote a number of very critical articles about certain
theories, a number of which were archived, with my permission, at John
McAdams's Kennedy Assassination Home Page. These also are still there, and
I hope they always will be.
The more research I did, however, the more my belief in conspiracy eroded.
Although it wasn't easy, I resolved to chronicle what I was learning,
which I did -- first at the Usenet groups, but soon branching out to my
own website.
At the height of my conspiracy period, I endorsed John Armstrong's "Harvey
and Lee" theory of a longtime Oswald impostor operation, did considerable
research on it, and ultimately rejected it. After having enthusiastically
promoted John's work for some time, I felt it my responsibility to write
an an article explaining some of the reasons I lost confidence in
Armstrong's theory:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/dr1.htm
That was a solid decade ago. But to this day, I get attacked by a variety
of people who seem eager to use my change of mind against me. There's one
guy, for example, who has stated that my interest in Armstrong's work
marks me as simply too stupid to take seriously. There's another guy who
claims I never was a conspiracy believer in the first place, and that my
hundreds of pages of writing about "Harvey and Lee" (not to mention all
the research I did on other subjects) were part of an elaborate but
transparent cover for some sinister purpose. And now there's "Curt Jester"
(get it?), who praises my early, conspiracy-oriented writings, and sees
something sinister in my change of mind -- or, alternatively, claims I was
"probably on assignment" when I wrote these articles, but he chooses to
endorse them anyway.
For those who may want to see what I was writing ten years ago, links can
be found at my website. Deanie Richards encouraged me to keep my older
material online, if for no other reason than to chronicle my change of
mind. (However, "Curt Jester" is not the only fan of my conspiracy
writings. Several of these articles have been cited in books, and I've
actually seen one of them circulated and praised at several Internet
conspiracy forums -- with my name removed!)
Early drafts and assorted other writings of mine can be found at the
Google archives. I couldn't hide that stuff if I wanted to.
The centerpiece of my own website is still my lengthy critique of Oliver
Stone's movie and a variety of resources (including many primary source)
on the Jim Garrison investigation. Why? Because, as my early writings
show, Garrison's earliest theories -- before he went after Clay Shaw --
were critical to my understanding of the conspiracy. Without Garrison's
suspects, a case for Oswald's involvement -- witting or unwitting -- with
a JFK assassination conspiracy evaporates. I think my early writings
explain my position on this reasonably well, and my later writings were
necessary to refute some of the misinformation I'd unwittingly
disseminated.
Now, my site is not the best one for newcomers to begin with -- the
Kennedy Assassination Home Page is:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
But if anyone wants to see what some of the evidence really shows from the
point of view of someone who knows the various cases for conspiracy inside
and out -- because I used to believe in conspiracy and spent years
researching the different possibilites; please check my site out:
You may notice that people around here routinely call me a liar, accuse me
of being a professional disinformation agent, accuse me of posting under
pseudonyms, and whatever else they can think of. The one thing these
people seldom if ever do is try to demonstrate that the things I've
written are actually wrong.
I invite you to spend some time at my website and tell me what you
think.
At the end of the day, it's not me or any other researcher that
matters; all that matters is the truth.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Dave
Robert Harris
ROFLMAO!!
I guess you really do have a sense of humor after all:-)
Robert Harris
In article
<71b3e74b-db07-4dc8...@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
"drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)" <drei...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 9:10?am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 7:39?am, "dreit...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)"
> >
> > <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 21, 6:45 am, Rudy Lasparri <Rudy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Stick with Judyth Dave -- so I can agree with you on something.
> >
> > > I think you may have your Daves mixed up. Not uncommon around here.
> >
> > > Dave
> >
> > It's not surprise, Dave Here, doesn't say much about Marguerite, since
> > he was at one time Armstrong's 'pal', and did work on the article
> > about the Marguerite(s). ?Dave likes people to believe he had an
> > 'epiphany' and walked away. ?Dave Here is not one to be trusted, since
> > he has done 'fine work' on things that would point to Conspiracy,
> > namely, Oswald at The Sports Drome Shooting Range (when TSBD was
> > elsewhere), and meticulous work in the Ruby-Oswald relationship. ?Of
> > course Dave has hidden this fine work from his site. ?Wonder why?
jfk...@gmail.com
> ROFLMAO!!
>
> I guess you really do have a sense of humor after all:-)
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
You may be giving him a bit too much credit.
Barb Junkkarinen
<drei...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Feb 21, 9:10?am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 7:39?am, "dreit...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)"
>>
>> <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 21, 6:45 am, Rudy Lasparri <Rudy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Stick with Judyth Dave -- so I can agree with you on something.
>>
>> > I think you may have your Daves mixed up. Not uncommon around here.
>>
>> > Dave
>>
>> It's not surprise, Dave Here, doesn't say much about Marguerite, since
>> he was at one time Armstrong's 'pal', and did work on the article
>> about the Marguerite(s). ?Dave likes people to believe he had an
>> 'epiphany' and walked away. ?Dave Here is not one to be trusted, since
>> he has done 'fine work' on things that would point to Conspiracy,
>> namely, Oswald at The Sports Drome Shooting Range (when TSBD was
>> elsewhere), and meticulous work in the Ruby-Oswald relationship. ?Of
>> course Dave has hidden this fine work from his site. ?Wonder why?
Nicely laid out, Dave. You know I firmly believe in a conspiracy, but
I appreciate your quality research and your ability to admit an error
(like on the crazy 2 Oswald thing of Armstrong) ... and further, to
admit you eventually came to a different conclusion after being so
widely published on the issue.
That takes something few in this arena seem to have... and I expect
some of those will be among the first to weigh in and froth and foam
at what you wrote.
I think you have come to the wrong conclusion on the conspiracy
question overall, but you're entitled ... sigh.
What's become of Deanie Richards? I haven't seen nor heard anything
about her in years!
Bests,
Barb :-)
hobo
avon
fantastic post, explains things pretty well, although are you you or
are you dvp? the conspiracy deepens ;)
i am following a similar path, but am more of a reader than a
researcher.
avon
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2009 22:07:10 -0500, "dreit...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)"
>
> - Show quoted text -
What really amazes me, Barb, is that you haven't changed your mind
yet. You're too smart, in my opinion, to believe a plot killed JFK.
aeffects
sitdown you skankified Lone Nut trollite.... your brother wants to
hear your reasoning for throwing him under the proverbial Lone Nut
bus. Btw, ole Barbie has been a lone nutter for years.... she can't
fool us, ya dipship, Chuckie da-Shoe Shuler!
Gil Jesus
<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Now, my site is not the best one for newcomers to begin with -- the
> Kennedy Assassination Home Page is:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You forgot to tell them to first visit this site:
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c9e7e8ec-f41b-480a...@v31g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams
\
Some prefer Official Records found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
wrote:
> Nicely laid out, Dave. You know I firmly believe in a conspiracy, but
> I appreciate your quality research and your ability to admit an error
> (like on the crazy 2 Oswald thing of Armstrong) ... and further, to
> admit you eventually came to a different conclusion after being so
> widely published on the issue.
>
> That takes something few in this arena seem to have... and I expect
> some of those will be among the first to weigh in and froth and foam
> at what you wrote.
>
> I think you have come to the wrong conclusion on the conspiracy
> question overall, but you're entitled ... sigh.
I think it's important for the more reasonable researchers on all
sides of the issue to stick together. What unites us -- a passion for
the truth -- is more important than what divides us.
> What's become of Deanie Richards? I haven't seen nor heard anything
> about her in years!
>
> Bests,
> Barb :-)
I haven't heard from her in a long time, either.
Dave
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
It's a lot more complicated than that, I'm afraid. When you discount
psychological factors that influence both sides, there remains a wide
disagreement about how to prioritize evidence: hard evidence vs.
eyewitness testimony, for example, or skepticism about the value of expert
testimony. It's important for people to understand all sides of the issue.
Dave
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> fantastic post, explains things pretty well, although are you you or
> are you dvp? the conspiracy deepens ;)
I know you're joking, but I'll repeat what I said once before: David Von
Pein posts some outstanding material, but I am not him. I have no need for
an alias.
> i am following a similar path, but am more of a reader than a
> researcher.
>
> avon
Nothing wrong with that, but be an alert reader: check those endnotes and
sources! I can't tell you how many times I've read something intriguing
that turns out to be nothing but a claim repeated from another published
source, ultimately sourced to what is merely someone's opinion, or
sometimes even no source at all.
It's easier than ever for anyone to educate themselves about this highly
controversial subject. There are thousands and thousands of primary source
documents online now, and many can be found with nothing more complicated
than a Google search. I try to keep my website's "links" page up-to-date
and reasonably user-friendly. The alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup is a
great place to ask questions and get feedback from people with different
perspectives.
Keep an open mind, and don't let the less civil researchers discourage
you.
Dave
Barb Junkkarinen
<drei...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Feb 22, 4:31?pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> Nicely laid out, Dave. You know I firmly believe in a conspiracy, but
>> I appreciate your quality research and your ability to admit an error
>> (like on the crazy 2 Oswald thing of Armstrong) ... and further, to
>> admit you eventually came to a different conclusion after being so
>> widely published on the issue.
>>
>> That takes something few in this arena seem to have... and I expect
>> some of those will be among the first to weigh in and froth and foam
>> at what you wrote.
>>
>> I think you have come to the wrong conclusion on the conspiracy
>> question overall, but you're entitled ... sigh.
>
>
>I think it's important for the more reasonable researchers on all
>sides of the issue to stick together. What unites us -- a passion for
>the truth -- is more important than what divides us.
Beautiful ... and exactly. I'll send that to Tink ... he'll enjoy it.
It's precisely what he said in an off the cuff acceptance speech for a
lifetime achievment award at a conference in DC in '95. I can't
remember his words, but is was basically that we need to throw down
the weapons , park egos at the door, and start working together ... or
we are doomed to the same nonsense forever.
Some people are so wedded to their theories and opinions that they are
blinded to the big picture, and the marvel of stepping back,
listening, and understanding the same issue or piece of evidence from
someone else's perspective. When that's what the community as a whole
can do, we'll knw we have achieved something.
>
>
>> What's become of Deanie Richards? I haven't seen nor heard anything
>> about her in years!
>>
>> Bests,
>> Barb :-)
>
>
>I haven't heard from her in a long time, either.
Thanks.
Barb :-)
>
>Dave
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
When my son was quite young ... maybe 4, maybe 5, he said one day that
he thought the smartest people in the world are those who know how
much they still have to learm
I'm still learning.
But it's nice to knowt I amaze. <g>
Barb :-)
jfk...@gmail.com
We may never know who "DVP" actually is. But we do know that Reitzes is a
WC defender who has posted propaganda pages against anyone connected to
the conspiracy to assassinate JFK at his site and has the nerve to ask you
to support them with donations.
In fact, what is it about these apologists? Don't they believe in their
cause enough to foot their own bill? McAdams uses the MU servers for his
attack pages.
Chuck Schuyler
Any chance, Barb, that you'll ever join the Oswald Alone camp, Barb?
What are the salient issues that lead you to believe Oswald had help or
was a patsy?
Have you changed your mind on anything regarding the JFK assassination in
the years you've been studying this?
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
"2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly
posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup,
discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy
someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact
that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand -
they simply want to utter flame bait."
Gerry Simone
<drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:71b3e74b-db07-4dc8...@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 21, 9:10?am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:39?am, "dreit...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)"
>
> <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 6:45 am, Rudy Lasparri <Rudy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Stick with Judyth Dave -- so I can agree with you on something.
>
> > I think you may have your Daves mixed up. Not uncommon around here.
>
> > Dave
>
> It's not surprise, Dave Here, doesn't say much about Marguerite, since
> he was at one time Armstrong's 'pal', and did work on the article
> about the Marguerite(s). ?Dave likes people to believe he had an
> 'epiphany' and walked away. ?Dave Here is not one to be trusted, since
> he has done 'fine work' on things that would point to Conspiracy,
> namely, Oswald at The Sports Drome Shooting Range (when TSBD was
> elsewhere), and meticulous work in the Ruby-Oswald relationship. ?Of
> course Dave has hidden this fine work from his site. ?Wonder why?
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> You are fan of jazz too!
True, but no one's accused me of being a covert operative of the
American Federation of Musicians . . . yet.
Dave
http://www.reitzes.com/jazzbest.html
> <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
aeffects
> You are fan of jazz too!
he sure is..... he can fart The Battle Hymn of the Republic in three
keys, two at once even......quite accomplished that Reitzes-pieces
guy.... tears page after page after page right out of Bob Vernon's
music playbook.....
> <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
pamela
He does seem to be trying to fill Vernon's spot, doesn't he?
gggg gggg
> What a load of crap from Rich DellaRosa. Not a single thing he asserts
> is even close to being true (or provable). Rich and Armstrong are
> living in a fantasy world.
> There was one Marguerite Oswald. And there was one Lee H. Oswald.
> Period. Anyone believing in sinister "doubles" for each person should
> have their head examined.
> =========================================
> ADDENDUM:
> "John Armstrong actually went on to publish a 983-page book in
> 2003 called "Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald", in which he
> carries his fantasy about a double Oswald to such absurd lengths that
> not only doesn't it deserve to be dignified in the main text of my
> book, but I resent even having to waste a word on it in this
> endnote. ....
> "Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the things he
> charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only
> source is his exceptionally fertile imagination. ....
> "On the day of the assassination, Armstrong has both Lee Harvey
> Oswald and Harvey Oswald, two people [per kook Armstrong] who are
> spitting images of each other, in the Depository. .... At the moment
> of the assassination, HARVEY Oswald was in the second-floor lunchroom
> having lunch and LEE Harvey Oswald was on the sixth floor firing at
> Kennedy. ....
> "Lee Harvey Oswald escaped arrest, but Armstrong doesn't tell
> his readers what happened to him thereafter, though...he tells them
> near the beginning of the book that he may be "very much alive"." --
> Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 565-567 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming
> History" (c.2007)
> ============================================
(2022 Youtube upload):
"Who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald? (JFK ASSASSINATION)"