Linda, you and I are approaching our study of the Kennedy assassination from two different universes. I disagree with virtually every single comment you made in your post for a variety of reasons. But let's look at your comments one at a time:

1. The 983 page book "Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald" is in front of me right now. In this book John Armstrong claims that the CIA planned to merge the identity of a Russian-speaking refugee with that of American-born Lee Harvey Oswald over a period of many years. If the merging of

identities was successful, the CIA could then place the native Russian-speaking young man, with Oswald�s American identity, in the Soviet Union as a spy. Armstrong alleges that this Russian refugee successfully �defected� to the Soviet Union in 1959 and returned to the United States with a Russian wife in 1962. A year and a half later this young man was set up as the �patsy� in an elaborate

scheme engineered by career CIA officials to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Armstrong says that �two days after the assassination of President Kennedy the Russian-speaking refugee, Harvey Oswald, was shot and killed by Dallas nightclub owner/CIA gunrunner, Jack Ruby. American born Lee Oswald was, and may still be, very much alive.

One of the problems I have with this book is that Armstrong did not give his readers a single source for even one thing you have just read. His reason: How do you cite or source something that does not exist?

Being a historian I always have a problem with people that write history with no proof to support it.

There is another major flaw in Armstrong's work: He doesn't tell us why, if CIA conspirators got the Russian refugee to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald, why wouldn�t they give him the same, identical name, Lee Harvey

Oswald. What could they possibly hope to gain by giving him a slightly different name�Harvey Oswald? Particularly when they went through all the trouble of finding a Russian refugee who looked almost exactly like Oswald. Wouldn�t giving them slightly different names only be counter-productive?

In addition, Armstrong doesn't bother to present in his book one single piece of evidence that the CIA

had anything to do with Kennedy�s murder. Nor does he tell us why, if the CIA conspirators were willing to kill, no less, the president of the United States, they would want to let the one person who could expose this elaborate scheme, (Lee Harvey Oswald), to possibly remain �very much alive.�

Although most conspiracy theorists and millions of Americans think Ruby silenced Oswald for the mob, Armstrong suggests that Ruby was much more connected to the CIA than the mob, and it was the CIA whom Ruby killed Oswald for. But he offers no credible evidence that Ruby had anything to do with the CIA, as a gunrunner or anything else. Perhaps most important, Armstrong doesn�t choose to tell us why this incredibly elaborate and difficult scheme was necessary. I mean, if the CIA were willing to frame the Russian refugee for Kennedy�s murder by setting him up as a patsy, why not simply frame the real Lee Harvey Oswald? After all, both the real Oswald and the imposter Oswald were, according to Armstrong, recruited by the same conspirators at the CIA and both were being �handled� by them.

Although Armstrong has the Russian refugee Harvey Oswald impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald for several years, Armstrong claims that in the months leading up to the assassination the CIA had Lee Harvey Oswald impersonating Harvey Oswald. Eventually, on the day of the assassination, Armstrong

has both Lee Harvey Oswald and Harvey Oswald, two people who are spitting

images of each other, in the Texas School Book Depository Building, Harvey

Oswald because he works there and Lee Harvey Oswald because he�s one of Kennedy�s assassins�other assassins, per Armstrong, being behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. 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. It�s Harvey Oswald who was arrested for Kennedy�s and Tippit�s murders, even though, per Armstrong, he killed neither and Lee Harvey

Oswald killed both. (Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pp.805, 807�808, 840�844,

848�850; in separate countries: p.371)

Then the plot becomes even more ridiculous, Armstrong now claims that Lee Harvey Oswald escaped arrest, but Armstrong doesn�t tell his readers what happened to him thereafter, though, as indicated, he tells them near the beginning of the book that he may be �very much alive.� Harvey Oswald, of course, is eliminated by the CIA hit man, Jack Ruby.

Then Armstrong compares comments about Oswald made by others through the years and concludes that whenever there is a difference of opinion about Oswald it must mean there were TWO Oswalds. As can be seen, Armstrong misleads his readers to help prove his theory. But even so, what�s his point? Let�s say you go through a period of liking country-western music; well, you better keep listening to Hank and Willie and Waylon 24-7 for the rest of your life, because if another witness happens to hear you enjoying rock and roll or easy listening, someone like John Armstrong

might come into your life claiming either that you are an imposter or that someone with the same name as yours is impersonating you.

Armstrong has the duplicate Oswald living in the midwest years and years before the president's trip to Dallas was ever even planned. In fact the imposter Oswald was talking to friends in North Dakota before President Kennedy was even a candidate for president. But was Armstrong claiming that the fake Oswald was planning to murder WHOEVER was president later in life? But that theory doesn't hold water either does it? How would Armstrong know that the CIA would want to eliminate the president in the early 1960s?

2. Linda, you wrote that you do not want to become a ballistics expert, a forensic specialist, or continuously get bogged down in trivia. But this is exactly HOW one understands historical events involving crimes. If I were talking about the dangers of eating fast food all the time, I would not be very convincing if it was my goal to NOT understand calories, fats, dietary rules, or cholesterol. To speak intelligently about the Kennedy assassination you HAVE to deal with the details of the evidence in order to understand this case. You HAVE to understand ballistics to understand where the bullets came from that were recovered at the crime, for if they were all traced to one and ONLY one rifle, then all talk of multiple gunmen is moot. You have to understand forensic evidence, for if ALL fingerprints belong to one person and only one person, and if thoer fingerprints are found on the murder weapon matched to the bullets then we know who fired the weapon that resulted in the deaths of the victims. These points are not trivia, they are evidence, and that is how the police, or historians solve mysteries. There are really not too many mysteries in history. Most so-called mysteries have already been solved by careful and agressive research. Such is the case with the Kennedy assassination as well.

I have mentioned several times before the book, Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong. This man put 40 years worth of research, travelled the world seeking facts and information. Mr. Armstrong's book is not that well known because he doesn't mass market it through conventional means. If you do an internet search you should be able to find it.

Research is only as good as your sources of information and their credibility as information gatherers. Two different people can read the same set of facts, yet draw different conclusions about any criminal case.

My quest in the JFK area is not to become a ballistics expert, a forensic specialist, or continuously get bogged down in trivia. It is rather, to make the connection that throughout history governments assassinate their leaders, create wars through false means, exploit land and natural resources, and control and manipulate money and markets in order to further the private interests of a wealthy few.

And now it looks as though the mass media has come along for the ride. There are still a few holdouts, but by and large we will never get the truth from the press. They are too intimidated by the power brokers. Our court system is also slowly being stacked and inhabited by right leaning judges and justices hand picked by neocons for the sole purpose of carrying out their political agenda. This is quite evident by the recent Atty General Gonzalez scandal and forced resignation and the abuses of the so-called Patriot Act.

We are slowly losing our country and our planet as we know it because we have entrusted our most sacred commonality, our democracy, to politicians and thieves.

If we do not have a fundamental shift in power in this country soon, we will be nothing more than slaves working harder and longer hours to further enrich the 3% of the people in this country who own 97% of the wealth.

But this isn't the really case is it Linda? There is not any evidence at all that "the government" assassinated Kennedy is there? ALL, and I mean ALL, of the physical evidence points to only one person (LHO) and there is not one speck of evidence that Oswald was working for the government is there? If there is such evidence please share it with us so we can decide for ourselves. I've studied the Kennedy assassination for thirty years and I've never read one credible connection with Oswald and the government. Not one.

And besides, your point of multiple gunmen is not historically accurate anyway because of the points I raised in my first question--where is the evidence of a frontal shot? If there is no evidence of any frontal shot (which there isn't) then the argument that multipel gunmen were working for the government is a moot point isn't it? IF there was evidence of a frontal gunman then talk of a conspiracy is warrented, but without any evidence of a frontal shot, then it is an exercise in futility to even entertain the idea of multiple gunmen.

(Incidentally when I capitalize a WORD, I am not shouting, I am adding caps the same as I were underlining a word if that possible with this font.)

Steve,

You are acting on the assumption that the perpetrators of the assassination might fear getting caught,i.e., firing from different directions. The people who carried this out knew there would never really by any kind of punishment, because when something is planned at the highest level of government, who are you going to go to?

Case in point, RFK. Dr. Thomas Nogucci, L.A. county coroner, has stated numerous times RFK was killed by a bullet fired from behind the right ear at no more than ONE INCH from the skin, powder burns proved that. Now, Sirhan was in FRONT of RFK. How much more basic can one get than that? Yet who has been sitting in San Quinton now for

40 years? The government will never conduct a serious investigation into anything in which they were a party---just look at Patrick Tillman, his parents are still looking for answers 4 years after the fact. The government used his death timed very conveniently as a distraction cover story because they knew the Abu Ghraib story was about to break wide open. The top dogs don't have to answer to anyone.

I would like to pose two questions:

1. If President Kennedy was shot from the right front, then why wasn't there any damage to the left rear side of the president's head? Why don't the x-rays reveal any metallic particles on the left side of the head? Please keep in mind there is no serious debate over the authenticity of the x-rays. Even Dr. Cyril Wecht admits the x-rays are 100% accurate. Therefore, why no metallic fragments in the left half of the President's head?

2. Why would any conspiracy have two gunmen firing from different directions, thus immediately exposing their conspiracy? As soon as gunmen fired from different locations (behind and in front) it would be clear there was a conspiracy and all of the efforts to conceal said conspiracy would be exposed immediately. Why wouldn't the conspirators have both gunmen right next to one another, thus hiding the fact that two gunmen were firing.

Any ideas?

With all due respect, the Germans have more freedom of speech than we in the good ole USA have now under Bush. Our media is censored and owned by neocon corporations, this is why we come on a German site and post conspiracy thoughts because our own government won't listen to us and our media sold out long ago.

No one is trying to censor anyone. But the people who try and knock down conspiracy theories often resort to name calling and personal attacks.

You seem to not be getting many posts on your site after you banished all the anti-conspiracy comments. It appears that the pro-conspiracy nuts are afraid to come out from under the rocks where they reside for fear their theories will be exposed for all the holes, lack of evidence, and silliness they contain. Of course if you allowed ALL comments you would have a thriving comment site with new posts every single day and a LOT more visitors. But your censorship seems to have brought all serious inquiry to a halt. Now you can see why we don't advocate censorship in the United States of America. We actually ENCOURAGE debate and exchange of ideas. You Germans have never really caught on to free expression and open exchange of ideas have you? Oh well, maybe someday.

Please let me emphasize that this forum is not pro or contra any theory. All posts get published as long as they follow the standard rules of the netiquette.

Thank you!

That is just one of the many theories "out there". I am not saying there is any truth to it, it is for researchers to do their own research and decide for themselves.

However, the book I mentioned several months ago on this site, Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong, tells a completely different story of Oswald. It has forty years worth of research put into it. I will put the link on here again. It is definitely worth looking into. I do believe that Ruby and Oswald knew each other, and that Oswald was in fact in the Carousel Club prior to the assassination. Dozens of witnesses have come forward and stated that. Oh, you won't see it in the Warren Report. The FBI said they had no information on Oswald, yet later, after they were forced to release documents, it was found that they did indeed have a file on Oswald. This is all theory and conjecture, I am not stating any of this as fact. It is an opinion.

Take a good look at the photos of Oswald on this link. They were all provided by the Warren Commission. You can clearly see these are two different men. When Oswald's grave was dug up in 1979 because of all the questions surrounding his identity, it was discovered that his grave had been previously broken into. This was stated on camera by Paul Groody, the Miller Funeral Home Fort Worth manager, who had embalmed and prepared Oswald for burial. Why would anyone want to break into his grave?

http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/

But I'm not sure what these researchers are claiming. Are they claiming that oswald was NOT actually shot by Ruby? If that is their claim where do they say the real Oswald is today? Or are they saying that Ruby was in on this staged "murder" also? If that is there claim then why would Ruby be willing to get the death penalty for his part in a non-murder and never speak up about it?

Personally I see a lot of holes in the staged murder theory. Besides, where does this theory even go? What are the conspirators gonig to gain by staging Oswald's murder?

Good one, Merv. Even us die hard conspiracy researchers appreciate a little humor now and then.

BTW, here is a little more food for thought. There are those who think the entire Oswald shooting scene was "staged". Several researchers have pointed out the fact that there did not seem to be blood anywhere, not on anyone's clothes who handled him, not on the basement garage floor, or anywhere. Oswald had a choice of two sweaters to put on, one light, one dark, he chose the dark one.

I think this photo of Oswald and Ruby on the PBS web site is often overlooked by people who research the Kennedy assassination.

http://www.pbs.org/ktca/americanphotography/features/digital/oswald_big.jpg

I agree to Linda. This is not a forum to have discussions. There are plenty of other websites to discuss evidences and facts and theories.

Thank you!

This is a direct quote taken from your April 1, 2008 post Steve:

I HOPE ALL FUTURE VISITORS TO THIS SITE WILL TAKE A NOTE THAT BEFORE I CAME ALONG THERE WERE POSTINGS EVERY FEW DAYS OF ONE WACKY CONSPIRACY THEORY AFTER ANOTHER. ONCE I CHALLENGED THE NUTS OUT THERE TO RESPOND TO THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THEY ALL DISAPPEARED.

Clearly Steve, you said THIS site. It doesn't say anything about you being new to the site and that is clearly not the impression you were giving. I suppose now you will tell me it was an April fool's joke.

I may be a wacko conspiracy nut but at least I am an honest one.

I think it is time for us to step aside for a bit and let others post. It is not my intention to sidetrack this site into a verbal back and forth game. All are welcome here to say whatever they like and none are accountable to you Steve.

I am brand new to THIS site. My post did not say that I have been on THIS site for years. Either you misread my message or I was not sufficiently clear. If I gave the impression that I was an old veteran to THIS site it was unintentional. I've been studying the Kennedy assassination since 1975 and I have been challenging conspiracy believers with the actual evidence on many sites since the mid-1990s. Often times I have a hard time finding any conspiracy nuts that are willing to discuss the actual evidence so I get bored very quickly with most sites. From my two weeks on THIS site I am still waiting for anything of substance to be posted (besides the actual EVIDENCE that I posted last week.)

By the way, your avoidance of my questions and your reticence to bring up any issues did not go unnoticed.

Hopefully this explanation clears up any ambiguity in my previous post(s).

Since you've nervously avoided MY questions I certainly hope you will take the time to lay out YOUR best arguments that support your conspiracy suspicions. I will be waiting right here. I am easy to spot, I'm the one with all the evidence behind me.

What about those posts Steve? Where are the posts you say are on this JFK website where you claim to talk down the conspiracy nuts? There is not a single post by you before March 26, 2008. Please do not ask others to back up their claims when you are not willing to do the same.

Now for a more detailed response to Linda's comments.

1. One of the first rules of serious historical scholarship or historical debate is that not all opinions are of equal worth. Some are well supported by logic and historical evidence. These opinions are of the most worth because they can be proven and backed up with concrete evidence. Other opinions are of little intrinsic worth because they have virtually no evidence or logic to support them. For example: One historian may make the claim that Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in history and offer no concrete facts to support his/her claim. They will say as Linda said, "It's just an opinion." When challenged they may employ the tactic that they don't have to offer ANY evidence, it is just their opinion (ala Linda). But other historians will never take them seriously because they fail to bring to the table of discussion any proof. People make ridiculous claims all the time (the moon landings were faked, Bigfoot lives in the mountains of Washington, the 9-11 attacks were carried out by our own government, President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a massive conspiracy) all without concrete evidence. Do these nuts have the right to make such innane claims? Of course they do. The government of the United States protects the scholars and the kooks equally. Of course it is their right to make boundless claims but serious scholars are under no obligation to take them seriously in the least.

2. Having the evidence and the logic on my side I WELCOME any question(s) that ANYONE has about the Kennedy case. You won't ever see ME running from the evidence or avoiding questions. I will gladly respond to ANY serious question about the Kennedy assassination. Unlike Linda, I am delighted to support MY beliefs with the evidencein this case. So let's turn the tables shall we? Since the conspiracy community is unable to answer my ten simple questions then let the conspiracy mongers ask ME their questions. Give me YOUR ten best arguments in FAVOR of a conspiracy and let's see how they stand up to the evidence in this case. Of course if a ridiculous generalization is made, there is no defense to nonsense, but if anyone raises a legitimate question or an apparant contradiction in the evidence I will gladly respond to it.

For instance:

1. Tell me how many gunmen were firing that day in Dallas.

2. Tell me where the gunman(men) was(were) firing from.

3. How many shots struck President Kennedy and from what direction(s).

4. Why did so much evidence point to Oswald if he wasn't the guilty party?

Well, the gauntlet has been tossed at the feet of the conspiracy lunatics out there. Let's see what they can summon up for discussion.

I'll be right here waiting, kids.

Boy did I predict this or what? I've dealt with literally hundreds of conspiracy nuts over the years and they will NEVER address the evidence in this case. Linda certainly didn't and she never will. Conspiracy nuts would rather stare directly into the sun at noon than look at the evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt.

End of story.

Just one more thing..........Steve.........you say you have been "getting rid" of the cockroaches for years on this site because you just blow them away with your evidentiary findings and they are so intimidated they give up and leave this site for good. Oh and you even thought I was gone too. Ok, I went back 10 years on this forum Steve and you've got some "splainin" to do because I could not find a single post for you other than your 3 or 4 most recent. You must have been going by another name. You tell us we are making claims WE cannot back up??

If you go back on this forum and look for me you will see me for quite some time. Gee, I must be one of those "stubborn" cockroaches!

No one will ever gain another's respect or consideration on this or any other forum by name calling. You may call us nuts, wackos, or anything else you choose, but it does not refute the fact that there is plenty of evidence of conspiracy. We are not required to go tit for tat with anyone nor will we. You state your case and we will state ours. This is not a press conference in which we are required to answer pointed questions about anything. If my eyesight is correct, the link to this page says very clearly TELL YOUR OWN OPINION. It does not say you must back it up with scientific facts and unrefutable evidence in order to not be considered a nut case by those who disagree with you.