Reply #32: This just gets goofier and goofier....

[SDuderstadt]

I thought what you posted was interesting, to say the least, so I wanted to know more about where it came from. I truncated the url back to http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee and this is the intro:


"JFK researcher John Armstrong has shown that the Warren Commission combined the biographies of two different people to arrive at the classic legend of Lee Harvey Oswald. One was a Russian speaking youth, possibly the child of Hungarian parents. Mr. Armstrong notes that this person preferred to be called "Harvey." The other was a taller but similar looking boy with a Southern U.S. accent, born as "Lee Harvey Oswald," and who preferred to be called "Lee." Both youths became entangled at an early age in an American intelligence operation designed to give a U.S. identity to a Russian-speaking child. It was "Harvey" who traveled to Russia and was shot dead by Jack Ruby. It was "Lee" who framed "Harvey" for the assassination of JFK. The operation began when both "Harvey" and "Lee" were CHILDREN, but it probably did not become entangled in the plot to assassinate President Kennedy until the spring and summer of 1963."

So, let me make sure I get this straight. It all actually began when Lee Harvey Oswald and his russian-speaking "double" were just children? So, the plotters knew that Kennedy would become president in 1961 when Oswald was still a child? And they knew that they needed to find a double for Oswald so he could be framed? Could this be any goofier? Not to mention that Oswald's body was exhumed and the fingerprints confirmed to be that of Oswald through his military and other records.

Beyond that, if you read the excerpt of Wilcott's testimony, it's not very credible, for a number of reasons. I'll cite just several, to begin:

First of all, there are larger numbers of people who testified to the opposite of what Wilcott claimed. While it is true that just because more people testified differently does not, in and of itself, establish the opposite as true, it does go in that direction.

Secondly, Wilcott's testimony comes 15 years AFTER the assassination. As we all know, recollection becomes LESS vivid with the passage of time, not more vivid. Setting that aside for a moment, Wilcott does not even have direct knowledge of Oswald having supposedly worked for the CIA and even refers to his testimony as "hearsay". When he is first questioned about who supposedly told him about Oswald being employed by the C.I.A., he can't even recall a specific name until he is prompted by the HSCA counsel, even then he is tentative. If you read his entire testimony through, he even contradicts himself in several places.

Neither Armstrong nor Wilcott, for that matter, provide any documentary evidence or any smoking guns. By way of comparison, the Warren Commission, Gerald Posner, Failure Analysis Associates, Vincent Bugliosi and others provide convincing evidence in the other direction. As hard as it is to believe, Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed JFK. The world has never been the same since and "Who killed JFK?" has become a cottage industry that has taken on a life of its own. But, one thing we know is that the C.I.A. (or the Cubans, Mafia or LBJ) killed Kennedy.