Every now and then we stumble on a piece of information that is so out of tune that we automatically disregard it. So too did John Armstrong when he was doing the body of research for his book “Harvey and Lee.”
I like Mr. Armstrong, that is, I think I get a sense of the man. He’s not married to a theory, but rather to pursuit of truth. Evidence leads him to places he’d not otherwise have gone. He claims, based on twelve years of research, that there were two Oswalds: Lee, an American born in New Orleans, and Harvey, a Russian-speaking Eastern European immigrant whose real name he never learned. The identity of the European was merged with the American during the 1950’s.
In 1953 William Henry Timmer lived in Stanley, North Dakota, a town west of Minot in the northwestern part of the state. During that time he met a boy from New York City who called himself “Harvey,” or “Harv” Oswald. He was a curiosity in that small town, and other boys knew him as well. Harv talked about communism and once told Timmer that “Some day I am going to kill the president and that will show them.”
At the time of the assassination, Timmer had a “funny feeling” that Harv was the guy arrested in Dallas. His mother wrote a letter to President Johnson advising him of the incident. (The letter is shown beneath the fold.) The FBI followed up on the lead, but the Warren Commission ignored it, as “Lee” Oswald was officially in 1953 in New York City. His presence in Stanley was an anomaly.
“Harvey” Oswald, the man shot by Jack Ruby, was as he said, “just a patsy.” He did not shoot President Kennedy. There were perhaps four teams of shooters in Dallas that day, and rather than three “shots” perhaps three volleys of shots. But to have this same Harvey, the patsy, claim in 1953 that he had already been set up on a mission is confounding.
Harvey the spy was set up like this: He spoke fluent Russian, but kept that fact hidden while there. As “Lee,” the Russians would think him a real American, as they would dig into his background.
His secret ability to speak Russian allowed “Harvey” to hear and read things around him during his famous “defection” to the USSR. It’s brilliant.
How both “Harvey” and “Lee” were spotted and recruited is a mystery. Mr. Armstrong does not claim to know those details, only the outcome. I accept all of that as standard operating procedure, probably as old as Julius Caesar. Deep cover spies are known throughout recorded history.
The “clinker” is the statement in the early fifties that he intended to kill “the president.” What possible explanations are there for this?
- Mr. Trimmer is lying, and is merely a publicity hound. Armstrong has interviewed him at length (he lives near either Great Falls or Helena, Montana), and thinks he is honest. That’s an open question, but if he is a hound, he’s not good at it. He’s not gotten publicity, nor has he made money on his knowledge.
- That boy in Stanley was someone else. Timmer remembers him introduced as “Harvey Oswald,” however, and thinks he is the man Jack Ruby shot. The coincidence of names and looks is, at the very least, an oddity.
- “Harvey” was just talking tough for the boys. He was, after all, a big city kid in a small rural town. (That, to me, has some plausibility, but does not fully explain the happenstance of a New York kid in North Dakota threatening to shoot the president.)
There’s another explanation, and it is my own concoction, possibly a reach: In the postwar era, the United States government (and news media) was slowly infiltrated with moles, a continuation of the Third Reich, a mass importation of spies and military men under Operation Paperclip and by other means. CIA was the vehicle. They and others of that persuasion, who are nothing if not devoted to their cause, made their way into pivotal positions in the military and civilian government, and their ultimate aim was coup d’etat.
The coup would be an American coup, that is, uniquely designed for an American public long immersed delusions of self-governance and exceptionalism. We would be allowed to keep outer appearances of self-governance, our three branches of government and supposedly independent media, intact. But form would be devoid of substance, as it appears to be at this time.
To do this, at some point it would be necessary to murder the president and neutralize the executive branch. Any president would do. The murder would be a “coming out”, a show crime used to demonstrate to those in regular government who was really in charge. The people who did the crime were in effect saying “Look at us. Look what we can do. You’d be wise to stand down now.”
Only fools believe the official story of the JFK assassination. It’s ludicrous. Yet it stands as an icon. All who want a piece of the action must bow before it. No one of a “serious” bent in government, media or academia questions that painfully obvious lie.
Could it be that in 1953 a young man had been selected as patsy for the murder of the president, not even knowing who that president might be?
I do not know, of course. But the story of William Henry Timmer must either fit or be discarded. If it fits, then historians (now called “conspiracy theorists”) must discard all of this nonsense of JFK the hero, and merely regard him as JFK, the poor schmuck.
It fits, for me, in one regard: It would have been relatively easy to remove JFK from office without murdering him in public. What we saw that day was not a murder so much as an execution. Its purpose might actually be contained in its clumsiness.