• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Thomas Graves

A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

667 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

My point still stands. It would only take one person to notice the two men or their two mothers at any point in time over the years from 1947 up to the present day and come foreword and report it to an investigative journalist. Even setting aside the scientific evidence that refutes the theory, It is simply not believable  that the CIA or any entity could pull off such a deception with no one the wiser or that they could kill all these people or pay them all off.

How short your memory is Tracy.

American-born Lee Oswald's own half-brother, John Pic, shown two different pictures of Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald, told the Warren Commission, under oath, that the image was not of his brother.

Real Marguerite's two best friends for two decades told the Warren Commission they did not recognize phony Marguerite and wouldn't have known who she was if they hadn't been told.

There are other examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

How short your memory is Tracy.

American-born Lee Oswald's own half-brother, John Pic, shown two different pictures of Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald, told the Warren Commission, under oath, that the image was not of his brother.

Real Marguerite's two best friends for two decades told the Warren Commission they did not recognize phony Marguerite and wouldn't have known who she was if they hadn't been told.

There are other examples.

"Dear James"

1 )  Could you please post here the two photos of "Russian-speaking Harvey" which John Pic was shown?  Were they new photos at the time, or old ones?  How recently had Pic been face-to-face with "Lee"?

2 )  Marguerite's two best friends didn't recognize "phony" Marguerite from face-to-face encounters they had with her, or from seeing her on TV, or from looking at some photographs?

 If photographs, were they old ones ones or new ones?

How recently had they met face-to-face with the "real" Marguerite?

--  Tommy :sun

PS  You'd better but a big bandage on that wound Tracy gave you a few minutes ago.  You're dripping blood all over the place.

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

How short your memory is Tracy.

American-born Lee Oswald's own half-brother, John Pic, shown two different pictures of Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald, told the Warren Commission, under oath, that the image was not of his brother.

Real Marguerite's two best friends for two decades told the Warren Commission they did not recognize phony Marguerite and wouldn't have known who she was if they hadn't been told.

There are other examples.

Pic said he did not recognize that photo. He had every opportunity to tell the WC of a plot involving 2 Oswalds. He did not. I assume you are referring to Mr. and Mrs. Evans. They knew Marguerite and said so. From my blog:

One of the most egregious misrepresentations of evidence by Armstrong concerns the testimony of Myrtle Evans. Armstrong says that Evans knew the “real” Marguerite and not the impostor. To make his case Armstrong states on page 118 of his book:


Following the assassination Myrtle and Julian Evans saw this woman on television. When deposed on April 7, 1964 by Warren Commission Attorney Albert Jenner, Myrtle Evans said, "When I saw her on TV, after all that had happened," Myrtle Evans told the Warren Commission, "she looked so old and haggard, and I said that couldn't be Margie." …

But Armstrong left out what she said next:

but of course it was ...

Bottom line-the Evans' recognized Marguerite and said so. Read all about it here, including a list of those who could have come forward to say the Marguerite they saw on TV was not the Marguerite they knew.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANOTHER ONE OF LARSEN'S LAUGHERS:

-----------------------

But Tracy, the two men don't look alike. Side-by-side they look like two different men.

I agree that if you compare eyes alone, they look similar. (One person commented that the eyebrows are the same, and another said they look different, so I don't know about that. I forgot to compare eyebrows when I looked at Mike Walton's transposition of the two.) I agree that the mouths look the same. But overall they look different.

I think the only time the two might be confused is when you've seen one, and then see the other at a later date or time. In other words, they sort of look the same.

BTW, I found the following from looking at Mike's transposition:

Eye, nose, and mouth spacing is very close.
The ears on one (Lee, I think) are significantly higher.
The chins are different. Lee has a pointed chin, and Harvey has a slight cleft chin that makes it more square at its tip. Though that might disappear if he gained weight.

------------------------

Yeah, he's a man of science alright.  Just read his scientific analysis above.  He can't  even keep track of which fictional character Hargrove is rambling on about here. And just like he said he saw one of the old guys down on the steps as JFK's head got blown off - one of them was holding a black pistol...or camera.  And then he qualified it as a joke (heh, heh - just joking here).

And then another Larsen Laugher is he said a guy standing out in the outfield of a MLB park has to throw the ball to home and actually aim it the same height as 15-story building. You read that right.  But when another member said he threw the ball to home on one hop, Laughing Larsen replies befuddled, "I don't know what that means."

Here's the graphic I made months ago to prove him wrong.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxTXo1QXVBRUhfTUU

Can anyone tell me that by throwing a ball from the outfield to home you'd have to aim it that high?

So Jim Hargrove, keep entertaining a man of science (and doesn't know any better) with your fairy tale.  The Laughing Larsen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

ANOTHER ONE OF LARSEN'S LAUGHERS:

-----------------------

But Tracy, the two men don't look alike. Side-by-side they look like two different men.

I agree that if you compare eyes alone, they look similar. (One person commented that the eyebrows are the same, and another said they look different, so I don't know about that. I forgot to compare eyebrows when I looked at Mike Walton's transposition of the two.) I agree that the mouths look the same. But overall they look different.

I think the only time the two might be confused is when you've seen one, and then see the other at a later date or time. In other words, they sort of look the same.

BTW, I found the following from looking at Mike's transposition:

Eye, nose, and mouth spacing is very close.
The ears on one (Lee, I think) are significantly higher.
The chins are different. Lee has a pointed chin, and Harvey has a slight cleft chin that makes it more square at its tip. Though that might disappear if he gained weight.

------------------------

Yeah, he's a man of science alright.  Just read his scientific analysis above.  He can't  even keep track of which fictional character Hargrove is rambling on about here. And just like he said he saw one of the old guys down on the steps as JFK's head got blown off - one of them was holding a black pistol...or camera.  And then he qualified it as a joke (heh, heh - just joking here).

And then another Larsen Laugher is he said a guy standing out in the outfield of a MLB park has to throw the ball to home and actually aim it the same height as 15-story building. You read that right.  But when another member said he threw the ball to home on one hop, Laughing Larsen replies befuddled, "I don't know what that means."

Here's the graphic I made months ago to prove him wrong.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxTXo1QXVBRUhfTUU

Can anyone tell me that by throwing a ball from the outfield to home you'd have to aim it that high?

So Jim Hargrove, keep entertaining a man of science (and doesn't know any better) with your fairy tale.  The Laughing Larsen.

Depends on how far the building is from the outfielder.

--  Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Pic said he did not recognize that photo. He had every opportunity to tell the WC of a plot involving 2 Oswalds. He did not. I assume you are referring to Mr. and Mrs. Evans. They knew Marguerite and said so. From my blog:

One of the most egregious misrepresentations of evidence by Armstrong concerns the testimony of Myrtle Evans. Armstrong says that Evans knew the “real” Marguerite and not the impostor. To make his case Armstrong states on page 118 of his book:


Following the assassination Myrtle and Julian Evans saw this woman on television. When deposed on April 7, 1964 by Warren Commission Attorney Albert Jenner, Myrtle Evans said, "When I saw her on TV, after all that had happened," Myrtle Evans told the Warren Commission, "she looked so old and haggard, and I said that couldn't be Margie." …

But Armstrong left out what she said next:

but of course it was ...

Bottom line-the Evans' recognized Marguerite and said so. Read all about it here, including a list of those who could have come forward to say the Marguerite they saw on TV was not the Marguerite they knew.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

Tracy,

Please do not confuse Jim Hargrove with the facts.

LOL

--  Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Can anyone tell me that by throwing a ball from the outfield to home you'd have to aim it that high?


Michael,

Everybody who is skilled in physics and math agrees with me on this. All the ballistic calculators agree with me. Only people who are lacking in those skills, and who don't believe or understand ballistic calculators, could possibly agree with you.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/22979-why-humes-thought-the-back-missile-hit-at-a-sharp-angle-a-hypothesis/&do=findComment&comment=348619


But in your little world, anybody or anything you disagree with -- science included -- is wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Depends on how far the building is from the outfielder.

--  Tommy :sun


Michael's imaginary building is 120 yards away from the outfielder. Right where the catcher is. (Michael erroneously placed the building at half that distance. His distance is based on what I said, but he apparently misunderstood me.)

I said that the outfielder has to aim 197 feet above the catcher. Which is the same as saying the ball has to leave the outfielder's hand at a 28.7 degree angle above the horizon.

At 28.7 degrees, for very yard the ball travels toward the horizon, it rises 0.547 yards. So once it travels the 120 yards, the ball would be 0.547 x 120 = 65.7 yards up in the air. Which is 197 yards. That is where the ball is aimed. The reason we don't see it reach that height is because gravity constantly pulls the ball downward after it leaves the outfielder's hand.

BTW, the answer I and others give is based on the assumption that there is no air resistance. This in order to simplify the calculation. With wind resistance added, the outfielder will have to either throw the ball faster (than the given 80 mph) or at an increased angle (greater than 28.7 degrees). Note that the optimal angle for throwing a ball the greatest distance is 45 degrees. (That is the case in a vacuum. I don't know if that is true when air resistance is added.) Throwing the ball at an angle either greater or less than 45 degrees will shorten the distance it will travel. (That is, the distance parallel to the ground.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2017 at 3:41 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

One of my favorite Harvey and Lee examples comes courtesy of the USMC.

Throughout much of 1957 and 1958, American-born LEE Harvey Oswald was serving continuously in the United States Marine Corps, in bases at various locations in the mainland U.S. and in Japan and the Phillipines.  During this same time, Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald was placed briefly in several USMC training facilities but spent much of the time living in the Hotel Senator in New Orleans and later in Fort Worth.

But in September 1958, Harvey Oswald traveled from the mainland U.S. to the large Marine base at Atsugi, Japan, where Lee Oswald was also stationed.  According to First Lieutenant William K. Trail, Harvey was placed in the brig at Atsugi.  This was probably done to keep Harvey away from Marines who worked and bunked with Lee at the base.  That was critical, because Harvey was about to assume Lee’s USMC identity, and start acting like a Russian-loving communist in preparation for his false defection.

According to Marine Corps Unit Diary 151- 58 (744), Lee Harvey Oswald and his unit departed from Japan for a week long trip to the South China Sea on September 14, 1958 aboard the USS Skagit (AKA 105), an attack cargo ship.
 

uss%20skagit.jpg

 

09%2014%2058.jpg


While Lee Oswald was still stationed at Atsugi, Japan, Harvey Oswald arrived in Taiwan on September 30, 1958, where he soon was spotted doing a very un-Marine like thing.   On the evening of October 4, 1958, Lt. Charles Rhodes heard four or five rifle shots coming from the direction of the position that Harvey was guarding. Rhodes ran toward Oswald and found him slumped against a tree, shaking, and crying while holding his rifle. He kept saying that he just couldn't bear to be on guard duty.  Harvey’s Taiwan adventure would soon come to an end.

In the meantime, though, while Harvey was still aboard the USS Skagit and accompanying real Marines in Taiwan (9/14/58–10/6/58), LEE Oswald contracted veneral disease and was repeatedly treated for it at the Navy Hospital in Atsugi, Japan, some 1400 miles from Taiwan.   Medical records for NAS Navy 3835 a Naval Hospital at Atsugi, show numerous medical entries for LEE Oswald recorded on Sept 16, 20, 22, 23, 29, and Oct 6.

1-medical%2009:1958.jpg

 

2-medical%2009:5858.jpg

 

As good as this story is so far, it gets even better.  But I’m going to pause for a moment and let Tracy Parnell or someone similar make a post with a link to somewhere saying all this has been “debunked”. Wait for it—it shouldn’t take long.  Then I'll show the rest of the story.

This is going to be fun!
 

Here's some more on the story above ....

The Warren Commission had published the Marine Corps documents clearly indicating that “Lee Harvey Oswald” had been en route to and stationed at Taiwan during the very same time he was being treated for venereal disease at the naval hospital in Atsugi, Japan, some 1400 miles from Taiwan.

The HSCA realized this was a problem. Instead of admitting that “Oswald” was clearly in two places at the same time, Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel for the HSCA, wrote to Secretary of Defense Harold Brown and asked a very simple question, "During which periods was Oswald separated from his units overseas because of hospitalization.” See question 2 below.  In the next paragraph, he went on to describe the problem.

Blakey-Brown.jpg?dl=0

The Department of Defense answered Blakey’s question by saying, "Oswald did not sail from Yokosuka, Japan on September 16, 1958. He remained at NAS (Naval Air Station) Atsugi, as part of the MAG II rear echelon.

 

Sec_Def_Taiwan.jpg?dl=0

 

In other words, despite all the evidence that “Lee Harvey Oswald” had traveled to Taiwan on September 14, 1958 aboard the USS Skagit, including unit diaries, trip manifests, eyewitness testimony, photographs and descriptions of Taiwan by “Oswald” himself, the Office of the Secretary of Defense simply denied it.  The HSCA concluded as follows:

The Department of Defense specifically stated that 'Oswald did not sail from Yokosuka,
Japan on September 16, 1958. He remained at NAS Atsugi as part of the MAG-
11 rear echelon.' Accordingly, based upon a direct examination of Oswald's unit diaries,
as well as his own-military records, it does not appear that he had spent any time in
Taiwan. This finding is contrary to that of the Warren Commission that Oswald arrived
with his unit in Taiwan on September 30, 1958, and remained there somewhat less than
a week, but the Commission's analysis apparently was made without access to the unit
diaries of MAG 11.

The Warren Commission had failed to suppress the evidence of “Lee Harvey Oswald” being in Japan and Taiwan at the same time.  The HSCA had to deliberately misrepresent the evidence in order to prevent the Harvey and Lee Project evidence from becoming public knowledge. 

That tactic still seems to be working for some members of this forum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2017 at 1:43 PM, Thomas Graves said:

"Dear James"

To freshen your memory, we were talking about Hungarian "Harvey's" incredibly good English syntax, grammar, and vocabulary, not his Russian language skills.

He spoke and wrote pretty darn good English for a (dyslexic?) boy whose "mother tongue" was Hungarian  (a Central Asian-based, non-Indo-European language), and who, at a young age, learned the Indo-European but highly "inflected" (look it up) Russian language, and then somehow mastered the also Indo-European but not highly inflected English language!  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection#English

Russian has six "cases" (look up that grammatical term), whereas English (which centuries ago was highly inflected) has only 2 1/2 "mishmashed" ones.  

That's why word order is important in English.  "Active voice" (look up that grammatical term) uses classic Subject - Verb - Object  word order; "Passive voice"  uses Object - Verb - Subject word order (which is preferred by lawyers, btw - LOL).

In a Slavic language like Russian, word order is not so important (except for emphasizing different words in the sentence); that's why Russian people who are learning English often utter sentences that seem "all mixed up" to us, word-order-wise.

Two other differences to bear in mind are that English has something like 18 or 21 "tenses" (look it up), whereas Russian only has three or five (depending on how you define "tense"), and that English uses "articles" (look it up), i.e. "a" "an" and "the", whereas Slavic languages like Russian do not, which would explain why my Czech students made so many mistakes in trying to use them correctly while speaking English.  (That's why whenever I hear someone having problems with the words "a" "an" and  / or "the", I immediately suspect, especially if I can hear a Slavic accent, that they are from a Slavic country like Poland, the Czech Republic, or Russia, for example.)

It's interesting to note that your Hungarian "Harvey" who had "learned Russian at an early age" didn't make mistakes regarding word order , tenses, or the use of the aforementioned "articles" when speaking or writing in English.  Which leads me to believe that he was born in the U.S., and that English was his "mother tongue."

--  Tommy :sun

PS  It seems to me that your Precious Professor was full of high-falutin' "book-learning," but was woefully inexperienced with "hands on" learning.  Like being raised in La Jolla, California (home of UCSD and the Salk Institute, etc), hitch-hiking to Alaska, driving a taxi cab for five years in San Diego and Scottsdale, Arizona, going to lawschool for one year -- and not flunking out! --, and teaching "conversational English" to Czech people for seven years, in ... the Czech Republic.

Oh, yeah, and having to learn some Czech, myself, like "Another beer, please" , "How much does it cost?" ,  and ...  "Where's the restroom?"

bumped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

42 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

In other words, despite all the evidence that “Lee Harvey Oswald” had traveled to Taiwan on September 14, 1958 aboard the USS Skagit, including unit diaries, trip manifests, eyewitness testimony, photographs and descriptions of Taiwan by “Oswald” himself, the Office of the Secretary of Defense simply denied it.


Jim,

If there really is substantive evidence that Oswald was in Taiwan at that time, then you (may) have some incredibly strong evidence for two Oswalds. (You'll see below why I say "may.")

What I have seen so far is that Oswald left for Taiwan on Sept. 14 and returned on Oct. 6. Either those VD documents were faked, or the LHO entries in the departure and return diary documents are incorrect.

Suppose Oswald's name was mistakenly printed on the departure diary entry. When the unit returned from Taiwan, maybe whoever it is that creates those documents felt it was prudent to include Oswald's name on the return diary entry so that the records wouldn't indicate an AWOL or lost private.

However, I just read again what you wrote about  Oswald crying in Taiwan. How about you present your evidence that he truly was in Taiwan between Sept. 14 and Oct. 6. If you can do that I will be amazed. Almost. (I say almost because another thought that enters my mind is that somehow Oswald was treated aboard the USS Skagit, even though records show otherwise.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am working on a chronology but don’t have this period detailed as well as it should be yet. However, Greg Parker offers a little more detail on this period which seems to jibe with what I have so far. This is from his book Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War Vol. 2.

September 14, 1958: LHO is on the USS Skagit bound for the South China Sea.

September 19: Arrives at Taiwan.

September 24: Arrives in Hong Kong.

October 5: LHO is sent to Atsugi following the guard duty incident from Epstein’s book.

October 6: LHO is hospitalized (for VD).

October 13: LHO is released.

November 2: LHO departs Yokosuka for San Francisco arriving November 15.

So, the HSCA was wrong that LHO was not in Taiwan. And no 2 Oswalds required.

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I am working on a chronology but don’t have this period detailed as well as it should be yet. However, Greg Parker offers a little more detail on this period which seems to jibe with what I have so far. This is from his book Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War Vol. 2.

September 14, 1958: LHO is on the USS Skagit bound for the South China Sea.

September 19: Arrives at Taiwan.

September 24: Arrives in Hong Kong.

October 5: LHO is sent to Atsugi following the guard duty incident from Epstein’s book.

October 6: LHO is hospitalized (for VD).

October 13: LHO is released.

November 2: LHO departs Yokosuka for San Francisco arriving November 15.

So, the HSCA was wrong that LHO was not in Taiwan. And no 2 Oswalds required.


Hey Tracy, you don't get off that easy.

How do you explain Oswald's visits to the Naval hospital at Atsugi during the time he was on-board the USS Skagit, in Taiwan, and in Hong Kong? According to these Sick Call records:

(Thanks for the timeline, BTW.)

 

1-medical%2009:1958.jpg

 

2-medical%2009:5858.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said many times, I can't explain every discrepancy in the record and despite what they tell you, neither can Armstrong/Hargrove. However, we know from the complete body of evidence that there was only one Oswald. Therefore, the code 3835, which is the basis for the whole thing is wrong or being misinterpreted. This is how the H&L theory is able to exist. They find a discrepancy and despite all of the evidence to the contrary they run with it as proof of 2 Oswalds. And they have people who want this to be true and are able to suspend disbelief and accept it.

If you guys believe you have proof of 2 Oswalds and it solves the JFK case, take it to Morley. He operates in the real world and has published many articles on the case. If you can convince him of your theory and get him to do an article, you may have something. Good luck. But until that happens, you are going nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NAS 3835 designates the Naval Air Station at Atsugi.
 

Here's how I learned (confirmed) that:

First I did a thorough search for 3835 Navy and found that it is a Navy/Marine address used by the Fleet Post Office (FPO), which is in San Francisco.

If you want to mail something to a serviceman in the Navy or Marines, you send it to an address like

3835 FPO
San Francisco, CA

You need to provide further detail before the 3835 to get to the precise location/person. The FPO receives the parcel and forwards it to the location designated by the number, 3835 in this case.

I then did an thorough search for 3835 FPO and got numerous hits, but only a handful of them actually state what the location is. And all but one one of those had Atsugi. The one that didn't have Atsugi had Yokohama, which is nearby.

So 3835 most likely refers to the Atsugi area. Possibly to the Tokyo area, given that Atsugi and Yokohama are suburbs of Tokyo.

The code stamped on the Sick Call Reports is "NAS 3835 Navy." This, of course, is referring to the Naval Air Station at Atsugi.

Atsugi-Nas-Airport.8.gif

 

If anybody wants to confirm for themselves that 3835 designates Atsugi/Yokohama, search the following document for every occurrence of 3835. You'll see that the ones that list a location will be in the Atsugi area.

http://www.motobayashi.net/callbook/ka2.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now