Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Tommy,

I don't know whether or not Oswald had gonorrhea. What I do know is that he had more than just smear tests. He also had a culture & sensitivity test. So I don't know why point #13 that you quoted says that a culture wasn't done.

 

Sandy,

I don't know, either.  Haven't looked into it.  Just thought you might find it "interesting".

Have you read the article yet?  Or is the cognitive dissonance involved just too darn painful?

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Dennis Bartholomew said, "As an aside, I’m always astounded by the new information that John Armstrong keeps finding."

James Hargrove replied, "Me too, and I’m his biggest fan. Amazing how many people (and groups) are gunning for him. I mean, if his conclusions about two Oswalds are wrong, which I doubt, so what?"

 

RIGHT.

So what if Armstrong, Hargrove, Josephs, et al., confused newbies, obfuscated the real facts of the case, and contributed to flaky "Deep State" thinking in the research community?

Ain't no big deal.

--  Tommy :sun

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1-medical%2009:1958.jpg

 

Let's tabulate the evidence.

Evidence that the treatments were given onshore:

  • Most of the treatments are stamped "NAS Navy 3835," the designator used for the Naval Air Station at Atsugi. Surely the ship would have had its own designator. That only makes sense.
  • The top of the medical records are marked "East Camp." That sounds like an onshore description, not a description of being onboard a ship.
  • Small ships like the USS Skagit do not have doctors today, and likely would not have 50 years ago either. A ship without a doctor surely would be one without a lab as well. Since the first prescription for a smear test specifically states "To Lab for Smear," the sample must have gone to an onshore lab. (It's possible that Navy Corpsmen were trained to do simple smear tests. So I won't consider that as evidence for onshore treatment.)
  • Oswald was treated by a doctor (Dr. Kuehn). Given that doctors aren't assigned to small ships now, and likely wouldn't have been 50 years ago, it is likely that Oswald was treated onshore by Dr. Kuehn. At Atsugi.
     

Evidence that the treatments were given onboard the USS Skagit:

  • None. Except that Oswald would have to be in two places at once. Unless there were two of him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dennis Bartholomew said, "As an aside, I’m always astounded by the new information that John Armstrong keeps finding."

James Hargrove replied, "Me too, and I’m his biggest fan. Amazing how many people (and groups) are gunning for him. I mean, if his conclusions about two Oswalds are wrong, which I doubt, so what?"

 

RIGHT.

So what if Armstrong, Hargrove, Josephs, et al., confused newbies, obfuscated the real facts of the case, and contributed to flaky "Deep State" thinking in the research community?

Ain't no big deal.

--  Tommy :sun

 

Tommy, is it not a matter of degrees? You have said that you accept a second Oswald, but do not accept a plan for grooming two Oswalds as long as a decade before; correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that you are attacking the whole theory because you cannot accept its depth and breadth. Can you say where you draw the line, with some specifity, and without prejudice to the larger theory?

I steered clear of this whole thing for a while. But then I independently came upon situations such as the one at The Furniture Mart. I have tried but I get no satisfactory explanations for such stories.

Cheers,

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

I don't know, either.  Haven't looked into it.  Just thought you might find it "interesting".

Have you read the article yet?  Or is the cognitive dissonance involved just too darn painful?

--  Tommy :sun


Tommy,

I skimmed through the article but found myself disinterested in it. Because it is purported to be debunking something that I don't believe believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Tommy, is it not a matter of degrees? You have said that you accept a second Oswald, but do not accept a plan for grooming two Oswalds as long as a decade before; correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that you are attacking the whole theory because you cannot accept its depth and breadth. Can you say where you draw the line, with some specifity, and without prejudice to the larger theory?

I steered clear of this whole thing for a while. But then I independently came upon situations such as the one at The Furniture Mart. I have tried but I get no satisfactory explanations for such stories.

Cheers,

Michael

Michael,

Like most of the other members here (hopefully), I'm still learning about the JFK Assassination with my limited but (hopefully) open mind.  My "problem" is that I'm a very critical thinker and tend to do a lot of time-consuming fact-checking before I even tentatively accept something as true in this complicated and sometimes-bewildering case.

Just recently I read the old, above-mentioned post by Jon G. Tidd which made a lot more sense to me than Harvey and Lee does.  Does that mean that I've swallowed Jon's theory (of a four-year Oswald Double Project) hook, line, and sinker?  No.  But I'm working on it.

Okay?

--  Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Tommy,

I skimmed through the article but found myself disinterested in it. Because it is purported to be debunking something that I don't believe in.

Sandy,

(I am) A bit confused now.

In the context of what we've been talking about here, what is it you "don't believe in"?

You don't believe in what Adams is saying (I don't necessarily believe everything he says), or you don't believe in an aspect of Harvey and Lee?

If the former, then your "disinterest" might be a symptom of cognitive dissonance, yes?

--  Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

James Hargrove replied, "Me too, and I’m his biggest fan. Amazing how many people (and groups) are gunning for him. I mean, if his conclusions about two Oswalds are wrong, which I doubt, so what?"

 

I wonder if Jim really meant that, or if his wording gives an unintended meaning.

Regardless, I see some truth in what he appears to be saying. At least for people like me who are already convinced that Oswald was a fake defector working for the CIA.Because my core beliefs aren't affected by the Harvey & Lee theory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I wonder if Jim really meant that, or if his wording gives an unintended meaning.

Regardless, I see some truth in what he appears to be saying. At least for people like me who are already convinced that Oswald was a fake defector working for the CIA.Because my core beliefs aren't affected by the Harvey & Lee theory.

 

Sandy,

Good.

So, as you "grow" here, you'll eventually be able to shed the full-blown, literal-childhoods-interpretation, etc, of Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites, and be able to see that some of those "childhood facts" (if indeed they pertain and were't simple mistakes) were fabricated after they'd reached adulthood, right?  (One definition of "adulthood" being acceptable for admittance by the Marine Corps.)  (lol)

That's the "CT" I seem to be moving towards.  At the moment.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:
17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Tommy,

I skimmed through the article but found myself disinterested in it. Because it is purported to be debunking something that I don't believe in.

Sandy,

(I am) A bit confused now.

In the context of what we've been talking about here, what is it you "don't believe in"?

You don't believe in what Adams is saying (I don't necessarily believe everything he says), or you don't believe in an aspect of Harvey and Lee?

If the former, then your "disinterest" might be a symptom of cognitive dissonance, yes?


There is what seems to be an official statement in Oswald's medical records that says (as best as I can recall, and paraphrased here rather poorly, I'm sure) that Oswald's VD wasn't caused by misbehavior on his part.

According to the article, some CTers use that statement as evidence that Oswald was a CIA agent. The argument goes something like this: Had Oswald gotten VD because of illicit sex he engaged in purely for his own satisfaction, then that would have been considered misbehavior on his part. But since it wasn't officially regarded as misbehavior, Oswald must have been engaged in sex as part of a sting operation. To get information from the woman. For the CIA.

I am not one of the CTers who believes that. And this is what I was saying when I said "[the article] is purported to be debunking something that I don't believe in."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


There is what seems to be an official statement in Oswald's medical records that says (as best as I can recall, and paraphrased here rather poorly, I'm sure) that Oswald's VD wasn't caused by misbehavior on his part.

According to the article, some CTers use that statement as evidence that Oswald was a CIA agent. The argument goes something like this: Had Oswald gotten VD because of illicit sex he engaged in purely for his own satisfaction, then that would have been considered misbehavior on his part. But since it wasn't officially regarded as misbehavior, Oswald must have been engaged in sex as part of a sting operation. To get information from the woman. For the CIA.

I am not one of the CTers who believes that. And this is what I was saying when I said "[the article] is purported to be debunking something that I don't believe in."

 

Tommy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


There is what seems to be an official statement in Oswald's medical records that says (as best as I can recall, and paraphrased here rather poorly, I'm sure) that Oswald's VD wasn't caused by misbehavior on his part.

According to the article, some CTers use that statement as evidence that Oswald was a CIA agent. The argument goes something like this: Had Oswald gotten VD because of illicit sex he engaged in purely for his own satisfaction, then that would have been considered misbehavior on his part. But since it wasn't officially regarded as misbehavior, Oswald must have been engaged in sex as part of a sting operation. To get information from the woman. For the CIA.

I am not one of the CTers who believes that. And this is what I was saying when I said "[the article] is purported to be debunking something that I don't believe in."

 

Sandy,

I've engaged several nasty women without, .....

Well, never mind.

Let me just say that what you quoted and paraphrased from memory, above, has more bearing on whether or not there were two Oswalds in the Marine Corps (as part of a four-year Oswald Double Project, perhaps) than it does with whether or not Lee or Harvey or Henry were sleeping with some infected hooker at the Queen Bee, as part of a CIA or KGB-doubled or CIA-tripled Intel Op.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

Good.

So as you "grow" here, you'll eventually be able to shed the full-blown, literal-childhoods-interpretation, etc, of Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites, and be able to see that some of those "childhood facts" were fabricated after they'd reached adulthood, right?  (One definition of "adulthood" being acceptable for admittance by the Marine Corps.)  (lol)

That's the CT I seem to be moving towards.  At the moment.

--  Tommy :sun


Yeah, I can either accept or reject (or anywhere in between) the Harvey & Lee theory and it will have no affect on my other beliefs. Which, BTW, are the important ones.

Pretty nifty, huh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

I've engaged several nasty women without, .....


I think I see where you were going with that. Or rather, the reason why you were going there. Instead of saying, "[Oswald's getting VD] would have been considered misbehavior on his part," I should have said, "the activity resulting in [Oswald's getting VD] would have been considered misbehavior on his part ."

Yeah, that's a more accurate phrasing.

 

6 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Well, never mind.

Let me just say that what you quoted and paraphrased from memory, above, has more bearing on whether or not there were two Oswalds in the Marine Corps (as part of a four-year Oswald Double Project, perhaps) than it does with whether or not Lee or Harvey or Henry were sleeping with some infected hooker at the Queen Bee, as part of a CIA or KGB-doubled or CIA-tripled Intel Op.

--  Tommy :sun


I don't understand how what I quoted and paraphrased has any bearing on whether or not there were two Oswalds in the Marine Corps. Can you tell me?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...