Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jeremy Bojczuk

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeremy Bojczuk

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

837 profile views
  1. Yes: Andrew M. Mason, 'Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination' at http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf (PDF: 90kb), found 47 or so witnesses who either explicitly or implicitly claimed that the final two shots were noticeably closer together than the first shot. Mason quotes their testimony, and gives sources. One thing Mason fails to take into account is that most of these witnesses' accounts date from some time after the media had been consistently promoting the doctrine that three and only three shots had been fired. Nevertheless, it's good evidence that there was a noticeable gap between the first shot (or group of shots) and the final two shots (or groups of shots). Mason makes two worthwhile arguments against the long-discredited single-bullet theory: - Firstly, that the 'bang ... bang bang' pattern is incompatible with the standard version of the theory. This has the shots occurring at Zapruder frames 160, 223 and 313, with a gap of around three seconds between shots one (which missed) and two (which hit JFK and Connally), and a gap of around five seconds between shots two and three. - Secondly, that all the relevant witness evidence is consistent with the first shot (or group of shots) occurring after the Betzner photograph which was taken at frame 186. A shot at frame 186 would occur almost exactly two seconds before frame 223 (37 frames at 18.3 seconds per frame), too soon for both shots to have been fired from the sixth-floor rifle. Mason's own theory is a version of the FBI's original account of the assassination: three shots were fired, and all three hit either JFK or Connally. According to Mason, the first shot was fired at around frame 200, and wounded only JFK. The second shot was fired at around frame 271, and wounded only Connally. On page 22 of his article he writes that "Such a shot at frame 271 is consistent with Oswald firing all three shots and all three shots striking within the President's car", though he does admit that this is unlikely: "The time between the second and third shot (frames 271 to 313 - 42 frames) is 2.29 seconds, very close to the minimum which the FBI said was needed to fire, reload, aim and fire again." I'm not sure how many people believe Mason's theory. PS: He doesn't mention the T3 entrance wound or the bunching of JFK's jacket. Sorry about that.
  2. Sandy Larsen writes: Absolutely. For a start, there's no such thing as the Oswald Innocence Project. The organisation to which this petition relates, the Innocence Project ( https://www.innocenceproject.org/ ) has been campaigning for the last 26 years to rectify cases of mistaken convictions, and has so far exonerated more than 200 people. The so-called 'Oswald Innocence Campaign' ( http://www.oswald-innocent.com/ ) is something else altogether. It's an attempt to revive the long-refuted claim that the Altgens 6 photograph shows Lee Oswald, rather than Billy Lovelady, in the doorway of the book depository during the assassination. This claim, originally made by Harold Weisberg and repeated by Gerald McKnight and David Wrone, was based on the similarity of the shirt worn by the figure in the photograph to the shirt worn by Oswald after his arrest. Unfortunately for this claim, the evidence contained in two films, a home movie by John Martin and a news film by Charles Buck of WFAA-TV, proves that the shirt was identical to that worn by Lovelady. For a detailed account, see http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-on-tsbd-front-steps . Hardly anyone these days would use the shirt-similarity argument to claim that the figure in Altgens 6 is Oswald. Indeed, the 'Oswald Innocence Campaign' relies on a completely different argument, namely that the Altgens 6 photograph has been manipulated. If you need a laugh, check out http://www.oswald-innocent.com/anomalies.html : There's plenty more like that. It's utterly, utterly bonkers. There are a couple of worrying aspects to the so-called 'Oswald Innocence Campaign'. Firstly, it claims on its website's home page to have the support of a number of respected JFK researchers and others, such as McKnight, Wrone, Michael Parenti and the late Mark Lane. I'd be very surprised if any of these people have taken seriously (or have even been aware of) the ludicrous photo-alteration argument that the 'Oswald Innocence Campaign' uses. Admittedly, there are a number of other supporters who probably would be inclined to believe that the Altgens 6 photograph was a fake. The late Jack White, for example, believed that all sorts of things, up to and including the moon landings, had been faked. Another of the Campaign's 'senior members' (it doesn't appear to have any members apart from 'senior members') is described as believing "that the man who shot Oswald was not Jack Ruby, but rather, a Ruby impostor. Of course, the real Jack Ruby was slipped into the scene in due course." The second problem is the effect that this sort of paranoid drivel might have on the public perception of the JFK assassination debate. If enough people can be persuaded that the only objection to the lone gunman theory is the easily disproved nonsense that the Altgens 6 photograph is a fake, the subject will never be taken seriously. The particular danger here is that people will associate the claim that Oswald was in the doorway with the 'Altgens 6 is a fake' craziness rather than the far stronger evidence in the Wiegman and Darnell films. I just hope that the 'Oswald Innocence Campaign' is genuinely as crazy as it appears to be, and that it isn't a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters.
  3. Jeremy Bojczuk

    Russell's question

    Eddy Bainbridge writes: "Would you be willing to provide a guide to the work of Chris (math rules) Davidson. I have asked him to explain his thread .... He doesn't however seem to have a desire to appeal to the masses." For the benefit of Eddy and everyone else who is confused by that neverending parade of cryptic equations, there is a clear explanation here: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1744-skunk-smells-math-sucks
  4. Jeremy Bojczuk

    What is known about Oswald's time in England?

    Mervyn - You write that "I have been assured that the 'London Airport' triangular stamp refers specifically to Heathrow Airport." What is the evidence for that? I'm not doubting you, by the way. I think it's likely that the stamp was unique to Heathrow and not shared by Gatwick. If we can definitively rule out Gatwick as Oswald's point of departure for Helsinki, we will finally have acquired one solid fact about his time in England. There doesn't seem to be a single piece of evidence about what Oswald did between passing through immigration at Southampton on 9 October 1959 and arriving in Helsinki the following day. We don't know how he travelled to Heathrow, if that's where he went. We don't know where he spent the night: in Southampton or in London? Unless he took an early flight the next day, my guess would be Southampton, since he probably got ashore at around 8 or 9 in the evening and then had to spend some time dealing with customs and immigration, and because the train journey to London takes close to three hours these days and presumably wouldn't have been any quicker in 1959. We don't know which flight or flights he took to Helsinki, or where or when he bought his ticket, although it's a reasonable assumption that he bought the ticket at whichever airport he flew from. So if we can establish that Oswald definitely flew from Heathrow, that would at least give us something. On the subject of Oswald's ticket to Helsinki, the Warren Report claims in its summary of Oswald's finances that the ticket cost precisely $111.90: The Report cites evidence for most of its claims about Oswald's finances, but not for the claim that the ticket to Helsinki cost $111.90. Does anyone know where this information came from? Incidentally, it's noteworthy that in its desire to demonstrate the affordability of the trip, the Report fails to mention that the perennially budget-conscious Oswald's stay in Helsinki involved five nights at two top-of-the-range hotels, and that Oswald purchased the most expensive class of ticket available for his train journey from Helsinki (Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime, p.136, citing an interview with Rimma Shirokova). Incidentally, Summers speculates on p.136 that the purpose of a detour to Stockholm might have been for Oswald to visit the Soviet Embassy there and to convince the Soviets that he was sympathetic to their cause. The Soviet Consul in Helsinki, Grigori Golub, was authorised by Moscow to give visas "in a matter of minutes" if he thought the applicant was "all right" (HSCA Report, p.212: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800#relPageId=242 ). Earlier, I mentioned Chris Mills' article, 'A Flight of Fancy' as it appears at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/fancy2.txt . The article originally appeared in the Dealey Plaza Echo, July 1996, pp.25-6 ( https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16233#relPageId=29 ). The two versions contain different conclusions. The McAdams website version concludes as follows: The Dealey Plaza Echo version, on the other hand, concludes as follows:
  5. Jeremy Bojczuk

    What is known about Oswald's time in England?

    Mervyn, Yes, the Warren Report's claim that "on the same day, he flew to Helsinki" is incorrect. The stamps in Oswald's passport show that he arrived in the UK on the 9th and left on the 10th. Compared to what else the Warren Report gets wrong, it's a trivial mistake, and I don't think we should read too much into it. As Jason points out, Oswald sailed on two ships to reach England: the Marion Lykes from New Orleans to Le Havre, and the Liberté from Le Havre to Southampton. Jason, Thanks for uploading the images. They should make things easier for people to follow. I agree with you that Oswald was unusually determined in making his way alone to Helsinki, particularly if it involved travelling across London to reach Heathrow, which can be a real pain these days and presumably wouldn't have been any less awkward in 1959. You write that "My hunch is Oswald imagines himself a 007 James Bond-type figure even though his actual intelligence connections are slight at best." The significance of Oswald's route to reach the Soviet Union lies not in his use of England as a stop on the way but in his choice of Helsinki as his entry point. Helsinki was the only place where a Soviet tourist visa could be acquired quickly, a fact known to US intelligence agencies but (as far as I'm aware) not to the general public. Unless he chose Helsinki impulsively, which seems incompatible with what we know of his normal behaviour, this is pretty convincing evidence that a real connection existed between Oswald and US intelligence and that his defection was part of an intelligence operation. The question of whether Oswald flew from Heathrow or Gatwick is just a curiosity with no obvious bearing on the JFK assassination. If the triangular "London Airport" stamp was unique to Heathrow, he definitely flew from there; if the stamp was also used at Gatwick, he may have flown from there. I imagined that some sort of online passport-stamp enthusiasts might exist who could resolve the question, but I haven't been able to track any down, sadly.
  6. Jeremy Bojczuk

    What is known about Oswald's time in England?

    The Warren Report deals with Oswald's trip in Appendix XIII. It states only that "Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, Finland." (p.690: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=714 ). The evidence for this is in note 478 (WR, p.862: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=886 ), which cites: - Commission Exhibit 2711, p.39 (Hearings and Exhibits, vol.26, p.85: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=121 ), an FBI memo giving the dates of Oswald's transatlantic journey. The ship, the SS Marion Lykes, arrived in La Rochelle on 5 October, left the following day, and arrived in Le Havre on 8 October. Three passengers disembarded at 12:06pm. - CE 946, p.7 (H&E, vol.18, p.162: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=176 ), a photograph of a page of Oswald's passport containing five immigration stamps: entering and leaving France at Le Havre on 8 October, entering the UK at Southampton on 9 October, leaving "London Airport" on 10 October, and entering Finland at Helsinki on 10 October. - CE 2676, p.1 (H&E, vol.26, p.32: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=68 ), a memo from Helms to Rankin noting that "according to a reliable source" Oswald's first night in Helsinki was 10 October. As far as I'm aware, the only detailed discussion of Oswald's time in England is Chris Mills' article, 'A Flight of Fancy' ( http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/fancy2.txt ). Mills points out that the ship which took Oswald from Le Havre to Southampton, a large liner named the Liberté, is unlikely to have docked at Southampton merely to offload a few passengers. Instead, the passengers would have been picked up by tugs in the harbour. Depending on which tug Oswald used, he would have arrived in Southampton at either 7:50pm or 8:40pm. Mills also implies, however, that Southampton was the Liberté's final destination on its journey from New York via Le Havre. In this case, the ship would presumably have needed to dock at Southampton. Either way, we can assume that Oswald arrived in England at some point during the evening of 9 October. Mills and every other writer I'm aware of assumes that Oswald flew to Helsinki from Heathrow Airport, London's main airport in 1959. But I wonder if Oswald flew instead from Gatwick Airport. The only practical way for Oswald to travel from Southampton to "London Airport" was by train. The train line from Southampton, on the south coast of England, to London doesn't (and didn't) go near Heathrow, which is a few miles west of central London, but it does (and did) go through Gatwick, which is roughly 30 miles south of London (and, incidentally, just down the road from where I'm typing this). There has been a railway station at Gatwick since the 1890s, when the site was occupied by a racecourse. Gatwick Airport itself dates from the mid-1930s. It underwent serious renovation 20 years later, and in its current form was officially opened on 9 June 1958, just over a year before Oswald's arrival. According to a couple of local history websites, the first airline to use Gatwick Airport was Transair: - http://www.gatwickaviationsociety.org.uk/history.asp - http://www.british-caledonian.com/Gatwick_Airport_-_The_History_P3.html (which includes an aerial photograph of the airport with its railway station in 1958) A Transair press release from 1958 includes this information: "Tranair's services include trooping services to Malta and Gibraltar, newspaper and mail services covering the whole of Europe, and Inclusive Tour Services to many of the popular Mediterranean destinations" (quoted in http://www.british-caledonian.com/1958_Transair_at_Gatwick.html ). I doubt that any Transair flight schedules from 1959 survive. But the airline was in operation at the time of Oswald's brief visit to England, and it did fly all over Europe from Gatwick Airport, and Oswald almost certainly took a train that went through Gatwick. I'm not sure we should rule out the possibility that he flew to Helsinki from Gatwick after spending the night in Southampton, rather than from Heathrow after spending the night somewhere in central London.
  7. Jeremy Bojczuk

    Focus your research on Zapruder, he is the key

    Gene Kelly writes: There are in fact several photographs and films which show Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman standing on the pedestal. A quick flip through Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain, an essential resource for anyone interested in the photographic aspects of the assassination, reveals the following: - Betzner no.3 (p.161) - Willis no.5 (p.171) - Nix film (p.185) - Moorman no.5 (pp.235, 247, 257) - Bronson no.3 (pp.285, 304, and rear cover) There may well be others. In addition, the Bell film (p.268) and Altgens no.8 (p.317) show Zapruder and Sitzman immediately after they climbed down from the pedestal. Several other films and photographs taken just after the shooting also show a couple of figures (perhaps Zapruder and Sitzman, perhaps the Hesters) in front of the pergola. Difficult though it might be to believe, Abraham Zapruder really did film the assassination from a pedestal in Dealey Plaza. How many photographers "told of having their cameras seized in the aftermath"? Well, there was Mary Moorman, who was accosted shortly after the shooting by a Dallas Times Herald reporter who wanted her photograph for his paper. There's also the dubious claim by Beverley Oliver that her home movie film, though not the camera itself, was seized two days after the assassination. But the vast majority of the photographers didn't have their cameras seized: - Oscar Bothun didn't: "Shortly after the shooting Mr Bothun apparently went back to work. He seems not to have been stopped or questioned as a witness at the scene" (Trask, p.157). - Hugh Betzner didn't; he went out of his way to make himself and his photographs known to the police. - Phil Willis didn't: "Remaining around the area for about an hour after witnessing the shooting, none of the family was questioned by law enforcement personnel" (Trask, p.179). Willis made his own way to the Kodak plant to get his film processed, and didn't have his camera seized there either. - Orville Nix didn't; like Zapruder, he walked out of Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera. He returned later to take some more footage, and again left the scene without having his camera seized. - Marie Muchmore didn't; she retained her camera and film until she sold the film to UPI three days after the assassination. - Wilma Bond didn't; she wasn't even contacted by the authorities until February 1964. - Jim and Tina Towner didn't; they stayed in Dealey Plaza for a while, then went home with their cameras. - Robert Croft didn't; he left Dealey Plaza and went home to Denver with his camera. - Mark Bell didn't; he walked across Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera and went back to work. There is no evidence that the authorities even knew of the existence of Bell's film until several years after the assassination. - Robert Hughes didn't; he too left Dealey Plaza without having his home movie camera seized. The first thing the authorities knew about Hughes's film was when he voluntarily handed his film to the FBI two days after the assassination. - Charles Bronson didn't; he left Dealey Plaza with his still and home movie cameras, and returned the next day to take more footage and still photographs, and again left without having his cameras seized. - James Altgens didn't; he waited for a short while in Dealey Plaza and then walked a few blocks to the local newspaper office to get his film developed. And so on. Those are just the better-known photographers in Dealey Plaza. In short, there's nothing noteworthy about the authorities' attitude to those who had taken films or photographs of the assassination, and there's nothing noteworthy about the fact that Zapruder left the scene of the crime without having had his camera seized.
  8. Michael Clark seems to be obsessed about Michael Walton, for some weird personal reason. Was he bullied at school by someone called Michael Walton? Did someone called Michael Walton pip him to first prize in the local fruit and vegetable growers' largest-pumpkin competition? I think we should be told. Mr Clark writes: But it is the other way around: it's Mr Clark, not Mr Walton, who does little other than write about forum members (or at least one forum member), while Mr Walton does little other than deal with the JFK assassination, the topic we are all meant to be discussing. Perhaps, instead of making yet another personal attack, Mr Clark could offer an opinion about the question Mr Walton raised: Exactly how, where, when and by whom was JFK's body switched, Mr Clark? And, more to the point, how much direct evidence (i.e. documentary evidence and witness testimony) exists to support the speculative notion that the body was switched? There isn't any, is there? There are no films or photographs that can be interpreted as showing the body being switched. As Mr Walton pointed out, not a single person claimed to have seen the body being switched. Don't you find the absence of direct evidence for the most fundamental part of Lifton's theory to be even a little worrying? Here's another question for Mr Clark: why, in your opinion, would anyone even need to alter the wounds on JFK's body? The only reason I can think of, and the only reason Lifton could think of, is that the wounds were manipulated to disguise the fact that all the shots were fired from in front of JFK. Here's what Lifton had to say on the matter (Best Evidence, Signet edition, p.400): Unless all the shots had come from the front, there was no need for any sort of elaborate body-switching and surrogate surgery. Unfortunately for Lifton's speculative theory, we know for a fact that not all the shots came from the front. The shot which wounded Governor Connally hit him in the back and came out of his chest. That shot must have been fired from behind, not from the front, mustn't it? Perhaps Mr Clark could point out where in Best Evidence David Lifton discusses this rather severe problem for his theory. He doesn't mention it, does he? Isn't that, too, a little worrying? For a concise but potent critique of Lifton's body-alteration fantasy, go to your bookshelves, take down your copy of David Wrone's The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003), and turn to pages 134-138. Prof. Wrone concludes by making the obvious point that the only people to benefit from this sort of outlandish everything-is-a-fake nonsense are those who want to portray every critic of the lone-nut hypothesis as a tin-foil-hat-wearing lunatic.
  9. Jeremy Bojczuk

    If Oswald was 5'11" why show him 5'7" ??

    Jim writes: The only way the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy can be accepted is as gospel. You need to suspend all of your critical faculties and believe in the word of the prophet. Do you believe? I said, do you believe? Yes, Lord! I believe! I believe there were two Oswalds! I believe that one of them was a Hungarian refugee who spoke Russian! I believe that each Oswald had a mother named Marguerite! I believe that each Oswald and each Marguerite sort of looked alike sometimes but didn't look alike at other times! I'd be surprised if there are any "well-known JFK researchers" who take the fantasy seriously, unless we are talking about people like the late Jack White, who not only believed in and promoted the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy but also believed that the moon landings were faked. That's the type of person who is attracted to the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy: people who will look for anomalies in the evidence and then jump to the most far-fetched explanation for those anomalies. Michael and Tracy are correct: Jim or Sandy or any of these mysterious "well-known JFK researchers" should make an effort to persuade a respectable journalist of the merits of the fantasy. After all, there are still a few such journalists around. But we know what will happen: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1582-harvey-and-lee-cult-the-interview
  10. Jim writes: <blockquote>Only "cult" members would believe the FBI faked evidence about the Kennedy assassination? Really, Mr. Bojczuk?</blockquote> No, and as I'm sure Jim is aware, that wasn't what I was claiming. The point I made was that it is irrational to bring up the 'it was faked' explanation whenever you're confronted by evidence which contradicts the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory. It makes the theory unfalsifiable: it simply isn't possible to disprove the theory, because there is no longer any conceiveable type of evidence which could disprove it. If a piece of evidence is consistent with the theory, it is valid. If a piece of evidence is inconsistent with the theory, it is fake. Like a con artist working a three-card trick, you can't lose. Of course, if there is an independent piece of evidence to support a particular instance of fakery, that's a different story. A memo from J. Edgar Hoover which mentions the need to surgically alter the body in Oswald's grave might make the mastoidectomy evidence go away. A comment by a CIA official about the need to mess about with Oswald's passport application form (although why on earth they'd want to do that, who knows) might help with the problem of one fictional character's photograph appearing on a form filled out by the other fictional character. A whistleblower who claimed to be involved in either piece of fakery would help too. But nothing along those lines exists, does it? Independent evidence survives which points to other instances of fakery, as Jim himself has pointed out, so please don't claim that every piece of incriminating evidence must have been destroyed. Sandy writes: <blockquote>What's the "common sense" answer that explains the school records showing Oswald attending both Public School 44 in the Bronx, and at the same time Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans, during fall semester 1958? The school records do show that. What's your explanation?</blockquote> The notion that two Oswald clones attended two schools at the same time is not something that exists in the data, the school records. It is merely your far-fetched explanation of the data. There is another, common-sense explanation for that data, which you have been shown numerous times. Here is a list of alternative, common-sense explanations for all the main 'Harvey and Lee' talking points: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations Now, is there even one piece of the 'Harvey and Lee' evidence that doesn't have a common-sense explanation?
  11. In his latest post, Jim admits that a photograph which the cult attributes to the fictional character, 'Lee', is attached to a passport application form which the cult attributes to the other fictional character, 'Harvey'. On the face of it, that contradiction invalidates the whole theory. As with the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, we have something that ought to be unique to one fictional character (the photograph of 'Lee') incongruously appearing with something that ought to be unique to the other fictional character (the passport form of 'Harvey'). Fortunately, Jim provides a solution: "many of the official photos have been messed with." That's handy! If a piece of evidence contradicts your case, simply claim that the evidence has been faked. It's utterly irrational, but that's what cults are like. As with the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, it's best to be as vague as possible about the actual procedure by which the evidence has been faked, and hope that no-one looks too closely. The common-sense explanaton, of course, is that the photograph was that of the same person who filled out the passport application form. I was wondering what thinking processes led the cult to attribute that particular photograph to that particular fictional character. How does the cult identify 'Lee' in photographs, and how does it identify 'Harvey'? I think I've worked it out. It's all about belief. Jim recently brought up the late Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White's infamous montage of photographs of the one and only historical Lee Harvey Oswald. According to Jim and Jack, there are actually two Oswalds depicted in that montage. I'm not so sure. Let's have a closer look at the montage and see how many 'Oswalds' we can find. I won't be doing anything like taking accurate measurements, of course, because that's too rational. I'll be applying some good old 'Harvey and Lee' logic instead. If I want to see differences between the photographs, and if I do in fact see differences, then those differences must be real, and the photographs must be of different people. If you don't have a copy of Jack White's montage, you can find it here: http://cdm17178.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/po-jfkwhite/id/3204/rv/compoundobject/cpd/3221/rec/1 . Let's start with the example Jim gave. Photograph 23 shows Oswald with a thick neck. Photograph 24 shows him with a thin neck. That's two Oswalds. OK, so in one picture he's facing forward and in the other he's facing sideways, but that doesn't matter. I've proved, positively and beyond any doubt at all, that there were at least two people who called themselves Lee Harvey Oswald! Now compare photograph 23 with photograph 20, the one in which Oswald's head is absolutely, definitely 13 inches tall. In photograph 23, he has a thick neck and a wide face. In photograph 20, he has a thick neck but a narrow face. That proves that there were three Oswalds: thin-neck Oswald, thick-neck Oswald, and narrow-face Oswald. Now compare photograph 23 with photograph 38. He has a thick neck in both pictures, but his face is even wider in photograph 38 than it is in photograph 23. That proves that there were four Oswalds: thin-neck Oswald, thick-neck Oswald, narrow-face Oswald and fat-face Oswald. There are lots of photographs in Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White's montage, and I'm sure that the careful viewer could apply 'Harvey and Lee' logic to identify many more than four Oswalds. If you desperately want to see differences, and if you aren't very particular about sciencey nonsense like taking measurements and compensating for different camera angles, different poses and different lighting conditions, and if you aren't bothered by working with very poor-quality photographs, you could probably identify a dozen or more Oswalds. I have no doubt that most of these Oswalds were Hungarian refugees who mysteriously left no trace in US immigration records and that they were all involved in a really exciting plot! Oh, and each of them had a mother named Marguerite who was also involved in the plot! That's how the irrational 'Harvey and Lee' cult mentality works. You identify a possible anomaly in a photograph or written document or witness statement, you ignore all the obvious common-sense explanations, and you come up with an explanation that hints at a sinister, all-encompassing plot. It's no surprise that this idiotic theory was partly dreamed up by some guy who thought that the moon landings were faked. As we have seen in this thread and elsewhere, there are common-sense explanations for all the main 'Harvey and Lee' talking points: the school records, the Bolton Ford incident, the Taiwan/Japan thing, Marguerite's house-buying, the photographs which show four or more Oswalds if you want to see them, and so on. Anyone is entitled to prefer a particular far-fetched explanation over the equivalent common-sense explanation, but until the cult members put forward something that genuinely doesn't have a common-sense explanation, everyone else is correct in treating the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory as far-fetched paranoid speculation. Is there even one piece of the 'Harvey and Lee' evidence that doesn't have a common-sense explanation?
  12. As I pointed out several pages ago, anyone who still believes that the mastoidectomy evidence is in any way faked really needs to provide some sort of cogent argument to support that proposition. So far, we've been given a variety of implausible scenarios, all of which rely on nothing more than assertion. It's telling that, as Bernie has pointed out, even the cult members themselves can't agree on which implausible scenario to support. These seem to be the current possibilities: 1 - A genuine mastoidectomy operation was performed in an unknown hospital somewhere in Eastern Europe on an unknown Russian-speaking Hungarian boy, or possibly an unknown Russian World War Two orphan, at some point before one or the other boy moved to the United States without leaving any trace in US immigration records. 2 - An unnecessary mastoidectomy operation was performed on the unidentified Hungarian or Russian boy by an unknown surgeon in 1952 or 1953 in a hospital in New York that wasn't built until 1955, without leaving any trace in the medical records. 3 - The body in Oswald's grave was surgically altered to show, falsely, that it had undergone a mastoidectomy. This surgical procedure was carried out by an unknown surgeon at some undetermined point between the body's burial in 1963, in front of a crowd of onlookers, and its exhumation in 1981, also in front of a crowd of onlookers. 4 - The body in the grave did not actually have a mastoidectomy defect until it was surgically altered shortly after its exhumation, while it was in the custody of several reputable scientists, who must have been complicit in the forgery and who knowingly published a false article in a reputable scientific journal. 5 - The body in the grave has never had a mastoidectomy defect. The photograph of the defect was faked by persons unknown. The scientists who examined the body were coerced into knowingly writing a false article, and perhaps the editors of the scientific journal were coerced into publishing the article. 6 - The body was beamed up to an alien spaceship and replaced by that of a clone, complete with a mastoidectomy defect. Fortunately, no-one noticed the spaceship and it was able to get back safely to its home solar system. Are there any other implausible scenarios that I've missed? More importantly, is there any documentary evidence to support any of these scenarios? So far, there doesn't seem to be any evidence, just the fact that one of them must be true because, if not, the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is dead. It's time for the few remaining cult members to get their heads together and agree on which of these scenarios they think is the least implausible. Jim? Sandy? Anyone else? Which implausible scenario are you going to go for? Once there's agreement on the chosen scenario, the next stage is for the cult members to provide some sort of documentary evidence to support their chosen scenario, or at least to start looking for some evidence. There must be something, ideally medical records or a photograph of the spaceship. As for Bernie's suggestion of a structured debate between Jim Hargrove and Greg Parker, it's a good idea but can anyone really see Jim being brave enough to agree to that?
  13. Brilliant, Kathleen! Satire is exactly what the ridiculous 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory deserves. Bernie made a good point when he wrote that "more people believe the Queen of England is a lizard than believe in H&L." I wouldn't be surprised if some of the members of this minuscule cult believe that the queen actually is a lizard. After all, one of the founders of the theory, the late Jack White, believed that the moon landings were faked. People whose view of the world is essentially paranoid will gravitate towards anything that matches that view. One of the problems caused by the failure of the authorities to perform a sincere investigation is that the JFK assassination is open to any sort of paranoid, speculative and evidence-free interpretation. The existence of idiotic nonsense such as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory allows the authorities to portray serious critics of the lone-gunman line as crazy, paranoid fantasists. It would be nice if the people Kathleen and Bernie are making fun of would leave the JFK assassination alone and turn their attention to making equally stupid but much less harmful claims, for example that the earth is flat or that the moon landings were faked.
  14. Of course the photographs are of the same person, Michael! What's telling is the methodology that the crazies use to determine which photographs are of which fictional character: well, this picture kinda sorta looks a bit different to that other one, and that's all the evidence I need. It's interesting that, as far as I'm aware, no cult member has yet compiled a definitive list of which photographs are of 'Harvey' and which are of 'Lee'. Back on page 114, I pointed out an example of a photograph of the real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald that a distinguished late member of the cult had attributed to the fictional character, 'Lee'. The photograph shows Oswald smiling, with a full set of front teeth. Unfortunately, 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' doctrine requires 'Lee' to have had one of his front teeth knocked out. What explanation would allow the cult members to cling onto their belief in the face of this evidence? Perhaps the fictional character, 'Lee', had been fitted with a false tooth. But there's nothing in the medical records to indicate this. 'Lee' is supposed to have enlisted in the marines at some point, and would have been given a medical examination, which would have generated two medical reports. We know this because the real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's enlistment generated two medical reports. So what do 'Lee's' medical reports claim about the state of his teeth? We'd expect the reports to mention a false tooth, if 'Lee' actually had a false tooth. We'd expect the reports to mention a missing tooth, if 'Lee' was actually missing one front tooth. As it happens, there are no medical records for 'Lee's' enlistment in the marines. That's because the real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald had, of course, only one set of medical records, and the cult's holy book allocated this set of medical records to the fictional character, 'Harvey'. There was nothing left for the other fictional character, 'Lee'. The sole set of medical records do not appear to mention either a missing tooth or a false tooth. According to doctrine, 'Harvey' had a full set of front teeth and had not undergone a mastoidectomy. According to doctrine, 'Lee' had had a tooth knocked out and had undergone a mastoidectomy. According to doctrine, 'Harvey' was buried in the real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's grave. According to solid scientific evidence, and unfortunately for the cult's doctrine, the body in the grave had a full set of front teeth and a mastoidectomy defect. I realise that almost no-one with a real interest in the JFK assassination takes the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory seriously. Perhaps we're wasting our time pointing out the theory's many contradictions and weaknesses, since we aren't likely to persuade the cult members and there's almost no-one left who can't already see for themselves that the theory is a steaming pile of speculation and paranoia. Perhaps we aren't wasting our time, though. The assassination is in the news today, with the release of the final batch of documents. You all know the standard line in news reports: anyone who doubts the lone-gunman theory is a crazy, paranoid 'conspiracy theorist'. Of couse, a rational case can be made against the lone-gunman theory, but it's the likes of the irrational 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory that allows the media to keep pushing that particular message.
  15. As an aside to Bernie's comment near the bottom of page 113, Lobster magazine is actually still going. It has published a fair amount on the JFK assassination over the years, mostly in the form of book reviews. See https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/JFK.html . Issue 47 included a review of the 'Harvey and Lee' book, reproduced here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19762-harvey-and-lee-john-armstrong/ . The latest issue includes three JFK-related articles, all currently available as PDF downloads: https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/issue74.php . Years ago, I read a short book by Robin Ramsay on the JFK assassination (latest edition: http://www.pocketessentials.co.uk/who-shot-jfk ). As far as I recall, he pushed the 'LBJ did it' line and gave serious consideration to the improbable (to put it mildly) claims of Lol Factor and Mac Wallace. The last but one issue of the magazine included a review of Joan Mellen's Faustian Bargains in which Ramsay questioned Mellen's dismissal of the Mac Wallace evidence. Chauncey Holt too gets a lot more credence from Ramsay than most researchers would give.