David Josephs Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) In other words...Would Harvey and Lee have worked had they looked completely different? What makes Bernie here think they looked alike enough that people who knew one or the other couldn't tell them apart as opposed to witnesses who got glimpses of a person they had never seen before... The inset is from 18 months earlier... by the zoo photo this boy is suppoed to be at least 64" and 115lbs (NYC records from May & Sept 1953). If you think these boys look that much alike.. ok. Your're definitely in the minority on that one. If they looked so much alike BL, how does Pic get Lee from Harvey in every single case? Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is. Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture. Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee. Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - The next one is prominent; in front is a picture of a young boy. There is a partially shown girl and apparently another boy with a striped shirt in the background. Do you recognize that picture? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Then there is one immediately to the right of that, a young man in the foreground sitting on the floor, with his knees, legs crossed, and his arms also crossed. There are some other people apparently in the background. Mr. PIC - I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Does anything about the picture enable you to identify as to where that was taken? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mrs. MURRET - Well, he said he stopped at Myrtle's house and went up to the door, and she came to the door but she didn't recognize him, she didn't recognize Lee. Mr. JENNER - He was telling you this; is that right? Mrs. MURRET - Yes; he told me how he did that, and he said he asked Myrtle did she have an apartment, that he was looking for an apartment for his wife and baby who were coming from Texas, and so Myrtle said, "Well, I'm sorry, but I only have an apartment on the second floor, and I don't think that would be good, you know, for your wife." Lee said to her, "Do you know who I am?" and she said, "No." And he said, "I am Lee Oswald." She said, "Well, don't tell me! Lee, I would never have recognized you." The men who knew LEE in the USMC stated that the man they knew was 30 lbs heavier and a few inches taller than the man Ruby killed... Edited August 28, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 In other words...Would Harvey and Lee have worked had they looked completely different? What makes Bernie here think they looked alike enough that people who knew one or the other couldn't tell them apart as opposed to witnesses who got glimpses of a person they had never seen before... The inset is from 18 months earlier... by the zoo photo this boy is suppoed to be at least 64" and 115lbs (NYC records from May & Sept 1953). If you think these boys look that much alike.. ok. Your're definitely in the minority on that one. If they looked so much alike BL, how does Pic get Lee from Harvey in every single case? Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is. Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture. Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee. Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - The next one is prominent; in front is a picture of a young boy. There is a partially shown girl and apparently another boy with a striped shirt in the background. Do you recognize that picture? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Then there is one immediately to the right of that, a young man in the foreground sitting on the floor, with his knees, legs crossed, and his arms also crossed. There are some other people apparently in the background. Mr. PIC - I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Does anything about the picture enable you to identify as to where that was taken? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mrs. MURRET - Well, he said he stopped at Myrtle's house and went up to the door, and she came to the door but she didn't recognize him, she didn't recognize Lee. Mr. JENNER - He was telling you this; is that right? Mrs. MURRET - Yes; he told me how he did that, and he said he asked Myrtle did she have an apartment, that he was looking for an apartment for his wife and baby who were coming from Texas, and so Myrtle said, "Well, I'm sorry, but I only have an apartment on the second floor, and I don't think that would be good, you know, for your wife." Lee said to her, "Do you know who I am?" and she said, "No." And he said, "I am Lee Oswald." She said, "Well, don't tell me! Lee, I would never have recognized you." The men who knew LEE in the USMC stated that the man they knew was 30 lbs heavier and a few inches taller than the man Ruby killed... So why does every one of your witnesses mistake 'Lee' for 'Harvey'? Why did YOUR witness Kittrell say they were "very very similar"? But then the only explanation for that is she saw the same person because you say they didn't look that similar. Who is right? You or the witnesses you rely on to prop this ridiculous charade up? Anyway, I asked if this plot would have worked if the two boys had grown up to look vastly different. Would the deception have worked just as well? Or, in the scheme of things, would it be have been wonderfully fortuitous if they grew up looking "very very similar". They did. How lucky is that? I know you'd rather discuss doctored photos and school records. You can go down thousands of rabbit holes when we go there. This however is your Kryptonite. This is a piece of absurdity you cannot wriggle out of. Jim? Can you hear me? Do YOU think the H&L plot would have worked just as well had they turned out looking completely different? But who ever heard of a doppelganger that looked nothing like the person they were impersonating? You refuse to admit that 'they' looked "very very similar" because you know that that alone kills the story stone dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 So why does every one of your witnesses mistake 'Lee' for 'Harvey'? // Laverick ====================================================================== You start a double operation. Kept secret via keeping doubles apart a lot (not totally). Ideas change ( as ideas often do) and you now also want to make sure the operation is hidden deep. If you wanted to hide a double operation program, how could you do it ?? // GAAL __________________________________________________________________ TRY AND GUESS (no not go to the moon for green cheese per Graves) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 So why does every one of your witnesses mistake 'Lee' for 'Harvey'? As mentioned, thioe who knew one or the other for some time can see the differences... those who saw some guy introduced as LEE and then months later see Harvey being killed... tended to connect the two. Why did YOUR witness Kittrell say they were "very very similar"? But then the only explanation for that is she saw the same person because you say they didn't look that similar. MY witness Bernie? I own nor take credit for any witnesses. I have the WCR, WCE, WCD, HSCA, ARRB, and a number of independent researcher's results of their own investigation which produced data describing what witnesses supposedly said. While "very, very similar" to her, she knew enough to claim they were not the same person. What I find interesting here is that you stop short of the significance of Miss Kittrell... When did Oswald work for ETI in California Bernie? And you realize Kittrell helps disprove that Oswald was ever in Mexico... but you'd have to read the work at CTKA to get a clearer picture. Who is right? You or the witnesses you rely on to prop this ridiculous charade up? Can you color your question's ranticipated esponse any more negatively? Why ask if you don't care to know the answers or have already made up your mind? How is that researche verus Forum Sliding? Anyway, I asked if this plot would have worked if the two boys had grown up to look vastly different. Would the deception have worked just as well? Or, in the scheme of things, would it be have been wonderfully fortuitous if they grew up looking "very very similar". They did. How lucky is that? They were only similar to those who had very brief contact with the two men.. To those like Pic, Murret, DeRouse, Donovan, his USMC buddies and the like, they were obviously different, just as they were different to Kittrell. I too have trouble with whether this was created looking backward and fixing the Evidence or moving forward and doing the same thing... I, like the rest of us here, simply do not know enough about the planning of this time period to say what exactly was going on. Why does Webster look so much like Harvey and Robert? IDK, but they do. I know you'd rather discuss doctored photos and school records. You can go down thousands of rabbit holes when we go there. Not at all Bernie... I think those are easy slam dunk types of evidence and only the likes of GP will argue to the death what he sees versus what is actually there. This however is your Kryptonite. This is a piece of absurdity you cannot wriggle out of. Which piece of absurdity are you speaking of Bernie? Jim? Can you hear me? Do YOU think the H&L plot would have worked just as well had they turned out looking completely different? Oh, this... Why again does it matter what we THINK about something that didn't happen? Talk about an absurd direction to go it... If you want to know what we think for the sole purpose of telling us we are wrong about our own thoughts... why bother? And since no one is privy to the "plot" you talk about... how can an opinion even be generated... it can't. I think the core question is whether you believe that US intelligence was in the process of attempting these types of long-term spycraft plots/plans which they learned from the Russian, Asians and German who had been doing it for hundreds of years before the CIA came along. A little research into the history of american spycraft may help. But who ever heard of a doppelganger that looked nothing like the person they were impersonating? Can you please decide on the desciption you're going with ? No one said they "looked nothing like" each other... by the same token they were dissimilar enough to be considered different people by those who knew Lee. And again Bernie... until you present anything which shows you have any idea what this "plot" was... like what's contained inthe H&L book itself - you are simply not qualified to come to that conclusion other than it being you opinion based on - what???? You refuse to admit that 'they' looked "very very similar" because you know that that alone kills the story stone dead. I refuse nothing Bernie. AS opposed to you offering conclusions out of thin air and lack of knowledge on which you comment... Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion... Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion... But this is a thread about the H&L theory, the onus is on you to prove it. As a member of the forum I am simply exercising my right to question a theory and a method used by a section of the research community I don't agree with. Like you do on other people's work. No one said they "looked nothing like" each other... The witness Jim implored us all to read, presumably because it strengthens the theory that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia, also said that they were "very very similar". Personally I think she is referring to the same person. But you HAVE to believe her because she is one of the witnesses you rely on for the story to fit. So you'll accept it was definitely 'Lee' that she saw. She was right about that. But you discard her observation that they were "very very similar" because that is now inconvenient. Can you see why people get irritated with you David? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion... But this is a thread about the H&L theory, the onus is on you to prove it. As a member of the forum I am simply exercising my right to question a theory and a method used by a section of the research community I don't agree with. Like you do on other people's work. No one said they "looked nothing like" each other... The witness Jim implored us all to read, presumably because it strengthens the theory that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia, also said that they were "very very similar". Personally I think she is referring to the same person. But you HAVE to believe her because she is one of the witnesses you rely on for the story to fit. So you'll accept it was definitely 'Lee' that she saw. She was right about that. But you discard her observation that they were "very very similar" because that is now inconvenient. Can you see why people get irritated with you David? Like the Bolton Ford 'incident', we have an Oswald look-alikey buying trucks under his own name while the person he is clandestinely impersonating is in Russia.// LAVERICK =================== IRRITATION GOES BOTH WAYS . PLEASE ANTI H & L people keep your stories straight... I BELIEVE PARKER STATED THAT IT WAS JUST A FELLOW WITH THE SAME NAME , NO ?? . ,gaal === see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=313378 ============= READ INFO OF ARMSTRONG IN ABOVE POST >> THIS FELLOW SAID LEE AND HE WAS BIGGER (heavier) THAN HARVEY. NOT EXACTLY ALIKE .,gaal BELOW HARVEY AND LEE ===================== When Moore saw that Deslatte had written his name on the bid form he asked that the name be changed to "Friends of Democratic Cuba." Moore's friend looked· at the form and said, "By the way, you'd better put my name down there because I'm the man handling the money." When Deslatte asked, "What's your name?" the man replied, "Lee Oswald." 61-04 Sewell described Lee Oswald as, "5-foot-6 or 5-foot-7, thin, about 140 pounds, and thought he needed a meal and a haircut. He recalled that Oswald was clean but "wasn't well dressed and he wasn't shabby." >>>> (might have smelled of fish ,LOL.,gaal see >>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=313364) Edited August 28, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion... But this is a thread about the H&L theory, the onus is on you to prove it. As a member of the forum I am simply exercising my right to question a theory and a method used by a section of the research community I don't agree with. Like you do on other people's work. No one said they "looked nothing like" each other... The witness Jim implored us all to read, presumably because it strengthens the theory that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia, also said that they were "very very similar". Personally I think she is referring to the same person. But you HAVE to believe her because she is one of the witnesses you rely on for the story to fit. So you'll accept it was definitely 'Lee' that she saw. She was right about that. But you discard her observation that they were "very very similar" because that is now inconvenient. Can you see why people get irritated with you David? C'mon Laverik get with the game here. There is no onus on anyone to prove anything, that includes you! You are way out of line demanding anything from anyone.. If you don't like certain published material, simply do your own book concerning the subject matter... in other words, put something on the table other than noise... You're suspiciously sounding like a CT preparing for lone nut conversion.... I've seen this before, in fact, many times before.... Same old same old.... and the nutter beat goes on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion... But this is a thread about the H&L theory, the onus is on you to prove it. As a member of the forum I am simply exercising my right to question a theory and a method used by a section of the research community I don't agree with. Like you do on other people's work. No one said they "looked nothing like" each other... The witness Jim implored us all to read, presumably because it strengthens the theory that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia, also said that they were "very very similar". Personally I think she is referring to the same person. But you HAVE to believe her because she is one of the witnesses you rely on for the story to fit. So you'll accept it was definitely 'Lee' that she saw. She was right about that. But you discard her observation that they were "very very similar" because that is now inconvenient. Can you see why people get irritated with you David? Like the Bolton Ford 'incident', we have an Oswald look-alikey buying trucks under his own name while the person he is clandestinely impersonating is in Russia.// LAVERICK =================== IRRITATION GOES BOTH WAYS . PLEASE ANTI H & L people keep your stories straight... I BELIEVE PARKER STATED THAT IT WAS JUST A FELLOW WITH THE SAME NAME , NO ?? . ,gaal === see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=313378 ============= READ INFO OF ARMSTRONG IN ABOVE POST >> THIS FELLOW SAID LEE AND HE WAS BIGGER (heavier) THAN HARVEY. NOT EXACTLY ALIKE .,gaal "This fellow" said "Lee" years after and was not the salesman involved. Deslatte was the salesman and HE said he could not identify Lee Oswald as the person involved, nor did the person involved give a first name. The paperwork he handed over to FBI confirms one name - "Oswald". Are you guys claiming that every Oswald in Louisiana was a Lee Oswald doppelganger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion... But this is a thread about the H&L theory, the onus is on you to prove it. As a member of the forum I am simply exercising my right to question a theory and a method used by a section of the research community I don't agree with. Like you do on other people's work. No one said they "looked nothing like" each other... The witness Jim implored us all to read, presumably because it strengthens the theory that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia, also said that they were "very very similar". Personally I think she is referring to the same person. But you HAVE to believe her because she is one of the witnesses you rely on for the story to fit. So you'll accept it was definitely 'Lee' that she saw. She was right about that. But you discard her observation that they were "very very similar" because that is now inconvenient. Can you see why people get irritated with you David? C'mon Laverik get with the game here. There is no onus on anyone to prove anything, that includes you! You are way out of line demanding anything from anyone.. If you don't like certain published material, simply do your own book concerning the subject matter... in other words, put something on the table other than noise... You're suspiciously sounding like a CT preparing for lone nut conversion.... I've seen this before, in fact, many times before.... Same old same old.... and the nutter beat goes on! Without the doubt the most insufferable poster on this forum. I thought you'd had a conversion when you recently apologised to Greg for, well... for being you David. You know making wild accusatory chirping posts but avoiding at all costs being involved in the discussion. Is this all you do now? It's boring, really boring..... At least Gaal brings some exotic colour to the proceedings. And he thinks he knows what he thinks he is defending. In his own way, bless him, he's even accumulated some knowledge. David is far more impressive but has accumulated way too much knowledge on all this. Jim seems to have just the right balance of H&L knowledge and exotic oddball conclusions. So what do you add? Where do you stand on H&L? What do you think happened? Here's your big moment son. Hope you do better than you used to do with Lamson. I've said this to you before David, when a nonentity like Lamson can tan your backside every day you really should just bow out quietly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion... But this is a thread about the H&L theory, the onus is on you to prove it. As a member of the forum I am simply exercising my right to question a theory and a method used by a section of the research community I don't agree with. Like you do on other people's work. You wrote: You refuse to admit that 'they' looked "very very similar" because you know that that alone kills the story stone dead. Is this not you assuming to know the "story" or the "plot" and it's intended results? All I said is I don't know why the plot was created, who else was involved, who oversaw it, etc... Different witnesses claim similarities & differences depending on who you ask. Pic knew the difference, Myra did too. So did a who host of others... More importantly Bernie... you've never been in a position to tell us what the "H&L theory" is in the first place. How would you know but from the info you don't bother to read or give any credibility to? From my POV - The Theory from Harvey and Lee is that the evidence shows conflicts is the location and relationships of the man we call Lee Harvey Oswald which when presented to Jenner and Leibeler by John Ely resulted in the need to ALTER OR OMIT information which was conflicting with the ongoing investigation. That upon compilation and analysis, this evidence resulted in the theory that two men's lives were combined into a single man's history when presented thru the WCR as his life story. WHY this was done can only be speculated upon. What can be done thru analysis is the authentication of these conflict points. GP want to say the Riots of Ft Worth date Oswald with Palmer in 1956... Palmer and the Pfisterer's staff say otherwise. It is up to an impartial observer to take in the discussion, check the info for themselves and make a decision... Speculating about WHAT IF this or that, if some other set of cirsumstances existed, is nice for a brainstorming roundtable... but without some justification that YOU BERNIE know why this was done in the first place... I fail to see how we can have constructive hypothetical conversations. How about taking a little time and learning what H&L actually shows before we start guessing about it... No one said they "looked nothing like" each other... The witness Jim implored us all to read, presumably because it strengthens the theory that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia, also said that they were "very very similar". Personally I think she is referring to the same person. But you HAVE to believe her because she is one of the witnesses you rely on for the story to fit. So you'll accept it was definitely 'Lee' that she saw. She was right about that. But you discard her observation that they were "very very similar" because that is now inconvenient. Can you see why people get irritated with you David? Bernie - you, tommy and Greg being irritated is your own fault... the other "people" you speak of are fine with me dealing with the trifecta and are only irritated by your inability to take responsibility for you own ignorance about the subject matter. As for PRESUMING Jim saying Kittrell was a witness related to Oswald's time in Russia - you'll need to link me to that post since Kittrell had to do with Oswald's whereabouts during the faked trip to Mexico and thru the month of October 1963... how did you come to that presumption? Again, the "irritation" comes from members such as you who think they know a little about something and post/argue/attack as if they know a lot... Oh, here it is.... this: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=100#entry313426 is the post were you reply to Jim related to Kittrell in Oct 1963... did you forget already? From H&L..."She interviewed the two Oswalds in 1963 in Dallas. She remembered they looked remarkably similar." "The two Oswalds were very, very similar" FBI report (boooh!!!) of interview with Kittrell: "Miss Kittrell also said she could not be certain the man was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald; she said her recollection of the person is that he seemed to fit the description later published concerning the real Oswald." http://jfk.hood.edu/...on 227/227e.pdf How did you presume this become about Nov 1959 - June 1962? Yet you then go on to make a big deal about a letter she wrote - from what I remember you're a musician/artist - what qualifies you to make that determination? I mean imagine the mindset of a woman who sees a man claiming to be Oswald, a different man claiming to be Oswald and then one of them killed on TV....- if you'd stop assuming the unknowable and focus on the mountain of info we already have at our disposal maybe we'd get somewhere with this thread beyond our posting evidence and y'all posting guesswork. Why would they do that? What possible advantage is there having both of them appear at the same office to be interviewed by the same person only weeks apart? This story sounds great, exotic almost, but when you scratch the surface, on every issue, it's nothing more than a bag of smoke. See, now we get back to the WHY again... one possible answer is: to cause the exact confusion which makes people like her sound a little off, not only to us but to themselves so they question everything they seem to know and remember... making witnesses sound crazy and confused, believe it or not, is part of spycraft planning... And yes, I do know a bit about this as I continue to research for another project. Doubles allow for honest replies to questions which create conflicts that reduce the witnesses' credibility. Planning the reactions of the witnesses and the impact of the evidence to be acquired is an intrigal part of a successful covert operation... Kinda like magic - have them looking over here while doing the real activities over there... Now if you actually scratched the surface... infact if you overcome the preconceptions and dig just a bit deeper you may begin to see that these instances are not alone on some island... they interrelate so that one builds upon the next. Are you aware of an article called "Oswald in Aliceland" http://www.jfklancer.com/Courtwright1.html just more bricks in the wall... Among the myriad of Oswald sighting reports which do not fit in with the official timeline handed down by the Warren Commission is one which actually hit the Associated Press wire on November 28, 1963. Just days after being interviewed by the FBI, a radio station manager in Alice, Texas, told the AP that Oswald on the afternoon of Friday, October 4, had driven up to the station in a battered 1953 model car to inquire about a job. It also turns out that our job seeker had appeared at the station the previous evening, on Thursday, October 3, at about 6 p.m., and was told he needed to return the next day to speak to the manager. (1) Upon returning on Friday, Oswald was said to have left a woman and a two-year old girl in the car and refused an offer to bring them inside the station with the explanation that, *She doesn't speak any English.* (2) (2) AP story appearing in a number of newspapers, including Dallas Morning News, on 11/28/63. FBI Record Number 124-10178-10458, Agency File Number 89-67-173, 11/27/63. On October 3rd at 6pm Oswald was checked into the YMCA in Dallas - he was supposedly on a bus for the past 2 days, alone. On October 4th he hitchhikes to Irving as Marina refuses to ask Ruth to go get him... or so the story goes. I'm sorry you feel it's "a bag of smoke" Bernie but just lighting the cigarette and setting it down (your "scratching the surface") gives you no indication at all what the cigarette tastes like, you need to breathe deeply and concentrate on what's going on if you're to get anything from it. And not just stop at one puff either... you want to experience of H&L but none of the work getting there... Sadly this book and topic requires more from the reader than that. Not sure if you do this elsewhere in your life, this attitude towards H&L does not qualify as an unbiased look at the evidence before making a decision. 2+ years ago I began discussing this with Greg and I made many mistakes being led to understand he knew of what he spoke - So I stopped commenting on H&L and went to work for a while. Now that I feel qualified to discuss the book and evidence presented, I do. When will you be getting around to the work necessary so you can provide an informed analysis - or is all we're going to get is this hit and miss guesswork presented as conclusive fact? ---- I'm all for ending the hostility as evidence from these posts. I know what I know and also know what I don't... WE can't know the WHY... so mabe WE should stop trying to guess and stay focused on what the FBI and others left for us to look at and see what it tells us... If you can interpret Ping Tung another way, please do... Common sense tells us that if the records show two men with the same name in two places at the same time... something is wrong. Much like the basic common sense that says if the Oswald in our analysis had a tonsilectomy... and then contracts tonsilitis later in life it shows consistency with the H&L theory. Nitpicking it to claim that there is a remote chance of regrowth is grasping at straws. If you believe that sways the overall weight of the evidence, so be it. Not my job to take off your blinders, just offer the evidence as it was found and let those following us to make their own minds up. Therein lies the biggest difference between the camps... Y'ALL have decided it isn't possible and proceed from there attacking US for being wrong, rather than proving the evidence inauthentic. You don't like the evidence, fine, dismantle it... SHOW how it's not right... WE, on the other hand, simply point to the evidence and let the reader decide. Who in that equation is disingenuous and who isn't? You claiming to know the mind of a witness, or the details of ANY of Angleton's or the CI group's plans enough to know the WHY behind activities is not possible unless you are privy to evidence and info the rest of us are not... I doubt you interned as a spy in the summers of your youth... but maybe you did... I can only talk generalities. Bottom line Bernie, do you know what the plot in 1952 was or not? Do you know what other plots and plans were carried out during this time period by those you think plotted this? If so... why haven't you said so? If not... how are you qualified to comment at all on these details being right, wrong or otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) From my POV - The Theory from Harvey and Lee is that the evidence shows conflicts is the location and relationships of the man we call Lee Harvey Oswald which when presented to Jenner and Leibeler by John Ely resulted in the need to ALTER OR OMIT information which was conflicting with the ongoing investigation. That upon compilation and analysis, this evidence resulted in the theory that two men's lives were combined into a single man's history when presented thru the WCR as his life story. The "conflicts" have multiple possible causes (including your own delusions concerning evidence interpretation). The need to "alter or omit" parts of Ely's history has been imbued with sinister connotations for no reason other than to boost the credibility of this theory. The simple explanation is that he got some things wrong, or things that could not be supported by the evidence collected. An alternative "sinister" motive might be to protect the "privacy" of certain individuals (e.g. it is known that several homosexuals were protected from having that exposed). Indeed, it might even be suggested that the motive was to conceal any indication that Oswald had help or that others were responsible entirely. You are simply speculating about it but trying to pass off your speculation as fact. WHY this was done can only be speculated upon. What can be done thru analysis is the authentication of these conflict points. GP want to say the Riots of Ft Worth date Oswald with Palmer in 1956... Palmer and the Pfisterer's staff say otherwise. It is up to an impartial observer to take in the discussion, check the info for themselves and make a decision... And here we go again. This speculation piled on top of the above the speculation. GP want to say the Riots of Ft Worth date Oswald with Palmer in 1956... Palmer and the Pfisterer's staff say otherwise. It is up to an impartial observer to take in the discussion, check the info for themselves and make a decision... People are of course, entitled to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe. But it doesn't alter reality. The reality is quite simple. The official history has Lee Oswald in FW in Aug/Sep 1956. Lee Oswald spoke of riots in his letter. There were riots in early Sept 1956 due to forced integration. There were none reported in the media for 1958 when McBride claims the letter was sent. It's a no-brainer. As for the other employees - how many were there? One? Two? Did any of them actually work there in the 56-58 time period? It's up to you. Produce evidence of riots in FW during Aug/Sep 1958. Edited August 29, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion... But this is a thread about the H&L theory, the onus is on you to prove it. As a member of the forum I am simply exercising my right to question a theory and a method used by a section of the research community I don't agree with. Like you do on other people's work. You wrote: You refuse to admit that 'they' looked "very very similar" because you know that that alone kills the story stone dead. Is this not you assuming to know the "story" or the "plot" and it's intended results? All I said is I don't know why the plot was created, who else was involved, who oversaw it, etc... Different witnesses claim similarities & differences depending on who you ask. Pic knew the difference, Myra did too. So did a who host of others... More importantly Bernie... you've never been in a position to tell us what the "H&L theory" is in the first place. How would you know but from the info you don't bother to read or give any credibility to? From my POV - The Theory from Harvey and Lee is that the evidence shows conflicts is the location and relationships of the man we call Lee Harvey Oswald which when presented to Jenner and Leibeler by John Ely resulted in the need to ALTER OR OMIT information which was conflicting with the ongoing investigation. That upon compilation and analysis, this evidence resulted in the theory that two men's lives were combined into a single man's history when presented thru the WCR as his life story. WHY this was done can only be speculated upon. What can be done thru analysis is the authentication of these conflict points. GP want to say the Riots of Ft Worth date Oswald with Palmer in 1956... Palmer and the Pfisterer's staff say otherwise. It is up to an impartial observer to take in the discussion, check the info for themselves and make a decision... Speculating about WHAT IF this or that, if some other set of cirsumstances existed, is nice for a brainstorming roundtable... but without some justification that YOU BERNIE know why this was done in the first place... I fail to see how we can have constructive hypothetical conversations. How about taking a little time and learning what H&L actually shows before we start guessing about it... No one said they "looked nothing like" each other... The witness Jim implored us all to read, presumably because it strengthens the theory that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia, also said that they were "very very similar". Personally I think she is referring to the same person. But you HAVE to believe her because she is one of the witnesses you rely on for the story to fit. So you'll accept it was definitely 'Lee' that she saw. She was right about that. But you discard her observation that they were "very very similar" because that is now inconvenient. Can you see why people get irritated with you David? Bernie - you [sic], tommy [sic] and Greg [sic] being irritated is your own fault... the other "people" you speak of are fine with me dealing with the trifecta and are only irritated by your inability to take responsibility for you own ignorance about the subject matter. [...] Bernie, David's being dissembling and insulting by nature is exemplified by the sentence I have quoted, as is his ignorance regarding the rule "the gerund takes the possessive." Have you noticed how he habitually refuses to capitalize the "T" in my name, not realizing that it conveys to the whole world his childishness, pettiness, vindictiveness, and overall "smallness"? One can only feel pity for such a small, sad man. But more importantly, one can only wonder why more of his "supporters" have not come to his rescue on this thread! Could it be that most members agree with us, i.e. that the premises and conclusions of Harvey and Lee are ... hogwash? --Tommy Edited August 29, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) ... But more importantly, one can only wonder why more of his "supporters" have not come to his rescue on this thread! Could it be that most members agree with us, i.e. that the premises and conclusions of Harvey and Lee are ... hogwash? --Tommy LMAO! You're sounding more like Dave Reitzes did 20 years ago Tom. What is amazing here, in my eye at least, an example: David Lifton's much herald and planned book on LHO went to the scrap heap 15 or so years ago, because, in my estimation (and many will agree) John's H&L. Now Greg has a lot invested in his present LHO work (which is in progress). In fact, you might say, he has a lot to lose if he can't discredit H&L in its entirety. David needs no online/forum support here, in fact, I'm amazed he even bothers with you and those few peanut gallery responses you put forth... in my estimation ya need that H&L hogwash Tom, without it, Greg's book(s) fail. Such a strange way to promote a new work sales... whatever floats one's boat! I'll buy Greg's books (I did buy H&L at Jack White's insistence, it was an expensive yawn for me... I already believed LHO was a patsy, the rest was details. End of story for me! (update: rumor has it, there is a new LHO book in the works by a NYT best-selling author, how is that for timing?) Edited August 29, 2015 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion... But this is a thread about the H&L theory, the onus is on you to prove it. As a member of the forum I am simply exercising my right to question a theory and a method used by a section of the research community I don't agree with. Like you do on other people's work. No one said they "looked nothing like" each other... The witness Jim implored us all to read, presumably because it strengthens the theory that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia, also said that they were "very very similar". Personally I think she is referring to the same person. But you HAVE to believe her because she is one of the witnesses you rely on for the story to fit. So you'll accept it was definitely 'Lee' that she saw. She was right about that. But you discard her observation that they were "very very similar" because that is now inconvenient. Can you see why people get irritated with you David? C'mon Laverik get with the game here. There is no onus on anyone to prove anything, that includes you! You are way out of line demanding anything from anyone.. If you don't like certain published material, simply do your own book concerning the subject matter... in other words, put something on the table other than noise... You're suspiciously sounding like a CT preparing for lone nut conversion.... I've seen this before, in fact, many times before.... Same old same old.... and the nutter beat goes on! JAMES A. Spencer http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Lee%20Harvey%20Russia%20Imposter/Item%2013.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) ... But more importantly, one can only wonder why more of his "supporters" have not come to his rescue on this thread! Could it be that most members agree with us, i.e. that the premises and conclusions of Harvey and Lee are ... hogwash? --Tommy LMAO! You're sounding more like Dave Reitzes did 20 years ago Tom. What is amazing here, in my eye at least, an example: David Lifton's much herald and planned book on LHO went to the scrap heap 15 or so years ago, because, in my estimation (and many will agree) John's H&L. Now Greg has a lot invested in his present LHO work (which is in progress). In fact, you might say, he has a lot to lose if he can't discredit H&L in its entirety. David needs no online/forum support here, in fact, I'm amazed he even bothers with you and the few peanut gallery responses you put forth... in my estimation ya need that hogwash Tom, without it, Greg's book(s) fail. Such a strange way to promote a new work sales... whatever floats one's boat! (update: rumor has it, there is a new LHO book in the works by a NYT best-selling author, how is that for timing?) David, in the history of wrong, you couldn't be "wronger". I have said a couple of times already, my work is not harmed in any way shape or form if by some miracle, H & L turned out to be correct. My book has nothing to do with it. I have been debating H & L for over 5 years - long before I had any plans for a book. This is just you trying to ascribe a dishonest motive to avoid admitting the real one - that the H & L theory is an abomination that makes us all a laughing stock. The side shows have all got to pack they tents and move on. Their snake oil doesn't pass the smell test. Edited August 29, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts