Bernie Laverick Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: That's a simple question to ask, but would certainly be hard to answer very definitively unless one were to retrace Armstrong's steps. I know there are a few minor things I disagree with, because I recall thinking that I disagreed. Unfortunately I cannot remember specifically what those things were. If the right topic were to come up, I would recall how I disagree. But I can't do so off the cuff. However, I should point out that I have barely scratched the Harvey and Lee research surface. I've read only isolated parts of the book. There is so much information that I'm making timelines so I can make sense of it. There's a lot more to work with on the JFK assassination compared to Harvey & Lee. There are tens of thousands of released documents that are still being gone over with a fine tooth comb. And new analyses made. Even amateurs like myself can find new, significant things. For example, Thomas Graves and I discovered where Gloria Calvery was before and right after the assassination. (The work of others like Chris Davidson was instrumental in what we found.) Because of this we could compare the affidavits and WC testimonies of Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley with what we could see on film. We were able to prove that they both lied in their WC testimonies. Their first-day affidavits, on the other hand, appeared to be true as far as we could tell. Compare those FBI document to the ones related to Harvey & Lee. The FBI, of course, did not investigate the Harvey & Lee angle. Anything they did discover, they tried reconciling so that it described only one Oswald. Inevitably they overlooked a few things, like the semester where Oswald attended two schools. Armstrong has found most of those relevant documents, I'm sure. Unlike with the JFK assassination, there aren't thousands of FBI document to scour. Most of the H&L research had to be done by an Oswald researcher, and it was Armstrong who did it. Time is ticking and there is very little more research that can be done for Harvey & Lee. Witnesses are dead, or old and dying. Memories are failing. The JFK assassination, on the other hand, has already been researched and documented. Those documents will continue to be read and analyzed for many years to come. You're right, I've found nothing new. There have been a time or two I thought I found something new, but no... afterward I found it was already in Armstrong's book. Oh wait... I actually did add a little bit. Chris Newton and I discovered that the "Minsk photo" on Oswald's DoD card has a white semicircular area used for ID photos in Russia and other European countries, and that the so called "postal stamp" on it was actually put there (probably by Harvey) in order to camouflage an old security stamp in the white area. And that Richard Case Nagell got a photocopy of that, removed the "postal stamp," and camouflaged the old security stamp by drawing a suit coat over Oswald's shirt. I discovered that the "Minsk photo" is really a composite of Harvey and Lee, and so that photo must have been taken to Russia by Harvey. I later discovered that Armstrong had already found the photo to be a composite of Harvey and Lee. There's a whole lot more to this story. Chris did most the research work and we both did analysis. So yeah, I have added some. Not a lot. There might be other small things I've added. I don't know. But apparently nothing has been found. Bernie, I'm just an amateur investigator. The only investigating I do is look for clues in documents. I don't interview anybody, look for anybody, or even call anybody. I don't have the resources, time, energy, or desire to be a real researcher. (I am an analysis guy, though.) It doesn't matter much to me how Lee and Marguerite disappeared. It would be nice to know what happened to them, but it's not something that is necessary. Obviously they did disappear. Maybe they were placed in some sort of witness protection program. I don't know. Armstrong had only a couple names to work with, and he did attempt to find them. He writes about his search in his book. He couldn't find one at all, and found too many of the other. (Multiple men with the same name.) One of those seem to fit the bill, but he's not certain. I don't think there is any more that can be done on this. Same thing looking for Lee and Marguerite. Even if I were a real investigator, I wouldn't waste my time on that angle. That was 65 years ago! Who would remember a tooth incident that far in the past? Even Ed Voebel was uncertain and that was 54 years years ago. I'm sure there is more that can be found. But Armstrong didn't leave much, it seems. Where do I start? So you agree that Armstrong didn't leave much to be discovered. Interesting. And convenient. But tell me, how does a person who admits he has only "scratched the surface" of Armstrong's work KNOW that he hasn't left much to be discovered? Blind faith? The realisation that since Armstrong you have all found a big fat zero to add to it? Do you know FOR DEFINITE that there isn't an old photo kicking about showing 'Lee's' tooth missing? Not just the one, but others too? Find it/them and we're going to look pretty stupid aren't we? But none of you have even bothered looking. If I'm wrong however, please reveal the results of such a search. This isn't so much aimed at you Sandy, I respect what you say about being an amateur researcher and it's not you personally I'm firing these questions at. But you are defending this theory and I'm asking you what others may have done to further corroborate H&L. I'm presuming that someone who shows as much interest in this topic as you would want to know if further research has added meat from where Armstrong left it. You would be interested in such developments, right? For example, it would be brilliant for H&L if an school friend of 'Lee' came across this forum and contacted Jim with anything he knew about him wouldn't it? He may even have a photo of 'Lee' and if he too confirmed the missing tooth, your story would gain traction, it would gain credibility, and it would increase your confidence to go and look for more corroborative evidence. But I know for a fact that your boys haven't even looked. If they have looked what are the results of their new investigation? Telling me it's not worth looking for something because it's 65 years old it the biggest cop out I have ever seen on this forum. Ever! Well we may as well just pack up now then hadn't we? You do know that the JFK assassination and its prelude were about the same length of time ago don't you? But we're still looking; and we're still discovering. Even Ed Voebel was uncertain and that was 54 years years ago. Ha ha ha !!!! So even YOU reckon he wasn't certain on the missing tooth? Without him you have a blurred picture and his aunt saying he visited a dentist. That's it! On that alone you have to construct the entire H%L story to fit your interpretation of the facts. Because as you can see, if that is your 'Lee' (LHO to us!) then the whole H&L comes crashing down. That is why Jim can only repeatedly show that ONE AND ONLY photo; apparently that trumps ALL the scientific evidence! Armstrong has found most of those relevant documents, I'm sure. So all you have on this, is what you have got from Armstrong? There will be nothing more to add or to corroborate this story? And you're "sure" about this? Based on what? Based on the fact that you actually haven't found anything new? Does this mean the story has no legs? Of course not, it OBVIOUSLY means Armstrong found literally EVERYTHING so it's pointless looking. Great research ethos. Time is ticking and there is very little more research that can be done for Harvey & Lee How do you know this? What effort has gone into finding new information? Or have you all decided that if there were more information Guru Armstrong would have found it so there's no point even looking? Jim and Josephs don't even bother looking for new information. Do you know why? Because they will never find it so all they have is what Armstrong left them and not one jot of evidence has emerged since then to back it up. NOT ONE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 DJ has done all kinds of original research, both on H&L and, for example, Mexico City. Sandy first got my attention here by remarkable work he did on the uncashed Postal Money Order that allegedly paid for the Carcano from Kleins. I’ve done a few minor things to assist John in his research, but, for the most part, I don’t do original research. I run a website presenting his work. I decided long ago that John had essentially solved this case and that the most important thing I could do was to understand Harvey and Lee well enough to defend it against attackers. John continues to do original research, the latest of which can be seen in a write-up he completed in the last year or so and just completely reorganized last week. Read it here: Escape from the 6th Floor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 Is there anyone on this forum that has credible training and education in dentistry? Who could perhaps share their missing or not missing tooth take regards the adolescent Oswald photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 17 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Good grief! A false front tooth wasn't faked because Harvey Oswald (the guy killed by Ruby) didn't have one. I think the mastoid scar was really there. So you are now on record as believing that these two unrelated boys - who grew up to look so identical that only a pixel biometric test can tell them apart - fortuitously for the plotters, both independently had had a mastoid operation, and in the same ear as well? Did they know this prior to the exhumation or did they only learn of their extreme good fortune after the findings were released? The super bad guys must have been pulling their hair out during that exhumation! Any minute the entire plot is going to come crashing down as soon as they learn that 'Harvey' doesn't have the scar of the known mastoid operation on 'Lee'. All they can hope for is that 'Harvey' too, unknown to them, just may have also had the same operation. It's a real long shot, almost the equivalent to winning the lottery, but if not, the H&L plotters are in deep trouble. How will they get out of this? Then the word comes through. "Hey boss, you're never gonna believe this! 'Harvey' has had the exact same operation as 'Lee...and in the same ear too'!!" "Brilliant! So, we're cool on the mastoid. Phew! What about the front tooth that 'Lee' had replaced. How do we get around that? I presume 'Harvey' didn't also lose the same front tooth independently....? No, that would be too much to ask." "Only an extremely delusional person is going to deduce that there were two Oswalds based on hearsay of dental status, Sir." "Yes you're right . We have more than enough fabricated evidence to prove conclusively there was only one Lee Harvey Oswald. The mastoid seals it really. Gosh, how lucky was that? Don't worry about the teeth; that will be just something endlessly discussed by middle aged fanatics who have no intention of doing anything about it anyway!" "Sir, can I also inform you that Agents BC and DD have been eliminated. After the Stripling fiasco we had no alternative." "Good! And the sloping shoulders debacle...? "Again Sir, given the immense complexity of our outstanding achievement, there will always be a couple of small things we slightly overlooked. The sloping shoulder photo could be a big problem for us though. It has the potential to blow the whole thing!" "No, not at all, we can go with camera angles, age difference, posture, lighting and things of that nature to get ourselves out of the sloping shoulders problem. I'm a lot more concerned about the Bolton Ford incident. I mean, who was the bright spark that sent 'Lee' out to buy trucks while 'Harvey' was in Russia? Thank goodness those two witnesses didn't mention 'Lee's' missing tooth or we could have been in real trouble!" "Sir with our meticulous planning and our staggering amount of good luck only the brightest of the bright like Armstrong Hargroves and Josephs will see through all this. They are getting dangerously close Sir." "Ok, I'm assigning top cointelpro operative, Agent Laverick, to fight all our online forum battles. He'll be using several other identities and he is a genius at disrupting future research on H&L. It's all down to him now. This entire plot rests on whether our man can stop Hargrove and Josephs in their tracks. Those two are taking on the entire might of the American intelligence machine and, up to now, they are beating us hands down! I don't know how they all managed to get to the bottom of this subterfuge, but they have. And they need stopping before they do some damage! Agent Laverick will be the one to do it!" "Won't they just see through that Sir?" "Probably, they see through everything else. But we have absolutely no choice or they will make their discoveries public and that will be the end of us all. Now, off you go, haven't you got a mountain of evidence to destroy or any exhumations that need faking?" "Yes Sir, though I have just finished vaporising the entire witness testimony of those who saw or came into any contact with 'Lee' after the assassination. When I next have another full day's access to the thermo-nuclear ovens I will vaporise those of Marguerite too." "Very good. Fancy a tab of LSD...?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: DJ has done all kinds of original research, both on H&L and, for example, Mexico City. Sandy first got my attention here by remarkable work he did on the uncashed Postal Money Order that allegedly paid for the Carcano from Kleins. I’ve done a few minor things to assist John in his research, but, for the most part, I don’t do original research. I run a website presenting his work. I decided long ago that John had essentially solved this case and that the most important thing I could do was to understand Harvey and Lee well enough to defend it against attackers. John continues to do original research, the latest of which can be seen in a write-up he completed in the last year or so and just completely reorganized last week. Read it here: Escape from the 6th Floor I've just read this article and if you take away the H&L nonsense, and the acceptance of the WC narrative (2nd floor encounter and the public transport escape plan) it is quite a thought provoking piece. I'd like to do a bit more reading up on the idea of snipers escaping through the elevator shafts. He may have really discovered something there, but I fear, without alternative information to hand, I'll discover that it is either someone else's work or has already been robustly debunked. I genuinely hope it hasn't though... With reference to the Nash Rambler incident whereby an Oswald look alike (Lee), according to Craig, was seen dashing towards the car before it sped off down Stemmons. He confirmed that the man he saw in the rambler was the same man he later saw in police custody...See where I'm going with this Jim? The one in custody was 'Harvey'. Oops! So either there is just one Oswald or even YOUR witness Craig, the one and only one who was observant enough to see Oswald climb into the rambler, couldn't tell the two apart! So they were absolutely identical after all! This incident occurred while Harvey Oswald, the man accused of killing President Kennedy, was riding in a city bus several blocks east of the Book Depository. You still believe in the bus story??? Really? Have you not seen the pioneering work done on that? It was one of the most illuminating threads this forum has ever had. It proves that Bledsoe, possibly the most inept witness in the history of humanity, was lying through her teeth and CLEARLY coached as to what to say. She even blurts that out! McWatter, the bus driver, hadn't a clue who LHO was and he too was coached/led by the nose. The whole bus/taxi escape is a fallacy from start to finish! As for the 2nd floor encounter, I'd recommend anyone to read this. it clearly proves that the WC narrative, adopted and accepted by Armstrong, is a crock of sh*t from start to finish. http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Anatomy of the second floor lunch room encounter Aug 27 2017-by_Bart Kamp.pdf Are you even remotely capable of understanding how far these people would go to safeguard this assassination plot? You have to stop trusting the CIA and the FBI Jim, they have lied through their teeth all the way through this investigation. The WC is a lie from start to finish. Yet here you are, using the FBI's narrative to back up your H&L story... Oh if only you had irony receptors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 Bernie, Thank you for, however briefly, initiating an almost civil discussion. Without a sense of irony, I’ll play it as if you mean it for now. If you’ll suspend your disbelief of the two Oswalds for just a couple of minutes, I’ll try to show you how the WC version and the Nash Rambler sightings make perfect sense. Briefly, the reason we think Harvey Oswald DID take that crazy bus and taxi ride (while Lee got in the Nash Rambler) is that Harvey was ordered to do so, and he almost certainly had been following orders for that entire horrible day. He went out of his way to take the bus because he had been ordered to do so and was quite possibly going to be met by Tippit at the GLOCO station directly on the bus route. There’s more evidence, but the real proof this was all part of a plan is the fact that U.S. Army employee Stuart Reed managed to take excellent color photos of McWatters’ bus #1213 and the front of the TSBD right around the time of the assassination, and then he captured Harvey’s arrest in front of the Texas Theater. That was not just luck; it had to be planned. McWatters didn’t remember Harvey at all (would you expect a bus driver in that situation to?) but Whaley DID remember him, just as you would expect a taxi driver to remember his sole passenger. No doubt you are well aware of how strong the evidence is for the Nash Rambler ride. I won’t bother discussing it here. John makes his case for the two Oswalds leaving the TSBD here: Harvey and Lee Depart the TSBD Knowing full well that the Nash Rambler escape would lead researchers to totally reject the bus and taxi ride, John concluded the write-up above with a list of reasons for what he called the “Naysayers” to consider. Here it is: III. NAYSAYERS There are some people who believe the bus ride never happened, and that the entire story of the bus ride was fabricated. In order to reach their conclusions these people focus attention on witnesses whose memories are less than perfect, and then continuously criticize these people in an attempt to destroy their credibility. These people often misread witness statements and testimony. They criticize documents without thoroughly understanding what they are reading. Their cited "sources" are often not sources at all and, in some cases, are non-existent. They (naysayers) do this in an attempt to develop and promote their own preconceived ideas and theories. However, when their work is closely scrutinized, it becomes apparent that many of these naysayers have not done their homework. For example: Naysayers criticize bus driver Cecil McWatters because he could not positively identify Oswald as a passenger on his bus. Naysayers ignore McWatters' description of this one passenger and his clothing—a man who rode in the middle of the bus for only 4 minutes. These naysayers forget there were perhaps dozens of bus passengers on several of McWatters' bus runs on 11/22/63, yet they endlessly criticize him for not remembering details about this one passenger. Naysayers criticize the testimony and memory of Milton Jones, who remembered Oswald as a passenger and remembered his light blue jacket and grey pants. Naysayers conveniently forget that Oswald sat behind Jones, and only saw Oswald for a few seconds when he boarded and got off McWatters' bus. Naysayers criticize the testimony and memory of Oswald's former landlady Mary Bledsoe, who described Oswalds dark brown shirt, the hole in the sleeve, and the missing buttons very well. Naysayers believe that Oswald changed the shirt he wore to work at his rooming house before he went to the theater, relying on the reports of Kelley and Bookhout. Therefore, naysayers criticize Bledsoe because her description of the shirt matches the shirt Oswald was wearing at the theater when arrested. Naysayers claim that Oswald changed his shirt at his rooming house, citing the reports of Kelley and Bookhout, who wrote that Oswald removed a reddish-colored, long-sleeved shirt with a button down collar and placed it in the lower drawer of his dresser. The problem with their reports is that Oswald did not own a reddish-colored, long-sleeved shirt with a button down collar. He did own one, and only one, reddish-brown shirt, but this shirt did not have a button down collar (CE 150) and this was the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested in the Texas Theater. All of Oswald shirts were listed in DPD inventory. In the Warren Volumes these shirts are photographed and identified as WC #150 & 151 & 152-all long sleeved, and not one shirt is reddish-colored, long-sleeved, with a button down collar. WC # 153 & 154 & 155 & 160 are all short sleeved shirts. Oswald could not have removed a reddish-colored, long-sleeved shirt with a button down collar, because he didn't own such a shirt. Oswald did remove one shirt and put it in his dresser drawer, as he told Capt. Fritz. This was his dirty white t-shirt, soiled around th HarveyandLee.net HarveyandLee.nete collar. Naysayers criticize Mary Bledsoe and say that she did not see Oswald on the bus, because she saw “only a glimpse of him.” Naysayers forget that Oswald rented one of 3 bedrooms in her home and she saw him on a daily basis only 5 weeks before the assassination. He talked on the telephone constantly and interrupted her naps. Mrs. Bledsoe remembered that Oswald often spoke in a foreign language on her telephone. She was very familiar with Oswald's face and physique. Mrs. Bledsoe only needed a “glimpse” of Harvey Oswald to recognize him instantly. Naysayers constantly criticize Bledsoe and Jones and Whaley for their less than perfect memories. But Oswald was only in their presence for a mere 4-6 minutes. Naysayers conveniently forget that Bledsoe and Jones and Whaley all remembered that Oswald wore light colored grey pants on the bus and taxi. Oswald told Capt. Fritz that he had changed his dirty trousers (light colored grey pants) in his room. When arrested, Oswald was wearing very dark pants. His dirty light colored grey pants were later found in his room by police. How could Bledsoe and Jones and Whaley have known Oswald was wearing light grey pants on the bus/taxi unless they had personally seen him? Naysayers claim that McWatters never gave Oswald a bus transfer. If McWatters never gave bus transfer #004459 to Oswald, then perhaps naysayers would care to explain why Dallas Police called the Dallas Transit Division Superintendent. Explain how Mr. F.F. Yates was able to immediately identify McWatters as the driver who issued the bus transfer. Do the naysayers expect us to believe that Dallas Transit supervisors were coerced into going along with a fabricated story that the bus ride never happened? Naysayers ignore the fact that transfer #004459 came from McWatters' transfer book. They ignore McWatters' testimony that he remembered giving a transfer to Oswald and a transfer to a blond haired lady when both were getting off the bus. Naysayers ignore Mary Bledsoe's testimony that she spoke briefly with the blond lady when McWatters gave her a transfer. How would Oswald know about a blond-haired lady on McWatters bus unless he had ridde HarveyandLee.netn on that bus? Naysayers claim the bus transfer at the National Archives does not have a crease in the middle, so it was never folded and put in Oswald's pocket. Naysayers ignore the fact that National Archivist Steve Hamilton confirmed that the bus transfer has a crease in the middle, indicating that it had at one time been folded. Naysayers question the number of transfers given out by McWatters on 11/22/63. They know the first transfer McWatters issued was #004452, and they know the police found transfer #004459 in Oswald's shirt pocket. They claim, correctly, that McWatters gave out 8 transfers (#004452 to #004459). But they then claim that because McWatters told the WC that he gave out only two transfers, that 6 transfers were “missing.” Once again, these naysayers are simply misreading testimony. McWatters told the WC, “Yes, sir; I gave him one [bus transfer] about two blocks from where he got on [at Griffin]...that is the transfer because it had my punch mark on it....I gave only two transfers going through town on that trip [going through town on that trip!] and that was at the one stop of where I gave the lady and the gentlemen that got off the bus, I issued two transfers....But that was the only two transfers were issued [on that ONE trip thru town]. Very simple. McWatters issued six transfers prior to picking up Oswald and the blond lady (prior to 12:40 PM). He then issued a transfer to the blond lady and a transfer to Oswald when they got off the bus (circa 12:44 PM). Oswald told Capt. Fritz and his interrogators about a blond woman asking William Whaley to call her a taxi, just after Oswald got into Whaley's taxi. William Whaley told the WC the same story--that just after Oswald got into the front seat of his taxi, a blond lady asked him to call a taxi for her. How is it possible that Oswald's and Whaley's stories match perfectly, unless this incident actually occurred and was remembered by both Oswald and Whaley? Naysayers conveniently forget that Oswald's reference to a blond-haired lady, which he told to Capt. Fritz and numerous law enforcement officers during interrogations, was also remembered by McWatters, Bledsoe, and Jones. Naysayers criticize William Whaley for saying that Oswald had a silverlike strip on his shirt. Naysayers ignore and intentionally overlook that Whaley also said Oswald was wearing a brown long-sleeve shirt and a t-shirt with a soiled collar. Naysayers criticize William Whaley because he said Oswald's bracelet was a “stretchband,” when it looks like a “chain link” bracelet. But naysayers, once again, should do their homework. Oswald's bracelet is listed on a DPD property form, found in Box 1, folder 8, item 1 at the Dallas Archives. It is identified as "One I.D. stretch band with 'Lee' inscribed.” Naysayers also fail so explain how Whaley could have known that Oswald was wearing any kind of silver-colored bracelet, unless he saw the bracelet himself on Oswald's left arm while riding in his taxi. Naysayers criticize William Whaley when he said that he drove Oswald to Neches and Beckley, because this address is non-existent. Naysayers conveniently fail to remember that Oswald instructed Whaley to drive to the 500 block of N. Beckley. As Whaley was driving south on N. Beckley, Oswald said “this will do.” Whaley then stopped randomly in the street, at an unknown address, and Oswald got out of his taxi. Whaley wrote “500 N. Beckley” in his manifest because that is what he remembered Oswald told him when he first got into his taxi. Naysayers criticize William Whaley because he wrote down the time of Oswald's taxi ride incorrectly in his manifest. Naysayers conveniently forget that Whaley explained to the WC that he always wrote the times of his taxi rides in 15-minute intervals. And said that he often wrote two, three, or four of these entries in his manifest at the same time, long after the taxi rides. Whaley said that when he got back to the Union Terminal he made an entry of the trip (to N Beckley) on his manifest for the day. Naysayers criticize taxi driver William Whaley for naming the number 3 man in the police lineup as Oswald, when he was identified by the police as the number 2 man. Naysayers ignore the explanation that Whaley gave to the WC. Whaley simply said that LHO, walking from left to the right, was the 3rd man brought out for the lineup. From left to right, according to the police, Oswald was the #2 man. Naysayers criticize and criticize these witnesses over the smallest of details, in an attempt to “prove” that the bus and taxi ride never happened. This is the extent of their “research.” Naysayers ignore the fact that Capt. Fritz and many law enforcement officers heard Oswald say that he rode a bus, got a bus transfer, got into a taxi, offered to let a blond-haired lady have his taxi, and paid an 85 cent fare. The facts are that Bledsoe and Jones testified that Oswald was on McWatters bus, transfer #004459 was found in Oswald's shirt pocket, Whaley testified that Oswald rode in his taxi, that Oswald offered to let a blond-haired lady have his taxi, and that Oswald paid 95 cents in taxi fare. Witness testimony and evidence match pretty well with what Oswald told his interrogators. HarveyandLee.net Naysayers criticize, criticize, and criticize these witnesses for not having perfect memories. Yet these naysayers never produce a single document or a single witness by which to prove the taxi and bus ride never happened. Nor can they offer an ounce of PROOF as to what they think COULD HAVE happened—only speculation, fantasies, and daydreams. To these naysayers, I would ask them to simply identify the person or persons who came up with the idea to fabricate a story in which the bus and taxi rider never happened. I would ask them to name the person or persons who had the knowledge, presence, and ability to fabricate such a hoax within hours of Oswald's arrest.. I would remind naysayers that Oswald himself said during his first and second interrogations that he rode a bus, long before the police knew about Cecil McWatters. And Oswald made these statements in the presence of Capt. Fritz, James Hosty, Thomas Kelley, James Bookhout, and numerous officers. These people took notes, made reports, and/or gave WC testimony about statements made by Oswald. These naysayers would have us believe that a person or persons unknown convinced all of these people (SS agents Kelley, Nully and Forrest: FBI agents Hosty, Grant, Odum and Bookout; US Marshall Nash; Capt Fritz, DPD officers Sims, Boyd, Turner, Hall, Dhority, Owens, Leavelle, and Senkel, taxi driver Whaley, bus driver McWatters, bus passengers Bledsoe and Jones, bus and taxi officials) to lie and go along with a fabricated story that the bus and taxi ride never happened. But no matter how much evidence researchers produce to prove that Oswald rode on a bus and in a taxi on 11/22/63, we can be sure that irresponsible naysayers can and will find the most trivial, superficial, and inconsequential reasons to continue their criticism. Rather than nit-pick the statements and memories of witnesses who saw “Lee Harvey Oswald” riding in either the station wagon, bus, or taxi, naysayers should study the overwhelming amount of evidence that shows there were two “Lee Harvey Oswalds” who looked very similar. At 12:40 PM LEE Oswald got into a Nash Rambler station wagon in front of the TSBD, while HARVEY Oswald was getting into McWatters' city bus at Elm and Griffin. An hour and a half later HARVEY Oswald was arrested, handcuffed, and sitting in a room at Dallas Police headquarters. When Capt Fritz pointed to Roger Craig and said to Oswald, “This man saw you leave....what about the car?” Oswald replied, “that station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine.....” HARVEY Oswald dared not say any more, but his statement about Mrs. Paine and a station wagon shows that he knew a lot more than what he told his interrogators . George Lardner, of the Washington Post, reported that “[CIA Director] Richard Helms told reporters that no one would ever know who or what Lee Harvey Oswald...represented.” In 1977 Helms became the only CIA director to be convicted of misleading Congress. --Above from HarveyandLee.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 I haven't read about the bus/taxi fiasco for years, I would need bit of time to brush up. But you do realise don't you that your version of events re the 'escape' tallies perfectly with DVP's and the WC? So, the people you have been accusing of all kinds of skulduggery, falsification, lying, torturing witnesses, faking and destroying of evidence are now to be taken at their word for the entirety of this part of the story? All of a sudden they have become your star witnesses, carving out a narrative that perfectly fits with your H&L plot. Now we mustn't question anything they have concluded, and that this part of the WC is as accurate as it gets. Can you believe that I am imploring YOU to not have so much trust in the authorities' version of events? Yet here you are promoting it for them I don't want to get into a discussion on the Mcwatters/Whaley/Bledsoe saga because 1) I don't have the relevant information to hand and don't want to argue from a position of ignorance and 2) I don't want to facilitate your deft change of subject when we haven't had a satisfactory explanation for why 'Lee's' head was found in 'Harvey's' grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 Excuse me? My version accepts the Roger Craig/Nash Rambler observations in their entirety! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 22 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said: I don't want to facilitate your deft change of subject when we haven't had a satisfactory explanation for why 'Lee's' head was found in 'Harvey's' grave. That's what I thought, Bernie.... How did "Lee Harvey Oswald" grow that new front tooth in his grave? On 10/20/2017 at 5:12 AM, Jim Hargrove said: I’m happy to talk about the exhumation and Harvey’s magic tooth, but it is actually Mr. Laverick who constantly tries to change the subject. This thread was started by an H&L critic who thought he could mock the clear indications that Harvey Oswald learned Russian as a child. That didn’t work out so well for the critic and we eventually moved on to many other examples of evidence for Harvey and Lee. Those examples are so numerous they fill a thousand page book and have, in this one example on this one forum, filled 110 pages so far. Mr. Laverick is clearly alarmed by the Harvey and Lee Menace® and has decided to try to steer everything back to the exhumation, because he thought he could win that argument. But that hasn’t worked out well for him either. Regardless of Mr. Laverick’s intentions, we ARE going to discuss additional evidence for Harvey and Lee beyond the exhumation and the magic tooth. For now, though, it’s clear that the H&L critics are confused about this subject. Tracy Parnell is still unable to see this photo: Greg Parker soldiers on and admits what we can all see with our own eyes but would like us to believe that, either the tooth was waving in the breeze for hours before being re-implanted by an unknown dentist, or was somehow found, picked up, cleaned, and quickly re-inserted, all the while allowing time for attending class and posing for Ed Voebel’s camera. Mr. Laverick marvels at the fact that the exhumed teeth more or less match Marine Corps records, even though he knows full well that the evidence shows Harvey was in the Marines and that it is therefore logical that his dental records would match. All that leaves him is the mastoidectomy Even Vincent Di Maio admitted that “many World War II-era kids bore the same scar.” Harvey may have had the same procedure done legitimately. It seems more likely, though, that Harvey had the procedure done in late 1952 or early 1953, when he was a teenager living in New York City and habitually truant from Public School 117. That’s the time period Louise Robertson was referring to when she told the FBI that Marguerite brought the child to New York for “mental tests.” This, despite the attempts by H&L critics to misrepresent it, had nothing to do with the assassination, still a decade away, or the exhumation, still three decades away. It would have been performed so Harvey’s medical records matched Lee’s, just in case some Commie Intel guy checked while Harvey was on assignment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Excuse me? My version accepts the Roger Craig/Nash Rambler observations in their entirety! Ok, more accurately is...your version accepts in its entirety the testimonies of Bledsoe, Whaley and McWatters. Just as the WC does. Just as DVP does. Just as the FBI does. You all make strange bedfellows...it's not often you champion the accuracy of the FBI. Yet here, regarding the bus and taxi ride and Oswald staying at Bledsoe's house, the FBI got it smack on the button. The bus ride and the taxi ride have been falsified Jim! The FBI faked the findings and inserted its preferred view of events by manipulating witnesses as you are always telling us they do, so that the sole guilt could be directed at LHO. You are aware that these people can and do fake evidence aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said: You are aware that these people can and do fake evidence aren't you? Do you mean like this?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 On 10/16/2017 at 2:13 PM, Glenn Nall said: Hi Dawn - I know you've said you're friends with Richard Bartholomew (right?) - I wonder if you'd be willing to facilitate an email to him, from me, if possible. I surely don't want to badger him with questions but to simply send my appreciation for some of his work. And perhaps a question or two, but nothing more... Sorry to ask you this way, but i couldn't get a PM to you... Very Grateful, GlennNall atgmail Hi Glen...I don't do much personal email these days but yes I am a long time friend of Richard, since 92 or so. My email is dmeredith@austin.rr.com and I will get it to him. (I see you have just joined us at DPF too). Hmm not sure why you could not PM me... Dawn sorry for the h and L interruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 17 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Excerpts from Ed Vobel’s WC testimony (emphasis added) …. Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee. The fight, I think started on the school ground, I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee. Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John, but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way, and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the Neumeyer boys I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out. I don't think he was that good I don't think he was a great pool player I think I met her one time I think the legal age here is 18 I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids I think they have gotten worse I think we were in the same grade, I think we were. .... and on and on. Ed Voegel says “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It seems to be part of the way he talked. Excellent catch and point, Jim. I think you're right. I think that Ed really did know that Oswald's lip was cut, and that he really did lose his tooth. BTW, I've noticed that a lot of commentators and people interviewed on news station routinely proceed many of their statements with the phrase, "I think." I've wondered if it is because they fear making an unintentional false statement and then being called on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 12 hours ago, Joe Bauer said: Is there anyone on this forum that has credible training and education in dentistry? Who could perhaps share their missing or not missing tooth take regards the adolescent Oswald photo. Joe, It seems to me that a photographic expert is what you need. As for me, I'm satisfied with the preponderance of the evidence. There is so much evidence for there being two Oswalds that the photo showing the tooth missing is of little significance on it's own. Of course, if it could be proven beyond doubt that the tooth is missing in the photo, and that the photo was taken the day after the tooth was lost or later, this would be absolute proof of two Oswald boys. But no matter what, there is always going to be some doubt over the photo. There is always going to be some possibility that there is a defect on the photographic film where the tooth appears to be missing. And there is always going to be some possibility that Ed Voebel just happened to have his camera at school the day of the fight, and thereby got a picture before the tooth was reset, and was able to patch up Oswald's lip in the boys room, get the photo taken without any blood showing, take Oswald to the school's main office, have Marguerite called, wait for Marguerite to arrive, and still get Oswald to a dentist in time to have his tooth successfully reset. But I go by the odds. Odds are that that Ed Voebel is right about Oswald losing his tooth because Aunt Lillian corroborates that narrative. Odds are that the photo does indeed show a missing tooth because, after all, the odds show that Oswald did indeed lose a tooth. Plus odds are that there doesn't just happen to be a film defect that makes it look like a tooth is missing. Odds are that the photo was NOT taken the day the tooth was lost, because 1) kids don't routinely take cameras to school and so Ed Likely did not have his that day; and 2) because there is no indication in the photo that Oswald had just been in a fight.... no blood, no paper towels or toilet paper dressing the wound, etc. And since the odds are the photo was taken a day or more after the tooth was lost, odds are that the tooth could not have been successfully reset. (Even these days one needs to get to a dentist within an hour of losing a tooth to have much hope of having it successfully reset.) There is only one conceivable reason a person would bet against all those odds, and that is if he knows for a fact that there was only one boy Oswald. Problem is, the odds are also high that there were two boy Oswalds. The fact that the school records show him attending two schools simultaneously. The fact that navy medical records show him in Japan when other navy records show him to be in Taiwan. And the list goes on and on. The odds are greatly in my favor. The odds are greatly against the anti-H&L gang. But they don't recognize that because they simple cannot accept the possibility that the CIA would go to such lengths as to groom a future spy beginning at childhood. I'll bet that these same folks would also deny the other fantastical things the U.S. has engaged in if they weren't widely accepted facts. Like the CIA's illegal and unethical LSD experiments on U.S. citizens. Like the proposed Operation Northwoods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Another video by Stan Dane, a (mostly) serious one this time-scroll down: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1603-lillian-murret-the-dentist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now