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

[Jim Hargrove]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

First, this is not a photo at all... it's a pencil drawing. A very fine one. That this is a drawing is betrayed by various things, like the appearance he is wearing mascara on his eyebrows. (I suspect that the artist was a woman.)

This drawing was clearly made from a photo of Lee... compare the face to Lee's above. It's the same face. But whoever drew this was instructed to add elements of Harvey's face to it. For example, you can see that this drawing includes that fleshy part above the left eye.

That this is a drawing may explain why the mouth is lower than it should be. Or it could be that Lee's mouth really is lower than Harvey's.

BTW, it is my believe that that artist made a mistake in drawing the height scale in the background. She got the height right (though for Lee it would be 5' 11") but not the scale of the chart. Thus the drawing shows Oswald's head to be a whopping 13" in height. If this increase in height were really due to Oswald standing several inches in front of the chart, as suggested by the anti-H&L crowd, then the photo would show Oswald to be much taller than his real height. For some reason that fact gets lost in the minds of the anti-H&L crowd.

 

Sandy,

Jack White always said this was a pencil drawing, but I could never see it.  I do see what you mean about the eyebrows… but is there anything else that makes you think it is a drawing?

[Michael Walton]

If Larsen, Hargrove or others doubt the transformation image I posted above, as well as the eyes-ears-etc matching, then they're simply beyond redemption.  Kind of like the Jim Jones crowd who followed Jones down to South America, and to their eventual death.

I've seen this before on EF.  I posted another photo that clearly shows it's the same person.  Larsen was like "BUT, JIM...BUT, JIM..." - kind of like tugging Hargrove's shirt not quite sure what to say. Almost as if he's discovered that baby Jesus was not a porcelain-skinned, blue-eyed, blond-haired babe.

As for Hargrove, he cops out by simply saying he's not good with faces. Yet, in the HL story, you can be sure that the school photo most definitively shows a missing tooth and other photos most definitively show two different Oswalds. That's pretty much all you need to know about the current level of "defense" of the story.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Jim Hargrove]

17 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

Lee Harvey Who?

In 1959, the Fort Worth Star Telegram published this photo in an article about the so-called defection of “Lee Harvey Oswald” to the Soviet Union.

 

Great picture, eh?  In it’s files, apparently, Associated Press/Wide World Photos had a clearer copy of that image, which John Armstrong purchased from them nearly a half century later.  Here it is:

 

Perhaps one of the H&L critics would like to tell us how the photo above is clearly shows the “one and only” Lee Harvey Oswald.  Looks just like Classic Oswald®, eh?  Hah!

Let’s see how the photo was actually produced.  Below is a washed out version of the original image of of American-born Lee Oswald taken in Japan, probably by George “Hans” Wilkens.

 

Next is a clearer image of Wilken’s photo of Lee Oswald.  Note that the area around Lee Oswald’s head and shoulders has been retouched to eliminate the background.

 

Before producing the final, highly distorted and then washed out version of Lee Oswald’s face published in his home town newspaper, the nose and forehead areas were altered.

 

Why was all this done?  Probably because had the Star Telegram have published Harvey Oswald’s actual portrait, someone in Fort Worth might have noted it wasn’t Lee Oswald.

Perhaps Mr. Bojczuk would like to explain again how only “cult” members can believe that images of “Lee Harvey Oswald” have been messed with by U.S. authorities.

[Jim Hargrove]

15 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

If Larsen, Hargrove or others doubt the transformation image I posted above, as well as the eyes-ears-etc matching, then they're simply beyond redemption.  Kind of like the Jim Jones crowd who followed Jones down to South America, and to their eventual death.

I've seen this before on EF.  I posted another photo that clearly shows it's the same person.  Larsen was like "BUT, JIM...BUT, JIM..." - kind of like tugging Hargrove's shirt not quite sure what to say. Almost as if he's discovered that baby Jesus was not a porcelain-skinned, blue-eyed, blond-haired babe.

As for Hargrove, he cops out by simply saying he's not good with faces. Yet, in the HL story, you can be sure that the school photo most definitively shows a missing tooth and other photos most definitively show two different Oswalds. That's pretty much all you need to know about the current level of "defense" of the story.

Mr. Walton wants us to believe that his melding of Harvey and Lee's faces proves there was only one Oswald but, of course, he has made no such proof.  He's wrong, but, for a moment, let's pretend he's right.  What would he have proved?

Had he been right, he would have shown that Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald pasted his own face on his application for a 1959 passport and not Lee's, as John and I believe.  Would that mean there was only one Oswald?  Of course not!

You would still have one Oswald in the Soviet Union while another was in the U.S., at places such as Bolton Ford Truck center, with Marita Lorenz and Alex Rourke in Miami and the Florida Everglades (as seen in the 8mm film by Robert Tanenbaum, who testified about that at an ARRB hearing).  While Harvey was in Russia, Lee also visited the Dumas and Milnes Chevy dealership in New Orleans, at least once and probably two or three times went to Cuba (as J. Edgar Hoover noted immediately after the assassination), was arrested with Celso Hernandez by Charles Noto in New Orleans in the fall of 1961, and so on.  There is a lot of evidence for two Oswalds, and the photos are just a tiny part of it.

You can't solve this case only by looking at pictures.  You have to consider ALL the evidence. 

[Bernie Laverick]

6 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Walton wants us to believe that his melding of Harvey and Lee's faces proves there was only one Oswald but, of course, he has made no such proof.  He's wrong, but, for a moment, let's pretend he's right.  What would he have proved?

Had he been right, he would have shown that Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald pasted his own face on his application for a 1959 passport and not Lee's, as John and I believe.  Would that mean there was only one Oswald?  Of course not!

You would still have one Oswald in the Soviet Union while another was in the U.S., at places such as Bolton Ford Truck center, with Marita Lorenz and Alex Rourke in Miami and the Florida Everglades (as seen in the 8mm film by Robert Tanenbaum, who testified about that at an ARRB hearing).  While Harvey was in Russia, Lee also visited the Dumas and Milnes Chevy dealership in New Orleans, at least once and probably two or three times went to Cuba (as J. Edgar Hoover noted immediately after the assassination), was arrested with Celso Hernandez by Charles Noto in New Orleans in the fall of 1961, and so on.  There is a lot of evidence for two Oswalds, and the photos are just a tiny part of it.

You can't solve this case only by looking at pictures.  You have to consider ALL the evidence. 

"...Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald pasted his own face on his application for a 1959 passport and not Lee's..."

They must have looked very similar then?

Only a page ago though, you strenuously told us that they didn't!!! That was in response to me pointing out that ten pages previously you admitted that they were almost identical!!

When it suits the H&L crowd 'they' were almost identical. When it is pointed out how fantastically impossible that two unrelated boys picked for some future espionage plot could fortuitously grow up to look that identical, then we are told that they weren't at all similar, one is taller, has sloping shoulders etc...

But they looked so alike they could share an official identification photo! 

Ha ha ha! 

As I have said, this is just a game for Jim. Presumably a lucrative one given the thousands of H&L copies that must have been ordered. But in my opinion he doesn't really believe it. The yapping hyenas can't get beyond their own issues to see this for what it is. But Jim is playing a different game. He's good at it. Very good. But ultimately, he has nothing to play with.

Jim reminds me of the premier league footballer having to play for a part time Sunday league team manned by amateurs and dreamers. Jim thinks he can captain this rag-bag collection of one legged footballers into the big time. If only they'd stop scoring own goals...

 

[Michael Walton]

Jim - if ears, eyes, and nose match...what else is there? Your whole premise is there are photos of Oswald, some showing the Hungary version and others showing the Texas version. But if you compare photos that you and others state are two different people and they match - ears, eyes, nose, etc - proving that it's the same person, what then? All of the other stuff - the cajoling of testimony, pulling bits and pieces from the testimony - the same testimony that appears that no one on your team believes is true and has been faked (you just said that above) - and fitting it like a round peg in a square hole is just hearsay and noise. None of it would hold up in a court of law.

So what then?

Edited November 5, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Bernie Laverick]

"You can't solve this case only by looking at pictures." 

Says the man who posts thousands and thousands of photos to 'prove' his point.

Where they disprove his point we get..."You can't solve this case only by looking at pictures."

 

[Michael Walton]

Bernie - this is the current state of the HL defense:

Basically going round and round with the teeth, then the testimony (that according to them they don't even believe in and is faked), then the Jack White poster, then the Japan adventure, then back to the teeth.  Fun and games.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

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?

[Michael Walton]

I wanted to mention Jim's comment about why that photo of LHO is so poorly done with the horrible tacked on nose and goofy smile.  There's nothing sinister about it as it's just a bad touch up job. I've been looking for other examples but the only one I could find was the Elvis in his coffin one.  

The Elvis touch up was obviously a much better touch up than the Oswald one. But believe me when I say I've seen in the past some pretty bad touch up jobs for photos in newspapers and other publications. If I come across more will post here.  But here's a quote from a guy who worked in that industry before digital retouching:

"A photographer's job was to produce an image that needed no retouching. When it did, typically an oversize print was made (at least twice the size needed for the final reproduction) and it would be airbrushed to perfection, then color separated for the printing plates."

The key to this quote is if the photo was taken with a cheap home camera, then the blow up process may screw it up for publication, requiring touch up. But blowing up a cheap print will be distorted requiring more work for the touch up person. Whoever did that LHO photo touch up should have been fired as it was horribly done.  They should have brought in the crew who did the touch up for the BYP - LOL.

But there's nothing sinister about - it's NOT a matter of "Oh, this was Lee and they tried to cover it up to make it look like the clone" or whatever.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Sandy,

Jack White always said this was a pencil drawing, but I could never see it.  I do see what you mean about the eyebrows… but is there anything else that makes you think it is a drawing?

Jim,

Well I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who can tell it's a drawing. Besides the mascara eyebrows, another giveaway is in the hair. Drawing each hair individually would be a painstaking task. And so an artist would probably use some technique to simulate the look of hair. (I was born in a family of artists and have seen some of the techniques they use.) When I zoom way in, I can see the technique used. I'm not sure how it was done, but I can see that there aren't any individual hairs in most places.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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

Why don't you show us the so-called "common sense" explanation you speak of Jeremy? About Oswald attending two schools simultaneously. I've visited the link and couldn't find it.

Just show it to us!

(I'm sure you won't because you can't.)

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Bernie Laverick]

44 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Why don't you show us the so-called "common sense" explanation you speak of Jeremy? About Oswald attending two schools simultaneously. I've visited the link and couldn't find it.

Just show it to us!

(I'm sure you won't because you can't.)

 

I don't know what game you are playing here Sandy but a few pages ago you told us all how you had read this link and couldn't make head nor tail of it. You said you would criticise it but you didn't understand the point Greg was actually making. Your words. Do you deny that?

Now apparently you 'can't' find it even though it is the second one on the list entitled "PS-33 Beaureguard School Reords"!! Duh!!!

Here is the link so you don't have to look through more than two topics from the main menu Jeremy posted. So did you truly read this before? Or did you just assume it would be wrong so didn't bother? It's very odd behaviour Sandy. To demand that a link be spoon fed to you - a link that, apparently, according to you, you have already 'seen' and commented on - because you can't be bothered to look two topics downwards is lazy beyond belief. It shows us that you don't want to read anything that may contradict your microscopic world view, so you simply pretend you can't find it. Shame that you forgot you had already apparently seen it and commented on it...! Oops! Sounds like a porky to me...

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records

Found any mistakes JA may have made yet Sandy? None of you EVER answer that do you? I wonder why? Is it because whatever answer you give you know how stupid you would look? Yes of course he made a few mistakes...Ok, list them. No he didn't make one single error...That's never happened the history of all human endeavour and any reasonable person would see that.

I know it's embarrassing but you cannot give me ONE new development in this case. 'Lee' would be 78 today. That means potentially there has been FIFTY FOUR years for someone to come forward since 'he' disappeared and 20 years AFTER Armstrong wrote the book. Could you please name me one? Same for Marguerite...not one single sighting since that weekend. How do you explain that?

I didn't bump into LHO's doppelganger but I'm here reading all about the assassination of JFK. You'd think that if a truck dealer's assistant apparently saw 'Lee' when he shouldn't have done it figures that there must have been lots of others who did also. After the assassination wouldn't some of them have been even slightly intrigued to do a bit of research to find out if others had also seen a LHO imposter? After all, they would KNOW he didn't look anything like the one shot by Ruby, (because they looked totally different right?) and that therefore there may have been something very suspicious and strange going on. You would be intrigued wouldn't you?

And yet not ONE new witness inspired by the H&L story has found their way onto any of these forums to verify that?? You found out all about this topic, but as yet not one person who must have had some form of contact with 'Lee' at some point in all those years has come forward with any new information

And to make matters worse...that fact doesn't bother you in the slightest.

It's a full blown cult.

Scary...

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

On 8/24/2017 at 8:28 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

As I predicted, Mr. Bojczuk just gives us another link to Greg Parker (now doubled to two links!) and has nothing to say on his own about the conflicting school records.  In other words, he refuses to debate the subject on the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum.  What a surprise!

Let me go through this again, this time taking a longer look at the Beauregard records.

First, here's the PS44 records from New York City, summarized as follows:

In 1953, Marguerite and LEE were living in a basement apartment at 1455 Sheridan while LEE was attending PS 44 in New York City. After the assassination SAC John Malone, the FBI agent in charge of the New York Office, inspected Oswald's original court file in the presence of Judge Florence Kelley. Malone took notes and sent a report to FBI Director Hoover the following day. Malone wrote, "Oswald's attendance record at PS #44 from 3/23/53 to 1/12/54 was 171 and 11 half-days present and 18 and 11 half days absent. If LEE Oswald's 182 days of attendance (171 full days, 11 1/2 days) and 18 absences are plotted on 1953 and 1954 calendars it is easy to see that LEE Oswald attended PS 44 full time during the entire 1953 school year.

Now let’s see how the PS 44 and Beauregard records conflict with each other.

I’m reposting below the Beauregard cumulative record for LHO and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing it.  Remember that the PS44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school.
 

 



 

Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students.  The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things.

At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.”  But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.”

So which is it?  Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period?

The answer is right before us in the documents shown above.    In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column.  It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year.  Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year.

But that can’t be!  Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken.  On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers.  Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year!

The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school.  So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard.  It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days.

For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for.  Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year! Despite whatever spin Tracy cares to put on this, the NYC and Louisiana school records for fall semester starting in 1953 clearly show two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two different schools at the same time!

Would anyone like to debate this right here?  Or will you just point this way or that way or anywhere but here?

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who can tell it's a drawing.

You are veering away from the Armstrong playbook here Sandy. He reports in his book (p. 149) that this is a photo that was found in the files of ONI. He says nothing about it being a drawing.