Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

On 4/2/2017 at 7:18 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

 

Myrtle Evans and her husband Julian were friends with the real Marguerite Oswald for nearly three decades. Included in Julian Evans' April 7, 1964 WC testimony was this exchange with Jenner (emphasis added):  


Mr. JENNER - Give me your impression of Marguerite Oswald.
Mr. EVANS - Marguerite?
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mr. EVANS - I think she's a fine woman, myself, a fine woman; intelligent, very soft spoken - a beautiful woman, with black hair streaked with a little gray, but when you saw her on television since this thing happened, she really looked awful; nothing at all like she used to look. She has really aged. She looked like a charwoman, compared to what she used to look like. She used to be a fashion plate. She dressed beautifully, but when we saw her on television just recently, after all this happened, she looked awful. There's no way to describe it, the change that has come over her. You wouldn't have recognized her if they hadn't told you who she was; she looked that different. Where her hair used to be black, now it's entirely gray, and she really looks Old
Mr. JENNER - Well, she's 57, I believe.
Mr. EVANS - That's right; she's the same age as my wife, but she looks about 70 now. That's about all I can remember about her, and then I saw this thing on television when the President was assassinated, and when it showed her picture, we just couldn't believe it was Marguerite.


His wife Myrtle Evans testified on the same day:

Mrs. EVANS - A very good housekeeper, very tasty; she could take anything and make something out of it, and something beautiful. She had a lot of natural talent that way, and she was not lazy. She would work with things by the hour for her children, and she kept a very neat house, and she was always so lovely herself. That's why, when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was, but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair.

Mrs. Evans added this:

Mrs. EVANS - As far as I could see, they were very happy, very closely knit, very much in love with each other, and these boys knew that their mother was putting them through school, and giving them what they needed, as best she could. She was a very good provider for her children, and a very decent woman. I mean, she wasn't a loose woman at all. She was very decent, a very fine woman. 

Does that sound like the "Marguerite Oswald" we all heard about.

And then there's Ed Voebel....


Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet his mother? 
Mr. VOEBEL. I think I met her one time, and for some reason I had a picture in my mind which was different from when I saw her in the paper after all of this happened. I didn't recognize her. She was a lot thinner, and her hair wasn't as gray, as I recall it, when I met her. Of course, this was about 8 years ago, but I can remember she had a black dress on, and she was sitting down smoking a cigarette; now, maybe she wasn't smoking, but this is a picture that comes to my mind as I recall that. 

Of course, none of these people could have possibly known about the elaborate charade that comprised the Oswald Project, but they clearly were surprised at phony Marguerite's appearance in 1964.  

Mr. and Mrs. Evans both testified that the Lee Harvey Oswald they knew was loud and boisterous, with a "foghorn voice."  This is certainly not the quiet, withdrawn, passive-aggresive kid described by the Warren Commision.

Tommy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 4/3/2017 at 8:06 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

When Tracy Parnell gets in trouble and can’t explain away the evidence for two Oswalds, he tends to provide a link to a private website run by Greg Parker, pretending the answer is there.  Parnell did so when he couldn’t explain how Oswald could go to school simultaneously New York City and New Orleans, and he is doing so again now regarding “Oswald” in Taiwan and Japan simultaneously. 

At the site linked by Parnell, Parker claims, without even providing a name, that he has contacted someone from the U.S.S. Skagit.  I guess we have to trust him that he has actually done so.  And so the question becomes, how trustworthy is Greg Parker?
 
Here's one example.  On May 30, 2015, Parker made a post on this forum claiming that photo files I had made available to forum members contained the Delta Home virus.

parkers_virus.jpg?dl=0

Parker went on to make other claims about how much he was suffering from the malware I had inflicted on him.  I knew this was unlikely because I had already scanned the files for malware before uploading them to a temporary directory at HarveyandLee.net.  

But I decided to go one step further and contact the support team at my website’s host, an outfit called Bluehost.  We had a lengthy text chat about Parker’s imaginary virus, and after it was completed indicating the files contained no malware, Bluehost sent me a transcript of the chat.  Here are some excerpts:
 

Chat ID: 4590482. Question: Provider: Bluehost - My Domain is: "HarveyandLee.net" Hi, I put up three .jpg files in a temporary directory this morning, and someone who doesn't like me claims they contain the Delta Homes virus. I see no evidence this is true. Is there anyway your server checks for this? The files are in the directory xxxxx/Temp and are named: FWST.jpg WW-Photo-1.jpg WW-Photo-2.jpg

....

11:24:53amJames

Okay you are verified. Let us see what I can do for you. Give me just a moment to look at them, and see what I can find. I'll also get a malware scan running if I don't see anything directly.

11:25:33amJim Hargrove

Thank you! I ran the latest version of ClamAV on all three files before uploading, and came up "no threats"

11:27:59amJames

They don't seem to look bad to me, either. Just a moment, making sure with a scan.

11:34:12amJames

Other than them being very interesting from a historical standpoint, I'm not seeing any evidence of malware or a virus on them. Let me get Terms of Service to run a deeper scan, see if there's something else. Will take me a moment to contact them.

....

12:04:45pmJames Scan's aren't showing any malware, from what we're seeing.

 

No one else on the forum complained about a virus.  It was obvious Parker was just making this up.  Later that same day, Don Jeffries summarized the silly business this way:


And now, what will happen to Greg Parker, after he warned people not to click on the links Jim Hargrove posted on the Frankenstein picture thread? These were harmless, legitimate links, provided by Jim in order to further the debate. Maybe Greg'a computer is different from all others, and strangely susceptible to viruses that don't exist. The alternative is that Greg was falsely labeling Jm's links as dangerous, when clearly they weren't. Imagine how Greg would respond to someone saying that about any links that he provided. I can hear the demands for a public apology now. Maybe he'd even start one of those dramatic "countdowns" he tried to use once with me. Regardless, you will never see an apology from Greg on this or any other forum.

See Don’s post HERE.

Really trustworthy guy, that Greg Parker.  I can see why Tracy Parnell relies on him when the going gets tough!

 

Explain, please, Tommy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

Explain, please, Tommy!

James,

I haven't had a couple of hours free, you know, to read even one of your new, hot-stinkin'-spaghetti-posts on this thread, yet, but I do have a question for you.

How far back in time do the stands in these new, hot-sinkin'-spaghetti-posts of yours go back, anyway?  All the way back to 1947 or so?  Or "only" back to when your "Harvey" entered the Marine Corps (October, 1956, wasn't it)?  It does make a difference you know.  At least according to Forum member and former U.S. Army Intelligence officer Jon G.Tidd, who said that the Oswald "Double" project was probably started at that time, and that "Harvey's and Lee's" childhoods were more-or-less retroactively fabricated on paper.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

James,

I haven't had a couple of hours free, you know, to read even one of your new, hot stinkin' spaghetti posts on this thread, yet, but I do have a question for you.

How far back in time do the stands in these new, hot sinkin' spaghetti posts of yours go back, anyway?  All the way bact to 1947 or so?  Or "only" back to when your "Harvey" entered the Marine Corps (October, 1956, wasn't it)?  It does make a difference you know.  At least according to Forum member and former U.S. Army Intelligence officer Jon G.Tidd, who said that the Oswald "Double" project was started at that time, and that "Harvey's an Lee's" childhoods were more-or-less retroactively fabricated on paper.

--  Tommy :sun

Tommy...

It goes back to the USMC **AND** to 1947 on San Saba.  Since you know that, why do you ask?

Explain why "Lee Harvey Oswald" attended PS 44 in New York City and Beauregard JHS in New Orleans at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the fall of 1953 LEE Oswald was attending the eighth grade at PS 44 in New York, while HARVEY Oswald and his caretaker/mother were living at 126 Exchange Place in New Orleans. HARVEY was enrolled in the eighth grade at Beauregard Junior High, and because he attended school part-time he was not assigned a home room. On page 817, of Warren Volume 22, there is a copy of Oswald's cumulative school records at Beauregard.  The first row, highlighted in yellow, is the fall semester of 1953 and shows that Oswald attended a General Science class, a Physical Education class, and attended 89 days of school with only one absence. The second row is for the last half of the eighth grade (spring semester). The third row shows final grades, absences, and tardies for the entire 53-54 school year (eighth grade).

Beauregard%20Record.jpg
Beauregard Record 1953 Beauregard JHS record showing HARVEY Oswald attended 89 days of school during the fall semester of 1953, at the same time LEE Oswald attended PS 44 in New York City. See HARVEY's complete attendance and grade information for the fall 1953 semester directly below.

53-54%20%232%20Beauregard-.jpg


Wilfred Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School in New Orleans, provided HARVEY Oswald's grade and  attendance records for Beauregard JHS (8th & 9th grade) and Warren Easton HS (10th grade) to the FBI. The record above shows HARVEY'S grades under "1953-54 REPORT 1" (General Science & Physical Education), which is the 1st half
 of the 1953-54 school year--the fall semester of 1953.

53-54%20%233%20Beauregard.jpg


The document above shows that HARVEY Oswald attended 89 days and was
 absent just one day in the 1953 fall semester at Beauregard JHS  (1953-54 REPORT 1).    The above record continues the text from the bottom of the page at left. Assistant Principal Wilfred Head advised the FBI that the abbreviation "Re ad," represented "Re Admitted" and added that the numbers set forth opposite these abbreviations would represent the total number of school days attended. HARVEY Oswald attended 89 days of school at Beauregard JHS during the fall semester of 1953.

THE 3 DOCUMENTS ABOVE CLEARLY SHOW THAT OSWALD (HARVEY) ATTENDED BEAUREGARD JHS IN NEW ORLEANS IN THE FALL OF 1953 (HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW). THE NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL RECORD PUBLISHED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION (CE 1384), SHOWS THAT OSWALD (LEE) ATTENDED PS 44 IN NEW YORK CITY IN THE FALL OF 1953 (HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW). HARVEY WAS IN NEW ORLEANS, WHILE LEE WAS IN NEW YORK, FROM SEPTEMBER THROUGH DECEMBER, 1953.
 

PLEASE RESPOND, TOMMY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:
33 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

James,

I haven't had a couple of hours free, you know, to read even one of your new, hot stinkin' spaghetti posts on this thread, yet, but I do have a question for you.

How far back in time do the stands in these new, hot sinkin' spaghetti posts of yours go back, anyway?  All the way bact to 1947 or so?  Or "only" back to when your "Harvey" entered the Marine Corps (October, 1956, wasn't it)?  It does make a difference you know.  At least according to Forum member and former U.S. Army Intelligence officer Jon G.Tidd, who said that the Oswald "Double" project, if there was one, was probably started at that time, and that "Harvey's an Lee's" childhoods were more-or-less retroactively fabricated on paper.

--  Tommy :sun

Tommy...

It goes back to the USMC **AND** to 1947 on San Saba.  Since you know that, why do you ask?

James,

Why do I ask?

Well, gosh, I suppose because for most people who are not over-the-top paranoiac and "National Security State" conspiracy-minded (and therefore not particularly vulnerable to Alt-left oriented "fake news" originating from Russian t-r-o-l-l-s in Saint Petersburg (Russia)), it's much easier to accept the possibility that a seven-year "Double" program existed which utilized two flesh-and-blood, already similar-looking seventeen year-old guys, and which fabricated on paper an additional and preceding nine or ten years which comprised the guys' respective "childhoods", than it is for them to accept the premise that two eight-year-old boys were chosen around 1947 and that they (and their two mothers!) looked sufficiently alike eight or ten or twelve years later as to able to fool people who had dealt with one of them into believing that they had dealt with the other one, i.e. the guy who was killed by Jack Ruby on 11/24/63.

That's why.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

James,

Why do I ask?  [The question I asked James was:  "How far back in time do the stands in these new, hot sinkin' spaghetti posts of yours go back, anyway?  All the way back to 1947 or so? Or "only" back to when your "Harvey" entered the Marine Corps (October, 1956, wasn't it)?  It does make a difference you know.  At least according to Forum member and former U.S. Army Intelligence officer Jon G.Tidd, who said that the Oswald "Double" project, if there was one, was probably started at that time, and that "Harvey's an Lee's" childhoods were more-or-less retroactively fabricated on paper."]

 

Well, gosh, I suppose because for most people who are not over-the-top paranoiac and "National Security State" conspiracy-minded (and therefore not particularly vulnerable to Alt-left oriented "fake news" originating from Russian t-r-o-l-l-s in Saint Petersburg (Russia)), it's much easier to accept the possibility that a seven-year "Double" program existed which utilized two flesh-and-blood, already similar-looking seventeen year-old guys, and which fabricated on paper an additional and preceding nine or ten years which comprised the guys' respective "childhoods", than it is for them to accept the premise that two eight-year-old boys were chosen around 1947 and that they (and their two mothers!) looked sufficiently alike eight or ten or twelve years later as to able to fool people who had dealt with one of them into believing that they had dealt with the other one, i.e. the guy who was killed by Jack Ruby on 11/24/63.

That's why.

--  Tommy :sun

Not edited one iota, but bumped.

Because I rather like it.  And it's my thread isn't it.

And I'm gonna keep right on bumping it periodically as "James" inexorably continues to avoid and "cover" my posts with his hand fulls of hot, stinkin ... uh ... spaghetti.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2017 at 8:08 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

This should be better, despite suspected DropBox compression .... 

Evolution_of_LHO_Compressed.JPG?dl=0

 

Take another look, Parnell.

At least one of the mugshots here is an OBVIOUS pencil drawing.  Can you spot it?

A number of  pictures here are NEITHER Harvey nor Lee.  You can see them, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2017 at 5:25 AM, Thomas Graves said:

Dear James

To freshen your memory, we were talking about Hungarian "Harvey's" incredibly good English syntax, grammar, and vocabulary, not his Russian language skills.

He spoke and wrote pretty darn good English for a (dyslexic?) boy whose "mother tongue" was Hungarian  (a Central Asian-based, non-Indo-European language), and who, at a young age, learned the Indo-European but highly "inflected" (look it up) Russian language, and then somehow mastered the also Indo-European but not highly inflected English language!  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection#English

Russian has six "cases" (look up that grammatical term), whereas English (which centuries ago was highly inflected) has only 2 1/2 "mishmashed" ones.  

That's why word order is important in English.  "Active voice" (look up that grammatical term) uses classic Subject - Verb - Object  word order; "Passive voice"  uses Object - Verb - Subject word order (which is preferred by lawyers, btw - LOL).

In a Slavic language like Russian, word order is not so important (except for emphasizing different words in the sentence); that's why Russian people who are learning English often utter sentences that seem "all mixed up" to us, word-order-wise.

Two other big differences to bear in mind are that English has something like 18 or 21 "tenses" (look it up), whereas Russian only has three or five (depending on how you define "tense"), and that English uses "articles" (look it up), i.e. "a" "an" and "the", whereas Slavic languages like Russian do not, which would explain why my Czech students made so many mistakes in trying to use them correctly while speaking English.  (That's why whenever I hear someone having problems with the words "a" "an" and  / or "the", I immediately suspect, especially if I can hear a Slavic accent, that they are from a Slavic country like Poland, the Czech Republic, or Russia, for example.)

It's interesting to note that your Hungarian "Harvey" who had "learned Russian at an early age" didn't make mistakes regarding word order , tenses, or the use of the aforementioned "articles" when speaking or writing in English.  Which leads me to believe that he was born in the U.S., and that English was his "mother tongue."

--  Tommy :sun

PS  It seems to me that your Precious Professor was full of high-falutin' "book-learning," but was woefully inexperienced with "hands on" learning.  Like being raised in La Jolla, California (home of UCSD and the Salk Institute, etc), hitch-hiking to Alaska, driving a taxi cab for five years in San Diego and Scottsdale, Arizona, going to lawschool for one year -- and not flunking out! --, and teaching "conversational English" to Czech people for seven years, in ... the Czech Republic.

Oh, yeah, and having to learn some Czech, myself, like "Another beer, please" , "How much does it cost?" ,  and ...  "Where's the restroom?"

Oh. Here it is.  My bad.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Take another look, Parnell.

At least one of the mugshots here is an OBVIOUS pencil drawing.  Can you spot it?

A number of  pictures here are NEITHER Harvey nor Lee.  You can see them, right?

All I see are photos of the one and only LHO. And I am not sure why you keep posting this image and claiming it has some relevance to the H&L theory. Jack White had his own theories such as there 3 or 4 Marguerites and several Oswalds. And this poster is meant to convince the gullible of that fact. Also not sure why you are spamming this forum with material that has been addressed already. I guess we can think of it as the "greatest hits" of Hargrove.

Edit: Apparently Jim is ready to expand the H&L theory since he says a number of photos in the poster are neither "Harvey" or "Lee." Are you branching out Jim or is this approved by Armstrong?

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:26 AM, Michael Walton said:

I'm really starting to wonder - where is the genuine John Armstrong?  Why doesn't he ever post his own stuff here?  Instead he always uses Hargrove as his mouth piece for everything. It's almost as if he's the bah humbug guy behind the curtain while Hargrove does all of the clinking and clattering on here.

Or maybe - just maybe - is Hargrove just a fake person and it's really Armstrong? This inquiring mind wants to know.

giphy.gif

John does not post on forums.  Jim maintains the website and does the posting on forums. John does the research,  which he often calls and runs it by me before it's up on the site. I asked him about forums one time and he used to post I think he said on one many years back but there was too much bickering. (One of the reasons I hardly ever come here anymore).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2017 at 6:33 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

In an explosive new article soon to be available on HarveyandLee.net, Dr. James Norwood describes the implications of the evidence John A. uncovered from Tarrant County land records that Harvey Oswald lived at 101 San Saba Ave. in Fort Worth TX in 1947.


Has this been published on your website yet, Jim?
 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2017 at 5:39 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

All I see are photos of the one and only LHO. And I am not sure why you keep posting this image and claiming it has some relevance to the H&L theory. Jack White had his own theories such as there 3 or 4 Marguerites and several Oswalds. And this poster is meant to convince the gullible of that fact. Also not sure why you are spamming this forum with material that has been addressed already. I guess we can think of it as the "greatest hits" of Hargrove.

Edit: Apparently Jim is ready to expand the H&L theory since he says a number of photos in the poster are neither "Harvey" or "Lee." Are you branching out Jim or is this approved by Armstrong?

Tracy,

I heard a rumor they're gonna expand the theory to include a Hubert H. Oswald and his occasionally-smiling Mommy, too.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...