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

[Thomas Graves]

31 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

Good.

So, as you "grow" here, you'll eventually be able to shed the full-blown, literal-childhoods-interpretation, etc, of Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites, and be able to see that some of those "childhood facts" (if indeed they pertain and were't simple mistakes) were fabricated after they'd reached adulthood, right?  (One definition of "adulthood" being acceptable for admittance by the Marine Corps.)  (lol)

That's the "CT" I seem to be moving towards.  At the moment.

--  Tommy

edited and bumped

[Thomas Graves]

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think I see where you were going with that. Or rather, the reason why you were going there. Instead of saying, "[Oswald's getting VD] would have been considered misbehavior on his part," I should have said, "the activity resulting in [Oswald's getting VD] would have been considered misbehavior on his part ."

Yeah, that's a more accurate phrasing.

 

I don't understand how what I quoted and paraphrased has any bearing on whether or not there were two Oswalds in the Marine Corps. Can you tell me?

 

Sandy,

Don't Harvey and Lee-sters take the "fact" that an Oswald got VD (be it from a nasty woman or dirty, communally-washed Marine-Corps underwear), when and where he apparently did, as "proof" of a Two Oswalds In The Marine Corps Theory?

(Sounds like a good idea to me, if provable.  But not a good reason to extend their "relationship" back to 1947, or so.)

--  Tommy

Edited April 1, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Ray Mitcham]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

So Swike likes Angleton. That means anything he says is false? How about if he says water is wet?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water

[Sandy Larsen]

37 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

Don't Harvey and Lee-sters take the "fact" that an Oswald got VD (be it from a nasty woman or dirty, communally-washed Marine-Corps underwear), when and where he apparently did, as "proof" of a Two Oswalds In The Marine Corps Theory?

(Sounds like a good idea to me, if provable.  But not a good reason to extend their "relationship" back to 1947, or so.)

--  Tommy

Tommy,

I just did some searching in Harvey & Lee but could find no conclusions drawn from the statement that I paraphrased, or from the VD issue. (No pun.) I could have missed it somehow, but I don't think so.

[James DiEugenio]

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water

 

 

LOL

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water

OK-you got me on that one Ray!

[Thomas Graves]

36 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

OK-you got me on that one Ray!

GOOD ONE, RAY!

--  Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

On 3/31/2017 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Graves said:

"Dear James"

What's your theory as to where the photo (below) originated?  Cuban Intelligence?  Mexican Intelligence?  The Walt Disney Studio?

Or the Mexico City CIA's LILYRIC camera, focused on the area near the front entrance of the Soviet Embassy, at 12:05 pm, October 2, 1963?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4490&relPageId=3

--  Tommy

PS  Why are you calling the man in the photo (and the burly, balding guy aka Mexico City Mystery Man in the photo next to him, who, btw, was photographed by the same LILYRIC camera just eleven minutes later at 12:16 -- see the "contact sheet, above) Lee Harvey Oswald without quotation marks?

bumped

Edited April 2, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I'm surprised that Jim Hargrove hasn't yet responded to Tracy Parnell's remark on page 4 ( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/&do=findComment&comment=348655 ).

Tracy pointed out "one of the most egregious misrepresentations of evidence" in the Harvey and Lee book. John Armstrong, arguing that the Marguerite Oswald who appeared on television after the assassination was actually an impostor, cited an old friend of Marguerite's who failed to recognise her. On page 118, he wrote:

Quote

Following the assassination Myrtle and Julian Evans saw this woman on television. When deposed on April 7, 1964 by Warren Commission Attorney Albert Jenner, Myrtle Evans said, "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."

Armstrong went on to explain the fraud:

Quote

Neither Julian nor Myrtle, who had known the real Marguerite Oswald since 1935, recognized the heavy-set, shabbily-dressed woman they saw on television. They didn't realize this woman was not their friend who lived next door in New Orleans only 8 years earlier. The woman they saw on television was the "caretaker/mother" of Harvey Oswald.

Unfortunately, as Tracy pointed out, Armstrong had edited Myrtle Evans' statement. This is what she actually said: "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." (WC Hearings and Exhibits, vol.8, p.51: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=36#relPageId=59 )

She testified that Marguerite was indeed the woman she had known, and not an impostor. By omitting the last five words, Armstrong reversed the meaning of Myrtle Evans' statement. Why did he do this? Armstrong must have had the full text in front of him, so this can't reasonably be dismissed as a simple mistake. I can think of three possible explanations:

1 - The Bad Guys, who no doubt included the FBI, the CIA, the Bilderberg Group and several giant lizards, changed Myrtle Evans' statement by deceitfully adding the words "but of course it was" to make it look as though she recognised Marguerite Oswald when in fact she knew that 'Marguerite' was an impostor.

2 - The misleading passage on page 118 of Harvey and Lee was written not by the real John Armstrong but by an impostor who was either the completely made-up child of Russian-speaking Hungarian refugees or a completely made-up Russian-speaking World War Two orphan. This impostor, incidentally, had previously impersonated the late Paul McCartney, and was the stand-in for Buzz Aldrin on the faked moon landings footage.

3 - Armstrong was so desperate to find evidence to support his 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy that he decided to reverse the meaning of Myrtle Evans' statement, hoping that no-one would bother to check the original source.

I'd be interested to discover which of these three explanations Jim Hargrove finds the most persuasive. Two of them, in proper 'Harvey and Lee' fashion, use impostors for whom there is no credible evidence, so I'd guess he will go for one of them.

[Jim Hargrove]

 

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.

[Jim Hargrove]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Let's tabulate the evidence.

Evidence that the treatments were given onshore:

• Most of the treatments are stamped "NAS Navy 3835," the designator used for the Naval Air Station at Atsugi. Surely the ship would have had its own designator. That only makes sense.
• The top of the medical records are marked "East Camp." That sounds like an onshore description, not a description of being onboard a ship.
• Small ships like the USS Skagit do not have doctors today, and likely would not have 50 years ago either. A ship without a doctor surely would be one without a lab as well. Since the first prescription for a smear test specifically states "To Lab for Smear," the sample must have gone to an onshore lab. (It's possible that Navy Corpsmen were trained to do simple smear tests. So I won't consider that as evidence for onshore treatment.)
• Oswald was treated by a doctor (Dr. Kuehn). Given that doctors aren't assigned to small ships now, and likely wouldn't have been 50 years ago, it is likely that Oswald was treated onshore by Dr. Kuehn. At Atsugi.
   

Evidence that the treatments were given onboard the USS Skagit:

• None. Except that Oswald would have to be in two places at once. Unless there were two of him.

 

Every examination of the evidence for LEE Oswald's VD treatments at Atsugi (while HARVEY Oswald was en route/stationed at Taiwan) should include the fact that, when confronted with the Atsugi medical evidence, the Office of the Secretary of Defense decided it had no choice but to lie to the HSCA.

Anyone who wants to claim there is an innocent explanation for the record conflicts had better come up with an equally innocent explanation for Sec Def's obvious untruth above. 

[Jim Hargrove]

22 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Doctor Larsen,

I wonder if the following would have any bearing on the issue at hand (pardon the pun).

" 13. Technically, there is no legal proof that Oswald had gonorrhea because the doctors took a smear rather than a culture.  Dr. Donabedian testified (8H313-14) that normally the doctors would use the smear method and, if the results appeared to be gonorrhea, would just assume it was and treat it as such, regardless of whether it might actually have been a different bacteria involved."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm#N_13_

 

--  Tommy

 

 

On March 31, 1964 Staff Medical Officer Captain George Donabedian told Warren Commission staff attorney John Hart Ely the Marine Corps Medical records clearly showed that Oswald had contacted gonorrhea.

[Jim Hargrove]

16 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Tommy, is it not a matter of degrees? You have said that you accept a second Oswald, but do not accept a plan for grooming two Oswalds as long as a decade before; correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that you are attacking the whole theory because you cannot accept its depth and breadth. Can you say where you draw the line, with some specifity, and without prejudice to the larger theory?

I steered clear of this whole thing for a while. But then I independently came upon situations such as the one at The Furniture Mart. I have tried but I get no satisfactory explanations for such stories.

Cheers,

Michael

As you continue studying the evidence for two different young men sharing the identity of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” consider the broad outlines John Armstrong has built from thousands of individual details:

Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald was given the identity of American-born Lee Oswald, allowed to sample parts of Lee’s life for roughly a decade, and then sent to Russia with an American ID.  But sometime in the spring or summer of 1963, the “Oswald Project” got misdirected.  In the weeks before the assassination of JFK,  Lee framed Harvey for the hit.

The more prominent examples of this were when Lee Oswald made appearances at the following places, identifying himself by name whenever possible….

The Sports Drome Rifle Range on Oct. 26, Nov. 9, Nov. 10, and again on Nov. 17, several times creating a scene and once shooting at another guy's target.

Morgan's Gun Shop in Fort Worth on Nov 2.

The Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership also on Nov. 2 where he test drove a car at wrecklessly high speeds saying he would soon come into enough money to buy a new car.

The Irving Furniture Mart On Nov. 6 or 7 for a gun part where he was referred to the shop where Dial Ryder worked.

The Southland Hotel parking garage (Allright Parking Systems) on Nov. 15 to apply for a job and oh-so-subtly ask how high the Southland Building was and if it had a good view of downtown Dallas.

Hitchhiking on Nov. 20 on the R.L. Thornton Expressway while carrying a 4-foot long package wrapped in brown paper and introducing himself to Ralph Yates as “Lee Harvey Oswald.” He discussed the President's visit, wondered if you could shoot a president, and asked to be dropped across the street from the Texas School Book Depository (where Russian-speaking “Lee Harvey Oswald” was already at work).

The 1973 motion picture “Executive Action” with Burt Lancaster and Robert Ryan.  It does a great job showing how an “Oswald” look-alike traveled around Dallas in the weeks before the assassination doing many of the things listed above. 

[Michael Walton]

Mike C,

I just did post a rebuttal. Jim (see I'm playing nice now) continues to use missing records and so forth as his "evidence" but his so-called evidence is a neither here nor there kind of evidence. In other words, it's a huge leap of faith to say "One record says he was here while another says he was there so therefore, there was a clone."

The most it proves is there was some pretty shoddy record keeping in the military and in the school system.  That's all.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/&do=findComment&comment=348891

Then when you get into the photo evidence - a boy skinny, a boy bulked up, a wide face, a thin face, a mom smiling, a mom sad, never smiling, with a unibrow, that's just sheer speculation as well. No proof.  The only way I'd ever believe this crazy story is if all four twins were photographed in the same room with their handler standing in the middle.

But we're never going to see that.

As far as what Graves said ("So what if Armstrong, Hargrove, Josephs, et al., confused newbies, obfuscated the real facts of the case, and contributed to flaky "Deep State" thinking in the research community?")...

I agree.  There was NOT conspiracy everywhere in this case. Many people think so but there was no need to have it everywhere.

As far as doubles vs doubles, yes, I do believe there were people going around claiming to be Oswald, but ONLY in the months preceding 11/22.  Stirring things up to make memorable moments (the wild car dealer driving; the shooting gallery incident).  But NOT 10 whole years back with some super secret cloning incident.

Then Jeremy points out the fraud John and Jim leaves out with the Evans statement, then he latches on to another  statement. And it just keeps going round and round and round again...

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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.

He acted differently in the cozy confines of home with his mother than he did in public. He told her to get him some food and she jumped up and did it. No mystery here and no 2 Oswalds required to understand.