Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Josephs

If Oswald was 5'11" why show him 5'7" ??

Recommended Posts

As I've said repeatedly, this dual-height issue certainly doesn't prove that there were two Oswalds. That is the reason I don't make a big deal about it. But what it does do is lend some credence to a two-Oswald conclusion that is based on an impressive body of compelling evidence.

Another thing I've said repeatedly is that a common trait among the anti-H&L crowd is that they base their beliefs on opinions rather than on evidence. If they believe a certain way, no level of evidence pointing the opposite direction seems to have any affect on them.

When Lance talks of flat earthers, he is really speaking of himself and his fellow H&L pals. Because the line of thought of flat earthers is very much the same as the line of thought as the anti H&L crowd. Flat earthers simply cannot accept that the gravitational force can be so strong as to hold the ocean up tight against the bottom of the earth, and at the same time be weak enough to allow a mosquito on the bottom side to fly freely about. Because of their preconceive bias, they willfully ignore all the evidence indicating the earth is a sphere. Likewise, the anti-H&L crowd simply cannot accept that an elaborate body-double scheme could have taken place. Because of their preconceived bias, they willfully ignore all the evidence of there being two Oswalds.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Another thing I've said repeatedly is that a common trait among the anti-H&L crowd is that they base their beliefs on opinions rather than on evidence.

This is an amazing statement. The truth is that the H&L people are basing their belief (which is what it is) on certain evidence and ignoring everything that refutes the theory or claiming it is faked. The anti-H&L people re not ignoring the H&L "evidence" but rather have refuted much of it and seek to explain the rest (everything is not necessarily explainable). My advice-take it to an investigative journalist, a retired investigator (a currently employed investigator would not have time to waste on this) or anyone with a similar background and see how far you get.

Actually, Armstrong did that on at least two occasions. He spoke with Vincent Bugliosi who was the former prosecutor in LA and familiar with the law and the way facts work in the real world. We know how that ended up-Bugliosi wrote a 16 page (if memory serves) rebuttal of the H&L theory in the endnotes for Reclaiming History. The second person Armstrong talked to was Joe Nick Patoski, who also had a low opinion of the theory. Patoski knew Frank Kudlaty and was mildly impressed that someone who he knew (Patoski attended Stripling) as a reasonable man said the things he did. But Patoski probably didn't know that Jack White got a hold of Kudlaty and in any case there is no evidence that he was converted to the theory since that was his first and last article on the subject. And if he truly believed that there was an "Oswald Project" involving two boys that held the key to the JFK case, presumably wild horses couldn't keep him from pursuing that story.

Anyway, take it to a "serious" person who is qualified and they will quickly educate you on facts in the real world as opposed to the fantasy world Armstrong tried to create.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Another thing I've said repeatedly is that a common trait among the anti-H&L crowd is that they base their beliefs on opinions rather than on evidence.

This is an amazing statement.

 

Tracy,

What I said is demonstrably true

All of you anti-H&L guys have FIRST decided that the H&L story cannot be true. And after that you've look only for evidence to corroborate that belief. You can't deny that.

You therefore have indeed based your belief on your opinion. That is what I am accusing you and the other H&L critics of.

I, in contrast, began with an open but critical mind. I studied the H&L evidence. I listened to rebuttals. Rebuttals from your side were mostly weak, so I spent a considerable amount of time coming up with my own rebuttals. In the end I judged the evidence for H&L to be stronger than the rebuttals against it. Much stronger.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tracy,

What I said is demonstrably true

All of you anti-H&L guys have FIRST decided that the H&L story cannot be true. And after that you've look only for evidence to corroborate that belief. You can't deny that.

You therefore have indeed based your belief on your opinion. That is what I am accusing you and the other H&L critics of.

I, in contrast, began with an open but critical mind. I studied the H&L evidence. I listened to rebuttals. Rebuttals from your side were mostly weak, so I spent a considerable amount of time coming up with my own rebuttals. In the end I judged the evidence for H&L to be stronger than the rebuttals against it. Much stronger.

 

 

The H&L theory has been disproven for most CT researchers and informal polls show that. For example, two prominent CT researchers, Morley and Newman, are pushing the CIA-did-it theory. But neither would give a minute to H&L. And for good reason because the theory has been debunked completely. Take the issue that started it all-Palmer McBride. Anyone can go to my site and read an overview on how CTs Greg Parker, David Lifton and Doug Horne (working for the ARRB) took that apart over the years. Parker just finished a debate with Dr. Norwood (that he won handily) that focused partly on McBride. There is just no doubt anymore that McBride was well-meaning but mistaken.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1649-lee-harvey-oswald-the-legend-and-the-truth

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html

What the H&L theory really needs is to undergo a rigorous evaluation by investigative journalists etc. as I have mentioned before. But we know that is not going to happen because the whole thing would fall, apart under such scrutiny. So, we will continue to have what we have now-a small group of believers promoting the theory against all odds. Hopefully, Sandy you will be the one to bring it to the next level by taking it to the experts and please keep us informed if you decide to do so.

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re not paying much attention.

I hear from many well-known JFK researchers who accept Harvey and Lee as gospel.  You will recognize their names, but they don’t want to get involved in the anti-H&L vitriol so many engage in, and so I won’t mention their names here.

You don’t understand how far and wide the Harvey and Lee Menace® has already spread.  John’s work tracing the two Oswalds in 1963 is accepted and expanded upon in James Douglass’s highly regarded JFK and the Unspeakable.

Mr. Armstrong has been interviewed more times than almost anyone else on Len Osanic’s popular Black Op Radio webcasts.  There are a number of feature-length presentations of John Armstrong speeches and interviews on YouTube, each with more than a hundred thousand views.  Compare that with the numbers of other JFK assassination casts.

My own little website featuring John’s work gets nearly a hundred thousand unique visitors each year.  All of this despite a small army of detractors working diligently to disparage his work. Again, compare these numbers with other JFK assassination sites.  You may think you are winning, but you are not.

And since you brought it up, let's see what Palmer McBride had to say to Mr. Lifton.

McBride1.jpg

 

McBride4.jpg

 

McBride5.jpg

 

McBride6.jpg

 

Edited by Jim Hargrove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The H&L theory has been disproven for most CT researchers and informal polls show that.


So you have a poll backing you up and I have the evidence. That's precisely where I like to be in a debate.

Undoubtedly most the guys who polled in your favor suffer the same logical fallacies you do. Your most current fallacy is Argumentum ad populum, a.k.a. "appeal to the majority:"

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." (Source)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I hear from many well-known JFK researchers who accept Harvey and Lee as gospel.  

And there it is Jim. Gospel is the key and as you know when believers believe in other gospel like Christ walking on water, it's  an all or nothing  proposition.

Life doesn't work that way. Meanwhile  the biggest test to the Hardly Lee story is to take it to sane professional  reporters and let them  gauge once  and  for  all how much water the Hardly Lee story holds.

Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim writes:

 

Quote

I hear from many well-known JFK researchers who accept Harvey and Lee as gospel.  You will recognize their names, but they don’t want to get involved in the anti-H&L vitriol so many engage in, and so I won’t mention their names here. 
 

The only way the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy can be accepted is as gospel. You need to suspend all of your critical faculties and believe in the word of the prophet. Do you believe? I said, do you believe? Yes, Lord! I believe! I believe there were two Oswalds! I believe that one of them was a Hungarian refugee who spoke Russian! I believe that each Oswald had a mother named Marguerite! I believe that each Oswald and each Marguerite sort of looked alike sometimes but didn't look alike at other times!

I'd be surprised if there are any "well-known JFK researchers" who take the fantasy seriously, unless we are talking about people like the late Jack White, who not only believed in and promoted the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy but also believed that the moon landings were faked. That's the type of person who is attracted to the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy: people who will look for anomalies in the evidence and then jump to the most far-fetched explanation for those anomalies.

Michael and Tracy are correct: Jim or Sandy or any of these mysterious "well-known JFK researchers" should make an effort to persuade a respectable journalist of the merits of the fantasy. After all, there are still a few such journalists around. But we know what will happen:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1582-harvey-and-lee-cult-the-interview

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often said that if I felt I had discovered some hidden truth about the JFK case and sincerely believed in that fact, I would naturally want to take that information to journalists in order to make it widely available. If I truly believed in the theory, I would also invite scrutiny since I would be sure that my theory would stand up to careful evaluation. But it doesn't look like the H&L people are willing to do any of this since they are content to stay here on their "home playing field" where they can assure each other that they are correct and dismiss any critics as "lone nutters" even when that is clearly not the case for the vast majority of doubters. They apparently are not even willing to go over to Parker's forum and engage in a formal moderated debate. I'll give Dr. Norwood credit for doing that at least, even though he lost handily. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I've often said that if I felt I had discovered some hidden truth about the JFK case and sincerely believed in that fact, I would naturally want to take that information to journalists in order to make it widely available.

 

That idea of yours ain't gonna fly here among CTers, Tracy. We CTers understand why journalists won't give us the time of day. It isn't a phenomenon exclusive to  H&L and it has nothing to do with truth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That idea of yours ain't gonna fly here among CTers, Tracy. We CTers understand why journalists won't give us the time of day. It isn't a phenomenon exclusive to  H&L and it has nothing to do with truth.

Have you  ever visited Consortium News? They've  published  DiEugenio  over there. If the Hardly story really truly is the Rosetta Stone of the case like  you  and Team Hardly believe, and if all your ducks are truly in a row with it like you claim, I  have no doubt that CN would  at least take a serious  look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×