Jump to content
The Education Forum
Lance Payette

The H&L "two schools at the same time" mystery

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice work huh Lance?

Only DVP could write a laudatory review of such a cover up book.

Jim DiEugenio,

We need to get this back to the Hardly Lee story.  I asked you way up above if you believe in this story or not. Now you're trying to prove to Lance how Jean was so wrong with your critique of her work.

So what is it - based on my summary of the story to Sandy above, do you really believe or think this story happened like Team Hardly claims?

Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Great reposte, up to your usual standard,David.:blink:

Ray - care to comment on the substance of this thread - that there was a Hungarian clone found by secret agents who looked like Oswald?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Jim DiEugenio,

We need to get this back to the Hardly Lee story.  I asked you way up above if you believe in this story or not. Now you're trying to prove to Lance how Jean was so wrong with your critique of her work.

So what is it - based on my summary of the story to Sandy above, do you really believe or think this story happened like Team Hardly claims?

Jim D has an uneasy relationship with the H&L theory. On one hand, he sounds like he is arguing in favor of the theory. On the other hand he makes statements like "I wish Armstrong had let me look at the book before publishing it" or something to that effect. I can find the original quote, which was from a forum posting, if needed. Anyway, I think it would be useful if Jim would go on record here about H&L in some detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The H&L critics here are unwilling to recognize what is placed right in front of their noses.  

 

Beauregard%20Record.jpg

 

The first row of grade reports, highlighted in yellow for the myopic H&L critics, is the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year (when LHO also attended PS 44 in New York City).  The second row is the spring semester of the 1953-54 school year.  The third row lists the cumulative totals of the two semesters.  This is clearly much too difficult for the H&L critics to understand.

Black and white COPIES of both the Beauregard and PS 44 records were given to the Warren Commission by the FBI (the originals all disappeared after being confiscated by the Bureau). The b&w copies of both the New York and New Orleans records were published in the Warren volumes, much to the chagrin of the H&L critics, who will now continue to deny ALL of this and pretend the whole thing has been “debunked.”  Watch them and laugh….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jim Hargrove said:

The H&L critics here are unwilling to recognize what is placed right in front of their noses.  

If any of this had been an issue, the WC could have easily dealt with it. They would have asked Head (or the school superintendent or whoever) for an explanation of the school records in light of the overwhelming evidence they would have provided him that shows there were not two boys attending schools at the same time. And Head (or whoever) would have provided an alternate explanation (such as Parker has provided) that would explain the discrepancy.  The same thing would have happened with Palmer McBride. Of course, the WC could not imagine that someone like John Armstrong would come along years later with such a nutty theory. All of this has been explained to the H&L gang numerous times but they refuse to give up. As Paul T. says, maybe they are still looking for that big movie deal.

Share this post


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

...Of course, the WC could not imagine that someone like John Armstrong would come along years later with such a nutty theory.

All of this has been explained to the H&L gang numerous times but they refuse to give up. As Paul T. says, maybe they are still looking for that big movie deal.

Tracy,

The following is my opinion.

I think the Hollywood movie deal explanation is the best explanation for the stubborn 20 year support of the Harvey & Lee science fiction, which first appeared in Jim DiEugenio's Probe Magazine (1998), written by John Armstrong.

Every "mistaken identity" case of sighting Lee Harvey Oswald was turned into a CIA plot by Armstrong.  The Lincoln-Mercury dealership, the furniture store with Marina and baby, the Sports Drome gun range, the barber shop with a small boy, the grocery store with Marina, baby and a large check, a bus to Mexico City, an employment agency in Houston, Texas, and so on. 

Although Jim DiEugenio's own theory (per DB2) never descends to the science fiction level of Harvey & Lee (except for his revival of the Probe Magazine treatment of Ruth Paine) perhaps Jim feels some responsibility since his own magazine first published Armstrong's CIA-did-it flight of fancy, and so Jim defends it.

Or, perhaps Jim owns part of the movie rights -- after all, Probe Magazine was his baby way back in the 1990's.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

In view of her support from McAdams, shouldn't Davidsonisms be renamed Davidsonoids?

That is a really good one Ray.

What I am trying to show is just how bad this little circle of WC supporters really is, that is DVP, Parnell, and their occasional lawyer friend from Denver, Lance.

This is the kind of work they support and praise.  Without one single paragraph of criticism either of what is left out or what is simply wrong. 

Davison's book is a flat out cover up book, there is no way around it.  And as I have shown, its by design.

If Lance ever practiced the evidentiary techniques Davison uses in her book, the judge would either sanction him or refer him to be disbarred.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2017 at 12:08 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Davison's book is a flat out cover up book, there is no way around it.  And as I have shown, its [sic] by design.

If Lance ever practiced the evidentiary techniques Davison uses in her book, the judge would either sanction him or refer him to be disbarred.

Jim DiEugenio is so full of baloney and hot air, it's a wonder he doesn't bust wide open.

Jean Davison's book, of course, won't ever receive ANY kind of praise from the type of over-the-top "fringe" conspiracy believers who populate forums like this one (aka: the Anybody But Oswald crowd). (Would you really expect such praise—or even a single positive word—from any CTer at this place? Let's get real.)

But, regardless of what any CTer dishes out, Jean's book will forever be a great book, because it deals with REALITY instead of dealing constantly in cloak-and-dagger type FANTASY (which is where James DiEugenio resides most of the time).

And Jean Davison certainly agrees with me when it comes to the following very critical point....

One of the biggest keys to knowing that OSWALD, HIMSELF, HAD MURDER RUNNING THROUGH HIS OWN VEINS (and wasn't merely being used as a puppet by a band of string-pullers) is the fact that Oswald---all by himself---tried to MURDER ANOTHER HUMAN BEING besides John F. Kennedy in the year 1963. That other person being General Walker, of course.

And even CTers know how important the Walker shooting is to understanding Oswald's murderous character. That's why many (most?) conspiracy theorists ALSO deny the obvious truth when it comes to the Walker shooting. Because if those CTers were to ever admit the truth regarding Walker---i.e., that LHO was, in effect, a POLITICAL (LONE) ASSASSIN, in April of 1963---then those CTers would have a much harder time, it seems to me, reconciling Oswald's innocence when it comes to a SECOND political assassination that Oswald was charged with carrying out in Dealey Plaza in November of that very same year.

http://www.amazon.com/DVP Book Review/"Oswald's Game"

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above is more pure gas from the bloviating machine himself.

Oh no, now the Walker shooting.  In which the FBI altered the calibre and color of the bullet. Davey likes to leave stuff like that out

BTW, has he replied to any of my criticisms of Jean's crappy book?

(Sound of crickets)

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in from Greg Parker, and it makes Davison look even worse.

She never dug beneath the surface of anything, did she?

Atomic Spies & Purloined Stories 
Oswald’s first press interview in Moscow was with Aline Mosby and as a result, a story was published in the US under her name titled Fort Worth Defector Confirms Red Beliefs. It was a straightforward, perhaps even slightly sympathetic story that painted Oswald as thoughtful and earnest.
 
Post-assassination however, Mosby wrote a second story. This time the story was overtly sympathetic – to the government portrayal of Oswald as having a mother-complexhaving a shallow understanding of Marxism, and of being arrogant, among other epithets not brought out in the original – yet allegedly based on the same interview notes.
 
The second story also added this purported quote from Oswald, “I became interested in Marxism about the age of 15 from an ideological viewpoint. An old lady handed me a pamphlet about saving the Rosenbergs”. In the original 1959 story, all that was stated was that he had been “a devoted believer in communism and had read books on the subject since he was 15.” The alleged pamphlet incident was in New York and he had left New York only a couple of months after his 14th birthday. What the reading and age does fit with is his time in the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) and a possible recruitment into its anti-subversive program.
 
The Rosenberg leaflet incident written about by Mosby only  post-assassination never happened. It was a lie based on an incident described in Julius Rosenberg's letters from prison.
 
Here is what Rosenberg himself wrote about his own political awakening: “Although only fifteen years old, I was fully aware of conditions around me and felt a deep social responsibility to do something about them… Now one day on my way home from school I stopped to listen to a speaker at a corner meeting on Delancey St in the lower east side. His topic was the campaign to win freedom for Tom Mooney labor leader who was imprisoned on a frameup. The same night I read a pamphlet I had bought from the speaker that presented all the facts of this case and listed how the reader could help free this innocent victim.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1629-get-me-to-helsinki-in-a-hurry

 

 

If you read the full thing, you will see it was not the only thing stolen from the Rosenberg case to be used against Oswald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James DiEugenio said:

Above is more pure gas from the bloviating machine himself.

Oh no, now the Walker shooting. In which the FBI altered the calibre and color of the bullet. Davey likes to leave stuff like that out.

Pot/Kettle alert!

James DiEugenio, of course, likes to leave stuff out—such as the following items which Jim apparently thinks are totally insignificant (or just flat-out lies)....

There's this testimony provided by the FBI's Robert A. Frazier regarding the color of the Walker bullet:

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this [CE573] a steel-jacketed bullet?"

ROBERT FRAZIER -- "No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket."

----------

There's also Billy Gene Norvell's identification of the Walker bullet:

"On June 12, 1964, Exhibit C148 [aka CE573], a mutilated rifle slug, was shown to Billy Gene Norvell, former Dallas police officer, 1603 Darr Street, Apartment 147, Irving, Texas, by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum, Federal Bureau of Investigation. He identified this exhibit as the same one which he had found at the residence of Major General Edwin A. Walker, Dallas, Texas, on April 10, 1963, and identified his marking on this slug." -- CE2011

DiEugenio must think either Norvell was a l-i-a-r, or the mutilated rifle slug known as "FBI Exhibit C148" was a completely different bullet from "CE573" (which it wasn't, of course; and no CTer on Earth can ever prove they were different bullets).

And, of course, James D. will also just ignore all of the other evidence that proves Lee Oswald took that pot-shot at General Walker on April 10, 1963, such as:

...Commission Exhibit No. 1 (the note Lee wrote to Marina). DiEugenio must think that note is yet another "planted" item to help frame Oswald, or maybe Jimmy thinks Lee was merely worried about getting tossed in jail for jaywalking, and that's the reason Lee left that note (plus the key to their post office box) for Marina.

...Marina Oswald's Warren Commission testimony, in which she tells the world that Lee "...told me that he had shot at General Walker". Plus, Marina told us all the details about the note (CE1) as well. But that's nothing but lies being uttered by Marina Oswald, right Jim?

...Marina's HSCA testimony (excerpted below in an audio file):

https://app.box.com/s/yg5l0gdy32rbkgxhqt0vom0fa6xeca32

To throw your words back at you:

You really crack me up sometimes, Jimmy.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why no one should take DVP seriously or get into an argument with him.

First, note how he has shifted gears.  After I decimated his heroine's lousy book, he now says that well, its the Walker shooting that painted Oswald as a killer.  

Uh Davy, please explain why this alleged communist--who Jean could not find any other communists he associated with--would take a shot at a rightwing nut who Kennedy had removed from the military and who RFK had placed in an asylum; and then shoot the guy who removed him, who happens to be the most liberal president since FDR?  Does that not seem a bit puzzling to you?  Even Wesley Liebeler gave that some thought.

Second, as to your alleged witnesses, man you take the cake in blindness to evidence, do you not?

Both those witnesses are way after the FBI had switched the verdict in the Walker shooting.  I mean months later.  

In my book, Reclaiming Parkland, I use evidence from the time period when the DPD had no idea who shot at Walker. It was a period of about 8 months. And at that time, the bullet was not a copper alloy, military jacketed bullet. It was a steel jacketed 30.06.  And I use four sources to back that up. ( p. 100)  All from before the FBI took the case.  Only you could misinform the public by using the later references.

BTW, its rich how the late hero to DVP, Vince Bugliosi, tried to camouflage just how false Frazier's testimony was. Frazier said the general characteristics of the slug were consistent with Oswald's alleged rifle. As Carol Hewett pointed out, this is pure nonsense. Because most rifles do have four lands and groves and a right hand twist. Which would mean that the Walker slug resembled most all bullets fired in the world. (p. 104)

As per the mutating color and calibre, Vince was wiser on this one.  He left it alone.  He quotes one of the truly ridiculous statements made in the volumes, I mean even for the FBI it was bad.  Frazier said-- his nose growing as he spoke--"some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel jacketed bullets when they actually have a copper alloy jacket." (ibid)

Now anyone who has ever seen the WCC bullets in their original state--which apparently DVP has not-- would realize that the above qualifies as a Mark Laner.  Lane once said, quoting Zola, that those who accept too many absurdities, give birth to epic tragedy.  

That is what the WC was.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commission Exhibit Number 1 is still there, Jimmy.

So is Marina's WC and HSCA testimony.

And the note (CE1), btw, is definitely in OSWALD'S handwriting (in Russian). But Jim D. no doubt disputes that fact, just like he will dispute ANYTHING that points to the guilt of his favorite Patsy named Lee. Right, Jim?

Sure, the Walker bullet was described as "steel jacketed" in some of the reports, but those reports DO NOT exonerate Oswald (or his Carcano). Bob Frazier's explanation that I quoted earlier makes perfect sense to me. If you disagree, so be it. (What's new there?)

Also....

Since conspiracy theorists think the Walker bullet was switched to CE573 at some later time in order to paint Lee Harvey Oswald as the guilty party in the Walker attack, then can somebody please tell me why the police decided to "plant" a bullet that was so mutilated that no ballistics expert would testify that CE573 was THE EXACT BULLET that was involved in the Walker shooting?

In other words, what good did it do to plant ANY bullet if the best the Patsy Framers were going to be able to say is -- CE573 is possibly a bullet fired from Lee Oswald's rifle, but it's so badly damaged, I cannot say definitely whether it is THE exact bullet or not?

The very fact that the Walker bullet in evidence today (CE573) is a bullet that CANNOT be tied definitively to Oswald's rifle is a good solid indication that that particular bullet WAS CERTAINLY NOT PLANTED OR MANUFACTURED by the authorities in an effort to frame Lee Oswald for the crime.

How anyone could possibly argue with the above common-sense observation is beyond me.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP, January 10, 2012 on this forum:

CE573 looks just like a Carcano bullet. Anybody can tell that just by glancing at the picture below (which shows the similarities between CE573 and CE399)

Do you not understand your past statements?  Or what they mean?  If you are saying that anyone can tell CE 573 is a Carcano bullet then it cannot be the original steel jacketed 30.06. 

As Paz would say: Capisce?

You run into more custard pies than Soupy Sales. 

I will not even discuss Marina Oswald.  As Larry Schnapf said, that poor woman would be sliced to ribbons at a trial. 

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just keep asking this very good question....which Jimmy will probably continue to ignore....

"...somebody please tell me why the police decided to "plant" a bullet that was so mutilated that no ballistics expert would testify that CE573 was THE EXACT BULLET that was involved in the Walker shooting?"

Edited by David Von Pein

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

×