Two Oswalds in the Texas Theater

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Bart,

You’re hardly alone here believing the Marsalis bus and the taxi ride never happened, but you know there is a lot of evidence for it.  Besides what the WC wanted us to believe, it’s pretty obvious from his actions at the Gloco station that Tippit expected Oswald to be on that bus. 

Even more significant, it’s clear that Stuart Reed was told Oswald would be on the bus.  Otherwise, why would he take two photos of the Marsalis bus approaching Dealey Plaza, along with shots of the Book Depository, Burt’s Shoes, and the actual arrest of Oswald at the theater?  

Your first paragraph is sheer speculation and no there is not much evidence for the bus ride at all in all honesty. Especially when it is inserted (ticket/Fritz interrogations).

And with the Stuart Reed part you are speculating even more.

Nothing as what you are claiming can be derived from the Stuart Reed set.

You are clutching at straws Jim.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Well, there's a surprise. Jim has again refused to answer a couple of simple, straightforward questions about exactly what he thinks happened in the Texas Theater.

He has been using the Texas Theater incident as evidence for his two-Oswald theory, so he really shouldn't have any trouble telling us how many fake Oswalds he thinks were arrested, and on which floor or floors the arrest or arrests took place. Was it one fake Oswald, or two? If, as I suspect, he thinks there was just the one fake Oswald, where exactly was this fake Oswald arrested, and how does Jim avoid admitting that one of his sources was mistaken?

Let's get the George Applin stuff sorted out first, since Jim has stated the same thing twice now. He writes:

Quote

What Mr. B. wants us to believe is that the second Oswald, who Burroughs and Haire both thought they saw arrested, was actually George Applin.  In fact, he states this as if it were a known fact

All Mr B is claiming is that the Applin explanation is the most plausible explanation that fits the known facts. If you accept that Burroughs and the police reports could be mistaken, as any sane person must, George Applin is the most credible candidate for the person seen by Butch Burroughs and Bernard Haire. If you admit that one of either Burroughs or the police reports actually was mistaken, the case for George Applin becomes even stronger. If you admit that both Burroughs and the police reports are likely to be mistaken, George Applin is your man.

Jim also writes:

Quote

Mr. B. continuously tries to tell us that a balcony arrest of a second Oswald is inconsistent with the observations of Butch Burroughs, but it simply isn’t true.

No, Mr B is not claiming that "a balcony arrest of a second Oswald is inconsistent with the observations of Butch Burroughs". Mr B is claiming that "a balcony arrest of a second Oswald" and "the observations of Butch Burroughs" are inconsistent with the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy, unless Jim is claiming that the same fake Oswald was arrested twice, once in the balcony and once on the ground floor.

As Mr B has explained several times, Burroughs saw someone arrested on the ground floor, not in the balcony. The police reports, on the other hand, claimed that someone was arrested in the balcony, not on the ground floor. The only way you can reconcile these accounts is:

(a) if the same person was arrested twice, once in the balcony and once on the ground floor, or

(b) if two people were arrested, one in the balcony and one on the ground floor.

Which of those is Jim going to go with? Or would he prefer to go with either of these options:

(c) Burroughs was mistaken, and no-one was arrested on the ground floor apart from the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald, or

(d) the police reports were mistaken, and no-one was arrested in the balcony.

Of course, there's also option (e): both Burroughs and the police reports were mistaken, there were no fake Oswalds, and George Jefferson Applin, Jr, is the man seen by Burroughs and Haire being accompanied out of the building by the police. Which option does Jim prefer?

Quote

As I’ve noted time and time again, James Douglass, who interviewed Burroughs, wrote: “By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby, either on his own or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony. [JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 461]

And how, pray, does this passage help Jim's cause? Douglass is speculating that two things happened in a particular order: firstly, a fake Oswald came down the stairs from the balcony; secondly, Burroughs saw an incident which he interpreted 30 years later as an arrest ("he saw a second arrest occur in the Texas Theater ... Burroughs saw the second Oswald placed under arrest and handcuffed": pp.292-3). Does Jim think Douglass's speculation implies a different sequence of events? Is that the point he's trying to make? If so, what does he think Douglass's speculative sequence of events is? If that isn't the point he's trying to make, what is?

In the passage that Jim quoted, Douglass implies that Burroughs did not see an arrest in the balcony. We know that Douglass is correct about this, for three reasons:

1 - Burroughs never stated that he had seen an arrest in the balcony (contrary to what Jim erroneously claimed a few pages ago).

2 - We know from the layout of the Texas Theater that Burroughs cannot have seen an arrest in the balcony from his position on the ground floor.

3 - We know from Burroughs' accounts that he never claimed to have gone up to the balcony during the time the police were in the building.

We can therefore be certain that Burroughs did not see an arrest in the balcony. The incident Burroughs saw ("the second Oswald placed under arrest and handcuffed") must have happened on the ground floor, just as Douglass implies.

Burroughs saw what he thought was an arrest on the ground floor. The police reports claimed that an arrest took place in the balcony. If both Burroughs and the police reports are correct, that means either that two separate fake Oswalds got arrested, or one fake Oswald got arrested twice. Is it really that difficult to understand?

Jim must now be admitting to himself that if both accounts are correct, there must have been two arrests of fake Oswalds in the Texas Theater, in addition to the arrest of the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. But was there one fake Oswald, or were there two fake Oswalds?

We can rule out the notion that the police decided to arrest the same person twice, can't we? Or can we? Perhaps Jim thinks this is a plausible interpretation of the evidence: the police arrested the one fake Oswald in the balcony, then paraded him downstairs without anyone noticing and arrested him again in view of Butch Burroughs. Perhaps that's the scenario Jim wants to go with.

If he thinks this double-arrest scenario is too implausible even for him, he's left with the scenario of two fake Oswalds, each arrested on a different floor of the same building, in addition to the arrest of the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald on the ground floor. But this presents him with a different problem: how does he fit the arrests of two fake Oswalds into the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy?

Let's try again to get a straight answer out of Jim so that we know what it is he actually thinks happened in the Texas Theater. The questions are very straightforward:

Question 1 

How many times was the fake Oswald arrested: once or twice?

Question 2

If it was once, where did the arrest take place: in the balcony or on the ground floor?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/15/2019 at 7:26 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

On 9/15/2019 at 3:02 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Just out of interest, which aspects of the 'Harvey and Lee and Harlee' theory does Mr Butler find the most convincing?
 

Allow me to provide 5 examples showing evidence for two Oswalds over an extended period of time, all prior to the time Sylvia Meagher discussed in her analysis of two Oswalds.

1.  The IMPOSSIBLE 1953 school scenario: Lee HARVEY Oswald attending Beauregard JHS in New Orleans for 89 school days during the fall 1953 semester, all the while Lee has good attendance for the very same period at PS 44 in New York City.

   o
   o
   o
   o

 

Those are among my favorite examples of convincing Harvey and Lee evidence as well, Jim. To these I would add the dental evidence, including dental records and x-rays, indicating that Oswald had lost two teeth, as compared to dental photos in his exhumation report which indicate he had lost none.
 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/17/2019 at 3:19 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jim has given us one more example of the 'Harvey and Lee' modus operandi, something he has done over and over again: when you're cornered, change the subject.

Someone provides a perfectly rational explanation for the 'two fake Oswalds arrested in the Texas Theater' speculation. Forget about that! What about the school records?

 

That's not the way I saw it. What I saw was Jeremy giving his self-proclaimed "perfectly rational explanation" for the two Texas Theater arrests, and nobody buying it.

So the thread moves on, and Jeremy asks John Butler what his favorite H&L evidence is. Jim provides his list of favorites.

Jeremy can't get any traction on the point he's trying to make and he blames Jim for it, saying Jim changed the subject. Which he did not do.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/17/2019 at 1:26 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

(Shhhhhh!  Please dont’ tell Mr. Bojczuk about this.  He’ll start saying again that I’m “disgraceful” and “ridiculous” and “crazy” and “brain dead” and “paranoid” and wearing a “tin-foil hat” and “gullible” and so on.  Mr. B. wont even consider the possibility that Oswald was deliberately impersonated in all the above episodes.  But why won’t he even consider it? Why?)

 

Jeremy said earlier that it was disgraceful the way Jim tried to make it sound like Sylvia Meagher would adopt the Harvey & Lee theory if she were still alive. Of course, that is not what Jim did and we all know it.

What I find disgraceful is the way Jeremy repeatedly 1) tries to shame people into not believing or admitting their belief in the Harvey & Lee theory; and 2) incorrectly states that just a few gullible people believe the theory.

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Sandy Larsen

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Those are among my favorite examples of convincing Harvey and Lee evidence as well, Jim. To these I would add the dental evidence, including dental records and x-rays, indicating that Oswald had lost two teeth, as compared to dental photos in his exhumation report which indicate he had lost none.
 

 

 

I would like to add this photo of Lee Oswald to Sandy Larsen's data set on Lee Oswald's teeth:

Edited September 19, 2019 by John Butler

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

I would like to add this photo of Lee Oswald to Sandy Larsen's data set on Lee Oswald's teeth:

 

Thanks John. That certainly does look like a missing tooth. If so, we can draw some conclusions from this.

First, the school photo of LEE indicates that his central incisor (bugs bunny tooth) was missing, and possibly the tooth next to it as well. The CAP photo above shows the lateral incisor to be missing. This means that Oswald was in fact missing two teeth, and that question is resolved. However the CAP photo shows that the central incisor is NOT missing. I have to conclude that Oswald got only his central incisor fixed some time between the school photo and the CAP photo. He must have gotten the other tooth fixed at at some later date because military dental records don't indicate a missing tooth there.

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Sandy Larsen

[John Butler]

I agree with Sandy Larsen.  The two photos are disturbing on which teeth are missing in Lee Oswald's upper mouth.  This picture clearly shows that the upper left central incisor is gone and the upper left lateral incisor is gone.  The right upper central incisor is there.  The left upper canine appears to be there.

The Civil Air Patrol photo of Oswald came from a Robert Groden book, The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald.  clear enough to scan and crop to this image:

It appears in this photo that Lee Oswald retained both upper central incisors.  But, the gap in his upper teeth appears large enough for two teeth.  If so, that would be the left upper lateral incisor and the left upper canine.  It doesn't match the classroom photo. 

All I can speculate is that because of the angle of Lee Oswald's head this confusion might be an illusion and what teeth that are missing actually match the classroom photo.  We could be seeing the upper left right central incisor and the upper right lateral incisor and mistaking them for two central incisors.  If one looks, the tooth directly to the right of the upper right central incisor is small for a central incisor thus indicating it may actually be an upper right lateral incisor. 

If this is the true situation then both photos match.  And, Lee Oswald was missing an upper left central incisor and an upper left lateral incisor which can be more clearly seen in the classroom photo.

Sandy Larsen says:

"However the CAP photo shows that the central incisor is NOT missing. I have to conclude that Oswald got only his central incisor fixed some time between the school photo and the CAP photo. He must have gotten the other tooth fixed at at some later date because military dental records don't indicate a missing tooth there."

This is a reasonable explanation for the tooth mismatch. 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by John Butler

[Jim Hargrove]

Hi, Sandy,

Haven’t seen you posting here in ages.  Have you been OK?

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Your first paragraph is sheer speculation and no there is not much evidence for the bus ride at all in all honesty. Especially when it is inserted (ticket/Fritz interrogations).

And with the Stuart Reed part you are speculating even more.

Nothing as what you are claiming can be derived from the Stuart Reed set.

You are clutching at straws Jim.

Bart,

The images your friend purchased are so terrible they are worthless.  

High quality reproductions of the Stuart Reed photos have been available since 1995, when Robert Groden published them in “The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald.”  (One of the chapters, by the way, is entitled “Too many Oswalds.”)

Groden’s prints clearly show the TSBD, the Texas Theater arrest, and in two different shots, the Marsalis bus approaching Dealey Plaza.  The bus shots appear on pp. 120 and 121 of Mr. Groden’s book. I’m sure you have seen these before.  How can there be any doubt that Reed was told that “Oswald” would be on that bus?

[John Butler]

Continuing on with the look at Harvey's and Lee's teeth we really don't need to match front teeth in order to examine the difference between the two.  Harvey Oswald had 31 teeth and Lee Oswald what appears to have 27 with 5 teeth missing from this mouth according to his Marine Corps dental chart.

Harvey is missing one 3rd molar from the lower right molar section of his mandible.  He has 31 teeth.  The missing 3rd molar could be natural since this does occur in people.  It happens with a greater frequency in Asians. 

Lee Oswald according to the charts has 5 teeth missing.  This evidence is clear, factual, and incontrovertible.  Great Job!!!! Sandy Larsen.

The only problem I have with this is that the dental chart for Lee Harvey Oswald does not show any missing upper front teeth.  There are no Xs there.

There seems to be filling marks there but no X for missing teeth.  Perhaps, the dental prosthetic is being counted as teeth.  It clearly says one has failed.  Once again my problem is that 7 missing teeth should be noted.  This may indicate this is not Lee Oswald's dental record.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by John Butler

[Sandy Larsen]

48 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The only problem I have with this is that the dental chart for Lee Harvey Oswald does not show any missing upper front teeth.  There are no Xs there.

There seems to be filling marks there but no X for missing teeth.  Perhaps, the dental prosthetic is being counted as teeth.  It clearly says one has failed.  Once again my problem is that 7 missing teeth should be noted.  This may indicate this is not Lee Oswald's dental record.

 

John,

You need to be careful when reading a dental chart because they aren't all meant to convey the same information. For example, the one for LEE Oswald above doesn't show any restorations, such as fillings and crowns. It shows only problems that need to be addressed. I recall Tom Neal mocking me for making this statement in an old thread, asking me how I would know such a thing given that I'm not a dentist. In reply I told him to read the instruction on the form, directly above the chart. It states what things should be marked: "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." In short, things that need attention. The conclusions I've made state that at the time of this exam, LEE Oswald was missing only a molar and no teeth in the front. That was the case because Oswald had prostheses in place for the front teeth at the time of the exam. (Tom Neal demanded that the chart would indicate a missing tooth if Oswald had a prosthesis replacing his, something I could never understand.)

I do not see any contradictions between the chart above and what we know about LEE's teeth. I believe it is his chart.

 

[John Butler]

Sandy,

That is very reasonable.  I suspected something was wrong with the chart.  It is simply of limited use and not the entire record. 

Still, it lists missing teeth.  The dental record then lists four 3rd molars and one 1st molar missing.  From this chart 27 teeth (natural or artificial) are present.  Clear and convincing proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there were two Oswalds.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Bart,

The images your friend purchased are so terrible they are worthless.  

High quality reproductions of the Stuart Reed photos have been available since 1995, when Robert Groden published them in “The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald.”  (One of the chapters, by the way, is entitled “Too many Oswalds.”)

Groden’s prints clearly show the TSBD, the Texas Theater arrest, and in two different shots, the Marsalis bus approaching Dealey Plaza.  The bus shots appear on pp. 120 and 121 of Mr. Groden’s book. I’m sure you have seen these before.  How can there be any doubt that Reed was told that “Oswald” would be on that bus?

Oh my me....

The Nile is a river in Egypt..I give up, what is the point.

[Jim Hargrove]

30 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Oh my me....

The Nile is a river in Egypt..I give up, what is the point.

Bart,

Make light of this all you wish, but you are misrepresenting the Stuart Reed photos, which include two images of the Marsalis bus stuck in traffic as it approached Dealey Plaza, one taken from in front of the bus and the other from behind it. For somebody, these images are obviously too conspiratorial.

Clear images of these photos have been available to researchers for nearly 25 years.  Again, they can be seen not only below but on pages 120 and 121 of The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald by Robert Groden.  Groden credits Stuart Reed for both pix.  Reed expected “Oswald” to be on that bus, and these pictures make that pretty clear.