The Oswald Exhumation

[David Andrews]

Graphic content:

https://narratively.com/digging-up-lee-harvey-oswald/

[Jim Hargrove]

The exhumation was conducted because Michael Eddowes, author of Khrushchev Killed Kennedy, “alleged that a ‘look-alike’ Soviet agent had killed Kennedy, not Oswald. Eddowes believed the KGB had trained a body-double named Alec to assume Oswald’s identity.”

In truth, a Russian-speaking boy was involved in a long-term U.S. intel project to give an American identity (LHO) to a Russian-speaking youth.  As part of the program, this LHO went to American schools, held American jobs and even served, sporadically, in the U.S.M.C. at around the same time as the young man who was born as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Given Marine Corps records of the second LHO, the autopsy proved that the cadaver that had been exhumed was indeed the remains of Lee Harvey Oswald, which is true.  The second Lee Harvey Oswald, that is.

One of the photographs taken during the exhumation makes it easy to see that the exhumed Oswald was not the same as the birth Oswald.

The missing front tooth is a particularly simple illustration of the differences between the two Oswalds. In the fall of 1954, Ed Voebel became acquainted with LEE Oswald after he witnessed him in a fight with Johnny and Mike Neumeyer (9th grade). The fight lasted a long time and was witnessed and remembered by several students at Beauregard. After the fight Voebel and two friends got some ice for (LEE) Oswald and attempted to patch him up. 

Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.
           --Warren Commission: Vol. 8, Page 3   

Voebel himself snapped the photo of Oswald and his missing tooth, which he eventually sold to LIFE magazine for $75.  

Of course, the 1981 exhumation photos clearly show that Classic Oswald® (Russian-speaking Harvey) had no missing front tooth.

[Jonathan Cohen]

Oh brother. THIS again? It has all been completely debunked time and again, but I'm resurfacing this link to a 1998 David Lifton newsgroup post as further evidence that the man in the grave was the ONE and ONLY historical Oswald.

[Jim Hargrove]

Oh brother, indeed!  Mr. Lifton's article linked above is about an X-ray.  The PHOTO above is not an X-ray.  The PHOTO above was handed to John Armstrong by Marina Oswald, who gave John all the original exhumation photos in her possession during one of their meetings.  John made high-quality copies of them before he returned them to Marina.  Please get your facts straight!

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Another thread, another pile of 'Harvey and Lee' spam.

If even David Lifton finds your theory ridiculous, you've got problems. The great Alex Wilson has described Lifton as "the Dean Koontz of assassination research ... creating scenarios so outlandish that the Warren Report seems sane and eminently rational in comparison." But even Lifton couldn't bring himself to swallow the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense.

Just in case any casual readers are tempted to take the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense seriously, these links should help:

- http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory

- http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence

- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations

- http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey%20%26%20Lee

- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/2oswalds.htm
 

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Oh brother. THIS again? It has all been completely debunked time and again, but I'm resurfacing this link to a 1998 David Lifton newsgroup post as further evidence that the man in the grave was the ONE and ONLY historical Oswald.

Not only has this dental evidence not been debunked, a couple years ago I personally discovered corroborating evidence for it:

Oswald was missing a front tooth, but his exhumed body was not. NEW EVIDENCE FOUND!

 

[Jim Hargrove]

With his usual flurry of links, Mr. Bojczuk illustrates quite correctly that there is a cottage industry of people trying hard to debunk Harvey and Lee.  And it is easy to see why. Interest in John Armstrong’s work has simply been exploding in recent years.

Just two feature-film length video talks by John Armstrong posted on YouTube by “MrChrillemannen” have a total of more than half a million views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMAc7WKMP2c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j89ajt6nA8

Even more significantly, recently at least three books have been published, two based almost exclusively on Harvey and Lee, and one based partly on it.

Three other books based on “Harvey and Lee:”  

The JFK Assassination and the Uncensored Story of the Two Oswalds

From an Amazon review: “I'd read a good chunk of Armstrong's Harvey and Lee, but Shannan provided clarity for me on the matter of Marguerite Oswald in particular and the whole thesis in general. So much easier to read this digest than the master's unedited tome.”

DOPPELGANGER: The Legend of Lee Harvey Oswald

From the publisher’s blurb: “More than 300 sources, including many sworn testimonies & affidavits, were consulted, as well as John Armstrong’s massive research project HARVEY AND LEE. One fact led to another, until a coherent picture began to emerge from the immense pile of puzzle pieces…. That picture includes the background of Harvey as a juvenile immigrant fluent in Russian, and the creation of the second ‘Lee Harvey Oswald’ and the second ‘Marguerite Oswald.’ The picture continues with the recruitment of both Lee Oswald and Harvey Oswald by the ONI and the CIA, followed by Harvey’s assumption of Lee’s identity, his ‘defection’ to Russia, and Lee’s involvement with the Cuban revolution and the CIA..…”

Mistaken Identity

From the publisher’s blurb:  "New forensic and evidentiary material not published, proves that two individuals known as "Lee Harvey Oswald" enlisted in the U.S. Marines in 1956 using the same birth certificate. Recent genealogical research identifies them as second cousins through intermarriage of second-generation French families in New Orleans. It created a nightmare of identity for the FBI."

If the Harvey and Lee Menace® is ever going to be crushed, the H&L critics need to work MUCH harder!

[Jonathan Cohen]

The fact that books have been written ABOUT Armstrong's book proves nothing more than that people people are very gullible. As with everything, there is a very simple, logical explanation about the "missing" tooth: that Voebel was mistaken. If you need me, I'll be having coffee with the "real" Marguerite. Or... wait. maybe the "fake" one. I'll compare her eyebrows.

[Ron Ecker]

36 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

As with everything, there is a very simple, logical explanation about the "missing" tooth: that Voebel was mistaken.

Apparently Voebel's camera was mistaken too.

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Not much left to say about this topic. Jeremy and Jonathan provided the necessary links. I spent years on this and finally concluded that people will believe what they want to believe. But something as simple as what happened to the dozens or hundreds of people that knew the "real" Marguerite disproves the theory. Jim H. suggested that the CIA paid them all off. Really? Every one of them? Clem Sehrt  recognized Marguerite as the person he had known for many years. And please, please don't say that the Evans' were trying to tell everyone that it wasn't the real Marguerite. A reading of their testimony shows otherwise. They were just trying to say that their friend had changed over the years.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

[Joseph McBride]

I wonder what group "Jonathan Cohen" is working for. He pops up

now regularly with his kneejerk pro-WC comments, as

David Von Pein used to do as the designated disruptor

of intelligence discourse on this site.

[Joseph McBride]

Do we need books summarizing HARVEY AND LEE? Why not

read HARVEY AND LEE? If that's too hard for people, they

should find another field. The book is dense with information

but impressively researched and lucid. This situation reminds me of

the many ripoff books trading on another seminal book in the field, David Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE.

[Ron Bulman]

Should anyone think the exhumation happened without the blessing/orchestration of the organization(s) that covered it up in the first place?  If you don't understand go back to say Johannies.  He got an award for his deception.

Was it all orchestrated by the War Pigs and their friends?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=black+sabbath+generals+gathered+in+their&docid=608013239597467031&mid=76FD94DFA9FF873D858476FD94DFA9FF873D8584&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Edited April 28, 2020 by Ron Bulman

[Ron Bulman]

26 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Should anyone think the exhumation happened without the blessing/orchestration of the organization(s) that covered it up in the first place?  If you don't understand go back to say Johannies.  He got an award for his deception.

Was it all orchestrated by the War Pigs and their friends?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=black+sabbath+generals+gathered+in+their&docid=608013239597467031&mid=76FD94DFA9FF873D858476FD94DFA9FF873D8584&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

No.

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

As with everything, there is a very simple, logical explanation about the "missing" tooth: that Voebel was mistaken.

Okay, but....

What about Lee's aunt who testified that Marguerite took him to the dentist right after the fight? Do you think she took him there to get a filling?

What about the photo that shows a missing tooth? Do you think that there just happened to be a film defect right where the tooth was supposed to be?

And what about the military dental record indicating that Lee's dental prosthesis (crown or bridge) broke? Did the dentist forget to wear his glasses that day?

The problem with people like Jeremy and Jonathan is that they decide what they are willing to believe first, and then ignore all the evidence that proves them wrong. In contrast, we study the evidence -- with an open mind -- first, and then decide what to believe based on that.

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Sandy Larsen