Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

Was it really just a MOLE HUNT about "Oswald?"

Recommended Posts

I've replied to the point Jim made. Let's see if he will reply to the point I made. He's avoided it several times, so I'm not optimistic. If he avoids answering the question again, we'll know why, won't we?

Jim claimed that

Quote

I think it was Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald all along who had the [mastoidectomy] procedure done to him ... Hoover found out about it ... and altered a document or two

Which documents must Hoover have altered?

Once we've identified the documents in question, we will be able to judge how likely it is that they were altered.

But if there's no good evidence that they were altered, or if Jim is unable to identify any such documents, we will be left with a problem: the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave shows that the operation must have been performed on the wrong imaginary doppelganger, and a fundamental element of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine will be shown to be false.

Here is the relevant passage of Scripture:

Quote

It was Lee Oswald who had the mastoidectomy operation ... Harvey Oswald's body ... was buried in Rose Hill Cemetery ... The remains examined by Dr Norton were of Harvey Oswald. ... This man was not Lee Oswald.

(John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pp.946-7; bold-face in the original)

According to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, the operation was performed on the imaginary doppelganger who was not buried in Oswald's grave. But according to the scientific report of Oswald's exhumation, the body in the grave had in fact undergone a mastoidectomy operation.

The few remaining 'Harvey and Lee' believers must find an explanation for this discrepancy. Jim seems to think that the operation had been performed on the other imaginary doppelganger all along, and that this necessitated the alteration of certain documents by the FBI. But he isn't keen on filling in the details, for some reason.

Of course, the obvious explanation for the discrepancy is that the operation was performed not on an imaginary doppelganger at all, but on an actual person: the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald.

Which documents did Hoover alter in order to cover up the operation that was carried out on the wrong imaginary doppelganger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The few remaining 'Harvey and Lee' believers must find an explanation for this discrepancy.

Mr. Bojczuk apparently hopes readers will believe there are "few remaining 'Harvey and Lee' believers," but he already knows quite the opposite is true.  Interest in H&L has simply been exploding in recent years.  Last time I checked, two lengthy YouTube movies based on interviews with John A have enjoyed more than 600,000 views.  Those are big numbers for JFK research.

I have also shown Mr. Bojczuk that, in recent years, at least three books have been published based entirely or in part on Harvey and Lee.

The JFK Assassination and the Uncensored Story of the Two Oswalds

51VXnljXM+L._SX298_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

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

41VrGzHDOdL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

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


41200IQz+8L._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Which documents must Hoover have altered?

Once we've identified the documents in question, we will be able to judge how likely it is that they were altered.

Let's get this straight.  The only serious argument against Harvey and Lee  Mr. Bojczuk has made for years involves the mastoidectomy, and yet he now admits he doesn't know what document(s) relate to the mastoidectomy?  Is he kidding?  Or is this just more rhetorical trickery?

It is hardly my turn to answer Mr. Bojczuk's questions or locate documents for him.  It has long been his turn to answer mine, which he steadfastly refuses to do.  

I'll ask him, for the 12th time now, to finally debate here the following issues. Or will he just say, as always, that someone else has successfully debunked these points and hide behind a flurry of links?  None of the issues below are debunked by any of the links Mr. Bojczuk has previously provided.  

  • For the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year,  one Oswald attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans for 89 school days while the other was enrolled in Public School 44 in New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.
  • For the next semester, one Oswald was at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while the other Oswald attended Stripling School in Texas.
  • The Social Security Administration did not include ANY of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” teen-aged employment income in his “Lifetime Earnings Report” indicating in a cover letter it was including “Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps.”
  • One Oswald departed for Taiwan aboard the USS Skagit on Sept. 14, 1958 and was stationed in Ping Tung, Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958, at the very same time the other Oswald was being treated for venereal disease at Atsugi, Japan, nearly 1500 miles away.
  • One Oswald appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans while the other was in the Soviet Union.
  • One Oswald had a driver’s license and was seen by many witnesses driving a car, and the other Oswald could not drive.
  • On November 22, 1963, one Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository on a bus and then a taxi, and the other left in a Nash Rambler.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Bojczuk apparently hopes readers will believe there are "few remaining 'Harvey and Lee' believers," but he already knows quite the opposite is true.  Interest in H&L has simply been exploding in recent years.  Last time I checked, two lengthy YouTube movies based on interviews with John A have enjoyed more than 600,000 views.  Those are big numbers for JFK research.

Jim, would you mind giving me a link or a search term to use to find the YouTube movies?  I'm very interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

Here are two YouTube videos narrated by John that have a combined viewership, so far, of 613, 431. They were put together by a fellow who calls himself MrChrillemannen.   We have no idea who MrChrillemannen is, but the narration was pieced together from interviews John has done over the years on Len Osanic's Black Ops Radio.  Some of the graphics appear to be from my website, though many can be found elsewhere as well.  There are quite a few other YouTube videos featuring John’s work.

Captain Westbrook, officer Tippit and Oswald's double.

2 hours 31 minutes

335,811 views

Who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald?

43 minutes

277,620 views

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Croft-3.jpg

This doesn't have much to do with Harvey and Lee.  But, since Mr. Bojczuk brought this up I would like to give him a great big old THANK YOU.   Thank you for bringing this up.  If you have not seen this then use the link provided by Mr. Bojczuk.  Check it out.  I consider this a fine piece of work whether or not Jack White is made as a comparison.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25659-mass-hysteria-in-dealey-plaza/

Essentially what this post says is that the photo above, like many others, is a fraudulent representation of the events in Dealey Plaza.  Over 50 witnesses said they heard shooting when the presidential limousine was in front of the TSBD.  Tony Glover said she saw the president's head blow up as the limo made the turn onto Elm Street.

The Warren Commission's important witnesses on the 5th floor, Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, and Junior Jarman gave questionable testimony.  Harold Norman said certain things and never changed his testimony.  Bonnie Williams made 4 statements that changed the story over time.  A defense lawyer would have loved Bonnie.  Junior Jarman blew up at the Warren Commission hearing and changed his earlier testimony to say he heard shots from low and to the left (the Dal-Tex building).

Their testimony concerning shooting from the Sniper's Nest is refuted by other witnesses on the 4th and 3rd floor who said they heard shooting coming from elsewhere (generally from a western direction) when the limo was in front of the TSBD.  Some indicated there was shooting when the limo was under the trees in front of the TSBD.

If I am to be associated with the tin foil hat crowd for pointing this out then so be it.  I did not say these things.  Witness testimony is considered a fact unless refuted.  50+ witnesses said they heard shooting in front of the TSBD.  This is during the time of the Zapruder Gap.  Most witness films (something like 6-8 or so) have gaps, missing frames, and scenes so badly out of focus and distorted that you can't see what is happening in front of the Court Records building.  For most films to have these problems in front of the Court Records building must have meaning associated with the ambush starting there and continuing in front of the TSBD.  If true shooting south on Houston Street was a distinct possibility as most people would predict.  Except this shooting did not occur from the 6th floor.   

This notion changes the official story radically.  It is something most folks can not tolerate for whatever reasons. 

   

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Essentially what this post says is that the photo above, like many others, is a fraudulent representation of the events in Dealey Plaza. 

There is absolutely nothing fraudulent about that photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

There is absolutely nothing fraudulent about that photo.

I have to make apologies to Jim Hargrove for this interruption of the discussion of Harvey and Lee concerns.  I couldn't resist it since Jeremy Bocjzuk brought it up. 

Let's return to the discussion of Harvey and Lee without further comment on the Mass Hysteria in Dealey Plaza post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

I’ve been thinking that a valuable bit of research might be to try and examine the provenance of those baby photos you’ve been examining.   I mentioned a website from a few years back that allegedly had photos obtained from Robert Oswald, but I just don’t remember if the ones you've been comparing came from there, or if the site was what it claimed to be, or if it still exists. As far as I can recall, neither of those images was available to the Warren Commission.

Perhaps you have other approaches, but the primary method I use to examine images is to open a Google Chrome browser, find the image online, right click on the picture, and then select “Search Google for image.”  You can also go to images.google.com, click the little camera icon, and upload an image from your local device.

The results may take some time to go through, but it’s easy work.  If you’re not interested in doing this, I’ll try to find some time to take a look. Just a thought....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I ran across this just now.  I had seen this before and had little interest at the time and had forgotten it.  But, it does give the background on one of the photos.

I believe I made a comment that why in the world would someone save a child's sailor suit for over 22 years and by the time this certificate was made way over 22 years.  People do strange things, but this doesn't feel like Robert saving a sailor suit.  This if true, and that's a big if, was probably saved by Marguerite.

oswald-baby-photo-certificate-of-authent

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just scroll down the page a little more.  Identical and almost identical images are displayed right below the material you copied above. 

EDIT: Congrats, John, on locating again that “Certificate of Authenticity” for the baby photo!  We all have questions about the hard sell as well as the believably that this sailor suit was saved for seventy years or so, but this is EXACTLY the kind of information we want to acquire when examining photos.

Edited by Jim Hargrove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again, Jim has avoided specifying which "document or two" the FBI "altered" in order to show that the mastoidectomy operation was carried out on imaginary doppelganger Y instead of, as Scripture proclaims, imaginary doppelganger X.

There are several documents which have a bearing on Oswald's mastoidectomy. Why does Jim repeatedly avoid telling us precisely which of these documents he thinks were altered?

Does he fear that when we go on to examine these documents for evidence of alteration, we would not find any such evidence? Perhaps he himself has already examined these documents and failed to find evidence that they have been altered. I suspect that when he stated

Quote

I think it was Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald all along who had the [mastoidectomy] procedure done to him ... Hoover found out about it ... and altered a document or two

he was just wildly speculating, frantically seizing on the first idea that came to him when faced with having to admit the uncomfortable truth that a central point of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine had been contradicted by solid scientific evidence two decades before the cult's holy book was even written.

In make-it-up-as-you-go-along 'Harvey and Lee' world, all you need to do is speculate about documents being altered. In the real world, you need to provide evidence that they have been altered. Let's try again: which "document or two" did Hoover alter to show that the wrong imaginary doppelganger was buried in Oswald's grave?

Once Jim has informed us exactly which documents he is talking about and shown us evidence that they have been altered, perhaps he could turn his attention to another question that he has been avoiding.

John Armstrong appears to have deliberately neglected to mention the existence of the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave. He knew that scientific evidence proved that a central part of his theory was false, and he concealed that evidence from his readers. It makes him look like a shifty snake-oil salesman, doesn't it?

Was Armstrong really being as dishonest as he appears? Or can Jim think up an alternative reason for his behaviour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, Mr. Bocjzuk admits that, although he has argued for years that the mastoidectomy disproves the conclusion by many researchers that two young men shared the identity of “Lee Harvey Oswald”, he apparently cannot identify the document or two that seems to indicate the procedure was performed on a youthful LHO.

Recently, he has begun demanding that I fetch the document for him!  

And yet, for far longer, I’ve been demanding that he debate HERE just a few factual points supporting the existence of two Lee Harvey Oswalds.  He steadfastly refuses to do so, occasionally offering a link and the claim that someone else has debunked the evidence.

No one else has debunked the evidence!  If someone else had, Mr. Bojczuk would be trumpeting the arguments here.  

HERE’S MY OFFER TO MR. BOJCZUK:    I’ll locate for him the mastoidectomy document(s) he is seemingly unable to find, but only after he FINALLY debates HERE the points I have asked him to examine FOR YEARS!  A link and a claim that evidence has been debunked somewhere else is not a debate.

Other than offering this solution, how else can I compel Mr. Bojczuk to debate me?  So….

I'll ask Mr. Bojczuk, for the 13th time now, to finally debate here the following issues. Or will he just say, as always, that someone else has successfully debunked these points and hide behind a flurry of links?  None of the issues below are debunked by any of the links Mr. Bojczuk has previously provided.  

  • For the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year,  one Oswald attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans for 89 school days while the other was enrolled in Public School 44 in New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.
  • For the next semester, one Oswald was at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while the other Oswald attended Stripling School in Texas.
  • The Social Security Administration did not include ANY of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” teen-aged employment income in his “Lifetime Earnings Report” indicating in a cover letter it was including “Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps.”
  • One Oswald departed for Taiwan aboard the USS Skagit on Sept. 14, 1958 and was stationed in Ping Tung, Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958, at the very same time the other Oswald was being treated for venereal disease at Atsugi, Japan, nearly 1500 miles away.
  • One Oswald appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans while the other was in the Soviet Union.
  • One Oswald had a driver’s license and was seen by many witnesses driving a car, and the other Oswald could not drive.
  • On November 22, 1963, one Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository on a bus and then a taxi, and the other left in a Nash Rambler.

 

Share this post


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

Paul,

Here are two YouTube videos narrated by John that have a combined viewership, so far, of 613, 431. They were put together by a fellow who calls himself MrChrillemannen.   We have no idea who MrChrillemannen is, but the narration was pieced together from interviews John has done over the years on Len Osanic's Black Ops Radio.  Some of the graphics appear to be from my website, though many can be found elsewhere as well.  There are quite a few other YouTube videos featuring John’s work.

Captain Westbrook, officer Tippit and Oswald's double.

2 hours 31 minutes

335,811 views

Who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald?

43 minutes

277,620 views

Thank you Jim.  Looking forward to viewing.  I've watched videos and read commentary by MrChrillemannen for a few years.  I have always wondered who he is.

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

×
×
  • Create New...